Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
20
Chapter Two
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
The intent of the literature review is to identify and discuss a theoretical
framework that can be used as a foundation for the development of a method for
measuring web-based library service quality and to explain the concepts surrounding
the phenomenon. This study attempts to develop a scale to assess web-based library
service quality in academic libraries using a mixed-method research design and scale
development methodology adapted from Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (2003). It
further examines a conceptual model for web-based library service quality assessment
incorporating customer satisfaction, service value and customer loyalty.
This chapter reviews the literature as related to the current study. Conceptual
definitions and background theories on service quality are obtained from textbooks on
service quality and research articles in various databases. Since the concept of service
quality is rooted in the business and marketing literature, the researcher relied heavily
on the rich literature in these service settings. Using the terms ‘service quality’, ‘library
service evaluation’, ‘e-service’, ‘SERVQUAL’ and ‘LibQUAL’ revealed a rich source
of research articles, mainly in the following journals: Library & Information Science
Research, portal: Libraries & The Academy, Journal of Academic Librarianship,
Library Trends, Library Reviews, Reference Services Review, Information Research,
Library Hi Tech, Journal of Services Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of
Services Marketing, Managing Service Quality and Journal of Marketing Research. The
main databases used to extract these sources were Emerald Intelligence; Science Direct;
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; Expanded Academic ASAP
21
Plus; Library Literature & Information Science Full Text; and Library and Information
Science Abstracts (LISA). The Digital Dissertations (UMI) had about 179 doctoral
dissertations on the subject of service quality in the last 10 years, of which only 8 were
in Library and Information Science.
The chapter begins with a brief introduction to web-based library services in
academic libraries. This is followed by a review of the literature related to foundations
in the conceptualization and measurement of the service quality construct and an
overview of several distinct models applied in service quality research. This is followed
by a critique of these models to identify gaps in service quality research to justify and
direct this study.
Subsequently, the third section presents a discussion of library service quality
assessments adapted and adopted by LIS researchers and practitioners. The fourth
section examines issues in conceptualization of electronic service quality and the
development of various quality models, both in the marketing and LIS literature. The
following section discusses empirical issues of the relationship between service quality,
customer satisfaction, service value and customer loyalty.
Finally, the literature review is summarized in relation to the research questions
and a proposed conceptual model for web-based library service quality is presented.
2.1 Web-based Library Services
Library services have mainly been described as services which facilitate the use
of materials and information made available at a library, and which normally involve
interaction between the user and the librarian (Edwards & Browne, 1995). Most typical
examples in the past have been reference and information desk, reader education
22
programs, interlibrary loan and bibliographic search services. Over the last two decades
however, advancements in information technology has had a great impact on library
services. In the modern library, technology is being used to introduce many new
services, either by delivering existing services via electronic medium, or by developing
and implementing entirely new services for search, delivery and use of information
(Poll, 2005). Some examples of these modern library services include: access to
electronic or digital collections such as online databases, electronic journals, e-books
and digitized collections; and other services including web-portals, personalized
services, online library instructions, online reference, helpdesk, online document
deliver, and electronic publishing.
A common term used to differentiate these modern (new/ hybrid) services from
traditional library services is electronic services. The term electronic services in library
literature is defined as either ‘network-based services’ (Bertot, 2003); ‘services through
the Internet’ (Hernon & Calvert, 2005; Henderson, 2005); ‘web-based services’ (Li,
2006) or ‘technology mediated interaction’ (Shanaf & Oltmann, 2007). The networked
environment may refer to the Intranet network within a library system or it can be
expanded further to the boundless Internet network. Most studies in digital library
research also use the term electronic services to denote digital library services (Bertot,
2004; Goncalves, Fox, Watson, and Moreira, 2007). Table 2.1 lists some of these
services as evident in the literature. What is a common attribute is that institutional
libraries usually deliver these services through a web site accessible on the Internet –
gaining the description of ‘web-based services’.
23
Table 2.1 : Electronic Library Services
Online/digital/electronic/web-based services Authors
Access to online catalogue/regional or
national
O’Neill, Wright and Fitz (2001); Bertot (2003); Hernon &
Calvert (2005); Poll (2005); Landrum, Prybutok, and
Zhang (2007); Li (2006)
Access to online databases/e-journals Bertot (2000); O’Neill, Wright and Fitz (2001); Ho
(2004); Hernon & Calvert (2005); Li(2006)
Access to digitized materials Bertot (2003) ; Ho (2004); Hernon & Calvert (2005); Poll
(2005) Xenidou-Dervou (2006)
Reserve materials O’Neill, Wright & Fitz (2001); Bertot (2003); Ho (2004);
Hernon & Calvert (2005);
Extend dates on loaned materials O’Neill, Wright & Fitz (2001)
Request for books and articles delivered O’Neill, Wright & Fitz (2001)
Interlibrary loan/ document delivery
requests
Bertot (2003); Ho (2004); Hernon & Calvert (2005); Li
(2006); Gardner, Juricek, and Zu, (2008)
Links to non library content Bertot (2003); Hernon & Calvert (2005)
Digital reference service/ Virtual reference Bertot (2000); Ho (2004); Hernon & Calvert (2005); Poll
(2005); Xenidou-Dervou (2006); Kiran (2006); Li (2006);
Landrum, Prybutok, and Zhang (2007)
Online query form Hernon & Calvert (2005)
Online course materials Hernon & Calvert (2005); Xenidou-Dervou (2006)
Online library tutorials/user training Hernon & Calvert (2005); Xenidou-Dervou (2006); Kiran
(2006)
Alert service Hernon & Calvert (2005); Poll (2005)
Online communication/contact with
librarian –email, chat, text messaging
Hernon & Calvert (2005)
Online helpdesk (technical and topical
support)
Ho (2004); Landrum, Prybutok, and Zhang (2007)
Personalized services –alerting, profile Ho (2004); Poll (2005)
Electronic publishing Poll (2005)
Federated search Xenidou-Dervou (2006)
Library Portal Xenidou-Dervou (2006)
24
According to Bertot and McClure (2003), though traditional and networked-
based library services are perhaps related and similar in function, they differ vastly
because of:
i. the infrastructure required to deliver the services,
ii. the ways in which users access the services,
iii. the skills required by the users,
iv. the reach and range of the services,
v. the ways in which librarians mange the services and
vi. the skills required within the library to deliver and access the services.
In any instance, it is important to consider that in many networked services, access to
these services is sometimes based on user accessibility tools, therefore user interaction
can differ quite vastly depending on user information technology (IT) skills (Bertot &
McClure, 2003).
Bailin and Grafstien (2005) also argued that the basic structure of libraries have
actually remained intact even in the networked environment. Libraries are still building
collections, providing means of access to the collection and assisting users in accessing
and using the collection. The electronic service is often a part of a wider service
delivery (Rowley, 2006) to enhance, support or bypass their traditional channels. Often
there is a continuum of service delivery mechanisms with different mixes of face-to-
face and self-service and different associated levels of intensity in service relationship
(Rowley, 2006). Hernon, et al., (1999) believe that although the Internet and other
technological applications may improve customer access to information, these alone
may not help the customer use the information. Thus, reference services, document
delivery and library instructions are part of the online service portfolio.
25
Consequently, library service assessment practices have evolved from the
traditional collection-count input measures (Nitecki, 1996) to customer oriented
evaluation that have become essential in the discipline of services marketing (Cook,
2001). Any attempt to measure web-based or electronic library service quality must be
founded upon a strong understanding of the phenomenon of service quality and what
connotes service quality from the user perspective (Berry, Zeithaml, & Parasuraman,
1990; Cook, 2001).
In this study the term web-based library services is used to refer to services
accessible via the academic library’s web site, as to differentiate purely digital library
services that may be delivered by means of a digital library. A content analysis of the
web sites participating in this study is presented in Chapter 4 to form the basis of the
construct under study. In order to attempt a holistic conceptualization of web-based
library service quality, firstly the concept of service quality and its underlying
theoretical foundation of assessment need to be examined.
2.2 Service Quality Literature
Service quality has it roots in the business and management field. Marketers
realized that to retain customers, and to support market growth, they must provide high
quality of service (Dabholkar, Shephard & Thorpe, 2000; Zeithaml, 2002). It is said that
service quality is an important antecedent of consumer assessment of value, which in
turn influences customer satisfaction, which then motivates loyalty (Babakus & Boller,
1992). There has been much debate as to what constitute service quality and how its
measures can be operationalized in various service industries, yet no consensus has
been reached (Chowdary & Prakash, 2007). The following section traces the
26
development of the definition of quality, as it gears towards understanding service
quality to form the basis of the conceptualization of this construct.
2.2.1 Definitions of Quality
Various definitions of quality can be traced back to the early 1920s when Walter
Shewhart initiated the concept of TQM. Two of his students, W. Edward Deming and
Joseph Juran may be more popularly known as the gurus of the quality movement.
(Brophy and Coulling, 1996). Joseph Juran was the first to incorporate the humanistic
environment of quality management, referred to as TQM (Total Quality Management),
which he then introduced to the Japanese, who became the paradigm of the quality
movement as early as the 1950s. Table 2.2 lists some of the definition of quality and
provides evidence of its conceptual evolution from being product-based to customer-
centric.
Table 2.2 : Definitions of Quality
Juran (1989) Quality is fitness of use, need satisfying product features and free from
deficiencies
Deming (1986) Quality is meeting consumer needs by focusing on constant improvement
in consistency and reduction in variation
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and
Berry (1985)
Quality is a function of the difference between the expected and perceived
performance determined by several indicators
Brophy & Coulling (1996) Quality is concerned with meeting the wants and needs of customers
ISO Standard 11620
Performance Indicators for
Libraries
Quality is the totality of features and characteristics of a product or
services that bear on the library’s ability to satisfy stated or implied needs
Scrutinizing these definitions, one is able to deduce that in the early years, the
focus was on product reliability and inspection of product or goods that gradually
changed to a customer-centric quality control concept practiced through TQM. Once
27
accepted and adopted by the Japanese, the concept of quality underwent a cultural
change management to provide a service-centric environment (Green 2006).
Quality and its definitions can be approached and measured in a number of
ways. The following are two definition of quality that are a decade apart yet, share some
common elements.
Ghobadian, Speller, and Jones (1994) defined quality by classifying the concept into 5
broad categories.
i. Transcendent: the relationship between individual salience and perceived
quality. It is not practically applicable because does not allow determinants
of quality to be defined.
ii. Product led: defined as units of goodness. Relies on the quantification of the
service units of goodness or tangible attributes.
iii. Process or supply led: conformance to requirements. The focus is internal-
management and control of the supply side.
iv. Customer led: fitness of purpose, satisfying customers’ requirements. Most
appropriate for organizations offering high-contact, skill-knowledge-based,
such as education.
v. Value led: cost to produce and price to customer
Ten years later, Schneider & White (2004) defined quality based on three different
approaches:
a) Philosophical approach – quality is synonymous with innate excellence. People
know quality when they see it but cannot define it further. Meaning that quality
is unmeasurable.
b) Technical approach – objective or conformance quality. Quality can be
measured objectively through investigation of defects or deviation from
standards. More suitable for products that are mass produced.
c) User-based approach - quality of the product/service is determined by the user.
This definition takes the view that quality depends on the individual perceptions
of customers.
28
Compared to Ghobadian, Schneider & White’s (2004) definition has a more
conceptual approach which can lead to the methodology behind the operationalization
of service quality measure based on the researchers approach. Since services are
directly linked to the consumers of service, the definitions of quality that can relate to
service quality are those emphasizing on satisfying customers requirements and
determined by the user.
An analysis of quality concepts, led Brophy & Couling (1996) to conclude that
generally the definitions of quality emphasize a link between the customer, the purpose
and the product/service being received. One very important point made by them was
that: ‘quality can be achieved in any organization setting with any product or
service…what is needed is a clear definition of what the service is intended to achieve,
agreement with customers that this will meet their needs and consistent delivery’. There
are two implications: first, quality does not necessarily mean ‘highest grade’ and
secondly, quality for one group of customers may not mean quality for another (Poll &
Boekhorst, 2007).
The ISO Standard 11620 for Library Performance Indicators, has defined
quality as ‘totality of features and characteristics of a product or services that bear on
the library’s ability to satisfy stated or implied needs’. This definition includes all
library processes, and requires the determination and definition of a set of quality
criteria and performance indicators implied by the library’s goals and objectives
(Derfect-Wolf, Gorski & Marcinek, 2005). These indicators are meant to assess the
quality, effectiveness and usage of library resources. As for library services, only the
library users or the customers, can determine ‘ability to satisfy’. However, the level of
satisfaction is not a measure of quality of the service or product. In the next section, the
conceptualization of service quality shall shed some light on this.
29
2.2.2 Conceptualization of Service Quality
Over the years a universal definition of service quality has not reached a
consensus, and it may never will. This is mainly because it depends on the context of
the service being provided – marketing, operations, industrial, education, health, etc.
Since service itself is a complex phenomenon, efforts to define service quality and its
dimensions have been subjected to academic debate. One of the most cited and applied
concept of service quality is by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) who simple
put it as: the overall evaluation of a specific service firm that results from comparing
the firm’s performance with the customer’s general expectations of how firms in that
industry should perform.
To accept the above definition, one has to be clear of what is characterized as service.
Are all types of services to be judged for quality in terms of expectations and
performance? In an attempt to provide a more through research perspective on services,
Schneider & White (2004) summed up the most commonly found characteristics of
services in the literature as:
i. Relative Intangibility – pure services have no physical manifestation, they are
essentially processes that are experiences.
ii. Relative inseparability – pure services are produced by the organization and
consumed by the consumer at the same time
iii. Relative heterogeneity – interaction between service personnel and customers can
never be identical
30
Schneider and White’s (2004) characteristics of services are applicable to library
services which consist of resources (information content); organization (service
environment and resource delivery) and service delivered by staff (Hernon & Altmann,
1996). Library users interact with the library system and the reference librarians during
the delivery and consumption of the information search and retrieval. Furthermore, each
user may have different information needs and level of information literacy, thus the
interaction with library system or librarian will not be identical, even more so in an
online environment. The inseparability characteristic of library service indicates that the
quality of the service will be determined at the time the service is rendered. Meaning
that it will be determined by the consumers of the service and not the provider (Seay,
Seaman & Cohen, 1996). Thus, the ‘customer becomes the sole judge of the quality of
the service’ (Berry, et al., 1990).
In the management of library services, however, a didactic model of service is
practiced. The professional librarian assumes the role of the custodian of knowledge
and library collections and services are planned and developed based on these
‘professional’ choices. The librarian then assumes the role of an instructor (reference
librarian) in assisting user to search, retrieve and select relevant resources. This
distinction in library services from the business world however, does not marginalize
the importance of the library customer. In any circumstance, the library customer is the
ultimate judge of the service as much of knowledge about quality comes after the
service has been rendered (Seay, et al., 1996).
A distinct evolution in the conceptualization and measures of library service
quality was brought about by Danuta Nitecki. In her doctoral dissertation, she stressed
that the traditional ways of examining academic library quality in terms of size of the
library’s holdings and counts of its use were becoming obsolete compared to the
31
alternative approaches to measure quality emerging in the business sector (cited in
Nitecki, 1996). Although user studies, including user information seeking behavior or
needs and identification of user information search process models were being
rigorously studied, Nitecki revealed that these studies did not address the ‘user-based’
criteria for measuring service quality. The evaluation methods were library performance
measures that librarians felt were important (Edwards & Brown, 1995) and did not fully
explore user-based assessment.
The criteria applied by users in judging quality of a service may be different
from those the librarian consider to be important, thus much of the work assessing the
quality of library services reflected the objective quality and customer satisfaction
rather than conceptualization of service quality as developed by Parasuraman, et al.,
(1988). Their conceptualization of service quality clearly hinges on the notion that
‘only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant’, has been
adopted in only a small number of LIS research, evident in the works of Hernon and
Altman (1996), Calvert and Hernon (1997), Quinn (1997), Cook and Thompson (2000a)
and Kyrillidou and Giersch (2005).
Despite the acceptance of the service quality concept from the marketing
literature, the indicators to be used to reflect quality of library services are still not well
defined, as in other industries. Hernon & Altman (1996) stress that for libraries, service
quality applies to resources (information content); organization (service environment
and resource delivery) and service delivered by staff. Evaluation of library service
quality must rest upon a strong understanding of service quality assessment. The
following section discusses the theoretical foundations upon which service quality
assessments have been developed by researchers.
