The Gaps Model of Service Quality and its Impact on Customer

Satisfaction
Abstract:
The Service Quality or Gap model (SERVQUAL) has been recognised as an essential tool in
identifying service quality and further than this the relationship between a company and its
customers. This is vital for firms in sustaining existed advantage and ability to grow further.
The purpose of this paper is to identify how applicable the model can be in the context of
family owned restaurants and its implications. To this extent, research was conducted
involving customers of two family owned restaurants in the Bournemouth area, South West of
England. The dimensions of SERVQUAL fulfilled the purpose of research investigation,
especially in the context of a narrowly defined sector as the family owned restaurants. The
fact that customers were critical with certain aspects of the offered service indicates a higher
degree of expectations in comparison with what they received. There were two major
limitations in this study: a) the rather small number of completed questionnaires; and b) the
somehow introductory to SERVQUAL process of data analysis. Both were dealt with by
emphasising on gains of its applicability. The research pointed out that management of family
owned restaurants should take into account a wide range of issues if they anticipate their
business to survive in a world of financial recession. To this extent, attention to detail is
necessary in order to satisfy contemporary customer service demands. As application of
SERVQUAL has been so expanded, the real value of this study lies on its actual application.
Its biggest asset lies upon identification of pockets of non-efficient service practices that
could be of practical use.
Keywords: SERVQUAL, service quality, customer satisfaction, family owned restaurants

1. Introduction
Provision of excellent service quality in order to receive high customer satisfaction is a vital
issue as well as a challenge facing the contemporary service industry. It is for this reason that
this issue has become of great importance for both academics and practitioners in the subject
area of marketing (Ghasemi et al, 2012). It is not the first time that service quality appears to
obtain such importance. Through the last 20-25 years many firms have invested in service
initiatives and promoted service quality as ways to differentiate themselves and thus gain
competitive advantage (Zeithaml et al, 2006). It has been the rapid development and
competition of service quality in many commerce arenas that has made it important for firms
to measure and evaluate (Brown and Bitner, 2007). This paper aims to illustrate the
importance of service quality for sustaining profitable business in family owned restaurant
industry in the South West of England. The Service Quality (SERVQUAL) model was used
in showing the level of service quality in selected sample restaurants.
2. Theory
The SERVQUAL Model
The SERVQUAL model has been developed in a rather high number of versions applied in
assorted industries. It was designed to evaluate customers` perceptions of service quality with
the aim to examine the degree of implementation of an effective and reliable business (Hill
and Alexander, 2006). The SERVQUAL model has been chosen over other models as one
that has been well used in assorted industries and also as one that could bring a status of
research validity (Heung et al, 2000). Apart from seeing the level of service quality, it also
assists firms to take some other advantages such as tracking customer expectations and
perceptions over time (Weitz and Wensley, 2006). Opinions from employees with respect to
customer expectations and satisfaction can also be gained (Fedoroff, 2009).
The main purpose of model is to apply its dimensions in identifying the gap between
customer expectations and perceptions (Peters and Pikkemaat, 2006; Zeithaml et al, 2006).
Vendors and customers may perceive level of quality differently. They may consider their
services of being of high quality however customers may think oppositely. If this happens
then there are gaps between what customers and providers believe (Brown, 1991). In
consequence, the gap between these two concepts shows the level of service quality of a firm
(Allen and Rao, 2000).
The model as it is shown in Appendix 1 focuses on five pivotal gaps in delivering and
marketing service:
The Customer gap: difference between customer expectations and perceptions;
Provider gap 1: not knowing what customers expect;
Provider gap 2: Not selecting the right service designs and standards;
Provider gap 3: Not delivering to service designs and standards;
Provider gap 4: Not matching performance to promises
(Zeithaml et al, 2006: p 46)
Limitations of the SERVQUAL model
One of the obvious limitations of the SERVQUAL model is that it is suitable only for service
provision businesses therefore it doesnt apply appropriate to businesses which provide
tangible goods (Hill and Alexander, 2006). Secondly, looking at the implementation of the
SERVQUAL model to the restaurant industry it could be argued that customer expectations
2

