perceived quality of hotels in neuquen province

8/15/2019 Perceived Quality of Hotels in Neuquen Province

1/25

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Nacional Colombia]On: 13 March 2015, At: 14:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19

Perceived Quality of Hotels in Neuquen Province,ArgentinaLucía Tamagni PhD a & Marina Zanfardini PhD ba Department of Tourism Services , School of Tourism, National University of Comahue , E-mail:b Department of Tourism Services , National University of Comahue , E-mail:Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Lucía Tamagni PhD & Marina Zanfardini PhD (2006) Perceived Quality of Hotels in Neuquen Province,Argentina, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13:3-4, 79-102, DOI: 10.1300/J150v13n03_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v13n03_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or en dorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accur acy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. T aylor and Francis shal l not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v13n03_05http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J150v13n03_05http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v13n03_05http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J150v13n03_05http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19


2/25

Perceived Qualityof Hotels

in Neuquen Province, Argentina

Lucía TamagniMarina Zanfardini

ABSTRACT. Although the Neuquen Province has experienced an im-portant increase in hospitality demand since the Argentine currency wasdevalued in 2001, no studies concerning hotel service quality have beendetected. This research deals with the perceived quality of high categoryhotels in two locations in this province. Highly structured interviewswere held to measure levels of guests’ expectations and perceptions, us-ing a scale adapted to the service context. The paired sample T-test wasused to analyse the resulting gaps of the three hotel quality dimensionsand their 23 items. Factors influencing expectations levels were alsoanalysed as well as behavioural consequences of perceived service qual-ity. Finally, multi-item hotel quality scale reliability and validity assess-ment was also applied. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth

Document Delivery Service: 1-800- HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2005 by The

Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Lucía Tamagni, PhD, is Regular Associate Professor, Department of Tourism Ser-vices, School of Tourism, National University of Comahue (E-mail: [email protected]).

Marina Zanfardini, PhD, is Regular Adjunto Professor, Department of Tourism Ser-vices, National University of Comahue (E-mail: [email protected]).

Address correspondence to: Facultad de Turismo, U.N.C., Buenos Aires 1400,(8300) Neuquen-Argentina.

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 13(3/4) 2005Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHLM© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1300/J150v13n03_05 79


3/25

KEYWORDS. Perceived quality hotels, SERVQUAL, quality measure-ment

INTRODUCTION

Tourism has become one of the major resources with high impacts onthe economy and social development of Argentina, especially duringthe last three years. December 2001 set a milestone on the political andeconomic stage of the country with the devaluation of the national cur-rency. This event had vast repercussions on local tourist destinations,which were soon crowded with visitors.

The favorable rate of exchange influenced both the number of tour -ists as well as their behaviour. Oneof the main changes detected was thehigh increase in the number of foreign tourists. During the first semesterof 2003, their arrival through Ezeiza, the main Argentine internationalairport, showed an increase of 39 percent, compared to the same periodthe year before (Secretaría de Turismo de la Nación Argentina, 2003).Visitors from the United States, Brazil, Chile, Spain and Italy were atthe top of the list. Furthermore, 64 percent of Argentine travellers whoused to spend their holidays abroad were now choosing to visit domesticdestinations (Rodríguez, 2003).

Strictly speaking about the demand levels of hotel industry, data onthe 2003 winter season are very encouraging. At the main winter holi-day destinations in the country, including those in Neuquen Province,the occupancy level was 90% in July (Secretaría de Turismo de laNación Argentina, 2003).

This context for the travel market poses an unprecedented challengeto tourist destinations of Neuquen Province, which is the need to gener-ate competitive advantages to preserve and increase the number of visi-tors. To reach this goal, however, one of the imperatives is to follow upon levels of perceived quality by their hotel’s guests.

From a hotel availability point of view, most of the accommodationservice companies in Neuquen province are family businesses, with asmall number of lodgings related to hotel chains or franchises. It is notfrequent that these hotels measure the quality of their services from acustomer perspective. Some lodgings in the higher categories doendeavour to measure their quality systematically and regularly, butthese are isolated initiatives, and they use a wide variety of question-naire formats and styles. Such initiatives guarantee measurement of those service aspects managers consider of interest. However, they usu-

80 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING


4/25

ally don’t take into account those attributes a guest would include in aquality assessment.

The present study aimed at delving deeper into these issues. It fo-cuses on the measurement of guest perceived service quality in threeand four stars hotels in two destinations of Neuquen Province. Theseobjectives were outlines:

• To measure the guest-perceived quality levels at the hotels.• To evaluate the influence of factors like previous experiences

and personal needs on the development of customer quality expec-tations.

• To evaluate the influence of perceived service quality on future

guests behaviours regarding the hotels.

Perceived Service Quality

There has been intensive research work on the issue of service qual-ity in the last two decades. Grönroos (1984) developed the first modelby approaching the “perceived service quality” construct that hasserved as the basis for most research carried out on this matter. Afterthose studies, SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988,1992) has been one of the most relevant approaches within the scien-tific community, and it has allowed the measurement of perceivedquality in various service sectors. SERVQUAL takes back the centralidea of Grönroos’s model and proposes a measurement of servicequality through a comparison between customer expectations on ser-vice to be provided (E) and their perceptions of its actual performance(P). Results of this comparison (P-E) lead to the detection of perceivedquality gaps.

