annals of library science and documentation 47, 2: 2000

Annals of Library Science and Documentation 47 , 2: 2000 : -l1-4H.

EFFECT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON POST-VISIT INTENTIONS: THE CASE OF A LIBRARY

DKBanwet Professor & Head Department of Management Studies Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi

The quality of services offered in an academic library has been investigated in this paper. Service quality, consumer satisfaction and post-visit intentions have been measured. The effect of service quality on post-visit intentions has been examined in a causal path framework. The study indicates that although the perceived service performance generally matches user's expectations, a lot can be done to improve the quality of the services being delivered. Improvement in the quality of services increases the level of satisfaction of the user. Satisfied users intend to re-visit the library and advice others to visit it.

INTRODUCTION

The primary focus of a library is service. It is widely recognised that service quality and consumer satisfaction is essential for retain ing present consumers and attracting new ones [1). The traditional method of measuring the quality of an academic library in quantifiable terms of its collection and use does not offer an indication of the quality of the service process [2), and new ways to measure quality in libraries have emerged during the past decade.

Research on the quality of services offered in libraries has been widely reported [2-6) and service quality surveys have been conducted [7) . Tools for establishing and supporting the total quality management (TOM) in libraries are available in the library service quality literature [8). While ' several issues pertaining to the quality of education services have been discussed [9) and select issues pertaining to TOM in service systems have been reported from India [10), literature pertaining to the

Vol 47 No 2 June 2000

B Datta Lecturer & Research Scholar (NICMAR) Department of Management Studies Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi

measurement of service quality in Indian libraries cuuld no~ be found . .

A modified SERVOUAL questionnaire has been used for measuring the quality of services offered in the library of a reputed institute , teaching graduate and post-graduate courses, in New Delhi. The technical library stocks more than 2500 text and reference books, periodicals and dissertations on various aspects of construction management apart from literature on current affairs . The library remains open from 8:30 AM to 8:30 PM Monday through Saturday. About fifty students and guests use the library every day.

The importance of each service quality-dimension, satisfaction related to those dimensions and postvisit intentions been measused. The relationship between service quality, consumer satisfaction and post-in:,::;· ;tions have been examined in a casualpath te;: ' ;,ework.

LIBRARY SERVICE

The services offered to students in a library can be divided into two quality dimensions, namely technical (outcome) quality and functional (process) quality [11]. Technical quality or static quality can be expressed primarily as the quality and volume of literature available in the library. Functional quality or dynamic quality refers to the manner in which the library services are delivered. The service achieves quality in perception when it meets or exceeds the level of the consumer's expectations. Service quality should be able to satisfy consumers [12]. Satisified consumers intend to request additional services and tell others about it [13] .

41

D K BANWET and B DATTA

SERVICE QUALITY

The SERVQUAL scale measures five dimensions of service quality (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy), based on the definition of service quality as the gap between customer expectations and perceptions of service [14). As perceptual measures sometimes explain more variance in service quality than the gap model [15), a performan.ce-only measure of service quality has been argued to be superior to the SERVQUAL scale [16-17]. Liljander [18) showed that the best approximation of perceived service quality is achieved by omitting the expectation variable and other comparison standards altogether and only measuring the service experience. The theoretical value of the concept of disconfirmation of expectations has been questioned in a study of the validity of the perceived service quality construct [19). However, researchers have demonstrated the application of the SERVQUAL scale in understanding customer expectations and perceptions of specific services and target specific service elements requiring improvement [2)' :his study, perceived service quality has been measured using the 22-item Likert-type seven-point SERVQUAL scale anchored between "much better than I expected" and "much worse than I expected". This modification is consistent with the methods used by scholars in the past [20-22): Respondents also evaluated a question on overall service quality in a seven-point scale anchored at "excellent" and ''terrible" .

CONSUMER SATISFACTION

The growing body of literature suggests that service quality is a cognitive, evaluative and objective concept, while satisfaction is an affective, feelings-based and subjective component [23-24). A 13-item service satisfaction scale developed by Greenfield and Attkisen [25) measures service satisfaction related to health care and consists of two predominant dimensions which are perceived outcomes and practitioner's manners and skills [26). Consumer satisfaction has been operationalised in service satisfaction literature as multiple item scales anchored at ''very unsatisfied/ displeased" and "very satisfied/pleased" [15,24,25,27). In this study, consumer satisfaction has been measured over the 22 SERVQUAL items

42

anchored at "much more than satisfied" and "much more than dissatisfied" on a seven point scale. Respondents also evaluated a single question on overall satisfaction on a seven-point scale.

