Original Scientific Article
Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism:
Application of RURALQUAL Model
SuzanaMarković
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Croatia
suzanam@fthm.hr
Jelena Kljaić Šebrek
wyg Consulting Ltd, Croatia
jelenak101@gmail.com
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate service quality and its relation to customer
satisfaction, trust, and behavioural intentions of rural tourism by applying the mod-
ified ruralqual model derived from the original servqual model. The survey
was conducted on a sample of 307 rural tourists in Croatia. A Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modelling (pls-sem) was applied in order to analyse the rela-
tionship between the measured constructs. The modified ruralqual model has
been proven as a reliable and valid multidimensional scale that includes 27 items
divided into 5 dimensions. Results indicate that there is a significant positive rela-
tionship between Service quality and Satisfaction as antecedents to Loyalty. The role
of Trust as a mediator between Satisfaction and Loyalty has been proven, but its me-
diation power is rather small. Research results indicate that rural tourismmanagers
and owners paidmore attention to the tangible service quality elements, but in order
to improve overall tourist experience in the future, they should pay more attention
to the intangible service quality elements. The modified ruralqual instrument
should be periodically used as a tool by practitioners and managers for the future
development of rural tourism.
Keywords: service quality, satisfaction, loyalty, rural tourism, ruralqual, pls
sem
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.13.215-227
Introduction
The importance of rural tourism, which has come un-
der the focus of many researchers, has significantly in-
creased in the last decades (Hurst et al., 2009; Osman
& Sentosa, 2013b). Rural tourismmay be an answer to
the redundant sun and sea concept and an extension
of the main tourist season for many tourist economies
(Grgić et al., 2017). Furthermore, the urban acceler-
ated lifestyle has become very stressful, causing many
tourists to seek calm, rural places surrounded by na-
ture (Kastenholz et al., 2018). Rural tourism presents a
powerful development strategy for rural underdevel-
oped areas as it generates new jobs and increases local
incomes (Choi et al., 2018). The development potential
of rural tourism is huge, but in order to stay compet-
itive and sustainable in the long term, rural tourism
must provide a high level of service quality and sat-
isfaction (Chatzigeorgiou & Simeli, 2017). According
to Rozman et al. (2009), service quality is important
for survival in a competitive market. Satisfied tourists
are more likely to recommend and return to the ru-
ral tourist object. Service quality is a widely researched
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 215
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
concept in the tourism industry, but only a few studies
have measured service quality in rural tourism using
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling
(pls-sem), including Loureiro and Kastenholz (2011),
Osman and Sentosa (2013a, 2013b, and Kastenholz et
al. (2018).
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to determine
service quality in rural tourism. Themain research ob-
jectives of this study are: (a) to assess Service quality,
Satisfaction and Loyalty in rural tourism, (b) to eval-
uate the relationship between Service quality, Satisfac-
tion and Loyalty, (c) to estimate the role of Trust as a
mediator between the concepts Satisfaction and Loy-
alty, and (d) to test the reliability of the modified ru-
ralqual model.
The paper is organised in four sections. The fol-
lowing section provides an overview of the recent lit-
erature dealing with the concepts and measurement
of service quality, tourist satisfaction and loyalty, pri-
marily in rural tourism. The next section lays out the
methodology and is followed by the results of the re-
search. The final section discusses main conclusions,
limitations, and future research proposals.
Literature Review
Although there is no unique definition of the term ‘ser-
vice quality,’ most researchers agree that the term de-
fines fulfilment of tourists’ expectations in the focus
of service quality (Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al.,
1985; Lewis & Mitchell, 1990). According to many au-
thors, service quality is a multidimensional concept,
but service quality dimensions should be adapted to
the specific features of a measured service (Babakus &
Boller, 1992).
So far, a wide range of research has been con-
ducted on service quality and a variety of different
measurement models has been developed and tested,
but one of the most popular and frequently used is
the servqual model. servqual was developed by
Parasuraman et al. in 1985. It consists of 22 items
which measure five service quality dimensions: Tangi-
bles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Em-
pathy. The servqual instrument was widely used
for measuring service quality in the tourism industry:
travel agencies (Bigne et al., 2003; Shahin & Janatyan,
2011; Katircioglu et al., 2012; Setó-Pamies, 2012; Ra-
jesh, 2018), hotels (Marković, 2004; Ladhari, 2009;
Marković & Raspor, 2010; Marković & Raspor Janko-
vić, 2013; Kim-Soon et al., 2014;Ounsri&Thawesaeng-
skulthai, 2019), and restaurants (Marković et al., 2010;
Nam& Lee, 2011; Hansen, 2014; Saneva & Chortoseva,
2018). servqual was also used to measure the qual-
ity of rural tourism. For that purpose, a ruralqual
modelwas developed byLoureiro andGonzalez (2008).
The model assesses only perceptions as proposed by
Cronin and Taylor (1994) and consists of 22 variables
divided into 6 factors (Professionalism, Reservations,
Tangibility, Complementary benefits, Rural and cul-
tural environment and Basic benefits). Research on a
sample of 198 rural tourists was conducted in 2008 in
Portugal. The research proved that the lowest-rated
service quality dimension is Rural and cultural envi-
ronment, and the highest-rated dimensions are Pro-
fessionalism, Reservations, Tangibility and Basic ben-
efits.
