Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/253365163
CITATIONS READS
22 153
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Kallol Kumar Bagchi on 23 August 2014.
[31] and have been used in many other previous studies and root-mean-square error of approximation index
to measure the quality of web service. The items reflect (RMSEA = 0.092). Values greater than 0.9 are
ease of navigation, responsiveness, assurance, currency desirable for IFI, RFI, CFI, NFI and NNFI [3].
of information and other design qualities. Moreover, a value smaller than 0.1 is acceptable for
standardized RMSR and RMSEA [3].
Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions: Three The results show strong validity and reliability as
seven-point items (with endpoints strongly well as strong fit indices provide support for
disagree/strongly agree) were used to measure proposition P1a: In the e-business environment, the
customer satisfaction. Customer’s behavioral intentions dominant dimensions of web service quality will
were captured using three seven-point items with include: Perceived Risk, Service Convenience, and
endpoints, namely: intention to use e-service frequently; Web Site Content. The R2 value for Web Service
intention to use e-service; and intention to use e-service Quality is 0.36 while that for satisfactions is 0.86.
in the future whenever there is a need. These items are Preposition P1b: In the e-business environment,
taken from previous studies including Zhang and Perceived Risk has a significant impact on Customer
Prybutok [31] and Olorunniwo, et al. [17]. Satisfaction and behavioral Intentions, was not
supported by the results. The paths on Figure 1 are
Sample and Data Analysis: A total of 211 completed labeled with standardized regression coefficients most
questionnaires were used in the analysis. The of which are statistically significant at p < 0.05.
respondents were senior business administration According to the findings, Perceived Risk has no
students at a large public university in the southwest relationship with either satisfaction or Behavioral
US. Fifty-one percent of the students were female and Intentions. Furthermore, Perceived Risk does not
49% were males. In terms of their ages, 68.2% of the influence how e-customers perceive web service
respondents were 24 years or younger, 20.4% were quality. This result is interesting and contradictory to
between 25 and 35 years of age, and only 8.3% were some previous research and will be further discussed
older than 35 years. With respect to salaries, 82.3% later.
earned $30,000 or less per year, 9.4% earned $50,000
or less, and 8.3% earned over $50,000. In terms of Insert Figure 1 Here
online shopping frequency, 7.8% of the participants
shopped two times or less in the last year, 16.6% To test proposition P2, we constructed a
shopped about three to six times, and 75.6 % shopped conceptual model where web service quality has both a
over six times. The participants were asked if they ever direct effect (SQ Æ BI) and an indirect effect (SQ Æ
opted out of a web site during online shopping SAT Æ BI) on behavioral intentions (see Figure 1).
encounter, and 83.1% answered in the affirmative The R2 value for Behavioral Intentions is 0.92. As
while only 15.9% answered in the negative. The expected, the hypothesized paths between web service
reasons given for aborting or opting out included slow quality, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions
speed (11.9%), privacy or security (20.4%), price are all positive and significant, thus supporting the
including shipping and handling cost (28%), and other proposition P2. The standardized coefficients from web
reasons including doubts about quality, change of mind, service quality to customer satisfaction and from
payment options (19%). Table 2 provides the customer satisfaction to behavioral intentions are 0.36
correlations among the study variables. and 0.46, respectively. This highlights the important
role of customer satisfaction in the context of online
Insert Table 2 Here shoppers. The path between web service quality and
behavioral intentions is also statistically significant
To verify the dimensionality of the modified with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.25. The
items used, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implication is that although the direct effect of service
conducted. This technique provides a more rigorous quality on behavioral intentions is significant, the
interpretation of dimensionality than is provided by an indirect effect of web service quality on behavioral
exploratory factor analysis. The CALIS procedure of intentions (via customer satisfaction) seems to be
SPSS was used as the analytical tool for the estimation slightly stronger for customer behavioral intentions to
of the measurement and AMOS was used to create the use the e-service again.
