Konsten att mäta tjänstekvalitet
En utvärdering av tre instrument för att mäta tjänstekvalitet i kollektivtrafiken
The purpose of this study is to analyze and evaluate the suitability of the three instruments SERVQUAL, SERVPERF and Zone of tolerance to measure service quality, from the respondents' perspective. This study has been carried out by a quantitative method in which respondents answered three questionnaires, which was based on the three instruments. The SERVQUAL instrument is a revised version based on criticism by Carman (1990). It is based on the five dimensions; reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibility, with 22 items in which each dimension is associated with a number of items. SERVPERF is the instrument most similar to SERVQUAL and is also composed of the same five dimensions. The Zone of tolerance instrument is based on a three-column format of SERVQUAL, where each items is answered in the form of respondent's minimum service level, desired service level, and the perception of SL's service performance. The Zone of tolerance questionnaire consists of eight dimensions, including three new ones (convenience, connection, comfort) and 38 items.The theoretical frame of reference that includes Grönroos model of service quality, and the three instruments form the basis of the results, analysis and conclusion. In this study, we concluded that Zone of tolerance is the most suitable instrument for measuring the quality of service in public transport according to the respondents, thus it best describes the feelings that the respondents feel about the service quality of SL. There was however no significant difference between the Zone of tolerance and the SERVPERF instrument in this regard. The Zone of tolerance instrument was the most specific of the three, but we found that the instrument may undergo additional changes to make it more suitably. Although most respondents felt that the Zone of tolerance instrument was the best descriptive of how the respondents felt regarding the service quality of SL, a large proportion of respondents (49 %) found this instrument as the one that worst describe the feelings they felt regarding the service quality of SL. A large proportion (72 %) of respondents believe that the Zone of tolerance instrument is the most difficult to understand. This may be because it includes many items and that every item must answer three times, a rather unusual format. The fact that this instrument was the last one in the scheme may have a negative effect. Since respondents in the assessment of the last instrument certainly became bored and therefore may have led to the instrument not receiving as much attention as the two previous instruments.