JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

A Review of Ten Years of Research in Services Quality

Aida khoshraftar1 MZA Rozan2

e-mail: Aidakhoshraftar1986@gmail.com e-mail: mdzaidi@utm.my

Author(s) Contact Details:

1,2
Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Abstract— This study is focused on the literature reviews on service quality, in term of methodology concerned in
developing measurement scales and also those issues related to the dimensionality of the services quality construct and
investigate the analysis gap as well. Several related studies on services quality from previous well-known databases such as
“ScienceDirect” including 18 applications of SERVQUAL have been selected. The most common dimensions including
reliability, responsiveness, tangible, assurance and empathy was investigated in previous studies. In these studies and
researches of service quality, SERVQAUL is considered as a useful and applicable instrument for many researches. Based
on empirical and theoretical criticisms of the SERVQUAL scale and also analysis of these selected data, all the motioned
dimensions of service quality have a tendency to be contingent on the service in various industries. This paper is a
widespread review of research on the development of services which investigated the gap of service quality in each
dimension.

Keywords: Literature review, Service quality, SERVQUAL, Dimensionality.

1. INTRODUCTION

Within last couple of years, many studies have been conducted by some researchers in diverse points of view of service
quality. Any organization strives to use service quality as crucial success factors in order to stand up against other
competitors and guaranty their sustainability. Studies have been shown that dissent service quality ends up to attract new
potential customer, keep the existing customer, reduce costs, spread positive word of mouth, improve the image of the
organization, increase the profit and efficiency, boost customer satisfaction and expand the market share[1 -5]. Most of
these studies show that, organizations dedicate much of the service quality to develop a reliable and replicable mechanism
in order to measure the construct. Consequently, the notion of the service quality has been drawn attention of many
researchers in the field of marketing. It is likely to consider the SERVQUAL scale as the most common and well known
measuring system. Parasuraman et al., (1985, 1988) first have developed [6, 7] and eventually refined the scale
Parasuraman et al., (1991, 1994) [8, 9]. Developing tools to measure the level of services has been a productive research
field [10-12] -as service quality measurement is a necessity for the survival, the growth and the diversification of an
organization - with SERVQUAL being one of the most widely utilized [6, 7].

2. LITRETURE REVIEW

Quality in a service organization is defined by a measure of the range to which the service delivered meets the
customer’s desires and expectations. The characteristics of service consist of heterogeneity, inseparability and intangibility
[13, 14]. In addition, Service quality is an important field of study due to its relevancy to service companies as a results,
various studied has been conducted by many researchers in development of various models to measure the services quality,
in spite of this fact, it is still difficult job to measure it due to its intangibility which is difficult to quantify [15, 16].
Service quality has been studied since 1980 when Gronroos (1984) introduced the first model in order to measuring of
the service quality [17]. Numerous researchers hypothesized that service quality involves a comparison of
expectations with performance. Lewis and Booms (1983) argued that service quality is a measurement to find out how
well the service level delivered matches customer expectations [18]. Three components of service quality has been
identified by Gronroos (1984) [17], the functional quality deals with the process of service delivery which means how it is
delivered, the technical quality is concerned with what is delivered which means outcome and the last, image quality which
is identified as corporate image of company resulting from both technical and functional qualities of service components
[17]. Finally, Parasuraman et al,. (1985, 1991) conceptualized service quality using a disconfirmation model that assesses
customer’s expectations and perceptions, with subsequent refinement and development in 1988 and 1991 of the

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |1
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

SERVQUAL instrumentation [6, 8]. Ladhari (2009) studies endorsed that an appropriate scale for measuring service quality
in a particular industries is the SERVQUAL model [14].
Five gaps have been reported by Parasuraman et al., (1985) which strongly influence on customers' perceptions of
service quality. Gap 1 shows how different the customer expectation is comparing to management perceptions of the
expectations of the customer [6]. Gap 2 indicates the difference between translation of the perceptions into specifications if
service quality and management perceptions of consumer expectations. Gap 3 reveals how different the configuration set by
management is comparing to the service delivered by staff of frontline service on a daily basis. Gap 4 depicts the difference
between external communications to consumers and service deliveries. Last but not least the SERVQUAL instrument, also
known as perception gap (gap 5) which shows the difference between service expectation and customer's internal
perception [19, 20].
Generally original SERVQUAL scale consists of ten dimensions. However in further studies by Parasuraman et al.,
(1988), it was reduced from ten to five dimensions [7]. The five key dimensions of service quality namely responsiveness,
empathy, assurance, tangibles and reliability is considered as one of the most used model for evaluating customer
expectations and their perceptions of the service quality [21-25]. These five dimensions are identified as follows: reliability
(is the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately); tangibles ( is the appearance of physical
facilities, equipment, and personnel); assurance (refers to the knowledge, courtesy of employees and ability to convey trust
and confidence in the customer towards the service provider); responsiveness (refers to the willingness to help customers
and to provide prompt service); empathy (refers to the provision of caring, individualized attention provided to customers).
Some researchers such as [4, 5, 23, 26], repeat the famous ‘SERVQUAL’ scale Parasuraman et al., (1988, 1991) whereas
other researchers develop their own scales in order to measure the construct [7, 8, 21, 27, 28, 29].
These five mentioned dimensions are captured in the SERVQUAL instrument which consists of a total of 22
scale items for analyzing the gap. According to the response of two statements, the items are measured: the first, measures
customer expectations concerning a service (E) and the second, is the perception of the actual service delivered by
the firms within that service sector (P). The gap for each item is calculated as the perceptions score minus the
expectations score (P - E). The results of computation were as follows: A positive gap score means expectations have been
met or exceeded and service quality is perceived to be satisfied. A negative gap score means expectations have not being
met and quality is perceived to be unsatisfactory. Parasuraman et al., (1988) indicates that for each individual statement
the gap scores can be analyzed also One can analyze as well as aggregate to calculate the overall gap for each
dimension, additionally, SERVQUAL has been applied widely by researchers in diverse industry and organization to
assess customer perceptions of service quality [7].

3. WELL-KNOWN UTILIZE OF SERVQUAL SCALE

SERVQUAL model has been taken account as a genetric instrument with a proper validity and reliability with a wide
range of applicability according to Parasuraman et al., (1991) [8]. Servings a diagnostic methodology for uncovering broad
areas of a company’s service quality shortfalls and strengths is considered as the main goal of SERVQUAL. The core
evaluation criteria that transcend particular firms and industries were presented by SERVQUAL dimension and items.
Base on the Table 1, service quality has been measured SERVQUAL in a diversity of service industries and institution,
including: Higher education [23, 30, 31, 32], Bank [28, 32], Airline [21], Hospital [38, 15], Telecommunication services
[26], Public health care [5], Shipping industry [35], Hotel industry [3], Mobile communication [27], Post [29], electrical
industry [36]. The SERVQUAL model has been utilized in different countries such as: US [36], UK [15], Taiwan [3, 35,
37], Greek [29, 33], Turkey [3, 4, 21], Malaysia [28, 33], Iran [30, 32], Saudi Arabia [11]. According to Arasli (2005),
during the past time application of the SERVQUAL facilitates comparability with other studies [39]. A selection of 18
applications of SERVQUAL is summarized in Table1 based on several methodological aspects taken from Asubonteng
(1996) [40]. Based on well-known data base such as “ScienceDirect”, these studies or application has been selected in Tabe
1. These studies are focused on SURVQUAL instrument in term of measuring services which are included and are
subjected to a comprehensive in depth content and also analysis of the key methodological aspects of services quality scale
and their proposed dimensions. The methodological issue identified in this study can be summarized as follow: scale
reliability, survey administrative, research methods and sampling methods.

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |2
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

TABLE 1: Service quality scale in selected study

Year Author Final number of Findings Questionnaire Response Original Sample Place of Countr Sample method
dimensions reliability administration scale SERVQUA size sample (s) y
(Cronbach’s L
alpha) retained
2003 Lesley Five dimensions Offline Seven-point 22 Items 206 Hospitality Uk convenience
Douglas, Reliability(5) administrative Likert industry sampling
Robert Responsiveness(4)
Connor Assurance(4)
Empathy(5)
Tangible(4)
2005 Huseyin Tangible (3) Reliability Range from Offline A seven- 22 Items 260 Bank Greek Convenience
Arasli, (4) Responsiveness and 0.87 to 0.95 administrative point Cypriot sampling
empathy(7) Likert scal
2006 Atilla Tangibles(6) Assurance Rage from Offline Five-point 29 Items 234 Hotel Turkey Convenience
Akbaba (4) Convenience(3) 0.709 to 0.85 administrative scale industry Sampling
Supply understanding
and caring (5)
Adequacy in Service (7)
2007 Fatma Pakdil Eight factors Range Offline 5-point 34 Items 385 Airline Turkish Random
Empathy (6) perception administrative Likert sampling
Tangibles(5) scale is 0.93 scaling
Responsiveness(6) and
Reliability and expectation
assurance(4) Flight scale is 0.89
patterns(3)
Availability(3) Image(3)
2008 Teamur Five dimensions Range from Offline five-point 27 Items 300 Higher Iran Randomly
Aghamolaei Reliability(7) 0.79 to 0.89 administration scale education
- Empathy(6)
Responsiveness(5)
Assurance(5)
Tangible(4)
2009 Jelena Five dimensions Ranging from Offline A five- 22 Items 479 Higher Osijek Random sample
Legčević, Reliability(5) 0.69 to 0.89 administrative point education
Assurance(4) Likert scal
Empathy and
Responsiveness(8)
Tangible(4)
2009 Mukesh Four dimension Range from Online Seven-point 26 Items 308 Banks Malaysi Convenience
Kumar Tangibility(4) 0.71 to 0.94 administrative scale a sampling
Reliability(5)
Competence(14)and
Convenience(3)
2009 Negi Eight dimensions Range from Offline seven-point 27Items 198 Mobile Ethiopia Random
Tangibles(4) Empathy(4) 0.64 to 0.88 administration Likert communica sampling
Assurance(4) tions
Reliability(5)
Responsiveness(4)
Network aspect(3)
Convenience(3)
2009 Kee-Kuo Five dimensions 0.9 Offline Seven- 22 Items 110 Shipping Taiwan Random
Chen Reliability(5) administration point industry sampling
Responsiveness(4) Likert
Assurance(4)
Tangible(4) Empathy(5)
2011 Sibel Dinç Five dimensions ---- Online Five -point 22 Items 127 Export Turkey Random
Aydemir Reliability(1) administrative Likert credit sampling
Responsiveness(2) agencies
Assurance(4) (ECAs)
Empathy(4) Tangible(5)
2011 Khodayar Five dimensions ---- Offline Seven-point 22 Items 300 Higher Iran Random
Abili Reliability(5) administrative Likert education sampling
Responsiveness(4) scale.
Assurance(4)
Empathy(5) Tangible(4)
2011 Hussein M. Five dimensions Range from Offline Five-point 27 Items 1000 Hospital Saudi Random
Al-Borie Tangibles (7) 0.84 to 0.96 administrative scale Arabian sampling
Responsiveness (4)
Reliability (4)
Empathy (8)
Safety (4)
2012 Soudabe Five dimensions Range from Offline 5-point 29 Items 238 Rural Iran Random
Saraei Tangibility(5) 0.71 to 0.84 administration Likert-scale staff of telecommu sampling
Credibility (5) Assurance for perception ICT nication
(6) Accountability(4) Range from services
Empathy(6) 0.71 to 0.82
for expectation
2012 Ali Dehghan Eight dimension Reliabale Offline ------ 10 Items 9 Customer US Random
Assurance administrative experie Centric sampling

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |3
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

Responsiveness nced Group

Reliability users(C
Empathy ustomer
Tangibles ) and
support, Fulfillment 1(Servic
Pricing and courtesy e
logistic/technical provider
) in
each
group
2013 Khanchitpol five dimensions Ranging from Offline Nine -point 21 Items 350 Higher Bangko Convenience
Yousapronp Reliability(5) 0.8477 to administration Likert education k sampling
aiboon Tangible(5) 0.8271 Thailand
Assurance(4)
Empathy(4)
Responsiveness(3)
2013 Prodromos Eight dimensions Range from Online Seven- 31 Items 406 Hellenic Greek Random
Chatzoglou Reliability(6) 0.66 to 0.91 administration point custome Post sampling
Responsiveness(4) Likert rs
Assurance(4) (citizens
Empathy(5) Tangible(5) ) and
Effectiveness(2) 86
Access(3) manage
Scope of services (2) rs
2013 Shih-Chang Tangibles(4) Range from Online Five-point 11 Items 253 Green Taiwan Convenience
Tseng Assurance(4) 0.711 to 0.870 administrative Likert scale products sampling
Reliability(3)
2013 Victor Lorin Five dimensions Range Online Five -point 22 Items 183 Public Romani Convenience
purcarea Empathy(5) perception administrative Likert health care a Sampling
Reliability(5) scale is 0.61 services
Responsiveness(4) and
Assurance(4) expectation
Tangible(4) scale is 0.73

4. SCALE RELIABILITY AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATIVE

The dependence of scales (which is, the inner similarity of group of items) is usually examined with Cronbach’s α
coefficients. A lot of the scales introduced in this paper indicate acceptable dependence in terms of Cronbach’s α
coefficients, showing rates bigger than 0.70 [41]. As an instance, Tseng and Hung (2013) mentioned three dimensions of
the anticipations and comprehensions distinctions with Cronbach’s α coefficients scale from 0.711 to 0.870 [37]; Hasan et
al., (2011) faced five dimensions with Cronbach’s α coefficients in between 0.8477 to 0.8271[22]; Saraei and Amini (2012)
worked on five dimensions with Cronbach’s α coefficients of perception and expectation is ranging from 0.71 to 0.84 and
0.71 to 0.82 respectively [26]. Nonetheless, in some research reliability coefficients was under advisable bar (as indicated in
Table 1. As an example, Purcărea et al., (2013) figured that the reliability coefficient values range of 0.50 to 0.57 are only
for dimensions of expectation [5]; Negi (2009) indicated that Cronbach’s α value of the ‘convenience’ dimension is only
0.64 [27]. Aghamolaei, and Zare (2008) shows that Cronbach’s α is between 0.64 and 0.88 [30]. Chatzoglou et al., (2014)
reported eight dimensions with the ranging of reliability coefficient values from 0.66 to 0.91 which the responsiveness are
0.66 [29]. This indicates that certain scales reported in the literature are problematic. On the other hand, most researchers
have traditionally applied Cronbach’s alpha to evaluate the reliability of SERVQUAL, in the past ten years, there has been
increasing criticism of this practice. Several authors have suggested that Cronbach’s alpha might not be the most
appropriate measure of psychometric quality [46-47]. According to Diamantopoulos (1999), the use of this method
popularized by Churchill (1979) [46, 48]. Further research indicates the measurement of service quality scale need to be
precisely tested on the psychometric features of their developed scales.
Academic researchers obtain data for their studies through online and offline methods. In a quality oriented research,
concentration is on offline group studies [36], or online by email [4]. On the other hand, in quantity base research includes
people mail survey [29, 37] and in person survey [15, 27, 28]. As an instance, Purcărea et al., (2013) gather data through a
mail survey mailed to a mailing list of 1000 women that had experienced in the preceding 3 months [5]. Chatzoglou (2014)
gathered data through unarranged sample of 86 managers and 406 customers of Hellenic Post who had used the services
supplied by Post [29]. Studies needed to be more forward about the details of the execution of their surveys. There should
also be an explanation about their choice of models. As an example, Tseng et al., (2013) and Douglas (2003) provide no
explanation on the execution method of their survey [15, 37]. Most of the researches have directed the mode of execution
that leads to inconsistency between the target group and framed group. Some researchers have used mailing list surveys.
For further researches we based surveys should be used more often. There are some benefits in this method: It is suitable
for people involved. There is no biased questioner. Data head straight into electronic files. There is larger number of replies
with less cost. As a result, if a research using other methods, they need to describe the cause of their choice thoroughly.

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |4
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

5. RESEARCH METHODS

A number of methodologies have been used while studying service quality measurement. These methodologies are
commonly divided into three different categories qualitative [35], quantitative [26, 27, 30, 31]; and mixed [32, 4]. Majority
of studies have used quantitative methodology in their researches. Approaching quantitatively to SERVQUAL method
generates the following steps: (1) Studying the literature to establish the dimensions for the core manufacturing or
commencing a research that leads to understanding the dimensions; (2) weighing costumers’ assumptions of the business
and conducting the dimensions; (3) Analyzing the outcome of assumptions and conduction to find out the ups and downs of
the service quality; (4) Starting a process to improve or eliminate the low bars and improving the strong point. Furthermore,
there is another step. (5) Including a framework to evaluate quality data through time in contrast to other businesses. There
are some benefits in evaluating quality through time. It helps distinguishing improvements and identifying customers’ new
opinions. Gaining analogous data from other similar business could help immensely on determining the functionality of the
core business. This determination is of high value to managing department therefore a reliable measurement system is
required, which is the reason why SERVQUAL is widely used. This view will go through the attributes of SERVQUAL in
detail. A dependable measurement is a steady one. This fact means, to have a steady quality measurement, the level of
quality itself needs to be steady. Table 1 indicates that SERVQUAL dependability had been measured through a wide range
of businesses. Also service quality was measured through all 22 groups of questions. With the help of quantitative method
obtained some extensive data about the customers and managers of Hellenic post [28]. Douglas (2003) used the same
method to size the quality of service in three hotels by studying three different groups of managers, service providers and
guests [15]. All group of respondents had despairing opinions about the quality of service. Furthermore, Akbaba (2006)
applied this method on wide range of people who stayed in their hotel to gather reliable data about the guests experience
and their assumptions [3]. About 234 where studied in their research on this matter. Analyzing their points of view lead to
recovering 29 items for sizing the quality of service. In one of the rare researches that mixed methodology were applied
qualitative methods by interviewing customers and quantitative method by gathering surveys from 260 bank customers
whom were selectively chosen for their location of residence in the south and for their interest in using commercial bank
service at least once during the past six month[32].

6. SAMPLING METHODS

Study on service quality needs evaluation instances. Different variety of instances used in different researches. Many
analyzers used random sampling for their research [21, 4, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38] while a small number of
researchers go through with convenience sampling examples [3, 5, 22, 27, 32, 36]. In many of the researched the target
group is contain people who can represent common type of customers, They are also the people who are using service
quality and have a good opinion on the performance of services. Kumar (2009) Gathered information from convenience
sampling customer banks that have business with domestic banks, Islamic banks, foreign banks and conventional banks
[28]. On the other hand, Negi (2009) chose random customers and asked them size the service quality as they reckon by
assuming the best cellular services provider, continuing by detecting delivered services[27]. Douglas (2003) used instances
that were aiming to buy products [15]. They were asked in two different surveys about their assumption about their desired
item and about their expectation after purchasing the item.
Only few studies use sample student and use SERVQUAL method in high education. For example, Khodayari (2011)
and Legčević (2010) studied to the student’s expectation and perception of services quality in higher education institution
which were important for students [23, 31]. Abili (2011) use a randomly sample of students to evaluate services quality in
higher education [32]. They told students to explore the quality of higher education as a service. The studied reviewed has
some limitations. First, several study use mostly ASIA respondent. For instance, all the respondents in [26, 30, 32] studies
are from south and north regions in Iran. Akbaba(2006), Pakdil (2007) and Aydemir (2011) was employed sample of
respondents from Turkey[3, 4, 21]. Customers assumptions and expectations varies from one location to another, therefore
to have a complete set of data this surveys need to be filled in different countries in further researched. The geographical
location difference leads to distinguishing the quality of services [26]. Also, the size of the target group has its own affects
on the final analyzed. An example, [35] worked with just 110 people and they worked on both forwarder and deliverer
opinions randomly chosen from a group in an international line company of Taiwan. In Romina on Public Health Care
service quality sample of 183 customers was employed [5]. In another studies, Aydemir (2011) was reported the sample of
127 employees working in financial department of Turk Exambank [4]. Their scale is too small for achieving new criteria.
They are in need of larger group of examples with more varieties for their future studies.

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |5
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

7. DIMENSIONALITY OF THE SERVICE QUALITY

The same result came out of all the researchers presented in Table 1. They all agreed that the built of service quality is
multidimensional. They announced different range of dimensions from three [36] to eight [21, 26, 28]. In this paper we
present that we are clear on the point that some standard inspections can be done regarding dimensionality and built of the
service quality. Going true the studies we realized that five dimensions has the nature to return more stability. ‘tangible’ ,
‘responsiveness’ , ‘reliability’ , ‘empathy’ , and ‘assurance’ are widely used by customers while examining the quality of
the services they receive from different businesses they use [15, 29,34].
The type and number of dimensions of service quality is varying based on the industry evaluated. Even in the same line
of business the way of investigation can lead to using different dimensions such as bank [27]. Some people use fewer
numbers of characteristics to present the five dimensions in their research, while others use in their research completely to
evaluate bank services. On the other hand many banking analyzers decided not to use SERVQUAL characteristics and
dimensions to evaluate bank service quality even though they mentioned SERVQUAL name and their opinion on it in their
relevant notes [27]. Between these group of analyzers measured bank service quality with the assistance of 26 service
quality characteristics [27]. And Abili (2011) recognized five dimensions of bank service quality using 22 components[32]
and Mehtap-Smadi (2005) distinguished four dimensions from 26 service quality characteristics [33]. We understood that
among all the dimensions that had been used in these paper five of them indicates more stability. These five dimensions are
reliability, responsiveness, tangible, assurance, and empathy.
First dimension, called reliability, is one of the key dimensions in the customary SERVQUAL method. This dimension
indicates performance of contracted business on time and in a precise way that guarantees correct item or service delivers
safely to the client on their preferred time [32]. In our study we present that [22, 29, 32] reported a significant gap between
the client view and their assumptions while using the reliability dimension. This Gap leads to preserving the dimension by
enlarging the capacity of customer tolerance and by decreasing their dissatisfaction when service fail; also by boosting
recommendations and customer loyalty [32].
The second dimension that consistently appears in the studies reviewed here is responsiveness. Responsiveness refers
to the willingness of helping users [15], and customers plus providing prompt services. It also reflects the sensibility and
care to customers’ demands, questions and complaints [30, 42, 43]. According to the previous studies [15, 22, 30, 33, 38],
the greatest negative gap has been found in responsiveness dimension. A negative gap means that responsibilities have not
been fulfilled well to meet customers’ expectations. By contrast, few studies [29,32] has reported the lowest negative gap in
term of responsiveness dimension which indicates that responsiveness influences overall services quality and satisfaction.
The third dimension is called tangible. Tangible involves appearance of the, equipment, physical facilities, personnel
and communications materials [32, 44]. Based on the findings of Arambewela and Hall’s study, the tangibles constructs
were demonstrated to have the greatest impact on their overall satisfaction [45]. Several research has found that tangible
dimension have slightly difference between customer’s expectation and perception [15, 28, 32, 38]. It means that marketing
managers had more attention to tangible dimension and also fulfilled adequate investment in equipment and technology, as
well as in their employees’ appearance [5].
The fourth dimension, empathy, deals with customization, caring and individual attention given by a company to their
customers, in other words, how a firm appreciates its customers [33]. Interestingly, in the most studies the empathy
dimension has the greatest level of satisfaction among the customers [27, 26]. It means that this dimension has a great
ability to fulfill the customer expectations. Saraei and Amini (2012) [26] found out that empathy strongly influence on
overall services quality and customer satisfaction.
The fifth dimension of assurance includes courtesy of employees, knowledge and their ability to inspire confidence and
trust among customers [34]. This dimension is about essential skills and knowledge control in implementing the services,
which involves skills and knowledge of the contact and operational support personnel and research ability of the firm [36].
Findings of these two studies [3, 36] shows that the customers had the highest expectation for assurance dimension. For
instance, Dehghan (2012) suggests hiring more professional employees to the companies, as well as giving more projects
to the staff to obtain more experiences so that these employees will be able to convince the customers, and make the
company more competent among its competitors, otherwise customers will switch to other companies [36].

8. CONCLUSION

The lack of recent review paper on SERVEQUAL research persuaded us to work on various researches in different
scales for measuring services quality. The result of our study presented in the following manner: First, we briefly
introduced the methodological issue of the progress of services quality scales. For this purpose, different progresses and
methods were tested; and the standards of inspections were reviewed. Also dimensionality examinations, the popular

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |6
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

SERVQUAl scale and scale reliability were studied. Secondly, we analyze the dimensions of the built of service quality and
investigate the gap analysis. To accomplish this purpose we introduced several widely used dimensions of services quality.
In the studies in the matter of measuring quality different scaling devices has been introduced. They were prone to different
criticisms. However, even though received a few critics SERVQUAl (Parasuraman et al,. 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994) device
remained the most well-known instrument between all other devices and it is widely accepted by both practical and
academia users [6-9]. The SERVQUAL has so far the most successful technique to different settings of services. For this
research we studied various application of the SERVQUAL and we came into conclusion that in spite of the debate on its
validity, SERVQUAL will stay a mean to measure and handle service quality. Nevertheless, one note to remember is that
this device shall not be used in every situation. SERVQUAL either should be studied for the purpose of building a new
measuring device that work well in the project in hand or used after analyzing its reliability and approving of it after
collected data studied. Also people who are measuring specific service settings are needed to be positive about the built of
the factor of the service quality to figure out the number of dimensions necessary to be implied in their line of work. In
addition to that, different factor builds need to be studied and analyzed so that the proper measuring structure can be
chosen.
In conclusion, this paper sum up a broad range of theoretical and empirical model of the SERVQUAL scales. It was
concluded that SERVQUAL still remain as a useful instrument for service quality research. In addition it indicates the
varying dimensions of older researches on service quality measurement. In addition to that, this paper show the main
dimensions of service quality which are ‘responsiveness’, ‘reliability’ , ‘tangible’, , ‘empathy’, ‘assurance’. Current
researches presented that the dimensionality of the built of service quality is not solid, that implies the variegation of the
extension of research studied for this essay. Also, various methodological propositions were accepted for the purpose of
knowing the dimensions of services quality. The minor examples that are implied in this paper do not permit enough
evaluation on confirming the scales. In addition to that many researchers used random student samples that cause
elimination of generalization in the research. To legitimate the research as much as possible, it is highly advised that
additional research should be applied using standard samples of suitable customers. It will help knowing the main
dimensions and their influence on consumer behavior.

REFERENCES

[1] G. D. Kang, J. Jame, and K. Alexandris, “Measurement of internal service quality: application of the SERVQUAL
battery to internal service quality,” Managing service quality, vol. 12, pp. 278-291, 2002.
[2] S. Yoon, and H. Suh, “Ensuring IT consulting SERVQUAL and user satisfaction: a modified measurement
tool,” Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 6, pp. 341-351, 2004.
[3] A. Akbaba, “Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: A study in a business hotel in Turkey,” International
Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 25, pp. 170-192, 2006.
[4] S. D. Aydemir, and C. Gerni, “Measuring service quality of export credit agency in Turkey by using
Servqual,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 24, pp. 1663-1670, 2011.
[5] V. L. Purcărea, I. R. Gheorghe, and C. M. Petrescu, “The Assessment of Perceived Service Quality of Public Health
Care Services in Romania Using the SERVQUAL Scale,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 6, pp. 573-585,
2013.
[6] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for
future research,” the Journal of Marketing, vol. 49, pp. 41-50, 1985.
[7] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer
perceptions of service quality,” Journal of Retailing, vol. 64, pp. 12-40, 1988.
[8] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale,” Journal
of Retailing, vol. 67, pp. 420-50, 1991.
[9] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “Alternative scales for measuring service quality: a comparative
assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria,” Journalof Retailing, Vol. 70, pp. 201-30, 1994.
[10] S. Altuntas, T. Dereli, and M. K. Yilmaz, “Multi-criteria decision making methods based weighted SERVQUAL
scales to measure perceived service quality in hospitals: A case study from Turkey,” Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, vol. 23, pp. 1379-1395, 2012.
[11] H. M. Al-Borie, and A. M. S. Damanhouri, “Patients' satisfaction of service quality in Saudi hospitals: a SERVQUAL
analysis,” International journal of health care quality assurance, vol. 26, pp. 20-30, 2013.
[12] L.Qiao, and L. Feng, “Post Occupancy Evaluation of Service Quality of Community Greenland Environment Based
on the Improved Servqual Model,” Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 13, pp. 609-614, 2013.
[13] N. Kano, (Ed.). (1996). Guide to TQM in service industries. Asian Productivity Organisation, 1996.
[14] R . Ladhari, “A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL,” research.International Journal of Quality and Service
Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 172-198, 2009.

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |7
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

[15] L., Douglas, & R. Connor,. Attitudes to service quality–the expectation gap. Nutrition & Food Science, 33(4), 165-
172, 2003.
[16] A. Eshghi, S. K. Roy, and S. Ganguli, “Service Quality And Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation In
Indian Mobile Telecommunications Services,” Marketing Management Journal, vol. 18, 2008.
[17] C . Gro¨nroos, “A service quality model and its marketing implications,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18, pp.
36-44, 1984.
[18] R. C. Lewis, and B. H. Booms, “The marketing aspects of service quality,” Emerging perspectives on services
marketing, vol. 65, pp. 99-107, 1983.
[19] V. A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and L. L. Berry, “Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and
expectations,” Simon and Schuster, 1990.
[20] M. S. Akter, M. Upal, and U. Hani, “Service quality perception and satisfaction: a study over sub-urban public
hospitals in Bangladesh,” Journal of Services Research, vol. 12, pp. 125-146, 2008.
[21] F. Pakdil, and Ö. Aydın, “Expectations and perceptions in airline services: An analysis using weighted SERVQUAL
scores,” Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 13, pp. 229-237, 2007.
[22] H. F. A. Hasan, A. Ilias, R. A. Rahman, and M. Z. A. Razak, “Service quality and student satisfaction: a case study at
private higher education institutions,” International Business Research, vol. 1, pp.163, 2009.
[23]. F. Khodayari, and B. Khodayari, “Service quality in higher education.Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in
Business,” vol. 1, pp. 38-46, 2011.
[24] B. A. Al-Alak, and A. S. M. Alnaser, “Assessing the relationship between higher education service quality dimensions
and student satisfaction,” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 156-164, 2012.
[25] A. Zarei, M. Arab, A. Froushani, A. Rashidian, and S. Tabatabaei, “Service quality of private hospitals: The Iranian
patients,” perspective Health Services Research, vol. 12, 2012.
[26] S.Saraei, , & A. M.. Amini, A study of service quality in rural ICT renters of Iran by
SERVQUAL. Telecommunications Policy, 36(7), 571-578. [15] L. Douglas, and R. Connor, “Attitudes to service
quality–the expectation gap,” Nutrition & Food Science, vol. 33, pp. 165-172, 2003,2012.
[27] R. Negi, “User's perceived service quality of mobile communications: experience from Ethiopia,” International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 26, pp. 699-711, 2009.
[28] M. Kumar, F. T. Kee, and A. T. Manshor, “Determining the relative importance of critical factors in delivering service
quality of banks: an application of dominance analysis in SERVQUAL model,” Managing Service quality, vol. 19,
pp. 211-228, 2009.
[29] P. Chatzoglou, D. Chatzoudes, E. Vraimaki, and E. Leivaditou, “Measuring Citizen Satisfaction Using the
SERVQUAL Approach: The Case of the ‘Hellenic Post,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 9, pp. 349-360,
2014.
[30] T. Aghamolaei, and S. Zare, “Quality gap of educational services in viewpoints of students in Hormozgan University
of medical sciences,” BMC medical education, vol. 8, pp. 34, 2008.
[31] J. Legčević, “Quality gap of educational services in viewpoints of students,” Ekonomsk misao i praksa, vol. 279-298,
2010.
[32] K. Abili, F. N. Thani, F. Mokhtarian, and M. M. Rashidi, “Assessing quality gap of university services,” Asian
Journal on Quality, vol. 12, pp. 167-175, 2011.
[33] H., S. Mehtap-Smadi, and S. T. Katircioglu, “Customer service quality in the Greek Cypriot banking
industry,” Managing Service Quality, vol. 15, pp. 41-56, 2005.
[34] M. A. Taap, S. C. Chong, M. Kumar, and T. K. Fong, “Measuring service quality of conventional and Islamic banks:
a comparative analysis,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 28, pp. 822-840, 2011.
[35] K. K. Chen, C. T. Chang, and C. S. Lai, “Service quality gaps of business customers in the shipping
industry,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 45, pp. 222-237, 2009.
[36] A. Dehghan, B. Zenouzi, and A. Albadvi, “An Investigation on the Relationship between Service Quality and
Customer Satisfaction: In the Case of CCG CO,” International Business Research, vol. 5, pp. 3, 2012.
[37] S. C. Tseng, and S. W. Hung, “A framework identifying the gaps between customers' expectations and their
perceptions in green products,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 59, pp. 174-184, 2013.
[38] H. M. Al-Borie, and A. M. S. Damanhouri, “Patients' satisfaction of service quality in Saudi hospitals: a SERVQUAL
analysis,” International journal of health care quality assurance, vol. 26, pp. 20-30, 2013.
[39] H. Arasli, S. Mehtap-Smadi, and S. T. Katircioglu, “Customer service quality in the Greek Cypriot banking industry,”
Managing Service Quality, vol. 15, pp. 41-56, 2005.
[40] P. Asubonteng, K. J. McCleary, and J. E. Swan, “SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service quality,” Journal
of Service Marketing, vol. 10, pp. 62-81, 1996.
[41] C. Fornell D., Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal Marketing Research 18 (1), 39–50, 1981.

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |8
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
http://seminar.utmspace.edu.my/jisri/

[42] C. Chua, “Perception of quality in higher education,” In Proceedings of the Australian universities quality forum, pp.
181-186, AUQA Occasional Publication, July 2004.
[43] F. Millson, M. Kirk-Smith, “The Effect of quality circles on per- ceived service quality in financial services
Marketing Practice,” Applied Marketing Science, vol. 2, pp. 75-88, 1996.
[44] C. M. Salvador-Ferrer, “Quality of university services: dimensional structure of SERVQUAL VS ESQS,”
Service Science, Vol. 2, pp. 167-76, 2010.
[45] R. Arambewela, and J. Hall, “A comparative analysis of international education satisfaction using SERVQUAL,”
Journal of Services Research, Vol. 6, pp. 141-63, 2006.
[46] Diamantopoulos, A. (1999), “Export performance measurement: reflective versus formative indicators”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 444-57.
[47] A. Diamantopoulos, The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: a comment”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 2005
[48] G.A. Churchill, “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs” Journal of Marketing Research,
1979

ISSN: 2289-1358 P a g e |9