Jiang et al.

/Measuring IS Service Quality

The application of the measure to the IS field has

gamered a great deal of recent debate (Kettinger
and Lee 1997; Pitt et al. 1997; Van Dyke et al.
1997). There is a psychometric concern of
operationalizing a single concept as the difference
of two separate elicitations and also empirical
ambiguity of the construct structure. The use of
the difference scores presents a number of
potential flaws, including reduced reliabiiity, poor
convergent validity, and unstable dimensionality
(Van Dyke et ai. 1997). SERVQUAL as adopted
for information systems has been inconsistent in
lerms of dimensional structure, reliability, and
validity (Cronin and Taylor 1992; Kettinger and
Lee 1997; Kettinger et al. 1995; Parasuraman et
ai. 1994). The question is whether the effects of
these issues are serious enough to exclude the
use of SERVOUAL in the IS setting.
Using an IS professional sample population
matched to a sample of IS users, we re-examine
SERVOUAL issues from the IS professional side:
(1) the dimensionality of the instrument, (2) the
convergent validity, and (3) the reliability measures of the difference scores. We then examine
Ihe expectation gap between the IS user and IS
professional according to the same criteria. Since
expectation gaps are expected to impact perceptions (Ginzberg 1981 ), we compare the results
of the expectation gap to the dimensions of the
more common user satisfaction scale (Baroudi
and Orlikowski 1988).

Ci Empirical Support I
. To addressthe difference score concerns involved
-.: in SERVQUAL, empirical analysis is necessary.
{::: Pitt et al. (1997), based upon user samples,
calculated the reliability adjusted for differences
iH and demonstrated no reliability problem associated with the SERVQUAL. Kettinger and Lee
(1997 addressed the dimensionality problem
using student samples across different campuses
and found consistent dimensions existed in the IS adapted SERVOUAL. Qthers found a different
i; number of dimensions depending on the popula-

tion involved (Cronin and Taylor, 1992: Kettinger

et al. 1995; Parasuraman et al. 1994; Pitt et al.
1995). Further studies of user populations are
clearly needed as are studies examining the
appropriateness of using SERVQUAL from the
perspective of IS professionals to analyze gaps
between providers and customers.

Sampie
To obtain a sample of IS professionals and
matched IS users, the SERVOUAL and the user
satisfaction (UIS) questionnaires were mailed to
200 managers in different organizations in the
U.S. The 200 managers selected were those who
agreed to participate from 612 contacts made with
different organizations. The list of organizations
and managers for contact was extracted from a
more comprehensive listing of organizations maintained by an economic development center at a
Midwestern university.
These managers were first contacted directly by
the authors or graduate assistants. Each manager was asked to secure a response from an IS
professional for the SERVQUAL instrument
(Appendix A). The manager was also asked to
secure a response from an IS user for the
SERVOUAL instrument (Appendix 8) and for the
UIS instrument (Appendix 0). Managers who
returned both the IS professional version and the
user versions were considered to have returned
matched sets. All of the respondents were
assured that their responses would be kept
confidential. A total of 186 questionnaires were
returned, which included 168 matched sets. The
demographic information of these respondents is
shown in Table 1.
Before any analysis was conducted on the
dimensionality or scales, the data was examined
for potential biases. An ANOVA was conducted
by using service quality (as the dependent
variable) against each demographic category
shown in Table 1 (independent variable). Results
did not indicate any significant relationships. Nonresponse bias was examined by comparing our

MIS Quarterly Vot. 26 No. 2/June 2002

Jiang et al /Measuring IS Service Quality

Table 1. Demographics

1.

Gender
Male
Female
No Response

2. Age
Under 25
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 and over
No response
3. Work Experience
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 years or more
4.

Experience in Different Applications

1 to 3 areas
4 to 6 areas
More than 6 areas
No response

5. Total Number of Employees in Organization

Less than 50 people
50 to 99 people
100 to 249 people
250 to 499 people
500 to 999 people
1,000 to 2,499 people
2,500 people or more
No response

expectation measures on the SERVQUAL scales

and the UIS scales to previous studies (Baroudi
andOriikowski 1988, Pitt et al. 1998). Chi-square
tests found no difference between the means of
our sample to those in the other studies once
normalized tc a five-point scale. Additionally, the
sample was split into early and late respondents
and t-tests found no difference in the means of
any SERVQUAL dimension. Non-response bias
did not arise as an issue based on these tests.

148

M/s Quarterly Vol. 26 No, 2/June 2002

IS Professionals

IS Users

111
66
2

66
101
1

22
63
46
36
3

43
71
34
19
1

39
46
41
14
27
2

66
44
23
17
27
2

51
58
62
7
43
32
26
22
10
12
13
10

Dimensionality of SERVQUAL
from the Other Side
If the measurement model provides a reasonably
good approximation to reality, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) accounts for observed relationships in a data set. The chi-square test provides
a statistical test of the null hypothesis that the
model fits the data. In addition, other fit indices
are typically used to identify overall goodness of

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Service Quality

Table 2. Confir matory Factor Analysis fo r SERVQUAL Mode S

Fit Index

RMR

Threshold

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

(s .10)

.057

.048

.041

.041

196.79

106.6

125.16

86.84

Chi-square

Mod9l 4

65

64

84

59

Chi-square/d.f.

(i 5.0)

3.03

1.67

1.49

1.47

CFI

( .90)

0.88

0.95

0.95

0.96

NNFI

U .90)

0.85

0.94

0.94

0,94

GFI

(i .90)

0.84

0.91

0.91

0.92

AGFI

(> .80)

0.78

0.87

0.87

0.88

d.f.

Notes:
(1) RMR = Root Mean Square Residual
(2) CFI = Comparative Fit Index
(3) NNFI ^ Bagozzi (1980) Non-normed Index
(4) GFI = Goodness of Fit Index
(5) AGFI = GFI Adjusted for Degrees of Freedom
(6) Model 1 = (Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, and Reliability) as one dimension
(7) Model 2 = (Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy) and Reliability as two dimensions
(S) Model 3 = Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, and Reliability as four dimensions, 16 tem
as in Parasuraman et al. (1994)
(9) Model 4 = Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, and Reliability as four dimensions, 13 item
as in Kettinger and Lee (1994) as shown in Figure 1

fit. Previous studies of rigor have found the

SERVQUAL tangibles dimension to be weak
(Cronin and Taylor1992,1994; Kettinger and Lee
1994,1997; Parasuraman etal, 1991). We begin
ouranaiysis with the four dimensional model used
in other studies of IS service quality because of
^ the recency of the results and the IS orientation of
the instrument (Kettinger and Lee 1994, 1997).
We test one-, two-, and four-dimensional models
I found in other recent studies, including a newer
model proposed by the developers of SERVQUAL
(Parasuraman et al. 1994). The model we carry
' fonward in the analysis (model 4) compares
;. favorably to the remaining models. The preferred
levels of each index for the CFA and the results of
the models are shown in Table 2, Analysis was
conducted with LISREL 8.51 using maximum
r; likelihood estimation on the covariance matrix.

The correlations and descriptive statistics for

these dimensions appear in Tables 3 and 4.
Patterns of mean, median, skewness, and kurtosis
in Table 4 were examined according to convention
(Ghisellietal. 1981). The responses had reasonable, skewness (less than 2), and kurtosis (less
than 5). This indicates a lack of bias in the
sample in the measured variables. The fourdimensional model is highlighted in Figure 1.

SERVQUAL Validity from

the Other Side
Convergent validity and discriminant validity were
examined. Empirically, convergent validity can be
assessed by reviewing the t-tests for the factor

MIS Quarterly Vot. 26 No. 2/June 2002

Jiang et al./Measunng IS Service Ouaiity

Tabie 3. Corr elation of Dimensions m Model 4

Reliability
Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

1.00

Responsiveness
Std, Error
t-value

0,82
(0.05)
17.34

1.00

Assurance
Std, Error
t-vaiue

0.81
(0.06)
14.12

0.95
(0.05)
17.55

1.00

Empathy
Std, Error
t-value

0.65
(0.07)
9.96

0.84
(0.06)
15.28

0.91
(0.06)
15.20

1,00

iptive Statistics of tiie 4D SERVQUAL Model (Model 4)

Reliability
Mean
Variance
Median
Skewness
Kurtosis

Assurance

Empathy

.46

.36

.23

.91

.69

.50

.39

.33
.72

.33

.33

.69

.39

.91

1.22

.88

.65

1.52

loadings. If all factor loadings for the indicators

measuring the same construct are statistically
significant (greater than twice their standard
error), this can be viewed as evidence supporting
the convergent validity of those indicators
(Andersen and Gerbing 1988), All t-tests Vi^ere
significant (Table 5) showing that ali indicators are
effectiveiy measuring the same construct, or high
convergent vaiidity.
Empirically, discriminant validity is achieved when
the correlations betv^ieen any two dimensions are
significantly different from unity (Bagozzi and
Phillips 1982), Evidence regarding discriminant
validity can be obtained by using the chi-square

150

Responsiveness

.64

MIS Quarteriy Voi. 26 No. 2/June 2002

.00

difference test. The chi-square difference test

compares an unconstrained model that estimates
the correlation between a pair of constructs and a
constrained modei which fixes the value of the
construct correlation to unity. The difference in
chi-square between these models is a chi-square
variate with degrees of freedom equal to one. A
significant chi-square difference implies that the
unconstrained model is a better fit for the data,
thereby supporting the existence of discriminant
validity (BagozziandPhillips,1982), The results of
the chi-square difference tests generally support
the discriminant validity of the scales: however
the ASSURANCE scale exhibits some historical
discriminant validity problems (see Table 6),

