See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240917798

Measuring consumer perceptions of online shopping convenience

Article  in  Journal of Service Management · April 2013

DOI: 10.1108/09564231311323962

CITATIONS READS
109 10,087

3 authors, including:

Zhilin Yang
City University of Hong Kong
100 PUBLICATIONS   5,595 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implementation of a Cross-border Charity Project: Institutional Distance, Partnership Arrangement and Project Performance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhilin Yang on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-5818.htm

Perceptions of
Measuring consumer perceptions online shopping
of online shopping convenience
Ling (Alice) Jiang
Faculty of Management and Administration, 191
Macau University of Science and Technology, Taipa,
Macau, China Received 31 January 2012
Revised 27 May 2012
Zhilin Yang 24 August 2012
Department of Marketing, City University of Hong Kong, 2 October 2012
Hong Kong, China, and Accepted 5 October 2012

Minjoon Jun
Management Department, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the key convenience dimensions of online
shopping, as convenience has been one of the principal motivations underlying customer inclinations
to adopt online shopping.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors first employ in-depth focus group interviews with
online consumers to identify the attributes of online shopping convenience and then develop and
validate an instrument of five key dimensions to measure online shopping convenience by analyzing
data collected via a Web-based questionnaire survey.
Findings – The five dimensions of online shopping convenience are: access, search, evaluation,
transaction, and possession/post-purchase convenience.
Practical implications – Online retailers can employ the five-factor measurement instrument to
assess the degree of customer perceived online shopping convenience. This instrument can assist
managers in identifying and overcoming key obstacles to the delivery of a highly convenient online
shopping service to customers, and also helps them enlarge their loyal customer base.
Originality/value – This study focuses on uncovering the key dimensions of convenience and their
associated sub-dimensions specific to the context of online shopping. Theoretically, the identified
dimensions and their related sub-items comprise a validated scale for measuring Web-based service
convenience and can serve as building blocks for further studies in e-commerce customer relationship
management.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Internet, Shopping, Electronic commerce, Perception, Convenience,
Online shopping, Scale development, e-commerce
Paper type Research paper

Shopping convenience has been one of the principal motivations underlying customer
inclinations to adopt online purchasing (Beauchamp and Ponder, 2010; Colwell et al.,
2008; Degeratu et al., 2000; Easterbrook, 1995; Lohse and Spiller, 1998; Moeller et al.,
2009; Morganosky and Cude, 2000; Reimers and Clulow, 2009; Tanskanen et al., 2002).
As consumers allocate less time to shopping and more to other endeavors, their desire Journal of Service Management
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2013
pp. 191-214
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors thank Daniel Ding for his help in data collection. The second author gratefully 1757-5818
acknowledges a grant from City University of Hong Kong (CityU SRG Project No. 7008124). DOI 10.1108/09564231311323962
JOSM for convenience has mounted and their attention has been frequently diverted to virtual
24,2 shopping as an alternative medium. A crucial point of departure for online retailers
who wish to take steps designed to maximize the speed and ease of shopping is to
develop an understanding of the salient dimensions of online shopping convenience
and the specific domain within each dimension.
As a context-based concept, consumers’ perceptions of convenience can vary from one
192 setting to another. Much of the existing convenience literature, however, has been
restricted to a study of the development of the multidimensional service convenience
construct in a conventional, brick-and-mortar retailing environment (Clulow and Reimers,
2009; Fitch, 2004; Reimers and Clulow, 2009). Although online shopping convenience
is one of the major factors that prompt consumers to access online retailers’ web sites
(Ahmad, 2002; Jayawardhena et al., 2007), much of the prior research on e-commerce has
treated the convenience construct as one of the predictor variables, such as customer
service and trust, that affect outcome variables, such as customer satisfaction and
behavioral intentions (Colwell et al., 2008; Seiders et al., 2007), or as one of the facets of
online service quality, such as accuracy and responsiveness (Hu et al., 2009; Kim and Park,
2012; Prasad and Aryasri, 2009; Udo et al., 2010). Unfortunately, very few studies offer an
in-depth, systematic investigation into online shopping convenience dimensions and the
specific items or components under each dimension (Colwell et al., 2008; Beauchamp and
Ponder, 2010). The study conducted by Beauchamp and Ponder (2010) is exceptional, but
their study is limited to the convenience dimensions common to both online and offline
shopping settings and examines the relative importance of each dimension from the
perspectives of online and offline shoppers, rather than exploring the dimensions and their
related items unique to online shopping. Thus, the unique aspects of the internet as a
shopping platform, such as ease of use, interactivity, information search and contents, and
system reliability (Jun et al., 2004; Kim and Park, 2012; Udo et al., 2010; Yang and Fang,
2004) warrant further examination on online shopping convenience.
Our study, therefore, intends to address the following research questions:
RQ1. What dimensions of convenience do customers experience in the setting of
online shopping?
RQ2. What distinct components under each dimension are unique to online shopping?
RQ3. What can be recommended to enhance the overall level of customer perceived
online shopping convenience?
To answer these questions, we first attempt to identify the key convenience dimensions
of online shopping through conducting focus group interviews. We then develop and
validate an instrument to measure online shopping convenience by analyzing data
collected via a web-based questionnaire survey from 550 online customers of a major
retail company in Hong Kong. Based on the findings, we summarize our theoretical
contributions and provide managerial implications regarding how to enhance the
overall level of online shopping convenience.

