Content uploaded by Ibrahim yılmaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ibrahim yılmaz on Jan 12, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 375
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 375-386, 2009
Copyright © 2009 anatolia
Printed in Turkey. All rights reserved
1303-2917/09 $20.00 + 0.00
Measurement of Service Quality in the
Hotel Industry
A B S T R A C T
The main objective of the study was to measure hotels’ service quality
perform-
ance from the customer perspective. To do so, a performance-only measure-
ment scale (SERVPERF) was administered to 234 customers stayed in three,
four and five star hotels in Cappadocia. The results of the study demonstrate
that SERVPERF is a reliable and valid tool to measure service quality in the
hotel industry. The instrument consists of four dimensions, namely “tangi-
bles”, “assurance-responsiveness”, “empathy”, and “reliability”. Hotel cus-
tomers are expecting more improved services from the hotels in all service
quality dimensions. However, hotel customers have the lowest perception
scores on tangibles. It is also revealed that empathy is the most important
dimension in predicting hotel customers’ overall service quality evaluation.
In the light of the results, possible managerial implications are discussed
and future research subjects are recommended.
IBRAHIM YILMAZ1
1 Faculty of Commerce and Tourism Education, Nevşehir University, 50040 Nevşehir, Turkey.
E-mail:iyilmaz@nevsehir.edu.tr
K E Y W O R D S
Service quality
SERVPERF
Hotel industry
Cappadocia
Turkey
A R T I C L E H I S T O R Y
Submi�ed : 04 April 2009
Resubmi�ed : 13 April 2009
Resubmi�ed : 04 October 2009
Resubmi�ed : 17 Nov
Accepted : 08 October 2009
INTRODUCTION
The interest in service quality has increased noticeably, and the studies re-
vealed that service quality is a prerequisite for success and survival in today’s
competitive environment (Ghobadian, Speller and Jones 1994). Especially in
recent years, the key to sustainable advantage lies in delivering high quality
service that results in satised customers (Shemwell, Yavas, and Bilgin 1998).
Also, service quality is vital for the hotel industry (Fick and Ritchie 1991) and
hotels with high service quality can improve their market share and prot-
ability (Oh and Parks 1997). But rst, service quality level of existing services
should be measured based on customers’ perspective by a reliable and valid
measurement tool.
376 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 377
Ibrahim Yilmaz
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 1988) have developed and rened
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1991, 1994) an instrument called SERV-
QUAL to measure service quality in service organizations. According to the
SERVQUAL service quality can be measured by identifying gaps between
customers’ expectations of the service and their perceptions of the actual
performance of the service providers. If expectations are met or exceeded
service quality is perceived to be satisfactory. SERVQUAL is initially based
on ten original dimensions of service quality (Parasuraman et al. 1985). These
dimensions were further collapsed in to ve generic dimensions, namely tan-
gibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy (Parasuraman et
al. 1988).
SERVQUAL scale has been widely used to measure service quality in gen-
eral service sector or particularly in the hotel industry. However, despite its
value and popularity, it has received important criticisms since it was devel-
oped. A considerable number of criticisms about SERVQUAL focused on the
use of expectations as a comparison standard in the measurement of service
quality. Many researchers (Cronin and Taylor 1992, 1994; Babakus and Boller
1992; Boulding, Kalra, Staelin and Zeithaml 1993; Brady, Cronin and Brand
2002) emphasized that expectations doesn’t provide extra information in
measuring service quality. Thus, they suggested that service quality can be
measured using a performance-only approach not the gap-based SERVQUAL
scale. Especially in recent years, SERVPERF scale was used for measuring
service quality in dierent service establishments, including hotels. (Some of
the literature on this subject is mentioned in the literature review below). In
parallel with this trend and the comments mentioned above, the study aims
to measure hotels’ service quality performance from the customer perspec-
tive, with a performance-only measurement scale (SERVPERF).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1991, and 1994) emphasized that expectations are
one of the most widely used comparison standards in the evaluation of serv-
ice quality. However, many researchers pointed out that the measurement
of expectations is problematic and not necessary in measuring service qual-
ity. For example, Carman (1990) emphasized that a major shortcoming of the
SERVQUAL is the treatment of expectations. Finn and Lamb (1991) examined
the usefulness of SERVQUAL in a retail se�ing, and concluded that SERV-
QUAL can’t be used to assess perceived service quality in retailing. Brown,
Churchill, and Peter (1993) reviewed and examined the three psychometric
problems (reliability, discriminant validity, and variance restriction) associ-
ated with the use of dierence scores to measure service quality. Liljander
and Strandvik (1993) emphasized that despite the importance of expectations,
their usage are vague and needs to be rened. Teas (1994) drew a�ention to
some validity problems arise when expectations are used as a comparison
standard. He indicated that expectations are dynamic in nature and may
change according to customer’s experiences and consumption situations.
