The Measurement of Service Quality in the Tour Operating Sector: A Methodological Comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service quality in the tourism industry receives increasing attention in the literature, yet confusion still exists as to which measure offers the greatest validity. The two main research instruments are Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and SERVQUAL. However, both measures have been questioned and research has introduced measures that multiply SERVQUAL by Importance, as well as a measure of just Performance (SERVPERF). This article assesses these four main methods of measuring customer service quality. The data were obtained in cooperation with a major U.K. tour operator. Of the respondents, 220 completed a questionnaire before departure on what elements were important to them and what their expectations were for these elements. Toward the end of their holiday, respondents were issued a second questionnaire measuring performance on the same elements. The research found that although there was variety in the rankings of the 13 different elements, there was no statistical difference between the four methodologies. The final section of this article considers the implications of this finding for tourism managers and future research in the area of service quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it