and perceptions can be compared only after the customer finishes their meal. Potential issues
might occur as expectations are formed before the meal is served therefore the measurement
of service quality in terms of this situation does not appear reliable (Palmer, 2005.
Expectations are only created according to previous service experiences (Kahneman and
Miller, 1986; Palmer, 2005). Customer perceptions can change toward the same service
delivery in the light of previous experiences because the new expectations can be created for
the same service (Oh, 1999). Therefore the validity of the measurement can decrease over
time. The model does not also recognise the technical aspect of service as an important part of
process (Lenka et al, 2009). The model only aims to measure functional aspect of service
process. This affects the measurement of whole quality aspects of service process.
3. Methodology
In the present project, two family owned restaurants are going to be examined for the level of
their service quality by applying the SERVQUAL model. These restaurants are located in
Bournemouth, South West of England. A positivist deductive approach was adopted. The
usefulness of a questionnaire-based survey for this research is reflected in the reasons for
using it, as identified by Denscombe (2010): a) the requirement for straightforward
information; b) the need for standardised data from identical questions; and c) the fact that the
respondents needed to understand easily the scope and questions. In this respect the design of
the questionnaire was based on 22 factors which were separated in five dimensions that
encapsulate the information needed (as identified by Zeithaml et al, 1990 and Hill and
Alexander 2006): a) Tangibles; b) Reliability; c) Responsiveness; d) Assurance; and e)
Empathy. A probability sample was chosen because each unit of population has an equal
probability of inclusion in the sample if it randomly selected (Bryman and Bell, 2007). The
reason for choosing random selection was that it could reflect reliability in a more accurate
way than a consciously chosen sample. Two restaurants were chosen. The number of
responded customers was 100 (50 questionnaires per restaurant). Whilst the realisation that a
small number of responses would have created issues of validity it could be argued that the
accuracy of the questionnaire depended on a decreased sample error.
4. Data Analysis and Discussion
4.1.Validity, Reliability and Method of Data Analysis
Before we embark in presenting and analysing the actual research findings it is necessary to
shape their validity and reliability as well as to describe the method for data analysis. In terms
of validity then, there was a strong element of construct validity in this research which relies
upon the use of the SERVQUAL model in the past and present plus a similar research
approach was applied to this study as well. Customers were asked to complete a questionnaire
before and after they had their meal. Regarding reliability, Cronbach`s Alpha was used to
illustrate the reliability of the questionnaire. The value has to be over 0.7 in order to
accomplish reliable work. The values of Cronbach`s Alpha in relation to the five dimensions
of the SERVQUAL model are shown in Table 1. As it can be seen the Cronbach`s value is
over 0.7 for each dimension of the questionnaire therefore the questionnaire appears to
become reliable for each dimension. It was anticipated that descriptive statistics was sufficient
to explain the project questions and objectives therefore an inferential test is not required to
analyse as there are no gender or age categories to analyse.
3

Reliability Test of Item Scales

Item Name

Cronbach's Alpha ()

Number of Items

Tangibles (TAN)

.802

Reliability (REL)

.726

Responsiveness (RES)

.771

Assurance (ASS)

.779

Empathy (EMP)

.728

Table 1: Reliability of the studys questionnaire

4.2.Finding Analysis
In this part of the paper an analysis of the findings is presented. The main idea in here is to
present the statistical results based upon the SPPS process for the two places of research and
then to compare the actual outcomes regarding provision of service quality. The questionnaire
used was based on the SERVQUAL model which was modified for the statistical needs of the
restaurant sector. In the literature, this model was designed to gauge customers` perceptions
of service quality (please refer to Appendices 2 and 3).
5-Dimensions Model for SERVQUAL - Jenny`s Restaurant
Mean

Std. Deviation ()

Variance

Tangibles total

3.4000

1.38505

1.918

Reliability total

3.1800

1.50767

2.273

Responsiveness total

3.0600

1.18511

1.404

Assurance total

2.6600

1.34938

1.821

Empathy total

2.7000

1.54193

2.378

Valid N (listwise)

