Cross-sectional survey reveals robust psychometric performance of an 8-item retail service quality scale in proximity retail shoppers, indicating strong predictive validity for customer loyalty.
Purpose This study adapts, validates and assesses the dimensionality of the Retail Service Quality Scale (RSQS) within the context of a high-frequency, low-involvement European proximity retail chain. Design/methodology/approach An adapted 18-item RSQS questionnaire was completed by 340 customers; after screening, 311 valid responses were retained. Alternative CFA specifications were compared, including correlated first-order and bifactor models. Bifactor dimensionality indices were computed to assess whether the scale was primarily driven by a general factor. An 8-item short-form scale (RSQS-SF-8I) was developed through a bifactor-guided procedure and validated by CFA. Nomological validity was examined through the scale's association with the loyalty construct. Findings The bifactor results indicate that the scale is predominantly driven by a general factor, while retaining residual specificity, particularly in the Personal Interaction dimension. RSQS-SF-8I showed a very good fit and high reliability. Moreover, both the general factor of the bifactor model and the latent RSQS-SF-8I factor were strongly associated with the loyalty construct. Finally, the procedure employed for developing the short-form scale offers a replicable path for constructing short-form scales with strong psychometric properties. Originality/value This study contributes to the retail service quality literature by validating an RSQS-based framework for a European high-frequency proximity retail context and by developing a psychometrically robust short-form scale. In addition, it extends prior research by applying a bifactor specification and a formal dimensionality assessment to the analysis of retail service quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Toni Lupo (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: