Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.4 Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Profitability
2.4.3 Hypotheses on Service Quality with Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions
As discussed in the previous section (2.4.1), studies on the relationship of
“satisfaction” and “quality” are considered as two different constructs, and the relationship between them seems to vary from one industry to another. Therefore, to understand the relationship of “quality” and “satisfaction” in the context of conference interpreting service, this paper intends to test on the following hypotheses:
H1: Positive perceptions of the interpreting service quality will result in satisfaction of the clients using conference interpreting service.
Besides satisfaction, the purpose of service quality has been in a serious debate in the recent decades across various industries. Though various studies have shown customer satisfaction and high service quality perception can positively affect customers’ behavioral intentions (such as repurchasing or saying positive things about the company), some management executives still feel reluctant to invest in service quality enhancement without seeing solid evidence of possible financial soundness of such efforts (Valarie A. Zeithaml, 1996).
In a highly competitive market as it is today, understanding what factors would drive clients’ favorable behavioral intentions, leading to positive financial consequences, is, without doubt, an important question to ask of the conference interpreting service industry.
To identify possible incentives for quality management in conference interpreting service, this research also intends to explore the relationship between service quality and client behavioral intentions.
As discussed in 2.4.2, based on Zeithaml’s (2000) conceptual model of service quality and profitability, the “defensive effects”, referring to positive behavioral intentions of existing customers, including costs, volume of purchases, price premium and word of mouth, are supported by more empirical studies and deliver higher financial value than
“offensive effects”. Therefore, this study identifies 3 defensive effects of clients’ behavioral intentions to be examined in this research:
(1) Repurchase willingness:
If the client is willing to repurchase the service;
(2) Word of mouth:
If the client is willing to recommend the practitioner to other potential clients.
(3) Price premium:
If the client is willing to pay price premium for the same service.
This research therefore intends to test the following hypotheses:
H2: Positive perceptions of the interpreting service quality will increase clients’
repurchase willingness.
H3: Clients will be more willing to recommend the practitioner of interpreting service if their perceptions of the service quality are positive.
H4: Clients will be more willing to pay price premium if their perceptions of the interpreting service quality is positive.
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
The main purpose of this research is to build a service quality model and assessment instrument of conference interpreting service to understand client expectation of interpreting service quality and identify quality expectation gaps (if any) between the clients and practitioners. On top of that, to see if “service quality” has an impact on satisfaction and profitability in the context of conference interpretation, the research also intends to understand the relationship between conference interpreting service quality and two other constructs: satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
To achieve such goals, a research framework is established. Within the framework, a conceptual model of conference interpreting service quality and the associated quality expectation assessment instrument, and hypotheses regarding service quality and two other constructs are developed first, applying quality-related theories and findings from both marketing management and interpreting literature.
Based on the proposed quality expectation assessment instrument and the hypotheses, a survey is designed to learn the quality expectations of both clients and interpreters, clients’
quality perception and satisfaction level of their latest service encounters, and their behavioral intentions referencing the latest service encounters.
Then the survey is implemented, and the data collected is analyzed and elaborated to form the conclusion of this research. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research framework of this study.
Source: Compiled by this study.
Figure 3.1 Illustration of Research Framework Identify research
questions and purposes
Literature Review
Hypothesis &
Framework
Service Quality Model of Conference Interpreting
Quality Expectation Assessment Instrument
Survey Development
Pilot Test & Adjustment
Final Questionnaire &
Execution
Data & Analysis
Conclusion &
Recommendations
Operationalization of Hypothesis
3.1 Conceptual Model of Conference Interpreting Service Quality Sharing the thoughts of Kurz,
“Quality of interpretation services is evaluated by users in terms of what they actually receive in relation to what they expected. Consequently, measurements of service quality that do not include user expectations miss the point” (Kurz, 2001, p.
394),
this research was started with an attempt to understand client expectation of interpreting service quality. To do that, a conceptual model of conference interpreting service quality and the associated expectation assessment instrument should be first developed.
As mentioned in the Literature Review, there is no existing model/instrument that is directly-applicable to conference interpreting. Therefore, a model and the associated instrument is developed for this research, borrowing concepts and insights from theoretical/empirical literatures on service quality and related constructs in the fields of both management and interpreting service.
After reviewing various service quality models/instruments and related critics, the author decides to choose the Gap model and SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) to serve as the fundament of this research for its recognized superiority in validity, reliability, methodological soundness, and wide application in service industry, including professional services. However, the chosen model and instrument have the following shortfalls:
They were originally built and tested in consumer service industries such as retail banking, credit cards, product repair and maintenance, etc. The quality dimensions and
attributes are not directly applicable to professional services, not to say conference interpreting.