Satisfaction is also a very frequently-researched
concept in tourism due to its importance for the suc-
cess of tourism business, as a satisfied tourist is more
likely to recommend or rebuy the service (Baker &
Crompton, 2000; Su & Fan, 2011). Satisfaction is, by
most authors, defined as an emotion that a tourist feels
after service consumption or an affective response to
a service (Oliver, 1999; Baker & Crompton, 2000; Zei-
thaml&Bitner, 2003;Umet al., 2006). Tourist satisfac-
tion depends on the level of fulfilment of expectations
and desires (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Osman & Sentosa,
2013a). If a perceived service did not meet expecta-
tions, a tourist may feel dissatisfied.
Loyalty presents the ultimate objective for many
companies as it reduces costs and increases profit
(Almeida-Santana &Moreno Gil, 2018). Most authors
emphasise that loyalty is a positive attitude towards a
destination, a company, or a service (Oliver, 1999; Kim
& Brown, 2012; Setó-Pamies, 2012; Osman & Sentosa,
2013b). The concept of loyalty can be approached from
two different directions: attitudinal or behavioural
(Zeithaml, 2000). Behavioural loyalty results in repet-
itive purchasing behaviour while attitudinal includes
recommending a service or company to others (Zei-
thaml, 2000; Cheng, 2011).
216 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
The concept of Trust has been defined as a tourist’s
‘willingness to rely on tourist attraction operator’s abil-
ity to deliver what has been promised and meet or ex-
ceed the expectation of the tourists which has been
built around of the knowledge about the tourist attrac-
tion’ (Osman & Sentosa, 2013a, p. 14.). Many studies
emphasize that Trust reduces risk and effects future in-
tentions, especially in long-term, strong relationships
with the company (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Yieh et
al., 2007; Loureiro & Gonzalez, 2008).
Studies carried out by different authors have proven
that Service quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty are re-
lated concepts. High quality of service effects tourists’
positive emotions and generates high tourist satis-
faction. Satisfaction, enhanced by Trust, contributes
to Loyalty. Service quality and Tourist satisfaction
have been proven to be the key antecedents to cus-
tomer Loyalty by different studies (Loureiro & Kas-
tenholz, 2011; Oh & Kim, 2017). The mediating effect
of Trust on Loyalty in rural tourism has been proven
by Loureiro and Gonzalez (2008).
The review of selected recent researches on service
quality and related concepts in rural tourism is given
in Table 1. The data show that Service quality, Satisfac-
tion and Loyalty in rural tourism are measured glob-
ally in different tourist countries (usa, Spain, Greece,
Slovenia, Portugal, Malaysia). The authors used quite
large samples, ranging from 103 to 632 respondents.
Most of the researches followed the servqual model
modified to the needs of the services measured, where
the number of factors varied from the original 5 to 8
factors and 22 to 36 variables. The applied statistical
methods primarily include factor analysis and struc-
tural modelling. The observed studies reported a high
level of reliability (>0.70) of applied models. The find-
ings of the research conducted by Choi et al. (2018) in-
dicate that performance exceeds expectations, mean-
ing that rural tourists’ needs are met for all the ob-
served variables. On the other hand, Albacete-Saez et.
al. (2007) proved a negative gap between perception
and expectation in 4 of 5 service quality dimensions.
A positive gap is proved for the dimension Empathy,
and the largest negative gap is recorded for the dimen-
sion Complementary offer.
Furthermore, the previously analysed studies con-
Service
Quality Satisfaction
Loyalty
Trust
H1 H2
H3
H3
Figure 1 Theoretical Framework
firmed that the concepts Service quality, Satisfaction
and Loyalty are related and interdependent. More
specifically, Loureiro and Kastenholz (2011) and Su
and Fan (2011) found that high service quality sig-
nificantly increases tourist satisfaction and confirmed
that satisfaction is the key antecedent to loyalty. Also,
the study of Su and Fan (2011) has proven that there
is no direct relationship between service quality and
loyalty, but only mediated by tourist satisfaction and
trust. Also, this study confirmed that satisfaction is an
antecedent to trust, not the opposite. A study of Peãa et
al. (2012), conducted in Spain, emphasises the positive
effect of the perceived value on tourist satisfaction.Os-
man and Sentosa (2013b) conducted research on ser-
vice quality in rural tourism in Malaysia that proved a
strong direct relationship between service quality and
satisfaction and service quality and loyalty. The same
study confirmed that satisfaction and trust could have
a mediating role between service quality and loyalty.
The findings of the study carried out in Greece by
Chatzigeorgiou and Simeli (2017) confirmed the pred-
icative power of overall service quality and satisfaction
on loyalty. Rajaratnam et al. (2015), in their study on
334 rural tourists inMalaysia, have found that satisfac-
tion is positively and significantly correlated to loyalty.