Conceptual framework
The essence of convenience
Webster’s Dictionary defines convenience as “anything that adds to one’s comfort or
saves work; useful, handy or helpful device, article, service, etc.” In the marketing
literature, the concept of convenience was introduced by Copeland (1923), who Perceptions of
referred to convenience goods as those that the consumer purchases frequently and online shopping
immediately at easily accessible stores. Copeland (1923) and other researchers (Bucklin,
1963) have used the convenience construct within the domain of the “convenience”
classification of products, which relates to low risk or low involvement in purchasing
(Brown, 1989). Subsequently, in an effort to accurately operationalize the construct,
some researchers have shifted their attention from a product attributes-oriented 193
approach to a service attributes-oriented direction (Seiders et al., 2000, 2005, 2007).
Much of the literature on consumer convenience in a traditional retailing
environment has revealed two factors of primary importance in delivering convenient
service to customers: time-saving and effort minimization efforts (Etgar, 1978; Kotler
and Zaltman, 1971; Seiders et al., 2000, 2005, 2007; Yale and Venkatesh, 1986).
In particular, the marketing literature has emphasized the importance of desire for
convenience and the value of time. Berry et al. (2002) have concluded, based on their
literature review, that the greater the time costs associated with a service, the lower the
degree of consumers’ perceived service convenience. They have further posited that
consumer perceptions of convenience are negatively influenced by their perceptions
of the cognitive, physical, and emotional effort associated with the shopping effort.
In the same vein, Seiders et al. (2000) have argued that the emphasis customers place
on convenience has prompted retailers to extend one-stop shopping, redesign store
operating systems, and emphasize service sales. They also suggest some ways to offer
customers convenient shopping, including strategies to enhance the speed and ease
with which consumers can reach a retailer, identify, select, and obtain products, and
amend transactions.
Furthermore, Berry et al. (2002) and Seiders et al. (2007) have extensively reviewed
the literature on consumer convenience in a service economy and define “service
convenience” as consumers’ time and effort perceptions related to buying or using a
service. Although there are distinct differences between goods and service convenience
in some literature (Kelley, 1958), Berry et al. (2002) have noted that all businesses
indeed offer service for their customers, so service convenience applies to both goods
providers and service providers. As the definition implies, the level of perceived service
convenience is primarily influenced by non-monetary costs – those relating to time
and effort (or energy expenditure). Berry et al. (2002) further point out that the benefits
of service convenience constitute saving time and/or effort, whereas the burdens of
inconvenience entail wasting time and/or effort. In turn, researchers classify and
summarize major findings of prior research in terms of the identified two major
elements – time and effort (Berry et al., 2002; Seiders et al., 2007). The time-saving
aspect of convenience has been intensively investigated in consumer waiting literature,
particularly with respect to consumer reaction to waiting time (Gehrt and Yale, 1993).
The concept of effort-saving refers to the minimization of cognitive, physical,
and emotional activities that consumers must bear to purchase goods and services
(Berry et al., 2002). As noted by Berry et al. (2002), despite the abundant literature
addressing the time-saving component of convenience, previous studies have devoted only
moderate emphasis to the effort aspect (Brown, 1990; Hui et al., 1998; Seiders et al., 2000).
While the cognitive effort is related to purchasing decisions, physical and emotional
efforts are associated with consumer participation in the production/operations process.
Although there has been a lack of literature addressing physical and emotional efforts,
JOSM many studies (Fennema and Kleinmuntz, 1995; Fiske and Taylor, 1984) have attempted to
24,2 examine the issue of cognitive (or mental) efforts and have consistently found that most
individuals have quite limited cognitive resources and, acting as cognitive misers,
conserve these resources during decision-making endeavors.

Dimensions of traditional service convenience

194 The construct of service convenience is multidimensional in nature (Berry et al., 2002;
Brown, 1989, 1990; Colwell et al., 2008; Seiders et al., 2007; Yale and Venkatesh, 1986).
Service convenience in retailing mainly refers to the speed and ease of shopping.
Yale and Venkatesh (1986) have developed six classes of convenience: time utilization,
accessibility, portability, appropriateness, handiness, and avoidance of unpleasantness.
Similarly, Brown (1990) has generated five dimensions of convenience: time, place,
acquisition, use, and execution convenience. Further, he has noted that among these,
the first four dimensions are closely related to the four utilities promulgated by economic
utility theory.
In a subsequent effort, a content analysis conducted by Gehrt and Yale (1993)
suggests that convenience consists of three distinct dimensions: time, place, and
effort. This classification possesses the advantages of simplicity and universality.
Nevertheless, as argued by Berry et al. (2002), this scheme has two major weaknesses:
First, the three dimensions are not mutually exclusive, as they are highly correlated;
and, second, from a diagnostic or operational perspective, this scheme lacks
meaningful analytical functions. These disadvantages were partially addressed by
Berry et al. (2002), in which they integrated time and effort dimensions into the process
of consumer decision-making and categorized the convenience characteristics into five
activity-based dimensions, which mirror the activities consumers undergo to purchase
or use a service. These are: decision (consumers’ perceived time and effort expenditures
to make service purchase or use decisions), access (to initiate service delivery),
transaction (to effect a transaction), benefit (to experience the service’s core benefits,
such as being transported in a taxi), and post-benefit convenience (when reinitiating
contact with a firm for repairs or maintenance after the benefit stage of the service).
In the context of retailing, Seiders et al. (2000) suggest four avenues for providing
convenience:
(1) Access. Consumers may reach a retailer.
(2) Search. Consumers can identify and select products they wish to buy.
(3) Possession. Consumers can obtain desired products.
(4) Transaction. Consumers can effect or amend transactions.

Subsequently, Seiders et al. (2005, 2007) have developed and validated the
five-dimension instrument, the SERVCON scale, in the context of brick-and-mortar
retailer chains that carry apparel and furnishings. The SERVCON scale with 17 items,
measuring decision (easily determine prior to shopping whether it will offer what I need),
access (able to get quickly and easily), transaction (makes it easy for me to conclude my
transaction), benefit (the merchandise I want can be located quickly), and post-benefit
convenience (easy to take care of returns and exchange), showed good reliability and
validity for in-store shopping convenience. Furthermore, they have tested nomological
validity to specify several antecedent and consequent factors related to service
convenience (Seiders et al., 2007). Later, scholars identified such specific aspects of Perceptions of
convenience as location convenience, parking convenience, and sales assistant online shopping
service convenience (Clulow and Reimers, 2009; Kwek et al., 2010; Reimers and
Clulow, 2009). A summary of convenience dimensions identified in the relevant
literature is presented in Table I.

Online shopping convenience 195

As previously mentioned, convenience is a context-based concept. Seiders et al.’s (2007)
SERVCON measurement developed in the context of traditional offline shopping does
not embrace the unique facets of online shopping convenience since online retailers
utilize the internet as a shopping platform. Prior literature on online service quality has
identified several service convenience features unique to virtual shopping indicating
some of the ingredients constituting online service quality, such as ease of use,
interactivities, information search, the depth and richness of information, and security
(Jun et al., 2004; Parasuraman et al., 2005; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2003; Yang and
Peterson, 2004; Yang et al., 2005). However, despite the strategic importance of service
convenience to the success of online retailers, researchers have paid little attention to
empirically examining the salient dimensions of online shopping convenience and
their related features in an in-depth and systematic manner. Relatively few studies
have addressed the issue of consumer perceived convenience in e-commerce. In the
setting of internet services via wireless communications, Jih (2007) has extracted
two dimensions, such as transaction convenience and operational convenience, and
has argued that the former dimension exerts a significant effect on the consumer’s
online shopping intentions. In the context of personal telephone and internet
usage, Colwell et al. (2008) have developed, based on the work of Berry et al. (2002),
a multiple-item scale measuring the five dimensions of service convenience.

