An Investigation of Service Quality Assessments across Retail Formats

Introduction
The development of diversified store formats has been a key trend in the intense scenario of
retail competition. Nowadays customers can choose from a broad array of competing
categories, including supermarkets, department stores, outlets, specialty retailers, etc., that
offer various benefits to match the needs of different segments and meet different shopping
situations (Reynolds et al., 2002). There has been extensive research addressing customers’
choices for the different shopping alternatives, which link store patronage to store attributes
(e.g., location, breadth of assortment, price ) and to customers individual characteristics and
preferences (Carpenter and Moore, 2006) . Despite such competition for customers’ wallet,
shoppers typically distribute their visits, and their spending, across multiple stores and various
store categories, exploiting the opportunities provided by these differentiated retail contexts
(Gijsbrechts et al., 2008). Although some of this multiple store patronage is a result of
consumers switching behaviour across stores, in response to retailers’ competitive strategies
and incentives (e.g. promotions, discounts, etc.), evidence suggests that, overall, customers
distribute their shopping across relatively stable store portfolios (Rhee and Bell, 2002). Several
studies have supported that while shoppers often patronize multiple stores, most of them
maintain dominant store affiliations from which they do most purchases (Mägi, 2003, Rhee and
Bell, 2002).
For retailers, knowledge about the drivers of customer retention in retail is of key importance
for informing adequate strategies to promote consumer loyalty leading to profitability (Knox and
Denison, 2000). Nevertheless, studies about the drivers of store differentiation and customers
switching behaviour still outnumber the research work about retail satisfaction and loyalty.
Moreover, existing studies often focus on the identification of distinct store attributes which
affect customers shopping satisfaction (e. g. store location, assortment variety, store
atmosphere, etc.) without investigating the relative importance of each of them in an integrated
way. Whereas an exhaustive integration of the ample diversity of store attributes into a single
study would probably be more complex that useful, addressing the relative importance of
various service retail attributes could provide important insights for the specification of retail
differentiation strategies. This is particularly true for retail brands, which operate multi-store
portfolios, combining different store formats, which is a common strategy in retail competition,
particularly in Europe (Mendes and Themido, 2004). To this end, this paper investigates the
importance of distinct service quality dimensions for customer satisfaction, and for customer
intentions to re-use and recommend the services experience for two types of retail stores:
supermarkets and hypermarkets.
This study builds on the work of Vásquez et al. (2001) and Dabholkar (1996), subscribing to
a conceptualization service quality as a multi-dimensional construct, including four dimensions:
physical aspects, personal interaction, reliability, and policies. Accordingly, data collection was
supported by the application of a service measurement scale, developed upon the adaptation of
former scales specifically developed for the retail service experience (e.g. Dabholkar et al.,
1996), notably for the case of supermarket retail formats (Vásquez et al., 2001), i.e., the retail
service quality scale (RSQS). The study was conducted in Portugal, by means of a survey
addressing a sample of users of supermarkets and hypermarkets in urban areas.
The main purpose of the study was to investigate the relative importance of distinct service
dimensions for customer quality assessments for two types of store formats which often
compose the portfolio of key retailers: supermarkets, and hypermarkets. Data analysis involved
testing for differences in customer’s quality evaluations in supermarket and hypermarket
settings. Likewise, we investigated the impact of the distinct quality dimensions considered in
the RSQS scale for customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions across those two retail
formats.
The paper is structured as follows. We first provide the conceptual background of our study,
reviewing aspects related to retail store formats and competition, followed by an overview of the
conceptualization of quality in retail settings, notably the existing service quality scales for the
specific setting of retail services. We follow by describing the research methodology and the
objectives of the data analysis conducted. Finally, we provide a discussion of the results of the
work and draw some managerial implications and directions for future research.