32
2.2.3 Theoretical Foundations for Service Quality Assessment
This section reviews several different perspectives of service quality, both old
and new, from different conceptual and empirical approaches. There exist two main
conceptualizations of service quality in the literature – one based on the
disconfirmation approach (Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman, et al., 1985, 1988) and the
other on performance-only approach (Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
(A) The Disconfirmation Approach
The Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory became the base of earlier
conceptualization of service quality as it was successfully deployed in the physical
goods literature. This theory is based on the satisfaction literature which justifies that
the consumers judge their satisfaction with the product based on their expectations
about the product’s performance (Oliver, 1980). Researchers adopted the theory that
service quality was a measure of how well the service level delivered matched customer
expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1988), as opposed to customer need or wants. Since
services are intangible, the quality is not directly observable, thus the construct is
measured as perceived by the customer, strongly relating it to trust (Gummesson, 1979).
There are two main streams of research into the dimensions of service quality
based on the disconfirmation model. The first is the Nordic perspective or Gronroos’s
model (1984), which uses global terms to define service quality in terms of functional
quality and technical quality. The second is the American perspective by Parasuraman
et al., (1988), which uses service encounter characteristics to describe service quality as
an overall measure of its components or indicators.
33
(i). Gronroos’s Model (1982, 1984) – the Nordic Perspective
Gronroos (1979, cited in Gronroos 1984) defined the concept of perceived
service quality, as ‘the outcome of an evaluation process, where the consumer compares
his expectations with the service he perceived he has received’. He is cited as the first
author to contribute a service quality conceptual framework (Green, 2006). Gronroos
(1982, 1984), based his definition on technical quality (the outcome or ‘what’) and
functional quality (the process or ‘how’). The functional quality represents how the
service is delivered; in other words it focuses on the interaction that takes place during
the service delivery. Whereas, the technical quality refers to what the customer receives
in the service encounter. Figure 2.1 depicts the Nordic Model.
Figure 2.1 : The Nordic Model (Gronroos, 1984)
According to Gronroos, corporate image is a moderating dimension for
perceived and expected quality. An interesting note here is that the inclusion of
corporate image is an indication of a higher-order construct, which is evident in later
research. Gronroos (1988) also derived six criteria (dimensions) for experienced
service quality, which are similar to the SERVQUAL typology:
34
i. Professionalism and skills : refers to the knowledge and skills to solve
customer problems in a professional way
ii. Attitudes and behavior: the extend to which service providers show concern
and interest in solving problems in a friendly way
iii. Accessibility and flexibility: service is easily accessible and adjustable to
demands of the customers
iv. Reliability and trustworthiness : the system keeps promises and performs
with best interest of the customer
v. Recovery: take immediate steps to keep customer in control whenever
something goes wrong or something unpredictable happens
vi. Reputation and credibility: operations can be trusted and give adequate value
for money.
It must be noted that all of these dimension were derived from other available studies
and were not empirically tested by Gronroos.
(ii). The SERVQUAL Model, (1985 – 1996) – American Perspective
The SERVQUAL model was first published in 1985 by A. Parasuraman, Valarie
A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry for measuring and managing service quality across a
broad range of service categories. It was based on their definition of quality as
‘difference between the expected and perceived performance’. Parasuraman et al.
(1984) derived SERVQUAL from the fifth gap of the Gap Model of Service Quality
based on information from 12 focus groups of consumers in service and retailing
organization to assess service quality. Gap Five is described as the magnitude and
direction of the gap between expected service and perceived service. The authors further
conducted a qualitative study involving consumers views on service quality and elicited
ten determinants of the service quality (Table 2.3) that focussed more on the ‘process’
of service delivery and not on the ‘output or technical’ as defined by Gronross (1984).
The scale consisted of 22 pairs of statements – measuring expectations of customers by
35
asking each respondent to rate, on a 7 point scale, how essential each item is for an
excellent service. The second set of 22 identical statements ascertains the respondent’s
perception to the level of service given by the service provider. The difference between
the ranked perception and the ranked expectations is calculated: the average score is the
SERVQUAL overall service quality score.
This model has been vigorously tested and improved upon (Parasuraman et al.,
1985, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 2004; Zeithaml, et al., 1996; Zeithaml,
Parasuraman & Malhotra, 2002; Parasuraman, et al., 2005). In 1988, the ten factors
were collapsed to five dimensions: Reliability, Assurance (competence, courtesy,
credibility, security), Tangibles, Empathy (access, communication, knowing the
customer) and Responsiveness, better known as the R.A.T.E.R. dimensions (Table 2.4).
Then in 1991, the authors refined much of the wording of the original items to focus
more on customer expectations. The measure of expectations was further refined by
using the three side-by-side measures of adequate, desired and perceived quality
measures. In 1994, the scale was extended to a 9 point Likert type scale with an addition
of the ‘no opinion’ measure. McAlexander, Kaldenberg, and Koenig (1994) reported
that the perception scores outperformed the gap scores in predictive power as agreed by
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994). Table 2.3 summarizes the changes in
SERVQUAL based on the critisim received by other researchers.
36
Table 2.3 : Evolution of SERVQUAL
SERVQUAL Dimensions Criticisms
Conceptual model of
SQ: the Gap Theory
Model
1985
10 determinants of service quality
- Reliability, Responsveness,
Competence, Access, Courtesy,
Communication, Credibility, Security,
Knowing customer needs, Tangibles
Focused more on the process of
service delivery, not the output
SERVQUAL,
1988
5 R.A.T.E.R. dimensions were developed
through factor analysis
- Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles,
Empathy, Responsveness,
- Used a 7 point Likert type scale
- Use of difference scores and
associated reliability not
theoretically supported
- Wording and use of negative
scores
SERVQUAL,
1991
- Dropped negative wording
- Dropped the normative ‘should’ and
replaced it with ‘would’
- Allocated 100 points among the 5
dimensions on a 10 point scale
- Expectation component not
fully conceptualized (Teas,
1994)
- Weak in convergent validity
because factor loadings not
consistent in different studies
(Babakus & Boller, 1992)
SERVQUAL,
1993
Expectation component interpreted as :
- Adequate service
- Desired service
- Predicted service
- Dimensions not retrievable
- Reliability and validity of
difference score is
questionable
SERVQUAL,
1994
- Reformatted 22 items to 21 items on a
9 point Likert-type scale
- Included use of ‘no opinion’
- Perception next to desired and adequate
separately
- Perception scores outperform
gap scores in predicting
overall evaluation
(McAlexander et al, 1994)
- Different scores are as sound
as their direct-measure
counterparts, except in terms
of predictive power.
(Parasuraman et al., 1994)
SERVQUAL,
1996
Developed a conceptual framework of both
financial and behavioral consequences of
sevice quality
- Dimensions not retrievable
- Call for exclusion of
expectations (Dabholkar
Shephard & Thorpe, 2000;
Brady & Cronin, 2001)
E-S-QUAL,
2005
- Modified SERVQUAL to measure
e-service quality
- Identified 5 dimensions of e-service
quality: Efficiency, Fulfillment, System
availability, Privacy
- Identified 3 dimensions for service
recovery : Responsiveness,
Compensation, Contact
- Call for inclusion of service
recovery in overall service
quality perception (Collier &
Bienstock, 2006)
37
The proposed five dimensions of service quality that are currently widely accepted and
used over different service industries are : Realiability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy
and Responsiveness.
Table 2.4 : SERVQUAL R.A.T.E.R. Dimensions
SQ Dimensions Definition
Realiability Delivering the promised performance dependably and
accurately
Assurance
(combination of Competence, Courtesy,
Credibility, Security)
Ability of the organization’s employees to inspire trust
and cinfidence in the organization through their
knowledge and courtesy
Tangibles. Appreances of the organization’s facilities, employees,
equipment, and communication materials
Empathy
(combination of Access, Communication,
Understanding the customer)
Personalized attention given to customers
Responsiveness Willingness of the organization to provide prompt
service and help customers
Reliability deals primarily with the outcome of service delivery, whilst the other four
with the process of service delivery. The overall sevice quality score is calculated based
on the discrepencies between expectations and perceptions over the 22 attributes.
Figure 2.2 : SERVQUAL model
The tool, SERVQUAL, has been since widely accepted and used to assess service
quality in retailing (Barnes & Vidgen, 2002), health care (Carman, 1990; Yang,
Peterson & Cai, 2003; Kilbourne, Duffy, Duffy, Giarchi, 2005), banking (Zhou, Zhang,
and Xu, 2002; Al-Hawari, Hartley & Ward, 2005), education (Ruby, 1998; Tan & Kek,
Determinants of
Service quality:
Reliability
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Tangibles
Expected service
Perceived service
Perceived
Service
Quality
38
2004), information systems (Kettinger, Lee & Lee, 1995; Jiang, Klein, & Carr, 2002),
library (Edwards & Browne, 1995; Nitecki, 1996; Cook & Thompson, 2001; Landrum
& Prybutok, 2004) and other areas of service across many countries.
SERVQUAL in the Electronic Environment ( E-S-QUAL)
Since SERVQUAL, to some extent, proved to be a successful instrument to
quantify customers’ global (as opposed to transaction-specific) assessment of a
company’s service quality, the founders extended it to assessment of electronic services.
Using the same conventional guidelines for scale development by Churchill, (1979) and
Gerbing and Anderson (1988), Parasuraman, et al., (2005) developed another scale, E-
S-QUAL, for measuring electronic services quality, mainly for web sites on which
customers shop online. It was based on the premise that in the electronic medium there
is minimal, if any, face-to-face contact. They defined electronic service quality (e-SQ)
as ‘the extent to which a web site facilitates efficient and effective shopping,
purchasing, and delivery.’ The E-S-QUAL consists of a 22-item scale comprising of
four dimensions: Efficiency, Fulfillment, System availability and Privacy. In their study
they decided that any recovery service was to be measured separately and derived the E-
RecS-QUAL scale consisting of three dimensions: Responsiveness, Compensation and
Contact. The E-S-QUAL also includes a measure of perceived value (four items) and
loyalty intentions (5 items). This scale is discussed in detail in Section 2.4.2.
39
Summary of the Disconfirmation Models
The two disconfirmation models are quite similar as they address both the
service delivery processes and what the customers receives. The Reliability
(trustworthiness), Assurance (reputation & credibility) and Empathy (attitudes &
behavior) dimension of SERVQUAL are evident in Gronroos’s model too. However,
there is more focus on the issue of accessibility and flexibility by Gronroos compared to
SERVQUAL’s convenient operating hours in the empathy dimension. Gronroos has
also defined Recovery as a separate single dimension, a construct also supported by
Bitner, Booms & Tetreault (1990) and Schneider & White (2001).
Though Gronroos focused on technical and functional aspects of service and
SERVQUAL mostly on functional, other researchers (Gummesson, 1992; White &
Schneider, 2000; Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler, 2006) continue to call for more
emphasis on the ‘Tangible’ dimension of service quality. Their contention is that the
physical facilities and surroundings in which services are delivered can impact people’s
perception of the service and feelings towards the organization.
When Parasuraman et al., (1988) developed SERVQUAL, they proposed that it
be used as a ‘base for’ developing further service quality assessment tools in other
service settings and industries. However, over time issues of it’s dimensionality and
measurement validity brought about alternative conceptualization of service quality in
different industries. The next section describes some of these alternative models for
service quality assessment.
40
(B) Performance only Model : Cronin and Taylor (1992)
Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued that service quality is a form of customer
attitude and concluded that perception only scores are better than the difference score
between expectations and actual performance. This resulted in the development of
SERVPREF, a tool that gained popularity because of its simplified measure of service
quality. This tool contains the same 22 items in SERVQUAL, but with the perception-
only scores, excluding the 22 expectations scores. Studies have found SERVPREF to be
able to explain more variance in overall service quality than SERVQUAL (Lee, Lee &
Yoo, 2000) and capable of providing a more convergent and discriminant valid
explanation of service quality construct (Jain & Gupta, 2004). Even Parasuraman, et al.,
(1994) observed that ‘…difference scores are by and large as sound as their direct-
measure counterparts, except in terms of predictive power ...’. There are numerous
studies that have adopted the performance-only measure (Dabholkar et al., 1996;
Sureshchander, Chanrasekharan, and Anantharam, 2001; Janda, Trocchia & Gwinner,
2002; Gounaris, 2005; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Caro & Gracia, 2007; Wilkins,
Merrilees, and Herington, 2007). These studies have empirically tested the measure
using confirmatory factor analysis, supporting the use of the perception-only battery for
perceived service quality. Cook’s (2000) study of service quality in academic research
libraries also concluded that a perceived-only measure is also able to maintain the
integrity of the perceived score. However, according to Jain and Gupta (2004),
SERVQUAL scale entails superior diagnostic power to pinpoint areas for managerial
intervention compared to SERVPERF.
41
2.2.4 Alternative Conceptualization of Service Quality
The fundamental understanding of the service quality concept is to identify its
attributes based on consumer judgement (Berry, et al., 1990). Consumers or customers
become the core input to the development of service quality models. According to Tih
(2006), there are three perspectives to modeling traditional service quality : i) the single
perspective ii) the multi-level perspective and iii) the integrative perspective. The single
perspectives postulated by the Nordic and SERVQUAL model has been examined in
the previous section (Section 2.3.3). Following the failure of these models to consider
the physical or environmental aspects to the measure of service quality, several
researchers offered alternative models.
(i). The Rust & Oliver Model, 1994
Rust and Oliver (1994) offered a three-component service quality model: the
service product (technical quality); the service delivery (functional quality) and the
service environment(physical ambience). The model, as shown in Figure 2.3, was not
empirically tested, but support has been found for similar models in fast-food,
photograph developing, amusement parks and dry cleaning services (Brady & Cronin,
2001) and electronic services (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006).
Figure 2.3 Rust and Oliver’s 3 Component Model of Service Quality
42
This models compliments the lack of environment quality in the previous
disconfirmation models. It is also the basis of consequent models – the multilevel and
hierarchical model of service quality.
(ii). The Multilevel Model
Attempts to replicate or integrate the conceptual structure of SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF in different industries, led to a call for researchers to not only investigate
how service quality should be measured, but to focus on specifically examining the
‘dimensionality’ of service quality construct (Parasuraman, et al., 1994). Among the
researchers who attempted to identify new and integrated conceptualization of service
quality were Dabholkar, et al. (1996) and Brady and Cronin (2001).
Dabholkar, et al., (1996) suggested that service quality dimensions should be
viewed as higher-order constructs that have various sub-dimensions. They identified
and tested a hierarchical conceptualization of retail service quality that proposes three
levels: i) customers overall perception of service quality; ii) primary service quality
dimensions and iii) sub-dimensions of service quality. The model recognizes retail
service as a higher order factors that is defined by two additional levels of attributes
(Brady & Cronin, 2001).
Figure 2.4 : Hierarchical Model of Service Quality
Sub-dimensions
Primary
dimensions
43
Brady and Cronin (2001) identified and tested a three factor model of service
quality in eight service industries. They assumed the three-factor conceptualization of
Rust and Oliver (1994) that overall service quality is based on three dimensions:
functional quality(interaction), service environment and technical quality(outcome).
They then incorporated the five dimensions of service quality from SERVQUAL. Their
contention was that if service quality perceptions represent a latent variable, then
something specific must be reliable, responsive, empathetic, assured and tangible. They
then went on to identify the ‘something’. Their study revealed:
- Customers form service quality perceptions on the basis of their evaluation of
three primary dimensions : environment, delivery and outcome
- The three primary dimensions are composed of multiple sub-dimensions
- Reliability, responsiveness and empathy are modifiers of sub dimensions and not
direct determinants of service quality. Meaning that they represent how each sub-
dimensions should be evaluated.
The proposed multi-level hierarchical model is as shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 : Brady & Cronin’s Service Quality Model
44
The multilevel-hierarchical structure for service quality proposed by Brady and
Cronin has also been empirically tested in travel services (Ho, 2007); B2B services
(Gounaris, 2005); electronic services (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006) and hotel services
(Wilkins, et al., 2007).
An extensive review of 19 service quality models (1984 -2003) by Nitin,
Deshmukh & Vrat’s (2004) and Ladhari’s (2008) overview of service quality measures
in 30 studies, concludes that although various other service quality models have
appeared in the literature over the past twenty years, it is still SERVQUAL that
continues to be used widely despite criticism about its applicability in various industries
and issues of psychometric properties. The next section discusses some of the criticism
of the above mentioned models to justify the development of specific measurement
scales in different service context.
