INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.

The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

W
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. IE Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
EV
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
PR

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 WEBQUAL™: A WEB SITE QUALITY INSTRUMENT

by

ELEANOR TERESE LOIACONO

B.A., Boston University, 1992

EW
M.B.A., Boston College, 1996
I
EV

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment

PR

of the

Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2000

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 UMI N um ber: 9 9 8 4 1 7 2

W
IE
EV

___ ®
PR

UMI
UMI Microform9984172
Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n pro hibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 W
IE
EV
PR

©2000

Eleanor Terese Loiacono

All Rights Reserved

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 WEBQUAL™: A WEB SITE QUALITY INSTRUMENT

by

ELEANOR TERESE LOIACONO

W
IE
EV
Approve

Major Professor
PR

Date

ADDroved

ean of the Graduate School

ZWO
Date

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 Angela & Carmella
whose love and support gave me the courage to dream and
the strength to achieve

and

my entire family

W
who I love dearly

IE
EV
PR

iv

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work could never have been accomplished without the insight, guidance, and

support of the many wonderful people I have been privileged to know and work with

over the past four years. My deepest and most sincere gratitude is owed to...

The entire MIS faculty at UGA. Under their tutelage, I have learned not only how

to perform high quality research, but what it means to belong to a true academic

community. They have made my time in the Ph.D. program richer than I ever could have

W
imagined. Thanks to Richard Watson, my dissertation advisor, who gave me the freedom

to grow as a researcher, while still providing the necessary guidance along the way. Dale
IE
Goodhue, who made even the drudgery of research fascinating. His excitement and

enthusiasm for the quest for knowledge is inspiring. Bob Bostrom, whose insight into this
EV

piece of research, made it stronger. My appreciation also goes to Hugh Watson, Alan

Dennis, Jay Aronson, Ton Stam, and Pat McKeown for their guidance as faculty, and the
PR

honor of their friendship.

Mary Zimmer and Bobby Friedmann, who served on my committee, contributed

to my deeper and broader understanding of the marketing literature.

A1 Segars encouraged and supported my decision to join a Ph.D. program from

the very start. He is a great mentor and friend.

Robert Vandenberg and Srinivas Reddy, without their insight and vast knowledge

of structural equation modeling, I would never have finished on time.

My fellow Ph.D. students. They have served as my family while in

Athens. Their support and friendship mean a lot to me. Thanks especially to Paul, Guy,

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m is s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 Nolan, Marc, Tom, and David for being great colleagues and friends, as well as, listening

to my sob stories as I struggled through the last grueling weeks. Thanks to Deb, a great

friend and honorary Ph.D. student, who listened to all the long research conversations,

even though they were truly boring. Liddell, my running buddy, made sure I got my

running in even during crunch time—thanks. I really needed it. Barb, Traci, and Monica,

who set the standard o f excellence in the Ph.D. and made me feel I could ask even stupid

questions, thanks.

Bryan, Joe, Bob, William, and Mark, for their help in my data collection, I owe

huge thanks. They were willing to help me in a jam. Thanks also to the previously

W
mentioned Ph.D. students who also helped in my data collection. You are life savers or

should I say sanity savers.

IE
My family. My mother and father, Carmella Loiacono & James Loiacono, Jr.,
EV
were always there for me and understood the importance of a good education. To my

sisters, who have shown me what it means to be a truly good person, I owe more than

words can ever express. You are my source of strength, hope, and inspiration. Celeste,
PR

Vanessa (Nucci), Lauren, John, and Anthony, my nieces and nephews, make me realize

the truly important and beautiful things in life. Jen Lorh for her continued support and

friendship, I am eternally grateful.

And last, but certainly not least, Neil Mello, who has supported me and shared in

all my hardships and successes over the long road, I owe my deepest and warmest thanks.

