Professional Documents
Culture Documents
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,
Via Mersin 10, Turkey
b
Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business, East Tennessee State University, Johnson, TN 36714, USA
c
Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, The University of Memphis,
Memphis, TN 38152, USA
Abstract
By employing a multi-stage, multi-phase, and multi-sample approach, this paper reports on the construction of a service quality
scale. Customer perceptions of service quality of retail banks in Northern Cyprus serve as the study setting. The parsimonious 20item four-dimensional scale consisting of service environment (four items), interaction quality (seven items), empathy (ve items),
and reliability (four items) exhibits sound psychometric properties. Scale development procedures and managerial applications of
the derived scale are discussed.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Service quality; Banking; Scale development; Northern Cyprus
1. Introduction
A deliberate attempt to study services marketing and
service quality issues dates back to the mid-1960s
(Rathmell, 1966). However, interest on the topic has
gained considerable momentum within the past two
decades or so. This is not surprising. On the one hand,
delivery of high service quality to customers offers rms
an opportunity to differentiate themselves in competitive markets. On the other hand, high service quality
results in customer satisfaction and loyalty, greater
willingness to recommend to someone else, reduction in
customer complaints, and improved customer retention
rates (see, for example, Bitner, 1990; Danaher, 1997;
Headley and Miller, 1993; Levesque and McDougall,
1996; Magi and Julander, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Today, service quality is considered a critical measure of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 392 630 1116;
fax: +90 392 365 1584.
E-mail addresses: osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr (O.M. Karatepe),
raxyavas@mail.etsu.edu (U. Yavas), ebabakus@memphis.edu
(E. Babakus).
0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.01.001
ARTICLE IN PRESS
374
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
2. Relevant literature
A canvassing of the growing body of literature on
service quality suggests that two schools of thought
dominate the extant thinking. One is the Nordic school
of thought based on Gronrooss (1984) two-dimensional
model. And the other is the North American school of
thought based on Parasuraman et al.s (1988) vedimensional SERVQUAL model. Considering other
signicant conceptual and empirical works in the area,
it appears that service quality encompasses (1) customers experiences with the tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy aspects of the services
delivered by a rm (Parasuraman et al., 1988); (2)
technical and functional quality (Gronroos, 1984); (3)
service product, service environment, and service
delivery (Rust and Oliver, 1994); and (4) interaction
quality, physical environment quality, and outcome
quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001).
Our review of this body of literature points out two
major limitations. First, as noted by Babakus and Boller
(1992), there is a need to develop industry-specific
measures of service quality. This is particularly important from a managerial perspective (Shemwell and
Yavas, 1999). Because many of the questions in existing
instruments (notably SERVQUAL batteries) intended
to be applied across situations/services just do not apply
in a specic context and force researchers to drastically
alter the items (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Babakus and
Mangold, 1992; Carman, 1990; McAlexander et al.,
1994). However, as Shemwell and Yavas (1999) cogently
argue, the more specic the scale items are in a service
quality instrument and the more applicable they are to a
managers own contextual circumstance, the better s/he
will be able to use the information. Thus, instead of
taking an existing instrument and trying to t it to the
context, a better approach is to develop an instrument
specically for the focal service. While many studies in
banking measure service quality by replicating or
adopting Parasuraman et al.s (1988) SERVQUAL
model (see, for example, Angur et al., 1999; Athanasso-
ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
375
3. Study
3.1. Step 1: qualitative study (item generation)
To generate items that comprise the domain of service
quality in retail banking services, a team of interviewers
conducted one-on-one interviews with a judgmental
sample of 86 bank customers. The interviews were audio
tape-recorded. In these interviews, based on their
experiences and prior dealings with banks, participants
were asked to talk about their expectations from bank
services.
To code the qualitative data thus obtained, similar to
prior studies (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Richins, 1997), a
content analytic approach was employed. In the rst
stage, after listening to the tapes, three independent
coders prepared paragraphs/eld notes. All three coders
agreed on the overall content of each paragraph/eld
note. In the second stage, the same coders generated a
total of 56 items and agreed on 43 of these items yielding
an inter-judge reliability coefcient of .91. After a closer
scrutiny, three coders agreed that 12 of the 43 items
highly overlapped. After elimination of highly redundant items, this reexamination resulted in a total of 31
items. In the nal stage, three coders were asked to
categorize the 31 items into groups based on content
similarities of items. The three coders, working individually and then as a group, identied ve distinct
categories. Transcripts and items in each category were
further examined by a team of researchers to assign a
higher-level meaning to each category. This exercise led
to the identication and labeling of the following
dimensions of service quality: service environment (four
items), interaction quality (eight items), reliability (ve
items), empathy (10 items), and technology (four items).
Table 1 presents a listing of these items.