Source Types of convenience Dimensions of convenience

Yale and Venkatesh (1986) Characteristics of convenience Time utilization, accessibility,

goods portability, appropriateness,
handiness, and avoidance of
unpleasantness
Brown (1990) General Time, place, acquisition, use,
and execution convenience
Gehrt and Yale (1993) General Time, place, and effort
Seiders et al. (2000) Retail convenience Access, search, possession, and
transaction
Berry et al. (2002), Seiders et al. Service convenience in a Decision, access, transaction,
(2005, 2007), Colwell et al. (2008) retailing context benefits, and postbenefit
convenience
Jih (2007) Convenience in a mobile Transaction convenience and
commerce context operational convenience
Reimers and Clulow (2009), Retail centre convenience Time convenience, car
Clulow and Reimers (2009) convenience, spatial
convenience, hedonic shopping,
and effort convenience Table I.
Beauchamp and Ponder (2010) Retail convenience both for in- Access, search, transaction, and Dimensions
store and online shoppers possession convenience of convenience
JOSM They empirically find that service convenience has a significant impact on customers’
24,2 overall satisfaction. Other researchers have also identified some key elements of
convenience that are conducive to customer satisfaction, such as visual design,
information quality, and delivery service (Koo et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2005). Later,
Beauchamp and Ponder (2010) examine the key differences between in-store and online
customers based on the following four types of retail convenience: access, search,
196 transaction, and possession convenience. They find that, compared to conventional
in-store shopping, consumers perceive online shopping as being more convenient for
purposes of access and search convenience, but not in terms of transaction
convenience.
In sum, the importance of service convenience and the challenges facing
internet-based services necessitate insights on the part of managers insofar as which
attributes customers use in their evaluation of online shopping convenience. However,
a rigorous measurement instrument of online shopping convenience has not yet been
made available. In order to improve that condition, drawing on the work of Berry et al.
(2002) and Seiders et al. (2005, 2007), we intend to identify salient online shopping
convenience dimensions, confirm the identified major convenience dimensions and their
associated features, and develop a parsimonious and valid online shopping convenience
measurement instrument.

Methodology
We employed a two-stage approach in developing a reliable and valid instrument of
online shopping convenience as perceived by online customers: in-depth focus group
interviews and a web-based questionnaire survey.

Focus group interviews

We employed focus group interviews as a means to collect detailed customers’
feedback on their feelings, attitudes, and perceptions about online shopping
convenience. The focus group interview method is similar to the in-depth interview
in that the group moderator has prepared guidelines that outline the topics to be
discussed. But instead of a one-on-one forum, questions are posed to the group, and a
group discussion of each topic ensues, where interaction among group members
produces mutual stimulation of thoughts and recall of feelings and experiences
(Ford et al., 1997). In this sense, focus group interviews are a robust method of gathering
information on how interviewees view online shopping convenience. Our study was
carried out in collaboration with one large company located in Hong Kong.
The selected firm is the largest supermarket retailer in the city, operating more than
250 distribution outlets and employing over 5,000 employees. The company handles
over 13 million business transactions per month, providing a wide range of groceries
and household goods. The firm has been a leader among Hong Kong supermarket
chains in the adoption of newly developed IT technologies to improve its internal
operating efficiency and create value for customers. In 1992, the company was the first
retailer to implement, in all of its distribution outlets, an electronic point-of-sales
system utilizing barcode-scanning techniques. This firm was also the first supermarket
in Hong Kong to provide e-shopping service to the public in 1996. The company’s
“Home Shopping on the Internet” service enables customers to order and receive
products at home through its web site. The supermarket retailer was chosen because:
 (1) it provides both traditional and online services, representing the emerging trend Perceptions of
of the retailing industry; online shopping
(2) it has a large customer base; and
(3) its focus is on the convenience side of online shopping, instead of price.

Sample and instrument

We conducted three separate focus group interviews with the customers of a major
197
supermarket chain company located in Hong Kong. Each focus group interview lasted
approximately two hours. 15 customer participants were selected, as a convenience
sample, by the Marketing Director of the contact company from the list of its online
customers living in Hong Kong. The selection of the interviewees was based upon the
following two criteria:
(1) diversity of interviewees in terms of demographic background and shopping
behaviors; and
(2) willingness of interviewees to participate in the fairly lengthy group interview
in an active way.

Then, those selected were randomly assigned to each of the three interview groups so
that each group consisted of five participants. The sample size of the interviewees was
deemed small, but still adequate for qualitative research methods, since the primary
focus of this stage is placed on the elicitation of abundant textual data rather than on
the verification of certain research hypotheses (Cowles et al., 2002).
Semi-structured questionnaires were utilized for the focus groups interviews.
These were conducted in a relaxing and pleasant atmosphere. Customer informants
were provided introductory questions and were further asked to describe critical
episodes that occurred with online shopping, in general, and with the selected company,
in particular. Most questions were concerned with the benefits of online shopping and
the issues related to online shopping convenience and inconvenience, e.g. product
and information search, minimum purchase amount for obtaining free delivery service,
and online security. The interviewees were also encouraged to make comparisons
between online and offline shopping convenience. The interview questions are
summarized in Appendix 1. All conversations were videotaped and recorded for further
analysis.

Results of focus group interviews

The textual results of the focus group interviews were content analyzed by a trained
research assistant and the authors of this study. The two researchers coded the text
independently. All the differences were resolved through discussion. A total of
30 coding words were developed after a general review of the entire content. These
coding words were created to capture critical facets of online shopping convenience or
inconvenience based on elicited customer episodes. Meanwhile, the number of coding
words in each dimension was kept parsimonious by further regrouping similar words
into one generalized item. Table II sets forth the six major dimensions derived, such as
access, search, evaluation, transaction, possession, post-purchase convenience, and
their associated descriptions.
JOSM Dimension Description
24,2
Access convenience (1) Time flexibility
(2) Space flexibility
(3) Energy used
(4) Accessibility of web sites
198 (5) Availability of products and brands
Search convenience (1) Download speed
(2) Web design
(3) Search engine capacity
(4) Search function
(5) Product classification
(6) Average number of items per product menu listing
(7) Number of lists that have to be scrolled down
Evaluation convenience (1) Product information
(2) Standardized and branded products
(3) The presence of price information in product listings
(4) Product categorization
Transaction convenience (1) Check-out process
(2) Payment methods (e.g. check and cash)
(3) Changes in purchase
(4) Confirmative reply
(5) Price inconsistency
Possession convenience (1) Delivery offered
(2) On-time delivery
(3) Delivery change notification
(4) Product undamaged
(5) Attitude and performance of deliverymen
Table II. Post-purchase convenience (1) Keep promises (e.g. product return and reward delivery)
Descriptions of (2) Customer protection
online shopping (3) Self-protection tips
convenience dimensions (4) Personal data security (e.g. e-mail address)

Web-based questionnaire survey

To verify the online-shopping convenience dimensions that emerged from analysis of
focus group interview results, we follow the guidelines of scale development procedures
provided by Churchill (1979) and Gerbing and Anderson (1988). We first drafted a survey
questionnaire based on the six identified dimensions of online shopping convenience.
A total of 31 measurement items were generated. These items were then assessed
for content validity by a panel of academics, consisting of five faculty members from
two universities located in Hong Kong and Macau. They were asked to review the
descriptions of six online shopping convenience dimensions, and match the 31 items with
the six dimensions, based on closeness in meanings. As a result, we removed three items
that were not clearly matched with any of the dimensions and created a revised survey
questionnaire with 28 items. In addition, a pretest was conducted by sending the
questionnaire to 127 undergraduate marketing students. A total of 102 effective
responses were received. We performed a series of correlation analyses, reliability tests
and exploratory factor analyses for each construct. As a result, six items with the lowest
reliability or factor loading were deleted.
 The second revised survey questionnaire consisted of 22 items assessing online Perceptions of
shopping convenience. In addition, three items assessing the “behavioral intentions” online shopping
construct were adapted from Seiders et al. (2007). All items were measured on a
five-point Likert scale anchored at strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5)
(Appendix 2).

