Journal of China Tourism Research, 6: 22–28, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1938-8160 print / 1937-8179 online DOI: 10.1080/19388160903586547
Measuring Customer Perceptions of Hotel Service Quality Based on a SERVPERF Approach 基于 SERVPERF 的酒店服务质量评价实证研究 ZHIHUI LI The objective of the research was to empirically examine customer perceptions of service quality in the tourist hotel industry using a SERVPERF approach. To investigate this, 761 tourists visiting Beijing were interviewed. Among these tourists 195 were Chinese, 189 Korean, 192 Japanese, and 185 American. Validity and reliability analysis of data and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were adopted. Some suggestions were offered for improvement of international marketing strategies in the hotel industry. KEYWORDS. ANOVA
Service quality, hotel industry, reliability analysis, validity analysis,
本文通过实证研究并利用SERVPERF方法对酒店服务质量测量工具，即量表进行 信度和效度检验，据此测定来自不同国家旅京游客感知的酒店服务质量。为此， 对入住酒店的761名游客进行了问卷调查，其中包括195名中国游客, 189名韩国 游客，192名日本游客和185名美国游客。本文对样本数据进行了信度分析、效 度分析和方差分析以得出研究结果，并提出相关建议。 关键词:
服务质量, 酒店业, 信度分析, 效度分析, 方差分析
Introduction The hotel industry is one of the most typical hospitality industries and service quality is an important competitive lever for any hotel. It is necessary to understand customer perceptions of service quality in a timely manner in order to allocate limited resources effectively and develop suitable marketing strategies. The purpose of this article was to empirically explore how customers perceived service quality in the tourist hotel industry. Some research methods including validity and reliability analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used. Research implications and suggestions are discussed and future research directions are recommended.
Literature Review SERVQUAL Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) developed 10 dimensions for measuring service quality. Based on these 10 dimensions of service quality, Parasuraman et al. further distilled them to 5, which are tangibles, reliability, assurance, responsiveness, and empathy. On this basis, they proposed a 22-item SERVQUAL instrument for the evaluation of service quality. Zhihui Li is Assistant Professor of the Department of Tourism at Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing, China (E-mail:
[email protected]).
22
Journal of China Tourism Research
23
Application of SERVQUAL Many researchers have applied the SERVQUAL tool to measure service quality in broad service sectors. Based on SERVQUAL and LODGSERV, Knutson, Stevens, and Patton (1995) developed DINESERV, a 29-item instrument to measure service quality in the restaurant industry. Lee and Hing (1995) applied SERVQUAL to measure customer perceptions of service quality in French and Chinese restaurants in Australia. Johns and Tays (1996) measured service quality in the catering service industry. Ten items were added to the original 22-item SERVQUAL. Getty and Thompson (1994) developed LODGQUAL for measuring service quality in the lodging industry. Luk, de Leon, Leon, and Li (1993) evaluated international tourists’ perceptions of service quality in group travel and suggested that cultural value had an impact on service quality expectations. Armstrong, Mok, Go, and Chan (1997) summarized these arguments and suggested that SERVQUAL was universal and could be widely used in broader industries after proper modification. Mok and Amstrong (1998) applied SERVQUAL to assess international tourists’ perceptions of service quality in the hotel industry. In their study, a modified SERVQUAL instrument was adapted to a hotel setting. Although SERVQUAL has been widely used, there have been some criticisms. Because SERVQUAL is used to calculate the difference in the score, when conducting a questionnaire survey, customers have to answer two similar sets of questions. It is time consuming and boring. In addition, it is doubtful whether difference doess really provide more information (Babakus & Boller, 1992). SERVPERF Some researchers argued that a performance-based measure was more reliable than SERVQUAL. They believed that a performance-based measure was able to explain more variations than SERVQUAL did (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Dabholkar, Thorpe, & Rentz, 1996; Tse & Wilton, 1988). Cronin and Taylor (1992) suggested that a performance-based measure was more suitable in marketing research field. They developed a performance-based measure instrument—SERVPERF—to replace SERVQUAL. The researchers interviewed a total of 730 samples from four industries (banking, 188; pest control, 175; drycleaning, 178; fast food, 189) and analyzed SERVQUAL, weighted SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, and weighted SERVPERF, respectively. The results showed that both the content validity and discriminate validity for SERVPERF are optimal.
