Annals of Library Sci ence and Documentatio n 47 , 2: 2000 : -l1-4H.
EFFECT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON POST-VISIT INTENTIONS: THE CASE OF A LIBRARY
DKBanwet
Professor & Head
Department of Management Studies
Indian Institute of Technology
New Delhi
The quality of services offered in an academic
library has been investigated in this paper. Service
quality, consumer satisfaction and post-visit
intentions have been measured. The effect of
service quality on post-visit intentions has been
examined in a causal path framework. The study
indicates that although the perceived service
performance generally matches user's
expectations, a lot can be done to improve the
quality of the services being delivered.
Improvement in the quality of services increases
the level of satisfaction of the user. Satisfied users
intend to re-visit the library and advice others to
visit it.
INTRODUCTION
The primary focus of a library is service. It is widely
recognised that service quality and consumer
satisfaction is essential for retain ing present
consumers and attracting new ones [1). The
traditional method of measuring the quality of an
academic library in quantifiable terms of its
collection and use does not offer an indication of
the quality of the service process [2), and new ways
to measure quality in libraries have emerged during
the past decade.
Research on the quality of services offered in
libraries has been widely reported [2-6) and service
quality surveys have been conducted [7) . Tools for
establishing and supporting the total quality
management (TOM) in libraries are available in
the library service quality literature [8). While '
several issues pertaining to the quality of education
services have been discussed [9) and select issues
pertaining to TOM in service systems have been
reported from India [10), literature pertaining to the
Vol 47 No 2 June 2000
B Datta
Lecturer & Research Scholar (NICMAR)
Department of Management Studies
Indian Institute of Technology
New Delhi
measurement of service quality in Indian libraries
cuuld no~ be found . .
A modified SERVOUAL questionnaire has been
used for measuring the quality of services offered
in the library of a reputed institute , teaching
graduate and post-graduate courses, in New Delhi.
The technical library stocks more than 2500 text
and reference books, periodicals and dissertations
on various aspects of construction management
apart from literature on current affairs . The library
remains open from 8:30 AM to 8:30 PM Monday
through Saturday. About fifty students and guests
use the library every day.
The importance of each service quality-dimension,
satisfaction related to those dimensions and post-
visit intentions been measused . The relationship
between service quality, consumer satisfaction and
post-in:,::;· ;tions have been examined in a casual-
path te;: ' ;,ework.
LIBRARY SERVICE
The services offered to students in a library can
be divided into two quality dimensions, namely
technical (outcome) quality and functional
(process) quality [11]. Technical quality or static
quality can be expressed primarily as the quality
and volume of literature available in the library.
Functional quality or dynamic quality refers to the
manner in which the library services are delivered.
The service achieves quality in perception when it
meets or exceeds the level of the consumer's
expectations . Service quality should be able to
satisfy consumers [12]. Satisified consumers
intend to request additional services and tell others
about it [13] .
41
D K BANWET and B DATTA
SERVICE QUALITY
The SERVQUAL scale measures five dimensions
of service quality (tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance and empathy), based
on the definition of service quality as the gap
between customer expectations and perceptions
of service [14). As perceptual measures
sometimes explain more variance in service quality
than the gap model [15), a performan.ce-only
measure of service quality has been argued to be
superior to the SERVQUAL scale [16-17]. Liljander
[18) showed that the best approximation of
perceived service quality is achieved by omitting
the expectation variable and other comparison
standards altogether and only measuring the
service experience. The theoretical value of the
concept of disconfirmation of expectations has
been questioned in a study of the validity of the
perceived service quality construct [19). However,
researchers have demonstrated the application of
the SERVQUAL scale in understanding customer
expectations and perceptions of specific services
and target specific service elements requiring
improvement [2)' :his study, perceived service
quality has been measured using the 22-item
Likert-type seven-point SERVQUAL scale
anchored between "much better than I expected"
and "much worse than I expected". This
modification is consistent with the methods used
by scholars in the past [20-22): Respondents also
evaluated a question on overall service quality in
a seven-point scale anchored at "excellent" and
''terrible" .
CONSUMER SATISFACTION
The growing body of literature suggests that
service quality is a cognitive, evaluative and
objective concept, while satisfaction is an affective,
feelings-based and subjective component [23-24).
A 13-item service satisfaction scale developed by
Greenfield and Attkisen [25) measures service
satisfaction related to health care and consists of
two predominant dimensions which are perceived
outcomes and practitioner's manners and skills
[26). Consumer satisfaction has been
operationalised in service satisfaction literature as
multiple item scales anchored at ''very unsatisfied/
displeased" and "very satisfied/pleased "
[15,24,25,27). In this study, consumer satisfaction
has been measured over the 22 SERVQUAL items -
42
anchored at "much more than satisfied" and "much
more than dissatisfied" on a seven point scale.
Respondents also evaluated a single question on
overall satisfaction on a seven-point scale.
IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Several scholars have stressed the need to weigh
determinants of service quality and satisfication .
by their importance as different facets may be of
unequal importance to different people [27-29).
Although the importance measures provide
valueable information on the severity of the
requirement of different dimensions for achieving
service quality and consumer satisfaction, some
research has indicated that weighting the
measures adds no new information [16,30). In this
study, respondents were requested to complete a
22-item, 7-point importance scale ranging from
"neither important nor unimportant" to "most
important".
POST-VISIT INTENTIONS
Consumers continue to be loyal to an organisation
if exit barriers are high, alternatives are unavailable
or they are satisfied with the service. While both
exit barriers and unavailability of alternatives are
temporary situations, managers of organisations
must consider consumer satisfaction the only
viable long-term alternative to keep present · .
customers and attract new ones [31). Satisfied
library users would like to revisit the library, and
advise others to visit it. Respondents were asked
to answer two seven-point questions ranging
between "always" and "never" on their intentions
to "revisit the library in the presence of similar
alternatives" and "advise others to visit it"
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Although some early research indicated
satisfaction as an antecedent to service quality
[32), later works have confirmed service quality
as an antecedent to consumer satisfaction [16,24].
Past research has also indicated that consumer
satisfaction is a reliable predictor of re-visit
intentions [16,24). The proposed conceptual model
(Figure 1) shows the underlying process through
which improvement in service quality and
consumer satisfaction can lead to positive post-
visit intentions.
Ann Lib Sci Doc

Fig. 1 Conceptual Model
METHOD
Survey
The sample for the survey consisted of 113
students who use the library. The respondents
were requested to complete the questionnaire
consisting of a service quality scale, a service
satisfaction scale, a service importance scale, and
the questions to measure their post-visit intentions.
All the respondents completed and returned the
questionnaires. One return was unusable, and a
final sample of 112 was obtained and used in the
analysis.
Measures
Items of each sub-scale were subjected to
reliability assessment. Results of the item analysis
for performance against expectations, satisfaction
and importance scores are presented in Table 1.
The coefficient alpha values for sub-scales ranged
from 0.588 to 0.830 indicating that that the test
was internally consistent [33]. The item-to-total
correlation coefficients for individual performance
items were greater than the 0.35 cut-off value [34].
Reliability for linear combinations of the five sub-
scales was also computed to assess the overall
Vol 47 No 2 June 2000
THE CASE OF A LIBRARY
internal consistency of the measures. Overall
coefficient alpha values for the scales ranged
between 0.868 and 0.904. These results were
consistent with those reported in the literature
[14,16,35]. Service quality was measured as the
deviation of the performance from the expectation.
Pre-weighted and weighted performance and
satisfaction scores were correlated with overall
quality and satisfaction scores and the values for
re-visit intentions and service recommendations.
The correlation coefficients were statistically
Significant in the predicted direction (see Table 2).
This result provided eVidence of the predictive
validity of the scales.
Model Analysis
The conceptual model (Figure 1) was tested with
the collected data using LlSREL VIII [36]. The
overall fit of the model was adequate with the GFI .
as 0.73 when pre-weighted scores were used and
0.71 when weighted scores were used. The
Satorra-Bentler [37] scaled chi-square statistic was
0.06 and 0.07 (52 df, p=1.00) with pre-weighted
and weighted scores, respectively. The estimates
of path coefficients and other measures are shown
in Table 3.
43
 D K BANWET and B DATTA

Table 1

Importance, performa,}ce and satisfaction mean scores (N= 112)

Petfel'llUCfl Gap
Importance (I) Satbfacflon (S)
Elpectalioot (PII) .cora
DtmeDJion Item-totJJi Ittllfl-lOttJi ltem-total
X SD X SD X SD (p1E-4rl
CmTtIation Correlation Corrt/4tion
A. TANGIBLES «=0.604 (1="19 ~·G.619
I. COQditiOll of 5.59 1.10 0.44 3.34 0.64
0.35 4.00 1.01 0.45 1:13.69
2. A _..ceofpbysicaJ facilities 5.27 1.01 0.51 3.50 0.74
0.51 3.95 1.01 0.52 (-~.64
3. A ofstaff' 4.71 Ll2 0.35 4.02 0.88
0.36 4.68 0.79 0,35 0.09
4. Ambjence in the lilrary 5.13 1.07 0.36 3.82 O~ 93
0.46 4.11 1.17 0.46 {-)UO
a RELIABILITY a a 0.648 «-0.737 a=l629
5. Stafl's sincerity in serving you SJ9 0.84 0,35 4.48 1.12 O.SO 4.88 0.93 0.39 2.78
6. Staft's problem solving,ability 5.80 0.98 . 0.42 4.05 1.13 0.64 4.41 0.87 0.50 0.29
7. Performance of service correctly 5.75 1.16 . 0.38 4.t8 1.04 0.61 4.64 1.03 0.60 1.04
8. Service ~vision in time 5.54 I.l6 0.60 4.04 1.04 0.44 4.20 1.08 )0,35 0.22
9. Record keqring _.n.C'j 5.75 1.22 0,37 3.89 1.09 0.37 4.30 1.21 0.35 •. {.~.63
C IUSPONSMNISS a-0.110 «-U91 a 0; e. 714
10. The \Witing time for service 5.16 1.28 0.36 4.42 1.12 0.35 4·.55 1.02 0.59 2.17
11. n.
..in following reque~ S.OS 1.25 0.62 4m
0.97 0.68 4.22 O.~ 0.62 0.35
12. Staffls to help you 5.64 1.16 . 0.59 4.48 l.O6 O.S6 4.84 0.96 0,38 2.71
13. StafI's miIabili!Y_1o-"capond 5.84 1.09 0.52 4.18 1.19 0.60 4.41 1.09 0.48 1.05
D. ASSURANCE a-o.660 m-0.82O «-0.714
14. TnJItNol1biness of staff · 5.70 1.2S 0.48 4.68 1.01 0.54 S.07 0.98 0.45 3.88
IS. Ease in intm.cting with staff 5.39 1.02 0.62 4.63 1.12 Q.71 5.09 0.92 ' 0.66 3,40
16. Courtesysho\W by staff S.13 1.09 0.48 4.36 1.13 0.79 4.86 0.96 0.56 1.85
17. Stan's knoWledge in 5.70 1.14 0.23 4.14. 1.19 0.55 4.73 0.92 0.38 0.80
E. EMPATHY 11=0.774 1l~8.631 a 0.588
1:0

18. Indivjdual attention paid to you 4.71 US 0.56 4.30 1.12 0.73 4.61 1.02 0.61 1.41
... 19. Personal attention paid to you 4.16 1.66 0.79 4.14 1.22 0.52 4.64 0.96 O.SO 0.58
20. Stairs Ulu;J~ of needs 5.41 1.24 0.62 191 1.10 0.55 4..45 1.00 0.62 (·X).49
21: Sensitiveness to your interests 5.11 1.24 0.75 3.85 0.93 0.60 4.23 1.12 0.46 (·X).76
22. Convenience of hours 5.57 0.68 0.35 3.89 J.SI 0.36 4.11 1.51 0.35 (-).61

44 A nn Lj b Sci Doc
 THE CASE OF A LIBRARY

Table 2

Correlation of summated scores (N=112)

Perceptional Welghtlld
IlpectadOD PerutioDll
OvenD S.tisfactfoa
WeJpted OVtraU Re-rilJt
ltem1 QuaHty Satilfadioa S.dlf.dioD la_dOlI
~IE) 1x1JKtl~
~xpectation .
Weighted pcn:eptiODJlE 0.994 .
Overall Quality (OQ) 0.212- 0.237- .
Satisfaction 0.697 0.700 0.407 .
Wei&btcd Satis~tion 0.690 0.700 '0.416 0.990 .
Overall Satisfaction (OS) 0.437 0.457 0.708 O.~16 0.528 - .
Re.v}sit Intention '0.298 0.295 0.351 0.348 0.317 0.354
R.ecommeadation 0.415 0.424 0.449 0.430 0.411 0.504 0.744
Nete: - implies SlglUfiamc:e at 0.05 level. Other values are SIgnificant at 0.01 level

Table 3

Estimated path coefficients

From To
Service i
Consumer satisfaction
Note: t-values in parenthesis are significant at 0.05 level

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION to be amongst the most important factors for

The data collected and the analys is of the
conceptual model yielded the following
conclusions:
1. The service importance scale clearly indicates
that students place more importance on the
reliability of library services than other service
dimensions. This is consistent with past
research. where reliability is rated as the most
important dimension affecting service quality
[38]. Staff availability to students. their sincerity,
trust-worthiness. knowledge. problem solving
ability and record keeping.accuracy are rated
achieving high quality in library service. The
condition of the physical facilities , general
ambience in the library and convenient
operating hours are also important
requirements for achieving service quality and
satisfaction . It is worthwhile to note that
although the performance scores of these
items are on average above their expectations,
some of them still fall short of user 's
expectations. The "condition of equipment",
"appearance of physical facilities" and the
"ambience in the library" fall below user's
expectations by an importance weighted gap
of more than 1.00. Other areas , ~hich fall

Vol 47 No 2 June 2000 45

D K BANWEr and B DATTA
below student's expectations, are the accuracy
of keeping records, sensitiveness towards
their needs and interests, and the convenience
of operating hours. These are the areas the
library can improve in order to achieve better
service quality. The satisfaction/dissatisfaction
scale indicates that although respondents
seem to be satisfied with the knowledge,
sincerity and trustworthiness of the staff, and
the courtesy extended to them, much can be
done to improve the services.
2. The correlation coefficients between the
overall quality dimension and the preweighted
and weighted perceived service quality
dimensions are significantly low. This indicates
that the overall quality is dependent on factors
other than the perceived functional quality. As
dicussed earlier, the quality of a service can
be divided into technical (outcome) quality and
the functional (process) quality. Although the
inquiry into the technical quality was outside
the scope of this study, informal discussions
with the respondents revealed their feeling that
the library lar' j in some aspects of technical
quality, specially the range of up-to-elate
literature available. Limited research has
indicated that the technical (outcome)
dimensions of service quality have
considerable impact on overall service quality
and satisfaction. Further studies are needed
to ascertain how the outcome dimensions of
library service affect per~eived quality and
satisfaction.
3. The overall quality and satis·faction
dimensions have a significantly higher
correlation with post-visit intentions than the
multidimensional scales (see Table 2) . This
implies that overall dimensions can be good
predictors of post-visit intentions. However, the
multidimensional scales provide useful
indications for pinpointing the areas (and the
extent) where service quality and user
satisfaction can be improved.
4. Analysis of the conceptual model endorses the
proposed causal order of the relationship
between perceived service quality, consumer
satisfaction and post-visit intentions. Both
perceived service quality and satisfaction have
a positive impact on post-visit intentions. The
46
indirect effect from service quality to post visit
intentions via consumer satisfaction has the
product of coefficients equal to 0.34, which is
2.4 times that of the direct effect from service
quality to post-visit intentions (0.13). This
suggests that consumer satisfaction
completely mediates the path between service
quality and post-visit intentions. The model
achieves better fit with pre-weighted data than
with weighted data. These results are
consistent with the findings of similar studies
[16]. the result suggests that library managers
must strive towards satisfying the users in
order to ensure that users continue their
membership with the library and advise others
to use it.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The current study identifies areas for improving
the quality of services being delivered in a library.
The perceived service performance generally
matches users' expectations . Students rate
reliability as the most important dimension of
service quality. An enchancement in the quality of
service leads to the users' satisfaction, which in
turn leads to positive post-visit intentions. The
contribution of the technical (outcome) dimension
in forming positive post-visit intentions can be an
area of future research. The results indicate that
although users are satisfied with the current
service, many areas need improvement in order
to build a consumer-focussed attitude towards
service delivery.
REFERENCES
1. BANWET (D K) and DATTA (B). Measuring
service quality: Case study of a restaurant.
Productivity. 40, 2; 1999; 296-301 .
2. NITECKI (D A). Changing the concept and
measure of service quality in academic
libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship.
22,3; 1996; 181-190.
3. EDWARDS (S) and BROWNE (M). Quality in
Information services: Do users and librarians
differ in their expectations? Library and
Information Science Research. 17; 1995; 163-
182.
Ann Lib Sci Doc

