SEARCHING FOR CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS: A DIMENSION-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT

OF SERVICE QUALITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND

BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS IN FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS
Service quality has come to be recognized as a strategic tool for surviving and thriving in the
present day fiercely competitive markets. Higher quality leads to higher customer satisfaction and
also results in higher repeat purchases, cross-selling and positive word of mouth communications -
all of which help the business firms achieving higher sales revenues, profits and market shares (e.g.,
aker and !acobson, "##$% nderson and Sullivan, "##&% 'olton, "##(% 'oulding, et al., "##&%
)anaher, "##*% Headley and +iller, "##&% ,ilbert, et al., -..$% !ones and Sasser, "##/% +agi and
!ulander, "##0% +c1oll-2ennedy and Schneider, -...% 3ucci et al., "##(% 4avas et al., -.."%
5eithaml et al., "##0 6. 7n the hyper competitive markets, service firms can use superior quality even
as a positioning plank for differentiating their service products from other look-alike competitive
offers (8arasuraman et al., "##"6. 7n view of its strategic importance, little wonder that service
quality has drawn considerable attention of the researchers in the past. Several studies have been
conducted to develop and validate the scales to measure service quality and establish its linkage with
customer satisfaction and purchase intentions.
Such studies, however, conspicuously lack in 7ndia, especially in the conte9t of fast food
restaurants which have undergone a significant metamorphosis during the last decade or so. :ast
food restaurant services sector has grown rapidly in the past and is fast catching up the fancy of
customers in the metropolitan cities and towns. 1ompetition in the market has considerably hot up
in the recent years and customers today have a variety of fast food restaurants to choose from.
;ntry of multinational fast food restaurant chains like +c)onald and 8izza Hut has changed the
whole scenario. 1oupled with increased sophistication and a rise in e9pectations, customers in
future are likely to become more selective in their patronization of fast food restaurants. <ocal
confectionary shops, eating =aunts and home delivery caterers have fast mushroomed and are
becoming customers> favorites. 7n such a changed market place, it is but natural for the
management of the fast food restaurants to feel concerned about consolidating their market
position and doing something to increase their market shares.
+anagement of the fast food restaurants do recognize importance of delivery of high
quality services, but they are seldom aware of the attributes which constitute core components of
customer service quality perceptions. ?nless the management know as to which of the several
service attributes are important and influence customer satisfaction and future intentions, they can
do pretty little to achieve success at this front. :indings of the studies undertaken in other
countries are likely to be of little help as the food business is largely region and culture specific
and does not permit any direct transference of knowledge from operations in one country to
another (,ilbert et al., -..$% 5hou, -..$6. 3ecognition of service quality importance
notwithstanding, the service firms are unlikely to do more than a lip service to the cause of quality
improvement efforts unless and until the empirical evidences build up to show linkages between
service quality and customer satisfaction, and the consequent pay offs to the firms in terms of
greater customer franchise and positive word of mouth communications (for a similar emphasis, see
5eithaml et al., "##06.
@he present study aims at filling this void in literature. @he study primarily aims at
measuring service quality and establishing its linkage with customer satisfaction and behavioural
intentions in the conte9t of fast food restaurant services in 7ndia. 7n the process, the study also
evaluates the validity and reliability of the S;3A8;3: instrument which is one of the two most
widely used and recommended scale in the service literature. @he study makes use of the data that
were collected in connection with consumer survey of fast food restaurants in )elhi
"
. 'esides
e9ploring service quality linkages with customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the
aggregative level as has mostly been done in the past researches, the present study also delves into
a dimension-specific analysis of the impact of service quality on such consequences. )imension-
specific analysis of service quality impact is a relatively a new phenomenon in the service quality
research stream (e.g., 5hou, -..$6 and is likely to gain the status of thrust research area in the
coming years.
@he paper is organized into five sections. Bith an introduction to the study provided in this
section, the ne9t section delves into a discussion of service quality concept and its measurement.
3elationship of service quality with customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions is attempted
in the succeeding section. 3esearch methodology used in the study and the results are discussed
ne9t. @he final section sums up the discussion and provides managerial implications and
directions for future research.
-
Service Qu!i"#$ Cu%"&'er S"i%(c"i&) )* Be+vi&ur! C&)%e,ue)ce%: T+e C&)ce-"u!
Fr'e.&r/
Concept of Service Quality and Its Operationalisation
Cotwithstanding considerable work done in the area, there e9ists no clear meaning of the
term service quality. ,arvin ("#(*6 rightly observes in this connection that quality is a slippery
concept which is easy to visualize but difficult to define. @he service quality literature is replete
with a diverse set of quality concepts ranging Dinnate e9cellence>, Dquantity of some ingredient or
attribute possessed by a product>, DconsumerEs preferences>, Dconformance to specifications> to
Dperformance or conformance at an acceptable price or cost> (,arvin, "#(*6. ma=or reason
responsible for the lack of conceptual clarity is that the term service quality has been defined and
e9amined in the past researches from different perspectives.
ttempts made by 8arasuraman et al. ("#(/, "#((6 constitute a pioneering effort in the
direction of conceptualizing and operationalising the service quality concept. n e9tensive review
of literature and focus group discussions led them to define perceived service quality as Fa global
=udgment, or attitude, relating to the superiority of the serviceG (8arasuraman et al., "#((6. nd
based on this conceptualisation, they operationalised service quality as a difference between
consumer e9pectations of Dwhat they want> and their perceptions of Dwhat they get> (i.e., a
performance-minus-e9pectation score6. n empirically validated S;3AH?< scale was put
forward by them for measuring service quality (8arasuraman et al., "#(/, "#((6 which has since
then been e9tensively applied in different service settings.
7n view of certain conceptual and methodological flaws with S;3AH?< scale, 1ronin
and @aylor ("##-6 proposed an alternate scale - referred to as S;3A8;3: scale
-
. +ore
specifically, 1ronin and @aylor ("##-6 opined that e9pectation (;6 component of S;3AH?< be
discarded and instead performance (86 component alone be used. S;3A8;3: scale has also been
applied in a number of past studies. Bhich one of these two scales is a superior measure of service
quality has for long been a matter of debate. @he ma=ority opinion, however, now seems to be in
favour of S;3A8;3: scale ('abakus and 'oller, "##-% 'oulding et al., "##&% 'rady et al., -..-%
'rown et al., "##&% 'uttle, "##0% <ee et al., -...% 8age and Spreng, -..-% @eas, "##&, "##$%
5hou, -..$6. ;ven 8arasuraman et al. ("##$6 suggested that only the perceptions and not the
e9pectations be measured in assessing the influence of service quality on other constructs.
7n view of the psychometric and methodological superiority of S;3A8;3: over
S;3AH?< scale, the present study too makes use of the twenty-two item performance only
S;3A8;3: scale. 7t is hoped that use of this scale in the conte9t of fast food restaurants in 7ndia
&
would also be able to throw some light on the ongoing contentious issue whether this scale in its
present form can be applied to different service industries across countries (:urrer et al,. -...%
Smith and 3eynolds, -.."% Binsted, "##*% 5hou, -..$6.
Service Quality: Functional vs. Outcome Quality
7rrespective of which of the two scales is used, a problem common to both these scales is
their preoccupation with functional aspect of service quality. Outcome (i.e., technical6 quality as
emphasized in the ;uropean school of thought is altogether missing from these scales. Bhile the
functional quality is related to process or Dhow> part of the service delivery, outcome quality refers
to the result of service transaction and is concerned with what is delivered to the customer
(,ronroos, "#(-, "##.% <ehtinen and <ehtinen, "#(-% +angold and 'abakus, "##"% 3ichard and
llaway, "##&6. @hough the developers of S;3AH?< initially suggested that service quality
consists of functional (process6 and technical (outcome6 dimensions, but the S;3AH?<
instrument developed by them incidentally does not contain any measure of technical quality
dimension (2ang and !ames, -..$6. @oo much focus on the functional aspect of service quality is
highly misplaced. ;specially in the case of services such as fast food restaurants where tangible
part is also dominant, outcome aspect cannot be simply brushed aside.
7n order to overcome this limitation, the present study also includes Dquality of food
served> as one of the components of customer service quality evaluations. 7ncorporation of
outcome component in the service quality framework is in line with the recommendations made by
several researchers for using industry or conte9t specific rather than a generic scale across various
service industries and conte9ts (e.g., 'abakus and 'oller, "##-% 'uttle, "##0% 1arman, "##.% 1ronin
and @aylor, "##-% )abholkar et al., -...% "#("% <ewis, "#(*% 8owpaka, "##0% Aoss et. al., "#(/6.
Since not many studies have empirically tested the ;uropean perspective of including outcome
component (2ang and !ames, -..$6, incorporation of this component into the service quality
analysis in the present work can very well serve the purpose of assessing its relevance in adding to
the predictive and diagnostic ability of service quality scale.
Service Quality: Dimensionality and Need for Dimension-specific Analysis
n anent contentious issue in service quality literature has been whether service quality is
a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. @hough consumers view the concept of quality
holistically, it is now widely recognized that the consumers base their quality =udgement and
purchase decisions on certain characteristics related either to the service provider or other elements
associated with the service offering such as the appearance and reliability ('itner, "##.% <e 'lanc
$
and Cguyen, "#((6. considerable body of research has emerged to suggest that customer>s