Conceptual background
Retail store formats: attributes and competition
One of the most salient results of the intense competition that has been characterizing the retail
sector over the years is the diversification of store formats operated by retail brands
(Morganosky, 1997). The widespread of supermarkets was followed by the development of other
self-service based retail models, such as hypermarkets, discount stores, etc., which now coexist
offering customers a diversified shopping context (Dawson, 2000). The dominant retail brands
operate multi-store portfolios in order to offer an ample range of benefits to meet the needs of distinct
customer segments, and service customer requirements for shopping conveniences under diverse
circumstances (Reynolds et al., 2002). The differentiation in retail store formats is based on
diverse attributes, including product assortment and variety, price, location and access aspects,
store atmosphere etc. (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004). Supermarkets and hypermarkets are
dominant models in European retail context, to a great extent resulting from internationalization
and replication strategies of leading retail chains. Both store formats offer self-service based
service experiences, but hypermarkets typically offer a wider shopping surfaces, and superior
volumes of product variety (both intra and inter brand and categories of items). By being
relatively smaller stores, supermarkets are typically located in urban central and residential
areas, serving customers for smaller, and more frequent shopping visits. In Portugal the
number and importance of supermarkets and hypermarkets has grown enormously in recent
years, to the extent that these retail formats now dominate the retail completion in the country,
concomitantly to the decline of small stores and grocery shops (Barros and Alves, 2003)
 Customers are aware of the differences in store formats and attributes, and engage in
sophisticated behaviours of store switching and of combination of shopping visits to distinct
outlets, in order to explore of the opportunities (e.g. discounts, promotions) offered by such
competitive retail contexts (Uusitalo, 2001). Research results have identified two important
patterns in customers multiple store patronage. On the one hand there is evidence that
customers are sensitive to retail offers and “best deal” strategies, and therefore are prone to
exhibit casual cherry picking behaviours across stores, following promotion and discount
policies; on the other hand some stability in shopping patterns can be observed overtime, as
customers maintain a preferred portfolio of stores in which they distribute their regular spending
and shopping visits (Gijsbrechts et al., 2008). As such, providers need to develop a deep
understanding about customers’ appreciations for their retail relationships and shopping
experiences that goes beyond the immediate effects of promotional episodes and incentives.
Moreover, it makes sense to hypothesize that differences in retail formats can be linked to
distinct customer expectations, and assessments, about the respective service process
experiences, i.e. customers are likely to have differentiated requirements regarding the quality
of the service experience that can be delivered by a supermarket or a hypermarket. Former
studies have shown, for example, that customers associate distinct levels of required effort and
shopping cost to the different types of retail store formats (Bell et al., 1998). As such it is
pertinent to investigate in a systematic manner to what extent various service quality attributes
(e.g. quality of the store facilities, attentiveness of store personnel, etc.) have distinct impacts
for customer satisfaction and loyalty towards different store formats.

Service quality and customer loyalty

The paramount importance of service quality for customer satisfaction and loyalty is extensively
documented in literature, as well as its link with service providers’ profitability (Cronin et al.,
2000). Consequently, the development of service quality models has been a key priority in the
agendas of service scholars, motivating an intense debate about the definition and assessment
of quality in service contexts (see for example, Parasuraman et al., 1985, Cronin and Taylor,
1992, Grönroos, 1993). Service quality models provide a description of the key components of
service quality and of the relationships among them and customer satisfaction. As such, they
are tools that help managers to diagnose the performance in service delivery processes and
develop quality improvement programs (Seth et al., 2005).
Service quality influences customers’ satisfaction, which has been linked to customers’
intentions to repurchase and recommend a service – ultimately resulting in provider’s
profitability (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990, Anderson and Fornell, 1994, Reinartz et al., 2004).
There is ample evidence to support the following relationships among service quality and
customer behaviour: service quality is a key determinant of customer satisfaction (Fornell et al.,
1996, Baggozi, 1992), positively affecting customer intentions to repurchase the service and
recommend the service provider (Anderson, 1998, Danaher and Rust, 1996). Zeithaml et al.
(1996) empirically show that superior quality perceptions were associated to positive customer
intentions (e.g., recommending a given service provider), while inferior quality perceptions were
linked to negative behaviours (e.g., switching provider). Nevertheless, research results indicated
that the intensity of the impacts of service quality perceptions for customers’ reuse and
recommendation of the service can be distinct. For example, it has been found that positive
quality perceptions have a stronger impact for customers’ reuse, therefore suggesting that
customers require increased levels of quality (and satisfaction) in order to recommend a service
(Cronin et al., 2000, Gabarino and Johnson, 1999, Rust and Oliver, 1994). Likewise there are
no unique answers about how service quality perceptions affect customer satisfaction and
loyalty variables for distinct retail store formats.
It has also been documented in the literature that customers’ quality perceptions are likely to
be influenced by aspects related to their personal characteristics as well as by situational
variables (Bäckström and Johansson, 2006). Personal characteristics are intrinsic to the
consumer and might influence their experiences (e.g., values, age, attitude to time, etc.).
Situational variables include aspects in the store environment that might influence consumers.
In the context of retail, supermarkets and hypermarkets offer customers distinct service formats
in several aspects such as the accessibility and the characteristics of the facilities, the store
assortment, etc. (Colla, 2004). In this study, we explore the existing differences in customers’
perceptions for hypermarket and supermarket services for four service quality dimensions:
physical aspects, personal interactions, reliability, and policies, building on former service
quality measurement work, as briefly described in the next section. We also investigate the
impact of each service quality dimension for customer satisfaction and intentions to re-use and
recommend the service.