A multidimensional approach points out that the measure of servicequality cannot result from a single variable, but is a construct that involvesseveral features. A discrepancy arises between the above mentioned au-thors in terms of the number and denomination of the dimensions that al-low approaching the service quality concept.

Grönroos (1984, 1994) states that there are basically two dimensions toquality: the“technical” dimension and the “functional” one, plus a third di-mension, “the corporate image,” which influences the former two. In con-trast, the authors of the SERVQUAL scale detect five dimensions of service quality–tangibility, reliability, assurance, responsiveness, and em -pathy–that operate through 22 generic items.

Luc a Tamagni and Marina Zanfardini 81


5/25

Because subsequent research has led to some criticism of theSERVQUAL model, its authors recommend that the scale’s items beadapted to a particular service context (Parasuraman et al., 1991).

Measuring Hotel Service Quality

Hotel service quality has received some attention from researchers forthe last decade. Nevertheless, actual research is isolated and dispersed.Some studies have been carried out in different countries, showing cul-tural differences and inconclusive findings on the dimensions used.

Knutson et al. (1992, 1994) developed a system of 26 dimensionsadapted from the SERVQUAL model, designed for the lodging sector,

which allowed them to measure American guests’ service quality expec -tations. Theauthors only applied their ranking to the level of expectationswith a reliability coefficient of 0.92, suggesting hotel managers to givecontinuity to the study by measuring the effective performance level, inorder to make comparisons and find quality gaps. Their research con-firmed that in general, expectation levels for hotel quality are always veryhigh and pointed out that in this kind of service it is a big challenge toreach the quality threshold, i.e., to achieve the hotel performance thatequals customers expectations.

They also made a study that aiming to develop an international tool,adapting it and applying it in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia andthe United Kingdom. Results showed that their LODGSERV model keptits value in cultures different from that of the United States. The authorssuggested, however, that those findings were limited, as they understoodthat the chosen countries–Asian and English speaking countries–do notrepresent the entire scope of cultural diversity.

Furthermore, a study made by Akan (1995) on service quality in Istan-bul hotels analysed whether SERVQUAL dimensions were applicable inan international environment, in particular in Turkey. This study also triedto identify and measure any additional dimension suggested by hotelguests. This research used 30 quality items adapted from SERVQUAL,which involved three dimensions: the hotel, its personnel and the serviceprocess. Results showed that the hotel personnel is one of the most impor-tant and influential attributes in quality perception.Four- and five-star hotelguest expectations in Turkey focused on personnel’s friendliness and po-liteness, grooming, and expert service, leaving aside personalised or spe-cial attention.

Saleh and Ryan (1991) applied a survey with the purpose of measur-ing hotel service quality. Its scale consisted in 33 items, gathered from



6/25

an adaptation of SERVQUAL model to hotel service (particularly tofour-star category hotels) as well as questionnaires used in the evalua-tion of restaurant services. Its results provided a bi-dimensional fac-torial solution. The first dimension, with a high proportion of explainedvariance, “sociability” and a second factor, related to hotel “tangibles.”They suggested that at the hotel category studied, guests assume thattheir expectations will be met in terms of tangible aspects; thereforetheir evaluations focus on sociability. Likewise, they found that this di-mension was more relevant to service quality than tangible factors.They stated that SERVQUAL dimensions couldn’t be confirmed intheir study because questions included did not represent them clearly.

Johns and Lee-Ross (1997), on the other hand, hold that there is a spe-

cific problem for the service tangible dimension within the hotel context.They stress that services differ in terms of the tangibility proportion theycontain. They also assume that this dimension is more significant regard-ing hotel services with a high number of clearly differentiated tangiblecomponents. There is also a linguistic problem with this dimension, as itincludes elements that the guest experiences by himself, but it says noth-ing about their quality and only refers to their availability. In addition,there is a presumption that the elements of this dimension tend to be moredissatisfactory than satisfactory to guests.

On account of the multiple observations made to the SERVQUALscale in terms of the generality or over-simplification of its dimen-sions and measurements, a specific scale for the hotel context of theArgentine Patagonic region was generated (Tamagni, Michelli, &Zanfardini, 2003). An exploratory research work was developed thatallowed establishing a content valid scale, including the opinions of the various actors involved in the provision of hotel services. The re-search started with a list of 28 quality indicators. The list was gener-ated from in-depth interviews with hotel managers and guest surveysat different Patagonian destinations. Using structured interview as-sisted by cards, the research team found out the dimensionality thatgrouped the hotel service quality items. Multidimensional scaling andhierarchical cluster analysis were used to explore the items groupingpattern and to define resulting quality dimensions.

They found out that users and managers of the lodging service hadmentally grouped quality attributes in just three dimensions. They calledthe quality dimensions as “physical support and hotel general servicesquality,” “room quality” and “employee’s attention quality.” The firsttwo dimensions included items similar to “tangibility” proposed by theSERVQUAL model, while “employees’ attention quality” retrieved some



7/25


8/25

The interview had several sections. The first one was related to theform identification, so it included the variables number of interviewees,destination, date, hotel name, and interviewer’s name. The second sec-tion included variables related to the reasons the guests had to use thehotel services. Two questions were included, one related to the reasonfor travelling, the other linked to travelling group. The third section fo-cused on the experience with the hotel services and it included two indi-


TABLE 1. Dimensions and Items Used for the Measure of Perceived Hotel Ser-vice Quality

Dimension Item

Physical support andhotel general servicesquality

Hotel external appearance.

Decoration and atmosphere of the hotel.

Availability of garage/parking.

Disabled guests’ accessibility.

Convenient location for the guest.

Security for the guest and his possessions.

Cleaning of the hotel.

Breakfast quality.

Food service diversity (restaurant, bar, room service).

Availability of communication services (fax, messenger, Internet).

Room’s quality Dimension of the room.

Availability of TV in the room.

Heating/air conditioning control.

Cleaning and maintenance of sheets and towels.

Comfort of the bed.

Bathrooms with accessories for personal hygiene.

Sound isolated rooms.

Luminous rooms.

Employee’s attentionto quality

Employee’s appearance.

Employee’s friendliness.

Employee efficiency when completing their tasks.

Employee willing to solve passengers’ problems.

Precision of information provided by employee.


9/25

cators: annual frequency of hotel use and average duration of stay oneach use occasion.

The fourth and fifth sections aimed at measuring the perceived qual-ity of hotels through a 5-point Likert scale. Items were written as opin-ions or emphatic statements for this type of technique and intervieweeswere invited to state their degree of agreement or disagreement withthem. The interviewee must assign a value of 5 when he strongly agreedwith the statements, and a value of 1 when he strongly disagreed withthem. Each item of Table 1 was converted into two affirmations, one forexpectation and one for performance. Statements were arranged in thequestionnaire grouped under Expectations (fourth section) and Percep-tions (fifth section). In order to make the task easier for the person an-

swering the questions, cards were handed over to them with thestatements printed on them. As he read each card he expressed hisdegree of agreement or disagreement with it.

Finally, the last three sections were: “general evaluation of the hotel,”with three questions related to a general evaluation of service, an assess-ment of “value for money” and whether he/she had experienced anyproblems with the service; “predisposition toward the service,” askingwhether he/she would stay at the same hotel again and whether he/shewould recommend it to others; and, finally, the “socio-demographic pro-file,” including indicators such as gender, residence, level of educationand age group.

Destinations Selection

Locations were intentionally selected so as to represent the major hotelsegments in the province: pleasure travellers (tourists) and work andbusiness travellers (businessmen), both of them with different personalneeds. Destinations included in the present study were thecities Neuquenand San Martin de los Andes (SMA). Being the capital of the province,Neuquen is the urban centre with greater economic, political and admin-istrative activity, and with the largest population within the province. Itshotel guests are basically businessmen. In contrast, SMA is one of thetourist destinations of the province with the largest number of tourist ar-rivals and due to it, the most important concentration of lodging serviceswithin the province, in terms of the amount of beds. The SMA hotel mar-ket consists mainly of vacation travellers. About three and four-star ho-tels existing offer (the highest categories available in both destinations), itis of 634 beds in SMA, and 622 in Neuquen, which represent 11% and35%, respectively, of the total amount of available beds.



10/25

Sample

The concluding nature of the research design and the large number of measure variables required to propose a relatively big size target sam-ple. Taking into account the extension of samples of hotel quality mea-surement studies [Tsang & Qu (2000): N = 270, Ingran & Daskalakis(1999): N = 200, Johns & Lee-Ross (1997): N = 299, Knutson et al.(1992): N = 201 and Kandampully & Suchartanto (2000): N = 237] andthe availability of economic resources and hotel managers willingnessto be interviewed, a minimum number of 200 interviews was decided tobe optimal.

A census of high category hotels (three and four-star) at both destina-

tions was made. They summed up a total of eight hotels, five three-starhotels (62%) and three four-star hotels (37%). Respondents were cho-sen randomly at each of them. Interviews were made to people over 18who had spent at least one night at those hotels.

Response Rate

Interviews were carried out from September to November of 2002.Out of all questionnaires, 216 were complete and valid for the analysis,103 from Neuquen and 113 from SMA. This total of valid surveys wasdistributed in 65% in three stars hotels and the remaining 35% in fourstars hotels.

RESULTS

Table 2 summarizes the socio-demographic characteristics of inter-viewees. Most of the people who answered were men (72%), with a highlevel of education (95% of interviewees had completed high school stud-ies) and the most widely represented age group was that between ages 31to 45. Eighty percent of these people were habitual residents in Argen-tina.

The sample included practically the same proportion of guests whosemain reason for using the hotel was tourism and those on a business trip.A cross analysis was made of this variable with the location where thesurvey was made and a significant relationship between them was found.The value of 0.625 contingency coefficient found allows confirming ahigh direct relation between the reason “tourism” and SMA as destina-tion, and the reason “business” and as Neuquen city destination.



11/25

The travel group of the sample was diversified, with a high percent-age of guests who travelled alone (34%). This variable was strongly as-sociated to the reason for travelling (contingency coefficient 0.675,sing. degree 0.01). Chart 1 shows that the reasons tourists travel withtheir families (42%) or only with their couple (40%). On the other hand,business guests travelled predominantly alone (63%) and to a lesser de-gree with their colleagues (28%).

