IIMT-SQ Fast Food - 4 -Article - Feb 28 -05

8/11/2019 IIMT-SQ Fast Food - 4 -Article - Feb 28 -05

1/30

SEARCHING FOR CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS: A DIMENSION-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTOF 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 beenconducted 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 thewhole 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. favorites. 7n such a changed market place, it is but natural for the


2/30

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 thissection, 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.


3/30

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 slipperyconcept 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;3A ? < 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;3A ? < 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;3A ? < 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%


4/30

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, "# , "## % 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 ., % "# "%


5/30

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, "# %


6/30

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 dimensionsunderlying 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 researchershave 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


7/30

@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 effectof 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 servicequality, customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions

Service quality(:unctional andoutcome d imensions6

1ustomersatisfaction

'ehaviouralintentions

*


8/30

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;3A ? < scale

developed by 8arasuraman et al . ("# 6. @he only difference between the two scales is that while

S;3A ? < 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 S : 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.


9/30

T 1!e 2: Sc !e%$ Sc !e-i"e'% U%e* i) S"u*# )* Re!i 1i!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$". uality 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+".


10/30

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 (S I6. 3esponses to these items were obtained on a five-point


11/30

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!i 1i!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 S : and S :"& 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,

""


12/30

some of these items have got dropped at the analysis stage (e.g., 2ang and !ames, $% 5hou,

$6.

T 1!e 4: Service Qu !i"# 5Fu)c"i&) !6: F c"&r A) !#%i% Re%u!"% )* Re!i 1i!i"# C&e((icie)"%

Scale and scale 7tems

:actor loadings

Aariancee9plained

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&" ! v ri )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;3A ? < 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;3A ? < scale. @he items belonging to reliability, responsiveness

and empathy dimensions of S;3A ? < 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;3A ? < scale. )ue to

meaningless item composition, little wonder that this dimension is having a very low 1ronbach

alpha value (see @able "6.

"


13/30

7n order to assess the convergent validity of the thirteen-item scale, the summed mean

S :"& scores were computed and correlated with overall service quality (IS 6 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., S :"&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 IS 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 (S :"&6, customers> overall

service quality perceptions (IS 6 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

(S :"&6 is able to e9plain only & per cent of variations present in the customers> overall service

quality perceptions (IS 6. @his lower e9planatory power of S :"&, 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 IS on S;3A8;3: scale (i.e.,

S : 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.

T 1!e


14/30

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%3Over !! Service Qu !i"# Perce "i&)%

Since the literature suggests that outcome quality (S I6 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 S :"& alone is used as independent variable6 to . * when both S :"& and S I 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 IS 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 (S :"&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 (S I6 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

"$


15/30

absence of multicollinearity among the independent variables (Hair at al ., "##/6, thus adding to our

confidence in the results.

T 1!e ?: Over !! Service Qu !i"# OSQ6 )* I"% Re! "i&)%+i .i"+ Fu)c"i&) ! 5SQF2


16/30

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 (IS 6 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 IS 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 IS

scale, customer satisfaction was regressed on S : and S :"& alternately along with service

outcome (S I6 component. 3esults corresponding to equation in @able / show a rather poor fit of

S : to customer satisfaction perceptions. ;ven the use of variable S :"& 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 S :"& andS : scales imply need for improving these two scales in future.

dimension-specific analysis (substituting S :"& 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, S I 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 (S I6 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., S I 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


17/30

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

(S :"&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.

T 1!e 8: Service Qu !i"# % A)"ece*e)" &( Cu%"&'er S "i%( c"i&) 5CS6 - Re0re%%i&) Re%u!"%

E,N& V ri 1!e

C&e((icie)"%A*=

R 4F

v !ue @R 4

Fv !ue&( @R 4 TOI 1 VIF c B

Stand-ardised B

". )ependent variable N 1S1onstant .#* -Iverall S (IS 6 .0*P .*$P .// P $ 0.&* - - - -

. )ependent variable N 1S1onstant .**Iverall S (IS 6 .0$P .*"P .#$ ". 08rice equity (8;6 . #P ."&P ./0*P / .0 . "*P "/. & .#$ ". 0

&. )ependent variable N 1S1onstant - .$# -:unctional quality (S : ,i.e., S;3A8;3:6

.* P .$ P .// ".

