Analysing the Use of the SERVQUAL Model to Measure Service Quality in Specific-Industry
SERVQUAL模型
1988年修正之前的十个维度： 1.可靠性(reliability)：一致性的绩效、表现，并重视对消费者承诺。 2.反应性(responsiveness)：员工提供服务之意愿和立即性。 3.胜任性(competence)：服务人员是否拥有执行服务专业知识和技巧。 4.接近性(access)：接近性系指容易接触或联络。 5.礼貌性(courtesy)：服务人员服务顾客或电话接听，都要能殷勤有礼、 尊重、体贴与友善。 6.沟通性(communication)：以消费者能「听得懂」的语言沟通并且倾 听 7.信用性(credibility)：以客户利益为最优先，带给消费者信赖感、信任 和诚实感受。 8.安全性(security)：消费者能免于担心危险、风险式疑惑等状况。 9.了解性(understanding/knowing the customer)：对顾客需要之了 解。 10.有形性(tangibles)：服务的实体证据以及其它服务设施等。
简介
随着我国的改革开放进程的深入，企业界人士越来越认 识到服务对企业生存和发展的重要性。由于生产力的发展 和科技的进步已使有形产品在质量上的差异越来越小，同 类产品愈来愈多，仅仅通过产品本身的特性来增加产品的 差别化越来越困难。由此，企业为了增强自身的竞争实力， 开始重视对产品附加值或附加产品的开发，而服务作为附 加产品的一部分，也逐渐受到企业的青睐。提高服务质量， 已成为企业增强竞争力的一种有效策略。 Servqual模型通过调查人们在对于服务质量的期待与感 知的差异来判断服务质量的优劣方面做的非常成功。所以 为了提高企业的服务质量水平采取servqual模型是一个 行之有效的解决方式。
有形 性 可靠 性
顾客直接感知到的产品，装 潢，及服务人员衣着，器材， 设备等
基于SERVQUAL模型的连锁餐厅服务质量评价研究
基于SERVQUAL模型的连锁餐厅服务质量评价研究朱霖;王岐闻;翟婧文【摘要】Considering domestic consumer demands for service quality of chain restaurants,an evaluation system is established using the SERVQUAL model.The model contains 2 1 indicators belonging to five categories:restaurant environment,service attitude,food quality,safety and re-liability,and scale of the brand.Each indicator undergoes a weighted analysis in an analytic hier-archy process (AHP).The obj ective is to determine dominant factors affecting customer satisfac-tion on the services.An empirical study on a typical multinational chain restaurant,Hooters,is conducted by face-to-face interview and questionnaire.The result suggests that the four dominant factors are freshness of raw materials,safety and reliability of materials,comprehensive and bal-anced nutrition,and hygiene of tableware.%在SERVQUAL模型的基础上，结合国内消费者对连锁餐厅服务质量的要求，从餐厅环境、服务水平、食品质量、安全卫生和品牌规模5个维度出发，设计一套包含21个三级指标的连锁餐厅服务质量评价指标体系。
应用SERVQUAL标尺的若干问题及改进
３ 实例说明
３．１数据
选择某供电公司作为研究对象，该公司提供典型的居民供电服务，主要包括三项业务，即供电申请与
安装、抄表收费，和抢修．调查问卷包括ＳＥＲＶＱＵＡＬ标尺中的２２个指标，供电服务的稳定性、顾客总体满意 程度，以及其它一些基本的人口统计指标．结合供电服务的特点，问卷在语言描述上作了修正．比如对于
维度不稳定
对于不同服务，其质量维度与ＳＥＲＶＱＵＡＬ中 的５个维度并不一致，维度结构不稳定
Ｃａｒｍａｎ［“；Ｐｉｔｔ ｅｔ，ａｌ［１１］；
差距型还是感知 型
期望应该在消费前度量 对于期望的定义不同，难以解释计算出来的 差距 差距通常为负，使得统计分析受到限制 差距型标尺的预测效度低于感知型
Ｃａｒｍａｎ［４］；ＰＺＢ㈦；Ｐｅｔｅｒ ｅｔ，ａｌ㈦；Ｃｒｏｎｉｎ ｅｔ，
点ｎ］，服务质量与通常用以描述有形产品的质量概念并不相同，使用传统的质量工具难以对服务质量进行 有效的度量和管理．１９８５年，Ｐａｒａｓｕｍｍａｎ、Ｚｅｉｔｈａｍｌ和Ｂｅｒｒｙ（以下简称ＰｚＢ）对此做出了开创性的贡献∽ｏ他们 认为所谓服务质量，即是指顾客所感知到的服务实绩与他消费前所期望的服务实绩之间的差距．根据这一 理论，在１９８８年，ＰＺＢ进一步提出了具体度量这一差距的ＳＥＲＶＱＵＡＬ标尺（见附录１）［３ ３．
表２信度指标
指标 Ｐ的Ｃｒｏｎｂａｃｈ．ａ Ｅ的Ｃｒｏｎｂａｅｈ一口 Ｇ的Ｃｒｏｎｂａｅｈ－ａ Ｒｓｖｐ
可靠性
Ｏ．８７
Ｏ．９０
Ｏ．８９
０．７８
响应性
０．７８
Ｏ．８ｌ
０．７０
０．６１
以Ｒ。作为信度指标，可以看出，标尺的信度 保证性
servqual模型计算方法
servqual模型计算方法
SERVQUAL 模型是一种衡量服务质量的工具，它由五个尺度组成：有形性、可靠性、响应速度、信任和移情作用。
这些尺度可以通过顾客反馈和行为来测量。
其中，有形性指的是顾客对服务的物理可见性和质量的感受，例如服务的速度、准确性和可靠性。
可靠性指的是顾客对服务的准确性和质量的信任程度，即服务能否如约提供。
响应速度指的是顾客对服务响应的速度和效率，即能否及时满足顾客的需求。
信任指的是顾客对服务提供商的信任程度，即是否相信服务提供商能够提供高质量的服务。
移情作用指的是顾客对服务提供商的情感共鸣和联系，即是否感受到服务提供商的关心和关注。
SERVQUAL 模型的计算方法可以通过以下几种方式:
1. 顾客反馈法：通过顾客反馈来收集服务质量信息，例如调查问卷、顾客反馈电话和投诉等。
2. 行为分析法：通过顾客的行为来推断服务质量，例如通过观察顾客在服务过程中的言行举止来推断其满意度。
3. 专家评估法：通过专家评估来收集服务质量信息，例如请专家对服务进行评估和评分。
4. 系统分析法：通过分析服务流程和服务质量之间的关系来推断服务质量，例如通过分析服务流程来推断服务过程中的瓶颈和改进方向。
在实际应用中，SERVQUAL 模型的计算方法可以根据具体情况进行选择和组合，以获得更准确和有用的服务质量信息。
基于SERVQUAL模型的医疗服务质量实证研究
品牌与标准化2021年第1期»m>y<STANDARDIZATION基于SERVQUAL模型的医疗服务质量实证研究刘秀红刘欣欣纪润佳\朱静宜(1.聊城大学商学院，山东聊城252059;2.东北大学工商管理学院，辽宁沈阳110819)【摘要】我国当前医疗事故频发、过度诊疗等问题日益突出3为了全面实施“健康中国战略”，如何提高医疗服务质量尤为关 键。
本论文以SERVQUAL模型为理论基础设计了医疗服务质量评价量表，对某市五家医院的医疗服务质量进行了实证研究。
研究结果表明：医疗服务的接受者患者与医疗服务的提供者医务人员对医疗服务质量的期望与感知之间均存在显著差距。
结合 IPA分析结果，分别从医院与医务人员、政府等方面提出了提升医疗服务质量的对策建议。
【关键词】医疗服务质量;SERVQUAL模型;IPA分析【DOI编码】10.3%9/j.issn.1674-4977.2021.01.008Empirical Study on Medical Service Quality Based onSERVQUAL ModelLIUXiu-hong',LIUXin-xin' ,J1 Run-jia' ,ZHU Jing-yi'1(1.Business School,Liaocheng University,Liaocheng 252059,China；2.School of Business,Administration Northeastern University,Shenyang110819,China)A bstract：Medical problems in our country, such as frequent medical accidents and excessive medical treatment, have become increasingly prominent. In order to fully implement the “Healthy China Strategy”，how to improve the quality o f medical service is especially critical. Using the medical service evaluation scale based on SERVQUAL m odel, we study the medical service quality o f five hospitals in a City. The research results show that there are significant gaps between patients' expectations and perceptions o f medical service quality, and there are also significant gaps between medical staff's expectations and perceptions. Combined with IPA analysis results,we put forward suggestions to improve the quality o f medical service from hospitals, medical staff, and the government.Key w ords：medical service quality；SERVQUAL model；IPA随着当今医疗服务体系的转变、医疗服务市场的开放以 逐渐提升。
Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Retention in the hospitality industry Keys to ac
Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Retention in the hospitality industry: Keys to achievetourism growth.S. Melisidou 1, N. Theocharis 21 Dpt. Of Tourism Administration, T.E.I. of Athens, Athens, Greece, Tel:+306974366280,Fax:+302103212276,E-mail:********************2 Dpt. Of Tourism Administration, T.E.I. of Athens, Athens, Greece,Tel:+306977746042,E-mail:*********************ABSTRACTThe increased significance of the services sector to the global economy has led to a heightened concern by practitioners as well as consumers regarding the quality of services being offered.The past few decades, “mass” tourism e merged as a forceful agent of change and created impacts which clearly affect the qualitative issues of tourist product.The concept of quality and its relationship with the service industries has become a major preoccupation for many within this sector, not least the hospitality industry. Hospitality operations have to serve an increasingly discerning public, who are nowadays more eager than ever to complain and transfer their allegiances to perceived providers of quality services.Applicable models and methods of service quality can protect and upgrade the operation of enterprises as well as the level of tourist demand satisfaction.This paper seeks to investigate the evaluation and conceptualization of service quality and its interactive impacts.The aims of this study are as follows: (1) to sustain that service quality, customer satisfaction and customer retention can be considered as the major tools to achieve development and enhance the hospitality industry, (2). to assess that perceived service quality is a crucial matter for the global tourism development and can bear socio-economic development.KEYWORDS: service quality, service value, customer satisfaction, retention, SERVQUAL, tourism development.1. IntroductionService industries play an important role in most economies. As competition increases in the market, tourism businesses and organizations need to develop effective methods for being more responsive to peoples’ needs and retaining more loyal participants since attracting new participants will cost more which involves more advertising and promoting.Like other fields, tourism involves both goods and services, but the service component is relatively high.It has been suggested that each of these determining constructs (perceived quality, perceived value, and satisfaction) should be measured to monitor hospitality operations performance and to understand more thoroughly the interrelationships between them (Baker and Crompton 2000; Getty and Thompson 1994; Petrick and Backman 2002a; Tam 2000). Enhanced understanding of the relationships among these constructs and their relative influence in determining behavioral intention to revisit, would better equip hospitality industry providers to adjust their services and marketing efforts to enhance positive behavioral intention. Quality attributes can be more useful than either satisfaction or perceived value items since hospitality industry managers can control and manipulate the items. Perceived quality and satisfaction have been shown to be good predictors of visitors’ future behavioral intentions (Baker and Crompton 2000; Tian-Cole et al. 2002).While perceived quality and perceived value are cognitive responses to a service offering, overall satisfaction is an emotional response based on a holistic view of phenomenon (Cronin et al. 2000). With a clear understanding of the relationship among these three constructs, hospitality businesses would know which of these evaluation measures have the stronger total effect on visitors’ behavioral intentions.There is widespread agreement in the general service management literature that the provision of service quality is concerned with generating customer satisfaction. Grönroos (1984), Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) and Johnston (1988) define service quality in terms of customer satisfaction, that is, the degree of fit between custom ers’ expectations and perceptions of service.2. Defining Service Quality – Notional approachesService quality is now of major concern to industries such as the tourism/hospitality industry, which are basically ‘peopleoriented’.In the service industry, definitions of service quality tend to focus on meeting customers’ needs and requirements and how well the service delivered meets their expectations (Lewis and Booms, 1983). In order to deliver and maintain service quality, an organization must first identify what it is that constitutes quality to those whom it serves (Gronross, 1984). Gronross (1984) classified service quality into two categories: technical quality, primarily focused on