Content uploaded by Kuldeep Singh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kuldeep Singh on Jun 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Kuldeep Singh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kuldeep Singh on May 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
[VOLUME 5 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2018] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138
http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236
Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 745
THE ROLE OF SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN
TOURISM INDUSTRY: A REVIEW OF SERVQUAL MODEL
Dr. Goldi Puri1 & Kuldeep Singh2
1Assistant Professor, Institute of Hotel and Tourism Management, Maharishi Dayanand University,
Rohtak, India
2Research Scholar, Institute of Hotel and Tourism Management, Maharishi Dayanand University,
Rohtak, India
Received: July 12, 2018 Accepted: August 25, 2018
ABSTRACT Service quality has been an imperative issue of research involving in tourism industry. In spite of an
extensive number of studies on service quality, the role of service quality and customer satisfaction in tourism industry
and their relationship have remained unanswered. The main focus of this paper is to review the existing literature on
service quality and customer satisfaction in tourism industry. This paper also discusses famous SERVQUAL model, and
explains other various service quality and customer satisfaction models in tourism industry. The model focuses on the
relationship between functional quality, technical quality, and image. This conceptual paper proposes application of the
dimensional model in the tourism department and encourages service providers to improve its management to satisfy
their guests.
Keywords: Customer satisfaction, Service quality, SERVQUAL, Technical quality.
INTRODUCTION
Service quality has been an imperative topic of study linking Tourism & Management departments.
Although a considerable amount of research on quality of services, the motive behind revisit of tourist
towards a destination along with what is the requirement of superior quality service from the tourism
department has to be answered. This paper tries to evaluate accessible literature on service quality
management in the tourism department. According to Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), the research
proposed the scope of service quality is in the midst of the vital aspects influencing tourist satisfaction. Al
Rousan (2011), Mohsin et al. (2011), and Parasuraman et al. (1985) revealed that this measurement
was the focal point on numerous studies where tour operators established the maintenance for the
execution of better service quality. Antony et al. (2004) and Harvey (1998) studied that service quality
mainly covers meeting and surpassing of the expectation of customers. Since the late 1970s this picture of
service quality is becoming popular. This study of service quality initiated since the marketing area begins
and laid its importance in the link among customer and its business.
Parasuraman et al. (1985) evaluated the service quality that stressed on disconfirmation model that
anticipated service quality is a meaning of the discrepancy among performance and expectations. Presently
the ideas of SERVQUAL are on consumer satisfaction are inadequate. Not just association needs
experimental information to comprehend the level of clients' fulfillment yet in addition they have to see how
to incorporate these service quality ideas into dealing with the tourist satisfaction. Now days, service
industry create a progressively more significant function in the market of various countries. According to
Parasuraman et al. (1985), Reichheld & Sasser (1990), and Zeithaml et al. (1990), the present
worldwide focused condition conveying quality services is measured as a basic procedure for progress and
survival. Many scholars have different view about the definition and information method of service quality.
Scientists and administrator intended for insightful learning regarding segments of service quality for clear
reason of consumer satisfaction, expanded productivity, and so forth. According to Leonard & Sasser
(1982), Cronin & Taylor (1992), Gammie (1992), Hallowell (1996), Chang & Chen (1998),
Gummesson (1998), Lassar et al. (2000), Silvestro & Cross (2000), Newman (2001), Sureshchandar
et al. (2002), and Gurău (2003), over the last few years service quality has emerge as a main field of
awareness to specialists, researchers and managers unsettled to its sturdy force on industry performance,
tourist satisfaction, lower costs loyalty of customers and productivity.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present paper is based on majorly secondary data derived from various literature sources which
includes various research papers, news articles, and websites. The statement and findings of the paper
[ VOLUME 5 I ISSUE 4 I OCT.– DEC. 2018] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138
746 IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews Research Paper
carries the effect of personal visit to the destination and discussion with tourist, service providers, officials
and other stakeholders.
