The Influence of Traditional Service Quality Factors on Customer

Satisfaction: A Practical Study within the Context of Australian

Banking
Dr. Mohammad Al-hawari, Sharjah University, United Arab of Emirates

ABSTRACT

There is a general trend among Australian banks to use more automated and less traditional channels in
order to deliver various banking services. However, Bank traditional services quality factors, which include
employees, process, and tangibles, are still important to satisfy customers in today’s dynamic banking environment.
Accordingly, this study empirically investigated the relationship between these three traditional banking service
quality factors and customer satisfaction. The study is important as the research provides a practical insight into
banking in Australia concerning the role that the traditional banking services still play in satisfying customers.
Research findings indicated a significant influence of bank traditional service quality on satisfaction level. In
particular, Service delivery process quality has the strongest relationship with customer satisfaction followed by
employee service quality and tangibles. It is essential for bank mangers not to ignore traditional service quality
factors in favour of automated services.

Key words Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Bank, Australia.

INTRODUCTION

Many retail banks face a huge challenge to shrink the numbers of branches. Banks are expending more than
ever to enhance electronic customer relationship management to try to be closer to the customers while reducing
staff number (Gyptra & Dixon 2002). Using technology to win a competitive advantage in service has been
recommended in the literature. However, many bank customers still prefer the personal aspect of communicating
with the service provider. The literature showed that quality issues in the traditional context are still an effective
way of building a good marketing relationship (Ibbotson & Moran 2003). Accordingly, the main aim of this research
is to examine the impact of customer perceptions of traditional service quality factors on customer satisfaction of
retail customers within the Australian context.
Figure 1: The study outline

EMP

PRS
SAT

TAN

Independent service quality factors Dependent variable

Key: EMP→ employees service quality, TAN→ tangibles, PRS→ service delivery process quality, SAT→ satisfaction

Traditional service quality was defined in this research as customers’ beliefs or attitudes about the degree
of service excellence offered in the bank’s physical location. Service quality has become more important because of
its relationship with the level of financial performance, customer satisfaction, and retention (Van der Wiele, Boselie
& Hesselink 2002). There should be more focus on understanding customer perceptions of service quality (Rust,
Danaher & Varki 2000). Analysing markets based on customer perceptions, designing a service delivery system
that meets customer needs, and enhancing the level of service performance are very important objectives for banks

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 11 * Num. 2 * December * 2008 114

to strive for to retain a competitive advantage (Yavas, Benkenstein & Stuhldreier 2004). The study is justified as
practical insights are provided to bankers about the role of traditional services factors in satisfying their customers.
The theoretical arguments that underlie this hypothesis are presented later, as well as a research design and
methodology for empirical testing. The outline model to be tested is shown in figure 1.

Customer Perception of Service Quality

In Australia, the importance of customers’ views has grown since the deregulation of the banking sector in
the early 1980s (De Brouwer 1999). Since then customer perceptions and preferences have had an increasingly
greater impact on a bank’s success (Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Anantharaman 2002). Today, customers are more
educated than ever before, they expect more value for money and they want a good service and are willing to pay for
it (Kim & Kleiner 1996). The level of courtesy and assistance required by bank customers has increased
dramatically as customers have upgraded their service standards (Yavas, Bilgin & Shemwell 1997). It is important
for banks to differentiate themselves on the basis of customer service in order to effectively compete in the modern
competitive banking environment (Alexandris, Dimitriadis & Markata 2002).