Data collection 199

With assistance from the supermarket chain company, we posted a banner with an
embedded link to the online survey questionnaire on the company’s official web site.
We offered a supermarket cash coupon of HK$50 as an incentive to survey
participants. A total of 623 consumers responded within two weeks. After screening
the questionnaires, we eliminated 73 incomplete and repeat questionnaires. As a result,
a total of 550 usable responses were collected. A demographic profile of the
respondents is presented in Table III. Non-response bias did not appear to be a problem

Variable Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 205 37.3
Female 345 62.7
Age in years
16-24 81 14.7
25-34 159 28.9
35-44 161 29.3
45-54 110 20.0
55 and above 39 7.1
Education
Primary school 3 0.5
High school 67 12.2
Technical school/some college 130 23.6
College graduation and above 350 63.6
Annual household income
Less than $10,000 23 4.2
$10,000-$29,999 95 17.3
$30,000-$49,999 129 23.5
$50,000-$69,999 136 24.7
$70,000-$99,999 86 15.6
$100,000 and above 81 14.7
Time of e-shopping
Under six months 27 4.9
0.5-1 year 66 12.0
1-2 years 117 21.3
3-5 years 231 42.0
Over 5 years 109 19.8
Average hours spent online
1-5 h per week 11 2.0
1-2 h per day 124 22.5
3-5 h per day 216 39.3
Over 5 h per day 199 36.2
Table III.
Note: n ¼ 550 Profile of respondents
JOSM because a series of t-tests results indicated that there were no statistically significant
24,2 differences between the early and late responses (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).

Results
Key dimensions of online shopping convenience
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components factor
200 analysis with a Varimax rotation. To identify the major convenience dimensions of
online shopping, we randomly selected 137 samples (i.e. one-fourth of the 550 samples
collected) for EFA. The rest were set aside for a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
The initial EFA extracted six factors that had an eigenvalue greater than one. Based
on the EFA results, two items that did not load strongly on any factor or displayed
significant cross-loadings were deleted. These two items were concerned with customer
information protection and transaction data security, respectively. One plausible
explanation for such removal of the two items lies in our respondents’ difficulty in
judging the level of post-purchase convenience, as the surveyed retailer has maintained
a good record of ensuring information security. In addition, ensuring online information
security and data integrity could be considered as an “order qualifier” allowing firms
merely to remain in the market, rather than as an “order winner” allowing firms to gain
competitive advantage in the market.
We reiterated EFA using the retained 20 items and, as a result, each item
loaded strongly on one and only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one. Five
factors were generated, explaining 64.318 percent of the total variance. They were
labeled as:
(1) access convenience;
(2) search convenience;
(3) evaluation convenience;
(4) transaction convenience; and
(5) possession/post-purchase convenience (Table IV).

Note that the EFA yielded a new factor, possession/post-purchase convenience, which
combined four items pertaining to possession convenience with one item, “easy to
return unwanted items”, assessing post-purchase convenience. As noted by Seiders et al.
(2005, 2007), the construct of post-purchase convenience is mainly concerned with
product returns.
Among the five factors, search convenience, accounting for the largest portion (30.967
percent) of the total variance, centered on user-friendly web sites, variety of search options,
and finding desired products quickly. The second factor, possession/post-purchase
convenience, represented 13.383 percent of the variance. It measured timely product
delivery, whether or not prices are identical to those on the order form, and ease of
product returns. The third factor, evaluation convenience, made up 7.459 percent of the
variance. It consisted of three items referring primarily to the provision of detailed and
well-organized product information on the web site. The fourth factor, access convenience,
explained 7.034 percent of the variance and addressed the accessibility to the web site. The
fifth and last factor, transaction convenience, accounted for 5.475 percent of the variance
and consisted of three items measuring the simplicity and flexibility of payment methods.
The revised 20-item online shopping convenience scale is provided in Table IV.
 Perceptions of
Factors
1 2 3 4 5 online shopping
Access convenience
Could shop anytime I wanted 0.806
Could order products wherever I am 0.761
The web site is always accessible 0.732 201
Search convenience
Easy to understand and navigate web site 0.744
Find desired products quickly 0.736
Product classification is easy to follow 0.728
Attractive web sitesa 0.727
User-friendly web site for making purchases 0.678
Variety of search options to find the same producta 0.536
Evaluation convenience
Provides product specifics 0.803
Uses both text and graphics of product information 0.705
Sufficient information to identify different products 0.679
Transaction convenience
Simple and convenient online payment 0.834
Flexible payment methods 0.785
Without difficulty to complete my purchases 0.629
Possession/post-purchase convenience
Undamaged delivered goods 0.785
Prices are identical to those on the order form 0.778
Timely product delivery 0.720
Easy to return unwanted items 0.684
Receive all the items I ordered 0.648
Table IV.
Notes: aItems were deleted in the final scale; extraction method: principal component analysis; Exploratory factor
rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; n ¼ 137 analysis

Confirmatory factors analysis

After specifying the latent measurement model and employing the retained
20 questionnaire items, we ran CFA on the remaining 413 cases to uncover the
underlying factor structure of the online shopping convenience construct. We first
undertook a first-order measurement model using AMOS7.0 (Figure 1).
The first-order measurement model exhibited a reasonable model fit (x 2/df ¼ 2.734;
p , 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.035; GFI ¼ 0.903; IFI ¼ 0.914; CFI ¼ 0.913; RMSEA ¼ 0.065).
However, the following two items were recommended to be discarded by the CFA
results because they had unacceptably weak loadings (below 0.5) on their designated
factors: attractiveness of the web site and a variety of search options to find the same
product. From a practical standpoint, because 83.1 percent of the respondents have over
one year online shopping experience with the retailer (Table III), the attractiveness of
the web site has become less important in terms of convenience. In addition,
our follow-up interviews with the respondents also reveal that they care more for the
search function than for complex search options. Accordingly, after deleting these two
items, we reiterated CFA and found that the revised first-order measurement model
showed a good fit of model to the data (x 2/df ¼ 2.809; p , 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.032;
GFI ¼ 0.910; IFI ¼ 0.924; CFI ¼ 0.923; RMSEA ¼ 0.066) (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
JOSM
24,2

202 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Notes: Model fit: c2 (160) = 437.385, c2/df =2.734, p < 0.001, RMR = 0.035,
Figure 1. GFI = 0.903, IFI = 0.914, CFI = 0.913, RMSEA = 0.065; F1 – access convenience,
The first-order F2 – search convenience, F3 – evaluation convenience, F4 – transaction convenience,
measurement model
F5 – possession/post-purchase convenience; n = 413