Although there is no consensus on service qual-
ity attributes, most of the authors agree that initial
servqual dimensions should be adapted to specific
needs of a wide range of rural tourism activities.
Based on the literature review the following hy-
potheses were tested (Figure 1):
h1 There is a positive relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction.
h2 There is a positive relationship between cus-
tomer satisfaction and customer loyalty.
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 217
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
Table 1 Literature Review of Measuring Service Quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty in Rural Tourism
() () () () () () ()
Albacete-Saez et al.
()
Spain  Service quality  factors,
 items
efa* .
Hurst et al. () usa  Service quality, satisfaction,
loyalty
 factors,
 items
efa .–.
Rozman et al. () Slovenia  Service quality  service quality
dim.,  items
dex –
Fotiadis & Vassiliadis
()
Greece  Satisfaction  items ipa –
Loureiro & Kastenholz
()
Portugal  Service quality, corporate repu-
tation, satisfaction, loyalty
 factors,
 items
cfa,
pls-sem
.
Su & Fan () China  Service quality, satisfaction,
trust, loyalty
 factors sem .–.
Peña et al. () Spain  Perceived value, satisfaction,
loyalty
– sem >.
Osman & Sentosa
(a)
Malaysia  Service quality, satisfaction,
loyalty
 factors, 
items in total
pls-sem .–.
Rajaratnam et al.
()
Malaysia  Destination quality, satisfac-
tion, loyalty
 factors pls-sem .–.
Rozkee et al. () India  Service quality, satisfaction  factors,
 items
regression –
Chatzigeorgiou &
Simeli ()
Greece  Service quality, satisfaction,
future behavioural intentions
 factors,
 items
sem –
Kastenholz et al. () Portugal  Tourists’ arousal, memory,
satisfaction
– pls-sem –
Choi et al. () South
Korea
 Service quality  items ipa** .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) author, (2) country, (3) sample size, (4) measured concepts, (5) number of ser-
vice quality items and factors, (6) methods used, (7) reliability. * Exploratory Factor Analysis, ** Importance Performance
Analysis.
h3 There is a positive mediating effect of trust on
the satisfaction and loyalty relationship.
A literature review indicates that pls sem is an
often-used method in research in service quality in
tourism. According to the results of a study conducted
by Ali et al. (2017), during the period between 2001
and 2015 there were 29 empirical articles published
that applied pls-sem. Out of 29 articles, only 7 were
published up until 2012, and 22 articles were published
from 2013 to 2015, indicating an increasing popularity
of pls sem in recent years.
Methodology
The perceived quality of the rural tourism was mea-
sured using a modified ruralqual model based on
the servqual and the original ruralqual model
(Loureiro & González, 2008) and modified by the
items used in the study of Albacete-Saez et al. (2007).
Modifications include adaptation of the items to the
specific features of rural tourism in Istria. The dimen-
sion Safety was added from the model of Albacete-
Saez et al. (2007). Safety was identified as a very im-
portant service quality aspect during the consultation
process with key tourist stakeholders in Istria (tour-
218 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
ist board and rural tourism managers and owners).
The scale contains 27 items divided into 5 factors
measured on a 7-point Likert-type ordinal scale. The
research conducted in this work used measurement
of perception only as proposed by Cronin and Taylor
(1994).
The survey was conducted from June to September
2017 in central Istria as one of the most developed ru-
ral tourism destinations in Croatia. There were 1,400
paper questionnaires in 4 languages distributed to
tourists staying in 22 rural accommodations. 307 valid
questionnaires were returned (return rate 21.93) us-
ing a convenient sample, meaning that only tourists
who were available and willing to participate in re-
search filled in the questionnaires. Descriptive statis-
tics, factor analysis and Partial Least Squares Struc-
tural Equation Modelling (pls-sem) methods were
performed using spss 20.0 and Smart pls 2.0 soft-
ware to test the research hypotheses.
pls sem became the preferred technique due to its
advantages: accuracy for small sample size, absence of
distributional assumptions and a high degree of statis-
tical power (Hair et al., 2019). It is an appropriate tech-
nique in the case of complex structural models that
include many constructs, indicators, and model rela-
tionships (Hair et al., 2019).
pls sem is based on an iterative combination of
principal components analysis and regression, aim-
ing at explaining the variance of the constructs in the
model (Chin, 1998; Peng, 2012). The advantage of pls
sem lies in simultaneously estimating all relationships
in the model including path coefficients and individ-
ual item loadings of the model, eliminating concerns
about multicollinearity (Henseler et al., 2009).
The model consists of two parts (Hair et al., 2013):
the structural model analysing the relationships be-
tween the constructs (inner model) and the measure-
ment models displaying the relationships between the
constructs and the indicator variables (outer model).
The application of pls sem is a multi-stage approach
that involves three main stages: model specification,
outer model evaluation and inner model evaluation
(Hair et al., 2014). The inner model evaluation as
a last stage is implemented only after the previous
stage proves the reliability and validity of the model
(Henseler et al., 2009). pls-sem relies on a nonpara-
metric bootstrap procedure to test coefficients for their
significance. In bootstrapping, a large number of sub-
samples are drawn from the original sample and used
to evaluate the model (Hair et al., 2013).
