European Journal of Marketing

Emerald Article: Scales in services marketing research: a critique and way

forward
Audrey Gilmore, Rosalind McMullan

Article information:
To cite this document: Audrey Gilmore, Rosalind McMullan, (2009),"Scales in services marketing research: a critique and way
forward", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Iss: 5 pp. 640 - 651
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560910946972
Downloaded on: 27-03-2012
References: This document contains references to 51 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by University of Pretoria
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

EJM
43,5/6

640

COMMENTARY

Scales in services marketing

research: a critique and way
forward
Audrey Gilmore
School of Marketing, Entrepreneurship & Strategy,
Faculty of Business and Management, University of Ulster,
Newtownabbey, UK, and

Rosalind McMullan
Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Auburn University, Auburn,
Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the use of measurement scales and to illustrate
some of the drawbacks of using scales for measuring service quality without due recognition of the
limitations and rigidity of such scales, especially when they are applied to the complexity of service
marketing situations and contexts.
Design/methodology/approach A review of the most widely used scales in services
measurement, including SERVQUAL and SERVPERF is provided, along with some of the
conceptual issues surrounding scale design and use in service contexts. Then some qualitative
research techniques are considered in terms of their adaptability and flexibility for carrying out
research regarding the complex nature of services.
Findings Measurement scales are evaluated and discussed. The key criticisms of best-known
scales used for services situations are presented. Then consideration is given to what might be a best
practice scenario for measuring and assessing service-related issues in a service context.
Originality/value The discussion draws attention to the importance of recognising the most
suitable research method for a service-specific research problem/question rather than imposing a well
known measurement scale or technique that may not suit the purpose.
Keywords Quantitative methods, Qualitative methods, Market research, Services marketing
Paper type Conceptual paper

European Journal of Marketing

Vol. 43 No. 5/6, 2009
pp. 640-651
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560910946972

Introduction
This paper presents an overview of measurement scales and their use within services
marketing. In doing so it relates to the scales commonly used to measure service
quality, customer satisfaction and customer expectations. The discussion covers
traditional and contemporary approaches to scale development, multi-item versus
single item scales, validity and reliability issues and the debate surrounding
borrowing scales especially in the context of services research. Frequently cited
criticisms surrounding the use of scales and the ways in which these issues can be, at
least, partially controlled or overcome are also discussed. This leads to some
consideration of best practice in relation to measuring and assessing service quality
and advocates a move away from the predominant use of scales and quantitative

measures for service related phenomenon. The paper then presents some examples of
the use and value of qualitative methodologies for services research.
Marketing scales
Marketing researchers have been involved in the business of scale development for
almost a century (Stewart, 1993, p. 525). This has included the adaptation of measures
from other disciplines, or borrowing, and the creation of new scales for measurement of
research problems unique to marketing and service quality. Two publications during the
nineties sought to bring together collective knowledge in relation to the development,
adaptation and evaluation of these marketing scales, they were Bearden, Netemeyer and
Mobleys (1993, updated 1999) Handbook of Marketing Scales Multi-item Measures for
Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research and Bruner and Hensels (1994) Marketing
Scales Handbook, a Compilation of Multi Item Measures. The Bearden et al. (1993) book
described 124 scales including their psychometric foundation, key dimensions of scale
development and the criteria on which scales should be evaluated, replicating the work
of Robinson et al. (1991). Bruner and Hensels (1994) compilation had a narrower focus
reviewing 588 scales over a nine year period (1980-1989). Both books applied a similar
approach to the description of scales and both recommended readers to do their own
evaluation of individual scales (Stewart, 1993). These books brought increased attention
to empirical studies using scales in service contexts.
Multi-item and single-item marketing scales
Numerous advantages have been highlighted in the use of scaling techniques including
the meaningful comparison of two results at a specific stage in time and the subsequent
measure over time to check stability (Rajecki, 1990). The multi-item scale based on
psychometrics as advocated by Churchill (1979) and Peter (1979) has continued to
dominate the marketing literature. Indeed an examination of recent empirical research
points to an ever increasing number of scales designed to provide measures for a wide
variety of marketing phenomena (Bruner and Hensel, 1994; Bearden and Netemeyer,
1999; Kalafatis et al., 2005). Proponents of the multi-item scale believe that a single
observation may be misleading and lacking in context thus multi-item measurement
scales can help overcome these distortions. In particular, Churchill (1979, p. 66) argued
that . . . marketers are much better served with multi-item than single-item measures of
their constructs, and they should take the time to develop them. This view was
supported by De Vaus (1996) who argued that a scale provides the ability to measure a
concept by using multiple indicators rather than one; by giving an opportunity to
capture and represent reality using a formal and systematic approach; and by facilitating
the understanding of complexity of concepts. As such multi-item scales are suggested to
allow for greater precision, specifically in relation to ranking or classifying groups and
identifying subsequent differences or similarities (Green et al., 1998). Furthermore, by
summarising the information presented by a number of questions into one variable,
analysis may be simplified. Lastly, Churchill (1979) and Peter (1979) advocate that
multiple item scales are inherently more reliable because they enable computation of
correlations between items, which if positive produce high correlations indicating the
internal consistency of all the items in representing the presumed underlying attitude.
Bergvist and Rossier (2007) state that marketers have used these multiple item
scales to measure the attribute of the construct (e.g. attitude, quality, liking) separate to