In the literature there were many examples of models which were developed to measure customer
perceptions of service quality where face-to-face interaction between customer and employee was the main focus.
Most of these models employed the factors that were originally developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry
(1985) in SERVQUAL. This research has restructured the well service quality models to reflect the unique nature of
Australian banking context. For example a lot of the well known SERVQUAL model and also other quality models
have used and integrated in the proposed traditional service quality. As a result, three factors were identified. These
factors were drawn mainly from Sureshchandar, Rajendran and Anantharaman (2002) who adapted their items from
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988), and also from other instruments measuring service quality in banks
(Jabnoun & Al-Tamimi 2003; Aldlaigan & Buttle 2002; Bahia & Nantel 2000; Avkiran 1994). These factors are the
human element, the consistency of service delivery and tangibles

The human element of service quality referred to all aspects of staff/customer interaction in service
delivery. The importance of the human element in forming the customer’s perception of service quality has been
identified by many marketing scholars (Jabnoun & Al-Tamimi 2003, Yavas, Bilgin & Shemwell 1997). Employees
have an important effect on customer service because customers today are better educated than ever before
(Mouawad & Kleiner 1996). Further, frontline employees play a vital role in representing the firm in interactions
with outside parties, and influencing the cognitions, attitudes and evaluations formed by customers (Schneider &
Bowen 1995). Thus, frontline employees were considered to be a main driver of customer satisfaction and
favourable service quality perceptions. Finally, four out of the five SERVQUAL dimensions, were about human
elements; reliability, responsiveness, empathy and assurance (Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Anantharaman 2002).

Consistency of service delivery referred to the processes, procedures, and systems that would make
service delivery a seamless experience (Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Anantharaman 2002). It highlighted whether
the service delivery process was standardised, streamlined, and simplified, so customers could receive the service
without any problems. The structural aspects of the service delivery process have not, however, been adequately
studied (Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Anantharaman 2002). In the literature, there were a few marketing scholars
who have tried to focus on the importance of the structural content of service delivery in service quality evaluation
(Danaher & Mattsson 1998). The structural content of the service delivery process is considered important in
service quality evaluation (Danaher & Mattsson 1998). The relative degree and intensity of activities such as waiting
and delays in delivering the service have a significant effect on service quality (Danaher & Mattsson 1998).

Tangibles of Service were one of the few dimensions that have been consistently used by different
researchers (Bahia & Nantel 2000). However, tangibles refer to physical facets of the service facility; equipment,
machinery, signage, communication materials etc. (Bahia & Nantel 2000; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1985). It
included the physical evidence of the service, except the personal appearance of staff which was included in the
human element dimension. Employees and customers are usually influenced by the tangible facets of service in
physiological, psychological, emotional, and cognitive ways (Bitner 1992). The intangible aspects of the staff-
customer interface have a considerable influence, both negative and positive, on service quality (Johnston 1995).
Tangibles are associated with the impact on the customers’ inferences about what service should be like and
therefore will influence the evaluation of service quality (Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry 1993). Customer
perceptions of tangibles were generally considered more important in the case of banks than other service industries
such as securities brokerage, and product repairs and maintenance (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1988).

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 11 * Num. 2 * December * 2008 115

Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction has been an important theoretical and practical issue for most marketers and
consumer researchers. Customer satisfaction has been considered a key to success in today’s highly competitive
business environment. The importance of customer satisfaction in strategy development for customer and market
oriented firms can not be underestimated. It has increasingly become a goal for organisations to seek to deliver
satisfaction with their products and services. Danaher and Haddrell (1996) stated that there was an increase in
conducting customer satisfaction surveys by many service industries. Increased research into customer satisfaction
has been influenced dramatically by the variety of measurement scales used in customer satisfaction instruments
tests (Devlin, Dong & Brown 1993). Customer satisfaction is defined generally as the feelings or judgments of the
customer towards products or services after they have been used (Jamal & Nasar 2003). Customer satisfaction in
service industries has been approached differently by equity theory, attribution theory, the confirmation and
disconfirmation paradigm, and satisfaction as a function of perception (Parker & Mathews 2001)

The confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm provides the grounding for the vast majority of satisfaction
studies (Parker & Mathews 2001). The confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm views customer satisfaction
judgments as the result of the consumer’s perception of the gap between their perceptions of performance and their
prior expectations (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1994). However, the disconfirmation theory has been
increasingly criticised by many marketing scholars (for example, Teas 1994). In particular, Teas (1994) argued that
the different definitions of expectations and the difficulties with measurement operationalisation have undermined
these models which used expectation concepts. However, to avoid the debate surrounding the nature of the
expectation concept in measuring customer satisfaction, this research has followed an alternative approach. This
approach initially depended on customers’ actual evaluations of satisfaction, rather than on the gap between
perception and expectations (Cronin & Taylor 1994; Teas 1994).

The Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction

Service quality has remained one of the important issues in both the marketing literature generally, and the
service marketing literature specifically (Jamal & Naser 2003). It has been considered to be a critical measure of
organisational performance. Practitioners and academics often tried to develop a measure of service quality in order
to better understand its essential antecedents and consequences and to achieve a competitive advantage and build
customer loyalty (Alexandris, Dimitriadis & Markata 2002). Excellent service quality has been considered an
important prerequisite for establishing and having a satisfying relationship with customers (Lassar, Manolis &
Winsor 2000). Achieving customer satisfaction has also been considered a vital target for most service firms today.
Increasing the level of customer satisfaction has been found to lead to improved profits, word-of-mouth
recommendation and less marketing expenditure (Beerli, Martin & Quintana 2004). As a result, the relationship
between service quality and satisfaction was therefore considered an important topic and strategic concern in this
research (Lee, Lee & Yoo 2000). In general, the research in this area suggested that service quality should be
considered an important indicator of customer satisfaction. Therefore, it is expected that all service quality factors
have a positive influence on customer satisfaction.
H1: Employee service quality has a positive impact on customer satisfaction
H2: Service delivery process quality has a positive impact on customer satisfaction
H3: tangibles quality has positive impact on customer satisfaction

METHODOLOGY

A quantitative study was used to gather primary field data using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was
divided into 4 main sections. The first 3 sections dealt with customer perceptions of Employee service quality,
tangibles quality, and service delivery process quality. The fourth section was about customer satisfaction towards
their bank.

Employees' service quality refers to all aspects of staff/customer physical interaction in service delivery. It
was noted from the literature review that teller elements have frequently been included to measure different
dimensions of service quality (such as reliability, empathy, assurance, and responsiveness). For this research, it was
important to measure as many of the different aspects of human elements which might impact on the customer
satisfaction. As a result, all the items that related to employee were extracted from the different named-dimensions
of the previous service quality models (Jabnoun and Al-Tamimi, 2003; Sureshchandar, Rajendran and
Anantharaman, 2002). This led to the extraction of 14 items in the first instance.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 11 * Num. 2 * December * 2008 116

 Tangibles refer to the tangible facets of the service facility (equipment, machinery, signage, etc.) or the
man-made physical environment (Bitner 1992). It was found in the literature that tangibles have been consistently
used by many marketing scholars to measure customer perceptions of service quality. Items from different scales
were extracted to form the pool for this variable. These items were mainly extracted from those models which have
usually been used to measure customer perceptions of service quality in banks (Jabnoun & Al-Tamimi 2003; Bahia
& Nantel 2000). This process led to the identification of sex items which reflected closely the definition and aspects
of service tangibles in this research.

Service delivery consistency refers to the processes, procedures, systems and technology that would make
service a seamless one (Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Anantharaman 2002). From the literature review, consistency
of service delivery was identified as a single dimension. It was represented by the items concerned with
standardisation, simplification, structure, procedures and facilities. All of the 6 items were extracted from
Sureshchandar, Rajendran and Anantharaman (2002).