assessment of quality includes perceptions of multiple factors and it is not a unidimensional
phenomenon. @hough the ma=ority opinion now seems to be that the customer perceptions of
service quality are based on multiple dimensions, there is no agreement on the nature or number of
such dimensions. @wo to ten dimensions have been proposed and used in the past studies (,arvin,
"#(*% ,ronroos, "#(-% <ehtinen and <ehtinen, "#(-% +els et al., "##*% 8arasuraman et al., "#(/,
"#((% 3ust and Iliver, "##$6. 3ecent researches further complicate the matter by asserting that the
service quality perceptions are not only multidimensional, but these are also multilevel (e.g.,
'rady and 1ronin !r., -.."6. However, there is now a consensus among the researchers that five
factor structure as proposed by 8arasuraman et al. ("#((6 is not a sacrosanct one. )epending upon
the service industries and conte9ts, one can arrive at different factor structures and dimensions.
@his debate apart, what is ironical is that the researchers, despite having used service
quality as a multidimensional construct and identified various service quality dimensions, have
preferred using only the summed inde9 (as derived by averaging the distinctive dimensions of
service quality6 for linking it to the customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions. @his has
resulted in a substantial loss of information that otherwise could have been used to provide
strategic insights to the service firms by telling them as to which of the several dimensions are
more important in determining customer satisfaction and behavioural outcomes.
Cot only theoretically, but empirically too dimension-specific analysis appears to be a
superior approach. 1onceptually, this kind of analysis more closely reflects consumers> mental
representations of consumption e9periences and evaluations (+ittal, et al., "###% Iliver, "##&6.
;mpirically too, such an attribute-specific analysis in the area of physical products has been found
capturing significant amount of variations present in the customer satisfaction (<a@our and 8eat,
"#*#% +ittal et al., "###6. @hough conceptualization of direct link between service attributes and
customer satisfaction is relatively a new phenomenon (!ohns and Howard, "##(% !ohnston, "##/%
+ersha and dlakha, "##-% Iliver, "##&% Binsted, "##*% 5hou, -..$6, select few studies
undertaken so far do point to the fact that different service quality dimensions differently affect
customer satisfaction and behavioural outcomes. s compared to S;3A8;3:, S;3AH?< has for
long been considered a better scale in view of its superior diagnostic power (e.g., !ain and ,upta,
-..$% 2asim and 'o=ei, -..-% Cewman, -.."6. dimension specific analysis, however, can
substantially add to the diagnostic value of the S;3A8;3: scale (5hou, -..$6, thus making it
both psychometrically and diagnostically a much superior scale.
/
7n view of the strategic relevance of such an analysis in managing service quality, the
present study too attempts a dimension-specific analysis of service quality linkage with customer
satisfaction and behavioural intentions.
Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and e!avioural Intentions: "!e #in$a%e
@hough most researchers subscribe to the view that customer satisfaction is Jan evaluative,
affective or emotional responseG (Iliver "#(.6, the debate continues as to what it e9actly is and how
it differs from service quality. +easurement of customer satisfaction has also been an equally
debatable issue and remains mired with divergence of approaches (,ilbert et al., -..$6. Bhile some
researchers in the past have been of the opinion that service quality and satisfaction are similar terms
(e.g., )abholkar "##&% Spreng and Singh "##&6, others have held the view that these two are distinct
constructs ('itner and Hubbert, "##$% 7acobucci et al., "##$% Iliver, "##&% @aylor and 'aker, "##$%
5eithaml et al., "##&6. ;specially the service quality researchers have argued that the two concepts
differ according to the level at which they are measuredK customer satisfaction is a transaction
specific assessment whereas service quality is comprised of global assessment (e.g., 1arman "##.%
8arasuraman et al., "#((6. If late, however, a few researchers have started opining that both the
service quality and customer satisfaction can be e9amined meaningfully from the transaction specific
as well as global perspectives (e.g., @eas "##&% )abholkar, "##&% 1ronin and @aylor, "##-%
8arasuraman et al., "##$6.
@hose who subscribe to the school that customer satisfaction and service quality are different
constructs point out a few more distinctions. Iliver ("##&6, for instance, opined that the dimensions
underlying quality =udgments are rather specific, whether they are cues or attributes. Satisfaction
=udgment, however, can result from any dimensions which may or may not be quality related. @here
is also a belief among the researchers that while quality e9pectations are based on FidealsG or
Je9cellenceJ perceptions, satisfaction =udgement is formed by a large number of non-quality issues
including needs and equity or JfairnessJ perceptions (Iliver and Swan, "#(#6. :urthermore, it has
been held that consumers can form quality perceptions without having any actual e9perience with
the service or its provider. Satisfaction, on the other hand, is purely e9perimental in nature. @hough
the efforts have been made to conceptually differentiate the two terms, empirically the researchers
have not always been able to separate service quality form satisfaction ('ansal and @aylor, "##*%
)abholkar, "##/6. Cotwithstanding different view points held in the past, consensus now seems to be
emerging that the two constructs are different. Bhile service quality is considered primarily a
cognitive construct, satisfaction is viewed more as a comple9 concept comprising of both the
cognitive and affective components ()habolkar, "##/% 4avas, -.."6.
0
@here has also been a considerable debate over the issue of causal relationship between
customer satisfaction and service quality, and the consequent linkages of these two constructs with
behavioural outcomes. Bhile some researchers in the past have held the view that service quality
results from customer satisfaction ('itner "##.% 'olton and )rew, "##"% Iliver, "#(.% +ohr and
'itner, "##/6, others have opined that service quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction (e.g.,
nderson and Sullivan, "##&% 1ronin and @aylor, "##-% ,otlieb et al., "##$% 8arasuraman et. al.,
"#(/, "#((% 3ust and Iliver, "##$6. However, there now seems to be a convergence of views that
favourable service quality perceptions lead to improved satisfaction (e.g., 1ronin et al., -...% 2ang
and !ames, -..$% @ing, -..$% 4avas, -.."% 5hou, -..$6 and satisfaction has a significant effect on
behavioural intentions (@aylor and 'aker, "##$% :ullerton and @aylor, -..-% 5hou, -..$6. So far as
the linkage between service quality and behaviour is concerned, though some researchers have tried
to relate service quality to behavioural intentions directly (e.g., 4avas et al., -.."% 5eithaml, et al.,
"##06% others have e9amined the relationship between the two indirectly through the mediating effect
of customer satisfaction (e.g., 5hou, -..$6 or even directly as well as interactively along with
customer satisfaction (e.g., @aylor, "##*% Bang et al., -..$
&
6.
2eeping in view the current thinking and emerging evidence, the present study too
endeavours to e9amine the relationship of service quality with customer satisfaction and behavioural
intentions in a two phased processK firstly, service quality affects customer satisfaction, and secondly
service quality impacts behavioural consequences both directly and interactively with customer
satisfaction. :igure " provides a diagrammatic view of the two phased process through which service
quality affects customer satisfaction and behavioural outcomes.
Me"+&*&!&0#
"!e Sample
@he present study makes use of the data that were collected in connection with a survey of
fast food restaurants in )elhi. pilot study was conducted to identify fast food restaurants that are
:igure "K 3esearch model used in the study for e9amining relationship between service
quality, customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions
Service quality
(:unctional and
outcome dimensions6
1ustomer
satisfaction
'ehavioural
intentions
*
more popular and patronized by the people living in )elhi. total of eight fast food restaurants,
viz., Cirula>s, Bimpy, )ominos, +c)onald, 8izza Hut, Haldiram, 'ikanervala, and 3ameshwar,
were identified and these were used as the focal restaurants for undertaking empirical analysis in
the study. Students and lecturers of different colleges and departments of the ?niversity of )elhi
constituted the sampling frame used in the study. @he reasons underlying the selection of these two
types of respondents were their high familiarity and patronization of fast food restaurants, and also
an easy access to them. ?sing convenience sampling, respondents from these two sub-sets of the
populations were personally approached and requested to fill-in a non-disguised questionnaire
prepared for this purpose. total of -.. duly filled-in questionnaires were received. Since each
respondent was asked to provide information about two restaurants - one the most frequently
visited and the other the least frequently visited, a pooling of their responses at the data analysis
stage resulted in a total of $.. sample observations.
ma=ority of the respondents were in the age group "(--$ (/- per cent6. ,ender and
occupation wise (i.e., students vs. lecturers6, the respondents were almost in same proportion. Inly
about "$ percent of the respondents had monthly family income below 3s. "/,.... @he rest of the
respondents in equal proportion had monthly income either between 3s. "/,...--/,... or 3s.
-/,... and above. Co doubt the sample is comprised of relatively more educated, higher income
and younger people, but from the marketing point of view this should not be much of a problem as
it is rather the younger, more educated and high income people who constitute a promising market
segment for the fast food restaurants.
&esearc! Instrument
@he data on service quality perceptions were obtained using ---item S;3A8;3: scale as
developed by 1ronin and @aylor ("##-6. @hese items are same as used in the S;3AH?< scale
developed by 8arasuraman et al. ("#((6. @he only difference between the two scales is that while
S;3AH?< scale requires data on both the customers> e9pectations and perceptions of services,
the S;3A8;3: scale entails measurement of only the perception data. n e9ploratory factor
analysis of these items (discussed in detail in the succeeding section6 resulted in four factors.
@hese four factors were used as the four distinct dimensions of SH:-- construct. @able " lists the
four factors and their constituent items along with their reliability coefficients. Bhile the first two
factors have non-standardised 1ronbach alpha values of more than ..0/% the reliability of the latter
two factors is quite low being only marginally above the ../. threshold level as suggested by