2.2.5 Critique of Service Quality Models - Identifying Gaps
There has been much criticism in the literature of the theoretical and operational
issues of service quality models and the corresponding measurement scales, especially
the extensively applied SERVQUAL scale and its variant scales. Some major objections
relate to use of disconfirmation theory (Perception minus – Expectations gap scores),
predictive power of the instrument, validity of the five-dimension structure, and length
of the questionnaire (Babakus & Boller, 1992; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993,
1994; Buttle, 1996; Van Dyke, Prybutok & Kappelman, 1999; Dabholkar, et al., 2000;
Lee, et al., 2000; Chi, Lewis and Park, 2003; Badri, Mohamed & Abdelwahab, 2005;
Wilkins, et al., 2007).
45
(i) The Gap score (P-E) vs the Perception-only measure
There are several problems identified pertaining to the Gap score measure. The
operationalization of the Gap score, perception minus expectations score, is a poor
measure as a psychological score (Buttle, 1996; Ekinci & Riley, 1998; Van Dyke et al.,
1999). Buttle (1996) claims that there is little evidence that customers assess service
quality in terms of P - E (performance – expectations) gap. Furthermore, it is argued
that there is an ambiguity of the ‘expectation’ construct in the gaps theory adhered to by
the SERVQUAL measure (Parasuraman et al., 1991; Babakus & Boller, 1992; Cronin
& Taylor, 1992). To begin with, there is no definite definition of ‘expectation’ and it is
open to multiple interpretations that can result in measurement validity problems
(Cronin & Taylor 1992; Teas, 1993, 1994; Buttle, 1996). Iacobucci et al., (1994, cited
in Dabholkar et al., 2000) warns that expectations might not even exist or be formed
clearly enough to serve as a standard evaluation of a service experience because it may
be formed simultaneously with service consumption. The various interpretations can
also cause measurement validity problems. There is also evidence that the Cronbach’s
alpha overestimates the reliability of the difference scores compared to perception only
scores, especially when the component scores are highly correlated (Van Dyke et al.,
1999). Furthermore, Green (2006) warns that it is imperative that each of the perception
and expectation scores be subjected to factor analysis to determine if the same factors
exist and that the measures are unidimensional. Failing to do this before subtracting the
perception and expectation scores, may explain the failure to replicate the original five
factor structure of SERVQUAL.
Subsequently some researchers recommend that a performance-only measure (or
direct-effect model) is superior to the Gap score (Lee, et al., 2000; Page & Spreng,
2002; Cronin & Talyor, 1992; Roszkowskit, Baky & Jones, 2005; Caro & Gracia, 2007;
46
Wilkins, 2007) because it is more reliable and explains more variance than the
disconfirmation model (Teas & Wilton, 1988; Cronin & Taylor, 1992, 1994; Babakus &
Boller, 1992; Brown, Churchill, and Peter, 1993; Teas, 1993; Parasuraman et al, 1994;
Dabholkar et al., 2000; Landrum & Prybutok, 2004). Page & Spreng (2002) have
further argued that performance is a much stronger indicator of service quality than
expectations.
The common theme of these aforementioned studies is that the disconfirmation
approach is unnecessary - on the contrary, a perception-only measure is sufficient.
(ii). Predictive Power of the Instrument
Cronin and Taylor’s (1992) claim of ‘perceived quality’ is best conceptualized
as an attitude and is superior to gap score led the original SERVQUAL developers to
examine this empirically. Similiarly, Babakus and Boller (1992) suggest that ‘the
difference scores do not provide any additional information beyond that already
contained in the perceptions score because of a generalized response tendency to rate
expectations high (in Buttle, 1996). The perception-only scores are found to have better
predictive value for overall service quality (Parasuraman, et al., 1988; Babakus &
Boller, 1992; Cronin & Taylor, 1992, 1994; Boulding, Ajay, Staelin, and Zeithaml,
1993; VanDyke, et al., 1999), overall customer satisfaction used as the dependent
variable (VanDyke, et al., 1999; Gounaris, 2005, Landrum et al., 2007), and behavioral
intentions (Brown et al., 1993; Dabholkar et al., 2000). Gounaris (2005) also noted that
perception could allow an understanding of service quality evaluations at the factor
level, and that all dimensions are antecedents rather than components.
47
(iii). Components or Dimensionality of Service Quality
Another source of criticism arises from the unstable dimensionality of the
measurement scales, including SERVQUAL’s R.A.T.E.R. dimensions. Though
designed to be used as a base for service quality measure in various service settings and
industry (Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml, 1993), the five R.A.T.E.R. dimensions are
often not recoverable and do not load on to factors as expected, probably due to the
scoring method (VanDyke et al., 1999). The RATER dimensions have failed to re-
emerge in library services (Nitecki, 1996; Cook 2001; Edwards & Browne, 1995;
Nitecki, 1995) and higher education (Badri, et al., 2005; Carman, 1990; Buttle, 1996,
Green, 2006; O’neill, Wright & Fitz, 2001; Gounaris & Dimitriadis, 2003).
Besides that, contrary to Gronroos’s (1984) view that both the technical
(outcome of service encounter) and functional (process of service delivery) quality are
factors of service quality, the SERVQUAL addresses only the functional quality
(Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Nagata, Satoh, Gerrard & Kytomaki, 2004). Subsequently,
studies based on SERVQUAL also focus on functionality quality (Getty & Getty, 2003;
Markovic, 2006). Santos (2003) believes that it is important not only to understand how
consumers’ experience and evaluate the service delivery, but also how the delivery
contributes to the total service experience and its evaluation.
Contrary to the fundamental model underlying SERVQUAL’s five dimensions,
several researchers have suggested that service quality is a hierarchical construct with
primary and sub-dimensions (Dabholkar et al., 1996; Brady & Cronin, 2001; Gounaris,
2005; Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Collier & Beinstock, 2006; Caro & Gracia, 2007;
Wilkins et al., 2007; Ho, 2007. However, Ladhari (2008) found that there is little
empirical evidence for this structure and more research is needed in this area.
48
A common conclusion reached by researchers (Seth et al., 2005; Ladhari, 2008)
who have reviewed service quality studies is that, service quality outcome and
measurement is dependent on type of service setting, situation and time and need factor.
Therefore, it is very important that researchers describe the empirical context in which
each scale is developed (Ladhari, 2008), so that when dimensions are discovered in any
particular context, generalization are made with caution.
iv. Length of the questionnaire
Though not entirely a vital issue, the measure of expectations and perception
makes the instrument a lengthy one, including the 100 point rating system used to
determine dimensions most important to customers. Lengthy questionnaires may reduce
the response rate in a survey, which may affect credibility of the findings (Hernon,
2002). The SERVPERF scale reduces the number of items to be measured by 50% and
is considered more efficient (Jain & Gupta, 2004).
Summary
In defense of the criticism faced by SERVQUAL, the authors of SERVQUAL
have argued that one of the main reasons for the criticism was the inability of other
researchers to adhere to scale construction guidelines by Churchill (1979) and Anderson
& Gerbing (1988). Most studies that adopted and adapted SERVQUAL did not follow
the survey methodology completely, thus gave rise to many reliability and validity
issues.
On the other hand, for practitioners, a perception-only measure means that
detailed service quality studies can be made through simpler, more efficient, cross-
sectional designs (Dabholkar et al., 2000). The argument that service quality is defined
as overall evaluation of service performance is similar to Parasuraman et al.’s (1985
49
definition of service quality- that quality is judged in terms of excellence and
superiority.
As a result, though the use of SERVQUAL has been wide spread, many
researchers have suggested that industry-specific measure of service quality might be
more appropriate that a single generic scale (Dabholkar, 1996; Babakus & Boller, 1992;
Gounaris, 2005; Caro & Garcia, 2007 cited in Ladhari, 2008).
2.3 Library Service Quality Assessment Literature
Library service assessment have largely been driven by early practices of
irregular collection of ‘usage metric’, which had been criticized by Lincoln (1998) as a
failure to foresee relationships between libraries and their users. As libraries began to
adopt and connect their research to other bodies of research, more systematic methods
based on marketing service quality models, mainly SERVQUAL and LibQUAL +TM (an
adaptation of SERVQUAL to suite library environment) took place. Shi and Levy’s
(2005) review on theoretical models applied in library assessment gives valuable
overview of the shift of early methods based on statistics and staff perception to the
acceptance of user perceptions of service quality and user satisfaction as essential
elements of service assessment. Surprisingly, Poll’s (2008) paper on the new edition of
ILFA handbook Measuring Quality has no mention of service quality measurement
based on user-based approaches. Though she does mention that performance indicators
that include electronic and web-based library services are difficult to use and do not
show that users benefit from their interaction with the library.
Since the focus of this study is on service quality, the next section will begin
with a discussion of the application of SERVQUAL in library assessment activities.
50
2.3.1 Replication of SERVQUAL in Library Assessment
It is important to review the development of library service quality assessment
beginning from the adoption of the SERVQUAL model. The application of
SERVQUAL in libraries began as early as its inception in the early 1990s. Studies by
Edwards and Browne (1995); Nitecki (1995, cited in Nitecki 1996); Seay, et al., (1996);
Surithong (1997 in Narit & Nagata, 2003); Hernon and Nitecki (1998, 2001); Nitecki
and Hernon (2000); O’neill, et al., (2001), are a few examples of SERVQUAL being
adapted to measure service quality in a library setting.
Edwards & Browne (1995) used the five SERVQUAL’s R.A.T.E.R. dimensions
to explore the difference between academics and librarians on their perception of
quality of an information service. They suggested that the dimensions developed by
Parasuraman et al., (1988) may not hold for information services in a university library.
Communication and user education formed separate dimensions and the dimension
‘reliability’ was not perceived as important by academics as the SERVQUAL scores
predicted it to be. Though they conclude that there is congruence between librarians and
academics in what they view as characteristics of quality information service, librarians
have a tendency to underestimate how important it is to academics that an information
service performs the promised service dependably and accurately. Interestingly they
also implied that it was difficult for users to distinguish conceptually between
‘products’ of the library and the ‘service’ attached to it.
One of the most cited research, using the SERVQUAL instrument, was by
Nitecki (1995, cited in Nitecki 1996) for her doctoral dissertation. Reviewing the
literature on SERVQUAL, Nitecki found that by 1994 it had been introduced explicitly
to the library field through at least 4 empirical studies undertaken in public, special and
academic libraries. The validity of the instrument was tested on 3 services in an
51
academic library: interlibrary loan, reference and closed-reserve. Though her data
supported the validity and reliability of SERVQUAL scale, it suggested a three-factor
relationship among the 22 SERVQUAL items rather than the five collapsed dimensions
(R.A.T.E.R.) which Parasuraman et al., (1988) had revealed. The conceptualization of
the dimension tangibles in libraries was similar to SERVQUAL, but there was overlap
between reliability and responsiveness and even between responsiveness, assurance and
empathy. Nitecki did not attempt to further explore and suggest what model would
better explain library service quality dimensionality. However, her suggestion for an
alternative way to conceive quality from the traditional counts of collection size and
materials use, to a more psychometrically sound measure was the beginning of more
library science practitioners’ and researchers’ uptake of development in the business
sector service quality assessment that had a great impact on later research in library
service quality assessment.
Another application of the SERVQUAL was carried out by Seay, et al., (1996).
Taking the original ten dimensions of SERVQUAL and rewording each items in each
dimension, they decided that the following seven service determinants could be adapted
to library services: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, access, communications,
security and tangibles. They then asked library users to express their expectations for
library services and coded these responses to match the seven determinants in an effort
to evaluate service quality. This method of positive and negative comments via open
ended questions caused the majority of the comments to be concerning the dimension
‘tangibles’, contradictory to SERVQUAL’s findings that tangibles was the least
important dimension. As Bitner (1990) had pointed out, physical surrounding and
employee responses can influence customer reaction towards the service. The study also
found that negative comments on ‘reliability’ dominated the rest of the responses,
supporting Berry et al.’s (1990) findings. One drawback of this method was that it
52
focused on customer’s negative comments and equated it with perceived importance of
a particular service attribute, whereas, expectation and satisfaction have been
summoned as positive feeling about something. These seven determinants and their
definition were later used by Thapisa and Gamini (1999) and Ashok (2007) in their
evaluation of their respective university library service quality. However, both studies
did not provide any empirical data on the reliability and validity of the scale used.
In Thailand, SERVQUAL was used by Surithong (1997, in Narit & Nagata,
2003) in her doctoral dissertation to examine user expectations and perception of library
service quality. She focused on 3 areas: circulation; reference and computer information
services. The instrument was an adapted one used by Nitecki for academic library
assessment. Her study’s contribution was that the dimensions perceived most important
by Thai library users were similar to users in the United States, thus supporting use of
SERVQUAL across different cultures. However, there was no empirical testing of the
validity and reliability scores of SERVQUAL items in this study to render support for
SERVQUAL‘s suitability in academic libraries.
In the same year, Coleman, Xiao, Blair, and Chollett, (1997) reported using the
22-item SERVQUAL survey at the Sterling C. Evans Library at Texas A & M
University. The sample included faculty, staff, graduate students, undergraduate
students and community users. They also weighted the scores of the 100-point
allocation criteria. It was found that even though the five R.A.T.E.R. dimensions were
extracted; neither reliability tests nor factor analysis was carried out. The point scores
identified reliability as the most important dimension, and tangibles as the least
important.
53
A series of different but related works by Hernon, Altman, Nitecki and Calvert
have examined library service quality by developing a basic framework for
understanding and measuring service quality in academic libraries (Hernon and Altman
(1996). In an attempt to produce global dimensions for customer expectations of
academic library service quality, this framework was then used as a basis for subsequent
gap analysis research in different countries – New Zealand (Hernon & Calvert, 1996),
Singapore (Calvert, 1998) and China (Calvert, 2001). Calvert (2001) claims that based
on the studies in America, New Zealand, Singapore and China, there is sufficient
evidence that the concept of service quality may vary between countries, but they share
common core believes that do not change. What was interesting was the fact that in
Singapore, the participants did not think cultural sensitivity was an issue because the
three large ethnic groups all believed that their cultural differences were a part of way
of life and it did not effect staff attitude during service delivery. This is a similar trait in
Malaysia too.
Subsequently, Nitecki and Hernon (2000) studied the feasibility of developing
and testing the conversion of SERVQUAL to reflect expectations of library users and
staff at Yale University Libraries. Their instrument had 40 statements (revised from a
set of core service attributes developed by Hernon and Altman, 1998), to explore users
expectations and delivery perception, followed by five statements reflecting the five
dimension of SERVQUAL which are to be rated for relative importance and lastly an
overall expectations question. As in other studies, their study revealed Reliability to be
perceived as the most important attribute and Empathy the least important. They also
concluded that the SERVQUAL dimensions failed to address the desire to be self-
reliant or self–supporting, a very important characteristic of library users.
54
Hernon’s (2002) research on service quality expanded to include measures of
customer satisfaction and outcome assessment. The inability to recover the five
dimensions of SERVQUAL accurately in library setting (Edwards & Browne, 1995;
Nitecki, 1995; Andeleeb & Simmons, 1998; Hernon & Altman, 1998; Nitecki &
Hernon, 2000) led to an intensive research into service quality measure by the
Association of Research Libraries, ARL. A team of researchers, mainly Colleen Cook
and Bruce Thompson carried out a longitudinal study at the Texas A&M University
Library for the years 1995, 1997 and 1999. Their main purpose was to determine if
SERVQUAL was a reliable and valid instrument to be applied to the library context
across different time and different respondent groups. They used the 22-item survey as
originally constructed by Parasuraman et al. (1994) with slight wording modifications to
reflect the library environment. They found the reliability scores to be fairly reasonable
across time and user group variations. Their research also reported that the recovery of
the R.A.T.E.R dimensions was not supported. As in Nitecki’s (1995, cited in Nitecki
1996) study, only tangibles was distinctly identifiable. Another important finding was
that most studies that they examined had identified an overlap among responsiveness,
assurance and empathy (named ‘demeanor’ by Andaleeb and Simmons, 1998; Landrum
& Prybutok, 2003). Even Parasuraman et al., (1994) had revealed the possibility of a
three-dimensional structure wherein responsiveness, assurance and empathy meld into a
single factor. Cook and Thompson (2000) concluded that the underlying factor structure
of SERVQUAL may not be the same in research library context because using
difference scores between minimum, desired and perceived responses typically have
different factor structures from one application to another (Babakus & Boller, 1992) and
stress that a direct measurements of perception may yield more reliable outcome as
suggested by others (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Van Dyke, Kappelman, and Prybutok,
1997; Zeithaml, et al., 1996).
