Journalof Foodservice Business Research

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/282424106
Assessment of Service Quality in the Fast-Food Restaurant
Article in Journal of Foodservice Business Research · August 2015

DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2015.1068673
CITATIONS READS
38 17,139
2 authors:
Hung-Che Wu Zurinawati Mohi

Nanfang College of Sun Yat-sen University, China Universiti Teknologi MARA
89 PUBLICATIONS 1,806 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Food festival View project
Interactive Knowledge Experience: Encouraging Student Using Quick Response Code In Higher Learning Institution In Malaysia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Zurinawati Mohi on 20 February 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Macau Library]
On: 18 August 2015, At: 18:38
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Journal of Foodservice Business

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfbr20
Assessment of Service Quality in the

Fast-Food Restaurant
a b
Hung-Che Wu & Zurinawati Mohi
a
Department of Economics and Business Management, Nanfang
College of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province,
China
b
Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management, Universiti Teknologi
MARA, Kampus Puncak Alam, Cawangan Selangor, Malaysia
Published online: 18 Aug 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Hung-Che Wu & Zurinawati Mohi (2015) Assessment of Service Quality
in the Fast-Food Restaurant, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 18:4, 358-388, DOI:
10.1080/15378020.2015.1068673
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2015.1068673
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Macau Library] at 18:38 18 August 2015
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 18:358–388, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-8020 print/1537-8039 online
DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2015.1068673
Assessment of Service Quality in the Fast-Food

Restaurant
HUNG-CHE WU
Department of Economics and Business Management, Nanfang College of Sun
Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
ZURINAWATI MOHI
Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kampus
Puncak Alam, Cawangan Selangor, Malaysia
The purpose of this study is to enhance an understanding of service

quality in fast-food restaurants by developing a conceptual frame-
work and measurement scale. Based on an extensive literature
review, qualitative and empirical research, a multi-dimensional
and hierarchical model of service quality for the fast-food restau-
rant is proposed. Data were collected from 571 students through
self-administrated questionnaires. Exploratory factor analysis and
structural equation modeling were used to analyze the reliabil-
ity and validity of the data. This study extends restaurant service
quality literature by providing a psychometrically sound concep-
tual framework and measurement scale. The findings of this study
help fast-food restaurants formulate and implement effective mar-
keting management strategies to cope with the keen competition in
the restaurant industry as well as to boost their profit margins.
KEYWORDS service quality, service quality dimensions, fast-food

restaurant, multi-dimensional and hierarchical model
INTRODUCTION
In Taiwan, McDonald’s restaurant was the first Western fast-food restau-

rant (FFR) and established in 1984. Since then, McDonald’s restaurant has
Address correspondence to Hung-Che Wu, Department of Economics and Business

Management, Nanfang College of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 882 Wenquan Road, Wenquan
Town, Conghua District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510970, China. E-mail: wuhungche
66@gmail.com
358
Service Quality in the Fast-Food Restaurant 359
become the largest restaurant in the fast-food market in Taiwan (Huang

& Smith, 2010). Almost 99% of customers choose to dine out once every
month. Western FFRs are the best choice in Taiwan, and they target the mar-
ket on young people as a way of expanding fast (Huang & Smith, 2010).
Fast food is referred to as a general term for a limited menu and special-
izes in food such as burgers, pizzas, chicken, or sandwiches that lead itself
to the production-line technique (Bender & Bender, 1993; Davies & Smith,
2004). According to Chang (2009), service quality has been considered to
be an essential marketing strategy and the subject of studies conducted in
various service-related industries including FFRs (Chang, 2009). Saleh and
Ryan (1991) identify service quality as a vital strategy for the success of
restaurants and repeat business based on a customer-oriented view rather
than a restaurateur-oriented one. Service quality is often used to measure

the restaurant the patron’s perception of service experiences because of the
intangible nature of services (including employee–restaurant patrons’ inter-
action and employee–employees’ interaction) and incorporates with tangible
dimensions (e.g., food and restaurant ambience; Keith & Simmers, 2011; Ryu
& Han, 2010). The appropriate combination of both tangible and intangible
dimensions may affect the patron’s perception of service quality, which in
turn, results in attaining customer satisfaction and favorable behavioral inten-
tion in the restaurant industry (Mohi, Wu, & Wong, 2013; Ryu & Han, 2010).
It is important not only to understand how customers evaluate the
integrated service process, but also to identify the critical primary and subdi-
mensions with which to measure integrated service quality in the restaurant
industry. To define and measure the quality of service is important to restau-
rant service providers (Madanoglu, 2004). The existing measurement of
service quality through the SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, DINESERV, TANGSERV,
and DINESCAPE scales is insufficiently comprehensive to capture the ser-
vice quality construct in FFRs (Fu & Parks, 2001; Jain & Gupta, 2004; Johns
& Tyas, 1996; Kim, McCahon, & Miller, 2003; Namkung & Jang, 2007; Ryu,
2005; Ryu & Jang, 2008; Sulek & Hensley, 2004; Tucci & Talaga, 2000). These
scales commonly stress service interaction and service environment rather
than service outcome (Hwang & Ok, 2013). It is, therefore, important to
re-examine the dimensions of service quality within the restaurant sector.
Several researchers suggest that service quality should be based on a multi-
dimensional and hierarchical concept (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Clemes, Brush,
& Collins 2011a; Clemes, Gan, & Kao, 2007; Clemes, Gan, & Ren, 2011b;
Clemes, Wu, Hu, & Gan, 2009; Dabholkar, Thorpe, & Rentz, 1996; Wu, 2014;
Wu & Hsu, 2012; Wu & Ko, 2013; Wu & Li, 2015; Wu, Lin, & Hsu, 2011).
To date, with the exception of the study conducted by Brady and Cronin
(2001), few studies focus on conceptualizing service quality in FFRs using a
multi-dimensional and hierarchical model. Accordingly, in light of the gaps
associated with the aforementioned scales, the purpose of this study is to
validate service quality using a multi-dimensional and hierarchical model of
360 H. C. Wu and Z. Mohi
service quality in FFRs based on the customer’s perception in order to help

FFRs in Taiwan to increase their competitiveness and market share.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Bitner and Hubbert (1994) define service quality as “the customer’s over-
all impression of the relative inferiority and superiority of the organization
and its services” (p. 77). Grönroos (1984) maintains that the customer per-
ception of service quality should be measured based on a comparison
between expected service and perceived service, namely, the outcome of
a comparative evaluation process. Holbrook and Corfman (1985) note that
service quality is a highly subjective and relativistic phenomenon in terms of

customers’ points of view.
According to Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1988), SERVQUAL
has been considered as the instrument of service quality, which is widely
accepted in a variety of industries. In general, this instrument is designed
to measure the gap between what customers expect from a service orga-
nization and their perceptions of the service provided. However, despite
the popularity of SERVQUAL, this instrument has been highly criticized
(Babakus & Boller, 1992; Bolton & Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Chen, Gupta,
& Rom, 1994; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). A majority of studies on hospital-
ity disciplines, including the FFR areas, have paid attention to identifying
the dimensions of service quality and found that existing measurements
of service quality have been insufficiently comprehensive to capture the
service quality dimensions in the restaurant industry. One of the most
commonly cited instruments of service quality is SERVQUAL and its five
dimensions developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988). In the hospitality lit-
erature, numerous studies adapting the SERVQUAL instrument to measure
the patrons’ overall service quality experiences in the restaurant industry
fail to confirm the five dimensions of this instrument (Fu & Parks, 2001;
Tucci & Talaga, 2000). Furthermore, Fu and Parks (2001) adapt SERVQUAL
by adding two items used to measure elderly diners’ perceptions of food
quality. The authors’ findings factor only three dimensions. Of the five
dimensions of SERVQUAL, only the tangibles dimension remains in their
study. Reliability and responsiveness are merged into the second dimension
(reliability–responsiveness) while assurance and empathy are combined into
the third dimension (assurance–empathy).
Owing to the criticisms and disagreements with regards to the
SERVQUAL model, Cronin and Taylor (1992) develop a performance-based
model called SERVPERF to measure service quality. This instrument has
been identified as one of the important variants of SERVQUAL. Empirically,
SERVPERF represents a marked improvement over SERVQUAL and receives
support from numerous studies (Babakus & Boller, 1992; Bolton & Drew,
1991; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982). In nature, SERVPERF is also an instru-

ment which has been extensively used in different fields. However, this
instrument cannot adequately assist restaurants in generating satisfactory
services related to decisions since the dimensionality of service quality
depends on the type of service offered (Babakus & Boller, 1992). In addi-
tion, SERVPERF continues to suffer from its generic weakness of directing
managerial attention to such service areas which are not at all deficient in
the customer’s perception although the inclusion of weights improves the
diagnostic ability of this instrument in FFRs (Jain & Gupta, 2004).
In addition to SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, numerous studies (Raajpoot,
2002; Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008; Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995) in the hos-
pitality discipline have presented the instruments of service quality such as
DINESERV, TANGSERV, and DINESCAPE for the restaurant industry. These

