A STUDY OF SERVICE QUALITY OF STOCKBROKERS IN

MAURITIUS USING A MULTI-EXPECTATIONS APPROACH

Rooma Roshnee Ramsaran-Fowdar, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law and Management,
University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius. rooma@uom.ac.mu

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to develop a measure for service quality for the stockbroking
industry. Another purpose is to test a model that depicts a relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction. Using a self-administered questionnaire, data was
collected from investors in Mauritius. It was concluded that a modified SERVQUAL
scale was necessary for the stockbroking industry in Mauritius.

Keyword: service quality, customer satisfaction, stockbrokerage industry.

INTRODUCTION

The stockbroking industry is a service-oriented industry where brokers act as agents for
investors when a security is bought or sold and are compensated with a commission.
Investors would not hesitate to switch to alternative brokerage houses if they do not
obtain satisfaction. Providing quality service and hence customer satisfaction should thus
be recognised as a key strategy and a crucial element of long-run success and profitability
for stockbroking businesses.

Little has been done towards understanding the expectations investors hold from their
stockbrokers. Since expectations serve as benchmark to gauge the service level of
brokers, the delivery of services that exceed customer expectations is one strategy that
can give firms a competitive advantage (Rudie and Wansley, 1985; Thompson, DeSouze
and Gale, 1985). Therefore, it would seem beneficial for stockbrokerage firms, in a
dynamic economic environment like Mauritius, to have a measurement scale to examine
service quality of stockbrokers.

In addition, stockbrokers have much to gain in understanding investors’ expectations of

them, as this would help the stockbrokers to serve their customers better and foster long-
lasting relationship with their customers. Very few studies have examined the service
expectations investors hold from their stockbrokers. This study therefore aims to provide
a multi-expectations framework to stockbroking services providers. This information
would be useful for those who would like to control and improve the performance of their
service.

Accordingly, there are four main objectives of this research effort. The first objective is
to gauge the applicability of the SERVQUAL instrument to the stockbroking industry and
to test if additional dimensions are important. The second objective sought is to examine
the relationships between service levels, the Measure of Service Adequacy and the

1
Measure of Service Superiority and the satisfaction level of investors. The third objective
sought is to contribute to the theoretical and methodological advancement of the zone of
tolerance framework in the service quality literature.

Literature Review

Service Quality

Quality is the cornerstone for success in any business and is perceived as a key factor in
acquiring and sustaining competitive advantage (Hampton, 1993; Shearden, 1988).
Providing service quality improves satisfaction of customers and this is believed to lead
to favourable behavioural intentions and to ultimately affect business success (Iacobucci,
Grayson and Ostrom, 1994). Establishing service quality may be the only way of
differentiating oneself. That is why many existing businesses are using enhanced service
quality to position them more competitively both domestically and globally (Parasuraman
et al., 1988; Brown and Swartz, 1989).

The most widely accepted measurement scale for service quality is the SERVQUAL
instrument developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (PZB) (1988). They define
service quality as the “difference between what a service company should offer and what
it actually offers” or the discrepancy between expectations and perceptions of the service
performance.

To measure customer satisfaction with different aspects of service quality, Parasuraman,

Zeithaml and Berry (1988) developed a survey research instrument called SERVQUAL.
It is based on the premise that customers can evaluate a firm’s service quality by
comparing their perceptions of its service with their expectations. Since its inception, the
SERVQUAL has been seen as a generic measurement tool by both academics and
practitioners, which can be applied across a broad spectrum of service industries. The
SERVQUAL instrument is based on five service quality dimensions that include
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000)
and they provide the basic “skeleton” underlying service quality, which is represented as
a multidimensional construct.

Despite its widespread use in many service industries, SERVQUAL has been subject to
several criticisms on conceptual and methodological grounds (Babakus and Mangold,
1989; Brown, Churchill and Peter, 1993; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Spreng
and Singh, 1993; Teas, 1993 a, b). One of these criticisms is the inappropriateness of
SERVQUAL as a generic measure for all service settings. Replication studies done by
other investigators failed to support the five-dimensional factor structure as was obtained
by PZB (1988) and PBZ (1991) in their development of SERVQUAL. For example,
McDougall and Levesque’s study (1994) revealed only three underlying dimensions of
service quality: tangibles, contractual performance (outcome) and customer-employee
relationships (process). Other studies have indicated the possibility of two (Babakus and

2
Boller, 1992 – in a public utility sector) to nine (Carman, 1990 – in a dental school
patient) distinct dimensions underlying the service quality construct. Because some
determinants of perceived service quality are generic while others are industry- or
situation-specific, Babakus and Mangold (1989) argue that the instability of the
dimensionality of SERVQUAL is probably due to the type of service sector under
investigation. PBZ (1993) agree though that the five dimensional structure of service
quality remains in doubt and should be further researched.