Service quality measurement

Two key features are consensual among the diverse service quality models available. First,
these models are built on customers’ perceptions about the performance of service delivery,
rather than on objective assessments of quality items (Grönroos, 2001, 1998). Perceived
service quality is defined as the customer's evaluation of the overall excellence of a service
(Zeithaml, 1988) and has been persistently distinguished from objective quality measurements,
which were typically associated to the quality assessment of manufacturing products. The use
of perceived service quality models is motivated by the specific nature of service outputs, which
involves both tangible and intangible components and, as such, are often hard to assess and
can result into very heterogeneous evaluations across customers.
A second feature that is present in existing quality models is the multidimensional nature of
service quality. Services provide customers with a combination of outcomes, such as: direct
process results (e.g., availability of required items in a retail store, on-time arrival to a flight
destination in transportation services, etc.) along with other results related to the process
experience resulting from customers’ contact and involvement in the service process (e.g., store
atmosphere in retail services, comfort in a flight, etc.). Accordingly, service quality is often
addressed as a construct, featuring distinct dimensions that correspond to the diverse benefits
that a customer can derive from a service. Furthermore, service quality measurement models
typically include multiple items for capturing customers’ evaluations about the various output
components.
Multidimensional approaches to service quality are reflected in the measurement scales
developed for assessing service quality. For example, the early work of Parasuraman et al.
(1985) proposes a scale (SERVQUAL) for measuring service quality that considers five quality
dimensions: tangible elements, reliability, assurance, empathy, and responsiveness.
SERVQUAL has been applied to ample range of service business contexts over the years,
revealing robustness and generalizability (Ladhari, 2009). Nevertheless, other scales have been
developed in order to better address the specificities of particular service contexts. For example,
Parasuraman et al. (2005) developed ES-QUAL and E-RecS-QUAL for the specific case of
electronic retail services. The motivation for the development of a specific scale for the context
of e-services was driven by the fact that the extant service quality scales were dominated by
items related to people-delivered services, whereas equivalent measurement models for
technology-delivered services were not available. ES-QUAL proposed 22 items organized in
four service quality dimensions – efficiency, fulfilment, system availability, and privacy. For E-
RecS-QUAL the authors proposed 11 items and three dimensions – responsiveness,
compensation, and contact. Other examples of specific service scales include also LIBQUAL,
which established itself as a protocol to assess the quality of libraries consisting of dimensions
such as service affect, library as a place, etc. (Thomson et al., 2005). Overall, such specific
measurement scales aim to contemplate some particular service delivery features that cannot
be captured by the more generalist SERVQUAL approach.
In the case of retail services, quality measurement models need to account for aspects
related to the quality of the goods delivered (which are not included in the SERQUAL model) as
well as to include those aspects related to the performance of the delivery process (i.e., process
experience) (Baker et al., 2002). In order to meet this gap, Dabholkar et al. (1996) validated the
retail service quality scale (RSQS) consisting of five dimensions: physical aspects, reliability,
personal interaction, problem solving, and policy, consisting of 28 items, including some for
addressing aspects which are specific to retail (e.g. the offer of high quality merchandise).
Vasquez et al. (2001) adapted this scale to a set of four dimensions - physical aspects, personal
interactions, reliability, and policies – and 18 items, adjusting it to the specificity of the reality of
Spanish retail and Latin countries in general. As the scope of this paper is beyond scale
validation, we build on the proposed measurement scale of Vasquez et al. (2001) to conduct a
survey about customers’ quality perception for Portuguese supermarkets and hypermarkets.

Methodology
Data collection
This paper presents the results of a retail study, conducted with the application of a customer
survey in Portugal to users of supermarkets and hypermarkets. Survey design was inspired in
the work of Dabholkar et al. (1996) and Vázquez et al. (2001). Building on the RSQS scale and
on exploratory interviews with retail custoemrs, we developed a questionnaire with 24 items
related to distinct quality aspects of retail service contexts. In Table I, we present a list of the 24
items used, identifying for each item reference source paper where it was originally proposed,
as well as the respective quality dimensions associated to each item. Most of the items adopted
in the survey were present either in the scale developed by Dabholkar et al. (1996) or in the
modified version proposed by Vázquez et al. (2001). Items 14 and 18 were added to the list by
the authors as they were mentioned to be relevant in initial exploratory interviews conducted
with Portuguese retail customers. Other items (such as items 7 and 20) were subject to minor
modifications to adjust them to the Portuguese retail context.