4. DOW (RF). Us ing assessment criteria to
determine library quality. Journal of Academic
librarianship. 24, 4; 1998; 1-16.
5. HEBERT (F). Service quality. An unobtrusive
investigation of interlibrary loan in large public
libraries in Canada. Library and Information
Science Research. 16; 1994; 3-21 .
6. SWEENEY (J C). JOHNSON (L W) and
ARMSTRONG (R W) . The effect of cues on
service quality expectations and service
selection in a library setting. Journal of
Services Marketing. 6, 4; 1992.
7. CARDIFF University Libraries. Service quality
survey. 1996.Final Report, April 1997.
8. HERNON (P) and ALTMAN (E). Assessing
Service quality: Satisfying the expectations of
library customers. 1998. American Library
Association; Chicago.
9. KAUSHIK (M). Education services marketing,
Services marketing: The Indian experience.
1997. South Asia; Delhi; 74-102.
10. LAKHE (R R) and MOHANTY (R P) .:
Understanding TQM in service systems.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management. 12,9; 1995; 139-153.
11 . GRONROOS (C). Marketing services: The
case of a missing product, Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing, 13, 4/5; 1998; 322-
338.
12. BUREAU of Indian Standards, Ind ian
Standard. Quality management and quality
system elements: Guidelines for services, (IS
140004, Part 2) . 1992. BIS; New Delhi.
13. ZEITHAML (V A) . Consumer perceptions of
price, quality and value: A means-end model
and synthesis of evidence, Journal of
Marketing, 52, 2; 1988; 2-22.
14. PARASURAMAN (A) , ZEITHAML (V. A) and
BERRY (L L). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of
service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64; 1988;
12-23.
Vol 47 No 2 June 2000
THE CASE OF A LIBRARY
15. DONTHU (N) and YOO (B). Cultural Influences
on · service quality expectations . Journal of
Service Research. 1, 2; 1998; 178-186.
16. CRONIN (J J Jr.) and TAYLOR (S A).
Measuring service quality: A reexamination
and extension. Journal of Marketing. 56, 3;
1992; 55-68.
17. CRONIN (J J Jr.) and TAYLOR (S A) ,
SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and performance minus
expectations measurement of service quality.
Journal of Marketing. 58, 1; 1994; 125-131.
18. LILJANDER (V) . Comparison standards in
perceived service quality, Diss. Research
report A: 63, 1995. CERS, Swedish School of
Economics , Finland, Helsingfors.
19. PERSSON (J E) and LINDQUIST (H),
Kunduppleved kvaliteti tjansteverksamheter. En
analys och kritik avden foretagse-konomiska
dialogen (Customer Perceived ~uality in ·
Services. Analysis and Criticism of the
Dialogue in Services. Analysis and Criticism
of the Dialogue in Business Research), 1997.
Lund University; Sweden.
20. BROWN (T J), CHURCHILL (G A Jr.) and
PETER (P J). Improving the measurement of
service quality. Journal of Retailing. 69; 1993;
127-139. .
21. SILVERMAN (S N) and GROVER (R) .
Forming perceptions of overall quality in
consumer products: A process of quality
element entegration. Marketing Science
Institute Working Paper Series, Report No. 95-
103, 1995. Marketing Science Institute ;