Concerning their experience with the hotel service, the variable “an-nual frequency of use of hotel service” showed great dispersal with val-ues ranging from 1 to 60 times. However, 75 percent of respondents wereconcentrated within the 1 and 13 times a year ranking. Concerning lengthof time on each occasion, 75% of the answers ranged between 1 and 7nights. Given that these two variables did not show symmetrical distribu -tions that would have allowed a comparison of their averages, these were


TABLE 2. Interviewees’ Socio-Demographic Characteristics (N = 216)

Socio-demographic Counts. %

Gender

Female 60 27.8

Male 156 72.2

Education

Primary (not completed) 1 0.5

Primary (complete) 4 1.9

High school (not completed) 5 2.3

High school (completed) 38 17.6

College (not completed) 29 13.4

College (completed) 130 60.2

Age Groups

18 to 30 48 22.2

31 to 45 91 42.1

46 to 60 60 27.8

Over 60 17 7.9

Regular Residence

Argentina 173 80.1

Outside Argentina 42 19.4


12/25

obtained by comparing medians between reasons for travelling. Touristsshowed a median of use of hotel service of twice a year, while guests thatneeded lodging services for business reasons showed a median of use of 12 times. Regarding the nights staying at the hotel, in general business-men spent about 2 nights, while tourists showed a median of 5 nights.

Guest Expectations

Guests stated high levels of expectations on the 23 items of this study.The column “Expectation” in Table 4, shows that their means ranged be-tween 4.92 and 3.80, all values above the middle point in the measure-ment scale (3). Average values were estimated for the quality dimensionsand, as can be noticed in Chart 2, the highest levels of expectation wererelated to the dimension “employees’ attention quality,” with “roomquality” next and finally with the “physical support and hotel general ser-vices quality” dimension.

To verify the influence of “personal needs” in the expectation levels, anANOVA analysis was carried out taking the 23 expectation items as de-pendable variables and “reason for travelling”and “travel group” as inde-pendent variables.

Table 3 shows the items with significant differences of expectationmeans by the two most frequent motivations (tourism and business). Dif-ferences observed indicated that expectations tended to be higher towardtourists, showing they weremoredemanding than businessguests. Touristspaid more attention to “luminous rooms,” “hotel external appearance,”


70

60

50

40

30

2010

0Tourism Business Other

Family Friends Couple Alone Work mate Other

CHART 1. Trip Group by Motivation (N = 216)


13/25

“employee’s appearance,” “employee’s friendliness” and “employee effi-ciency when performing their tasks.”

Regarding the influence of factors such as “travel group” in the ex-pectation levels, an ANOVA analysis carried out showed there were nosignificant differences.


TABLE 3. Expectation Means Comparison by Reason for Traveling: SignificantValues

Items Reason MeanStandard

desv.Sig.

(bilateral)Mean

difference

Employee’s appearanceTourism 4.74 0.62

0.058 0.19 (*)Work/Business 4.56 0.77

Employee’s friendlinessTourism 4.90 0.34

0.010 0.15 (*)Work/Business 4.75 0.48

Hotel external appearanceTourism 4.35 0.82

0.091 0.20 (·)Work/Business 4.15 0.87

Employee efficiency whendoing their tasks

Tourism 4.73 0.640.088 0.15 (*)

Work/Business 4.58 0.63

Luminous roomsTourism 4.24 0.81

0.021 0.28 (·)Work/Business 3.95 0.92

Note: (*) Equal variances not assumed. (·) Equal variances assumed.

5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.00

P

h y s i c a l

s u p p o r t

a n d

h o t e l

g e n e r a l

s e r v i c e s

R o o m

E m

p l o y e e s ’

a t t e n t i o n

4.34 4.494.64

CHART 2. Expectation Means by Quality Dimensions (N = 216)


14/25

T A B L E 4

. E x p e c t a t i o n s , P e r f o r m a n c e s a n d Q

u a l i t y G a p s

D i m e n s i o n

I t e m

E x p e c t a t i o n s

P e r f o r m a n c e s

G a p s

M e a n

S t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n

M e a n S t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n

M e a n

t v a l u e

1

H o t e l e x t e r n a l a p p e a r a n c e

.

4 . 2

7

0 . 8

4

4 . 3

7

0 . 8

3

0 . 1

0

1 . 4

2 2

1

D e c o r a t i o n a n d a t m o s p h e r e o f t h e h o t e l .

4 . 3

7

0 . 8

3

4 . 3

8

0 . 7

8

0 . 0

0

– 0

. 0 6 7

1

A v a i l a b i l i t y o f g a r a g e / p a r k i n g

.

4 . 1

7

1 . 1

0

4 . 5

4

0 . 9

2

0 . 2

1

1 . 8

8 6

1

S p e c i a l g u e s t ’ s a c c e s s i b i l i t y

.

4 . 5

1

0 . 9

3

3 . 4

3

1 . 3

8

– 1

. 0 6

– 7

. 5 2 3

* *

1

C o n v e n i e n t l o c a t i o n f o r t h e g u e s t

.

3 . 9

0

1 . 0

5

4 . 5

5

0 . 8

7

0 . 6

3

7 . 5

4 6

* *

1

S e c u r i t y f o r t h e g u e s t a n d h i s p o s s e s s i o n s .