- Table 1 about here -

Following the standard practice in service quality studies, the questionnaire included a set of
24 items for the measurement of customers’ expectations about the retail stores, followed by a
set of similar 24 items concerning customer perceptions about the service effectively
experienced. Respondents were asked to report their quality assessments only for their primary
retail store, i.e. the one from which they obtained for the majority of their regular purchases. The
information about the identification of the hypermarket or supermarket considered by each
respondent was also collected. The goal was to limit data analysis to the leading retailer brands
operating in the country, which are also present in other European countries, for pursuing some
consistency across the level of the reported service experiences, and for enabling some
generalizability of the results. A rating scale from 1 (not important) to 7 (extremely important)
was adopted for the survey items. The questionnaire included also a set of questions for
describing customers’ socio-demographic characteristics, notably regarding gender, age, and
education levels, and a few control variables related to the frequency of store visits. The
development of the questionnaire involved a set of preliminary interviews with retail customers
and the application of a pilot questionnaire, prior to data collection, with the purpose of
improving the wording and ordering of the questions.
From a total of 270 questionnaires distributed, 9 were returned with incomplete answers, for
which they were discarded form the analysis. We also discarded other 13 of them because they
reported about customers’ experience for supermarkets that were not one of the leading
retailers operating in the country. Therefore, data analysis builds on the remaining 248 complete
questionnaires. The sample included a balanced representation of customers from both
genders (46,85% male customers) as well as across age and education levels. It also included
a balanced representation of customers of both retail formats – 50,8% of the respondents
declared to be predominately users of supermarkets, while 49,2% were users of the
hypermarkets. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the sample characteristics regarding age and
education levels of the respondents.

- Tables 2 and 3 about here -

Data analysis
Data analysis involved firstly the characterization of customer quality assessments for the two
retail formats considered, using descriptive statistics. T-tests were performed to look for
significant differences in customer quality evaluations across supermarket and hypermarket
settings. In order to analyse the importance of the various service dimensions included in the
RSQS scale for customers’ quality assessments, we used linear regression models to estimate
the relationships between the service quality dimensions, identified in the RSQS scale and
customer satisfaction, as well as customer behavioural intentions (to re-use and to recommend
the service) for the two different retail store formats. Prior to the analysis, we used Cronbach's
alpha reliability statistic to determine the internal consistency of the survey instrument adopted
for the study. The value for the Cronbach alpha statistic was 0,917, therefore supporting the
consistency of the scale and its adequacy for use in the context of this study (Streiner, 2003).

Analysis and discussion

In this section we present the statistical results for customers’ expectations and perceptions as
well as the corresponding existing gaps for the retail service quality items listed in Table 1. From
all surveyed items, respondents attributed greater importance to the “Freshness and quality of
products offered in the fresh sections (e.g., fish, fruit, etc.)” (with mean value of 6.54), whereas
the “Visual attractiveness of publicity leaflets and other materials related to the service, such as
shopping bags, catalogues, etc.” was far less regarded (mean value of 4.71). Detailed
information about customers’ expectations (and perceptions) for the remaining items is fully
provided in Tables 9 and in Table 10 included in the Annex.
In what concerns the four service quality dimensions considered, “Reliabilty” was the
dimension regarded with higher importance by customers, followed by “Personal Interaction”,
“Policies” and “Physical Aspects” (see Table 4). However, when looking at these results
separately for supermarkets and hypermarkets, the study supported the existence of some
differences in customers’ expectations accros the two retail formats. Altough, in general,
customers expressed higher expectations for the hypermarket service, this was not true for the
dimension of “Personal Interaction”. The expectations for “Personal Interaction” were higher for
supermarket stores, suggesting that customers look for richer service encounters and
relationships in the smaller neighboorhood stores (i.e. supermarkets).

- Table 4 about here –

Customers’ service perceptions also evidenced interesting differences across the two retail
store formats. Overall the perceptions about retail “Policies” and “Physical Aspects” exceedded
those for “Reliability” and the “Personal Interaction” dimensions (Table 5).