This paper presents an evaluation of the structural
model including the relationship between constructs
of service quality, satisfaction, trust and loyalty.
Since pls sem is considered more appropriate for
prediction than covariance-based techniques (Lourei-
ro &Kastenholz, 2011), it has been chosen for the anal-
ysis of future behaviour intentions. Adequacy of mea-
surementwas assessed by evaluating the reliability and
the discriminant validity of the scale. The Partial Least
Squares (pls) approach was employed to estimate the
structural paths coefficients, R2 for evaluation of pre-
dictive power of the model and Q2 for assessment of
predictive relevance, and the Bootstrap technique to
test the hypotheses.
Research Results
The data analysis of socio-demographic data indicates
that there was an almost equal number of female and
male respondents. Out of 307 respondents, 68.32 are
foreign tourists. The majority of respondents are be-
tween 30 and 49 years old (58.17) with a middle or
high school level of education (84.97) and dominant
marital status ‘married’ (48.36). Most of the respon-
dents were visiting the rural destination facility for
the first time (72.04) and travelling with a partner or
friends (55.88). The main tourist motives for visiting
the rural facility are spending time with friends and
family (51.14) and relaxing (40.39). Other motives
include tasting local food, learning about tradition and
culture, and escaping from stress and city noise. The
results of the socio-demographic profile of respon-
dents is shown in Table 2.
The results of the principal components analysis
and Promax rotation method were used to reduce 27
variables to 5 factors (Safety, tourist relations and rural
surrounding, Tangibility and basic demand, Price and
reservation, Professionalism, and Empathy). The com-
munality values of the observed variables are above
0.5, indicating suitability of the items for performing
factor analysis.
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 219
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
Table 2 Respondents Socio-Demographic Profile
Item Group f 
Gender Female  .
Male  .
Total  .
Age Less than   .
–  .
–  .
–  .
–  .
 and above  .
Total  .
Educational
level
Elementary school or less  .
Secondary school  .
University  .
Master or PhD  .
Total  .
Marital
status
Single  .
Married  .
In relationship  .
Other  .
Total  .
Travelling
group
Alone  .
Partner  .
Partner and children  .
Friends  .
Work colleagues  .
Other  .
Total  .
Continued in the next column
Total variance explained in factor analysis is 65.17;
the majority of total variance is explained by the first
factor 42.98 followed by the second factor 9.79,
third factor 5.09, fourth factor 3.85 and fifth factor
3.56.
The first factor, Safety, tourist relations and rural
surrounding, refers to the usage of safety measures, in-
tegration of tourists into the local lifestyle, and offer of
additional activities and events in the rural surround-
Table 2 Continued from the previous column
Item Group f 
Country Croatia  .
Germany  .
Austria  .
uk  .
Italy  .
Slovenia  .
Netherlands  .
Ireland  .
Switzerland  .
usa  .
Hungary  .
Canada  .
Slovakia  .
Denmark  .
San Marino  .
Australia  .
Russia  .
Spain  .
Luxemburg  .
Total  .
Number of
arrivals
First time  .
 to  times  .
More than  times  .
Total  .
Continued in the next column
ing. The second factor, Tangibility and basic demand,
includes attributes like rural facility location, state
of rural facilities, and external and internal decora-
tion. The third factor, Price and reservations, describes
reservation possibilities and accordance of price and
services. The fourth factor, Professionalism, refers to
employees’ appearance and treatment of tourists. The
last factor, named Empathy, includes items regarding
employees’ knowledge of foreign languages and indi-
vidual approach to the tourists. The number of items
varies from 3 to 10 per factor. Factormean scores range
from 5.46 to 6.05 with the highest mean score for the
factor Tangibility and basic demand and the lowest
220 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
Table 2 Continued from the previous column
Item Group f 
Travel
motives
Spending time with friends
and family
 .
Relaxing  .
Tasting local food  .
Learning about local tradi-
tion/culture
 .
Escape from stress and city
noise
 .
Beautiful nature  .
Searching for tranquillity  .
Beauty of a place  .
Affordable prices  .
Pleasant atmosphere  .
Learning new skills  .
Other  .
mean score for the factor Safety, tourist relations and
rural surrounding. An overall average mean score for
Perceived service quality is 5.79. The highest mean
score was given to the item The lodging is located in a
calm place (6.28, St. dev 0.89), and the lowest to the
item The Rural establishment observes safety measures
during excursions and complementary activities offered
(5.20, St. dev. 1.53). The overall average service quality
score is relatively high (5.79). The highest score was
given to the dimension Tangibility and basic demand
(6.05) that refers to infrastructure, equipment and dec-
oration. The lowest score was given to the dimen-
sion Safety, tourist relations and rural surrounding
(5.46).
All factor loadings for service quality items are
significant with the value above 0.5 and the overall
Cronbach alpha 0.952 indicating good reliability of
the scale. The statistical calculations were performed
using spss 20.0. The factor structure ofmodified ru-
ralqual model is shown in Table 3.
An overall mean score for Satisfaction is 5.82, Trust
5.98 and Loyalty 5.15. All factor loadings are signifi-
cant since they are greater than 0.5. The Cronbach al-
pha coefficient ranges from 0.865 to 0.910, proving a
good internal consistency of the constructs. The re-
sults of quantitative analysis for the concepts Satisfac-
tion, Trust and Loyalty are shown in Table 4.
The Cronbach alpha value for all measured con-
structs is between 0.762 and 0.951 and indicates a good
reliability or internal consistency of the modified ru-
ralqual model (Table 5). Convergent validity has
also been confirmed as factor loadings prove a strong
connection of items to the factors, given that the aver-
age variance extracted by the constructs (ave) was at
least 0.5. The results of R2 prove moderate predictive
power of the model since the values exceed 0.50. The
literature suggests that R2 values of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19
are substantial, moderate, andweak (Chin, 1998; Peng,
2012). The values for Q2 are all positive, meaning that
the model has predictive relevance.
pls sem was used to assess path coefficients be-
tween the observed constructs. The results prove a
strong direct positive relationship between Service
Quality and Satisfaction (0.763) and Between Satis-
faction and Loyalty (0.652). Also, Satisfaction has been
proven to be strongly related to Trust, but the relation-
ship between Trust and Loyalty is rather weak (0.146).
The path coefficient analysis of the service quality di-
mensions indicates that the most important dimen-
sion in forming service quality is Safety, tourist rela-
tions and rural surrounding (43), while the dimen-
sion Empathy has the lowest impact on forming the
Service Quality construct (13). The results of Path
coefficient analysis are shown in Figure 2.
The Bootstrap technique in pls sem was applied
for the assessment of the significance level of the path
coefficients in order to test the hypothesis. Accord-
ing to the results all the relations between the con-
structs have been proven to be significant at the 0.001
level, except for the relation betweenTrust and Loyalty
that is positive, but weak and significant at the 0.005
level (Table 6). The path coefficient between Satisfac-
tion and Loyalty decreased when the mediator Trust
was introduced, proving the existence of the media-
tion role of Trust.
The strength of the mediating role of Trust was
evaluated by calculating vaf (Variance accounted for),
as suggested by Hair et al. (2013). A vaf value below
20means that the role of the mediator is small. Since
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 221
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
Table 3 Factor Structure of Modified ruralqual Model
Factor Item () ()
Safety, tourist
relations and
rural
surrounding
The rural establishment is fitted with all necessary safety measures. . (.) .
The re observes safety measures during excursions and complementary activities
offered.
. (.) .
Staff give us good advice regarding the gastronomy of the place. . (.) .
All areas are well indicated with signs. . (.) .
The communication (access) routes are well indicated with signs. . (.) .
The clients are integrated in the region’s rural lifestyle. . (.) .
Staff give us good advice regarding complementary activities that are available. . (.) .
Typical gastronomy of the region is included on the menu. . (.) .
In the surrounding region there are fairs, local festivities, and other aspects of
cultural interest.
. (.) .
Staff at our disposal know the traditions, celebrations and history of the place. . (.) .
Tangibility
and basic
demand
The lodging is placed in a calm place. . (.) .
Internal decoration (furniture, ceilings, lighting, floors, etc.) is pleasant, simple,
homey and in harmony with the rural surroundings.
. (.) .
External decoration (facade, gardens, etc.) is attractive and in harmony with the
rural surroundings.
. (.) .
The rural lodging facilities are in a good state. . (.) .
The lodging architecture has the regional style. . (.) .
The lodging is placed in the area of great natural beauty. . (.) .
Price and
reservations
Room reservation is easy to do. . (.) .
The reservations are confirmed in the most convenient way for client, other
information of interest is sent back too (e.g. access map).
. (.) .
Arrival schedules are established but they are quite flexible. . (.) .
Price is in accordance with the service provided. . (.) .
Professionalism The clients are treated cordially and affably. . (.) .
The rural lodging foods are well presented and flavoursome. . (.) .
Personalized attention is provided to each client. . (.) .
The rural lodging employees have a clean, neat appearance. . (.) .
Empathy The rural establishment has staff that speak other languages. . (.) .
Staff go out of their way to make sure customers understand them. . (.) .
The rural establishment attends to customers individually (not as a group). . (.) .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) mean (standard deviation), (2) factor loading.
the calculated vaf value was 14.21 it can be con-
cluded that the mediator part of the relation between
satisfaction and loyalty is very small.
Based on the given results, the Hypothesis h1 The-
re is a positive relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction, h2 There is a positive relation-
ship between customer satisfaction and customer loy-
alty, and h3 There is a positive mediating effect of trust
on the satisfaction and loyalty relationship are sup-
ported.
222 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
Table 4 The Results of Quantitative Analysis of the Constructs Satisfaction, Trust and Loyalty
Construct Item () ()
Satisfaction The stay here has been very satisfactory. . (.) .
The rural lodging satisfies my necessities. . (.) .
The rural lodging facilities are worthy of highlighting. . (.) .
I find the lodging personnel pleasant. . (.) .
