- Email: [email protected]
Is the hotel classification system a good indicator of hotel quality?
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775 www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Is the hotel classification system a good indicator of hotel quality? An application in Spain M. Concepcio´n Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, Ana M. Serrano Bedia Department of Business Administration, Cantabria University, Facultad de CC. EE. y Empresariales, Avda. de los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Espan˜a Received 14 July 2003; accepted 9 May 2004
Abstract This paper analyses whether the hotel classification system is a good indicator of hotel quality, where quality is defined to be satisfying the expectations and needs of the client. We conducted our research in Spain, where a five-category system using stars is employed. To be exact, the hotel sector of one autonomous community (Cantabria, located in northern Spain) was studied, given that it is these autonomous regions that have exclusive authority to regulate and promote tourism. The results of the study confirm that even though significant quality differences are seen between the different categories, the ranking by quality does not correspond to that by categories. This supports the idea that quality is associated with the delivery of a service according to client expectations, more than it is with establishment category. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Classification and rating schemes; Service quality; SERVQUAL; Hotels; Dimensions of service quality
1. Introduction The existence of hotel classification systems is common practice throughout the world, however, research projects focussed on analysing these systems are scarce. (Callan, 1998, 1999; Israeli & Uriely, 2000; Israeli, 2002). Callan focuses on exploring the relation between the attributes identified by consumers when they select a hotel, and those provided by the different categories. The work of Israeli analyses the relation between the classification and the price. Israeli demonstrates that the classification system is a good indicator of price and, it is assumed to be also one of quality (Israeli, 2002) as he equates more quality with luxury and higher price. However, the definition of quality is related to the satisfaction of client expectations and necessities (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) and Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-942-20-16-58; fax: +34-942-2016-03. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez), [email protected] (A.M. Serrano Bedia).
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.06.007
therefore, it is not possible to recognize quality only in luxury services and articles but rather in all those that respond to what the consumer seeks. With this definition as a starting point, the goal of this paper is to investigate whether the hotel classification system is a good indicator of hotel quality. To accomplish this, a study was carried out in Spain, in particular in the Autonomous Community of Cantabria in northern Spain, where the hotel sector as a whole was analysed. In Spain, a star system denoting five categories is employed.1 Under this system, hotels receive up to five stars according to the minimum technical requirements relating to: hotel facilities, communication areas (hallways, elevators, etc.), guest areas, staff areas and general services offered. The national standards are overseen by the different autonomous communities as dictated by the Spanish Constitution and the Statutes of Autonomy which grant exclusive authority to the autonomous communities in the areas of regulation and promotion 1
R.D. 1.634/1983 (June 15).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 772
M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
of tourism. Within the standards of the community of Cantabria,2 in addition to the five hotel categories of the star system, there continues to exist, as a category ‘‘to become extinct’’, that of hostels which cannot be transformed to meet the technical requirements of one star hotels. In addition, express reference is made to the need to consider such aspects as the quality of the facilities, comfort, professionalism and service in determining the classification of a hotel.
2. Methodological issues The research into the specific problem of quality related to services, and in particular to tourism, is ample,3 and has focussed principally on the difficulties in defining and measuring quality in this context. Most of the papers published about the tourism industry focus on using adaptations of the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988, 1991) and have concentrated on globally measuring service quality as well as on attempting to replicate the five dimensional structure of the scale identified initially by its developers. We will follow the same twopronged approach: first, hotel service quality will be measured based on hotel category, and then values will be calculated by categories, of the dimensions of service quality identified in an exploratory factorial analysis.4 Such analyses will make it possible to determine if the hotel classification corresponds to the quality of service, as previously defined.
3. Empirical research The measurement of service quality was carried out using an adaptation of SERVQUAL that was written 2 Order of October 23, 1992 which was put in motion by the 0.50/ 1989 (July 5) (July 5. Order of October 23, 1992 which was put in motion by the decree 50/1989). 3 The definition and measurement of the quality of service construct has been very widely debated in the literature (Crosby, 1979; Gro¨nroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Brown & Swartz, 1989; Carman, 1990). To a large degree, this debate has centred on criticisms, both conceptual as well as operative, relating to the contributions of Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988); Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994), and which have given rise to new conceptualisations and alternative quality of service measurement scales (Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Teas, 1993, 1994; Buttle, 1996; Smith, 1999; Dabholkar, Shepherd, & Thorpe, 2000; Brady, Cronin, and Brand, 2002). 4 An exploratory factorial analysis enabled us to identify four quality of service dimensions with eigenvalues higher than one, which explain 51% of the total variance. These dimensions were called Reliability, Tangible Elements, Characteristics of the Personnel and Complementary Offering. For further information, see Serrano and Lo´pez (2000), Dimensions and Measurement of Quality Service in Hotels, First World Conference on Production and Operations Management, Sevilla, conference proceedings on CD.
taking into account the previous research carried out in the tourism field (Fick & Ritchie, 1991; Saleh & Ryan, 1991; Getty & Thompson, 1994). The questionnaire used contains the 22 items listed in Appendix A. The definitive questionnaire was presented to adult clients (over 18 years old) of hotels and hostels in Cantabria during the Easter vacation of 2000. The number of establishments visited was 54, and a maximum of 12 surveys per hotel was carried out, thus obtaining 474 valid surveys.5 The surveys were distributed taking into account the hotel offering of the different zones of the region, as well as the distribution of hotels by category and total number of places, in order to guarantee that the results are statistically representative.6 Table 1 shows the principal characteristics of the sample population used, with respect to sex, age and nationality. Pertinent analyses were done to check whether any of these variables plus occupation and composition of travelling party, exert a significant influence on the results obtained in our research, and no such influence could be confirmed.7 The data collection process consisted of personal interviews with clients of the establishments included in the study. These clients were asked about their expectations associated with a hotel of the category in which they were staying, and then were asked to give a rating of that particular hotel. The solicited responses are reflected in a Likert 7point scale (7 being strongly in agreement), and questions relating to the users’ satisfaction and loyalty were included in the questionnaire in order to establish the reliability and validity of the measurement instrument. Given the results shown in Table 2 relating to the scale made up of the differences between perceptions and expectations of quality of service (P–E), the reliability of this scale can be considered in general acceptable. A similar comment can be applied to its validity, including the validity of the data for the 5
Sample error: 4.5% for the entire sample (assuming simple random sampling). Confidence level: 95% (z ¼ 1:96; p ¼ q ¼ 0:5). Sample design: Multi-stage with stratification for areas and proportional allocation to the number of rooms and types of establishments in each geographical area). 6 The w2 tests confirmed the hypothesis that the percentage of client interviews by establishment category and zone within the region corresponds to the total hotel places in the region according to the same criteria. Value of w2 for the categories of 5.65 with 4 degrees of freedom and level of significance 5 percent, and for the geographic zones w2 value of 3.03 with 7 degrees of freedom and level of significance 5 percent. 7 Student t-tests permit us to reject the hypothesis that there were significant differences in the quality of service value (P–E) given by the clients in function of sex and nationality (re: sex, t ¼ 0:374, 472 df, p ¼ 0:709) (re: nationality, t ¼ 1:125 467 df, p ¼ 0:261, assuming equity of variance). The one factor analysis performed for the variables ‘‘age’’, ‘‘whether travelling alone or accompanied’’, and ‘‘occupation’’ allowed us to reject the same hypothesis (p ¼ 0:35, p ¼ 0:53, and p ¼ 0:768 respectively).
ARTICLE IN PRESS M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
performance of a factorial analysis. The only exception is that the predictive validity is relatively low. However, as sustained by Parasuraman et al. (1991), this drawback is compensated for by the fact that this measurement instrument is more informative since it includes measurements of both expectations and perceptions.