50

Table 2: Importance of five dimensions for Jenny`s restaurant customers

Regarding the very issue of how satisfied customers were in the two restaurants the following
points could be noted. According to appendices 2 and 3 in Jenny`s restaurant, the order of
satisfaction for questions on tangibles from the most to the least are TAN (Tangibles) 4,
TAN3, TAN2 and TAN1 whereas in Yummies restaurant, the order of satisfaction for
questions on tangibles are TAN1, TAN4, TAN2 and TAN3. With this, material associated
with service such as clean cutlery and plates was most satisfying in Jenny`s however the
welcoming ambiance of Jenny`s did not appear to be satisfying for their customers in
comparison to Yummies, in which the welcoming ambiance was observed as the most
satisfying aspect. Moreover, customers of Jenny`s restaurant experienced EMP (empathy) 2
(opening hours are appropriate to all customers) as the most satisfying aspect whereas EMP4
(restaurant menu caters for a variety of special diet) was noted as the least satisfying aspect. In
Yummies, EMP3 was the most satisfying aspect in customers opinion however the least
satisfying aspect in Jenny`s was EMP4. Consequently, both restaurants are required to spice

up their menu with special diets. This dimension comes up as fifth in both places which
obviously means that both restaurants need to perform better on empathy.
5-Dimensions Model for SERVQUAL - Yummies Restaurant
Mean

Std. Deviation ()

Variance

Tangibles total

2.9800

1.39225

1.938

Reliability total

3.4600

1.37336

1.886

Responsiveness total

3.3200

1.46301

2.140

Assurance total

2.9000

1.26572

1.602

Empathy total

2.3400

1.36442

1.862

Valid N (listwise)

50

Table 3: Importance of five dimensions for Yummies restaurant customers

The other important answer to be sought was linked with the order in importance of the five
SERVQUAL dimensions. According to tables 2 and 3 tangibles is the most important
dimension at Jennys followed reliability, responsiveness, empathy and assurance being the
last one. In Yummies, the order of importance for the five dimensions is that the most
important one is reliability followed by responsiveness, tangibles, assurance and, empathy.
4.3.Discussion
This study was conducted to illustrate service quality level as perceived by customers in two
family owned restaurants. In order to discover the level of service quality, the SERVQUAL
model was modified to adjust in the conditions of restaurant business.
The data from these cases were analysed by comparing them in terms of five dimensions of
the SERVQUAL model. According to the analysis, the five dimensions for both cases
presented a similar level of differentiation in service quality for each dimension. In other
words, there were no considerable differences between each aspect of each dimension.
In terms of tangibles, Jenny`s was considered the weakest of the two cases for a welcoming
ambiance of the restaurant whilst Yummies achieved the strongest point for their welcoming
ambiance. Yummies was observed as the least satisfying regarding visually unattractive
menus whereas Jennys was observed as highly satisfying in this specific area. According to
the average score of all dimensions, Yummies performed the best score (5.7800) whereas
Jenny`s achieved a score of 5.6950. Having said this, tangibles were the first element in terms
of order of importance compared to third position obtained at Yummies. This indicates that
tangibles were almost equally important in terms of their scores however they were better
considered at Jennys.
In terms of reliability, Jenny`s restaurant obtained a less satisfying level because of mistakes
made in taking orders. On the other hand, Yummies had issues with their promised opening
and closing times therefore both restaurants need to overcome these issues. Provision of fresh
food was considered as more effective in Yummies than Jenny`s. This is an essential kind of
service in the industry hence Jenny`s needs to increase their food standards. In Jenny`s
restaurant, the average score of the reliability dimension indicated that it was the most
satisfying one in customer opinion compared with Yummies, for which the particular
5

dimension was ranked as the second most satisfying one. The reliability dimension was
presented as the most important dimension in Jennys (a mean of 5.7520) while it was the
second most important dimension for Yummies (with a score of 5.9040). In general,
reliability was very much evident for both places.
Regarding responsiveness, in Jenny`s restaurant, employees were willing to help customers
(RES3) and this was the most satisfying aspect (with a mean of 5.9600). On the other hand,
employees showed a sincere interest in solving problem (RES1) and this was the most
satisfying aspect at Yummies (5.7400). In both restaurants complaints were made about
providing prompt service (RES2) a score of 5.6200 for Jennys compared to 5.5200 for
Yummies. The employees of both restaurants appeared to be slow in providing their service
and this was something both companies need to deal with in a systematic manner.
In term of assurance, Jenny`s restaurant presented the customer feels safe in making
transaction (Assurance2) as the most satisfying one in its customer opinion (a mean of
6.1400) whereas employees are consistently courteous to customer (Assurance3) was the
most satisfying in Yummies (a mean of 5.9000). In terms of empathy, for Jenny`s restaurant,
opening hours are convenient to all customers (EMP2) was the most satisfying aspect
whereas in Yummies, provide a comfortable environment for their customers (EMP3) was
the most satisfying aspect. On the other side of the spectrum, menus have special diets for all
customers (EMP4) was the least satisfying aspect (5.1600 for Jennys compared to 5.3480
for Yummies). The rather low scores clearly indicated that there was an issue with this
important factor.
Conclusion
The findings indicated a mix of actions that are necessary to be taken by the two family
owned restaurants. In order to discover the level of service quality, the SERVQUAL model
was modified for the restaurant business. The restaurant sector has involved a certain degree
of stiff competition therefore service quality is crucial in enabling the restaurant business to
survive in their market (Abel and Bruno, 2007). The findings verified the latter statement.
Based upon the results obtained improvements that the two places should really need to
provide are linked with:
For Jennys:
Encouraging welcoming ambiance;
Increasing employees knowledge about their work towards customer satisfaction;
Minimise mistakes made in taking orders;
Responding to customer promptly;
Improving the range of their menu by initiating meals of special diets.
For Yummies:
Improving on punctuality about the time it opens and closes;
Making their menus visually appealing;
Improving the range of their menu by initiating meals of special diets.
Finally, it is worth mentioning two limitations which affected the way this study was
conducted. First that the current project limits the dimensions of SERVQUAL in five
categories only despite the fact that there is a range of other versions of the model that uses
more dimensions. Secondly, the difference in score between perceptions-expectations was not
used. Only the perception of customers was analysed. The expectations of customers were
incorporated only in the order of importance for the models five dimensions.
6

References
Abel, A & Bruno, SS (2007), Global Business Management: a Cross-cultural Perspective,
Ashgate, Farnham
Abraham, R (2005), 'Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: A Review and Synthesis' in R.
Schulze and R.D. Roberts Eds. Emotional Intelligence An International Handbook (255 270), Hogrefe and Huber Publication, Cambridge
Albaum, G, Strandskov, J & Duerr, E (1998, 3rd edition), International marketing and export
management, Addison-Wesley Longman, Harlow
Allen, DR & Rao, TRN (2000), Analysis of customer satisfaction data, American Society for
Quality Press, Milwaukee
Andaleeb, SS & Conway, C (2006), Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an
examination of the transaction-specific model, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20, No.
1, pp. 3-11
Ata, UZ & Toker, A (2012), The effect of customer relationship management adoption in
business-to-business markets, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing Vol. 27, Issue 6
pp. 497-507
Bergeron, B (2002), Essentials of CRM J, Wiley & Sons, New York
Bojanic, D & Rosen, D (1994), "Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants: An Application of
the SERVQUAL Instrument", Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Bon, JV & Jong, A (2007), IT Service Management: An Introduction, Van Haren Publishing,
Zaltbommel
Boulding, W, Kalra, A, Staelin, R & Zeithaml, VA (1993), A dynamic process model of
service quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 30, February, pp. 7-27.
Brown, SW (1991) Service Quality: multidisciplinary and multinational perspective
Lexington Books, Lexington
Brown SA (2000), Customer Relationship Management: a strategic imperative in the world
of e-business, J. Wiley and Sons Canada Ltd, Toronto.
Brown, SW & Bitner, MJ (2007), Mandating a service revolution for marketing, in Lush,
R.F. & Vargo, S.L. Eds The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and
Directions M.E. Sharp, Armonk, NY, pp. 393-405
Bryman, A & Bell, E (2007), 2nd edition) Business Research Methods, Oxford University
Press, Oxford
7

Denscombe, M (2010, 4th edition), The Good Research Guide for Small-scale Social Research
Projects, Open University Press, Maidenhead
Ehret, M & Haase, M (2012) The common ground of relationships and exchange: towards a
contractual foundation of Marketing Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing Vol. 27,
Issue 6 pp. 445-455
Fedoroff, R (2009), Comparing service quality performance with customer service quality
needs- Explanation of SERVQUAL methodology of Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry, The
Executive Fast Track Vol. 10, No. 4
Ford, D, Gadde, LE, Hakansson, H & Snehota, I (2003, 2nd edition), Managing Business
Relationships, J Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester
Fu, Y & Parks, SC (2001), The Relationship between Restaurant Service Quality and
Consumer Loyalty among the Elderly, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol.25
August, pp. 320-326
Ghasemi, M, Kazemi, A & Esfahani, AN (2012), Investigating and evaluation of service
quality gaps by revised Servqual model, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 1397-1408
Heung VCS, Wong, MY & Qu, H (2000), Airport-restaurant Service Quality in Hong Kongan Application of SERVQUAL, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 86-89.
Hill, N & Alexander, J (2006), The handbook of customer satisfaction and loyalty
measurement, Gower publishing Ltd, Farnham
Hoque, K, (2000), Human Resource Management in the Hotel Industry: Strategy, Innovation
and Performance, Routledge, Abingdon
Howard, JA & Sheth, JN (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc
New York
Hunt, JW (1979), Managing people at work, McGraw-Hill, University of Michigan
Jobber, D (2010, 6th edition), Principles and Practice of Marketing, McGraw-Hill, London
Jones, P & Merricks, P (1994), The management of foodservice operations, Continuum,
London
Kahneman, D, & Miller, DT (1986), "Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives",
Psychological Review Vol. 93, No 2, 136153
8

McDonald, M, & Christopher, M (2003), Marketing- A Complete Guide, Palgrave Macmillan,

Basingstoke
Lee, YL & Hing N (1995), "Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument", International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 4 No.3-4,
pp.293-310
Lenka, U, Suar, D & Mohapatra, KJ (2009), Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and
Customer loyalty in Indian commercial Banks, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol.18, March,
pp 47-64
Mueller, RD, Palmer, A, McMullan, R (2003), Service in the restaurant industry: an
American and Irish comparison of service failures and recovery strategies, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 395-418.
Naik, CNK, Gantasala, SB & Prabhakar, G (2010), Service Quality (Servqual) and its Effect
on Customer Satisfaction in Retailing, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp. 231-243
Oh, H (1999), Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic
perspective, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.18, No. 1, pp. 67-82
Palmer, A (2004), Introduction to marketing Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press,
Oxford
Palmer, A (2005), Principles of Service Marketing, The McGraw-Hill Companies, London
Parasuraman, A, Zeithmal, VA & Berry, L (1985), A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50
Parasuraman, A, Zeithmal, VA & Berry, L (1988), SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, No. 1,
pp. 12-40
Peters, M & Pikkemaat, B (2006), Innovation in hospitality and tourism, The Haworth
Hospitality Press, New York
Pizam, A, (2005), International Encyclopaedia of Hospitality Management, ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford
Prahalad, CK & Ramaswamy, V (2001), Co-opting Customer Competence: Harvard
Business Review on Customer Relationship Management, Harvard School Publishing
Corporation, Boston
Shahin, A & Samea M (2010), Developing the Models of Service Quality Gaps: A Critical
Discussion, Business Management and Strategy, Vol.1, No. 1:E2, pp. 1-11
9

Singh, J (1990), "A Typology of Consumer Dissatisfaction Response Styles," Journal of

