Service quality

Abstract

The Service Quality Scale for Athletic Coaching (SERVQUAL-Coaching) is a psychometric instrument adapted from the foundational Expectation-Disconfirmation and Service Quality framework developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988, 1991). Tailored specifically to collegiate, interscholastic, and elite athletic training contexts, this 14-item multidimensional inventory measures student-athletes’ perceptions of the instructional, interpersonal, and operational service quality provided by head coaching staff. Rather than evaluating coaching exclusively through win-loss records or biomechanical outcomes, the scale operationalizes athletic coaching as a relational and professional service delivered directly to student-athletes as primary service recipients. The instrument captures four core experiential dimensions: Reliability (evaluating dependable and accurate execution of commitments), Responsiveness (promptness, accessibility, and proactive willingness to assist), Assurance (technical knowledge, courtesy, and the capacity to instill confidence), and Empathy (individualized attention, holistic welfare, and developmental understanding). Administered using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), the instrument exhibits robust psychometric properties across diverse competitive settings. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations consistently yield strong fit indices ($\chi^2/df < 2.5$, $ ext{CFI} ge .94$,$ ext{TLI} ge .93$,$ ext{RMSEA} le .06$), alongside high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s \alpha values routinely exceeding$lpha = .80$ for individual subscales and $lpha = .92$ for the composite measure. This assessment provides sport psychologists, athletic directors, and sport management researchers with a standardized diagnostic tool to assess coach-athlete relational dynamics, pinpoint service delivery deficiencies, predict athletic satisfaction, and support evidence-based athletic leadership development.

Keywords

Service quality, athletic coaching, SERVQUAL, sport management, coach-athlete relationship, athlete satisfaction, athletic leadership, psychometrics, confirmatory factor analysis, student-athlete welfare

Authors

The foundational conceptualization and mathematical formulation of the SERVQUAL framework were established by A. Parasuraman (University of Miami), Valarie A. Zeithaml (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), and Leonard L. Berry (Texas A&M University). Subsequent adaptations and psychometric validations contextualizing the SERVQUAL model to intercollegiate athletics and athletic coaching service delivery have been advanced by international sport management and psychometric researchers, notably including contributions curated and synthesized by Ali Asgari (contact: [email protected]).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Service Quality Scale for Athletic Coaching is to evaluate how student-athletes perceive and evaluate the quality of services delivered by their coaching staff. Modern athletic programs operate within increasingly professionalized, high-stakes environments where student-athletes commit substantial physical, psychological, and temporal resources. Evaluating coaches solely on competitive outcomes or tactical competence overlooks the holistic relational and developmental environment that governs athletic performance, psychological health, retention, and program compliance.

By translating service management theory into sport psychology, the instrument fulfills several critical applied and empirical functions:

• Diagnostic Evaluation of Coaching Behaviors: Athletic departments and coaching development programs use the scale to identify operational strengths and interpersonal blind spots across specific behavioral domains, such as communication latency, inconsistency in fulfilling promises, or deficits in individualized athlete care.
• Enhancement of Coach-Athlete Dyadic Trust: By assessing relational assurance and empathy, the instrument sheds light on whether coaching behaviors foster psychological safety, mutual trust, and transparent communication, which are essential for navigating competitive adversity and injury rehabilitation.
• Empirical Research in Sport Psychology and Management: The scale enables researchers to model complex structural equations linking perceived coaching service quality to key psychosocial variables, including team cohesion, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, athlete burnout, and transfer portal intentions.
• Holistic Student-Athlete Welfare Monitoring: The instrument acts as an accountability mechanism, ensuring that athletic programs adhere to duty-of-care obligations and that head coaches prioritize student-athletes’ long-term educational and developmental interests.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by this instrument is perceived coaching service quality, conceptualized as a multidimensional cognitive and affective evaluation of the performance, interaction, and structural support provided by athletic coaching staff. Grounded in Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry’s (1988, 1991) five-dimension taxonomy, the scale operationalizes the four primary interpersonal and operational dimensions most relevant to coaching leadership:

1. Reliability

Reliability refers to the coach’s ability to perform promised services dependably, consistently, and accurately. In an athletic context, this reflects structural and operational integrity. Student-athletes evaluate whether their coach honors time commitments, follows through on logistical or strategic declarations, and demonstrates consistent execution in administrative and training duties. Reliability mitigates cognitive dissonance and organizational ambiguity among athletes by establishing predictable performance parameters (represented by Items 1, 3, and 4).

2. Responsiveness

Responsiveness captures the willingness of coaching staff to assist student-athletes promptly, attentively, and enthusiastically. Rather than operating behind administrative barriers or presenting an aloof persona, highly responsive coaches communicate schedule updates transparently, address emergent athletic or academic problems without delay, and maintain accessible open-door policies. Responsiveness directly influences an athlete’s perceived organizational support and reduces feelings of isolation or abandonment during competitive slumps or physical rehabilitation (represented by Items 5, 6, 7, and 8).

3. Assurance

Assurance involves the knowledge, competence, and courtesy exhibited by the head coach, alongside their ability to inspire confidence, psychological safety, and reciprocal trust. This dimension evaluates tactical, instructional, and interpersonal expertise. When student-athletes perceive their coach as technically authoritative, polite, and confident, their cognitive trust deepens, facilitating tactical buy-in, competitive resilience, and reduced performance anxiety (represented by Items 9, 10, and 11).

4. Empathy

Empathy denotes the provision of caring, individualized attention and a holistic understanding of the athlete beyond their immediate athletic utility. Empathic coaches understand the distinct psychological, academic, and personal challenges confronting each team member, demonstrate that they have the athlete’s overall welfare at heart, and tailor developmental interactions accordingly. Empathy buffers against psychological burnout and fosters deep organizational commitment (represented by Items 2, 12, 13, and 14).

Theoretical Framework

The instrument is grounded in several converging theoretical paradigms across service marketing, cognitive psychology, and sport leadership:

1. The Gap Model of Service Quality and Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory

Originally formulated by Richard L. Oliver (1980) and expanded within the Gap Model by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), Expectation-Disconfirmation Theory (EDT) posits that satisfaction and quality judgments arise from a cognitive comparison between initial expectations and perceived performance. In coaching contexts, student-athletes enter programs with baseline cognitive schemas regarding how an elite coach should communicate, instruct, and support them. If the coach’s real-world behavior falls short of these standards (negative disconfirmation), perceived service quality drops. When the coach matches or surpasses these expectations (positive disconfirmation), perceived quality and athlete satisfaction rise.

2. Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML)

The application of SERVQUAL to coaching parallels P. Chelladurai’s (1990) Multidimensional Model of Leadership in sport. The MML states that athletic performance and member satisfaction depend on the congruence among three facets of coaching behavior: required behavior (demanded by the organizational context), preferred behavior (desired by the athletes), and actual behavior (enacted by the coach). The coaching service quality construct directly measures student-athletes’ subjective evaluation of this actual leadership behavior across core interpersonal delivery dimensions.

3. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

Under Leader-Member Exchange Theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), relational quality between leaders and subordinates exists on a spectrum from transactional exchanges to high-trust partnerships. Dimensions such as Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy operationalize high-LMX relationships. These interactions provide athletes with emotional support, individualized consideration, and professional respect, facilitating optimal personal and team functioning.

Validity

Empirical evaluations have established strong psychometric validity for the Service Quality Scale for Athletic Coaching across multiple sporting contexts:

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is supported through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Convergent validity is confirmed when standardized factor loadings for all 14 items exceed the conventional .50 threshold, with the majority falling between .68 and .88 ($p < .001$). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for the latent factors (Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy) typically exceed the .50 benchmark recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981), demonstrating that the scale indicators account for the majority of variance in their respective constructs.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. The square root of the AVE for each coaching dimension consistently exceeds the inter-factor correlations between that dimension and all other latent factors. Furthermore, HTMT values routinely fall below the conservative threshold of .85, confirming that while the four service dimensions are correlated facets of overall coaching quality, each remains empirically distinct.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated by strong, statistically significant associations with external criteria. Coaching service quality scores correlate positively with composite scores on the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ) ($r = .58$ to $.74$, $p < .001$), team commitment ($r = .49$ to $.65$), and task cohesion ($r = .42$ to $.56$). Conversely, negative correlations emerge with athlete burnout scales ($r = -.38$ to $-.52$) and intention to transfer or withdraw from sport participation ($r = -.44$, $p < .01$).

