Validating SERVPERF Model in Government Agencies

Dr Mass Hareeza Ali

P M Dr Noor Azman Ali
P M Dr Alias Radam
Department of Marketing and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia

ABSTRACT

The research measures on the service quality assessment in three research samples of tax-
collecting government agencies by using customer as the respondents. Customers are vital in service
organization as they are aimed at reactive targets, they are the people who are directly involved in
shaping and formulating the eventual ‘product’ (Irons, 1997). Customers’ view and expectations will be
used to analyze the service quality assessment in particular tax collector government agencies. The
present study seeks to address the following objectives; (1) to examine the customers’ perceptions of the
service provided in three tax collecting government agencies; (2) to identify and analyze the relative
importance of factors contributing to the service quality offered by Malaysian tax- collecting agencies.
Result from the research was expected to contribute new information in the development criteria for
measurement of quality of service particularly in the tax-collecting agencies in Malaysia. It also will
generate an improvement in ‘service quality’ provided by the agencies that would help to solve or act as
helpful sources in making effective decisions. The result would help the agencies to improve their level of
service to both their employees and customers.
Keywords: SERVPERF, Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

In today‟s changing global environment, many businesses are facing intensifying competition and
rapid deregulation, and in order to achieve competitive advantage and efficiency, businesses have to seek
profitable ways to differentiate themselves. One strategy that has been related to success is the delivery
of high service quality, especially during times of intensive competition both domestically and
internationally (Rao and Kelkar, 1997). This concept has been the subject of many conceptual and
empirical studies, and it is generally accepted that quality has positive implications for an organisation‟s
performance and competitive position.
As service quality is becoming a major part of business practice, it is important to be able to
measure and research its effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to examine the different dimensions
of service quality and determine which dimensions best predict overall service quality in the hospitality
industry by applying a modified version of SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988). This kind of
information has practical implications for managers of hotels as they can direct their resources to
improving weak service dimensions and to refining their marketing efforts so that customer expectations
are met by the service delivered.
The study seeks to address the following objectives:

84 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010
1. to examine the customers‟ perceptions of the service provided in three tax collectors government
agencies
2. to identify and analyse the relative importance of factors contributing to the service quality offered by
tax collector agency

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gronroos (1990) has noted that product quality was traditionally linked to the technical
specifications of goods, with most definitions of quality arising from the manufacturing sector where
quality control has received extensive attention and research. Conversely, Crosby (1979) defined quality
of goods as “conformance to requirements”; Juran (1980) defined it as “fitness for use”; while Garvin
(1983) measured quality by counting the incidence of “internal” failures (those observed before a product
left the factory) and “external” failures (those incurred in the field after a unit had been installed). These
product-based definitions of quality may be appropriate to the goods producing sector, however,
knowledge about the quality of goods is insufficient to understand service quality (Parasuraman et al.,
1985).
Since the 1970s, marketing researchers have acknowledged the importance of service quality in
developing business relationships and in managing their product offers to the market (Brown et al.,1994).
The construct of service quality has received increased scrutiny during the last few decades (Kotler,
2000). Earlier to this, Converse (1930) had emphasized the importance of services in the field of
marketing. In the contemporary marketplace service quality is recognized as one of the most important
factors in developing and maintaining successful relationships (Svensson, 2002). Services differ from
physical goods in several characteristics (Gro¨nroos, 2000): services are intangible and heterogeneous; the
production, distribution, and consumption of services are simultaneous processes; service is an activity or
process; service is a core value created in buyer-seller interactions; customers participate in the
production of services; services cannot be kept in stock; and there is no transfer of ownership in service
transactions.
Services are thus produced, distributed, and consumed in the interaction between the service
provider and the service receiver. Accordingly, services must be viewed from an interactive perspective.
Svensson (2001a) noted that service quality contributes to the strength of interpersonal, intra-
organisational, and inter-organisational service encounters. Service quality is an important construct in
services marketing (Gro¨nroos, 1990, 2000), industrial marketing (Ha°kansson and Snehota, 1995), and
relationship marketing (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). It has also gained increased attention in consumer
marketing (Kotler et al., 1999).
Service quality in a service encounter is recognized as being dependent upon the interactive process
between the service provider (the seller) and the service receiver (the buyer) (Brown et al., 1994; Czepiel,
1990; Echeverri, 1999; Gro¨nroos, 2000; Gummesson, 1995; Heskett et al., 1990; Larsson-Mossberg,
1994; Normann, 1992; Svensson, 2001a, 2002). This interactive process has been described as a
“theatre”, a “show”, or a “performance”. Nevertheless, despite the importance of the interactive process
in a service encounter, the construct of service quality still lacks thorough development in terms of its
interactive qualities.
Research has produced a number of classifications of services that emphasise only the service
receiver‟s perspective (Chase, 1978; Converse, 1930; Edvardsson, 1996; Gro¨nroos, 1979, 2000; Hill,
1977; Judd, 1964; Kotler, 1980; Lovelock, 1980, 1983; Rathmell, 1974; Sasser et al., 1978; Schmenner,

