Context: quality of service modelsThe context of quality of service has not been perceived uniformly. Cullen (2001), for example, described two sets of quality contexts: objective quality and perceived quality; the first concerns the standards and guidelines put in place by professional organizations, while the second concerns customer perception. Similarly, Gronroos (1984) summarized service quality into techniques and features. Overall, the service quality literature has fallen behind the latter category while retaining a level of disintegration with the former. On the other hand, researchers have strived to improve service quality. Their models that conceptualize service quality improvement included disconfirmation, perceived quality, SERVQUAL, and Six Sigma (Kasper, Helsdingen, & Gabbott, 2006:183). Additionally, Ahmed and Rafiq (2002:13) defined two other models, namely the Berry model and the Grönrros model, but placed them in the context of internal marketing theory. However, previous models viewed service quality from a narrow perspective; none had a holistic view of quality. This explains the inconsistency in the conceptualization of service quality, where perceived service quality persists to measure customer satisfaction in particular. Furthermore, researchers have postulated different dimensions of service quality. For example, Hedvall and Paltschik (1989) identified two measured dimensions, namely “willingness and ability to serve” and “physical and psychological access”; Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982) articulated three dimensions: interactive, physical and corporate quality is adopted; Gagliano and Hathcote (1994) — cited in Fogarty and Gatts and Forlin (2000) — adopted four structural factors...... middle of paper ...... its performance, or to provide a statistical signal when causes sporadic occurrences. Nevertheless, efforts to map exceptional perceptions/attributes for analysis have been demonstrated by a few researchers. For example, Kadir, Abdullah and Agus (2000) plotted PE on a 4-quadrant (PE) matrix and argued that this approach would produce a guide to the level of service quality. Also, Donthu (1991) recognized the insufficiency of published work to address the problem of service quality control and proposed an instrumental approach called the expectations/perceptions control chart. And in order to justify its validity and reliability, it took into account a large sample, which, however, contradicts the legitimate use of the X-bar chart. Unlike Donthu's method, the article revitalized the SERVQUAL scale, used reduced constructs and adopted a small sample size..