SavedAdd your journal

Journals / BİLTÜRK Ekonomi ve İlişkili Çalışmalar Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 4

Dimensions of Vehicle Quality: Scale Development Study

Bülent YILDIZ
Ertuğrul ÇAVDAR
Pages
500–522
Publication Date
2020-10-22
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The gap between vehicle quality importance level and current vehicle status scores was greatest in the dimension “high-endness,” followed by serviceability, reliability, comfort, price, key features, user-friendliness, perceived quality, and “aesthetics.”

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to develop a scale to evaluate vehicle quality (cars and light commercial vehicles).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample consisted of 561 automobile owners.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The gap between vehicle quality importance level and current vehicle status scores was greatest in the dimension “high-endness,” followed by serviceability, reliability, comfort, price, key features, user-friendliness, perceived quality, and “aesthetics.”
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Vehicle quality · Quality Dimensions · Quality

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a scale to evaluate vehicle quality (cars and light commercial vehicles). The study also compared owners’ assessment of the current status of their vehicles with the level of importance they assigned to the dimensions of vehicle quality. The sample consisted of 561 automobile owners. Data were collected using a questionnaire. Analysis revealed nine dimensions; reliability, user-friendliness, serviceability, performance, high-endness, aesthetics, perceived quality, comfort, and price. The gap between vehicle quality importance level and current vehicle status scores was greatest in the dimension “high-endness,” followed by serviceability, reliability, comfort, price, key features, user-friendliness, perceived quality, and “aesthetics.”

Özet

The aim of this study was to develop a scale to evaluate vehicle quality (cars and light commercial vehicles). The study also compared owners’ assessment of the current status of their vehicles with the level of importance they assigned to the dimensions of vehicle quality. The sample consisted of 561 automobile owners. Data were collected using a questionnaire. Analysis revealed nine dimensions; reliability, user-friendliness, serviceability, performance, high-endness, aesthetics, perceived quality, comfort, and price. The gap between vehicle quality importance level and current vehicle status scores was greatest in the dimension “high-endness,” followed by serviceability, reliability, comfort, price, key features, user-friendliness, perceived quality, and “aesthetics.”

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIZ, B., ÇAVDAR, E. (2020). Dimensions of Vehicle Quality: Scale Development Study. BİLTÜRK Ekonomi ve İlişkili Çalışmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 4, 500–522. https://ajindex.com/articles/78794

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Aksu G., Eser M.T. ve Güzeller C.O. (2017) Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli Uygulamaları. Detay Yayıncılık Anonim. (2002). Otomotiv Sanayi Sektörü. 4. İstanbul:
  2. İstanbul Sanayi Odası. Baishya, S., ve Kakati, M. (2019). Consumers’ Perception of Quality and Value Under Different Price Ranges and Price Positions Within a Product Line: A Study of the Indian Passenger Car Market. The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 18(1), 39-76.
  3. Bouman, M., ve Van der Wiele, T. (1992). Measuring Service Quality in the Car Service Industry: Building and Testing an Instrument. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 3(4), 4-16.
  4. Brucks, M., Zeithaml, A., ve Gillian, V. N. (2000). Price and Brand Name as Indicators of Quality Dimensions for Consumer Durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 359-374.
  5. Chapman, J., ve Wahlers, R. A. (1999, Summer). Revision and Emprical Test of the Extended Price-Perceived Quality Model. Journal of Marketing Theory And Practice, 53-63.
  6. Chen, Y. H., Chou, Y. L., Tsai, C. L., ve Chang, H. C. (2018). Evaluating Car Centre Service Quality with Modified Kano Model Based on the First-Time Buyer’s Age. Cogent Business & Management, 5, 1-11.
  7. Cho, W., Ih, J., Shın, S., ve Kim, J. (2011). Quality Evaluation of Car Wındow Motors Using Sound Quality Metrics. International Journal of Automotive Technology, 12(3), 443−450. Coelho, D. A., ve Dahlman, S. (2000).
  8. Evaluation of Methods, Approaches and Simulation Quality in the Experimental Evaluation of Car Seat Comfort and Functionality. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 3, (s. 253-256).
  9. Famiyeh, S., Kwarteng, A., ve Asante-Darko, D. (2018).
  10. Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in Automobile Maintenance Services- Evidence From a Developing Country. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 24(3), 262-279.
  11. Forslund, K., ve Söderberg, R. (2008). Optical Quality as a Product Attribute – A Descriptive Study from the Automotive Industry. DS 50: Proceedings of Nord Design Conference, 21-23 Ağustos, s. 79-88.
  12. Tallinn, Estonia. Fouto, N. M., ve Francisco, E. S. (2011). Valuatıon Of Qualıty Attrıbutes In The Prıce Of New Economy Cars. REGE - Revista de Gestão, 18(2), 245-258.
  13. Garvin, D. (1984). What does ''Product Quality'' Really Mean?. Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25-43.
  14. Gencer, Y. G., ve Akkucuk, U. (2017). Measuring Quality in Automobile Aftersales: AutoSERVQUAL Scale. Amfiteatru Economic Jo