Which school of thought?
The dimensions of resort
hotel quality
The service quality literature
has evolved around two
schools of thought: the North
American and the Nordic
European. Although the North
American School of thought
has received much attention
from the practitioners with a
five factorial model, it has
also generated a great deal of
criticism. The Nordic Euro-
pean School of thought, on
the conceptualisation of
service quality, has remained
for the most part at the con-
ceptual level with few
attempts at applications.
Attempts to test an instru-
ment developed by the North
American School. It did not
produce the nominated
dimensions. In fact the result
favours the Nordic European
School in that it produced a
two factor model.
International Journal of
Contempory Hospitality
Managementt
10/2 [1998] 63–67
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0959-6119]
Yuksel Ekinci
PhD Researcher, Department of Management Studies for the Service Sector,
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK and Research Assistant, Adnan Medered
University, Aydin, Turkey
Michael Riley
Senior Lecturer, Department of Management Studies for the Service Sector,
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Chris Fife-Schaw
Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Introduction
Although the literature on service quality is
growing, many theoretical and methodologi-
cal problems remain in this area (Oh and
Parks, 1997). There is a consensus among
commentators that the conceptualisation of
service quality is at an early stage in the
hospitality industry (Lockwood et al., 1992;
Wilkinson and Wilmott, 1995).
Theories of service quality which are domi-
nated by multidimensional structures, have
formed into two schools of thought: the
Nordic European and the North American.
Early service quality researchers established
the Nordic European School with a service
quality model and a service quality approach
that was largely determined by two or three
dimensions. Furthermore, their suggestion
that the measurement of service quality is
based on the “disconfirmation theory” intro-
duces the better than expectation or worse
than expectation formula (Grönroos, 1984;
Lehtinen and Lehtinen, 1991). However, the
Nordic European school focused mostly on
the conceptualisation of service quality with-
out providing strong empirical evidence to
support their position. For this reason it has
not received much attention from the practi-
tioners.
The North American School made a signifi-
cant contribution to the measurement of
service quality with a well known model
known as SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al,
1985). The model has been developed as a
result of a substantial amount of research
across the multiple service industries of
retail banking, credit card provision, security
brokerage and, product repair and mainte-
nance. According to the model, service qual-
ity is a “gap” between the customer’s expecta-
tions and perception and therefore, it should
be measured by subtracting customer’s per-
formance scores (P) from customer expecta-
tion score (E). The greater the positive gap
score (P > E) means the better service quality
and vice versa.
The SERVQUAL model has received a great
deal of interest since it offers a practical
instrument; the SERVQUAL scale and, it is
claimed, the five empirical factors in the
model (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, empathy) are generic and are
therefore valid and reliable for any service
organisation (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
However, the SERVQUAL scale, as well as
the methodology of SERVQUAL has gener-
ated considerable criticism which is con-
cerned with the nature SERVQUAL’s reliabil-
ity, validity and generic factor structure (But-
tle, 1996; Smith, 1995). These criticisms led
hospitality researchers to produce a more
specific scale for lodging industry called
LODGSERV (Knutson et al., 1990). However,
the superiority of one scale over the other is
in doubt and there is a need of a further inves-
tigation.
The picture is complicated by the fact that
other researchers have reported differen-
tially interpretable service quality factor
structures varying from single to sixteen
service quality factors which are different
from the SERVQUAL model in different ser-
vice organisations including the hotels (Car-
men, 1990; Lewis, 1984). In particular, a recent
study demonstrated that the Nordic Euro-
pean school of thought with its two or three
structural model, was worth pursuing in
service quality measurement in multiple
industries because they failed to demonstrate
that the five factor structure of SERVQUAL
was superior to a two factor model (Mells et
al., 1997). Further support comes from Oberoi
(1989) who confirms, in a study of conference
hotels, that the two dimensional model in the
conference hotels is the right structure as
opposed to North American school of
thought’s five dimensional model.
This article attempts to test the two dimen-
sional model of the Nordic European
[ 63 ]
Yuksel Ekinci, perspective in the context of resort hotel
Michael Riley and service quality.
Chris Fife-Schaw
Which school of thought?