4. Results 4.1. Measurement of service quality by establishment category The global data from our client sample, related to expectations, perceptions and service quality (defined as the difference between perceptions and expectations), as a function of establishment category, is shown in Table 3. A one factor ANOVA allows us to confirm that there are statistically significant differences between the means
Table 1 Characteristics of the client sample Males
62.3%
Females
37.7%
Age
18–30 46–65 Spanish
28.6% 25.3% 95.5%
31–45 Over 65 Other
35.8% 10.3% 4.5%
Nationality
Table 2 Reliability and validity of measurement scale Reliability (P–E) scale
Cronbach alpha 0.894 Standard alpha 0.903
Content validity Predictive validity
Previous research in the lodging sector Correlation (P–E) and global satisfaction=0.505 (0.01) Satisfaction: means difference 1.04 (0.00) Loyalty: means difference 1.15 (0.00) Bartlett’s sphericity test: 3827,59 (0.000) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index: 0.914
Validity (Student t-test) Validity factor analysis
for each establishment category. The multiple comparisons between the three variables for the five categories are also shown in Table 3. The first thing that merits highlighting is that it is clear that quality is not synonymous with luxury but rather with providing that which a client seeks given that even though we see significant differences between the different categories for the three variables, the ranking does not correspond to that by categories. In the end, the only category in which the service offered exceeded expectations is that of 1 star hotels. The service quality measured for these hotels was, in fact, significantly higher than that of the remaining categories. Some situations also merit highlighting in these other categories.
Sex
Cronbach
773
In 2 star hotels we see high expectations—above the global mean and the value for 3 star hotels—and perceptions below the mean. The situation for 3 star hotels is especially poor, with particularly low values both for expectations and perceptions—perceptions are significantly lower than those for 1 star hotels. In 4 and 5 star hotels, the values for expectations as well as perceptions were significantly higher than those of the remaining categories.
4.2. Evaluation of the dimensions of service quality by establishment category To confirm the results, the analysis calculating the value of the dimensions of quality for the five categories was repeated. Table 4 shows those values and also the results of the one factor ANOVA performed. The ANOVA allows us to demonstrate the existence of significant differences in the aspects of service quality based on establishment category, for three dimensions (‘‘reliability’’, ‘‘tangible elements’’ and ‘‘complementary offering’’) of the four considered (the previous three plus ‘‘characteristics of the personnel’’). The multiple comparisons between the four dimensions for the five categories are also shown in Table 4.
Table 3 Quality of service by establishment category Category of hotel
Expectations
Hotels 4* & 5* Hotels 3* Hotels 2* Hotels 1* Hostels Total for sample One factor ANOVA
6.76 6.18 6.35 6.13 6.08
Perceptions 11 31 21 41 51
6.30 p ¼ 0:000
6.45 5.89 6.01 6.20 5.91
Differences (P–E) 11 51 31 21 41
6.06 p ¼ 0:000
Differ significantly (level of significance p0.05) with respect to: Hotels 4* & 5* and/or Hotels 1*.
41 31 51 11 21
0.31 0.29 0.34 0.07 0.17 0.24 p ¼ 0:000
ARTICLE IN PRESS M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
774
Table 4 Evaluation of the dimensions of service quality by establishment category Category of hotel *
*
Hotels 4 & 5 Hotels 3* Hotels 2* Hotels 1* Hostels Total for sample One factor ANOVA
Reliability 0.21 0.29 0.21 0.15 0.03 0.15 p ¼ 0:000
Personnel 31 51 41 11 21
0.18 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.03
Tangible El. 51 21 41 11 31
21 41 31 11 51
0.27 0.47 0.41 0.11 0.53
0.02 p ¼ 0:056
Comple. Of.
0.35 p ¼ 0:000
41 31 51 11 21
0.86 0.47 0.93 0.27 0.33 0.60 p ¼ 0:000
Differ significantly (level of significance p0.05) with respect to: Hotels 4* & 5* and/or Hotels 1*.
