Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206

Assessing the Self-service Technology Encounters: Development and

Validation of SSTQUAL Scale
Jiun-Sheng Chris Lin a,∗ , Pei-Ling Hsieh b
a
Department of International Business, National Taiwan University, 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei 10617, Taiwan
b Department of Marketing Management, Takming University of Science and Technology, 56, Sec. 1, Huanshan Rd., Taipei 11451, Taiwan

Abstract
Self-service technologies (SSTs) have enhanced the role technology plays in customer interactions with firms, yet instruments that systemati-
cally measure the service quality of SSTs from the perspective of customers remain underdeveloped. Based on psychometric scale development
approaches, this study conceptualized, constructed, refined, and tested a multiple-item scale that examined key factors influencing SST service
quality. Through qualitative and quantitative studies in four separate phases, a 20-item seven-dimension SSTQUAL scale was developed that
includes functionality, enjoyment, security, assurance, design, convenience, and customization. The scale demonstrates sound psychometric prop-
erties based on findings from various reliability and validity tests as well as vigorous scale replications across industries and consumer traits using
several different samples. The utility of the proposed scale is discussed for implications, limitations and future research.
© 2011 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-service technology; Service quality; Scale development; Validation

Introduction
Consumers’ experiences with service firms range from
full service delivered by service personnel to self-service co-
produced by customers. Rising labor costs have encouraged
companies to explore more self-service options that allow
customers to perform services for themselves. Information tech-
nology advancement has further enhanced self-service delivery
and revolutionized the service landscape, allowing companies
to use a variety of self-service technologies (SSTs) that increase
customer participation. From bank transactions to supermar-
ket self-checkouts, service providers are now employing a wide
range of SSTs that engage customers in service co-production
electronically in lieu of interaction with service employees.
SSTs are “technological interfaces that enable customers
to produce a service independent of direct service employee
involvement” (Meuter et al. 2000, p. 50). The types of SSTs
currently employed by firms include kiosks, Internet, interac-
tive voice response, and mobile services (Castro, Atkinson, and
Ezell 2010; Meuter et al. 2000; NCR 2008, 2009). As con-
sumers have grown more comfortable using technology in recent
∗ the doctor’s office, and receive information via mobile devices.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 3366 9732; fax: +886 2 3366 9732.
E-mail address: jlin@management.ntu.edu.tw (J.-S.C. Lin).
years, the demand for SSTs has risen tremendously (NCR 2009).
Prior research indicates that, through customer involvement in
service co-production, SSTs can lower labor costs, enhance
efficiency, improve productivity, and increase corporate perfor-
mance (Bitner, Zeithaml, and Gremler 2010; Dabholkar 1996).
Customers enjoy services with increased independence and free-
dom from time/space constraints through more channels (Meuter
et al. 2000; Oliver, Livermore, and Farag 2009). Within the con-
text of technological innovation, such customer co-production
and value co-creation through SSTs are expected to become a
key criterion for long-term business success (Bolton, Grewal,
and Levy 2007).
With the growth of multi-channel marketing (Grewal and
Levy 2009), companies are providing a combination of SST
channels for seamless customer service delivery (NCR 2008,
2009; Retail Merchandiser 2009). For example, airline cus-
tomers can reserve and pay for tickets online, check-in through
the Internet or mobile phones, pick up boarding passes at airport
kiosks, and receive flight updates on mobile devices. Banks offer
services through Internet, interactive phone systems, ATMs,
and mobile channels. Healthcare providers enable patients to
schedule appointments and fill out paper work online, check
in and validate insurance information via portable tablets in
Consumers have valued the ability of service providers to offer