Customer satisfaction refers to feelings or judgments of the customer towards products or services after
they have been used (Jamal & Nasar 2003). Two different conceptualisations of customer satisfaction have evolved
over the past decade; cumulative and transaction-specific evaluation (Olsen & Johnson 2003). Cumulative
satisfaction was defined as the customer’s overall evaluation of a product or service provider (Olsen & Johnson
2003). In this approach, researchers have used simple single item scales to reflect ‘satisfied to very dissatisfied’
responses. For example, Cronin and Taylor (1992) used a single item scale and they asked customers about their
overall satisfaction with the organisation. However, transaction-specific evaluation has defined satisfaction as the
consumer’s evaluation of his/her experience with a particular product transaction, episode, or service encounter. In
this case, the respondents are not only asked to provide an overall assessment of their satisfaction with a particular
organisation, but they are also asked to rate different components of the service process. Recent studies emphasised
the multi-faceted nature of customer satisfaction. This approach captured the customer’s complex psychological
reactions to a service provider’s performance over a time period (Oliver 1997). Therefore, this research followed the
transaction-specific method of measuring customer satisfaction. Six items have been identified mainly from
Sureshchandar Rajendran and Anantharaman (2002b) as representing the different aspects of customer satisfaction.
These items related to the main traditional and automated service quality dimensions that have been identified in this
research. This method was consistent with the literature, e.g. Yavas, Bilgin and Shemwell (1997). Despite the six
different aspects of customer satisfaction, this construct was expected to be unidimensional.

This study was conducted in two stages. Stage one involved a pilot study which was conducted to refine the
test instrument. Thirty five respondents were interviewed in the pilot testing phase. The results showed Cronbach
alpha above 0.7 for all factors indicated an acceptable level of reliability. Stage two involved the distribution of 600
surveys to a random sample of people from the general public. A mall intercept method was used to administer the
survey which was collected via face-to-face interviews. Respondents were asked to give their perception of the
quality level of employee, tangible, and process as well as satisfaction level toward their bank, on a seven point
likert scale ranging from 1, indicating the lowest, to 7 indicating the highest. A total of 442 useable surveys were
collected with 158 rejections, which gave a response rate of 74 per cent. The surveys encompassed evaluations from
ten different banks, credit unions and building societies within Queensland, Australia.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis was conducted into main two stages; confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural
equation modelling (SEM).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 6 to assess the measurement model. four
analyses were conducted in this stage ; (1) unidimensionality, (2) reliability, (3) validity and (4) deciding on the
goodness-of-fit criteria and the assessment of the fit of the models. In undertaking a statistical analysis,
unidimensionality should be assessed first, prior to examining the reliability and validity of data (Hair et al. 1995).
In order to test for unidimensionality, CFA was conducted on each of the four factors. A Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) of 0.9, or above, for the model implied that there was strong evidence of unidimensionality for the factor
(Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Anantharaman 2002). The CFI information for all factors in this research was close to,
or above, the 0.9 level which indicated evidence of unidimensionality.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 11 * Num. 2 * December * 2008 117

 In Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) some statistical outputs can be used to measure construct reliability.
They include squared multiple correlations (R2) for each measurement item, composite reliability and the variance
extracted for each factor. Generally, measurement variables have been considered to be reliable when the squared multiple
correlation (R2) of each one is ≥ 0.5 (Byrne 2001; Holmes-Smith 2001). The first run of the measurement models showed
that R2 for the majority of measurement items was ≥0.5, which indicated a good reliability level. However, Four items of
the employee service quality factor showed R2 values of far less than 0.5. Consequently, the four items were deleted. After
the items exclusion, the composite reliability and variance extracted were calculated to measure the reliability of each
factor. The composite reliability and variance extracted for all factors exceeded the minimum acceptable values of 0.7 and
0.5 respectively (Hair et al. 1995). This indicated that measures were reliable and, therefore, yielded consistent results.

Convergent and discriminant validity were used to indicate the ability of the measurement items to measure
accurately the constructs of the study (Hair et al. 1995). The analysis showed that all of the measurement items
significantly represented their factors, as the critical ratio of every item exceeded the 1.96 value; hence, all of the
measurement items satisfied the convergent validity test. To test the discriminant validity of the proposed models, the
average variance extracted and the square correlation for every possible pair of factors were calculated. The results showed
that the average variance extracted for each pair of latent variables was greater than the squared correlation for the same
pair, indicating that each construct was a distinct construct (Holmes-Smith 2001).

The overall fit of the model was acceptable. X2 (Chi-square) of 1500 (df=344, p=0.00), X2/df ratio of 4.36, and
the comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.87 (Hair et al., 1995).