Scales in services
marketing
research
641

EJM
43,5/6

642

the object of the construct (e.g. company, advertisement, brand). This trend has
contributed to the increased use of factor analyses and structural equation modelling
which often leads to the deletion of necessary items and a lack of consideration of the
single item measure.
Rossiter (2002) proposes a new procedure for scale development based on the
generation and selection of items to form a scale to measure a construct. One benefit of
his approach is that it indicates when it is best to use a single or multiple item scale and
provides an index of essential items rather than selecting a one-dimensional item based
on high coefficient alphas.
However, practitioners have long supported the use of single item measures for
practical reasons such as the minimisation of respondent fatigue or refusal, a reduction
in data collection and subsequent data processing (Reichhelds, 2003).
Traditional and contemporary approaches to scale development
Two main approaches exist in relation to scale development, traditional (Churchill,
1979) and contemporary (Rossiter, 2002). The traditional approach as advocated by
Churchill (1979), Peter (1979) and Bearden et al. (1993) follows five stages and involves
generating a large pool of items and reducing this pool through reliability and factor
analyses. Items may also be borrowed from existing validated scales on the condition
that there is a close examination of underlying principles or content validity of original
scales before employing in subsequent studies (Kalafatis et al., 2005). However, recent
concerns have emerged about the over and sometimes nave reliance on Churchills
procedure (Diamantopoulos, 2005; Finn and Kayanda, 2005; Lee and Hooley, 2005).
The C-OAR-SE procedure represents an alternative and a departure from this
traditional approach to scale development in that it is . . . bounded in rationalism
rather than empiricism (Rossiter, 2002, p. 308). The quality of the scale and its validity
lying in the agreement of expert opinion rather than construct validity,
multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analysis, reliability, factor analysis coefficient
alpha computation which are founded on sampling theory to be a true state of
nature. This approach is also not without its critics in that it is relatively new, is not
considered to be particularly user friendly and has been adopted in few studies. These
criticisms may be explored further in papers by Diamantopoulos (2005) and Finn and
Kayanda (2005).
Kalafatis et al. (2005) discuss the proliferation of scales designed to measure aspects
of marketing and the common practice of borrowing scales. Other authors to have
raised this area of discussion include Flynn and Pearcey (2001) and Engelland et al.
(2001). The main concerns, which have arisen from these discussions surrounds
content validity and its stability when a scale is adopted in a subsequent study, even in
the most widely adopted scales, which appear to be psychometrically sound. Engelland
et al. (2001) note that in many studies the practice of borrowing scales appears to work
well, but that occasional studies report problems with psychometric properties. This
may be explained by insufficient replications of the original study, which may result in
studies with common properties producing notably different results (Flynn and
Pearcey, 2001). Therefore, research suggests that multi-item scales designed to capture
marketing phenomena should be thought of as an ongoing, evolutionary approach
rather than static.

