外文翻譯--私人銀行服務(wù)質(zhì)量研究（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　2700單詞，1.5萬英文字符，4200漢字</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Horn C, Rudolf M. Service quality in the private banking business[J]. Financial Markets & Portfolio Management, 2011, 25(2):173-195.</p><p>&l

2、t;b>　　原文 </b></p><p>　　Service quality in the private banking business</p><p>　　Carsten Horn · Markus Rudolf</p><p>　　1 Introduction </p><p>　　Service qua

3、lity is the core concept for ensuring a successful supply of services in general. This holds in particular for the private banking sector, which is a pure service industry (Chase 1981) in which the service is perfor

4、med almost entirely in the presence of the customer. Private banking involves intangible goods requiring the participation of the customer in the production process (Gronroos 1984). In such an environment, the

5、suppliers of private banking services aim to optimize the servic</p><p>　　Schlesinger and Heskett (1991) and Heskett et al. (1997) establish linkages between service quality, the value of the service, c

6、ustomer satisfaction, customer loyalty and financial results. Service quality can be defined as the customer’s satisfaction with the actual performance of the service. This is often modeled using the disconfirm

7、ation paradigm, in which service quality is evaluated as a difference between customers’ expectations about a service and the actual performance of the service (G</p><p>　　Rust et al. (1995), Pont and M

8、cQuilken (2005), van Birgelen et al. (2006) and Manrai and Manrai (2007) find that customer satisfaction results in favorable behavioral intentions leading to customer loyalty. The linkages between customer sat

9、isfaction and service quality are also empirically confirmed by Loveman (1998) and partly also by Silvestro and Cross (2000). Direct impacts of customer satisfaction on financial results are found by van der Wiele e

10、t al. (2002) and Meyer Goldstein (2003), whil</p><p>　　In addition to the concepts of service quality and customer satisfaction, service value is also analyzed in the literature. According to Rust

11、and Oliver (1994), the value of a service can be defined as the difference between the positive utility (benefits) a customer receives from consuming the service and the negative utility (price) he has to pay. Other

12、 authors such as Zeithaml (1988), Cronin et al. (1997) and Chen et al. (1994) also analyze the service value, but define the negative utility m</p><p>　　Consequently, concentrating on service quali

13、ty is fruitful because it enhances the level of customer satisfaction and loyalty and is ultimately the most important factor driving the financial performance of a private banking services provider—whether measured by a

14、ssets under management or by profitability. This subject has received attention from many researchers, notably Gr nroos (1984), Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), Rust and Oliver (1994) and Brady and Cronin (2001

15、), who develop and analyze</p><p>　　There are only few sources addressing the private banking industry. Among them are Hens and Bachmann (2008) and Rudolf and Baedorf (2011) who address Private Banking

16、as an own discipline in a very fundamental way. Behavioral finance to explain private banking is also used by Pompian (2006). More specifically, Burgstaller and Cocca (2011) compare the private banking efficien

17、cy in Switzerland and Liechtenstein. A discussion of the book of Pompian (2006) can be found in Ising (2007), and the book o</p><p>　　Private banking is an integrated, individual- and needs-oriente

18、d financial and risk planning service for HNWIs who require individualized advice. The minimum investment requirement is usually around 250,000 Euro. The client-provider relationship is generally long-term and

19、is based on trust and discretion. </p><p>　　The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical foundations for the analysis conducted in the paper. Section 3 introduces the

20、 data for the empirical study. Section 4 shows the results and Sect. 5 discusses these results. Section 6summarizes the paper. </p><p><b>　　2 Model </b></p><p>　　

21、Three service quality models have received particular research attention: </p><p>　　●The “Nordic Model” advocated by Gronroos (1994) and Brady and Cronin (2001). </p><p>　　●The SERVQUAL app

22、roach of Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) and the SERV-PERF approach of Cronin and Taylor (1992). The SERVQUAL model is criticized by various authors, among them Asubonteng et al. (1996) or Cronin and Taylo