what consumers actually received from the service; and functional quality, focused on the process of service delivery.Service quality characterised by the following aspects:- is multidimensional,- has underlying quality dimensions, some of which change over time;- is intangible, although it is often assessed through tangible clues;- is the result of both service processes and service outcomes;- depends on the difference (gap) between customer expectations and perceptionsThe central link in most service strategies is quality, which has been a major issue for many years, dating back at least to Deming’s work in Japan in the ‘50s.Solomon et al. (1985) concluded that a customer assesses quality by his or her perception of the way in which the service is performed. As a result, service quality has been defined as the outcome of a comparison between expectations of a service and what is perceived to be received (Czepiel et al., 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1985). The gap between expectations and perceptions of performance determines the level of service quality from a consumer’s perspective.Johnston and Morris (1985) argue that service organisations tend to measure only what is easy to measure and quantify, and shy away from the use of soft, qualitative measures. Kaplan (1983) argues satisfaction. Whilst the measurement of customer service perceptions are now widespread in tourism/hospitality, an understanding of managements’ perception of guest expectations, as well as staff responses to such management expectations, are yet to be explored. Hochschild (1983) has described the work performed by service providers as ‘emotional labor’ that requires them to subsume their own feelings to the goals of their employer and the immediate needs of a paying customer.Indeed, she described service encounters as the commercialisation of human feeling, and warns of the individual and social effects that may engender. Klaus (1985) has described service encounters as interlocking behaviour composed of task and ‘ceremonial’ elements, in which the former are the economic exchange elements and the latter the psychological need satisfaction that provider and customer provide each other.Parasuraman et al. (1985) identify over 200 attributes of service quality. The pool of attributes was derived from an extensive series of interviews with customers in four different commercial services. Using factor analysis, five main dimensions of service quality were identified. They were: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The importance of the above dimensions in understanding service quality cannot be underestimated.However, comparing service expectations with service perceptions has offered a more insightful perspective. Perceptions of quality by those who provide services and those who consume them have often been reported to differ (Parasuraman et al., 1985).3. Experienced Service Quality ModelsThere have been numerous attempts to encapsulate the essential nature of the service quality construct in the form of theoretical models. One of the earliest models is that described by Gronroos (1983), which relates the level of experienced quality to both technical and functional dimensions of service provision:•Technical quality refers to the result of service and/ or the question, what has been provided?•Functional quality, on the other hand, refers to the way the service has been delivered and delivered and relates to the question, how has the service been provided?Technical quality refers to the relatively quantifiable aspects of the service that consumers experience during their interactions with a service firm. Because it can be easily measured by both consumer and supplier, it becomes an important basis for judging service quality (Palmer, 1998).According to Gronroos (1998,1990), however, these more technical aspects of a service are easily lost. Functional quality, in contrast, can be used to create a competitive edge by focusing on the more personal aspects of the service encounter.Service quality has become a major concern of service industries. Berry and Parasuraman (1991) stated that service is the essence of services marketing and hat service quality is its foundation. Perceived service quality is a user’s judgment about a service’s overall excellence or superiority (Berry et al. 1988). In tourism businesses and organizations, suppliers provide the same types of services, but they do not provide the same service. Wager (1966, p.12) observed, “Quality is a human concept based on highly subjective criteria … and seems to be a highly personal matter.” Due to the central importance of service quality, tourism businesses and organizations have commissioned research studies designed to identify, assess, or evaluate the phenomenon of service quality.In the private sector of tourism, the ultimate goal of businesses and organizations is to increase profits. Improving technical aspects of goods and services is not sufficient to retain participants. Tourism businesses and organizations are investing more effort in improving perceptions of service quality so visitors (participants) will become repeat visitors and spread positive word-of-mouth to their social group (Crompton and Lamb 1986). For public sector organizations, making a profit may not be an ultimate goal. Rather it may be to satisfy participants’ needs and wants (Crompton and Lamb 1986). In public tourism businesses and organizations, participants are most likely to find satisfaction through high quality service (MacKay and Crompton 1988).There is a plethora of measurement tools and techniques for assessing service quality and consumer satisfaction levels. The leading protagonists in the area of service measurement studies have been Parasuraman et al. (1985), with development and subsequent refinement in 1988 and 1991 of the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1991).4.1. The SERVQUAL ModelThe SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parasuraman et al. (1991) has proved popular, being used in many studies of service quality. This is because it has a generic service application and is a practical approach to the area. A number of researchers have applied the SERVQUAL model to measure service quality in the hospitality industry, with modified constructs to suit specific hospitality situations (Saleh and Ryan, 1992; Bojanic and Rosen, 1993; Getty and Thompson, 1994; Lam and Zhang, 1998; Tsang and Qu, 2000).The SERVQUAL instrument consists of 22 statements for assessing consumer perceptions and expectations regarding the quality of a service. Respondent are asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the given statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Consumers’ perceptions are based on the ac tual service they receive, while consumers’ expectations are based on past experiences and information received. The statements represent the determinants or dimensions of service quality. Refinement of his work reduced the original service dimensions used by consumers to judge the quality of a service from ten to five.The five key dimensions (Parasuraman et al. 1991) that were identified are as follows:1. Assurance– the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence.2. Empathy– the provision of caring, individualized attention to consumers.3. Reliability–the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.4. Responsiveness–the willingness to help consumers and to provide prompt service.5. Tangibles–the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communications materials.One of the purposes of the SERVQUAL instrument is to ascertain the level of service quality based on the five key dimensions and to identify where gaps in service exist and to what extent.The gaps are generally defined as:•Gap 1(positioning gap) –pertains to managers’ perceptions of consumers’ expectations and the relative importance consumers attach to the quality dimensions.•Gap 2 (specification gap) – is concerned with the difference between what management believes the consumer wants and what the consumers expect the business to provide.•Gap 3 (delivery gap) –is concerned with the difference between the service provided by the employee of the business and the specifications set by management.•Gap 4 (communication gap) – exists when the promises communicated by the business to the consumer do not match the consumers’ expectations of those external promises.•Gap 5(perception gap) –is the differe nce between the consumers’ internal perceptions and expectations of the services (Zeithaml et al., 1990).5. Perceived Service ValuePerceived service value has been recognized in the past decade as one of the most salient determinants of purchase intention and repeat visitation (customer retention) (Chang and Wildt 1994; Bolton and Drew 1991a; Jayanti and Ghosh 1996). Although, considerable research has focused on perceived service quality as an important determinant of satisfaction and behavioral intentions (Parasuraman et al. 1988; Brown et al. 1993; Zeithaml et al. 1996), there has been relatively more empirical research conducted on perceived service value and its relationship to visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions (Anderson et al. 1994; Cronin et al. 2000; Caruana, Money and Berthon 2000; Oh 1999; Sweeney et al. 1997). Chang and Wildt (1994) found that the purchase intention is strongly and positively influenced by perceived service value. Previous studies (Grewal, et al. 1998; Jayanti and Ghosh 1996; Oh 1999; Sweeney et al. 1997; Zeithaml 1988) suggested that the perceived service value mediates the influence of perceived price and perceived service quality.Figure.1.2.: Perceived Service Value as a mediating variable6. Customer Satisfaction and RetentionAs has already been noted, satisfaction has been concern for a number of years and is generally recognised as a post purchase construct that is related to how much a person likes or dislikes a product or a service after experiencing it.It can be defined as an evaluation that an “experience was at least as good as it was supposed to be” (Hunt, 1997). Satisfaction is a response to a perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and perceived performance after consumption. Consequently, managers need to understand how expectations are created and how these expectations are influenced by people’s consumption experiences.Customers are assumed to have developed expectations prior to use, and perceived performa nce is compared to these expectations on a “better than” or “worse than” model.Oliver (1981) defined satisfaction as a “summary psychological state resulting when the emotion surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with the consumer’s prior feelings about the consumption experience” (p.27). Oliver (1997) pointed out that satisfaction encompasses more than mere fulfillment. It describes a consumer’s experiences, which is the end state of a psychological process.Satisfaction has become a central concept in modern marketing thought and practice (Yi 1990). Many studies have made significant contributions to better understanding this complex phenomenon (Bearden and Teel 1983; Oliver 1980, 1989; Spreng et al. 1996; Williams 1988). Achieving visitor satisfaction is one of important goals for most tourism service businesses and organizations today (Jones and Sasser 1995). Increasing customer satisfaction and customer retention generates more profits, positive word-of-mouth, and lower marketing expenditures (Reichheld 1996; Heskett et al. 1990).Satisfaction is a visitor’s affective and evaluative response to the overall product or service experience (Oliver 1997). What visitors received from the investment money, time and other resources on a trip or a visit) are psychological benefits. Thus, it is an experience that tourists receive from a visit with tangible goods (Mathieson and Wall 1982). It is also more likely that satisfied visitors will return and say positive things about a service (Tian-Cole et al. 2000).Improving the quality of service attributes as well as improving the emotional and psychological reactions that visitors obtain from service experiences are considered important to commercial and public tourism businesses and organizations. As Otto and Ritchie (1996) stated: the intimate, hands-on nature of the service encounter itself affords many opportunities for affective response… it has long been acknowledged that human interaction itself is an emotionally-charged process.7. Tools to achieve continuous tourism development by practisingservice qualityBerry and Parasuraman (1991) stated that service is the essence of services marketing and hat service quality is its foundation. Perceived service quality is a user’s judgment about a service’s overall excellence or superiority (Berry et al. 1988). In tourism businesses and organizations, suppliers provide the same types of services, but they do not provide the same service. Attempting to achieve sustained competitive advantage, hospitality organizations are now investing quite heavily in a host of service quality improvement initiatives.In the private sector of tourism, the ultimate goal of businesses and organizations is to increase profits. Improving technical aspects of goods and services is not sufficient to retain participants. Hospitality businesses are investing more effort in improving perceptions of service quality so consumers (participants) will become repeat consumers and spread positive word-of-mouth to their social group (Crompton and Lamb 1986).The requirement of an approach to quality improvement concentrates on the continual evaluation of service quality as perceived by the customer. Tools to achieve continuous improvement are listed below:•Customer satisfaction•Customer retention (external client)•Complaints and incidences•Audits reports•Auto-evaluations•Benchmarking method•Mystery guest / mystery shopper•Market evaluations•Claims8. Positive effects by practising service quality in the hospitalityindustryThe strategic planning and the application of service quality provide customer satisfaction and retention. Its efficient application enhances the