Recent Advances in Business Management and Marketing

Measuring service quality in city restaurant settings using

DINESERV scale
SUZANA MARKOVIC
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Opatija
University of Rijeka
Primorska 42, pp. 97, 51415 Opatija
CROATIA
suzanam@fthm.hr http://www.fthm.uniri.hr
JELENA KOMSIC
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Opatija
University of Rijeka
Primorska 42, pp. 97, 51415 Opatija
CROATIA
jelenak@fthm.hr http://www.fthm.uniri.hr
MIHAELA STIFANIC
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Opatija
University of Rijeka
Primorska 42, pp. 97, 51415 Opatija
CROATIA
mihaela.stifanic@gmail.com http://www.fthm.uniri.hr

Abstract: -Many researchers invest a lot of effort to evaluate service quality in tourism and hospitality
industries using SERVQUAL scale, either in its original form or with modifications. The purpose of this study
is to empirically investigate service quality in Zagreb city restaurant settings, based on the DINESERV scale.
The questionnaire was designed in accordance with Stevens et al. (1995), and Andaleeb and Conway (2006).
The main goals are to assess restaurant customers expectations and perceptions and to identify the main
dimensions of perceived and expected city restaurant service quality. The model was tested on a sample of 12
restaurants in Zagreb (Croatia), resulting with 103 usable questionnaires on which statistical analysis was
performed. The empirical study shows that 21expectations scores are higher than perceptions scores, which
indicate a low level of service quality. As service quality is one of the key factors for achieving competitive
advantages in restaurants, this study would help managers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of service
quality in their businesses.
Key-Words: - service quality, SERVQUAL, DINESERV, statistical analysis, restaurant industry, Croatia
complex set of attributes for selecting a restaurant
for their excellent dining experience.
Previous studies on customer expectation and
service quality perception in the food-service
industry have revealed certain important attributes,
such as price, food quality, value for money,
service, location, brand name, and image [3].
There is a variety of measurement tools and
techniques for assessing service quality. One of the
most popular and widely used is the SERVQUAL

1 Introduction
Service quality is recognized as an important factor
leading to the successful business performance of
customer-focused firms. Considering the fact that
service quality leads to higher profitability [1] and
customer satisfaction [2], managers invest
tremendous effort to measure and improve the
service quality in their business.
As customers are more exposed to different types
of restaurant settings, they have developed a

ISBN: 978-960-474-306-3

176

Recent Advances in Business Management and Marketing

original DINESERV instrument contained 40

service quality items, but the final version of
DINESERV contained 29 items, measured on a
seven-point scale. DINESERV items fall into five
service quality dimensions. Reliability was found to
be the most important dimension, followed by
tangibles, assurance, responsiveness, and empathy.
This hierarchy of dimensions is very similar to that
of SERVQUAL; the only difference is that tangibles
are in fourth place in Parasuraman et al.s (1988)
SERVQUAL research [9].
Many studies within the restaurant industry,
using SERVQUAL, have been conducted: Saleh &
Ryan, 1991 [10]; Richard, Sundaram & Allaway,
1994 [11] ; Bojanic & Rosen, 1994 [12]; Lee &
Hing, 1995 [13]; Johns & Tyas, 1996 [14]; Stevens
et al., 1995 [15]; Fu & Parks, 2001 [16]; Andaleeb
& Conways, 2006 [17]; Markovic, Raspor, Segaric,
2009 [18]; Wu & Liang, 2009 [19]; Ryu & Han,
2010 [20]; Markovic, Raspor, Dorcic, 2011 [21].

instrument. In restaurant settings, service quality is

usually measured with an adapted version of
SERVUQL, called DINESERV (Stevens et al.
1995). A modified version of DINESERV is applied
in this study as well.
This study is divided into several sections. First,
a brief review of service quality measurement in
restaurant industry is provided. Next, the research
methodology used in this study is described,
followed by presentation and discussion of results.
Finally, the conclusion with main research findings,
limitations and suggestions for future researches are
described.

2 Literature Review
Service quality applied in a variety of service
industries represents an important issue to managers
and academic researchers. Service quality is more
difficult for the consumer to evaluate than product
quality because of the lack of tangible evidence
associated with services [4]. Therefore, a service
firm needs standardized, systematic and qualitative
measurement to assess its performance, because
service quality is an important measure for the
success of a firm.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988)
developed the SERVQUAL instrument for
measuring service quality [5]. SERVQUAL is an
instrument for measuring the gap between the
service that consumers think should be provided and
what they think actually has been provided [6]. The
SERVQUAL instrument consists of 22 items that
measure consumers expectations and 22
corresponding items that measure consumers
perception of the service they received, grouped in
five
dimensions:
tangibles,
reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
Although the SERVQUAL instrument has been
widely used in measuring service quality,
researchers have suggested that it has limitations,
including issues relating to measuring time,
measuring scale and service quality dimensions [7].
In terms of restaurant studies, Bojanic and Rose
(1994) adapted the SERVQUAL instrument in a
chain restaurant with a diverse clientele and a varied
menu that included international items. Stevens,
Knutson and Patton (1995) created an instrument
called DINESERV to assess customers perceptions
of restaurant service quality. The instrument was
adapted from SERVQUAL and was proposed as a
reliable and relatively simple tool for determining
how customers view a restaurants quality [8]. The

ISBN: 978-960-474-306-3

3 Research Methodology
The main purpose of this study is to empirically
investigate service quality in Zagreb city restaurant
settings. The study examines the level of
perceptions and expectations regarding restaurant
service.
The study intended to answer three research
questions:
1. What is the level of customers expectations
regarding city restaurant service quality?
2. What is the level of customers perceptions
regarding city restaurant service quality?
3. What are the differences between perceived
and expected service quality in Zagreb city
restaurants?
In order to answer the research questions, the
following hypotheses were proposed:
H1: Reliability is the most important expected
service quality dimension in city restaurant settings.
H2: Reliability is the most important perceived
service quality dimension in city restaurant settings.
H3: There is a significant difference between
expected and perceived service quality in city
restaurants.
The level of expected and perceived service
quality was measured on the basis of 35 restaurant
attributes. The first 29 attributes were adapted from
the Stevens et al. (1995) study. These attributes
represent five dimensions: tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The
remaining six attributes were selected from

177

Recent Advances in Business Management and Marketing

analysis is based on 103 valid questionnaires. The

response rate was 34.3%.
Data were analyzed using the statistical package
SPSS 20.0. In order to meet the surveys goals,
descriptive, bivariate (paired sample t-test)
statistical analyses were conducted.
Descriptive statistics was used to examine the
demographic profiles of the respondents and to
evaluate service quality expectations and
perceptions of restaurant customers. At this stage,
the first two research questions were answered. The
paired sample t-test was performed to determine the
significance of differences between perceived and
expected scores of service quality and to answer the
third research question.

Andaleeb and Conways (2006) research and

represent two dimensions, namely, price and
satisfaction. The level of agreement with given
statements was assessed using a seven-point Likerttype scale, with anchors strongly disagree as 1
and strongly agree as 7.
The questionnaires were distributed in 12 city
restaurants in Zagreb (Croatia). Restaurants that
were included in the research represent different
types of cuisine, e.g., national and international,
Italian, Chinese, Greek, and Mexican. The research
was conducted only in those settings in which
managers agreed to participate in the study. Data
were collected during a four-week period in March
2013.
The restaurants staff helped to distribute and
collect the survey sheets from the participating
customers. A convenience sampling method was
utilized to collect data. Questionnaires were
distributed to the customers who were willing to
participate in the research, after their dining
experience (e.g. after they paid the bill). Data

4 Research results
Descriptive statistical analysis was run on
respondents demographic variables. The results are
shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents (N=103)

Items
Gender
Male
Female

Percentage

Item
Age
16-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66 and above

42.7
57.3

Level of education
Primary school
Secondary school
College and university
MSc or PhD

1.0
69.9
23.3
5.8

Country of residence
Croatia

100

Percentage
37.9
18.4
29.1
13.6
0.0
1.0

Number of previous visits to the restaurant

Never
8.7
Once
25.2
Twice or more
66.0

Source: Authors

Comparing the research results of customers

expectations and perceptions of restaurant service
quality it can be concluded that the customers
expectations are higher than the customers
perception. The overall gap was -0.38, indicating a
high level of service quality. The highest gap was
identified in price (-0.84) and the lowest in
empathy (-0.02). In total, nine out of 35 positive
gaps indicate that the restaurant customers
expectations are exceeded and the customers,
satisfied with regard to these attributes. However,
the 29 negative gaps indicate that there is much
room for improvement.