- Table 5 about here -

 In general, customers expressed higher perceptions about the hypermarket service
experiences. T-tests suported that these differences across retail formats were significant:
“Physical Aspects” (Sig. 0,003), “Reliability” (Sig. 0,068), “Personal Interaction” (Sig. 0,007), and
“Policies” (Sig. 0,0009).
Customers revealed good perceptions about the “Offer of products from well-known and
leading brands in the market”, (mean perception value of 5,75). On the other extreme,
customers were not impressed about the “Short waiting time at cash registers” (mean
perception value of 4,52).
In what concerns the service quality gaps, negative gaps were observed (showing
dissatisfaction) for all dimensions. Supermarket users appeared more dissatisfied than those
who predominately use hypermarkets. “Reliability” was the dimension subject to greater
dissatisfaction, followed by “Personal Interaction”, “Physical Aspects” and “Policies”. Here also,
the differences across retail formats were significant, except for “Reliability” aspects – “Physical
Aspects” (Sig. 0,072), “Reliability” (Sig. 0,361), “Personal Interaction” (Sig. 0,007), and “Policies”
(Sig. 0,000).

- Table 6 about here -

The more important gap found corresponded to item 7 in the questionnaire: “Short waiting
time at cash registers”. In contrast, item 21, “Offer of products from well-known and leading
brands in the market”, had the smallest gap. An interesting result was found for item 21, which
was simultaneously the most important item in customers’ expectations and the one with the
smallest gap.
A expected, customers were quite unhappy with alternatives for payment in supermarkets
comparing to hypermarkets. This refers to the payment method policy that had changed
recently in one of the major supermarket chains. In formerly available payment methods, clients
were able to pay any amount of their purchase using a means of their own choice (either with a
credit card or in cash). However, store had recently implemented new payment restrictions,
forcing clients to pay in cash for purchases below 20 €, whereas maintaining the full scope of
payment alternatives for purchases aboe that value.
In what concerns gender differences, t-tests supported the existence of significant diferences
between the expectations of male and female clients, only for the dimension of “Personal
Interaction”. As for perceptions, significant differences were found for all dimensions: Physical
Aspects (Sig. 0,063), Reliability (Sig. 0,015), Personal Interaction (Sig. 0,073), and Policies (Sig.
0,001).
The next stage in the analysis had the objective of examining the relationships between the
service quality dimensions distinguished in the study and customer satisfaction and intentions to
re-use and recommend the service alternatives. We used ordinary least squares (OLS)
estimation to develop three regression models (as described in Table 7). In the estimated
models the variables “Overall satisfaction with the service”, “Intentions to re-use the service”,
and “Intentions to recommend the service” were used as dependent variables, whereas the
computed values for the average perceptions for the dimensions of “Physical Aspects”,
“Personal Interaction”, “Reliability”, and Policies” were used as independent variables. The
models also included the following two dummy variables: “Type of retail store” (supermarket = 1;
hypermarket=2) and “Gender” (male =1; female=2). The estimated models are displayed in
Table 7.

- Table 7 about here -

Estimation results suggested that customers’ “Overall satisfaction with the service” was
higher for supermarkets and for female customers. The dimensions of “Policies” and “Reliability”
revealed to have the stronger impact for customers’ “Overall satisfaction with the service” (β4 =
0,423, (Sig. 0,000) and β2 = 0,256 (Sig. 0,002)).
In what concerns customers’ “Intentions to re-use the service”, again the average values
were higher in the case of supermarket and for female customers. The dimensions of “Personal
Interaction” and “Policies” had stronger association with re-use intentions – β3 = 0,366 and β4 =
0,254.
For customers’ “Intentions to recommend the service” the average values were also higher in
the case of supermarket and for female customers, and the dimensions with stronger impact
were “Reliability” and “Policies” – β2 = 0,315; β4 = 0,263.
Overall, the results suggest that “Reliability” and “Policies” are the key managerial variables
as these dimensions showed strong impacts on customer satisfaction and customer
recommendations. The aspects related to the quality of “Personal Interaction” provided to the
customers seem to play a key role for the strengthening of customer loyalty to the retail store.
We also investigated if the impact of the quality dimensions considered for customer
satisfaction was different across store type. For that purpose, we estimated a new regression
model for the dependent variable “Overall satisfaction with the service”, including the dummy
variable D1 for “Store Type” and the following interaction terms D1*V1, D1*V2, D1*V3, and
D1*V4 (see table 8).