hospitality industry, activates the effects of tourism development in socio-cultural issues and provides economic growth.The positive effects by practising service quality models are listed below: • A competitive differentiation that favors the enterprise•Chances of potential growth•Better employee morale•Customer Loyalty and Retention•Customer satisfaction•Economic growth & profits•Employee motivation and vision•Favorable advertising•Greater productivity•Minimization of loss for the customers8. ConclusionsThe hospitality enterprises operating have proven to be one of the key mechanisms in the economic transition. Economic reforms unleashed the potential for entrepreneurial development in a direction that assisted macro-economic stability and competitive market behaviour.Successful tourist businesses were found to be focusing on a particular product or niche market, developing a strong competitive advantage offering high quality, and superior service and products.Earning high satisfaction ratings from guests is an especially important strategy for hotel companies, because loyal customers are the principal driver of profits. Along with continuing to stay at a brand’s properties, satisfied customers also refer new business. Companies with satisfied, loyal customers enjoy higher margins—and, consequently, greater profits—than do businesses that fail to retain and satisfy their customers.The strategic planning and the application of service quality provide customer satisfaction and retention. Its efficient application enhances the hospitality industry, activates the effects of tourism development in socio-cultural issues and provides economic growth.References1. Bank, J. (1992). The essence of Total quality management, London: PrenticeHall2. Berry, L.L., Parasuraman A., V. A. Zeithaml (1985). Quality counts in servicestoo,. Business Horizons.3. Cronin J. J. and S. A. Taylor (1992). Measuring service quality: Areexamination and extension, Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.4. Czepiel J. A. and R. Gilmore (1987). Exploring the concept of loyalty inservices, in: J. A. Czepiel, C. A. Congram and J. Shanahan (Eds.), The services challenge: Integrating for competitive advantage, American Marketing Association, Chicago, 91-94.5. Dutka A. (1995). AMA Handbbok of customer satisfaction: A guide toresearch, planning, and implementation, NTC Publishing Group, Illinois.6. Getty J.M. and Thomson K.N. (1994). The relationship between quality ,satisfaction and recommending behaviour in lodging decisions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 2(3):3-22.7. Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications.Journal of Marketing, 18, 36-44.8. Grönroos, C. (1988). Service Quality: The six criteria of good perceivedservice quality. Review of Business, 9(3):10-139. Johnston, R. (1987). A Framework for Developing a Quality Strategy in aCustomer Processing Operation, University of Warwick working paper, March.10. Johnston, R., & Morris, B. (1985). Monitoring and control in service operations.International Journal of Operations and Production Management.11. Kandambully J. Connie M. Beverley S.(2001),”Ser vice quality management inhospitality, tourism and leisure, The Howarth Hospitality Press, NY.12. Naumann E. and K. Giel (1995). Customer satisfaction measurement andmanagement, Thomson Executive Press, Cincinnati.13. Oliver, R.L.(1996), Satisfaction: A behavioural Perspective on the consumer.London : McGraw-Hill14. Parasuraman A., V. A. Zeithaml and L. L. Berry (1988). SERVQUAL: Amultiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64, (1), 14-40.15. Parasuraman A., V. A. Zeithaml and L. L. Berry (1994). Reassessment ofexpectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 58, 111-124.16. Swanson R. (1995). The quality improvement handbook, Kogan Page Ltd.,London.17. Silvestro, R., Johnston, R., Fitzgerald, L., & Voss, C. (1990). Qualitymeasurement in service industries. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 1, 54-66.18. Smith, S. (1982). How to quantify quality. Management Today, October.19. Solomon & C.F. Suprenants (Eds), The service encounter: Managingemployee/customer interaction in service businesses (pp. 17-33).20. Zeithaml V. A., A. Parasuraman, and L. L. Berry (1992). Delivering qualityservices, The Free Press, New York.。
运用servqual量表对某高校附属医院中德人才交流项目感知服务质量的评价
１．１ 调查对象 通过互联网平台并结合实地调研，课题组采取
定向与随机相结合的方式，对以下调查对象进行问 卷调查［３］。包括：①２４名赴德交流人员，其中 １８人 参加为期 ２周的短期交流，７人开展 １～２年的长期 进修（１人也参加了短期交流）。②项目关联人员。 协作开展项目的临床、行政科室人员、报名参加遴选
在全球一体化、人才为首要竞争力的当下，国际 人才交流已成为各高等学府推进双一流建设进程、 迈向国际化的重要方法之一。ＳｅｒｖＱｕａｌ量表是信度 与效度较好的量表，已被广泛应用于世界各服务行 业并实 际 运 用 于 测 评 医 院 医 疗 管 理 项 目 的 服 务 质 量，得到服务质量研究领域学者的认可［１］。目前国内 未见应用 ＳｅｒｖＱｕａｌ量表评价国际人才交流项目的研 究与报道。本研究基于 ＳｅｒｖＱｕａｌ量表，对高校某附属 医院国际人才交流项目的服务质量进行量化评价，以 探讨分析关键问题，为改进完善国际人才交流项目管 理、提高项目服务质量提出针对性的措施［２］。
基金项目 ：广东省青少年研究共建课题（２０１８ＧＪ００２）；逸仙管理研究 面上项目（ＧＬ１９０５） 王鑫睿 武 雪 ：中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院 广东广州 ５１０１２０
的人员等。③医院其他职工、研究生。回收有效问 卷 ８１份，有效回收率为 ８１％。其中 ２４名交流人员 全部填写，项目相关人员 ４１人参与，占 ５０６％，５４ 人具备出国经验，占 ６６７％。 １．２ 调查方法
采用 Ｅｘｃｅｌ导入数据，通过 ＳＰＳＳ１８０进行统计 学分析，采取多重线性回归分析的方法分析归纳影 响因素。以 Ｐ＜００５为差异有统计学意义。
２ 结果
２．１ 调查对象的基本情况 参与问卷调查的人员中，研究生和初级职称人
现代医院 ２０２０年 ２月第 ２０卷第 ２期 医院管理篇 ＭｏｄｅｒｎＨｏｓｐｉｔａｌｓＦｅｂ２０２０Ｖｏｌ２０Ｎｏ２
基于Servqual模型构建血透中心护理服务质量评价量表的信效度研究
基于Servqual模型构建血透中心护理服务质量评价量表的信效度研究作者：李雪周谊霞李海洋来源：《中国医药导报》2020年第07期[摘要] 目的基于Servqual模型构建血透中心护理服务质量评价量表，并检验其信效度。
方法 2018年10月～2019年3月5个省市13家医院的15名专家通过德尔菲法构建血透中心护理服务质量评价量表，于2019年1～3月采用方便抽样的方法对贵州省人民医院、清镇市第一人民医院和贵阳市花溪区人民医院342例血透患者进行量表调查，使用项目分析、内容效度、结构效度和Cronbach′s α系数检验信效度。
结果量表共包含7个维度37个指标，项目分析结果显示各指标具有较好的鉴别力;总量表的内容效度指数为0.971，各指标内容效度指数在0.800～1.000之间;分层因素分析结果显示各维度解释变异量均>60%，因素负荷值均>0.60;Cronbach′s α系数为0.975，重测信度为0.981。
结果显示该量表有较好信效度。
结论基于Servqual模型构建的血透中心护理服务质量评价量表有较好信度和效度，能作为评价血透中心护理服务质量的工具。
[关键词] Servqual模型;血液透析;服务质量;信效度[中图分类号] R473.5; ; ; ; ; [文献标识码] A; ; ; ; ; [文章编号] 1673-7210（2020）03（a）-0176-05[Abstract] Objective To test its reliability and validity，the service quality evaluation scale of hemodialysis center was constructed based on Servqual model. Methods From October 2018 to March 2019， the evaluation scale of nursing service quality in hemodialysis center was constructed by 15 experts from 13 hospitals in 5 provinces and cities through Delphi method. From January to March 2019，342 hemodialysis patients in Guizhou Provincial People′s Hospital，Qingzhen First People′s Hospital and Guiyang Huaxi District People′s Hospital were investigated by convenient sampling. The reliability and validity were tested by item analysis， content validity， structure validity and Cronbach′s α coefficient. Results The scale contains 37 indicators of seven dimensions， and the results of item analysis show that the indicators have good discrimination. The content validity index of the total scale was 0.971， and the content validity index of each index ranged from 0.800 to 1.000. Stratified factor analysis results showed that the explanatory variance of each dimension was > 60%，and the factor load value was > 0.60. Cronbach′s α coefficie nt was 0.975， and the retest reliability was 0.981. The results showed that the scale had good reliability and validity. Conclusion The service quality evaluation scale of hemodialysis center based on Servqual model has good reliability and validity and can be used as a tool to evaluate the service quality of hemodialysis center.[Key words] Servqual model; Hemodialysis; Service quality; Validity and reliability护理服务质量可全面反映护理人员的知识、技能、态度等，在保证医疗服务效果的同时能满足患者要求，是医院医疗服务质量的重要组成部分[1]。
基于SERVQUAL模型的饭店服务质量测评
基于Servqual模型的饭店服务质量测评——以浙江省星级饭店为例[摘要]服务质量是树立饭店品牌，提高饭店品牌竞争力的至关重要的因素之一。
本文从基于Servqual模型服务质量测评要素入手，通过实证试图找出影响饭店服务质量的相关要素，通过提升服务质量相关要素进而提高饭店服务质量。
[关键词] 服务质量SERVQUAL模型世界著名的饭店品牌非常注重服务质量，突出服务特色，以此为依托树立本饭店品牌在消费者心目中的良好形象。
假日、马里奥特、凯悦、喜来登这些著名的饭店品牌成功背后的一个共同特征就是对饭店服务质量的孜孜追求。
如假日饭店集团通过对服务质量的追求和服务项目的创新等细节方面的努力来体现饭店品牌的特色与内涵，维持品牌的发展。
里兹•卡尔顿将自己的品牌定位为“成为全球豪华旅行和饭店产品与服务的最佳供货商”，里兹•卡尔顿饭店1992年获得美国的马尔考姆-巴德利质量奖，1999年又获得这一殊荣。
这一奖项是对里兹•卡尔顿不断追求卓越、达到出类拔萃的成就的充分肯定。
我国饭店在品牌的培育上有了较大的进步，已经形成了某些颇具竞争实力的饭店品牌，但就目前的发展现状看也存在一些值得研究的问题：相比较国际饭店品牌，我国饭店的服务质量已成为阻碍品牌竞争力提升的一个重要原因。
纵观国内外饭店品牌，我们发现国内的饭店品牌侧重在硬件上投资，而国际饭店品牌则在软件上投资。
可以说我们中国的部分品牌饭店在硬件设施的建设上与它们的差距已经不是很大，但是在软件投资方面，大多数品牌饭店仍处在相当落后的状态。
于德斌(1999)认为改革开放以来，北京旅游涉外饭店业迅速发展，已形成了相当的规模，在数量、硬件设施等方面有了长足的进步，但与发达国家同类企业相比，在饭店服务的规范化、标准化方面有一定的差距，在对1996-1998年北京市旅游涉外饭店投诉情况进行分析，其中服务问题是客人反映比较集中的问题，占全部有效投诉的79.6%，主要涉及服务不规范，服务态度差，收费不合理，服务失误，施工、扰客及其他类投诉的6个方面的问题。
基于SERVQUAL模型的服务质量提升研究
基于SERVQUAL模型的服务质量提升研究服务质量是企业竞争力和持续发展的关键因素之一。
为了提升服务质量，许多研究者提出了各种模型和方法。
SERVQUAL模型是一种被广泛应用的方法，能够帮助企业了解客户对服务质量的期望和实际感受之间的差距，并提出改进措施。
本文将基于SERVQUAL模型，探讨如何提升服务质量。
SERVQUAL模型由巴基（Parasuraman）等人于1988年提出，包括五个维度：可靠性（reliability）、责任（responsiveness）、保证（assurance）、同理心（empathy）和可见性（tangibles）。
这五个维度涵盖了客户对服务质量的不同方面的期望，企业可以通过这些指标来评估自身的服务质量水平，并进行改进。
要提升可靠性。
客户对于服务的可靠性有很高的期望，即服务能够准确无误地提供给客户，并且按时完成。
为了提升可靠性，企业可以加强对员工的培训，提高员工的技能水平和工作效率。
建立科学的管理制度和流程，确保服务的可靠性和连续性。
要提升责任和保证。
客户对于企业的责任和保证有很高的期望，即企业应该对客户的问题和需求做出及时的反应和解决，并提供可靠的保证。
为了提升责任和保证，企业可以建立健全的客户服务体系，包括客户反馈渠道和客户投诉处理机制。
加强对员工的服务意识和责任感的培养，让员工理解客户需求的重要性，并且愿意为客户解决问题。
要提升同理心。
客户希望企业能够关心他们的需求和感受，提供个性化的服务。
为了提升同理心，企业可以加强与客户的沟通和互动，了解客户的需求和偏好，并根据客户的特殊需求提供个性化的服务。
培养员工的同理心和关心他人的意识，使其在服务过程中能够真正关注客户的感受。
要提升可见性。
客户对于服务环境和设施的可见性有很高的期望，即服务环境和设施应该干净、整洁和舒适。
为了提升可见性，企业可以加强对服务环境和设施的管理和维护，确保其符合客户的期望。
提供一流的服务设施和设备，给客户留下良好的印象。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Analysing the Use of the SERVQUAL Model to Measure Service Quality in Specific-Industry Contexts
Mr. Tameem Al Bassam PhD Researcher tameem.albassam@brunel.ac.uk Information Systems Evaluation and Integration Group (ISEing) Brunel Business School Brunel University Uxbridge, UB8 3PH Middlesex UK Phone: +44 (0) 1895266025
