Abstract
The publication of the first results of the SERVQUAL instrument provoked a debate on how best to measure service quality. With more than a decade since the publication of those results many researchers have attempted to demonstrate the efficacy, or not, of the SERVQUAL instrument, or to develop their own measurement methods. This paper reviews this debate in relation to six key aspects: the purpose of the measurement instrument; the definition of service quality; models for service quality measurement; the dimensionality of service quality; issues relating to expectations; and the format of the measurement instrument. The main areas of agreement and disagreement are identified. As a result the continued use of the SERVQUAL instrument is called into question, and areas for further research are identified.
Reference60 articles.
1. Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 253‐68.
2. Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1997), “Listening to the customer: the concept of a service‐quality information system”, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 65‐76.
3. Bojanic, D.C. (1991), “Quality measurement in professional services firms”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 27‐36.
4. Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991a), “A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 375‐84.
5. Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991b), “A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on customer attitudes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, January, pp. 1‐9.
Cited by
93 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献