Measuring service quality in city restaurant settings using
DINESERV scale
SUZANA MARKOVIC
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Opatija
University of Rijeka
Primorska 42, pp. 97, 51415 Opatija
CROATIA
[email protected]
http://www.fthm.uniri.hr
JELENA KOMSIC
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Opatija
University of Rijeka
Primorska 42, pp. 97, 51415 Opatija
CROATIA
[email protected]
http://www.fthm.uniri.hr
MIHAELA STIFANIC
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Opatija
University of Rijeka
Primorska 42, pp. 97, 51415 Opatija
CROATIA
[email protected]
http://www.fthm.uniri.hr
Abstract: -Many researchers invest a lot of effort to evaluate service quality in tourism and hospitality
industries using SERVQUAL scale, either in its original form or with modifications. The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate service quality in Zagreb city restaurant settings, based on the DINESERV scale. The questionnaire was designed in accordance with Stevens et al. (1995), and Andaleeb and Conway (2006). The main goals are to assess restaurant customers’ expectations and perceptions and to identify the main dimensions of perceived and expected city restaurant service quality. The model was tested on a sample of 12 restaurants in Zagreb (Croatia), resulting with 103 usable questionnaires on which statistical analysis was performed. The empirical study shows that 21expectations scores are higher than perceptions scores, which indicate a low level of service quality. As service quality is one of the key factors for achieving competitive advantages in restaurants, this study would help managers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of service quality in their businesses.
Key-Words: - service quality, SERVQUAL, DINESERV, statistical analysis, restaurant industry, Croatia
1 Introduction
Service quality is recognized as an important factor leading to the successful business performance of customer-focused firms. Considering the fact that service quality leads to higher profitability [1] and customer satisfaction [2], managers invest tremendous effort to measure and improve the service quality in their business.
As customers are more exposed to different types of restaurant settings, they have developed a
complex set of attributes for selecting a restaurant for their excellent dining experience.
Previous studies on customer expectation and service quality perception in the food-service industry have revealed certain important attributes, such as price, food quality, value for money, service, location, brand name, and image [3].
There is a variety of measurement tools and techniques for assessing service quality. One of the most popular and widely used is the SERVQUAL
instrument. In restaurant settings, service quality is usually measured with an adapted version of SERVUQL, called DINESERV (Stevens et al. 1995). A modified version of DINESERV is applied in this study as well.
This study is divided into several sections. First, a brief review of service quality measurement in restaurant industry is provided. Next, the research methodology used in this study is described, followed by presentation and discussion of results. Finally, the conclusion with main research findings, limitations and suggestions for future researches are described.
2 Literature Review
Service quality applied in a variety of service industries represents an important issue to managers and academic researchers. Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than product quality because of the lack of tangible evidence associated with services [4]. Therefore, a service firm needs standardized, systematic and qualitative measurement to assess its performance, because service quality is an important measure for the success of a firm.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) developed the SERVQUAL instrument for measuring service quality [5]. SERVQUAL is an instrument for measuring the gap between the service that consumers think should be provided and what they think actually has been provided [6]. The SERVQUAL instrument consists of 22 items that measure consumers’ expectations and 22 corresponding items that measure consumers’ perception of the service they received, grouped in five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
Although the SERVQUAL instrument has been widely used in measuring service quality, researchers have suggested that it has limitations, including issues relating to measuring time, measuring scale and service quality dimensions [7].
In terms of restaurant studies, Bojanic and Rose (1994) adapted the SERVQUAL instrument in a chain restaurant with a diverse clientele and a varied menu that included international items. Stevens, Knutson and Patton (1995) created an instrument called DINESERV to assess customers’ perceptions of restaurant service quality. The instrument was adapted from SERVQUAL and was proposed as a reliable and relatively simple tool for determining how customers view a restaurant’s quality [8]. The
original DINESERV instrument contained 40 service quality items, but the final version of DINESERV contained 29 items, measured on a seven-point scale. DINESERV items fall into five service quality dimensions. Reliability was found to be the most important dimension, followed by tangibles, assurance, responsiveness, and empathy. This hierarchy of dimensions is very similar to that of SERVQUAL; the only difference is that tangibles are in fourth place in Parasuraman et al.’s (1988) SERVQUAL research [9].
Many studies within the restaurant industry, using SERVQUAL, have been conducted: Saleh & Ryan, 1991 [10]; Richard, Sundaram & Allaway, 1994 [11] ; Bojanic & Rosen, 1994 [12]; Lee & Hing, 1995 [13]; Johns & Tyas, 1996 [14]; Stevens et al., 1995 [15]; Fu & Parks, 2001 [16]; Andaleeb & Conway’s, 2006 [17]; Markovic, Raspor, Segaric, 2009 [18]; Wu & Liang, 2009 [19]; Ryu & Han, 2010 [20]; Markovic, Raspor, Dorcic, 2011 [21].
3 Research Methodology
The main purpose of this study is to empirically investigate service quality in Zagreb city restaurant settings. The study examines the level of perceptions and expectations regarding restaurant service.
The study intended to answer three research questions:
1. What is the level of customers’ expectations regarding city restaurant service quality? 2. What is the level of customers’ perceptions
regarding city restaurant service quality? 3. What are the differences between perceived
and expected service quality in Zagreb city restaurants?
In order to answer the research questions, the following hypotheses were proposed:
H1: Reliability is the most important expected
service quality dimension in city restaurant settings. H2: Reliability is the most important perceived
service quality dimension in city restaurant settings. H3: There is a significant difference between
expected and perceived service quality in city restaurants.
The level of expected and perceived service quality was measured on the basis of 35 restaurant attributes. The first 29 attributes were adapted from the Stevens et al. (1995) study. These attributes represent five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The remaining six attributes were selected from
Andaleeb and Conway’s (2006) research and represent two dimensions, namely, price and satisfaction. The level of agreement with given statements was assessed using a seven-point Likert-type scale, with anchors “strongly disagree” as 1 and “strongly agree” as 7.
The questionnaires were distributed in 12 city restaurants in Zagreb (Croatia). Restaurants that were included in the research represent different types of cuisine, e.g., national and international, Italian, Chinese, Greek, and Mexican. The research was conducted only in those settings in which managers agreed to participate in the study. Data were collected during a four-week period in March 2013.
The restaurant’s staff helped to distribute and collect the survey sheets from the participating customers. A convenience sampling method was utilized to collect data. Questionnaires were distributed to the customers who were willing to participate in the research, after their dining experience (e.g. after they paid the bill). Data
analysis is based on 103 valid questionnaires. The response rate was 34.3%.
Data were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS 20.0. In order to meet the survey’s goals, descriptive, bivariate (paired sample t-test) statistical analyses were conducted.
Descriptive statistics was used to examine the demographic profiles of the respondents and to evaluate service quality expectations and perceptions of restaurant customers. At this stage, the first two research questions were answered. The paired sample t-test was performed to determine the significance of differences between perceived and expected scores of service quality and to answer the third research question.
4 Research results
Descriptive statistical analysis was run on respondents’ demographic variables. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents (N=103)
Items Percentage Item Percentage
Gender Age Male 42.7 16-25 37.9 Female 57.3 26-35 18.4 36-45 29.1 Level of education 46-55 13.6 Primary school 1.0 56-65 0.0
Secondary school 69.9 66 and above 1.0
College and university 23.3
MSc or PhD 5.8 Number of previous visits to the restaurant
Never 8.7
Country of residence Once 25.2
Croatia 100 Twice or more 66.0
Source: Authors
From the demographic characteristics it can be seen that female respondents (57.3 per cent) slightly outnumbered male restaurant customers. Most of the respondents were a younger population with secondary school or college and university level of education. Fully 91.2 per cent of the restaurant customers previously visited the restaurant at least once, indicating a degree of loyalty.
Customers’ expectations and perceptions are measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale, where the higher the score, the higher the expectation (perception) of restaurant service. The results of bivariate statistical analysis are shown in Table 2.
Comparing the research results of customers’ expectations and perceptions of restaurant service quality it can be concluded that the customers’ expectations are higher than the customers’ perception. The overall gap was -0.38, indicating a high level of service quality. The highest gap was identified in “price” (-0.84) and the lowest in “empathy” (-0.02). In total, nine out of 35 positive gaps indicate that the restaurant customers’ expectations are exceeded and the customers, satisfied with regard to these attributes. However, the 29 negative gaps indicate that there is much room for improvement.