As demonstrated in Table V, all of the 18 items loaded on their designated constructs

significantly, with loadings ranging from 0.589 to 0.848.
We assumed that there existed a second-order factor of customers’ perceived
overall online shopping convenience that explained the five first-order factors.
Therefore, a second-order factor measurement model was developed (Figure 2). All five
first-order factors strongly and significantly loaded on the second-order factor (. 0.624).
The fit indices confirmed a reasonable model fit (x 2(130) ¼ 414.957; x 2/df ¼ 3.192;

Factor and item Loading CR AVE

Access convenience
Could shop anytime I wanted 0.729 0.725 0.469
The web site is always accessible 0.695
Could order products wherever I am 0.627
Search convenience
User-friendly web site for making purchases 0.756 0.832 0.553
Easy to understand and navigate web site 0.716
Find desired products quickly 0.739
Product classification is easy to follow 0.763
Evaluation convenience
Provides product specifics 0.724 0.764 0.519
Sufficient information to identify different products 0.742
Uses both text and graphics of product information 0.694
Transaction convenience
Simple and convenient online payment 0.848 0.784 0.551
Flexible payment methods 0.663
Without difficulty to complete my purchases 0.703
Possession/post-purchase convenience
Undamaged delivered goods 0.680 0.841 0.518
Receive all the items I ordered 0.668
Timely product delivery 0.589
Prices are identical to those on the order form 0.829
Easy to return unwanted items 0.805
Table V. Notes: Model fit indices: x 2(125) ¼ 351.150; x 2/df ¼ 2.809; p , 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.032; GFI ¼ 0.910;
Confirmatory factor IFI ¼ 0.924; CFI ¼ 0.923; RMSEA ¼ 0.066; CR – component reliability; AVE – average variance
analysis extracted; n ¼ 413
 Perceptions of
F1
0.814*** online shopping
F2 0.663***

0.702*** Overall
F3
0.637***
Convenience 203
F4 0.624***

F5

Notes: Significant at: ***p < 0.001; model fit: c2 (130) = 414.957,
c2/df =3.192, p < 0.001, RMR = 0.043, GFI = 0.893, IFI = 0.904,
CFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.073; F1 – access convenience,
F2 – search convenience, F3 – evaluation convenience, Figure 2.
F4 – transaction convenience, F5 – possession/post-purchase The second-order
measurement model
convenience; n = 413

p , 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.043; GFI ¼ 0.893; IFI ¼ 0.904; CFI ¼ 0.903; RMSEA ¼ 0.073).
This result indicates that there exists a second-order factor of customer perceived
overall online shopping convenience.
To test the efficacy of the second-order model in comparison with the first-order
model, we employed the target coefficient (T-coefficient), which was developed by Marsh
and Hocevar (1985) and is commonly adopted by other studies on scale development
(Segars and Grover, 1998; Smith et al., 2009). Following the formula proposed by Marsh
and Hocevar (1985), we computed the T-coefficient by dividing the adjusted x 2/df of the
first-order model (2.809) by that of the second-order model (x 2/df ¼ 3.192). As a result,
we obtained the T-coefficient of 0.857, which is in line with the values of T-coefficient
reported in prior studies, ranging from 0.64 to 0.99 (Segars and Grover, 1998; Smith et al.,
2009). Therefore, it can be interpreted that the second-order measurement model
represents the covariation among first-order factors in a more parsimonious way, thus
leading support to the efficacy of the second-order measurement model.

Reliability and validity tests

The composite reliabilities of all the factors derived exceeded the 0.7 benchmark,
ranging from 0.725 to 0.841 (Table V) and demonstrating adequate reliabilities (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). We then assessed convergent, discriminant, and nomological
validity of the instrument. First, convergent validity is an indication of the extent to
which assessment measures correlate with other measures that it should be related to.
We examined this validity by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE).
As shown in Table V, the AVE of each measure in this study extracted more than
50 percent of variance except that of the access convenience measure, which is 0.469,
slightly lower than 0.5. Moreover, in the second-order measurement model, all five
first-order factors loaded significantly on the second-order factor, with the
standardized loadings equal to or larger than 0.624 (Figure 2). Thus, the convergent
validity of the constructs was deemed acceptable.
JOSM Second, discriminant validity of the measures was assessed in two ways. First, all
24,2 the cross-construct correlation coefficients were significantly ( p , 0.001) less than
1.0; second, the correlation coefficients of the constructs were less than the square root
of AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). These results confirmed that the discriminant
validity of the measures was evidenced. Table VI lists the means, standard deviation of
each construct, correlations among the constructs, and the square root of AVE.
204 Finally, the nomological validity of the online shopping convenience scale was
assessed to verify that the online shopping convenience construct linked properly to
other theoretical constructs as expected.
We investigated the relationship of online shopping convenience with behavioral
intentions of online purchasing. Prior research has identified a positive link between
service convenience and behavioral intentions (Seiders et al., 2007). Behavioral
intentions were measured by three items in this study:
(1) I will continue to shop online at this retailer.
(2) I encourage others to shop online at this retailer.
(3) I will use this retailer web site more often for online purchases.
Therefore, we tested a second-order nomological model that linked customers’ perceived
overall online shopping convenience to their behavioral intentions. The structural
model demonstrated a good model fit (x 2(183) ¼ 527.330; x 2/df ¼ 2.882; p , 0.001;
RMR ¼ 0.043; GFI ¼ 0.884; IFI ¼ 0.903; CFI ¼ 0.902; RMSEA ¼ 0.068). The test
results confirmed that customers’ perceived overall online shopping convenience had
a significant and positive effect on their behavioral intentions (parameter estimate:
0.670), providing support for the nomological validity of the scale. Furthermore,
a five-factor nomological model was created as a rival model to test the relationship
between the five-factor model of online shopping convenience and behavioral intentions.
The rival model shows that the standarlized coefficients of three out of five factors
are significant. Specifically, search, transaction, and possession/post-purchase
convenience have positive relationships with behavioral intentions (Table VII).

Discussion
Theoretical implications
Customer perceived online shopping convenience is one of the crucial determinants of
success of online businesses. Our extensive literature review revealed an important yet
unanswered research gap that calls for an in-depth, systematic investigation of the key

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Access convenience 3.706 0.704 0.685

