Measuring and applying the PAKSERV service quality construct: Evidence from a South African cultural context
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the PAKSERV service quality measure in a South African cultural context. Design/methodology/approach – In order to test and confirm the dimensionality of the PAKSERV service quality construct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used. The data were collected through a survey of over 300 Black South African banking customers. Findings – The results of the CFA confirmed that PAKSERV is a valid measure of service quality in a South African cultural context, consisting of six dimensions: tangibility, reliability, assurance, sincerity, personalisation and formality. Research limitations/implications – A major limitation of this study is that PAKSERV was only validated for the banking sector. To ensure validity across a variety of industries and cultural contexts, further replication would be needed. Practical implications – By measuring and evaluating service quality dimensions that are culturally relevant to customers, marketing managers can focus on the dimensions of service quality that are not adequately captured in the SERVQUAL instrument. The paper recommends three useful managerial applications of the service quality construct. The findings are particularly valuable to international services managers who what to move away from a single international service strategy and embrace a flexible service delivery strategy that is culturally sensitive. Originality/value – The study contributes by providing further validation for…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The formality dimension is low-ranked based on the results, contradicting Raajpoot (2004) but supporting Saunders (2008) and Kashif et al. (2016).
“Interestingly, the formality dimension though being important is low-ranked based on the results of this study.This contradicts with the work of Raajpoot (2004) but nevertheless supports the findings of Saunders (2008) and Kashif et al. (2016)”
From Service quality of Islamic banks: satisfaction, loyalty and the mediating role of trust (2020) · cites this paper as Saunders, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 28
- Authors
- Graham Saunders, S.
- Venue
- Managing Service Quality: An International Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2008-09-05
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 442-456
- ISSN
- 0960-4529 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1508722210
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Managing Service Quality (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Keywords
- service quality evaluation, bank customers, Black South Africans, SERVQUAL, tangibility, reliability, assurance, sincerity, personalization, formality, South Africa
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
