students’ perception of service quality in higher education

8/12/2019 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/students-perception-of-service-quality-in-higher-education 1/31

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF

SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER

EDUCATION Minor Project Report in

SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Submitted by:

Ashish Vishwananth Prakash

Niranjan N Naik

Prashanth Kumar

Submitted To:

Prof. Yogesh Pai



Introduction

Service quality has attracted considerable attention within the higher education sector. Although

many works have been carried out in this particular area, there are many areas of disagreement in

the debate over how to measure service quality, and recent research has raised many questions

over the principles on which the existing instruments are founded. Many generic instruments

have been tested with some degree of success in wide-ranging service industries, but their

replication in higher education sector is still hazy. Recent Literature also tells about industry

specific scales to measure service quality. In this present study one of such scales (jain et al.,

2012) have been chosen to measure service quality in manipal university. This research also tries

to figure ou the relationship between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a

typical education sector.

1.1 Defining service

Palmer (2011) defines a service as “The production of an essentially intangible benefit, either in

its own right or as a significant element of a tangible product, which through some form of

exchange, satisfies an identified need.” Alternatively, Lovelock & Wright (1999) adopt a more

infor mal approach, defining a service as “Something that may be bought and sold but that cannot

be dropped on your foot.” According to some researchers service is basically the creation of

value for the buyer that attracts the buyer to try it and it cannot be commented until tested (Guo,

2002; Awan, et al., 2008; Ham, et al., 2003; Wang,et al., 2008).

According to Valarie Zeithaml & Mary Jo Bitner (1996) services are deeds, processes, and

performances. James Fitzsimmons defines service as a time-perishable, intangible experience

performed for a customer acting in the role of a co-producer. Despite more than 25 years of

study, scholars in the field of services management do not agree on what a service is. Indeed,

instead of coming closer to a definition they seem to be less certain Farmer and Nollet (1999).

1.2 Importance of service sector

According to Zeithaml et al. (1993), services marketing did not emerge as a distinct research

discipline until the late 1970s. In less than four decades services have become the dominant form

of economic activity and are now playing an increasingly important role in the economy of many



nations (Abdullah, 2006a). There appears to be a positive relationship between economic

development of a country and its service sector; developed economies are increasingly more

service orientated (Palmer, 2011).In conjunction to this trend, the construct of service quality has

become an extremely topical issue within the services literature (Baron et al., 2009). The

provision of good service quality is commonly associated with increased profitability, customer

satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer retention, customer attraction and positive word of

mouth (Abdullah, 2006a; Nadiri et al., 2009; Voss et al., 2007).

1.3 Higher Education as a Service

DeShields et al. (2005) argue that it is essential for higher education management to apply

market-orientated principles and strategies that are used in profit-making institutions. According

to Oldfield and Baron (2000), higher education can be seen as a “pure service,” suggesting that it

possesses all the unique characteristics of a service .More recently, Gruber et al. (2010) assert

that higher education is a service that is predominantly intangible, perishable and heterogeneous.

1.4 The Student as the Primary Stakeholder

In higher education, the definition of customer is quite different from the manufacturing or

general services since groups such as students, employers, academic staff, government and

families are all customers of the education system with a diversity of requirements. Identifying

the primary stakeholder in higher education is problematic (Cuthbert, 1996a) .Hill (1995) claims

that students are the primary stakeholders of higher education services in the UK. In British

higher educations, students must now be considered ‘primary customers’ (Crawford,

1991).Gruber et al. (2010) contend that students are the specific and primary target audience,

stressing the need for academic administrators to focus on understanding their requirements.

Furthermore, it is important to satisfy students, since satisfied students will recommend the

service to other prospective students and will also be more likely to continue the relationship

with the service provider (Munteanu et al., 2010).

1.5 Defining Service Quality

Many researchers have termed service quality an ‘elusive’ and ‘indistinct’ construct that is

difficult to define and measure (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor,



1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988).Crosby (1979 ) provides one of the earliest definitions of quality,

suggesting that it is “the conformation to specifications. Lewis and Booms (1983, p. 100) were

one of the first to define quality in terms of services, defining service quality as: “a measure of

how well the service level delivered matches customer’s expectations.” This definition was

further developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), who argue that service quality stems from a

comparison of a consumer’s general expectations with their actual perceptions of a firm.