2. Search convenience 3.617 0.683 0.492 0.744
3. Evaluation convenience 3.525 0.729 0.509 0.421 0.720
Table VI. 4. Transaction convenience 3.692 0.595 0.536 0.443 0.459 0.741
Correlations for 5. Possession/post-purchase convenience 3.517 0.614 0.517 0.428 0.443 0.466 0.721
second-order online 6. Behavioral intentions 3.460 0.661 0.517 0.427 0.442 0.466 0.450 0.761
shopping convenience
factor and Notes: All the cross-construct correlation coefficients were statistically significant ( p , 0.001);
behavioral intentions SD – standard deviation; the square root of AVE is shown in the diagram; n ¼ 413
 Perceptions of
Standarlized coefficient t-value
online shopping
Second-order factor model
Overall convenience ! behavioral intentions 0.670 *** 8.031
Overall convenience ! access convenience 0.771 *** 7.847
Overall convenience ! search convenience 0.638 *** 7.202
Overall convenience ! evaluation convenience 0.660 *** 7.179 205
Overall convenience ! transaction convenience 0.695 *** 8.562
Overall convenience ! possession/post-purchase convenience 0.671 *** a
x 2(183) ¼ 527.330; x 2/df ¼ 2.882; p , 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.043; GFI ¼ 0.884; IFI ¼ 0.903; CFI ¼ 0.902;
RMSEA ¼ 0.068
Rival model: five-factor model
Access convenience ! behavioral intentions 0.113 1.252
Search convenience ! behavioral intentions 0.161 * 2.098
Evaluation convenience ! behavioral intentions 0.065 0.769
Transaction convenience ! behavioral intentions 0.262 *** 3.307
Possession/post-purchase convenience ! behavioral intentions 0.202 ** 2.669
x 2(174) ¼ 454.815; x 2/df ¼ 2.614; p , 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.032; GFI ¼ 0.903; IFI ¼ 0.921; CFI ¼ 0.920;
RMSEA ¼ 0.063
Table VII.
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01 and ***p , 0.001; a – denoted fixed parameter Structure models

dimensions of online shopping convenience as perceived by online customers. This study

empirically examined the construct of online shopping convenience in the context
of business-to-consumer e-commerce and focused on online service transformation
processes through which online shoppers should undertake activities required to
purchase products or services online, and, in turn, developed a rigorous measurement
instrument of online shopping convenience. The five salient dimensions derived are:
access, search, evaluation, transaction, and possession/post-purchase convenience.
Evidence indicates that each of the five identified dimensions has a significant and
positive effect on the overall levels of customers’ perceived online shopping convenience.
Theoretically, the five dimensions and their related items developed in this study
comprise a validated scale of web-based service convenience with only 18 scale items.
These dimensions and items can serve as building blocks for further studies in
customer relationship management in e-commerce.

Unique online shopping convenience dimensions and related items

Comparing the traditional service convenience dimensions identified by Seiders et al.
(2007) with this study, it is interesting to note that not only are those dimensions
different, but the items differ as well. The scale developed by this study embodies
unique characteristics related to the e-commerce setting. Among Seiders et al. (2007)
SERVCON’s five service convenience dimensions, namely decision, access,
benefit, transaction, and post-benefit convenience, are considered important by
offline shoppers. For example, the traditional dimension of “decision convenience”,
referring to the convenience of making a quick decision on where to visit and find desired
products, becomes the primary concern for offline shoppers, but this dimension can be
regarded as almost inapplicable to the e-commerce setting (Beauchamp and Ponder,
2010). Considering the substantial time and effort costs associated with visiting
physical stores prior to actual service exchange in comparison with browsing virtual
JOSM stores online, the availability and quality of information about the service provider and
24,2 its competitors would greatly affect the level of customer perceived decision convenience
in offline shopping, but not in the case of online shopping. Even though two
dimensions – access and transaction convenience – are considered important by both
offline and online shoppers, the contents of the two dimensions are totally changed in
the two settings. Access convenience under traditional service relates to parking,
206 location and opening hours, while online access convenience focuses on accessible web
site and unlimited access to shopping. Offline transaction convenience means that
there is no need to wait for a long queue, and that, on the contrary, it is quick to
complete purchasing and to pay, while online transaction convenience is associated with
simple and flexible payment methods. Moreover, our study identified three new
convenience dimensions, namely search, evaluation, and possession, unique to the
e-commerce environment.
Access convenience. This dimension has turned out to be the foremost driver of
overall online shopping convenience (Figure 2). Online consumers have the advantage
of shopping at any time and are able to make multiple economies of time. They can also
purchase products from such locations as home and office, rather than at physical
stores. These two types of flexibility – time and place – in turn provide psychological
benefits by avoiding crowds, reducing waiting time, and expending less effort in
traveling to physical stores. Consumers enjoy the benefits of accessibility to products,
brands, and stores that are not available in the location where they reside or work.
Search convenience. Theoretically, online customers can research products and
compare costs without physically visiting multiple locations to find their desired
products. Our study, however, revealed that consumers regard search inconvenience as
a major obstacle to convenient and efficient online shopping. All the potential issues
associated with product search over the internet can be grouped into four major
categories:
(1) download speed;
(2) web site design;
(3) search function; and
(4) product classification.

Evaluation convenience. Evaluation convenience is associated with the availability of

detailed yet easy-to-understand product descriptions by employing various
presentation features, such as text, graphics, and video, on the web site. In recent
years, the overwhelming selection of products and detailed information that is
accessible, at just one click of the mouse, tend to make online shoppers more sensitive
than ever before to “evaluation convenience”. Thus, offering standardized online
products and branded products, such as CDs, books, canned food, and pet food, would
help consumers make easy evaluations because of “quality parity”. In addition, many
shopping sites have already established a customer review system, allowing new
visitors to read other customers’ comments/reviews about their product experience
before ordering. Such a peer evaluation system has proven to be very effective in saving
consumers’ evaluation time and efforts.
Transaction convenience. Although there is no queue in online shopping, the online
check-out process is, by no means, simple and easy to follow. Simple and convenient
online payment methods are essential. Complicated payment methods often prevent Perceptions of
online shoppers from completing their purchasing process at the last minute. online shopping
Possession/post-purchase convenience. This dimension is concerned with consumers’
perceptions of time and effort expenditures to possess what they wish and to
experience the benefits thereof. Shopping online releases shoppers’ burden of traveling
to and from physical stores and thus customers prefer to purchase online heavy goods
and staples in large quantity to avoid dealing with the actual physical burden. 207
It should be also noted that our EFA and CFA yielded a composite construct of
possession/post-purchase convenience consisting of four items measuring possession
convenience and one item, “easy to return unwanted products”, assessing post-purchase
convenience. This result implies that the item related to product returns, in terms of its
meanings, might be more associated with the items of possession convenience, rather
than with the other items under post-purchase convenience.

