ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515

EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

CUSTOMERS’ EXPERIENCES AS A FACTOR AFFECTING PERCEIVED

SERVICE QUALITY
Wiesław Urban
Bialystok Technical University, Poland, w.urban@pb.edu.pl

Abstract
This paper aims to verify if the intensiveness of prior customers’ experiences with the same services
provider and other providers affects service quality. The empirical investigation was conducted in auto
service sector. Empirical research concludes that customers’ experiences specified by lengths of relationships
with a service provider and frequency of service use do not influence whole aspects of service quality. But
there are some aspects of service quality that are affected by customers longitudinal experiences, they are:
expectations of service assurance, perceptions concerning reliability and responsiveness, and the quality gap
concerning assurance. The results also have consequences for mangers responsible of service operations.
Keywords: service quality, quality gaps, customers’ experiences, SERVQUAL.

Introduction
Nowadays economies are called economies of services because the service sector plays a significant
role in the wealth creation measured by such indicators like GDP and added value. Service sector has the
crucial meaning because it employs vast numbers of people. Therefore, the growth of service sector is
affecting positively all the economy. Many scientific works mention variety of growth factors, from many
differentiated points of view; among them quality of service and quality management analysed in the level of
enterprises seem to be potentially very interesting direction. Improving the service quality, companies might
achieve many competitive advantages, thanks to which they are winning growth and development.
Quality management was formed in the early fifties of the previous century and was considered as the
significant factor of companies’ success. Nowadays quality management is still a very appealing aspect of
management, it leads companies to sustainable development. The concept of quality management was born
in heavy industries, but in recent decades it has appeared as a very useful management approach also in
service sector. Quality in service reality has a different meaning in comparison with quality of goods. Service
quality contains significantly many more intangible elements, such elements which are much more difficult
to measure; more subjective, emerging from human relationships in the meeting of servers’ staff and
customers. Service quality is described mostly from customers’ perception point of view – so called
“perceived services quality”. In the literature output there is rather consensus that service quality is a critical
determinant of companies performance and long-term growth (Bolton & Drew, 1991; Gale, 1994). Service
quality has direct positive impact on consumers affecting their satisfaction, which afterwards leads to
customer word-of-mouth, attitudinal loyalty, and purchase intentions (Gremler & Gwinner, 2000). In service
quality there are many interesting and not clarified questions concerning how perceived service quality is
formed, this is still interesting field of research in management and marketing.
Considering how interesting and challengeable service quality formation is, it is proposed to
investigate the influence of customers’ experiences on the perceived service quality. In this paper the
assumed meaning of service quality is a gap between customers’ expectations and customers’ perception;
this meaning was originally proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985 & 1988) and still is one of the most
employed in scientific researches. The empirical investigation conducted in auto services tends to verify if
the intensiveness of prior customers’ experiences with the same services provider, and other providers from
the same sector, affects in any way service quality. Variety of components of service quality are considered
while investigating the role of customers’ experiences: expectations level, quality perception, quality gap.
Before the presentation of empirical data and its discussion, the literature output concerning service quality
gap concept and factors affecting service quality will be critically analysed.

Service quality as a gap

Service quality is the notion that might be understood in many different ways. Mostly how researchers
and practitioners understand this notion depends on (1) which aspect of service product the authors’ attention
is focused on, (2) what the assumptions concerning customers are and (3) for what kind of management
purpose the definition of service quality is created (Urban, 2007). One of the most known and most cited

