VOLUME 7 NUMBER 1
1993
Service Quality Attributes
and Choice Behavior
Michael D. Richard and Arthur W. Allaway
The long-run financial viability of service
firms is closely linked to the ability to
deliver present and potential customers
with superior service quality (Garvin,
1987; Keiser, 1988). Enlightened managers
realize that their service offering is a
complex combination of both tangible
and intangible elements. As such,
consumers make service quality
evaluations on the outcome (what was
delivered) and process (how the service
was delivered) of service delivery
(Gronroos, 1982; Parasuraman et al.,
1985).
While there is agreement that service
quality is a strategic tool influencing
market share at the aggregate level
(Garvin, 1987; Keiser, 1988) and choice
behavior at the individual level (Bitner,
1990; Woodside et al., 1989; Zeithaml,
1988), much of the research examining
this relationship possesses conceptual
and/or methodological shortcomings.
Although it is generally agreed that
service quality is a multi-attribute
construct, some empirical studies have
used a single indicant of service quality
(Anderson and Kraus, 1981). This single
indicant operationalization can result in
marketing models that are mis-specified
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, 1993, pp. 59-68,
© MCB University Press, 0887-6045
59
and have low predictive validity. As such,
they offer little in the way of diagnostic
usefulness to marketing managers.
Although service quality is considered
a critical determinant of actual choice
behavior, research on this relationship has
been sparse (Zeithaml, 1988). Rather than
focusing upon the impact of service
quality on choice behavior, behavioral
intention has been utilized as the
dependent variable of interest in many
studies (Bitner, 1990; Reidenbach and
Sandifer-Smallwood, 1990; Woodside et
al., 1989). The assumption that service
quality influences actual choice behavior
underlies most of this research. However,
the extent to which this relationship exists
has not been investigated rigorously
(Zeithaml, 1988). Some marketing models
that utilize behavioral intention may
exhibit low predictive validity when
compared to models using actual choice
behavior (Cote and Umesh, 1988).
Therefore, the diagnostic usefulness of
such behavioral intention models to
managers is questionable.
Service quality evaluations involve both
outcome and process quality attributes of
service delivery (Gronroos, 1982;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). For example,
Domino's produces a tangible product
(pizza) as well as providing intangible
services (e.g. free delivery in 30 minutes
 JOURNAL OF
SERVICES MARKETING
or less). Therefore, the consumer
evaluates the outcome (e.g. was the pizza
tasty?) and the process (e.g. did the
delivery person provide the pizza quick
enough?) of service delivery (Gronroos,
1982; Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Unfortunately, the most popular
measurement instrument, SERVQUAL,
focuses only upon the process quality
attributes (Mangold and Babakus, 1991).
Models that utilize only process quality
attributes as predictors of choice
behavior, behavioral intention,
satisfaction, overall quality, etc. may be
mis-specified and have low predictive
validity. Again, the diagnostic usefulness
of such models is questionable.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The shortcomings of the research coupled
with the growing evidence of the
influence of service quality on the
financial viability of firms demonstrates
the need for high quality research in this
area. This study intends to contribute to
the emerging body of literature by
addressing the aforementioned
shortcomings. Specifically, it investigates
the importance of service quality as a
predictor of actual choice behavior. In
addition, the importance of process and
outcome quality attributes as predictors
of choice are examined. Finally, an
"augmented" SERVQUAL instrument (i.e.
process and outcome quality) is used so
that multiple attributes of process and
outcome quality will be investigated.