Services measurement
A variety of methods and approaches has been used to measure service dimensions,
processes and outcomes coinciding with the rise in importance of services. These
attempts, over the past four decades, have focussed on conceptualising and measuring
various aspects of services marketing. However, the specific, multi-dimensional and
complex characteristics of services need to be considered before trying to measure
them. That is, measurements need to take account of the service process, measure both
tangible and intangible aspects of the service product and delivery, and take account of
the specific context in which a service occurs.
Service companies spend substantial time and resources on measuring and
managing service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Indeed many
marketing research firms specialise in customer satisfaction measurement alone and
some companies link employee rewards to customer satisfaction targets and
achievements. Similarly much academic research has focused on these concepts and
the relationship between them. Comparisons of customer expectations with
perceptions of service quality became a major focus of attention from the early
1980s through the 1990s. For example, Buttle (1996) identified many, varied industries
which have measured service quality (using service quality dimensions) including: tyre
retailing (Carmen, 1990), dental services (Carmen, 1990), hotels (Selah and Ryan, 1992),
travel and tourism (Fick and Ritchie, 1991), car servicing (Bouman and van de Weile,
1992), business schools (Rigotti and Pitt, 1992), higher education (Ford et al., 1993) and
hospitality (Johns, 1993). These studies often involved researchers adapting scales to
measure service dimensions, customer perceptions and expectations.
SERVQUAL
Arguably, the most frequently used scales within services contexts include
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. SERVQUAL was developed in the 1980s and was
used in many different service contexts. It was created to measure service quality and
is based on the view that the customers assessment of service quality is paramount. It
is operationalised in terms of the relationship between expectations and outcomes.
That is, SERVQUAL is based on measuring customer satisfaction by assessing the
relationship between expectations (E) and outcomes (O). If the outcome (O) matches
expectations (E), then the customer is satisfied. If expectations (E) exceeds the outcome
(O), then customer dissatisfaction is indicated. If the outcome (O) exceeds expectations
(E), then customer delight may be the result.
Service quality is considered as a multi-dimensional construct and in the early phase of
development Parasuraman et al. (1985) identified ten service dimensions. In a further
refinement these ten were reduced to five dimensions; tangibles, reliability, responsibility,
assurance and empathy (Parasuraman et al., 1988). These formed the core of the
SERVQUAL measuring instrument. The five dimensions were measured with an
instrument using twenty-two items. Respondents were required to first give responses
about their expectations of service and then their evaluation of the actual service.
In the early 1990s the authors made some alterations to the SERVQUAL
mechanism. A follow up study in 1991 changed the wording of all the expectation
items (Parasuraman et al., 1991). The purpose of this was to move away from
attempting to measure customers normative expectations and to focus on what
customers would expect from excellent service companies. Although it has been widely

Scales in services
marketing
research
643

EJM
43,5/6

644

used SERVQUAL has also been widely criticised, mainly for its complexity,
administration problems and for limitations in its applicability to different contexts.
SERVPERF
Cronin and Taylors work (1992, and Taylor and Cronin, 1994) on measuring service
quality attempted to offer an alternative to SERVQUAL, which they called SERVPERF.
They investigated the conceptualisation and measurement of service quality and the
relationships between service quality, consumer satisfaction and purchase intentions.
Their work focused on trying to overcome the perceptions-minus-expectations
measurement focus of SERVQUAL. The development of the SERVPERF model aimed to
provide an alternative method of measuring perceived service quality and the
significance of the relationships between service quality, customer satisfaction and
purchase intentions. In investigating these concepts and the interrelationships between
them Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued that:
.
a performance based measure of service quality may be an improved means of
measuring the service quality construct;
.
service quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction;
.
consumer satisfaction has a significant effect on purchase intentions; and
.
service quality has less effect on purchase intentions than consumer satisfaction.
As a result a performance-based measurement, SERVPERF was presented. It was built
upon the premise that the best operationalisation of service quality is achieved through
measures of services firm performance. The measures used in this scale were
expectations, perceptions of performance, and importance measures.
However, after an investigation of the psychometric properties of the SERVPERF
scale and results of a multi-industry study Taylor and Cronin (1994) suggested that
SERVPERF appeared to suffer from the lack of a consistent and generalizable factor
structure. As a consequence of this later study they recommend that:
.
practitioners should adapt the factor structure of the service quality data for
specific or different settings; and
.
academic researchers should revisit the research objective of needing a reliable
and valid multidimensional scale of service quality that could be generalizable
across service settings.
These two brief examples illustrate the difficulties in creating a scale to measure the
complex multi-dimensional nature of services, taking account of the different stages in
the service process (customers expectations and perceptions) and in different contexts.
Other scales
Other scales were developed to focus on different aspects of service quality, customer
satisfaction (Oliver, 1997; Chonko and Hunt, 1985), dimensions of commitment and
involvement (Raju, 1980; Beatty et al., 1988; Mittal and Lee, 1989) and customer
perceptions during the late 1980s and 1990s. More recently the growth of interest in
relationship marketing has renewed interest in conceptualising and measuring customer
loyalty (McMullan and Gilmore, 2003). As markets become more competitive, companies
are more likely to recognise the importance of retaining current customers. Customer