LITERATURE REVIEW
SERVICE CONCEPT
According to Johns (1999), the term ‘service’ has various implications which turn out to a little perplexity
as described in the management study the service can defined as a trade, an output, a performance or a
development. Kotler & Keller (2012), stated that service is an elusive act that acts as a crucial medium for
a company offer to attain the customers, where it does not shift the tenure from the service providing party
to the customer.
QUALITY CONCEPT
Gitlow et al. (1989) stated that “Quality is the extent to which the customers or users believe the product or
service surpasses their needs and expectations”. According to Feigenbaum (1986), “Quality is the total
composite product and service characteristics of marketing, engineering, manufacture and maintenance
through which the product in use will meet the expectations of the customer.” Quality has been defined in
several ways by diverse authors. Solomon (2009) defines it as one of the things that the buyer looks for
when they pursue an offer.
SERVICE QUALITY CONCEPT
There are different views and still no agreement on a clear definition of service quality used for quality.
Parasuraman et al. (1985) defined “Service quality as perceived by the customer is the degree and direction
of discrepancy between customer service perceptions and expectations”. According to Zeithaml (1988),
service Quality’ is defined by as the brilliance or excellence of a service, and yet goes on to depict ‘perceived
service quality’ as the assessment of the largely value of an entity by a purchaser. Eshghi et al. (2008),
defined service quality as the overall measurement of a service by the customer. Ghylin et al. (2008) stated
that in service quality companies will be competent to deliver services with superior quality level which
results in higher customer satisfaction. According to Asubonteng et al. (1996), SERVQUAL is planned to
assess service quality as perceived by the consumer and expectations of customers are calculated in
evaluating the overall service quality. Cronin & Taylor (1992) eliminated the “expectation” element from
SERVQUAL model and made the scale called SERVPERF which exclusively evaluated the “performance” to
estimate service quality. According to Minh et al. (2015), SERVPERF was considered more advance because
it has almost 50 percent less items than SERVQUAL scale. According to Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988),
it measured Service Quality based on how customers perceive the service, wherein when the performance
exceeds customer expectation, the service quality is rated high and if the performance falls below
expectation, the quality is classified as low. According to Grönroos (1984), Parasuraman et al. (1985,
1988), Cronin & Taylor (1992), Dabholkar et al. (1996), Brady & Cronin (2001), there are many
service quality models that are used in measuring service quality. The initial effort towards creating such a
model was made by Grönroos in 1984 which was based on functional and technical dimensions. The
earliest recorded model of service quality measurement was developed by Gronroos (1984), where service
quality is explained in terms of features connected with technical or outcome aspects and process or
functional related aspects (Kang & James, 2004; Balasingh, et al., 2006; Laroche et al., 2004). There is a
new variant known as HOLSERV which is derived from the SERVQUAL scale with some omissions and
additions of items to the original SERVQUAL scale. It is measured more trustworthy tool than SERVQUAL to
measure service quality in hotel industry.
There are numerous researches which have recognized SERVQUAL model; however the foremost to
conclude that the way of advertising service is important aspect in tourist satisfaction is Parasuraman et
al. (1985). As per Ladhari (2009), service quality mainly in the tourism sector, is complex to recognize
evaluate by quality of product as earlier is elusive. A number of research addressed regarding the
SERVQUAL model is not common as level in tourism service quality actually relies upon the analyzed of
service. In SERVQUAL model there is the gap between perceptions and expectations that builds the
formation that is the Parasuraman et al. (1988) service quality measuring tool .This tool is related on the
thought of the disconfirmation model and evaluation of tourist potential through their understanding from
the service. By and large, there are five dimensions of the tool which are explained from 22 attributes and
their importance is analyzed by Likert Scale. Teas (1993) enquired and analysis the expectations
operationalization. Avkiran (1999) clarified a propensity and making a gap between perceptions and
expectations unavoidable after placing expectations superior than perception. The SERVQUAL model is
[VOLUME 5 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2018] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138
http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236
Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 747
broadly utilize tool with established usefulness that can be used reasonably for standard use (Brysland &
Curry, 2001).
The Definitions of the SERVQUAL Dimensions include:
1. Tangibility- Physical elements that can be observed. The notion of physical appearance, employees, tools,
and communication items.