The dimensions of resort
hotel quality Methodology
International Journal of The questionnaire instrument contains a
Contemporary Hospitality
combination of SERVQUAL and LODGSERV
Management
10/2 [1998] 63–67 items. The original SERVQUAL items were
used as much as possible but some of the
LODGSERV items that are essentially identi-
cal to SERVQUAL items were excluded to
reduce the measurement instrument from 47
to 38 items (Ekinci and Riley, 1997).
In order to provide face validity, the final 38
items were slightly modified in the light of
expert opinion. Firstly, the instruments’
tenses were changed from present simple to
past tense in order to make the items more
comprehensible and suitable for performance
only measurement. Another reason for doing
this was that staying in the resort hotel was
considered to be an irregular activity. Finally,
the following three SERVQUAL items and one
of the LODGSERV item’s wordings have been
changed to simplify their meanings:
• The “reliability” item of SERVQUAL; “XYZ
insists of error free-record” was changed to
“The hotel paperwork was accurate”.
• The “tangible” item of SERVQUAL; “XYZ’s
physical facilities are visually appealing”
was changed to “The hotel’s facilities were
visually appealing”.
• The “responsiveness” item of SERVQUAL;
“Employees of XYZ tell you exactly when
services will be performed” was changed to
“Employees of the hotel told you exactly
when services were available”.
• The “responsiveness” item of LODGSERV;
“The Hotel has personnel shift to help
where lines occur” was changed to “The
hotel responded to queues by putting in
more staff ”.
The seven-point Likert scale format, as sug-
gested by Parasuraman et al. (1988; 1991), was
used. The methodology was similar to previ-
ous SERVQUAL generation and assessment
studies; however, performance only measure-
ment was used as suggested by recent studies
in this area (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Smith,
1996).
To assess the concurrent validity, a ques-
tion about overall quality of the service was
inserted. Furthermore, the predictive valid-
ity of the instrument was appraised by two
additional questions concerning whether the
respondent would return to the hotel again
and whether they would recommend the hotel
to others.
[ 64 ]
The sample
The field survey was conducted in 1996 in two
seaside Turkish resorts: Kusadasi and Mar-
maris. The survey was completed with the
assistance of two local travel agencies. The
questionnaires were filled in as the holiday
makers were leaving the resort to return to
the airport.
A total of 115 questionnaires were collected
but three of them were excluded due to miss-
ing information. The sample was 49 per cent
female, 50 per cent male. The age distribution
was as follows:
• 16 to 24 – 10.7 per cent;
• 25 to 34 – 25 per cent;
• 35 to 44 – 17.8 per cent;
• 45 to 54 – 17.8 per cent;
• 55 to 64 – 19.6 per cent;
• 64 and over – 0.03 per cent.
Ninety six percent of the subjects had visited
the hotel for the first time and the sample
contained only British holidaymakers.
Analysis of the data
As an initial step the original 22 SERVQUAL
items were subjected to confirmatory factor
analysis via SIMPLIS (Jöreskog and Sörbom,
1993) in order to confirm that the items were
behaving as expected. In common with Para-
suraman et al.’s (1994) procedure we have
adopted the unweighted least squares estima-
tion method as this method does not assume
that the variables have a normal distribution,
an assumption not met with the present data
(see Dillon, 1986). An initial five factor solu-
tion mirroring the original five SERVQUAL
factors produced a model with an acceptable
fit (χ2 (199) = 191.43 (ns), AGFI = 0.97, NFI =
0.97). The matrix of factor correlations are
given in Table I.
As can be seen there are some inadmissible
correlations in this matrix which, following
Bollen (1989), are likely to have been caused
by the true correlations in the population
being extremely close to unity and the cur-
rent estimates assuming inadmissible values
as a result of sampling fluctuations. Assum-
ing this is the case, then examination of the
correlations would suggest that a two factor
solution with “tangibles” maintained and the
remaining factors collapsed into a second
factor would be more parsimonious. Such a
two factor model was assessed and found to fit
the data well (c2 (208) = 201.98 (ns) AGFI =
0.97, NFI = 0.97) with an interfactor correla-
tion of 0.87.
