Earticle

초록

영어

Despite longstanding concern with the dimensionality of the service quality construct as measured by ServQual and IS-ServQual instruments, variations on the IS-ServQual instrument have been enduringly prominent in both academic research and practice in the field of IS. We explain the continuing popularity of the instrument based on the salience of the item set for predicting overall customer satisfaction, suggesting that the preoccupation with the dimensions has been a distraction. The implicit mutual exclusivity of the items suggests a more appropriate conceptualization of IS-ServQual as a formative index. This conceptualization resolves the paradox in IS-ServQual research, that of how an instrument with such well-known and well-documented weaknesses continue to be very influential and widely used by academics and practitioners. A formative conceptualization acknowledges and addresses the criticisms of IS-ServQual, while simultaneously explaining its enduring salience by focusing on the items rather than the “dimensions.” By employing an opportunistic sample and adopting the most recent IS-ServQual instrument published in a leading IS journal (virtually, any valid IS- ServQual sample in combination with a previously tested instrument variant would suffice for study purposes), we demonstrate that when re-specified as both first-order and second-order formatives, IS-ServQual has good model quality metrics and high predictive power on customer satisfaction. We conclude that this formative specification has higher practical use and is more defensible theoretically.

목차

ABSTRACT
 Ⅰ. Introduction
  1.1. Service Quality Dimensions
  1.2 The SERVQUAL Instrument and Information Systems Service Quality
  1.3. Information Systems Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
 Ⅱ. Model Development
  2.1. Specifying Formative vs. Reflective
  2.2. Multidimensional Constructs
  2.3. Conceptualising IS Service Quality in this Study
 Ⅲ. Research Method
  3.1. Instrument Design
  3.2. Data Collection
 Ⅳ. Results
  4.1. Assessment of First-Order ‘Formative’ IS Service Quality
  4.2. Assessment of Second-Order ‘Formative’ IS Service Quality
  4.3. Assessment at the Construct Level
 Ⅴ. Discussion
  5.1. Limitations and Further Research
 Ⅵ. Conclusion
 

저자

• Ahmad A. Rabaa’i [ Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, College of Arts and Sciences, American University of Kuwait (AUK), Safat, Kuwait ] Corresponding Author
• Mary Tate [ Senior Lecturer, School of Information Management Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand ]
• Guy Gable [ Professor, School of Information Systems Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia ]

참고문헌