4 . 8

8

0 . 4

0

4 . 5

9

0 . 6

5

– 0

. 3 0

– 5

. 7 1 0

* *

1

C l e a n i n g o f t h e h o t e l .

4 . 8

5

0 . 3

9

4 . 7

3

0 . 6

1

– 0

. 1 2

– 2

. 5 5 8

*

1

B r e a k f a s t q u a l i t y .

4 . 4

4

0 . 8

6

4 . 2

5

0 . 9

9

– 0

. 1 7

– 2

. 2 0 3

*

1

F o o d s e r v i c e d i v e r s i t y ( r e s t a u r a n t , b a r , r o o m s e r v i c e ) .

3 . 8

0

1 . 0

4

3 . 9

6

1 . 1

4

0 . 1

7

1 . 6

9 4

1

A v a i l a b i l i t y o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e r v i c e s ( f a x ,

m e s s e n g e r , I n t e r n e t )

.

4 . 2

2

0 . 9

4

4 . 0

0

1 . 1

7

– 0

. 2 5

– 2

. 3 5 5

*

2

D i m e n s i o n o f t h e r o o m

.

4 . 0

0

0 . 8

2

4 . 5

2

0 . 7

9

0 . 5

1

7 . 3

0 9

* *

2

A v a i l a b i l i t y o f T V i n t h e r o o m

.

4 . 1

7

1 . 0

8

4 . 7

0

0 . 6

4

0 . 5

0

5 . 9

5 0

* *

2

H e a t i n g / a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g c o n t r o l .

4 . 5

9

0 . 6

8

3 . 8

9

1 . 3

8

– 0

. 7 3

– 6

. 8 3 1

* *

2

C l e a n i n g a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f s h e e t s a n d t o w e l s

.

4 . 9

2

0 . 3

5

4 . 8

6

0 . 4

2

– 0

. 0 7

– 1

. 9 5 4

2

C o m f o r t o f t h e b e d

.

4 . 8

2

0 . 4

3

4 . 5

5

0 . 7

8

– 0

. 2 7

– 4

. 5 0 0

* *

2

B a t h r o o m s w i t h a c c e s s o r i e s f o r t h

e p e r s o n a l h y g i e n e

.

4 . 6

4

0 . 7

3

4 . 4

4

0 . 8

2

– 0

. 2 1

– 3

. 2 7 9

* *

91


15/25

T A B L E 4 ( c o n t i n u e d )

D i m e n s i o n

I t e m

E x p e c t a t i o n s

P e r f o r m a n c e s

G a p s

M e a n

S t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n

M e a n S t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n

M e a n

t v a l u e

2

S o u n d i s o l a t e d r o o m s .

4 . 6

6

0 . 6

1

3 . 5

0

1 . 2

6

– 1

. 1 5

– 1 1

. 6 7 7

* *

2

L u m i n o u s r o o m s .

4 . 1

1

0 . 8

7

4 . 3

4

0 . 9

3

0 . 2

3

2 . 7

6 9

* *

3

E m p l o y e e ’ s a p p e a r a n c e

.

4 . 6

5

0 . 6

9

4 . 5

8

0 . 6

8

– 0

. 0 7

– 1

. 1 0 0

3

E m p l o y e e ’ s f r i e n d l i n e s s

.

4 . 8

3

0 . 4

1

4 . 7

2

0 . 5

7

– 0

. 1 1

– 2

. 4 1 2

*

3

E m p l o y e e e f f i c i e n c y w h e n c o m p l e t i n g t h e i r t a s k s .

4 . 6

6

0 . 6

3

4 . 6

3

0 . 6

8

– 0

. 0 1

– 0

. 1 5 2

3

E m p l o y e e w i l l i n g t o s o l v e p a s s e n g e r s ’ p r o b l e m s .

4 . 4

1

0 . 7

7

4 . 6

3

0 . 6

8

0 . 2

3

3 . 5

7 4

* *

3

P r e c i s i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y e m p l o y e e

.

4 . 6

8

0 . 6

0

4 . 6

2

0 . 6

8

– 0

. 0 5

– 0

. 9 7 6

N o t e : D i m e n s i o n 1 : P h y s i c a l s u p p o r t a n d h o t e l g e n e r a l s e r v i c e s q u a l i t y . 2 : R o o m ’ s q u a l i t y . 3 : E m p l o y e e s ’ a t t e n t i o n q u a l i t y .

* b i l a t e r a l t - t e s t s i g n i f i c a n t a t 0

. 0 5 ; * * b i l a t e r a l t - t e s t s i g n i f i c a n t a t 0

. 0 1

.

92


16/25

Previous experience and level of expectation relationship was alsoassessed. A new variable was generated for this purpose, called “experi-ence with hotel services,” which brought together the variables “fre-quency of travel” and “average stay for every time of use” through thefollowing equation: Experience = (Frequency Length of Stay) .

The analysis of the bi-varied correlation between the 23 expectation in-dicators and the new variable did not show significant relations. The pres-ent study did not ratify the assumption of the SERVQUAL theory that themore experienced is the customer, the higher his level of expectations.