I am happy with cultural, sport and recreational activities provided by the lodging
and surrounding region.
. (.) .
The rural lodging delivers the service that I expected to receive. . (.) .
The rural lodging delivers an excellent service. . (.) .
In general, my experience here is positive. . (.) .
Trust Here the promise is fulfilled. . (.) .
I trust the service delivered by the rural lodging. . (.) .
Here exists a real concern for my well-being. . (.) .
Loyalty I will speak well about this lodging service to other people. . (.) .
I will recommend the lodging if someone asks for my advice. . (.) .
I will encourage my friends and relatives to visit this rural lodging. . (.) .
In my next vacation I intend to return to this lodging. . (.) .
I would come continually even if the lodging price increases. . (.) .
I prefer to pay a bigger price here than in other rural lodgings for the advantages
that I receive in this rural lodging.
. (.) .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) mean (standard deviation), (2) factor loading.
Table 5 Reliability, Validity and Prediction Attributes of the Modified ruralqual Model
Construct () () () () () ()
Service quality . . – . . .
. Professionalism . . . – .
. Price and reservations . . . – .
. Tangibility and basic demand . . . – .
. Empathy . . . – .
. Safety, tourist relations and rural surrounding . . . – .
Satisfaction . . . . . .
Trust . . . . . .
Loyalty . . . . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) reliability Cronbach Alpha, (2) composite reliability, (3) average variance ex-
tracted, (4) R2 (predictive power of the model), (5) Q2 (predictive relevance of the model), (6) latent variable index.
Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research
Rural tourism has been proven to be a very success-
ful development strategy for rural areas. Competitive
rural tourism requires continuous improvement of
service quality and integration of different local re-
sources and activities. However, in some cases, this is
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 223
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
Professionalism
Price and reservations
Tangibility and basic demand
Empathy
Safety, tourist relations and rural surrounding
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Service Qual.
0.997
Satisfaction
0.583
Loyalty
0.588
Trust
0.548
0.4
34
0.130
0.260
0.208
0.172
0.763 0.652
0.
74
0 0.146
Figure 2 Structural Equation Results
Table 6 Hypothesis Test
Relation () () () ()
Direct Empathy→ Service quality . . *** .
Professionalism→ Service quality . . *** .
Price and reservationa→ Service quality . . *** .
Safety, tourist relations and rural surrounding→ Service quality . . *** .
Tangibility and basic demand→ Service quality . . *** .
Service quality→ Satisfaction . . *** .
Satisfaction→ Loyalty (direct relation) .  . *** .
Indirect Satisfaction→ Trust . . *** .
Trust→ Loyalty . . ** .
Satisfaction→ Loyalty . . *** .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) path coeff., (2) t-value, (3) significance level (** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01), (4) p-value.
not sufficiently addressed as most of the rural tourism
businesses are small, family-managed rural units of-
ten lacking a professional management approach and
strategic marketing activities. Better understanding of
the key service quality attributes could increase tourist
satisfaction and lead to tourist loyalty that manifests
as an intention to recommend, to return, and even to
pay more.
The results of this study have confirmed that the
perceived service quality is formed by 5 dimensions:
Professionalism, Price and reservations, Tangibility
and basic demand, Empathy, and Safety, tourist re-
lations and rural surrounding. The overall average
service quality score is relatively high. Research re-
sults indicate that rural tourism managers should pay
more attention to the service quality attributes that re-
fer to safety measures, including tourists in the local
lifestyle, and integration of local activities and events
in the tourist offer. Generally, results lead to the con-
clusions that rural tourismmanagers and owners paid
more attention to the technical service quality ele-
ments, but in the future, they need to pay more at-
tention to the soft service quality elements in order to
improve overall tourist experience.
Although the mean scores for the Service quality,
Satisfaction and Trust are quite high, the mean score
for Loyalty as a consequent is lower. This can partly
be explained by the motive of novelty where tourists
like to visit different tourist destinations rather than to
return to the same one. On the other hand, this can
serve as useful information to rural tourismmanagers
in rethinking marketing strategies.
224 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
The focus of this studywas to examine the relation-
ship between Service quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty
and to assess the role of Trust as amediator. The results
of the pls sem analysis show that there is a strong sig-
nificant positive relationship between Service quality
and Satisfaction. A similar conclusion has been proven
by the study of Loureiro and Kastenholz (2011) and
Loureiro and Gonzalez (2008) who applied the ru-
ralqual model in Portugal.
Furthermore, it is proven that Satisfaction is an an-
tecedent of Loyalty, although the strength of that re-
lationship is a bit lower than between Service qual-
ity and Satisfaction. Due to novelty, not all satisfied
tourists tend to return to the same rural tourism unit.
The conclusion follows the conceptual background of
the relationship Service Quality–Satisfaction–Loyalty.
The positive and significant relationship between Ser-
vice quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty in rural tourism
was also confirmed by Loureiro and Gonzalez (2008)
and Loureiro and Kastenholz (2011).
The evaluation of the role of Trust as a media-
tor shows that the mediating role of Trust on the
Satisfaction–Loyalty relationship is positive and sig-
nificant but rather small. Therefore, the hypothesis h3
is supported. The same results have been proven by the
study of Loureiro and Gonzalez (2008), Setó-Pamies
(2012), and Lin et al. (2018). The study of Loureiro
(2013), conducted on banking services, did not con-
firm the existence of a relationship between Trust and
Loyalty.
In order to understand and meet tourists’ expecta-
tions and provide a high level of service quality and
tourist satisfaction, and finally to increase the rate of
loyal tourists, rural tourism managers should period-
ically use the modified ruralqual instrument as a
guide for future development actions.
There are some limitations of this study that should
be considered in future studies. The main limitation
of the research is a relatively small sample size that af-
fects the generalisation of research results. This study
included only the actual tourists, but in the follow-
ing studies it would be useful to evaluate statements
of potential tourists. Also, this study was conducted
in a geographically limited tourist destination. Future
studies could be conducted in different rural tourist
regions and in other selective forms of rural tourism.
It would be useful to measure service quality solely, in
particular rural tourist destinations, in order to obtain
more specific results. Since rural tourism is broadly
defined and encompasses a wide range of activities, fu-
ture research should be conducted for specific activ-
ities or accommodation types such as diffuse hotels.
Also, some other constructs should be considered for
inclusion in the model, like, for example, Destination
Image or Tourist Experience.
References
Albacete-Saez, C. A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., & Lloréns-
Montes, F. J. (2007). Service quality measurement in ru-
ral accommodation. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1),
45–65.
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., &
Ryu, K. (2018). An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equationmodeling (pls-sem) in hos-
pitality research. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514–538.
Almeida-Santana, A., &Moreno-Gil, S. (2018). Understand-
ing tourism loyalty: Horizontal vs. destination loyalty.
Tourism Management, 65, 245–255.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G.W. (1992). An empirical assessment
of the servqual scale. Journal of Business research,
24(3), 253–268.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction
and behavioural intentions. Annals of Tourism Research,
27(3), 785–804.
Bigne, J. E., Martinez, C., Miquel, M. J., & Andreu, L. (2003).
servqual reliability and validity in travel agencies.An-
nals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 258–262.
Chatzigeorgiou, C., & Simeli, I. (2017). Perception of ser-
vice quality in agrotourism accommodations: Impact on
guest loyalty and re-visit intentions. Journal of Tourism,
3(1), 33–41.
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and
evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions? Tourism
management, 28(4), 1115–1122.
Cheng, S. (2011). Comparisons of competing models be-
tween attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Inter-
national Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10),
149–166.
Choi, H., Ann, S., Lee, K.W., & Park, D. B. (2018).Measuring
service quality of rural accommodations. Sustainability,
10(2), 443.
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). servperf versus
servqual: Reconciling performance-based and per-
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 225
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
ceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service
quality. Journal of marketing, 58(1), 125–131.
Fotiadis, A., & Vassiliadis, C. (2010). Rural tourism service
quality in Greece. E-review of Tourism Research, 8(4),
69–84.
Grgić, I., Hadelan, L., Krznar, S., & Zrakić, M. (2017). Could
rural tourism revitalize rural areas in Croatia? Agroe-
conomia Croatica, 7(1), 98–108.
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its market-
ing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4),
36–44.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt,M. (2013).
Aprimer on partial least squares structural equationmod-
eling (pls-sem). Sage.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019).
When to use and how to report the results of pls-sem.
European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V.
G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation mod-
eling (pls-sem). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–
121.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use
of partial least squares path modeling in international
marketing. In R. Sinkovics & P. Ghauri (Eds.),New chal-
lenges to internationalmarketing (pp. 277–319). Emerald.
Hansen, K. V. (2014). Development of servqual and di-
neserv for measuring meal experiences in eating es-
tablishments. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 14(2), 116–134.
Hurst, J. L., Niehm, L. S., & Littrell, M. A. (2009). Retail ser-
vice dynamics in a rural tourism community.Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(5), 511–540.
Kastenholz, E., Carneiro, M. J., Marques, C. P., & Loureiro,
S. M. C. (2018). The dimensions of rural tourism experi-
ence impacts on arousal, memory, and satisfaction. Jour-
nal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(2), 189–201.
Katircioglu, S. T., Mehtap-Smadi, S., Kilinç, C., & Ünlücan,
D. (2012). Service quality and university students’ satis-
faction on the travel agencies: An empirical investigation
from Northern Cyprus. International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences, 4(3), 299–311.
Kim, A. K., & Brown, G. (2012). Understanding the relation-
ships between perceived travel experiences, overall satis-
faction, and destination loyalty. Anatolia, 23(3), 328–347.
Kim-Soon,N., Rahman,A., &Visvalingam, L. (2014). serv-
qual:Can it be used to differentiate guest’s perception of
service quality of 3 star from a 4 star hotel. International
Business Research, 7(7), 37–47.
Ladhari, R. (2009). A review of twenty years of servqual
research. International Journal of Quality and Service Sci-
ences, 1(2), 172–198.