- Table 8 about here -

We found a significant negative coefficient for the variable V2D1, i.e. the interaction between
store type and the dimension of “Reliability”, suggesting that improvements in customer
perceptions about “Reliability” will result in a stronger impact for “Overall satisfaction with the
service” in supermarkets, as compared to hypermarkets. The coefficient for the variable V3D1
was also significant, but positive, suggesting that improvements in the perceptions for aspects
related to “Personal interaction” result in a stronger impact on “Overall satisfaction with the
service” in hypermarkets, as compared to supermarkets.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate differences in service quality
assessments across two distinct retail formats, namely for supermarkets and hypermarkets,
looking at customers’ evaluations for four service quality dimensions: physical aspects, personal
interactions, reliability, and policies (following Dabholkar et al., 1996, Vasquez et al., 2001). We
also setup for exploring the importance of each of these dimensions for customers’ satisfaction
and intention to re-use and recommend the service.
Results supported that customers have different perception across the two types of retail
formats considered in the study. The results also suggest that improvements in customer
perceptions about reliability will have relatively more important impacts for their overall
satisfaction with the service in supermarkets, as compared to hypermarkets. In contrast,
improvements in the perceptions for aspects related to personal interaction result in stronger
impacts for customer satisfaction in hypermarket contexts. These results suggest that
managerial decisions regarding service quality in stores should be adjusted to the
characteristics of each retail format.

References
Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L. (2004), “Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research
priorities”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No 4, pp. 331-342.
Anderson, E. W. (1998), “Customer satisfaction and word of mouth”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Anderson , E. W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D. R. (1994), “Customer satisfaction, market share, and
profitability: findings from Sweden”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 53-66.
Bäckström, K. and Johansson, U. (2006), “Creating and consuming experiences in retail store
environments: Comparing retailer and consumer perspectives”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 417-430.
Bagozzi, Richard, P. (1992), “The self-regulation of attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior”, Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 128–76.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G. B. (2002), “The influence of multiple store
environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions”, The Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 120-141.
Barros, C. P., & Alves, C. A. (2003), “Hypermarket retail store efficiency in Portugal”, International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No 11, pp. 549-560.
Bell, D. R., Ho, T. H., & Tang, C. S. (1998), “Determining where to shop: fixed and variable costs of
shopping”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No 3, pp. 352-369.
Carpenter, J. M., & Moore, M., (2006). “Consumer demographics, store attributes, and retail format choice
in the US grocery market”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp.
434-452.
Colla, E. (2004), “The outlook for European grocery retailing: competition and format development”, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 47-69.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K. and Hult, G. T. M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal of retailing, Vol. 76 No.
2, pp. 193-218.
Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I. and Rentz, J. O. (1996), “A measure of service quality for retail stores:
scale development and validation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-
16.
Danaher, P. J. and Rust, R.T. (1996), “Indirect financial benefits from service quality”, Quality Management
Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 63-85.
Dawson, J. (2000), “Retailing at century end: some challenges for management and research”, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol.10 No 2, pp. 119-148.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B. E. (1996), “The American customer
satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M. S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in
customer relationships”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Gijsbrechts, E., Campo, K., and Nisol, P. (2008), “Beyond promotion-based store switching: Antecedents
and patterns of systematic multiple-store shopping”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.
25 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Grönroos, C. (2001), “The perceived service quality concept–a mistake?” Managing Service Quality, Vol.
11 No. 3, pp. 150-152.
Grönroos, C. (1998), "Marketing services: a case of a missing product", Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 13 No.3-4, pp.322-38.
Grönroos, C. (1993), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Ladhari, R. (2009), “A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research”, International Journal of Quality and
Service Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 172-198.
Mägi, A. W. (2003), “Share of wallet in retailing: the effects of customer satisfaction, loyalty cards and
shopper characteristics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 97-106.
Mendes, A. B., and Themido, I. H. (2004), “Multi-outlet retail site location assessment”, International
Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 11No 1, pp. 1-18.
Morganosky, M. A. (1997), “Retail market structure change: implications for retailers and consumers”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 269-274.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “ES-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing
electronic service quality”, Journal of service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 213-233.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 41-50.
Rhee, H., and Bell, D. R. (2002), “The inter-store mobility of supermarket shoppers”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 225-237.
Reichheld, F. F. and Sasser, W. E. (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to services”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 105-111.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M. and Hoyer, W. D. (2004), “The customer relationship management process: its
measurement and impact on performance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
Reynolds, K. E., Ganesh, J., and Luckett, M. (2002), “Traditional malls vs. factory outlets: comparing
shopper typologies and implications for retail strategy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp.
687-696.
Rust, R. T. and Oliver, R. L. (1994), “Service quality: New directions in theory and practice”, Sage
Publications Thousand Oaks, CA.
Seth N. and Deshmukh S. G. (2005), “Service quality models: a review”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 913-949.
Streiner D. (2003), “Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal
consistency”, Journal of personality assessment, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 99-103.
Thompson, B., Cook, C. and Kyrillidou, M. (2005), “Concurrent validity of LibQUAL+™ scores: what do
LibQUAL+™ scores measure?”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 517-522.
Vazquez, R., Rodrı́guez-Del Bosque, I. A., Ma Dıa ́ z, A. and Ruiz, A. V. (2001), “Service quality in
supermarket retailing: identifying critical service experiences”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Uusitalo, O. (2001), “Consumer perceptions of grocery retail formats and brands”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No 5, pp. 214-225.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Annex

- Table 9 about here –

- Table 10 about here -

Tables

Table 1. Retail service quality items used in the study

Dabholkar et al. Vázquez et al.

Survey items
(1996) (2001)
Physical Aspects
1. Modernity and attractiveness of store facilities, equipment and fixtures.


2. Visual attractiveness of publicity leaflets and other materials related to the service, such as


shopping bags, catalogs, etc.
3. Cleanliness of the store and available support services (e.g., w c, safe-boxes, etc.).


4. Store layout and organization enabling customers to easily find the products they need.


Reliability
5. Clear indication of product prices.

6. Appropriate and punctual information about sales promotions and discounts.

7. Short waiting time at cash registers. Modified

8. Easy location of products on promotion or discount.

9. Employees showing great interest and motivation to resolve any difficulties or customer

problems.
10. Stock availability of products/brands desired by customers.

11. Guarantees of product quality and possibility of returns.

Personal Interaction
12. All employees consistently showing courtesy towards customers (e.g., cashiers,

replenishment staff, etc.).

13. All employees consistently willing to help customers (e.g., cashiers, replenishment staff,


etc.).
14. Employees showing enough knowledge to assist and advise customers in the fresh Modified Modified
sections (e.g., fish, fruits, etc.)

15. Employees having enough knowledge to assist customers in difficulties and questions.

16. Employees instilling confidence in customers when assisting or advising them.

Policies
17. Offer of interesting sales promotions and discounts.

18. Offer of free choice of alternatives for payment (e.g., in cash, via store card, credit card, Modified Modified
etc.)
19. Offer of product prices which are lower than in similar establishments.

20. Freshness and quality of products offered in the fresh sections (e.g., fish, fruit, etc.) Modified

21. Offer of products from well-known and leading brands in the market.

22. Offer of a wide assortment of product brands and varieties.

23. Offer of products from the retailers’ own brand with high quality.

24. Ease of access to the store and availability of parking spaces.

Table 2. Respondents’ age

Age Percentage
Up to 25 65,7
From 26 to 30 20,6
From 31-40 10,1
From 41-50 2,80
Over 50 0,80
Total 100

Table 3. Respondents’ education levels

Degree Percentage
Elementary school 0,80

High school 27,4

Undergraduate 42,3
Graduate 29,4
Total 100

Table 4. Expectations (service quality dimensions)

Personal
Expectations Physical Aspects Reliability Policies
Interaction
Store Type Supermarket 5,58 5,98 5,84 5,77
Hypermarket 5,68 6,07 5,81 5,80

Table 5. Perceptions (service quality dimensions)

Personal
Perceptions Physical Aspects Reliability Policies
Interaction
Store Type Supermarket 5,07 5,02 5,01 5,23
Hypermarket 5,41 5,24 5,39 5,71

Table 6. Service quality gaps

Gaps (mean) Physical Aspects Reliability Personal Policies
Interaction
Store Type Supermarket -0,51 -0,96 -0,83 -0,54
Hypermarket -0,27 -0,83 -0,42 -0,10
Table 7. Regression models estimated (a)
Overall
Intentions to
satisfaction Intentions to re-
Dependent variables recommend
with the use the service
the service
service
Independent variables
0,601 2,006 1,253
Constant term α1
-0,126 -0,351* -0,335*
D1, Type of retail store α2
(0,0232) (0,007) (0,026)
0,174 0,238 0,174
D2, Respondent’s Gender α3
(0,093) (0,061) (0,240)
0,163* 0,029 0,077
V1, Physical aspects β1
(0,028) (0,753) (0,466)
V2, Reliability β2 0,256* 0,072 0,315*
(0,002) (0,482) (0,009)
V3, Personal interaction β3 0,089 0,366* 0,192*
(0,195) (0,000) (0,049)
V4, Policies β4 0,423* 0,254* 0,263*
(0,000) (0,013) (0,027)
R2= 0,470

Table 8. Regression models estimated (b)

