| Literature DB >> 35360585 |
Sotirios Zygiaris1, Zahid Hameed1, Mubarak Ayidh Alsubaie1, Shafiq Ur Rehman2.
Abstract
The aim of this research is to examine the impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in the post pandemic world in auto care industry. The car care vendor in the study made effective use of social media to provide responsive updates to the customers in the post pandemic world; such use of social media provides bases for service quality and customer satisfaction. The study examined the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction using the SERVQUAL framework. According to the findings, empathy, reliability, assurance, responsiveness, and tangibles have a significant positive relationship with customer satisfaction. Our findings suggest that it is critical for workshops to recognize the service quality factors that contribute to customer satisfaction. Findings also suggest that empathy, assurance, reliability, responsiveness, and tangibles contribute to customer satisfaction. Auto repair industry must regularly provide personal attention, greet customers in a friendly manner, deliver cars after services, notify customers when additional repairs are required, and take the time to clarify problems to customers. Furthermore, workshops must screen and hire courteous staff who can clearly communicate the services required to customers both in-person and online and effectively communicate the risks associated with repairs. Service quality seems to be aided by prompt services.Entities:
Keywords: Saudi Arabia; auto care; customer satisfaction; pandemic (COVID-19); service quality
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360585 PMCID: PMC8962199 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.842141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Demographic information.
| Characteristics | Number of respondents ( | |
| Gender | Male | 26 |
| Female | 91 | |
| Age | ≤25.00 | 10 |
| 26.00–30.00 | 46 | |
| 31.00–35.00 | 28 | |
| 36.00–40.00 | 21 | |
| ≥40.00 | 12 | |
| Qualification | Under graduation | 30 |
| Graduation | 63 | |
| Above graduation | 24 | |
| Experience of service | 1–3 | 37 |
| 4–6 | 57 | |
| 7–9 | 15 | |
| ≥10 | 08 | |
Constructs and items included in the questionnaire.
| Construct | Dimension | Item | Measurement | References |
| Service quality | Tangibles of the auto care | TAC1 | Workshop is convenient to customers |
|
| TAC2 | Workshop is clean and tidy | |||
| TAC3 | Workshop has good lighting and air circulation | |||
| TAC4 | Workshop reception is easy to deal with | |||
| Reliability of the auto care | RAC1 | Workshop has quick and accurate problem identification |
| |
| RAC2 | It is easy to communicate with workshop supervisors | |||
| RAC3 | Workshop keeps and provides accurate cars records | |||
| RAC4 | Workshop completes tasks as promised | |||
| RAC5 | Workshop completes tasks correctly the first time | |||
| RAC6 | Workshop shows concern for customers’ cars problems | |||
| Responsiveness of the auto care | REAC1 | Workshop provides quick and accurate service |
| |
| REAC2 | Workshop solves customers’ complaints efficiently | |||
| Assurance of the auto care | AAC1 | Workshop staff is knowledgeable |
| |
| AAC2 | I feel taken care of in this workshop | |||
| Empathy of the auto care | CAC1 | The workshop cares about their customers |
| |
| CAC2 | It is easy to file a complaint in this workshop | |||
| CAC3 | Workshop treats customers equally | |||
| CAC4 | Workshop provides individualize attention to each customer | |||
| CAC5 | Workshop treats customers with respect | |||
| CAC6 | Workshop has customers’ best interest at heart | |||
| Customer satisfaction | CS1 | How do you rate the physical appearance of the workshop? |
| |
| CS2 | How do you rate the care of reception in the workshop? | |||
| CS3 | How do you rate your confidence in the workshop’s ability to deliver high quality services? |
Item loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted.
| Variables | Item | Facto loadings | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE |
| Tangibles of the auto care | TAC1 | 0.921 | 0.94 | 0.87 | |
| TAC2 | 0.954 | ||||
| TAC3 | 0.922 | ||||
| TAC4 | 0.927 | ||||
| Reliability of the auto care | RAC1 | 0.938 | 0.97 | 0.86 | |
| RAC2 | 0.924 | ||||
| RAC3 | 0.818 | ||||
| RAC4 | 0.952 | ||||
| RAC5 | 0.932 | ||||
| RAC6 | 0.921 | ||||
| Responsiveness of the auto care | REAC1 | 0.956 | 0.96 | 0.92 | |
| REAC2 | 0.959 | ||||
| Assurance of the auto care | AAC1 | 0.954 | 0.92 | 0.84 | |
| AAC2 | 0.959 | ||||
| Empathy of the auto care | CAC1 | 0.951 | 0.97 | 0.86 | |
| CAC2 | 0.883 | ||||
| CAC3 | 0.934 | ||||
| CAC4 | 0.927 | ||||
| CAC5 | 0.926 | ||||
| CAC6 | 0.934 | ||||
| Customer satisfaction | CS1 | 0.941 | 0.98 | 0.93 | |
| CS2 | 0.966 | ||||
| CS3 | 0.971 | ||||
| CS4 | 0.975 |
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
| Variables |
| SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Gender | 1.22 | 0.41 | – | |||||||
| Age | 2.42 | 0.91 | −0.101 | – | ||||||
| Education | 0.84 | 0.37 | 0.124 | 0.101 | – | |||||
| Tangibles of the auto care | 3.97 | 0.98 | 0.097 | –0.114 | 0.154 | – | ||||
| Reliability of the auto care | 4.00 | 0.96 | 0.083 | 0.216 | −0.091 | 0.611 | – | |||
| Responsiveness of the auto care | 3.94 | 1.06 | 0.123 | –0.139 | 0.094 | 0.545 | 0.631 | – | ||
| Assurance of the auto care | 4.03 | 1.01 | 0.127 | 0.154 | 0.063 | 0.676 | 0.504 | 0.518 | – | |
| Empathy of the auto care | 3.98 | 0.98 | 0.103 | 0.177 | 0.194 | 0.484 | 0.523 | 0.611 | 0.568 | – |
| Customer satisfaction | 3.98 | 0.96 | 0.111 | –0.106 | 0.081 | 0.345 | 0.471 | 0.567 | 0.459 | 0.464 |
n = 117, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
FIGURE 1Results of the research model tests. ***p < 0.001.