Service environment refers to the appearance of the
service providers and appearance of the interior and
exterior of the bank facilities. Interaction quality
encompasses attitudes and behaviors of the service
providers and their interaction style with customers.
Empathy is dened as individualized attention given to
customers and willingness of the bank personnel to help
ARTICLE IN PRESS
376
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
Table 1
Item-to-total correlations and varimax-rotated factor loadings (First stage, n 115)
Items
Item-to-total correlations
Factor loadings
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
0.32
0.57
0.61
0.65
0.61
0.42
Q01.
Q02.
Q03.
Q04.
Q05.
Q06.
Q07.
Q08.
Q09.
Q10.
0.48
0.56
0.49
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.34
0.42
0.61
0.49
0.30
0.55
0.81
0.66
0.69
0.68
0.42
0.33
0.39
0.40
Q11.
Q12.
Q13.
Q14.
Q15.
0.65
0.70
0.58
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.67
0.84
0.82
0.86
0.31
0.34
Q16.
Q17.
Q18.
Q19.
Q20.
This bank does not make its customers stand in a queue for a long time
Employees of this bank enact transactions on a timely manner
Employees of this bank always help customers
Employees of this bank provide individualized attention to customers
Employees of this bank are willing to solve customer problems
0.48
0.68
0.68
0.69
0.64
0.33
0.64
0.58
0.59
0.40
0.75
0.76
0.45
0.41
0.43
Q21.
Q22.
Q23.
Q24.
Q25.
0.56
0.19
0.48
0.64
0.48
0.53
0.46
0.41
0.36
0.47
0.59
0.44
0.51
0.56
Q26.
Q27.
Q28.
Q29.
Q30.
Q31.
0.15
0.45
0.56
0.74
0.69
0.06
Eigenvalue
% of variance explained
Coefcient alpha
0.32
0.57
0.59
10.50
35.01
0.91
0.43
0.63
0.58
0.43
0.50
2.48
8.28
0.73
0.35
0.33
1.78
5.95
0.82
0.51
1.70
5.66
0.73
0.31
1.57
5.22
0.44
Note: Items 14 represent service environment. Items 5, 7, 8, and 31 refer to technology. Items 915 and 30 represent interaction quality. Items 6,
1620, and 2629 represent empathy. Items 2125 refer to reliability. The factor loadings less than .30 are not shown. Reliability coefcients
(coefcient alpha) are based on the a priori designation (as designated by coders) of the items to their respective dimensions.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
377
ARTICLE IN PRESS
378
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
Table 2
Scale items, reliabilities and conrmatory factor analysis results (rst stage, n 115)
Scale items
Standardized loadings
T-values
0.80
0.92
0.44
0.37
9.31
11.18
4.67
3.91
0.59
0.78
0.67
0.73
0.84
0.84
0.87
6.78
9.69
7.84
8.86
10.89
10.83
11.42
0.73
0.91
Empathy (EMP)
This bank does not make its customers stand in a queue for a long
time
Employees of this bank enact transactions on a timely manner
Employees of this bank always help customers
Employees of this bank provide individualized attention to customers
Employees of this bank are willing to solve customer problems
0.52
5.76
0.76
0.88
0.78
0.83
9.22
11.55
9.67
10.59
Reliability (REL)
Employees of this bank provide error-free service
Employees of this bank carry out customer transactions condentially
Employees of this bank provide customers with precise information
This bank informs customers about its nancial operation accurately
0.67
0.57
0.89
0.64
7.70
6.24
11.23
7.17
Model t statistics
Coefcient alpha
0.85
0.76
Note: Each item is measured on a ve-point scale ranging from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree. All loadings are signicant at the .01
level.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
379
Table 3
Scale items, reliabilities and conrmatory factor analysis results (second stage, n 1220)
Scale items
Standardized loadings
T-values
0.72
0.80
0.67
0.71
26.78
31.08
24.30
26.25
0.70
0.81
0.72
0.79
0.82
0.83
0.80
27.60
33.92
28.58
32.28
34.68
34.78
33.32
Empathy (EMP)
This bank does not make its customers stand in a queue for a long time
Employees of this bank enact transactions on a timely manner
Employees of this bank always help customers
Employees of this bank provide individualized attention to customers
Employees of this bank are willing to solve customer problems
0.50
0.69
0.83
0.81
0.77
17.80
26.44
34.69
33.62
30.65
Reliability (REL)
Employees of this bank provide error-free service
Employees of this bank carry out customer transactions condentially
Employees of this bank provide customers with precise information
This bank informs customers about its nancial operation accurately
0.73
0.69
0.82
0.68
27.93
26.25
33.00
25.36
Coefcient alpha
0.81
0.92
0.83
0.81
Model t statistcis
Note: Each item is measured on a ve-point scale ranging from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree. All loadings are signicant at the .01
level.