Alternatively authors such as Berry et al. (1988), propose that service quality is an overall

evaluation similar to an attitude.

Due to the subjective nature of service quality (Rust and Oliver, 1994), the services marketing

literature focuses on quality in terms of perceived service quality (Nadiri et al., 2009). Perceived

service quality results from the comparison of customer service expectations with their

perceptions of actual performance (Zeithaml et al., 1990).Athiyaman (1997) extended this idea,

claiming that perceived service quality is an overall evaluation of the goodness or badness of a

product or service. Hill (1995) adds to the complexity of perceived service quality, stating that

the service does not just depend on the service provider, but also on the performance of the

consumer. The co-production of services is of greatest concern to an organization when

customers are more involved in the production process (Palmer, 2011). This is extremely

significant in the context of higher education, as the participation of the student is vital since they

play a large role in determining the success of the service.

1.6 Importance of service quality

Baron et al., (2009, p. 167) maintain that Service quality is the single most researched area in

services marketing to date.Poor quality places the firm at a disadvantage to the rest of the

competition, potentially driving away dissatisfied customers (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011). Where

there is competition, the quality of the service experience becomes an important factor in buyer

decision-making (Cuthbert, 1996a).Improving service quality is crucial for gaining a competitiveadvantage (Baron et al., 2009; Parasuraman et al., 1985).

Service quality is particularly important for organisational growth and differentiating one service

experience from another (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Researchers over the years claims that

service quality is the most researched topic due to its supposed relationship with costs (Crosby,



1979), profitability (Rust and Zahorik, 1993), customer satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor, 1992),

customer retention (Bolton and Drew, 1991), and positive word-of-mouth (Stodnick and Rogers,

2008).

1.7 Service Quality in Higher Education

A number of different definitions has been given concerning quality in Higher Education, each

one representing a different view, including: exceptional, perfection, as fitness for purpose, value

for money (Harvey and Green, 1993), the stakeholder perspective of quality (Middlehurst, 1992),

degree to which the previously set objectives are met (Vroeijenstijn, 1992).

According to Sultan and Wong (2010), service quality research in the higher education sector is

relatively new, at least when compared to that of the commercial sector. With significant changes

taking place in higher education institutions over the last decade, it seems that higher education

should be regarded as a business-like service industry, which focuses on meeting and exceeding

the needs of students (Gruber et al., 2010). Students look for evidence of quality of services

when making an uncertain and high risk decision of choosing a university (Angell et al., 2008;

Donaldson and McNicholas, (2004). The customer-centric approach (or student-centred

approach) of service quality in educational literature has gained momentum as the increasing

cost of education has created a new generation of students with greater awareness than ever

before (Stodnick and Rogers, 2008).

Abdullah, (2006) states that achieving quality has become an important goal for most higher

education institutions knowing the strengths and weaknesses of different factors and their

relative influence may lead to better allocation of resources, resulting in students being provided

with an improved service . Aly & Akpovi,(2001) says that service quality is essential not only for

success but at times for survival as well, even in case of higher education. Nadiri et al. (2009)

point out that it is crucial for higher education providers to understand students’ expectations and

perceptions of what constitutes a quality service in order to attract students and serve their needs.

1.8 Measurement models of service quality

“There does not seem to be a well-accepted conceptual definition and model of service quality

nor is there any generally accepted operation definition of how to measure service quality.” Seth



et al. (2005) .The constant struggle to measure the service quality has led to the creation of many

models. From 1988 to 2008, many Service Quality Measurement Models have been developed.

Despite numerous attempts by academics, no single model of service quality is universally

accepted (Clewes, 2003). Some of the important models are discussed below.