retention is considered to be a relatively easy to measure and a reliable source of superior

performance. Companies initiate a variety of activities to improve customer retention
such as customer satisfaction programmes, complaint management and loyalty. In
understanding customer satisfaction researchers have paid particular attention to the
management of service quality, developing ways of meeting customer expectations and
recognising the impact that service quality has on profit (Rust et al., 1996).
Often scales are used to measure positive and negative opinions of service
dimensions in different companies, at different times and situations. They may be used
at different and frequent time periods in order to compile a picture of any trends in
service requirements. They are used to solicit perceptions of various aspects of service
delivery to gauge whether some service issues improve or deteriorate over time, to
identify customers satisfaction levels with services, negative and positive opinions
about services and service levels, and comparisons with other services. They have been
used to identify customers behavioural intentions and likelihood or willingness to
recommend a service to others (Taylor and Baker, 1994). Positive behavioural
intentions can include saying positive things about a company and/or its service,
spending more money with the company, remaining loyal and paying a price premium.
Criticisms of scales for services measurement
Much of the research using scales for services measurement can be criticised for being
more techniques-centred rather than focusing on solving a problem. Often the research
technique is chosen before the specific research questions and problem in a particular
situation are clearly identified.
There have been many criticisms of the various scales used to measure services,
particularly SERVQUAL as it has been most widely used. Fundamentally the problem
of measuring expectations is used as a major criticism of the SERVQUAL scale. For
example, some researchers think that measuring expectations is unnecessary and that
measuring service outcomes or perceptions of outcomes should be enough.
Expectations, as a term is deemed to have many meanings. Some suggest that
expectations and perceptions should be measured on a single scale, rather than using
two scales. Also in SERVQUAL, the item composition uses five generic items and
many researchers argue that four or five items cannot capture the variability within
each service quality dimension.
In addition, a number of problems affect measurement scales including
interpretation and wording of the question (Oskamp, 1991). The main problem is the
way in which response sets can invalidate questionnaire answers. Several types of
response sets exist including carelessness, social desirability, extremity of response
and acquiescence (Edwards, 1969; Rotter, 1966; De Vaus, 1996).
In relation to scale use and administration, Reichheld (2003) argues that customer
surveys should be kept simple for ease of interpretation. In particular, he criticises the
interpretation of scores based on complex weighting algorithm. Unweighted factor based
scales may be used based on ease of interpretation (Bryman and Cramer, 1997) and due
to the result being a summary of an individuals responses to a number of questions
(Green et al., 1998). Scale scores must be interpreted in relative terms, as they are not
absolute (e.g. an individual cannot be 75 per cent satisfied, rather he or she may have a
high score in comparative terms). Upper and lower limits (minimum and maximum) or
values should be specified to overcome this weakness (Tull and Hawkins, 1990).