Dr. Sarmad Al Shawi Lecturer sarmad.alshawi@brunel.ac.uk Information Systems Evaluation and Integration Group (ISEing) Brunel Business School Brunel University Uxbridge, UB8 3PH Middlesex UK Phone: +44 (0) 1895266025 Analysing the Use of the SERVQUAL Model to Measure Service Quality in Specific-Industry Contexts
The survival of any organisation in a highly competitive environment depends on its ability to provide the best service quality to its existing customers as the quality of service is a key factor in the success of any organisation. It is well established that the measurement of service quality is an important procedure for the improvement of the performance of any organisation. Facts indicate that more attention is needed toward developing an industry-specific scale for measuring service quality from the end-user perspective within specific-industry contexts. The main aim of this research-in-progress paper is to review comprehensively previous and contemporary literature on service quality measurement and to discuss the key issues on the development of an industry-specific scale for measuring service quality from the customer’s perspective in specific-industry contexts. This study contributes to knowledge in the field of service quality research as it suggests future research directions for academicians in related research.
Keywords: Service Quality, SERVQUAL Model. 1. Introduction Nowadays, in a severe competitive environment, the most central factor to sustainable competitive advantage is to provide the best possible service quality which will result in improved customer satisfaction, customer retention, and profitability (Sureshchandar et al., 2002; Buttle 1996). The significance of the service quality concept derives researchers and scholars to address this issue and to investigate it further across different service sectors. Thus, throughout the past two decades, service quality has become an established area in the marketing literature. There have been many research studies that have studied, examined, and investigated its nature in the traditional face-to-face service environment (see, for example, Rust and Oliver, 1994; Hallowell, 1996; Sureshchanar et al., 2002, etc.). Moreover, numerous traditional service quality models have been developed to assess and evaluate service quality performance in the traditional service environment such as the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
It appears that service quality is not a new concept; however, measuring and managing service quality from the consumers’ point of view is still a developing and a challenging issue. Both from the academic community point of view, and in business practice, it is well established that measurement of service quality is an important procedure for improving the performance of service quality (Jayawardhena et al., 2004). Thus, there has been an abundance of research on the measurement issues of service quality, which have contributed to the development of a solid research foundation.
In current service literature, there are a number of key instruments available for measuring service quality performance. Though, the SERVQUAL model has been the major generic model used to measure and manage service quality across different service settings and various cultural backgrounds (Buttle, 1996). However, apart from its wide use, a number of theoretical and empirical criticisms of the measurement model have been pointed out (Ladhari, 2008). First of all, the validity of the SERVQUAL model as a generic instrument for measuring service quality across different service sectors has been raised. Also, there has been an argument that a simple revision of the SERVQUAL items is not enough for measuring service quality across different service settings.
As a result, Ladhari (2008, p. 68) stated that “It has been suggested that industry-specific measures of service quality might be more appropriate than a single generic scale”. This argument was supported by Dabholkar et al. (1996, p. 14) who stated that “It appears that a measure of service quality across industries is not feasible; therefore, future research on service quality should involve the development of industry-specific measures of service quality”. Ladhari (2008) reported that in recent years, more attention was paid by researchers and scholars toward the development of an alternative industry-specific research instruments for measuring service quality. Consequently, a number of industry-specific research instruments have been developed in the past several years in different service settings and various countries and cultural backgrounds.