The approach taken in this study
should prove diagnostically useful to the
marketing manager in terms of
investigating the importance of process
and outcome quality attributes that
influence choice. Service quality is a
competitive weapon. The challenge is to
determine which process and outcome
quality attributes of service quality have
60
the greatest impact on choice. Once
identified, managers can then develop a
marketing program that emphasizes the
most important attributes while
reasonably containing the cost of those
service quality attributes to which the
consumer is indifferent. Specifically, the
manager can use the type of model
developed here to predict choice as a
function of perceived service quality. As
such, the manager can assess the impact
of changes in specific areas of service
quality on the choice behavior of
consumers.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Service Quality
Service quality is defined as customer
assessment of the overall excellence or
superiority of the service (Zeithaml,
1988). It involves a comparison of
customer expectations with customer
perceptions of actual service performance
(Gronroos, 1982; Parasuraman et al.,
1985, 1988). Product quality, on the other
hand, relates to an adherence to
standards or to some acceptable level of
defects (Garvin, 1987).
Though product quality has been
defined, measured, and controlled with
increasing levels of precision, managing
service quality can be quite problematic
(Garvin, 1987). In other words, the
management of product quality provides
little guidance to those who wish to
manage service quality (Parasuraman et
al., 1985). The problems of managing
service quality are related to the unique
characteristics of services: intangibility,
heterogeneity, inseparability, and
perishability.
Since services are intangible, firms find
it difficult to understand how consumers
evaluate service quality. Unlike tangible
product firms, the consumer has
considerably fewer cues to evaluate.
 VOLUME 7 NUMBER 1
1993
In most cases, tangible cues are limited to
the service firm's facilities, equipment,
and personnel. Heterogeneity hinders
consistency of service delivery and, thus,
evaluations of service quality across
firms, employees, customers, and time
periods (Zeithaml, 1988). The
inseparability of production and
consumption results in service quality
evaluations by the consumer both during
and after service delivery. In other words,
service quality depends on the outcome
of the service and the process of service
delivery (Gronroos, 1982; Parasuraman et
al., 1985). Since services cannot be
inventoried, synchronization of supply
and demand is particularly difficult.
During periods of peak demand,
overworked personnel may be prone to
mistakes which reduces service quality.
Service quality problems are no longer
the sole concern of service firms. Many
firms realize that their offering may be
partly a tangible product and partly
intangible services (Shostack, 1977). As a
result, research on service quality has
steadily grown over the last decade.
Process and Outcome Attributes
A considerable amount of research has
focused on the attributes of service
quality. It is generally agreed that service
quality is a multi-attribute construct
(Gronroos, 1982; Parasuraman et al.,
1985).
It has been suggested that service
quality is composed of two sets of
attributes: technical quality and
functional quality (Gronroos, 1982).
Technical or outcome quality involves
what the customer actually receives from
the service or, conversely, what is
delivered by the service provider.
Functional or process quality concerns
the way the service is delivered to the
consumer. It has also been proposed that
61
process quality consists of ten sets of
attributes (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Empirical validation in several service
industries reduced these to five sets of
process quality attributes: tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
The aforementioned discussion of the
attributes of this construct suggests that
service quality evaluations involve both
the outcome (what was delivered) and
process (how the service was delivered) or
service delivery (Gronroos, 1982;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). The most
popular service quality measurement
instrument, SERVQUAL, focuses only
upon how the service was delivered
(Mangold and Babakus, 1991).
SERVQUAL
A comprehensive multi-item instrument,
SERVQUAL, has been developed to
measure service quality (i.e. process
quality) as perceived by the consumer
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). The
SERVQUAL instrument operationalizes
and measures service quality along five
distinct dimensions: tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). Assessing
service quality involves measuring the
magnitude and direction of the gap
between customer perceptions of the
firm's actual performance and
expectations of performance along five
service quality dimensions. Each
respondent is presented with a set of
expected performance items and another
set of matching perceptions of actual
performance items. Each expected
performance item is intended to measure
how much of a service quality attribute
should there be. Each actual performance
item is intended to measure how much of
an attribute is possessed by the firm. The
resulting difference scores are assumed to
 JOURNAL OF
SERVICES MARKETING
be viable indicators of service quality
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). SERVQUAL
is found to be a reliable and valid
measure of service quality with relatively
stable dimensions across service industries
(Carman, 1990; Parasuraman et al.,
1988).