Scales in services
marketing
research
645

EJM
43,5/6

646

Some researchers have queried the wide application of any one instrument,
particularly the SERVQUAL instrument and signalled caution in its use. For example,
many studies have illustrated that the number of service quality dimensions is
dependent upon the particular service being offered (Babakus and Boller, 1992;
Bouman and van de Weile, 1992). Contextual circumstances will have some bearing
upon the suitability and number of dimensions of service quality for any given
situation (Buttle, 1996). Recognition of the shortcomings of previous research has
slowly and intermittently led to the development of new approaches to studying and
researching service quality, either by linking the SERVQUAL model with other
techniques or by using alternative approaches. For example Rouffaers (1991)
developed a GOS model based on the notion that services have three components,
Goods, Objectively measured service elements, and Subjectively measured service
components. Rouffaer applied his model to the hospitality industry illustrating its
specific relevance to that industry. Also Fornell (1992) developed the customer
satisfaction barometer (CSB) in Sweden, which was used to measure levels of service
quality across 30 industries and 100 companies. However none of these models have
enjoyed the same degree of use and adaptation as SERVQUAL.
Towards a new best practice in service measurement?
The constant theme emerging from contemporary writers in this area is the importance
of understanding what is to be measured, including a detailed conceptual framework of
the construct and its constituent parts and the service context. Reviewing traditional
and contemporary approaches to this allows the researcher to appreciate the
arguments and consider best practice in relation to the research situation. For the
remainder of the paper, the hospitality industry will be used as an example as it
illustrates the complexity of carrying out research in a service context.
Given that services are processes, measurements need to take account of the complete
service process. For example measurements need to address all stages in the service
experience, the pre, during and post service experience of the customer and where the
design of a service is linked to technology, if appropriate. Also services are focused
around interactions between people, they are predominantly intangible and accessibility
and timing are very important. In a service sector such as hospitality some consideration
needs to be given to alternative measurements for service delivery given the complexity
of processes that involve the customer, the front-line, back office and ancillary services
people in the different service areas and functions. These possible points of interaction
include a range of experiences from minimal to high contact between customer, front
office, consumer enabling technology and core service staff. Many older scales do not
account for recent technologies that now are so widely used in service delivery with ever
increasing sophistication. Clearly borrowing scales, which have been developed in a
different context at a different time with no regard for this issue poses problems.
Rather than using off the peg, widely used methodologies with some or little
adaptation to the particular situation, more thought needs to be given to the service
specific research objectives and the unique needs of a service context. A more creative
and open-minded approach to designing research methods for service problems, taking
account of the unique features and priorities of the research question is advocated. The
start point of any research project should be what information is needed to help
address the research problem and consideration of how to get the best information.

Qualitative methods are characteristically adaptable and flexible, are open-ended

rather than pre-ordained and can be adapted to suit the service context. Qualitative
methods such as observation studies, focus groups and in depth interviews will
provide a depth of understanding of the service context that is not present in using
scales borrowed from previous studies. They can be used in an integrative way in
terms of one-off, cross-sectional studies and in longitudinal studies, using a number of
methods in tandem rather than relying on one instrument. This allows researchers to
be more creative in designing research to fit a particular research problem, especially
one that is embedded in a complex service related situation.
Observation studies
In the search for in-depth understanding of service phenomenon and the complex
interactions involved qualitative observation methods are very relevant. Many aspects
of service delivery and customer responses to service offerings are not easily expressed
using words alone. Observation studies, for example, allow for information and
insights that cannot be gained by solely asking questions or eliciting opinions.
Observation studies can be detached (such as those used for mystery shopping) and are
very suitable for example, for gathering information about customers experiences in
hotels, restaurants and other areas of service delivery. They can focus on assessing the
quality of service, staff interactions with customers, layout, appearance and quality of
servicescape, product and service range and extent of merchandising initiatives.
Observations can also be more participative and include conversing with staff in
addition to observing behaviour and the overall service setting and ambience. In the
hospitality industry, observation studies are a very flexible and valuable means of
gaining information, for example, enabling assessment and feedback on front-line
interactions with customers and all aspects of service the customer experiences in a
hotel, restaurant or other related outlet.
In-depth interviews
Similarly in-depth interviewing is a useful way to gain insights and understanding of
individual perceptions as verbalised by service users and managers. In-depth
interviews vary in scope from very unstructured interviews designed to discover
peoples opinions and world-views, to more structured interviewing focussing on a
more specific questioning approach. Whatever an interviews form its purpose is to get
inside someones head and enter into the other persons perspective (Patton, 1990) to
find out things like feelings, memories and interpretations that research cannot observe
or discover in other ways.
Interview data are very useful for assessing the thinking behind services managers
decision making and approaches to service quality, managing service personnel and
delivery. For example, in-depth interviews are a very useful means of gathering the
opinions of service managers and supervisors regarding the overall service quality in a
given context, such as a hotel or chain of hotels. The interview discussions could focus
on the scope and nature of service delivery within each service area, how service
interactions are managed and the appropriateness of the measurement approaches
used to monitor service quality. The outcome of this type of research will provide real
insights for managers that should help them address service problem situations. It
should also illustrate managers priorities and processes, and may highlight differences