Cunnally ("#*(6 for use in the e9ploratory analysis.
(
T1!e 2: Sc!e%$ Sc!e-i"e'% U%e* i) S"u*# )* Re!i1i!i"# C&e((icie)"%
Scale and scale 7tems
3eliability
(1ronbach alpha6
Service Quality ' Functional (SQF)*+
A. "an%i,ility ("AN+ ..*0
". Aisually appealing physical facilities
-. ?p-to-date equipment and technology
&. Bell dressed and neat employees
$. ppearance of physical facilities as per the type of service provided
. -mpat!y.&esponsiveness (-/0+ ..0*
". ;mployees not giving personal attention (reverse coded6
-. ,iving individual attention (reverse coded6
&. ;mployees knowing customer needs (reverse coded6
$. ;mployees too busy to respond to customer needs promptly (reverse coded6
C. Dependa,ility.Assurance (D-0+ ../*
". )ependable restaurant
-. Sympathetic and reassuring restaurant in case customers have problems
&. Cot getting prompt service from employees (reverse coded6
D. Support (S10+ ../"
". ;mployees getting support from restaurant to do their =obs well
-. 2eeping records accurately
Service Quality ' Outcome (SQO) ..0$
". Huality of food
-. :resh and delicious food
&. 8resentation of food
$.:lavour, topping, spiciness of food not being as per individual customer taste
(reverse coded6
/. 1hoice and range of food
Overall Service Quality (OSQ+ -
". 3estaurant>s overall service quality e9cellence
Customer Satisfaction (CS+ ..*#
". ;n=oyable e9perience with the restaurant
-. Services better than e9pected
&. Iverall satisfaction with the services at the restaurant
0rice -2uity (0-+ -
". 3easonableness of the price charged at the restaurant
e!avioural Intentions
A. 0atronisation Intentions (0I+ ..(/
". 8robability of using their facilities again
-. 1hance of making the same choice again
&ecommendation Intentions (&I+
". <ikelihood of recommending restaurant to a friend -
Scale items tapping the outcome (i.e., technical6 component of service quality construct
were generated through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews held with select
#
customers at the time of questionnaire preparation stage. @he e9ercise resulted in generation of
five items. 7n view of their high face validity, all the five items were retained as constituting the
outcome quality scale (SHI6. 3esponses to these items were obtained on a five-point <ikert scale,
with anchors " (Strongly disagree6 and / (Strongly agree6. 1ronbach alpha value of ..0$ shows
that the scale is only somewhat reliable and needs to be improved upon in future.
Ine additional single-item scale was added to the questionnaire for assessing the
convergent validity of S;3A8;3: scale. @his variable was named as ISH (overall service
quality6. 1ustomer perception of price equity was measured in terms of the reasonableness of price
charged at the restaurant through a single-item scale. 1ustomer satisfaction (1S6 with the fast food
restaurant was measured using a three-item scale. 3esponses to all the above scale items were
obtained on a /-point <ikert scale, anchored on strongly disagree ("6 to strongly agree (/6. @he
scale was found highly reliable one, with 1ronbach alpha value being ..*# (see @able "6.
@hough a wide variety of behavioural measures have been used in the past researches (see,
for instance, 4avas, -.."% 5eithaml, et al., "##0% 5hou, -..$6, the present study focuses upon two
ma=or behavioural intentionsK customer restaurant patronization intentions and restaurant
recommendation intentions. two-tem scale was used for measuring customer restaurant
patronization intentions (876. 1ustomer intentions to recommend a given restaurant to others (376
were assessed through a single-item scale. @he items for both the scales came from previous
studies ('rady and 3obertson, -.."% 'rady et al., -..-% 5eithaml et al., "##06 and were adapted to
suit the requirements of the present study. five-point <ikert scale ranging from " (very low6 to /
(very high6 was used for soliciting the responses. non-standardised 1ronbach alpha value of ..(/
for the two-item patronisation intentions scale points to its high reliability.
variety of statistical techniques have been used in the study to analyse the collected data.
'esides computing descriptive statistics such as mean scores and median ranks, factor analysis has
been performed on ---item S;3A8;3: scale to discover underlying service quality dimensions.
@he antecedent-criterion variable relationships in the study have been assessed through regression
analyses. Bith a view to identify critical service attributes, dimension-specific regression
equations were also run. Ine-way CIA technique has been used to assess the statistical
significance of differences in mean scores relating to service quality perceptions, customer
satisfaction and behavioural intentions across the surveyed fast food restaurants.
STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
@he ma=or findings of the study are discussed in the following paragraphs.
".
U%e(u!)e%% &( SERVPERF i) Me%uri)0 Cu%"&'er%3 Service Qu!i"# Perce-"i&)% i) F%" F&&*
Re%"ur)"% i) I)*i: Di'e)%i&)!i"#$ V!i*i"# )* Re!i1i!i"# A)!#%e%
;9ploratory factor analysis using principal component method with varima9 rotation was
employed to assess the dimensionality of the twenty-two item S;3A8;3: scale. ll the factors
having eigen value more than one were retained. Cine items that were found to be loading either
lowly (less than ../.6 or loading simultaneously on other factors were deleted, and the factor
analysis was re-run. @he process continued till all the items were found loading appropriately on a
single factor. 7n total, three rounds of factor analysis were performed and the final round produced
four factors which together e9plained /(./# per cent of the variance present in the data (see @able
-6. 'ased on the item configurations, the four factors were named as Dtangibility>, Dempathy>
DdependabilityLassurance and Dsupport and accounting accuracy> dimensions. Since both the
twenty-two items S;3A8;3: scale and its thirteen-item counterpart focus only on functional
service aspect, these have been coded as SH:-- and SH:"& respectively, with the letter D:>
signifying their functional focus.
@he factor analysis results suggested retention of only "& out of a total of -- items
contained in the S;38;3: scale. @he nine items not found appropriate in the study includeK not
telling customers when services will be performed, not getting prompt service, restaurant
providing service by the promised time, restaurants providing service by the time they promise,
restaurants not having convenient operating hours, employees being polite, employees not always
willing to help (emphasis added6, unrealistic to e9pect employees of these restaurants to have
customers> best interest in mind (emphasis added6 and feeling safe in transactions with employees
(emphasis added6. closer look at these e9cluded items reveals that most of these items do not
seem either relevant to the fast food restaurant service conte9t or are poorly worded. @he first five
e9cluded items, for instance, relate to the timeliness aspect of service. @imeliness may be a more
relevant issue in services like banking, travel or conventional restaurants, but this seems to be of
little relevance in the fast food restaurant business which by nature is built around the core theme
of providing speedy services. 7t is not clear as to why the item Dpoliteness> has not got properly
loaded in the factor analysis, and hence it has to be dropped from the scale. So far as the last three
items are concerned, they have got e9cluded perhaps due to their poor wordings marked in italics.
@he phrases like always willing to help, Dbest interest and safe are quite ambiguous and lack
specificity. @hese items, moreover, do not appear much relevant in the conte9t of fast food
restaurant business having no or little scope for service customization. ;ven in a few past studies,
""
some of these items have got dropped at the analysis stage (e.g., 2ang and !ames, -..$% 5hou,
-..$6.
T1!e 4: Service Qu!i"# 5Fu)c"i&)!6: Fc"&r A)!#%i% Re%u!"% )* Re!i1i!i"# C&e((icie)"%
Scale and scale 7tems
:actor
loadings
Aariance
e9plained
3eliability
(1ronbach alpha6
Service Quality ' Functional (SQF)*+
A. "an%i,ility ("AN+ "#..* ..*0
". Aisually appealing physical facilities ..(-&
-. ?p-to-date equipment and technology ..*/&
&. Bell dressed and neat employees ..*$.
$. ppearance of physical facilities as per the type of service provided ..0$$
. -mpat!y.&esponsiveness (-/0+ "0.$0 ..0*
". ;mployees not giving personal attention (reverse coded6 ..*#(
-. ,iving individual attention (reverse coded6 ..0("
&. ;mployees knowing customer needs (reverse coded6 ..0$(
$. ;mployees too busy to respond to customer needs promptly (reverse
coded6
..0-"
C. Dependa,ility.Assurance (D-0+ "".(( ../*
". )ependable restaurant ". ..*#.
-. Sympathetic and reassuring restaurant in case customers have
problems
..0.*
&. Cot getting prompt service from employees (reverse coded6 ../*(
D. Support (S10+ ""."( ../"
". ;mployees getting support from restaurant to do their =obs well ..(..
-. 2eeping records accurately ..*&.
T&"! vri)ce e7-!i)e* 89:8;
comparison of the retained items and their factor structure with the one proposed by
8arasuraman et al. ("#((6 in respect of their S;3AH?< scale reveals a close similarity between
the two. @he item composition of the tangibility dimension in the present study is e9actly the same
as the one postulated in the S;3AH?< scale. @he items belonging to reliability, responsiveness
and empathy dimensions of S;3AH?< scale, however, have got merged into one single
dimension, christened as empathyLresponsiveness dimension in the present study. 7n previous
studies too, items belonging to these three dimensions have been found converging into one or two
dimensions (e.g., 5hou, -..$6. @he dependabilityLassurance dimension in the present study
closely corresponds to 8arasuraman et al.s ("#((6 reliability dimension. SupportLaccuracy is the
only dimension in the present study which is a problematic one for the reason that it contains items
belonging to two different dimensions (i.e., reliability and assurance6 of S;3AH?< scale. )ue to
meaningless item composition, little wonder that this dimension is having a very low 1ronbach
alpha value (see @able "6.
"-
7n order to assess the convergent validity of the thirteen-item scale, the summed mean
SH:"& scores were computed and correlated with overall service quality (ISH6 perception scores
measured directly with a single-item scale. 2arl 8earson coefficient of ..$( (pM....6 shows
convergent validity of the thirteen-item service quality scale (i.e., SH:"&6 derived at our end.
@hough the thirteen-item scale is little less convergent valid than the twenty-two item S;3A8;3:
scale (the correlation coefficient between S;3A8;3: and ISH being r N../$, pM....6, the
thirteen-tem scale appears a better measure of service quality perceptions for being more
parsimonious (requiring collection of data for only for thirteen rather than twenty-two items6 and
also having a relatively better factor structure.
:or assessing the predictive ability of thirteen-item scale (SH:"&6, customers> overall
service quality perceptions (ISH6 were regressed on the former. @he results are presented in @able
&. rather low ad=usted 3
-
value of