Iutcome quality (S I6 .&"P . /P .0 ".08rice equity (8;6 . /P . *P .$ $P # .&* - - . / "."

$. )ependent variable N 1S1onstant - ."0 -:unctional quality (S :"&6 ./#P .&&P .0 ".0*Iutcome quality (S I6 .P .&"P .0$ "./*8rice equity (8;6 . *PP . #PP .&*0P * . * . / "."*

/. )ependent variable N 1S

1onstant - . $P -@angibility (@ C6 .&/P . 0P . ". /)ependence ();86 ." P ."$P .0# ".$$Iutcome quality S I6 .$$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 paststudies 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

"*


18/30

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 (IS 6 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 IS and 1S emerge as significant predictors.

However, when IS is replaced by S : - 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 S : 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 S :"& is used instead of S : .

dimension-specific analysis of functional service quality as undertaken in equation /

brings the results closer to the ones obtained earlier in equation & where IS 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, S I 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 S I - 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, S :"& is providing better results than S : . 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 S I and @ C in that order. );8, i.e., dependence, turns out to be the least

important determinant.

"


19/30

T 1!e : 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& V ri 1!e

C&e((icie)"%

A*=R 4

Fv !ue @R 4

F

v !ue&( @R 4 TOI 1 VIF c

S" )*-

r*i%e*

". )ependent variable N 871onstant .*Iverall service quality(IS 6

.00P .//P .& P "0#.$# - - - -

. )ependent variable N 871onstant .$$IS .$ P .&0P .$/ . &1S .&/P . *P .&& P #*.$* . &"P #*.$* .$/ . &

&. )ependent variable N 871onstant - .&&

:unctional quality (S : ,i.e., S;3A8;3:6 ."# . ./ ".##

Iutcome quality (S I6 .&$P . "P ./" "./*1S .$#P .&*P .&"#P 0 .$ - - .0 "./*

$. )ependent variable N 871onstant - .$0:unctional quality (S :"&6 . /PPP .""PPP ./* ".*/S I .& P . P ./ ".*"1S .$#P .&*P .& P 0&.$" - - .0& "./

/. )ependent variable N 871onstant - . *@angibility (@ C6 . $P ."$P .*& ".&*)ependence ();86 ."*PP .""PP .* ".

Iutcome quality ( S I6 .& 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.

T 1!e : 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!"%

"#


20/30

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 resultsrelating 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& V ri 1!e

C&e((icie)"%

A*=R 4

Fv !ue @R 4

Fv !ue

&( @R 4 TOI 1 VIF c

S" )*-r*i%e*

". )ependent variable N 371onstant .0"Iverall service quality(IS 6

.*"P .//P . #/P "0$. - - -

. )ependent variable N 371onstant . #IS .$#P .& P .$/ . &1S .&&P . &P .&"0P #".// . &P "&."0 .$/ . &

&. )ependent variable N 371onstant - .&0:unctional quality (S : ,i.e., S;3A8;3:6

. . ./ ".##

Iutcome quality (S I6 .& P ."*P ./0 ".**1S ./$P .&*P . $P /&. - .0 "./

$. )ependent variable N 371onstant - .&&:unctional quality (S :"&6 ." . * ./* ".*/S I .& P ."*P ./ ".*"1S .//P .& P . $P /&."* - .0& "./

/. )ependent variable N 371onstant - .*"@angibility (@ C6 . &PP ." PP .*& ".&*)ependence ();86 . # . / .* ".Iutcome quality S I6 .& PP ."*PP .00 "./"1S .$#P .&$P . #0P $ .&* - .0" ".0/


21/30

'ased on both the overall service quality perceptions (IS 6 and the thirteen-item summed

functional service quality scores (S :"&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

empathy responsiveness and support Laccuracy of records dimensions are concerned, the

restaurants under investigations do not significantly differ form one another. s. However, when asked about

the reasonableness of price charged at these two restaurants, customers opine +c)onald to be

stealing the show. 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.