Consequences of Service Quality
Although service quality is considered a
critical determinant of choice behavior,
research on this relationship has been
sparse (Zeithaml, 1988). The research that
does exist concerning this relationship
investigates the impact of a single
indicant of service quality on demand
(Anderson and Kraus, 1981). While the
single indicant of service quality is found
to be an important predictor of choice
(Anderson and Kraus, 1981) it ignores the
general belief that service quality is
composed of several attributes (Gronroos,
1982; Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Rather than focusing upon the
importance of service quality in
predicting actual choice behavior, other
dependent variables have been utilized as
variables of interest in many studies.
Service quality is found to be a
significant predictor of behavioral
intention (e.g. likelihood of
recommending, repeat purchase,
switching, and/or complaining) (Bitner,
1990). Service quality is demonstrated to
be a predictor of value (Bolton and Drew,
1991) and is highly correlated with
satisfaction (Brown and Swartz, 1989). In
addition, the process quality attributes of
service quality are important predictors
of overall service quality (Parasuraman et
al., 1988). While it is assumed in many of
these studies that service quality
influences actual choice behavior, the
extent to which this relationship exists
has not been investigated rigorously
(Zeithaml, 1988).
62
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Regression analysis was employed to
investigate the importance on choice of
process and outcome quality attributes of
service quality. Perceptions of actual
performance on each of the 22-item
SERVQUAL instrument were used as
measures of the five sets of attributes of
process quality (i.e. tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy).
Six items assessing outcome quality were
also utilized. These 28 attributes serve as
explanatory variables in a regression
model and are hypothesized to exert a
positive impact on choice (Parasuraman
et al., 1988). An example of the
explanatory variables appears in Table I
(see Appendix for details on research
methodology).
With the use of a large number of
possibly highly correlated explanatory
variables, the possibility of
multicollinearity exists. Multicollinearity
can produce misleading results as to the
importance of individual explanatory
variables. An initial examination of the
condition indexes suggests that
multicollinearity should be further
investigated (the largest index being
62.5141). However, the proportion of
variance of two or more parameters
associated with each high condition index
(i.e. variance decomposition proportion)
failed to exceed the 0.5000 level. This
suggests that multicollinearity is not
severe enough to confound the results.
The parameters of the regression model
were estimated using the data of 139
adult respondents. Table II presents the
parameter estimates and goodness-of-fit
statistics for the regression model. The
model achieved a significant overall level
of goodness-of-fit as measured by the F-
test. In other words, at least one of the
attributes of service quality is important
for explaining choice. In addition the R2
indicates that 74.40 per cent of the
 VOLUME 7 NUMBER 1
1993

Set/Item Description

Tangibles:
TAN1 Domino's has up-to-date delivery vehicles
TAN2 Domino's delivery vehicles are visually appealing
TAN3 Domino's delivery people are well dressed and appear neat
TAN4 The appearance of Domino's delivery vehicles is in keeping with the type of service
provided
Reliability:
REL5 When Domino's promises to do something by a certain time, it does it
REL6 When you have problems, Domino's is sympathetic and reassuring
REL7 Domino's is dependable
REL8 Domino's provides its services at the time it promises to do so
REL9 Domino's keeps its records accurately
Responsiveness:
RSP10 Domino's tells customers exactly when services will be performed
RSP11 You receive prompt service from Domino's delivery people/order-takers
RSP12 Domino's delivery people/order-takers are always willing to help customers
RSP13 Domino's delivery people/order-takers are not too busy to respond to customer
requests promptly
Assurance:
ASR14 You can trust Domino's delivery people/order-takers
ASR15 You feel safe in your transactions with Domino's delivery people/order-takers
ASR16 Domino's delivery people/order-takers are polite
ASR17 Delivery people/order-takers get adequate support from Domino's to do their jobs
well
Empathy:
EMP18 Domino's gives you individual attention
EMP19 Domino's delivery people/order-takers give you personal attention
EMP20 Domino's delivery people/order-takers know what your needs are
EMP21 Domino's has your best interest at heart
EMP22 Domino's has convenient delivery hours to all its customers
Outcome:
OUT23 Domino's has delicious home-delivery pizza
OUT24 Domino's has nutritious home-delivery pizza
OUT25 Domino's home-delivery pizza has a flavorful sauce
OUT26 Domino's provides a generous amount of toppings for its home-delivery pizza
OUT27 Domino's home-delivery pizza is made with superior ingredients
OUT28 Domino's prepared its home-delivery pizza crust exactly the way I like it

TABLE I.
Attribute Names, Descriptions and Groupings

variance in choice can be explained by
the process and outcome quality
attributes of service quality.
As a basis of comparison, two other
regression models were estimated using:
(1) only the 22 process quality items
(process-only model or original
SERVQUAL model); and (2) only the six
outcome quality items (outcome-only
63
model). The adjusted R2 was 0.4511 for
the process-only model, 0.5727 for the
outcome-only model, and 0.7152 for the
full model containing all 28 attributes.
The difference in adjusted R2 between the
full model versus the process-only and
outcome-only models was significant at
the 0.001 level. This result suggests that
the model with both process and outcome
 JOURNAL OF
SERVICES MARKETING

quality attributes is superior in terms of

Parameter estimate predicting choice as compared to the
Set/item (Standard error)
models utilizing only process quality or
Tangibles:
outcome quality attributes.
TAN1 0.1764 (0.0510)* The true test of a model's diagnostic
TAN2 -0.1238 (0.0675)** usefulness is evidenced by its predictive
TAN3 0.1251 (0.0531)** accuracy. Prior to parameter estimation,
TAN4 0.1034 (0.0603)**
respondents were randomly assigned to
Reliability: the estimation (139 respondents) or to
REL5 -0.0865 (0.0537) the holdout (124 respondents) data sets.
REL6 -0.0500 (0.0552)
REL7 -0.0623 (0.0539) The parameters of the regression model
REL8 0.1522 (0.0664)** estimated from the estimation data set
REL9 0.1518 (0.0502)** were used to predict choice in the
Responsiveness: holdout data set. Predicted choice is
RSP10 0.0832 (0.0441)** correlated with actual choice in the
RSP11 0.1284(0.0642)** holdout data set to obtain a measure
RSP12 0.1456 (0.0660)**
RSP13 0.1032 (0.0578)** called a cross validity correlation
coefficient (Gautschi, 1981). The cross
Assurance:
ASR14 -0.0398(0.0675) validity correlation coefficient is 0.6718
ASR15 0.0868 (0.0643) and is significant. This result indicates
ASR16 0.0705 (0.0537) the usefulness of the process and
ASR17 0.0779 (0.0525) outcome quality attributes for predicting
Empathy: choice using fresh data.
EMP18 -0.0337(0.0706)
EMP19 -0.0093 (0.0628)
EMP20 0.1157(0.0524)**
EMP21 0.0580 (0.0509) Individual Attributes
EMP22 0.2933 (0.0426)* Since all of the attributes are
Outcome: hypothesized to exert a positive impact
OUT23 0.5209 (0.0645)* on choice (Parasuraman et al., 1988), the
OUT24 0.0066 (0.0376) Mest (one-tailed test) provided by the
OUT25 0.0997 (0.0615)
OUT26 0.0295 (0.0549) regression analysis was employed to
OUT27 0.1335(0.0596)** assess the statistical significance of the
OUT28 0.0736 (0.0442)** process and outcome quality attributes of
Intercept -3.7078(0.8095)* service quality. The regression model has
Goodness-of-fit:
15 significant attributes. In addition, all
F-value 25.8490* but one of the significant attributes agree
R2 0.7440 with their a priori signs (i.e. exert a
Adjusted R2 0.7152 positive impact on choice). Only visually
Cross-validation: appealing vehicle (TAN2) had an inverse
Cross-validity relationship to choice. The inverse result
correlation
coefficient 0.6718* may be explained by the wage structure
of the firm. Drivers are paid near
* = significant at the 0.0001 level;
** = significant at the 0.05 level. minimum wages and are asked to provide
their own vehicle to make deliveries. The
TABLE II. low wages may prevent these drivers
Parameter Estimates, Goodness-of-fit and from affording expensive, visually
Cross-Validation appealing vehicles.
