Abstract
The authors respond to concerns raised by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994) about the relative efficacy of performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measures of service quality. They demonstrate that the major concerns voiced by these authors are supported neither by a critical review of their discussion nor the emerging literature. Several research issues relative to service quality measurement and strategic decision making also are identified.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research
The authors respond to concerns raised by Cronin and Taylor (1992) and Teas (1993) about the SERVQUAL instrument and the perceptions-minus-expectations specification invoked by ...
Expectations, Performance Evaluation, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality
The author examines conceptual and operational issues associated with the “perceptions-minus-expectations” (P-E) perceived service quality model. The examination indicates that ...
Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension
The authors investigate the conceptualization and measurement of service quality and the relationships between service quality, consumer satisfaction, and purchase intentions. A...
A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions
Relying on a Bayesian-like framework, the authors develop a behavioral process model of perceived service quality. Perceptions of the dimensions of service quality are viewed to...
Delivering quality service: balancing customer perceptions and expectations
Excellence in customer service is the hallmark of success in service industries and among manufacturers of products that require reliable service. But what exactly is excellent ...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1994
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 125-125
- Citations
- 1207
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.2307/1252256