376 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 377
Ibrahim Yilmaz
Also, Bu�le (1996) specied that the term expectation is polysemic and cus-
tomers use standards other than expectations to evaluate service quality.
In parallel to the criticisms mentioned above, some researchers (Cronin
and Taylor 1992, 1994; Babakus and Boller 1992; Boulding et al. 1993) have ar-
gued that measurement of expectations doesn’t provide additional informa-
tion in measuring service quality. Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) emphasized
that
service quality was directly inuenced only by perceptions of service per-
form
ance. Accordingly, they developed an instrument of service performance
(SERVPERF) that seems to produce be�er results than SERVQUAL. Similarly,
Boulding et al. (1993) rejected the use of expectations as a comparison stand-
ard and recommended performance-only measurement of service quality. In
their more recent replication study of SERVPERF; Brady et al. (2002) sug
gested
that service quality can be measured using a performance-only ap
proach as op-
posed to the gap-based SERVQUAL scale. In this direction, many researches
given below revealed that SERVPERF scale was more suitable for measuring
service quality in several service industries, including hotel industry.
Cronin and Taylor (1992) conducted a study in fast food, banking, pest
con-
trol, and dry cleaning industries and concluded that SERVPERF was supe-
rior to SERVQUAL. They posited that performance-only items explain more
variance in perceived service quality than do dierence scores. These results
were supported by some other studies conducted in dierent service indus-
tries, namely dental healthcare (dentistry) (McAlexander, Kaldenberg and
Koenig 1994; Paul 2003a, b), entertainment park, aerobic school, and invest-
ment consulting rm (Lee, Lee and Yoo 2000), fast food restaurants (Jain and
Gupta 2004), and hotels (Luk and Layton 2004). On the other hand, Marshall
and Smith (2000) demonstrated that SERVPERF had construct validity in the
context of retail shopping. Jain and Gupta (2004) compared SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF scales in fast food context. They found that the SERVPERF scale
was more convergent and discriminate valid scale than SERVQUAL in the
measurement of service quality in fast food restaurants. Johns, Avcı,
and Ka-
ratepe (2004) measured service quality delivered by travel agents
us
ing a SERV-
QUAL scale. However, they indicated that performance-only
scores (SERVPERF)
showed be�er reliability and validity than dierence scores. Zhou (2004) used
performance-only measurement of service quality (SERVPERF) in retail bank-
ing. Yoo (2005) used SERVPERF to measure service quality of hospitals. Gaur
and Agrawal (2006) pointed out that the SERVQUAL fails to serve as
univo-
cally reliable and valid measure of retail service quality. Brochado
and Marques
(2007) compared the performance of ve alternative measures of service qual-
ity in the high education sector, and they concluded that SERVPERF scale had
one of the best results in terms of criterion validity, convergent validity, and
explained variance.
Armstrong, Mok, Go and Chan (1997) conducted a cross-cultural study of
service quality perceptions in the hotel industry. They concluded that per-
formance-only scale (SERVPERF) provides a be�er method of service quality
measurement. Karatepe and Avcı (2002) used SERVPERF to measure service
378 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 379
Ibrahim Yilmaz
quality in the hotel industry. Luk and Layton (2004) had a similar study in the
hotels. They determined that performance scores outperform gap scores in
terms of reliable measurement of service quality. Nadiri and Hussain (2005)
used SERVPERF scale to measure service quality provided by the hotels. Re-
sults of the study support that SERVPERF is a be�er predictor of service qual-
ity, and performance-only measurement of service quality is sucient.
METHODOLOGY
A self-administrated questionnaire was used and the SERVPERF scale (per-
formance-only items) was employed in this study. The questionnaire con-
sisted of two main sections; the rst section was designed to measure service
quality perceptions of the hotel customers. In addition, there was one item
for measuring overall service quality level of the hotels with customers’ per-
spective. The second part of the questionnaire includes questions relating to
demographic data (nationality, gender etc.) about respondents. Since some
researchers (Babakus and Mangold 1992; Karatepe and Avcı 2002) pointed
out that ve point scale work be�er and increase response rate and response
quality, a ve point scale (1=very low and, 5=very high) was preferred for data
collection, not the seven point scale on SERVPERF.