2. Reliability- The ability to convey the services which are promised accurately and dependably. This aspect
includes the promises which should be fulfilled relating to pricing, delivery and complaint handling.
3. Responsiveness- The enthusiasm to help consumers in a quick style. This aspect advocates optimistic
service outlooks and also required employees to pay attention to the request of customers query and their
complaints.
4. Assurance- The awareness and courtesy of staff and their capacity of exercising trust and confidence.
5. Empathy- The attitude of caring and special attention given by service providers to its consumers.
SERVQUAL IN TOURISM INDUSTRY
According to Zhao & Di Benedetto (2013), some tourism scholars have recommended that the service
quality role is very important when investigating the problem of tourist dissatisfaction and when trying to
attract new tourists or secure revisit intentions. Tourism scholars have recognized that providing premium
service is one of the most imperative aspects for success (Atilgan, Akinci, & Aksoy, 2003). Hudson et al.
(2004) revealed that service quality in the tourism industry receives growing deliberation and most of the
studies in tourism use the SERVQUAL instrument to evaluate service quality. This model has been utilized to
measure service quality in different sectors of tourism industry such as, sport tourism (Kouthouris &
Alexandris, 2005), airline tourism (Pakdil & Aydin, 2007), and restaurant (Qin & Prybutok, 2008).
However, according to Akbaba (2006); Briggs et al. (2007), Gilbert & Wong (2003), earlier studies have
shown that SERVQUAL does not cover all aspects of the services in tourism that are imperative to tourists.
Fick & Ritchie (1991) measured the SERVQUAL instrument in four tourism service sectors, hotel, airline,
skiing and restaurant and found that the scale is not valid for all sectors in tourism. Juwaheer (2004)
customized SERVQUAL for hotel industry and recognized nine factors in hotel that is assurance, reliability,
staff communication skills, extra-room benefits sought and additional benefits, décor and room
attractiveness ,staff outlook, empathy and accuracy, and hotel surroundings including environmental
factors and food and service-related factors.
SERVICE QUALITY DETERMINANTS
In the tourism industry, many service quality models have been developed. Lehtinen & Lehtinen (1982)
advocated three paradigms for service quality: (1) corporate quality, (2) physical quality, and (3) interactive
quality. Also, LeBlanc (1992) point out six factors of consumer judgment of service quality, which are
competitiveness, corporate image, courtesy, responsiveness, accessibility and competence. Grönroos
(2000) combined various earlier studies and suggests a model of service quality which is based on seven
principles: skill and professionalism, behavior and attitude, flexibility and accessibility, trustworthiness and
reliability, service recovery, atmosphere, credibility and reputation. This model planned to suggest a
theoretical structure to understand some features of a service including its process, outcome, and image
aspects. It also paid interest to employee’s quality in providing services.
TECHNICAL AND FUNCTIONAL QUALITY MODEL
An organization if want to compete effectively should have an understanding of customer perception of the
quality and the way service quality is influenced. To manage perceived service quality and to achieve
customer satisfaction a firm has to match the expected and perceived service to each other. The examiner
recognized three mechanisms of service quality, which are technical quality; functional quality; and image
(Figure 1).
(1) Technical quality is the quality of what customer truly gets as a result of their contact with the service
organization and is imperative to their assessment of the quality of service.
(2) Functional quality is how customers get the outcome from technical aspects. This is important to their
analysis of service which they received.
(3) Image is one of the important component in service organization and it could be projected to build up
generally by functional and technical quality of service which include other factors also like ideology ,
word of mouth , tradition, public relations and pricing .
[ VOLUME 5 I ISSUE 4 I OCT.– DEC. 2018] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138
748 IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews Research Paper
Figure 1: Three components of service quality
GAP MODEL:
Parasuraman et al. (1985) proposed that service quality is a function of the differences between expectation
and performance along the quality dimensions. They developed a service quality model based on gap
analysis. The various gaps visualized in the model are:
Gap 1: Difference between consumers’ expectation and management’s perceptions of those expectations, i.e.
not knowing what consumers expect.