To evaluate the stability of the five underlying dimensions when applied to a variety of
different service industries, Mels, Boshoff and Nel (1997) analysed data sets from banks,
insurance brokers, vehicle repair shops, electrical repair shops and life insurance firms.
Their findings suggest that in reality, SERVQUAL difference scores measure only two
factors: intrinsic service quality (resembling what Gröonroos (1982) termed functional
quality) and extrinsic service quality (which refers to the tangible aspects of service
delivery and “resembles to some extent what Gröonroos (1982) refers to as technical
quality”). In another study, Lam and Woo (1997) found that the SERVQUAL scale was
not stable over time, as revealed by insignificant correlations between test scores and
retest scores. Although scores on items in the expectation battery remained fairly stable
over time, the performance items were subject to instability even in a one-week test-retest
interval.

These findings do not undermine the value of Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman’s
achievement in identifying some of the key underlying constructs in service quality, but
they do highlight the difficulty of measuring customer perceptions of quality. Smith
(1995) notes that the majority of researchers using SERVQUAL have omitted from,
added to, or altered the list of statements purporting to measure of service quality.

In their popular framework for measuring service quality, PZB (1988) used a single
expectation standard, desired expectations as a comparison against which service
performance is assessed. Recently, researchers have proposed that multi-expectations
standard approaches may be more appropriate in service quality models (Boulding et al.,
1993; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1993).

This model proposes that service expectations can be separated into an adequate standard
and a desired standard (ZBP, 1993). A ‘zone of tolerance’ lies between these two levels
of expectations and represents a range of performance that the service consumer
considers acceptable. It also illustrates the difference between perceived service and
desired service known as the Measure of Service Superiority (MSS) and the difference
between perceived service and adequate service labelled as the Measure of Service
Adequacy (MSA). This framework not only provides a better comprehension of the
multiple expectations that consumers use in evaluating services but also gives the
opportunity to practitioners to optimise resource allocations when attempting to
meet/exceed customer expectations (Walker and Baker, 2000).

However, existing research on the multi-expectations standards of consumers, zone of

tolerance, MSS and MSA is relatively in the exploratory stage in empirical investigations

3
and a number of consumer, situational and other firm specific factors have yet to be
empirically tested.

Customer Satisfaction

The concept of customer satisfaction has been used by consumer behaviour and
marketing researchers. Researchers consider customer satisfaction as a part of consumer
behaviour whereas practitioners treat it as a focal point for designing successful
marketing strategies. The majority of approaches view customer satisfaction as a
cognitive process (Bloemer and Poiesz, 1989). The widespread approach to the
definition of customer satisfaction is therefore that it is “the accumulated experience of a
customer’s purchase and consumption experiences” (Andreassen, 1995). Klaus (1985)
defines satisfaction as “the customer’s subjective evaluation of a consumption experience
based on some relationship between the customer’s perceptions and objective attributes
of the product”. Thus, customer satisfaction is treated as an “abstract and theoretical
phenomenon, it can be measured as a weighted average of multiple indicators” (Johnson
and Fornell, 1991, in Andreassen, 1995).

“Satisfaction is a person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment resulting from

comparing a product’s perceived performance (or outcome) in relation to his or her
expectation” (Kotler, 2001). As this definition makes it clear, satisfaction is a function of
perceived performance and expectations. If the performance falls short of expectations,
the customer is dissatisfied. If the performance matches the expectations, the customer is
satisfied. If the performance exceeds expectations, the customer is highly satisfied or
delighted. Despite the fact that the definition varies, the common factor is that
satisfaction is a post-consumption evaluative judgement (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991).

Satisfaction is believed to strengthen beliefs and attitudes whereas dissatisfaction may

create negative beliefs and attitude towards the object (Assael, 1987). A revised attitude
appears as a result of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the experience (Mayo and Jarvis,
1981; Oliver, 1981; Moutinho, 1987). The result would be an increase or decrease in the
likelihood of repeat business for the investment. Moreover, the intensity of an attitude
may influence the level of satisfaction with an object. In other words, if the attitude is
positive, satisfaction results. Similarly, dissatisfaction is expected when the attitude is
negative. As such, as stated earlier, satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a previous
experience is crucial because it may affect expectations for the next purchase (Westbrook
and Newman, 1978). The next difference could be that attitude formation does not
require any direct experience with the object, but satisfaction or dissatisfaction is a direct
result of experience.