55
Following up her work with ARL, Colleen Cook in her PhD dissertation (2001) ,
developed a web-based total market survey tool for assessing academic library service
quality. She used the 1994 SERVQUAL instrument with three column side-by-side
format composed of adequate, desired and perceived quality. However, some
respondents were given the only perception option questionnaire. Cook revealed that the
SERVQUAL constructs, R.A.T.E.R. were affirmed in the research library context.
However, several new construct emerged in her study: library as a place, ubiquity and
ease of access to collection and self-reliance. This confirms that the SERVQUAL
dimensions were not adequate to measure academic library service quality. The
responsiveness, assurance and empathy factors collapsed as one factor: Affect of
Service. Reliability was the second strongest factor. Cook found that the long-form
questionnaire (3 scales: minimum, desired, perceived) and the short form (1 scale:
perceived only) are both able to maintain the integrity of the ‘perceived’ scores. Her
study resulted in producing a total-market survey for library service quality, the
LIBQUAL+TM instrument.
The development of a new scale, LIBQUAL+TM, by ARL researchers had a huge
impact on library assessment activities in the United States and Canada as libraries
began to experiment with the instrument and report successful implementation (details
in Section 2.3.2).
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, researchers are still trying to replicate
the SERVQUAL methodology to design scales to suit library services. A group of
researchers Nagata, et al., (2004) examined dimensions of service quality in four
university libraries by building upon their previous experimental studies using the
SERVQUAL instrument. They too failed to extract the five dimensions of
SERVQUAL, in fact they added on technical quality items that were absent from
56
SERVQUAL (information delivery, information retrieval, service procedure, remote
service and quiet place). This was based on Bitner et al., (1990) and Buttle’s (1996)
observation that SERVQUAL items reveal that a majority of the items relate directly to
the human interaction element of service delivery (functional quality). In their
sequential study, Nagata et al., (2004) incorporated nine items from the LIBQUAL+TM
instrument and used the three column format –expectation, desired and perception.
Data from four universities in Europe and Japan confirmed four dimensions of service
quality: Effect of Service(Personal); Library as Ba; Collection and Access and Effect of
Service(Organizational). These dimensions were similar to those additional dimensions
found in Cook’s dissertation study. Subsequently, Satoh, Nagata, Kytomaki, and
Gerrad, (2005) conducted focus group interviews to recapture the four dimensions and
investigate if there were others dimensions. They confirmed the emergence of the four
dimensions, but with additional items relating mostly to electronic service provision –
usability of online OPAC, databases, e-journals, electronic access. Also the dimension
‘effect of service-personal’ was further expanded to include communication, service
response, and customer-first assistance.
O’neill, et al., (2001) conducted an exploratory study at an Australian university
library to examine the conceptualization of service quality in an online environment.
They designed an 18 item questionnaire based on input form 2 focus groups and
referring to the SERVQUAL dimensions. Only four of the SERVQUAL dimensions
emerged, with assurance and empathy combined as a single dimension and termed
‘contact’. The use of importance and performance scores allowed them to use the
quadrant analysis to identify the strength and weakness of the service dimensions.
There has been limited support for the applicability of the SERVQUAL
dimensions to library services, however many studies continue to do so (Narit &
57
Nagata, 2003; Ashok, 2007). A specific application for the libraries, LIBQUAL+TM, was
developed by Thompson, Cook & Heath (2001) as a derivative of SERVQUAL. The
following section discusses with more detail the LIBQUAL+TM model.
2.3.2 Generic Measure of Library Service Quality : LibQUAL+TM
LibQUAL+TM was developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in
collaboration with several faculty members at the Texas A&M University as a web-
based tool for systematic assessment and measurement of library service quality, over
time and across institutions (Cook, Heath, Kyrillidou & Webster, 2002). It was
developed along the same conceptual and methodological framework as the
controversial but widely used SERVQUAL. According to Cook & Thompson (2000a,
2000b), SERVQUAL does not address all the important issues particularly relevant in
libraries. Methodologically the disconfirmation theory that customers perception of
quality is the difference between what they expect from a service and what they believe
they have received guided the research design of LIBQUAL+TM. The scale asks
respondents to indicate the minimum level of acceptable service; the desired level of
service and the perceived level of service. Gap scores are calculated between minimum
and perceived expectation and desired and perceived expectations or NA (not
applicable) for each of the 22 items. The zone of tolerance is the difference between
minimum and desired scores. Ideally, perception ratings will fall within the zone
(Thompson, Kyrillidou & Cook, 2008). The presupposition is that the service is good if
perception meet or exceed expectations and problematic if perceptions fall below
expectations. After several attempts to refine the scale to reduce the biases and
empirical problems, LIBQUAL+TM (2003) measures three dimensions of library service
quality:
58
- Affect of Service (Empathy, Responsiveness, Assurance, Reliability)
- Information Control (Scope, Timeliness, Convenience, Ease Of Navigation,
Modern Equipment)
- The Library as Place (Utilitarian Space, Symbol, Refuge)
There are, respectively, nine, eight, and five items constituting these three
LIBQUAL+TM
subscales. Its emphasis on user perceptions (inherent in SERVQUAL)
covers users’ experience of service delivery – its emotional impact (Affect) on them,
the extent to which service delivery is under users’ control, and the extend to which the
library as a place is comfortable for research and learning (Edgar, 2006). The scale also
includes :
- open-ended comments from users regarding library service quality
- option of selecting five additional items from a supplementary pool of 100+
items to augment the 22 core items o focus on issues of local interest
- data about the user’s frequency of use of various information resources
In the first 3 years since its inception in 2000, LIBQUAL went through vigorous
empirical testing to improve and stabilize it’s dimensions. Table 2.6 shows the changes
in the dimension and number of items in the scale.
Table 2.5 : Dimensions of Library Service Quality in LIBQUAL+TM
2000 2001 2002 2003
41 –Items 56 Items 25 Items 22- Items
Affect of Service Affect of Service Affect of Service Affect of Service
Library as a place Library as a place Library as a place Library as place
Reliability Reliability Personal Control Information Control
Provision Of Physical
Collections
Self-Reliance Information Access
Access to Information Access to Information
From: Developing a National Sc DL (NSDL) LibQUAL Protocal, 2003 NSDL Evaluation Workshop
59
Since LIBQUAL+TM was first implemented in 2000, the survey has been
completed by nearly a million users at more than 1,000 libraries worldwide. Participants
include a broad range of library types, from college and university libraries to health
sciences libraries, law libraries, special libraries, and more (Hoseth, 2007). ARL
describes the LIBQUAL+TM survey as one tool in a kit of tools for performance measure
(Saunders, 2007). The advantages are two-fold: i) individual libraries can compare their
results with results of peer institutions; and ii) libraries can use a proved and tested
survey instrument, thereby foregoing all the expense and work of developing their own
survey. Thompson, et al., (2008) describe it as a ‘total market survey, because the
protocol (a) seeks perceptions of all potential customers, regardless of frequency of use,
including even nonusers and (b) uses benchmarking against peers’.
LibQUAL+TM scores have been repeatedly shown to have high reliability
coefficients and to be reasonably valid (Cook, Heath, Thompson & Thompson, 2001;
Thompson & Cook, 2002; Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2003; Thompson, Cook &
Thompson, 2002). Library staff has also found the scores useful in improving library
service quality (Cook, et al., 2002; Jilovsky, 2006). Tiangulation is allowed via the
option of the ‘Box’, an open ended comment box for users to add comments. Each year
roughly 40% participants provide comments of their ratings.
In the literature there are many general studies reporting on the use of
LIBQUAL+TM to measure individual library’s performance (Roszkowski, et al., 2005;
Creaser, 2006; Jankowska, Hertel, & Young, 2006; Whang, & Ring, 2007; Johnson,
2007;Kayongo, & Jones, 2008; Nadjla, & Farideh, 2008; Garthwait, & Richardson,
2008; Jaggars, Jaggars, & Duffy, 2009).
60
The development and use of LibQUAL+TM to improve service quality has been
documented in more than 50 articles published in the refereed, archival journal
literature. Approximately half these articles document psychometric properties of
LibQUAL+TM (Cook, Heath & Thompson, 2002; Thompson & Cook, 2002; Wei,
Thompson & Cook, 2005; Thompson, 2006). The remaining half of the published
articles describe how libraries are using LibQUAL+TM results to improve services (Cook,
2002; Heath, Kyrillidou & Askew, 2004; Thompson, Kyrillidou, & Cook, 2007).
LibQUAL+TM Critique
Though LIBQUAL+TM has been gaining popularity and increased usage by
practitioners, there are several theoretical and empirical criticism that have been raised
by LIS researchers. These can be summarized as follows:
- LIBQUAL+TM addresses only the functional quality of library services and does not
include the technical component of services in its assessment (Edgar, 2006). Nagata
et al., (2004) argue that in a university library, the content offered (materials) in
each library differ, and to have a fixed definition of technical quality is almost
feasible. Thus, supporting service quality measure to include technical quality.
- The operationalization of the Gap Score is questionable. In SERVQUAL the gap
score is the measure of difference between the expectation score minus the
perceived score. However, in LIBQUAL+TM the authors have used the ‘minimum’
and ‘desired’ level to compare library users’ perception of service quality. Shi and
Levy (2005) contest that the mathematical interpretation of the gap scores is
considerably different from the original service quality conceptualization in the
service marketing, though LIBQUAL+TM claims to have followed the similar
framework. Furthermore, Green (2006) asserts that the psychometric properties of
61
each battery(minimum, desired, perceived) be assessed before any subtraction of
scores is performed. The problem is further complicated by critiques of
SERVQUAL who claim ‘gap score’ is a poor choice as a measure of psychological
construct (Van Dyke et al., 1999) because the scores are unlikely to be distinct from
their component scores (Brown et al, 1993). In response to this, Thompson, Cook
and Heath (2000) argue that this model enables them to check for inconsistencies in
the response data since the ‘minimum’ rating of an item should not be higher than
the ‘desired’ rating on the same item. During analysis, any record containing more
than 9 logical inconsistencies are deleted (Thompson, 2006).
- The construct ‘expectations’ is again not well defined. In library service context,
user needs have always been a priority for librarians but the use of these two term
have not been clearly defined in LIBQUAL+TM. Expectations and needs are two
different constructs (Shi & Levy, 2005) and need to be separately conceptualized so
that the measure can be operationalized accurately.
- Interpretation of the LIBQUAL+TM scores are difficult for librarians. Most literature
on LIBQUAL+TM reports on a one time use of the tool to assess library quality and
data analysis is usually descriptive, relying on counts of frequencies and means.
Which do not allow the library to take action to identify actual problematic areas
and take action to overcome these shortcomings.
- There has been little effort to refine the scale though much literature in marketing
research has supported the use of the perception only score as overall predictor of
service quality. Cronin and Taylor (1992) contend that performance only scores
outperform gap scores in predicting overall service quality. Green (2006) examined
62
the reliability and validity of using a LIBQUAL+TM adapted scale in a public library
and found the data were neither reliable nor valid.
Other issues involving use of LIBQUAL+TM are:
- Patrons complain that it is too long (thirty-nine questions), or that all questions
have to be answered before the survey will be accepted (Kalb, 2007; Saunders,
2007)
- Many libraries would like to tailor the questionnaire to find out information that
is specific to their library clientele or local problems (Saunders, 2007; Kalb,
2007)
- uses self-selected respondents : estimates are always going to be somewhat
biased (Saunders, 2007)
It has been argued that more research needs to carried out to identify and refine
the determinants of library service quality perception and depend less on scales
developed in the business and marketing areas as their services are noticeably different
from library services. Most service quality models from the marketing literature
emphasis on the service delivery and not the product. However, in library services, the
information product and the service component both have a distinct but inter-dependent
role in overall service quality judgment. Another concern is the definition of tangible
and non-tangible. According to Shi and Levy (2005), library service quality is a
combination of the quality of the information provided (comprehensiveness,
appropriateness, format) and the services offered by the library (physical facilities,
helpfulness, attitude of staff, etc.). For example, access to online databases is very much
dependent on the quality, content and recentness of the content of the databases to form
service quality judgment.
63
2.3.3 Summary of SERVQUAL and LIBQUAL+TM Use in Library Service Quality
Assessment
Reviewing SERVQUAL and LIBQUAL+TM mainly has led to some important
issues regarding the use of these scales as a global measure of library service quality,
especially even more so in the electronic services environment. Two main concerns are:
i) Dimensionality of Traditional Service Quality Models (SERVQUAL vs
LIBQUAL+TM)
Traditional measures of library service quality for services such as reference desk,
interlibrary loan, bibliographic services, closed-reserves, document delivery, etc. have
revealed a number of common constructs or dimensions. An analysis of a number of
conceptual and theoretical papers helped identify these common dimensions of service
quality as presented in Table 2.6. The comparison is between service quality dimensions
as adapted from SERVQUAL for use in library service quality assessment and the three
dimensions of LIBQUAL+TM .
64
Table 2.6 : Service Quality Dimensions in SERVQUAL and LIBQUAL+TM
Dimension SERVQUAL in LIS LIBQUAL, 2003
Reliability • Providing service as promised (Narit & Nagata, 2003)
• Performing service right the first time (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003; Cook &
Thompson, 2000)
• Dependability in handling user’s service problems (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003;
(Nitecki & Hernon, 2000; Edwards & Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000;
Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000)
• Providing services at promised time (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003; Cook &
Thompson, 2000; Calvert, 2001)
• Answer query efficiently and correctly (Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007; Ashok, 2007)
• Provide librarian identity (Shachaf & Oltmann)
• Provide service accurately (Nitecki & Hernon, 2000; Snoj & Petermanec, 2001;
Ashok,2007;Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000; Calvert, 2001)
• Frequency of updating (Hernon & Calvert, 2005)
• Proper technical functioning (Hernon & Calvert, 2005; Calvert, 2001)
• Materials are in proper places and well marked (Snoj & Petermanec, 2001)
• Making relevant information available (Ashok,2007; Thapisa & Gamini, 1999)
• Keeping records consistent with actual holdings (Ashok,2007; Thapisa & Gamini, 1999;
Calvert, 2001)
• Keeping computer database up and running (Ashok,2007; Thapisa & Gamini, 1999)
• Error free records (Nitecki 1996; Cook & Thompson, 2000; (Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000)
Affect of service
• Dependability in handing service
problems
65
Table 2.6, continued
Dimension SERVQUAL in LIS LIBQUAL, 2003
Assurance • Knowledge and courtesy of staff (Nitecki 1996; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000; Edwards &
Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000; Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000; Calvert, 2001)
• Able to inspire trust and confidence (Nitecki 1996; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000; Edwards &
Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000; Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000)
• Providing individual attention (Thapisa & Gamini, 1999; Ashok, 2007; Calvert, 2001)
• Familiarity with equipment and technology (Thapisa & Gamini, 1999; Ashok, 2007;
Calvert, 2001)
Affect of service
• Employees who are consistently
courteous
• Employees have knowledge to answer
questions
• Employees who instill confidence in
users
Tangibles • Visually appealing facilities (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000;
Edwards & Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Visually appealing materials (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Modern equipment (Nitecki 1996;Narit & Nagata, 2003; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000; Edwards
& Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Equipment in working condition (Snoj & Petermanec, 2001; Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000;
Calvert, 2001)
• Appearance of personnel (Nitecki 1996; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000; Edwards & Browne, 1995;
Cook & Thompson, 2000; Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000)
• Computer service (Snoj & Petermanec, 2001)
Information Control
• Modern equipment
66
Table 2.6, continued
Dimension SERVQUAL in LIS LIBQUAL, 2003
Empathy • Library staff who understand needs of users (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003; Cook &
Thompson, 2000; Calvert, 2001)
• Having users’ best interest at heart (Narit & Nagata, 2003; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Deal with users in a concerned or considerate fashion (Narit & Nagata, 2003; Nitecki &
Hernon, 2000; Edwards & Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Giving users individual attention (Nitecki 1996, Narit & Nagata, 2003; Nitecki & Hernon,
2000; Edwards & Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Convenient opening hours (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003; Calvert, 2001)
• Giving equal importance to all user’s request (Ashok, 2007; Thapisa & Gamini 1999)
Affect of service
• Employees deal with users caring
fashion
• Giving users individual attention
• Employees understand needs of users
Responsiveness • Prompt service (Nitecki 1996, Narit & Nagata, 2003; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000; Edwards &
Browne, 1995; Ashok,2007; Thapisa & Gamini, 1999; Cook & Thompson, 2000;
Vergueiro & Carvalho, 2000; Calvert, 2001)
• Willingness to help users (Nitecki 1996; Narit & Nagata, 2003; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000;
Edwards & Browne, 1995; Cook & Thompson, 2000; Calvert, 2001)
• Readiness to respond to user questions (Narit & Nagata, 2003; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Keeping users informed about when services will be performed (Nitecki 1996; Narit &
Nagata, 2003; Cook & Thompson, 2000)
• Virtual reference-acknowledgement of user email in a timely manner (Shachaf & Oltmann,
2007)
• Respond as quick as possible (Nitecki 1996; Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007; Vergueiro &
Carvalho, 2000)
• Adherence to stated turnaround policy(Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007; Ashok,2007; Thapisa &
Gamini, 1999)
• Making new information available (Ashok, 2007; Thapisa & Gamini, 1999)
Affect of service
• Willingness to help users
Readiness to respond to users’ questions
67
Table 2.6, continued
Dimension SERVQUAL in LIS LIBQUAL, 2003
Information
Control
Information Control
• Library web site enabling locate
info on my own
• Making info easily access for
independent use
• Easy access tools allow find things
on my own
• The electronic information
resources I need
• Print and/or electronic journal
collation required for work
• Printed library material I need for
work
• Making electronic resources access
home or office
Library as a
Place
Library as a Place
• Comfortable and inviting location
• Community space for group
learning and group study
• Inspires study and learning
• Quiet space for individual
learning
• A gateway for study, learning or
research
68
The items that measured reliability, assurance and empathy in the SERVQUAL
type scale have been consolidated as the ‘Affect of Service’ dimension in LIBQUAL+TM.