Reliability

The Service Quality Scale for Athletic Coaching displays high internal consistency and temporal stability:

• Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients across validation cohorts consistently surpass standard psychometric cutoffs ($lpha ge .70$):
  • Reliability Subscale (3 items): $lpha = .81$ to $.86$
  • Responsiveness Subscale (4 items): $lpha = .83$ to $.89$
  • Assurance Subscale (3 items): $lpha = .82$ to $.88$
  • Empathy Subscale (4 items): $lpha = .85$ to $.91$
  • Full 14-Item Scale Composite: $lpha = .92$ to $.95$
• Composite Reliability (CR): Raykov’s rho and composite reliability values range from $.82$ to $.92$ across all four latent subscales, confirming internal consistency without assuming tau-equivalence.
• Test-Retest Stability: Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) obtained over a 2- to 3-week test-retest interval under stable coaching conditions range from $.78$ to $.87$, indicating strong temporal stability across athletic competitive cycles.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytic evaluations of the 14-item coaching service quality instrument confirm a well-defined four-factor structure reflecting the adapted SERVQUAL dimensions:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

When evaluated via Principal Axis Factoring with Promax (oblique) rotation, sample data yield a four-factor solution accounting for approximately 64% to 72% of total variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy consistently exceeds $.88$, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity demonstrates statistical significance ($p < .0001$), confirming data factorability. Items load cleanly onto their theoretical factors without problematic cross-loadings (i.e., cross-loadings remain below .30):

• Factor 1: Responsiveness (Items 5, 6, 7, 8; factor loadings: $.69 – .84$)
• Factor 2: Empathy (Items 2, 12, 13, 14; factor loadings: $.71 – .86$)
• Factor 3: Assurance (Items 9, 10, 11; factor loadings: $.72 – .85$)
• Factor 4: Reliability (Items 1, 3, 4; factor loadings: $.68 – .82$)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA demonstrates that a second-order factor model (where an overarching “Coaching Service Quality” factor explains the four first-order factors) or an correlated four-factor model provides good fit to empirical data. Standard model fit indices routinely meet established criteria:

• $\chi^2/df = 1.65 – 2.21$ ($p > .05$ or acceptable relative ratio)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = $.945 – .972$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = $.938 – .965$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = $.048 – .062$ (90% CI: $[.036, .071]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = $.039 – .051$

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Construct Assessed: Perceptions of athletic coaching service quality across interpersonal, administrative, and instructional dimensions.
• Test Format: Self-report questionnaire designed for student-athletes.
• Item Count: 14 items.
• Subscale Structure:
  • Reliability: Items 1, 3, 4 (evaluates dependable performance and commitment fulfillment).
  • Responsiveness: Items 5, 6, 7, 8 (evaluates promptness, transparency, and willingness to assist).
  • Assurance: Items 9, 10, 11 (evaluates coach knowledge, courtesy, and confidence-building).
  • Empathy: Items 2, 12, 13, 14 (evaluates individualized attention and athlete-centered care).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale with anchor ratings:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neutral / Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Instructions:
  • All items are framed positively; no reverse scoring is required.
  • Subscale scores are calculated by averaging the individual item ratings within each dimension (yielding subscale scores from 1.0 to 7.0).
  • A composite Overall Coaching Service Quality index is calculated by computing the grand mean across all 14 items.
  • Higher scores indicate higher perceived service quality, stronger coach-athlete alignment, and greater satisfaction with coaching delivery.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The conceptual SERVQUAL framework was initially formulated in 1988 and revised in 1991 by A. Parasuraman, Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml. The adapted 14-item Service Quality Scale for Athletic Coaching (SERVQUAL-Coaching) is an open-access psychometric instrument available without commercial licensing fees for non-profit academic research, collegiate program evaluation, and athletic department assessment. Researchers, athletic administrators, and sport psychologists using the tool should cite the foundational validation literature (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991) and the sport-specific adaptations. Inquiries regarding adapted diagnostic applications may be directed to Ali Asgari ([email protected]).

References

• Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21(4), 328–354.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
• Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900403
• Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
• Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–450.
• Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(2), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.2.127

Items of the Scale