0022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2011 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.02.006
 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206
multiple SST channels for anywhere/anytime convenience
(NCR 2008). Nevertheless, existing technology-based service
quality measurement research is limited solely to the Internet.
Instruments that systematically measure service quality of SSTs
as a whole still remain underdeveloped (Verhoef et al. 2009). As
the integrated SSTs differ in the mode of communication from
traditional human-interaction-based and virtual-Internet-based
services (Hoffman 2003; Murphy 2008; Sousa and Voss
2006), a strong need, therefore, exists for both researchers and
practitioners to examine customer expectations of SST service
quality in the emerging context. This study aims to fill this
important research gap by developing a psychometrically sound
instrument, SSTQUAL, for customer–technology interaction
based service quality measurement across contexts. To enhance
generalizability, we further replicated the scale across industries
and consumer traits.
In the remainder of this paper, we first discuss theoretical
background of technology-based service quality. Second, we
present a qualitative investigation that produces an initial pool
of scale items. Third, the scale is refined through substantive
and empirical considerations, increasing confidence in the factor
structure. Fourth, we present various reliability and validity tests
as well as replications across industries and consumer traits with
new samples. This article concludes with a discussion of the
implications and applications of the scale.
Conceptual background
The role of SSTs in service delivery can be traced back
to early research on self-service emphasizing the significant
advantages of customer co-production (Chase 1978; Lovelock
and Young 1979; Mills, Chase, and Margulies 1983). Cus-
tomers take a participative role as co-producers, contribute
to the process of service delivery, and become an important
source in service production (Bitner, Zeithaml, and Gremler
2010). Self-service delivery has been enhanced by technology,
namely SSTs (Meuter et al. 2000), empowering customers to
co-produce services and co-create value electronically (Bitner,
Zeithaml, and Gremler 2010). While the seamless integration
of multiple SSTs becomes a major trend in service delivery
(NCR 2009), appropriate measurement of SST service quality
remains underdeveloped. Although SERVQUAL (Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Berry 1988) serves as a global template for ser-
vice quality measurement in the customer–employee interaction
context, research has indicated that the customer evaluation
process of new technologies significantly differs from tra-
ditional customer–employee interactions (e.g., Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Malhotra 2005). Given this new context, con-
ventional measures of service quality need to be redeveloped in
a customer–technology interaction context (Wolfinbarger and
Gilly 2003). Currently, no instrument adequately captures the
service quality of SSTs. A number of studies have empirically
developed scales to measure service quality of Internet/website
services, yet these measures are Internet specific (see Table 1),
which is insufficient and inappropriate for the current trend
toward integrated SSTs. The limited scope of application (web-
site and online shopping) and the resulting context-specificity
195
significantly reduce the utility and generalizability of these
scales for SST contexts. Consequently, there is an urgent need to
develop a scale that systematically and psychometrically mea-
sures the quality of SSTs, serving as a measurement foundation
for customer–technology interaction based service settings, as
SERVQUAL does for human interplay. Academic research in
different fields has attempted to identify criteria customers use in
evaluating technology-based services. On the basis of a synthesis
of existing literature, these criteria are reviewed as follows.
Consumers are predisposed to technologies perceived as
trouble-free (Davis 1989) and of low complexity (Stevenson,
Bruner, and Kumar 2000). An easy-to-understand-and-operate
service is attractive to customers (van Dolen, Dabholkar, and
de Ruyter 2007), while enhancing commitment (Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, and Malhotra 2002). Customers feel comfortable
with technology that is easy to use, which in turn improves
perceptions of SSTs (Kim and Stoel 2004). It is also true that
customers expect SSTs to deliver services instantaneously and
respond to inquiries promptly, reducing service time (Yang
and Jun 2002). Accordingly, responsiveness is a critical issue
for consumers using IT services (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and
Malhotra 2005). Quick service delivery and prompt response
enhance customers’ perceived service quality toward SSTs
(Dabholkar 1996). On the other hand, new technological ser-
vices often raise fears of malfunctions (Davis 1989). Thus,
reliability, driven by the SSTs’ correct functioning and accurate
service delivery, has been cited as important in technology-based
service quality (Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2003). When SSTs per-
form reliably, appraisal of service quality improves (Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, and Malhotra 2002).
Intrinsic motivation plays a key role in technology usage
(Montoya-Weiss, Voss, and Grewal 2003), indicating enjoy-
ment is a crucial characteristic of IT service quality (Chen,
Clifford, and Wells 2002). Such motivation enhances customer
perceptions of service quality (Dabholkar 1996) through enter-
tainment/pleasure as well as perceived control of the SST
co-production experience (Auh et al. 2007; Bendapudi and
Leone 2003). Similarly, state-of-the-art technology and design
help to execute and fulfill a firm’s promise to its customers
(Licata, Weber, and Reed 1998). Attractive design and layout
reflect the tangible aspects of SSTs (Zeithaml, Parasuraman,
and Malhotra 2002), creating aesthetic and ergonomic val-
ues for customers and enhancing quality perceptions (Creusen
and Schoormans 2005; Mathwick, Wagner, and Unni 2010;
Schmidt, Liu, and Sridharan 2009; Windharto, Setiawan, and
Prabowo 2008). Moreover, consumer decisions to use SSTs
are often influenced by assurances (Kovar, Burke, and Kovar
2000) derived from firm reputation and competence (Trocchia
and Janda 2003). Such confidence and trust in a firm has been
found to be a major driver of SST evaluation (Kim and Stoel
2004).
Customers value issues that speak to their personal concerns
when using SSTs. Security and privacy are considered critical
to technology-based service evaluation (Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
and Malhotra 2005), serving as an inhibitor to SST usage (Lee
and Turban 2001). Perceptions of risk and uncertainty negatively
impact customers’ attitudes and evaluations of SSTs (Pan and
196 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206
Table 1
Dimensions and contexts of previous studies on Internet service quality.
Study Scope of application
Yoo and Donthu (2001) (SITEQUAL) Shopping Site
Lociacono, Watson, and Goodhue (2002) (WebQual) Website
Janda, Trocchia, and Gwinner (2002) (IRSQ) Online shopping
Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) (eTailQ) Online shopping
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra (2005) (E-S-QUAL) Online shopping
Collier and Bienstock (2006) Online shopping
Cristobal, Flavián, and Guinalíu (2007) (PeSQ) Internet service
Current study Self-service technologies
Zinkhan 2006b; Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2003). Likewise, cus-
tomization is regarded as one of the major benefits of SSTs
(Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Malhotra 2002) because of its
ability to recognize customer needs and tailor service options
through customer co-production (Auh et al. 2007; Ganesh et al.
2010; Mathwick, Wagner, and Unni 2010; Srinivasan, Anderson,
and Ponnavolu 2002). Service customization through SSTs leads
to a better customer-service match, signaling higher service
quality (Ostrom and Iacobucci 1995). Lastly, customers seek
anywhere/anytime convenience when using SSTs (Ganesh et al.
2010; Kwon and Lennon 2009; Murphy 2008). Accessibility of
SSTs, from all types of facilities and devices at convenient times
and locations, is emphasized as a key indicator of SST service
quality (Childers et al. 2001; NCR 2008; Yang, Peterson, and
Cai 2003).
Scale development
Based on the above literature, we apply the psychometric
procedure for scale development advanced by marketing, orga-
nization, and psychology scholars (e.g., Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips
1991; Churchill 1979; Hinkin 1998). Five data collection rounds
were completed, with four separate phases of scale development
described as follows.
Phase 1: item generation
Potential items were originally developed based on two
sources: research literature and in-depth interviews. The liter-
ature served as a theoretical foundation. At the same time, we
undertook six focus groups of SST consumers. Cooperating with
a marketing research firm, we first conducted in-depth inter-
views with three groups of consumers (27 participants in total).
The sample was reasonably diverse in terms of gender, age and
background. Participants were asked to think about their usage
of SSTs in general, why/where/when they use SSTs, what types
used, any benefits received, what makes a great/enjoyable or
difficult experience, satisfaction with SSTs, and factors impor-
tant in evaluating SST service quality (Dagger, Sweeney, and
Johnson 2007; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985, 1988;
Wolfinbarger and Gilly 2003). For example, the following types
of questions were asked: “In your opinion, what makes a great
SST service?”, “What is the result of your experience with the
Dimensions
Ease of use, Aesthetic design, Processing speed, Security
Usefulness, Ease of use, Entertainment, Complementary relationship
Performance, Access, Security, Sensation, Information
Web site design, Fulfillment/reliability, Security/privacy, Customer
service
Efficiency, System availability, Fulfillment, Privacy
Privacy, Design, Information, Accuracy, Ease of use, Functionality
Customer service, Web design, Assurance, Order management
Functionality, Enjoyment, Security/Privacy, Assurance, Design,
Convenience, Customization
firm’s SSTs?”, “How satisfied you are with the firm’s SSTs and
why?”, “What are the major strengths and weakness of the firm’s
SSTs?”, and “Can you tell me about any very positive or neg-
ative experiences you have had with the firm’s SSTs?”. The
interviewers then probed in depth by asking follow-up ques-
tions further discussing service quality perception issues with
participants. For instance, we asked respondents to identify
favorable/unfavorable factors that are important in evaluating
SST service quality, to state the rationale for choosing these
factors, and to rank the factors according to importance. Three
additional focus groups of consumers (30 in total) were con-
ducted to capture a wider variety of viewpoints, increasing the
probability of producing valid measures (Churchill 1979) (see
Appendix A for sample characteristics). An initial set of 75 items
was generated.
Items were next reviewed by six expert judges (with PhDs
in service/SST related areas) to reduce the initial item pool and
ensure face/content validity, in a procedure similar to those of
Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Burton (1990) and Zaichkowsky
(1985). Expert judges were exposed to individual items and
asked to rate each item as “clearly representative,” “somewhat
representative,” or “not representative.” Only items rated clearly
or somewhat representative by at least 80 percent of the judges
were retained. Items were then evaluated several times in an
iterative process based on feedback from these expert judges. A
final set of 37 items were retained. Three additional subject mat-
ter experts (SMEs) in the service/e-commerce area reviewed and
commented on the items to increase familiarity of item word-
ing (Hinkin 1998). Care was taken to ensure that each item was
short, simple, and addressed a single issue.
Phase 2: scale refinement
A questionnaire with the 37 SST service quality items was
constructed and distributed to students in several state universi-
ties. The final sample contained 862 respondents. Participants
included 58.7 percent women and 41.3 percent men, rang-
ing in age from 17 to 56 (see Appendix A for industry and
SST usage details). Principal components analysis with vari-
max rotation was performed on the initial 37 items, employing
a factor weight of .40 as the minimum cutoff (Hinkin 1995).
Any item exhibiting cross-loading over .30 was also dropped
(Hair et al. 1998). Items with low item-to-total correlations
 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206 197

