The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction:

the example of CJCU library

I-Ming Wang

Chich-Jen Shieh∗

Department of International Business

Chang Jung Christian University
396, Chang Jung Rd., Sec. 1
Kway Jen, Tainan
Taiwan 71150
R.O.C.

Abstract
The present paper, taking Chang Jung Christian University (CJCU) Library as an
example, investigates the users’ degree of importance and the performance provided by
the library. This study explores overall user satisfaction as well. A questionnaire survey
is conducted to reveal users’ perspectives on service quality. Based on literature, service
quality has five dimensions, which are tangibles, responsiveness, reliability, assurance, and
empathy. The results indicate that the overall service quality has a significantly positive
effect on overall user satisfaction. Among these five dimensions except responsiveness, all
of them have a significantly positive effect on overall user satisfaction. In addition, the
top five important service quality features ranked by users are: collections, loaning and
returning service, overall atmosphere, electronic database system, and online reservation
and renewal. Furthermore, the perceived importance of service quality dimensions has no
significant difference among institutes and status.

Keywords : Library service, service quality, user satisfaction.

∗ E-mail: charles@mail.cju.edu.tw

——————————–
Journal of Information & Optimization Sciences
Vol. 27 (2006), No. 1, pp. 193–209
°c Taru Publications 0252-2667/06 $2.00 + 0.25
194 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

1. Introduction

The English word “Library” comes from “Libraria” in Latin. The

fundamental perspectives are as follows: (1) A library is the place where
books and papers are collected and gathered; (2) those books and papers
are for public utilization (Huang, 1995). From this point, though libraries
are non-profitable organizations, they should be more concerned on how
to bring satisfactory services when offering information and data to
readers. Hence, “user satisfaction” is what librarians always devote efforts
to pursue. User satisfaction comes from service quality, which is based on
whether readers are satisfied or not. Therefore, to improve service quality
is to provide services that meet readers’ expectations and satisfy their
needs. When readers are not satisfied, it is inferred that there is something
wrong with the library.
The study, taking Chang Jung Christian University (CJCU) Library
as an example, surveys users’ importance on every service attributes and
their evaluations toward the library. Main purposes for the study are
threefold:

(1) To discuss readers’ importance on every service attributes;

(2) To discuss the relationship between service quality and user
satisfaction;
(3) To compare readers’ importance on every service attributes based
on different colleges and identities.

Though we can analyze the performance of libraries from some

statistical information, such as the number of people using the services,
the number of people loaning books, and so forth, it is still inadequate
to reveal what readers’ real perceptions of the library. From this point,
the study applies questionnaire survey, attempting to catch on the overall
service quality of CJCU Library from readers’ perspectives and from
objective statistical analyses.

2. Literature review

The study investigates every service provided by libraries based on

the theories of “service quality” and “customer satisfaction”. Literature
reviews on relevant concepts are discussed in the following section in
order to develop the research hypotheses.
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 195

2.1 Service quality

2.1.1 Definition of “Service Quality”

Parasuraman et al. (1985) defined service quality as “the global

evaluation or attitude of overall excellence of services”. So, service qual-
ity is the difference between customers’ expectation and perceptions of
services delivered by service firms. Nitecki et al. (2000) defined service
quality in terms of “meeting or exceeding customer expectations, or as
the difference between customer perceptions and expectations of service”.
As the research is focused on examining major users of CJCU Library,
the library service quality is defined as “the overall excellence of library
services that satisfy users’ expectation”.

2.1.2 Measures of “Service Quality”

Parasuraman et al. (1985) studied four different types of services,

including banking industry, credit card companies, motor repair
shops, and long-distance telecommunication companies, and the
results showed that service quality had dimensions as reliabil-
ity, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication,
credibility, security, understanding/knowing the customer, and tangi-
bility. Later in 1988, these ten dimensions were cut down to five
ones: tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
Furthermore, Sureshchan-
dar et al. (2001) identi-
fied five factors of service
quality, which were core
service or service product,
human element of service
delivery, systematization
of service delivery, tangi-
bles of service, and social
responsibility.
Parasuraman et al.
(1985; 1988) proposed the
SERVQUAL scale for mea-
suring service quality. Cronin et al. (1992) indicated four different
measurement models, including SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, Weighted
196 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

SERVQUAL, and Weighted SERVPERF, among which SERVPERF was

considered the best. Furthermore, the Importance-Performance Analysis,
proposed by Martilla et al. (1977) was another technique for measuring
service quality. The importance-performance grid was used to determine
which items needed urgent improvement or which resources were allo-
cated improperly (see the figure at the right hand for more information).

