Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

How to measure quality in multi-channel retailing and not die trying T

Emiliano Acquila-Natale , Santiago Iglesias-Pradas
⁎

Departamento de Ingeniería de Organización, Administración de Empresas y Estadística, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Telecomunicación, Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Av. Complutense 30, Madrid 28040, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In multi-channel contexts, interactions between retailers and shoppers may occur in two or more channels along
E-commerce the shopping process. Besides making a revision of both service and e-service quality models, this study proposes
Multi-channel a unified model for multi-channel contexts across four dimensions: in-store experience, reliability and fulfill-
Perceived quality ment, security and privacy, and customer service. Moreover, it empirically tests this model using a questionnaire
Customer behavior
administered to a sample of Spanish shoppers (N = 432) of clothing and apparel. The results suggest an al-
Retail
ternative factor configuration of four components: store design; delivery options; reliability, fulfillment and
product information; and facilitation of touch and feel experiences. The research includes a practical application
example of the resulting conceptualization of quality by exploring the relationship between its dimensions and
single-channel or multi-channel behaviors. The results also show that store design has a positive relationship
with single-channel behaviors and reliability, and that fulfillment-related aspects are associated with multi-
channel behavior.

1. Introduction perceived quality refers to the shoppers’ subjective assessment about

The world of retailing is changing. In a multi-channel environment,
consumers make decisions throughout the whole shopping process,
changing their preferences at any given moment and selecting either
different channels or a combination thereof, depending on the stage of
the shopping process, the product—especially in touch and feel products
(Pascual-Miguel, Agudo-Peregrina, & Chaparro-Peláez, 2015)—or their
motivations (Black, Lockett, Ennew, Winklhofer, & McKechnie, 2002).
Therefore, understanding the variables affecting these choices in multi-
channel retailing is essential for companies.
Scholarly research generally offers two approaches to identify these
variables: segmentation and value-based views. The former investigates
the effect of different consumer characteristics (Konuş, Verhoef, &
Neslin, 2008; Schoenbachler & Gordon, 2002), whereas the latter
considers that value, an aggregation of variables, determines consumer
behavior as part of the shopping experience (Huré, Picot-Coupey, &
Ackermann, 2017; Woodall, 2003). From a value-based view, con-
sumers choose the options that maximize the value they get. In a multi-
channel environment, the evaluation of perceived value consists in a
consideration of the trade-off between the costs and benefits associated
with each channel along the shopping process (Balasubramanian,
Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2005).
Benefits are mainly linked with the idea of quality. More precisely,
the product or service offered by a company (Dabholkar, Thorpe, &
Rentz, 1996; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Zeithaml, 1988).
As such, perceived quality results from a comparison between the ex-
pectations and actual performance of a product or service.
A wide range of models have been proposed to account for and
measure quality in traditional and electronic retailing. However, these
models differ from one another; for example, quality in traditional re-
tailing relates to shopping experience in a physical store, including
interaction with sales associates, product offering, store design and
layout, etc. (Dabholkar et al., 1996; Parasuraman et al., 1988;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). On the other hand, in e-tailing
emphasis is placed on the extent to which virtual stores facilitate the
shopping process, with a special focus on efficacy and efficiency (Blut,
Chowdhry, Mittal, & Brock, 2015; Collier & Bienstock, 2006;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Malhotra, 2005; Wolfinbarger & Gilly,
2003).
Drawing on these differences, a theoretical gap may be identified in
the literature devoted to understanding multi-channel retail quality
from a holistic viewpoint since, despite the overlap between the phy-
sical and virtual worlds, the particular characteristics of each channel
make it difficult to apply any conclusions drawn from the physical
world to the online world, and vice versa. Indeed, recent research has
started to adopt this holistic view in order to address such gap. For

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: emiliano.acquila@upm.es (E. Acquila-Natale), s.iglesias@upm.es (S. Iglesias-Pradas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.041
Received 12 June 2019; Received in revised form 22 October 2019; Accepted 23 October 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas
example, Hossain, Akter, Kattiyapornpong, and Dwivedi (2019) pro-
pose a qualitative approach to identify quality-related aspects in multi-
channel contexts, but the authors leave its empirical validation for fu-
ture research.
In order to address this gap, this exploratory study revises the most
relevant models of service quality in offline and electronic retailing and
analyzes the similarities and differences between them to propose a
unified model, applicable to multi-channel retailing. Our research
model thus explores four different dimensions which are common to
both contexts—in-store experience (online or physical), reliability and
fulfillment, security and privacy, and customer service—and empiri-
cally assesses its validity. Departing from the argumentation above, this
study aims to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. Is it possible to conceptualize perceived quality in a multi-
channel context?
RQ2. If so, which are the dimensions of perceived quality in multi-
channel contexts?
This study is structured as follows: Section 2 summarizes a literature
review of quality in traditional and online retailing, and synthetizes the
main dimensions of perceived quality, adapting them to a multi-
channel context. Section 3 delves into the research methodology, while
Section 4 details the data analysis and resulting factor configuration,
including an example of application of the proposed conceptualization
of quality in multichannel contexts. Section 5 discusses the main find-
ings of the study. Section 6 summarizes the most important contribu-
tions of the research and Section 7 outlines the limitations of the study
along with future avenues of research.
2. Theoretical background
The incorporation of digital channels allows to apply the traditional
retailing conception of service quality—focused on shoppers’ experi-
ence—to online service quality, or e-service quality. In an online context,
the attention shifts to efficacy and efficiency in the shopping process
(Collier & Bienstock, 2006; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, & Malhotra, 2002). While initially e-service quality was
only applied to web stores, nowadays it is possible to extend its defi-
nition to emerging digital channels, such as mobile commerce and so-
cial commerce; therefore, service quality in online environments in-
clude all the different channels where there is, or may be, no direct
interaction between shopper and vendor (Parasuraman et al., 2005;
Sousa & Voss, 2006)—e.g. web, mobile or social shopping. Given the
high complexity of combining the ideas of perceived quality in tradi-
tional and electronic retailing, the foundations of such a holistic model
for multi-channel retailing require exploring existing models of service
quality in physical and online contexts so as to understand the simila-
rities and differences between both.
2.1. Perceived quality in the physical world
The study of perceived quality in traditional retailing generally
takes the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) as a
starting point. SERVQUAL measures the perception of consumers about
the quality of the service provided by a company through different
dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy,
communication, credibility, security, ‘knowing the customer’, and
tangibles. Later on, these dimensions are regrouped into five categories
or dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1988): reliability, responsiveness,
tangibles, assurance and empathy. This adaptation responds to the need
for quantitative and qualitative validation of the model in retailing.
Based on SERVQUAL, Dabholkar et al. (1996) further refine these
dimensions—for example, the tangibles or physical aspects features are
decomposed into convenience and appearance—, while incorporating a
new dimension known as problem-solving, which implies the handling
39
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48
of two types of operations: returns and exchanges, and complaints.
2.2. Perceived quality in the online world
After the introduction of digital channels, it was necessary to re-
formulate the dimensions of SERVQUAL in order to incorporate the
characteristics of electronic retailing to existing models (Wolfinbarger
& Gilly, 2003), such as privacy and security management of customer
data, webpage accessibility and usability, delivery and return handling,
etc. Even though different studies address this need—e.g. Barnes and
Vidgen (2002); Blut et al. (2015); Collier and Bienstock (2006);
Montoya-Weiss, Voss, and Grewal (2003); Parasuraman et al. (2005);
Sousa and Voss (2006); Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003); Yang and Jun
(2002), Yoo and Donthu (2001)—, the variables included in these
models are not consistent across studies; for example, while web design
or privacy and security have deserved the attention of most researchers,
other dimensions—e.g. customer support, or delivery, return, and ex-
change handling—have been mostly omitted. These omissions are
worth noting, as consumers may easily and directly conduct an eva-
luation of the product in the physical store when they purchase—-
which, as a result, decreases the likelihood of using post-purchase and
support services—, a situation that is less likely to happen in the online
context (Wang, Lin, Tai, & Fan, 2016). As an example, 22 percent of
Spanish online shoppers have experienced some kind of issue with the
product as such, the delivery dates, etc., and have consequently re-
sorted to customer support services (Urueña et al., 2018).
Drawing on the discussion above, Table 1 below summarizes the
main dimensions of perceived quality in offline and online retailing.
2.3. Perceived quality in multi-channel retailing
Based on the different dimensions explored in the previous sections,
the proposal of a unified view of perceived quality in multi-channel
retailing reconciles the dimensions shown in Table 1, and groups the
different variables of perceived quality into four dimensions: in-store
experience, reliability and fulfillment, service provision policies, and
customer service. The conciliation of variables from the online and
offline worlds responds to two different objectives: on the one hand, it
intends to adapt all quality-related dimensions to a multi-channel
context; on the other hand, it seeks to avoid duplicity or item re-
dundancy when measuring perceived quality in a combined context.
The four dimensions included in this model and their constituting ele-
ments are the following:
• In-store experience. This dimension incorporates all the elements
related to customer experience both in physical and online stores,
establishing a correspondence between all the tangible elements of a
physical store and those pertaining to web design (Dabholkar et al.,
1996; Holloway & Beatty, 2008; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2003;
Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003). As-
pects present in both contexts include store design and comfort; a
simplification of the shopping process; the quality of the information
available; and product offering. By reconceptualizing this dimension
we may also incorporate aspects connected to the touch-and-feel
features of experiential products, bearing a widely acknowledged
influence on channel preference (Frasquet, Mollá, & Ruiz, 2015).
• Reliability and fulfillment. Because there are not significant dif-
ferences between online and physical shopping, it is possible to
define this dimension as the ability to provide the promised service
in a reliable and adequate way. For instance, both contexts under-
score the importance of a time- and manner- appropriate commit-
ment to (and fulfillment of) the terms of product delivery, return
and exchanges, while emphasizing product quality, understood as
the correspondence between the information provided and the ac-
tual features of the purchased product—even though this aspect is
more relevant in digital channels, this correspondence may
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48

Table 1
Dimensions and aspects of perceived quality in offline and online contexts.
Channel Dimension Aspects

Offline Tangibles • Employees’ appearance.

(Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988); • Up-to-date and modern store equipment.
Physical Aspects • Store layout.
(Dabholkar et al., 1996)
Reliability • Commitment in fulfilling promises.
(Dabholkar et al., 1996; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) • Availability of products.
Personal Interaction • Prompt service from employees and knowledge of employees.
(Dabholkar et al., 1996); • Trust in employees.
Assurance, Responsiveness or Empathy • Politeness of employees.
(Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) • Individual attention.
Policy • Ample operating hours.
(Dabholkar et al., 1996) • Access to additional services (e.g. parking).
• Variety of payment methods.
• High quality product.
Problem solving • Handling of delivery and returns.
(Dabholkar et al., 1996) • Customer support.

Online Website design • Website layout, ease of use and performance.

(Blut et al., 2015; Collier & Bienstock, 2006; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003); • Information quality.
Efficiency • Performance of order processing.
(Parasuraman et al., 2005) • Adequate personalization of the website.
• Product offering and stock availability.
Fulfilment/Reliability • Product quality.
(Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003); • Fulfillment of service terms and conditions.
Fulfilment
(Blut et al., 2015);
Assurance
(Parasuraman et al., 2005)
Security/privacy • Safety of transactions.
(Blut et al., 2015; Collier & Bienstock, 2006; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003) • User data privacy.
Customer service • Promptness and willingness respond to customer needs.
(Blut et al., 2015; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003) • Easy returns and exchanges.

determine channel preference—(Dabholkar et al., 1996; Holloway &
Beatty, 2008; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Wolfinbarger & Gilly,
2003).
• Service provision policies, defined as the extent to which the store
policies fulfill consumer needs. This aspect captures the dimensions
of personal interaction and policy in the offline channel (Dabholkar
et al., 1996), and security and privacy in the online one (Blut et al.,
2015; Collier & Bienstock, 2006; Parasuraman et al., 2005;
Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003), including availability of and access to
the store, payment methods available, security of payments and
privacy management of personal data.
• Customer service, which refers to the ability of the store to provide
appropriate solutions to any given conflict with its customers. This
involves the management of product delivery, returns and ex-
changes and customer service (Dabholkar et al., 1996; Holloway &
Beatty, 2008; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003).
Fig. 1 below shows a graphical representation of the proposed multi-
dimensional conceptualization of perceived quality in multi-channel
contexts. Table 2 summarizes the definition and sub-dimensions of each
dimension.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Measurement instrument
The questionnaire designed for this study asked respondents to as-
sess the relevance of the different dimensions and sub-dimensions of
perceived quality. In order to validate the adequateness of the model in
multi-channel retailing, respondents were previously requested to state
their channel preference when purchasing clothing and apparel—fo-
cusing on the purchasing stage—; the questionnaire then was tailored to
the preferred channel, therefore comprising four different options:
physical, web, mobile and social networks. Each item was assessed on
the basis of a Likert-11 scale, ranging from 0 (not important at all) to 10
(extremely important). Additionally, a “Not applicable” option was
provided in case the item did not apply to the preferred channel.
As a preliminary step before data collection, the questionnaire was
distributed to 10 retail experts and researchers. After validation of the
different items by the experts, the questionnaire was then sent to 10
university students as a pre-test to identify any potential need for re-
formulation of the different items.
The measurement instrument comprises items from validated scales.
Items corresponding to in-store experience are combined and adapted
from Dabholkar et al. (1996) and Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) for the
offline and online channels respectively—sample items: “the design of
the store allows me to easily find what I look for”, “the design of the
store allows me to complete the shopping process easily”—, with an
additional item elaborated by the authors to incorporate aspects re-
lative to touch and feel products, such as clothing and apparel; items for
reliability and fulfillment, and for service provision policies as well, are
adapted from Dabholkar et al. (1996) and Parasuraman et al. (1988) in
the offline channel and Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) and Barnes and
Vidgen (2002) in the online channel—sample items: “the store fulfills
the promised conditions of product delivery”, “the product displayed
matches the product received” (reliability and fulfillment); “the store
offers a wide range of payment methods”, “the store provides a secure
payment system when completing my transactions” (service provision
policies)—; finally, the measurement of customer service adapts items
from Dabholkar et al. (1996) for the offline context, and Wolfinbarger
and Gilly (2003) and Collier and Bienstock (2006) for the online con-
text—sample items: “the store solves my problems quickly and cor-
rectly”, “the store allows me to return or exchange the product in a
relatively easy way”. The final questionnaire is shown in Table 3.