Guest Perceptions

As in the case of expectations, the levels of perceptions were high for the23 items under consideration. Table 4 shows average and standard deviationvalues in the Performance column. The main troubles detected relates to“special guest’s accessibility,” “sound isolated rooms,” “heating/air condi-tioning control” and “food service diversity.”

In terms of dimensions, perceptions were stronger concerning “em-ployees’ attention quality,” then followed “room’s quality” and finally,the dimension on “physical support and hotel general services quality.”By comparing Charts 2 and 3, it can be seen that dimensions with thehighest levels of expectations coincide with those with the highest per-formance levels.


5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

4.32 4.354.63

P h y s i c a l

s u p p o r t

a n d

h o t e l

g e n e r a

l

s e r v i c e s

R o o m

E m p l o y e

e s ’

a t t e n t i o

n

CHART 3. Performance Means by Quality Dimensions (N = 216)


17/25

Gaps Between Guest Expectations and Perceptions

In order to determine whether the average of comparison between ex-pectations of items were different to zero (the threshold for quality), pairedsample T-tests were employed. Table 4 shows the results of this analysis.Each item mean and standard deviation for expectations and for perfor-mance perceptions are indicated, as well as mean, T-value and degree of significance for gaps found.

Of the 23 quality gaps, 10 of them obtained negative significant val-ues and 4 of them got positive significant values. For the remaininggaps, differences between expectations and perceptions did not result insignificance rates other than 0.

The most critical gaps can be seen in the same aspects that showedweak perceptions. They relate to “sound isolated rooms” and “disabledguests’ accessibility.” Hotels’ guests also perceived difficulties con-cerning “heating/air conditioning control” in the rooms.

As positive gaps, it can be said that “convenient location for the guest,”“dimension of the room” and “availability of TV in the room” were the mostrelevant.

Gap values for each centre were also compared, detecting five itemswith significant mean differences shown in Table 5. It was observed that


TABLE 5. Gaps Means Comparison by Destination: Significant Values

Items Destination Mean Standarddesv.

Sig.(bilateral)

Meandifference

Special guest’s accessibility Neuquén –0.53 1.23 0.001 0.92(*)SMA –1.45 1.71

Convenient location for theguest

Neuquén 0.42 1.31 0.014 –0.41(·)SMA 0.83 1.08

Food service diversity(restaurant, bar, room service)

Neuquén 0.46 1.19 0.004 0.59(·)SMA –0.13 1.55

Comfort of the bed Neuquén –0.13 .68 0.019 0.28(*)SMA –0.40 1.00

Sound isolated roomsNeuquén –0.80 1.29

0.001 0.67(*)SMA –1.47 1.47

Note: Means value range from –4 to 4. (*) Equal variances not assumed. (·) Equal variances assumed.


18/25

quality in terms of “disabled guests’ accessibility,”“sound isolated rooms”and “comfort of the bed” showed negative gap values in both destina-tions, but with SMA hotels showing the highest degree of difficulty. Itwas also detected that Neuquen hotels provided a wider variety of foodservices than those at SMA, while hotels in the latter destination showeda relative more convenient localization in terms of guest needs.

Reliability of the Scale

Analysis of internal consistency was used as the strategy to assess reli-ability of the scale using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. This approachwas selected following the reliability assessment analysis developed by

Parasuraman et al.Possible values for alpha coefficient range between 0 and 1, and ingeneral, a 0.6 value or higher points to a satisfactory reliability level.Table 6 shows the values of this coefficient for the quality dimensionsand the scale in general, and it also discriminates them in each sub-sam-ple: SMA and Neuquen.

Alpha values obtained for the entire scale are highly satisfactory(above 0.8) and they are consistent at the two locations. As to quality di-mensions, alpha values are satisfactory (over 0.63) compared to otherstudies that have shown higher scores (Patton, Stevens, and Knutson,1994; Alexandris, Dimitriadis, and Markata, 2002; Khan, 2003).

Besides, when the coefficients in the various dimensions were com-pared, it was detected that “physical support and hotel general servicesquality” showed higher values both at the SMA sub-sample and the totalsample. This difference may be owed to the fact that the alpha coeffi-cient tends to increase with the number of items included in its computa-tion. The first dimension includes the highest number of items (10).


TABLE 6. Internal Consistency Along Three Quality Dimensions

Dimension Neuquén SMA Total of the sample

Physical support and hotel generalservices quality (10 items)

0.6451 (45) 0.7446 (47) 0.7073 (92)

Room’s quality (8 items) 0.6367 (82) 0.6256 (94) 0.6336 (176)

Employees’ attention quality (5 items) 0.6566 (93) 0.6587 (97) 0.6568 (190)

Total of the scale (23 items) 0.8858 (38) 0.8288 (45) 0.8520 (82)

Note: Among parenthesis the number of cases is indicated.


19/25

Considering just the three Neuquen sub-samples, the three dimensionsshowed similar Alpha coefficient values.

Validity of the Scale

A high reliability level does not imply that the scale is also valid.Scale validity is the degree to which differences in the observed valuesreflect actual differences between individuals in terms of the character-istics being measured, and not differences due to systematic or randomerrors. In this case validity would be the degree to which variations of gap values point to actual variations in the quality levels perceived byguests, and not variations due to the previous referred type of error.

Construct validity of a scale answers the question on which constructor characteristic it measures (Malhotra, 1997: 307). It is an attempt toanswer theoretical questions about why it works and what can be de-ducted, regarding the underlying theory of the scale. This validity canbe measured through different strategies, of which the validity of con-vergence that measures the scale correlation with other measurementsof the same construct was chosen.

The present study applied the witness variables “overall evaluationof the hotel” and “value for money” as measurements related to theconstruct “perceived hotel quality.” Both were measured in 5 catego-ries (5 = Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Regular, 2 = Poor, 1 = Very Poor).To assess the level of association, an ANOVA test was used. Witnessvariables with only three categories (Excellent, Good and Regular,Very Poor) instead of five were used on account of the low frequencyof available replies for the original categories 3, 2 and 1. In both analy-ses dependent variables were quality indices (gap averages) at the en-tire scale level and for each dimension.

Results obtained in Table 7 show a significant convergence validity(p < 0.01 level) in both variables for the whole scale. Average values arehigher (positive gaps) in the excellent category and lower ones (nega-tive gaps) as they move towards the “regular to very poor” category. Itmust be noted, however, that average values are always lower for the“money for value” variable.

At the quality dimensions level, all of them have a significant associ-ation to the overall evaluation variable. This cannot be said of “value formoney” which presents a significant association to the “physical sup-port and hotel general services quality” and “employees’ attention qual-ity,” while it is not the case of “room’s quality.”



20/25

Yet, the strength and persistence of the relation between the two wit-ness variables and the quality values obtained through the scale offervaluable evidence in favour of its convergence validity.

So as to assess criteria validity of the scale, conceptually related vari-ables were included in the interviews. Quality studies generally assumethat its measure scales have predictive capabilities regarding customer

future behaviours as repetition of use and willingness to recommend theservice. Due to this, the questions “have you had any problem with theservice?” “would you stay at this hotel again?” and “would you recom-mend this hotel to a friend?” were used to tests criteria validity. In otherwords, people who replied “yes” to the last two questions would havehigher quality values in the scale than those who said “no.” On the con-trary, it had been expected that people who had some kind of problemwith the service during their staying would show gap values belowthose who had not had any.

To substantiate these suppositions, an ANOVA analysis was made forthe quality indices of the entire scale (an average of the 23 gaps) and of the different dimensions, segmented by categories “Yes/No” of the men-tioned variables above (Table 8).

The quality index of the entire scale showed significant differencesfor the “problems” variable (lower index value if the guest answered“yes”) and for the “I would recommend” variable (higher index value if


TABLE 7. Significant Differences on Scale Mean Values–Segmentation by“Overall Evaluation of the Hotel” and “Value for Money” Variables

Dimensionsof the scale

Overall Evaluation Value for Money

RegularVeryPoor

Good Excellent SigRegular

VeryPoor

Good Excellent Sig

Physical supportand hotel generalservices quality

–0.76 –0.16 0.15 0.000 –0.66 –0.09 0.04 0.001

Room’s quality –0.68 –0.25 0.1 0.000 –0.31 –0.16 –0.11 0.518

Employees’attention quality –0.49 –0.16 0.19 0.000 –0.42 –0.14 0.14 0.000

Total of the scale(23 items)

–0.68 –0.19 0.10 0.000 –0.48 –0.12 0.01 0.006

Note: Means value range from – 4 to 4.


21/25

the guest replied “Yes”). This same relation persisted at the dimensionlevel. Concerning the “I would return”variable, differences of the indexvalue both for the entire scale and the dimensions were non-significant.The study did not reveal significant evidences that might allow predict-ing whether the guest will stay at the hotel again or not.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

This research work sets out in measuring perceived quality at high cate-gory hotels at two destinations in Neuquen Province, Argentina, using thecomparison between guest expectations and perceptions methodology. Italso evaluates the influence of factors like previous experiences and per-sonal needs on the development of customer expectations and the conse-quences of service quality in future hotel guests’ behaviour.

Research conclusions and the discussion of the most important find-ings are discussed below.

First, regarding guest expectations concerning hotels, intervieweesshowed high levels on all items of the scale, therefore ratifying whatKnutson et al. suggests in relation to users’ demands about this kind of service. In addition, the dimension that showed the highest levels of ex-pectation and also kept the same levels of performance perception was“Employees’ attention quality,” in agreement with Akan studies whichsuggests that attributes related to personnel were the most influential inthe configuration of quality assessment.


TABLE 8. Significant Differences on Scale Mean Values–Segmentation by“Problems,” “Stay Again” and “Recommend” Variables

Dimensionsof the scale

Problems Stay Again Recommend

Yes No Sig Yes No Sig Yes No Sig

Physical supportand hotel generalservices quality

–0.45 0.03 0.000 –0.02 –0.31 0.157 0.00 –0.62 0.006

Room’s quality –0.42 –0.09 0.005 –0.12 –0.38 0.174 –0.11 –0.69 0.006

Employees’ attentionquality

–0.42 0.06 0.000 0.01 –0.22 0.174 0.04 –0.80 0.000

Total of the scale(23 items)

–0.43 –0.01 0.000 –0.05 –0.31 0.115 –0.04 –0.69 0.000

Note: Means value range from –4 to 4.