Gap 2: Difference between management’s perceptions of consumer’s expectations and service quality
specifications, i.e. improper service-quality standards.
Gap 3: Difference between service quality specifications and service actually delivered i.e. the service
performance gap.
Gap 4: Difference between service delivery and the communications to consumers about service delivery,
i.e. whether promises match delivery.
Gap 5: Difference between consumer’s expectation and perceived service. This gap depends on size and
direction of the four gaps associated with the delivery of service quality on the marketer’s side.
According to this model in Figure 2, the service quality is a function of perception and expectations.
Figure 2
Criticism of Service quality Model through GAP Model and SERVQUAL
Cronin & Taylor (1992) planned SERVPERF (a tool of service quality for measuring perceptions
only) and EP (Evaluated Performance) model respectively which was yet again disapprove by
Parasuraman et al. (1985) and countered further by Cronin & Taylor (1992).
Cronin & Taylor (1992) revealed out that service quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction,
that has a directly effect on purchase intentions and it leads to the development of model of
perceived service quality and satisfaction.
[VOLUME 5 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2018] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138
http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236
Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 749
Cronin & Taylor (1992) pointed out that consumers don’t always buy best quality service, they
might instead purchase on the basis of their assessment of value of service. This highlighted the
importance of “value” and thus acts as a motivating point for researchers to include model value for
improvement/understanding of service quality.
CONCEPT OF SATISFACTION
At present, the most commonly used definition of satisfaction states that satisfaction is “the customer’s
fulfillment response. It is an opinion that a service or product feature, or the service or product itself, offered
a satisfying level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under-or-over fulfillment” (Oliver,
1997). The significant point to notice is that the appraisal of a customer’s satisfaction usually rose when
processing activity is in end stage, which permits for both speedy decisions of products and services that are
quickly consumed and also satisfaction’s judgment emerged from products and services with lengthy
spending periods.
ZONES OF TOLERANCE
The important element of satisfaction to think about is customers’ zones of tolerance. This assumption
advocates the several expectations about service that customers have in their mind. The foremost of these
expectations, services which are desired are basically the level of service which consumers are expecting to
receive. It is a blend of what the buyer supposes can be and should be offered in the perspective of service
quality and customer service. The next expectation is indicated as an acceptable service that a buyer will
accept (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000). The space between the two points desired service and acceptable
service can be considered as the zone of tolerance. The customers will be discouraged ,if the services fall
below the acceptable service points and their satisfaction with the organization challenged and the
customers will be delighted and surprised also if the service performance surpasses the desired service
point (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000).
THE DISCONFIRMATION MODEL
The Disconfirmation Model has three outcome states on a variable scale. According to Johnston (1995), the
three states are “dissatisfaction”, resulting from poor perceived quality (negative disconfirmation), “delight”
from high quality (positive disconfirmation) and “satisfaction” from adequate quality (confirmation). When
expectations exceed the actual outcome of an interaction, negative disconfirmation occurs and the customer
is often left dissatisfied. The events that created this disconfirmation are considered to be service failures
(Johnston, 1995). It is the responsibility of the service organization to resolve these situations.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SATISFACTION IN TOURISM
Many scholars revealed the problem of satisfaction, behavioral intention and service quality among visitors.
They suggest in their finding that service quality is an imperative antecedent of customer satisfaction and
that satisfaction plays a intervening role between service quality and behavioral intention. They offered
evidence to propose that repeat customers exhibit higher satisfaction levels as compared to first time
visitors .Some of the different methods to measure service quality and satisfaction are comment cards,
mystery shop programmers and focus groups measured on both qualitative and quantitative data. The data
can be quantified into metrics and can prove extremely helpful for tourism industry. One of the important
concepts is the Disconfirmation Paradigm which provides understanding of how the customer defines
quality of products and services and facilitates the development of the tourist satisfaction questionnaire
(Pizam & Ellis, 1999).