The final instrument
As the five factor structure has not been con-
firmed in factor analysis with the original
SERVQUAL scale, a further analysis was
Yuksel Ekinci, conducted assuming a two factor model. To
Michael Riley and provide a fair test of the SERVQUAL model
Chris Fife-Schaw the original items had only been modified in a
Which school of thought?
minor way as described above. However,
The dimensions of resort
hotel quality reports from respondents made it clear that
International Journal of the wording of some items was inappropriate
Contemporary Hospitality and clumsy, therefore some of the items have
Management been excluded from further analyses. Some of
10/2 [1998] 63–67 the redundant SERVQUAL items are:
• the hotel has employees who gave you per-
sonal attention (empathy item);
• you feel you had a secure deal with the hotel
(modified assurance item);
• the hotel’s paperwork was accurate (modi-
fied reliability item);
• the hotel performed the service right the
first time (reliability item).
Some of the redundant LODGSERV items:
• the hotel eliminated unnecessary bureau-
cracy to contact a hotel manager or su-
pervisor;
• the hotel had restaurant and room service
menus that included healthy and/or special
diet options;
• the hotel had employees who were sympa-
thetic and reassuring, when something
went wrong.
This process reduced the final instrument
from 38 questions to 18 questions which
consists of 16 SERVQUAL items and 2 “tangi-
ble” items of the LODGSERV scale (see
Appendix). Furthermore, one of the “tangi-
bles” items (the hotel’s employees were neat
appearing) and one of the “intangibles” items
(employees of the hotel had knowledge to
answer your questions) were deleted on the
basis of item analysis since, the item-to-total
correlation was lower than suggested cut of
value (r < 0.50).
Confirmatory factor analysis
This revised two factor model was also sub-
jected to confirmatory factor analysis using
SIMPLIS (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). The
model specified five items (Q1 to Q5) as indi-
cators of the factor “tangibles” and 11 items
(Q6 to Q16) as indicators of the factor “intan-
gibles”. Since these aspects of service quality
are unlikely to be independent the factors
Table I
Factor correlation matrix for five factor SERVQUAL model
Tangibles Assurance Responsiveness Empathy Reliability
Tangibles 1.00
Assurance 0.88 1.00
Responsiveness 0.88 1.03 1.00
Empathy 0.79 1.05 1.00 1.00
Reliability 0.88 0.92 0.97 0.93 1.00
were permitted to be correlated with one
another.
The two factor model fitted the data well
with a χ2 (103) = 85.59 (ns) (AGFI = 0.98, NFI =
0.98) suggesting no serious modification of
the model was necessary. The factors were
correlated at r = 0.70. All item loadings were
associated with significant t-values and a
specification search suggested that only two
items were potentially factorially complex
(Q9 “The hotel had operating hours conve-
nient to all its customers” and Q16 “The hotel
had your best interests at heart”). A re-speci-
fied model including both items as factorially
complex ones did improve the fit χ2(101) =
67.53 (ns) (AGFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.98, interfactor
correlation = 0.69). However, since in terms of
content these items refer to perceptions of
“intangibles” more so than “tangibles” it was
decided not to complicate the original and
more simple model by re-specifying these
items and potentially capitalising on chance.
Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for the
subsets of items loading on each factor to see
if additive scales as indices of these factors
could be formed. These analyses yielded
values of I = 0.87 for the “tangibles” items
and I = 0.92 for the “intangible” items. In
neither case did these analyses suggest any
item failed to contribute to the scales.
Validity
Validity was assessed by regressing Q39
which asked about perceptions of overall
service quality onto scaled indices of the two
factors “tangibles” and “intangibles”. Table II
summarises this regression.
The regression suggests that both scales
make a significant contribution to global
estimates of quality and that nearly 80 per
cent of the variance in global ratings can be
predicted from measures of these two factors.
Given the reliabilities of these scales this is a
high degree of predictability.
Similar regression analyses were
conducted to predict intentions to stay in the
same hotel, willingness to recommend the
hotel to friends. Here the two summary vari-
ables are being regarded as indirect indices of
satisfaction with service quality (see Tables
III and IV)
As can be seen in the case of all three indi-
rect global quality measures both service
quality indicators are good predictors of
orientations towards the hotels. While the
two general indices are highly correlated
with one another (all rs > 0.69) this nonethe-
less suggests that the indices have strong
validity.
[ 65 ]
Yuksel Ekinci, SERVQUAL model fits the data on a global
Michael Riley and Conclusion and discussion level factor correlations suggest that four of
Chris Fife-Schaw Although at first sight the sample size the proposed factors are virtually perfectly
Which school of thought?
The dimensions of resort appears to be small it is perfectly adequate for correlated indicating considerable redun-
hotel quality the confirmatory nature of the research. It dancy in the five factor model. This provides
International Journal of would be inadequate had the research been some support for the Nordic European school
Contemporary Hospitality seeking to identify new unknown factors but rather than North American school in as
Management this is not the case, it is essentially a test of much as that the more simple model fits the
10/2 [1998] 63–67 data acceptably well. These results support
the SERVQUAL model. It could be argued
that the combination of the two scales and findings elsewhere in the literature (Oberoi,
the loss of some items would hinder the 1989; Mells et al., 1997) though the present
production of the SERVQUAL five factor sample only contains British nationals and
structure. However, if the structure is there it the model should be validated on samples
should reveal itself even when small alter- from other nations.
ations to the item set are made. The results do The present data suggest that the
not condemn SERVQUAL but fail to support it SERVQUAL items are problematic. There is a
in this instance. suspicion that some of the questions are
The confirmatory factor analysis suggests almost duplicates and that could be one possi-
that a two dimensional factor structure fits ble explanation for the strong correlations
the present data well. While a five factor between items and the weak evidence for five
factors. If the SERVQUAL model is to be stud-
ied further better quality and more reliable
Table II indices of the proposed five factors will need
Summary of the regression to predict global quality rating to be identified.
Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T It is worth noting why the search for a reli-
Tangibles 0.11 0.02 0.55 7.45 ˜0 able model of the service quality is impor-
Intangibles 0.04 0.01 0.32 4.32 ˜0 tant. In the first place it would lead to develop-
(Constant) –0.08 0.47 –0.16 ns ment of an instrument with practical value
for hotel operators. In the second place, it
Multiple R 0.78
R Square 0.61 would enhance our understanding of cus-
Adjusted R Square 0.61 tomer satisfaction. The interpretation of
Standard error 0.95 customer satisfaction measures would be so
F (2,108) = 85.51574; p ˜0 much improved if they could be set against an
independent measure of quality.
What the present research does suggest is
Table III that further exploratory studies of the dimen-
Summary of the regression to predict intention to stay in the same hotel sions of the Nordic European School are
desirable. In practice, we believe managers
Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T
Tangibles 0.16 0.02 0.54 6.50 ˜0 should concentrate on these dimensions in
Intangibles 0.05 0.02 0.26 3.11 0.0024 order to control the required quality level in
(Constant) –2.12 0.75 –2.81 0.0059 the resort hotels. The present items would
seem to constitute a good starting point for
Multiple R 0.72 the development of a highly reliable, valid
R Square 0.52 and practical measure of service quality.
Adjusted R Square 0.51
Standard error 1.52
References
F (2,108) = 57.77; p ˜0 Bollen, K. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent
Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Buttle, F. (1996), “SERVQUAL: review, critique,
Table IV
research agenda”, European Journal of Mar-
Summary of the regression to predict willingness to recommend the hotel
keting, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-32.
Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T Carmen, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of
Tangibles 0.15 0.02 0.55 6.47 ˜0 service quality: an assessment of the
Intangibles 0.04 0.01 0.22 2.53 0.0129 SERVQUAL dimensions”, Journal of
(Constant) –1.29 0.74 –1.76 0.0819 Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992),
Multiple R 0.70
“SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
R Square 0.49
performance-based and perception-minus-
Adjusted R Square 0.48
expectations measurement of service qual-
Standard error 1.49
ity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January,
F (2,108) = 51.46; p ˜0 pp. 15-131.