"


22/30

T 1!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

ServiceQu !i"#

(u)c"i&) !5SQF2


23/30

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;3A ? < 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;3A ? < 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;3A ? < 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 (IS 6 on the twenty-two itemS;3A8;3: (i.e., S : 6 scale and the thirteen-item (S :"&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 S :"& rather than S;3A8;3: scale. @he

reason underlying this recommendation is that S :"& 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., S :"&6 focus only on the

functional aspect of service quality, a service outcome component (S I6 was added to the

&


24/30

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, $%


25/30

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. 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 greathelp 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, "# , "## %


26/30

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 pointof 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;3A ? < 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 areplication 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 measureof perceived quality. Similarly, though they preferred to call their outcome variable as customer-relationship-management performance, it was nothing but three item customer behaviouralintentions scale.

Bi1!i&0r +#

aker, ). . and !acobson, 3. ("##$6 D@he financial information content of perceived quality>, "ournal of #ar$eting %esearc h, &"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 D n empirical assessment of the servqual scale>, "ournal of Business %esearch , $, /&-0 .

'abakus, ;. and +angold, B. . ("# #6 D dapting the servqual scale to hospital servicesK an empiricalinvestigation>, 'ealth &ervice %esearch , 0K 0, *0*- .

'ansal, H.S. and @aylor, S. ("##*6 D7nvestigating the relationship between service quality, satisfaction andswitching intentions>, in Bilson, ;.!. and Hair, !.1. (eds6, (evelopments in #ar$eting &cience , 1oral

ables, cademy of +arketing Science, & $-&"&.

0


27/30


28/30

ilbert, .3., Aeloutsou, 1., oode, +. +. H. and +outinho, , "ournal of &ervices #ar$eting , " K /, &*"-& .

otlieb, !.'., rewal, ). and 'rown, S.B. ("##$6 D1onsumer satisfaction and perceived qualityK complementaryor 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., , "ournal of 'ealth Care #ar$eting , $, & -$".

7acobucci, )., rayson, 2. . and Istrom, ., 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 foodservice 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, !. ( $6 DService quality dimensionsK an e9amination of ronroos>s service qualitymodel>, #anaging &ervice uality , "$K $, 0*- **.

2assim, C.+. and 'o=ei, ! ( 6 DService qualityK gaps in the telemarketing industry>, "ournal of Business %esearch, //, $/-/ .

s perceptions of service quality in financial institutions>, 1nternational "ournal of Ban$ #ar$eting , 0($6, *-" .

, 1nternational "ournal of 'ospitality #anagement , 0K , &- .

+agi, . and !ulander, 1.3. ("##06 D8erceived service quality and customer satisfaction in a store performanceframework>, "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 perspectiverevisited>, &ervice 1ndustries "ournal , "*("6, "*&- #.

+ersha, @. and dlakha, A. ("## 6 D ttributes of service qualityK the consumer>s perspective>, 1nternational "ournal of &ervice 1ndustry #anagement , &K &, &$-$/.

+ittal, A., 2umar, 8. and @siros, +. ("###6 D ttribute-level performance, satisfaction and behavioural intentionsover timeK a consumption-system approach>, "ournal of #ar$eting , 0&K pril, -" ".


29/30

+ohr, , "ournal of #ar$eting , / K !an., """-" $.

8arasuraman, ., 5eithaml, A. . and 'erry, , !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 uinn, @.@. ("## 6 D@he employee-customer Oprofit chain at Sears>, 'arvard Business %eview , *0K ", -#*.

3ust, 3.@. and Iliver, 3., 1nternational #ar$eting %eview , "#K /, $/ -$ ".

Spreng, 3. . and Singh, .2. ("##&6 D n ;mpirical assessment of the S;3A ? < 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 D ssessing 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 @., "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

#


30/30

and the ublic &ector , 1hichester, Biley.

Bang, 4., , #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,

Documents

IIMT-SQ Fast Food - 4 -Article - Feb 28 -05