It is evident that in LIBQUAL+TM the emphasis is more on the relationship between the
library employees and the users, specifically regarding their knowledge and how they
deal with users. The second dimension, ‘Information Control’ is much broader in its
coverage than tangibles. It includes issues of availability of modern equipment, but
unlike SERVQUAL, the emphasis is not solely on equipment and appearances. In
library services, the availability of the information resources becomes an important
indicator of quality. The services that provide the means to access these resources are
deemed important. The third dimensions, ‘Library as Place’, is quite unique to a library
as a service organization. This dimension has not been captured by SERVQUAL which
only conceptualizes tangibles as facilities and equipment, not a physical place serving
as a comfortable and quiet place for users. Adaptations of SERVQUAL also failed to
address this service – provision of a place for learning and socializing. Further details of
LIS studies using SERVQUAL or SERVPERF are presented in Appendix A.
In conclusion, application of SERVQUAL in the library setting has shown that
some items are not as relevant in the library context (Cook & Thompson, 2000a;
Thompson & Cook, 2002; Nitecki, 1996; Andaleeb & Simmons, 1998). Cook and
Heath (2001) found that students and faculty at various universities had concerns about
library services that were not addressed in SERVQUAL.
ii) Measure of Electronic Services in Libraries
Traditional library services delivered within the library walls, have over time
been automated or new services are being delivered in a networked environment. The
assessment of service quality has included items on electronic services. Examples are
‘frequency of updates’ (Hernon & Calvert, 2005), ‘computer databases up and running’
69
(Ashok, 2007), ‘virtual reference’ (Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007), ‘web site’ (Cook, 2001),
‘availability of electronic resources’ (Cook, 2001). Though ‘Information control’
dimension in LIBQUAL+TM includes some aspects of electronic services in libraries, the
overall scale was not developed to capture electronic services quality specifically. Due
to limitations in the length of the questionnaire, only a small number of items regarding
electronic services can be included at any one time, thus limiting the information
necessary to make informed decisions about improved services.
It is important to understand the theoretical and conceptual under pining of
service quality evaluation in traditional face-to-face services in order to make the
transition to electronic service quality assessment. The next section is dedicated to the
developments in electronic services and the measure of service quality in the electronic
environment.
2.4 Electronic Service Quality Literature
As the development of the web technology accelerated, service providers
subsequently began offering electronic services (e-services) via the web or Internet as
stand-alone services (services provided is the main benefit to the user) or supporting
services (facilitating the use of traditional service or purchase of goods (Fassnacht &
Koese, 2006).
The growth of e-tailing, e-services and digital libraries led many to attempt to
measure electronic service quality using traditional measures and adapting them to the
electronic medium. However, online services have unique characteristics that can affect
the perception of service quality (Collier & Bienstock, 2006). A generally accepted
definition of electronic services has not yet emerged in the literature (Santos, 2003;
Rowley, 2006). The only similarity in the existing definitions is the focus on provision
70
of service over electronic networks (Rust & Lemon, 2001; Tih, 2004), the Internet
(Boyer, Hallowell, and Roth, 2002; Fassnacht & Koese, 2006) or also referred to as
web-based services (Reynolds, 2000). There is also an emphasis on interaction between
customers and organization’s online system (Tih, 2004; Rowley, 2006) to retrieve
desired benefits (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006).
Studies so far can be categorized by types of services covered, for example
online retailing (Yoo & Donthu, 2001; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2002; Kim, Kim, and
Lennon, 2006; Zeithaml et al., 2006), electronic banking (Jun & Chai 2001;
Jayawardhena, 2004; Waite, 2006), travel agency (Yen 2005; Ho 2007), or studies that
focus on Website quality alone (e.g., Loiacono, Watson & Goodhue 2002; Yang, Chai,
Zhou, and Zhou, 2005). In LIS research the focus is on library web site quality (Chao,
2002), digital library quality (Summer, Khoo, Recker, and Marlino, 2003; Bertot, 2004;
Heath, et al., 2004; Kryllidou & Giersch, 2005; Goncalves, 2006) and library e-service
quality (Hernon & Calvert, 2005; Li, 2006).
2.4.1 Conceptualization of E-Service Quality
Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Malhotra (2000, cited in Zeithaml et al., 2002)
provided the first formal definition of electronic service quality as ‘the extent to which a
website facilitates efficient and effective shopping, purchasing, and delivery of products
and services’. This definition was considered too narrow because it focuses on online
shopping and is limited to only website quality not service quality as a whole
(Gummerus, Liljander, Pura, and VanRiel, 2004), which may include technical
processes as well (Fassnacht & Koese 2006). Subsequently, many authors described the
electronic service experience as self-service experience (Dabholkar, 2000; Sara, 2000;
Meuter, Ostrom, & Roundtree, 2000, Zhu, Wymer, & Chen, 2002). An analysis of the e-
service literature by Rowley (2006), concludes that there are three main defining
71
characteristics in the literature: technology mediation, self-service and information
service. She adopted the notion that e-service is actually e-service ‘experience that
results from purchase through or engagement with information technology mediated
service delivery’, including e-tailing, customer support and service and service delivery.
A number of studies in e-commerce have found information availability and
content to be key benefits of online activities (Zeithaml, 2002; Kim et al., 2006),
meaning that both search and retrieval of information pay a role in service quality
evaluation. Rowley (2006) asserts that self-service is a relative term and can be adapted
to describe e-services where the customers must learn to navigate the web interface and
take control, because the customer’s interaction with the organization is through the
technology, such as a web site. This led her to claim that due to the absence of face-to-
face interaction, electronic service is a relatively impoverished service. Some of the
definitions of electronic service are given in Table 2.7
Table 2.7 : Electronic Service Definitions
Service in cyberspace (Rust & Lemon, 2001) or virtual marketplace (Santos, 2003)
Delivered over the internet (Boyer et al., 2002; Surjadjaja, Ghosh & Anthony, 2003); Fassnacht & Koese,
2006; Zeithaml et al., 2006)
Web-Based Services (Reynolds, 2000; Gounaris & Dimitriadis; 2003, Zeithaml, 2002; Parasuraman et al.,
2005 )
Delivered via information and communication technology (Fassnacht & Koese , 2006); electronic
networks (Rust, 2001); technology mediated (Rowley, 2006)
Interactive information service (Rowley, 2006; Santos, 2003; Li & Suomi, 2007)
Stand-alone services (Fassnacht & Koese , 2006)
Self-service (Dabholkar, 2000 ; Sara 2000 ; Meuter et al., 2000 ; Rust & Lemon, 2001 ; Zhu et al., 2002 ;
Rowley, 2006)
72
One important issue in the conceptualization of e-service quality is that, any
contact with the service provider (via e-mail or other means) is considered as a service
recovery construct. Electronic services are technology mediated and only when there is
a problem does the customer need to communicate with the service provider to handle
questions, concerns and frustrations (Collier & Bienstock, 2006).
However, in the case of library services, recovery may not entirely be a separate
construct. Libraries not only provide access to the collections (product) but facilitating
access and retrieval of relevant information is an integral part of library services. Online
help, may it be technical or topical, is a part of reference service and the reference
interview cannot be put aside in the electronic environment. Helping users search and
answering queries are not part of the ‘recovery’ dimension of e-service quality, as
postulated inmost e-service literature.
According to Rowley (2006), electronic service is often a part of a wider service
delivery. Libraries use the Internet as a channel to enhance, support or bypass their
traditional channels. Often there is a continuum of service delivery mechanisms with
different mixes of face-to-face and self-service and different associated levels of
intensity in service relationship. There are no well-accepted conceptual definitions and
models of electronic service quality and its measurements (Seth et al., 2005). An
acceptable premise is that web-based services are delivered and accessed via a specific
web site, either incorporated within the organizations’ homepage or on a completely
separate site
When Hernon & Calvert (2005) examined library e-service quality at eight
universities in New Zealand, though not explicitly listed, they constructed the survey
instrument based on the following library services : online catalogue, online access to
73
course materials, e-resources, communication channels, document delivery,
personalized service and online alert services.
Li (2006) describes electronic library user information services as bibliographic
instructions, computerized library catalogs, digital libraries, distance learning services,
e-databases, government documents, instant messaging services, interlibrary loan and
document services, ready reference, virtual classrooms, virtual references.
Upon scrutinizing several review papers on electronic service quality literature
(Seth & Deshmukh and Vrat, 2005; Rowley, 2006; Ladhari, 2008) and research articles
(Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Collier & Bienstock, 2006; Ho, 2007; Li & Suomi, 2007;
Cristobal, Flavian & Guinaliu, 2007; Ladhari, 2009), several prominent model of e-
service quality are being repeatedly used by researchers to measure e-service quality in
various context and industries. Thus, the following section will discuss some of these
models, mainly WebQUAL (Loiacono et al, 2000); SITEQUAL (Yoo & Donthu, 2001);
eTailQ (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003) and E-S-QUAL (Parasuraman et al., 2005). This is
followed by efforts in measuring library e-service: DigiQUAL (Kyrillidou & Giersch,
2005) and e-SERVQUAL for libraries (Hernon & Calvert, 2005).
2.4.2 E-service Quality Models
This section present several models of e-service quality that have been
developed and used for evaluation of web site service quality and Internet retailing. First
the context in which these scales were developed is presented, followed by a description
and comparison of dimension in Table 2.8.
74
(i) WebQual
WebQUAL is an instrument for consumer evaluation of Web site quality. It was
developed by Loiacono, Watson, and Goodhue (2002) based on the Theory of Reasoned
Action and Technology Acceptance Model. The conceptual context used in developing
WebQUAL was: What perceived characteristics of a Web site will affect a consumer’s
decision to reuse the site? It contains 36 questions on 12 characteristics of a Web site,
demonstrating strong measurement validity, and it predicts intention to buy from or
revisit a Web site. WebQual’s development was based on responses from undergraduate
business students to a selected group of Web sites the search for distinct dimensions for
evaluating Web sites begins with a framework of four categories: ease of use, usefulness
in gathering information, usefulness in carrying out transactions, and entertainment
value. Zeithaml et al., (2002) commented that WebQual is more pertinent to interface
design rather than service quality measurement. Furthermore, it also lacks qualitative
emerging categories as the respondents were given researcher-specified categories.
WebQUAL is widely used and adapted for various site evaluations but its short
fall as a measuring tool for library service quality, as it does not address the construct in
its initial conceptualization.
(ii) SiteQual
Yoo and Donthu (2001) developed SITEQUAL to measure the perceived quality
of Internet shopping sites. It originally consisted of 38 items and nine factors of two
broad sets: vendor-related and site quality. However, the first set of factors was
removed because the researchers wanted to focus on site quality. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), apparently using the same data, indicated a poor fit and the model was
re-specified. After several iterations, the instrument was reduced to nine items to
75
measure the four factors (only two items for most factors). Loiacono, Watson and
Goodhue (2007) contest that SITEQUAL’s original set of items was too narrowly
based, and most of its final factors are measured by only two items.
(iii) eTailQ
Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) developed an instrument for the measurement of
Internet retailing quality. Their contention was that most studies focus only on
customer’s interface with the website, whereas they believed that online shoppers are
goal-directed and their behavior may differ vastly in the online purchase context. Their
multi-method iterative process combined findings from focus groups (across Canada
and U.S.) with SERVQUAL items and generated determinants of e-retailing quality,
namely: Website design; Customer service; Fulfillment/Reliability; Security/privacy.
The model generated showed eTail quality as a higher order factor. They
concluded that judgement of online purchase experiences are strongly related to website
design factors and fulfillment, less on security. An acknowledged limitation of this
study was that the participants were an online panel (not random) that may be more
‘technologically sophisticated’ than the average user.
(iv) E-S-Qual
It is evident that Zeithaml et al.’s ( 2002) conceptualization and Parasuraman et al.’s
(2005) measurement of e-service quality is widely used as a base, (both for
conceptualization of constructs and methodology for scale development) by many
researchers of e-service quality. Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Malhotra (2001, in
Zeithaml et al., 2006) carried out a systematic study on how customers judge e-service
quality. In that study, they defined e-Service Quality (e-SQ) as the extent to which a
website facilitates efficient and effective shopping, purchasing and delivery. Through
76
exploratory focus groups and two phases of empirical data collection and analysis, they
identified seven dimension of e-SQ:
i. Core dimension
a. Efficiency : the ability of customers to get to the website, find what they want
and check out with minimal effort
b. Fulfillment : the accuracy of the service promised, and delivering the products
in the promised time
c. Reliability: the technical functioning of the site,, extent to which it is available
and functioning properly
d. Privacy: assurance that the customer data is not shared and credit information
is secure
ii. Service recovery dimensions
a. Responsiveness: the ability of service providers to provide appropriate
information to customers when a problem occurs,
b. Compensation: the degree to which customers are to receive money back and
are reimbursed
c. Contact: the availability of live customer service agents online or though the
phone
New dimensions emerge in e-services. Reliability and responsiveness are shared
dimensions. Efficiency and fulfillment are core dimension in e-service quality, and both
share some elements of traditional reliability and responsiveness dimensions. The
personal dimension of empathy is not present in e-service quality except in a non-
routine or problem situation. The tangible, visual elements of the site will be critical to
efficiency. Zeithaml et al., (2002) concluded that some of the SERVQUAL dimensions
may be applied in e-service quality with the inclusion of several new dimensions
77
relating specifically to technology. Table 2.8 shows a comparison of all four e-service
quality models, detailing the respective dimensions and items representing them.
78
Table 2.8: E-Service Quality Models
Dimensions WebQUAL SITEQUAL eTailQ E-S-QUAL + E-RES-QUAL
Usefulness
Informational Fit-to-
Task
- Is what I need
- Adequately meet my needs
- Is effective
Website design
- provides in-depth
information
- doesn’t waste time
- level of personalization is
about right
- had good selection
- it is quick and easy to
complete a transaction
Efficiency
- Site is well organized
Information on this site is well
organized
Tailored information - allows me to interact with it to
receive tailored information
- has interactive features which
help me accomplish my task
- tailored to my specific needs.