IMPORTANCE RATINGS

Several scholars have stressed the need to weigh determinants of service quality and satisfication . by their importance as different facets may be of unequal importance to different people [27-29). Although the importance measures provide valueable information on the severity of the requirement of different dimensions for achieving service quality and consumer satisfaction, some research has indicated that weighting the measures adds no new information [16,30). In this study, respondents were requested to complete a 22-item, 7-point importance scale ranging from "neither important nor unimportant" to "most important".

POST-VISIT INTENTIONS

Consumers continue to be loyal to an organisation if exit barriers are high, alternatives are unavailable or they are satisfied with the service. While both exit barriers and unavailability of alternatives are temporary situations, managers of organisations must consider consumer satisfaction the only viable long-term alternative to keep present · . customers and attract new ones [31). Satisfied library users would like to revisit the library, and advise others to visit it. Respondents were asked to answer two seven-point questions ranging between "always" and "never" on their intentions to "revisit the library in the presence of similar alternatives" and "advise others to visit it"

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Although some early research indicated satisfaction as an antecedent to service quality [32), later works have confirmed service quality as an antecedent to consumer satisfaction [16,24]. Past research has also indicated that consumer satisfaction is a reliable predictor of re-visit intentions [16,24). The proposed conceptual model (Figure 1) shows the underlying process through which improvement in service quality and consumer satisfaction can lead to positive post-

- visit intentions.

Ann Lib Sci Doc

THE CASE OF A LIBRARY

Fig. 1 Conceptual Model

METHOD

Survey

The sample for the survey consisted of 113 students who use the library. The respondents were requested to complete the questionnaire consisting of a service quality scale, a service satisfaction scale, a service importance scale, and the questions to measure their post-visit intentions. All the respondents completed and returned the questionnaires. One return was unusable, and a final sample of 112 was obtained and used in the analysis.

Measures

Items of each sub-scale were subjected to reliability assessment. Results of the item analysis for performance against expectations, satisfaction and importance scores are presented in Table 1. The coefficient alpha values for sub-scales ranged from 0.588 to 0.830 indicating that that the test was internally consistent [33]. The item-to-total correlation coefficients for individual performance items were greater than the 0.35 cut-off value [34]. Reliability for linear combinations of the five subscales was also computed to assess the overall


internal consistency of the measures. Overall coefficient alpha values for the scales ranged between 0.868 and 0.904. These results were consistent with those reported in the literature [14,16,35]. Service quality was measured as the deviation of the performance from the expectation. Pre-weighted and weighted performance and satisfaction scores were correlated with overall quality and satisfaction scores and the values for re-visit intentions and service recommendations. The correlation coefficients were statistically Significant in the predicted direction (see Table 2). This result provided eVidence of the predictive validity of the scales.

Model Analysis

The conceptual model (Figure 1) was tested with the collected data using LlSREL VIII [36]. The overall fit of the model was adequate with the GFI . as 0.73 when pre-weighted scores were used and 0.71 when weighted scores were used. The Satorra-Bentler [37] scaled chi-square statistic was 0.06 and 0.07 (52 df, p=1.00) with pre-weighted and weighted scores, respectively. The estimates of path coefficients and other measures are shown in Table 3.

43


Table 1

Importance, performa,}ce and satisfaction mean scores (N= 112)

Importance (I) Petfel'llUCfl Satbfacflon (S) Gap

Elpectalioot (PII) .cora DtmeDJion Item-totJJi Ittllfl-lOttJi ltem-total X SD CmTtIation X SD Correlation X SD

Corrt/4tion (p1E-4rl

A. TANGIBLES «=0.604 (1="19 ~·G.619 I. COQditiOll of 5.59 1.10 0.44 3.34 0.64 0.35 4.00 1.01 0.45 1:13.69 2. A_ .. ceofpbysicaJ facilities 5.27 1.01 0.51 3.50 0.74 0.51 3.95 1.01 0.52 (-~.64 3. A ofstaff' 4.71 Ll2 0.35 4.02 0.88 0.36 4.68 0.79 0,35 0.09 4. Ambjence in the lilrary 5.13 1.07 0.36 3.82 O~93 0.46 4.11 1.17 0.46 {-)UO

a RELIABILITY a a 0.648 «-0.737 a=l629 5. Stafl's sincerity in serving you SJ9 0.84 0,35 4.48 1.12 O.SO 4.88 0.93 0.39 2.78 6. Staft's problem solving,ability 5.80 0.98 . 0.42 4.05 1.13 0.64 4.41 0.87 0.50 0.29 7. Performance of service correctly 5.75 1.16 . 0.38 4.t8 1.04 0.61 4.64 1.03 0.60 1.04 8. Service ~vision in time 5.54 I.l6 0.60 4.04 1.04 0.44 4.20 1.08 )0,35 0.22 9. Record keqring _.n.C'j 5.75 1.22 0,37 3.89 1.09 0.37 4.30 1.21 0.35 •. {.~.63