The sample of the study consisted of hotel customers staying in three-star,
four-star, and ve-star hotels in Nevşehir. The province of Nevşehir is one of
the most popular tourist destinations in Cappadocia Region, Turkey. Accord-
ing to the Directorate of Culture and Tourism (2008), there were 25 tourism
operation licensed hotels. These include three ve-star hotels, 16 four-star ho-
tels, and three three-star hotels. Permission had been gained from the hotel
managers. Due to some data collection diculties, a convenience sampling
approach was employed and respondents were requested to ll out the ques-
tionnaires after their check-out transactions. The guests completed the ques-
tionnaires in accompaniment of the researcher as possible and completed
questionnaires were taken by the researcher after the completion. A total of
250 questionnaires were distributed during July to August 2008. Sixteen ques-
tionnaires were eliminated because of incompleteness, and 234 (93%) were
found to be useful for analysis.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The demographic proles of the sample are given below (Table 1). More than
half of respondents (52%) stayed in four-star hotels. With respect to national-
ity, 19% were French and Spanish separately, 14% were Germen, 13% were
Japan, 12% were Italian, and 23% were other nationalities (American, Austral-
ian, British, and Korean etc). In terms of gender and age, 59% of the respond-
ents were males and 24% were aged between 35-44 categories. The largest
group (57%) of respondents had a graduate degree, and 43% of respondents
held professional qualications (doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, and so
on), and 22% were self employed.
378 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 379
Ibrahim Yilmaz
Reliability and Validity of the Instrument
Psychometric properties of the instrument (reliability and validity) were test-
ed. Reliability and validity are the important criterions that are used to deter-
mine the goodness of an instrument. To test the internal consistency among
the items and convergent validity of the overall scales, a reliability analysis
was used (Sekaran 2003). The overall reliability (Cronbach alpha) score of the
instrument was 0.96, at quite high level. Also, the reliability scores calculated
for each of the four factors were quite high. This shows that there was good
internal consistency among the items within each factor. So, the instrument
can be considered to be reliable.
Validity is dened as “the extent to which a scale fully and unambiguously
captures the underlying unobservable, construct it is indented to measure”
(Parasuraman et al. 1988; Sekaran 2003). There are several dierent forms of
validity (such as face, convergent, construct, and discriminate validity). In
Table 1. Prole of Respondents (n=234)
Frequency Percent (%)
Category of the hotels
3 star 41 17
4 star 121 52
5 star 72 31
Nationality
French 44 19
Spanish 44 19
German 32 14
Japan 30 13
Italian 29 12
Others 55 23
Gender
Male 139 59
Female 95 41
Age
18-24 23 10
25-34 36 15
35-44 55 24
45-54 51 22
55- 64 43 18
65 and over 26 11
Education level
Secondary or high school 33 14
Vocational school 63 27
Graduate degree 134 57
Postgraduate 4 2
Occupation
Self employed 51 22
Professionals 101 43
Retired 41 18
Students 26 11
Others 15 6
380 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 381
Ibrahim Yilmaz
assessing the face validity of an instrument, it was necessary to see how the
items were selected (Cavana, Corbe� and Lo 2007). The items were the same
as the original SERVPERF, is regarded as one of the leading measures of serv-
ice quality. Further, the items of the instrument were pre-tested with a pilot
study. As Fornell and Larcker (1981) mentioned the level of variance extracted
is a measure of construct validity. The higher the variance extracted, the more
valid is the measure. The instrument used in the study for measuring percep-
tions produce high level of variance extracted. Also, the high alpha value for
the overall scale indicated that convergent validity was met (Parasuraman et
al. 1991). So, the instrument can be considered to have validity.