Cambridge, MA.
22. HARTLINE (M D) and FERRELL (0 C). The
management of customer-contact service
employees: An empirical investigation .
Journal of Marketing. 60; 1996; 52-10.
23. DABHOLKAR (P A). Contingency framework
and predicting causality between customer
satisfaction and service quality. Advances in
Consumer Research. 22; 1995; 101-108.
47
D K BANWET and B DATTA
24. SHEMWELL (D J), YAVAS (U) and BILGIN (Z).
Customer-service provider relationships : An
empirical test of a model of service quality,
satisfaction and relationship-oriented
outcomes. International Journal of Service
Industry Management. 9, 2; 1998; 155-168.
25. GREENFIELD (T K) and ATTKINSSON (C C).
Steps towards a multifactorial satisfaction
scale for primary care and mental health.
Evaluation and Program Planning. 12,3; 1989;
271-278.
26. NEGRON-VELAZQUEZ (G), ALEGRIA (M),
VERA (M) and FREEMAN (D H). Testing
the service satisfaction scale in Puerto' Rico,
Evaluation and Program Planning. 21 , 1; 1998;
81-92.
27. PATTERSON (P G) and SPRENG (R A).
Modeling the relationsh ip between perceived
value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions
in a business-to-business, services context:
an empirical examination. International Journal
of Service Iw' ,'ry Management. 8, 5; 1997;
414-434.
28. CZEPIEL (J A) and ROSENBERG (L A) .
Consumer satisfaction : concept and
measurement. Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science. 5, 4; 1977. 403-411 .
29. LATOUR (S A) and PEAT (N C). Conceptual
and methodological issues in consumer
satisfaction research, Advances in
Consumer Research. 6; 1979; 431-437.
30. ANGUR (M G). Service quality measurements
in a developing economy: SERVQUAL Versus
SERVPERF. Journal of Customer Service in
Marketing and Management. 4, 3, 1998; 47-
60.
48
31 . ANDREASSEN (T W) and LlNDESTAD (B) .
Customer loyalty and complex services: The
impact of customer satisfaction and loyalty for
customers with varying degrees of service
expertise. International Journal of Service
Industry Management. 9, 1; 1998; 7-23.
32. BITNER (M J). Evaluating service encounters:
Thf! effects of phys ical surroundings and
employee responses; Journal of Marketing. 54,
2; 19:10; 69-82.
33. CRONBACH (L). Coefficient alpha and the
.intemal structure of tests. Psychometrica. 16; .
1951 ; 297-334.
34. NUNNALLY (C J). Psychometric theory. 1978.
Mcgraw Hill; New York.
35. BABAKUS (E) and BOLLER (G W). An
empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL
scale . Journal of Business Research. 24 ;
1991 ; 254-63.
36. JORESKOG (K G) and SORBOM (D). LlSREL
8: A guide to the program and applications .
1989. Scientific Software International;
Chicago.
37. SATORRA (A) and BENTLER (P M). Scaling
corrections for chi-square in covariance
struc ture analysis, Proceedings of the
Busi ness and Economic Statistics Section of
the American Statistical Association. 1988;
308-313.
38. ZEITHAML (V A), PARASURAMAN (A) and
BERRY (L L). Del ivering quality service:
balancing customer percet ions and
expectations. 1999. The Free Press; New
York.
Ann Li b Sci Doc