820
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

meanings of service quality is service quality as a gap between customers’ expectations and customers’
perceptions. The service gap concept was proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985) along with a detailed
approach to measure this concept called SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1998). During the last twenty
years service quality as a gap and SERVQUAL as a method for its measurement widely spread, which
became a standard in measuring service quality (DeMoranville & Bienstock, 2003). Service quality as a gap
is also called as disconfirmation model because it bases on the fact that service quality is often worse than it
was expected by customers (Urban, 2009).
Originally SERVQUAL proposed to define service quality gap in five dimensions, the authors
achieved them starting with ten dimensions. These five dimensions enclose all the attributes of service
quality gap. The mentioned dimensions are as follows (Parasuraman et al., 1998):
• Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel.
• Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
• Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
• Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence.
• Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the firm provides for its customers.
During the purification process authors eliminate many additional dimensions by combining them into
the five ones listed above. There had been quality attributes like: credibility, security, competence, courtesy,
understanding/knowing customers, and access.
Many followers proposed further developments of quality gap attributes, mostly the proposals were
starting from original five dimensions and proposed the adjusted dimensions concerning particular service
sectors. For example, in banking services a set of attributes was developed (Avkiran, 1994) which contains
four dimensions, which noticeably differs from original one, they are: staff conduct, credibility,
communication, access to teller services. There are almost hundreds of different proposals in the literature
output developed in specific conditions. The wide variety of modifications of original quality gap
measurement instrument have brought many evaluations which are not identical. The opinions concerning
quality gap and SERVQUAL are either positive and supportive, or point out problems connected with these
concept. First of all, many continuators proposed developed service quality dimensions (attributes), in this
way the universality of the original five was questioned, directly or indirectly. Some researchers concluded
that the original quality gap dimensions are improper description of services quality (Carman, 1990; Smith,
1995; Sureshchandar et al., 2001; Morrison, 2004). But, on the other hand, many authors state that
SERVQUAL is the best-known and leading measurement’s instrument, it is universal and widely used by
academics and managers in variety of industrial, commercial and not-for-profit settings (Bahia & Nantel,
2000; Sachdev & Verma, 2004; Chiu, 2002).
We should consider many doubts concerning service quality gap concept. There are problems in the
estimation of customers’ expectations (Morrison Coulthard, 2004), especially because usually customers
expect more than they get (Rosen et al., 2003). Many empirical research projects and theoretical deductions
show that due to limitations of SERVQUAL the more efficient is the measurement of only perception of
quality (Carman, 1990; Cronin & Taylor Cronin, 1992; McAlexander et al., 1994; Jain & Gupta, 2004;
Jayawardhena, 2004). There is also the opinion that gap measurement is better than exclusively perception
measurement (Elliott, 1994), but this opinion is rather in minority. Apart from the doubts concerning quality
evaluation by disconfirming it, there are also doubts referring to the gap calculation method (Teas, 1993).
Moreover, authors mention that disconfirmation measurement provides limited hints how to improve service
quality (Taylor & Cronin, 1994; Oppewal & Vriens, 2000; Morrison Coulthard, 2004).
The question if it is better to measure the gap or only one side of the quality gap - only customers’
perception of service quality - is widely discussed by academics; it appears as interesting from theoretical
point of view, but not significant in practical utilisation. According to research conducted by Urban (2009)
the most surprising observation from empirical investigation in service sector concerning SERVQUAL
utilisation is that the most discussed method in the literature appears to be less applicable in management
practice. Practitioners are willing to employ quality measurement models and methods that are simpler in
practical utilisation; measuring separately expectations and perceptions the research questionnaire and time
of interviews are doubled. The gap model seems to be not attractive from business application point of view
(Urban, 2009). Despite the wide discussion and many doubts, for this study the gap concept was chosen.
There are strong arguments for gaps approach utilisation. First of all, it is tended to recognise exhaustively
how customers prior experiences influence the quality, the gap model allows investigate it widely. The
research objectives form the theoretical questions, basing on gap approach, hopefully, it brings more light on

821
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

understanding how the service quality is being formed, considering also the role of customers expectations.
Continuing the literature critique some observations concerning service quality formation will be provided.

How service quality is formed?