Dimensionality of the Instrument
SPSS 13.0 was used for data analysis. An exploratory factor analysis was per-
formed in order to assess the dimensionality of the instrument. The principal
component analysis with Varimax rotation was employed. Factors with eigen
value greater than 1.00 and, items with factor loading greater than 0.50 were
considered signicant and included in the analysis. The reliability analysis
was employed to assess the overall reliability score of the instrument and reli-
ability scores for each factor. Only two items with factor loading lower than
0.50 were deleted. As can be seen in Table 2 below, the factor analysis results
show that four factors emerged as dimensions of perceived service quality in
the hotels. These four factors explained 78% of the total variance. Each fac-
tor was labeled in accordance with its composing items and consisted of ve
items. The rst factor (tangibles) explained 59% of the total variance. So, tan-
gibles were particularly important contributor to service quality perceptions
in the hotels. The second factor (assurance-responsiveness) explained 8% of
the total variance. The third factor (empathy) explained 6%, and the fourth
factor (reliability) explained 5% of the total variance.
As can be seen from Table 3, hotel customers have the highest per
ception
score (mean=3.81) related to reliability followed by assurance-responsive-
ness (mean=3.78), empathy (mean=3.73), and tangibles (mean=3.57) factors,
respectively. Also, a reliability item “when you have a problem, the hotel
shows a sincere interest in solving it” has relatively higher perception score
(mean=3.88) than others. However, interestingly two items from other factors
have second and third the highest scores. Namely, an empathy item “employ-
ees of the hotel have the knowledge to answer your questions” has second
highest perception score (mean=3.87), and an assurance-responsiveness item
“you feel safe in your transaction with the hotel” has third (mean=3.86). In
parallel to general factor mean score (tangibles have the lowest), a tangibles
item “the hotel has modern-looking equipment” has the lowest perception
score (mean=3.53) between items.
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis was used to investigate the relative importance of the
four service quality factors in predicting overall quality. The four service
qual-
380 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 381
Ibrahim Yilmaz
ity factors used as independent variables and overall service quality as de-
pendent variable in the analysis. Analysis results (Table 4) indicated that the
regression model was statistically signicant. Variance ination factor (VIF)
and tolerance values were examined to test the multicollinearity in the model.
Generally, a tolerance value less than 0.10 or VIF value greater than 10 indi-
cates signicant multicollinearity problem (Hair et al. 1998). Since, all VIF
values were less than 10 and tolerance values were greater than 0.10 there
was no evidence of multicollinearity. In addition, Durbin-Watson test score
(=1.896) showed that there was no autocorrelation in the analysis. Four fac-
tors explained 0.63% of the variance in overall service quality. Empathy was
the most important factor (Beta=0.356) in predicting hotel customers’ overall
service quality perceptions.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Mostly, the same or adapted to original SERVQUAL formats (Parasuraman
et
al. 1988, 1991) have been used to measure service quality in the hotels.
However,
Table 2. Results of Factor Analysis (n=234)
Factor Name and Items Factor Loading Eigenvalue Variance (%) Reliability
1. Tangibles 12.98 59.03 0.97
The hotel has modern-looking equipment 0.87
The hotel’s physical facilities are visually appealing 0.86
The hotel’s employees are neat-appearing 0.82
Materials associated with the service are visually
appealing at the hotel 0.83
The hotel has operating hours convenient to all its customers 0.81
2. Assurance-responsiveness 1.89 8.61 0.92
Employees of the hotel are never too busy to respond to
your requests 0.81
Employees of the hotel are always willing to help you 0.81
Employees of the hotel give you prompt service
You feel safe in your transaction with the hotel 0.78
Employees of the hotel tell you exactly when services
will be performed 0.70
3. Empathy 1.35 6.17 0.92
The hotel has employees who give you personal attention 0.82
The hotel has your best interest at heart 0.78
The hotel gives you individual attention 0.76
Employees of the hotel understand your specific needs 0.75
Employees of the hotel have the knowledge to answer
your questions 0.56
4. Reliability 1.08 4.93 0.90
The hotel performs the service right the first time 0.75
When you have a problem, the hotel shows a sincere
interest in solving it 0.73
The hotel provides its services at the time it promises to do so 0.71
When the hotel promises to do something by a certain
time, it does so 0.68
The hotel insists on error-free records 0.56
Note: KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy:0.94, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: 5704.929, p<0.001.