CONCLUSION
There is not any accepted conceptual and operational definition of service quality and from the review it is
found that there is a criticism from various scholars on the criteria of measuring service quality. Though the
study of SERVQUAL model and definitions of service quality support the view of evaluating service quality
by comparing expectation with the perception of service quality experienced. This conceptual paper
highlighted some important models of service quality in a detailed way and outlined the crucial steps of
service quality and its relationship with tourist‘s satisfaction. Some of the researchers suggested that while
frontline, middle and top management should provide a framework by analyzing the practices of service
quality that will increase their capability to satisfy the final customers. To manage perceived service quality
it is necessary to match the expected service and the perceived service to each other so that tourist
satisfaction can be achieved. Alternatively, there are models like SERVPERF which is based only on
[ VOLUME 5 I ISSUE 4 I OCT.– DEC. 2018] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138
750 IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews Research Paper
perceptions of performance. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF share the same concept of perceived quality;
though, some scholars revealed that the main difference between these two models lies in the management
assumed for their estimation and in the utilization of expectation that should be use.
REFRENCES
1. 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.
2. Al Rousan, R. M. R. (2011). Hotel service quality and customer loyalty in Jordanian hotels: A case study of
Marriott hotels chain. University Saiance Malaysia Pula Pinang.
3. Antony, J., Jiju Antony, F., & Ghosh, S. (2004). Evaluating service quality in a UK hotel chain: a case
study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), 380-384.
4. Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. J., & Swan, J. E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service
quality. Journal of Services marketing, 10(6), 62-81.
5. Atilgan, E., Akinci, S., & Aksoy, S. (2003). Mapping service quality in the tourism industry. Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, 13(5), 412-422.
6. Avkiran, N. K. (1999). An application reference for data envelopment analysis in branch banking: helping the
novice researcher. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 17(5), 206-220.
7. Balasingh, J. R., Sudhahar, J. C., Japhynth, J., & Israel, D. (2006). Evolution of service quality measurement
instrument–A Retro Analysis. SMART Journal of Business Management Studies, 2(2), 36-45.
8. Briggs, S., Sutherland, J., & Drummond, S. (2007). Are hotels serving quality? An exploratory study of service
quality in the Scottish hotel sector. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1006-1019.
9. Brysland, A., & Curry, A. (2001). Service improvements in public services using SERVQUAL. Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, 11(6), 389-401.
10. Chang, T. Z., & Chen, S. J. (1998). Market orientation, service quality and business profitability: a conceptual
model and empirical evidence. Journal of services marketing, 12(4), 246-264.
11. Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. The journal of
marketing, 55-68.
12. Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores: scale
development and validation. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 24(1), 3..
13. Devi Juwaheer, T. (2004). Exploring international tourists' perceptions of hotel operations by using a modified
SERVQUAL approach–a case study of Mauritius. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(5),
350-364.
14. Eshghi, A., Roy, S. K., & Ganguli, S. (2008). SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: AN EMPIRICAL
INVESTIGATION IN INDIAN MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. Marketing Management
Journal, 18(2).
15. Feigenbaum, A. V. (1986). QUALITY-THE STRATEGIC BUSINESS IMPERATIVE. Quality Progress, 19(2), 26-30.
16. Fick, G. R., & Brent Ritchie, J. R. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of
Travel Research, 30(2), 2-9.
17. Gammie, A. (1992). Stop at nothing in the search for quality. Human Resources, 5(2), 35-8.
18. Ghylin, K. M., Green, B. D., Drury, C. G., Chen, J., Schultz, J. L., Uggirala, A., ... & Lawson, T. A. (2008). Clarifying the
dimensions of four concepts of quality. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(1), 73-94.
19. Gilbert, D., & Wong, R. K. (2003). Passenger expectations and airline services: a Hong Kong based
study. Tourism Management, 24(5), 519-532.
20. Gitlow, H., Oppenheim, R., Oppenheim, A., & Gitlow, S. (1989). Tools and Methods for the Improvement of
Quality. Irwin.
21. Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of
marketing, 18(4), 36-44.
22. Gummesson, E. (1998). Productivity, quality and relationship marketing in service operations. In Handbuch
Dienstleistungsmanagement (pp. 843-864). Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden.