..-&.

implies that the

thirteen-item service quality scale
(SH:"&6 is able to e9plain only -& per cent of variations present in the customers> overall service
quality perceptions (ISH6. @his lower e9planatory power of SH:"&, however, has not resulted due
to e9clusion of nine items from the S;3A8;3: scale in our study. rather modest and similar
ad=usted 3
-
value of ..-#. obtained in respect of regression of ISH on S;3A8;3: scale (i.e.,
SH:--6 points to the fact that even S;3A8;3: scale in its original form is only partly able to
capture the customers> overall service quality perceptions.
T1!e <: Over!! Service Qu!i"# 5OSQ6 Perce-"i&)%$ T+ir"ee)-i"e' Service Qu!i"# 5SQF2<6
)* SERVPERF 5SQF446 Sc!e% - Re0re%%i&) Re%u!"% )* C&rre!"i&) C&e((icie)"%
E,:
N&: Vri1!e

c&e((icie)" A*=: R
4
F v!ue
". )ependent variable N ISH
1onstant ..$"
Service quality O functional (SH:"&6 ..#*P ..-&.P ""#.-&
-. )ependent variable N ISH
1onstant .."$
Service quality O functional (SH:--, i.e.,
S;3A8;3:6
"."&P ..-#$P "0/.(&
Correlation Coefficients:
SH:"& P ISH N ..$(P % SH:-- P ISH N ../$P
CoteK Significance level isK P pQ...".
@he above discussion thus brings us to two important conclusions. :irstly, the five
dimension structure as proposed by the developers of S;3AH?< scale (on which S;3A8;3:
scale is based6 is not valid across service industries and countries. @his finding is quite in
"&
conformity with the results obtained by several other researchers in the past (e.g., 'abakus and
'oller, "##-% 1arman "##.% 5hou, -..$6. @he obvious inference is that the dimensionality of
service quality scale is both conte9t and country specific% and, hence, is not directly transferable
across industries and countries. Secondly, the thirteen items retained in the present study for
measuring service quality (functional aspect6 are not adequate enough to capture customers>
overall service quality perceptions. @his finding points to a pressing need for adding additional
itemsLdimensions to 1ronin and @aylor>s ("##-6 S;3A8;3: scale.
R&!e &( >Ou"c&'e3 C&'-&)e)" )* Di'e)%i&)-%-eci(ic A)!#%i% i) Pre*ic"i)0 Cu%"&'er%3
Over!! Service Qu!i"# Perce-"i&)%
Since the literature suggests that outcome quality (SHI6 is an important determinant of
perceived service quality, it was included as another independent variable in the regression equation.
@he results presented in @ables & and $ show an improvement in the ad=usted 3
-
value from .. -&.
(when SH:"& alone is used as independent variable6 to ..-*( when both SH:"& and SHI are used
as independent variables. 'oth the predictor variables are statistically significant, with outcome
component emerging as an equally important determinant. lmost similar standardised regression
coefficients of ..&- and ..-( bear a testimony to the equal importance of this variable. significant
improvement in ad=usted 3
-
value with the addition of ISH variable suggests that the outcome
component is an important determinant of service quality and needs to be taken into account while
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality in the case of fast food restaurants.
Cotwithstanding improvements in the results, the fact remains that even these two factors taken
together are not able to adequately e9plain variations present in the customers> overall service
quality perceptions - ad=usted 3
-
value

being =ust ..-*(. @his once again implies that efforts be made
in future to identify additional itemsLdimensions in respect of both the functional and outcome
service quality components so as to be able to improve the predictive capabilities of two multi-item
service quality scales.
s suggested in the literature, a dimension-specific analysis of service quality scale (SH:"&6
was undertaken along with the outcome service quality component as another e9planatory variable.
3esults corresponding to equation & are quite revealing (see @able $6. If the four functional service
quality dimensions, empathy and support are not significant e9planatory variables. 7n terms of
standardized beta coefficients, outcome quality (SHI6 emerges as the most important determinant of
service quality, closely followed by tangibility (@C6. @he variable dependence ();86 is also a
significant variable, but it trails far behind the tangibility and outcome components. @he two
collinearity statistics - @I7 and A7: - being greater than ..". and less than ". respectively imply an
"$
absence of multicollinearity among the independent variables (Hair at al., "##/6, thus adding to our
confidence in the results.
T1!e ?: Over!! Service Qu!i"# OSQ6 )* I"% Re!"i&)%+i- .i"+ Fu)c"i&)! 5SQF2<6 )*
Ou"c&'e Service Qu!i"# 5SQO6 - Re0re%%i&) Re%u!"%
E,:
N&: Vri1!e
C&e((icie)"%

A*=: R
4
F
v!ue @R
4
F
v!ue
&( @R
4
TOI
1
VIF
c

Stand-
ardised
". )ependent variable N ISH
1onstant ..--
:unctional quality (SH:"&6 ..0$P ..&-P ..0/ ".//
Iutcome quality (SHI6 ..&(P ..-(P ..-*(P **..* ...$#P -*..& ..0/ ".//
-. )ependent variable N ISH
1onstant .."- -
@angibility (@C6 ..$&P ..-#P ..*& ".&*
;mpathy (;+86 ...0 ...$ ..*& ".&(
)ependence ();86 .."$PP ..".PP ..*" ".$-
Support (S?86 -.... -...& ..(" ".-&
Iutcome quality SHI6 ..$-P ..&.P ..&./P &/.00 - - ..0- "./#
&. )ependent variable N ISH
1onstant .."- -
@angibility (@C6 ..$-P ..-(P ..(. ".-/
)ependence ();86 .."/PP ..""PP ..*$ ".&0
Iutcome quality SHI6 ..$/P ..&-P ..&.0P /#."# - - ..*( ".-#
CotesK a. Significance levels areK P pQ..." and PP 8Q.../.
b. @I7 refers to tolerance score for the independent variable.
c. A7: refers to variance inflated factor.
;mpathy and support dimensions have not only low beta values, but are also not statistically
significant. @his probably has happened due to nature of the service industry under consideration. s
already mentioned, fast food restaurants offer highly standardized service, thus leaving no or little
scope for customization. Hence, the empathy has not emerged as a significant determinant. @he other
variable Dsupport> (capturing the influence of availability of support to the employees from
management and accuracy of records6 is not only psychometrically unsound for being less valid and
reliable, but it also does not seem to be holding much relevance. vailability of support to employees
is an internal matter and is of no direct relevance to the customers in forming their service quality
perceptions. ;ven the item accuracy of records seems of little importance in the case of fast food
restaurants because all of them currently make use of cash registers and hand out printed receipts
with all the necessary details to enable the customers check the accuracy of bills, thus leaving no
scope for the accuracy to vary across the restaurants.
Since empathy and support are not found significant e9planatory variables, these were
dropped from further analysis in the study. regression analysis performed on the remaining
"/
variables (equation $6 produced results which are more or less similar to those obtained in regard to
equation &.
Service Qu!i"# % ) A)"ece*e)" &( Cu%"&'er S"i%(c"i&): A00re0"ive )* Di'e)%i&)-
%-eci(ic A)!#%i%
1ustomer satisfaction (1S6 was regressed on various variants of service quality measure to
assess the role of service quality as an antecedent of customer satisfaction perceptions. @he results
reported in @able / shows that overall service quality (ISH6 is a ma=or and significant determinant
of customer satisfaction in the fast food restaurants. n ad=usted 3
-
value of ..//" shows that the
overall service quality perceptions are able to e9plain //.". per cent of the variations present in the
customer satisfaction. Since the customers form their satisfaction =udgments on the basis of service
quality and price perceptions, the variable price equity (8;6 was also introduced in the regression
equation. @he results reveal a marginal but significant rise in the ad=usted 3
-
value. 'oth the
e9planatory variables are statistically significant, with ISH remaining as the ma=or determinant.
8rice turns out to be as a considerably less important factor.
7n order to assess the usefulness of using multi-item service quality scales in place of ISH
scale, customer satisfaction was regressed on SH:-- and SH:"& alternately along with service
outcome (SHI6 component. 3esults corresponding to equation - in @able / show a rather poor fit of
SH:-- to customer satisfaction perceptions. ;ven the use of variable SH:"& causes a further
(though marginal6 decline in ad=usted 3
-
value. 8rice equity in both the equations remains a
significant but marginal determinant. @he lower ad=usted 3
-
values in respect of both the SH:"& and
SH:-- scales imply need for improving these two scales in future.
dimension-specific analysis (substituting SH:"& by its two ma=or dimensions, viz., @C
and );86 does help improving the ad=usted 3
-
value to a level that was attained earlier (equation &6.
@aken together, the four antecedents, viz., @C, );8, SHI and 8;, are able to e9plain $..$ per cent
of variations present in the customer satisfaction perceptions. :urthermore, all the antecedents are
significant. Service outcome quality (SHI6 turns out to the most important determinant, closely
followed by tangibility dimension (@C6. @he other two variables, viz., );8 and 8;, are
individually about half as strong as the other two variables (i.e., SHI and @C6 individually are in
their impact on customer satisfaction.
@he above analysis thus shows that service quality does affect customer satisfaction, with
service outcome playing a ma=or role in the case of fast food restaurants. :urther the results show
that a dimension-specific analysis is a better alternative to link service quality to customer
"0
satisfaction by pointing out as to which of the several service quality dimensions have stronger
impact on customer satisfaction than the aggregative analysis using only the summed service quality
(SH:"&6 score is able to do. @he variable price equity, however, is found to be playing a significant
but marginal role in influencing the customer satisfaction with fast food restaurants.
T1!e 8: Service Qu!i"# % A)"ece*e)" &( Cu%"&'er S"i%(c"i&) 5CS6 - Re0re%%i&) Re%u!"%
E,:
N&: Vri1!e
C&e((icie)"%