22/25


23/25

ing to a managerial warning about the importance of choosing right strat-egies concerning human resources selection, training, motivation andempowerment.

Another finding of this work is that some tangible items are particu-larly adversary when scoring global hotel quality in Neuquen Provincedestinations. About this fact it must be pointed out that Argentinean ho-tels suffered a lack of inversions process during 90s. Attending the neweconomic conditions they are actually facing, it is recommended to takein mind the mentioned building problems in order to prioritize its in-vestment effort in direction to quality enhancement.

Finally, service quality measurement can’t be a static diagnostic. Ap-plying a dynamic and systematically periodic process of quality assess-ment in order to supervise gap tendencies after applying managerialenhancement actions is recommended to hotel managers.

Study Limitations

There were some limitations in this study that need to be recognized.First, the number and choice of destinations included which were inten-tional. Despite the fact that Neuquen and SMA are two important desti-nations addressing the two most common hotel segments (work/businessand tourism), they represent just a portion of the whole hotel industry inthe province.

Second, the sample size (N = 216), although in line with similar re-

search works, is not the big enough for a conclusive study. The researchteam’s lack of economic resource was a critical aspect in this matter. Atlast, the time period when the study took place was SMA’s low season(September to November). Service quality may result differently be-tween this period and peak season.

Directions for Further Researches

This work is the first step to measuring perceived service quality inlodging services using SERVQUAL methodology within Argentina.Therefore there is much work to be done and many research studies tobe developed.

Using the hotel service quality scale proposed in this study throughout other destinations of Argentina and South America is desirable.This way its reliability and validity would be proved and adaptation forspecific geographical contexts suggested.



24/25

Other line for further research tasks is linked to its application toother hotel categories (one and two stars hotels) as well as other type of lodging offers (i.e., hotels, cottages, apart hotels, bed & breakfasts, inns,guesthouses, etc.). There would be some specific considerations to takeinto account in each case. The exploration of these particularities wouldbe very useful for developing specific service quality scales for eachtype of lodge.

Finally, it is very desirable to continue investigating around the mea-surement of perceived service quality in other travel business. Travelagencies, transportation as well as food & beverage satisfaction levelsstill remain unexplored in Argentina.

REFERENCES

Akan, P. (1995). Dimensions of service quality: A study in Istanbul.Managingservice qual-ity, 5: 39-49.

Alexandris, K., Dimitriadis, N., and Markata, D. (2002). Can perceptions of servicequality predict behavioural intentions? An exploratory study in the hotel sector inGreece. Managing Service Quality , 12: 224-231.

García Buades, E. (2001). La calidad del servicio en hoteles de Sol y Playa, Madrid:Síntesis.

Grönroos,C. (1984). A service quality model and itsmarketing implications, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 18: 36-44.

1994 Marketing y gestión de servicios, Madrid: Díaz de Santos.

Ingram, H., and Daskalakis, G. (1999). Measuring quality gaps in hotels: The case of Crete, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11: 24-30.Johns, N., and Lee-Ross, D. (1997). A study of service quality in small hotels and

guesthouses, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3: 351-366.Kandampully, J., and Suhartanto, D. (2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry:

The role of customer satisfactionand image, InternationalJournal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, 12, 346-351.

Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Patton, M., and Thompson, C. (1992). Customers’ expecta-tions for service quality in economy, mid-price and luxury hotels, Journal of Hospi-tality & Leisure Marketing, 1: 27-43.

Malhotra, N.K. (1997). Investigación de Mercados. Un enfoque práctico, México:Prentice Hall.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V. (1988). SERVQUAL, A multiple-item scaleformeasuring customerperceptions of servicequality,Journalof Retailing, 64:12-40.

1991 Understanding Customer Expectations Of Service, Sloan Management Review,32: 39-48.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service

quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49: 41-50.



25/25

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L. (1994). Alternative scales for measuringservice quality: A comparative assessments based on psychometric and diagnosticcriteria, Journal of Retailing, 70: 201-230.

Patton, M., Stevens, P., andKnutson, B. (1994). Internationalizing LODGSERVas a mea-surement tool: A pilot study, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 2: 39-55.

Rodríguez, S. (2003). Turismo: Pensar en el mediano y largo plazo, Diario Río Negro,14 de marzo.

Saleh, F., and Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing Service Quality in the Hospitality IndustryUsing the SERVQUAL Model, The Service Industries Journal, 11: 324-343.

Secretaría de Turismo de Nación (2003). La llegada de extranjeros porEzeizacreció un39%, en http://www.sectur.gov.ar/esp/prensa/gacetillas/g17072003.htm.

2003 Los principales destinos turísticos del país llegan al 90 % de ocupación hotelera,en http://www.sectur.gov.ar/esp/prensa/gacetillas/g25072003.htm.

Tamagni, L., Michelli, E., and Zanfardini, M. (2003). Multidimensional scaling analy-

sis in the determination of hotel quality dimensions–Patagonia, Argentina, Journalof quality assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4: 11-128.

Tsang, N., and Qu, H. (2000). Service Quality in China’s hotel industry: A perspectivefrom tourists and hotel managers, International Journal of Contemporary Hospital-ity Management, 12: 316-326.


perceived quality of hotels in neuquen province

Documents