2.1.3 Library service quality

Martensen and Gronholdt (2003) reviewed literature and surveyed

focus groups, indicating that key determinant for library service quality
were: electronic resources, collections of printed publications, other li-
brary services, technical facilities, library environment, and human side
of user service. Hernon et al. (1999) conducted a series of factor analyses
on over 100 variables and found that the dimensions of library service
quality included: guidance, waiting time, electronic services, staff (includ-
ing obtainment courtesy, accessibility of services, and friendliness), and
accurate places of data, normal operations of equipments, handling time
of data delivery, library buildings and environment, library facilities (such
as drinking fountains), data that met users’ needs, and so forth. Majid et
al. (2001) applied a questionnaire survey to investigate all possible factors
that had great impacts on library performances. The results showed
that collections, equipments, and physical facilities were viewed as most
important issues. In addition, Chang and Hsieh (1996) conducted an
exploratory study on the perceptions of library service quality, focusing on
key users including faculty and students from 21 universities in Taiwan.
They employed a questionnaire survey and a series of factor analyses.
The results indicated proposed seven factors including “competence,
moderation, convenience, tangibles, communications, and sufficiency of
staff’ as major determinant of service quality.

2.2 Customer satisfaction

2.2.1 Definition of customer satisfaction

Kotler (1996) defined customer satisfaction as “the level of a persons

felt state resulting from comparing a product’s perceived performance
or outcome in violation to his/her own expectations”. So, customer
satisfaction could be considered a comparative behavior between inputs
beforehand and post obtainments. As the study focused on investigating
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 197

user satisfaction of libraries, customer satisfaction is defined as “the levels

of service quality performances that meets users’ expectations”.

2.2.2 Measurement of customer satisfaction

Westbrook (1980) suggested that future researchers propose multi-

item scale for measuring customer satisfaction, lowering measurement
errors and improving the scale reliability at the same time. Sureshchandar
et al. (2002) pointed out that customer satisfaction should be viewed
as a multi-dimensional construct and the measurement items should be
generated with the same dimensions of service quality. In addition, Lee
(1999) conducted a case study on the Library of Council for Economic
Planning and Development of the Executive Yuan, investigating users’
usage on the library service and their satisfaction. Circulation operations,
collections utilization, environment and physical facilities, attitude of the
staff, serving manners, and education and consultancy are considered as
6 major dimensions for evaluating user satisfaction. The results serve
as a reference for the library to improve its service quality and service
performance.

2.3 Service quality and customer satisfaction

Ruyter et al. (1997) modified the SERVQUAL scale and empirically

tested the health care service of chiropractic care, attempting to determine
the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction. The
results suggest that service quality should be treated as an antecedent of
customer satisfaction. Brady et al. (2001) employed LISREL analysis to
study customers of fast-food restaurants in America and Latin America.
The results indicated that there was a certain relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction based on different cultural background.
In addition, service quality had significantly impacts on customer satisfac-
tion. Sureshchandar et al. (2002) found that service quality and customer
satisfaction were highly related.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research framework

Based on the literature review in the previous section, the framework

for the study was developed and shown in Figure 1. Major objectives
198 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

for the study are to discuss the impacts of the five dimensions of service
quality on user satisfaction. Moreover, the study further discusses the
degree of importance of CJCU users on every service attribute and the
performance of CJCU Library, attempting to comprehend whether CJCU
Library provides satisfactory services and meets users’ expectations.

Figure 1
Research framework

3.2 Research hypotheses

In order to discuss the impacts of the five dimensions of service

quality on user satisfaction, the research hypotheses are as follows:

H1: Overall service quality has a significantly positive effect on user

satisfaction.

1.1: “Tangibles” of services has a significant impact on user satis-

faction.
1.2: “Responsiveness” of services has a significant impact on user
satisfaction.
1.3: “Reliability” of services has a significant impact on user satis-
faction.
1.4: “Assurance” of services has a significant impact on user satis-
faction.
1.5: “Empathy” of services has a significant impact on user satis-
faction.

H2: There is a significant difference of degree of importance on every

service attribute among users from different departments.
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 199

H3: There is a significant difference of degree of importance on every

service attribute among different users.

3.3 Research design

Library users in the study are faculty, students, and schoolfellows of

CJCU who use every service in the library. A questionnaire survey was
applied to investigate the degree of importance held by respondents to-
ward every service attribute and the performance of CJCU Library. At the
end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked about their satisfaction.
We delivered directly in the library and collected 60 convenient samples
for data analysis. Among them, some were people from outside. Because
of difficulty of sampling and they were not major targets to serve, they
were excluded in the study. A total of 58 samples were collected, with a
response rate of 96.67%; however, 3 of which were considered invalid data
and should be deleted because of careless answers or incomplete surveys.
Finally, a number of 55 samples for data analysis were retained, with a
valid response rate of 91.67%.
The study is aimed at discussing the relationship between service
quality and user satisfaction. Every variable in the research framework
and its operational definitions was illustrated in this section, which was
regarded as the basis for measurement. The study has three variables:

3.3.1 Service quality

In the present paper, service quality is defined as the degree of overall

excellence of library service that meets users’ expectations. Based on the
SERVQUAL scale proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), service quality is
deemed as having five dimensions — tangibles, responsiveness, reliability,
assurance, and empathy (please refer to Table 1). For the measurement of
service quality, SERVPERF by Cronin et al. (1992) is reviewed and finally
a scale of 42 items was established as the study questionnaire.

3.3.2 User satisfaction

The study defines user satisfaction as the degree of perceived quality

that meets users’ expectations. In order to improve the scale reliability,
we design a multi-item scale proposed by Westrook (1980) with two
measurement items. The mean score is calculated as to represent overall
user satisfaction.
200 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

Table 1
Dimensions of service quality

Dimensions Description
Tangibles Physical facilities, equipments provided by the
library and the looks of the library staff
Responsiveness Library staff’s willingness to help users or pro-
vide prompt services
Reliability To provide reliable and accurate services
Assurance Staff’s knowledge and courtesy that make users
assured and confident
Empathy Staff’s empathy to provide concerns or individual
attentions

3.3.3 Personal data of users

In comprehending whether personal characteristics will have impacts

on their importance on every service attribute, the study ask users to
provide personal data such as sexuality, what departments they are from,
what identity they have, frequency of using the library, and key objectives
of using the library.

3.4 Questionnaire design

3.4.1 Contents

A structured questionnaire was applied in the research to collect data.

The questionnaire has three parts:

(1) Personal data of users: including sexuality, what departments they are
from, what identity they have, frequency of using the library, and
key objectives of using the library.
(2) Importance of every service attribute and the performance of CJCU Library.
A 5-point Likert scale was employed to measure users’ perceived
importance on the service attributes, ranging from 1 (extremely
unimportant) to 5 (extremely important). The performance of CJCU
Library was also measured with a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (extremely bad) to 5 (excellent).
(3) User satisfaction: also used a 5-point Likert scale. Two measurement
items were proposed and a 5-point Liker scale was used, ranging
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 201

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In order to compre-

hend users’ suggestions for library service quality, an open-ended
was designed at the end of the questionnaire.

3.4.2 Reliability and validity

A questionnaire survey was adopted to confer to users’ view-

points and perceptions towards library services. We delivered the self-
administered questionnaires in CJCU Library and collected them after
users finished them. The scale reliability and validity were illustrated with
details in this section.

The present study used Cronbach’s alpha, a method of measuring

internal consistency, to evaluate whether the scale had reliability. When
Cronbach’s alpha is higher, it means the internal consistency of items from
the scale is higher. A total of 55 valid samples were collected. The scale
had 49 items. In order to evaluate the internal consistency, item-to-total
correlations were calculated, showing that 7 of the items did not reach the
criteria. Thus, these 7 items were deleted. The final Cronbach’s alpha for
the scale was 0.9471, which was satisfactory. So, the number of items in
the questionnaire was reduced from 49 items to 42 items. The reliability of
identified constructs was showed in Table 2.