C IUSPONSMNISS a-0.110 «-U91 a 0; e. 714 10. The \Witing time for service 5.16 1.28 0.36 4.42 1.12 0.35 4·.55 1.02 0.59 2.17 11. n. in following reque~ S.OS 1.25 0.62 4m 0.97 0.68 4.22 O.~ 0.62 0.35 12. Staffls . .

to help you 5.64 1.16 . 0.59 4.48 l.O6 O.S6 4.84 0.96 0,38 2.71 13. StafI's miIabili!Y_1o -"capond 5.84 1.09 0.52 4.18 1.19 0.60 4.41 1.09 0.48 1.05 D. ASSURANCE a-o.660 m-0.82O «-0.714 14. TnJItNol1biness of staff · 5.70 1.2S 0.48 4.68 1.01 0.54 S.07 0.98 0.45 3.88 IS. Ease in intm.cting with staff 5.39 1.02 0.62 4.63 1.12 Q.71 5.09 0.92 ' 0.66 3,40 16. Courtesysho\W by staff S.13 1.09 0.48 4.36 1.13 0.79 4.86 0.96 0.56 1.85 17. Stan's knoWledge in 5.70 1.14 0.23 4.14. 1.19 0.55 4.73 0.92 0.38 0.80 E. EMPATHY 11=0.774 1l~8.631 a 1:0 0.588 18. Indivjdual attention paid to you 4.71 US 0.56 4.30 1.12 0.73 4.61 1.02 0.61 1.41

... 19. Personal attention paid to you 4.16 1.66 0.79 4.14 1.22 0.52 4.64 0.96 O.SO 0.58 20. Stairs Ulu;J~ of needs 5.41 1.24 0.62 191 1.10 0.55 4..45 1.00 0.62 (·X).49 21: Sensitiveness to your interests 5.11 1.24 0.75 3.85 0.93 0.60 4.23 1.12 0.46 (·X).76 22. Convenience of hours 5.57 0.68 0.35 3.89 J.SI 0.36 4.11 1.51 0.35 (-).61

44 Ann Ljb Sci Doc


Table 2

Correlation of summated scores (N=112)

Perceptional Welghtlld OvenD WeJpted OVtraU Re-rilJt ltem1 IlpectadOD PerutioDll QuaHty S.tisfactfoa Satilfadioa S.dlf.dioD la_dOlI

~IE) 1x1JKtl~ ~xpectation . Weighted pcn:eptiODJlE 0.994 . Overall Quality (OQ) 0.212- 0.237- . Satisfaction 0.697 0.700 0.407 . Wei&btcd Satis~tion 0.690 0.700 '0.416 0.990 . Overall Satisfaction (OS) 0.437 0.457 0.708 O.~16 0.528 -Re.v}sit Intention '0.298 0.295 0.351 0.348 0.317 0.354 . R.ecommeadation 0.415 0.424 0.449 0.430 0.411 0.504 0.744

Nete: - implies SlglUfiamc:e at 0.05 level. Other values are SIgnificant at 0.01 level

Table 3

Estimated path coefficients

From To

Service i Consumer satisfaction Note: t-values in parenthesis are significant at 0.05 level

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data collected and the analys is of the conceptual model yielded the following conclusions:

1. The service importance scale clearly indicates that students place more importance on the reliabil ity of library services than other service dimensions. This is consistent with past research. where reliability is rated as the most important dimension affecting service quality [38]. Staff avai lability to students. their sincerity, trust-worthiness. knowledge. problem solving ability and record keeping.accuracy are rated


to be amongst the most important factors for achieving high quality in library service. The condition of the physical facilit ies, general ambience in the library and convenient operating hours are also important requirements for achieving service quality and satisfaction . It is worthwhile to note that although the performance scores of these items are on average above their expectations, some of them still fall short of user 's expectations. The "condition of equipment", "appearance of physical facilities" and the "ambience in the library" fall below user's expectations by an importance weighted gap of more than 1.00. Other areas, ~hich fall

45

D K BANWEr and B DATTA

below student's expectations, are the accuracy of keeping records, sensitiveness towards their needs and interests, and the convenience of operating hours. These are the areas the library can improve in order to achieve better service quality. The satisfaction/dissatisfaction scale indicates that although respondents seem to be satisfied with the knowledge, sincerity and trustworthiness of the staff, and the courtesy extended to them, much can be done to improve the services.