Table 2
EFA/CFA results and final SSTQUAL scale.
Dimension Itemsa Final label EFA item Final CFA Squared multiple
loadings item loadings correlation

D1 I can get my service done with the firm’s SST in a Functionality .72 .73 .53
short time.b (FUN1)
The firm’s SST responds to requests quickly. .75
The firm’s SST provides me real-time .66
comprehensive information needed to complete the
service.
The service process of the firm’s SST is clear.b .74 .73 .53
(FUN2)
The firm’s SST has a clear and easy to follow .75
operational flow among functions.
The operation system of the firm’s SST is simple .79
and easy to understand.
Using the firm’s SST requires little effort.b .79 .83 .68
(FUN3)
I can get my service done smoothly with the .79 .81 .66
firm’s SSTs.b (FUN4)
The firm’s SST performs correctly the first time. .76
Each service item/function of the SST is .67 .70 .49
error-free.b (FUN5)
D2 The operation of the firm’s SST is interesting.b Enjoyment .75 .80 .64
(ENJ1)
I feel good being able to use the SSTs.b (ENJ2) .72 .79 .62
The firm’s SST has interesting additional .73 .80 .64
functions.b (ENJ3)
The firm’s SST provides me with all relevant .70 .65 .42
information.b (ENJ4)
D3 My personal information is treated confidentially. Security/privacy .88
I feel secure supplying relevant information when .89
using the SSTs.
I feel safe in my transactions with the firm’s .85 .75 .57
SST.b (SEC1)
A clear privacy policy is stated when I use the .63 .84 .70
firm’s SST.b (SEC2)
D4 The firm providing the SST is well-known.b Assurance .80 .83 .68
(ASU1)
The firm providing the SST has a good .76 .95 .90
reputation.b (ASU2)
D5 The layout of the firm’s SST is aesthetically Design .65 .86 .73
appealing.b (DES1)
The firm’s SST appears to use up-to-date .67 .85 .72
technology.b (DES2)
D6 The SST has operating hours convenient to Convenience .75 .78 .60
customers.b (CON1)
It is easy and convenient to reach the firm’s SST.b .77 .81 .65
(CON2)
D7 The firm’s SST understands my specific needs.b Customization .75 .82 .68
(CUS1)
The firm’s SST has my best interests at heart.b .78 .88 .78
(CUS2)
The firm’s SST has features that are personalized .73 .78 .61
for me.b (CUS3)
a Scaling from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a seven point scale.
b 20 items in bold compose the final SSTQUAL scale.

were next eliminated. This process resulted in ten items being
dropped. As shown in Table 2, seven dimensions (D1 –D7 ) were
generated. The average pairwise correlation among the seven
factors, following varimax rotation, was .38. This relatively low
correlation, along with the relatively high factor loadings, sug-
gests SST service quality has seven fairly unique facets. The
reliability coefficients (range from .81 to .93) indicated good
internal consistency among items. The combined reliability for
the 27-item scale (Nunnally 1978) was quite high (.95). The
seven factors accounted for 67.52 percent of the variance in
the items, and the item-to-total correlations ranged from .43 to
.67 (above the .4 value suggested by Hair et al. 1998). The 27
item remained within a seven-factor solution used for further
testing.
198 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206
Confirmatory factor analyses
Scale refinement procedures depend on a repetition of CFAs
to improve the psychometric measurement properties of the scale
(Arnold and Reynolds 2003). A 27-item, seven-dimension con-
firmatory factor model was estimated using LISREL XIII and
resulted in a significant chi-square value (χ2 (303) = 1,975.53,
p < .00), and RMSEA, GFI, AGFI, NFI, and CFI values of .080,
.85, .82, .89, and .90, respectively. The CFA results revealed
some fit indices below acceptable thresholds. We inspected the
modification indices (MIs) and defined five items as candidates
for removal. Each item was then inspected for domain rep-
resentativeness (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). For example,
the candidate item for removal is, “The SST system responds
to requests quickly.” which taps into the “timeliness” facet as
the retained item, “I can get my service done with the firm’s
SST in a short time.” The other four candidate items exhib-
ited similar facet characteristics, therefore, facet representation
is ensured and the five items are removed from further con-
sideration. This process was repeated one more time, resulting
in the final confirmatory model containing 20 items with an
excellent overall fit (χ2 (149) = 535.61, p < .00, RMSEA = .055,
GFI = .94, AGFI = .92, NFI = .94, CFI = .96). All MIs were low,
and squared multiple correlations (SMCs) ranged from .42 to
.90. A final seven-dimension, 20-item SSTQUAL scale was
determined (see Table 2). After examining the content of the
final items making up the SSTQUAL’s seven dimensions, we
suggested the following labels: functionality, enjoyment, secu-
rity/privacy, assurance, design, convenience, and customization.
Functionality represents the functional characteristics of SSTs,
including responsiveness, reliability, and ease of use. Enjoy-
ment describes perceptions of enjoyment encountered during
SST delivery and outcome. Security/privacy depicts perceived
safety from intrusion, fraud, and loss of personal information.
Assurance portrays confidence due to the reputation and compe-
tence of the SST provider. Design stands for the overall design
of the SST service system, while Convenience depicts accessi-
bility of SST services. Customization demonstrates the degree
to which an SST can be altered to fit individual customer prefer-
ences and transaction histories. These seven dimensions capture
all the factors discussed in the conceptual background section.
The combined reliability for the 20-item, seven-dimension scale,
was quite high (.91), and the coefficient alphas for the subscales
were all above .70, indicating high internal consistency.
Phase 3: scale validation
A questionnaire was constructed that include the 20
SSTQUAL items and service outcome variables. Customers
from industries offering SSTs were randomly selected at service
sites based on a sampling schedule that employed random
timeframes. Respondents were evenly divided (Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Berry 1988) among several industries (see
Appendix A) to represent a broad cross-section of industry
context (NCR 2008). The sample included 376 respondents
(55.90 percent female, with an overall age range from 18 to
52), excluding incompletes. Respondents evaluated the SSTs
offered by the firm.
Convergent, discriminant and nomological validity
Several methods were applied to assess the proposed scale’s
construct validity. We first performed a CFA (χ2 (149) = 296.16,
p < .00; RMSEA = .051, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, NFI = .93,
CFI = .96). All coefficient alphas surpassed the .70 level. Con-
vergent validity was assessed by reviewing t-tests for the factor
loadings (greater than twice their standard error) (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). All factor loadings surpassed this requirement.
In addition, the average variances extracted (AVEs) in the seven
dimensions were all above the .50 level suggested by Bagozzi,
Yi, and Phillips (1991), indicating high levels of convergence
among the items in measuring their respective constructs. We
then followed Homburg and Rudolph (2001) to examine the
association between the SSTQUAL scale and a single factor
measured by one item of overall SST service quality with a sec-
ond order factor measurement model (Byrne 1994; Yang et al.
2005). The SMC for the structural equation is .63, indicating
more than half of the variance in the overall SST service quality
is explained. The fit of this second-order model of SSTQUAL is
acceptable (χ2 (180) = 393.16, p < .00; RMSEA = .056, GFI = .91,
AGFI = .88, NFI = .91, CFI = .95), and all factors loadings are
significant (see Fig. 1), further supporting the hypothesized
structure and convergent validity of the scale.
To assess discriminant validity, we first compare each pair
of constructs using a chi-square test between measures allow-
ing phi (Φ) to vary and then constraining Φ correlation to
unity (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). In this case, the chi-square
for the unconstrained model was significantly lower than the
constrained model, providing evidence of discriminant validity
between the constructs in the model. Next, we tested whether
the correlation for each pair of constructs was significantly less
than one (Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994) by examining the con-
fidence interval of each correlation estimate. The exclusion of
the value one in the confidence interval for each pairwise cor-
relation estimate (±2 standard errors) further indicated support
for discriminant validity. In addition, we compared the AVEs
with the squared phi correlations between the seven dimensions
of SSTQUAL (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Since the highest phi
square correlation (.46) was smaller than the AVEs (ranging
from .56 to .75), discriminant validity was reinforced.
We then examined the nomological validity by testing
the relationship between the seven dimensions of SSTQUAL
and a theoretically related variable, customers’ behavioral
intention. Many studies have offered both theoretical jus-
tification and empirical evidence in support of the service
quality-behavioral intention link (e.g., Cronin, Brady, and Hult
2000; Pan and Zinkhan 2006a). Similarly, research regarding
technology-based services has also indicated service quality
is significantly related to behavioral intentions (e.g., Janda,
Trocchia, and Gwinner 2002). Customers’ behavioral intention
adopted from Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000) was regressed
on the seven dimensions using LISREL. This method indicates
the ability of our scale in helping to explain and predict
other dependent variables (Arnold and Reynolds 2003). Since
the scale consisted of seven dimensions, we aggregated the
scale to have seven indicators by averaging the measurement
items in each dimension. In the structural model, as shown
 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206 199