My journey has been long, but blessed and for that I am forever grateful.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................ix

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 In t r o d u c t io n ......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Q u a l it y ..................................................................................................................................................2

1.5 Im p o r t a n c e of
I EW
1.3 W e b S ite Q u a l i t y ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 In st r u m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t ...........................................................................................................4

R e s e a r c h ............................................................................................................. 4
EV
1.6 R e s e a r c h Q u e s t io n .........................................................................................................................8

1.7 O v e r v ie w of D is s e r t a t io n ..........................................................................................................9
PR

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

2.1 In t r o d u c t io n ................................................................................................................................... 12

2 .2 A d v e r t is in g R e s e a r c h ..................................................................................................... 14

2 .3 M a r k e t in g R e s e a r c h ...................................................................................................................14

2 .4 Q u a l it y D e f in e d ............................................................................................................................ 24

2 .5 D o m a in of W e b Q u a l it y C o n s t r u c t ................................................................................... 27

2 .6 M a n a g e m e n t In fo r m a tio n S y st e m s (MIS) R e s e a r c h ................................................ 28

2 .7 P r a c t it io n e r R e s e a r c h ............................................................................................................. 32

2 .8 S y n t h e sis of M ar k eting and M IS C o n s t r u c t s .............................................................33

vi

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 vii
2 .9 L iter ature R ev ie w C r o ssc h e c k of W eb Q u a l ™ C o n s t r u c t s ...........................38

CHAPTER 3: DOMAIN OF THE CONSTRUCT SPECIFICATION— THE

WEBQUAL ™ MODEL
3.1 In t r o d u c t io n ..................................................................................................................................47

3 .2 E a s e of U s e ...................................................................................................................................... 4 7

3.3 U s e f u l n e s s .......................................................................................................................................52

3 .4 E n t e r t a in m e n t ..............................................................................................................................59

3.5 C o m plem en ta r y Re l a t io n sh ip .............................................................................................. 60

3 .6 P u r c h a se and R e v i s i t ................................................................................................................ 64

W
3 .7 C o n c l u sio n ...................................................................................................................................... 65

IE
CHAPTER 4: DOMAIN OF THE CONSTRUCT SPECIFICATION—
EXPLORA TORY RESEARCH
4.1 C o n s u m e r s ........................................................................................................................................67
EV
4 .2 B u sin e ss A s s e s s m e n t of C o n s u m e r .....................................................................................69

4 .3 W eb S ite D e s ig n e r s .....................................................................................................................70
PR

4 .4 E x plo r a to r y R ese a r c h C r o ssc h ec k w ith M o d e l ................,....................................74

CHAPTER 5: SAMPLE ITEM GENERATION

5.1 E x istin g M e a s u r e s ...................................................................................................................... 78

5 .2 N ew M e a s u r e s ............................................................................................................................... 82

5.3 Item R e f in e m e n t ........................................................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER 6: DATA COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENT PURIFICATION

(RESULTS)
6.1 R o u n d 1: I n itia l In st r u m e n t R e f in e m e n t ....................................................................... 95

6 .2 R o u n d 2: F in a l I n st r u m e n t Re f in e m e n t ....................................................................... 108

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n prohib ited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 viii
CHAPTER 7: RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ASSESSMENT
7.1 A sse s s R e l ia b il it y ..................................................................................................................... 130

7 .2 A sse ss V a l id it y .......................................................................................................................... 131

CHAPTER 8: FUTURE RESEARCH & LIMITATIONS

8.1 D evelopm ent of N o r m s .......................................................................................................... 136

8.2 F r eq u ent W eb S ite U s e r s ...................................................................................................... 136

8.3 C u sto m er S e r v ic e ..................................................................................................................... 137

8.4 T est A lternative W eb S ites u sin g W e b Qu a l ™ .........................................................137

CHAPTER 9: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

W
9.1 S u m m a r y of the R e s e a r c h ....................................................................................................138
IE
9.2 D is c u s s io n ..................................................................................................................................... 139

9.3 R esearch C o n t r ib u t io n .........................................................................................................142

EV
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................143

APPENDICES
PR

A. S et of Item s fo r Initia l W eb Q u a l ™ In s t r u m e n t ...................................................... 153

B. D a t a C ollection 1 W e b Qu a l ™ In st r u m e n t , V er sio n 1................................. 162

C. D a t a C ollection 2 W e b Q u a l ™ I n st r u m e n t , V ersio n 1 ........................................ 169

D. LISREL M e a su r e m e n t P ath M o d e l ....................................................................177

E. LISREL O v er a ll M o d e l .......................................................................................244

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 2

TABLE 1: WEBQUAL™ CONSTRUCT LITERATURE REVIEW CROSSCHECK 41

CHAPTER 4

TABLE 2: JUDGES’ CATEGORIES BASED ON CONSUMER COMMENTS ON

WEB SITE QUALITY................................................................................................ 71

TABLE 3: COMPILED LIST OF JUDGE’S CATEGORIES.......................................... 72

W
TABLE 4: FORTUNE 500 COMPANY’S WEB SITE ANALYSIS FACTORS 73
IE
TABLE 5: SUMMARIZED LIST OF KEY LEARNINGS FROM WEB DESIGNER

INTERVIEWS............................................................................................................. 74
EV
TABLE 6: WEBQUAL™ CONSTRUCT EXPLORATORY RESEARCH

CROSSCHECK........................................................................................................... 75
PR

CHAPTERS

TABLE 7: ITEMS FROM DAVIS’ PERCEIVED EASE OF USE MEASUREMENT.. 78

TABLE 8: ITEMS FROM DAVIS’ PERCEIVED USEFULNESS MEASUREMENT. 78

TABLE 9: ITEMS FROM TAYLOR & TODD EASE OF USE MEASUREMENT 79

TABLE 10: ITEMS FROM TAYLOR & TODD USEFULNESS MEASUREMENT... 79

TABLE 11: ITEMS FROM GEISSLER’S COMPLEXITY MEASUREMENT 79

TABLE 12: ITEMS FROM GOODHUE’S TASK-TECHNOLOGY FIT

MEASUREMENT................................................................................ 80

ix

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

 X
TABLE 13: ITEMS FROM PARASURAMAN, ZEITHAML, & BERRYS’ SERVQUAL

MEASUREMENT........................................................................................................80

TABLE 14: ITEMS FROM XIE, WANG, & GOH ON SERVQUAL MEASUREMENTS

TESTED ON SEARCH ENGINES.............................................................................81

TABLE 15: ITEMS FROM IVES, OLSON, & BAROUDI ON USER INFORMATION

SATISFACTION MEASUREMENTS.......................................................................81

TABLE 16: ITEMS FROM LEDERER ON EASE OF USE, USEFULNESS, AND

ATTITUDE IN PREDICTING WEB USAGE MEASUREMENT..........................82

W
TABLE 17: ITEMS FROM BELL & TANG ON COMMERCIAL WEB SITE

EFFECTIVENESS........................................................................................................84
IE
TABLE 18: ITEMS FROM NOVAK, HOFFMAN & YUNG ON FLO W ......................84

TABLE 19: ITEMS ADDED BASED ON EXPLORATORY RESEARCH...................85

EV

CHAPTER 5

TABLE 20: VARIABLE DEFINITIONS (USED DURING CONTENT VALIDATION)

PR

88

TABLE 21: ITEMS DROPPED DUE TO SIMILARITY DURING CONTENT

VALIDATION..............................................................................................................89

TABLE 22: INITIAL WEBQUAL™ INSTRUMENT.................................................... 890

CHAPTER 6

TABLE 23: INITIAL ITEMS BASED ON LATENT CONSTRUCT.............................. 95

TABLE 24: ROUND 1 SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHICS..................................................... 97