instruments, however, have been considered to be inappropriate for mea-
suring overall service quality perceived by the patrons in the restaurant
industry (Johns & Tyas, 1996; Kim et al., 2003; Namkung & Jang, 2007;
Sulek & Hensley, 2004; Tucci & Talaga, 2000). For example, Stevens et al.
(1995) propose that DINESERV adapted from SERVQUAL is used to assess
the customer perception of service quality in the restaurant industry. Similar
to SERVQUAL, DINESERV consists of its five dimensions: tangibles, reliabil-
ity, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Stevens et al. (1995) maintain
that DINESERV is a reliable and relatively simple tool for determining how
customers view the quality of a restaurant. A number of researchers in the
restaurant discipline (Bougoure & Neu, 2010; Keang & Bougoure, 2006; Kim
et al., 2003; Estepa, Shanklin, & Back, 2004) adapt DINESERV to measure
service quality. However, DINESERV demonstrates problems which are sim-
ilar to SERVQUAL (Kim et al., 2003; Sulek & Hensley, 2004; Tucci & Talaga,
2000). The five dimensions of SERVQUAL and its operationalization have
been addressed by several researchers (Babakus & Boller, 1992; Carman,
1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Like SERVQUAL, DINESERV is also a gap
theory model as it compares a service quality expectation index to a ser-
vice quality perception index using 29 paired items. However, Sulek and
Hensley (2004) maintain that DINESERV is too long, containing no questions
assessing the overall quality of the dining experience. Although DINESERV
includes some items to measure the atmospherics quality, this instrument
misses the factor of food quality, which is one of the most important fac-
tors when assessing overall customer experience in the restaurant industry
(Kivela, Inbakaran, & Reece, 1999; Raajpoot, 2002). On the other hand,
Raajpoot (2002) develops TANGSERV, including a measurement of the tan-
gible and social elements of dining experience. The TANGSERV instrument
consists of three dimensions: layout and design, product and service, and
ambience and social. However, TANGSERV incorporates only crowding in
its final scale. In addition, Ryu and Jang (2008) argue that the findings of
TANGSERV are not acceptable or reliable because of its unclear methodology
and questionable statistical analyses that cloud the findings. Ryu (2005)
indicates that the unclear methodology of TANGSERV clouds the results of
Raajpoot’s study. In responding to the unclear methodology and question-
able statistical analyses of the TANGSERV instrument, Ryu and Jang (2008)
propose the DINESCAPE instrument. DINESCAPE is used to measure service
quality in the upscale restaurant. This instrument is the combination of the
built environment and servicescapes (developed by Bitner, 1992) with the
man-made physical and human surroundings only inside the dining room
areas but not in the nondining internal environment (e.g., restrooms and
waiting areas) and external environment (e.g., parking and external building
design). DINESCAPE identifies six factors (i.e., facility aesthetics, ambience,
lighting, table settings, layout, and service staff). The statistical analyses show
that DINESCAPE has been considered to be reliable and valid instrument.

However, the DINESCAPE items only captured the man-made physical sur-
roundings inside the dining area of the upscale restaurant. The scale does
not consider the external environment (e.g., ample parking) or some other
aspects of the internal environment (e.g., restrooms; Ryu, 2005).
Several studies have identified that the existing measurement scales
(e.g., SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, DINESERV, TANGSERV, and DINESCAPE) are
insufficient to capture the assessment of service quality in the restaurant
industry (Fu & Parks, 2001; Jain & Gupta, 2004; Johns & Tyas, 1996; Kim
et al., 2003; Namkung & Jang, 2007; Ryu, 2005; Ryu & Jang, 2008; Sulek &
Hensley, 2004; Tucci & Talaga, 2000). Furthermore, these scales only con-
sider only process quality attributes, rather than service outcome (Baker &
Lamb, 1993; Hwang & Ok, 2013). It is, therefore, important to re-examine the
dimensions of service quality within the restaurant segment. Recently, several
researchers suggest that service quality is multi-dimensional and hierarchical
in nature (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Clemes et al., 2007; 2009, 2011a, 2011b;
Dabholkar et al., 1996; Ko & Pastore, 2005; Wu, 2013; Wu & Cheng, 2013;
Wu, Cheng, & Hsu, 2014a; Wu & Hsu, 2012; Wu & Ko, 2013; Wu et al., 2011;
Wu, Wong, & Cheng, 2014b). Accordingly, in light of the gaps associated
with the aforementioned scales, the purpose of this study is to present and
empirically test a multi-dimensional and hierarchical model that incorporates
the specific characteristics of the restaurant industry.
Proposed Factor Structure for FFRs

Combining the findings of this study from qualitative research (i.e., focus
group interviews) and an extensive literature review on services for FFRs,
a multi-dimensional and hierarchical model of service quality for FFRs is
developed (see Figure 1) based on several aspects of Brady and Cronin’s
(2001) and Dabholkar et al.’s (1996) work. Service quality is the global
dimension consisting of three primary dimensions suggested by Brady and
Cronin (2001): interaction quality (IQ), physical environment quality (PEQ),
FIGURE 1 A proposed multi-dimensional and hierarchical model of service quality.
and outcome quality (OQ), indicating that each primary dimension has its
own subdimensions. The primary and subdimensions are explained in detail
below.
The first primary dimension is IQ. Grönroos (1982) and Leblanc (1992)
indicate the importance of IQ in the delivery of services and identify this pri-
mary dimension as the most significant impact on service quality perceptions.
Accordingly, IQ is composed of four subdimensions: attitude, behavior, prob-
lem solving, and expertise. First of all, attitude refers to an employee’s traits
(e.g., friendliness and helpfulness) (Clemes et al., 2009; Czepiel, Solomon,
Suprenant, & Gutman, 1985). Kuo (2007) indicates that attitude plays a vital
role in customer satisfaction because there is a close interaction between cus-
tomers and employees in the service industry. Second, behavior is referred
to as the manifest function that influences the customer perception of IQ
(Clemes et al., 2009; Czepiel et al., 1985). To have an understanding of
the customer’s perception of service providers’ behavior has been identified
as added-value information for the owners or managers of an organiza-
tion who can assist them in designing suitable policies and procedures
for their customers and employees (Keung, 2000). Third, problem solving
focuses on the ability of the employee to handle patrons’ problems and com-
plaints (Dabholkar et al., 1996; Mohi, 2012). Westbrook (1981) maintains that
customers are quite sensitive to how service providers deal with their prob-
lems and complaints. Finally, expertise has been identified as the degree
to which the interaction is affected by the employee’s task-oriented skills
(Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990; Czepiel et al., 1985). Crosby et al. (1990)
have found that expertise has a direct influence on the patron’s overall
evaluation of service quality.
The second primary dimension is PEQ. PEQ has a broader definition
than SERVQUAL’s tangible dimension, which only refers to the physical
aspects of the service (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Rust & Oliver, 1994). PEQ
has been regarded as how effectively the service is transmitted from ser-
vice providers to patrons (Lu, Zhang, & Wang, 2009). PEQ is defined by
five subdimensions: ambience and aesthetics, dining equipment, restaurant
cleanliness, layout and design, and menu design. First of all, in terms of
the ambience and aesthetics as the first subdimension, ambience refers to
intangible background conditions (such as music, smells, and temperature)
sending to affect the nonvisual senses which may have a subconscious effect
on patrons (Baker, 1987; Bitner, 1992; Ryu, Han, & Pearlman, 1989). In addi-
tion, aesthetics embraces architectural design along with interior design and
décor, all of which contribute to the attractiveness of the dining environment
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). The second subdimension, dining equipment,
plays a key role in the restaurant industry (Markovic, Raspor, & Šegaric,
2010). The greater the degree of physical involvement by the customer in
the service process, the more likely dining equipment is to form an part of
the service experience (Sachdev & Verma, 2004). In general, dining equip-
ment varies from restaurant to restaurant. Therefore, dining equipment is
highly specialized and subjected to functional obsolescence as far as the
open market value is concerned (Elliott & Reed, 1999). Third, restaurant
cleanliness is particularly salient in the restaurant industry and perceived as
most critical in the evaluation of satisfaction (Alonso & O’Neill, 2010; Barber,
Goodman, & Goh, 2011). The fourth subdimension comprises of layout and
design (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Ryu & Jang, 2007). Layout and design rep-
resents the layout or architecture of the service facility of an organization,
including aesthetic (visually pleasing) and functional (practical) components
of the physical environment (Aubert-Gamet, 1997; Stevens et al., 1995). The
last subdimension reflects the importance of menu design. Color, typeface,
layout, picture, and other design elements can be used to create a menu that
draws the patron’s attention to the items that the restaurant attempts to sell
(Bowen & Morris, 1995; Lionel & Mills, 2006).
The OQ primary dimension focuses on the outcome of the service act,
indicating what customers gain from the service; in other words, whether
OQ satisfies patrons’ needs and wants (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994;
McDougall & Levesque, 1994; Powpaka, 1996). OQ comprises three sub-
dimensions: waiting time, food quality, and valence. Waiting time refers
to the ring as the length of time that customers spend waiting in line for
their services (Hornik, 1982; Katz, Larson, & Larson, 1991). When customers
enter a service system, they have, to some extent, expectations regarding