23、r (1992), for the disconfirmation paradigm, which was defined above. Consequently, in the SERVPERF model, service quality is measured on an absolute scale instead of as a difference between expectations and performa

24、nce. In a direct comparison to SERVQUAL, both Cronin and Taylor</p><p>　　●The hierarchical, multidimensional model of Brady and Cronin (2001) based on the work of Rust and Oliver (1994). Rust and O

25、liver (1994) present a three-dimensional model which is based on the Gronroos (1984) model plus one additional dimension describing the environment in which the service is delivered. </p><p>　　We will p

26、roceed according to Brady and Cronin (2001) and Fassnacht and K se (2006) and develop a three-dimensional model of service quality in private banking. The three main dimensions are: (i) service environment quality,

27、(ii) interaction quality, and (iii) service product quality. Various sub-dimensions will be examined in greater detail below. The sub-dimensions will be developed based on literature as well as on open qualitat

28、ive interviews with 13 relationship managers of three different pr</p><p>　　The first dimension of service quality we consider is service environment. This dimension and its sub-dimensions are covered i

29、n many literature sources, among them Parasuraman et al. (1988), Bitner (1990, 1992), Bahia and Nantel (2000), Brady and Cronin (2001), and Zeithaml and Bitner (2003). Security has been identified as a sub-dime

30、nsion by Parasuraman et al. (1985), Johnston (1995) and Bahia and Nantel (2000). Financial stability is included as a sub-dimension of the service environment by Le</p><p>　　The second dimension is

31、 the interaction quality, which is described in Gronroos (1984). Brady and Cronin (2001) identify attitude, behavior, and expertise as sub-dimensions of interaction quality. The remaining SERVQUAL dimensions of

32、 Para-suraman et al.(1988)—reliability, responsiveness assurance, and empathy—would also mostly fall under the interaction quality dimension. Lepak (1998), based on a banking industry study, also includes the dimens

33、ions friendliness, professionalism, and experience o</p><p>　　Dimension three is the service product quality as proposed by Gronroos (1984). Brady and Cronin (2001) identify the sub-dimensions tangibles

34、, waiting time, valence, and social factors. In addition, interviews with relationship managers reveal the clients’ assets to be the most important sub-dimension, followed by the breadth of the product and finally t

35、he service range of the service provider. The quality of reporting was also mentioned (see also Viebahn 2005). From these findings, we add three </p><p>　　3 Methodology and data description </p&

36、gt;<p>　　We designed a questionnaire inspired by Churchill (1979), Gerbing and Anderson (1988), and Churchill and Iacobucci (2005). The questionnaire consisted of 137 questions subdivided into sections, as sh

37、own in Table 1. All items of the measurement model are reflective items, mirroring the dimension instead of forming it. All items of the latent variables are furthermore examined thoroughly with the criteria se

38、t of Jarvis et al. (2003) in order to prevent a misspecification of formative and reflectiv</p><p>　　The questionnaire is addressed to client relationship managers and not to private banking clients, wh

39、ich is in accordance with the literature about key informants as reported e.g. in Phillips (1981) and Kumar et al. (1993). This allows us to generate sample data which is very diverse in terms of the compa

40、nies offering private banking services. There is only one comparable study in the field of private banking provided by Lassar et al. (2000), which is limited to client data from one single bank.</p><

41、p>　　The questionnaire was addressed to client relationship managers and distributed to 502 private banking service providers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein either by phone, email, or ma

42、il. In each case, the head of the private banking department was contacted. All companies furthermore received an individualized and anonymous benchmark report in order to provide an incentive for honest answer

43、s and, hence, to prevent positive response biases. A screening of the data se</p><p>　　4 Results </p><p>　　4.1 Model evaluation </p><p>　　The evaluation of the measurement mode

44、l with SmartPLS 2.0 and SPSS 15.0 shows a generally good fit of the items and their respective dimensions—with two exceptions. The service environment dimension generated only three sub-dimensions. A closer ana

45、lysis shows that the items of the proposed sub-dimensions ambient conditions and corporate identity load on only one single dimension, which will be called the outer appearance. For the sub-dimensions of the outcome