The Perceived Service Quality Model

It is based on the disconfirmation paradigm where the consumer compares their expectations

with their perceptions, and the quality of the service is determined by the outcome of this

evaluation process. Gronroos (1984) claims that two types of service quality exist, namely,

technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality relates to what is provided during the

service process (e.g. knowledge, tangibles and technical solutions). These are the relatively

quantifiable aspects of the service, which the customer and supplier can easily measure

(Gronroos, 1984). On the other hand, functional quality refers to how the service is provided and

the interpersonal behaviours contributed by the service employee during the service encounter. It

is more difficult to measure than technical quality (Gronroos, 1984). Gronroos (2007) proposes

that the gap between the expected service and perceived service is of utmost importance and that

it is vital for a service organisation to keep this gap as small as possible. In addition, it is

important for managers to understand how the technical quality and functional quality of a

service is influenced, and how customers perceive these quality dimensions (Gronroos, 2007) to

ensure perceived service quality is maximized.

SERVQUAL MODEL

In 1988, Parasuraman, et al. developed a model to measure Quality in service sector. The model

was named as “SERVQUAL” relating to service quality. Parasuraman, et al. (1988, p.17)

configured different factors that define quality in service sector and narrowed them to 10

dimensions namely, ‘(a) tangible, (b) reliability, (c) responsiveness, (d) communication, (e)

credibility, (f) security, (g) competence, (h) courtesy, (i) understanding and knowing the

customer and ( j) access’. The concept of Service Quality explained by Parasuraman, et al. (1988,

p.16) as, ‘service quality as perceived by the customer, stems from a comparison of what they

feel service firm should offer (i.e. from their expectations) with their perceptions of the

performance of firms providing the services’. Eventually five dimensions were formed in the end



of the empirical research. Three of the dimensions were original taken whereas the two were

correlated and the rest of the dimensions were discarded. Parasuraman, et al. (1998, p.23)

defined five dimensions as ‘(a) Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment and appearance of

personnel, (b) Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately, (c)

Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service, (d) Assurance:

Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence, (e)

Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the organization provides to its customers’.

One of the most controversial issues is the reliability of SERVQUAL (Nadiri et al., 2009).

Firstly, the dimensions are not generic; that is, the applicability of the SERVQUAL scale to

different service settings is questionable (Abdullah, 2006a). Secondly, it is argued that the five

dimensions are not universal, since the number of dimensions comprising service quality is

contextualised (Buttle, 1995). criticisms aimed at SERVQUAL, as an instrument for general use,

is that Parasuraman et al. (1994) did not include some services, which are high in customer

contact or intervention.

SERVPERF Model

Cronin and Taylor (1992) were one of the first authors to criticise the reliability and validity of

the SERVQUAL model. In response to the limitations of the SERVQUAL model, Cronin and

Taylor (1992) developed the SERVPERF scale, which was born out of the inadequacies of

SERVQUAL.

This led to the development of a more direct form of measurement that utilised an attitudinal

rather than a disconfirmation paradigm (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). The SERVPERF approach

requires the customer to rate only the service provider’s performance in a particular service

encounter. Empirical results suggest that SERVPERF offers better reliability than SERVQUAL,

illustrating that expectations can be disregarded for assessment (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). In

response to this, Parasuraman et al. (1994) defended the inclusion of expectations suggesting that

the diagnostic value of SERVQUAL offsets the instrument loss of predictive power. Despite this,

a recent study concluded that both the SERVPERF and SERVQUAL scales are adequate

predictors of overall service quality (Carrillat et al., 2007). .Evidence of the application of the

SERVPERF model in the higher education context can be uncovered. Many researchers have



preferred this methodology to SERVQUAL and have used an adapted performance version of

SERVQUAL to measure the perceptions of service quality and evaluate students’ course

experience (see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a; Hill, 1995; McElwee and Redman, 1993; Oldfield and

Baron, 2000; Rigotti and Pitt, 1992).

The HEdPERF Model

Despite the emergence of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, it has been suggested that

industry-specific service quality measures may prove more relevant (Carman, 1990; Cronin and

Taylor, 1992; Zeithaml et al., 1985). Generic measures (e.g. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) of

service quality may not be totally suitable for assessing perceived quality in higher education

(Abdullah, 2006a), creating the need for an instrument specific to the higher education sector.