Managerial implications
With advancement of the internet, web, and mobile technologies, online customers can
gain unlimited access to the information they require and enjoy a wider range of
choices in selecting products and services with highly competitive prices. Therefore,
sustaining a high level of online shopping convenience, in addition to offering
competitive prices, has increasingly become a key driving force for online retailers, with
the aim of enhancing customer loyalty. In this sense, the online shopping convenience
measurement instrument developed and validated in this study can be utilized as an
important diagnostic tool for online retailers to understand what convenience
dimensions and related features their customers value most, ascertain areas for
improvement, and implement effective solutions.
Our findings provide an important starting point to conduct effective online
shopping convenience management. For example, as mentioned earlier, the
accessibility of web sites is considered as the most important factor in determining
consumer perceived online shopping convenience. Accessing an online store from a
variety of venues is essential with the rapid development of social media such as
Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, along with search engines.
Furthermore, our results suggest that online shopping convenience positively
correlates with behavioral intentions. Specifically, the more convenience that is
perceived on searching, transaction and possession/post-purchase, the greater is the
possibility for repurchasing and recommendation by the customer. To expand a loyal
customer base in rival-driven online retailing, online retailers need to consider how to
improve on those three aspects.
First, searching an appropriate product on a web site is often time-consuming even
when customers know specifically what they want. Customers demand user-friendly
web sites to navigate since they often lack assistance from salespersons and are very
reluctant to call online help. A user-friendly web site design is essential for customers, in
general, and for those who have limited computer and internet knowledge, in particular.
Some of our interviewees suggest that the layout of the web site should be the same as or
similar to that of the physical store and that a visualized map of the store should be
posted on the web site. It is also recommended that online retail managers exert
concerted efforts to enhance the overall level of online shopping convenience by
adopting an intuitive sorting and classification scheme. Three interviewees complained
JOSM that they were baffled by the difficulties they encountered in locating regular,
24,2 commodity-type products because of unfamiliar or complicated sorting methods. In this
sense, adopting an intuitive sorting and classification scheme can minimize consumers’
search efforts.
Second, simple and flexible payment methods, provided by the online retailer can
dramatically improve consumer perceived online shopping convenience. While
208 shoppers can benefit from online shopping by avoiding long customer queues to
pay, they may encounter another type of waiting, i.e. slow download speed of web sites
for payment. Customers tend to feel frustrated and may even abandon the entire
purchasing process when they have to wait an inordinately long time for online
payment, even worse they never again return to the same online retailer. Payment
speed is dramatically affected by transaction design and internet connection functions.
While a pure online retailer can save costs in terms of rent and labor, being a hybrid
retailer employing both online and offline channels entails several significant benefits
for consumer convenience. Hybrid retailers have the advantage of offering flexibility
of payment methods from which customers can select their preferred means, thus
reducing consumers’ perceived expenditures of time and effort to complete a
transaction. In addition, consumers can find product information from the retailers’
web sites, but can actually buy from their physical stores after having viewed the real
products there.
Third, online retailers should monitor their delivery process and return goods
service. The delivery service to customers is inherently dynamic in nature as it
embodies customers’ perceptions of online shopping convenience. However, it should
be noted that such benefits of possession/post-purchase convenience also create, as
by-products, new types of inconvenience in obtaining ordered products, including
failure of on-time delivery, uncertainty of waiting time for delivery, and immobility
caused by staying home while waiting for the deliveryman to show up. Additional
inconvenience involves the risk of incomplete orders, damaged goods, unfriendly
attitudes of the delivery person, and difficulty in returning unwanted products.
Moreover, the unavailability of ordered products has become an important issue that
greatly affects customer perceived online shopping convenience, as online retailers
try to minimize storage costs. Five participants from our focus group interviewees
mentioned that they had encountered such inconvenience caused by out-of-stock
products and suggested that this problem could be somewhat eased by providing
customers with updated information regarding product inventory positions through
the web site.
Online retailers should take steps to identify existing gaps between service
performance and customer expectations. Customer expectations of convenience have
increased in accord with service innovations introduced by web managers and
marketers. Hence, constant monitoring of consumers’ perceptions and expectations is a
prerequisite for achieving continuous improvement in rendering highly convenient
online service.

Limitations and future research directions

Several methodological issues can be further improved. First, the number of
participants in each focus group in this study is deemed relatively small. Increasing the
number of interviewees might have resulted in generating more diversified perceptions Perceptions of
of and in-depth insights into online shopping convenience. online shopping
Next, although we divided our collected surveys into two sample datasets and
utilized one of them for running EFA and the other for CFA, it would have been ideal to
conduct CFA using a newly collected set of data to validate the measures previously
generated by EFA.
Finally, the construct of “access convenience” has an AVE of slightly lower than 0.5. 209
Although we kept this dimension for theoretical reasons in our model, the scale items
pertaining to the dimension need to be further modified or changed to improve
convergence validation.
Two more caveats are worth mentioning for directing future research. First, our
study only selected one “brick-and-click” retailer, so further research may embrace
diversified company types and service industries to enhance the generality of our
research findings. Second, as internet, web, and mobile technologies have evolved, their
impacts on customers’ experience and perceptions of online shopping convenience
have also changed over time. Furthermore, increasingly popular social media have
greatly influenced consumers’ online shopping behavior. As such, it is recommended
that future research investigate the evolutionary processes of changing customer
perceptions of online shopping convenience by employing a longitudinal research
method.