382 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 383
Ibrahim Yilmaz
there are not many published research about the performance-only measure-
ment (SERVPERF) of service quality in the hotel industry. This study sup-
ports the argument of some researchers (cited in the literature review above)
that a performance-only measurement (SERVPERF) is a good predictor of
service quality, and sucient. Also, some researchers highlighted adminis-
tration diculties of SERVQUAL. Bouman and van der Wiele (1992) claimed
that respondents appear to be bored and sometimes confused by two admin-
istrations (before-and-after approach to measure expectations and percep-
tions) of SERVQUAL. Similarly, Bu�le (1996) pointed out that those two ad-
ministrations of SERVQUAL cause boredom and confusion. Since SERPERF
Table 3. Mean Values of the Factors and Items
Factor and Items Means Standart Deviations
Tangibles 3.57
The hotel has modern-looking equipment 3.53 0.87
The hotel’s physical facilities are visually appealing 3.55 0.86
The hotel’s employees are neat-appearing 3.57 0.86
Materials associated with the service are visually appealing at the hotel 3.60 0.81
The hotel has operating hours convenient to all its customers 3.61 0.78
Assurance-responsiveness 3.78
Employees of the hotel are never too busy to respond to your requests 3.77 0.79
Employees of the hotel are always willing to help you 3.78 0.76
Employees of the hotel give you prompt service 3.77 0.78
You feel safe in your transaction with the hotel 3.86 0.80
Employees of the hotel tell you exactly when services will be performed 3.73 0.74
Empathy 3.73
The hotel has employees who give you personal attention 3.69 0.73
The hotel has your best interest at heart 3.70 0.75
The hotel gives you individual attention 3.74 0.78
Employees of the hotel understand your specific needs 3.65 0.76
Employees of the hotel have the knowledge to answer your questions 3.87 0.75
Reliability 3.81
The hotel performs the service right the first time 3.85 0.82
When you have a problem, the hotel shows a sincere interest in solving it 3.88 0.87
The hotel provides its services at the time it promises to do so 3.82 0.86
When the hotel promises to do something by a certain time, it does so 3.81 0.86
The hotel insists on error-free records 3.70 0.81
Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis
Independent variables Beta t- values Significance Tolerance VIF
(Constant) 1.361 0.17
Tangibles 0.119 2.069 0.04 0.462 2.164
Assurance-responsiveness 0.188 2.959 0.00 0.380 2.633
Empathy 0.356 6.045 0.00 0.441 2.268
Reliability 0.245 3.571 0.00 0.325 3.075
Adjusted R square=0.63, F=104.220, Sig.=0.00, Durbin-Watson test score=1. 896
382 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 383
Ibrahim Yilmaz
instrument is a less time consuming (it reduces by 50% the number of items),
more user friendly, reliable, and valid measurement tool, it can be preferred
to SERVQUAL.
In this study, service quality performance of three, four and ve star ho
tels in
Cappadocia is analyzed based on customers’ perspective, using a perform-
ance-only measurement scale (SERVPERF). The results of the study demon-
strate that the scale consists of four dimensions: tangibles, assurance-respon-
siveness, empathy, and reliability. It is found that tangibles are particularly
important contributor (explained more than half of the total variance) to serv-
ice quality perceptions in the hotels. It is not surprising, since services are in-
tangible; hotel customers may use tangible cues of the services they received
as the main indicators of service quality. However, interesting way hotel
customers have the lowest perception scores on tangibles with respect to di-
mensions and items. The results also demonstrate that the most important
dimension in predicting hotel customers’ overall service quality evaluation
is empathy, followed by reliability, assurance-responsiveness, and tangibles
respectively.
Despite, Parasuraman et al.’s (1988, 1991) claim that ve-dimensional struc-
ture of service quality (SERVQUAL) are general, one of the major criticisms
about SERVQUAL is relating to dimensionality of the instrument. Criticisms
include the number of dimensions, and their stability from context to context
(Bouman and van der Wiele 1992; Asubonteng, McCleary and Swan 1996;
Bu�le 1996). Parallel to these criticisms, I found that service quality percep
tions
consist of four dimensions, namely tangibles, assurance-responsiveness, em-
pathy, and reliability in the hotels. Akan (1995) conducted a study in the hotel
industry and examined whether the SERVQUAL dimensions apply in an in-
ternational environment, specically in Turkey. She identied seven service
quality dimensions of hotels and emphasized that although SERVQUAL is a
valuable tool; its dimensions are not generic or universal. The results of two
similar studies (Karatepe and Avcı 2002; Nadiri and Hussain 2005) showed
that SERVPERF scale consists of two dimensions instead of ve-dimensional
structure in the hotel industry. The studies of Luk and Layton (2004) and
Akbaba (2006) conducted in the hotel industry conrmed the ve-dimension-
al structure of service quality, but some of the dimensions were also dier-
ent. All these ndings support the claims that the numbers of service quality
dimensions vary depending on the particular service being oered, and dif-
ferent measures should be developed for dierent service context (Carman
1990; Finn and Lamb 1991; Babakus and Boller 1992; Bouman and van der
Wiele 1992).