40
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48

Fig. 1. Research model.

Table 2
Dimensions and subdimensions of perceived quality in multi-channel contexts.
Dimension Definition Sub-dimensions References

In-store experience Elements related to customer • Store design and comfort. Dabholkar et al. (1996), Montoya-Weiss et al. (2003),
experience in the physical or online • Ease of the shopping process. Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) and Wolfinbarger and
store. • Information quality. Gilly (2003)
• Product offering.

Reliability and Ability to provide the promised • Commitment and fulfillment, in time and manner, Dabholkar et al. (1996), Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988)
fulfillment service in a reliable and adequate of the terms of product delivery, return and and Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003)
way. exchanges.
• Product quality.

Service provision policies Extent to which the store policies • Availability and access to the store. Dabholkar et al. (1996), Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988)
fulfill the consumer needs. • Payment methods available. and Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003)
• Security of payments.
• Privacy management of personal data.

Customer service Ability of the store to solve any • Management of product delivery, returns and Dabholkar et al. (1996), Holloway and Beatty (2008) and
conflict. exchanges. Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003)
• Customer service.

3.2. Sample demographics and data collection 4. Data analysis

Because of the fact that the study seeks to ensure that the sample is
representative enough of the population under study, in this case the
population of Spain, the questionnaires were delivered online to many
different groups and associations, including students and faculty per-
sonnel, local authorities from a list of Spanish city and town councils,
retirement homes and youth associations. Additionally, the link to the
survey was posted in the official and personal accounts of the research
group members in different social networking sites. A raffle of four 25€
coupons of a clothing store selected by the respondent aimed to in-
crease response and referral rates.
The sample of the empirical study used to validate the research
model includes 842 responses by Spanish consumers who have made
any purchase of one of the most common products: clothing and ap-
parel; this choice is determined by the fact that clothing and apparel is
one of the most popular products in electronic retailing (Urueña et al.,
2016, 2018), but its characteristics—a touch and feel product—are also
relevant for offline shopping. The total valid responses, after discarding
incomplete responses and response set behaviors, amount 432. The
response rate is 51.3 percent, of which 49.5 percent are male re-
spondents and 49.3 are female respondents—five respondents preferred
not to disclose their gender—, of ages between 18 and 82 years old. To
ensure the representativeness of the sample, demographic data have
been contrasted with information about Spanish consumers from offi-
cial reports (INE, 2018; Modaes.es, 2018; Urueña et al., 2018). Table 4
summarizes the main characteristics of the sample.
4.1. Pre-operationalization
No respondents declared their preference for the social network
channel, which was therefore excluded from the analysis. The total
number of responses declaring preference for the mobile channel
(N = 11) and online channel (N = 62) are in line with the percentage
of shoppers in those channels across the population under study;
however, after observing the relatively low number of responses in the
mobile channel, a test of differences checked whether any of the items
was different across groups. The results showed no significant differ-
ences (p < 0.05) between both, and therefore both categories of
shoppers were grouped into ‘online shoppers’. Table 5 below sum-
marizes the main descriptive statistics of the different sub-dimensions
in the global sample and between physical (offline) and online shop-
pers. An additional test of differences between offline and online
shoppers was performed for further explanation of the analysis results.
4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
The analysis includes a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test
the conceptual model as a nomological network comprising the four
sub-dimensions of perceived quality in multi-channel environments.
CFA allows testing how well measured variables represent a smaller
number of constructs, where researchers make the assignment of vari-
ables to factors based on theory prior to obtaining any results (Hair,

41
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48

Table 3
Measurement instrument.
In-store (web or physical) experience
Text: When shopping, please rate from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (extremely important) the importance you give to the following aspects:

Code Item References

PQEx1 That the design of the store allows me to easily find what I look for. Adapted from Dabholkar et al. (1996)
PQEx2 That the design of the store allows me to easily move/browse.

PQEx3 That I may obtain detailed information about the commercial terms (total price, delivery, warranty, Adapted from Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003)
returns, etc.) in the store.
PQEx4 That I may obtain detailed information about the product (e.g. size, color, fabric, etc.) in the store.
PQEx5 That the design of the store allows me to complete the shopping process quickly.
PQEx6 That the design of the store allows me to complete the shopping process easily.
PQEx7 That the store offers a wide selection of products.

PQEx8 That I may try the clothes in the store before purchasing them. Developed from the study

Reliability and fulfillment

Code Item References

PQFi1 That the store fulfills the promised conditions of product return or exchanges, in time and manner. Adapted from Dabholkar et al. (1996)
PQFi2 That the store fulfills the promised conditions of product delivery.
PQFi3 That the product displayed matches the product received. Adapted from Barnes and Vidgen (2002); Wolfinbarger and
Gilly (2003)

Service provision policies

PQPo1 That the store offers additional services (e.g. parking [physical], virtual fitting room or recommender Adapted from Dabholkar et al. (1996)
system [online]).
PQPo2 That the store has ample business hours.
PQPo3 That the store offers a wide range of payment methods.
PQPo4 That the store has a privacy policy to protect my personal data. Adapted from Barnes and Vidgen (2002); Wolfinbarger and
PQPo5 That the store provides a secure payment system when completing my transactions. Gilly (2003)

Customer service
PQSs1 That the store solves my problems quickly and correctly. Adapted from Dabholkar et al. (1996)
PQSs2 That the store offers multiple options of delivery dates (e.g. next-day delivery, 3 days, 5 days, etc.). Adapted from Collier and Bienstock (2006)
PQSs3 That the store offers multiple methods of product delivery and reception (e.g. home delivery, pick-up in
store, delivery to a convenience point, etc.).
PQSs4 That the store allows me to return/Exchange the product in a relatively easy way. Adapted from Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003)
PQSs5 That the store provides a customer service in the time and manner I need.