The model is an adaptation of the standard SERVPERF model (see e.g. Cronin and Taylor,

1992), adopting a perceptions-only approach. Abdullah (2006a) states that the aim of this model

is to capture a context specific view of service quality in higher education, enabling the whole

student experience to be measured. The instrument measures 41-items and each item have been

tested for reliability and validity, using both types of factorial analysis, exploratory and

confirmatory (Abdullah, 2006a). comparative results show that the HEdPERF scale captures

more variance relative to that of the SERVPERF scale (Sultan and Wong, 2010).

In particular, research findings confirm that students’ perceptions of service quality can be

determined by evaluating six dimensions, specifically, non-academic aspects, academic aspects,

reputation, access, programme issues and understanding.

EDUQUAL Model

Mahapatra and Khan (2007) proposed the “EduQual,” an instrument to measure service quality

in technical education with the following dimensions, namely, learning outcomes,

responsiveness, physical facilities, personality development and academics. This model was a

modified version of the previous SERVQUAL model. Purpose of this model was to measure the

influence of individual cultural values on student service expectations of quality in cross border

higher education.



Chapter 2 Research design

Objectives:

1. To assess the students perception of service quality in Manipal university using a scale

developed by jain et al.,( 2012).

2. To identify the important dimensions of service quality.

3. To examine the relationship between service quality dimensions and students satisfaction.

4. To examine the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

Research methodology

This study was carried out to analyse the students perception of service quality among students

of manipal university under various streams of study.

Research frame work

As per this particular frame work (Atheeyaman,2007), service quality is an independent variable

which invokes satisfaction and further behavioral intentions are influenced by dependent variable



satisfaction. This model also take into consideration the influence of service quality on the

behavioral intentions.

Research instrument

A Structured questionnaire consisting of 40 items for measuring service quality (Jain et al.,

2012),6 items for measuring satisfaction (Atheeyaman,2007),3 items for measuring behavioral

intentions (Atheeyaman,2007) and a global item to measure overall service quality was

administered to 300 respondents using convenience sampling method.

Sample size

Questionnaire was administered to 300 repondents by using convenience sampling method .Only

287 among 300 respondents filled the questionnaire. Previous studies conducted in similar area

used 170 (Angell et al., 2008) ,100 (Hussain et al., 2009),155 (Sumaedi, et al., 2012) as sample

size.

Analysis and interpretation

The data was analyzed using SPSS package. Pearson’s Correlation was used to identify the

relationship between dimensions of service quality and overall service quality and between

satisfaction, overall service quality and behavioral intentions. Reliability of scale was tested

using cronbach’s alpha test. Factor analysis was also done to examine the construct validity.



Chapter 3 Data analysis and interpretation

Demographic Profile

The personal profile of the respondents is vital to the study as it forms a basis of comparison

respondents with different demographic profile. The expectation and habit may vary among

respondents of different demographic profile.

Interpretation:

In our research we obtained the data, the analysis of which is as above. From this we

infer that majority of the respondents are female which constitutes 55.05% and 44.95% male.



Stream of study

Interpretation:

The Pie chart specifies the courses to which the respondent belonged from in the survey.

The majority of respondents are from engineering followed by medical and paramedical

students. The chart also indicates minuet difference in number of respondents in basic science

and other stream of students. Meanwhile it also highlights that out of 300 respondents 36 of them

belong to management.



Overall service quality

Interpretation:

From the above graph we have found that the mean value is 3.32. If the mean is more

than 3, then that mean result falls in the range in between agree and neither agree nor disagree.



Overall service quality is high * gender of the respondents Cross tabulation

Count

gender of the

respondents

Total

male female

overall service quality

is high

strongly disagree 5 8 13

disagree 22 34 56

neither agree nor

disagree40 47 87

agree 44 43 87

strongly agree 18 26 44Total 129 158 287

Overall service quality is high * respondents' general stream of study cross tabulation

Respondents' general stream of study Total

Management Engineering Medicine Paramedical Basic

sciences

Others

Overall service

quality is high

Strongly

disagree4 2 2 0 2 3 13

Disagree 6 14 13 12 5 6 56

Neither agree

nor disagree14 23 12 18 9 11 87

Agree 11 30 13 16 9 8 87

Strongly

agree1 16 14 7 4 2 44

Total 36 85 54 53 29 30 287



Interpretation:

From the above cross tabulation we come to know that, equal proportion of total

respondents are in state of agreeing and neither agree nor disagree with the quality of service

provided to them. Meanwhile it also highlights a very small percentage of respondents who

strongly disagree with the quality of service.

