Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Vol 2,
2, Issue 1 March 2014
Abstract
Measuring service quality is one of the most researched area in services marketing context.
Researchers over the past three decades have developed various measurement instruments to
measure service quality and its relationship with that of customer satisfaction leading to future
purchase intentions. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF are the two widely used instruments across the
globe by the service sector for measuring service quality. The expectations minus perception
approach by Parasuraman and others has got serious critics even though it is the most adopted
one till date. Many felt that expectations have multiple dimensions hence it is hard to measure.
Cronin and Taylor then came up with SERVPERF as they strongly believed that performance
model is more convenient in measuring service quality. Further research showcased its
superiority in terms of better reliability, convergent and discriminant validity and less bias than
SERVQUAL. Incorporation of SERVPERF in Indian service segment especially in healthcare is in its
nascent stage only. This article intends to measure the service quality determinants in a private
hospital using SERVPERF scale, both from patients and their attendants perspective. The results
show that there is no major difference in service quality perceptions between patients and their
attendants. Responsiveness, Empathy and Tangibility are the three main factors associated with
overall customer satisfaction.
Key words: Service quality, Customer satisfaction, SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, Private hospital
Introduction
Service quality as described by Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry (1988) is a global judgment
(or) attitude, relating to the superiority of the service (Urban, 2013). Managing service quality is
one of the most important tool an organization needs to posses in order to have a long term
satisfied customers (Cronin & Taylor, 1994). Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued that service
www.eecmbajournal.in
337
www.eecmbajournal.in
338
www.eecmbajournal.in
339
www.eecmbajournal.in
340
Hypothesis
1. H01: There is no significant difference in service quality perception between male and
female.
2. H02: There is no significant difference in service quality perceptions with respect to
income levels of the respondents.
3. H03: There is no significant difference in service quality perceptions with respect to
number of visits to the hospital.
4. H04: There is no significant relation between all the five service quality factors and
overall customer satisfaction.
All the statistical measures mentioned below were computed using SPSS 20.0 version. All
the following analyses are done at 5% level of significance. Hence the cutoff p value to accept
null hypothesis is .05 for all the subsequent analysis.
The reliability value of the scale items are computed using Cronbachs alpha. The Cronbachs
alpha value is .893 which is consistent with the values obtained from research using the same
scale (Narang, 2010).
www.eecmbajournal.in
341
Factor
1. Tangibility
Overall
4.13
Patients
4.18
Attendants
4.08
2. Reliability
4.08
4.06
4.11
3. Responsiveness
4.14
4.18
4.24
4. Assurance
5. Empathy
4.22
4.24
4.22
4.21
4.23
4.27
6. Customer Satisfaction
4.32
4.31
4.33
www.eecmbajournal.in
342
Levene's
Test
for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig. t
df
Sig.
Mean
Std. Error 95%
(2Difference Difference Confidence
tailed)
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
variances
2.283 .133
181
.038 -.10353
.04954
2.090
assumed
Customer
Equal
sat sum
variances
178.041 .029 -.10353
.04696
not
2.204
assumed
To identify whether there is any significant difference in perceptions of overall
.20128 .00578
.19621 .01085
customer
satisfaction between male and female respondents, Independent sample T Test was performed.
The Levens test for equality of variances is .133 which is higher than .05 (at 5% level of
significance) which states that there is inequality in variances among two groups. The p value
under equal variance not assumed is .029 which is less than .05 (at 5% level of significance). H01
is rejected. There is significant difference between male and female with respect to perceptions
of overall customer satisfaction.
H02: There is no significant difference in service quality perceptions with respect to income
levels of the respondents.
Anova Table Table: 3
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
2.600
.650
6.491
.000
Within Groups
17.824
178
.100
Total
20.424
182
www.eecmbajournal.in
343
25,001-30,000
16
<10,000
110
4.2673
10,001-15,000
15
4.3867
4.3867
15,001-20,000
22
4.4545
4.4545
20,001-25,000
20
4.5500
Sig.
.419
.302
.444
H03: There is no significant difference in service quality perceptions with respect to number of
visits to the hospital
Table: 5
Anova Table
Customer sat sum
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
.868
.217
1.975
.100
Within Groups
19.556
178
.110
Total
20.424
182
www.eecmbajournal.in
344
Correlation analysis was performed to identify the relationship between all the five factors
contributing towards service quality with that of overall customer satisfaction. All the five
correlation coefficients are positive and statistically significant at 1% level of significance.
www.eecmbajournal.in
345
346
provides the
coefficients of the Independent variables taken for the study here all the coefficients are
statistically significant at 1% level of significance. From this table the below regression equation
is framed. Overall customer satisfaction = 1.204 +.311*Responsiveness + .295* Empathy + .242
* Tangibility.
Conclusion
The incorporation of SERVPERF scale in Indian healthcare is at its nascent stage. The reliability
values shows that the scale is consistent as proven in other service sectors in India and other
healthcare sectors worldwide. This study took a 2 dimensional view of capturing the
perceptions of both the Attendants and Patients towards service quality and customer
satisfaction. The mean values of all the five factors and customer satisfaction reveals that there
is common consensus between the two groups towards the service offered. The difference in
perceptions towards customer satisfaction with respect to different income levels is mainly due
to lesser satisfaction levels with higher income groups as their expectations creeps up more.
Relation between five factors and the overall customer satisfaction is positive and further
analysis revealed that its only Responsiveness, Empathy and Tangibles that can predict the
customer satisfaction levels significantly. The overall model explains sufficient variance in the
dependent variable. Responsiveness and Empathy both handled by the nursing staff in a
healthcare organizations emerged as the two top factors in determining customer satisfaction
www.eecmbajournal.in
347
References
1. Arasli, H., & Ekiz, E. (2008). Gearing service quality into Public and private hospitals in
small islands: Empirical evidence from cyprus. International journal of Healthcare quaity
assurance , 21 (1), 8 - 23.
2. Business line. (2012, August 29). Privet sector in unicersal Healthcare inevitable:E&Y .
3. Carrillat, Carrillat, F. A., Jaramillo, F., & Muliki, J. P. (2007). The validity of SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF scales. International Journal of Indusrty Management , 472 - 490.
4. CII-Mckinsey. (December 2012). Indian Healthcare: Inspiring possibilities & Challenging
journey. CII.
5. Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. A. ( 1994). Reconciling Performance- Based and Perceptionds
minus Expectations Measurement of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing , 58 (1), 125 134.
6. Gilmore, A. (2010). Service marketing management. New delhi: Response books.
7. Irfan, S., Ijaz, A., & Farooq, M. (2012). Patients satisfaction and service quality of
hospitals in pakistan: An Empirical assesment. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research
, 870-877.
8. Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. (1997). Pragmatic Perspectives on the Measurement of
Information Systems Service Quality. MIS quaterly , 21 (2), 223 - 240.
9. Krishnan, V. (2013, March Friday 12:34). Live Mint & Wall street journal . Bigger role of
private sector in Healthcare .
10. Narang, R. (2010). Measuring percieved quality of health services in India. International
Journal of Healthcare Quality Assurance , 23 (2), 171 - 186.
www.eecmbajournal.in
348
www.eecmbajournal.in
349