Compare methods

	Sport Service Quality	Sport Event Economic Impact Analysis
Field	Sport Leisure Studies	Sport Leisure Studies
Family	Latent structure	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	2005	1995
Originator	Yong Jae Ko & Donna L. Pastore	John L. Crompton
Type	Hierarchical multidimensional service-quality measurement model	Input-output multiplier pipeline for event-attributable spending
Seminal source	Ko, Y. J., & Pastore, D. L. (2005). A hierarchical model of service quality for the recreational sport industry. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(2), 84-97.	Crompton, J. L. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sports facilities and events: Eleven sources of misapplication. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 14-35.
Aliases	SSQRS, Scale of Service Quality in Recreational Sport, Recreational Sport Service Quality	Event Economic Impact Study, Visitor Spending Multiplier Analysis, Sport Tourism Impact Assessment, Input-Output Event Analysis
Related	3	3
Summary	Sport service quality measurement adapts general service-quality theory to the distinctive features of sport and recreation settings, where the 'service' is an active, participatory experience rather than a simple transaction. Ko and Pastore's 2005 hierarchical model, the Scale of Service Quality in Recreational Sport (SSQRS), is the most influential sport-specific formulation. Drawing on Brady and Cronin's hierarchical conceptualization and the SERVQUAL tradition of Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, it argues that recreational sport service quality is best understood as a higher-order construct composed of four primary dimensions — program quality, interaction quality, outcome quality, and physical-environment quality — each in turn built from more specific sub-dimensions. By structuring quality hierarchically rather than as a flat list of attributes, the model captures both the overall perception participants form and the specific facets that drive it, giving sport managers a diagnostic tool that links measured quality to satisfaction and behavioral intentions.	Sport event economic impact analysis estimates the economic activity a region gains from hosting an event by tracing the new spending that visitors inject and propagating it through the local economy with input-output multipliers. John Crompton's foundational 1995 paper in the Journal of Sport Management is as much a warning as a method: it catalogued eleven recurring sources of misapplication — counting local residents' spending, using sales rather than income multipliers, ignoring time-switchers and casuals, omitting costs and opportunity costs — that systematically inflate headline numbers. His 2006 follow-up was blunter still, framing many impact studies as instruments for political shenanigans designed to justify subsidies rather than to find economic truth. Done correctly, the method isolates genuinely new, event-attributable spending by non-locals, applies an appropriate income multiplier, and nets out the public costs and displacement that boosters routinely ignore.