Research Methodology Sample Design This study utilized convenience sampling to select tourists. Samples were drawn from Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and American tourists who stayed in four-star or above hotels during their visit in Beijing.
24
Zhihui Li
Measurement of Service Quality This study employed a modified 22-item SERVQUAL tool (Tsaur, Lin, & Wu, 2005), using a 5-point Likert scale. Based on the assertion that service quality could be more accurately measured with the approach of SERVPERF (Bebko, 2000; Brown, Churchill, & Peter, 1993; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Peter, Churchill, & Brown, 1993; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996), this study focused on measuring tourist perceptions of hotel service quality. The questionnaire was first developed in English. In order to avoid multiple language ambiguity, the English version was translated into Chinese and Korean by the author herself, who is academically proficient in the Chinese, English, and Korean languages; other researchers who are proficient in both English and Japanese translated the English version into Japanese. A pilot study was conducted among the international students at Kyung Hee University before the formal study.
Analysis Method SPSS 12.0 was employed to perform reliability analysis. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using Amos 4.0 to test the validity of factors. Finally, ANOVA was used to analyze the difference in service quality between the four countries.
Data Analysis Data Collection Data were collected from June to August 2007. A total of 761 questionnaires were obtained, including 195 from Chinese tourists, 189 from Korean tourists, 192 from Japanese tourists, and 185 from American tourists.
Reliability Analysis The internal consistency of the instruments used in this study was assessed by examining the coefficient alpha scores. As Table 1 shows all coefficient alpha values were high, ranging from 0.863 to 0.971, which exceeded the acceptable cut off point of 0.60 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).
Table 1. Results of Reliability Analysis.
Service quality Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Items
Cronbach’s Alpha
4 5 4 4 5
0.971 0.863 0.907 0.899 0.889 0.923
Journal of China Tourism Research
25
Validity Analysis In order to establish construct validity, CFA was used together with Amos 4.0 to perform a validity analysis. The results showed that factor loadings (l) of observed variables are high on the latent variables (l > 0.45) and all the critical ratios (C.R.s) were significant (above 1.965). In the assessment of model fitness, χ2 = 983.17 (df = 199), p = 0.00, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.944, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.853, CFI = 0.946, Root Mean-square Residual (RMR) = 0.033. Though the p value was low, GFI, AGFI, and CFI values were all satisfactory (about 0.9). Therefore, it was considered a good-fitting model. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value for each dimension was also calculated. The results showed that all AVE values were above 0.8 (>0.5), suggesting that the validity of this questionnaire was good.
Research Findings Using SPSS 12.0, the related data on perceived service quality were analyzed. ANOVA and Scheffe’s post hoc test were then used to analyze the difference in service quality across different countries. Means of Each Dimension for Service Quality In general, the tourists perceived that the service quality in the hotels was good (above 3). Among the five dimensions, the dimension of reliability received the highest mean score (3.726), followed by tangibles (3.712), assurance (3.706), and empathy (3.610). The responsiveness dimension received the lowest score (3.597). Results of ANOVA and Scheffe Analysis The results of ANOVA and Scheffe’s analysis are presented in Table 2. Table 2 shows that the difference between the four countries was significant (p < 0.01). The American tourists recorded a higher mean score than the Korean and Japanese tourists did on the tangibles dimension; the mean score of the Chinese tourists was higher than that of the Korean tourists on the same dimension. On the other four dimensions, the mean scores of the American and Chinese tourists were higher than that of the Korean and Japanese tourists, meaning that there existed significant differences between the Chinese and Korean tourists, the American and Japanese tourists, and the American and Korean tourists on the tangibles dimension. Significant differences existed between the American and Japanese tourists and the American and Korean tourists on the other four dimensions. However, there was no significant difference between the Chinese and American tourists and the Korean and Japanese tourists on all the dimensions.