TABLE 25: WEB SITES USED TO COLLECT DATA................................................... 97

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

 TABLE 26: ITEMS REMOVED IN STEP 2, ROUND 1 ................................................. 99

TABLE 27: ITEMS REMOVED IN STEP 3, ROUND 1............................................... 100

TABLE 28: ITEMS MODIFIED IN STEP 3, ROUND 1 ............................................... 101

TABLE 29: ITEMS REMOVED IN STEP 4, ROUND 1 ............................................... 101

TABLE 30: EASE OF USE ITEMS REMAINING AFTER ROUND 1 PURIFICATION

102

TABLE 31: USEFULNESS ITEMS REMAINING AFTER ROUND 1 PURIFICATION

.....................................................................................................................................103

W
TABLE 32: ENTERTAINMENT ITEMS REMAINING AFTER ROUND 1

PURIFICATION........................................................................................................103

TABLE 33: COMPLEMENTARY ITEMS REMAINING AFTER ROUND 1

IE
PURIFICATION........................................................................................................103
EV

TABLE 34: RETAINED, MODIFIED, & ADDED ITEMS FOR ROUND 2

INSTRUMENT (ORDERED BY LATENT CONSTRUCT)................................. 104

PR

TABLE 35: ROUND 2 SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHICS.................................................. 110

TABLE 36: VARIABLE NAMES & CORRESPONDING ITEM NUMBERS 112

TABLE 37: FACTOR ANALYSIS OF 83 ITEMS (VARIMAX ROTATION, .50

CUTOFF)................................................................................................................... 118

TABLE 38: ITEMS USED IN MEASUREMENT MODEL TESTS.............................121

TABLE 39: MEASUREMENT MODEL (RELAXED) CHI-SQUARES (P-VALUES)

.....................................................................................................................................123

TABLE 40: MEASUREMENT MODEL (FIXED) CHI-SQUARES (P-VALUES) 126

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 TABLE 41: MEASUREMENT MODEL TEST (FIXED-RELAXED)......................... 128

TABLE 42: OVERALL FIT OF THE FULL WEBQUAL™ MODEL......................... 129

TABLE 43: OVERALL MODEL COMPARISONS.......................................................129

CHAPTER 7

TABLE 44: CORRELATION AMONGST 1ST ORDER CONSTRUCTS (PHI

MATRIX).......................................................................................................................... 131

TABLE 45: SUB-CONSTRUCT RELIABILITIES......................................................... 135

TABLE 46: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN WEBQUAL™ MEASURE AND

W
OVERALL WEB SITE QUALITY, INTENTION TO PURCHASE, AND

INTENTION TO REVISIT...................................................................................... 135

IE
TABLE 47: WEBQUAL™...............................................................................................136
EV
PR

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1

FIGURE 1: CHURCHILL’S INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT STEPS (1979)..............5

FIGURE 2: CHAPTER LAYOUT......................................................................................11

CHAPTER 2

FIGURE 3: FOUR CHANNEL FLOW MODEL.............................................................. 21

FIGURE 4: TASK-TECHNOLOGY FIT MODEL........................................................... 29

W
FIGURE 5: MARKETING AND MIS CONSTRUCTS................................................... 33
IE
FIGURE 6: WEBQUAL™ PRIMARY CONSTRUCTS.................................................. 39

CHAPTER 3
EV
FIGURE 7: EASE OF USE CONSTRUCT.......................................................................48

FIGURE 8: USEFULNESS CONSTRUCT....................................................................... 53

PR

FIGURE 9: ENTERTAINMENT CONSTRUCT............................................................. 60

FIGURE 10: COMPLEMENTARY RELATIONSHIP CONSTRUCT............................ 61

FIGURE 11: PURCHASE & REVISIT CONSTRUCT.................................................... 65

FIGURE 12: COMPLETE WEBQUAL™ MODEL......................................................... 66

CHAPTER 6

FIGURE 13: COMPLETE WEBQUAL™ MODEL - MODIFIED.................................109

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r re p r o d u c tio n proh ibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 xiv

CHAPTER 8

FIGURE 14: ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF WEB SITES TO STUDY WITH

WEBQUAL™............................................................................................................. 137

CHAPTER 9

FIGURE 15: WEBQUAL™ CONCEPTUAL MODEL (FINAL)...................................147

W
IE
EV
PR

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e cop y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

 ELEANOR TERESE LOIACONO
WebQual™: A Web Site Quality Instrument
(Under the direction of RICHARD T. WATSON)

Web sites are essential means of linking corporations to their customers.