Jiang et ai./Measuring IS Service Quaiity

jrement ModelFour Factors

' SERVQUAL Reliability from

the Other Side
Reliability refers to consistency of measurement.
A construct is reliable if, for example, it provides
essentially the same set of scores for a group of
subjects upon repeated testing. There are a
number of different ways that reliability can be
examined. In the present study, the composite
feliability, variance extracted estimates, and
Cronbach alpha values were examined.

Composite reliability reflects the internal consistency of the indicators measuring a given factor
(Fornel! and Larcker 1981). The composite
reliability can be computed by taking the square of
the sum of standardized factor loadings for that
factor divided by the sum of the error variance
associated with the individual indicator variables
and the square of the sum of the standardized
factor loadings (Forneli and Larcker 1981). The
composite reiiabilities for each SERVQUAL
dimension are shown in Table 7. Results indicate

M/S Ouarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

151

Jiang e at./Measuring IS Ser

Table 5. Convergent Validity of Model 4

Constructs and Indicators

|
Standardized Loadings

Reliability
DRELl (item 5)
DREL3(item7)
DREL4 (item 8)

0.81
0.80
0.89

Responsiveness
DRESP2 (item 11)
DRESP3 (item 12)
DRESP4 (item 13)

0.74
0.73
0.69

Assurance
DASSl (item 14)
DASS3(item16)
DASS4 (item 17)

0.71
0.47
0.65

Empathy
DEMP1 [item 18)
DEMP3(item20)
DEMP4(item21)
DEMP5 (item 22)

0.65
0,61
0,62
0.68

adings significant at p < .01 level.

Table 6. Discriminant Validity of Model 4

AChi-Square

A Degrees of
Freedorr

Discriminant Validity

REL-RESP

22.43

Yes-

REL-ASS

14.84

Yes*

REL-EMP

77.81

Yes*

RESP-ASS

0.08

No

RESP-EMP

10.24

Yes*

2.75

No

Construct Pair

ASS-EMP
'Indicates significant at p ^ .01 li

152

MIS Quarterly Vot. 26 No. 2/June 2002

Jiang e a/,/Measuring IS Service Ouatity

Service
Construct
Indicators

Gap of IS Professionals

Co mposJte
R liability

Variance Extracted
Estimate

Cronbach
Alpha

Adjusted
(Johns 1981)

Fieliability

.87

.70

.87

,84

Responsiveness

.76

.52

.76

.67

Assurance

.64

.38

.65

.64

Empathy

.73

.41

.74

.67

an acceptable level of reliability, although the

assurance scale is lower than desired for empirical analysis (Carmines and Zeiler 1988). In
__ addition, the traditional Cronbach alpha values for
each ofthe SERVQUAL dimension are shown for
comparison. The Johns (1981) adjusted formula
tor difference score alpha value was also applied.
Variance extracted estimates, as discussed by
Fornel and Larcker, assess the amount of
variance that is captured by an underlying factor
in relation to the amount of variance due to
measurement error. Fornel and Larcker suggest
lhat it is desirable a construct exhibit estimates of
.50 or larger, because estimates less than .50
indicate that variance due to measurement error
is larger than the variance captured by the factor.
'^ However, this test is quite conservative. Very
;. often, variance extracted estimates will be below
-^ .50, even when reliabilities are acceptable. The
i ^ variance extracted estimates for each dimension
,, of SERVQUAL are also shown in Table 7.
_

Expectation Gap and Validation

. One premise of the SERVQUAL model is that the
gaps are produced by a series of prior gaps
IZeithamI et al. 1990). One of these is a gap
behween the expectation of the user and the ability
otthe service provider to understand their desires.
Pitt et al. (1998) found the gaps to be present and
meaningful in the interpretation of the service gap.
Ginzberg (1981) presented a similar concept that
proposes that a gap in expectations between IS

professionals and IS users will lead to a lack of

satisfaction on the part of the user, a predictive
form of final perceptions. We explore this premise
by examining the relationship between the expectation gap and a common measure of user satisfaction, the UIS (Baroudi and Qriikowski 1988).
First, the gap scores are taken for the expectations of the users and the IS professionals for
the SERVQUAL instrument items. We restrict
ourselves to the items in the four dimensions
located in the previous analysis. The results for
the expectation gap measures are tested to the
same rigor as the service gap measures. Table 8
shows the CFA fit results to the four-dimensional
model. Figure 2 shows the model as fit by the
CFA, Table 9 presents the correlations of the four
dimensions and Table 10 has the descriptive
statistics. Table 11 has the results of the convergent validity tests and Table 12 shows the results
of the tests for discriminant validity. Reliability
figures are in Table 13.
To examinetherelationshipofthe expectation gap
to UIS, the UIS instrument was first validated
according to the same rigor as the SERVQUAL
instrument. UIS is a more widely accepted instrument and results from this data followed expectations (Baroudi and Orlikowski 1988), The structure found by Baroudi and Oriikowski held in this
sample, with the three dimensions of information
product, staff and services, and knowledge/
involvement present. Due to the acquisition ofthe
expected structure, the CFA, reliability, and
validity results of the UIS are not presented here
for the sake of brevity.

MIS Quarterly Vol 26 No. 2/June 2002

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Service Quality

Fit Index

Threshold

RMR

(. .10)

Chi-square

0.54
120.30

d.f.

59

Chi-square/d.f.

(: 5.0)

2.03

CFI

(.. .90)

0.92

NNFI

(.. .90)

0.89

GFi

(.: .90)

0.90

AGFI

( .80)

0.85

Figure 2. Expectation Gaps Measur

154

Modei 4

M/S Quarterly Voi. 26 No. 2/June 2002

_
1

urance

1,00

-0.15
-0,09
-1.58
-0,06
-0.10
-0,63
-0.19
-0,09
-2.04

0,84
-0.06
13,43
-0,19
-0,10
-1.89
-0.16
-0,10
-1,51
-0.31
-0,10
-3,27

0.6'
-0-0
10,5

0,68
-0,07
9,42

0,01
-0,10
0,14

0,07
-0,10
0,73

Empathy
Std, Error
t-value

UISKNOW
Std. Error

UISIP
std. Error
t-vaiue

UISTAFF
Std. Error
t-value

Empathy

9 9 9

001,00:0

'--' 9 T

0,90
-0.07
13.85

Assurance
Std. Error
t-value

eness

Resp

-0,07
9,42

1,00

1
If,

Responsiveness
Std, Error
t-value

Reliability
Std, Error
t-value

ability

' o

CO o

d
-O-

cri

-1,[

0,58
0,07
8,55

-0,1

.00

UISKN

II

Rel

1,00

FAFF 1

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Sen/ice Quality

CM

M/s Ouanerly Vol. 26 No. Z-June 2002

155

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Ser

Fit Index

Threshold

Model 4

RMR

(= .10)

0.54
120.30

Chi-square
d.f.

59

Chi-square/d.f.

(; 5.0)

2.03

CFI

(. .90)

0.92

NNFI

{, .90)

0.89

GFI

(i .90)

0.90

AGFI

(> .80)

0.85

Figure 2. Expectation Gaps Measurement Model

154

MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No 2/June 2002

if

<

UJ

-0
-0
-1
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-1

7
0
3

6
0
0

CTJ

1
0
4

CD o lO
O O O

STAFF
Std. Error
t-value

o o

SIP
Std. Error
t-value

00

r2 o 5

S KNOW
Std. Error

mpathy
Std. Error
t-value

ssurance
Std. Error

sponsiveness
Std. Error
t-value

liability
Std. Error
value

1.00

0.15
0.09
1.58
0.06
0.10
0,63
0.19
0.09
2.04

0.84
-0.06
13.43
-0.19
-0.10
-1.89
-0.16
-0.10
-1.51
-0 31
-0.10
-3.27

1.00

0,66
-0,06
10.86

-.71
-0.06
12.72

1.00

0.58
-0.07
8.55

1.00

1.00

Jiang et ai.measuring

2gg

M/S Quarterly Vot 26 No. 2/June 2002

155

Jiang et al./Measunng IS Service Quality

Fit Index

Threshold

RMR

u .10)

Chi-square

69

( 5,0)

2.03

CFI

( -90)

0.92

NNFI

{- .90)

0.89

(-- -90)

0.90

(. .80)

0.85

GFI

AGFI

Figure 2. Expectation Gaps M

1S4

0.54
120.30

d-f.
Chi-square/d,f.

Model 4

MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

Std. Error

S
0.01

13.85

-.71
-0.06
12.72

0.66
-0.06
10.86

-0.06
-0.10
-0,63

-0.19
-0-09
-2.04

-0.16
-0-10
-1.51

-0.31
-0.10
-3.27

0.10

-0,10
-0,09
-1.08

-0,06
-0.10
-0.60

UlSTAFF
Std, Error
t-value

-0.06

0.07

1.00

0.64

-1.58

-1-89

0-73

-0.09

-0.10

3KNOW

-0.10

-0.15

-0.19

1.00

0.11
0,10

1,18

0.01
-0.10
0.14

13.43

-0.06

0.84

1.00

Empathy

UiSIP
std. Error
t-value

t-value

Std. Error

9.42

d d c

UISKNOW

-0.07

0-68

0.07

Empathy
Std. Error

0.73

0-90

-0.07

Std- Error

0-69
-0,07
9,42

Assurance

t-value

Std, Error

'5

Responsivei

t-value

1.00

Reliability

0,58
-0.07
8.55

1-00

UiSIP

1.00 1

UlSTAFF 1

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Service Quality

MIS Quarteriy Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

155

Jiang et ai./Measuring IS Ser

Assurance

Empathy

Mean

Reiiability
.04

Responsivenes s
-.01

.05

,04

Variance

.52

.67

.47

.58

Median

.00

.00

.00

,00

Skewness

-.45

-.28

-.71

-,54

Kurtosis

3.43

1.18

4.29

2,56

Table 11. Convergent Validity of Expectation Gaps

Constructs and Indicators

Standardized Loadings'

RELIABILITY
0,63
0.67
0.67

DE5
DE7
DE8

RESPONSIVENESS
DE11
DE12
DE13

0.77
0.78
0-55

ASSURANCE
DE14
DE16
DE17

0,61
0,61
0,66

EMPATHY
DEI 8
DE20
DE21
DE22

0.73
0.63
0.64
0.71

*AII parameters significant at p < ,01 level.

156

M/S Quarterly Vol. 26 Wo. 2/June 2002

Jiang et ai./Measuring IS Service Ouaiity

^
Construct Pair

A Chi-Square

Degrees of
Freedom

Discriminant
Validity
Yes"

30.95

XDREL-EXDASS

0.89

No

EXDREL-EXDEMP

32.70

Yes*

EXDRESP EXDASS

13.73

Yes"

EXDRESP-EXDEMP

40.27

Yes"

6.49

Yes*

EXDREL-EXDRESP

EXDASS-EXDEMP

Indicates significant at p < .01 level.

(]Atl[:a^.1<]:1Hr:l

Construct
Indicators

Composite
Reliability

^
Variance
Extracted Estimate

Cronbach
Alpha

Adjusted
(Johns 1981)

Reliability

.70

.47

.70

.67

Responsiveness

.75

.50

.73

.68

Assurance

.66

.40

.66

.66

Empathy

.78

.47

.78

.76

Table 14. CFA of Combined Expectation-Difference and UiS iUodels

Fit Index
RMR

Threshold

Model 4
.065

{< .10)

175.57

Chi-square
d.f.

99

Chi-square/d.f.

(i 5.0)

1-77

CFi

(- .90)

0.91

NNFI

U 90}

0.89

GFI

U .90)

0.88

AGFI

(i .80)

0.84

M/S Quarterly Vol. 26 Wo. 2/June 2002

157

Table 15. Regression Coefficients for UIS and SERVQUAL Dir

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

Overall UIS

.16-

-01

-.21*

-.07

IS Staff Communication

.14

.05

-.32-

-.08

Information Product Quality

.19'

.00

-.13

-,03

User Impact and Involvement

.14

-.02

-.17

-.10

Indicates significant at .05.

0-77--'''''''''^

DE11
DE12 - - 0 , 3 8
DEI 3 - 0.70

DE14 - - 0 - 6 2
DE16
DE17

--0.62
*- 0.59

--0.46
--0.61
^0.58
0.49

Figure 3. UIS Staff and SERVQUAL Expectation Gaps

158

MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

Jiang et at./Measuring IS Ser

A CFA analysis of the full UIS to the expectation

gap showed an adequate fit, but (he correlation

. ^ between the constructs was low and not significant(.1O). However, looking at the service related
~^ dimension of the UIS, the staff and services
- ^ dimension, the fit metrics (Table 14) indicate a

from an application viewpoint, we believe SERVQUAL holds the promise indicated in previous
arguments, and the issues of validity appear to be
minimal, certainly not to the point where a
potentially valuable analytical tool should be
dismissed as an application or research device.

good fit to the model, and a significant correlation

~~; of -.26 indicates a relation.

Table 15 shows

- ^ regression results using the UIS as the dependent

variable and the SERVQUAL dimensions as the
independent variables. As can be seen from the
tables, some relations are statistically strong while
^

ottiers do not exist. The results for the correla-

tions and regressions support the premise that an

V- expectation gap will lead to lowered satisfaction,

butthe weak results are inconclusive.

Conclusions I
*

This study added to the understanding and appli-

". cabilityofSERVOUAL by examining the validity of

tbe instrument in the IS professional population,
_

This first such study is important because it adds

to the worth of the instrument by testing on other

.. populations (Keriinger 1986).

The four dimen-

^ sions found in previous work were supported by

Ihe data collected here for two diverse populations- In addition, this study found that a signi.

ficant expectation gap does exist in the sample

population and this gap is related to a measure of
user satisfaction, both premises in the theory

behind SERVQUAL as a gap analysis technique

(ZeithamI et al. 1990).

Research issues are more onerous. The ability to

use SERVQUAL in rigorous research not only
depends on the conceptual value, but also on the
empirical, methodological, and statistical properties. Differences can include (1) unstable dimensionality, (2) reliability problems with difference
scores, and (3) convergent validity issues. In
these cases, SERVQUAL is found to be generally
stable in the tests reported in the marketing
literature (Parasuraman et al. 1991). The IS
literature reported differences across populations,
but did not have the breadth of sample reported in
this study. This and previous studies have found
that the reliability and convergent validity
properties are good for the SERVQUAL instrument as determined within each population.
Dimensionality has shown variability, but there is
a collection of reports that have found the same
four dimensions, including this one with a different
population (Kettinger and Lee 1994, 1997;
Kettinger et al. 1995). We concur with previous
researchers that the empirical questions of the
measure are not compelling enough to justify the
loss of the managerial diagnostic capabilities
found in SERVQUAL.

SERVQUAL has demonstrated value as a diagnostic tool for managers, including IS managers
(Watson et al. 1998),

The preliminary results

reported in this study indicate that there may be a

common structure in SERVOUAL across the
diverse populations of IS users and IS professionals. Should these properties be present in the
wider population, SERVQUAL can be a useful tool
in IS service evaluation systems. It also may have
the potential to sen^e as a measure of expectation
differences to help analyze expectation gaps. Qr

However, it must be remembered that each

empirical study using the metric should revaldate
the measure with respect to the empirical issues
raised. Part of the doctrine of anyrigorousstudy
is that the instrument be revalidated on the
sample, regardless ofthe history ofthe instrument
(Chin and Todd 1995), As further studies with
SERVQUAL are conducted, the evidence in favor
or against the empirical properties of the instrument will mount. In fact, if SERVQUAL is such a
powerful diagnostic tool, we must address and
study its use rather than dismiss it out of hand due
to generalized empirical problems related to
difference scores (Balloun and Klein 1997).

M/S Quarterly Vol. 26 Wo, 2/June 2002

Jiang et ai/Measuring IS Service Quality

References
Anderson, J, C, and Gerbing, D. W. "Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and
Recommended Two-step Approach," Psychological Bulletin (103:3), 1988, pp, 411-423.
Balloun, J. L., and Klein, G, "A Difference Which
Makes a Difference," Ouality & Quality (31),
1997, pp, 317-324.
Bagozzi, R. P. Causa/ Modeling in Marketing.
John Wiley and Sons. New York, 1980.
Bagozzi, R. P,, and Philiips, L. W. "Representing
and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic
Construal," Administrative Science Ouarterly
(27:3), 1982, pp. 459-489.
Baroudi, J. J-, and Orlikowski, W. J- "A ShortForm Measuring of User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes
on Use," Journal of Management Information
Systems 4{4). 1988, pp-44-59.
Carmines, E. G., and Zeller, R- A, Reliability and
Validity Assessment. Sage, Beverly Hilis, CA,
1988.
Chin, W, W., and Todd, P. A. "On the Use,
Usefulness, and Ease of Structural Equation
Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution,"
MIS Ouarterly (19:2), 1995, pp, 237-246,
Cronin, J. J., and Taylor, S. A. -Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension,"
Journal of Marketing 56(2), 1992, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J, J,, and Taylor, S. A, "SERVPERF
versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling PerformanceBased and Perceptions-Minus-Expeotations
Measurements of Service Ouality," Journal of
Marketing ^58:^). 1994, pp. 125-131.
DeLone, W- H-, and McLean, E- R- "Information
Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research
(3:1), March 1992, pp. 60-95
Fornell, C, and Larcker, D. F. "Evaluating
Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of
Marketing Research (18), 1981, pp. 39-50.
Ghiselli, E, E,, Campbell, J. P., and Zedeck, J. P.
Measurement Theory for the Behavioral
Sciences, Freeman, San Francisco, 1981
Ginzberg, M, J, "Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and
Unanswered Questions," Management
Sciences {27:4), 1981, pp. 459-478.

M/S Quarterly Vol 26 No. 2/June 2002

Johns, G. "Difference Score Measures of'

Organizational Behavior Variables: A Critique,"
Organizational
Behavior and Human''
Performance (27), 1981, pp, 443-463Kerlinger, F. N, Foundations of Behavior
Research (3'" ed-). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
New York, 1986, pp. 477-483.
Kettinger, W. J,, and Lee, C. C. "Perceived'
Service Quality and User Satisfaction with the
Information Sen/ices Function," Decisio
Sciences (25:6), 1994, pp- 737-766.
Kettinger, W. J.. and Lee, C. C. "Pragmac
Perspectives on the Measurement of Information Systems Service Quality," MISQuarteil
(21:2), 1997, pp.223-240.
Kettinger, W. J., Lee, C, C, and Lee, S. "Global
Measures of Information Services Quality; A
Cross-National Study," Decision Science
(26:5), 1995, pp. 569-588,
Parasuraman, A-, ZeithamI, V. A., and Berry, L. L
"Alternative Scales for Measuring Service
Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on
Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria," Jouma
of Retailing (70:3), 1994, pp, 201-230.
Parasuraman, A-, ZeithamI, V. A., and Berry, L, L
"A Conceptual Model of Service Ouality and Us
Implications for Future Research," Journal o
Marketing ('49), 1985, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A,, ZeithamI, V. A., and Berry, L,L.
"Refinement and Reassessment of the
SERVQUAL Scale," Journal of Retailing (67
Fail 1991, pp-420-450.
Pitt, L. F., Berihon, P-, and Lane, N. "Gaps Within
the IS Department: Barriers to Sen/ice Quality,"
Journal of Information Technology (13), 199
pp.191-200.
Pitt, L. F-, Watson, R. T., and Kavan, C. B,
"Measuring Information Systems Service
Quality: Concerns for a Complete Canvas,"
M/S Quarier/y (21:2), 1997, pp. 209-221.
Pitt, L. F., Watson, R, T., and Kavan, C, B.
"Service Quality: A Measure of Information
Systems Effectiveness," M/S Quarterly {15:2
1995, pp. 173-187.
Smith, H. J-, Milberg, S. J., and Burke, S. J
"Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals'
Concerns About Organizational Practices," M'S
Ouarterly {20:2). 1996, pp. 167-196.

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Service Ouality

Straub, D, W, "Validating Instruments in MIS

Research;M/SQuarter/y(13:2). 1989, pp, 146169.
Van Dyke, T. P., Kappelman, L, A,, and Prybutok,
: y f^ "Measuring Information Systems Servioe
. Quality: Concerns on (lie Use of ttie SERVQUAL Questionnaire," MIS Quarterly, 21(2),
-- 1997, pp, 195-208,
.-, Watson, R, T., Pitt, L, F., and Kavan, C, B.
:. "Measuring Information Systems Service
Quality: Lessons from Two Longitudinal Case
^ studies," MS Quarterly (22), 1998, pp. 61-79.
ZeithamI, V., Parasuraman, A,, and Berry, L. L,
Deiivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer
Perceptions and Expectaiions.FTeePress,New
'j

York, 1990,

About the Authors

James Jiang is a professor of Management Information Systems at ttie University of Central
Florida. He obtained his Ph,D. in Information Systems at the University of Cincinnati, His research
inlerests include IS project management, mari<eting category management dynamic modeling,
and iS personnel management. He has published
over 80 academic articles in these areas. He
teaches programming, data base management,
and IS project implementation and management-

He has made professional presentations on IS

project management in Taiwan and the U,S,
Gary Klein is the Couger Professor of Information
Systems at the University of Colorado in Colorado
Springs- He obtained his Ph.D. in Management
Science at Purdue University, Before that time, he
served v^iith Arthur Andersen S Company in
Kansas City and was director of the Information
Systems department for a regional financial
institution. He was previously on the faculty at the
University of Arizona, Southern Methodist University, and Louisiana Tech university and served
as Dean of the School of Business at the
University of Texas of the Permian Basin- His
interests include project management, knowledge
management, system development, and mathematical modeling,
Christopher Carr is an assistant professor in the
Katz Graduate School of Management at tfie University of Pittsburgh, He received his Ph,D- from
the University of Minnesota.
His research
interests include IS service quality, help desk service quality, structural equation modeling, webbased services, and the consumer/technology
interface for e-commerce. He teaches telecommunications management, enterprise networking,
and structural equation modeling.

MIS Ouarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

161

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Service Quality

Appendix A
The SERVQUAL Instrument to IS Professionals
Service Quality Expectations

Directions: This survey deals witfi your opinion of the Information Systems (IS) Departments. Based upon

your experiences as an Information Systems (IS) professional, please think about the kind of IS unit that
would deliver excellent quality of service. Please show the extent to which you think such a unit would
possess the feature described by each statement. If you strongly agree that these units should possess
a feature, circle 5. If you strongly disagree that these units should posses a feature, circle 1. If yotit
feelings are less strong, circle one of the numbers in the middle (24). There are no right or wrong
interested in is a number that truly reflects your expectations about the IS department.