2. The correlation coefficients between the overall quality dimension and the preweighted and weighted perceived service quality dimensions are significantly low. This indicates that the overall quality is dependent on factors other than the perceived functional quality. As dicussed earlier, the quality of a service can be divided into technical (outcome) quality and the functional (process) quality. Although the inquiry into the technical quality was outside the scope of this study, informal discussions with the respondents revealed their feeling that the library lar ' j in some aspects of technical quality, specially the range of up-to-elate literature available. Limited research has indicated that the technical (outcome) dimensions of service quality have considerable impact on overall service quality and satisfaction. Further studies are needed to ascertain how the outcome dimensions of library service affect per~eived quality and satisfaction.

3. The overall quality and satis·faction dimensions have a significantly higher correlation with post-visit intentions than the multidimensional scales (see Table 2) . This implies that overall dimensions can be good predictors of post-visit intentions. However, the multidimensional scales provide useful indications for pinpointing the areas (and the extent) where service quality and user satisfaction can be improved.

4. Analysis of the conceptual model endorses the proposed causal order of the relationship between perceived service quality, consumer satisfaction and post-visit intentions. Both perceived service quality and satisfaction have a positive impact on post-visit intentions. The

46

indirect effect from service quality to post visit intentions via consumer satisfaction has the product of coefficients equal to 0.34, which is 2.4 times that of the direct effect from service quality to post-visit intentions (0.13). This suggests that consumer satisfaction completely mediates the path between service quality and post-visit intentions. The model achieves better fit with pre-weighted data than with weighted data. These results are consistent with the findings of similar studies [16]. the result suggests that library managers must strive towards satisfying the users in order to ensure that users continue their membership with the library and advise others to use it.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The current study identifies areas for improving the quality of services being delivered in a library. The perceived service performance generally matches users' expectations . Students rate reliability as the most important dimension of service quality. An enchancement in the quality of service leads to the users' satisfaction, which in turn leads to positive post-visit intentions. The contribution of the technical (outcome) dimension in forming positive post-visit intentions can be an area of future research. The results indicate that although users are satisfied with the current service, many areas need improvement in order to build a consumer-focussed attitude towards service delivery.

REFERENCES

1. BANWET (D K) and DATTA (B). Measuring service quality: Case study of a restaurant. Productivity. 40, 2; 1999; 296-301 .

2. NITECKI (D A). Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship. 22,3; 1996; 181-190.

3. EDWARDS (S) and BROWNE (M). Quality in Information services: Do users and librarians differ in their expectations? Library and Information Science Research. 17; 1995; 163-182.

Ann Lib Sci Doc

4. DOW (RF). Using assessment criteria to determine library quality. Journal of Academic librarianship. 24, 4; 1998; 1-16.

5. HEBERT (F). Service quality. An unobtrusive investigation of interlibrary loan in large public libraries in Canada. Library and Information Science Research. 16; 1994; 3-21 .

6. SWEENEY (J C). JOHNSON (L W) and ARMSTRONG (R W). The effect of cues on service quality expectations and service selection in a library setting. Journal of Services Marketing. 6, 4; 1992.

7. CARDIFF University Libraries. Service quality survey. 1996.Final Report, April 1997.

8. HERNON (P) and ALTMAN (E). Assessing Service quality: Satisfying the expectations of library customers. 1998. American Library Association; Chicago.

9. KAUSHIK (M). Education services marketing, Services marketing: The Indian experience. 1997. South Asia; Delhi; 74-102.

10. LAKHE (R R) and MOHANTY (R P) .: Understanding TQM in service systems. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. 12,9; 1995; 139-153.

11 . GRONROOS (C). Marketing services: The case of a missing product, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 13, 4/5; 1998; 322-338.

12. BUREAU of Indian Standards, Ind ian Standard. Quality management and quality system elements: Guidelines for services, (IS 140004, Part 2) . 1992. BIS; New Delhi.