Efficiency
- This site makes it easy to find
what I need
- It makes it easy to get
anywhere on the site
Trust/ Secrity/Privacy - feel safe in my transactions
- trust the Web site to keep my
personal information not
misuse my personal
information
Security
- The site ensures me of
security
- I am confident with this site
Security
- Privacy is protected at this
website
- Safe transaction with this
site
- Web site has adequate
security features
Privacy
- Protects information about
Web-shopping behavior
- Does not share personal
information with other sites
- Protects information about
credit card
Response Time - very little waiting time
- site loads quickly/ site takes
long to load
Processing Speed
- it is to access the results
the site has quick process
Efficiency
- It loads pages fast
- Enables to complete a
transaction quickly
- This site enables to get on to
it quickly
System Availability
- The site is always available
- This site launches and runs
right away
- Site does not crash
- Pages on site do not freeze
79
Table 2.8, continued
Dimensions WebQUAL SITEQUAL eTailQ E-S-QUAL + E-RES-QUAL
Ease of Use
Ease of Understanding
- display pages are easy to read
- text is easy to read
- labels are easy to understand
The site is convenient to use Efficiency
The site is simple to use
Intuitive Operations - Learning to operate the Web
site is easy for me.
- It would be easy for me to
become skillful at using the
Web site.
- I find the Web site easy to use.
It is easy to search for
information
Entertainment
Visual appeal
- site is visually pleasing.
- displays visually pleasing
design.
Website design
- The site is colorful
- This site is creative
- This site shows good pictures
of the products
Innovativeness - The Web site is innovative.
- The Web site design is
innovative.
- The Web site is creative
Emotional Appeal - I feel happy when I use the
Web site.
- I feel cheerful when I use the
Web site.
- I feel sociable when I use the
Web site.
80
Table 2.8, continued
Dimensions WebQUAL SITEQUAL eTailQ E-S-QUAL + E-RES-QUAL
Customer Service - - Willing and ready to
respond to customer
needs
- When there is a problem,
web site shows sincere
interest in solving
- Inquiries are answered
promptly
- Sends out the items ordered
- Has in stock the items claimed to
have
- Is truthful about the offerings
- Makes accurate promise about
delivery of products
Responsiveness (E-RecS-
QUAL)
- Convenient options for returning
items
- Handles product returns well
- Offers a meaningful guarantee
- Tells what to do if transaction is
not processed
- Takes care of problems promptly
Compensation(E-RecS-
QUAL)
- The site compensates for the
problems it creates
- Compensates when order does
not arrive on time
- Picks up items for return from
home or business
Contact(E-RecS-QUAL) - Provides a telephone number to
reach the company
- Customer service representatives
available online
- Offers the ability to speak to a
live person if there is a problem
81
Table 2.8, continued
Dimensions WebQUAL SITEQUAL eTailQ E-S-QUAL + E-RES-QUAL
Complementary Relationship
Consistent Image
- The Web site projects an
image consistent with the
company’s image.
- The Web site fits with my
image of the company.
- The Web site’s image
matches that of the
company.
On-Line Completeness - The Web site allows
transactions on-line
- All my business with the
company can be completed
via the Web site.
- Most all business processes
can be completed via the
Web site.
Fulfillment/reliability
- You get what you ordered
from this site
- Product delivered by the
time promised by the
company
- Product delivered was
represented accurately by
the web site
Fulfillment/reliability
- Delivers orders when
promised
- Makes items available for
delivery within a suitable
time
- Quickly deliver what is
ordered
Relative Advantage - It is easier to use the Web
site to complete my business
with the company than it is
to telephone, fax, or mail a
representative
- The Web site is easier to use
than calling an organizational
representative agent on the
phone.
- an alternative to calling
customer service or sales
82
All four scales compared above were developed for measuring online shopping
or electronic retailing. The focus is on the web site that facilitates the customers activity
of accessing, searching, selecting and purchasing a product by interacting with through
the web site. E-S-QUAL goes a step further by including aspects of delivery and return
of the product too. Since the whole service is delivered via a web site, the main
indicators are the web site characteristics, including web site design, ease of use,
usefulness and processing speed. The terms used to describe these indicators may differ
in each scale, but generally they are operationalized as having convenient access to an
well designed web site so that they can find the right information easily and quickly.
Since online purchasing requires payment, security (privacy) is another important
indicator of e-service quality.
Another issue is of customer support. Since the service provider is not physically
present, the online customers may face some problems dealing with the service. Usually
there are two types of assistance needed:
(i) help with making a decision about the purchase/transaction
(ii) help with handling technical problems
Support services assist the online customers overcome these hurdles. Poor website
design or lack of accurate information may hinder the customer’s ability to interact
successfully with the service. As a result there arises a need to communicate with the
service provider. Providing contact information or opportunity to communicate with
service provider is essential as customers always want to be heard and made to feel
important.
83
SITEQUAL does not address this issue at all. WebQUAL on the other hand
warrants that online completeness is a quality indicator. Meaning that all transaction
should be completed via the web site without any problems. ETailQ addresses this by
indicating good customer services that responds quickly and willingly to customer
needs is necessary in service quality measure. This indicator is incorporated in the
service quality scale. As for E-S-QUAL, though it addresses this issue, a separate scale
is designed to measure indicators of what is defined as ‘recovery services’. They authors
created E-RecS-QUAL to measure responsiveness, compensation and contact. Customer
service is conceived as a recovery service, not a core service of online retailing.
The third issue of concern in e-retailing is the ability of the service to fulfill the
customers’ needs. Getting the exact item that is ordered and on time are service quality
indicators. e-TailQ and E-S-QUAL address this in the fulfillment/reliability dimension,
whereas WebQUAL approaches it quiet differently. Their dimension ‘Complementary
relationship’ goes beyond fulfilling customer needs (online-completeness) to include
aspects of service outcome, such as company image and relative advantage of doing
business online.
In summary, there are three main issues surrounding the operationalization of
electronic service quality indicators, first is the environment and tools available to
access the service. Second is the process during service delivery or interaction with the
service provider and lastly, the outcome of using the service.
The next section examines electronic service quality models for measuring electronic or
web-based library services.
84
2.4.3 Library E-Service Models
The literature shows little effort by LIS researchers to develop tools specifically
for electronic or web-based library services. There have been two main efforts in
developing a scale for electronic services. The first is DigiQUAL®
, by ARL, a tool to
measure digital library service quality and the other is efforts by Hernon and Calvert
(2005) to develop the e-SERVQUAL tool for electronic library services.
(i) DigiQUAL®
DigiQUAL®
is being developed by ARL, Texas A&M University and
University of Texas to evaluate the National Science Digital Library (NSDL),
emphasizing issues related to reliability and trustworthiness of a website. The
development of DigiQUAL®
uses a mixed methods approach, both qualitative and
quantitative methods. Based on the focus groups held at Digital Library for Earth
System Information (DLESE) and Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and
Online Teaching (MERLOT) a model was developed that describes two major
components in the digital library environment, the human/system interaction component
and the technical component (Kyrillidou, Heath, Cook, Thompson, Lincoln, & Webster,
2007) .
UTOPIA, a digital library (DL) developed and supported by the University of
Texas was one of the first DLs to implement DigiQUAL ®
together with other NSDL
collections. DigiQUAL ®
is based on the LibQUAL®
protocol and collects feedback on
the site’s service, functionality and content. (Kyrillidou & Cook, 2008). Twelve themes
related to digital library service quality have been identified : design features;
accessibility/navigability; interoperability; digital library as community for users,
developers and reviewers; collection building; role of federations; copyright; resource
use; evaluating collections; and digital library sustainability.
85
(ii) Library E-SERVQUAL (Hernon & Calvert, 2005)
So far the most comprehensive study on library electronic service quality has
been by Hernon and Calvert (2005). Building upon their previous study of service quality
(Hernon & Altmann, 1998; Nitecki & Hernon, 2000) using early dimensions of SERVQUAL to
identify library service quality, Hernon & Calvert (2005) examined library e-service
quality at eight universities in New Zealand. They began with ten dimensions they
deduced from the literature review and focus groups. However, eleven factors emerged
after factor analysis, of which two factors were not identifiable as no pattern to the
statements could be discernible. The other nine, though not explicitly listed, were
identified as collections, empathy/responsiveness, linkage, equipment, flexibility,
interaction/communication, ease of use, efficiency and customization/personalization.
The researchers did not conduct confirmatory factor analysis but suggested further
research to refine the pool of statements and re-conceptualization of the dimensions.
The instrument asked users to think of an ideal library with excellent services and then
judge the current library services on a 10 point scale ranging from 1(of no importance)
to 10( of highest importance) Likert type scale. Each questions is to be answered twice,
once ‘in an ideal library’ and then ‘in library xxx’. There are 104 items in the pool from
which about 22 statements (corresponding to the number used in the original SERVQUAL
and in E-S-QUAL) are recommended for inclusion in the questionnaire.
The second section of the instrument requires users to rate how important each
of the 10 dimensions of library service was to the user when evaluating library service
by allocating a total of 100 points among the 10 dimensions. Analysis is reported using
means scores of each item and quadrant charts to visualize service attributes into four
quadrants. The authors used Factor Analysis to produce a eleven factor solution. Table
2.9 depicts the original ten dimensions assumed from the literature and the subsequent
eleven dimensions extracted using factor analysis.
86
Table 2.9 : Library E-SERVQUAL Dimensions
No. Dimensions deduced from the literature Dimension deduced from factor analysis
Dimensions Description Dimensions Description
1 Ease of use Navigation, search, find, download, speed, remote
access
Ease of use Ease of use (*Santos, 2003)
Ease of navigation (*Zeithaml et al., 2002)
2 Collections Quality, relevance, and deep collections of electronic
material to
Meet my immediate needs
Collections Ease of access
Reliability
3 Linkage connectivity to relevant information, avoid broken links,
regularly update the accuracy of links
Linkage Links (*Santos, 2003)
4 Flexibility different search procedures: basic and advanced, etc. Flexibility Save searchers, make requests in different
formats, site map
5 Support Help pages, section on frequently asked questions,
technical help if
There is a problem or question,
Customer
feedback
Interaction(*Loiacono, Watson, and
Goodhue., (2002)
Communication (*Yang et al., 2003; *Santos, 2003)
6 Customization/person
alization
Receive e-mail announcements about the arrival of new
books on topics of personal interest, etc
Customization/
Personalization
Customization/Personalization (*Zeithaml et
al., 2002)
7 Security/privacy/
trust
Belief the site is relatively safe from intrusion, personal
Information is protected, etc
Equipment Provision of equipment to use
8 Easy of access logon/off quickly, etc Empathy Responsiveness (*Zeithaml et al., 2002)
Support (*Santos, 2003)
Courtesy (*Yang, Peterson, and Cai, 2003)
9 Reliability Frequency of updating, proper technical functioning of
Web site or
electronic product, etc.)
Efficiency Efficiency (*Zeithaml et al, 2002) *Santos,
2003)
10 Web site aesthetics Colours, graphics, size, etc. Not Discernible
11 Not Discernible
Based on Hernon & Altman (2005). * Indicates other studies that have used the same dimension.
87
Calvert (2008) in his PhD dissertation concludes that the Library e-SERVQUAL may
not be a generic instrument applicable in all libraries and for all circumstances, but it does
provide a research-based pool of statements which can be used a starting point and then
developed further.
2.4.4 Dimensions of Electronic Service Models
Besides online retailing and electronic library services, there are numerous e-services
that have attempted to develop measurement scales to assess service quality in their
respective service context. Table 2.10 presents a summary of some of the service
quality dimensions identified in the electronic service industries- Internet services, e-
commerce, online retailing and web portals. It is found that some of these dimensions
are similar, while others differ significantly. These dimensions help to serve as a basis
for the construction of quality indicators when exploring web-based library service
quality.
88
Table 2.10 : Summary of E-Service Quality Dimensions
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
Web site features/
functionality
*Colours graphics image animation, etc.
Aesthetics ; Apprearance
*Linkage/ Well organized hyperlinks
*Links to relevant information
Product and its features are correctly presented
Information is regularly updated
Pages load quickly/
Contents are easily found
Well arranged/ clear structure
Full information provided on product and services
Attractive appearance
Design appropriate
*Helpful search function
*Different search procedures
In-depth information for customer decision
making
Comprehensive information
Quick & easy to complete transaction
Good selection
Dabholkar, 1996; Yoo & Dounthu, 2001;
Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2002, 2003; Zeithaml et al.,
2002; Loiacono et al. 2002; Madu & Madu, 2002 ;
Santos , 2003 ; Yang, et al., 2004; Gounaris et al.
2005; Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Cristobal, et al.,
2007; Kim et al., 2006 ; Heim & Field , 2006 ;
Collier & Bienstock , 2006; Ho, 2007; Tate, et al.,
2007
O’Neill, Wright & Fitz, 2001
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
Usability Easy to learn to operate
Clear and understandable
*Easy to navigate
Easy to use
flow
Sense of competency
Positive experience
Search facilities
Loiacono et al., 2002 ; Yang et al., 2005 ; Tate, et al.,
2007
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
89
Table 2.10, continued
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
Ease of use/
Efficiency
*Easy navigation
Easy access/easy connection
Effective navigation
Functionality
Speed-remote access
Minimize technical difficulties Easy to remember URL
Content concise and easy to understand
*Easy to search and download
Easy transactions
Dabholkar, 1996; Yoo & Dounthu, 2001;
Santos, 2003; Yang et al., 2004; Fassnacht &
Koese, 2006; Ho, 2007
Zeithaml et al., 2002; Santos, 2003;
Parasuraman et al., 2005(E-S-QUAL)
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
Security/privacy Reputable company
*Protect customer information
Secure online payment
Feel safe Adequate security features
Trustworthy
Yoo & Dounthu, 2001; Wolfinbarger & Gilly,
2002, 2003; Loiacono et al. 2002; Zeithaml et
al., 2002; Madu & Madu, 2002; Santos, 2003;
Yang et al., 2004; Yang, et al., 2004 ;
Parasuraman et al., 2005; Gounaris et al. 2005 ; Ho, 2007; Heim & Field ,2006; Kim et al.,
2006 ; Tate, et al., 2007
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
90
Table 2.10, continued
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
Reliability/ fulfillment Perform service right the first time
Perform service in timely manner
Accuracy in performing services
Accurate records
Prompt delivery
Accurate order fulfillment Promise fulfillment
Keep service promises
Product same as ordered
Dabholkar, 1996; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2002,
2003; Zeithaml et al., 2002; Madu & Madu,
2002; Santos, 2003; Yang et al., 2004;
Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Heim & Field, 2007;
Kim et al., 2006 ; Collier & Bienstock , 2006;
Parasuraman et al., 2005(E-S-QUAL)
O’Neill, Wright & Fitz, 2001
Ease of returns and refunds compensation
Zeithaml et al., 2002; Parasuraman et al., 2005(E-RecS-QUAL); Heim & Field, 2007
*Frequency of updating information
*Proper technical functioning web site
by answering the query efficiently
and correctly and providing a signature that
contains the librarian’s name or initials, title,
and institution
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
Shachaf, Oltmann &Horowitz,
2008
91
Table 2.10, continued
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
System reliability- Compatibility with other systems
Answer reference query efficiently and
correctly
Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007
Responsiveness Prompt response to queries
Quick order execution
FAQs
Help available when there is problem
Chanel for user comments
Help resolve problems in timely manner
Find information quickly
Find information accurately
Download speed
Processing speed
Yoo & Dounthu, 2001; Zeithaml et al., 2002 ;
Madu & Madu, 2002 ; Yang et al., 2004;
Gounaris et al., 2005; Parasuraman et al., 2005;
Ho, 2007
O’Neill, Wright & Fitz, 2001
Answer e-mail query in timely manner
Respond quickly
Adhere to stated turnaround policy
Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007;
Shachaf, Oltmann and Horowitz,
2008
Accessibility/
Easily contact customer service
Easily find contact information
Multiple ordering options
Retailer chat room available
Dabholkar, 1996; Santos, 2003; Parasuraman
et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2006 ; Ho, 2007
92
Table 2.10, continued
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
Availability Site always available –launch quickly
*Logon/log off quickly
High speed page loading
Site does not crash
Pages do not freeze
Yang, Zhou & Zhou, 2004; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Yang et al.,
2007
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
Customization
Personalization
Real time interaction
Personal support
Personalized attention
Relevant information for customers specific
needs
*Receive e-mail announcements about new
materials
Madu & Madu, 2002; Yang, et al., 2004; Kim
et al., 2006 ; Ho, 2007
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
Communication Prompt warnings Prompt notification
Old records
Contact information
Keep informed
Loiacono et al., 2002 ; Zeithaml et al., 2002 ; Parasuraman et al. 2005 ; Tate, et al., 2007;
Ho, 2007
93
Table 2.10, continued
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
Customer service/ support
Cust Rship
Do what is promised in certain time
Rapidly deal with complaints and problems
Service performed properly first time
Provide tailor-made service
Delivery period adhered to
Willing to respond to customer need
Sincere in solving problems
*Answer inquiries promptly *Help pages
*FAQs *Technical help
Easy to track delivery/purchase
Personalized features
Understand specific need
Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2002, 2003;
Santos, 2003;
Heim & Field, 2006; Collier & Bienstock,
2006; Ho, 2007; Cristobal, et al., 2007
O’Neill, Wright & Fitz, 2001
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
Interactivity Good reputation
Security of personal information
Sense of community
Easy to communicate with organization,
confident goods will be delivered as promised
Enjoyability /entertainment
incentive
Dabholkar, 1996; Loiacono et al. 2002 ;
Santos, 2003; Madu & Madu, 2002 ; Gounaris
et al. 2005 ; Tate, et al., 2007
Interactive feedback between customer and
company
Follow up services
Message board from c-2-c.company
Yang et al., 2004
94
Table 2.10, continued
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
Information
*Accurate, updated, concise information,
timeliness
Product portfolio
*Comprehensive information relative to other
Complete content
Sufficient information for potential and
existing customers Complete product description
Detailed contact information
Unique content
Relevant information to customer
Valuable tips on product
Reliable professional opinions
Up-to-date information
Loiacono et al., 2002 ; Young et al., 2004;
Gounaris et al. 2005; Fassnacht & Koese,
2006 ; Ho, 2007; Yang et al., 2004
Content/
Collections
Selection
Information availability
Information accuracy
Information clarity
Information believability Appropriate level of detail
Appropriate format
*Ease of understanding
Relevance
*Collections meet information need
Santos, 2003; Yang, et al., 2004
Tate, et al., 2007
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
95
Table 2.10, continued
Dimension Description Others LIS Literature
Assurance(Security) Transmit an image of reliability and
trustworthy
Confidentiality of customer data
Confirmation of transaction
Clear info on how to purchase
Customer aware of security incorporated
Madu & Madu, 2002; Cristobal, et al., 2007 [courtesy]
Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007;
by approachability, friendliness,
politeness,
and professional courtesy
Shachaf, Oltmann and Horowitz,
2008
Delivery fulfillment Successful delivering of products
Willingness to correct mistakes during
transactions
Dabholkar, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 2002;
Ho, 2007
Efficiency Santos, 2003; Parasuraman et al., 2005;
Policy Madu & Madu, 2002
Empathy Madu & Madu, 2002
Flexibility Different search procedure
Make request in different formats, search
through site map
Hernon & Calvert, 2005
Competence Ability to solve problems
Knowledge to answer questions
Research capacity
Quick to solve problems
Yang et al., 2004
Functional benefit Service serves its purpose very well
Fassnacht & Koese, 2006
Emotional benefit Using the service is fun Invites customer to stay
Fassnacht & Koese, 2006
96
The first common aspect is Website features and functionality, which includes
site appearance similar to aesthetics of the physical service scape. On the web, colored
graphics (Hernon & Calvert, 2005; Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Santos, 2003), well
organized with a clear structure (Yang, Zhou & Zhou, 2005) and working links (Hernon
& Calvert, 2005; Santos, 2003; Ho, 2007), and attractive design (Tate et al., 2007) are
some of the quality features which according to Yoo and Donthu (2001) may encourage
overall loyalty to the organization. Functionality in terms of content organization for
easy search and navigation (Yang, et al., 2005; Fassnacht & Koese, 2006) are a concern
in other e-services. When it comes to library e-services, the focus is more on helpful
search functions and links to relevant resources (O’Neill, et al., 2001). In Hernon &
Calvert’s (2005) study, ‘linkage’ was a separate dimension for e-service quality.
However, generally most studies combine this as a web site functionality indicator
(Santos, 2003; Ho, 2007).
Usability and ease of use are two other attributes relating to the technological
aspects of web services. Some researchers combine both attributes, while others treat
them as two distinct constructs. Usability, according to some researchers refers to easy
navigation (Tate, Evermann, Hope, & Banes, 2007; Loiacono et al., 2002 ; Yang et al.,
2005) or flow of the site that allows easy operation and encourages positive experience.
Ease of use as conceptualized by Hernon & Calvert (2005) also includes ease of
navigation (Parasuraman et al., 2005 (E-S-Qual); Santos, 2003), searching,
downloading information (Santos, 2003; Yang, et al., 2004) and the speed of remote
access. Both these constructs seem to be used interchangeable in the literature without
clear definition by researchers, especially in the use of indicators such as easy
navigation.
97
There are many dimensions that overlap in the website design, functionality,
ease of use and usability. Basically these dimensions are concerned with the appearance
of the site, the organization of the information, how easy it is to access the web site and
how easy it is to interact with the site/service.
The next dimension is the security or privacy of the service. This is an important
dimension in many e-services studies (Yoo & Dounthu, 2001, 2003; Loiacono et al.,
2002; Zeithaml et al., 2002; Madu & Madu, 2002; Yang et al., 2004; Ho, 2007; Kim et
al., (2006) ; Gounaris et al., 2005). Basically the indicators include trustworthiness
(Hernon & Calvert), which may include protecting customer information (Parasuraman
et al., 2005; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2002; Santos, 2003; Heim & Field, 2006; Tate, et
al., 2007; Yang, et al., 2004) and secure online payment (Parasuraman et al., 2005;
Santos, 2003). Secure payment may only be relevant in library services if the system
allows online fine payment or payment for document delivery. Hernon & Calvert’s
(2005) defined it as the believe that the site is relatively safe from intrusion and
personal data is protected.
An important dimension that surfaces in most literature is reliability/fulfillment.
This dimension covers a broad conceptualization from its early definition of performing
the service right the first time in a timely manner (Zeithaml et al., 2002) to include
accurate records, ease of returns and compensation (Heim & Field, 2006; Parasuraman
et al., 2005). For electronic library services it refers to frequency of updating
information and ensuring technical proper functioning of web site (Hernon & Calvert,
2005; Shachaf, et al., 2008) and efficient answering of online queries (Shachaf &
Oltmann, 2007). This construct may also include system reliability in term of
compatibility with other systems.
98
Another common dimension of electronic service quality is responsiveness. This
dimension was conceptualized as prompt response, either in answering queries or order
execution (Ho, 2007). In electronic environment, download speed and processing speed
become important indicators (Zeithaml et al., 2002 ; Madu & Madu, 2002 ; Yang et al.,
2004; Gounaris et al., 2005; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Yoo & Dounthu, 2001). For
library e-services, this dimension may be specific to answering e-mail queries in a
timely manner and adhering to tunaround policies (Shachaf & Oltmann, 2007; Shachaf,
et al., 2008).
Accessibility concerns issues of technicality, such as availability of the site, ease
of login/log off (Hernon & Calvert, 2005; Yang, et al, 2004) and high speed of page
loading (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Ho, 2007; Yang, et al.,
2004). This is similar to some of the indicators included in the web functionality
dimension. However, some studies have a slightly different approach when they focus
on issues of contact, customer service, multiple ordering options and availability of chat
rooms (Santos, 2003). This may overlap with the customer service and communication
dimension which are considered as separate dimensions of e-service quality. Basically,
accessibility includes access to the web site and access to the service provider.
There are several dimensions which include some aspects of customer and
service provider interaction. The first is personalization or customization. In e-services,
this dimension refers to personalized attention to customers (Yang, et al., 2004 )
including provision of relevant information for specific needs (Ho, 2007; Kim et al.,
2006; Madu & Madu, 2002). Hernon & Calvert (2005) defined it as customers
receiving e-mail announcements about new arrivals, personalized problem solving and
access to online library tutorial. The second dimension is Communication. Some
researchers include prompt warnings or notification (Loiacono et al. 2002; Ho, 2007;
99
Zeithaml et al., 2002 ; Tate, et al., 2007 ; Parasuraman et al. 2005). While others refer to
provision as contact information only (Santos, 2003). Hernon & Calvert (2005)
subsumed this dimension into their sixth factor together with indicators of customer
service and service interaction. The third dimension is customer support or customer
service. This dimension includes dealing with customer complaints (Santos, 2003) in
terms of promptness; sincerity (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003); providing FAQs (Hernon
& Calvert, 2005; Santos, 2003); technical help (Hernon & Calvert, 2005; Santos, 2003).
Ho (2007) defined is slightly different when he used indicators such as easy to track
delivery and understanding specific user needs and offer personalized features. These
could actually be in personalization dimension. Basically it is ‘interaction’ between
service providers and customers of the service.
Some researchers have used the term interactivity to include indicators of
communication with organization, feedback (Yang et al., 2004), good reputation and
enjoyable or entertainment incentive using the e-services (Loiacono et al., 2002 ; Tate,
et al., 2007; Dabholkar, 1996; Santos, 2003; Madu & Madu, 2002; Gounaris et al.,
2005).
Overall it can be said that the basic relationship between service providers and
customer can be subsumed as one dimension in certain service context, or form separate
dimensions in other service context. So far there has been no clear conceptualization of
this construct as much overlap exists between the operationalization of interaction,
communication, support and personalization.
The next two closely related dimensions in the literature are Information and
Content/collection. In an electronic service, the web site acts as the inter-mediatory
between the service and the customer. The customer accesses the web site to obtain
information and/or make a transaction. The type of transaction that occurs depends on
100
the type of service being accessed. So there are basically two issues here. The first is the
quality of the information and the second is the quality of the content. Some researchers
(Yang, et al., 2004) refer to Information as availability of accurate, updated and concise
information (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Ho, 2007); complete product description;
reliable professional opinion( Fassnacht & Koese, 2006). Other who have examined
web sites, refer to it as availability of information (Hernon & Calvert, 2005; Fassnacht
& Koese, 2007), accuracy and clarity of information (Santos, 2003), or appropriate level
of detail and format of collections (Tate, et al., 2007).
Assurance is a dimension that concerns a sense of confidentiality, reliability and
trustworthiness (Cristobal et al., 2007; Madu & Madu , 2002) which again could
overlap with security/trust. Shachaf and Oltmann (2007) defined it as approachability,
friendliness and professional courtesy. This dimension is less obvious because e-
services rarely include interaction with polite and friendly staff. However, it is different
for web based library services, especially reference service. Hernon & Calvert’s (2005)
study too did not reveal this dimension in their examination of library e- services.
Two dimensions that emerge from Fassnacht and Koese (2006) study are
functional benefit and emotional benefit. Both dimensions relate to the outcome of the
service interaction. Functional benefit is described as the extent to which the service
serves its actual purpose, whereas emotional benefit refers to the degree to which using
the service arouses positive feelings.
In summary, it can be said that service quality dimensions in the networked
environment are dynamic and they depend on the type of electronic service being
studied. Even then, the same type of service may have different dimensions due to
different interpretation of researchers. Thus, each service scape should be studied
individually, while trying to fit it within the existing body of knowledge.
101
2.5 Conceptual Models of Service Quality Incorporating Attitudinal-Behavioral
Constructs
The measurement model of service quality address only the dimensions that form
objective measures of the service quality construct. On a broader sense, service quality
is an important construct because it influences consumer behavioral intentions (Cronin,
et al., 2000). Consumer behavior and consumer satisfaction can lead to favorable
service encounters. An examination of the relationships between service quality,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions can lead a better understanding of the phenomena
and assist libraries in the development of customer retention strategies. The following
section reviews the literature to examine the relationship between service quality,
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
2.5.1 Perceived Service Quality
The term perceptions is acquired from cognitive psychology, defined as ‘the
means by which information acquired from the environment via the sense organs is
transformed into experience of objects, events, sounds, tastes, etc.’ (Roth, 1986 –
Dictionary of Cognitive Psychology). In marketing, the term perception has been used
to describe consumers’ opinions, beliefs or judgemental thoughts of products or
services. Service quality is said to be more subjective than product quality (Berry et al.,
1989) therefore, Parasuraman et al, (1988) defined the subjectivity of service quality as
perceived quality, meaning ‘the consumer’s judgement about a product’s overall
excellence or superiority’. Perceive quality is:
a. different from objective or actual quality
b. a higher level abstraction rather than a specific attribute or a product
c. a global assessment that in some cases resemble attitude
d. a judgement usually made within a consumer’s evoked set
102
According to several researchers, quality must be addressed from someone’s viewpoint,
it cannot be attained objectively (Curry & Faulds, 1986). This is similar to the user-
based approach defined by Garvin (1984), in which he founded the premise that ‘quality
lies in the eyes of the beholder’. Perceived service quality derives from the individual
service encounter between the customer and the service provider, during which the
customer evaluates quality and develops a judgement. Each service experience is made
up of a series of individual discrete service encounters during which the customer will
make these evaluations (Bitner, 1990). Thus, service quality measures are actually
measures of ‘perceived service quality’.
2.5.2 Customer Satisfaction
In Oliver’s chapter on Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service
Satisfaction (1993, as cited in Hernon, 2002), he explains that the word satisfaction is
derived from the Latin word satis (enough) and facere (to do or make). This word alone
implies a degree of fulfillment – meaning that it can be interpreted as customer’s feeling
of fulfillment of his needs (Hernon, 2002). Generally user surveys use the term
satisfaction to find out customers’ experiences in using the library. They either use
several different questions to gauge their experience with varying collections, services,
facilities, etc. or just a single question to gauge the general satisfaction level with the
library.
Parasuraman et al., (1985) had conceptualized perceived service quality as the
difference between service expectations and perceived performance, however,
Lancaster (1993) equated user satisfaction as the difference between service
expectations and perceived performance. In LIS there was no clear distinction between
the two construct until research began to focus on service quality measure as a more
serious evaluation of library services.
103
The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction is twofold.
The work of multiple researchers have posited that satisfaction is an antecedent to
service quality, which then directly affects buyer’s behavioral intentions (Oliver, 1981;
Bitner, 1990; Bolton & Drew, 1991; Mohr & Bitner, 1995). Another set of researchers,
on the other hand have found that service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction
(Cronin & Talyor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1994; Anderson & Sullivan, 1993;
Rust & Oliver, 1994; Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann, 1994; Teas, 1994; Caruanna,
2002; Hernon, 2002; Zeithaml, et al., 2006; Wilkins, et al., 2007).
This debate may be explained by reflecting upon Dabholkar’s (1995) claim that
the relationship is situation specific, it depends on the context of the service encounter
because the nature of the customers’ cognitive orientation and emotions may determine
the overall perception (service quality) and affective reaction (satisfaction) to the
service encounter.
Hernon and Whitman (2001) viewed service quality as dealing with users’
expectations of the service and satisfaction as an emotional reaction to the cumulative
experiences a customer has with the service provider. In an attempt to further
differentiate the two concepts, Hernon & Nitecki (2001) stress that service quality and
satisfaction are not synonymous concepts. According to them, service quality
judgement is cognitive, whereas satisfaction may focus on affective or emotional
(Hernon, 2002) reactions to a specific transaction or a cumulative judgement based on
collective encounters (overall satisfaction). Although the two concepts have certain
things in common, satisfaction is generally viewed as a broader concept, whereas
service quality focuses specifically on dimensions of service. The Table 2.11 lists the
conceptualization of service quality and customer satisfaction.
104
Table 2.11 : Conceptualization of Customer Satisfaction.
Author(s) Customer Satisfaction
Bitner & Hubbert,
1994
Service encounter satisfaction: examine satisfaction /
dissatisfaction over a particular service encounter
Overall service satisfaction: examine satisfaction / dissatisfaction
based on organizational or multiple encounters
Hernon & Whitman,
2001
A sense of contentment that arises from actual experience in
relation to an expected experience
Cronin et al.,
2000
Satisfaction with a service is both evaluative and emotional based
response to a service encounter
Hernon,
2002
An affective or emotional reaction to a service encounter or to a
series of encounters
Operationalization of the Customer Satisfaction construct
In terms of the measurement of customer satisfaction, it is agreed that the
customers’ predictive expectations influences the satisfaction level. An examination of
some of the questions used to measure satisfaction in library research reveal that many
are based on: fulfillment of expectations; comparison with an ideal library and/or
feeling about the experience.