[ 66 ]
Yuksel Ekinci, Dillon, W.R. (1986), “Building consumer behaviour
Michael Riley and models with LISREL: issues in applications”,
Chris Fife-Schaw in Brinberg, D. and Lutz, R.J. (Eds), Perspec-
Which school of thought? tives on Methodology in Consumer Research,
The dimensions of resort Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 107-54.
hotel quality
Ekinci, Y. and Riley, M. (1997), “Examination of
International Journal of the ‘SERVQUAL’, and ‘LODGESERV’ scales
Contemporary Hospitality
performance in the case of holiday makers’
Management
10/2 [1998] 63–67 perception of resort hotel service quality: a
pilot study”, in Hemmington, N. (Ed.), 6th
Annual Hospitality Research Conference Pro-
ceedings, Oxford Brooks University: School of
Hotel and Restaurant Management, Oxford,
pp. 163-85.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and
its marketing implications”, European Jour-
nal of Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1993), “LISREL 8:
structural equation modelling with the SIM-
PLIS command language”, Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates Publishers, London.
Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Wullaert, C. and Yokoy-
oma, F. (1990), “LODGSERV: a service quality
index for the lodging industry”, Hospitality
Research Journal, Special Issue, Annual
Cherie Conference Preceding, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 227-84.
Lewis, R. (1984), “Getting the most from market-
ing research IV: isolating differences in hotel
attributes”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 64-77
Lockwood, A., Gummesson, A., Hubrecht, J. and
Senior, M. (1992), “Developing and maintain-
ing a strategy for service quality”, in Teare, R.
and Olsen, M. (Eds), International Hospitality
Management Corporate Strategy in Practice,
Pitman, London, pp. 312-39.
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1991), “Two
approaches to service quality dimensions”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 287-303.
Mells, G., Boshoff, C. and Nel, D. (1997), “The
dimensions of service quality: the original
European perspective revisited”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 173-89.
Oberoi, U. (1989), “Quality assessment of a service
product: an empirically based study of UK
conference hotels”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Dorset Institute, University of Bournemouth.
Oh, H. and Parks, S. (1997), “Customer satisfaction
and service quality critical review of the
literature and research implications for the
hospitality industry”, Hospitality Research
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 35-64.
Parasurman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L.L.
(1985), “ A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50.
Parasurman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L.L.
(1988), “SERVQUAL a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perception of service
quality“, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring,
pp. 13-40.
Parasurman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A.
(1991), “Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.
67, Winter, pp. 421-50.
Parasurman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L.L.
(1994), “Alternative scales for measuring
service quality: a comparative assessment
based on psychometric and diagnostic crite-
ria”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No 3,
pp. 193-9.
Smith, A.M. (1995), “The consumer’s evaluation of
service quality: an examination of the
SERVQUAL methodology”, unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Manchester School of Management:
UMIST, Manchester.
Wilkinson, A. and Willmott, H. (1995), “Total
quality – asking critical questions”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 789-91.
Appendix. The instrument
Tangibles
1 The hotel had modern-looking equipment.
2 The hotel facilities were visually appeal-
ing.
3 Materials associated with the service
(such as menus, furniture) were visually
appealing at the hotel.
4 The hotel gave you a room which was visu-
ally attractive (LODGSERV item).
5 The hotel had a decor in keeping with its
image and price range (LODGSERV item).
The hotel’s employees were neat
appearing (deleted in reliability analysis)
(17).
Intangibles
6 Employees of the hotel were consistently
courteous with you.
7 Employees of the hotel were never too busy
to respond to your request.
8 Employees of the hotel understood your
specific needs.
9 The hotel had operating hours convenient
to all its customers.
10 Employees of the hotel were always willing
to help you.
11 The hotel gave you individual attention.
12 The behaviour of employees of the hotel
instills confidence in customers.
13 When you had a problem, the hotel showed
a sincere interest in solving it.
14 Employees of the hotel gave you prompt
service.
15 Employees of the hotel told you exactly
when services were available.
16 The hotel had your best interest at heart.
Employees of the hotel had knowledge
to answer your questions (18)
(deleted in reliability analysis).
[ 67 ]