Dependent variable
Overall satisfaction with the service
Independent variables Estimation coefficients
Constant term α1 -0,138
D1, Type of retail store α2 0,404 (0,577)
V1, Physical aspects β1 0,163 (0,487)
V2, Reliability β2 0,894* (0,004)
V3, Personal interaction β3 -0,502* (0,033)
V4, Policies β4 0,573* (0,027)
V1 D1, Interaction between retail format and V1 β5 0,002 (0,987)
V2 D1, Interaction between retail format and V2 β6 -0,369* (0,039)
V3 D1, Interaction between retail format and V3 β7 0,363* (0,011)
V4 D1, Interaction between retail format and V4 Β8 -0,100 (0,544)
R2 = 0,477
Table 9. Service expectations

Std.
Service quality items Mean
Deviation
Modernity and attractiveness of store facilities, equipment and fixtures. 5,21 1,073
Visual attractiveness of publicity leaflets and other materials related to the service, such as
4,71 1,363
shopping bags, catalogs, etc.
Cleanliness of the store and available support services (e.g., w c, safe-boxes, etc.). 6,40 ,973
Store layout and organization enabling customers to easily find the products they need. 6,19 1,026
Clear indication of product prices. 6,44 ,938
Appropriate and punctual information about sales promotions and discounts. 5,85 1,231
Short waiting time at cash registers. 5,92 1,112
Easy location of products on promotion or discount. 5,76 1,169
Employees showing great interest and motivation to resolve any difficulties or customer
6,13 1,070
problems.
Stock availability of products/brands desired by customers. 5,88 1,100
Guarantees of product quality and possibility of returns. 6,22 ,957
All employees consistently showing courtesy towards customers (e.g., cashiers, replenishment
6,07 1,136
staff, etc.).
All employees consistently willing to help customers (e.g., cashiers, replenishment staff, etc.). 5,96 1,083
Employees showing enough knowledge to assist and advise customers in the fresh sections
5,71 1,186
(e.g., fish, fruits, etc.)
Employees having enough knowledge to assist customers in difficulties and questions. 5,83 1,116
Employees instilling confidence in customers when assisting or advising them. 5,58 1,215
Offer of interesting sales promotions and discounts. 5,57 1,192
Offer of free choice of alternatives for payment (e.g., in cash, via store card, credit card, etc.) 5,94 1,263
Offer of product prices which are lower than in similar establishments. 6,02 1,170
Freshness and quality of products offered in the fresh sections (e.g., fish, fruit, etc.) 6,54 ,912
Offer of products from well-known and leading brands in the market. 5,20 1,288
Offer of a wide assortment of product brands and varieties. 5,69 1,288
Offer of products from the retailers’ own brand with high quality. 5,65 1,308
Ease of access to the store and availability of parking spaces. 5,69 1,252
Table 10. Service perceptions

Std.
Service quality items Mean
Deviation
The store offers modern and attractive facilities, equipment and fixtures. 5,11 1,154
The publicity leaflets and other materials related to the service (such as shopping bags, catalogs, 4,87 1,298
etc.) are visually attractive.
The store and available support services (e.g., w c, safe-boxes, etc.) are adequately clean. 5,63 1,109
The store layout and organization enables customers to easily find the products they need. 5,32 1,228
Prices are clearly indicated. 5,52 1,230
The store gives appropriate and punctual information about sales promotions and discounts. 5,28 1,224
The waiting time at cash registers is short. 4, 52 1,514
The products on promotion or discount are easy to locate in the store. 5,10 1,329
The store employees show great interest and motivation to resolve any difficulties or customer 4,93 1,367
problems.
The products/brands desired by customers are always available. 5,21 1,380
The store guarantees the quality of the products and offers the possibility of returns. 5,33 1,305
All store employees consistently show courtesy towards customers (e.g., cashiers, replenishment 5,23 1,283
staff, etc.).
All store employees are consistently willing to help customers (e.g., cashiers, replenishment staff, 5,27 1,306
etc.).
Store employees show enough knowledge to assist and advise customers in the fresh sections 5,18 1,279
(e.g., fish, fruits, etc.)
Store employees in general have enough knowledge to assist customers in difficulties and 5,12 1,186
questions.
Store employees instill confidence in customers when assisting or advising them. 5,19 1,214
The store offers interesting sales promotions and discounts. 5,24 1,330
The store offers customer free choice of alternatives for payment (e.g., in cash, via store card, 5,27 1,979
credit card, etc.)
The store has product prices which are lower than in similar establishments. 4,96 1,351
The store offers fresh and quality of products in the fresh sections (e.g., fish, fruit, etc.) 5,56 1,126
The store offers products from well-known and leading brands in the market. 5,75 1,177
The store offers a wide assortment of product brands and varieties. 5,57 1,354
The store offers high quality products from its own brand. 5,69 1,314
The store is easy to access to the store and has good availability of parking spaces. 5,68 1,440