23. Gurău, C. (2003). Tailoring e-service quality through CRM. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, 13(6), 520-531.
24. Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability: an
empirical study. International journal of service industry management, 7(4), 27-42.
25. Harvey, J. (1998). Service quality: a tutorial. Journal of operations management, 16(5), 583-597.
26. Hudson, S., Ritchie, B., & Timur, S. (2004). Measuring destination competitiveness: An empirical study of
Canadian ski resorts. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 1(1), 79-94.
27. Johns, N. (1999). What is this thing called service?. European Journal of marketing, 33(9/10), 958-974.
28. Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers. International journal of
service industry management, 6(5), 53-71.
29. Kang, G. D., & James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grönroos’s service quality
model. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(4), 266-277.
30. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (1994). Marketing Management; Prentice Hall International.
[VOLUME 5 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2018] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138
http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236
Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 751
31. Kouthouris, C., & Alexandris, K. (2005). Can service quality predict customer satisfaction and behavioral
intentions in the sport tourism industry? An application of the SERVQUAL model in an outdoors
setting. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 10(2), 101-111.
32. Ladhari, R. (2009). Service quality, emotional satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: A study in the hotel
industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(3), 308-331.
33. Laroche, M., Ueltschy, L. C., Abe, S., Cleveland, M., & Yannopoulos, P. P. (2004). Service quality perceptions and
customer satisfaction: evaluating the role of culture. Journal of International Marketing, 12(3), 58-85.
34. Lassar, W. M., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R. D. (2000). Service quality perspectives and satisfaction in private
banking. Journal of services marketing, 14(3), 244-271.
35. LeBlanc, G. (1992). Factors affecting customer evaluation of service quality in travel agencies: An investigation
of customer perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 10-16.
36. Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. R. (1982). Service quality: a study of quality dimensions. Service Management
Institute.
37. Leonard, F.S. & Sasser, W.E. (1982), “The incline of quality”, Harvard Business Review, 60 (5), 163-71.
38. Minh, N. H., Ha, N. T., Anh, P. C., & Matsui, Y. (2015). Service quality and customer satisfaction: A case study of
hotel industry in Vietnam. Asian Social Science, 11(10), 73.
39. Mohsin, A., Hussain, I., & Khan, M. R. (2011). Exploring service quality in luxury hotels: case of Lahore,
Pakistan. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 16(2), 296-303.
40. Newman, K. (2001). Interrogating SERVQUAL: a critical assessment of service quality measurement in a high
street retail bank. International journal of bank marketing, 19(3), 126-139.
41. Oliver Richard, L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York ˈ NY: Irwin-
McGraw-Hill.
42. Pakdil, F., & Aydın, Ö. (2007). Expectations and perceptions in airline services: An analysis using weighted
SERVQUAL scores. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 229-237.
43. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research. the Journal of Marketing, 41-50.
44. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer
perc. Journal of retailing, 64(1), 12.
45. Pizam, A., & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality
enterprises. International journal of contemporary hospitality management, 11(7), 326-339.
46. Qin, H., & Prybutok, V. R. (2008). Determinants of customer-perceived service quality in fast-food restaurants
and their relationship to customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. The Quality Management Journal,
15(2), 35-51.
47. Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, J. W. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard business
review, 68(5), 105-111.
48. Silvestro, R., & Cross, S. (2000). Applying the service profit chain in a retail environment: Challenging the
“satisfaction mirror”. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(3), 244-268.
49. Solomon, M. R. (2009). Marketing: Real people, real decisions. Pearson Education.
50. Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2002). The relationship between service quality
and customer satisfaction–a factor specific approach. Journal of services marketing, 16(4), 363-379.
51. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of
evidence. The Journal of marketing, 2-22.
52. Zeithaml, V. A., & Mary, J. Bitner.(2000). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm.
53. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing
customer perceptions and expectations. Simon and Schuster.
54. Zhao, Y. L., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2013). Designing service quality to survive: Empirical evidence from Chinese
new ventures. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1098-1107.