The classic explanation of this fundamental question “how service quality is formed?” comes from the
five service quality gaps model (Parasuraman et al., 1985). According to it customer quality gap is formed
directly by five factors: (1) word-of-mouth communications, (2) personal needs, (3) past experiences, (4) the
service product content, and (5) external communications of a service provider with customers (Zeithaml et
al., 1990). The first three and the fifth factor influence customer’s expectations, whereas the fourth one
forms quality perception. Altogether the five factors form perceived service quality. The service product
factor is widely discussed in service quality literature output, especially attributes of service quality focus
researchers attentions, as it mentioned above, authors test existing and propose new sets of service quality
attributes. Other factors, except customers’ experiences, are relatively well researched in relation to service
quality. Word-of-mouth is often investigated as an effect of service quality (Yavas et al., 2004; Swanson &
Davis, 2003); they are lead to repurchase behaviours being significant element of pre-purchase evaluation of
services (Sweeney et al., 2008; Dean & Lang, 2008; Murray, 1991). It is not questionable that they strongly
affect customers’ expectations. Customer needs and company outer communication are the fundaments of
marketing, they are researched in thousands of means.
The role of experiences as service quality predicator is not exhaustively explained, there is a
noticeable lack of research of customers’ experiences in this context. Customers service consumption
experiences might essentially affect what customers expect next time and from other service providers.
According to longitudinal study predictive expectations were higher following a positive experience and
remained relatively stable following a negative experience (Tam, 2005). It is expectable that duration of the
constant consumption of particular service might have an influence on how customers perceived this
particular service and what they expect from it, and similarly the frequency of particular service
consumption. Prior research suggests that people as customers learn to cope with newly perceived marketers
tactics gradually over time (Friestad & Wright, 1994), it might be expected as well that they remember and
learn from service experiences during a service process. Therefore, it is interesting what, in service quality
formation, the role of the length of cooperation with one service provider, or the frequency of consumption
is? As well as what is the influence of how intensively a customer consumes other competitive services? It is
expected that there is the influence of mentioned aspects on the customers’ expectations, as well as on
customers’ service perceptions, and finally on overall service quality.
Quality guru Bo Edvardsson states that customers experiences are not stressed enough either in
scientific research or in the business sphere, considering that the full discovering of the role of customer
experiences is the future of services (Edvardsson, 2005). According to him an experience means the service
encounter and/or service process that create the customer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses
in customers memories and stay on them for relatively long time. He also mentions that customers’
experiences will have a strong impact on customers’ quality perceptions (Edvardsson, 2005). Edvardsson
notices that some first class companies (like Ikea and Volvo) design service components to physical products
stressing experience-based quality, physical products become platforms for service experiences.

Research method
In this study the survey method is employed. The standard SERVQUAL tool (Parasuraman et. al
1988) was slightly modified for the purpose of auto repair and check-up services peculiarity. The 22
questions concerning customers’ expectations and similar 22 concerning perceptions was broadened by a few
questions focused on the previous customer experiences in the car services. The added questions concern: the
length of using this particular car service, the frequency of the use of this service, and the frequency of the
use of other competitive providers serving similar services.
The SERVQUAL questions are assessed by clients in the seven-points Likert scale, alike additional
questions. One authorised car service of the first league automotive brand was chosen for empirical
investigation. 72 reliable questionnaires were gathered, they were fulfilled in direct interviews. The help of a
field researcher who works for the mentioned car service was priceless (sincere thanks to Mr. Zalewski). The
empirical data was statistically analysed, namely the statistically significant relationships between variables
were identified. The software Statistica 9.0 was utilised.

822
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

Carrillat et al. (2007) researched the validation of SERVQUAL instrument across different service
industries. Their achievement leads to the conclusion that quality gap construct is highly appropriate for
services called “service shops”; they are services with intermediate level of customization and judgement
from service employees, where value added is generated in both the back and front offices. The research
object is included in this kind of services. It is a proper choice for research the quality gap and factors that
forms it.

Findings and discussion

At the beginning typical SERVQUAL indicators will be shortly analysed. Quality gaps in whole
quality dimensions were calculated by subtracting expectations from perception for each item and average
them, the overall service quality index is obtained as the average. The results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. SERVQUAL results

Mean SD
QGTangibles -0.83 1.18
QGReliability -0.77 1.07
QGResponsiveness -0.6 0.94
QGAssurance -0.72 0.84
QGEmpathy -0.78 0.89
QGOverall -0.74 0.78

According to the results, the overall service quality gap index equals -0.74, the highest gap is
identified in the dimension tangibles -0.83 with the bigger standard deviation. It might be considered that
according to researched customers the physical facilities and equipment and staff appearance bring the
biggest discrepancy between expectation and perception. Indeed the service spot is located in the industrial
part of town having relatively old and worn-out facilities. Results between variables do not differ much, the
interval between the highest and lowest scored variables is 0.23. The lowest dimension is responsiveness, the
willingness of service staff to provide responsive and helpful service. The objective of the study is the
investigation of the influence of experiences on the service quality. For this purpose the three additional
questions were asked in the questionnaire:
A: How long have you used the service provided by company “X” (“Lengths”)?
B: How frequently have you used the service provided by company “X” in the last few years
(“Frequency”)?
C: How frequently have you used the services provided by other companies in the same service sector
(“Others Frequency”)?
For these variables the statistical relationships were calculated using statistical software. All variables
from which the quality gap index is composed were taken into consideration. Evaluating the strength of
relationships the correlation coefficients Gamma and Kendall Tau were calculated, which are proper for such
kind of variables and sample size (Nonparametric Statistics, 2010). All quality dimensions were considered
as expected (prefix Exp) and perceived (prefix Perc), as well as the gap (prefix QG) between them.
Unexpectedly the statistical significant relationships were identified between merely few pairs of variables.
There were expected more significant relationships between more measured variables, but the results show
that only a few of them depend on experiences. Relationships with the overall service quality index are not
significant. All significant relationships are shown in Table 2.
The lack of statistical significant relationship between variables concerning experiences and overall
quality index do not decide that there is no influence of customers experiences on service quality. According
to the data presented in Table 2, there is an influence of some variables of customers’ experiences on
customers’ expectations. The expectations concerning assurance are under the influence of the lengths of
cooperation with a service provider and the frequency of use. The correlation coefficients are negatives,
therefore, it is concluded that the longer period of cooperation and higher frequency of use, the lower the
expectations are. This is a really peculiar conclusion. We must consider that assurance in SERVQUAL
mostly consists of trust to companies’ employees, customers feeling of confidence, politeness and adequate
support for customers. The reliable explanation of this relationship bases on the trust to service provider and
to providers staff. Being trustful customers expect less than new customers and those that come more

823
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

seldom. It might be paraphrased that a customer knows her/him “enemy”, and she/he prefers well known
“enemy” than an unknown one. Simultaneously the higher frequency leads to higher quality assessment in
the variable assurance; the correlation coefficient is negative, so the quality gap is lower. Finally, we might
consider that experiences with the same service provider lead to better perceived service quality in the
dimension assurance, and this is achieved by lower expectations from current service provider.

Table 2. Correlation coefficients

N Gamma Z p
PercReliability & OthersFrequency 72 0.198171 2.16620 0.030296
PercResponsiveness & Lengths 72 0.264065 2.88661 0.003894
PercResponsiveness & Frequency 72 0.196850 2.11287 0.034612
ExpAssurance & Lengths 72 -0.298507 -2.94853 0.003193
ExpAssurance & Frequency 72 -0.330346 -3.22332 0.001267
QGAssurance & Frequency 72 -0.207188 -2.21635 0.026667
N Kendall Tau Z P
PercReliability & OthersFrequency 72 0.174337 2.16620 0.030296
PercResponsiveness & Lengths 72 0.232317 2.88661 0.003894
PercResponsiveness & Frequency 72 0.170045 2.11287 0.034612
ExpAssurance & Lengths 72 -0.237300 -2.94853 0.003193
ExpAssurance & Frequency 72 -0.259415 -3.22332 0.001267
QGAssurance & Frequency 72 -0.178373 -2.21635 0.026667

Not only is the dimension assurance affected by customers’ experiences, but also the others: reliability
and responsiveness, however, only the influence on the perceptions is noticed. The perception of reliability is
in the connection with frequency of the use of other competitive services. Reliability seems to be the only
quality dimensions that are compared to competitive services by customers. According to SERVQUAL, the
reliability dimension mostly encloses fulfilment of promises that are given to clients, also dependability of
service provider, as well as kindness and order in records. These aspects of services mostly are compared by
customers with other providers. In the researched service the relationship is positive. It means that customers
who use competitive services more frequently, evaluate the researched services better. The level of reliability
is higher than in competitors’ services, it is not unforeseen, as it is the car services of prestigious automotive
brand. If it was the opposite, the correlations coefficients would be negative.
Finally, according to correlation analysis customers’ experiences affects another quality dimension -
responsiveness. Responsiveness depends on the length of customers use of a service and its frequency. The
longer customers use a service, the more frequently they perceive a service better in terms of providing
prompt service, and staff are willing to be helpful and responsive to customers’ requests. It surely bases on
the fact that both sides of service become more familiar with each other; after a few visits of customers
service staff start to know them and their preferences, so they could provide the exact service as needed. This
influence of experiences on responsiveness explains the learning process of both sides relatively well, but
mostly service staff, knowing a client better, could behave in a more responsive way.

others
lengths frequency
frequency

e
x q p
tangibles tangibles
p u e
e a r
reliability reliability
c l c
t i e
responsiveness responsiveness p
a t
t y t
i assurance assurance i
o g o
n empathy a empathy n
s p s

Figure 1. Influence of experiences on service quality

824
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

Recapitulating empirical research achievements, it should be considered that customers’ experiences

specified by lengths of relationships with a service company and frequency of service use, including other
services provided by competitors, do not influence all aspects of service quality implied as quality gaps
(Figure 1). But there are some aspects of service quality that are affected by customers longitudinal
experiences with a particular kind of services; they are: expectations of assurance level, perceptions
concerning reliability and responsiveness; and finally experiences affecting the quality gap concerning
assurance. Plus and minus signs in the correlation analysis prove that experiences have positive influence on
service quality ingredients. There is a reduction of service gap size, as well as experiences reduce customers’
expectations, which is definitely positive influence.

Conclusions
First of all companies might take advantage of identified dependences. Two out of five dimensions of
service quality are entirely independent from customers experiences, they are tangibles and empathy. The
conclusions for managers is that in these aspects of service quality customers need new impressions each
time, and existing clients expect the same as new clients. Especially empathy is the field that brings many
potential moments of true (moments of magic) for all customers equally. It seems that loyal customers
(behavioural loyalty) expect lower level of service assurance because they trust service provider more.
Service providers should consider this fact while redefining service encounter; namely, thanks to this
observations, special attention might be redirected from loyal clients to new clients. Reliability is the special
field of benchmarking with competitive services, because this dimension remains in relationship with the use
of service provided by others. And finally, responsiveness appears to be particularly tied to personal
relationships, therefore, very sensitive to improper human resources policy by a company, especially some
particular situations like rapid staff exchange.

Limitations of this study

This study undoubtedly has many limitations. The serious one is the size of research sample, only 72
customers, which is acceptable, however, a bigger one would definitely be better. During the research it was
realised that car services of the prestigious automotive brand serving for superior market segment have
relatively many loyal clients, who repurchase the service systematically. This fact might have an influence
on achieved results. The research was conducted only in one service sector, thus it is interesting if the same
dependences would be found in other sectors.
References
1. Avkiran, N. K. (1994). Developing an Instrument to Measure Customer Service Quality in Branch Banking.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 6, 10-18.
2. Bahia, K., & Nantel, J. (2000). A reliable and valid measurement scale for the perceived service quality of banks.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 Issue 2/3, 84-92.
3. Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value.
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, 375-84.
4. Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 66 Issue 1, 33-55.
5. Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 66 Issue 1, 33-55.
6. Carrillat, F. A., Jaramillo, F., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). The validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales. A
meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, 472-490.
7. Chiu, H-C. (2002). A study on the cognitive and affective components of service quality. Total Quality
Management, Vol. 13 Issue 2, 265-274.
8. Cronin, J. J, & Taylor Cronin, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of
Marketing, 1992, Vol. 56 Issue 3, pp. 55-69.
9. Dean, D. H., & Lang, J. M. (2008). Comparing three signals of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.
22 Issue 1, 8–58.
10. DeMoranville, C. W., & Bienstock, C.C. (2003). Question order effects in measuring service quality. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 217–231.

825
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15

11. Edvardsson, B. (2005). GURU’S VIEW. Service quality: beyond cognitive assessment. Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 15 No. 2, 2005, 127-131.
12. Elliott, K. M. (1994). Servperf Versus Servqual: A Marketing Management Dilemma When Assessing Service
Quality. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 4 Issue 2, 56-61.
13. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts.
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1-9.
14. Gale, B. T. (1994). Managing Customer Value: Creating Quality and Service that Customers can See. New York:
The Free Press.
15. Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, 82-104.
16. Jain S. K., & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF Scales. Vikalpa: The
Journal for Decision Makers, Vol. 29 Issue 2, 25-37.
17. Jayawardhena, C. (2004). Measurement of Service Quality in Internet Banking: The Development of an Instrument.
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Issue 1/2, 185-207.
18. McAlexander, J. H., Kaldenburg, D., & Koenig, H. (1994). Service Quality Measurement. Journal of Health Care
Marketing, Vol. 14 Issue 3, 34-39.
19. Morrison Coulthard, L. J. (2004). Measuring service quality. International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 46
Issue 4, 479-497.
20. Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 1, 10-25.
21. Nonparametric Statistics (2010). StatSoft Electronic Statistics Textbook. Available at http://statsoft.com [accessed
in January 2010].
22. Oppewal, H. & Vriens, M. (2000). Measuring perceived service quality using integrated con-joint experiments.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 Issue 4/5, 154-170.
23. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 Issue 1, 12-40.
24. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
25. Rosen, D. L., Karwan, K. R., & Scribner, L. L. (2003). Service quality measurement and the disconfirmation
model: taking care in interpretation. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 Issue 1, 3-15.
26. Sachdev, S. B., & Verma, H. V. (2004). Relative importance of service quality dimensions: a multisectoral study.
Journal of Services Research, Vol. 4 Issue 1, 93-116.
27. Smith, A. M. (1995). Measuring service quality: Is SERVQUAL now redundant? Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 11 Issue 1-3, 257–276.
28. Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2001). Customer perceptions of service quality: A
critique. Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 Issue 1, 111-124.
29. Swanson, S. R., & Davis J. C. (2003). The relationship of differential with perceived quality and behavioral
intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 Issue 2, 202-219.
30. Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2008). Factors influencing word of mouth effectiveness: receiver
perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 3/4, 344-364.
31. Tam, J. L. M. (2005). Examining the dynamics of consumer expectations in a Chinese context. Journal of Business
Research, 58, 777-786.
32. Taylor, S. A., & Cronin, J. J. Jr. (1994). Modeling Patient Satisfaction and Service Quality. Journal of Health Care
Marketing, Vol. 14 Issue 1, 34-44.
33. Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers' perceptions of quality. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 Issue 4, 18-35.
34. Urban, W. (2007). Definicje jakości usług - różnice oraz ich przyczyny. Problemy Jakości, 3, 4-9.
35. Urban, W. (2009). Service Quality Evaluation Methods - State and Outlook. In Leipziger Beiträge zur
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 1st International Symposium on Services Science: ISSS’09, March 23-25, Leipzig,
Germany, 5, 125-136.
36. Yavas, U., Benkenstein, M., & Stuhldreier, U. (2004). Relationships between service quality and behavioral
outcomes: A study of private bank customers in Germany. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 2, 144-157.
37. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service. Balancing Customer
Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free Press.

826
Copyright of Economics & Management is the property of Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of
Economics & Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.