Scales in services
marketing
research
647

EJM
43,5/6

648

and inconsistencies in managers perspectives at different organisational levels, service

areas and hotels.
Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions can be used to provide information on the reasons behind
specific opinions, attitudes, behaviour and perceptions of staff and customers. The main
characteristic of focus group research is the simultaneous involvement of a number of
respondents in the research process and it explicitly uses group interaction to produce
data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group
(Morgan, 1988). Focus groups are one of the few research techniques in which
participants are encouraged to interact with each other. It also incorporates the active
role of the researcher in addressing the research problem. For service contexts, focus
groups are useful because of their flexibility and adaptability to specific research
problems. For example they can be used to elicit the opinions and attitudes of restaurant
customers regarding choice and range of menus, price ranges in relation to value for
money, service and food presentation and how staff communicate with customers. Focus
group discussions can also take account of current environmental and competitive issues
so that insights can be gained not only on aspects of service quality and delivery but also
on what influences customers opinions and attitudes at that given time.
Conclusion
There is a long history and use of scales for the measurement of service marketing
concepts such as service quality and customer satisfaction. There have been many
debates regarding the appropriate use of scales, traditional and contemporary
approaches to scale development, multi-item versus single item scales and there has
been widespread occurrence of borrowing existing scales for different contexts and
uses. However focussing on scale development and use can be quite limiting and
short-sighted for services marketing and measurement. Indeed it could be argued that
research in service marketing has been slow to develop in some areas and has been
caught up in a type of scale navel gazing over the past 25 years.
Rather than limiting service measurement to off the peg methodologies with some
or little consideration of the service context and the complex phenomena involved in
any service arena, a more situation specific and open-minded approach to service
measurement has been presented using some examples of qualitative research
techniques and how they can be used in a creative and more interactive way for service
situations.
In service contexts researchers often need to understand how and why specific
service situations and problems arise, qualitative research is very appropriate for this.
Scales may provide answers in relation to the detail and minutiae of customer
perceptions but will not explain the reasons why these perceptions exist. Today the
commercial world is changing very rapidly and in such periods of change managers
need up-to-date understanding of markets, technologies and competitive activities if
they are to make good decisions and act wisely. Although questions such as who are
our competitors? and what is the nature of the competition? seem simple, in real life
they are often more complex than they appear. There is an increasing need for flexible,
in-depth methods of gathering useful information that can provide some guidance and
directions for services situations and related managerial decisions.

References
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 253-68.
Bearden, W.O. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1999), Handbook of Marketing Scales, 2nd ed., Sage
Publications, London.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Mobley, M.F. (1993), Handbook of Marketing Scales:
Multi-Item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, Sage Publications
Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R. and Homer, P. (1988), The involvement-commitment model: theory and
implications, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, March, pp. 149-67.
Bergvist, L. and Rossier, J.R. (2007), The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-84.
Bouman, M. and van de Weile, T. (1992), Measuring service quality in the car service industry:
building and testing an instrument, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 4-16.
Bruner, G.C. II and Hensel, P.J. (1994), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item
Measures, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (1997), Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows: A Guide
for Social Scientists, Routledge, London.
Buttle, F. (1996), SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-32.
Carmen, J.M. (1990), Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL
dimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, Spring, pp. 33-5.
Chonko, L.B. and Hunt, S.D. (1985), Ethics and marketing management: an empirical
examination, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, August, pp. 339-50.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
De Vaus, D.A. (1996), Surveys in Social Research, 4th ed., UCL Press Ltd, London.
Diamantopoulos, A. (2005), The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing:
a comment, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Edwards, C.N. (1969), Cultural values and role decisions: a study of educated women, Journal of
Counselling Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 36-40.
Engelland, B.T., Alford, B.L. and Taylor, R.D. (2001), Cautions and precautions on the use of
borrowed scales in marketing research, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society
for Marketing Advances, New Orleans, LA, 6-10 November, pp. 152-3.
Fick, G.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991), Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism
industry, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, Autumn, pp. 2-9.
Finn, A. and Kayanda, U. (2005), How fine is C-OAR-SE? A generalizabiliity theory perspective
on Rossiters procedure, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 11-21.
Flynn, L.R. and Pearcey, D. (2001), Four subtle sins in scale development: some suggestions for
strengthening the current paradigm, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 43
No. 4, pp. 409-23.