FUN1
a.b
.70

FUN2
.72

FUN3 .84 Functionality

.80

FUN4

.67
FUN5 .61

ENJ1
.78

ENJ2 .81
Enjoyment
.83
ENJ3 .57

.59
ENJ4

.78
SEC1
Security .72 Overall SST .80
/Privacy Y1
Service Quality
SEC2 .80
.64
ASU1 .81

Assurance

ASU2 .79
.93

DES1 .85

Design .43

DES2 .85

.82
CON11
.52
Convenience
a
CON2 Completely standardized solution
.84 b
All parameter estimates are
significant at the .0001 level.
CUS1 .81

.86
CUS2 Customization

CUS3 .82

Fig. 1. Causal Model relating SSTQUAL factors to overall service quality.

in Fig. 2, all loadings of these paths were significant, indi- behavioral intention (Pearson’s correlation of .77). Summariz-
cating good model fit (χ2 (30) = 68.91, p < .00; RMSEA = .059, ing the pattern of evidence, we concluded that the SSTQUAL
GFI = .96, AGFI = .94, NFI = .95, CFI = .98). The ratings on demonstrated criterion-related evidence of nomological
the SSTQUAL scale explain nearly 77 percent of customers’ validity.
200 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206
Functionality
ab
.60
Enjoyment
.55
Security
/Privacy .65
SST
.61
Assurance Service
Quality
Design .69
.45
Convenience
.48
Customization
Fig. 2. Model for nomological validity assessment.
Phase 4: replication and generalizability
To test the extent to which our measurement model is sta-
ble across industries and consumer traits, we replicated findings
with new samples in an attempt to reduce error due to capitaliza-
tion of chance (MacCallum, Roznowski, and Necowitz 1992).
A multi-part questionnaire was constructed that contained the
items of SSTQUAL, service outcome variables, and consumer
traits such as technology involvement (usage hours per day) and
technology readiness (TR). TR refers to people’s propensity to
embrace and use new technologies for accomplishing goals in
home life and at work (Parasuraman 2000). TR can be viewed
as an overall state of mind resulting from a gestalt of mental
enablers and inhibitors that collectively determine a person’s
predisposition toward technologies (Parasuraman 2000). The
36-item TR construct is based on four dimensions: optimism,
innovativeness, discomfort, and insecurity toward technology.
It has been suggested that TR influences consumers’ usage of
SSTs (Verhoef et al. 2009; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Malhotra
2002).
While we employed general and cross-industry samples in
Phases 2 and 3, we used both industry and firm-specific samples
in Phase 4 to assess SSTQUAL’s generalizability and applica-
bility to specific industries/firms (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and
Malhotra 2005; Walsh and Beatty 2007). Data from two indus-
tries were collected for this replication, including customers
of a large bank and transportation services. These two indus-
tries were chosen because of their extensive utilization and
customer acceptance of the four major types of SSTs in replac-
ing traditional channels (NCR 2008). Customers of a large
bank were randomly intercepted by research assistants in dif-
BI1
.73
Customers’
.77 .88
Behavior BI2
Intention
.81
BI3
a
Completely standardized solution
b
All parameter estimates are
significant at the .0001 level.
ferent branches. Timeframes, branch locations, and respondents
were randomly chosen. Similarly, customers from various trans-
portation industries were intercepted in different service sites,
including airports, train stations and subway stations. Respon-
dents were asked to evaluate their SST experiences with the firm.
The survey produced 600 usable responses (320 in banking ser-
vices, and 280 in transportation services), with 58.83 percent
female and ages from 18 to 68. We divided the sample into
two groups based on a mean split (high/low) of consumer traits
(Ragins, Cotton, and Miller 2000). For cross validations, a total
of seven splits were generated from the survey responses (see
Table 3), including industry, gender, technology involvement
(customer’s technology usage hours per day), and technology
readiness (TR): customer’s optimism, innovativeness, discom-
fort, and insecurity toward technology (Parasuraman 2000). The
four consumer TR traits were represented by averaged items in
each TR dimension.
Confirmatory factor analysis
The 20-item seven-dimension SSTQUAL model was esti-
mated by CFAs for all the sample splits. As shown in Table 3,
results indicated a good fit for all the splits. All coefficient alphas
surpassed the .70 level among items within individual scales, and
the combined reliabilities for the 20-item scale were quite high
in all models.
Convergent, discriminant and nomological validity
Results of t-tests for the factor loadings of the CFAs in all
the models surpassed the level of twice their standard error. The
AVEs in the seven dimensions were also above the acceptable
value. As shown in Table 3, associations between the SSTQUAL
 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206 201

Table 3
Results of cross validations.
Sample split Model χ2 (df) χ2 /df RMSEA NFI CFI GFI AGFI