Correlation with overall service quality

P value Sig. value

Academic facilities .166 .005

Non academic facilities .428 .000

Curriculum .235 .000

Support facilities .205 .000

Interaction quality .598 .000

Industry interaction .214 .000

Input quality .189 .001

Campus .252 .000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation:

All dimensions have positive correlation with service quality. Significance value is < 0.05

which tells that all those result is significant. Among all the dimensions mentioned above

Interaction quality, Non- academic facilities and campus are considered to be the important one.



Service quality * satisfaction

H01: service quality is not related to satisfaction

satisfaction

P value Sig. value

Overall service quality .540 .000

Interpretation :

In this study we have found out the correlation between service quality and satisfaction, we set a

null (H01) hypothesis saying service quality is not correlated with satisfaction of students. But

our study data proved that there is high positive correlation between service quality and

satisfaction with 0.540 as P value which is higher than 0.0 and significance level is less than (<)

0.05 that is 0.000 indicates that result is significant.

Service quality * behavioral intention

H02: service quality is not related to behavioral intention.

Service quality

P value Sig. value

Behavioral intention .348 .000



Interpretation:

Behavioral intention and its correlation with service quality. Hypothesis set was H02: service

quality is not related to behavioral intention. Study proved with P value as 0.348 which is more

than 0.0 that there exist high level of positive correlation between the variables. Also result

obtain was significant since significance value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05.

Satisfaction * behavioral intention

H03: satisfaction is not related to behavioral intention

satisfaction

P value Sig. value

Behavioral intention .628 .000

Interpretation:

To test correlation between satisfaction of students and their behavioral intention we set a

hypothesis as H03: satisfaction is not related to behavioral intention. Data analysis proved there

is high positive correlation between satisfaction and behavioral intention with P value as 0.628

and with significant level is 0.000 which is less than 0.05, it shows that tells that the result