From the demographic characteristics it can be seen

that female respondents (57.3 per cent) slightly
outnumbered male restaurant customers. Most of the
respondents were a younger population with
secondary school or college and university level of
education. Fully 91.2 per cent of the restaurant
customers previously visited the restaurant at least
once, indicating a degree of loyalty.
Customers expectations and perceptions are
measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale, where
the higher the score, the higher the expectation
(perception) of restaurant service. The results of
bivariate statistical analysis are shown in Table 2.

ISBN: 978-960-474-306-3

178

Recent Advances in Business Management and Marketing

Table 2: Customers expectations and perceptions of service quality in restaurant settings

Attributes
V1 Visually attractive parking areas and
building exteriors.
V2 Visually attractive dining area.
V3 Clean, neat and appropriately
dressed staff.
V4 Restaurants dcor typical of its
image and price range.
V5 Easily readable menu.
V6 Visually attractive menu.
V7 Comfortable seats in the dining
room
V8 Clean rest rooms.
V 9 Clean dining areas.
V10 Comfortable seats in the dining
room.

Mean TANGIBLES
V11 Service in the promised time.
V12 Quick correction of wrong service.
V13 Dependable and consistent
restaurant.
V14 Accurate bill.
V15 Error-free served order (food)

Mean RELIABILITY
V16 Maintaining speed and quality of
service during busy times.
V17 Provision of prompt service.
V18 Extra effort for handling special
requests.

Mean RESPONSIVENESS
V19 Employees can answer questions
completely.
V20 Comfortable and confident feeling.
V21 Staff provide information about
menu items, their ingredients, and method
of preparation.
V22 Feeling safe.
V23 Anticipation of customers
individual attention.
V24 Restaurant supports the employees.

Mean ASSURANCE
V25 Employees provide individual
attention.
V26 Special feeling.
V27 Anticipation of customers
individual needs and wants.
V28 Sympathetic and reassuring
employees.
V29 Customers best interests at heart.

Mean EMPATHY
V30 Expensive food items.
V31 Paying more than planned.

ISBN: 978-960-474-306-3

Expectations
Meana
SD

Perceptions
Meanb
SD

Gap

t-value

5.54

1.33

4.67

1.69

-0.87

4.935*

6.23

1.07

5.48

1.38

-0.75

4.698*

6.79

0.62

6.14

1.15

-0.65

5.455*

6.26

0.91

6.09

1.19

-0.17

1.303

6.47
5.97

0.83
1.24

6.14
5.77

1.16
1.37

-0.33
-0.20

2.545
1.126

6.38

1.01

5.83

1.34

-0.55

3.253*

6.75
6.79

0.75
0.48

5.74
5.93

1.20
1.02

-1.01
-0.86

7.651*
8.173*

6.34

0.85

5.46

1.39

-0.88

6.016*

6.35
6.24
6.47

0.96
0.75

5.73
5.90
5.77

1.02
1.16

-0,62
-0.34
-0.70

2.779
5.437*

6.63

0.62

6.07

1.05

-0.56

4.821*

6.93
6.84
6.62

0.25
0.41

6.54
6.46
6.15

0.95
0.95

-0.39
-0.38
-0,47

4.140*
4.281*

6.10

0.93

5.08

1.39

-1.02

7.211*

6.36

0.71

5.77

1.90

-0.59

4.816*

5.91

1.04

5.33

1.53

-0.58

3.695*

6.12

5.39

-0.73

6.35

0.86

5.76

1.26

-0.59

4.326*

6.55

0.70

5.84

1.27

-0.71

5.651*

6.34

0.76

5.89

1.20

-0.45

3.580*

6.00

1.16

6.00

1.07

0.000

6.48

0.77

5.84

1.19

-0.64

4.899*

5.97
6.28

0.71

5.46
5.80

1.25

-0.51
-0.48

7.922*

5.29

1.17

5.34

1.41

0.05

3.937*

4.30

1.59

4.87

1.86

0.57

2.192

5.09

1.75

4.36

1.99

-0.73

-0.292

6.49

1.64

4.99

1.79

-1.50

0.594

4.08
5.05
4.11
5.57

0.64

5.60
5.03
4.43
3.52

1.31

1.52
-0.02
0.32
-2.05

7.146*

1.73
1.79

179

1.76
1.97

-1.928
2.837

Recent Advances in Business Management and Marketing

Attributes
Mean PRICE
V32 Overall satisfaction with dining
experience.
V33 Returning to the restaurant.
V34 Recommending the restaurant to
others.
V35 Excellent quality of service.

Mean SATISFACTION
Overall mean (35 attributes)

Expectations
Meana
SD
4.84

Perceptions
Meanb
SD
3.98

Gap

t-value

-0.86

5.67

1.11

5.88

1.41

0.21

-1.851

5.67

1.13

5.92

1.53

0.25

-1.548

5.48

1.91

5.87

1.56

0.39

-1.265

4.67
5.37
5.80

1.32

5.71
5.85
5.42

1.55

1.04
0.48
-0.38

-1.515

Note: aExpectations mean ranges from 1 to 7; bPerceptions mean ranges from 1 to 7; SD standard deviation;
*t-test (2-tailed Sig.) p<0.05
Source: Authors

are items belonging to the dimension reliability, as

well as the highest mean score. This indicates that
the hypotheses H1 and H2 can be accepted.
The findings of t-test analysis show significant
differences between expectations and perceptions of
customers for the majority of the restaurant
attributes, exactly 21 of 35 attributes, thus
confirming the hypothesis H3.
Comparing these results with previous studies of
Markovic, Raspor and Segaric, 2010 and Markovic,
Raspor and Dorcic, 2011, it can be seen that
reliability is the most significant dimension with the
highest scores for items Accurate bill, Error-free
served order (food), Easily readable menu and
Clean dining areas, regardless of the continental
or costal region in Croatia.
There are some limitations associated with this
study. First, the sample size could be larger, for the
reason that only 12 out of 240 restaurants in Zagreb
were included in this research. A known problem is
to get customers to fill out an expectations
questionnaire before receiving the service, and a
perceptions questionnaire after the service. In this
research, only the domestic population was asked
about the service quality in restaurants. In further
researches, foreign consumers should be involved in
the research. The period of data collection was short
and for this reason only 103 questionnaires were
returned. This suggests that the research should take
place during one part of a year.
Further research studies could examine
restaurant service quality for a particular type of
restaurant using larger samples or using different
sets of attributes for each type of restaurant. Further
research could extend the study range and include
other study methodologies to analyze the restaurant
service quality, to allow the restaurant service
quality studies to have wider analysis.

As expected, the dimension reliability received

the highest mean score in the expectation (6.62) and
perception (6.15) scale, while price received the
lowest mean score in the expectation (4.84) and
perception (3.98) scale. The highest expectation and
perception items were Accurate bill, Error-free
served order (food) and Clean, neat and
appropriately
dressed
staff.
The
lowest
expectations item were Customers best interests at
heart, Expensive food items and Excellent
quality of food, while the lowest perception item
were Paying more than planed, Anticipation of
customers individual needs and wants, and
Expensive food item.
The results shown in Table 2 indicate that there
is a statistically significant variation in the mean
responses in five dimensions based on the 21
variables. All three variables in the dimension
responsibility and all 5 variables in the dimension
assessment were statistically significant. Price and
satisfaction had no statistically significant mean
scores.

5 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to empirically
investigate service quality in Zagreb city restaurant
settings and to answer three research questions.
Expectations and perception levels, as well as the
differences between these scores, were identified
using statistical analysis. Dimensions of customers
expectations and perceptions regarding Zagreb city
restaurant service quality were empirically
examined. Therefore, all research questions were
answered and hypotheses, tested.
The results of descriptive analysis suggest that
the most important expectation and perception items

ISBN: 978-960-474-306-3

180

Recent Advances in Business Management and Marketing

Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 18, No. 1,

1994, pp. 3-14.
[13] Lee, Y. L., Hing, N., Measuring quality in
restaurant operations: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 14, No. 3-4, 1995,
pp. 293-310.
[14] Johns, N., Hing, P., Use of service quality gap
theory to differentiate between foodservice outlets,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3,
1996, pp. 321-346.
[15] Stevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M.,
DINESERV: A Tool for Measuring Service Quality
in Restaurants, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1995, pp.
56-60.
[16] Fu, Y. Y., Parks, S., The Relationship between
Restaurant Service Quality and Consumer Loyalty
among the Eldery, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2001, pp. 320-336.
[17] Andaleeb, S. S., Conway, C., Customer
satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an
examination of the transaction-specific model,
Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2006,
pp. 3-11.
[18] Markovic, S., Raspor, S., Segaric, K., Does
restaurant
performance
meet
customers
expectations? An assessment of restaurant service
quality using a modified DINESERV approach,
Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 16, No.
2, 2010, pp.181-195.
[19] Wu, C. H., Liang, R., Effect of experimental
value on customer satisfaction with service
encounters in luxury-hotels restaurant, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28, 2009,
pp. 586-593.
[20] Ryu, K., Han, H., Influence of the quality of
food, service and physical environment on customer
satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual
restaurants: moderating role of perceived price,
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol.
34, No. 3, 2010, pp. 310-329.
[21] Markovic, S., Raspor, S, Dorcic, J., What are
the key dimensions of restaurant service quality? An
empirical study in the city restaurant settings,
International Scientific Conference Tourism in
Southern and Eastern Europe (ToSEE)
Sustainable
Tourism:
Socio-Cultural,
Environmental and Economic Impact, Opatija,
Croatia 4-7.5.2011, 2011, pp. 235-249.

References:
[1] Gundersen, M. G., M & Ollson, U. H., Hotel
Guest satisfaction among Business Travelers: What
Are the Important Factors?, The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37, No.
2, 1996, pp. 72-81.
[2] Oliver, R. L., Satisfaction: An Behavioral
Perspective on the Customer, New York: McGrawHill, 1997.
[3] Hau-siu Chow. et al., Service quality in
restaurant operations in China: Decision- and
experiential-oriented
perspectives,
Hospitality
Management, Vol. 26, 2007, pp. 698-710.
[4] Bojanic, D. C., Rosen, L. D., Measuring service
quality in restaurants: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument, International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 18, No. 1,
1994, pp. 3-14.
[5] Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L.,
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64. No. 1, 1988, pp. 14-40.
[6] Stevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M.,
DINESERV: A Toll for Measuring Service Quality
in
Restaurant,
Cornell
Hotel
Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36, 1995, pp. 5660.
[7] Heung, V. C. S., Wong, M. Y, Qu, H., Airportrestaurant Service Quality in Hong Kong: An
Applications of SERVQUAL, Cornell Hotel
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41, 2000,
pp. 86 -96.
[8] Markovic, S., Raspor, S., Segaric, K., Does
restaurant
performance
meet
customers
expectations? An assessment of restaurant service
quality using a modified DINESERV approach,
Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 16, No.
2, 2010, pp.181-195.
[9] Fu, Y. Y., Parks, S., The Relationship between
Restaurant Service Quality and Consumer Loyalty
among the Eldery, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2001, pp. 320-336.
[10] Saleh, F, Ryan, C., Analysing service in the
hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model,
Services Industries Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1991,
pp. 324-343.
[11] Richard, M. D., Sundara, D. S., Alaway, A. W.,
Service quality and choice behavior: an empirical
investigation, Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice
Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1994, pp. 93-109.
[12] Bojanic, D. C., Rosen, L. D., Measuring service
quality in restaurants: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument, International Journal of

ISBN: 978-960-474-306-3

181