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010 85
1986; Shostack, 1977; Thomas, 1978; Vandermerwe and Chadwick, 1989), but researchers have only
recently emphasised the importance of interaction between actors in a service encounter (Brown and
Swartz, 1989; Echeverri, 1999; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Svensson, 2001a, 2002).
There are also a number of models described in the literature that conceptualise the construct of
service quality (Bienstock et al., 1997; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Edvardsson, 1996; Frost and Kumar, 2000;
Garvin, 1987, 1988; Gro¨nroos, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1990, 2000; Gummesson, 1987; Lehtinen and Lehtinen,
1991; Parasuraman et al., 1988). The construct of service quality is a multidimensional phenomenon
(Bienstock et al., 1997; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Parasuraman et al., 1988). The models of service quality
described in the literature, such as SERVQUAL, can be used in various contexts, but they do not usually
provide for managerial evaluation of the interactive nature of service quality in service encounters. At
best, certain abstract measurements and evaluations of service quality in service encounters have been
proposed (Berry et al., 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1991; Shostack, 1984, 1987; Smith and Huston, 1983).
The existing service-quality models are thus, usually based on the interpretations of only one of the
involved actors in a service encounter, without considering the service provider‟s perspective. Svensson
(2001a) has provided a generic managerial framework to evaluate interactive service quality and other
multi-item measures involving mutuality.
The continuous rise in the use of SERVQUAL has been arguably attributed to a practical usefulness
in diagnostic analysis for improving service quality, especially when it is applied in an international
service setting (Sureshchandar et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2002). According to Parasuraman et al. (1993),
the diagnostic application of SERVQUAL dominates commercial use of the instrument and is one of its
primary advantages. In their argument, the SERVQUAL measurement has more diagnostics, and
therefore more practical implications than has the performance-only measurement. However, many
researchers have questioned the reliability and validity of the difference score measures in SERVQUAL
(Buttle, 1996).
Zhou (2004), specifically invalidate the implicit assumption inherent in SERVQUAL that the
performance-expectation components have equal and opposite effects on the dependent variables such as
consumer satisfaction. As they argued (p. 190), “if managers simply look at the attributes with the largest
gap between performance and a standard [either expectation or desire], they may not be focusing on
important attributes. That is, just because there is a large gap (the diagnostic approach) does not mean
that the attribute is important”. Zhou (2004), further suggests looking at the relationship of the attribute
with an overall dependent measure as one way to assess the importance of the attribute (i.e. the predictive
use). They call for further research on this issue.
Thus, using specific dimensions of service quality as predictors of consumer satisfaction could
enhance the diagnostic value of service quality models. Related to the performance-only model, such a
focus would provide a useful extension to the previous testing of the SERVPERF approach at an
aggregate level of analysis (Cronin and Taylor, 1994).

