Module 3 - Case PERFORM THE RESEARCH Case Assignment The Situation It is argued that perceptions of service quality vary across cultural groups, as defined by each culture's position on Hofstede's dimensions. The relationship is explicitly mapped between service quality perceptions and cultural dimension positions and the implications drawn for international service market segmentation. The hypotheses constituting their theoretical analysis are also tested. It is shown that the importance of SERVQUAL dimensions is correlated with Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Correlation coefficients are also used to compute a Cultural Service Quality Index that could be used to segment international service markets and allocate resources across segments. Case Resource Furrer, Olivier; Shaw-Ching, Ben; & Sudharshan (2000). The Relationships between Culture and Service Quality Perceptions: Basis for Cross-Cultural Market Segmentation and Resource Allocation.  Journal of Service Research,  2:4:(May):355-72. Available November 30, 2012 via EBSCO Upload your 4-6 page paper by the module deadline. Assignment Expectations In preparing CASE3, that is, in preparing your analysis of Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000), ensure that you demonstrate your learning of the marketing research concepts and frameworks for analysis outlined as follows: Evaluate a Questionnaire Describe the tradeoffs that need to be made between research design, cost, project implementability, and expected results Problem ? What is the driving force or main purpose behind this article? Is the problem important (yes or no)? Why was this article written? Defend your positions on all of these issues. Central hypothesis ? What is the main proposition that the author is trying to express/explore? Is your (the central) hypothesis best classified as descriptive, explanatory, or predictive/causal? Does the main hypothesis call for a measure of association or a measure of difference between two variables? What is the theoretical basis of your (the central) hypothesis? Does this hypothesis logically flow from and relate to the theorized constructs and relationships presented as the basis for the research or was it picked out of thin air? Defend your positions on all of these issues. Research design ? Is the study and experiment, a quasi-experiment, or a correlation? Defend your position on this issue Construct Validity ? In your (the central) hypothesis, look for a description of how the cause (that is, the independent (or predictor variable(s)) and the effect (that is, the dependent (or criterion variable(s)) are being measured. Face Validity: Do the measures measure what they are supposed to measure? Internal reliability: Are the measures reliable? What level of measurement is applied to these variables (for example, for each, identify if they are nominal, ordinal, scalar). What is the unit of analysis (for example, is it individual, group, corporate, societal)? Does the unit of analysis match bet.

1. Module 3 - Case
PERFORM THE RESEARCH
Case Assignment
The Situation
It is argued that perceptions of service quality vary across
cultural groups, as defined by each culture's position on
Hofstede's dimensions. The relationship is explicitly mapped
between service quality perceptions and cultural dimension
positions and the implications drawn for international service
market segmentation. The hypotheses constituting their
theoretical analysis are also tested. It is shown that the
importance of SERVQUAL dimensions is correlated with
Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Correlation coefficients are also
used to compute a Cultural Service Quality Index that could be
used to segment international service markets and allocate
resources across segments.
Case Resource
Furrer, Olivier; Shaw-Ching, Ben; & Sudharshan (2000). The
Relationships between Culture and Service Quality Perceptions:
Basis for Cross-Cultural Market Segmentation and Resource
Allocation.
Journal of Service Research,
2:4:(May):355-72. Available November 30, 2012 via EBSCO
Upload your 4-6 page paper by the module deadline.
Assignment Expectations
In preparing CASE3, that is, in preparing your analysis of
Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000), ensure that you
demonstrate your learning of the marketing research concepts
and frameworks for analysis outlined as follows:
Evaluate a Questionnaire
Describe the tradeoffs that need to be made between research
design, cost, project implementability, and expected results
Problem
? What is the driving force or main purpose behind this article?
Is the problem important (yes or no)? Why was this article

2. written? Defend your positions on all of these issues.
Central hypothesis
? What is the main proposition that the author is trying to
express/explore? Is your (the central) hypothesis best classified
as descriptive, explanatory, or predictive/causal? Does the main
hypothesis call for a measure of association or a measure of
difference between two variables? What is the theoretical basis
of your (the central) hypothesis? Does this hypothesis logically
flow from and relate to the theorized constructs and
relationships presented as the basis for the research or was it
picked out of thin air? Defend your positions on all of these
issues.
Research design
? Is the study and experiment, a quasi-experiment, or a
correlation? Defend your position on this issue
Construct Validity
? In your (the central) hypothesis, look for a description of how
the cause (that is, the independent (or predictor variable(s)) and
the effect (that is, the dependent (or criterion variable(s)) are
being measured. Face Validity: Do the measures measure what
they are supposed to measure? Internal reliability: Are the
measures reliable? What level of measurement is applied to
these variables (for example, for each, identify if they are
nominal, ordinal, scalar). What is the unit of analysis (for
example, is it individual, group, corporate, societal)? Does the
unit of analysis match between variables? Defend your positions
on all of these issues.
External Validity
? Was a sample drawn? If so, how was it drawn? Was it a large,
randomly drawn sample? Did it consist of multiple cases? Are
the conclusions drawn from one specific instance? Or, was
sampling not done, at all? Defend your positions on all of these
issues.
Internal Validity
? How was the data collected? Was the data collection
procedure unacceptable, acceptable, or superior - or - poor,

3. average, or outstanding? Defend your position and offer
suggestions for how data collection procedure(s) might be
improved (if improvement is needed). In particular, how could
the questionnaire have been improved? Defend your positions
on all of these issues.
Conclusion Validity (Or Statistical Conclusion Validity)
? Was there any statistical or qualitative analysis to support
your (the central) hypothesis? Identify the descriptive and
analytic statistics used in the study. Did the descriptive
statistics measure and did the analytic statistics test for
differences or relationships? Were the statistical methods used
in the study appropriate? Defend your positions on all of these
issues.
Note that, in terms of internal validity, as part and parcel of the
evaluation, you are to revise Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan
(2000) questionnaire. Click on Hofstede.doc to access the
version of Hofstede’s basic questionnaire on cultural
dimensions, used in Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000).
The questionnaire should be fairly easy to correct. There are
problems with almost all of the questions in this survey. There
are so many problems with the questionnaire that you will be
hard-pressed to find an acceptable item.
In revising the questionnaire, explain what you see as
problematical and what changes you would recommend to
improve its quality and ability to gather good data. DO NOT
state that an item needs to be changed; show both the original
version of the item and your revised version of that item.
In terms of your revisions, explain why you made the revisions
you are making.
DO NOT state that an item needs to be changed. Instead, revise
the item. Using a table similar to the Table 3.1, show both the
original version of the item and your revised version of that
item. Then explain why you made the change you made. That is
comment on the questions (e.g. original question used 'and' or
'or;' thereby collapsing two questions into a single question.)
To insure that you are concise in your explanation on how the

4. questionnaire by Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan (2000) can
be improved, you should Copy/Paste Table 3.1, below, into
CASE3 when you describe the internal validity of the
questionnaire used by Furrer, Shaw-Ching, & Sudharshan
(2000).
Table 3.1: Evaluation of the Hofstede Questionnaire
Original Question
Revised Question(s)
Reason for the Revision
All items in the original questionnaire use a 6-point Likert
Scale varying from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Inequalities among people are both expected and desired.
1(a). To what degree are inequalities expected in your society?
(Never...Frequently)
1(b). To what degree are inequalities desired in your society?
(Not desired…Very Desired)
Separating the question into two questions simplifies confusion
with the original item due to having ‘and’ in the scale. ‘And’
means that the researcher does not
know
the question answered. Using a scale anchored at one end is
easier to use that the Likert scale centered at neither agree nor
disagree.
Less powerful people should be dependent on the more
power-ful.
Inequalities among people should be minimized. (R)
There should be, and there are to some extent,

5. interdependencies between less and more powerful people. (R)
Everyone grows up to look after himself or herself and his or
her immediate family only.
People are identified independently of the groups they belong
to.
Other members, in exchange for loyalty, should protect an
extended family member (R)
People are identified by their position in the social networks to
which they belong. (R)
Money and material things are important.
Men are supposed to be assertive, ambitious, and tough.
The dominant values in society are caring for others and
preservation. (R)

6. Both men and
women are allowed to be tender and concerned with
relationships. (R)
High stress and subjective feeling of anxiety are frequent among
people.
Fear of ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar risks is normal.
Uncertainty is a normal feature of life, and each day is accepted
as it comes. (R)
Emotions should not be shown. (R)
Willingness to subordinate oneself for a purpose is normal.
People should be perseverant toward long-term results.
Traditions should be respected. (R)

7. Social obligations should be respected regardless of cost.
(R)
In addition to revising the questionnaire, comment on the
questionnaire (e.g., ease of use, layout and format, and user-
friendliness).
Note that this assignment does NOT require you to prepare a
detailed essay. Instead use section headings for each of the
topics you address in your paper followed by a discussion of
that topic.