46、 quality dimensions, the items of the</p><p>　　4.2 Model comparison </p><p>　　In a comparison between the proposed model and the two alternative models based on Gronroos (1984) and the model wit

47、h direct effects, the proposed model achieves superior results.Table 7 summarizes the results. It can be seen that the Gronroos (1984) model also has an adequate Rof 49%, which is still lower than the R2 of the prop

48、osed model (57%). Furthermore, the R2 of the interaction quality dimension of 49% is only slightly higher than in our proposed model, so that the four additional dimensi</p><p>　　The same is true for th

49、e model with direct effects. Here, the R2 of 50% can be considered adequate, but it is also lower than in the proposed model, and a further analysis of the path weights shows that only four of the 12 proposed relati

50、onships are significant. Therefore, we can conclude that the model based on Rust and Oliver (1994) and Brady and Cronin (2001) produces the best results and can best explain service quality in private banking. This

51、result is in line with the finding that service</p><p>　　4.3 Group analysis </p><p>　　After the analysis of the proposed structural model, various subgroups of the data set are analyzed. In

52、 order to analyze group differences, the data set is split into two groups, each comprising approximately half of the sample. The first analysis examines differences between companies within Germany and outside Germ

53、any (Austria, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein). Luxembourg is excluded from this sample. Whether Luxembourg is included or not has only a very small impact, however; the results are h</p><p><b&g

54、t;　　譯文 </b></p><p>　　私人銀行服務(wù)質(zhì)量研究</p><p>　　Carsten Horn · Markus Rudolf</p><p><b>　　引言 </b></p><p>　　服務(wù)質(zhì)量是服務(wù)的核心概念，它是確保組織成功的一個(gè)必備要素。對(duì)于私人銀行來說，尤其如此。薩斯認(rèn)

55、為私人銀行是一個(gè)純粹的服務(wù)行業(yè)組織，幾乎完全是為客戶提供服務(wù)的組織。私人銀行業(yè)務(wù)涉及到無形商品，這需要客戶的參與 。在這種環(huán)境下，私人銀行的目標(biāo)是不不斷地改善服務(wù)質(zhì)量，以達(dá)到一個(gè)更高的服務(wù)水平。有很多關(guān)于提高服務(wù)質(zhì)量的相關(guān)研究文獻(xiàn)結(jié)果，比如：魯斯特等人 1995 年的研究，赫斯科特 1997 年的研究，施萊辛格 1991 和哈曼 2000 年的研究。 </p><p>　　施萊辛格和赫斯克特認(rèn)為，服務(wù)質(zhì)量、服務(wù)的

56、價(jià)值、客戶滿意度、客戶忠誠度和財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績都是緊密聯(lián)系在一起的。服務(wù)質(zhì)量可以被定義為顧客對(duì)銀行所提供服務(wù)的滿意程度。這通常是通過對(duì)服務(wù)質(zhì)量進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)，可以反映出一個(gè)客戶對(duì)服務(wù)的預(yù)期和實(shí)際的感受之間的差異。帕拉休拉曼等人 1988 年，比特內(nèi) 1990 年，以及博爾頓和德魯 1991年的研究中，都認(rèn)為服務(wù)質(zhì)量是構(gòu)建客戶滿意度的基礎(chǔ)，這也證實(shí)了克羅寧和泰勒(1992 年)的實(shí)證研究。魯斯特等人 1995 年，普安特和麥克坎恩 2005

57、年，范和伯格勒等人 2006 年，以及馬瑞 2007 年的研究，認(rèn)為客戶滿意度的直接結(jié)果就是可以導(dǎo)致顧客忠誠度。顧客滿意度與服務(wù)質(zhì)量之間的聯(lián)系也經(jīng)證實(shí)了洛夫曼 1998 年和希爾韋斯特2000 年的研究結(jié)果?？蛻魸M意度也會(huì)直接影響到私人銀行的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績，這一結(jié)果由范德在 2002 年和邁耶戈?duì)柎奶乖?2003 年所發(fā)現(xiàn)，而 哈姆爾等人在 1996 年，洛夫曼在 1998 年以及哈洛威爾和施萊辛格于2000 年只看到客戶滿意與顧客忠誠度之間

58、的一個(gè)間接關(guān)系，而希爾韋斯特和格拉德發(fā)現(xiàn)兩者之間只有很弱的直接關(guān)系。 </p><p>　　除了服務(wù)質(zhì)量和客戶滿意度的概念，關(guān)于服務(wù)價(jià)值也有不少的研究文獻(xiàn)。根據(jù)魯斯特和奧利弗 1994 年的研究，服務(wù)價(jià)值可以定義為一個(gè)客戶消費(fèi)中獲得的服務(wù)質(zhì)量的積極效用(收益的和負(fù)面效用(價(jià)格) 之間的區(qū)別。其他學(xué)者，比如哈爾曼，克羅寧等分析了服務(wù)價(jià)值,對(duì)服務(wù)價(jià)值進(jìn)行了定義。雖然這個(gè)定義表明，服務(wù)質(zhì)量也是影響服務(wù)價(jià)值的主要因素(陳

59、等人，1994;克羅寧等人，1997;艾倫和薩法，2001；克羅寧等人 2000)，他們都分析了影響服務(wù)價(jià)值和服務(wù)價(jià)值的人際關(guān)系因素。 </p><p>　　因此，專注于私人銀行的客戶服務(wù)質(zhì)量水平是很富有成效的，因?yàn)樗梢栽鰪?qiáng)私人銀行的客戶滿意度和忠誠度，最終也是推動(dòng)私人銀行服務(wù)的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績發(fā)展的最重要的一個(gè)因素。私人銀行基金管理下的資產(chǎn)或盈利能力，這個(gè)問題已經(jīng)得到了許多研究人員的關(guān)注，尤其是格魯諾斯(1984)和

60、帕拉休拉曼等人(1985、1988)，魯斯特和奧利弗(1994)，以及布蘭迪和克羅寧(2001)，他們都對(duì)分析服務(wù)質(zhì)量，開發(fā)了不同的分析模型。 </p><p>　　目前，研究私人銀行業(yè)的文獻(xiàn)還不多。其中有亨斯和巴赫曼(2008)，魯?shù)婪蚝桶偷婪?2011)。珀姆用行為金融學(xué)來解釋私人銀行的相關(guān)理論。還有博格斯塔勒和庫卡(2011)，他們比較了瑞士和列支敦士登兩國的私人銀行的服務(wù)效率。私人銀行與其他性質(zhì)的銀行相比

61、，誰更加考慮客戶，最適應(yīng)客戶的需求(蒂姆斯 2002)。高資產(chǎn)值客戶的資產(chǎn)邊界通常介于 250000 美元和 1000000 美元。我們將私人銀行的定義分析如下: </p><p>　　私人銀行業(yè)務(wù)是一個(gè)集成的、為個(gè)體客戶和為高資產(chǎn)人士所提供的個(gè)性化服務(wù)。私人銀行的投資門檻通常是 250000 歐元左右?？蛻絷P(guān)系通常是基于私人銀行和客戶之間的信任。 </p><p>　　本文的結(jié)構(gòu)如下：第

62、二節(jié)介紹了本文的理論基礎(chǔ)；第三節(jié)介紹了實(shí)證研究；第四節(jié)則闡述了研究結(jié)果；第五節(jié)討論了這些結(jié)果；第六節(jié)是總結(jié)。 </p><p><b>　　2 模型 </b></p><p>　　對(duì)三種服務(wù)質(zhì)量模型進(jìn)行了特定的關(guān)注: </p><p>　　格魯諾斯 (1994)，布蘭迪和克羅寧(2001) 的“北歐模型”。 </p><p&