A*=:
R
4
F
v!ue @R
4
F
v!ue
&( @R
4
TOI
1
VIF
c
B
Stand-
ardised B
". )ependent variable N 1S
1onstant ..#* -
Iverall SH (ISH6 ..0*P ..*$P ..//-P $(0.&* - - - -
-. )ependent variable N 1S
1onstant ..**
Iverall SH (ISH6 ..0$P ..*"P ..#$ "..0
8rice equity (8;6 ...#P .."&P ../0*P -/(.0- ..."*P "/..& ..#$ "..0
&. )ependent variable N 1S
1onstant -..$# -
:unctional quality (SH:--,
i.e., S;3A8;3:6
..*(P ..$-P ..// ".(.
Iutcome quality (SHI6 ..&"P ..-/P ..0. ".0(
8rice equity (8;6 .../P ...*P ..$.$P #..&* - - ..(/ "."(
$. )ependent variable N 1S
1onstant -.."0 -
:unctional quality (SH:"&6 ../#P ..&&P ..0. ".0*
Iutcome quality (SHI6 ..&#P ..&"P ..0$ "./*
8rice equity (8;6 ...*PP ...#PP ..&*0P *(.(* ..(/ "."*
/. )ependent variable N 1S
1onstant -..-$P -
@angibility (@C6 ..&/P ..-0P ..(. ".-/
)ependence ();86 .."(P .."$P ..0# ".$$
Iutcome quality SHI6 ..$$P ..&/P ..*0 ".&-
8rice equity (8;6 ...*PP ..".PP ..$.$P 00.-. - - ..($ "."#
CotesK a. Significance levels areK P pQ..." and PP 8Q.../.
b. @I7 refers to tolerance score for the independent variable.
c. A7: refers to variance inflated factor.
Service Qu!i"# )* Cu%"&'er S"i%(c"i&) % Pre*ic"&r% &( Be+vi&ur! I)"e)"i&)%:
A00re0"ive )* Di'e)%i&) S-eci(ic A)!#%e%
Higher service quality has been empirically linked to higher satisfaction and favourable
behavioural intentions both directly as well as interactively with customer satisfaction in the past
studies reviewed earlier. @wo sub-constructs used for tapping the behavioural intentions in the
present study includeK restaurant patronisation intentions (876 and recommendation intentions (376.
7n order to assess whether service quality and customer satisfaction affect behavioural intentions in a
curvilinear and interactive manner, higher order regression equations with provision for interactions
between service quality and customer satisfaction were run. However, all the quadratic regression
"*
equations as well as those with interaction terms did not turn out to be producing satisfactory fits due
to high collinearity present among the higher order and cross products of direct measures of
independent variables. Hence, it was decided to use only the first order basic regression equations.
@he results corresponding to equation " in @able 0 show a significant and strong influence of
customers> overall service quality (ISH6 perceptions on their restaurant patronization intentions. 'ut
with the inclusion of customer satisfaction as another independent variable, ad=usted 3
-
value gets
significantly increased to ..&&., and both the ISH and 1S emerge as significant predictors.
However, when ISH is replaced by SH:-- - its twenty-two multi-item counterpart% the results turn
out to be poorer. Cot only there is a fall in the value of ad=usted 3
-
, the variable SH:-- also becomes
insignificant suggesting albeit erroneously that functional service quality (i.e., S;3A8;3:6 is not a
determinant of customers> patronization intentions. @his probably is occurring due to poor validity of
the scale pointed out earlier in connection with the factor analysis undertaken in the study. @he
results, however, show an improvement when the variable SH:"& is used instead of SH:--.
dimension-specific analysis of functional service quality as undertaken in equation /
brings the results closer to the ones obtained earlier in equation & where ISH has been used as a
measure of functional service quality. value of ..&$- of ad=usted 3
-
suggests that the four variables
taken together (viz., @C, );8, SHI and 1S6 are able to e9plain &$.- per cent of variations in
customer patronization intentions, with customer satisfaction being the most important and
significant determinant. @he three service quality related variables O @C, );8 and SHI - are also
significant, but these are individually almost half as important as the customer satisfaction variable
alone is (see @able 06. lack of multicollinearity among the independent variables as evident from
@I7 value being higher than ..". and A7: value being less than ". further add to the reliability of
regression results arrived at our end.
3esults relating to customer restaurant recommendation intentions appear almost similar to
those obtained in regard to customer patronization intentions patter (see @able *6. Iverall service
quality perceptions constitute an important determinant of the recommendation intentions, but the fit
gets significantly improved with the inclusion of customer satisfaction as another independent
variable. 'etween the two multi-item functional service quality scales, SH:"& is providing better
results than SH:--. Iutcome service quality is a significant and ma=or determinant of the
recommendation intentions. dimension-specific analysis of functional service quality shows that
that all the four variables present in equation / are significant, with 1S being the most important
determinant, followed by SHI and @C in that order. );8, i.e., dependence, turns out to be the least
important determinant.
"(
T1!e A: Service Qu!i"# )* Cu%"&'er S"i%(c"i&) 5CS6 % Pre*ic"&r% &( Re%"ur)"
P"r&)i%"i&) I)"e)"i&)% 5PI6 - Re0re%%i&) Re%u!"%
E,:
N&: Vri1!e
C&e((icie)"%

A*=:
R
4
F
v!ue @R
4
F
v!ue
&( @R
4
TOI
1
VIF
c

S")*-
r*i%e*

". )ependent variable N 87

1onstant ..*(
Iverall service quality
(ISH6
..00P ..//P ..&.-P "0#.$# - - - -
-. )ependent variable N 87
1onstant ..$$
ISH ..$-P ..&0P ..$/ -.-&
1S ..&/P ..-*P ..&&.P #*.$* ...&"P #*.$* ..$/ -.-&
&. )ependent variable N 87
1onstant -..&&
:unctional quality (SH:--,
i.e., S;3A8;3:6
.."# ..( ../. ".##
Iutcome quality (SHI6 ..&$P ..-"P ../" "./*
1S ..$#P ..&*P ..&"#P 0-.$- - - ..0. "./*
$. )ependent variable N 87
1onstant -..$0
:unctional quality (SH:"&6 ..-/PPP ..""PPP ../* ".*/
SHI ..&-P ..-.P ../( ".*"
1S ..$#P ..&*P ..&--P 0&.$" - - ..0& "./(
/. )ependent variable N 87
1onstant -..(*
@angibility (@C6 ..-$P .."$P ..*& ".&*
)ependence ();86 .."*PP ..""PP ..*- ".&#
Iutcome quality ( SHI6 ..&-P .."#P ..00 "./"
1S ..$-P ..&-P ..&$-P /-.-& - - ..0" ".0/
CotesK a. Significance levels areK P pQ...", PP 8Q.../ and PPP pQ.."..
b. @I7 refers to tolerance score for the independent variable.
c. A7: refers to variance inflated factor.
T1!e B: Service Qu!i"# )* Cu%"&'er S"i%(c"i&) 5CS6 % Pre*ic"&r% &( Re%"ur)"
Rec&''e)*"i&) I)"e)"i&)% 5RI6 - Re0re%%i&) Re%u!"%
"#
CotesK a. Significance levels areK P pQ..." and PP pQ.../.
b. @I7 refers to tolerance score for the independent variable.
c. A7: refers to variance inflated factor.
SQ$ CS )* BI S&re%: A Re%"ur)".i%e A)!#%i%
Having identified the determinants of customers> restaurant patronization and
recommendation intentions, let us have a look at the performance scoreboard of each of the eight
fast food restaurants under investigation. @able ( contains the results relating to various service
quality, customer satisfaction and behavioural intention measures as well as those relating to
customers> preference ranking for the restaurants and their perceptions about the price equity of
the services provided by these restaurants. :or the sake of better diagnosis, even the results
relating to service quality dimensions that were not found significant in the earlier analysis are
reported in @able (. correspondence between mean scores of service quality, customer
satisfaction and behavioural intentions reinforces the earlier findings of the study that the former is
positively related to the latter.
E,:
N&: Vri1!e
C&e((icie)"%