obtained is significant



Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.843 6

Latent

variable

Item Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if

Item

Deleted

Coefficient

alpha

Academic

facilities

The institute has clean, spacious and well-

equipped classrooms

.536 .833 .843

The institute’s library offers wide range of

resources

.652 .811

The institute provides up-to-date computer

labs

.688 .803

The institute has sufficient academic

equipment

.728 .796

The institute provides easy access to

information sources, e.g. books, journals,

software, information networks

.654 .810

The institute provides clean and safe

accommodation

.474 .844

Non-

academic

processes

Administrative process like registration,

examination, etc. are hassle free

.483 .820 .826

The institute provides opportunities to

participate

and organize variety of sports activities

.620 .792


participate

and organize variety of cultural activities

.659 .784


participate

and organize variety of social activities

.680 .779


participate

and organize variety of co-curricular

.610 .794



activities

The institute provides career information and

guidance

.512 .814

curriculum The institute’s curricula are balanced,

relevant and well organized

.571 .775 .806

The curricula are research based. .648 .751

The course content reflects industry and

social needs

.702 .732

The institute is responsive to industry

evaluations about the curriculum

.593 .768

The institute is responsive to student

evaluations about the curriculum

.447 .810

Support

facility

The dining hall provides variety of food and at

convenient hours

.555 .716 .759

Recreational facilities are available and

approachable

.664 .589

Healthcare facilities are available and

approachable

.552 .719

Interaction

quality

The interaction with faculty is good and

motivating

.624 .719 .783

The interaction with staff is good and

supportive

.698 .692

The interaction with classmates, course

mates and alumni is good

.650 .710

The faculty and staff are competent .629 .718

The orientation program/induction programis helpful in settling down

.215 .840

Industry

interaction

Contemporary teaching methods are used .589 .805 .830

The institute organizes for industrial tours .444 .834

The institute organizes for summer training .667 .787

Guest lectures from industry experts are

organized

.706 .780

The institute organizes for on-the-job training .537 .816

Seminars/workshops are organized .678 .787

Input

quality

The admission procedure is appropriate .604 .655 .757

The admission procedure is fair .687 .556The faculty and staff keep themselves

updated

.481 .785

campus The institute has visually appealing physical

facilities

.597 .821 .835

The institute is ideally located .682 .785

The institute has a good campus layout and .739 .758



appearance

The institute provides ambience conducive to

study/research

.648 .800

Interpretation:

To test the reliability of scale used in our study we made use of Cronbach’s alpha test.

Cronbach's alpha is the most common measure of internal consistency ("reliability"). It is most

commonly used when you have multiple Likert questions in a survey/questionnaire that form a

scale, and you wish to determine if the scale is reliable. We found out alpha for each dimensions

and also for each sub items. To interpret the output, we followed the rule of George and Mallery(2003). In which he stated as “> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6

(Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)”. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient

normally ranges between 0 and 1. The closer the coefficient is to 1.0, the greater is the internal

consistency of the items (variables) in the scale. Cronbach's alpha coefficient increases either as

the number of items (variables) increases, or as the average inter-item correlations increase (i.e.,

when the number of items is held constant). In our study we found value of the coefficient a

ranged from 0.757 to 0.843 for the eight factors of service quality which we took in our study.

All values we obtained in this here in test by applying to our scale we got value more than (>)

0.07 which shows that it is acceptable dimensions and high level of internal consistency.

In our test we came to know that all items to total were perfectly correlated having value more

than 0.3 except one item which lies in one of the dimension had little variation with value as

0.215 which is less than 0.3. By eliminating this item we can improve the scale efficiency.

Further, in in teraction quali ty we found value is >0.3. Which is the min value required as per

“Nunnally, (1967). Thus, it was found to remove this item to improve the scale. In our scale

Items such as,” The orientation program/induction program is helpful in settling down” and “The

faculty and staff keep themselves updated” can be removed, as their removal improved

coefficient alpha.



Factor Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy..857

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 5921.461

df 703

Sig. .000

Interpretation:

The KMO statistics varies between 0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates that the sum of partial

correlation is large relative to sum of correlation. A value close to 1 indicates that the pattern of

correlations is relatively compact. Any value greater than 0.5 is acceptable. In this study the

value is 0.857 which is good and factor analysis could be done for this study.

Rotated Component Matrix

a

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

staffsupportive .840

facultymotivating .809

classmates .765

inductionpgm .676

administrativeproce

ss.665

industrialtour .808

onthejobtraining .789

summertraining .764

studentevaluation .626

coursecontent .800

curricularesearchba

sed.786



curriculabalanced .690

industryevaluation .644

facultyupdated .554 .553

complab .803

library .791

cleanspaciousclass .690 .433

campuslayout .799

ambiencetostudy .446 .719

location .701

physicalfacilities .626 .522

socialactivities .838

culturalactivities .757

cocuricular .670

admisionfair .815

admissionapproprai

te.805

facultycompetent .730

accesstoinfo .762

accomodation .738

dininghall .672

academicequipmen

t.563 .599

careerguidance .748

healthcarefacility .668

recreationalfacility .410 .635

sportsopportunity .546 .595

seminar .806

teachingmethod .748

guestlecture .539 .560

Interpretation :

Factor analysis results suggested that unlike the previous study where items were grouped into 8

dimensions, the factor loading as per the present study suggests creation of two more dimensions.

The dimensions of this study has to be restructured into ten as per the results.

The items loaded in facror 1 suggest that it should be renamed to ‘ease of academic process’



The items loaded in factor 2 suggest that it should be renamed to ‘industry interaction’

The items loaded in factor 3 suggest that it should be renamed to ‘curriculum relevance’

The items loaded in factor 4 suggest that it should be renamed to ‘academic facilties’

The items loaded in factor 5 suggest that its name should be retained as ‘campus’

The items loaded in factor 6 suggest that its name should be retained as ‘non academic process ’

The items loaded in factor 7 suggest that its name should be retained as ‘input quality ’

The items loaded in factor 8 suggest that its name should be retained as ‘support facilities ’

The items loaded in factor 9 suggest that its name should be renamed as ‘support process’

The items loaded in factor 10 suggest that its name should be retained as ‘ pedagogy’



Findings

There is Considerable agreement that service quality is high.

This dimension of service quality is important as per our study in the case of Manipal

University, Interaction quality, Non-academic facilities, campus.

Service quality and satisfaction were found positively correlated.

Satisfaction and behavioral intentions were found positively correlated.

Service quality and behavioral intentions were found positively correlated

The scale constructed by jain et al.,(2012) was refined ie; study found out that Items such

as,” The orientation program/induction program is helpful in settling down” and “The

faculty and staff keep themselves updated” can be removed, as their removal improved

coefficient alpha.

The factor analysis suggested that the items can be grouped into ten dimensions unlike

eight dimensions identified by jain et al., (2012)



Bibliography

Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus

SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31-47.

Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of

service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 30(6), 569-581

Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate

education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16 (3), 236-254.

Atheeyaman, A. (1997) Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the

case of university education. European Journal of Marketing , 31(7), 528-540.

Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the

case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540. Baines, P.,

Fill, C., & Page, K. (2008). Marketing . New York: Oxford University Press.

Awan, M. U., Azam, S. and Asif, M. 2008, ‘Library Services Quality Assessment’,

Journal of Quality and Technology Management, Vol.4, No.1, pp.51-64.

Baron, S., Harris, K., & Hilton, T. (2009). Services marketing: text and cases. 3rd ed.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). The Service-Quality Puzzle.

Business Horizons, 31(5), 35-43. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the

effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. The Journal of Marketing ,

54(2), 69-82.

Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service

changes on customer attitudes. The Journal of Marketing , 55(1), 1-9.

Carrillat, F., Jaramillo, F., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). The validity of the SERVQUAL and

SERVPERF scales: A meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5), 472-490.



Clewes, D. (2003). A Student-centred Conceptual Model of Service Quality in Higher

Education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 69-85.

Corneliu Munteanu, Ciprian Ceobanu, Claudia Bobaˆlca˘ and Oana Anton,An analysis of

customer satisfaction in a higher education context,International Journal of Public Sector

Management Vol. 23 No. 2, 2010 pp. 124-140

Crawford, F. (1991) Total Quality Management . Committee of Vice-Chancellors and

Principals Occasional Paper,London, December 1991.

Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and

extension. The Journal of Marketing , 56(3), 55-68.

Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling

performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality.

The Journal of Marketing , 58(1), 125-131.

Crosby, L. A. (1991). Expanding the Role of CSM in Total Quality. International

Journal of Service Industry Management , 2(2), 5-19.

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York:

McGraw-Hill New York.

Cuthbert, P. F. (1996a). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?

Part 1. Managing Service Quality, 6 (2), 11-16.

Cuthbert, P. F. (1996b). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?

Part 2. Managing Service Quality, 6 (3), 31-35.

Daniel J B,Anna G,Service Quality in Higher Education:The students’ viewpoint,(not

published).

Fawad Husain, Suhaiza Hanim, Yudi Fernando, Mostafa Nejati,Education Service

Delivery and Students’Satisfaction: A Study of Private Colleges in Malaysia,GBMR Vol.

1, No. 1, 2009 pp. 64-72



Gronroos, C. (1978). A Service-Orientated Approach to Marketing of Services. European

Journal of Marketing, 12(8), 588-601.

Gronroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of

Marketing. 16(7), 30-41.

Gronroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications. European

Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.

Gronroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing: customer management in

service competition. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Guo, C. 2002, ‘Market orientation and business performance: A framework for service

organizations’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.36, No.9, pp.1154-1163

Halil Nadiria, Jay Kandampullyb ,Kashif Hussain,Students’ perceptions of service quality

in higher education,Total Quality Management Vol. 20, No. 5, May 2009, 523 – 535

Ham, C. L., Johnson, W., Weinstein, A., Plank, R. and Johnson, P. L. 2003, ‘Gaining

Competitive Advantages: Analyzing the Gap between Expectations andPerceptions of

service quality’, International Journal of Value Based Management, Vol.16, No.2,

pp.197-203

Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student

as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21.