Lewis, B. R., & Mitchell, V. W. (1990). Defining and mea-
suring the quality of customer service.Marketing Intelli-
gence & Planning, 8(6), 11–17.
Lin, L., Osman, Z., & Wang, S. (2018). Indirect effect of
trust on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in
Malaysian airline industry. Journal of Economics and
Business, 1(2), 134–142.
Loureiro, S. M. C. (2013). The effect of perceived benefits,
trust, quality, brand awareness/associations and brand
loyalty on internet banking brand equity. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 4(2), 139–158.
Loureiro, S. M. C., & González, F. J. M. (2008). The impor-
tance of quality, satisfaction, trust, and image in relation
to rural tourist loyalty. Journal of Travel & TourismMar-
keting, 25(2), 117–136.
Loureiro, S. M. C., & Kastenholz, E. (2011). Corporate rep-
utation, satisfaction, delight, and loyalty towards rural
lodging units in Portugal. International Journal of Hos-
pitality Management, 30(3), 575–583.
Marković, S., & Raspor, S. (2010). Measuring perceived ser-
vice quality using servqual: A case study of the Croa-
tian hotel industry.Management, 5(3), 195–209.
Marković, S. (2004). Measuring service quality in the Croat-
ian hotel industry: Amultivariate statistical analysis.Our
Economy, 50(1), 27–35.
Marković, S., & Raspor Janković, S. (2013). Exploring the re-
lationship between service quality and customer satis-
faction in Croatian hotel industry. Tourism and Hospi-
tality Management, 19(2), 149–164.
Marković, S., Raspor, S., & Šegarić, K. (2010). Does restau-
rant performance meet customers’ expectations? An as-
sessment of restaurant service quality using a modified
dineserv approach. Tourism and Hospitality Manage-
ment, 16(2), 181–195.
Nam, J. H., & Lee, T. J. (2011). Foreign travellers’ satisfaction
with traditional Korean restaurants. International Jour-
nal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 982–989.
Oh, H., & Kim, K. (2017). Customer satisfaction, service
quality, and customer value: Years 2000–2015. Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
29(1), 2–29.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of
marketing, 63(Special issue), 33–44.
Osman, Z., & Sentosa, I. (2013a). Influence of customer
satisfaction on service quality and trust relationship
in Malaysian rural tourism. Business and Management
Quarterly Review, 4(2), 12–25.
226 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Suzana Markovi and Jelena Kljai Šebrek Service Quality Measurement in Rural Tourism
Osman, Z., & Sentosa, I. (2013b). Mediating effect of cus-
tomer satisfaction on service quality and customer loy-
alty relationship in Malaysian rural tourism. Interna-
tional Journal of Economics Business and Management
Studies, 2(1), 25–37.
Ounsri, K., & Thawesaengskulthai, N. (2019). Hotel service
quality factors among different cultures. In 2019 ieee
6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Applications (iciea) (pp. 306–312). ieee.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1985). A con-
ceptual model of service quality and its implications for
future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
Peãa, A. I. P., Jamilena, D. M. F., & Molina, M. Á. R. (2012).
The perceived value of the rural tourism stay and its
effect on rural tourist behaviour. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 20(8), 1045–1065.
Rajaratnam, S. D., Nair, V., Pahlevan Sharif, S., & Munikr-
ishnan, U. T. (2015). Destination quality and tourists’
behavioural intentions: Rural tourist destinations in
Malaysia. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes,
7(5), 463–472.
Rajesh, R. (2018). Impact of service quality on customer sat-
isfaction of travel agency in Kerala. International Journal
of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering, 4(4),
96–101.
Rozkee, R. M., Jaafar, N., & Jalal, H. A. (2016). Regression
modelling analysis of the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction: A case of tourist agri-
cultural farm. International Journal of Modelling in Op-
erations Management, 6(1–2), 33–46.
Saneva,D., &Chortoseva, S. (2018). Service quality in restau-
rants: Customers’ expectation and customers’ percep-
tion. sar Journal, 1(2), 47–52.
Setó-Pamies, D. (2012). Customer loyalty to service provid-
ers: Examining the role of service quality, customer satis-
faction and trust. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 23(11–12), 1257–1271.
Shahin, A., & Janatyan, N. (2011). Estimation of customer
dissatisfaction based on service quality gaps by correla-
tion and regression analysis in a travel agency. Interna-
tional Journal of Business andManagement, 6(3), 99–108.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer
trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal
of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.
Su, L., & Fan, X. (2011, June). A study on the relationships
between service quality, satisfaction, trust and loyalty
among rural tourism. In Proceedings of the 8th Interna-
tional Conference on Service Systems and Service Man-
agement (icsssm) (pp. 1–6). ieee.
Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit in-
tention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141–1158.
Yieh, K., Chiao, Y. C., & Chiu, Y. K. (2007). Understanding
the antecedents to customer loyalty by applying struc-
tural equation modeling. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 18(3), 267–284.
Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the
economic worth of customers: What we know and what
we need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(1), 67–85.
Zeithaml, V. A. & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services marketing:
Integrating customer focus across the firm.McGraw Hill.
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 227