The results of the study suggest some practical implications for hotel man-
agers. Clearly, the use of SERVPERF scale provides useful information to ho-
tel managers for developing quality improvement strategies, and in order to
gain a competitive advantage. As Nadiri and Hussain (2005) mentioned, per-
formance-only scale (SERVPERF) provides a diagnostic value about the level
of service performance from the customers’ perspective. It also reduces the
384 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 385
Ibrahim Yilmaz
cost of service quality survey and facilitates the administration of the survey
(Luk and Layton 2004).
In general, the results reveal that hotel customers staying at the hotels in
Cappadocia are expecting improved services from the hotels. Thus, hotel
managers should take measures to improve service quality provided by the
hotels in all service quality dimensions. Dimension scores and item scores
within those dimensions give important signals about service areas that need
to be improved in the hotels. This might be enabling to a be�er utilization of
limited resources and more eective marketing strategies. Specically, hotel
managers should pay more a�ention to the tangible aspects of the service
quality because of; customers have the lowest perception scores on tangible
dimension. With regard to improvement of the tangibles dimension, hotel
managers should focus on specic items (improvement areas) related to this
dimension. These areas include equipment and physical facilities, appearance
of employees, materials associated with the service, and operating hours in
the hotels. On the other hand, hotel manager should not forget that empathy
was the most important dimension in predicting hotel customers’ overall
service quality evaluations.
There were some basic limitations in the study that need to be acknowl
edged.
First, the sample size was relatively small and a convenience sampling meth-
od was employed to collect data. So, the results might not represent the hotel
industry in the whole country. Second, only one item was included to the
scale to measure overall service quality perceptions of hotel customers. Thus,
it was not possible to say something about its reliability. Several research is-
sues for future studies can be considered. For example, to be able to general-
ize the results a study that would include more hotels at the national level
could be made. Performance of the hotels’ service quality according to dier-
ent nationalities (cultural groups) could be analyzed. Also, since performance
of the hotels’ service quality may be dierent by the season, the study could
be conducted in peak and low seasons, comparatively.
REFERENCES
Akan, P. (1995). Dimensions of Service Quality: A Study in İstanbul, Managing Service Quality,
5(6): 39-43.
Akbaba, A. (2006). Measuring Service Quality in the Hotel Industry: A Study in a Business Hotel
in Turkey, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2): 170-192.
Armstrong, R.W. et al. (1997). The Importance of Cross-cultural Expectations in the Measure-
ment of Service Quality Perceptions in the Hotel Industry, International Journal of Hospital-
ity Management, 16(2): 181-190.
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K.J. and Swan, J.E. (1996). SERVQUAL Revisited: A Critical Review of
Service Quality, The Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6): 62-81.
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992). An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale, Journal of
Business Research, 24(3): 253-68.
Babakus, E. and Mangold, W.G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Hospital Services: An
Empirical Investigation, Health Services Research, 26(6): 767-786.
Boulding, W. et al. (1993). A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to
Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Marketing Research, 30(February):7-27.
384 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Volume 20 = Number 2 = Winter 2009 = 385
Ibrahim Yilmaz
Bouman, M. and Wiele, T.V.D. (1992). Measuring Service Quality in the Car Service Industry:
Building and Testing an Instrument, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
3(4): 4-16.
Brady M.K., Cronin, J.J. and Brand, R.R. (2002).Performance-only Measurement of Service Qual-
ity: A Replication and Extension, Journal of Business Research, 55:17-31.
Brochado, A. and Marques, R.C. (2007). Comparing Alternative Instruments to Measure Service Qual-
ity in Higher Education, Working Papers (FEP), University of Porto, December, 165:1-19.
Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A. Jr. and Peter, J.P. (1993). Research Note: Improving the Measurement
of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 69(1):127-139.
Bu�le, F. (1996).SERVQUAL: Review, Critique, Research agenda, European Journal of Marketing,
30(1):8-32.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERV-
QUAL Dimensions, Journal of Retailing, 66 (1):33-55.