Table 4 study perceived quality in multi-channel environments.

Sample characteristics.
Overall 4.3. Alternative factor configuration (exploratory factor analysis)

Gender Female 214 (49.5%) Given these results, which are similar to Swaid and Wigand (2012)
Male 213 (49.3%)
in their analysis of site-to-store systems, and based on the identified
NA 5 (1.2%)
elements of perceived quality, the study further explores whether there
Age < 25 101 (23.4%)
might be any alternative configuration of factors based on the under-
26–35 62 (14.3%)
36–45 104 (24.1%)
lying structure among the variables in the sample using an exploratory
46–55 100 (23.2%) factor analysis (EFA) (Hair et al., 2014). The analysis then follows an R-
56–65 44 (10.1%) type factor analysis of the global sample (N = 432), following the
> 65 21 (4.9%) guidelines of Field (2013) and Hair et al. (2014) and using SPSS version
Channel preference Physical Store 359 (83.1%) 26 for the statistical analysis. The EFA includes a principal components
Online Store 62 (14.4%) analysis (PCA) with oblique (Oblimin) rotation because composites
Mobile Store 11 (2.5%)
representing underlying dimensions are expected to be found and at
Social Media Store 0 (0.0%)
least some degree of correlation among components is also expected
due to the construction of the original model. To set the criteria for the
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). CFA is a confirmatory method for number of factors to extract, the research observes and compares the
testing the measurement theory, and was conducted with the help of results of the latent root or Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues higher than
the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012), following the general guide- 1), the percentage of variance criterion (set as 60 percent) and the scree
lines of Hair et al., 2014. plot criterion; a compromise among the three criteria is the 5-factor
The results of the CFA show poor fit of the model with the global solution. Considering the size of the sample, the threshold of significant
sample data (Δχ2/df = 5.547; CFI = 0.792; TLI = 0.761; factor loadings is set at 0.30—loadings above 0.50 are considered for
RMSEA = 0.103; SRMR = 0.091), and also with the offline (Δχ2/ practical significance. After the initial analysis, several iterations and
df = 4.545; CFI = 0.769; TLI = 0.735; RMSEA = 0.099; re-specifications of the factor model have been necessary. In every
SRMR = 0.082) and online (Δχ2/df = 2.098; CFI = 0.618; iteration the research team has assessed unacceptable communality
TLI = 0.561; RMSEA = 0.123; SRMR = 0.128) subsamples. Therefore, levels—below 0.50—as well as the absence of significant loadings or
the results suggest that the proposed research model is not adequate to cross-loadings in some of the variables. In each iteration the results
have been cross-checked with different rotation methods and factor

42
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48

Table 5
Main statistics.
Dimension Item Total (N = 432) Offline (N = 359) Online (N = 73)

Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.

In-store experience PQEx1 7.84 2.16 7.75 2.22 8.23 1.81

PQEx2 7.44 2.23 7.41 2.24 7.56 2.16
PQEx3 7.56 2.30 7.37 2.37 8.51 1.63
PQEx4 8.32 1.78 8.26 1.81 8.63 1.62
PQEx5 7.69 2.31 7.64 2.38 7.92 1.89
PQEx6 7.68 2.12 7.62 2.15 7.96 1.96
PQEx7 7.90 1.84 7.94 1.83 7.71 1.85
PQEx8 8.06 2.79 8.83 1.94 4.29 3.23

Reliability and fulfillment PQFi1 7.27 3.42 6.89 3.60 9.11 1.16
PQFi2 8.22 2.41 8.11 2.52 8.77 1.66
PQFi3 8.13 3.12 7.87 3.32 9.40 1.21

Service provision policies PQPo1 5.56 3.15 5.81 3.10 4.32 3.09
PQPo2 7.45 2.27 7.73 2.01 6.08 2.91
PQPo3 6.21 3.15 6.32 3.17 5.64 3.05
PQPo4 6.72 3.31 6.55 3.40 7.56 2.68
PQPo5 8.57 2.24 8.43 2.34 9.27 1.48

Customer service PQSs1 8.48 1.64 8.49 1.61 8.40 1.78

PQSs2 4.20 3.45 3.82 3.45 6.04 2.81
PQSs3 5.26 3.33 4.85 3.35 7.26 2.36
PQSs4 8.49 1.79 8.45 1.80 8.67 1.76
PQSs5 7.95 2.14 8.03 2.07 7.59 2.44

Table 6 SRMR = 0.049) and a split sample analysis, which validate the factor
Pattern matrix after PCA with Oblimin rotation. analysis. Furthermore, a test of differences between factors scores
Component
among online and offline shoppers has been carried out for exploratory
purposes; the results show no significant differences across the first
1 2 3 4 component, but different and significant differences across the re-
maining components, hence suggesting different levels of importance
PQEx1 0.840
PQEx2 0.800
among the two groups of shoppers.
PQEx5 0.793
PQEx6 0.833
PQSs2 −0.821
4.4. Practical application
PQSs3 −0.785
PQEx4 0.662 From the exploratory factor analysis, the study proposes an em-
PQFi1 0.814 pirical application of the resulting factor configuration to explore the
PQFi2 0.672
relationship between quality and single-channel and multi-channel
PQFi3 0.763
PQEx8 0.817 behaviors; more specifically, the behavior under study is the intention
PQPo2 0.810 to use one (single-channel) or more (multi-channel) channels in the
Variance explained (factor) 38.279 11.791 10.192 9.112 shopping process. Previous literature supports the positive relationship
Variance explained (cumulative) 38.279 50.070 60.262 69.374 between perceived quality and intention to use a given channel—but
only one channel—both in physical and online contexts (Collier &
Bienstock, 2006; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003). It
models before deleting any variable. For the final stage, with only 12
also encourages the idea that a perception of lower quality in a specific
out of the 21 variables present, a reduction of the number of factors has
channel may incline consumers to switch their shopping channel
been necessary—Section 5 discusses the implications of the different
(Montoya-Weiss et al., 2003). Sousa and Voss (2012) also provide
deletions. The final solution is a 4-factor model, consistent across both
empirical evidence of the strong relationship between service quality in
types of shoppers and the global sample. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
the online channel and e-loyalty intentions. However, prior researches
measure verifies sample adequacy (measure of sample adequacy of
have not investigated yet the relationship between perceived quality
0.856, with all KMO values greater than 0.77). The total variance ex-
and the intention to use only one or more than one channels from a
plained is 69.374 percent. Table 6 below shows the results of the PCA.
multi-channel perspective.
From the results, it is possible to infer that the first emerging
component corresponds to aspects related to the design of the (physical
or online) store (PQSD); the second component is associated with de- 4.4.1. Dependent variable
livery-related aspects, such as the availability of different delivery op- Operationalization of the intention to use one or more shopping
tions and methods (PQDO); the third component includes all the attri- channels has usually classified shoppers as either single-channel or
butes of reliability and fulfillment, added to availability of detailed multi-channel shoppers, be it considering one or multiple stages of the
information about the product (PQRF); the fourth component groups shopping process—e.g. Schröder and Zaharia (2008); Heitz-Spahn
two aspects mostly linked with the facilitation of touch and feel ex- (2013). For example, Chiou, Chou, and Shen (2017) differentiate be-
periences (PQTF). tween shoppers who: search and shop offline, search offline and shop
Following the PCA, the study has performed both a CFA (Δχ2/ online, search online and shop offline, and search and shop online.
df = 2.492; CFI = 0.952; TLI = 0.934; RMSEA = 0.067; However, the reality is that consumers may use various, even all the
available channels for product information searching (Verhoef, Neslin,

43
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas
& Vroomen, 2007). They may also make a mixed use of the online and
offline channel when purchasing, depending on different factors.
Therefore, there is a full continuum between single-channel and multi-
channel shopping behaviors. In this study, to characterize single-
channel or multi-channel shopping behavior, we turn to Easingwood
and Storey (1996), as well as to Coelho and Easingwood (2008), to
illustrate the concept of channel use intensity from a company view, but
adopting a consumer perspective. Intensity of the intention to use a
channel therefore refers to a proportional measure of the consumer’s
intention to use a given channel in each stage of the shopping process.
Because the definition of the intention to use any post-purchase (e.g.
delivery or returns) channel cannot be determined as single-channel or
multi-channel without relating them to previous stages, in this study
the intensity of the intention to use a channel includes only the pre-
purchase and purchase stages.
To measure intensity of the intention to use a channel, the same
survey respondents were asked to state, in percentage, the extent to
which they intended to use the offline, mobile and web channel for
information purposes and to purchase clothing and apparel in the fol-
lowing year. As each purchase can be consider ‘either-or’, the total
percentage for each channel has to sum a total of 100 percent; however,
because shoppers may use all available channels in each purchase for
information search, the total percentage may exceed 100 percent in
total, but not for each channel.
The final step in the operationalization of single-channel and multi-
channel shopping behavior involves the intensity of intention of
channel use as a combination of the percentages of intention to use each
channel. Since the conceptualization of perceived quality in this study
differentiates between online and offline shopping, the percentages
corresponding to the web and mobile channels were aggregated to
calculate the intention to use the online channel to purchase clothing
and apparel, whereas the maximum of the two values was used to re-
present the intention to use the online channel for information search.
Depending on how these percentages are combined, the resulting
measurement may represent different concepts. For instance, simply
subtracting the intention to use the values of intention to use the online
and offline channel would give a measure of intensity of channel pre-
ference, with values ranging from −100 to + 100. However, the
skewed distribution of the study sample toward “pure offline shoppers”,
although representative of the Spanish population, strongly advises
against using intensity of channel preference as dependent variable.
Consequently, the variable of interest in this exploratory study under-
stands single-channel or multi-channel shopping behavior as a con-
tinuous variable, and therefore we opt to calculate the absolute value of
the difference between the percentage of the intention to use the online
and offline channel. By so doing, the final scale has values in the range
of 0–100, with values closer to zero representing more pronounced
multi-channel behaviors—similar intention to use the online and offline
channel—and values closer to 100 representing single-channel beha-
viors, regardless of the preferred channel—i.e. either total preference
for the online or the offline channel.
In regard with the relationship between quality dimensions and
single-channel or multi-channel behaviors, it is difficult to anticipate its
direction due to the absence of previous research on antecedents of this
new construct. However, the positive link between the web-store design
components and e-loyalty or online channel use intentions (Collier &
Bienstock, 2006; Sousa & Voss, 2012) suggests that higher values in the
store design dimension may be associated with single-channel beha-
viors—in other words, consumers who consider design as an important
aspect of quality will tend to remain using only one channel in their
shopping. In relation to reliability and fulfillment, similarly to store
design, a positive relationship between this dimension and single-
channel behaviors may be expected. Delivery-related aspects, though,
may have a negative relationship with single-channel behaviors; that is,
consumers who value highly the flexibility provided by different op-
tions for delivery (dates and location) may tend to use the different
44
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48
channels depending on how conveniently they fulfill their needs. Fi-
nally, a strong positive relationship between aspects referred to touch
and feel experience and intention to use one channel would be expected
if the dependent variable were intensity of channel preference—i.e.
high values of the importance of being able to try the product would be
related to preference for the offline channel while low values would be
connected to preference for the online channel—; however, and based
on our definition of the dependent variable, no relationship between
this dimension and single-channel/multi-channel behavior is expected.
4.4.2. Statistical analysis
The data analysis comprises a covariance-based structural equation
modeling approach using the package lavaan for R. After a first analysis
with 336 valid observations (responses including ‘Not applicable’ in any
indicator were removed from the analysis), high multicollinearity was
detected in item PQPo2 (‘that the store has ample business hours’),
which is clearly more closely related to offline shopping and was re-
moved in the subsequent analysis—leaving PQEx8 (‘that I may try the
clothes in the store before purchasing them’) as the only indicator of the
‘facilitation of touch-and-feel experience’ dimension. The initial ana-
lysis also suggests the removal of PQEx4 (‘that I may obtain detailed
information about the product—e.g. size, color, fabric, etc.—in the
store’) from the reliability and fulfillment dimension (PQRF) due to
potential discriminant validity issues with store design-related aspects
(PQSD).
Following Hair et al. (2014), the results of the analysis (Tables 7 and
8) confirm measurement instrument reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha
values ranging from 0.69 to 0.87 (0.69 corresponds to the multi-
channel behavior, over the recommended 0.6 value for newly devel-
oped scales), indicator loadings over 0.6 and composite reliability va-
lues higher than 0.68. Convergent validity assessment based on AVE
values return acceptable values for all latent variables, over the re-
commended value of 0.5, except for PQRF (reliability and fulfillment), at
0.49; Huang, Wang, Wu, and Wang (2013) suggest that AVE values
higher than 0.4 are acceptable if composite reliability is higher than 0.6
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Cheung and Wang (2017) recommend con-
cluding convergent validity upon simultaneous observation of two
different phenomena: first, when AVE is not significantly smaller than
0.5, and second, when standardized factor loadings of all items are not
significantly less than 0.5, as in this case. Therefore, we accept con-
vergent validity even though the result suggests further confirmation.
All AVE values are higher than squared correlations between latent
variables, establishing, this way, discriminant validity.
The study compares the assessment of the structural model using the
original conceptualization of perceived quality in this research and the
alternative configuration after the EFA. The first one does not converge
and no solution is found, while the model using the resulting con-
ceptualization of perceived quality has a good fit, with the following
model statistics: χ2 = 87.737; df = 45; Δχ2/df = 1.95; GFI = 0.959;
AGFI = 0.928; CFI = 0.969, IFI = 0.969; NNFI = 0.954; TLI = 0.954;
Table 7
Measurement instrument reliability.
Latent Variable Indicator Loading α CR
PQSD PQEx1 0.78 0.87 0.87
PQEx2 0.74
PQEx5 0.77
PQEx6 0.87
PQDO PQSs2 0.70 0.73 0.73
PQSs3 0.83
PQRF PQFi1 0.65 0.73 0.74
PQFi2 0.75
PQFi3 0.69
PQTF PQEx8 1.00 – –
MCB (multi-channel behavior) MCB1 0.77 0.68 0.68
MCB2 0.68
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48

Table 8 customers with different channel preferences.

Discriminant validity assessment (AVE in the main diagonal, squared correla- An essential part of in-store experience in this study’s proposal, the
tions between constructs below the main diagonal). emergence of store design as the most relevant factor in our analysis has
PQSD PQDO PQRF PQTF MCB allowed us to apply Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2003) dimension, origin-
ally devised for online channels, to physical ones where store design has
PQSD 0.79 not received as much attention as other variables. It should also be
PQDO 0.67 0.70
noted that the cause of this finding may lie in the characteristics of the
PQRF 0.52 0.53 0.76
PQTF 0.15 0.14 −0.08 1 product selected for this research, as the design of clothing and apparel
MCB 0.1 −0.12 −0.07 0.07 0.77 is usually an important feature for consumers in the stage of con-
sideration, assessment and selection of alternatives and purchase. From
the results, fashion and clothing companies and brands willing to have
RMSEA = 0.053; SRMR = 0.041. All the fit indices are acceptable and multi-channel operation should carefully plan the image and design of
suggest that the overall structural model provides a good fit with the their physical and online stores because both offline and online shop-
data. pers associate the design to the quality of the store, with independence
The analysis (Fig. 2) confirms the expected positive relation be- of their channel preference. Inconsistency between the physical and
tween store design elements (PQSD) and single-channel behaviors online store, as well as poor design of one of the channels, are two
(β = 0.351; p = 0.004), and the non-significant relationship between factors potentially bearing dramatic consequences for those companies
touch-and-feel experiences (PQTF) and single- or multi-channel beha- unaware of the multi-channel nature of current consumers.
viors (β = 0.060; p = 0.401) but, contrary to our hypotheses, the re- The second factor includes two aspects related to delivery. In a
sults show a negative relationship between aspects related to reliability multichannel context, consumers demand multiple options and
and fulfillment (PQRF) and single-channel behaviors (β = −0.326; methods to obtain their products. The results go in line with the
p = 0.015), while no significant relation has been observed between emergence of new shopping behaviors, such as showrooming, web-
delivery options (PQDO) and multi-channel behaviors (β = −0.081; rooming or click-and-collect (Acquila-Natale and Chaparro-Peláez,
p = 0.443). These results will be discussed in the next section. 2019). Companies should be aware of this transformation of consumer
behaviors in multi-channel environments and incorporate different
ways to shop and deliver their products to improve perceived quality.
5. Discussion of results
The third factor groups the different items conceptualizing the sub-
dimension of reliability in the original proposal, with the addition of
The results offer valuable insight about the conceptualization of
one element related to the quantity and quality of information about
perceived quality in multi-channel retailing. Despite the fact that our
the product, which was initially considered under the sub-dimension of
analysis does not support the original research model proposed after
in-store experience—this element was removed in the practical appli-
reviewing relevant literature on the issue, the final model highlights the
cation. As such, this factor is mostly associated with the extent to which
emergence of multiple perceived-quality related issues, shared by

Fig. 2. Results of the structural model assessment.