However, businesses often find it difficult to assess what customers think of their site.

Without a measure to assess Web site quality as perceived by the customer, companies

have no means of assessing their current site’s quality or that of alternative site designs.

This research develops a comprehensive Web site quality measure, WebQual™, using

Churchill’s (1979) instrument development steps.

W
Specify domain of construct—First, an extensive review of the marketing and

MIS literature revealed existing constructs related to quality and customer satisfaction.
IE
From these constructs a set of overriding Web site quality constructs was developed.

Second, exploratory research was conducted to ensure that the Web site quality model
EV
generated in the initial phase was comprehensive. Consumers, Web designers, and a

Fortune 500 company’s criteria for high quality Web sites were reviewed.
PR

Generate Sample Items—In order to aid in the generation of sample items and

assist in the general conceptualization of WebQual™, a model was developed, based on

both the Marketing and MIS literature reviews. The model describes the relationship

between the constructs and their influence on Web site quality. Previous measures served

as the foundation for the instrument. New items, revealed through explorative research,

were added and produced a fuller, more robust initial instrument.

Collect Data & Purify Measures—Two data collections were performed in

order to refine the measure. Numerous statistical methods were employed at this stage of

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

 instrument development: coefficient alpha, multitrait-multiitem analysis, exploratory

factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.

Assess Reliability and Validity—Various statistical methods were used to assure

reliability and validity. Cronbach’s (1951) alpha is the most commonly used measure of

reliability (Churchill 1979; Goodhue 1998) and was used to test the reliability of

WebQual™. An extensive review of past literature and the inclusion of customer and

Web designer feedback through questionnaires and focus groups will be used to obtain a

high face and content validity. In addition, a variation of MTMM presented by Goodhue

W
(multi-trait, multi-item (MTMI), 1998) is utilized to ensure construct validity. A single

overall measure of Web quality and two intention measures tested criterion validity.
IE
INDEX WORDS: WebQual™, Web site quality, Electronic Commerce, Usefulness, Ease
EV

of Use, Entertainment, Complementary Relationships, Information,

Trust, Response, Intuitiveness, Flow, Visual, Substitutability,

PR

Integrated Communications.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e rm is s io n .

 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Many companies have created Web sites with the intent of enhancing their

market. It is critical, therefore, that these companies understand what it is their customers

want and how to design a quality Web site that meets these needs. The problem, however,

is the lack of an existing comprehensive measure to assess the quality of a Web site. To

W
date many companies have based Web design on trial-and-error, gut-instinct, and

feedback from customers once a Web site is in use. This can be a costly and ineffective
IE
means o f development. A more effective approach is to develop a validated instrument to

measure Web site quality and to compare alternative designs.

EV

Researchers have attempted to capture the effectiveness of Web sites through

various means. Jakob Nielsen, for instance, has focused on the usability and design of a
PR

Web site (Contentious 1998). He emphasizes the “user-centered” approach, stating,

“people aren’t on the Web to navigate. They’re there because they want content”

(WebReview 1998). Therefore, navigation should enhance the ability to find content. He

identifies several goals to enhance Web effectiveness/quality—download speed,

navigation, unified visual appearance, search capabilities, as well as usability. He asserts

that speed is three times more important than looks and that a page should download in

no more than one second. It is through focusing on the visitor and creating an incentive

for repeat visits that a Web site will be successful. Neilsen states that, “on the Web, if you

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 don’t have return visitors, it’s probably a useless site. For most Web sites, repeat visitors

are your measure of success” (Contentious 1998).