Structural Model
Evaluating the models in the last section reduced the data and resulted in a manageable number of valid and more
reliable measurement items which were then used to evaluate the structural models in this section (Kline 1998). The
overall fit indices for the proposed structural model were X2 =1500 (df=344 p=0.00), X2/df ratio of 4.5, the comparative fit
index (CFI) of 0.87, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.057. These values indicate that the
model fits the data reasonably well. Having established the final structural equation model, it was possible to evaluate the
hypotheses developed for this study. These hypotheses can be evaluated by closely examining the path coefficients and the
significance levels among the constructs in the model. Accordingly, the results showed that all service quality factors
(Employee, tangabiles, and process) had significant relationships with customer satisfaction (refer to table 1).H1, H2, and
H3 was thus accepted. All the service quality proposed factors explained 85 per cent of customer satisfaction.
Table 1: Results of structural equation analysis for the suggested conceptual model
The relationships between variables The original theoretical model
Emp → Satisfaction 0.30
Tang → Satisfaction 0.26
PRS → satisfaction 0.46
2
X
df 1500
2
/df ratio 344
X
CFI 4.5
2 0.87
R (satisfaction)
0.850

* p<0.05; ** p<0.01
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of traditional service quality on customer satisfaction within the
Australian banking context. Subsequently, this paper proposed a conceptual model which was empirically validated by perceptual
data collected from customers of different financial institutions in Queensland, Australia. This paper found that there is a positive
and significant relationship between the proposed traditional service quality factors and customer satisfaction. Accordingly this
paper confirmed what the literature has speculated.

In view of this finding, offering high standards of traditional service quality should be managed to increase customer
satisfaction, which in turn leads to the success of the financial institution as the literature indicated. The paper proves that the
customer perception of service delivery process quality plays the most important role in satisfaction level followed by the
employees' service quality, and finally the bank tangibles. Accordingly, the bank management attention should be centred on
having a standardized services delivery process as it is vital and the most important for the success of the bank. Employee service
quality seems to be another important factor in drawing customer satisfaction. Bankers need to develop of the employees'
services skills consistently so banks enjoy a high level of customer satisfaction. Finally, physical surroundings (tangible aspects)
should be well maintained as customers are welling to be in a convenient atmosphere while they are served. The above guidelines
should be used to bank managers in analysing the opportunities for building better levels of satisfaction

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 11 * Num. 2 * December * 2008 118

 Banks are shifting more toward automated services and less toward traditional services. It is not an appropriate
marketing strategy for banks to ignore having a high level of traditional banking in favour of less expensive automated banking
because focus on automated services would be likely to result in a drop in a bank’s competitive advantage as well as a drop in the
bank’s long term profitability. The lack of direct communication with bank staff when customers used automated services could
reduce satisfaction and increase the chances of customers switching to another bank For that reason, the quality aspects of
automated banking services should not be made the only focus for bank managers; recognition of the importance of the
traditional quality aspects in banking service is essential.

