Scale Name	Authors	Dimensions	Psychometric Properties	Evidence it is used
Service Quality (SERVQUAL)	Parasuraman et al. (1985)	1. Tangibles 2. Reliability 3. Responsiveness 4. Assurance 5. Empathy	The findings show that the SERVQUAL scale exhibits both reliability and convergent and divergent validity when measuring classroom service quality; in fact, in these regards, it outperforms traditional student assessment scales (Stodnick & Rogers, 2008) . First, the reliability of the scale (Α ≥ 0.95) and of its constituent dimensions (all Α ≥ 0.71) is adequate, which confirms their internal consistency. Second, the existence of five dimensions (i.e., tangible elements, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) as they were originally suggested was confirmed. Third, the reliability dimension has the highest weighting in importance as well as a positive and significant relationship with overall quality. It is concluded that the SERVQUAL scale adapted to the services performed by travel agencies constitutes a valid and reliable instrument for measuring service quality.	Adapted to be used across a range of Scottish council services (Wisniewski, 2001) . A particular electric company (SCECO-East utilizes SERVQUAL for measuring customers’ perceptions of service quality (Jannadi & Al-Saggaf, 2000) . This instrument has been widely adopted for the measurement of service quality (i.e. Babakus & Mangold, 1992; Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997; Reichheld, 1996 ). According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1993) , its major advantage over the alternatives is its diagnostic power and thus its practical application, as direct measures, such as SERVPERF and weighted SERVPERF, tend to magnify customers’ assessments (Andronikidis & Bellou, 2010) .
Retail Service Quality Scale (RSQS)	Dabholkar Thorpe & Rentz (1996)	1. Physical Aspects 2. Reliability 3. Personal Interaction 4. Problem Solving 5. Policy	The retail service quality scaleis a reliable instrument, returning an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.78. Taking 0.7 and above as indicator of reliability (Nunnally, 1978) , we see that all underlying sub-dimensions/dimensions are reliable except the Convenience sub-dimension pertaining to Physical aspects dimension of service quality (alpha = 0.67). This compares to the findings of Boshoff and Terblanche (1997) who found the RSQS scale (alpha = 0.93) and all dimensions reliable except the Policy dimension (alpha = 0.68). Kaul (2005) .	Kim & Byoungho (2002) report the RSQS a useful scale for measuring service quality of discount stores across two different cultural contexts of the US & South Korea. Boshoff & Terblanche (1997) report highly encouraging results for the RSQS applicability in the context of department stores, speciality stores and hypermarkets in South Africa.

Scale Name

Authors

Dimensions

Psychometric Properties

Evidence it is used

Service Quality (SERVQUAL)

Parasuraman et al. (1985)

1. Tangibles

2. Reliability

3. Responsiveness

4. Assurance

5. Empathy

The findings show that the SERVQUAL scale exhibits both reliability and convergent and divergent validity when measuring classroom service quality; in fact, in these regards, it outperforms traditional student assessment scales (Stodnick & Rogers, 2008) .

First, the reliability of the scale (Α ≥ 0.95) and of its constituent dimensions (all Α ≥ 0.71) is adequate, which confirms their internal consistency. Second, the existence of five dimensions (i.e., tangible elements, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) as they were originally suggested was confirmed. Third, the reliability dimension has the highest weighting in importance as well as a positive and significant relationship with overall quality. It is concluded that the SERVQUAL scale adapted to the services performed by travel agencies constitutes a valid and reliable instrument for measuring service quality.

Adapted to be used across a range of Scottish council services (Wisniewski, 2001) .

A particular electric company (SCECO-East utilizes SERVQUAL for measuring customers’ perceptions of service quality (Jannadi & Al-Saggaf, 2000) .

This instrument has been widely adopted for the measurement of service quality (i.e. Babakus & Mangold, 1992; Heskett, Sasser, &

Schlesinger, 1997; Reichheld, 1996 ). According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1993) , its major advantage over the alternatives is its diagnostic power and thus its practical application, as direct measures, such as SERVPERF and weighted SERVPERF, tend to magnify customers’ assessments (Andronikidis & Bellou, 2010) .

Retail Service Quality Scale (RSQS)

Dabholkar Thorpe & Rentz (1996)

1. Physical Aspects

2. Reliability

3. Personal Interaction

4. Problem Solving

5. Policy

The retail service quality scaleis a reliable instrument, returning an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.78. Taking 0.7 and above as indicator of reliability (Nunnally, 1978) , we see that all underlying sub-dimensions/dimensions are reliable except the Convenience sub-dimension pertaining to Physical aspects dimension of service quality (alpha = 0.67).

This compares to the findings of Boshoff and Terblanche (1997) who found the RSQS scale (alpha = 0.93) and all dimensions reliable except the Policy dimension (alpha = 0.68). Kaul (2005) .

Kim & Byoungho (2002) report the RSQS a useful scale for measuring service quality of discount stores across two different cultural contexts of the US & South Korea.

Boshoff & Terblanche (1997) report highly encouraging results for the RSQS applicability in the context of department stores, speciality stores and hypermarkets in South Africa.