A*=:
R
4
F
v!ue @R
4
F
v!ue
&( @R
4
TOI
1
VIF
c

S")*-
r*i%e*

". )ependent variable N 37

1onstant ..0"
Iverall service quality
(ISH6
..*"P ..//P ..-#/P "0$.(- - - -
-. )ependent variable N 37
1onstant ..-#
ISH ..$#P ..&(P ..$/ -.-&
1S ..&&P ..-&P ..&"0P #".// ...-&P "&."0 ..$/ -.-&
&. )ependent variable N 37
1onstant -..&0
:unctional quality (SH:--,
i.e., S;3A8;3:6
..-. ...( ../. ".##
Iutcome quality (SHI6 ..&.P .."*P ../0 ".**
1S ../$P ..&*P ..-($P /&.-- - ..0. "./(
$. )ependent variable N 37
1onstant -..&&
:unctional quality (SH:"&6 .."( ...* ../* ".*/
SHI ..&.P .."*P ../( ".*"
1S ..//P ..&(P ..-($P /&."* - ..0& "./(
/. )ependent variable N 37
1onstant -..*"
@angibility (@C6 ..-&PP .."-PP ..*& ".&*
)ependence ();86 ...# .../ ..*- ".&#
Iutcome quality SHI6 ..&.PP .."*PP ..00 "./"
1S ..$#P ..&$P ..-#0P $-.&* - ..0" ".0/
-.
'ased on both the overall service quality perceptions (ISH6 and the thirteen-item summed
functional service quality scores (SH:"&6, +c)onald emerges as a real winner, with Cirula>s and
8izza Hut being close challengers. Haldiram, 'ikanerwala, )ominos and Bimpy constitute the
ne9t rung of players and in that order. 3ameshwar is the laggard and trails far behind all other
competitors on the fast food track.
)imension-specific analysis brings to the fore interesting insights. So far as the
empathyresponsiveness and supportLaccuracy of records dimensions are concerned, the
restaurants under investigations do not significantly differ form one another. <ike found earlier in
connection with the regression analysis, these two dimensions do not turn out to be ma=or
differentiators among the surveyed restaurants. significant difference is observable in respect of
support dimensions, but it has probably happened due to utterly poor performance of 3ameshwar
at this front.
7n respect of dependabilityassurance, the performance of the first four restaurants
including Haldiram is more or less similar. 'ikanerwala, )ominos and Bimpy constitute the ne9t
rung. Ince again, 3ameshwar is found a very poor performer on this count. 1ustomers>
perceptions of tangibility show significant differences among the surveyed restaurants. +c)onald
holds the place of pride, with Cirula>s and 8izza Hot trailing behind it. Haldiram, 'ikanerwala,
)ominos and Bimpy are yet to catch up with the three frontrunners. 3ameshwar lags tangibly
much behind all others even at this front.
Scores in regard to outcome !uality present a different picture. @hough it may sound
surprising, yet this is a reality (and reality is what customers perceive6 that customers perceive
+c)onald to be lagging somewhat behind its arch rival O Cirula>s. However, when asked about
the reasonableness of price charged at these two restaurants, customers opine +c)onald to be
stealing the show. <eaving aside these skirmishes between them and customers having greater
intentions to visit Cirula>s in future, we find that the two leaders are quite ahead of their
counterparts. 'e it customer satisfaction levels or patronization and recommendation inclinations,
other players in the market are yet to substantially improve their performance before they can
think of seeing eye to eye to their market leaders.
-"
T1!e 9: Service Qu!i"#$ Cu%"&'er S"i%(c"i&)$ Pre(ere)ce Perce-"i&)% )* Be+vi&ur!
I)"e)"i&)%: Re%"ur)".i%e A)!#%i% )* ANOVA Re%u!"%
Re%"ur)"
Over!!
%ervice
,u!i"#
-erce-"i&)%
5OSQ6
Service
Qu!i"#C
(u)c"i&)!
5SQF2<6
Service ,u!i"# *i'e)%i&)% Ou"c&'e
%ervice
,u!i"#
5SQO6
Price
e,ui"#
5PE6
Pre(ere)ce
r)/i)0
5'e*i)
%c&re6
Cu%"&'er
%"i%(c-
"i&)
5CS6
P"r&)-
i%"i&)
i)"e)"i&)%
5PI6
Rec&''-
e)*"i&)
i)"e)"i&)%
5RI6
E'-"+#
5EMP6
Su--&r"
5SUP6
De-e)*-
1i!i"#
5DEP6
T)0i1i!i"#
5TAN6
+c)onald $.-& &.*- &.-/ &.0/ &.0( $.-0 &.0* &./- " &.(/ &.*- &.(-
Cirula>s $..$ &.0/ &.-/ &./$ &.*$ $..& &.*/ &."( " &.*0 &.(. &.0/
8izza Hut $... &.0* &.&$ &./# &.0* $../ &.0- &..( - &.0- &.$/ &./$
Haldiram &.*- &./$ &..# &.0( &.0. &.(( &.00 &."( - &.$# &.&- &.-$
'ikanervala &.0/ &.&0 &..( &.&( &.&( &.0. &.0/ &..# $ &.$( -.#* &..#
)ominos &./- &.$& &."- &.$* &.$/ &.*& &.-/ &."& & &.-* -.0# -.($
Bimpy &.$0 &.&* &../ &.&# &.&* &.0* &.&. -.#0 - &..# -.0& -.*(
3ameshwar &."# &."( &... &."# &."# &.&0 &."* -.0- - -.*( -.$& -.$&
Over!! 'e)
%c&re%
<:9A <:8A <:29 <:8< <:89 <:;< <:8B <:29 - <:88 <:<< <:<A
:-value (CIA6 0.**P *.-(P "..* -..#PP &.$.P "..0&P $.0$P -."*PP - (.&#P "-.$.P *.#0P
CoteK Significance levels areK P pQ..."% PP pQ .../
--
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS$ STUDY LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCHES
Service quality has been posited in the literature as a key determinant of a firm>s
success in the market place. @hough a number of studies have been undertaken in other
countries to establish an empirical link between service quality, customer satisfaction and
behavioural intentions% hardly any published academic study e9ists in respect of fast food
restaurants in the 7ndian conte9t to show that it does pay investing service quality improvement
efforts. @he present study has been an attempt in this direction. @he data used in the study have
come from a consumer survey of eight fast food restaurants in )elhi during )ecember -.." O
+arch -..-. 7n view of the alleged superiority of the twenty-two item S;3A8;3: over
S;3AH?< scale, the former was employed to measure customer perceptions of service
quality. @he following paragraphs summarise findings of the study and discuss alongside their
managerial and research implications.
@he analysis in the present study fails to find all the twenty-two items being relevant to
measurement of service quality in the conte9t of fast food restaurants in 7ndia. Inly thirteen
items are found pertinent. 7n particular, items relating to empathy and timeliness aspects of
service quality are found having no significant relationship with customers> service quality
perceptions in the fast food business. ;ven the factor structure as proposed by the developers
of S;3AH?< scale on which the S;3A8;3: is based does not get supported. @he factor
analysis in the present study rather produces a four-factor structure with tangibility,
dependabilityLassurance, empathyLresponsiveness and supportLaccuracy of records as being the
four service quality dimensions. Bhile the tangibility items have a clear loading on the
postulated factor, the other items due to their overlapping nature have got messed up and have
resulted in somewhat a hybrid factor-item structure. ;ven several past several studies
replicating and testing S;3AH?< have not found the scale to be converging to the proposed
five-factor structure (e.g., 'abakus and +angold, "#(#% Spreng and Singh, "##&6.
In regressing overall service quality perceptions (ISH6 on the twenty-two item
S;3A8;3: (i.e., SH:--6 scale and the thirteen-item (SH:"&6 scale derived at our end, we find
both the scales are being powerful enough to capture variations present in the customer overall
service quality perceptions. However, till the time a better measure of service quality develops
the fast food restaurants can rely on the thirteen-item SH:"& rather than S;3A8;3: scale. @he
reason underlying this recommendation is that SH:"& is a more parsimonious scale and lacks
only slightly in terms its predictive power.
Since the S;3A8;3: scale and its pruned version (i.e., SH:"&6 focus only on the
functional aspect of service quality, a service outcome component (SHI6 was added to the
-&
analysis and it did lead to some improvement in the predictive ability of service quality scales.
@he results imply that especially in the case of services such as fast food restaurants outcome
quality is an important ingredient and needs be included in future analyses. Similar views have
been echoed even in the past works (,ronroos, "#(-, "##.% 2ang and !ames, -..$% <ehtinen
and <ehtinen, "#(-% +angold and 'abakus, "##"% 3ichard and llaway, "##&6.
@he fact, however, remains that even inclusion of outcome component is not able to
sufficiently account for variations present in customers> overall service quality perceptions.
@his is evident from relatively lower ad=usted 3
-
values in our analysis. @he results thus point
to the need for identifying additional itemsLdimensions as specific to the formation of customer
quality perceptions in the fast food restaurant services. @he above finding is quite in
consonance with the suggestions made in previous studies for inclusion of industry specific
items in the service quality scale (1ronin and @aylor, "##-% )abholkar et al., -...% <e 'lanc and
Cguyen, "#((% <ehtinen and <ehtinen, "#(-% <ewis, "#(*6. ;ven 8arasuraman et al. ("##$6
suggested modifications in their scale to make it more fitting to a specific service conte9t.
n important finding of the study is that service quality is a much more important
determinant of customer satisfaction than price equity (8;6. @he obvious implication of this
inference is that the management of the fast food restaurants needs to lay more emphasis on
building service quality than trying to compete at price front to lure customers. 7t, however,
should not be construed to imply that the fast food restaurants can charge any price they wish
for selling their high quality products. @he prices charged by them must be well within a
reasonable band around the prices charged by their competitors.
dimension-specific analysis of service quality does add to the predictive and
diagnostic ability of the service quality scale. Such an analysis in the present study is a pointer
to the fact that that not all the dimensions are equally important in forming customer quality
and satisfaction perceptions and influencing behavioural intentions. @he present study
identifies service outcome quality, tangibility and dependabilityLassurance as being more
important determinants than the empathyLresponsiveness and supportLaccuracy of record
dimensions.
restaurantwise analysis of customer perceptions finds +c)onald as being the market
leader with Cirula>s closely occupying the second slot. Bhile +c)onald is ahead of Cirula>s in