REFERENCES
Aldlaigan, A. & Buttle, A. (2002). “SYSTRA-SQ: a new measure of banks service quality”. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 13(4): 362-381.
Alexandris, K., Dimitriadis, N., & Markata, D. (2002). “Can perceptions of service quality predict behavioural intentions? An exploratory study
in the hotel sector in Greece”. Managing Service Quality, 12(4): 224-231.
Avkiran, N. (1994). “Developing an instrument to measure customer service quality in branch banking”. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 12(6): 10-18.
Bahia, K. & Nantel, J. (2000). “A reliable and valid measurement scale for the perceived service quality of banks”. The International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 18(2): 84-91.
Beerli, A., Martin, J., & Quintana, A. (2004). “A model of customer loyalty in the retail banking market”. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2): 253-275.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). “Service escape: The impact of physical surroundings on customer and employees”. Journal of Marketing, 56(2): 57-71
Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1992). “Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension”. Journal of Marketing, 56(3): 55.
Cronin, J. & Taylor, S. (1994). “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based based and performance-minus-expectations
measurement of service quality”. Journal of Marketing, 58(1).
Danaher, J. & Mattsson, J. (1998). “A comparison of service delivery processes of different complexity”. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 9(1): 48-63.
Danaher, P. & Haddrell, V. (1996). “A comparison of question scales used for measuring customer satisfaction”. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 7(4): 4
DeBrouwer, G. (1999). Deregulation and open capital markets: the Australian experience before Wallis. Agenda, 6: 51-68.
Devlin, S., Dong, H., & Brown, M. (1993). “Selecting a scale for measuring quality”.
Marketing Research: A Magazine of management and applications, 5(3): pp12-17.
Gyptra P & Dixon P (2002). Future of banking- Expectation. Global change Retrieved 10 February, 2004. Available from
http://www.globalchange.com/futurebank.htm
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs.
Holmes-Smith, P. (2001). Introduction to structural equation modelling using LISREAL. ACSPRI-Winter training program, Perth .
Ibbotson, P. & Moran, L. (2003). “E-banking and SME/bank relationship in northern Ireland”. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(2): 94-103.
Jabnoun, N. & Al-Tamimi, H. (2003). “Measuring perceived service quality at UAE commercial banks”. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 20(4): 458- 472
Jamal, A. & Naser, K. (2003). “Factors influencing customer satisfaction in the retail banking sector in Pakistan”. International Journal of
Commerce & Management, 13(2): 29-53.
Kim, S. & Kleiner, B. (1996). “Service excellence in the banking industry”. Managing Service Quality, 6(1): p 22 - 27.
Kline, B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. Guilford Press, New York.
Lassar, W., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R. (2000). “Service quality perspective and satisfaction in private banking”. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 14(3): 244-271.
Lee, H., Lee, Y., & Yoo, D. (2000). “The determinants of perceived service quality and its relationship with satisfaction”. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3): 217-231.
Mouawad, M. & Kleiner, B. (1996). “New developments in customer service training”. Managing Service Quality, 6(2): 49-56.
Olsen, L. & Johnson, M. (2003). “Service equity, satisfaction, and loyalty: from transaction-specific to cumulative evaluation”. Journal of Service Research, 5(3): 184.
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the consumer. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York.
Parker, C. & Mathews, B. (2001). “Customer satisfaction: contrasting academic and consumers' interpretation”. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(1): 38-44.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1994). “Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on
Psychometric and diagnostic criteria”. Journal of Retailing, 70(3): 201-230
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality”.
Journal of Retailing, 64(1): 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). “Problems and strategies in service marketing”. Journal of Marketing, 49(2): 33-46.
Rust, R., Danaher, P., & Varki, S. (2000). “Using service quality data for competitive marketing decisions”. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 11(5): 438-469.
Schneider, B. & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Wining the service game. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Sureshchandar, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. (2002). “Determinants of customer-perceived service quality: A confirmatory factor
analysis approach”. Journal of Service Marketing, 16(1): 9-34.
Sureshchandar, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. (2002b). “The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction – a factor
specific approach”. Journal of Service Marketing, 16(4): 363-379
Teas, R. (1994). “Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: an assessment of reassessment”. Journal of Marketing, 58(1): 132-139
Van der Wiele, T., Boselie, P., & Hesselink, M. (2002). “Empirical evidence for the relationship between customer satisfaction and business
performance”. Managing Service Quality, 12(3): 184-193
Yavas, U., Benkenstein, M., & Stuhldreier, U. (2004). “Relationship between service quality and behavioural outcomes: A study of private bank
customers in Germany”. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22(2/3): 144-157
Yavas, U., Bilgin, Z., & Shemwell, D. (1997). “Service quality in the banking sector in an emerging economy: a consumer survey”. The
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 15(6): 217-223.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). “The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service”. Journal of Academy
of Marketing Science, 21(1): 1-12.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 11 * Num. 2 * December * 2008 119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.