structural equation models discussed below. Fit indices
included in the present study are the incremental fit
index (IFI = 0.97), relative fit index (RFI = 0.95),
comparative fit index (CFI = 0.97), normed fit index DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
(NFI = 0.96), non-normed fit index (NNFI or TLI =
0.97), root-mean-square residual index (RMSR = 0.10),
As the world economy becomes more research is also needed to verify the role of perceived
web-based, the importance of web service quality risk on web service quality, satisfaction and behavioral
research becomes more crucial. The purpose of the intentions.
present study is threefold: (1) understanding the
e-customer’s expectations or perception of web service REFERENCES
quality, (2) developing and testing an instrument that
captures the constructs of the dimensions of web 1. Agarwal, R. and Venkatesh, V. (2002),
service quality, and (3) investigating the relationship “Assessing a firm’s web presence: a heuristic
between web service quality, e-customer satisfaction evaluation procedure for the measurement of
and behavioral intentions to purchase. usability”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13,
The web service quality scale was developed and No. 2, pp. 168-186.
tested using the data from college seniors. Three 2. Al-Gahtani, S.S. and King, M. (1999) “Attitudes,
subscales were identified as first order dimensions of satisfaction and usage: factors contributing to
web service quality: ‘Service Convenience,’ ‘Perceived each in acceptance of information technology”,
Risk,’ and ‘Web Site Content.’ Service Convenience Behavioral Information Technology, Vol. 18, No.
was found to be influenced by individual PC skill 4, pp. 277-297.
differences. The more skillful the customers, the more 3. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988),
convenience they perceived the e-services to be. “Structural equation modeling in practice: a
Similarly, service convenience and content both have a review and recommended two-step approach,”
significant influence on how customers perceive web Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp.
service quality. Perceived risk did not influence web 411-423.
service quality. The findings also indicate that 4. Cho, N. and Park, S. (2001), “Development of
perceived risk did not influence either satisfaction or electronic consumer user – consumer satisfaction
behavioral intentions, contrary to traditional findings in index (ECUSI) for internet shopping,” Industrial
the literature [8, 7, 13]. It could be that improved Management and Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 8,
security mechanisms are increasingly implemented, pp. 400-5.
thus reducing the influence of perceived risk. It could 5. Cronin J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, T.M. (2000),
also be that undergraduate students perceive risk to be “Assessing the effects of quality, value, customer
less influential than practicing business professionals, satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in
or that this is a cultural belief of students of this service environment,” Journal of Retailing, Vol.
particular region of the country. More research is 76 No. 2. pp. 193-216.
needed to explore this fact. 6. Cronin, J.J., and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring
The findings indicate that while web service service quality: a reexamination and extension,”
quality is an important driver of behavioral intentions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
its indirect effect through customer satisfaction is 7. Ford, N., Miller, D. and Moss, N. (2001), “ The
equally, if not more, important in causing favorable role of individual differences in internet
behavioral intentions. The results of this study agree searching : An empirical study,” Journal of
with the service quality literature which points to the American Society of Information Science and
fact that while service quality has a significant direct Technology, Vol. 52, No. 12, pp. 1049-1066.
impact on behavioral intentions, customer satisfaction 8. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. (2003),
acting as a mediator between service quality and “Trust and TAM in online shopping”, MIS
behavioral intentions, appears to make the impact of Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 52-85.
web service quality on behavioral intentions to be 9. Gronroos, C. (1990), Service Management and
equally strong. E-Service managers need to devise Marketing, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
operations strategies that focus on the dimensions of 10. Kaiser, H.F. (1960), “The application of
service quality that enhance customer satisfaction, electronic computers to factor analysis,”
which in turn can lead to positive behavioral intentions. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Some limitations of this study include the use of Vol. 20, pp. 141-151.
students for survey data collection, and non-use of web 11. Kim, M., Kim, J. and Lennon, S.J. (2006),
service typology. Further empirical research is needed “Online service attributes available on apparel
to investigate the effect of service quality construct on retail web sites: an E-S-QUAL approach,”
the web service quality and its relationship with Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16, No. 1,
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. The pp.51-77.
present study concludes the insignificant role of 12. Koernig, S.K. (2003), “E-scapes: the electronic
perceived risk which seems illogical. Additional physical environment and service tangibility”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No.2, 24. Sanchez –Franco, M.J. and Roldan, J.L. (2005),
pp.157-67. “Web acceptance and usage Model”, Internet
13. Liebermann, Y. and Stashevsky, S. (2002), Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 21-48.
“Perceived risks as barriers to internet and 25. Santos, J. (2003), “E-service quality – a model of
e-commerce usage,” Qualitative Market Research: virtual service dimensions”, Internet Research,
An international Journal, Vol. 5, No.4, pp. Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 21-48.