Both academic and popular trade publications have emphasized a variety of

measures, some even consisting of a compilation of factors. Previous studies have

attempted to measure the quality of a Web site by the number of “hits” (Berthon, Pitt et

al. 1996). Others have used combined categories, such as content and design, to

determine the top Web sites (Lycos 1998). Internet World uses four generalvariables:

download time, ease of use, graphics, and content. However,there remains a need for a

W
rigorously validated measure of Web site quality. The purpose of this research is to

develop a multiple-item instrument for measuring Web site quality (called WebQual™)

that has been rigorously validated.

IE
EV
1.2 Quality

Three possible definitions of quality exist:

• quality as conforming to specifications (Crosby 1979; 1986),

PR

• quality lying in the eyes of the beholder, and

• quality as an innate excellence.

There are, however, some concerns with these definitions (Herbig and Genestre

1996). First, Crosby’s managerial definition fails to capture the difference in perception

between two similar products. Second, quality as a subjective concept is incomplete.

There is no way to aggregate widely varying individual preferences into a meaningful

definition of quality at the market level. The third definition lacks specificity. Though

styles and tastes change, there is something persistent about works of high quality. For

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n p rohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 3
example, objectively Leonardo DaVinci’s Mona Lisa is a high quality painting, though,

an individual may dislike it. Quality is thus a complex concept.

“Quality in a product or service is not what you put into it. It is what the client or

customer gets out of it.” These words of Peter Drucker capture the essence of quality as it

is referred to here. It is not quality as conforming to specifications (Crosby 1979; Crosby

1986), but quality as a combination of two previously independent interpretations (Herbig

and Genestre 1996): consistent conformance to customer expectation (Crosby 1979) and

“fitness for purpose” (Juran 1988). It is partially objective and partially subjective. The

W
product must not only possess certain characteristics, but be judged by customers to serve

them in a way that they want it to. There is no better judge of quality, therefore, than
IE
customers themselves. A comprehensive measure of Web site quality as judged by

consumers remains to be developed.

EV

1.3 Web Site Quality

' Perceptions o f Web site quality may include a number of dimensions. Facets, such
PR

as speed of download, use of multimedia, and database connections, have been discussed

in terms of viewer perceptions. Customers without the benefit of high-speed modems

may experience long download times, which can cause dissatisfaction. This may lead to a

decrease in perceived quality (Lightner 1996). The effective use of multimedia on Web

sites is also a means to improve customer satisfaction and increase the perception of

quality (Merritt 1996). However, because increasing levels of multimedia result in

increased download times, the use of relevant and not excessive pictures, charts, and

audio is necessary to maintain consumer satisfaction and perceived quality. Connecting to

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .

 4
databases, which allows more customer interaction, has also been attributed with adding

quality (Raden 1996). Prior research suggests that the relevancy of information is a key

component of quality. A more accurate assessment of the components of quality requires

a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the elements that lead to quality Web sites.

Though previous research has revealed certain components of a Web site, such as

those mentioned above, to be important, none have compiled a comprehensive list. In

addition, none have established a valid method for measuring these factors through the

eyes of the consumer. Without a valid instrument to measure these factors collectively

W
and comprehensively, the extent to which they affect the quality of a Web site cannot be

determined. IE
1.4 Instrument Development
EV
Prior to any data collection, the accuracy and validity of the instrument capturing

that data must be established. The lack of such rigor leads to a major methodological

issue (Jarvanpaa 1985)—the proliferation of unreliable and invalid instruments within the
PR

academic community. Thus, the Churchill (1979) procedure for developing better

measures is followed in this research (see Figure 1).

1.5 Importance of Research

1.5.1 Importance o f Instrument Development

A better measure for predicting and explaining Web site quality will have

significant practical value. Many businesses wish to know how to keep their customers

attention on their Web site and what features customers find most useful and appealing. A

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m i s s io n of t h e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u r th e r r e p r o d u c tio n prohibited w ith o u t p e r m is s io n .