Industry Banking (N = 320) CFA Model 307.94(149)* 2.07 .058 .91 .95 .91 .88
Second Order Model 441.57(180) * 2.45 .067 .89 .93 .88 .85
Nomological Validity Model 88.78(30) * 2.96 .078 .93 .96 .95 .90
Transportation (N = 280) CFA Model 331.99(149) * 2.23 .066 .91 .95 .89 .85
Second Order Model 420.61(180) * 2.34 .069 .89 .94 .87 .84
Nomological Validity Model 76.71(30) * 2.56 .075 .94 .96 .95 .90

Gender Male (N = 247) CFA Model 287.67(149) * 1.93 .062 .95 .98 .90 .85
Second Order Model 376.78(180) * 2.09 .067 .95 .97 .87 .84
Nomological Validity Model 71.23(30) * 2.37 .075 .96 .98 .95 .90
Female (N = 353) CFA Model 372.46(149) * 2.50 .065 .96 .98 .90 .87
Second Order Model 526.36(180) * 2.92 .074 .96 .97 .88 .84
Nomological Validity Model 77.20(30) * 2.57 .067 .97 .98 .96 .92

Technology involvement High (N = 276) CFA Model 276.85(149) * 1.86 .056 .96 .98 .91 .87
Second Order Model 401.03(180) * 2.23 .067 .95 .97 .88 .84
Nomological Validity Model 69.62(30) * 2.32 .069 .97 .98 .95 .91
Low (N = 324) CFA Model 366.78(149) * 2.46 .067 .96 .97 .90 .86
Second Order Model 470.37(180) * 2.61 .071 .95 .97 .88 .84
Nomological Validity Model 67.90(30) * 2.26 .063 .97 .98 .96 .93
TR
Optimism High (N = 313) CFA Model 301.13(149) * 2.02 .057 .95 .98 .91 .88
Second Order Model 415.88(180) * 2.31 .065 .95 .97 .89 .86
Nomological Validity Model 78.90(30) * 2.63 .072 .96 .98 .95 .91
Low (N = 287) CFA Model 331.58(149) * 2.23 .065 .95 .97 .90 .85
Second Order Model 458.29(180) * 2.55 .074 .94 .96 .87 .83
Nomological Validity Model 67.93(30) * 2.26 .066 .96 .98 .95 .92
Innovativeness High (N = 310) CFA Model 250.77(149) * 1.68 .047 .97 .98 .92 .89
Second Order Model 381.64(180) * 2.12 .060 .96 .98 .89 .86
Nomological Validity Model 74.86(30) * 2.50 .070 .97 .98 .95 .92
Low (N = 290) CFA Model 371.71(149) * 2.49 .072 .95 .97 .89 .84
Second Order Model 455.03(180) * 2.53 .073 .95 .97 .87 .83
Nomological Validity Model 59.86(30) * 2.00 .059 .97 .98 .96 .93
Discomfort High (N = 302) CFA Model 302.00(149) * 2.03 .058 .95 .97 .91 .87
Second Order Model 401.11(180) * 2.23 .064 .95 .97 .89 .86
Nomological Validity Model 64.33(30) * 2.14 .062 .97 .98 .96 .92
Low (N = 298) CFA Model 342.75(149) * 2.30 .066 .96 .98 .90 .85
Second Order Model 482.18(180) * 2.68 .075 .95 .97 .87 .83
Nomological Validity Model 100.65(30) * 3.36 .089 .96 .97 .94 .88
Insecurity High (N = 332) CFA Model 363.70(149) * 2.44 .066 .96 .97 .90 .86
Second Order Model 463.44(180) * 2.57 .069 .95 .97 .88 .85
Nomological Validity Model 51.30(30) * 1.71 .046 .98 .99 .97 .94
Low (N = 268) CFA Model 233.27(149) * 1.57 .046 .97 .99 .92 .89
Second Order Model 354.06(180) * 1.97 .060 .96 .98 .89 .86
Nomological Validity Model 77.02(30) * 2.57 .077 .96 .98 .95 .90
* p < .000.