terms of tangibility dimension, it lags behind Cirula>s in respect of both the dependability and
outcome quality aspects. @he management of +c)onald should try to find out specific reasons
for being deficient in these service attributes and take corrective measures lest it loses the
market hegemony to its arch rival. In the other hand, Cirulas too needs to look into its
tangibility aspect of its service set up where it lags behind +c)onald. 7t should try revamping
-$
its physical facilities, layout and dRcor to come at par with +c)onald. @he other restaurants
are quite far behind their leaders and need to initiate measures to revamp quality in respect of
tangibility as well as dependability and outcome dimensions. 3ameshwar is truly a laggard in
respect of all the dimensions and needs to go all the way both at the functional and outcome
quality fronts to improve its quality perceptions.
;very study has its own limitations and this paper is no e9ception. @he present study has
been based on a survey of students and lecturers of ?niversity of )elhi. Co doubt it is relatively
the younger and more educated people from the higher income groups who constitute a prime
market segment of the fast food restaurant services, they by no means e9haust the list. 8eople
owning their own business, professionals and those working in private and public sector
organizations are equally important fast food restaurant customers and as such need be surveyed
in future. Since the food habits and preferences generally tend to be region and culture specific,
findings of the study do not seem directly applicable to customers from other regions and
cultures. <arger samples of customers from different regions and different walks of life are,
therefore, called for to arrive at more valid and reliable inferences about the country>s restaurant
going population.
Since the thirteen-item service equality scale is not found capable of sufficiently
e9plaining variations in customers> overall service quality perceptions and some of the service
quality dimensions have been found less valid and reliable, attempt should be made by the
researchers in future to develop psychometrically more valid and reliable scales in future. s
found by 'onner and Celson ("#(/6 in connection with their research on food products, aspects
such as rich flavour, natural taste, fresh taste, good aroma and appetizing looks can serve as
potential scale items in future studies.
@he present study has made use of only two behavioural dimensions. 7t will be desirable
if the researchers in future attempt to study additional behavioural consequences such as those
relating to customers> complaining and switching intentions. 3ecent use of structural equation
method (S;+6 in some studies (e.g., 2ang and !ames, -..$% 5hou, -..$6 can also be of great
help in fully capturing the intricate relationships present among the three variables.
@here is also a growing realization among the service quality theoreticians and
researchers that corporate image be considered as an important determinant of service quality
perceptions (,roonroos, "#(-, "##.% <ehtinen and <ehtinen, "#(-6. 2ang and !ames
(-..$K-0*6 argue in this connection that F a favorable and well-known image is an asset for any
firm because image has an impact on customer perceptions of the communication and
operations of the firm in many respectsS. 7f a service provider has a positive image in the
minds of customers, minor mistakes will be forgiven. 7f a provider>s image is negative, the
-/
impact of any mistake will often be magnified in the customer>s mind. 7n a word, image can be
viewed as a filter in terms of a consumer>s perception of quality.G 7t would be a worthwhile
endeavour on the part of the researches in future to delve into this aspect and assess the e9tent
to which inclusion of image component in service quality analysis is conceptually tenable and
can add to the predictive ability of service quality scale.
Cotwithstanding these limitations and need for further researches in the area, findings of
the present study do suggest that service quality is an important determinant of customer
satisfaction and behavioural intentions. 7t is therefore, worth investing in quality improvement
efforts to win customer applaud and their patronage. @he study, furthermore, demonstrates that
not all the all the service quality dimensions are equally important to customers. @he
management of the fast food restaurants can immensely gain by taking up such studies from time
to time in future for identifying and priotising the areas which from customers> perceptions point
of view deserve utmost attention. focussed quality building approach can go a long way in
enabling the management of fast food restaurants to make an optimal use of their resources and
building side by side ma9imum possible customer satisfaction and franchise.
N&"e%
". @he author is grateful to +s. ,arima ,upta for carrying out the field work and help provided in
preparation of this paper.
-. Bhile S;3AH?< was posited as multidimensional scale by 8arasuraman et al. ("#((6, 1ronin and
@aylor ("##-6 operationalised S;3A8;3: as a unidimensional scale and accordingly used it as a
summed inde9 derived by averaging the distinctive dimension of service quality. ;ven in a
replication study later, 'rady et al. (-..-6 used S;3A8;3: as a unidimensional summed inde9.
&. lthough the study by Bang et al. (-..$6 did not e9plicitly e9amine the impact of service quality on
behavioural intentions in an e9plicit manner, these two constructs got indirectly tested by way of
being part of functional value and customer-relationship-management performance measures Ine of
the components of value used in the study was functional value which to a great e9tent is a measure
of perceived quality. Similarly, though they preferred to call their outcome variable as customer-
relationship-management performance, it was nothing but three item customer behavioural
intentions scale.
Bi1!i&0r-+#
aker, ). . and !acobson, 3. ("##$6 D@he financial information content of perceived quality>, "ournal of
#ar$eting %esearch, &"K -, "#"--.".
nderson, ;.B. and Sullivan, +. ("##&6 D@he antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms>,
#ar$eting &cience, "-(-6, "-/-$&.
'abakus, ;. and 'oller, ,.B. ("##-6 Dn empirical assessment of the servqual scale>, "ournal of Business
%esearch, -$, -/&-0(.
'abakus, ;. and +angold, B.,. ("#(#6 Ddapting the servqual scale to hospital servicesK an empirical
investigation>, 'ealth &ervice %esearch, -0K 0, *0*-(..
'ansal, H.S. and @aylor, S. ("##*6 D7nvestigating the relationship between service quality, satisfaction and
switching intentions>, in Bilson, ;.!. and Hair, !.1. (eds6, (evelopments in #ar$eting &cience, 1oral
,ables, cademy of +arketing Science, &.$-&"&.
-0
'itner, +.!. ("##.6 D;valuating service encountersK the effects of physical surroundings and employee
response>, "ournal of #ar$eting , -, 0#-(-.
'itner, +.!. and Hubbert, .3. ("##$6 D;ncounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality> in 3ust,
3.@. and Iliver, 3.<. &ervice )uality: *ew (irections in +heory and ,ractice, @housands Iaks, Sage
8ublications, *--#$.
'olton, 3.C. ("##(6 D dynamic model of the duration of the customer>s relationship with a continuous service
providerK the role of customer satisfaction>, +arketing Science, "*K ", $/-0/.
'olton, 3.C. and )rew, !.H. ("##"6 D longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on customer
attitudes>, "ournal of #ar$eting, //K !an., "-#.
'olton, 3.C. and )rew, !.H. ("##"6 D multistage model of customerEs assessment of service quality and value>,
"ournal of Consumer %esearch, "*K +arch, &*/-(/.
'onner, 8. and Celson, 3. ("#(/6 D8roduct attributes and perceived qualityK foods> in !acoby, !. (ed6, ,erceived
)uality, <e9ington 'ooks, 0$-*#.
'oulding, B., 2alra, ., Staelin 3. and 5eithaml, A.. ("##&6 D dynamic process model of service qualityK
from e9pectations to behavioral intentions>, "ournal of #ar$eting %esearch, &.K :eb., *--*.
'rady, +.2. and 1ronin, !. (-.."6 DSome new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service qualityK a
hierarchical approach>, "ournal of #ar$eting, 0/K !uly, &$-$#.
'rady, +.2., 1ronin, !. and 'rand, 3.3. (-..-6 D8erformanceOonly measurement of service qualityK a
replication and e9tension>, "ournal of Business %esearch, //, "*-&".
'rady, +.2. and 3obertson, 1.!. (-.."6 DSearching for a consensus on the antecedent role of service quality and
satisfactionK an e9ploratory cross-national study>, "ournal of Business %esearch, /", /&-0..
'rown, @.!., 1hurchill, ,.. and 8eter, !.8. ("##&6 D7mproving the measurement of service qualityG, "ournal of
%etailing, 0#K ", "-*-&#.
'uttle, :. ("##06 DS;3AH?<K review, critique, research agenda>, -uropean "ournal of #ar$eting, &.K ", (-&-.
1arman, !.+. ("##.6 D1onsumer perceptions of service qualityK an assessment of the S;3AH?< dimensions>,
"ournal of %etailing, 00K ", &&-/.
1ronin, !., 'rady, +.2. and Hult, @.+. (-...6 Dssessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction
on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments>, "ournal of %etailing, *0K -, "#&--"(.
1ronin, !. and @aylor, S.. ("##-6 +easuring service qualityK a ree9amination and e9tension>, "ournal of
#ar$eting, /0K !uly, //-0*.
)abholkar, 8.. ("##&6 Dcustomer satisfaction and service qualityK two constructs or oneT>, in 1ravens, ).B. and
)ickson, 8.3. (eds6, -nhancing .nowledge (evelopment in #ar$eting, 1hicago, merican +arketing
ssociation, ".-"(.
)abholkar, 8.. ("##/6 D1ontingency framework for predicting causality between customer satisfaction and
service quality> in Su=an +. and 2ardes, :. (eds6, /dvances in Consumer %esearch, -.-, -"-&".
)abholkar, 8.., Shepherd, ).1. and @orpe, ).7. (-...6, D comprehensive framework for service qualityK an
investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study>, "ournal of
%etailing, *0K -, "&#-"*&.