Scales in services
marketing
research
649

EJM
43,5/6

650

Ford, J.W., Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1993), Service quality in higher education: a comparison of
universities in the United States and New Zealand using SERVQUAL, unpublished
manuscript, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 1, January, pp. 6-21.
Green, P.E., Tull, D.S. and Albaum, G. (1998), Research for Marketing Decisions, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Johns, N. (1993), Quality management in the hospitality industry. Part 3: recent developments,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 10-15.
Kalafatis, S.P., Sarpong, S. Jr and Sharif, K.J. (2005), An examination of the stability of
operationalisations of multi-item marketing scales, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 255-66.
Lee, N. and Hooley, G. (2005), The evolution of classical mythology within marketing measure
development, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 3/4, pp. 365-85.
McMullan, R. and Gilmore, A. (2003), The conceptual development of customer loyalty
measurement: a proposed scale, Journal of Target, Measurement and Analysis in
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 230-43.
Mittal, B. and Lee, M.S. (1989), Separating brand choice involvement from product involvement
via consumer involvement profiles, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 43-9.
Morgan, D.L. (1988), Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Oliver, R. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., New York, NY.
Oskamp, S. (1991), Attitudes and Opinions, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for further research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1991), Understanding customer expectations of
service, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 39-48.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluations and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Peter, P.J. (1979), Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, January, pp. 6-17.
Rajecki, D.J. (1990), Attitudes, 2nd ed., Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Raju, P.S. (1980), Optimal satisfaction level: its relationship to personality, demographics and
exploratory behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 272-82.
Reichheld, F. (2003), The one number you need to grow, Harvard Business Review, December,
pp. 46-54.
Rigotti, S. and Pitt, L. (1992), SERVQUAL as a measuring instrument for service provider gaps
in business schools, Management Research News, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 9-17.
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (1991), Criteria for scale selection and
evaluation, in Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds), Measures of
Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, The Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
pp. 1-15.
Rossiter, J.R. (2002), The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305-35.

Rotter, J.B. (1966), Generalised expectation for internal versus external control of
reinforcement, Psychological Monograph, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Rouffaer, B. (1991), In search of service: the G.O.S. model, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 313-21.
Rust, R.T., Keiningham, T.L. and Zahorik, A.J. (1996), Service Marketing, Harper Collins College
Publishers, New York, NY.
Selah, F. and Ryan, C. (1992), Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using the
SERVQUAL model, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 324-43.
Stewart, D.W. (1993), New books in review: Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures
for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research and Marketing Scales Handbook:
A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures, Journal of Marketing Research, November,
pp. 525-35.
Taylor, S.A. and Baker, T.L. (1994), An assessment of the relationship between service quality
and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase intentions, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 163-78.
Taylor, S.A. and Cronin, J. (1994), An empirical assessment of the SERVPERF scale, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, Fall, pp. 52-69.
Tull, D.S. and Hawkins, D.I. (1990), Marketing Research: Measurement and Method, Macmillan
Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Further reading
Freeman, K.D. and Dart, J. (1993), Measuring the perceived quality of professional business
services, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 27-47.
About the authors
Audrey Gilmore is Professor of Services Marketing at the University of Ulster. Her teaching and
research interests are in service marketing and management, SME marketing, management
competencies and networking and qualitative research methodologies. She is on the review
boards of leading academic journals in the UK, Europe, and USA. Currently she is the Ireland
Regional Chair of the Academy of Marketing and on the Academy of Marketing Research
Committee. Audrey Gilmore is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
AJ.Gilmore@ulster.ac.uk
Rosalind McMullan is a marketing consultant at Coves Consulting, following an academic
career at Auburn University (USA). Her research interests include customer loyalty
measurement, services marketing and management. She has published previously in a
number of academic journals including the Journal of Services Marketing, the Journal of Strategic
Marketing and the Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Scales in services
marketing
research
651