Once again it was confirmed that given that differences exist between the categories, a hierarchy based on quality differs from one based on category. The positive differences seen in hostels and 1 star hotels are the most significant. In hotels of higher categories, some aspects worth highlighting are:
2 star hotels received negative scores of greater magnitude than the sample mean in all aspects, and, in particular, in ‘‘tangible elements’’ and ‘‘complementary offering’’. 3 star hotels obtain the lowest score of the entire sample in the dimension ‘‘reliability’’. They also receive negative valuations, and of large magnitude in ‘‘tangible elements’’ and ‘‘complementary offering’’. 4 and 5 star hotels receive a negative score and of greater magnitude than the sample average in all aspects, with one exception, ‘‘tangible elements’’.
5. Conclusions The analysis presented allows us to understand that though there are significant differences between the values for expectations, perceptions and differences in the various hotel categories, the ranking of the groups does not correspond to that of the categories. Furthermore, given that the data shows that clients of the highest category hotels are more demanding, the fact that one star hotels are the highest rated of all, supports the hypothesis that quality is associated with the delivery of a service according to client expectations more than to establishment category. And along these same lines, we can see that a group of categories—the superior ones, especially the three-star hotels—present a much less favourable picture in terms of quality. Our conclusions are similar relating to the values obtained in the quality dimensions. This data can offer orientation as to the focus of government and association intervention, to the extent that it appears clear that the highest
priority improvement actions should be centred around complementary offering and tangible elements.
Acknowledgements This paper presents part of the results obtained by the research project ‘‘Design of a set of variables related with quality for the classification of hotel establishments’’, financed by the Agreement between ‘Caja Cantabria’ and the University of Cantabria (1998).
Appendix A. Service quality items employed in the study grouped by dimension
Item
Dimension
Discretion and respect for customer privacy Guaranteed reservation Service in accordance with agreed upon conditions Problems are solved quickly and effectively Reliable and precise information regarding service conditions Hours of service adapted to customers’ needs Service delivered without errors Quick and able service Staff are pleasant and courteous Staff are skilled and professional Staff are well-groomed Personal and individualised service Establishment is well located Premises are safe Rooms and facilities are comfortable Facilities are in good condition
Reliability
Characteristics of the personnel
Tangible elements
ARTICLE IN PRESS M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
Quality food and drink Parking facilities Visually attractive premises Physical location of establishment is pleasant and restful Information available about diverse activities Wide range of services offered by the hotel
Complementary offering
References Brady, M. K., Cronin, J., & Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: A replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55, 17–31. Brown, S. W., & Swartz, T. A. (1989). A gap analysis of professional service quality. Journal of marketing, 53(2), 92–98. Buttle, F. A. (1996). SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), 8–32. Callan, R. J. (1998). Atributional analysis of customers’ hotel selection criteria by UK grading scheme categories. Journal of Travel Research, 36(3), 20–34. Callan, R. J. (1999). Augmenting the range of hotel selection attributes. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(3), 205–230. Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33–56. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minusexpectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 125–131. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dabholkar, P. C., Shepherd, D., & Thorpe, D. I. (2000). A comprehensive framework for service quality: An investigation of
775
critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 139–173. Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, fall, 2–9. Getty, J. M., & Thompson, K. N. (1994). The relationship between quality, satisfaction, and recommending behaviour in lodging decisions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 2(3), 3–22. Gro¨nroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44. Israeli, A. (2002). Star rating and corporate affiliation: their influence on room price and performance of hotels in Israel. Hospitality Management, 21, 405–424. Israeli, A., & Uriely, N. (2000). The impact of star ratings and corporate affiliation on hotel room prices. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 2(1), 27–36. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Understanding customer expectations of service. Sloan Management Review, spring, 39–48. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(fall), 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. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expcetation as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for further researchs. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111–124. Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL Model. The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 352–373. Serrano, A. M., & Lo´pez, M. C. (2000). Dimensions and measurement of quality service in hotels. First World Conference on Production and Operations Management, Sevilla, Spain. Conference proceedings on CD. Smith, A. M. (1999). Some problems when adopting Churchill’s paradigm for the development of service quality measures. Journal of Business Research, 46(2), 109–120. Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: an assessment of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 18–34. Teas, R. K. (1994). Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: An assessment of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 58, 132–139.
Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775 www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Is the hotel classification system a good indicator of hotel quality? An application in Spain M. Concepcio´n Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, Ana M. Serrano Bedia Department of Business Administration, Cantabria University, Facultad de CC. EE. y Empresariales, Avda. de los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Espan˜a Received 14 July 2003; accepted 9 May 2004
Abstract This paper analyses whether the hotel classification system is a good indicator of hotel quality, where quality is defined to be satisfying the expectations and needs of the client. We conducted our research in Spain, where a five-category system using stars is employed. To be exact, the hotel sector of one autonomous community (Cantabria, located in northern Spain) was studied, given that it is these autonomous regions that have exclusive authority to regulate and promote tourism. The results of the study confirm that even though significant quality differences are seen between the different categories, the ranking by quality does not correspond to that by categories. This supports the idea that quality is associated with the delivery of a service according to client expectations, more than it is with establishment category. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Classification and rating schemes; Service quality; SERVQUAL; Hotels; Dimensions of service quality
1. Introduction The existence of hotel classification systems is common practice throughout the world, however, research projects focussed on analysing these systems are scarce. (Callan, 1998, 1999; Israeli & Uriely, 2000; Israeli, 2002). Callan focuses on exploring the relation between the attributes identified by consumers when they select a hotel, and those provided by the different categories. The work of Israeli analyses the relation between the classification and the price. Israeli demonstrates that the classification system is a good indicator of price and, it is assumed to be also one of quality (Israeli, 2002) as he equates more quality with luxury and higher price. However, the definition of quality is related to the satisfaction of client expectations and necessities (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) and Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-942-20-16-58; fax: +34-942-2016-03. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez), [email protected] (A.M. Serrano Bedia).
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.06.007
therefore, it is not possible to recognize quality only in luxury services and articles but rather in all those that respond to what the consumer seeks. With this definition as a starting point, the goal of this paper is to investigate whether the hotel classification system is a good indicator of hotel quality. To accomplish this, a study was carried out in Spain, in particular in the Autonomous Community of Cantabria in northern Spain, where the hotel sector as a whole was analysed. In Spain, a star system denoting five categories is employed.1 Under this system, hotels receive up to five stars according to the minimum technical requirements relating to: hotel facilities, communication areas (hallways, elevators, etc.), guest areas, staff areas and general services offered. The national standards are overseen by the different autonomous communities as dictated by the Spanish Constitution and the Statutes of Autonomy which grant exclusive authority to the autonomous communities in the areas of regulation and promotion 1
R.D. 1.634/1983 (June 15).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 772
M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
of tourism. Within the standards of the community of Cantabria,2 in addition to the five hotel categories of the star system, there continues to exist, as a category ‘‘to become extinct’’, that of hostels which cannot be transformed to meet the technical requirements of one star hotels. In addition, express reference is made to the need to consider such aspects as the quality of the facilities, comfort, professionalism and service in determining the classification of a hotel.
2. Methodological issues The research into the specific problem of quality related to services, and in particular to tourism, is ample,3 and has focussed principally on the difficulties in defining and measuring quality in this context. Most of the papers published about the tourism industry focus on using adaptations of the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988, 1991) and have concentrated on globally measuring service quality as well as on attempting to replicate the five dimensional structure of the scale identified initially by its developers. We will follow the same twopronged approach: first, hotel service quality will be measured based on hotel category, and then values will be calculated by categories, of the dimensions of service quality identified in an exploratory factorial analysis.4 Such analyses will make it possible to determine if the hotel classification corresponds to the quality of service, as previously defined.