)anaher, 8.!. ("##*6 D?sing con=oin analysis to determine the relative importance of service attributes measured
in customer satisfaction surveys>, "ournal of %etailing, -K, -&/--0..
:ullerton, ,. and @aylor, S. (-..-6 D+ediating, interactive, and non-linear effects in service quality and
satisfaction with services research>, Canadian "ournal of /dministrative &ciences, "#K -, "-$-"&/.
:urrer, I., <iu, S.1. and Sudharshan, ). (-...6 D@he relationship between culture and service quality
perceptionsK basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation>, "ournal of &ervice
%esearch, -K $, &//-&*".
,arvin, ).. ("#(*6 D1ompeting on the eight dimensions of quality>, 'arvard Business %eview, 0/K Covember
O )ecember, "."-".#.
-*
,ilbert, ,.3., Aeloutsou, 1., ,oode, +. +. H. and +outinho, <. (-..$6 D+easuring customer satisfaction in the
fast food industryK a cross-national approach>, "ournal of &ervices #ar$eting, "(K /, &*"-&(-.
,otlieb, !.'., ,rewal, ). and 'rown, S.B. ("##$6 D1onsumer satisfaction and perceived qualityK complementary
or divergent constructs,G "ournal of /pplied ,sychology, *#K 0, (*/-(/.
,ronroos, 1. ("#(-6 &trategic #anagement and #ar$eting in the &ervice &ector, :inland, Swedish School of
;conomics and 'usiness dministration.
,ronroos, 1. ("##.6 &ervice #anagement and #ar$eting: #anaging the #oments of +ruth in &ervice
Competition, +ass., <e9ington 'ooks.
Hair, !.:. !r., nderson, 3.;., @atham, 3.<. and 'lack, B.1. ("##/6 #ultivariate (ata /nalysis with %eadings
($
th
edn6, ;nglewood 1liffs, 8rentice Hall.
Headley, ).;. and +iller, S.!. ("##&6 D+easuring service quality and its relationship to future consumer
behaviour>, "ournal of 'ealth Care #ar$eting, $, &--$".
7acobucci, )., ,rayson, 2.. and Istrom, .<. ("##$6 D@he calculus of service quality and customer
satisfactionK theoretical and empirical differentiation and integration> in Swartz, @ ., 'owen, ). H. and
'rown, S.B. (eds6, /dvances in &ervices #ar$eting and #anagement, ,reenwich, !7 8ress, "-0*.
!ain, S.2. and ,upta, ,. (-..$6 D+easuring Service HualityK S;3AH?< vs. S;3A8;3: Scales>, 0i$alpa:
+he "ournal for (ecision #a$ers, -#K "(pril-!une6, -/-&(.
!ohns, C. and Howard, . ("##(6 D1ustomer e9pectations versus perceptions of service performance in the food
service industry>, 1nternational "ournal of &ervice 1ndustry #anagement , #K &, -$(--0/.
!ohnston, 3. ("##/6 D@he determinants of service quality satisfiers and dissatisfiers>, 1nternational "ournal of
&ervice 1ndustry #anagement, 0K /, /&-*".
!ones, @.I. and Sasser, B.;. !r ("##/6 DBhy satisfied customers defect>, 'arvard Business %eview, *&K 0, ((-##.
2ang, ,i-)u and !ames, !. (-..$6 DService quality dimensionsK an e9amination of ,ronroos>s service quality
model>, #anaging &ervice )uality, "$K $, -0*--**.
2assim, C.+. and 'o=ei, ! (-..-6 DService qualityK gaps in the telemarketing industry>, "ournal of Business
%esearch, //, ($/-/-.
<a@our, S.. and 8eat, C.1. ("#*#6 D1ultural and methodological issues in consumer satisfaction research> in
Bilkie, B.:. (ed6, /dvances in Consumer %esearch, 0, nn rbor, ssociation for consumer 3esearch.
<e 'lanc, ,. and Cguyen, C. ("#((6 D1ustomer>s perceptions of service quality in financial institutions>,
1nternational "ournal of Ban$ #ar$eting, 0($6, *-"(.
<ee, H., <ee, 4. and 4oo, ). (-...6 D@he determinants of perceived service quality and its relationship with
satisfaction>, "ournal of &ervices #ar$eting, "$K &, -"*-&".
<ehtinen, ?. and <ehtinen, !r. ("#(-6 DService qualityK a study of quality dimensions>, Borking paper, Helsinki,
Service +anagement 7nstitute.
<ewis, 3.1. ("#(*6 D@he +easurement of gaps in the quality of hotel service>, 1nternational "ournal of
'ospitality #anagement, 0K -, (&-(.
+agi, . and !ulander, 1.3. ("##06 D8erceived service quality and customer satisfaction in a store performance
framework>, "ournal of %etailing and Consumer &ervices, ", &&-$".
+angold, ,.B. and 'abakus, ;. ("##"6 DService qualityK the front-stage perspective vs the back-stage
perspective>, "ournal of &ervices #ar$eting, /% $, /#-*..
+c1oll-2ennedy, !. and Schneider, ?. (-...6 D+easuring customer satisfactionK why, what, and how>, +otal
)uality #anagement, ""K *, ((&-(#0.
+els, ,., 'oshoff, 1. and Cel, ). ("##*6 D@he )imensions of service qualityK the original ;uropean perspective
revisited>, &ervice 1ndustries "ournal, "*("6, "*&-(#.
+ersha, @. and dlakha, A. ("##-6 Dttributes of service qualityK the consumer>s perspective>, 1nternational
"ournal of &ervice 1ndustry #anagement, &K &, &$-$/.
+ittal, A., 2umar, 8. and @siros, +. ("###6 Dttribute-level performance, satisfaction and behavioural intentions
over timeK a consumption-system approach>, "ournal of #ar$eting, 0&K pril, ((-".".
-(
+ohr, <.. and 'itner, +.!. ("##/6 D@he role of employee effort in satisfaction with service transactions>,
"ournal of Business %esearch, &-(&6, -&#--/-.
Cewman, 2. (-.."6 D7nterrogating S;3AH?<K a critical assessment of service quality measurement in a high
street retail bank>, 1nternational "ournal of Ban$ #ar$eting, "#K &, "-0-"&#.
Cunnally, !. 1. ("#*(6 ,sychometric +heory, Cew 4ork, +c,raw-Hill.
Iliver, 3.<. ("#(.6 D conceptual model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions>, "ournal
of #ar$eting %esearch, "*, $0.-$0#.
Iliver, 3.<. ("#("6 D+easurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retail settings>, "ournal of %etailing,
/*K &, -/-$(.
Iliver, 3.<. ("##&6 D conceptual model of service quality and service satisfactionK compatible goals, different
concepts> in Swartz, @.., 'owen, ).;. and 'rown, S.B. (eds6, /dvances in &ervices #ar$eting and
#anagement: %esearch and ,ractice, -, ,reenwich, !7 8ress.
Iliver, 3.<. and Swan, <.;. ("#(#6 D1onsumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transactionK a fields survey approach>, "ournal of #ar$eting, /&, -"-&/.
8age @.!. !r and Spreng, 3.. (-..-6 D)ifference scores versus direct effects in service quality measurement>,
"ournal of &ervice %esearch, $K :ebruary, "($-"#-.
8arasuraman, ., 'erry, <.<. and 5eithaml, A.. ("##"6 D3efinement and reassessment of the S;3AH?< O
scale>, "ournal of %etailing, 0*K $, $-.-/..
8arasuraman, ., 5eithaml, A.. and 'erry <.<. ("##$6 D3eassessment of e9pectations as a comparison standard
in measuring service qualityK implications for further research>, "ournal of #ar$eting, /(K !an., """-"-$.
8arasuraman, ., 5eithaml, A.. and 'erry, <.<. ("#(/6 D conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research>, "ournal of #ar$eting, $#K :all, $"-/..
8arasuraman, ., 5eithaml, A.. and 'erry, <.<. ("#((6 DS;3AH?<K a multiple item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality>, "ournal of %etailing, 0$K ", "--$..
8owpaka, S. ("##06 Dthe role of outcome quality as a determinant of overall service quality in different
categories of services industriesK an empirical investigation>, !ournal of Services +arketing, ".K -, /--/.
3ichard, +.). and llaway, .B. ("##&6 DService quality attributes and choice behaviour>, "ournal of &ervices
#ar$eting, *K", /#-0(.
3ucci, .7., 2irn, S.8. and Huinn, @.@. ("##(6 D@he employee-customer Oprofit chain at Sears>, 'arvard
Business %eview, *0K ",(--#*.
3ust, 3.@. and Iliver, 3.<. ("##$6 &ervice !uality 2 *ew (irections in +heory and ,ractice, S,;
8ublications.
Smith, .+. and 3eynolds, C.<. (-.."6 D+easuring cross cultural service qualityK a framework for assessment>,
1nternational #ar$eting %eview, "#K /, $/.-$(".
Spreng, 3.. and Singh, .2. ("##&6 Dn ;mpirical assessment of the S;3AH?< scale, and the relationship
between service quality and satisfaction,G in 8eter, ) B% 1ravens, 3 and )ickson (eds.6, -nhancing
.nowledge (evelopment in #ar$eting, 1hicago, merican +arketing ssociation, "-0.
@aylor, S.. ("##*6 Dssessing regression-based importance weights for quality perceptions and satisfaction
=udgements in the presence of higher order andLor interaction effects>, "ournal of %etailing, *&K ", "&/-"/#.
@aylor S.. and 'aker @.<. ("##$6 Dn assessment of the relationship between service quality and customer
satisfaction in the formation of consumers> purchase intentions>, "ournal of %etailing, *.K -, "0&-"*(.
@eas, 2.3. ("##&6 D;9pectations, performance evaluation, and consumerEs perceptions of quality>, "ournal of
#ar$eting, /*K Ictober, "(-&$.
@eas, 2.3. ("##$6 D;9pectations as a comparison standard in measuring service qualityK an assessment of
reassessment>, "ournal of #ar$eting, /(K !an., "&--&#.
@ing, ).H. (-..$6 DService quality and satisfaction perceptionsK curvilinear and interaction effect>, +he
1nternational "ournal of Ban$ #ar$eting, --K 0, $.*-$-..
Aoss, 1.., rmistead, 1.,., !ohnston, 3. and +orris, '. ("#(/6 Operations #anagement in &ervice 1ndustries
-#
and the ,ublic &ector, 1hichester, Biley.
Bang, 4., <o, H.8., 1hi, 3. and 4ang, 4. (-..$6 Dn integrated framework for customer value and customer-
relationship-management performanceK a customer-based perspective from 1hina>, #anaging &ervice
)uality, "$K -L&, "0#-"(-.
Binsted 2.:. ("##*6 D@he service e9perience in two culturesK a behavioural perspective>, "ournal of %etailing,
*&K &, &&*-&0..
4avas, ?., 'enkenstein, +. and Stuhldrerier, ?. (-.."6 D3elationships between service quality and behavioral
outcomes O a study of private bank customers in ,ermany>, +he 1nternational "ournal of Ban$ #ar$eting,
--K -, "$$-"/*.
5eithaml, A.. and 'itner, +.!. (-.."6 &ervices #ar$eting: 1ntegrating Customer 3ocus across the 3irms (-nd
;dition6, 'oston, @ata +c,raw Hill.
5eithaml, A.., 'erry, <.<. and 8arasuraman, . ("##&6 D@he nature and determinants of customer e9pectation
of service>, "ournal of /cademy of #ar$eting &cience, -"("6, "-"-.
5eithaml, A.., 'erry, <.<. and 8arasuraman, . ("##06 D@he behavioral consequences of service quality>,
"ournal of #ar$eting, 0.K pril, &"-$0.
5hou, <. (-..$6 D dimension-specific analysis of performance-only measurement of service quality and
satisfaction in 1hina>s retail banking>, "ournal of &ervices #ar$eting, "(K *, /&$-/$0.
&.