Mixed-methods approach validates the PILQUAL scale for service quality in pilgrimage tourism, highlighting its six dimensions.
Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated that pilgrimage tourism has a major impact on global tourism. However, little attention has been paid to developing a scale that assesses service quality at pilgrimage sites. This study aims to construct and validate a comprehensive scale capable of effectively evaluating the quality of services provided across diverse pilgrimage sites. Design/methodology/approach The study employed a mixed-methods approach, adapting the methods used by Kim et al. (2021) and Singh and Singh (2019) in scale development. An empirical scale development procedure was adopted, incorporating literature reviews, expert opinions and pilot testing. Data were collected through structured questionnaires from domestic tourists visiting seven selected pilgrimage sites in North India. Non-probability sampling techniques were utilized, focusing on adult tourists staying for more than one day. Scale refinement was conducted using both EFA and CFA. Findings The proposed scale demonstrated content, discriminant, composite and convergent validity. The results identified six dimensions of service quality. The PILQUAL scale emerged as a valid and reliable instrument, supported by the rigorous methodology applied during its development and validation. Research limitations/implications This study provides a validated scale for assessing service quality at pilgrimage sites, offering a practical tool for policymakers, religious authorities and tourism planners to enhance the pilgrim experience. Originality/value This study contributes to the existing literature on service quality by introducing a context-specific, empirically validated assessment scale tailored for pilgrimage tourism, offering a practical framework for policymakers and site managers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: