|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
The SERVQUAL survey instrument is one of the most widely utilised techniques for deriving a measure of the quality of service industries (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985,1988; Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry, 1990). ... A SERVQUAL score for each dimension can then be computed for each respondent by averaging the ‘gap’ scores for the questions relating to that dimension. ...
THE NATURE OF THE SCALE DEPLOYED IN SERVQUAL
As previously mentioned, respondents are asked to measure their levels of agreement or disagreement by circling a number in the range 1-7 where 1 represents complete disagreement with the statement in question whilst a 7 represents complete agreement. Although the authors of SERVQUAL do not explicitly discuss the point, it is evident that a scale deployed is essentially a Likert-type scale, which is ordinal in nature. ... In the context of the SERVQUAL scale, a relevant question would be to ask whether the ‘gap’ between, for example, point 6 and point 7 on the scale is to be regarded in the same light as the difference between, say, point 1 and point 2 of the scale. If the SERVQUAL scale is regarded as an interval or ratio scale rather than an ordinal scale, then the ‘gap’ between the points in both of the instances mentioned above would be the same i. ... The authors of SERVQUAL have made the assumption that it not illegitimate to derive gap scores by a process of subtraction. ... It is possible, therefore, that a scale such as SERVQUAL needs further refinement by exploring the meanings that respondents attach to indicating a point on a scale.
THE CONCEPT OF MAGNITUDE SCALING
Magnitude scaling is a term popularised principally by Lodge (1981) to indicate the process by which different points on a scale can be said to represent non-uniform weights or quantities. ... Lodge presents results (from a small sample of 48 respondents) indicating the following magnitudes associated with a commonly used ‘adjectives’ on a scale:
Table 1 Magnitude Weightings assigned to common adjectives - Lodge,1981 (n=48)
Atrocious Very Bad Bad So-So Good Very Good Excellent
4 12 15 (50) 107 141 233
Multiple/ fraction 0.
Approximate Word count = 1597
Approximate Pages = 6.4
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|