63、gt;　　帕拉修拉曼等(1985，1988)的服務(wù)質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)法，克羅寧和泰勒(1992)的服務(wù)績效模型。服務(wù)質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)模型并不能得到所有學(xué)者的認(rèn)可，其中，就有阿蘇波藤等人(1996)，克羅寧和泰勒(1992)等人。因此，在服務(wù)質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)模型中,服務(wù)質(zhì)量只是一個(gè)衡量的指標(biāo)，而不是作為客戶期望和銀行業(yè)績的影響因素。 </p><p>　　布雷迪和克羅寧在 2001 年，基于魯斯特和奧利弗(1994 年的研究，提出了層次多維

64、模型。魯斯特和奧利弗在 1994 年則提出一個(gè)三維模型，該模型是基于的是格魯諾斯 1984 年提出的分析模型。 </p><p>　　我們將繼續(xù)根據(jù)布雷迪和克羅寧(2001)和費(fèi)思南特和凱斯(2006)的研究，開發(fā)一個(gè)私人銀行業(yè)務(wù)服務(wù)質(zhì)量的三維模型。這一模型有三 個(gè)主要的維度:(1) 服務(wù)環(huán)境質(zhì)量；(2)服務(wù)提供的質(zhì)量；(3)服務(wù)的產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量。各種子維度，我們將在下面進(jìn)行一個(gè)更詳細(xì)的闡述。本文基于前人的文獻(xiàn)以及對(duì)三

65、種不同私人銀行的 13 位客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理進(jìn)行了采訪。 </p><p>　　我們考慮的關(guān)于服務(wù)質(zhì)量的第一個(gè)維度，是服務(wù)環(huán)境。這一維度及其子維度已經(jīng)有很多文獻(xiàn)對(duì)他們進(jìn)行了相關(guān)的研究，其中就有帕拉修拉曼等(1988)，比特勒 2003，巴伊亞和蘭特(2000),布蘭迪和克羅寧(2001)，以及哈默，比特勒(2003)，約翰斯頓(1995)等。采訪客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理就是為了確認(rèn)這些子維度，并分析了企業(yè)形象、其環(huán)境條件及其國際影

66、響力?？傊?，這使我們能夠得出這樣的結(jié)論:私人銀行服務(wù)環(huán)境包括四個(gè)字維度:環(huán)境條件；私人銀行；地理環(huán)境和銀行形象。 </p><p>　　第二個(gè)維度是服務(wù)質(zhì)量。布雷迪和克羅寧(2001)確定了服務(wù)質(zhì)量子維度的相關(guān)于行為和專業(yè)知識(shí)等。而服務(wù)質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)等也大多屬于服務(wù)質(zhì)量維度。里帕可(1998)，基于銀行業(yè)的一項(xiàng)研究中，他認(rèn)為私人銀行服務(wù)質(zhì)量還包括客戶友好以及客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理的專業(yè)性經(jīng)驗(yàn)。鈞和采等人還分析了客戶、合作、持續(xù)改

67、進(jìn)服務(wù)質(zhì)量?；诳蛻絷P(guān)系經(jīng)理的采訪進(jìn)行的這項(xiàng)研究中,我們添加了額外的私人銀行業(yè)服務(wù)質(zhì)量的子維度。除了工作滿意度和員工培訓(xùn), 其他因素也被認(rèn)為是 很重要的，比如客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理，經(jīng)理和員工在金融業(yè)務(wù)方面的能力等?？蛻絷P(guān)系經(jīng)理的重要性，還強(qiáng)調(diào)了員工的情感能力、客戶單獨(dú)處理的投資過程方式和投資建議的質(zhì)量等?？傊?前人的研究文獻(xiàn)和我們對(duì)客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理的訪談，可以使我們定義私人銀行服務(wù)質(zhì)量的五個(gè)子維度： 客戶關(guān)系的管理連續(xù)性、工作滿意度、員工的工作能力

68、和情感能力以及投資建議的質(zhì)量。 </p><p>　　服務(wù)質(zhì)量的第三個(gè)維度是由格魯諾斯于 1984 年提出來的。布蘭迪和克羅寧(2001)確定了它的子維度：有形資產(chǎn)、等待時(shí)間、價(jià)值和社會(huì)因素。此外，通過對(duì)客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理的采訪，客戶的有形資產(chǎn)這一子維度是最重要的，次而是產(chǎn)品的廣度，以及私人銀行的服務(wù)范圍。從這些研究文獻(xiàn)，以及基于實(shí)證調(diào)查，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，可以添加三個(gè)子維度：投資的績效、產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)范圍以及質(zhì)量報(bào)告。 <

69、/p><p>　　3 研究方法和數(shù)據(jù)描述 </p><p>　　我們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)了一份調(diào)查問卷用于本文的研究，靈感來自于丘吉爾1979 年、安德森(1988)以及丘吉爾和雅克布奇 2005 年的研究。調(diào)查問卷包括 137 個(gè)問題。所有項(xiàng)目都是反映的潛在變量，而且檢查了指標(biāo)，賈維斯等人(2003)認(rèn)為要防止錯(cuò)誤的指標(biāo)及數(shù)據(jù)，在服務(wù)質(zhì)量模型中，出現(xiàn)錯(cuò)誤來源是很常見的(賈維斯等人，2003 年)。此外，還有

70、一些項(xiàng)目是純粹的財(cái)政環(huán)境績效和克羅寧和泰勒(1992)提出的李克特量表。調(diào)查獲得的內(nèi)容是很有效的，這是可以保證的，因?yàn)槲覀冏稍兞似邆€(gè)研究人員和三個(gè)私人銀行部門的從業(yè)人員。通過互相溝通，我們獲得了可靠地?cái)?shù)據(jù)，達(dá)成了共識(shí)。 </p><p>　　調(diào)查問卷是寄給客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理而不是私人銀行客戶的，這與菲利普斯(1981)和庫馬爾(1993) 關(guān)鍵信息提供者相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)一致。這使我們能夠按照公司提供的多樣化的私人銀行服務(wù)獲取

71、樣本數(shù)據(jù)。研究私人銀行領(lǐng)域的學(xué)者只有拉沙(2000)一人，這些客戶數(shù)據(jù)僅僅局限于 從一個(gè)單個(gè)銀行中獲得。我們的調(diào)查問卷使我們獲得了私人銀行業(yè)務(wù)供應(yīng)商的全方位信息，從而比較其與私人銀行業(yè)務(wù)提供者的績效。另一方面，客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理的觀點(diǎn)是有價(jià)值的，原因不僅在于他們與客戶有著密切的聯(lián)系,還在于他們?cè)诳蛻舴答佒腥找娣e累的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。因?yàn)檎{(diào)查問卷都是匿名的，我們還可以期待從客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理手上獲取公正和可靠的答案。 </p><p>　

72、　調(diào)查問卷的郵寄對(duì)象是客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理，以及通過電話、電子郵件或郵寄給德國、奧地利、瑞士、盧森堡和列支敦士登的 502 家私人銀行服務(wù)提供商。在不同情況下，私人銀行部門的負(fù)責(zé)人相互聯(lián)系。所有公司都將獲取一個(gè)個(gè)性化與匿名的基準(zhǔn)報(bào)告，以便提供可靠性的答案，并以此來防止積極回應(yīng)的偏見。數(shù)據(jù)集的篩選消除了兩大回應(yīng)。同時(shí)揭示了一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的偏見以及大量的缺失值。余下的回應(yīng)并沒有顯示出強(qiáng)烈的偏見方向以及較低的缺失值數(shù)量。凈反應(yīng)率為 24.7%(即124 客

73、戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理作出了回應(yīng)), 盧森堡的客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理反應(yīng)率最高達(dá) 50%,瑞士的客戶關(guān)系經(jīng)理反應(yīng)率最低為 15.6%。其中的差異可以這樣解釋，在邁瑞斯特(2008) 的研究中，大部分的盧森堡公司已經(jīng)參加過調(diào)查，因此熟悉該研究項(xiàng)目。相比之下，之前瑞士的許多公司并沒有加入到其中。表 2 和圖 3 顯示了反饋率。在線反饋的一共有 84名受訪者，通過郵件或傳真回應(yīng)的受訪者達(dá) 40 名。數(shù)據(jù)集的篩選表明，只有 2 份調(diào)查問卷包含缺失值，其對(duì)應(yīng)的結(jié)果分別