In the same line of thought, satisfaction can be defined as an attitude-like judgement

following a purchase act or series of consumer-product interactions (Lovelock, 2001).
Most studies are based on the theory that the confirmation or disconfirmation of pre-
consumption product standards is the essential determinants of satisfaction. So, in a
service context, the model argues that customers have certain service standards in mind
prior to consumption (their expectations), observe service performance and compare it

4
with their standards, and then form satisfaction judgements based on this comparison.
The resulting judgement is labelled negative disconfirmation if the service is worse than
expected, which results in customer dissatisfaction and may lead to negative word of
mouth publicity and/or customer defection. In contrast, a positive disconfirmation exists
if service is better than expected, thereby resulting in customer satisfaction, positive word
of mouth publicity and customer retention (Hoffman and Bateson, 1997). A simple
confirmation occurs if service is as expected. When there is substantial positive
disconfirmation plus pleasure and an element of surprise, then customers are likely to be
delighted.

Research Hypotheses

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) identified a set of comprehensive service

attributes that could be used to measure service performance. Subsequently,
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988), further refined these attributes and constructed
SERVQUAL, a scale of 22 items along five dimensions: tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance and empathy as a generic measure for service quality. Despite
being widely recognised, researchers (Babakus and Mangold, 1989; Cronin and Taylor,
1992, 1994; Teas, 1993a, 1993b; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brown, Churchill and Peter,
1993a, 1993b; Carman, 1990) held different views on SERVQUAL’s usefulness, which
resulted in uncovering several limitations and in the process, provided suggestions for
improvements. The following hypothesis is thus advanced.

H1: Not all the five dimensions of SERVQUAL are applicable to the stockbroking
industry.

It has been assumed in the review of literature that service quality is an antecedent of
customer satisfaction (Bitner, 1990; Bolton and Drew, 1991 a, b; PZB, 1988, 1994;
Zeithaml and Bitner 2000). According to Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1993),
satisfaction took place when perceived service surpassed the adequate levels of service.
However, very few studies have tested the relationship between MSS and MSA and
satisfaction. Hence, it was observed that.

H2a: There exists a positive relationship between MSA and satisfaction.

H2b: There exists a positive relationship between MSS and satisfaction.

H2c: There exists a stronger positive relationship between MSA and satisfaction than
between MSS and satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

Before the questionnaire was constructed, several in-depth interviews with investors were
conducted so as to develop an understanding of their behaviour in selling and buying

5
stocks, on their expectations from their stockbrokers. The development of the
questionnaire involved refining and measuring issues relating to service quality of
stockbrokers.

The questionnaire was basically structured – consisting of a series of 7-point itemised,

labelled, Likert type statement – to determine variations in extent, with the final
demographics section including sex, age, marital status, ethnic group occupational status,
level of education and gross monthly household income. The labelled scale was chosen
because, as Lewis (1993) recommends, the use of scale prevents the use of extreme ends.
Also, an argument raised by Babakus and Mangold (1992) suggests that such scales
minimise respondents’ frustration.

The mail survey technique was used for the purpose of the study since clients’ database
of stockbrokerage firms was confidential and the researcher could not have access to it.
Hence, it was the responsibility of participating stockbrokerage firms to mail or hand
over the questionnaire to their clients.

The survey instrument was accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope with the
university address and all these were sealed in an envelope. The data collection occurred
over a two-months period. Out of a total of 250 survey instruments, 131 duly completed
questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 52.4%.

Analysis of Findings

Among these 131 investors, 91.6% had transacted at least once through their stockbroker
in the last 1-year. On the other hand, 8.4% of the investors had not done any
transactions. 52.7% of the respondents were male investors and 47.3% were female
investors. The majority of the investors (45%) came from the age group 30-49 years old
while 26.7% were aged 18-29 years old. Most of the investors were married with
children (57.3%) and the majority of them belonged to the Hindu community (58%)
followed by the Chinese community (23.7%).

Moreover, 40.5% of the investors were holders of an undergraduate degree whereas

25.2% of them held a postgraduate degree. All respondents had gone beyond primary
level education. Most of the investors (55.7%) drew a gross monthly household income
before income taxes of below Rs 30,000 followed by those whose income ranged
between Rs 30,001 and 60,000 (39.7%) and at least 64.9% of them held administrative,
managerial, professional and executives positions in their jobs.

