1. Relationships
& Impacts of
Service quality,
perceived value,
customer satisfaction,
and image
An Empirical Study
Presenter: Sharon Chang Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Hsu Date: May 20, 20131

2. Citation
Hu, H.-H., Kandampully, J., Juwaheer, T. D. (2009).
Relationships and impacts of service quality,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image:
An empirical study. The Service Industries Journal,
29(2), 111-125.
2

3. Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Result & Conclusion
Reflection
3

4. Introduction
4

5. Introduction
Background
Given the global nature of the
market, competing firms are constantly
seeking to project their firms’ superior
quality of service, customer-perceived
value, and image in order to gain customer
loyalty.
5

6. Introduction
Purpose
This empirical study seeks to understand
the relationships that exist between
service quality and perceived value and
how they impact customer
satisfaction, corporate image, and
behavioural intentions.
6

7. Literature
Review
7

8. H1: Perceived quality has positive impacts on
behavioural intentions.
Literature Review
The positive relationships between service quality and
repurchase intentions and willingness to recommend.
(Boulding & Karla & Staelin & Zeithaml, 1993)
8

9. Literature Review
Service quality is an important driver of perceived
customer value.
(Cronin et al., 2000; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000)
H2: Service quality has positive impacts on
perceived value.
9

10. Literature Review
Perceived value contributes directly to customer
satisfaction which, in turn, leads to future intentions.
(McDougall & Levesque, 2000)
H3: Perceived value has positive impacts on
behavioural intentions.
10

11. Customer satisfaction is a post-consumption experience
which compares perceived quality with expected
quality, whereas service quality refers to a global
evaluation of a firm’s service delivery system.
(Anderson & Fornell, 1994)
H4: Service quality has positive impacts on
customer satisfaction.
Literature Review
11

12. Literature Review
Service quality and satisfaction are distinct constructs,
and there is a causal relationship between the two,
and that perceptions of service quality affect feelings
of satisfaction which, in turn, influence future
purchase behaviour.
(Hurley & Estelami, 1998)
H5: Perceived value has positive impacts on
customer satisfaction.
12

13. Literature Review
Corporate image is built mainly by technical quality
what the customer receives from the service experience,
and functional quality: the manner in which the service
is delivered.
(CrÖnroos, 1984)
H6: Service quality has positive impacts on
corporate image.
13

14. Literature Review
A company will have a strong image if customers believe
that they are getting high value when they buy from it.
(Barich and Lotler, 1991)
H7: Perceived value has positive impacts on
corporate image.
14

15. Literature Review
H8: Customer satisfaction has positive impacts
on corporate image.
Satisfaction levels derived from each service encounter
are viewed as having an effect on image assessments.
(Nguyen &
LeBlanc, 1998)
15

16. Literature Review
Corporate image serves as an important factor
influencing customer loyalty, and a favourable image can
influence repeat patronage.
(Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998; Dick & Basu, 1994)
H9: Corporate image has positive impacts
on behavioural intentions.
16

17. Literature Review
Zeithaml et al. (1996)
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8 H9
- Conceptual model -
17

18. Methodology
18

19. Methodology
Sample
Three categories
• Namely luxury
(26%)
• Mid-scale
(64%)
• Economy hotels
(10%)
Location
•
Participants
• 1500
participants
Bilingual country
(French &
English)
19

20. Methodology
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Completely
disagree
Disagree
Disagree
somewhat
Undecided
Agree
somewhat
Agree
Completely
agree
- Instrument -
Service quality –
Multiple-item scale of SERVQUAL from Parasuraman et al.
(1988)
20

21. Methodology
Perceived value –
Three items were adapted from Cronin et al. (2000)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Disagree
somewhat
Undecided
Agree
somewhat
Agree
Strongly
agree
21

22. Methodology
Customer satisfaction -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
somewhat
Undecided
Satisfied
somewhat
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Corporate image -
Two dimensions: image attributes and image holistic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Disagree
somewhat
Undecided
Agree
somewhat
Agree
Strongly
agree
22

23. Methodology
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not all
likely
Not
likely
Not likely
somewhat
Undecided
likely
somewhat
likely
Extremely
likely
Behavioural intentions –
Three categories: repurchase intentions,
willingness to recommend, and price sensitivity.
23

24. Methodology
Pilot study-
Establish content
validity of the
questionnaire
Collect the data-
During a 6-week
period
Analyze the data-
Cronbach’s alpha
LISREL 8
Step2Step 1 Step 3
Procedure
24

25. Result &
Conclusion
25

26. Result
26

27. Result
27
Descriptive statistics including mean and standard
deviation of each variable used in the proposed model.

28. Result
These are all close to or even exceed the recommended
level of 0.9 that represents reasonable fit.
( Comparative fit index )
( Normed fit fit index )
( Tucker-Lewis index )
The RMSEA values between 0.0 and 0.05 indicate a close
fit.
( Root Mean Square of Approximation )
Assess the “goddness of fit” of the model.
28

29. Result
Structural equation model
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8 H9H1: Perceived quality has positive impacts on
behavioural intentions. Not Supported
29

30. Conclusion
 High quality leads to superior perceived value,
customer satisfaction, and favourable perceptions
of corporate image.
Customers’ perceived value was found to affect
customer satisfaction, the image of the hotel, and
customers more likely to prefer the organisation
and recommend it to others.
30

31. Reflection
31

32. Reflection
This study My research
Focus on hotel
Test the impact of
service quality,
perceived value,
customer satisfaction,
and image.
Focus on restaurant
Test the impact of
customer loyalty,
service quality,
customer satisfaction,
relationship age, and
image on repurchase
behavior.
32

33. 33