Table 2.12 : Operationalization of the Customer Satisfaction Construct
Study Type of service Measurement items
Seay, Seaman and Cohen,
1996
Library - Overall how satisfied are you with today’s
library visit?
Cook, 2000 Library - In general I am satisfied with the way I am
treated at the library
- In general I am satisfied with the library
support for my teaching, research and learning needs.
Cronin, Brady and Hult, 2000 Retailing - My choice of purchase was a right one
- I think I did the right thing when I purchased
this service
- This is exactly what is needed for this service
Landrum and Prybutok
(2004)
Library - Overall are you satisfied with the library?
Martensen and Gronholdt
(2003)
Library - Considering all your experience of [library
name], how satisfied are you in general?
- To what degree do you consider the library
fulfils your expectations?
- Imagine a library which is perfect in all
aspects. How close is this ideal library do you
consider this library to be?
105
Table 2.12, continued
Study Type of service Measurement items
Landrum, Prybutok and
Zhang (2007)
Research library - The service at this facility provides value
- The service is effective.
- The service is efficient
- I am satisfied…
Dabholkar et al, 2000
Taylor and Baker, 1994 Health care,
recreation,
airlines, long
distance
telephone
- I believe I would be satisfied
- Overall in purchasing this service, I believe I
would be pleased
- Satisfying experience - My feelings towards this service can be best
characterized as ….
Ho (2007) Tourism - Made the right choice
- Will use again
- Truly enjoyed it
- Choice was wise
- Satisfied with most recent experience
- Happy with this
Ladhari (2009) Hotel industry - Emotional satisfaction : Happiness/ pleasant/
joyful
This study will attempt to investigate if service quality is an antecedent to
customer satisfaction. It shall work upon the definition of Oliver (1997):
‘Satisfaction is the consumer’s fulfillment response. It is judgement that a
product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provides a pleasurable level
of consumption-related fulfillment,’
The present study postulates that the following items shall measure the customer
satisfaction with web-based library services, encompassing both emotional and
cognitive components:
i. Using the web-based library services has been a good experience
ii. Web-based library services adequately meet my information needs
iii. Web-based library services are efficient
106
2.5.3 Service Value
Zeithaml (1988) suggested that ‘perceived value is the customer’s overall
assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what
is given’. Operationalization of this construct is closely related to the usefulness of the
service. In retail literature, value is dependent on monetary costs, basically what the
customer has to ‘sacrifice’ when utilizing the service. However in information services,
including academic library services, where there is no direct cost incurred, the
indicators are more in relation to the ‘usefulness’ of the service. Table 2.13 lists some of
the items used by researchers to operationalize this construct.
Table 2.13 : Operationalization of the Service Value Construct
Study Type of service Measurement items
Cronin, Brady and Hult,
2000
Retail - Overall the value is…
- Overall ability of this facility to satisfy my
wants and needs is…
Parasuraman et al, 2005 Web site quality - Prices
- Overall convenience of using
- Feeling of being in control
- Overall value for money and effort
Martensen & Gronholdt,
2003
Academic Library - I use the library to keep up to date
- The library’s services satisfy my needs for
knowledge, learning and development
- The library plays a crucial role for me
Landrum, Prybutok &
Zhang, 2007
Research library Used the term Usefulness
- Accomplish my tasks faster
- Improves ability to do research
- Enhance effectiveness
- Be more productive
- Easier to do research
- Is useful.
Since this study focuses on library services for the research community, similiar to
Martensen & Gronholdt (2003) and Landrum et al., (2006), the present study postulates
that the following items shall measure library service value:
i. Web-based library services gives me a feeling of being in control
ii. Web-based library services improve my ability to do research
iii. Web-based library services enable me to be more productive
107
2.5.4 Customer Loyalty
Customer loyalty is the ultimate goal of any service organization. Loyalty is
translated to certain behavioral intention of the customers, such as repeated use (Oliver,
1997; Cronin et al., 2000), expressing a preference for it and recommending service to
others (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Cronin et al., 2000). Though in profit organizations
loyalty is important for increased revenues and is measured in terms of profit, in non-
profit organizations, increased return rate and increase in number of users may be used
to justify budget and accountability to the parent organization. In an academic
institution of higher learning, it is an indication of ‘increased use of scholarly
information by researchers and moneys spent is justified’. So it is important to include
loyalty in the conceptual model of service quality. Hernon & Altman (2010) suggest
that serving loyal customers is important because it ensures repeat use and making the
more use of the library and its services.
The importance of loyalty has also caused organizations to build long-term
relationships with customers (Schneider & White, 2004), known as relationship
marketing, a concept gaining merit in LIS research. Table 2.14 lists how some studies
have operationalised the customer loyalty construct.
Table 2.14 : Operationalization of the Customer Loyalty Construct
Study Type of service Measurement items
Martensen , and Gronholdt
2003
Library Will you be using more of the library’s services
in the future?
Is it important for you to be able to use the
library in the future too?
Would you recommend the library to other
users?
Parasuraman et al, 2005 Web site quality Say positive things to others
Recommend to others
Encourage others to use
Consider as first choice
Use more in future
Ho (2007) e-travel Encourage others to use
Say positive things Use more in future
Recommend to others
Consider as a first choice
108
Thus, the present study postulates that the following items shall measure the customer
loyalty with web-based library services:
i. I will be using more of the web-based library services in the future
ii. I would recommend the web-based library services to others
iii. I will say positive things about the web-based library services to others.
2.6 Research Hypotheses
In academic institutions, the phenomena of students and researchers preferring
to use other Internet service providers as opposed to library resources is becoming more
prevalent (Griffths & Brophy, 2005; Ross & Sennyey, 2008). Academic librarians need
to understand the relationship between service quality and customer loyalty to better
manage their services. Dabholkar, et al. (2000) found that the literature reports
contradicting finding relating to the causal relationship between service quality,
satisfaction and loyalty. They recommended that more research is needed to investigate
the possible mediating role of customer satisfaction in the relationship between service
quality and behavioral intentions.
Cronin, et al. (2000) claim to be the first to simultaneously compare the relative
influence of the three constructs; satisfaction, value and quality, on the service
encounter outcomes or behavioral intentions. They operationalized behavioral
intentions as consumers’ intention to use the service again, recommend it to others and
repeat use. If one examines Zeithaml et al.’s (1996) dimensions for behavioral
intentions, then these three items are characteristics of the loyalty dimension. Their
finding supported their proposed model that all three construct have a direct effect on
customer behavioral intentions (saying positive things, recommending to others, remain
loyal). However, it must be noted that their measure of service quality was based on 10
items of which eight were on employee characteristics and ability to provide reliable,
109
dependable and consistent service. While one was on a risk free environment and the
other on appealing physical facilities and employees.
Figure 2.6, graphically illustrates the relationship between the Customer
Satisfaction and Loyalty (Zeithaml, et al., 2006, p.106)
Figure 2.6 : Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty
In the context of library service, Marthensen & Gronholdt (2003) examined the
effects of six dimensions of users’ perceived quality on user value, satisfaction and
loyalty. They found value to have a direct positive effect on satisfaction and loyalty.
User satisfaction too had a direct positive effect on loyalty. Whereas the indirect effect
of value on loyalty via satisfaction was smaller than its direct effect.
The drive for research in investigating the relationship between these construct
has been to develop an improved understanding of not only how they relate to each
other but how subsequently they influence behavior (Cronin, et al., 2000) in terms of
loyalty towards the service. Table 2.15 lists some of the research models relating to the
relationship between these construct as concluded by various researchers.
110
Table 2.15 : Studies on Relationship Between Service Quality, Satisfaction, Value and
Loyalty
Relationship Studies
Service Quality directly influences Customers
Satisfaction
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Dabholkar & Overby, 2004
- Prybutok & Landrum, 2004
- Parasuraman et al., 2005
- Zhang & Prybutok, 2005
- Birgelen, Ghijsen, and Janjaap, 2005
- Landrum et al., 2007
- Collier & Beinstock, 2006
- Lin, 2006; Ho, 2007
- Ladhari, 2009
Service Quality directly influences Service Value - Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Prybutok & Landrum, 2004
- Parasuraman et al., 2005
- Landrum et al., 2007
- Lin, 2006
Service Quality directly influences Customer
Loyalty
- Cronin & Talyor, 1992
- Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003
- Parasuraman et al., 2005
- Zhang & Prybutok, 2005
- Collier & Beinstock, 2006
- Ho, 2007
Customer Satisfaction directly influences
Customer Loyalty
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Birgelen, Ghijsen, and Janjaap, 2005
- Zhang & Prybutok, 2005
- Ho, 2007
- Collier & Beinstock, 2006
Service Quality influences loyalty through
Customer Satisfaction
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Zhang & Prybutok, 2005
- Birgelen, Ghijsen, and Janjaap, 2005
- Collier & Beinstock, 2006
- Ho, 2007
- Heinrichs et al., 2007
Service Value directly influences Customer
Satisfaction
- Cronin & Taylor, 1992
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Lin, 2006
Service Value directly influences Customer
Loyalty
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
Service Quality influences loyalty through Service
Value
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
Service Value influences loyalty through Customer
Satisfaction
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Lin, 2006
111
This research relies on Bagozzi’s (1992) theoretical justification that initial
service evaluation leads to emotional reaction that in turn drives behavior, meaning that
service quality and value appraisals precede satisfaction (Cronin, et al., 2000). Not
many studies in LIS have examined these relationships. There is a need to add to the
understanding of the interrelationships between these construct, especially since the
literature has still not reached a consensus on the nature of these issues.
2.6.1 Generating Hypotheses
Based on Table 2.15, several hypotheses are generated to explore the
relationship between these four constructs.
There is substantive body of evidence about the direct and significant effects of
perceived service quality on customer satisfaction in various industries including e-
commerce, e-travel, e-retailing, catering, among others. Many have found empirical
support for service quality to have a positive effect on customer satisfaction (Cronin, et
al., 2000; Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003; Dabholkar & Overby, 2004; Prybutok &
Landrum, 2004; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Zhang & Prybutok, 2005; Birgelen, Ghijsen,
& Janjaap, 2005; Collier & Beinstock, 2006; Lin, 2006; Landrum et al., 2007; Ho, 2007;
Heinrichs et al., 2007; Ladhari, 2009). Similiarly it is expected that web-based library
service quality will positively effect customer satisfaction:
Hypothesis 1A : Web-based library service quality is positively related to customer
satisfaction
112
Perceived service quality, as defined by Zeithaml (1988) is actually the
assessment of the overall excellence of the service. An excellent service is expected to
be a service that is useful to the customer in fulfilling the customers’ needs. Within the
business literature, value is related to cost or price of utilizing the service, however in
academic libraries, there is no direct cost incurred by the user. Value perception would
strongly be based on utility of the service. Studies have shown that there is a direct
impact of service quality on service value (Cronin, et al., 2000; Marthensen &
Gronholdt, 2003; Landrum & Prybutok, 2004; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Landrum et al.,
2007; Lin & Hsieh, 2006). Thus, it is postulated that service quality positively effects
service value.
Hypothesis 1B: Web-based library service quality is positively related to service
value
The relationship between service quality and customer outcomes such as
loyalty, are important to retain customers for increased profit impact. In a library,
increased use of library resources is an indicator for justifying the library budget to the
parent institution. There is a strong need to study the relationship between service
quality and loyalty because studies have shown that the is a positive impact of service
quality on customer loyalty (Cronin & Talyor, 1992; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003;
Parasuraman et al., 2005; Zhang & Prybutok, 2005; Collier & Beinstock, 2006; Ho, 2007).
This study examines if there is a direct relationship between service quality and customer
loyalty.
Hypothesis 1C: Web-based library service quality is positively related to customer loyalty
A few studies have indicated a positive relationship between satisfaction and
intention to re-visit. Dabholkar, et al. (2000) found that customer satisfaction strongly
mediates the effect of service quality on behavioral intentions (loyalty). A satisfied
113
customer is more likely to stay with the organization. However, they recommended that
more research is needed to investigate the possible mediating role of customer
satisfaction in the relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions. The
following two hypotheses will address this issue:
Hypothesis 2A: Customer satisfaction is positively related to customer loyalty
Hypotheses 2B: Customer satisfaction has a mediating effect on the relationship
between service quality and customer loyalty
Based on previous research, service value is suggested as a measure of the
customer’s overall assessment of utility (Zeithaml, 1988). When utility for a researcher
is analogous to the ability to increase his research productivity by having his
information needs adequately met, then it can be hypothesized that service value
influences satisfaction. Thus it is proposed:
Hypothesis 3A: Service value is positively related to customer satisfaction
Furthermore, it has also been shown that positive perception of service value,
encourages customers not only to repeatedly use the service but also recommend it to
others (Cronin, et al., 2000; Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003). This is expressed in the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3B: Service value is positively related to customer loyalty
Hypothesis 3C: Service value has a mediating effect on the relationship between
service quality and customer loyalty.
The hypotheses are summarized in the conceptual framework shown in Figure 2.7. The
model also shows the various studies that support the direction of the relationships. The
study examines the direct and indirect relationships between the constructs, as depicted
in the proposed Structural model.
114
Figure 2.7 The Proposed Structural Model
- Cronin & Taylor, 1992
- Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003
- Zhang & Prybutok, 2005
- Collier 7 Beinstock, 2006
- Ho, 2007
- Cronin & Taylor, 1992
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Lin, 2006
Web-based
Library SQ
Service value
Customer
satisfaction
Customer
loyalty
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt,
2003
- Prybutok & Landrum, 2004
- Parasuraman et al., 2005
- Landrum et al., 2007
- Lin, 2006
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt,
2003
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Kim, 2003
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Birgelen et al., 2005
- Zhang & Prybutok, 2005
- Ho, 2007
- Collier & Beinstock, 2006
- Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000
- Marthensen & Gronholdt, 2003
- Dabholkar & Overby, 2004
- Prybutok & Landrum, 2004
- Parasuraman et al., 2005
- Zhang & Prybutok, 2005
- Birgelen et al., 2005
- Landrum et al., 2007
- Collier & Beinstock, 2006
- Wen_bao, 2006
- Ho, 2007
- Ladhari, 2009
115
2.7 Summary
Based on the review of the service quality literature in Marketing and LIS field the
researcher has made some decisions on the approach of this study:
i. Perception-only measure
Oliver’s (1980) disconfirmatory paradigm was adequate for the measurement of
satisfaction which was a measure of how well the service level delivered
matched the customer expectations. This notion was adopted by Parasuraman et
al., (1985) as ‘the comparison between customer expectations and perceptions of
service’ is defined as perceived service quality. But Cronin and Taylor, (1992,
1994) argue that is not for service quality as service quality is conceptualized as
an attitude and is judged in terms of excellence and superiority (Zeithaml, et al.,
1985). Furthermore, Buttle (1996), argues that the expectations of customers is a
consequence of previous contact with the service, thus the measure of the ‘gap’
or difference between expectations and perceptions depends on ‘experience’,
which in the web environment may be low because of lack of interactions
(Cristobal et al., 2007). Based on the debate in the literature over the inclusion
of expectations in the measurement of service quality, resulting in general
agreement that performance only measures are superior (Cronin and Taylor,
1994; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Teas, 1994; Landrum & Prybutok, 2003;
Wilkins, 2007), this study shall use the performance-only measure. It also
responds to Hernon’s (2002) recommendation for further review of the
performance-only method.
ii. Based on the summary of e-service dimensionality generated from various
studies, it is concluded that there are some common dimensions and some
industry specific dimensions. Calvert’s (2001) claims that there is sufficient
116
evidence that the concept of service quality may vary between countries, but
they share common core believes that do not change. Table 2.10 will assist the
researcher in formulating themes during the analysis of qualitative data from
focus group interviews.
iii. A service quality model adopted from the commercial sector is not directly
applicable in the not-for-profit library service environment in higher education
(Quinn, 1997). Thus the researcher shall develop a scale from grounded data as
recommended by Churchill (1979)’s scale development methodology.
iv. Based on the research on relationship between customer satisfaction, service
quality, value, and behavioral intentions, the researcher proposes the following
model for investigation in this study (Figure 2.7). This study would be the first
to examine the relationships between all four construct simultaneously in an
academic library's web-based service environment.
The next Chapter will present the methodology and research design adopted to answer
the research questions and fulfill the aims of this study.