References
Ahmad, S. (2002), “Service failures and customer defection: a closer look at online shopping
experiences”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-29.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 13, pp. 396-402.
Beauchamp, M.B. and Ponder, N. (2010), “Perceptions of retail convenience for in-store and online
shoppers”, The Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 49-65.
Berry, L.L., Seiders, K. and Grewal, D. (2002), “Understanding service convenience”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Brown, L.G. (1989), “The strategic and tactical implications of convenience in consumer product
marketing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 13-19.
Brown, L.G. (1990), “Convenience in services marketing”, The Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 53-59.
Bucklin, L.P. (1963), “Retail strategy and the classification of consumer goods”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 50-55.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Clulow, V. and Reimers, V. (2009), “How do consumers define the retail centre convenience?”,
Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 125-132.
Colwell, S.R., Aung, M., Kanetkar, V. and Holden, A.L. (2008), “Toward a measure of service
convenience: multiple-item scale development and empirical test”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 160-169.
Copeland, M.T. (1923), “Relation of consumers’ buying habits to marketing methods”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 282-289.
JOSM Cowles, D.L., Kiecker, P. and Little, M.W. (2002), “Using key informant insights as a foundation
for e-retailing theory development”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 629-636.
24,2
Degeratu, A.M., Rangaswamy, A. and Wu, J.N. (2000), “Consumer choice behavior in online and
traditional supermarkets: the effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 17, pp. 55-78.
Easterbrook, G. (1995), A Moment on the Earth: The Coming of Age of Environmental Optimism,
210 Viking Press, New York, NY.
Etgar, M. (1978), “Intrachannel conflict and use of power”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 273-274.
Fennema, M. and Kleinmuntz, D. (1995), “Anticipations of effort and accuracy in multiattribute
choice”, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1984), Social Cognition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fitch, D. (2004), “Measuring convenience: Scot’s perceptions of local food and retail provision”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 100-108.
Ford, R.C., Bach, S.A. and Fottler, M.D. (1997), “Methods of measuring patient satisfaction in
health care organizations”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 74-89.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation model with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-389.
Gehrt, K.C. and Yale, L.J. (1993), “The dimensionality of the convenience phenomenon:
a qualitative reexamination”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 163-180.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25, pp. 186-192.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Hu, P.J., Brown, S.A., Thong, J.Y.L., Chan, F.K.Y. and Tam, K.Y. (2009), “Determinants of service
quality and continuance intention of online services: the case of eTax”, Journal of
the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 292-306.
Hui, M.K., Thakor, M.V. and Gill, R. (1998), “The effect of delay type and service stage on
consumers’ reactions to waiting”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 269-279.
Jayawardhena, C., Wright, L.T. and Dennis, C. (2007), “Consumers online: intentions, orientations
and segmentation”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 515-526.
Jih, W.J. (2007), “Effects of consumer-perceived convenience on shopping intention in mobile
commerce: an empirical study”, International Journal of E-Business Research, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 33-48.
Jun, M., Yang, Z. and Kim, D. (2004), “Customers’ perceptions of online retailing service quality
and their satisfaction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 1149-1174.
Kelley, E.J. (1958), “The importance of convenience in consumer purchasing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 23, pp. 32-38.
Kim, B.C. and Park, Y.W. (2012), “Security versus convenience? An experimental study of user
misperceptions of wireless internet service quality”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Koo, D.M., Kim, J.J. and Lee, S.H. (2008), “Personal values as underlying motives Perceptions of
of shopping online”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 156-173. online shopping
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971), “Social marketing: an approach to planned social change”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, pp. 3-12.
Kwek, C.L., Tan, H.P. and Lau, T.C. (2010), “Investigating the shopping orientations on online
purchase intention in the e-commerce environment: a Malaysian study”, Journal of Internet 211
Banking and Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-22.
Lohse, G.L. and Spiller, P. (1998), “Electronic shopping”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41
No. 7, pp. 81-87.
Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D. (1985), “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of
self-concept: first- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 562-582.
Moeller, S., Fassnacht, M. and Ettinger, A. (2009), “Retaining customers with shopping
convenience”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 313-329.
Morganosky, M.A. and Cude, B.J. (2000), “Consumer response to online grocery shopping”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “E-S-Qual: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 213-233.
Prasad, C.J.S. and Aryasri, A.R. (2009), “Determinants of shopper behavior in e-tailing: an
empirical analysis”, Paradigm, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 73-83.
Reimers, V. and Clulow, V. (2009), “Retail centres: it’s time to make them convenient”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 541-562.
Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1998), “Strategic information systems planning success:
an investigation of the construct and its measurement”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 139-163.
Seiders, K., Berry, L.L. and Gresham, L. (2000), “Attention retailers: how convenient is your
convenience strategy?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 79-90.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A.L. and Grewal, D. (2007), “SERVCON: development and
validation of a multidimensional service convenience scale”, Journal of the Academy
Marketing Science, Vol. 35, pp. 144-156.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D. and Godfrey, A.L. (2005), “Do satisfied customers buy more?
Examining moderating influences in a retailing context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69,
pp. 26-43.
Smith, J.S., Karwan, K.R. and Markland, R.E. (2009), “An empirical examination of the
structural dimensions of the service recovery system”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 165-186.
Tanskanen, K., Yrjola, H. and Holmstro, J. (2002), “The way to profitable internet grocery
retailing – six lessons learned”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 169-178.
Udo, G.J., Bagchi, K.K. and Kirs, P.J. (2010), “An assessment of customers’ e-service quality
perception, satisfaction and intention”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 481-492.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M. (2003), “eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail
quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 183-198.
JOSM Yale, L. and Venkatesh, A. (1986), “Toward the construct of convenience in consumer research”,
in Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Association for Consumer
24,2 Research, Provo, UT, pp. 403-408.
Yang, Z. and Fang, X. (2004), “Online service quality dimensions and their
relationships with satisfaction: a content analysis of customer reviews of securities
brokerage services”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 3,
212 pp. 302-326.
Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role
of switching costs”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.
Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z. and Zhou, N. (2005), “Development and validation of an instrument to
measure user perceived service quality of information presenting web portals”,
Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 575-589.

Further reading
Devaraj, S., Fan, M. and Kohli, R. (2002), “Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and
preference: validating e-commerce metrics”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 316-334.
Mittal, V. and Baldasare, P.M. (1996), “Eliminate the negative: managers should optimize rather
than maximize performance to enhance patient satisfaction”, Journal of Health Care
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 24-31.

Appendix 1. Major issues addressed during focus group interviews

(1) In general, what drives you to make purchasing through the internet rather than
shopping in physical stores?
(2) What does “convenience services” derived from online shopping mean to you?
(3) What specific criteria do you use in assessing how convenient online shopping is?
(4) Consider the last few purchases you have made through the web. Were there any
inconvenient aspects that you found at those web sites in terms of the following areas?
What are they?
(a) accessibility;
(b) product search;
(c) product availability and variety;
(d) delivery;
(e) after-sales services;
(f) technical issue (e.g. internet knowledge);
(g) web design (e.g. language, easy to flow); and
(h) customer services.
(5) What are major sources of inconvenience in purchasing from web sites? Can you provide
specific examples?
(6) What are major obstacles that keep you from purchasing more frequently through the
internet than you currently do? What are the advantages and drawbacks of making
purchases through the internet rather than shopping in physical stores?
Appendix 2. Items in the survey questionnaire Perceptions of
The final survey questionnaire consists of 22 items measuring online shopping convenience and
three items measuring behavioral intentions. All items are measured on a five-point Likert scale online shopping
anchored at strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

Online shopping convenience

(1) Access convenience: 213
.
I could shop anytime I wanted.
.
The web site is always accessible.
.
I could order products wherever I am.
(2) Search convenience:
.
The web site is user-friendly for making purchases.
.
The web site is easy to understand and navigate.
.
The web site is very attractive *.
.
I am able to find desired products quickly.
.
The product classification is intuitive and easy to follow.
.
I am able to find the same product using a variety of online search options *.
(3) Evaluation convenience:
.
The web site provides product specifics, such as volume, weight, and size.
.
The web site provides sufficient information so that I can identify different products
within the same category.
.
The web site uses both text and graphics to provide in-depth product information.
(4) Transaction convenience:
.
Online payment is simple and convenient.
. Payment methods are flexible.
.
I am able to complete my purchases without difficulty.
(5) Possession convenience:
.
Delivered goods are undamaged.
.
I received all the items I ordered.
.
Product delivery is timely.
.
The prices of delivered goods are identical to those on the order form.
(6) Post-purchase convenience:
.
It takes little effort to return some unwanted items.
.
The web site does not misuse my personal information *.
.
I feel safe in my transactions *.
Behavioral intentions
.
I will continue to shop online at this retailer.
.
I encourage others to shop online at this retailer.
.
I will use this retailer web site more often for online purchases.

Note: *Items were deleted from subsequent analyses.

JOSM About the authors
Ling (Alice) Jiang is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Management and Administration at
24,2 Macau University of Science and Technology. She has published in the Journal of Business
Research and Industrial Marketing Management, among others.
Zhilin Yang is Professor of Marketing at the City University of Hong Kong. He has published
in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of International Business
Studies, among others. Zhilin Yang is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
214 mkzyang@cityu.edu.hk
Minjoon Jun is Professor of Operation Management at New Mexico State University. He holds
a PhD in Operations Management from the Georgia State University. He has published in the
Journal of Operations Management and Journal of Supply Chain Management, among others.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats