{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04297224709042077, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03043867502238138, 'mean_word_length': 5.425287356321839, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: An Assessment of a Reassessment

The author responds to issues raised by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994) concerning his 1993 article that outlines theoretical and operational problems associated with the SERVQUAL model of perceived service quality. Because theoretical problems and ambiguities must be resolved before operational issues can be addressed effectively, his response focuses on the Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994) comments concerning (1) the theoretical problems associated with the SERVQUAL P – E model and (2) the Teas (1993) evaluated performance (EP) and normed quality (NQ) models. In addition, he assesses the theoretical merit of the Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994) SERVQUAL “mixed-model.” His primary conclusions are that the conclusions reached by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994) with respect to the Teas (1993) EP and NQ models are incorrect and that the proposed SERVQUAL mixed-model is merely a restricted version of (i.e., a re-expression that is less general than) the Teas (1993) NQ model.