45
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas
the expectations of customers about the reliability of the vendor and the
integrity of the shopping process are fulfilled. From the different
components of reliability and fulfillment, it is easy to observe a corre-
spondence between the need to have all the information available about
the different products and the confirmation that the shopping process
has been performed flawlessly. This result is also in line with the
changing habits of shoppers and new modalities of shopping—i.e.
showrooming, webrooming, click-and-collect—, which make it neces-
sary to ensure the integrity of the process. The item PQEx3 (‘that the
company provides detailed information about the terms of service’),
which would be expected to be grouped in this factor, was removed
during the re-specification stages because of its high cross-loading with
other items, especially those related to customer service and returns.
The removal of all aspects related to customer service, due to high
cross-loadings, might have been caused by the fact that they extend
through the whole shopping process, affecting other components of
perceived quality, such as delivery or any issues with origin in the
design and operation of either the web or the physical store.
The fourth factor groups two variables that are mostly of times as-
sociated with offline shopping: availability of extended open and close
hours, and the need to try the product before purchasing. Even though
at a first glance one might question whether it is appropriate to consider
this dimension under a multi-channel context, there are two joint
considerations that might explain this result. In the case of clothing and
apparel, a pure online behavior is not commonplace due to the specific
characteristics of the product—a touch and feel product that also re-
flects self-image. This fosters the utilization of different channels along
the shopping process. For example, it is usual for consumers to search
for information both online and offline, to try the product, and then
purchase it using the channel that is most convenient for them de-
pending on contextual factors. Therefore, both offline and online con-
sumers perceive value in being able to complement activities that may
be developed in online channels with the possibility to explore the
offline channel at their convenience. Thus, the physical store is ex-
pected to be an extension of the 24/7 virtual store, and the mere ex-
istence of the physical store is still considered valuable by most shop-
pers.
Referring to other excluded values, the analysis quickly discarded
items such as additional services and wide product offering, suggesting
that consumers rate their value as low or non-significant. Other items,
such as customer data privacy policies or security of transactions and
diversity of payment methods, were inconsistent or had cross-loadings;
in this case, the study cannot conclude whether their exclusion may
have been caused by changes in consumer behavior—due to acceptance
of privacy loss in retailing in general, and improvement of the security
associated with electronic payment methods and lower perceptions of
risk—or if, on the contrary, they might still be an important component
of perceived quality, but probably only of application in some channels
like online shopping.
The study further explores the relation between perceived quality
and shoppers’ single- and multi-channel behaviors. The results of the
analysis show that shoppers who give more importance to store design
are more likely to adopt single-channel behaviors. Thus, and provided
that the (physical or virtual) store facilitates all purchase-related pro-
cedures (finding the products, completing the shopping process, navi-
gating the website or browsing), and provides detailed information
about the product, consumer loyalty toward a preferred channel—on-
line or offline—will be sustained.
The research also finds that there is not any relationship between
the importance given to the need to try the product before purchasing
and the intention to use one or more channels; while this result is ex-
pected due to the conceptualization of multi-channel shopping behavior
in this study, it is likely that the relation between this dimension and
the intention to use online and offline channels is not linear, and that
high and low values of this variable correspond to high intention to use
the offline and online channels, respectively. Therefore, we anticipate
46
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48
different results when the dependent variable is the intensity of the
intention to use the different channels.
The results show a positive relationship between aspects related to
reliability and fulfillment and multi-channel behaviors—i.e. negative
relationship with single-channel behaviors. While we did not anticipate
this result, it may be explained by the fact that consumers who have
high concerns regarding assurance of the integrity of the process (de-
livery dates, compliance with terms and conditions, product con-
formance) may use the different channels to gather complete informa-
tion about the process that might not be available when only one
channel is used; for example, by searching in opinion sites or social
networks, or by visiting the store to see the product or asking also sales
representatives for information about the different shopping conditions.
Even though we anticipated that higher importance attributed to
the existence of different delivery options might be associated with
multi-channel behaviors, the results do not confirm this relationship.
This result might be explained by the fact that the conceptualization of
multi-channel behaviors did not consider post-purchase stages of the
shopping process, such as delivery and returns.
6. Conclusion
In order to answer the research questions (“Is it possible to con-
ceptualize perceived quality in a multi-channel context?”, “If so, which are
the dimensions of perceived quality in multi-channel contexts?”), this study
proposes a framework for the study of perceived quality in multi-
channel environments. The research identifies and reconciles the main
themes and aspects related to perceived quality that have been studied
separately in online and offline contexts. The empirical study suggests
that the proposed framework is not adequate, but the results of the
exploratory analysis show that there are at least four common themes
around the idea of perceived quality in multi-channel retailing: (phy-
sical/web) store design, reliability and fulfillment, availability of phy-
sical store, and variety of delivery options and methods, providing thus
an affirmative answer to both research questions.
Contrary to prior research that focuses on quality in a single channel
(offline or online), the main contribution of this study is to provide a
conceptualization of quality that is not channel-specific. The results
then serve as a first step towards the understanding of perceived quality
in multi-channel retailing, while shedding new light on the changing
behavioral patterns of customers, such as: single- and multi-channel
behaviors (such as in the example application explored in this re-
search); intensity of channel use; or channel preference and lock-in
effects (e.g. Verhoef et al., 2007; Acquila-Natale, Hernández-García,
Iglesias-Pradas, & Chaparro-Peláez, 2019). That said, in no way does
this paper intend to replace existing and validated conceptualizations of
quality, which usually deal with each channel separately, but to explore
common aspects across channels with the aim of setting the foundations
for the study of quality in multi-channel contexts. Therefore, future
studies may allow to confirm the findings of this research, and explore
whether additional components need to be incorporated to the study of
perceived quality in multi-channel retailing. Because some results
might be product-specific, it would also be recommended to extend and
adapt this study to other product categories—for example, the dimen-
sion related to facilitation of touch-and-feel experiences might be ap-
plicable only to experiential products, such as clothing and apparel.
Another theoretical contribution of the research is the con-
ceptualization of single- and multi-channel shoppers’ behavior used in
the practical example of application. The study transposes the concept
of channel use to the realm of consumer behavior, acknowledging that
channel use is not a binary variable, but rather a continuum that re-
flects in a better way the actual behavior of shoppers in multi-channel
contexts. From a practical perspective, the empirical analysis explores
the relationship between the dimensions of quality and single- and
multi-channel shopping behaviors; the results are believed to bring
some understanding into the underlying mechanisms associated with
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas
the customers’ use of either a single channel or multiple ones, while
highlighting the importance of store design and aspects related to re-
liability and fulfillment.
7. Limitations of the study and future research
The research is not exempt from limitations. For example, the study
does not explore other dimensions of value, such as monetary or non-
monetary—time and effort—costs, perceived risk or the hedonic aspects
of shopping, which would be required to provide a complete view of
perceived value in multi-channel retailing.
Second, the sample used in the study is representative of the Spanish
population of clothing and apparel shoppers regarding age, gender and
channel use distribution. This means that there is an over-representa-
tion of offline shoppers in the sample. Future studies should include a
balanced sample of offline and online users that would allow exploring
other important relationships—e.g. the influence of the dimensions of
quality in the intensity of the use of the different channels. Further,
because the proportion of mobile and social network shoppers is still
relatively small, especially in the case of the latter, they are largely
underrepresented in this study. Therefore, we recommend the inclusion
of these two groups in future research, differentiating them from web
shoppers, to confirm the results found here.
Third, the research uses a generic description of online and offline
stores in the measurement instrument. The logical next step implies the
validation of this conceptualization of perceived quality with specific
examples of clothing and apparel retailers or brands that operate both
offline and online—ideally, through different online channels.
Fourth, the final model used for the analysis in the practical appli-
cation includes one single-item construct, which could lead to model
identification issues. Even though we took precautions when per-
forming the analysis—fixing its error variance to zero—, a multi-item
operationalization of the variable is recommended in future studies.
Additionally, the low values of average variance extracted in the re-
liability and fulfillment dimension suggest the need to further refine
and test this measure.
Fifth, the conceptualization of single- and multi-channel behaviors,
a novelty in this study, only encompasses the pre-purchase and pur-
chase stages of the shopping process. Such conceptualization may have
an impact in the relationships explored in the practical application,
which have been discussed earlier. Even though there are important
limitations to include post-purchase stages in the operationalization of
this variable because of their dependence on shoppers’ behaviors in
previous stages, we consider that further refinement of this con-
ceptualization is a promising line of research to deepen our under-
standing of shopping behaviors in multi-channel contexts.
References
Acquila-Natale, E., Hernández-García, A., Iglesias-Pradas, S., & Chaparro-Peláez, J.
(2019). A closer look at lock-in effect and channel preference. 13th International con-
ference on industrial engineering and industrial management.
Acquila-Natale, E., & Chaparro-Peláez, J. (2019). The long road to omnichannel retailing:
An assessment of channel integration levels across fashion and apparel retailers.
European Journal of International Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2020.
10017394 (in press).
Balasubramanian, S., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2005). Consumers in a multi-
channel environment: Product utility, process utility, and channel choice. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 19(2), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20032.
Barnes, S. J., & Vidgen, R. T. (2002). An integrative approach to the assessment of e-
commerce quality. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3), 114–127.
Black, N. J., Lockett, A., Ennew, C., Winklhofer, H., & McKechnie, S. (2002). Modelling
consumer choice of distribution channels: An illustration from financial services.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 20(4), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02652320210432945.
Blut, M., Chowdhry, N., Mittal, V., & Brock, C. (2015). E-service quality: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Retailing, 91(4), 679–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.
05.004.
Cheung, G. W., & Wang, C. (2017). Current approaches for assessing convergent and
discriminant validity with SEM: Issues and solutions. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2017(1), https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.12706abstract.
47
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48
Chiou, J., Chou, S., & Shen, G. (2017). Consumer choice of multichannel shopping.
Internet Research, 27(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2013-0173.
Coelho, F., & Easingwood, C. (2008). A model of the antecedents of multiple channel
usage. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(1), 32–41.
Collier, J. E., & Bienstock, C. C. (2006). Measuring service quality in E-retailing. Journal of
Service Research, 8(3), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670505278867.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality for
retail stores: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 24(1), 3–16.
Easingwood, C., & Storey, C. (1996). The value of multi-channel distribution systems in
the financial services sector. The Service Industries Journal, 16(2), 223–241. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02642069600000023.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
USA: Sage.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Frasquet, M., Mollá, A., & Ruiz, E. (2015). Identifying patterns in channel usage across the
search, purchase and post-sales stages of shopping. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 14(6), 654–665.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Heitz-Spahn, S. (2013). Cross-channel free-riding consumer behavior in a multichannel
environment: An investigation of shopping motives, sociodemographics and product
categories. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 570–578. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.006.
Holloway, B. B., & Beatty, S. E. (2008). Satisfiers and dissatisfiers in the online en-
vironment. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670508314266.
Hossain, T. M. T., Akter, S., Kattiyapornpong, U., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Multichannel
integration quality: A systematic review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 49(January), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2019.03.019.
Huang, C., Wang, Y., Wu, T., & Wang, P. (2013). An empirical analysis of the antecedents
and performance consequences of using the Moodle platform. International Journal of
Information and Educational Technology, 3(2), 217–221.
Huré, E., Picot-Coupey, K., & Ackermann, C. L. (2017). Understanding Omni-channel
shopping value: A mixed-method study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
39(August), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.011.
INE (2018). Encuesta Continua de Hogares (ECH). Retrieved November 30, 2018, from
http://www.ine.es/dynt3/inebase/index.htm?type=pcaxis&path=/t20/p274/
serie/prov/p05&file=pcaxis&L=0&dh=0&capsel=0%0A.
Konuş, U., Verhoef, P. C., & Neslin, S. A. (2008). Multichannel shopper segments and their
covariates. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.
2008.09.002.
Modaes.es. (2018). Informe de la moda online en España. Retrieved from https://www.
modaes.es/files/000_2016/0001publicaciones/pdfs/informe_ecommerce_2018.pdf.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Voss, G. B., & Grewal, D. (2003). Determinants of online channel
use and overall satisfaction with a relational, multichannel service provider. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0092070303254408.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its quality and implications for future research. Journal of Marketing,
49(4), 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1),
12–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00084-3.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-Qual: A multiple-item scale
for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213–233.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156.
Pascual-Miguel, F., Agudo-Peregrina, A. F., & Chaparro-Peláez, J. (2015). Influences of
gender and product type on online purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 68(7),
1550–1556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.050.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of
Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Schoenbachler, D. D., & Gordon, G. L. (2002). Multi-channel shopping: Understanding
what drives channel choice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(1), 42–53. https://doi.
org/10.1108/07363760210414943.
Schröder, H., & Zaharia, S. (2008). Linking multi-channel customer behavior with
shopping motives: An empirical investigation of a German retailer. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(6), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2008.01.001.
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2006). Service quality in multichannel services employing virtual
channels. Journal of Service Research, 8(4), 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670506286324.
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. (2012). The impacts of e-service quality on customer behaviour in
multi-channel e-services. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(7–8),
789–806.
Swaid, S. I., & Wigand, R. T. (2012). The effect of perceived site-to-store service quality on
perceived value and loyalty intentions in multichannel retailing. International Journal
of Management, 29(3), 301–313.
Urueña, A., Prieto, E., Ballestero, M. P., Castro, R., Cadenas, S., & Seco, J. A. (2016).
Estudio sobre Comercio Electrónico B2C 2016 (Edición 2017). ONTSI. Retrieved from
https://www.ontsi.red.es/ontsi/es/estudios-informes/192.
Urueña, A., Prieto, E., Ballestero, M. P., Castro, R., Cadenas, S., & Seco, J. A. (2018).
Estudio sobre comercio electrónico B2C 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ontsi.red.
E. Acquila-Natale and S. Iglesias-Pradas
es/ontsi/es/estudios-informes/192.
Verhoef, P. C., Neslin, S. A., & Vroomen, B. (2007). Multichannel customer management:
Understanding the research-shopper phenomenon. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 24(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.11.002.
Wang, Y. M., Lin, H. H., Tai, W. C., & Fan, Y. L. (2016). Understanding multi-channel
research shoppers: An analysis of Internet and physical channels. Information Systems
and E-Business Management, 14(2), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-
0288-1.
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and pre-
dicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-4359(03)00034-4.
Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising value for the customer: An attributional, structural
and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12(5), 1–42.
Yang, Z., & Jun, M. (2002). Consumer perception of E-service quality: From internet
purchaser and non-purchaser perspectives. Journal of Business Strategies, 19(1),
19–41.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an
Internet shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2(1),
31–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11885-7_129.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end
48
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 38–48
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). Service quality delivery through
web sites: A critical review of extant knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 30(4), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236911.
Dr. Emiliano Acquila-Natale (Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de
Telecomunicación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, emiliano.acquila@upm.es) -
(ORCID: 0000-0003-2164-8386). He is a BAcc by Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, MBA
by Universidad Politécnica de Madrid and PhD by Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. He
is Adjunct Lecturer at the School of Telecommunication Engineering at UPM. His research
currently focuses on omni-channel commerce and the digital economy.
Dr. Santiago Iglesias-Pradas (Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de
Telecomunicación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, s.iglesias@upm.es) - (ORCID:
0000-0003-1133-2687). He is MSc in Telecommunication Engineering, MBA and PhD in
Information Systems by Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Santiago is Associate
Professor at the School of Telecommunication Engineering (UPM). He focuses his research
on e-commerce, technology acceptance and learning analytics.