3. Empirical research The measurement of service quality was carried out using an adaptation of SERVQUAL that was written 2 Order of October 23, 1992 which was put in motion by the 0.50/ 1989 (July 5) (July 5. Order of October 23, 1992 which was put in motion by the decree 50/1989). 3 The definition and measurement of the quality of service construct has been very widely debated in the literature (Crosby, 1979; Gro¨nroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Brown & Swartz, 1989; Carman, 1990). To a large degree, this debate has centred on criticisms, both conceptual as well as operative, relating to the contributions of Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988); Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994), and which have given rise to new conceptualisations and alternative quality of service measurement scales (Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Teas, 1993, 1994; Buttle, 1996; Smith, 1999; Dabholkar, Shepherd, & Thorpe, 2000; Brady, Cronin, and Brand, 2002). 4 An exploratory factorial analysis enabled us to identify four quality of service dimensions with eigenvalues higher than one, which explain 51% of the total variance. These dimensions were called Reliability, Tangible Elements, Characteristics of the Personnel and Complementary Offering. For further information, see Serrano and Lo´pez (2000), Dimensions and Measurement of Quality Service in Hotels, First World Conference on Production and Operations Management, Sevilla, conference proceedings on CD.
taking into account the previous research carried out in the tourism field (Fick & Ritchie, 1991; Saleh & Ryan, 1991; Getty & Thompson, 1994). The questionnaire used contains the 22 items listed in Appendix A. The definitive questionnaire was presented to adult clients (over 18 years old) of hotels and hostels in Cantabria during the Easter vacation of 2000. The number of establishments visited was 54, and a maximum of 12 surveys per hotel was carried out, thus obtaining 474 valid surveys.5 The surveys were distributed taking into account the hotel offering of the different zones of the region, as well as the distribution of hotels by category and total number of places, in order to guarantee that the results are statistically representative.6 Table 1 shows the principal characteristics of the sample population used, with respect to sex, age and nationality. Pertinent analyses were done to check whether any of these variables plus occupation and composition of travelling party, exert a significant influence on the results obtained in our research, and no such influence could be confirmed.7 The data collection process consisted of personal interviews with clients of the establishments included in the study. These clients were asked about their expectations associated with a hotel of the category in which they were staying, and then were asked to give a rating of that particular hotel. The solicited responses are reflected in a Likert 7point scale (7 being strongly in agreement), and questions relating to the users’ satisfaction and loyalty were included in the questionnaire in order to establish the reliability and validity of the measurement instrument. Given the results shown in Table 2 relating to the scale made up of the differences between perceptions and expectations of quality of service (P–E), the reliability of this scale can be considered in general acceptable. A similar comment can be applied to its validity, including the validity of the data for the 5
Sample error: 4.5% for the entire sample (assuming simple random sampling). Confidence level: 95% (z ¼ 1:96; p ¼ q ¼ 0:5). Sample design: Multi-stage with stratification for areas and proportional allocation to the number of rooms and types of establishments in each geographical area). 6 The w2 tests confirmed the hypothesis that the percentage of client interviews by establishment category and zone within the region corresponds to the total hotel places in the region according to the same criteria. Value of w2 for the categories of 5.65 with 4 degrees of freedom and level of significance 5 percent, and for the geographic zones w2 value of 3.03 with 7 degrees of freedom and level of significance 5 percent. 7 Student t-tests permit us to reject the hypothesis that there were significant differences in the quality of service value (P–E) given by the clients in function of sex and nationality (re: sex, t ¼ 0:374, 472 df, p ¼ 0:709) (re: nationality, t ¼ 1:125 467 df, p ¼ 0:261, assuming equity of variance). The one factor analysis performed for the variables ‘‘age’’, ‘‘whether travelling alone or accompanied’’, and ‘‘occupation’’ allowed us to reject the same hypothesis (p ¼ 0:35, p ¼ 0:53, and p ¼ 0:768 respectively).
ARTICLE IN PRESS M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
performance of a factorial analysis. The only exception is that the predictive validity is relatively low. However, as sustained by Parasuraman et al. (1991), this drawback is compensated for by the fact that this measurement instrument is more informative since it includes measurements of both expectations and perceptions.