Retailing, Vol. 66, No. 1, Spring, pp. 57-99
Song, Y, Su, Q, Liu, Q & Wang, T (2012), Impact of business relationship functions on
relationship quality and buyers performance, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Vol. 27, Issue 4 pp. 286-298
Stevens, P, Knutson, B & Patton, M (1995), DINESERV: A Tool for Measuring Service
Quality in Restaurants, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, (April), pp.
56-60.
Weitz, BA & Wensley, R (2002), Handbook of Marketing, Sage Publication Limited, London
Zeithaml, A, Parasuraman, A & Berry, L (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing
Customer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press Division of Macmillan, Inc, New
York
Zeithaml, VA, Bitner, MJ & Gremler, DD (2006, 4th edition), Services Marketing
Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York

10

Appendix 1: The Gaps model of Service Quality (Zeithaml et al, 2006: p 46)

11

Appendix 2: Descriptive statistics for Jenny`s restaurant regarding the five dimensions of
SERVQUAL model

Descriptive Statistics Jennys Restaurant

Mean

Std.
()

Tangibles1

5.5200

1.07362

1.153

Tangibles2

5.5400

1.26507

1.600

Tangibles3

5.6600

1.11776

1.249

Tangibles4

6.0600

1.05772

1.119

Tangibles average

5.6950

.91653

.840

Reliability1

6.3000

.78895

.622

Reliability2

6.0800

.94415

.891

Reliability3

5.4600

1.23239

1.519

Reliability4

6.0000

.94761

.898

Reliability5

5.6800

1.03884

1.079

Reliability average

5.9040

.67762

.459

Responsiveness1

5.9000

1.01519

1.031

Responsiveness2

5.6200

1.19335

1.424

Responsiveness3

5.9600

1.06828

1.141

Responsiveness4

5.6400

1.12050

1.256

Responsiveness average

5.7800

.85213

.726

Assurance1

5.8200

1.18992

1.416

Assurance2

6.1400

.98995

.980

Assurance3

5.7600

1.15281

1.329

Assurance4

5.4200

1.12649

1.269

Assurance average

5.7850

.88354

.781

Empathy 1

5.8000

.88063

.776

Empathy 2

5.9400

1.05772

1.119

Empathy 3

5.8200

1.17265

1.375

Empathy 4

5.1600

1.31491

1.729

Empathy 5

5.6800

1.07741

1.161

Empathy average

5.6800

.74615

.557

12

Deviation
Variance

Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics for Yummies restaurant regarding the five dimensions of
SERVQUAL model
Descriptive Statistics Yammies Restaurant

Mean

Std. Deviation
()

Variance

Tangibles1

5.9200

1.02698

1.055

Tangibles2

5.9000

1.09265

1.194

Tangibles3

5.4000

1.26168

1.592

Tangibles4

5.9000

1.11117

1.235

Tangibles average

5.7800

.88589

.785

Reliability1

5.5400

1.54140

2.376

Reliability2

5.5400

1.26507

1.600

Reliability3

5.6200

1.41263

1.996

Reliability4

6.0200

1.11557

1.244

Reliability5

6.0400

1.35466

1.835

Reliability average

5.7520

.95922

.920

Responsiveness1

5.7400

1.32187

1.747

Responsiveness2

5.5200

1.24933

1.561

Responsiveness3

5.6400

1.33646

1.786

Responsiveness4

5.6000

1.39971

1.959

Responsiveness average

5.6250

1.01801

1.036

Assurance1

5.7400

1.20898

1.462

Assurance2

5.8400

1.13137

1.280

Assurance3

5.9000

1.11117

1.235

Assurance4

5.4600

1.07305

1.151

Assurance average

5.7350

.86516

.748

Empathy1

5.3000

1.37396

1.888

Empathy2

5.5600

1.14571

1.313

Empathy3

5.5800

1.45812

2.126

Empathy4

4.8200

1.67442

2.804

Empathy5

5.4800

1.46022

2.132

Empathy average

5.3480

.99534

.991

13