Josep Gallifa,Pere Batalle,Student perceptions of service quality in a multi-campus

highereducation system in Spain,Quality Assurance in Education Vol. 18 No. 2, 2010 pp.

156-170

Lewis, R. C., & Booms, B. H. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality, in Berry

L., Shostack G. & Upah, G (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing , AMA,

Chicago, IL, 99-107.

Lovelock, C. H., & Wirtz, J. (2011). Services marketing: people, technology, strategy.

7th ed. London: Pearson.



Maria Pereda,David Airey , Marion Bennett,Service Quality in Higher Education: The

Experience of Overseas Students,Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism

EducationVol. 6, No. 2.ISSN: 1473-8376

Maria Tsinidou, Vassilis Gerogiannis,Panos Fitsilis,Evaluation of the factors that

determine quality in higher education: an empirical study,Quality Assurance in Education

Vol. 18 No. 3, 2010 pp. 227-244

Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service

quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(5),

523-535.

Palmer, A. (2011). Principles of services marketing . 6th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill

Education.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service

quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing , 49(1), 41-50.



Annexure :

QUESTIONNAIRE

This study is conducted to evaluate the student’s perception of service quality in higher education. The

data obtained will only be used for research purpose.

Please indicate your response by ticking in the appropriate boxes, to indicate level of agreement to

the each statement in reference to your Institute

Statement Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Part A 5 4 3 2 1

The admission procedure is appropriate.

The admission procedure is fair.

The faculty and staff are competent.

The faculty and staff keep themselves updated.

The institute’s curricula are balanced, relevant and wellorganized.

The curricula are research-based.

The course content reflects industry and social needs.

The Institute is responsive to industry evaluations about

the curricula.

The Institute is responsive to student evaluations about

the curricula.

The Institute organizes for On The Job Training.

The Institute organizes for Industrial tours.

The Institute organizes for Summer Training.

The Institute organizes for guest lectures from industryexperts.

The Institute uses Contemporary teaching methods.

The Institute organizes for Seminars/workshops

The Institute has visually appealing physical facilities.

The Institute is ideally located.

The Institute has good campus layout and appearance

The Institute provides ambience conducive to

study/research

The Institute has clean, spacious, and well equipped

classrooms.

The library offers wide range of resources.The Institute provides up-to-date computer

Laboratories

The Institute has sufficient academic equipment,

e.g. laboratories, workshops.

The Institute provides easy access to information

sources, e.g. books, journals, software,

Information networks.



The institute provides clean and safe

Accommodations

The institute’s dining-hall provides variety of food

and at convenient hours.

Recreational facilities are available and

approachable.Healthcare facilities are available and

approachable.

The institute provides career information and guidance. 5 4 3 2 1

Statement Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

The institute provides opportunities to participate

or organize variety of sports activities.


or organize variety of cultural activities.


or organize variety of social activities.The institute provides opportunities to participate

or organize variety of co-curricular activities.

The institute’s administrative process like

registration, examination etc are hassles free.

The interaction with faculty is good and

motivating.

The interaction with staff is good and supportive.

The interaction with classmates, course mates

and alumni is good.

The institute’ orientation program/ induction

program is helpful in settling downI will rate the Institute high on overall service

quality.

I am satisfied with my decision to attend this college

If have a choice to do it all over again, I still will enroll in thiscollege

My choice to enroll in this college is a wise one

I am happy on my decision to enroll in this college

I did the right decision when I decided to enroll in this college

I am happy that I enrolled in this college

I like talking about my college to my friends.

I like helping potential students by providing them with

information about my college and its courses.

People ask me for information about courses offered at

my college

Part B:

Please fill in your personal details: Course: --------------------------------------------

Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ] Institute: --------------------------------------------

students’ perception of service quality in higher education

Documents