Cavana, R.Y., Corbe�, L.M. and Lo, Y.L. (2007). Developing Zones of Tolerance for Managing
Passenger Rail Service Quality, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
24(1): 7-31.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension,
Journal of Marketing, 56(July): 55-68.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-
based and Perceptions-minus-Expectations Measurement of Service Quality, Journal of
Marketing, 58(January): 125-131.
Directorate of Culture and Tourism Nevşehir (2008). Number of Tourism Licensed Hotel Establish-
ments in Nevşehir. (June 29).
Fick, G.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991). Measuring Service Quality in the Travel and Tourism Indus-
try, Journal of Travel Research, 30(Fall): 2-9.
Finn, D.W. and Lamb, C.W. Jr. (1991). An Evaluation of the SERVQUAL Scale in a Retailing Set-
ting, Advances in Consumer Research, 18(4): 483-490.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2):39-50.
Gaur, S.S. and Agrawal, R. (2006). Service Quality Measurement in Retail Store Context: A Review
of Advances Made Using SERVQUAL and RSQS, The Marketing Review, 6(4):317-330.
Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. and Jones, S. (1994). Service Quality: Concepts and Models, Interna-
tional Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11(9):43-66.
Hair, J.F. et al. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed., NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jain, S.K. and Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF Scales,
VIKALPA, 29(2):25-37.
Johns, N., Avcı, T. and Karatepe, O.M. (2004). Measuring Service Quality of Travel Agents: Evi-
dence from Northern Cyprus, The Service Industries Journal, 24(3):82-100.
Karatepe, O.M. and Avcı, T. (2002). Measuring Service Quality in the Hotel Industry: Evidence
from Northern Cyprus, Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research,
13(1):19-32.
Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000). The Determinants of Perceived Service Quality and its Rela-
tionship with Satisfaction, Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3):217-231.
Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1993). Dierent Comparison Standards as Determinants of Serv-
ice Quality, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, 6:118-132.
Luk, S. T.-K. and Layton, R. (2004). Managing both Outcome and Process Quality is Critical to
Quality of Hotel Services, Total Quality Management, 15(3):259-278.
Marshall, K.P. and Smith, J.R. (2000). SERVPERF Utility for Predicting Neighborhood Shopping
Behavior, Journal of Nonprot & Public Sector Marketing, 7(4):45-57.
McAlexander, J.H., Kaldenberg, D.O. and Koenig, H.F. (1994). Service Quality Measurement,
Journal of Healthcare Marketing, 14(3):34-39.
386 n Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Measurement of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
Nadiri, H. and Hussain, K. (2005). Perceptions of Service Quality in North Cyprus Hotels, Inter-
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(6):469-480.
Oh, H. and Parks, S.C. (1997). Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality: A Critical Review of
the Literature and Research Implications for the Hospitality Industry, Hospitality Research
Journal, 20 (3): 35-64.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and its Implications for Future Research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4):41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1):12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Renement and Reassessment of the
SERVQUAL Scale, Journal of Retailing, 67 (4): 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994). Reassessment of Expectations as a Com-
parison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Future Research, Journal
of Marketing, 58 (January):111-124.
Paul, D.P. (2003a). An Exploratory Examination of “SERVQUAL” versus “SERVPERF” for Pros-
thetic Dental Specialists, Clinical Research and Regulatory Aairs, 20(1):89-100.
Paul, D.P. (2003b).What is the “Best” Approach for Measuring Service Quality of Periodontists?,
Clinical Research and Regulatory Aairs, 20(4):457-468.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business A Skill-Building Approach. NY: John Wiley.
Shemwell, D.J., Yavas, U. and Bilgin, Z. (1998). Customer-service Provider Relationship: An Em-
pirical Test of a Model of Service Quality, Satisfaction and Relationship-oriented Outcome,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9:155-168.
Teas, K.R. (1994). Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: An As-
sessment of a Reassessment, Journal of Marketing, 58 (January):132-139.
Yoo, S. (2005). Service Quality at Hospitals, Asia Pacic Advances in Consumer Research, 6:188-193.
Zhou, L. (2004). A Dimension-specic Analysis of Performance-only Measurement of Service
Quality and Satisfaction in China’s Retail Banking, Journal of Services Marketing, 18(7):
534-546.
Copyright of Anatolia is the property of Anatolia 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.
