The SERVPERF and SERVQUAL are the two Service quality measurement instruments widely used in the measurement of service quality in various service sectors such as banking, hospitals, tourism, insurance etc. But the service quality literature indicates that there exists a significant difference in the philosophy of service quality measurement in these two metrics, and also, the results while these two metrics are used need not necessarily match.
Hence, the problem identified in this research is: do these two metrics concur in their results, or is there a significant difference in their outcomes as applicable to a given service sector. The study also extends to the correlation between the outcomes of these two metrics and looking into the possibility of drawing implications based on the combined outcome.
The research is partly qualitative and partly quantitative in nature. Qualitative in the sense that it analyses existing metrics of service quality based on meta-analysis and, through the use of secondary data, discusses the relative importance of both the metrics in service sectors. The research becomes quantitative, as it deals with descriptive statistics and tests various hypotheses using standard statistical tools. Keviat diagrams have been used to identify the service quality gaps.
The research has clearly indicated that there is a significant difference in the outcomes of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics. The reliability of the study was 0.8815, which is at adequately acceptable level. Tangibles and Reliability are highly scored, and Empathy and Assurance are least scored, whereas, Responsiveness is moderately scored Service quality dimension. It can be concluded that if meaningful outcome has to be obtained, both these metrics have to be applied to a service sector and based on the combined inference drawn, suggestions should be made for quality enhancement.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 The Background
1.2 The SERVQUAL Metric
1.3 The SERVPERF Metric
1.4 Criticisms on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
1.5 The Problem Statement
1.6 Objectives of Research
1.7 Significance of this Research
2. Literature Review
2.1 Service Quality Research
2.2 The Service Quality Models
2.2.1 Gronroos' Service Quality Model
2.2.2 The SERVQUAL Model
2.2.3 The SERVPERF Model
2.2.4 The Three-Component Model
2.2.5 The Multilevel Model
2.3 Discussion on Service Quality Models
2.4 Metric Development
3. Structural Models, Hypothesis & the Metric
3.1 The Structural Model
3.2 Research Hypothesis
3.3 Metric Preparation
4. Research Methodology
4.1 Nature of Research and the Variables
4.2 Research Framework
4.3 Sample Selection and its Rationale
4.4 Development of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Metric
4.5 Organizational Profile and Demographics
4.6 Reliability, Validity and Practicality
4.6.1 Reliability of the Instrument
4.6.2 Validity of the Instrument
4.7 Practicality of the Instrument
4.8 Data Collection Strategies
4.9 Statistical Procedures
4.10 Types of Data Analysis
5. Analysis and Results
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
5.2 Reliability Analysis
5.3 Distribution Pattern
5.4 Factor Analysis
5.5 Comparisons of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
5.5.1 Department-wise Comparison
5.5.1.1 Electronics Engineering Department
5.5.1.2 Computer Science & Engineering Dept.
5.5.1.3 Mechanical Engineering Department
5.5.2 Institution-wise Comparison
5.5.3 Dimension-wise Comparison
6. Findings, Implications & Conclusions
6.1 Findings
6.2 Implications
6.3 Scope for future work
6.4 Conclusions
Research Objectives and Thematic Focus
The primary objective of this research is to empirically investigate whether the two prominent service quality measurement instruments, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, yield concurrent results or differ significantly when applied to the higher education sector, specifically an engineering institute.
- Comparative analysis of SERVQUAL (perception-minus-expectation) and SERVPERF (perception-only) metrics.
- Assessment of service quality dimensions: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness.
- Statistical validation of measurement instruments through reliability testing, factor analysis, t-tests, and ANOVA.
- Identification of service quality gaps and formulation of improvement strategies for educational institutions.
Excerpt from the Book
1.2. The SERVQUAL Metric
Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1990) developed SERVQUAL, which was originally measured on 10 aspects of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding or knowing the customer, and tangibles. It measured the gap between customer expectations and experience. By the early nineties the authors had refined the model to the useful acronym RATER: 1. Reliability - ability to perform the promised service accurately and dependably. 2. Assurance - knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence. 3. Tangibles – physical facilities, equipment, and the appearance of personnel. 4. Empathy - caring and individualized attention to customers. 5. Responsiveness - willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service.
The SERVQUAL instrument consists of a 22-items for assessing service quality based on customer’s perceptions, which is, by his turn, the difference between the customer’s perceived quality and customer expectation. The perceived quality is assessed based on service quality dimensions that correspond to the criteria used by consumers when assessing service quality. There are 10 potentially overlapping dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, communication, credibility, assurance, competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing the customer, and access. A more detailed description of those dimensions can be found in Zeithan et al. (1990). Afterwards, these dimensions were reduced to five, namely: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy. Using those 10 or 5 dimensions as the evaluation criteria the specification of service quality becomes the gap between customers’ Expectations and their Perceptions (Parasuraman et al, 1985). This performance-expectation model was also adopted by other authors (e.g. Brown and Swartz, 1989).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the background of service quality measurement, the significance of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics, and defines the research problem and objectives.
2. Literature Review: Provides a comprehensive chronological overview of service quality research, discusses prominent models, and explores academic criticisms of existing metrics.
3. Structural Models, Hypothesis & the Metric: Presents the structural model for this study, defines the research hypotheses, and describes the preparation of the modified questionnaire.
4. Research Methodology: Details the research design, including nature of variables, data collection strategies, reliability and validity tests, and statistical procedures.
5. Analysis and Results: Presents the empirical findings based on descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and comparative performance testing (t-tests and ANOVA) across departments.
6. Findings, Implications & Conclusions: Synthesizes the results, discusses implications for educational service providers, outlines limitations, and provides concluding remarks.
Keywords
Service Quality, SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, Higher Education, Engineering Education, Customer Perception, Gap Analysis, Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, Responsiveness, Statistical Analysis, Instrument Validation, Educational Management.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research focuses on conducting a comparative empirical study of the two most widely used service quality metrics, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, to determine if they produce consistent results.
Which service sector is used for this empirical study?
The study is conducted within the higher education sector, specifically analyzing service quality in a private engineering college.
What is the primary difference in philosophy between the two metrics?
SERVQUAL defines service quality as the gap between customer perception and expectation (P-E), whereas SERVPERF measures service quality solely based on customer perception.
Which statistical methods are employed to analyze the data?
The study utilizes descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha for reliability, factor analysis, rank order correlation, paired sample t-tests, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
What is the main finding regarding the concurrence of these metrics?
The research concludes that there is a significant difference in the outcomes of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF; they do not concur, implying they measure service quality differently.
What are the identified key dimensions of service quality?
The five key dimensions analyzed are Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness.
Why were the standard metrics modified for this research?
The original instruments were designed for general service sectors; therefore, modifications were necessary to tailor the items to the specific educational context of an engineering institute.
What are the practical implications for engineering institutes?
The study suggests that institutions should prioritize enhancing 'Human Factors', specifically focusing on Empathy (individualized student attention) and Assurance (faculty training), which were identified as weaker dimensions.
- Citar trabajo
- Dr. Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues (Autor), 2009, Comparative Study of Service Quality Metrics: An Empirical Study in the Service Sector, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/199076