scale and overall SST service quality in the second order model
were all high (SMCs above .54). Factor loadings were signif-
icant in all models, supporting the second order hypothesized
structure. All the tests provided evidence of convergent validity.
Cross-construct correlations were significantly less than 1.0
in all models (Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994). The confidence
interval for each pairwise correlation estimate (±2 standard
errors) did not include the value of one in each model. All the
AVEs exceeded the highest squared phi correlations between
the seven dimensions. Finally, a χ2 difference test, for all pairs
of factors in each model, resulted in a significant difference.
These tests all provided sufficient evidence of discriminant valid-
ity. Nomological validity of the scale was also supported in all
the structural models (see Table 3). All resulting model fits
were acceptable. All loadings of the paths were significant,
and the lowest Pearson’s correlation between SSTQUAL and
customers’ behavioral intention in all models was .69.
Discussion
While SSTs have diffused and evolved into multiple ser-
vice co-production channels, prior technology-based service
quality measures have focused solely on completely virtual
Internet/website settings. Informed by insights from the extant
literature across fields and in-depth interviews, this research set
out to conceptualize, construct, refine, and test a multiple-item
202 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206
scale SSTQUAL that can be used to measure service quality
delivered through SSTs across contexts in today’s environment.
Employing both inductive and deductive methods, this study
contributes theoretically to the service quality domain by devel-
oping a conceptual model that integrates existing theories with
empirical findings from the growing area of SSTs. Compared to
past studies, current results offer a more complete coverage and
understanding of the criteria customers use in evaluating SST
quality across industries and contexts.
The current study also contributes methodologically to exist-
ing service quality measurement research (see Table 4 for how
current results augment previous studies). By testing and validat-
ing our model with data from different samples through vigorous
psychometric scale development procedures and methodologies
in each phase, we provide solid empirical evidence that the devel-
oped scale is robust across contexts. In particular, this study
further contributes to scale development research by replicating
and validating the scale across industries and consumer traits
through samples of different characteristics, confirming stabil-
ity of the factor structure across various settings. To the best
of our knowledge, this research also represents the first study
performing replications across various consumer traits in ser-
vice quality scale development. Results show that SSTQUAL is
very stable across industries and consumer traits, demonstrating
strong generalizability.
Managerial implications
Delivery of high service quality is a primary source of
competitive advantage for service providers. As co-production
through SSTs has become an integral part of consumers’ every-
day lives, assessing SST service delivery is instrumental to
obtaining that competitive advantage. Distinct from previous
measures focusing on the Internet, SSTQUAL is a fundamen-
tal scale intended to obtain a global assessment of SST service
quality across contexts. Compared to the SERVQUAL scale
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988), which serves as a
foundation for various customer–employee interaction based
services, our customer–technology interaction based SSTQUAL
scale can be used as a substructure for SST service quality
measurement across contexts.
Our findings suggest that customers base their perception of
SST service quality on seven primary dimensions. SST providers
must be aware that the seven dimensions uncovered in this study
can serve as a guide to developing superior service quality that
aligns with customers’ needs and enhances customers’ behav-
ioral intentions, improving the firm’s competitive advantage.
Service providers can assess the effects of different dimensions
on service outcomes to better manage customer perceptions and
behaviors. Current results show that each dimension contributes
differentially to the variance in customers’ overall service qual-
ity perceptions and behavioral intention (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Consistent with Wolfinbarger and Gilly’s (2003) findings, it
appears that design is the most important facet of SSTQUAL.
Design has the strongest influence not only on customers’ over-
all quality perceptions, but also on behavioral intentions. After
design, security/privacy, assurance and functionality are also
critical contributors to customer perceptions. Similar results
were obtained from replications. The consistency of these results
underscores the need for service providers to place extra empha-
sis on these dimensions.
Since our scale has been generated from multiple samples
across contexts, it is well suited for service providers to make
comparisons across different SSTs and settings. Practitioners
can use SSTQUAL to conduct a comprehensive assessment of
SST service quality at the overall level or the dimension level,
depending on their information requirements. Such an analy-
sis allows evaluations of overall quality and dimension quality,
permitting managers to identify problem areas with their SSTs
and then concentrate resources on improving particular aspects
of service quality. SSTQUAL can be a very valuable longitu-
dinal diagnostic tool when employed to track a firm’s SSTs
over time. Periodic administration of the SSTQUAL survey is
an excellent method for tracking strengths/weakness and mea-
suring effects of modifications. For example, a firm can use
SSTQUAL to compare its current performance to past perfor-
mance or to benchmark across dimensions on a regular basis and
establish early warning systems that feed into resource allocation
decisions. Thresholds for remedial actions can be set when any
of these dimensions fall below an acceptable level. SSTQUAL
can also be utilized, quantitatively and qualitatively, to cate-
gorize a company’s customer segments and track/benchmark
performance of competitors, identifying a service provider’s
comparative strength/weakness. In addition, companies can fur-
ther enhance the diagnostic value of perceptual ratings by
comparing perceptual ratings with the two additional ratings of
customers’ minimum and expected/desired service levels. Such
results allow a better understanding of customer expectations
and pinpoint the specific areas where gaps exist. As consumer
desires and expectation change overtime, appropriate service
levels can be measured by further incorporating these two extra
ratings into tracking studies, periodically enhancing customer
expectation management.
Limitation and future research
As with any scale development research, some cautions must
be raised. While we have provided evidence that the scale
replicates well across industries and consumer traits, some con-
straints on this study should be noted. The first limitation comes
from sampling issues. Although we obtained samples from
diverse groups of respondents, our sample may not be truly ran-
dom across all SST users. Second, as with any factor analysis,
a certain amount of subjectivity is necessary in identifying and
labeling factors. Third, the degree of SST adoption may vary
across diffusion phases and within different markets. The ser-
vice elements derived in this study may change along with shifts
in user experience in different regions. Nonetheless, this con-
cern is reduced by the evidence of measurement stability across
consumers of different levels of technology readiness and usage.
Fourth, although service providers can deliver routine SST
services with little or no human contact, the dynamic of
customer-employee and -technology based service interac-
tions may still influence customers’ perceptions. This may be
Table 4
Methodological comparison with previous studies.
Study Phase 1: item generation
Current study
1. Literature review and synthesis
2. Consumer focus group/In-depth interviews
3. Face/Content Validity: Expert judges
4. Subject matter expert (SME) review
Phase 2: scale refinement
Sample: 862 students
1. Exploratory factor analysis
2. Item-to-total correlations
3. Reliability
4. Repeated confirmatory factor
analyses: MI inspections
Phase 3: scale validation
Sample: 376 customers
1. Confirmatory factor analysis
2. Reliability
3. Convergent validity: 3 methods
4. Discriminant validity: 3 methods
5. Nomological validity
Phase 4: replication
Sample: 600 customers
1. Cross-industries replication: across 2
industries
2. Cross-demographics replication: across
genders
3. Cross-consumer-traits replication: across
5 traits

Yoo and Donthu (2001) (SITEQUAL) Sample: 69 students Sample: 47 students None
1. Student interviews 1. Exploratory factor analysis 1. Reliability

J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206

2. Literature review 2. Confirmatory factor analysis
Lociacono, Watson, and Goodhue (2002) (WebQual) Sample: 510 students
1. Literature review 1. Reliability
2. In-depth interviews 2. Item-to-total correlations
3. Student judges Sample: 336 students
1. Exploratory factor analysis
2. Confirmatory factor analysis
2. Convergent validity: 2 methods
3. Discriminant validity: 1 method
4. Nomological validity
Sample: 307 students None
1. Confirmatory factor analysis
2. Reliability
3. Convergent validity: 1 method
4. Discriminant validity: 1 method
5. Nomological validity

Janda, Trocchia, and Gwinner (2002) (IRSQ) Sample: 446 Internet users
1. In-depth interviews 1. Reliability
2. Literature review 2. Confirmatory factor analysis
3. Expert judges 3. Item-to-total correlations
Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) (eTailQ) Sample: 1,013 online panel members
1. Consumer focus group 1. Exploratory factor analysis
2. Student judges 2. Confirmatory factor analyses across
groups
3. Hierarchical cluster analysis
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra (2005) (E-S-QUAL) Sample: 549 Internet users
1. Literature review 1. Item-to-total correlations
2. Student focus group 2. Repeated exploratory factor
analyses
3. Confirmatory factor analysis
Sample: Same as Phase 2 None
1. Convergent validity: 1 method
2. Discriminant validity: 1 method
3. Nomological validity
Sample: Same as Phase 2 None
1. Reliability
2. Convergent validity: 2 methods
3. Discriminant validity: 3 methods
4. Nomological validity
Sample: Same as Phase 2 Sample: 653 Internet users
1. Reliability 1. Cross-industries replication: across 2
industries
2. Convergent validity: 1 method
3. Discriminant validity: 1 method
4. Nomological validity

Collier and Bienstock (2006) Sample: 266 students Sample: 338 students None
1. Literature review 1. Exploratory factor analysis 1. Reliability
2. Reliability 2. Confirmatory factor analysis
3. Convergent validity: 1 method
4. Discriminant validity: 2 methods
5. Nomological validity
Cristobal, Flavián, and Guinalíu (2007) (PeSQ) Sample: 461 Internet users Sample: Same as Phase 2 None
1. Literature review 1. Exploratory factor analysis 1. Reliability
2. In-depth interviews 2. Confirmatory factor analysis 2. Convergent validity: 1 method
3. Expert judges 3. Discriminant validity: 3 methods
4. Pre-test 4. Nomological validity

