Understanding consumer online shopping behaviour from the perspective of transaction costs

 
Table 4.7 Product Quality Concern Measurement Items 
PQC1. It is difficult to be assured that this product will perform as well as it is supposed to. 
PQC2. It is difficult to be assured that this product is reliable without trying and touching it. 
PQC3. I am worried that this product received cannot represent accurately by this online store’s 
website.
PQC4. I am worried that the performance of this product I purchased from this online store 
cannot live up to what is promised.
PQC5. I am worried that the quality of this online product cannot be as good as the one in the 
physical store. 

---

182
 
4.6.6 Site Design 
Site design was measured using an eight-item scale that asked the respondent to rate the 
online store’s visual appeal, ease of use, navigation, access speed, information sufficiency, 
information accuracy, information timeliness and overall transactional efficiency using a 
seven-point scale (1= ‘strongly disagree’ to 7= ‘strongly agree’). These items were drawn 
from Kim (2004). A high score was indicative of an excellent site design. Table 4.9 lists the 
items for measuring the site design. 
Table 4.8 Site Design Measurement Items 
DES1.This site is visually attractive.
DES2.This site is easy to use.
DES3.This site is easy to navigate.
DES4.This site quickly loads all the text and graphics.
DES5.This site provides me with sufficient information.
DES6.This site provides me with accurate information.
DES7.This site provides me with up-to-date information.
DES8.This site is quick and easy to complete a transaction. 
 
 
4.6.7. E-Service Quality 
E-service quality was assessed by respondents’ overall impression of the relative 
inferiority/superiority of the online store/vendor and its services. Because service quality is 
an elusive and broad concept (Ladhari 2010), existing research lacks a universal viewpoint 
about its components. One viewpoint deems service quality to be a unidimensional concept 
and measures it with five items (Strahilevitz 1999). However, most research argues that 
service quality is a concept composed of multiple dimensions. Lee and Lin (2005) noted that 
the e-service quality includes five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, personalization, 
website design and trust. Swaid and Wigand (2009) suggested e-service quality includes six 

---

183
dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, personalization, information quality, website usability 
and assurance. Ribbink et al. (2004) identified five dimensions of e-service quality: 
responsiveness, personalization, ease of use, assurance and e-scape. In addition, other 
components such as competence, empathy (Li
 et al.
2002), system availability, fulfilment 
(Parasuraman
 et al.
2005), efficiency and privacy (Parasuraman
 et al.
2005) are also found to 
be components of e-service quality.
Among the components of e-service quality, reliability, responsiveness and personalization 
are three of the most-often used factors (Rindfleisch and Heide 1997, Ribbink
 et al.
2004, 
Kassim and Abdullah 2010, Swaid and Wigand 2012). Thus, this study adopted the three 
components of reliability, responsiveness and personalization as the dimensions of e-service 
quality. Reliability refers to online vendors’ ability to perform the promised service 
dependably and accurately. Responsiveness is defined as the online vendor’s ability and 
willingness to provide prompt service when customers have questions/problems. 
Personalization reflects the degree to which service is tailored to meet the needs of the 
customers.
Specifically, reliability was measured by five items assessing the extent to which the online 
store fulfils the promise made. Items were adapted from Lee and Lin (2005) and Swaid and 
Wigand (2009). Responsiveness was measured using four items adapted from Lee and Lin 
(2005), Ribbink et al (2004), and Swaid and Wigand (2009). The respondents rated the online 
store’s ability and willingness to provide prompt service when they have questions/ problems. 
Personalization was measured by three items adapted from Lee and Lin (2005), Ribbink et al. 
(2004), and Swaid and Wigand (2009). The respondents were asked to indicate the 
personalized service provided by the online store. All items in Table 4.9 were rated on a 

---

184
seven-point scale with ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’ anchors. A high score was 
indicative of an excellent of e-service quality.