an acceptable waiting time that contributes to satisfaction (Taylor, 1994).
Therefore, the primary goal of management in a service organization is to
offer an acceptable level of customer satisfaction by ensuring that wait-
ing time is acceptable (Hwang & Lambert, 2008). Food quality has been
identified as a fundamental component in respect of restaurant patrons’ sat-
isfaction (Kim, Hertzman, & Hwang, 2010; Mohi, 2012; Namkung & Jang,
2007). Finally, valence takes into account patrons’ post-consumption assess-
ment of whether the service outcome is acceptable or unacceptable (Ko &
Pastore, 2005). Regardless of the patron evaluation of any other aspects of the
experience, valence mainly focuses on the attributes determining whether or
not customers can accept the service outcome (Brady & Cronin, 2001).
METHODOLOGY
Scale Development
In terms of the criticism of existing scales and conceptualization of service
quality mentioned earlier, this study adapts the hierarchical model to evaluate
the FFR service quality from a customer’s perspective and overcome some
of the weaknesses of the existing measures in order to provide a more valid
tool for assessing service quality (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Caro & Garcia, 2007;
Cronin & Taylor, 1994; Dabholkar et al., 1996).
The first step in developing a multi-dimensional and hierarchical scale
for this study is to develop a psychometric sound measure. Following
Churchill (1979), the measurement scales were obtained through the fol-
lowing procedures such as specifying the domain of the construct through
an extensive literature search and qualitative method, generation of scale
items and scale purification, and reliability and validity of the measurement.
Chumpitaz and Swaen (2002) indicate that the number and the nature of
service quality dimensions are in direct relation to the service under analy-
sis. Therefore, in order to identify the determining factors (subdimensions)
of the FFR service quality that patrons perceive, and to acquire additional
insights of the proposed factors, the focus group interviews were conducted
in this study. Krueger (1998) reports that a focus groups interview is fre-
quently used to design a questionnaire for a quantitative survey. In order
to obtain in-depth information, three focus group interviews (two interviews
consist of eight participants who had been to FFRs in Taiwan during the
past 12 months participating in this study, and one interview consists of
five restaurant managers who were selected from FFRs participating in this
research) were conducted. A period of 12 months was chosen to provide a
common time frame as well as to limit the time frame within the recall abil-
ity of most respondents (Singh, 1990). The participants in the focus groups
were males and females of mixed age, represented several occupations, and
had varying incomes, recruited using a convenience sample drawn from

the Taiwan population. Following Brady and Cronin (2001), the partici-
pants were encouraged to list all factors that influenced their perceptions
of the three primary dimensions according to their dining experience in
FFRs. In addition, the participants were required to consider the most influ-
ential subdimensions that consisted of each of the three primary dimensions.
In order to establish if any additional subdimensions should be included into
the research conceptual model and survey, the importance of subdimensions
that could not be listed under the primary dimensions was also discussed.
Finally, three primary dimensions and 12 subdimensions were identified.
Similar to several studies (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Dabholkar et al., 1996;
Huang & Smith, 2010), the price is eliminated from the list of investigated
factors as it is generally seen as a determinant of service value rather than

service quality.
In the second step, the subdimensions identified in the focus groups
were combined with a review of the relevant literature to identify vari-
ables, assist in item generation, and suggest the dimensionality of service
quality in the FFR industry. This procedure resulted in an initial pool of
70 service quality items, which represented indicators of each of the theoret-
ical subdimensions of three primary dimensions, and was then transformed
into prototype questionnaire. A 7-point Likert scale was applied to measure
the different anchored items, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (7). The purification of the scale was conducted using two steps: the
first step consisted of an assessment of content and face validity through a
panel of experts and a field test. The panel members comprised four exec-
utives (two managers and two supervisors) from FFRs and seven academics
(three assistant professors, three associate professors, and one post-doctoral
research fellow) from the department of hospitality management in the ter-
tiary education institution of Taiwan. They assessed the items on the basis
of their relevance and clarity of wording. Based on the suggestions, 15 items
were deemed to be unclear, irrelevant, or redundant and then were elim-
inated. In this step, this study developed a questionnaire including a total
of 55 items representing reflecting 12 proposed subdimensions (excluding
seven items measuring primary dimensions) of service quality in FFRs. This
questionnaire was pilot-tested with 70 respondents who had been to FFRs
in Taiwan. The purpose was to study the correlation structure of the items
of each subdimension. To accomplish this end, Cronbach’s alpha together
with item-to-total correlation for each of the subdimensions were achieved
(Parasuraman et al., 1988; Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1991).
DATA COLLECTION
The sample size determined in this study is based on two types of data
analysis techniques: an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural
equation modeling (SEM) analysis. Several researchers (Hair, Black, Babin,

& Anderson, 2010; Pallant, 2007) recommend a minimum sample size of
100 for conducting an EFA with at least five times as many observations as
the number of measured items to be analyzed and a more acceptable size
of 10 to 1 ratio. Therefore, after considering these recommendations, a min-
imum sample size of at least 275 respondents was appropriate. The ideal
sample size using SEM should be between 200 and 400 observations for
moderate complexity and maximum likelihood estimation (Tanaka, 1993).
The minimum sample size in this study was set as 475 usable questionnaires
accordingly. However, 580 questionnaires were distributed for the actual data
collection to guarantee at least 475 usable questionnaires after considering
that a 100% completion rate was highly unlikely (Hair et al., 2010).
Questionnaires using the convenience sampling method were dis-

tributed to 580 college students aged 18 years and older who had dined
at an FFR of one college of Taiwan between July 15 and September 15 2013.
The advantages of conducting convenience sampling in this study are that
(1) a large number of people can complete the questionnaire; (2) the data
collection can be conducted in a short time; (3) it is relatively inexpensive
and convenient; and (4) the respondents are often selected because they
happen to be in the right place at the right time (Malhotra, Hall, Shaw, &
Oppenheim, 2002; Zikmund, Ward, Lowe, & Winzar, 2007).
The college students were selected as subjects because of the ease
in accessing them, and because they frequently dine at FFRs and pos-
sess an intuitive understanding of service quality in FFRs (Qin & Prybutok,
2009; Qin, Prybutok, & Zhao, 2010). College students are the most expe-
rienced customers in Western fast-food franchises of Taiwan (Lin, 2005).
Although college students are not assumed to be representative of all FFR
customers in Taiwan, they represent an significant segment of the upper and
middle classes in Taiwan, which are the groups targeted by most corpora-
tions in foreign countries (Huang, 2003; Laroche, Ueltschy, Abe, Cleveland,
& Yannopoulos, 2004; Ueltschy, Laroche, Tamilia, & Yannopoulos, 2004).
Furthermore, the college students were selected as respondents because
they represented a large and growing number of customers spending bil-
lions of dollars in FFRs each year (Heidal et al., 2012). Furthermore, using
students as the respondents is consistent sample with previous studies on
FFRs (Bougoure & Neu, 2010; Knutson, 2000; Qin & Prybutok, 2008).
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In order to simplify the raw data which are required “to clean” prior to
further analysis, the data were initially subjected to various forms of pre-
liminary analysis such as missing values, normality of the distribution and
sample profiles (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2005; Pallant, 2007; Schumacker
& Lomax, 2004). The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 12.0 and
the Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) 4.0 were used to analyze the
data extracted from the questionnaires. Of those 580 college students, only
575 students (99.1%) returned the survey. However, the final sample con-
sisted of 571 responses (98.4%), as four responses were unusable, and,
therefore, removed from this study (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Thus, a total
of 571 usable questionnaires satisfied the preliminary screening requirement
greater than the minimum sample size of 475, which was considered to be
acceptable for the purposes of this study. Overall, as shown in Table 1,
42.6 and 57.4% the respondents were males and females, respectively. Most
of the respondents aged between 21 and 23 (45.7%). In addition, a major-
ity of respondents were single (92.8%), Taiwanese (89.8%), and Buddhist
(54.6%). Also, 93.5% of people graduated from college or university and

43.1% of them spent between US$13.01 and US$20.00 per meal in FFRs.
The data were randomly split into two sets in order to perform a two-
stage process of data analysis. The objectives of the data splitting procedure
were to validate the EFA results and then move to the SEM analysis (Hair
et al., 2010; Kline, 2005; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Therefore, each group
sample was required to meet a minimum size requirement. In the first stage
of data analysis, the first subsample data set was used to obtain a robust and
reliable factor structure using an EFA. An EFA is a common approach in mar-
keting research (e.g., Lu et al., 2009; Stewart, 1981). This approach is often
TABLE 1 Demographic Profile of Sample (N = 571)
Demographic
characteristic Option Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 243 42.6

Female 328 57.4
Age 18–20 197 34.5
21–23 261 45.7
24–26 50 8.8
27 and over 63 11.0
Marital status Single 530 92.8
Married 24 4.2
Other 17 3.0
Ethnic Taiwanese 513 89.8
Other 58 10.2
Religion Buddhist 312 54.6
Other 259 45.4
Education level College/university 534 93.5
Post-graduate school 37 6.5
Spending Less than US$6.00 10 1.8
Between US$6.01—US$13.00 144 25.2
Between US$13.01—US$20.00 246 43.1
Between US$20.01—US$27.00 102 17.9
US$27.01 or more 69 12.1
used in the early stages, as it offers a better understanding of the factors. This
approach is, therefore, considered to be appropriate analysis before SEM is
performed (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2005). As for the data analysis conducted
in the second stage, the second subsample data set was used to reassess
the EFA results using the SEM analysis to test the interrelationships among
constructs using the two-step approach: a measurement model (employing a
confirmatory factor analysis [CFA] to identify whether the measurement vari-
ables reliably reflected the proposed latent variables) and a structural model
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988a).
Measurement Development and Estimation

An EFA using the SPSS software was conducted to reduce data dimension-
ality and create appropriate factors or dimensions for subsequent analysis.
In order to extract the subdimensions of service quality, a principal compo-
nent analysis with the VARIMAX factor rotation was performed. The items
with a factor loading less than 0.50 and items with high loadings on more
than one factor were removed from the item pool (Hair et al., 2010; Pallant,
2007). Subsequently, four items were excluded from further analysis after
VARIMAX was conducted. Excluded items often refer to variables that may
play a less important or insignificant role in many service quality evalua-
tions. Those excluded items include comfortable waiting lounges, obviously
and easily following signage, convenient locations, and attractive and neat
table linens. The eigenvalues greater than one were considered significant in
this study (see Table 2), implying that the identified factors were positively
reliable; otherwise the identified factors should be ignored (Hair et al., 2010).
As suggested by researchers (Hair et al., 2010; Pallant, 2007), once the
final factors identified, the final factors were renamed according to the lead-
ing themes. The final 10 factors of the remaining 51 items were renamed as:
interpersonal interaction, problem-solving skill and professional skill (IQ—
Model 1), ambience and aesthetics, restaurant cleanliness, layout and design,
and menu design (PEQ—Model 2), dining experience, food quality and
menu variety (OQ—Model 3). The remaining items for these 10 subdi-
mensions were subjected to a reliability test (Cronbach, 1951; Hair et al.,
2010). As shown in Table 2, the level of internal consistency in each subdi-
mension was acceptable with the Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranging from
0.80 to 0.92, which exceeded 0.70 as the cut-off value, indicating the internal
consistency of the measured items (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
SEM
MEASUREMENT MODEL
To test the model fit, four measurement models (variables) using a CFA were
developed in this study: three measurement models for the subdimensions
TABLE 2 Results for Exploratory Factor Analysis
Item coding and Cronbach’s Standard

Constructs descriptions Factor loadings Eigen values alpha Means deviation
Model 1—interaction quality A1 Pleasant attitude 0.866 7.944 0.908 5.21 1.296
interpersonal interaction A2 Pleasant behavior 0.829 5.02 1.280
A3 Grooming and appearance 0.780 5.30 1.199
A4 Sympathetic and reassuring 0.705 4.81 1.233
A5 Handle special requests 0.634 4.84 1.245
Problem-solving skill A13 Empowered to handle problems and 0.858 1.314 0.883 4.67 1.269
complaints
A12 Capable of handling problems and 0.844 4.69 1.232
complaints
A14 Deliver superior services 0.723 4.92 1.254
A11 Sensitive to customers’ needs and wants 0.703 4.69 1.275
A15 Able to apologize to customers 0.503 4.95 1.328
370
Professional skill A9 Knowledgeable about products 0.797 1.052 0.839 5.26 1.181
A10 Able to answer questions 0.756 5.24 1.071
A8 Well trained and experienced 0.719 5.35 1.008
A7 Speak in a language that is 0.606 4.68 1.346
understandable
A6 Inform customers about something 0.564 4.91 1.320
unavailable that day
Model 2—physical B2 Wall painting 0.750 11.049 0.921 4.88 1.187
environment quality B5 Seating arrangement provided with 0.744 4.99 1.244
ambience and aesthetics adequate space
B1 Interior décor 0.727 4.97 1.174
B3 Comfortable dining tables 0.724 4.75 1.303
B4 Comfortable seats 0.720 4.99 1.243
B7 Dining room lighting 0.688 5.11 1.213
B6 Background music 0.686 4.89 1.318
B8 Dining room temperature 0.570 5.04 1.268
Restaurant cleanliness B20 Good quality and disposable ware 0.730 1.645 0.867 5.24 1.208
B21 Accessible pre-packed condiments 0.710 5.09 1.409
B22 Dining equipment hygienically handled 0.579 4.89 1.253
by employees
B24 Clean and attractive dining areas 0.545 4.95 1.379
B23 Clean and well maintained rest rooms 0.521 4.99 1.477
Layout and design B14 Parking spaces 0.780 1.087 0.803 4.12 1.646
B13 Attractive exterior 0.627 4.96 1.337
B11 Smoking and non-smoking sections 0.614 4.71 1.660
B9 Pleasant dining room aroma 0.535 4.90 1.288
Menu design B17 Easy to read menus 0.795 1.001 0.853 5.25 1.239
B18 Easily understood menus 0.790 5.11 1.305
B19 Menu written in a foreign language, 0.678 4.73 1.445
provide explanation
B16 Attractive menu reflecting the 0.550 5.00 1.225
restaurant’s theme, image and price
371
range
Model 3—outcome quality C12 Not waiting long to be seated 0.765 7.800 0.886 5.03 1.343
dining experience C11 Reasonable waiting time 0.728 4.90 1.339
C17 Not waiting longer time for services 0.707 4.96 1.172
than expected
C14 Customers believing that the restaurant 0.697 4.90 1.190
knows the type of experience its
customers want
C16 Employees serving customers at the 0.676 4.83 1.190
time they promises
C15 At the end of dining, customers feeling 0.656 4.87 1.176
that they receive and experience
what they want in their dining
(Continued)
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Item coding and Cronbach’s Standard

Constructs descriptions Factor loadings Eigen values alpha Means deviation
Food quality C7 Fresh and cooked properly food 0.806 1.447 0.887 4.96 1.315
C8 Attractive and tempting food 0.784 5.02 1.240
C9 Food meeting individual customer’s 0.745 4.93 1.297
need
372
C6 Hygienically prepared food 0.706 5.13 1.231
Menu variety C4 A wide selection of beverages 0.860 1.036 0.871 4.60 1.364
complementing the food served
C1 Not unique food available everywhere 0.744 4.59 1.385
C5 A wide choice of food and beverage 0.719 4.77 1.380
catering customers’ dietary needs
C3 Food unable to prepare at home 0.703 4.79 1.414
C2 A wide variety of menus 0.655 4.47 1.429
(first-order models) and one measurement model for primary dimensions

(second-order model). The AMOS outputs were used to examine the model-
fit indices (i.e., x 2 /df , goodness-of-fit index [GFI], root mean square residual
[RMR], root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA], normed fit index
[NFI], and comparative fit index [CFI]) and to identify better model fits for
these measurement models. The results of these four measurement models
determined how well the dimensions captured their specific variables in this
study.
In the preliminary measurement models, the results indicated that some
modifications are required to improve the model fit. Based on the results, two
items which had factor loadings lower than 0.50 were deleted from the mea-
surement models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988a; Hair et al., 2010; Janssens,
Wijnen, Pelsmacker, & Kenhove, 2008). In reviewing the modification indices