203
204 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206

especially true for non-routine SST service assistance and recov- Sample 2: transportation services (n = 280)
ery that requires additional customer–employee interaction. SST Usage Proportion
Future research can further develop a comprehensive contin- Kiosk 47.3% Interactive voice response 12.2%
Internet 32.2% Mobile 8.3%
gency framework investigating the influence of such non-routine
issues, integrating both customer-employee and -technology a Industries denotes the focal industry a respondent selected for the inter-
interaction perspectives (Verhoef et al. 2009). Finally, this study view/survey.
b SST Usage Proportion denotes the proportion of respondents’ usage alloca-
offers a cross-sectional view. As SSTQUAL can be viewed as
tion (in percentage) among four major types of SSTs. Respondents evaluated
a continuous process in the maintenance of the marketing rela- the SSTs offered by a firm as a whole, while indicating the proportion of usage
tionship, future studies using a longitudinal framework may be among the four specific types of SSTs.
valuable and shed further light on the relative importance and
malleability of the seven dimensions of SSTQUAL over periods References
of time.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation Mod-
eling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,”
Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–23.
Arnold, Mark J. and Kristy E. Reynolds (2003), “Hedonic Shopping Motiva-
Acknowledgements
tions,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (2), 77–95.
Auh, Seigyoung, Simon J. Bell, Colin S. McLeod and Eric Shih (2007),
The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive assis- “Co-production and Customer Loyalty in Financial Services,” Journal of
tance and suggestions from William Mar, Wei-Lin Wang, and Retailing, 83 (3), 359–70.
Martin Dresner in North America as well as Cheng-Yu Lin, Bagozzi, Richard P. and Todd Heatherton (1994), “A General Approach to
Representing Multifaceted Personality Constructs: Application to State Self-
En-Yi Chou, Hsien-Yuan Kuo and Changya Hu in Taiwan. The
Esteem,” Structural Equation Modeling, 1 (1), 35–67.
authors also thank the three anonymous JR reviewers for their Bagozzi, Richard P., Youjae Yi and Lynn W. Phillips (1991), “Assessing
valuable comments and suggestions. Construct Validity in Organizational Research,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36 (3), 421–58.
Bendapudi, Neeli and Robert P. Leone (2003), “Psychological Implications of
Customer Participation in Co-Production,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (1),
Appendix A. Industry and SST usage characteristics of 14–28.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Dwayne D. Gremler (2010), “Tech-
samples in each phase nology’s Impact on the Gaps Model of Service Quality,” in Handbook of
Service Science, Maglio Paul P., Kieliszewski Cheryl A. and Spohrer James
C., eds. New York: Springer, 197–218.
Phase 1 (n = 57) Bolton, Ruth N., Dhruv Grewal and Michael Levy (2007), “Six Strategies for
Industriesa Competing through Service: An Agenda for Future Research,” Journal of
Financial services 29.8% Cinemas 7.0% Retailing, 83 (1), 1–4.
Transportation services 24.6% Hotels 5.3% Byrne, Barbara M. (1994), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and
Grocery stores 15.8% Other industries 7.0% EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Thousand
Health care providers 10.5% Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
SST Usage Proportionb Castro, Daniel, Robert Atkinson and Stephen Ezell (2010), Embracing the
Kiosk 39.1% Interactive voice response 14.3% Self-Service Economy, Washington, DC: The Information Technology &
Internet 37.5% Mobile 9.1% Innovation Foundation.
Phase 2 (n = 862) Chase, Richard B. (1978), “Where Does the Customer Fit in a Service Opera-
Industries tion?,” Harvard Business Review, 56 (6), 137–42.
Financial services 36.8% Cinemas 9.2% Chen, Qimei, Sandra J. Clifford and William D. Wells (2002), “Attitude Toward
Transportation services 23.7% Hotels 3.2% the Site II: New Information,” Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (2),
Grocery stores 11.5% Other industries 6.8% 33–45.
Health care providers 8.8% Childers, Terry L., Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck and Stephen Carson (2001),
SST Usage Proportion “Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retail Shopping Behavior,”
Kiosk 38.7% Interactive voice response 12.8% Journal of Retailing, 77 (4), 511–35.
Internet 39.8% Mobile 8.7% Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Mea-
(3) Phase 3 (n = 376) sures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1),
Industries 64–73.
Banks 11.2% Grocery stores 11.2% Collier, Joel E. and Carol C. Bienstock (2006), “Measuring Service Quality in
Security firms 11.2% Health care providers 10.8% E-Retailing,” Journal of Service Research, 8 (3), 260–75.
Railway 11.2% Cinemas 11.2% Creusen, Marielle E.H. and Jan P.L. Schoormans (2005), “The Different Roles
Airlines 11.2% Hotels 10.8% of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Product Innovation
Rapid transit system 11.2% Management, 22 (1), 63–81.
SST Usage Proportion Cristobal, Eduard, Carlos Flavián and Miquel Guinalíu (2007), “Perceived E-
Kiosk 37.9% Interactive voice response 11.1% Service Quality (PeSQ): Measurement Validation and Effects on Consumer
Internet 41.2% Mobile 9.8% Satisfaction and Web Site Loyalty,” Managing Service Quality, 17 (3),
(4) Phase 4 (n = 600) 317–40.
Sample 1: financial services (n = 320) Cronin, J.Joseph Jr., Michael K. Brady and G.Tomas Hult (2000), “Assess-
SST Usage Proportion ing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer
Kiosk 42.1% Interactive voice response 14.2% Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments,” Journal of Retailing, 76
Internet 37.6% Mobile 6.1% (2), 193–216.
 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206
Dabholkar, Pratibha A (1996), “Consumer Evaluations of New Technology-
Based Self-Service Options: An Investigation of Alternative Models of
Service Quality,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (1),
29–51.
Dagger, Tracey S., Jillian C. Sweeney and Lester W. Johnson (2007), “A Hier-
archical Model of Health Service Quality,” Journal of Service Research, 10
(2), 123–42.
Davis, Fred D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and
User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3),
319–40.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.
Ganesh, Jaishankar, Kristy E. Reynolds, Michael Luckett and Nadia Pomirleanu
(2010), “Online Shopper Motivations, and e-Store Attributes: An Examina-
tion of Online Patronage Behavior and Shopper Typologies,” Journal of
Retailing, 86 (1), 106–15.
Grewal, Dhruv and Michael Levy (2009), “Emerging Issues in Retailing
Research,” Journal of Retailing, 85 (4), 522–6.
Hair, Joseph F, Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham and William C. Black
(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hinkin, Timothy R. (1995), “A Review of Scale Development Practices in the
Study of Organizations,” Journal of Management, 21 (5), 967–88.
(1998), “A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Mea-
sures for Use in Survey Questionnaires,” Organizational Research Methods,
1 (1), 104–21.
Hoffman, K.Douglas (2003), “Marketing + MIS = E-service,” Communications
of The ACM, 46 (6), 53–5.
Homburg, Christian and Bettina Rudolph (2001), “Customer Satisfaction in
Industrial Markets: Dimensional and Multiple Role Issues,” Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 52 (1), 15–33.
Janda, Swinda, Philip J. Trocchia and Kevin P. Gwinner (2002), “Consumer Per-
ceptions of Internet Retail Service Quality,” International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 13 (5), 412–33.