E1 :

They will have up-to-date hardware and software

E2;

Their physical facilities will be visually appealing

E3:

Their employees will be well dressed and neat in appearance

E4:

The appearance of the physical facilities of these IS units will be in keeping with the kind of services
provided

E5;

When these IS units promise to do something by a certain time, they will do so

E6:

When users have a problem, these IS units will show a sincere interest in solving it

E7:

These IS units wiil be dependable

E8:

They will provide their services at the times they promise to do so

E9:

They will insist on error-free records

E10:

They will tell users exactly when services will be performed

E l 1 : Employees will give prompt service to users

E12:

Employees will always be willing to help users

E13:

Employees will never be too busy to respond to users* requests

E14:

The behavior of employees will instill confidence in users

E15:

Users will feel safe in their transactions with these IS units' employees

E16:

Employees will be consistently courteous with users

El 7: Employees will have the knowledge to do their job well

El 8: These IS units will give users individual attention
E19:

These IS units will have operation hours convenient to all their users

E20:

These IS units will have employees who give users personal attention

E21 : These IS units will have the users' best interest at heart
E22;

The employees of these IS units will understand the specific needs of their users

MiS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

Jiang e al./Measuring IS Service Quality

Service Quality Perceptions

Directions: The following set of statements relate to your feelings about your corporation IS unit. For each

statement, please show the extent to which you believe your IS department has the feature described by

I the statement. Once again, circling a 5 means that you strongly agree that your IS department has that

feature and circling 1 means that you strongly disagree. You may circle any of the numbers in the middle

that siiow how strong your feelings are. There are no right or wrong answers^all we are interested in is
a number that best shows your perceptions about your corporation's IS unit.

PI:

IS has up-to-date hardware and software

P2:

IS's physical facilities are visually appealing

P3:

IS's employees are well dressed and neat in appearance

P4:

The appearance of tiie physical facilities of the IS unit is in keeping with the kind of services provided

P5:
P6:

When IS promises to do something by a certain time, it does so

When users have a problem, IS shows a sincere interest in solving it

P7:

IS is dependable

P8:

IS provides its services at the times it promises to do so

P9:

IS insists on error-free records

PIO: IS tells users exactly when services will be performed

P11 : iS employees give prompt service to users
P12: IS employees are always willing to help users
P13: IS employees are never too busy to respond to users' requests
P14: The behavior of IS employees instills confidence in users
P15: Users will feel sate in their transactions with IS's employees
P16: IS employees are consistently courteous with users
PI 7: IS employees have the knowledge to do their job well
P18: IS gives users individual attention
P19; IS has operation hours convenient to all its users
P20; IS has employees who give users personal attention
P21 : IS has the users' best interest at heart
P22: Employees of IS understand the specific needs of its users

MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

1G3

Jiang et al./Measuring IS Service Ouallty

Appendix B
The Service Quality Expectations Instrument to IS Users I
Service Quality Expectations
Directions: This survey deals with your opinion of the Information Systems (IS) Departments. Based upon
your experiences as a user, please think about the kind of IS unit that would deliver excellent quality of
service. Think about the kind of IS unit with which you would be pleased todo business. Please show the
extent to which you think such a unit would possess the feature described by each statement. If you
strongly agree that these units should possess a feature, circle 5. If you strongly disagree that these units
should posses a feature, circle 1. If your feelings are less strong, circle one of the numbers in the middle
(24), There are no right or wrong answerswe are interested in is a number that truly reflects your
expectations about the IS department.

E1:

They will have up-to-date hardware and software

E2:

Their physical facilities will be visually appealing

E3:

Their employees will be well dressed and neat in appearance

E4:

The appearance ofthe physical facilities of these IS units will be in keeping with the kind of services

E5:

When these IS units promise to do something by a certain time, they will do so

E6:

When users have a problem, these IS units will show a sincere interest in solving it

provided

E7:

These IS units will be dependable

E8:

They will provide their services at the times they promise to do so

E9:

They will insist on error-free records

E l 0: They will tell users exactly when services will be performed

E l 1 : Employees will give prompt service to users
E12:

Employees will always be willing to help users

E l 3: Employees will never be too busy to respond to users' requests

E14:

The behavior of employees will instill confidence in users

E l 5: Users will feel safe in their transactions with these IS ui its' employees
E16: Employees will be consistently courteous with users
E17:

Employees will have the knowledge to do their job well

E18:

These IS units will give users individual attention

El 9: These IS units will have operation hours convenient to

E20:

These IS units will have employees who give users per

their users
nal attention

E21 ; These IS units will have the users' best interest at heart
E22:

The employees of these IS units will understand the specific needs of tfieir ust

M/S Quartedy Vol. 26 Wo, 2/June 2002

Copyright of MIS Quarterly is the property of MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.