4. Results 4.1. Measurement of service quality by establishment category The global data from our client sample, related to expectations, perceptions and service quality (defined as the difference between perceptions and expectations), as a function of establishment category, is shown in Table 3. A one factor ANOVA allows us to confirm that there are statistically significant differences between the means
Table 1 Characteristics of the client sample Males
62.3%
Females
37.7%
Age
18–30 46–65 Spanish
28.6% 25.3% 95.5%
31–45 Over 65 Other
35.8% 10.3% 4.5%
Nationality
Table 2 Reliability and validity of measurement scale Reliability (P–E) scale
Cronbach alpha 0.894 Standard alpha 0.903
Content validity Predictive validity
Previous research in the lodging sector Correlation (P–E) and global satisfaction=0.505 (0.01) Satisfaction: means difference 1.04 (0.00) Loyalty: means difference 1.15 (0.00) Bartlett’s sphericity test: 3827,59 (0.000) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index: 0.914
Validity (Student t-test) Validity factor analysis
for each establishment category. The multiple comparisons between the three variables for the five categories are also shown in Table 3. The first thing that merits highlighting is that it is clear that quality is not synonymous with luxury but rather with providing that which a client seeks given that even though we see significant differences between the different categories for the three variables, the ranking does not correspond to that by categories. In the end, the only category in which the service offered exceeded expectations is that of 1 star hotels. The service quality measured for these hotels was, in fact, significantly higher than that of the remaining categories. Some situations also merit highlighting in these other categories.
Sex
Cronbach
773
In 2 star hotels we see high expectations—above the global mean and the value for 3 star hotels—and perceptions below the mean. The situation for 3 star hotels is especially poor, with particularly low values both for expectations and perceptions—perceptions are significantly lower than those for 1 star hotels. In 4 and 5 star hotels, the values for expectations as well as perceptions were significantly higher than those of the remaining categories.
4.2. Evaluation of the dimensions of service quality by establishment category To confirm the results, the analysis calculating the value of the dimensions of quality for the five categories was repeated. Table 4 shows those values and also the results of the one factor ANOVA performed. The ANOVA allows us to demonstrate the existence of significant differences in the aspects of service quality based on establishment category, for three dimensions (‘‘reliability’’, ‘‘tangible elements’’ and ‘‘complementary offering’’) of the four considered (the previous three plus ‘‘characteristics of the personnel’’). The multiple comparisons between the four dimensions for the five categories are also shown in Table 4.
Table 3 Quality of service by establishment category Category of hotel
Expectations
Hotels 4* & 5* Hotels 3* Hotels 2* Hotels 1* Hostels Total for sample One factor ANOVA
6.76 6.18 6.35 6.13 6.08
Perceptions 11 31 21 41 51
6.30 p ¼ 0:000
6.45 5.89 6.01 6.20 5.91
Differences (P–E) 11 51 31 21 41
6.06 p ¼ 0:000
Differ significantly (level of significance p0.05) with respect to: Hotels 4* & 5* and/or Hotels 1*.
41 31 51 11 21
0.31 0.29 0.34 0.07 0.17 0.24 p ¼ 0:000
ARTICLE IN PRESS M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
774
Table 4 Evaluation of the dimensions of service quality by establishment category Category of hotel *
*
Hotels 4 & 5 Hotels 3* Hotels 2* Hotels 1* Hostels Total for sample One factor ANOVA
Reliability 0.21 0.29 0.21 0.15 0.03 0.15 p ¼ 0:000
Personnel 31 51 41 11 21
0.18 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.03
Tangible El. 51 21 41 11 31
21 41 31 11 51
0.27 0.47 0.41 0.11 0.53
0.02 p ¼ 0:056
Comple. Of.
0.35 p ¼ 0:000
41 31 51 11 21
0.86 0.47 0.93 0.27 0.33 0.60 p ¼ 0:000
Differ significantly (level of significance p0.05) with respect to: Hotels 4* & 5* and/or Hotels 1*.