Kim, Soyoung and Leslie Stoel (2004), “Dimensional Hierarchy of Retail Web-
site Quality,” Information and Management, 41 (5), 619–34.
Kovar, Stacy E., Kimberly Gladden Burke and Brian R. Kovar (2000),
“Consumer Responses to the CPA WEBTRUST Assurance,” Journal of
Information Systems, 14 (1), 17–35.
Kwon, Wi-Suk and Sharron J. Lennon (2009), “Reciprocal Effects Between Mul-
tichannel Retailers’ Offline and Online Brand Images,” Journal of Retailing,
85 (3), 376–90.
Lee, Matthew K.O. and Efraim Turban (2001), “A Trust Model for Consumer
Internet Shopping,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6 (1),
75–91.
Licata, Jane W., John Michael Weber and Patricia Fleniken Reed (1998), “Satis-
faction Surveys: Staying on the Right Side of the Tracking,” Bank Marketing,
30 (12), 16–44.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer and Scot Burton (1990),
“Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An
Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective,” Journal of Marketing,
54 (3), 54–67.
Lociacono, Eleanor, Richard T. Watson and Dale Goodhue (2002),
“WebQualTM : A Web Site Quality Instrument,” in American Marketing
Association: Winter Marketing Educators’ Conference, 432–8.
Lovelock, Christopher H. and Robert F. Young (1979), “Look to Consumers to
Increase Productivity,” Harvard Business Review, 57 (3), 168–7.
MacCallum, Robert, Mary Roznowski and Lawrence B. Necowitz (1992),
“Model Modifications in Covariance Structure Analysis: The Prob-
lem of Capitalization on Chance,” Psychological Bulletin, 111 (3),
490–504.
Mathwick, Charla, Janet Wagner and Ramaprasad Unni (2010), “Computer-
Mediated Customization Tendency (CMCT) and the Adaptive e-Service
Experience,” Journal of Retailing, 86 (1), 11–2.
Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree and Mary Jo Bitner
(2000), “Self-Service Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction
with Technology-Based Service Encounters,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (3),
50–64.
205
Mills, Peter K., Richard B. Chase and Newton Margulies (1983), “Motivating
the Client/Employee System as a Service Production Strategy,” Academy of
Management Review, 8 (2), 301–10.
Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi M., Glenn B. Voss and Dhruv Grewal (2003), “Deter-
minants of Online Channel Use and Overall Satisfaction With a Relational,
Multichannel Service Provider,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 31 (4), 448–5.
Murphy, Samantha (2008), “The Self-Service Revolution,” Chain Store Age, 84
(6), 42–5.
NCR (2008), “The Self-service Revolution is Real,” in NCR 2008 Self-Service
Consumer Survey Duluth, GA: NCR Corporation.
(2009), “Are you Ready to Transform Your Customers’
Retail Experience?,” in NCR 2009 Self-Service Consumer Research Duluth,
GA: NCR Corporation.
Nunnally, Jurn C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, Jurn C. and Ira H. Bernstein (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, Dave, Celia Romm Livermore and Neveen Awad Farag (2009), “An
Explanatory Model of Self-Service on the Internet,” in Self-Service in the
Internet Age: Expectations and Experiences, Oliver David, Livermore Celia
Romm and Sudweeks Fay, eds. New York: Springer, 257–74.
Ostrom, Amy and Dawn Iacobucci (1995), “Consumer Trade-offs and the Eval-
uation of Services,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (1), 17–28.
Pan, Yue and George M. Zinkhan (2006a), “Determinants of Retail Patronage:
A Meta-analytical Perspective,” Journal of Retailing, 82 (3), 229–43.
and (2006b), “Exploring the
Impact of Online Privacy Disclosures on Consumer Trust,” Journal of Retail-
ing, 82 (4), 331–8.
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan (2000), “Technology Readiness Index (TRI):
A Multiple-item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technolo-
gies,” Journal of Service Research, 2 (4), 307–20.
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry
(1985), “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for
Future Research,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 41–50.
, and
(1988), “A Multiple-Item Scale For Measuring Consumer Perceptions of
Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12–40.
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Arvind Malhotra
(2005), “E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Ser-
vice Quality,” Journal of Service Research, 7 (3), 213–3.
Ragins, Belle Rose, John L. Cotton and Janice S. Miller (2000), “Marginal
Mentoring: The Effects of Type of Mentor, Quality of Relationship, and
Program Design on Work and Career Attitudes,” Academy of Management
Journal, 43 (6), 1177–94.
Retail Merchandiser (2009), “Retail-Based Kiosks,” 49 (1), 23–4.
Schmidt, Kristi E., Yili Liu and Srivatsan Sridharan (2009), “Webpage Aes-
thetics, Performance and Usability: Design Variables and Their Effects,”
Ergonomics, 52 (6), 631–43.
Sousa, Rui and Christopher A. Voss (2006), “Service Quality in Multichannel
Services Employing Virtual Channels,” Journal of Service Research, 8 (4),
356–71.
Srinivasan, Srini S., Rolph Anderson and Kishore Ponnavolu (2002), “Cus-
tomer Loyalty in E-Commerce: An Exploration of its Antecedents and
Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 78 (1), 41–50.
Stevenson, Julie S., Gordon C. Bruner II and Anand Kumar (2000), “Webpage
Background and Viewer Attitudes,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40
(1/2), 29–34.
Trocchia, Philip J. and Swinder Janda (2003), “How do Consumers Evaluate
Internet Retail Service Quality,” Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (3),
243–5.
van Dolen, Willemijn M., Pratibha A. Dabholkar and Ko de Ruyter (2007), “Sat-
isfaction with Online Commercial Group Chat: The Influence of Perceived
Technology Attributes, Chat Group Characteristics, and Advisor Communi-
cation Style,” Journal of Retailing, 83 (3), 339–58.
Verhoef, Peter C., Katherine N. Lemon, A. Parasuraman, Anne Roggeveen,
Michael Tsiros and Leonard A. Schlesinger (2009), “Customer Experience
Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies,” Journal of
Retailing, 85 (1), 31–4.
206 J.-S.C. Lin, P.-L. Hsieh / Journal of Retailing 87 (2, 2011) 194–206
Walsh, Gianfranco and Sharon E. Beatty (2007), “Customer-Based Corporate
Reputation of a Service Firm: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 127–43.
Windharto, Agus, Andri Setiawan and Stefanus Heru Prabowo (2008), “Mul-
timedia Kiosk Design for Public Service,” in Proceedings of the 9th
Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference,
2555–64.
Wolfinbarger, Mary and Mary C. Gilly (2003), “eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, Mea-
suring and Predicting Etail Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (3), 183–98.
Yang, Zhilin and Minjoon Jun (2002), “Consumer Perception of e-Service Qual-
ity: From Internet Purchaser and Non-Purchaser Perspectives,” Journal of
Business Strategies, 19 (1), 19–41.
Yang, Zhilin, Robin T. Peterson and Shaohan Cai (2003), “Services Quality
Dimensions of Internet Retailing: An Exploratory Analysis,” Journal of
Services Marketing, 17 (6/7), 685–98.
Yang, Zhilin, Shaohan Cai, Zheng Zhou and Nan Zhou (2005), “Development
and Validation of an Instrument to Measure User Perceived Service Quality
of Information Presenting Web Portals,” Information & Management, 42 (4),
575–89.
Yoo, Boonghee and Naveen Donthu (2001), “Developing a Scale to Measure the
Perceived Quality of an Internet Shopping Site (SITEQUAL),” Quarterly
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2 (1), 31–46.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341–52.
Zeithaml, Valarie A., Ananthanarayanan Parasuraman and Arvind Malhotra
(2002), “Service Quality Delivery Through Web Sites: A Critical Review
of Extant Knowledge,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30
(4), 362–75.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.