The model and instrument does not address the dimension of technical quality, which can be diverse among and unique to each specific service. The author agrees with Grönroos (1984) that, when developing a service quality model for a specific service, one should have a more holistic definition of service quality that consist of, at least, the functional quality (the manner in which the service is delivered) and the technical quality (the outcome of the service performance).
In order to overcome the mentioned shortcomings of the Gap model and SERVQUAL, the following approaches are taken in the forming of the service quality model of conference interpreting:
(1) The original dimensions of SERVQUAL are grouped as attributes under a primary dimension “Service Delivery”, the “functional quality”.
SERVQUAL attributes are reviewed to assess their relevancy to interpreting services. Attributes that are irrelevant were dropped.
New attributes are added based on the findings of empirical/theoretical studies of interpreting service quality.
(2) Another primary dimension “Service Product” is added to address the “technical quality” of conference interpreting service.
The attributes under this dimension are identified based on the empirical /theoretical studies on quality of (conference) interpreting service.
A conceptual model of interpreting service quality is then built. The following sections explain in details how the dimensions and attributes of the proposed service quality model of conference interpreting service are formed.
3.1.1 Service Delivery Dimension (Functional Quality) – Application of SERVQUAL In the previous chapter of literature review, it is identified that the functional quality is very important to the customers’ perception of service quality, as “the consumer is not only interested in what he receives as an outcome of the production process, but in the process itself ” (Grönroos, 1984, p. 39).
Since very few studies on conference interpreting service quality address the aspect of functional quality, dimensions of SERVQUAL are the major reference in constructing the
“Service Delivery” dimension of the service quality model of conference interpreting in this study.
The original SERVQUAL contains 10 dimensions (Table 3.1), which are consolidated into 5 (see Table 2.1) in the later refined version. In order to reserve more options in adopting SERVQUAL dimensions into conference interpreting , the original 10 dimensions are chosen.
Table 3.1 10 Dimensions and the Definition of Service Quality
Dimensions The definition
Reliability Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Understanding the Customer
Making the effort to know customers and their needs.
Responsiveness Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
Courtesy Politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel.
Tangibles Physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials.
Competence Possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service.
Credibility Trustworthiness, believability, honesty of the service provider.
Access Approachability and ease of contact
Communication Keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them
Security Freedom from danger, risk, or doubt.
Source: Zeithaml et al., 1990
After reviewing the definitions and sample questions of SERVQUAL’s 10 dimensions, 5 revisions are concluded to form the dimensions that better reflect the nature of conference interpreting service. Table 3.2 shows the correspondence between SERVQUAL 10 dimensions and the dimensions revised for this study. The 5 revisions are discussed in the following:
(1) Dimension “Understanding the customer” is renamed as “Empathy” (referring to caring and individual attention to the clients, including the ability to think in their shoes), as the later term reflects better what is expected by the clients of the conference interpreting service.
The original definition of this dimension applies to consumer services, where the recipients of the service are the customers themselves. But the delivery of conference interpreting is received by the conference speakers and audiences, instead of the
“clients” (conference organizers). Therefore, interpreters should be able to put themselves in the shoes of the clients, which requires efforts different from simply
“get to know customers and their needs”.
(2) Two dimensions, “Responsiveness” and “Courtesy”, are merged into one dimension under the title, “Attitude” (referring to courtesy and willingness to help in response to client requests).
The original two dimensions were individually important and contain different aspects in the context of consumer services, as there are quite some direct interactions with customers involved in the service delivery. However, in the context of conference interpreting, aspects related to these two dimensions are minimal because during the delivery of interpreting, interpreters are not expected to interact with clients. Client interaction happens only during the discussions on the assignment before the conference or briefly on the conference day.
(3) Three dimensions, “Tangibles”, “Competence”, and “Credibility” are merged into one dimension under the title, “Assurance” (referring to the knowledge and capability to convey trust and confidence), since all 3 factors exist for the purpose of giving quality assurance to clients.
“Competence” and “Credibility” are merged as in the later refined 5 dimensions of SERVQUAL. “Tangibles” is included because only one aspect (the appearance) under “Tangibles” applies to conference interpreting, and therefore should not be a standalone dimension.
(4) Two dimensions, “Access” and “Communication”, are merged into one dimension under the title, “Communication” (referring to initiatives to communicate).
Concept wise, the 2 dimensions are similar when applied to conference
interpreting. “Access” (originally defined as approachability and ease of contact) would refer to “if clients are able to communicate with interpreters when needed” in conference interpreting settings. The title “communication” is chosen as it’s more explicit than the other in the context of conference interpreting.
(5) Dimension “Security” is excluded as its definition does not seem to apply to conference interpreting service. Its original meaning “freedom from danger, risk, or doubt” refers to “security in using credit card or banks’ ATM machine, etc.” (Zeithaml et al., 1990); no similar concern can be identified in the context of conference interpreting service.
Table 3.2 Correspondence between SERVQUAL 10 dimensions and the Dimensions Revised for this Study
Revision SERVQUAL
Reliability Empathy Attitude Assurance Communication
Reliability
Understanding the Customer
Responsiveness Courtesy Tangibles Competence Credibility Access
Communication
Security Excluded
Source: Compiled by this study
As a result, 5 sub-dimensions of “Service Delivery” in the service quality model of conference interpreting are formed (Figure 3.2). Table 3.3 shows the definitions of the 5 sub-dimensions.
Figure 3.2 Service Delivery Dimension and the Attributes in Service Quality Model of Conference Interpreting
Source: Compiled by this study
Table 3.3 Definition of 5 Sub-dimensions of Service Delivery Service Quality Model of Conference Interpreting
Dimensions Definition
Reliability Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Empathy Caring and individual attention to the clients, including the ability to think in their shoes.
Attitude Courtesy and willingness to help in response to requests.
Assurance Knowledge and capability to convey trust and confidence.
Communication Initiatives to communicate.
Source: Compile by this study
Service Delivery
(Functional Quality)
Reliability Empathy Attitude Assurance Communication
3.1.2 Service Product Dimension (Technical Quality) -- Consolidation of Concepts and Insights Learned from Interpreting Quality Studies
Gile had once described the interpreting community’s frustration in addressing to the methodological issues of measuring interpreting quality,
“..while there may be inter-subjective agreement on large differences in interpretation quality, at more subtle levels, the interpreting research community is still groping in the dark and has not found a valid, sensitive and reliable metric to measure interpreting performance” (Gile, in Niska 1999: 120 as in Pöchhacker, 2001).
Understanding the complexities regarding quality measurement of interpreting service as Gile and many other scholars (as discussed in 2.3) had put it, this study does not attempt to find the best model to address the issue. Yet, this study does intend to cover as many aspects as possible to indentify the quality attributes of conference interpreting that would matter to the “decision-making users”, the clients.
The previous efforts of theoretical and empirical studies have shed the light on the direction for the successors to follow, as Pöchhacker (2001, p. 413) had put it,
“Despite the fact that quality in interpreting may be assessed differently from various subjective perspectives and is thus essentially ‘in the eye of the beholder’, there is considerable agreement in the literature on a number of criteria which come into play when assessing the quality of interpreting.”
Therefore, both major conceptual and empirical studies on conference/simultaneous
interpreting quality are reviewed to identify most common quality criteria/attributes mentioned for the forming of the Service Product Dimension. The author first look at the most quoted empirical studies on conference interpreting quality in user perspective for the common quality attributes. Table 3.4 shows the quality attributes and their corresponding rankings in the empirical studies referenced.
Table 3.4
Quality Attributes Tested in Major Empirical Studies on User Perspectives of Conference Interpreting Quality
Papers Quality attributes tested
and the results in significance ranking Kurz
(1993)
Significance of different criteria:
1) Consistency > 2) Logical cohesion > 3) Terminology
> 4) Completeness > 5) Fluency > 6) Grammar = 7) Voice > 8)Accent
Kopczynski (1994)
Top 3 priorities of different quality attributes:
1. Detailed content (>70%),
Most concerned quality attributes:
1. Content
Clarity > Completeness/ essentials >
Terminological accuracy > Faithfulness to meaning 2. Voice,
3. Synchronicity 4. Rhetorical skills Vuorikoski
(1993, 1998)
Rankings of the quality attributes:
1) informed, 2) coherent, easy to follow, 3) fluent, 4) accurate, 5) correct terminology, 6) pleasant speech rhythm
Source: Compiled by this study.
As a result of the review, 10 quality attributes are identified for two main reasons: 1) they were considered the most important quality attributes by the users, or 2) they were mentioned most often when users were asked about their comments on conference interpreting qualities. The 10 attributes are listed in the following, and the studies where the attributes were mentioned are shown in the brackets:
1. Faithfulness (Kurz, 1993; Moser, 1995)
2. Logical cohesion (Kurz, 1993; Vuorikoski, 1993, 1998 )
3. Completeness (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Moser, 1995)
4. Use of correct terminology (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Moser, 1995; Vuorikoski, 1993, 1998)
5. Fluency (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Vuorikoski, 1993, 1998)
6. Use of appropriate style (Kopczynski, 1994)
7. Pleasant voice (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Moser, 1995)
8. Synchronicity (Moser, 1995)
9. Pronunciation/native accent (Kurz, 1993; Moser, 1995)
10. Correct grammatical usage (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994)
On top of the 10 attributes selected from the referenced empirical studies, 2 other attributes, “Prosody” and “Reassuring delivery” are also added to the Service Product Dimension. The idea of the two attributes came from statements in theoretical studies that discuss quality of conference interpreting in the perspectives of users/listeners:
(1) Prosody:
Since this study focus on clients’ quality expectations, the author thinks that more formal (relating to the outward form or arrangement of elements rather than content) attributes should be included. “Prosody” is one that has been often mentioned, for example, in Vuorikoski’s (1993, 1998) empirical study on users and in Garzone’s
theoretical study (2002, p. 118): “…it can be expected that a poor performance in terms of prosody and fluency may be perceived as less correct and less coherent, although in actual fact is not.”
(2) Reassuring Delivery:
As another “formal” quality attribute that has been discussed, “Reassuring Delivery” refers to whether interpreters sound confident in their delivery, without giving away interpreters doubts, and therefore is convincing to the listeners. This quality gives the impression of assurance, though it might be a false one. Therefore, even AIIC (1990:2) have recommended its members to attend to this quality attribute, since “Less able, less accurate colleagues have been preferred because of a pleasant voice and reassuring delivery” (Schjoldager, 1996, p. 190).
To organize the 12 attributes better for later analysis and discussion, Subject Proficiency, and three quality dimensions borrowed from Kalina’s framework (Kalina, 2002)--“Semantic content”, “Linguistic performance”, “Presentation”— are used to categorize the attributes.
“Faithfulness”, “Logical cohesion”, and “Completeness” are all related to the meaning/content of the message and therefore are categorized under “Semantic content”.
“Use of correct terminology” and “Use of appropriate style” refer to using the appropriate terminology or style in the context of conference subject, and therefore are categorized under “Subject Proficiency”. “Pronunciation/native accent” and “Correct grammatical usage” are purely linguistic, and therefore are categorized under “Linguistic Performance”.
“Fluency”, “Pleasant voice”, “Synchronicity”, “Prosody”, and “Reassuring delivery” are categorized under “Presentation” as they are in Kalina’s study (2002) when addressing to the interpreter’s output quality. Table 3.5 shows the attributes under the assigned
sub-dimensions. A conceptual service quality model of conference interpreting is then formed (Figure 3.3).
Table 3.5 12 Attributes under the 4 Sub-dimensions of “Service Product”
Semantic
(4) Use of correct terminology (5) Use of appropriate style Linguistic
Figure 3.3 Service Quality Model of Conference Interpreting Source: Compiled by this study
3.2 Quality Expectation Assessment Instrument of Conference Interpreting
The major purpose of this paper is trying to answer a long-ignored question which the interpreting community has perhaps not yet found an efficient approach to address: “What do they (clients) expect, and what will make them happy with the service and product we provide?” (Schlesinger, 1997). Therefore, instead of measuring the “GAP 5” (Expected service—perceived service gap) as most of other studies applying SERVQUAL would do, this paper intends to learn the expectation of clients in the subject of conference interpreting quality and measure the “GAP 1” (consumer expectation—management perception gap, which in conference interpreting settings is, client expectation—practitioner perception gap).
To achieve the mentioned objective, the quality expectation assessment instrument of conference interpreting (See Appendix 3) is developed based on the service quality model of conference interpreting built by this study and follows the “patterns” of SERVQUAL.
This instrument contains two parts: one measures the quality attributes under the Service Delivery Dimension, the other measures those of Service Product Dimension. The following sections explain how the statements for assessing quality attributes in the two dimensions of the instrument are formed.
3.2.1 Part I. Assessing Expectation on Functional Quality: Service Delivery Dimension As the Service Delivery Dimension is developed based on SERVQUAL’s 10 determinants, the development of its assessment instrument starts with reviewing statements of SERVQUAL’s 22 items, based on their associated dimensions. The author then identifies attributes under the dimensions which are still valid in the context of conference interpreting. 10 statements are chosen for their relevancy and are then categorized under the 5 sub-dimensions of Service Delivery Dimension (see 3.1.1)
developed by this study. Necessary adjustments on the wordings are made to make the statements directly relevant to conference interpreting.
Moreover, inspired by Yi-Hsiung Lin’s findings (2005) in his qualitative research on
Moreover, inspired by Yi-Hsiung Lin’s findings (2005) in his qualitative research on