LINKING SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY TO SATISFACTION

Inherent in the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1988), the conceptualization and
measurement of the service quality construct are multidimensional. In its original structure, service
quality consists of five dimensions:
1. the tangibility aspects of the service;
2. the reliability of the service provider;

86 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010
3. the assurance provided by the service provider;
4. the responsiveness of the service provider; and
5. the service provider's empathy with customers.
These multidimensional facets form the cornerstone on which a great deal of subsequent research
has been built. Despite significant variations of the dimensionality reported across different research
settings (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Carman, 1990), the service quality construct generally involves
distinct facets of service dimensions (Llosa et al., 1998). Such characteristics would not suggest the use
of a summed index to operationalize the service quality construct. Rather, context-dependent dimensions
of service quality would be desirable, especially in relation to the consumer satisfaction construct. As
satisfaction can result from any of the dimensions of service quality (Rust and Oliver, 1994; Taylor and
Baker, 1994), a dimension-specific analysis of the relationship between service quality and satisfaction is
likely to provide more diagnostic value for improvement of service quality.
The focus on dimension or attribute-level determinants of consumer satisfaction is not new. In the
context of product category, Swan and Combs (1976) postulated that consumers make judgments on a set
of product attributes, some of which are relatively important in determining satisfaction. Relevant to the
service setting, Cadotte and Turgeon (1988) undertook an analysis of the content of consumers' written
comments provided by both restaurant and hotel owners in the US, and focused on consumer satisfaction
versus dissatisfaction and complaining behavior in relation to the performance or absence of desired
service features.
Specifically, it was found that the most frequently mentioned sources of satisfaction concern the
intangible nature of the service and correspond to Parasuraman et al.'s (1988) reliability, empathy,
assurance, and responsiveness dimensions. In a more recent study, Johns and Howard (1998) undertook a
similar analysis to Johnston's (1995) work in the service context of fast-food restaurants, and found the
relative importance of aesthetics, friendliness and comfort to be sources of consumer satisfaction. These
attempts to relate service attributes or dimensions to consumer satisfaction are primarily exploratory in
nature, and stem from a consumer satisfaction improvement orientation. The predictable basis of service
attributes and quality dimensions on satisfaction is yet to be examined (Johns and Howard, 1998).
While much of the research has been focused on a better understanding of the link between the
attributes or dimensions of service quality and consumer satisfaction, little research has specifically been
conducted within the conceptual model of SERVPERF or SERVQUAL. In examining the validity of
difference scores in marketing research with specific reference to the most pervasive use in the service
quality research, Page and Spreng (2002) conceptualize a direct link between individual service/product
attributes and satisfaction. They tested alternative models, including a difference score effect model
(using performance-expectation difference scores as predictors) and a direct effect model (allowing the
separate effects of performance and expectations). In both service and product settings, Zhou (2004),
demonstrate that performance attributes are much stronger predictors of satisfaction compared to
expectations, and further confirm the performance-only model to be superior (at the attribute level).
Thus, using individual SERVPERF dimensions as predictors for consumer satisfaction reflects the
conceptualization of recent studies in the literature. This conceptualization parallels the long-held view in
the product category that consumer satisfaction is regarded as a function of attribute-level evaluations of
product performance (LaTour and Peat, 1979; Mittal et al., 1999). Relevant to the focus of the current
study, we propose and test the attribute determinants of service quality in relation to consumer
satisfaction by comparing the dimension-specific SERVPERF model with its counterpart, that is, the
dimension-specific SERVQUAL model. Given the preponderance of support for the SERVPERF model

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010 87
(at the aggregate level) as reviewed previously, we hypothesize that the dimension-specific SERVPERF
model is likely to be confirmed. Also, we expect to observe significant variations regarding the effects of
individual service quality dimensions on satisfaction.
The dominant penalization of service quality has been Parasuraman et. al.‟s (1988) SERVQUAL
scale. The foundation of the measure rested on Brady (2002) suggestion that service quality should be
represented as the difference, or „gap‟, between service expectations and actual service performance (i.e.,
the disconfirmation paradigm). Thus, the GAP paradigm implies that service quality is deemed sufficient
when consumer perceptions of service performance are equal to or greater than the expected level of
service. Using the disconfirmation paradigm as a theoretical basis, Parasuraman et. al. (1988) devised the
SERVQUAL scale. The instrument employs a pair of 22-item scales, each identical with the exception
that one assesses the perceived performance of a service provider, the other the consumers‟ expectations
regarding the level of service quality measure (i.e. SERVQUAL).
Cronin and Taylor (1992) were the first to offer a theoretical justification for discarding the
expectations portion of SERVQUAL in favor of just the performance measures included (i.e., what they
termed SERVPERF). The term “performance-only measures” has thus come to refer to service quality
measures that are based only consumers‟ perceptions of the performance of a service provider, as opposed
to the difference (or gap) between the consumers‟ performance perceptions and their performance
expectations.

METHODOLOGY

The present research will focus mainly on three service organizations in Malaysia namely: Inland
Revenue Board of Malaysia (LHDN), Road Transport Department (JPJ) and Immigration Department of
Malaysia. The research used questionnaire to discover customers‟ perception on the service provided by
the agencies. The customer questionnaire for the present research was based on the SERVQUAL
instrument consisting of 22-scale item pairs - a gap analysis approach between expectations and
perceptions)(Parasuraman et al, 1988) and was supplemented with some changes suggested by a reading
of LeCropane and Booms (1996). To add to the suitability of the research, the researcher added a few
more related questions. The questionnaire was written in Malay language due to the respondent
convenience and easy understood on the requirement from the questionnaire (Appendix A). There was a
strong belief that the criteria were important in obtaining customers‟ view of the service encounter which
they had experienced.

Table 1: demographic factors

Frequency (n=267) Percent
Agency
LHDN 81 30.34
JPJ 105 39.33
Immigration 81 30.34
Gender
Male 136 50.94
Female 131 49.06
Age
Less than 20 year 17 6.37
21 - 30 years 142 53.18
31 - 40 years 65 24.34

88 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010
41 - 50 years 30 11.24
More than 50 years 13 4.87
Education Level
PMR/SPM/STPM 100 37.45
College/Vocasional/Technical/Diploma 63 23.60
Degree 87 32.58
Master/PhD 15 5.62
Others 2 0.75
Occupation
Government 46 17.23
Private 156 58.43
Ownbusiness 58 21.72
Housewife 7 2.62

RESULTS ANALYSIS

This section describes the analysis of the data in three government agencies: JPJ, LHDN and
Immigration Malaysia. Based on a measure of the customers perceptions of these organizations will be
questioned in order to ascertain the performance in service organisations. The customers view and
perceptions are crucial, particularly they are the one who received the service from the organisations.
Table 2 below show the Cronbach‟s alpha in examining the internal reliability of the items used.
Based on the test; the alpha coefficient for the entire examined construct in this research is acceptable.
The result indicates that all the items measuring above are very stable and consistent. Therefore, the
relationship between measurements of items in the scale can be determined significantly and this is
important in the following analysis.

Table 2: Reliability Test – Cronbach’s Alpha Test

No of items Expectation Perception
Assurance 4 0.854 0.796
Reliability 5 0.856 0.793
Responsiveness 4 0.896 0.869
Empathy 5 0.890 0.878
Tangibility 4 0.871 0.812

ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS MEAN DIMENSION

Respondents were asked to evaluate their perception of the importance of the 24 items in Section B
of the customer‟s questionnaire. The dimensions provided a framework for translating the service of
performance characteristics into measurable requirements, while the requirements dimensions was used in
visualizing the importance and the level of customer satisfaction. The mean scores were based on results
from a seven-point scale: [1] was „strongly disagree‟ and [7] was „strongly agree‟.
A measure of service quality was then formulated by calculating the different mean scores between
the corresponding set of items (that is, perception minus expectation). Results with a small average mean
difference (the lowest scores) showed a narrow mean gap, indicating that the „level of importance
dimension‟ met the customers‟ expectations. In contrast, where there was a larger mean difference, there
was less satisfaction with service received.
The following sections will describe the results of each organization: LHDN, JPJ and Immigration.

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010 89
 Table 3: Results for LHDN, JPJ, and Immigration
Respon
-
Assuranc Reliabilit sivenes Empath Tangibilit SERVQUA
e y s y y L
Expectation
LHDN 3.552 3.679 3.491 3.437 3.864 3.605
JPJ 3.857 3.893 3.817 3.676 4.000 3.849
Department of
Immigration 3.580 3.669 3.590 3.548 3.833 3.644
F-value 5.800 3.290 4.918 2.536 1.950 4.642
P-value 0.003 0.039 0.008 0.081 0.144 0.010
Perception
LHDN 3.269 3.459 2.917 2.758 3.898 3.260
JPJ 3.712 3.830 3.557 3.535 3.974 3.722
Department of
Immigration 3.244 3.230 3.154 3.044 3.778 3.290
F-value 14.005 21.314 16.230 28.043 2.293 19.748
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.103 0.000
Overall average SERVQUAL
LHDN -0.3446 F-value= 3.1581 P-value= 0.0441
JPJ -0.1270
Department of
Immigration -0.3541

From table 3 above, it can conclude that most of the dimensions in SERVQUAL have negative gap.
The results for the „assurance‟ indicate that the customers were not happy with how they being entertain
by the staff of those three organizations. It should be noted that the higher the mean difference (result)
the more unsatisfactory the service. The results show that, when dealing with Immigration, the customers
were very unsatisfied with the employees‟ overall performance.
The results indicate that customers perceive services provided by Immigration to be unreliable. The
table also shows that the customers consider the services provided by LHDN and JPJ employees to be
unreliable. This indicates that the three organizations never or rarely inform them of any potential
problem that may affect them.
The mean results show that customers of the three organizations are not completely responsible in
the provision of services. The results also highlight the fact that customers of LHDN, JPJ and
Immigration experience great difficulty in meeting management to discuss their problems. A possible
explanation for this is that in realistic, pragmatic employment circumstances management is highly
stretched to deal with customers face to face. It is also possible that management is more likely to deal
only with complex and convoluted issues.
Here, customers showed that they were not satisfied at all with the courtesy displayed by those
three organizations especially LHDN with the highest negative gap (0.679). The results in the above
table also show that the employees did not demonstrate interest and concern in the customers‟ desires and
requirements. Results also indicate the employees of the three organizations did not show cooperation
and respect in the treatment of the customers. Tangibility is the next dimension to be evaluated.
Table 3 above displays that tangibility is not the main attraction of customers when dealing with
these service organizations. Surprisingly, customers indicated that they were quite satisfied with the
pragmatic business setting by LHDN with the lowest mean score. This is due to the fact that LHDN and

90 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010
the other two organizations are controlled by the Malaysian Ministry and they did not have any
competition at all.

Table 4: Five dimension of quality

Respon
Assurance Reliability siveness Empathy Tangibility SERVQUAL
Expectation
Government 3.902 3.887 3.848 3.709 4.011 3.871
Private 3.643 3.756 3.623 3.538 3.862 3.685
Ownbusiness 3.621 3.666 3.534 3.521 3.966 3.661
Housewife 3.571 3.800 3.857 3.571 3.786 3.717
F-value 1.932 0.894 1.821 0.739 0.958 1.326
P-value 0.125 0.445 0.144 0.530 0.413 0.266
Perception
Government 3.511 3.574 3.315 3.117 3.810 3.465
Private 3.421 3.538 3.216 3.165 3.862 3.441
Ownbusiness 3.379 3.438 3.172 3.059 4.026 3.415
Housewife 3.714 4.029 3.857 3.800 3.964 3.873
F-value 0.651 1.679 1.633 1.914 1.315 1.223
P-value 0.583 0.172 0.182 0.128 0.270 0.302
Overall average SERVQUAL
Government -0.406
Private -0.244 F-value= 1.479 P-value= 0.221
Ownbusiness -0.247
Housewife 0.156

From table 4 above, 46 of the respondents are working in government sector. 156 come from
private company and 58 are working on their own or they own the business themselves. Remaining are 7
respondents who are the housewives. Through the five dimensions, it was indicated that „housewife‟
show positive gap for all five dimension indicating that there is significant differences in occupation.
This results may be due to those who did not working have very low perception towards the services they
expected to receive from this three organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

This research began with the basic SERVQUAL survey instrument. It gathered literature about
customer perceptions and expectations. This study concern whether SERVQUAL only explains more
variance in overall service. The result of this study supports the hypothesis that the SERVQUAL-based
measures of service quality capture more of the variation in service quality. This result implies that
agency should place emphasis on the difference between perceived performance and prior expectation. It
means that they may have to concern about customer expectations. A main purpose of concern about the
customer expectations is to provide information on service quality gap. However, there are two different
kinds of expectations: normative expectations and predictive expectation. The expectation in SERVPERF
was conceptualized as predictive expectations while expectation in SEVQUAL was conceptualized as
normative expectations. SERVQUAL is difference-based measures that differentiate the actual
performance and expected performance.

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010 91
 Some literature has suggested that satisfaction is an antecedent of service quality (e.g. Bitner, 1990;
Bolton and Drew, 1991). The result of this study has support that the perceived service quality in fact has
lead to customer satisfaction. SERVQUAL has five dimensions and each dimension is important factor
in the people-based industries. The results of this study support the hypothesis that make in this study.
The results suggest that people-based service company must focus on all the dimensions in SERVQUAL
to improve customers‟ perceptions on service quality. Therefore, companies should check and renovate
their facilities and equipments. Besides that, training provided to the employees to increase their skills
and attitude when communicate to the customers.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., van Rossum, W. (2006), "Customer value propositions in business markets", Harvard Business Review,
No.March, pp.90-9.
Assael, H. (1992), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 4th ed., PWS-Kent Publishing, Boston, MA,
Babakus, E., Boller, G. (1992), "An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24
No.May, pp.253-68.
Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. (1985,1988), "The service quality puzzle", Business Horizons, Vol. 28 No.5, pp.35-43.
Brown, J and O‟Sullivan, D (ed) (1995) Reengineering the Enterprise, Chapman and Hall, London
Carman, J.M. (1990), "Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions", Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 66 No.1, pp.33-55.
Clutterbuck, D., Goldsmith, W. (1998), "Customer care versus customer count", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No.5, pp.327-41.
Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A. (1994), "SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-
expectations measurement of service quality", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No.1, pp.125-31.
Gilmore, J.H., Pine, J.B. II (2002), "Customer experience places: the new offering frontier", Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 30 No.4,
pp.4-11.
Gordon H.G. McDougall and Terrence Levesque, “Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No.5 (2000), pp. 392-410.
Grönroos, C. (1983,90), Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector, Swedish School of Economics and Business
Administration, Helsingfors,
Heskett, J L, Jones, T O, Lovenan, G W, Sasser, W E and Schlensiger, L A (1994) „Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work‟,
Harvard Business Review, March-April, 165-174
Hintzman, D.L. (1978), The Psychology of Learning and Memory, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, .
Irons K (1997) The World of Superservice, Creating Profit Through a Passion for Customer Service, Addison-Wesley
Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
Oliver, R.L. (1999), "Whence consumer loyalty?", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No.4, pp.33-44.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. (1994), "Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service
quality: implications for future research", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No.January, pp.111-24.
Parasuraman, A, Zeithaml, V A and Berry, L (1988) „SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of
Service Quality‟, Journal of Retailing, 12-40
Pavlov, I.P. (1927), Conditioned Reflexes, Oxford University Press, New York, NY,
Rust R T and Oliver R L (1994) Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (edn), SAGE Publications
Solomon, M.R. (1999), Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), "Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence", Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 52 No.3, pp.2-22.

92 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations,
The Free Press, New York, N

The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 6, Num. 1, June 2010 93