Once again it was confirmed that given that differences exist between the categories, a hierarchy based on quality differs from one based on category. The positive differences seen in hostels and 1 star hotels are the most significant. In hotels of higher categories, some aspects worth highlighting are:
2 star hotels received negative scores of greater magnitude than the sample mean in all aspects, and, in particular, in ‘‘tangible elements’’ and ‘‘complementary offering’’. 3 star hotels obtain the lowest score of the entire sample in the dimension ‘‘reliability’’. They also receive negative valuations, and of large magnitude in ‘‘tangible elements’’ and ‘‘complementary offering’’. 4 and 5 star hotels receive a negative score and of greater magnitude than the sample average in all aspects, with one exception, ‘‘tangible elements’’.
5. Conclusions The analysis presented allows us to understand that though there are significant differences between the values for expectations, perceptions and differences in the various hotel categories, the ranking of the groups does not correspond to that of the categories. Furthermore, given that the data shows that clients of the highest category hotels are more demanding, the fact that one star hotels are the highest rated of all, supports the hypothesis that quality is associated with the delivery of a service according to client expectations more than to establishment category. And along these same lines, we can see that a group of categories—the superior ones, especially the three-star hotels—present a much less favourable picture in terms of quality. Our conclusions are similar relating to the values obtained in the quality dimensions. This data can offer orientation as to the focus of government and association intervention, to the extent that it appears clear that the highest
priority improvement actions should be centred around complementary offering and tangible elements.
Acknowledgements This paper presents part of the results obtained by the research project ‘‘Design of a set of variables related with quality for the classification of hotel establishments’’, financed by the Agreement between ‘Caja Cantabria’ and the University of Cantabria (1998).
Appendix A. Service quality items employed in the study grouped by dimension
Item
Dimension
Discretion and respect for customer privacy Guaranteed reservation Service in accordance with agreed upon conditions Problems are solved quickly and effectively Reliable and precise information regarding service conditions Hours of service adapted to customers’ needs Service delivered without errors Quick and able service Staff are pleasant and courteous Staff are skilled and professional Staff are well-groomed Personal and individualised service Establishment is well located Premises are safe Rooms and facilities are comfortable Facilities are in good condition
Reliability
Characteristics of the personnel
Tangible elements
ARTICLE IN PRESS M.C. Lo´pez Ferna´ndez, A.M. Serrano Bedia / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 771–775
Quality food and drink Parking facilities Visually attractive premises Physical location of establishment is pleasant and restful Information available about diverse activities Wide range of services offered by the hotel
Complementary offering
References Brady, M. K., Cronin, J., & Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: A replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55, 17–31. Brown, S. W., & Swartz, T. A. (1989). A gap analysis of professional service quality. Journal of marketing, 53(2), 92–98. Buttle, F. A. (1996). SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), 8–32. Callan, R. J. (1998). Atributional analysis of customers’ hotel selection criteria by UK grading scheme categories. Journal of Travel Research, 36(3), 20–34. Callan, R. J. (1999). Augmenting the range of hotel selection attributes. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(3), 205–230. Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33–56. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minusexpectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 125–131. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dabholkar, P. C., Shepherd, D., & Thorpe, D. I. (2000). A comprehensive framework for service quality: An investigation of
775
critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 139–173. Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, fall, 2–9. Getty, J. M., & Thompson, K. N. (1994). The relationship between quality, satisfaction, and recommending behaviour in lodging decisions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 2(3), 3–22. Gro¨nroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44. Israeli, A. (2002). Star rating and corporate affiliation: their influence on room price and performance of hotels in Israel. Hospitality Management, 21, 405–424. Israeli, A., & Uriely, N. (2000). The impact of star ratings and corporate affiliation on hotel room prices. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 2(1), 27–36. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Understanding customer expectations of service. Sloan Management Review, spring, 39–48. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(fall), 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. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expcetation as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for further researchs. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111–124. Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL Model. The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 352–373. Serrano, A. M., & Lo´pez, M. C. (2000). Dimensions and measurement of quality service in hotels. First World Conference on Production and Operations Management, Sevilla, Spain. Conference proceedings on CD. Smith, A. M. (1999). Some problems when adopting Churchill’s paradigm for the development of service quality measures. Journal of Business Research, 46(2), 109–120. Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: an assessment of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 18–34. Teas, R. K. (1994). Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: An assessment of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 58, 132–139.