(MIs) and standardized residual covariances, three misspecification areas
having a substantially large MI value and residual value larger than the
2.58 threshold were identified and deleted (Janssens et al., 2008). Other
suggestions in the MIs were ignored because they were not supported by
a strong, substantive, and empirical rationale (Chinna, 2009; Hair et al.,
2010). Finally, there were 46 items retained through the measurement models
modification process.
Overall, a majority of model-fit indices were larger than the recom-
mended threshold values, indicating an acceptable fit to the data (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993; Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2005; Nokelainen, 2009; Schumacker
& Lomax, 2004; Zikmund, 2003). Therefore, the overall model-fit indices
of the four measurement models were found to be adequate, suggesting a
satisfactory fit to the data (see Table 3).
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE MEASUREMENT
The construct reliability and validity are verified using composite reliability
and average variance extracted (AVE; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988b). As shown
in Table 3, the composite reliability values exceeded 0.70, ensuring high
internal consistency of the measurement scales (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell
& Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). The AVE values for each construct (with
the marginal exception of layout and design at 0.43) exceeded 0.50 (Bagozzi
& Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This evidence supported the reliability
of each construct, which indicated that construct reliability was obtained and
the measurement items had high convergent validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988;
Chen, 2008; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Although the AVE value for layout and
design was below 0.50, it could be concluded that convergent validity was
satisfied (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988a; Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; John & Reve,
1982).
There was substantial evidence of convergent validity because the factor
loading estimates of all measured items were larger than 0.50 and statistically
TABLE 3 Measurement Scale Properties
Reliability and
validity of the
measurement
Standardized Average
factor Critical Composite variance
Constructs Items loadings ratios reliability extracted
Model 1—interaction quality A3 0.812 —a 0.910 0.772

interpersonal interaction A2 0.932 18.704∗∗∗
A1 0.888 17.740∗∗∗
Professionalism skill A6 0.773 —a 0.860 0.552
A7 0.739 12.506∗∗∗
A8 0.724 12.231∗∗∗
A10 0.763 11.086∗∗∗
12.050∗∗∗
A9 0.715
Problem-solving skill A12 0.855 —a 0.875 0.700
A14 0.781 15.219∗∗∗
A11 0.872 17.792∗∗∗
Model 2—physical B4 0.795 —a 0.925 0.608
environment quality B3 0.831 15.514∗∗∗
ambience and aesthetics B1 0.760 13.793∗∗∗
B5 0.782 18.585∗∗∗
B2 0.784 14.369∗∗∗
B7 0.786 14.423∗∗∗
B6 0.767 13.973∗∗∗
B8 0.730 13.136∗∗∗
Layout and design B14 0.627 —a 0.747 0.427
B13 0.750 10.109∗∗∗
B11 0.578 8.260∗∗∗
B9 0.646 9.030∗∗∗
Restaurant cleanliness B24 0.753 15.089∗∗∗ 0.855 0.543
B22 0.828 12.894∗∗∗
B21 0.721 11.288∗∗∗
B23 0.725 —a
B20 0.647 10.111∗∗∗
Menu design B18 0.768 14.320∗∗∗ 0.856 0.665
B19 0.835 15.963∗∗∗
B16 0.841 —a
Model 3—outcome quality C14 0.785 —a 0.884 0.560
dining experience C17 0.716 0.077∗∗∗
C11 0.725 0.084∗∗∗
C12 0.663 0.083∗∗∗
C16 0.755 0.070∗∗∗
C15 0.835 0.069∗∗∗
Food quality C9 0.847 0.091∗∗∗ 0.886 0.661
C7 0.794 0.067∗∗∗
C8 0.876 0.083∗∗∗
C6 0.726 —a
Menu variety C4 0.794 0.074∗∗∗ 0.837 0.512
C1 0.612 0.076∗∗∗
C5 0.772 0.072∗∗∗
C3 0.575 0.073∗∗∗
C2 0.791 —a
(Contined)
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Reliability and
validity of the
measurement
Standardized Average
factor Critical Composite variance
Constructs Items loadings ratios reliability extracted
Model 4—primary dimensions A16 0.972 —a 0.968 0.945

interaction quality A17 0.866 0.044∗
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.914
Physical environment quality B26 0.906 —a 0.869 0.764
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.877 B25 0.863 0.051∗
Outcome quality Cronbach’s C13 0.747 0.060∗∗ 0.838 0.634
alpha = 0.830 C19 0.885 —a
0.058∗
C18 0.748
Note. Statistically significant at ∗∗∗ p = .001, ∗∗ p = .05, ∗ p = .10.
a Not estimated when loading set to fixed value (i.e., 1.0).
significant at 0.001% level (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988a; Hair et al., 2010; John
& Reve, 1982). In this study, the factor loading estimates ranged between
0.58 and 0.93, and all of the items were, therefore, statistically significant at
0.001% level (see Table 3). This evidence supported the unidimensionality
of each scale, which revealed that convergent validity was obtained. The
significant relationship between the three dimensions (i.e., IQ, PEQ, and
OQ) and overall variable (i.e., service quality) further support the convergent
validity of the scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988a). Discriminant validity is
established when the correlation coefficients between the constructs are less
than 0.85 (Kline, 2005). The correlation estimates for all pairs in four models
were considered to be less than the recommended value (r ≤ 0.85), which
indicated the existence of discriminant validity. Therefore, the measurement
items of this study had a high degree of reliability and validity, as suggested
by several studies (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Chen, 2008; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
In summary, all conditions required for examining the convergent and
discriminant validities recommended by several researchers (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988a; Chinna, 2009; Kline, 2005; Nokelainen, 2009; Schumacker
& Lomax, 2004) were satisfactorily met. The modified measurement models
represented the best model fit for measuring the service quality structure with
the present data. Therefore, the model was used for the structural models.
Structural Model
In the next step, before examining the model-fit indices of the four struc-
tural models, it is essential to address the issue of model identification in
the hierarchical model or second-order factor because it is possible that the
second-order level may be a just-identified model or under-identified model
(Byrne, 2009). In addition, any structural models with an identification status

problem should be re-specified before further analysis is conducted; oth-
erwise, the analyses may be “fruitless” (Kline, 2005). Overall, in all four
structural models, the model identification was assessed and satisfied based
on the procedure known as the t-rule (Byrne, 2009).
Once the model identification status was satisfied, the model-fit indices
of the structural models were reviewed (see Table 4). The model-fit indices in
four structural models were equivalent to or greater than the recommended
threshold, indicating an acceptable fit to the data (Browne & Cudeck, 1993;
Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2005; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). As a consequence,
the overall fit of the structural model was found to be adequate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Perceived service quality is a complex construct that creates a large debate in

the scientific literature regarding its conceptualization and measurement. The
need to develop specific measurement tools for different services (Carman,
1990; Chumpitaz & Swaen, 2002) contradicts the proposal of universal-
ity of the dimensions provided by the SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, DINESERV,
TANGSERV, and DINESCAPE perspectives. The qualitative method used in
this study supports this view that customers make their judgments of service
quality on the basis of a series of factors that are specific to the evalu-
ated service. The concept of multi-dimensional and hierarchical structures
of service quality perceptions adopted for developing the measurement
instrument in this study has been confirmed by the empirical results. The
customers make their evaluations of the primary dimensions based on their
overall evaluations of the corresponding subdimensions. The combination
of all these constitutes a customer’s overall perception of service quality
(Brady & Cronin, 2001; Dabholkar et al., 1996). The measurement of per-
ceived service quality in FFRs has been made based on a third-order factor
structure, comprising three primary dimensions (IQ, PEQ, and OQ) and
10 specific subdimensions (interpersonal interaction, problem-solving skill,
professional skill, ambience and aesthetics, restaurant cleanliness, layout and
design, menu design, dining experience, food quality, and menu variety) in
a multi-dimensional through the measurement models modification process
hierarchical structure where the factors in the same level are highly corre-
lated to each other. In addition, the proposed scale of this study presents
high indices of correlation between constructs in each level. The correlation
between factors has been identified by Parasuraman et al. (1988, 1991) as
a key issue for future studies about the conceptualization of service qual-
ity. To the extent that the first-order factors include common variance, the
second-order factors capture the shared variance across factors, and the same
TABLE 4 Reliability of the Measurement Scale and Model-Fit-Index for Measurement and Structural Models
Model-fit index
Model Construct Two-types approach χ2 χ 2 RMR RMSEA GFI NFI CFI

df
1 Interaction quality
Interpersonal interaction Measurement model 98.806∗∗∗ 2.470 0.057 0.073 0.939 0.952 0.971
Problem-solving skill
Professional skill Structural model 98.809∗∗∗ 2.410 0.057 0.071 0.939 0.952 0.971
2 Physical environment quality
Ambience and aesthetics Measurement model 446.230∗∗∗ 2.789 0.077 0.080 0.962 0.912 0.923
Restaurant cleanliness
377
Layout and design
Menu design Structural model 477.696∗∗∗ 2.949 0.073 0.084 0.956 0.937 0.915
3 Outcome quality
Dining experience Measurement model 226.659∗∗∗ 2.667 0.074 0.077 0.998 0.915 0.945
Food quality
Menu variety Structural model 229.689∗∗∗ 2.671 0.076 0.077 0.921 0.914 0.944
4 Primary dimensions
Interaction quality Measurement model 32.034∗∗ 2.912 0.042 0.083 0.968 0.976 0.984
Physical environment quality
Outcome quality Structural model 32.964∗ 2.747 0.045 0.079 0.967 0.975 0.984
∗∗∗ p ∗∗ p 2