Table 2: Customers’ expectations and perceptions of service quality in restaurant settings
Attributes Expectations Perceptions Gap t-value Meana SD Meanb SD
V1 – Visually attractive parking areas and
building exteriors. 5.54 1.33 4.67 1.69 -0.87 4.935*
V2 – Visually attractive dining area. 6.23 1.07 5.48 1.38 -0.75 4.698* V3 – Clean, neat and appropriately
dressed staff. 6.79 0.62 6.14 1.15 -0.65 5.455*
V4 – Restaurant’s décor typical of its
image and price range. 6.26 0.91 6.09 1.19 -0.17 1.303
V5 – Easily readable menu. 6.47 0.83 6.14 1.16 -0.33 2.545 V6 – Visually attractive menu. 5.97 1.24 5.77 1.37 -0.20 1.126 V7 – Comfortable seats in the dining
room 6.38 1.01 5.83 1.34 -0.55 3.253*
V8 – Clean rest rooms. 6.75 0.75 5.74 1.20 -1.01 7.651* V 9 – Clean dining areas. 6.79 0.48 5.93 1.02 -0.86 8.173* V10 – Comfortable seats in the dining
room. 6.34 0.85 5.46 1.39 -0.88 6.016*
Mean TANGIBLES 6.35 5.73 -0,62
V11 – Service in the promised time. 6.24 0.96 5.90 1.02 -0.34 2.779 V12 – Quick correction of wrong service. 6.47 0.75 5.77 1.16 -0.70 5.437* V13 – Dependable and consistent
restaurant. 6.63 0.62 6.07 1.05 -0.56 4.821*
V14 – Accurate bill. 6.93 0.25 6.54 0.95 -0.39 4.140* V15 – Error-free served order (food) 6.84 0.41 6.46 0.95 -0.38 4.281*
Mean RELIABILITY 6.62 6.15 -0,47
V16 – Maintaining speed and quality of
service during busy times. 6.10 0.93 5.08 1.39 -1.02 7.211*
V17 – Provision of prompt service. 6.36 0.71 5.77 1.90 -0.59 4.816* V18 – Extra effort for handling special
requests. 5.91 1.04 5.33 1.53 -0.58 3.695*
Mean RESPONSIVENESS 6.12 5.39 -0.73
V19 – Employees can answer questions
completely. 6.35 0.86 5.76 1.26 -0.59 4.326*
V20 – Comfortable and confident feeling. 6.55 0.70 5.84 1.27 -0.71 5.651* V21 – Staff provide information about
menu items, their ingredients, and method of preparation.
6.34 0.76 5.89 1.20 -0.45 3.580*
V22 – Feeling safe. 6.00 1.16 6.00 1.07 0 0.000
V23 – Anticipation of customers’
individual attention. 6.48 0.77 5.84 1.19 -0.64 4.899*
V24 – Restaurant supports the employees. 5.97 0.71 5.46 1.25 -0.51 7.922*
Mean ASSURANCE 6.28 5.80 -0.48
V25 – Employees provide individual
attention. 5.29 1.17 5.34 1.41 0.05 3.937*
V26 – Special feeling. 4.30 1.59 4.87 1.86 0.57 2.192 V27 – Anticipation of customers’
individual needs and wants. 5.09 1.75 4.36 1.99 -0.73 -0.292
V28 – Sympathetic and reassuring
employees. 6.49 1.64 4.99 1.79 -1.50 0.594
V29 – Customers’ best interests at heart. 4.08 0.64 5.60 1.31 1.52 7.146*
Mean EMPATHY 5.05 5.03 -0.02
V30 – Expensive food items. 4.11 1.73 4.43 1.76 0.32 -1.928 V31 – Paying more than planned. 5.57 1.79 3.52 1.97 -2.05 2.837
Attributes Expectations Perceptions Gap t-value Meana SD Meanb SD
Mean PRICE 4.84 3.98 -0.86
V32 – Overall satisfaction with dining
experience. 5.67 1.11 5.88 1.41 0.21 -1.851
V33 – Returning to the restaurant. 5.67 1.13 5.92 1.53 0.25 -1.548 V34 – Recommending the restaurant to
others. 5.48 1.91 5.87 1.56 0.39 -1.265
V35 – Excellent quality of service. 4.67 1.32 5.71 1.55 1.04 -1.515
Mean SATISFACTION 5.37 5.85 0.48
Overall mean (35 attributes) 5.80 5.42 -0.38
Note: aExpectations mean ranges from 1 to 7; bPerceptions mean ranges from 1 to 7; SD – standard deviation;
*t-test (2-tailed Sig.) p<0.05 Source: Authors
As expected, the dimension reliability received the highest mean score in the expectation (6.62) and perception (6.15) scale, while price received the lowest mean score in the expectation (4.84) and perception (3.98) scale. The highest expectation and perception items were “Accurate bill”, “Error-free served order (food)” and “Clean, neat and appropriately dressed staff”. The lowest expectations item were “Customers’ best interests at heart”, “Expensive food items” and “Excellent quality of food”, while the lowest perception item were “Paying more than planed”, “Anticipation of customers’ individual needs and wants”, and “Expensive food item”.
The results shown in Table 2 indicate that there is a statistically significant variation in the mean responses in five dimensions based on the 21 variables. All three variables in the dimension
responsibility and all 5 variables in the dimension assessment were statistically significant. Price and satisfaction had no statistically significant mean
scores.
5 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate service quality in Zagreb city restaurant settings and to answer three research questions.
Expectations and perception levels, as well as the differences between these scores, were identified using statistical analysis. Dimensions of customers’ expectations and perceptions regarding Zagreb city restaurant service quality were empirically examined. Therefore, all research questions were answered and hypotheses, tested.
The results of descriptive analysis suggest that the most important expectation and perception items
are items belonging to the dimension reliability, as well as the highest mean score. This indicates that the hypotheses H1 and H2 can be accepted.
The findings of t-test analysis show significant differences between expectations and perceptions of customers for the majority of the restaurant attributes, exactly 21 of 35 attributes, thus confirming the hypothesis H3.
Comparing these results with previous studies of Markovic, Raspor and Segaric, 2010 and Markovic, Raspor and Dorcic, 2011, it can be seen that
reliability is the most significant dimension with the
highest scores for items “Accurate bill”, “Error-free served order (food)”, “Easily readable menu” and “Clean dining areas”, regardless of the continental or costal region in Croatia.
There are some limitations associated with this study. First, the sample size could be larger, for the reason that only 12 out of 240 restaurants in Zagreb were included in this research. A known problem is to get customers to fill out an expectations questionnaire before receiving the service, and a perceptions questionnaire after the service. In this research, only the domestic population was asked about the service quality in restaurants. In further researches, foreign consumers should be involved in the research. The period of data collection was short and for this reason only 103 questionnaires were returned. This suggests that the research should take place during one part of a year.
Further research studies could examine restaurant service quality for a particular type of restaurant using larger samples or using different sets of attributes for each type of restaurant. Further research could extend the study range and include other study methodologies to analyze the restaurant service quality, to allow the restaurant service quality studies to have wider analysis.
References:
[1] Gundersen, M. G., M & Ollson, U. H., Hotel Guest satisfaction among Business Travelers: What Are the Important Factors?, The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37, No.
2, 1996, pp. 72-81.
[2] Oliver, R. L., Satisfaction: An Behavioral Perspective on the Customer, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1997.
[3] Hau-siu Chow. et al., Service quality in restaurant operations in China: Decision- and experiential-oriented perspectives, Hospitality
Management, Vol. 26, 2007, pp. 698-710.
[4] Bojanic, D. C., Rosen, L. D., Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of the SERVQUAL instrument, International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 18, No. 1,
1994, pp. 3-14.
[5] Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64. No. 1, 1988, pp. 14-40.
[6] Stevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M., DINESERV: A Toll for Measuring Service Quality in Restaurant, Cornell Hotel Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36, 1995, pp. 56- 60.
[7] Heung, V. C. S., Wong, M. Y, Qu, H., Airport-restaurant Service Quality in Hong Kong: An Applications of SERVQUAL, Cornell Hotel
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41, 2000,
pp. 86 -96.
[8] Markovic, S., Raspor, S., Segaric, K., Does restaurant performance meet customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a modified DINESERV approach,
Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 16, No.
2, 2010, pp.181-195.
[9] Fu, Y. Y., Parks, S., The Relationship between Restaurant Service Quality and Consumer Loyalty among the Eldery, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2001, pp. 320-336.
[10] Saleh, F, Ryan, C., Analysing service in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model,
Services Industries Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1991,
pp. 324-343.
[11] Richard, M. D., Sundara, D. S., Alaway, A. W., Service quality and choice behavior: an empirical investigation, Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice
Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1994, pp. 93-109.
[12] Bojanic, D. C., Rosen, L. D., Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of the SERVQUAL instrument, International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 18, No. 1,
1994, pp. 3-14.
[13] Lee, Y. L., Hing, N., Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the SERVQUAL instrument, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 14, No. 3-4, 1995,
pp. 293-310.
[14] Johns, N., Hing, P., Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate between foodservice outlets,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3,
1996, pp. 321-346.
[15] Stevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M., DINESERV: A Tool for Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1995, pp.
56-60.
[16] Fu, Y. Y., Parks, S., The Relationship between Restaurant Service Quality and Consumer Loyalty among the Eldery, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2001, pp. 320-336.
[17] Andaleeb, S. S., Conway, C., Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an examination of the transaction-specific model,
Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2006,
pp. 3-11.
[18] Markovic, S., Raspor, S., Segaric, K., Does restaurant performance meet customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a modified DINESERV approach,
Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 16, No.
2, 2010, pp.181-195.
[19] Wu, C. H., Liang, R., Effect of experimental value on customer satisfaction with service encounters in luxury-hotels restaurant, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28, 2009,
pp. 586-593.
[20] Ryu, K., Han, H., Influence of the quality of food, service and physical environment on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual restaurants: moderating role of perceived price,
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol.
34, No. 3, 2010, pp. 310-329.
[21] Markovic, S., Raspor, S, Dorcic, J., What are the key dimensions of restaurant service quality? An empirical study in the city restaurant settings,
International Scientific Conference “Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe (ToSEE) – Sustainable Tourism: Socio-Cultural, Environmental and Economic Impact”, Opatija,