Conclusion Summary The purpose of this article was to empirically explore how customers perceived service quality in the tourist hotel industry. Research methods used in this article included validity and reliability analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Some research findings were obtained.
3.712 3.726 3.597 3.706 3.610
Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Note. *p < 0.01.
Mean
Service Quality
3.814 3.897 3.839 3.854 3.827
Chinese (a) 3.397 3.443 3.270 3.395 3.262
Korean (b) 3.605 3.585 3.447 3.561 3.448
Japanese (c) 4.036 3.980 3.834 4.013 3.893
American (d) 21.93* 19.58* 2.76* 21.71* 24.97*
F Value
Table 2. Results of ANOVA and Scheffe’s Analysis.
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
P
d > b; d > c; a > b d > b; d > c; a > b; a > c d > b; d > c; a > b; a > c d > b; d > c; a > b; a > c d > b; d > c; a > b; a > c
Scheffe’s Test
26
Journal of China Tourism Research
27
Firstly, the findings indicated that the questionnaires identified to measure service quality exhibited acceptable psychometric properties in terms of both reliability and validity. Secondly, the results showed that customers’ perceived service quality of tourist hotels in Beijing was above average (i.e., >3 on a 5-point scale). But the score was not high enough. Thirdly, using ANOVA analysis, the difference in perceived service quality across countries was tested. Implications and Suggestions Service quality is an important competitive lever for any hotel. This study provides hotels with specific data on customers’ perceived service quality, which will help hoteliers to improve their service. As shown above, the overall score for perceived service quality is not high enough. In order to attract more customers, it is suggested that hoteliers should pay more attention to the five dimensions of service quality—tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. This study investigated the difference in perceived service quality across countries. The research findings represent important steps toward the development of cross-cultural analysis of service quality. In addition, research methods are presented in a communicative manner with the aim of providing theoretical guidance and practical inspiration for researchers in the field of hotel service quality. Research Limitations and Future Directions Although this study examined the perceptions of service quality between tourists from different countries, the dimension of culture was not explored. Future research could examine in detail the relationship between service quality and the culture dimension.
References Armstrong, R. W., Mok, C., Go, F. M., & Chan, A. (1997). The importance of cross-cultural expectations in the measurement of service quality perceptions in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(2), 181–190. Babakus, E., & Boller, G. W. (1992). An empirical assessment to the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business Research, 24, 253–268. Bebko, C. P. (2000). Service intangibility and its impact on consumer expectations of service quality. Journal of Service Marketing, 14(1), 9–26. Brown, T. J., Jr., Churchill, G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1993). Improving the measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 127–139. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68. Dabholkar, A. P., Thorpe, I. D., & Rentz, O. J. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 3–16. Getty, J. M., & Thompson, K. N. (1994). The relationship between quality, satisfaction and recommending behavior in lodging decisions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 2(3), 3–22. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28
Zhihui Li
Johns, N., & Tays, P. (1996). Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate between foodservice outlets. Service Industries Journal, 16(3), 321–346. Knutson, B. J., Stevens, P., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: Measuring service quality in quick service, casual/theme and fine dining restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 3(2), 35–44. Lee, Y. L., & Hing, N. (1995). Measuring service quality in restaurant operations: An application of the SERVQUAL instrument. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3/4), 293–310. Luk, S. T. K., de Leon, C. T., Leon, F. W., & Li, E. L. Y. (1993). Value segmentation of tourists’ expectations of service quality. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(4), 23–38. Mok, C., & Armstrong, R. W. (1998). Expectations for hotel quality: Do they differ from culture to culture? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 4(4), 381–391. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. Peter, J. P., Churchill, G. A., & Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 655–662. Tsaur, S. H., Lin, C. T., & Wu, C. S. (2005). Cultural differences of service quality and behavioral intention in tourist hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13(1), 41–63. Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Model of customer satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 204–212. Zeithamal, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.
Copyright of Journal of China Tourism Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