Note. χ 2 statistically significant at = .001, = .05, ∗ p = .10. χ df 1.00–5.00; RMR < 0.08; RMSEA 0.05–0.10 < 0.08; GFI > 0.90; NFI > 0.90; CFI > 0.90.
occur with the common variance of the second-order dimensions and the
third-order factor (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994).
The significant findings of this study contribute to the hospitality liter-
ature on FFRs in two ways. First, the proposed research model provides a
systematic understanding of the concept of service quality in FFRs. Second,
this study conceptualizes and measures the customer perception of service
quality in FFRs by adapting a hierarchical approach. This approach helps
to overcome some of the weaknesses of traditional measurement methods
(e.g., SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, DINESERV, TANGSERV, and DINESCAPE), and,
therefore, providing a more accurate method for assessing service quality
in the hospitality area especially in respect of FFRs. The Scale of Service
Quality in the Fast-Food Restaurants (SSQFFR) developed in this study can
provide marketers and researchers with a diagnostic tool to assess service

quality from the customer’s perspective and identify areas that require the
improvement during service delivery.
In terms of the theoretical implications, this study indicates that the pro-
posed research model adequately describes the concept of service quality in
FFRs. Specifically, the model-fit indices of the model are robust. All factor
loadings depicted in the research model are statistically significant. Some of
the 10 subdimensions identified in this study are similar in content to those
factored by other researchers who focus on restaurant studies (Madanoglu,
2004; Oyewole, 1999; Ryu & Jang, 2008; Wu, 2013). Those subdimensions
include interpersonal interaction, ambience and aesthetics, restaurant cleanli-
ness, layout and design, and menu variety. Conversely, the 10 subdimensions
differ in number from those in other restaurant studies (Chen, Cheng, & Hsu,
2015; Fu & Parks, 2001; Qin et al., 2010).
The subdimensional factor structure supports the view that the dimen-
sionality of the service quality construct depends on the service industry
under investigation and adds support to claims that industry and culturally
specific measures of service quality need to be developed to identify dif-
ferent dimensional structures (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Caro & Garcia, 2007,
2008; Clemes et al., 2009; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Powpaka, 1996). The signifi-
cant correlations between dimensions, theoretical interpretability and a good
fit of the model support the third-order factor structure of the proposed
model. The SSQFFR is developed to test the proposed model. The results
of measurement models indicate strong evidence of construct reliability and
convergent validity of the SSQFFR.
The results of this study increase support for the use of a multi-
dimensional and hierarchical structure to conceptualize and measure service
quality in the context of the restaurant industry which is consistent with the
previous studies in a variety of industries (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Clemes,
Cohen, & Wang, 2013; Clemes et al., 2007; 2011a; 2011b; Clemes, Shu, Gan,
2014, 2009; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Ko & Pastore, 2005; Oyewole, 2013; Wu,
2013; Wu & Cheng, 2013; Wu & Hsu, 2012; Wu & Ko, 2013; Wu et al., 2011,
2013). However, the three primary dimensions identified in this study may
not be general for all service industries outside the restaurant industry or for
different cultures. In addition, the primary dimensions identified in this study
should be confirmed for other service industries through the use of appropri-
ate qualitative and quantitative analyses. In addition, the subdimensions also
need to be confirmed using appropriate qualitative and quantitative analy-
ses because they may vary across industries and cultures. It is also valuable
to compare the derived importance of the three primary dimensions and
10 subdimensions of service quality identified in this study with the derived
importance of those dimensions identified in other studies. Overall, the find-
ings of this study have expanded the research of service quality by providing
a conceptual framework and measurement scale for FFRs.

This study provides several noteworthy managerial implications for
practitioners in FFRs. Management can use this framework and scale as
a diagnostic tool which identifies strengths and weaknesses in their ser-
vices and offers guidance regarding potential areas of improvement since
traditional scales of restaurant service quality (i.e., SERVQUAL, SERVPERF,
DINESERV, TANGSERV, and DINESCAPE) cannot be measured based on the
customer perception. However, because the dimensions of service quality
vary across different geographic regions and cultures, management should
note that the primary and subdimensional structures must be developed
based on their different geographic regions and cultures to accurately mea-
sure the customer perception of their experiences in FFRs. If the relative
importance of the service quality dimensions to customers is likely to vary
depending on different geographic regions and cultures, the resource alloca-
tion on different dimensions of service quality should be contingent on the
importance attached to them by customers. This argument is also supported
by Heskett, Sasser, and Hart (1990), who stress the importance of emphasiz-
ing psychographics in understanding service quality, that is, the way people
think, feel, and behave. The importance of the primary and subdimensions
of service quality in this study is confirmed by college students in Taiwan.
Owing to this, it still provides a good clue for management to strategically
allocate resources in order to achieve the delivery of better service quality to
customers. The instrument of service quality developed in this study can be
used to monitor and improve the quality of service delivered to customers.
Although this structure is developed in the context of FFR customers, it may
be of interest to a range of service providers who offer high involvement,
high-contact, and on-going services. In sum, the findings of this study pro-
vide managers or owners with valuable insights into the dimensions that
reflect the customer perception of service quality in FFRs, ascertaining the
quality of FFRs perceived by customers.
In summary, this study presents and examines a conceptual model of

service quality. This study confirms that the proposed multi-dimensional and
hierarchical framework is appropriate. This research also outlines the devel-
opment of SSQFFR based on a comprehensive description of possible facets
of service quality. The findings indicate that the SSQFFR is psychometrically
sound. Despite the aforementioned limitations, some valuable conclusions
should be made based on the present findings. As a whole, the proposed
conceptual model and developed scale can fill an existing gap in the liter-
ature on service quality in FFRs. Efforts to improve the quality of services
may help managers or owners of FFRs to remain competitive in the current
saturated hospitality market environment.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The findings of this study add to the body of knowledge about FFR-specific
quality factors and their similarities and differences to the previous studies
on service quality. However, this study is not without its limitations. First,
this study was limited to the sample of college students in FFRs of Taiwan.
Many FFRs have extended their business to the global market and the fac-
tors identified in this study are potentially inconsistent across cultures even
with college students. As a result, future studies should attempt to examine
service quality targeting different samples across different kinds and ratings
of restaurants in other regions with the possibility of comparative studies
involving other regions or countries. Second, in spite of the amount of lit-
erature on service quality, it has been difficult to offer a full description of
the nature of the service quality construct in FFRs. Despite this difficulty, this
study conducted in-depth focus group interviews to identify and examine all
of the dimensions of the service quality construct for FFRs, since focus group
interviews were believed to be more useful than relying only on a literature
review. However, there may be some other dimensions of service quality that
have not been identified in the conceptual framework of this study. Future
studies should focus on identifying additional factors significantly influencing
the customer perception of service quality that has not been identified in this
study. Third, few studies have examined the impact of the outcome dimen-
sion on perceptions of the service quality construct, despite suggestions that
the outcome is a significant driver of service quality perceptions (Brady &
Cronin, 2001; Caro & Garcia, 2007; 2008; Clemes et al., 2009; 2011a; 2011b;
Dabholkar & Overby, 2005; Powpaka, 1996; Wu & Cheng, 2013; Wu et al.,
2011; 2014b). Therefore, further research may be required to clarify the rela-
tionship between the outcome dimension and its relevant components and
to examine how the outcome dimension influences the service quality con-
struct in different service industries. Finally, this study did not analyze the
information from demographics sample profiles. In future research, it would
be advisable to incorporate the possible role of demographic differences

since restaurant patrons’ reactions to the service quality dimensions may
vary depending on their demographic characteristics.
REFERENCES
Alonso, A. D., & O’Neill, M. (2010). Small hospitality enterprises and local produce:
A case study. British Food Journal, 112(11), 1175–1189.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market
share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3),
53–66.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988a). Structural equation modeling in practice:

A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988b). An updated paradigm for scale develop-
ment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25(2), 186–193.
Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997). Twisting servicescapes: Diversion of the physical environ-
ment in a re-appropriation process. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 8(1), 26–41.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G. W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL
scale. Journal of Business Research, 24(3), 253–268.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing
multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 35–67.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Baker, J. A. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services: The consumer
perspective. In J. A. Czepiel, C. Congram, & J. Shanahan (Eds.), The service chal-
lenge: Integrating for competitive advantage (pp. 79–84). Chicago, IL: American
Marketing Association.
Baker, J. A., & Lamb, C. W. (1993). Measuring architectural design service quality.
Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 10(1), 89–106.
Barber, N., Goodman, R. J., & Goh, B. K. (2011). Restaurant consumers repeat
patronage: A service quality concern. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 30(2), 329–336.
Bender, A. E., & Bender, D. A. (1993). A dictionary of food and nutrition. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on
customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.
Bitner, M. J., & Hubbert, A. R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfac-
tion versus quality: The customer’s voice. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.),
Service quality, new directions in theory and practice (pp. 79–84). London, UK:
Sage.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments
of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375–384.
Bougoure, U. S., & Neu, M.-K. (2010). Service quality in the Malaysian fast food
industry: An examination using DINESERV. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(2),
194–212.
Bowen, J. T., & Morris, A. J. (1995). Menu design: Can menus sell? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(4), 4–9.
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing per-
ceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3),
34–49.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.
A. Bollen & S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the

SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33–55.
Caro, L. M., & Garcia, J. A. M. (2007). Measuring perceived service quality in urgent
transport service. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(1), 60–72.
Caro, L. M., & Garcia, J. A. M. (2008). Developing a multi-dimensional and hierarchi-
cal service quality model for the travel agency industry. Tourism Management,
29(4), 706–720.
Chang, D. Y. (2009). Service quality assessment of a chain steakhouse in Taiwan.
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(4), 255–278.
Chen, C. F. (2008). Investigating structural relationships between service quality, per-
ceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for air passengers: Evidence
from Taiwan. Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 42(4), 709–717.
Chen, C. T., Cheng, C. C., & Hsu, F. S. (2015). GRSERV scale: An effective tool for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality in green restaurants. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(3/4), 355–367.
Chen, I. J., Gupta, A., & Rom, W. (1994). A study of price and quality in service
operations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(2), 23–33.
Chinna, K. (2009). Structural equation modeling using AMOS. Paper presented
at lecture for AMOS workshop, University Technology MARA, Shah Alam,
Malaysia.
Chumpitaz, R., & Swaen, V. (2002). Service quality and brand loyalty relationships:
Investigating the mediating effect of customer satisfaction. Paper presented at
31st European Marketing Academy Conference, Braga, Portugal.
Churchill, G. A. J. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Churchill, G. A. J., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants
of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491–504.
Clemes, M. D., Brush, G. J., & Collins, M. J. (2011a). Analyzing the professional
sport experience: A hierarchical approach. Sport Management Review, 14(4),
370–388.
Clemes, M. D., Cohen, D. A., & Wang, Y. (2013). Understanding Chinese university
students’ experiences: An empirical analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, 25(3), 391–427.
Clemes, M. D., Gan, C., & Ren, M. (2011b). Synthesizing the effects of service
quality, value and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the motel
industry: An empirical analysis. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,

35(4), 530–568.
Clemes, M. D., Gan, C. E. C., & Kao, T. H. (2007). University student satisfaction: An
empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292–325.
Clemes, M. D., Shu, X., & Gan, C. (2014). Mobile communications: A comprehensive
hierarchical modeling approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
26(1), 114–146.
Clemes, M. D., Wu, J. H. C., Hu, B. D., & Gan, C. (2009). An empirical study of
behavioral intentions in the Taiwan hotel industry. Innovative Marketing, 5(3),
30–50.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Cronin, J. J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination
and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–69.

Cronin, J. J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of ser-
vice quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125–131.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services
selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3),
68–81.
Czepiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., Suprenant, C. F., & Gutman, E. Q. (1985). The ser-
vice encounters: Managing employee customer interaction in service business.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Dabholkar, P. A., & Overby, J. W. (2005). Linking process and outcome to service
quality and customer satisfaction evaluations: An investigation of real estate
agent service. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(1),
10–27.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality
for retail stores: Scales development and validation. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 24(1), 3–16.
Davies, G. J., & Smith, J. L. (2004). Fast food dietary perspective. Nutrition & Food
Science, 34(2), 80–82.
Elliott, P., & Reed, R. (1999). The valuation of fast-food outlets: Analysis, methodol-
ogy, and reliability. The Appraisal Journal, 67(4), 359–369.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
Fu, Y. Y., & Parks, S. C. (2001). The relationship between restaurant service qual-
ity and consumer loyalty among the elderly. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 25(3), 320–326.
Grönroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of
Marketing, 16(7), 30–41.
Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications.
European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate
data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Heidal, K., Colby, S., Mirabella, G., Al-Numair, K., Bertrand, B., & Gross, K. (2012).
Cost and calorie analysis of fast food consumption in college students. Food
and Nutrition Sciences, 3(7), 942–946.
Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Hart, C. W. L. (1990). Service breakthroughs: Changing
the rules of the game. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Holbrook, M. B., & Corfman, K. P. (1985). Quality and value in the consumption
experience: Phaldrus rides again. In J. Jacoby & J. Olson (Eds.), Perceived
quality (pp. 31–57). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hornik, J. (1982). Situational effects on the consumption of time. Journal of
Marketing, 46(4), 44–55.
Huang, C.-H. (2003). A comparison of the service quality perspectives between
restaurant customers and restaurateurs in Taiwan. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 6(2), 87–104.
Huang, C. H., & Smith, K. (2010). Consumer socialization in the Western quick
service restaurants. Asia Pacific Management Review, 15(3), 435–451.
Hwang, J., & Lambert, C. U. (2008). The interaction of major resources and their
influence on waiting times in a multi-stage restaurant. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 27(4), 541–551.
Hwang, J., & Ok, C. (2013). The antecedents and consequence of consumer attitudes
toward restaurant brands: A comparative study between casual and fine dining
restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 121–131.
Jain, S. K., & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF
scales. Vikalpa, 29(2), 25–37.
Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., Pelsmacker, P. D., & Kenhove, P. V. (2008). Marketing
research with SPSS. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
John, G., & Reve, T. (1982). The reliability and validity of key informant data
from dyadic relationships in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research,
19(4), 517–524.
Johns, N., & Tyas, P. (1996). Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate
between foodservice outlets. Service Industries Journal, 16(3), 321–346.
Katz, K. L., Larson, B. M., & Larson, R. C. (1991). Prescription for the waiting in
line blues: Entertain, enlighten, and engage. Sloan Management Review, 32(2),
44–53.
Keang, M. T., & Bougoure, U. (2006). Service quality: An investigation into Malaysia
consumers using DINESERV . Paper presented at Australia and New Zealand
Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC 2006), Brisbane, Australia.
Keith, N. K., & Simmers, C. S. (2011). Measuring service quality perceptions of restau-
rant experiences: The disparity between comment cards and DINESERV. Journal
of Foodservice Business Research, 14(1), 20–32.
Keung, S. W. C. (2000). Tourists’ perceptions of hotel frontline employees’ question-
able job-related behavior. Tourism Management, 21(2), 121–134.
Kim, H. J., McCahon, C., & Miller, J. (2003). Assessing service quality in Korean casual
dining restaurants using DINESERV. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
6(1), 67–86.
Kim, Y.-S., Hertzman, J., & Hwang, J.-J. (2010). College students and quick-service
restaurants: How students perceive restaurant food and services? Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 13(4), 346–359.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (1999). Consumer research in the restaurant
environment, part 1: A conceptual model of dining satisfaction and return
patronage. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
11(5), 205–222.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Knutson, B. J. (2000). College students and fast food: How students perceive
restaurant brands. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3),
68–74.
Ko, Y. J., & Pastore, D. L. (2005). A hierarchical model of service quality for the
recreational sport industry. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(2), 84–97.
Krueger, R. A. (1998). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Kuo, C.-M. (2007). The importance of hotel employee service attitude and the satis-
faction of international tourists. Service Industries Journal, 27(8), 1073–1085.
Laroche, M., Ueltschy, L. C., Abe, S., Cleveland, M., & Yannopoulos, P. P. (2004).
Service quality perceptions and customer satisfaction: Evaluating the role of
culture. Journal of International Marketing, 12(3), 58–85.
Leblanc, G. (1992). Factors affecting customer evaluation of service quality in travel
agencies: An investigation of customer perceptions. Journal of Travel Research,
30(4), 10–16.
Lin, C. Y. (2005). A study of Taiwan and Mainland China college students’
brand personality perceptions and customer loyalty in Western fast food chain
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Tung Hai University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Lionel, T. J., & Mills, J. E. (2006). Consumer knowledge and expectations of restau-
rant menus and their governing legislation: A qualitative assessment. Journal of
Foodservice, 17(1), 6–22.
Lu, Y., Zhang, L., & Wang, B. (2009). A multi-dimensional and hierarchical model
of mobile service quality. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 8(8),
228–240.
Madanoglu, M. (2004). Validating service quality dimensions. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 7(4), 127–147.
Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M., & Oppenheim, P. (2002). Marketing research: An
applied orientation (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Markovic, S., Raspor, S., & Šegaric, K. (2010). Does restaurant performance meet
customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using
a modified DINESERV approach. Tourism & Hospitality Management, 16(2),
181–195.
McDougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. J. (1994). A revised view of service qual-
ity dimensions: An empirical investigation. Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, 11(1), 189–209.
Mohi, Z. (2012). An analysis of restaurant patrons’ experiences in Malaysia: A
comprehensive hierarchical modelling approach (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Mohi, Z., Wu, H. C. J., & Wong, W. C. J. (2013). A study of food festival loyalty.
Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 5(2), 30–43.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. C. S. (2007). Does food quality really matter in restau-
rants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(3), 387–409.
Nokelainen, P. (2009). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. University of
Tampere, Finland: Petri Nokelainen.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
Oyewole, P. (1999). Multi-attributes dimensions of service quality in the fast food
restaurant industry. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 3(3/4),
65–91.
Oyewole, P. (2013). Multiattribute dimensions of service quality in the all-you-can-
eat buffet restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
22(1), 1–24.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using
SPSS for Windows. (Version 15; 3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw Hill/Open
University Press.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-
item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of
Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment
of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–420.
Powpaka, S. (1996). The role of outcome quality as a determinant of overall service
quality in different categories of services industries: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Services Marketing, 10(2), 5–25.
Qin, H., & Prybutok, V. R. (2008). Determinants of customer perceived service qual-
ity in fast food restaurants and their relationship to customer satisfaction and
behavioral intentions. Quality Management Journal, 15(2), 35–50.
Qin, H., & Prybutok, V. R. (2009). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behav-
ioral intentions in fast-food restaurants. International Journal of Quality &
Service Sciences, 1(1), 78–95.
Qin, H., Prybutok, V. R., & Zhao, Q. (2010). Perceived service quality in fast-food
restaurants: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 27(4), 424–437.
Raajpoot, N. A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible
quality in foodservice industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2),
109–127.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: New directions in theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ryu, K. (2005). Dinescape, emotions and behavioraal intentions in upscale restau-
rant (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical
environment on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual
restaurants: Moderating role of perceived price. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 34(3), 310–329.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T.-H. (2008). The relationships among overall quick-
casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 459–469.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Pearlman, D. (1989). The relationships among store image,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the fast-
casual restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 22(2), 416–432.
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. C. S. (2008). DINESCAPE: A scale for customers’ perception of
dining environments. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11(1), 2–22.
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. S. (2007). The effect of environmental perceptions on behav-
ioral intentions through emotions: The case of upscale restaurants. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(1), 56–72.
Sachdev, S. B., & Verma, H. V. (2004). Relative importance of service quality
dimensions: A multisectoral study. Journal of Services Research, 4(1), 93–116.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry
using SERVQUAL model. Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324–345.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation

modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 1–15.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validat-
ing marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4),
283–299.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B. J., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring
service quality in restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3(2),
35–44.
Stewart, D. W. (1981). The application and misapplication of factor analysis in
marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 51–62.
Sulek, J. M., & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere,
and fairness of wait: The case of a full-service restaurant. Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 235–247.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In
K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10–39).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S. (1994). Waiting for service: The relationship between delays and
evaluations of service. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 56–69.
Tucci, L. A., & Talaga, J. A. (2000). Determinants of consumer perceptions of service
quality in restaurants. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 6(2), 3–13.
Ueltschy, L. C., Laroche, M., Tamilia, R. D., & Yannopoulos, P. (2004). Cross-cultural
invariance of measures of satisfaction and service quality. Journal of Business
Research, 57(8), 901–912.
V. Estepa, A. A., Shanklin, C., & Back, K. J. (2004). Students’ perceived service qual-
ity and customer satisfaction in a Midwestern University foodservice operation.
Working Paper. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure
service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 45–62.
Westbrook, R. A. (1981). Sources of consumer satisfaction with retail outlets. Journal
of Retailing, 57(3), 68–85.
Wu, H. C. (2013). An empirical study of the effects of service quality, perceived

value, corporate image and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in
the Taiwan quick service restaurant industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, 14(4), 364–390.
Wu, H. C. (2014). The effects of customer satisfaction, perceived value, corporate
image and service quality on behavioral intentions in gaming establishments.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(4), 540–565.
Wu, H. C., & Cheng, C. C. (2013). A hierarchical model of service quality in the
airline industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20, 13–22.
Wu, H. C., Cheng, C. C., & Hsu, F. S. (2014a). An assessment of visitors’ behavioral
intentions in the Taiwan tourist night market using a multilevel and hierarchical
model. Tourism Analysis, 19(2), 185–197.
Wu, H. C., & Hsu, F. S. (2012). A multi-dimensional and hierarchical model of service
quality in the gaming industry. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 12(3),

90–118.
Wu, H. C., & Ko, Y. J. (2013). Assessment of service quality in the hotel industry.
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 14(3), 218–244.
Wu, H. C., & Li, T. (2015). An empirical study of the effects of service quality, visitor
satisfaction, and emotions on behavioral intentions of visitors to the museums
of Macau. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 16(1), 80–102.
Wu, H. C., Wong, J. W. C., & Cheng, C. C. (2014b). An empirical study of behav-
ioral intentions in the food festival: The case of Macau. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 19(11), 1278–1305.
Wu, J. H. C., Lin, Y. C., & Hsu, F. S. (2011). An empirical analysis of synthesizing
the effects of service quality, perceived value, corporate image and customer
satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the transport industry: A case of Taiwan
high-speed rail. Innovative Marketing, 7(3), 83–100.
Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods (7th ed.). Mason, OH:
Thomson/South-Western.
Zikmund, W. G., Ward, S., Lowe, B., & Winzar, H. (2007). Marketing research (Asia
Pacific ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Thomson Learning.
View publication stats

Journalof Foodservice Business Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journalof Foodservice Business Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Assessment of Service Quality in the Fast-Food Restaurant

Article in Journal of Foodservice Business Research · August 2015

Hung-Che Wu Zurinawati Mohi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Food festival View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Foodservice Business

Assessment of Service Quality in the

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2015.1068673

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Assessment of Service Quality in the Fast-Food

The purpose of this study is to enhance an understanding of service

KEYWORDS service quality, service quality dimensions, fast-food

In Taiwan, McDonald’s restaurant was the first Western fast-food restau-

Address correspondence to Hung-Che Wu, Department of Economics and Business

become the largest restaurant in the fast-food market in Taiwan (Huang

than a restaurateur-oriented one. Service quality is often used to measure

service quality in FFRs based on the customer’s perception in order to help

service quality is a highly subjective and relativistic phenomenon in terms of

1991; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982). In nature, SERVPERF is also an instru-

DINESERV, TANGSERV, and DINESCAPE for the restaurant industry. These

that DINESCAPE has been considered to be reliable and valid instrument.

Proposed Factor Structure for FFRs

FIGURE 1 A proposed multi-dimensional and hierarchical model of service quality.

enter a service system, they have, to some extent, expectations regarding

had varying incomes, recruited using a convenience sample drawn from

factors as it is generally seen as a determinant of service value rather than

equation modeling (SEM) analysis. Several researchers (Hair, Black, Babin,

Questionnaires using the convenience sampling method were dis-

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

(54.6%). Also, 93.5% of people graduated from college or university and

TABLE 1 Demographic Profile of Sample (N = 571)

Gender Male 243 42.6

Measurement Development and Estimation

TABLE 2 Results for Exploratory Factor Analysis

Item coding and Cronbach’s Standard

Item coding and Cronbach’s Standard

(first-order models) and one measurement model for primary dimensions

Wijnen, Pelsmacker, & Kenhove, 2008). In reviewing the modification indices

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE MEASUREMENT

TABLE 3 Measurement Scale Properties

Model 1—interaction quality A3 0.812 —a 0.910 0.772

Model 4—primary dimensions A16 0.972 —a 0.968 0.945

(Byrne, 2009). In addition, any structural models with an identification status

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Perceived service quality is a complex construct that creates a large debate in

Model Construct Two-types approach χ2 χ 2 RMR RMSEA GFI NFI CFI

provide marketers and researchers with a diagnostic tool to assess service

a conceptual framework and measurement scale for FFRs.

In summary, this study presents and examines a conceptual model of

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

be advisable to incorporate the possible role of demographic differences

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988a). Structural equation modeling in practice:

Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the

industry: An empirical analysis. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,

and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–69.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation

Wu, H. C. (2013). An empirical study of the effects of service quality, perceived

quality in the gaming industry. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 12(3),

View publication stats

You might also like