Interestingly, on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is ‘Low’ and 7 is ‘High’, a mean of 5.42 shows

that the stockbrokers of investors provided a rather high service quality.

Reliability tests were then performed on the satisfaction variables using Cronbach’s
(1960) coefficient alpha. The coefficient 0.9369 for ‘satisfaction’. Thus, the satisfaction
construct exhibited well over the 0.50 reliability level suggested by Nunnally (1978) as a
minimum score for acceptable reliability in pilot studies.

6
The 53 service quality items were factor analysed (Principal Components with
VARIMAX Rotation) to examine if meaningful dimensions emerged from these items.
The MSS scores used in this construct were derived by computing the difference between
perceptions and desired services. Five factors emerged from the analysis (after 4 items
were eliminated due to low factor loadings) accounting for 63.668% of the total variance.
MSA was computed from perception-minus-adequate expectations. However, no factor
extraction and rotation could be done. Hence, this operation was skipped. Factor
analysis was carried out on perceptions-only ratings and four factors emerged from the
analysis (accounting for 73.289% of the total variation) after omitting 4 items from the
analysis due to poor factor loadings and reliability results.

A comparison of the two possible formats is needed to determine which format should be
used to determine the factor structure for further analysis. Table 1 summarises the two
factor analysis results derived from MSS and Perceptions-Only scores based on the total
variation explained, eigenvalues and Cronbach alphas.

Table 1. Comparison between MSS and Perceptions-Only Score Formats

MSS Format Perceptions-Only Format
Total variance 76.360 % 81.510 %
explained
Dimensions No. Eigenvalues Cronbach No. of Eigenvalues Cronbach
of Alpha items Alpha
items
Trust/Reliability 20 10.706 0.9712
Assurance/
23 16.153 0.9194
Reliability
Assurance/ Empathy 11 7.560 0.9271
Core Stockbroking
Services/
Professionalism/ 21 12.915 0.9722
Skill &
Competence
Investment
Information/ 9 6.130 0.9428
Responsiveness
Responsiveness 4 4.849 0.8902
Leadership 8 6.117 0.8880
Empathy 2 2.020 0.7885
Relationship
2 2.236 0.6844
Building

Based on the total variance explained, the factors derived from the Perceptions-only
construct were slightly superior to the MSS score format. Comparing the eigenvalues for
the individual factors revealed that the results were relatively equivalent. The same

7
conclusion was reached when comparing the Cronbach alphas. The Perceptions-only
scores explained the item loadings in a better and sound conceptual way. Therefore, this
study will use the factors derived from the Perceptions-Only format in subsequent
analysis.

Proposed Service Quality Scale for Stockbroking Industry

Table 2 compares the service quality dimensions which will be used in this study with the
SERVQUAL dimensions proposed by PZB (1988).

Table 2: SERVQUAL Dimensions versus Service Quality Dimensions Generated

from Factor and Reliability Analyses
SERVQUAL Dimensions Service Quality Dimensions in
Stockbroking Industry
(STOCKBROKQUAL)
1. Tangibility – physical facilities,
equipment and appearance of personnel
2. Assurance – courtesy and knowledge 1. Assurance/Reliability – courtesy
of staff and their ability to inspire trust displayed by stockbrokers and their
and confidence ability to inspire trust and confidence;
3. Reliability – ability to perform the ability to perform the expected service
expected service dependably and dependably and accurately
accurately
4. Responsiveness – willingness to help 2. Responsiveness – willingness to help
customers and provide prompt service customers and provide prompt service
5. Empathy – caring, individualised 3. Empathy – caring, individualised
attention provided to customers attention provided to investors by
stockbrokers
4. Core Stockbroking Services/
Professionalism/Skill/Competence –
the central stockbroking aspects of the
service: appropriateness, effectiveness
and benefit to the investor; knowledge,
technical expertise, amount of training
and experience

On the basis of the above comparison, hypothesis H1 was therefore accepted. The
tangibility dimension of PZB did not apply to the stockbroking industry. Although some
dimensions were relatively equivalent, there was one additional dimension with high
eigenvalues and Cronbach Alphas and explaining the total variance to a large extent,
named “Core Medical Services/Professionalism/Skill and Competence” which was
obtained using factor and reliability analyses for a stockbroking setting. This new service
quality instrument was named as STOCBROKQUAL.

The Chi-Square test was used to test H2a, H2b and H2c. A significant positive relationship
was determined between overall MSA, MSS and satisfaction. The correlation was

8
significant at p<0.05 level. Therefore, H2a, H2b and H2c were strongly and positively
supported.

CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) identified a set of comprehensive service

attributes that could be used to measure service performance. The five dimensions
namely tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy were used as a
generic measure for service quality. Results from this study based on factor analysis
from Perceptions-ratings only revealed that the number of dimensions identified by PZB
were generally applicable to the stockbroking industry. However, the tangible dimension
was not applicable to the Mauritian stockbroking industry and this should be modified
from the existing SERVQUAL. Furthermore, one additional dimension was deemed
necessary to be added and it was named Core Stockbroking Services/
Professionalism/Skill/Competence.

The new scale was called STOCKBROKQUAL and contained four dimensions whereby
some attached somewhat similar meanings to the dimensions proposed by PZB. The first
dimension, Assurance/Reliability was easily identified, as its meaning was clearly
consistent with the “Assurance” and “Reliability” dimensions of the existing
SERVQUAL model and was defined as courtesy displayed by stockbrokers and their
ability to inspire trust and confidence, and the ability to perform the expected service
dependably and accurately.

The second dimension which was Responsiveness was similar to the “Responsiveness”
dimension of PZB’s SERVQUAL that is the willingness to help customers and provide
prompt service. The third dimension of Empathy, was conceptually similar to the
“Empathy” dimension of SERVQUAL, whereby the stockbrokers provided personalised
attention and care to clients. The fourth and final dimension which was added, was the
Core Stockbroking Services/ Professionalism/Skill/Competence which referred to the
central stockbroking aspects of the service: appropriateness, effectiveness and benefit to
the investor; knowledge, technical expertise, amount of training and experience. By
itself, this fourth dimension was a very outstanding indicator. Generally, these four
dimensions provided a holistic measure of the service quality of stockbrokers.

Results based on factor analysis from perceptions-ratings only provided by far the
clearest picture of a service quality scale than the results based on factor analysis from
the MSS conceptualisation. This study had also ascertained the relationship between
MSS and MSA and satisfaction. However, the zone of tolerance framework could not be
demonstrated through this study since no factor could be extracted for MSA.

There are, however, some limitations that surfaced in this study. Given that Mauritus is a
multi-racial society, the sample in this study might not be reflective of the entire investor
population. Moreover, it is quite possible that the findings will tend to be biased although
respondents participated in this study came from brokerage firms of various sizes. If we

9
keep this limitation in mind, the findings in this study are still very useful as they can
serve as research leads and thus help researchers understand various behavioural aspects
of the financial markets.

REFERENCES

Andreassen, T.W. 1995. Dissatisfaction with Public Services: The Case of Public
Transportation. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(5), 30-41.
Assael H. 1987. Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, 3rd Edition, PWS-KENT
Publishing Company Boston.
Babakus E. and Boller G.W. 1992. An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale.
Journal of Business Research, 24, 253-68.
Babakus E. and Mangold W.G. 1989. Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Health Care
Environment: An Empirical Assessment. In P. Bloom, B. Weitz, R. Winer, R.E.
Spekman, H.H. Kassarjian, V. Mahajan, D.L. Scammon and M. Leay (eds.),
AMA Summer Educators’ Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in
Marketing. American Marketing Association, IL, Chicago.
Bitner M.J. 1990. Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings
and Employee Response. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.
Bloemer J.M. and Poeisz T.B.C. 1989. The Illusion of Customer Satisfaction. Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, 2, 43-48.
Bolton R.N. and Drew J.H. 1991a. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service
Changes on Customer Attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 53, January, 1-9.
Bolton R.N. and Drew J.H. 1991b. A Multistage Model of Customers’ Assessment of
Service Quality and Value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), March, 375-
84.
Boulding W., Karla A., Staelin R. and Zeithaml V.A. 1993. A Dynamic Process Model
of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioural Intentions. Journal of
Marketing Research, 30(1), 7-27.
Brown S.W. and Swartz T.A. 1989. A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality.
Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 92-8.
Brown T.J., Churchill G.A. Jr., Peter J.P. 1993. Improving the Measurement of Service
Quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 127-39.
Carman J.M. 1990. Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the
SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, Spring, 33-55.
Cronin J.J. Jr and Taylor S.A. 1994. SERVPERF Versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling
Performance-Based and Perceptions-Minus Expectations Measurement of Service
Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125-31.
Cronin J.J. Jr and Taylor S.A. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and
Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
Gröonroos C. 1982. Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector. Swedish
School of Economic and Business Administration, Helsinki, Finland.
Hampton G.M. 1993. Gap Analysis of College Student Satisfaction as a Measure of
Professional Service Quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9(1),
15-28.

10
Hoffman K.D. and Bateson J.E.G. 1997. Essentials of Services Marketing, The Dryden
Press.
Iacobucci D., Grayson K.A. and Ostrom A.L. 1994. The Calculus of Service Quality and
Customer Satisfaction: Theoretical and Empirical Differentiation and Integration.
In T.A. Swartz, D.E. Bowen and S.W. Brown (eds.), Advances in Services
Marketing and Management, 3, 1-67, JAI Press Inc. Greenwich, CT.
Klaus P. 1985. Quality Epiphenomenon: The Conceptual Understanding of Quality in
Face-to-Face Service Encounters. In: Czepiel J.A., Solomon M.R., Suprenant
C.L. and Guttmann E.G. (eds.) The Service Encounter: Managing Employee
Customer Interaction in Service Business. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp.
17-33.
Kotler P. 2001. Marketing Management, The Millennium Edition, 10th Edition, Prentice
Hall India.
Lam S.S.K. and Woo S. 1997. Measuring Service Quality: A Test-Retest Reliability
Investigation of SERVQUAL. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39(2),
381-96.
Lewis B.R. 1993. Service Quality Measurement, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
11(4), 4-12.
Lovelock C. 2001. Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 4th Edition,
Pearson Education, Asia.
Mayo E.J. and Jarvis L.P. 1981. The Psychology of Leisure Travel: Effective Marketing
and Selling of Travel Services, CBI Publishing Company, Boston.
McDougall G.H.G. and Levesque T.J. 1994. A Revised View of Service Quality
Dimensions: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, 11(1), 189-209.
Mels G., Boshoff C. and Nel D. 1997. The Dimensions of Service Quality: The Original
European Perspective Revisited, The Service Industries Journal, 17, 173-89.
Moutinho L. 1987. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. European Journal of Marketing,
21(1), 5-44.
Nunnally J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York.
Oliver R.L. 1981. Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail
Settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25-48.
Parasuraman A., Berry L.L., Zeithaml V.A. 1991. Refinement and Reassessment of the
SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-50.
Parasuraman A., Berry L.L., Zeithaml V.A. 1993. More on Improving Service Quality
Measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 140-47.
Parasuraman A., Berry L.L., Zeithaml V.A. 1994, Reassessment of Expectations as a
Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further
Research. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-24.
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. and Berry L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item Scale
for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64,
Spring, 21-40.
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. and Berry L.L. 1985. A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-
50.

11
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. and Berry L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item Scale
for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64,
Spring, 21-40.
Rudie M.J. and Wansley B. 1985. The Merrill Lynch Quality Program. In Services
Marketing in a Changing Environmen”, Bloch T., Upah G. and Zeithaml V.A.,
Eds. Chicago: Americam Marketing Association.
Shearden W.A. 1988. Gaining the Service Quality Advantage. Journal of Business
Strategy, 9(2), pp. 45-48.
Smith A.M. 1995. Measuring Service Quality: Is SERVQUAL Now Redundant? Journal
of Marketing Management, 11(1), 257-76.
Spreng R.A. and Singh A.K. 1993. An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale
and the Relationship Between Service Quality and Satisfaction. In D.W. Cravens
and P. ickson (eds.) Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, 4, 1-6,
American Marketing Association, Chicago.
Teas R.K. 1993a. Consumer Expectations and the Measurement of Perceived Service
Quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8(2), 33-54.
Teas R.K. 1993b. Expectations, Performance, Evaluation and Consumers’ Perceptions of
Quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, pp. 18-34.
Thompson P., DeSouze G. and Gale B.T. 1985. The Strategic Management of Service
Quality. In PIMSLETTER, Cambridge: The Strategic Planning Institute.
Walker J. and Baker J. 2000. An Exploratory Study of a Multi-Expectation Framework
for Services. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 411-31.
Westbrook R.A. and Newman J.W. 1978. An Analysis of Shopper Dissatisfaction for
Major Household Appliances. Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (August), 456-
466.
Westbrook R.A. and Oliver R.L. 1991. The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion
Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91.
Yates J.F. 1990. Judgement and Decision Making, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zeithaml V.A. and Bitner M.J. 2000. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus
Across the Firm, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, USA.
Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L. and Parsuraman A. 1993. The Nature and Determinants of
Customer Expectations of Service, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
21(1), 1-12.

12