291-300. 26. Wolfinbarger, M.F. and Gilly, M.C. (2001),
14. Lociacono, E., Watson, R.T. and Goodhue, “Shopping online for freedom, control and fun”,
“WebQual: measure of web site quality”, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 2,
Marketing Educators Conference: Marketing pp. 34-55.
Theory and Applications, Vol. 13, pp. 432-437. 27. Yang, Z., Peterson, R.T. and L. Huang, L. (2001),
15. Montoya-Weiss, M., Voss, G. and Grewall, D. "Taking the Pulse of Internet Pharmacies."
(2003), “Determinants of online channel use and Marketing Health Services, Summer, pp. 5-10.
overall satisfaction with a relational multichannel 28. Yoo, B. and Donth, N. (2001), “Developing a
service provider”, Journal of the Academy of scale to measure perceived quality of an Internet
Marketing Science, Vol.31 No.4, pp. 448-58. shopping site (SITEQUAL)”, Quarterly Journal
16. Nitse, P., Parker K., Krumwiede, D. and Ottaway, of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 31-46.
T. (2004), “The impact of color in the ecommerce 29. Zeithaml, V.A. (2002), “Service excellent in
marketing of fashions: an exploratory study,” electronic channels”, Managing Service Quality,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 135-138.
pp. 898-915. 30. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A.
17. Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. and Udo, G.J. (2006), (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
“Service quality, customer satisfaction, and quality,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2.
behavioral intentions in the service factory”, (April) pp. 31 – 46.
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 31. Zhang, X. and Prybutok, V.R. (2005), “A
59-72. consumer perspective of e-service quality”, IEEE
18. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.
(1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for 52, No.4, pp. 461-477.
measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 (Spring),
pp. 12-40.
19. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.
(1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality:
implications for further research,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58. pp. 111-124
20. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A.
(2005), “ES-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of
Science Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 213-234.
21. Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of
electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk
with the technology acceptance model,”
International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 101-134.
22. Rowley, J. (2006), “An analysis of the e-service
literature: towards a research agenda,” Internet
Research, Vol.16, No. 3, pp. 339-359.
23. Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), “Service
quality: insights and managerial implications
from the Frontier”, in : Rust R.T., Oliver R.L.
editors: Service Quality: New Directions in
Theory and Practice, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA; pp 72-94.
.81*
V4
.68* Perceived
V5 Risk
.84*
V6
.87*
V7
V12
V11
.05
.57*
.68* BI1 BI2 BI3
V14
.59* -.08
V15 -.001 .80* .67*
.76* .88*
V16 Web Service
.87* .64* Quality .25*
V17 Behavioral
Intentions
.88* .55* .36* .46*
V18 Web Site .74*
Content
.50* V13 Satisfaction
V19
.34 .23*
V20 .77*
.81* .81* .76*
.86*
V8 Service
.84* Convenience SA1 SA2 SA3
V9
.71*
V10
V1
.54* .14* *Indicates significance at p < .05 level
V2 .36*
Low____________________High
Perceived Risk
V4. I worry about credit card information being stolen.
V5. I worry about the product quality on the Internet.
V6. I worry about safe transaction on line.
V7. I worry about how my personal information might be used when I buy online.
Convenience of Service
V8.Using the Internet makes it easier for me to shop.
V9. Online shopping is convenient.
V10. Shopping on line saves time compared to going to traditional store.
Customer Satisfaction
SA1. I am satisfied with my previous online shopping experience.
SA2. Online shopping is a pleasant experience.
SA3. Overall, I am satisfied with my e-service experience.
Behavioral Intentions
B11. I intend to use e-service frequently.
B12. I intend to use e-service.
Table 2.
The Correlation matrix for all exogenous and endogenous variables