64
 VOLUME 7 NUMBER 1
1993
Five of the six sets of process and
outcome attributes of service quality have
at least one significant attribute. It appears
that tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,
empathy and outcome attributes are
important for predicting choice.
All four of the tangibles attributes are
significant with three exerting a positive
impact on choice. These results suggest
that up-to-date equipment (TAN1),
delivery people appearance (TAN3), and
delivery vehicle appropriateness (TAN4)
are important predictors of choice.
Two of the reliability attributes are
significant with each exerting a positive
impact on choice. These results suggest
that keeping promises (REL8) and
records accuracy (REL9) are important
predictors of choice.
All four of the responsiveness
attributes are significant with each
exerting a positive impact on choice.
These results suggest that informing
customers of service performance
(RSP10), prompt service (RSP11), helping
customers (RSP12), and responding to
customer requests (RSP13) are important
predictors of choice.
Two of the empathy attributes are
significant with each exerting a positive
impact on choice. These results suggest
that knowing customer needs (EMP20)
and convenient delivery hours (EMP22)
are important predictors of choice.
Three of the outcome attributes are
significant with each exerting a positive
impact on choice. These results suggest
that delicious taste (OUT23), superior
ingredients (OUT27), and acceptable
crust (OUT28) are important predictors
of choice.
Managerial Implications and
Recommendations
This study empirically demonstrates the
importance of the process and outcome
65
quality attributes of service quality in
predicting choice behavior. Marketing
managers may find these results
insightful when attempting to attract
customers. Many firms are realizing that
their offering is partly a tangible product
and partly intangible services (Shostack,
1977). It appears that consumers utilize
multiple process and outcome quality
attributes in choice decisions. No one set
of attributes can capture the complexities
of choice. As such, managers may wish
to emphasize multiple attributes when
promoting and providing services. For
example, advertisements could emphasize
up-to-date equipment, convenient
operating hours, and outcome quality
attributes such as taste. Conversely, since
consumers utilize multiple attributes,
emphasis on only one service quality
attribute by the firm may not be as
effective in attracting customers.
The approach taken in this study
should prove diagnostically useful to the
marketing manager in terms of
investigating the importance of process
and outcome quality attributes
influencing choice. To the extent that the
marketing manager finds this type of
model diagnostically useful, four
recommendations are offered:
(1) Industry-specific analysis. The
aforementioned model was estimated
for the home-delivery pizza industry.
As such, the results should not be
generalized to other industries.
However, the same methodology can
be easily applied to other industries.
The manager can then utilize a model
specific to their industry to gain
insight as to the importance of each
of the process and outcome quality
attributes (Zeithaml, 1988).
(2) Segment-level analysis. The model can
be estimated for several segments of
consumers. Segment-specific models
 JOURNAL OF
SERVICES MARKETING
allow the manager to investigate the
differential effects of the various
process and outcome attributes of
service quality across segments. As
such, the manager has a better
understanding of which attribute's of
service quality are most important to
each segment. This information would
be very useful when targeting those
segments of consumers (Zeithaml, 1988).
(3) Competitive analysis. The model can
be used to assess service quality
performance changes relative to
principal competitors. In other words,
the effect of a change in one's level of
service quality upon a competitor can
be determined. Conversely, the effects of
competitor actions upon one's own firm
can also be assessed (Zeithaml, 1988).
(4) Temporal analysis. The model can be
re-estimated periodically to track
changes in importance of service
quality attributes. There is evidence to
suggest that attribute importance
changes over time as a result of
internal changes in the consumer, the
competitive environment, the
economy, etc. (Carman, 1990).
As stated earlier, one should be aware of
the possibility of multicollinearity when
estimating a regression model with so
many, possibly highly correlated,
explanatory variables. Multicollinearity
can make interpretation of individual
variables quite misleading.
The impact of service quality on the
financial viability of the firm suggests a
need to better understand the relationship
between service quality and consumer
choice behavior. In addition, marketing
managers require information and tools
to make better-informed decisions. It is
hoped that this study contributes to both
of those needs.
66
References
Anderson, J.F. and Kraus, M. (1981), "Quality of
Service and the Demand for Air Travel", The
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 63,
November, pp. 534-40.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), "Evaluating Service
Encounters: The Effects of Physical
Surroundings and Employee Responses",
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 69-82.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), "A Multistage
Model of Consumers' Assessments of Service
Quality and Value", Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 17, March, pp. 375-84.
Black, W.C. (1984), "Choice-Set Definition in
Patronage Modelling", Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 60, Summer, pp. 63-85.
Brown, S.W. and Swartz, T.A. (1989), "A Gap
Analysis of Professional Service Quality", Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp. 92-8.
Carman, J.M. (1990), "Consumer Perceptions of
Service Quality: An Assessment of The
SERVQUAL Dimensions", Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 66, Spring, pp. 33-55.
Cote, J.A. and Umesh, U.N. (1988), "Influence
of Situational Variables on Brand-Choice
Models", Journal of Business Research, Vol.
16, March, pp. 91-9.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), "Competing on the Eight
Dimensions of Quality", Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 65, November-December, pp.
101-9.
Gautschi, D.A. (1981), "Specification of
Patronage Models for Retail Center Choice",
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, May,
pp. 162-74.
Gronroos, C. (1982), Strategic Management and
Marketing in the Service Sector, Swedish
School of Economics and Business
Administration, Helsingfors, Sweden.
Keiser, T.C. (1988), "Strategies for Enhancing
Services Quality", Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 2, Summer, pp. 65-70.
Kochak, J.W. (1987), "Market Segment Report:
Pizza", Restaurant Business, Vol. 86, January,
pp. 125-48.
 VOLUME 7 NUMBER 1
1993
Mangold, W.G. and Babakus, E. (1991),
"Service Quality: The Front-Stage vs. The
Back-Stage Perspective", Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 5, Fall, pp. 59-70.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.
(1985), "A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and its Implications for Future
Research", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,
Fall, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.
(1988), "SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service
Quality", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64,
Spring, pp. 2-40.
Reidenbach, R.E. and Sandifer-Smallwood, B.
(1990), "Exploring Perceptions of Hospital
Operations by a Modified SERVQUAL
Approach", Journal of Health Care
Marketing, Vol. 10, December, pp. 47-55.
Shostack, G.L. (1977), "Breaking Free from
Product Marketing", Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 41, Spring, pp. 73-80.
Webster, C. (1989), "Can Consumers Be
Segmented on the Basis of their Service
Quality Expectations?", Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 3, Spring, pp. 35-53.
Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989),
"Linking Service Quality, Customer
Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention",
Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9,
December, pp. 5-17.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), "Consumer Perceptions
of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence", Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
Michael D. Richard is Assistant Professor
of Marketing, Mississippi State
University, Arthur W. Allaway is
Associate Professor of Marketing,
University of Alabama.
67
Appendix: Research Methodology
Problem Setting
Consumer data from the home-delivery pizza
market of a small Southeastern town is used
in this study. The market consists of two
home-delivery pizza firms: Domino's and
Pizza Hut. As such, a manageable evoked set
of alternatives is possible.
Home-delivered pizza firms are used as the
alternatives of interest because pizza is a
frequently purchased item. As such,
customers are assumed to be familiar with
the firms and their associated attributes
(Kochak, 1987). In addition, home-delivery
pizza represents a highly competitive market
with both outcome quality and process
quality being critical to success.
Data Collection
Personal interviews were conducted with a
convenience sample of 263 adult home-
delivery pizza consumers. Of those
consumers, 69 per cent ordered home-delivery
pizza from both firms while the remaining 31
per cent ordered from one of the alternatives.
Individuals who had never ordered a
home-delivery pizza were excluded from the
analysis. Research suggests that many
individuals who have never made a purchase
in a product/service category possess little or
no information of alternatives in that
category (Black, 1984). Inclusion of these
individuals with limited knowledge has been
shown to bias choice predictions (Black,
1984). As such, these individuals were
excluded from the study.
While the sample was non-random, it was
representative of the population of interest.
Sample representation was assessed by
comparing the demographic profile of the
sample with the most recent available
population distribution withih the study area.
Population data on age, household income,
and employment were used as the basis of
comparison. Both the parametric (t = 0.1851,
df = 9, p > 0.8000) and the non-parametric
(tR = 0.0890, df = 9, p > 0.9000) paired t-tests
support the hypothesis of no significant
differences between the two distributions.
The data collection instrument contained
three sections. Section One consisted of a
series of items designed to measure actual
choice behavior, overall satisfaction, overall
quality, and behavioral intention for both
 JOURNAL OF
SERVICES MARKETING

Domino's and Pizza Hut. Section Two

consisted of 28 actual performance Factor loading
statements about home-delivery pizza firms. Coefficient on set to which
These included the original 22-item Set/item alpha item belongs
SERVQUAL instrument, reworded for
home-delivery pizza firms, and six items Tangibles: 0.7833
assessing the outcome quality of home- TAN1 0.5224
delivery pizza firms (Kochak, 1987). All of TAN2 0.6814
the performance statements used as TAN3 0.6711
explanatory variables were measured on the TAN4 0.6914
same scale. That is to say, ratings on each of Reliability: 0.8364
the statements were assessed using five-point REL5 0.7881
response scales anchored by "Strongly REL6 0.4256
Disagree" (1) and "Strongly Agree" (5). The REL7 0.67.65
items in Section Two were scrambled. In REL8 0.8280
addition, the order of the performance REL9 0.3147
evaluations for Domino's and Pizza Hut Responsiveness: 0.8195
were reversed on half of the questionnaires. RSP10 0.6298
The final section consisted of a standard RSP11 0.7281
demographic profile of respondents. RSP12 0.7429
RSP13 0.7477

Dependent Variables Assurance: 0.6845

ASR14 0.4555*
An ex post allocation (Gautschi, 1981) of ASR15 0.4832*
home-delivery pizza choices for each ASR16 0.5287
respondent was utilized as a measure of ASR17 0.5535
actual choice behavior. For the regression
model, the dependent variable of interest was Empathy: 0.8055
measured using two (Domino's and Pizza EMP18 0.4244
EMP19 0.5677
Hut) eleven point scales (0 to 10 or more EMP20 0.6282
times): "In the last three months, how many EMP21 0.5059
times have you ordered home-delivery pizza EMP22 0.5506
from ?"
Outcome: 0.9121
OUT23 0.8447
OUT24 0.6195
Reliability and Dimensionality OUT25 0.8550
Since the augmented SERVQUAL instrument OUT26 0.7746
is purported to measure six service quality OUT27 0.7647
dimensions (tangibles, reliability, OUT28 0.6479
responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and
outcome), the reliability and dimensionality * = Did not load on expected factor.
of the items require assessment. Factor
Analysis was performed to assess the TABLE AI.
dimensionality of the items. Results of the Reliability and Dimensionality
Factor Analysis appear in Table AI. The six
factor solution explained approximately 81 The coefficient alpha values used to assess
per cent of the variance. the reliability of the items were consistent
The factor structure, while not in accord with earlier studies (Parasuraman et al.,
with a priori expectations, was encouraging. 1988). These findings lend support for the
Specifically, only items ASR14 and ASR15 internal consistency of the scale items (i.e.
did not load with their a priori groups. In reliability and dimensionality). As such, the
addition, neither of these two items were augmented SERVQUAL scale has similar
significant in the regression analysis. properties to the original instrument.

68