74、是 1.4%，回收額調(diào)查問卷為 124 份。進(jìn)一步分析，在缺失值的數(shù)量還不到 10%的情況下，羅斯(1994) 推薦用樣本</p><p><b>　　4 結(jié)果 </b></p><p>　　4.1 模型的評(píng)估 </p><p>　　應(yīng)用 SmartPLS 2.0 和 SPSS 15.0 的測量模型評(píng)估顯示，在通常情況下，一個(gè)適合的項(xiàng)目和各自的

75、維度——只有兩個(gè)例外。服務(wù)環(huán)境維度只產(chǎn)生兩項(xiàng)次維面。進(jìn)一步的分析表明,兩項(xiàng)次維面的外界環(huán)境和企業(yè)形象負(fù)載只有一個(gè)單一的維度，其被稱為外觀品質(zhì)。結(jié)果質(zhì)量維度的兩項(xiàng)次維面,提出兩項(xiàng)次維面項(xiàng)目報(bào)告負(fù)載兩種不同的兩項(xiàng)次維面。這些維度的項(xiàng)目反映，報(bào)告兩項(xiàng)次維面可稱為“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)報(bào)告,”包括等項(xiàng)目投資和客戶的投資組合權(quán)重。第二個(gè)兩項(xiàng)次維面可以被稱為“其他報(bào)告”, 因?yàn)樗ǜ鼜?fù)雜的項(xiàng)目,如水準(zhǔn)基點(diǎn)與性能比較指數(shù)。 4.2 模型比較 </p>

76、<p>　　比較格魯諾斯(1984)的擬建模型和兩種替代模型，擬建模型達(dá)到了優(yōu)越的效果。以下表總結(jié)了測試結(jié)果。可以看出，格魯諾斯(1984)模型也有足夠的 Rof 49%,但仍低于 R2 的擬建模型(57%)。此外,交互質(zhì)量維度的 R2 的 49%只是略高于擬建模型,所以，四個(gè)額外的維度對(duì)交互質(zhì)量維度的貢獻(xiàn)僅有 3%。對(duì)路徑權(quán)重的評(píng)估表明存在大量無關(guān)緊要的關(guān)系:除了此模型中無顯著性的金融安全與連續(xù)性、兩項(xiàng)次維 面能力、情緒能

77、力和當(dāng)?shù)匦蜗蟆?</p><p>　　這同樣適用于具有直接影響力的模型。在這里，50%的 R2 被認(rèn)為是足夠的,但仍然低于擬建模型,對(duì)路徑權(quán)重的進(jìn)一步分析顯示，12個(gè)擬建模型中只有四個(gè)關(guān)系重大。因此,我們可以得出這樣的結(jié)論, 基于奧利弗和魯斯特(1994)以及布蘭迪和克羅寧(2001)的模型達(dá)到了最好的效果,它能最好能解釋私人銀行業(yè)務(wù)的服務(wù)質(zhì)量。這個(gè)結(jié)果與發(fā)現(xiàn)服務(wù)質(zhì)量是一個(gè)復(fù)雜的構(gòu)造，可以解釋為一個(gè)多維的,分級(jí)構(gòu)

78、造(答伯力克，1996)。 </p><p><b>　　4.3 群組分析 </b></p><p>　　在對(duì)擬建結(jié)構(gòu)模型的分析之后,我們對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)集的各子組進(jìn)行了分析。為了分析群組差異,我們將數(shù)據(jù)集分成兩組,每個(gè)組成大約包含一半的樣本。初步分析了德國的公司以及德國以外(奧地利、瑞士和列支敦士登)公司之間的差異。盧森堡被排除在外。盧森堡是否包含在其中影響并不顯著,但是結(jié)果