Validity is to evaluate whether the instrument can truly measure the

items we are intended to study. The research is based on literature, so it
could achieve the required validity. Moreover, one question, the construct
validity item, concerning overall service quality, could be used to ask
respondents, obtaining the construct validity. The correlation coefficient
between the SERVQUAL scale and the overall service quality item is to
determine whether the scale has construct validity (Parasuraman et al.,
1988). In principle, respondents having higher scores on every dimension
of service quality and higher mean service quality score would probably
more agree with the construct validity question. In order to discriminate
the perceived service quality of users, the respondents are clustered into
three groups. After calculating the correlation coefficients between every
service quality dimension and the overall service quality score, the results
show that they are highly correlated. Thus, the instrument for the study
has construct validity (please refer to Table 3).
202 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

Table 2
Dimensions of service quality (overall reliability = 0.9471)
Dimension of service quality and Cronbach’s Item-to-total
attribute alpha correlations
A. Tangibles 0.8818
There is a sufficient number of 0.6625
periodicals
There is a sufficient number of books 0.7785
There is a sufficient number of 0.7586
technical reports
The collections have complete volumes 0.5845
Database is in good working order
The database is in good condition 0.6005
The environment is clean 0.4372
There is a sufficient number of study 0.5863
rooms and conference rooms
There is a sufficient number of computers 0.5764
for data research
Study areas are comfortable 0.5241
The lighting quality is fine 0.4789
The overall reading atmosphere is good 0.5628
B. Responsiveness 0.5919
Library staff tries best to answer 0.4203
questions
Library staff actively and aggressively 0.4203
provides services
C. Reliability 0.6026
The collections are timely 0.4350
The collections are shelved accurately 0.2648
The loan and return records are accurate 0.3873
The content of library website is 0.4756
abundant and sufficient
The staff can answer questions accurately 0.2529
D. Assurance 0.5680
The classification fits in with all subjects 0.2643
Directional signs in the building are clear 0.3596
Library staff is friendly and courteous 0.2907
Library staff is aware of every service 0.4989
item
(Table 2 contd.)
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 203

Dimension of service quality and Cronbach’s Item-to-total

attribute alpha correlations
E. Empathy 0.9196
The library provides loan and return 0.5553
services of data
The collections meet course needs 0.6239
The library provides multi-media 0.6083
services (ex video tape)
The library provides microcopies of data 0.5618
The library provides newspaper for users 0.5081
The volume of loans is sufficient 0.6214
The loan deadline is satisfactory 0.4911
The number of times of re-loan is 0.5482
satisfactory
On-line reservation and re-loan service is 0.5161
satisfactory
The library provides electric publications 0.6095
and electric database
The library provides areas for data 0.6631
research on the first floor
The regular length of opening hours is 0.6973
satisfactory
The length of opening hours for holidays 0.7411
is satisfactory
The length of opening hours for 0.5824
winter/summer vacation is
satisfactory
The length of opening hours for 0.7236
multi-media center is satisfactory
The library provides cooperation 0.5456
between different libraries
The library provides training courses for 0.4985
resource utilization
The library provides exhibits for new 0.4757
books on the first floor
The library provides services of book 0.5204
research
The library provides music listening 0.4713
areas
204 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

Table 3
The correlations between service quality dimensions and construct
validity item
Lower Normal Higher
5 42 8 r
Tangibles∗ 3.05 3.73 4.21 0.593∗
Responsiveness 3.40 3.63 3.87 0.195
Reliability∗ 3.04 3.69 4.15 0.576∗
Assurance∗ 3.45 3.66 4.18 0.345∗
Empathy∗ 3.15 3.77 4.22 0.585∗
Mean score of service quality∗ 3.21 3.70 4.13 0.582∗
Note: (a) : r is the correlation coefficients between service quality dimen-
sions and the construct validity item.
(b) : ∗ indicates significant difference of mean scores within groups.

4. Analysis

4.1 The sample

Personal data of respondents were analyzed to determine whether

the sample was representative for the population.

4.1.1 Personal data of respondents

After the data being collected, 69.1% of the samples were male, which
30.9% were female. As for which departments these respondents were
from, most of the samples were from the Institute of Engineering, and the
Institute of Administration was the next one.

4.1.2 Utilization of CJCU library service

It is designed to reveal the frequency of using CJCU Library and the

major objectives. It is noted that users usually go to CJCU Library twice a
week. Their major objectives are: data consulting or loaning collections.

4.2 Analysis of service attributes

A structured questionnaire survey was employed to find out the

importance perceived by users on every service attribute.
For all users, the results showed that the top three important
attributes were “a sufficient number of books”, “providing loans and
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 205

returning services”, and “the overall reading atmosphere”. The most

important attribute was the sufficient number of books with a mean score
of 4.53. Its standard deviation was 0.60, the smallest one in the study,
which meant that all users paid much attention on this attribute. On
the other hand, the least three attributes were “providing microcopies of
data”, “providing music listening areas”, and “provides training courses
for resource utilization”.
For student users, the top five important attributes were “fine light-
ing quality”, “providing loans and returning services”, “overall reading
atmosphere”, “database in good condition”, and “a sufficient number of
books”. For school faculty members, the first five important attributes
were “staff’s willingness to provide services”, “clear directional signs”,
“the collections meeting course needs”, “the classification fitting in with
all subjects”, and “a sufficient number of books”.

4.3 The relationship between service quality and user satisfaction

A series of simple regression analyses were adopted by the present

study to reveal the relationship between service quality and user satisfac-
tion. The impacts of every service dimension on user satisfaction were
studied as well.

4.3.1 The relationship between overall service quality and user satisfac-
tion
In order to understand whether there was a significant relationship
between service quality and user satisfaction, a simple regression analysis
was employed (please refer to Table 4). From Table 4, it indicated that
there was a significantly positive relationship between service quality and
user satisfaction ( p -value = 0.000) . In addition, the R2 was 0.410, which
was statistically significant. Hence, the model was supported.

4.3.2 The relationship between service quality dimensions and user

satisfaction
A series of simple regression analyses were adopted to reveal
whether service quality dimensions and user satisfaction had significant
relationship (please refer to Table 4). At p < 0.05 level, all dimensions
other than “responsiveness” had significantly positive impacts on user
satisfaction. From Table 4, it was concluded that Hypothesis 1 was mostly
supported.
206 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

Table 4
Regression analyses on the relationship between service quality
and user satisfaction
Model Estimated B t-value p-value R2 D-W
Overall service quality 1.059 6.071 0.000 0.410 1.663
→ user satisfaction
Tangibles 0.826 6.542 0.000 0.447 1.755
→ user satisfaction
Responsiveness 0.198 1.339 0.186 0.033 0.913
→ user satisfaction
Reliability 0.829 6.054 0.000 0.409 1.615
→ user satisfaction
Assurance 0.605 3.441 0.001 0.183 1.165
→ user satisfaction
Empathy 0.867 5.667 0.000 0.377 1.664
→ user satisfaction

4.4 The impacts of users’ personal characteristics on their perceived importance

on service quality

In order to examine whether there is a significant difference of im-

portance on service quality between users having different characteristics,
ANOVA is applied.

4.4.1 Users from different institutes

With an attempt to reveal whether there is a significant difference

of importance on library service quality between users from different
institutes, a multivariate ANOVA was employed, suggesting that there is
no significant difference (Wilk’s Lambda = 0.683, p -value = 0.543) . Thus,
Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the results.

4.4.2 Users of different identities

A multivariate ANOVA was applied to reveal whether there is a

significant difference of importance on library service quality between
users having different identities. The results indicated a significant dif-
ference (Wilk’s Lambda = 0.664, p -value = 0.026.) Therefore, we further
analyzed the difference of importance on each service quality dimension.
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 207

The results from ANOVA tests showed that no significant difference was
obtained. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported as well.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The present study examined CJCU Library users via questionnaire

survey, trying to figure out users’ importance on every service attribute
and their perceptions. The results showed a significantly positive relation-
ship between overall service quality and user satisfaction. In addition, all
service dimensions have a significant impact on user satisfaction except
“responsiveness”. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
One objective for the study is to reveal whether there is a significant
difference of users’ importance on service dimensions between users
having different characteristics. Multivariate ANOVA tests were applied,
indicating no significant difference. A highly consistency of importance
of users is revealed. Hence, Hypothesis 2 and 3 was not supported by
the research results. Other than the examinations mentioned above, the
study sorted the service attributes by their importance. For all users, top
5 service attributes that gained more attentions are: a sufficient number of
books, loan and return services, overall reading atmosphere, a well system
of electronic data, and on-line reservations and continuing loan services
on line. Moreover, based on the suggestions from users, they think CJCU
Library needs to improve the following issues:

(1) The lighting is not sufficient.

(2) Computer facilities need to be improved.
(3) The seats are not enough.
(4) Reading environment is not maintained well.
(5) The collections are not sufficient, especially foreign books.
(6) The number of magazines is not sufficient.
(7) Databases with full text are not enough.
(8) The number of videos in labs is not sufficient. The materials are not
open for external loans.
(9) The opening hours are too short.
(10) Some users smoke in the rest rooms in the library, which needs to be
improved.
208 I. M. WANG AND C. J. SHIEH

To sum up, top four issues requiring improvement are mainly related
with library environment and facilities. Users not only need library facil-
ities to be maintained well, but also ask for a quiet reading environment
without any disturbance. Therefore, top management of CJCU Library is
suggested to augment its announcement and urge library staff to maintain
good orders in the library. For item 5 to 8, they are mainly concerning
about library collections. So, we suggest that the library purchase more
books or magazines under the resource allocation of the library. Moreover,
some users think that the open hours are too short that need to be further
discussed in the future.
The present study employed user questionnaire survey, focusing
on investigating general service quality of CJCU Library. In fact, the
customers of any service organization include both external and internal
customers, who are library users and library staff respectively. The study
only focused on users but ignored the thoughts and perceptions of library
staff toward CJCU Library. So, we suggest future researches to include
internal customers as key objects for study. In addition, all libraries were
evaluated regularly, with an attempt to see if the manpower, resources,
and so forth are effective or not. Hence, regular assessments of libraries
are suggested to be included in the research scope, trying to reveal the
differences between the results from regular assessments and those from
user questionnaire survey. As a result, we will be able to comprehend
whether users’ expected service quality can link up with library managers’
perceived service quality or not.

References

[1] S. H. Lee (1999), The study of library user satisfaction – an example

of the library of council for economic planning and development of
the executive Yua, Suyan Periodicals, Vol. 41, pp. 64–85.
[2] Z. C. Huang (1995), Introduction to Library Science, Tian-Ken Publica-
tions, Taipei.
[3] M. K. Brady and C. J. Robertson (2001), Searching for a consensus on
the antecedent role of service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory
cross-national study, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51 (1), pp. 53–
60.
[4] J. J. Cronin and S. A. Taylor (1992), Measuring service quality:
a reexamination and extension, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 (3),
pp. 55–68.
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 209

[5] P. Hernon, A. N. Danuta and E. Altman (1999), Service quality and

customer satisfaction: an assessment and future directions, Journal of
Academic Librarianship, Vol. 25 (1), pp. 9–17.
[6] P. Kotler and G. Armstrong (1996), Principles of Marketing, Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey.
[7] A. Martensen and L. Gronholdt (2003), Improving library users’ per-
ceived quality, satisfaction and loyalty: an integrated measurement
and management system, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 29
(3), pp. 140–147.
[8] S. Majid, M. A. Anwar and T. S. Eisenschitz (2001), User perceptions
of library effectiveness in Malaysian agricultural libraries, Library
Review, Vol. 50 (4), pp. 176–186.
[9] J. A. Martilla and J. C. James (1977), Importance-performance analy-
sis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 (1), pp. 77–79.
[10] D. A. Nitecki and P. Hernon (2000), Measuring service quality at
Yale university’s libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 26
(4), pp. 259–273.
[11] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml and L. L. Berry (1988), SERVQUAL:
a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 (1), pp. 12–40.
[12] K. DeRuyter, J. Bloemer and P. Pascal (1997), Merging service quality
and service satisfaction: an empirical test of an integrative model,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18 (4), pp. 187–406.
[13] G. S. Sureshchandar, C. Rajendran and R. N. Anantharaman (2002),
The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction
– a factor specific approach, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 16 (4),
pp. 363–379.
[14] G. S. Sureshchandar, C. Rajendran and T. J. Kamalanabhan (2002),
Customer perceptions of service quality: a critique, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 111–124.
[15] R. A. Westbrook (1980), A rating scale for measuring product/
service satisfaction, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 (4), pp. 68–72.

Received April, 2005