13. ZEITHAML (V A) . Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52, 2; 1988; 2-22.

14. PARASURAMAN (A) , ZEITHAML (V. A) and BERRY (L L). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64; 1988; 12-23.



15. DONTHU (N) and YOO (B). Cultural Influences on · service quality expectations. Journal of Service Research. 1, 2; 1998; 178-186.

16. CRONIN (J J Jr.) and TAYLOR (S A). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing. 56, 3; 1992; 55-68.

17. CRONIN (J J Jr.) and TAYLOR (S A) , SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based and performance minus expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing. 58, 1; 1994; 125-131.

18. LILJANDER (V) . Comparison standards in perceived service quality, Diss. Research report A: 63, 1995. CERS, Swedish School of Economics, Finland, Helsingfors.

19. PERSSON (J E) and LINDQUIST (H), Kunduppleved kvaliteti tjansteverksamheter. En analys och kritik avden foretagse-konomiska dialogen (Customer Perceived ~uality in · Services. Analysis and Criticism of the Dialogue in Services. Analysis and Criticism of the Dialogue in Business Research), 1997. Lund University; Sweden.

20. BROWN (T J), CHURCHILL (G A Jr.) and PETER (P J). Improving the measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 69; 1993; 127-139 . .

21. SILVERMAN (S N) and GROVER (R) . Forming perceptions of overall quality in consumer products: A process of quality element entegration. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, Report No. 95-103, 1995. Marketing Science Institute ; Cambridge, MA.

22. HARTLINE (M D) and FERRELL (0 C). The management of customer-contact service employees: An empirical investigation . Journal of Marketing. 60; 1996; 52-10.

23. DABHOLKAR (P A). Contingency framework and predicting causality between customer satisfaction and service quality. Advances in Consumer Research. 22; 1995; 101-108.

47


24. SHEMWELL (D J), YAVAS (U) and BILGIN (Z). Customer-service provider relationships: An empirical test of a model of service quality, satisfaction and relationship-oriented outcomes. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 9, 2; 1998; 155-168.

25. GREENFIELD (T K) and ATTKINSSON (C C). Steps towards a multifactorial satisfaction scale for primary care and mental health. Evaluation and Program Planning. 12,3; 1989; 271-278.

26. NEGRON-VELAZQUEZ (G), ALEGRIA (M), VERA (M) and FREEMAN (D H). Testing the service satisfaction scale in Puerto' Rico, Evaluation and Program Planning. 21 , 1; 1998; 81-92.

27. PATTERSON (P G) and SPRENG (R A). Modeling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an empirical examination. International Journal of Service Iw' ,'ry Management. 8, 5; 1997; 414-434.

28. CZEPIEL (J A) and ROSENBERG (L A) . Consumer satisfaction : concept and measurement. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science. 5, 4; 1977. 403-411 .

29. LATOUR (S A) and PEAT (N C). Conceptual and methodological issues in consumer satisfaction research, Advances in Consumer Research. 6; 1979; 431-437.

30. ANGUR (M G). Service quality measurements in a developing economy: SERVQUAL Versus SERVPERF. Journal of Customer Service in Marketing and Management. 4, 3, 1998; 47-60.

48

31 . ANDREASSEN (T W) and LlNDESTAD (B). Customer loyalty and complex services: The impact of customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 9, 1; 1998; 7-23.

32. BITNER (M J). Evaluating service encounters: Thf! effects of phys ical surroundings and employee responses; Journal of Marketing. 54, 2; 19:10; 69-82.

33. CRONBACH (L). Coefficient alpha and the .intemal structure of tests. Psychometrica. 16; . 1951 ; 297-334.

34. NUNNALLY (C J). Psychometric theory. 1978. Mcgraw Hill; New York.

35. BABAKUS (E) and BOLLER (G W). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business Research. 24 ; 1991 ; 254-63.

36. JORESKOG (K G) and SORBOM (D). LlSREL 8: A guide to the program and applications. 1989. Scientific Software International; Chicago.

37. SATORRA (A) and BENTLER (P M). Scaling corrections for chi-square in covariance struc ture analysis, Proceedings of the Busi ness and Economic Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association. 1988; 308-313.

38. ZEITHAML (V A), PARASURAMAN (A) and BERRY (L L). Del ivering quality service: balancing customer percet ions and expectations. 1999. The Free Press; New York.

Ann Lib Sci Doc

annals of library science and documentation 47, 2: 2000

Documents