Table 4
Means, standard deviations and correlations of study variables
(Second stage, n 1220)
Variables:
1.00
0.60
0.54
0.52
0.51
0.50
1.00
0.76
0.71
0.65
0.65
1.00
0.70 1.00
0.62 0.61 1.00
0.65 0.62 0.71 1.00
Mean
Standard deviation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
380
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
CSAT
SERENV
PINTENT
1=.66***
= 0.41 (t=14.6)
1= 0.74 (t=22.5)
INTQUAL
2=0.88 (t=25.9)
SQUAL
CUSTSAT
PURCINT
3=0.85 (t=25.2)
2 = 0.45 (t=13.5)
EMP
4=0.81 (t=24.2)
REL
Fig. 1. Assessing nomological validity of the service quality measure: the relationships among service quality (SQUAL), customer satisfaction
(CUSTSAT), and purchase intention (PURCINT) constructs. Note: Since customer satisfaction and purchase intention were measured using single
items, their error variances were set to zero in the structural model. Hence, their standardized loadings on their respective latent constructs were 1.00
by denition. T-values are shown in parentheses except for the loading of service environment (SERENV), which was initially xed to 1.00 to set the
metric for the underlying service quality construct.
4. Discussion
This study developed a 20-item survey instrument to
measure bank customer perceptions of service quality in
Northern Cyprus. The results showed that service
quality could be conceptualized and measured as a
four-dimensional construct consisting of service environment, interaction quality, empathy, and reliability.
The scale exhibited high internal consistency reliability
and met rigorous conceptual and empirical criteria for
construct validity including content, convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity.
Our results showed that interaction quality is the most
important dimension of service quality followed by
empathy, reliability, and service environment. The
number of distinct dimensions, their meaning, and their
order of importance show some similarities and
differences with prior conceptualizations including
Gronroos (1984), Parasuraman et al. (1991), Brady
and Cronin (2001), Rust and Oliver (1994), and
Aldlaigan and Buttle (2002). There is a clear convergence in terms of conceptual meaning between our
service environment dimension and the tangibles
dimension of SERVQUAL. This dimension is the least
important indicator of service quality in this study as
ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
381
5. Concluding comments
It should be underscored that given the premise that
replication research is the mainstay of the scientic
method and that empirical generalizations are central to
knowledge development, our results can hardly be
considered conclusive. Certainly more studies are
needed to further validate the four-factor service quality
measure derived in this study. In addition, while we
followed well-established procedures throughout our
study, at the qualitative stage, employment of the
approach advocated by Zimmer and Golden (1988)
might have been better. It is conceivable that using the
same coders also as judges during the coding process in
selecting and developing the items may have partially
confounded our item pool.
This study provides full support for neither the North
American nor the Nordic school of thought regarding
the dimensionality of service quality or the meanings of
quality dimensions. However, the dimensions identied
in this study show similarities to other service quality
measures such as SERVQUAL and SYSTRA-SQ. This
suggests that there may be some potentially universal
facets of service quality and that perhaps we may not
need to develop specic measures from scratch for each
context. Instead, existing knowledge base may provide a
useful starting point for adaptations to new contexts.
Future research can shed further light on these issues.
References
Akan, P., 1995. Dimensions of Service Quality: Expectations of
Turkish Consumers from Services. Bogazici University, Istanbul,
Turkey.
Aldlaigan, A.H., Buttle, F.A., 2002. SYSTRA-SQ: a new measure of
bank service quality. International Journal of Service Industry
Management 13 (4), 362381.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103, 411423.
Angur, M.G., Nataraajan, R., Jahera Jr., J.S., 1999. Service quality in
the banking industry: an assessment in a developing economy.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 17 (3), 116123.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
382
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2005) 373383
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A., 1991. Renement and
reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing 67 (4),
420450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1994. Reassessment of
expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service
quality: implications for further research. Journal of Marketing
58, 111124.
Rathmell, J.M., 1966. What is meant by services? Journal of
Marketing 30 (4), 3236.
Richins, M.L., 1997. Measuring emotions in the consumption
experience. Journal of Consumer Research 24, 127146.
Robinson, S., 1999. Measuring service quality: current thinking and
future requirements. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 17 (1),
2132.
Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L., 1994. Service quality: insights and managerial
implications from the frontier. In: Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L. (Eds.),
Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 119.
Shemwell, D., Yavas, U., 1999. Measuring service quality in hospitals:
scale development and managerial applications. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 7 (3), 6575.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics,
third ed. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York.
Teas, R.K., 1993. Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers perceptions of service quality. Journal of Marketing 57,
1834.
Teas, R.K., 1994. Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring
service quality: an assessment of a reassessment. Journal of
Marketing 58, 132139.
383