the link between perceived service quality dimensions and
Post on 09-May-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Link between Perceived Service Quality Dimensions
and Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical Study of Public
Higher Education Sector of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Nisar Muhammad
* Shahid Jan Kakakhel
† and Qadar Bakhsh Baloch
Abstract The purpose of this research study was to explore the link between
service quality dimensions and customer (students) satisfaction. Service
quality (SQ) is a gateway to customer (students) satisfaction. (SQ) is
considered imperative when it comes to define institutional
achievement. This is a winning and persuasive strategy to deliver best
service quality to students. Service quality dimensions can be improved
if the universities direct their improvements efforts on the dimensions
which students consider most important when assessing the quality of
service. A structured questionnaire was adopted and modified for
higher education industry. The hypotheses were simultaneously tested
on a sample of 245 students of 10 selected universities of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan). Responses of students were examined with
the help of SPSS and AMOS software. Structural equation modelling
analytical technique was used to investigate the relationship among
variable under investigation. The findings of the present study have
shown significant relationship among the variables under investigation.
The study suggested that empathy, assurance, responsiveness and
reliability dimensions of service quality have more effect on customer
satisfaction. It means that students are more conscious and sensible
towards these dimensions. The current study reveals that students are
satisfied from the service quality of their respective universities but still
even not a single Pakistani university ranked in top five hundred
universities of the world. There is a dire need for further research in
this grey area in future to highlight the problem.
Keywords: Service Quality (SQ), Tangibility, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, Customer Satisfaction (CS),
Higher Education Institutions / Industry (HEI)
Introduction:
In present competitive higher education market place, where students
have a variety of choices and picks available (Edden, Khalafatis &
Mathioudakis, 2011). The variables that empower universities to attract
and retain students became increasingly considered with the
implementation of market oriented concept become popular in higher
* Nisar Muhammad PhD Research Scholar, Islamia College Peshawar, Email:
nisar.afridi20@yahoo.com † Dr.Shahid Jan Kakakhel, Chairman Department Of Management Sciences,
Islamia College University, Peshawar.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 110 Volume XI Number 03
education institutions in order to survive at regional and global level
higher education (Edden, Kalafatis, & Mathioudakis, 2011).
Students’ satisfaction has become a key concern for higher
education institutions and it has been identified that students’ satisfaction
is a crucial source of competitive advantage and this satisfaction lead to
students’ retention, attraction of new students, mouth marketing, market
goodwill and better image of the institutions (Arambewela & Hall,
2006). The review of literature depicts that long-term survival and
achievements of the higher education institutions subject to the quality of
service which differentiates one institution from other institutions (Aly &
Akpovi,, 2001).
The HEI in Pakistan has experienced massive growth in recent
years and it is generally recognised that future achievement in a
worldwide economy belongs to those organizations that go the additional
distance in providing students first-class customer service. Higher
education institutions should assess their service quality on regular basis.
Higher education industry is one of the most significant industry and
playing fundamental role in state development. Education is considered
the backbone of economic development of a nation, therefore, ultimate
destination of Pakistan to join the top 10 economies of the world by 2047
on the centennial year of independence (HEC, 2014). The Pakistan
higher education industry faces more competitive market structure,
therefore it is more essential to investigate customer satisfaction in HEI,
as institution of higher education could greatly benefit from being able to
raise the level of customer satisfaction(Bolton & Drew, 1991),
satisfaction can provide an institution with a type of competitive
advantage(Channoi, 2014), particularly at a positive word of mouth
which build a brand name of the institution (Khalifa & Mahmoud, 2016;
Stimac & Simic, 2016; Feldman et al., 2014; Kim & Periyayya,
2013).Excellent SQ as perceived by the customers can give any firm a
competitive advantage(Albrecht, 1991).
Objectives of the study:
To find out the relationship between tangible and customer
satisfaction.
To find out the relationship reliability and customer satisfaction.
To find out the relationship between responsiveness and customer
satisfaction.
To find out the relationship between assurance and customer
satisfaction.
To find out the relationship between empathy and customer
satisfaction.
Research Hypotheses:
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 111 Volume XI Number 03
H1: There is significant relationship between tangible and customer
satisfaction in higher education institutions.
H2: There is significant relationship between reliability and customer
satisfaction in higher education institutions.
H3: There is significant relationship between responsiveness and
customer satisfaction in higher education institutions.
H4: There is significant relationship between assurance and customer
satisfaction in higher education institutions.
H5: There is significant relationship between empathy and customer
satisfaction in higher education institutions.
Literature Review
Service quality:
Quality refers to the totality of features and characteristics goods /
services that have the ability to satisfy the current and potential needs of
the customers (Kotler et al,2002).One of the most cited definition of
service quality is the comparison between customers’ expectation and
perception of service experience. If the perception of the customers is
higher than the customer expectations, the perceived service quality will
be higher and vice versa(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988).Service
quality in higher education context refers to the students’ subjective
evaluation of the service provider performance level with the students’
expectation level(Meštrović, 2017).He further suggested that service
quality in higher education industry refers to a set of dimensions,
attributes and characteristics that related to the service provider.The
purpose the study was to identify the major dimensions of service quality
in the higher education institutions of Pakistani context that have the
most influence on students perceived service quality and satisfaction
level. SERVQUAL is the most acknowledged and commonly used
instrument for evaluating service quality in higher education sector.
There is a substantial body of evidence in higher education literature
(Datta& Vardhan, 2017; Ibraheem, 2016; Truong et al., 2016; Donlagic
& Fazlić, 2015; Ghotbabadi, Feiz, & Bahar, 2015; Twaissi & Al-Kilani,
2015; Yousapronpaiboom, 2014; Chopra, Chawla, & Sharma, 2014;
Kanakana, 2014; Shaari, 2014; Cheruiyot & Maru, 2013; Shah, 2013;
Vaz & Mansori, 2013; Bharwana et al., 2013; Cerri, 2012; Govender &
Ramroop, 2012; Rasli et al., 2012; Khan, Ahmed & Nawaz, 2011;
Khodayari & Khodayari, 2011; Mosahab, Mahamad, & Ramayah,
2010)recommending SERVQUAL scale is effective in measuring SQ in
HEI.
Tangible:
According to Parasuraman et al., (1988) tangible refers to
appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel & written
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 112 Volume XI Number 03
materials. The tangibility dimension of service quality refers to the
physical surrounding, facilities, equipment, and appearance of staff and
the way of communication. In higher education sector the tangibility
refers to the goods and services that customersperceive to judge a service
(Mwiya et al., 2017). The tangibility dimension is related to the first
impression is last impression. Every organization wants to win the hearts
of their customers with a unique and never forgetting first hand
impression to retain the customer for a long period of time
(Delgado&Ballester, 2004). Other studies (Twaissi& Al-Kilani, 2015;
Kundi et al., 2014) establish that tangible has a significant effect on
students’ satisfaction in higher education industry.
Reliability:
Parasuraman et al., (1988) defines thatreliability as the ability to
accomplish the promised servcie dependably and accurately. Reliability
is an important dimension of service quality. Other empirical studies
(Hassan & Ibrahim, 2010; Sultan & Wong, 2012) suggested that
reliability has effect on student’s satisfaction. In higher education
industry, reliability aspects reveals the institutions ability to deliver the
service at the promised times, keeping students’ academic and results
records (Mwiya et al., 2017).
Responsiveness:
Responsiveness is a significant dimension of SQ which denotes
to the readiness of the institute to help its students in providing them with
best quality and prompt services (Parasuraman et al., 1988). In today
competitive global market every customer feel more value if they get the
best possible quality in service. In the higher education context it
explains that how much the university system is alert towards the quality
service providing to the students (Mwiya et al., 2017).The customers
judges the performance of an organization by the speed with which their
desires and grievances are handled (Zeithaml et al., 2006).The
employees’ actions and attitude toward service performance play a
significant role in customer satisfaction (Kundi et al., 2014; Jiewanto et
al., 2012).
Assurance:
Parasuraman et al., (1988)define assurance as
employees’understanding, familiarity, knowledge, courtesy and their
ability to stimulate trust and confidence. It shows the levels of the
services provided to customers that is credible and can be trusted or the
ability of the staff to inspire trust and confidence (Parasuraman et al.,
1988). It means that the services provided by the organizations for which
they assured the customers (Mwiya et al., 2017). Assurance has a
significant relationship with customer satisfaction (Jiewanto et al., 2012).
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 113 Volume XI Number 03
Empathy
The word empathy refers to show care and provide
individualized attention to its customer (Parasuraman et al., 1988).With
regard to higher education institutions empathy implies such things as
giving individualized consideration and caring the needs of students by
all the employees of the organization staff that interact with the students
(Mwiya et al., 2017). It means that how much university feels and cares
the needs of the students. According to Kundi et al., (2014)empathy has a
significant effect on students’ satisfaction.
Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a comparative judgement between
expectancy and received services (Oliver, 1981).Kotler & Clarke,(1987)
define satisfaction as an outcome that fulfils a person expectation or a
state felt by a person who has experience performance. It shows that
satisfaction is an output of relative level of perception and expectation.
According to Kotler & Armstrong (2012) urged that satisfaction is a post
purchase assessment of product or services taking into consideration the
expectation. Customers usually depend on extrinsic cues like image to
determine and perceive SQ (Gronroos, 1984).According to Hazlina et al.,
(2011) service quality is one of the most important tools to measure
customer satisfaction. The expectation develop before the students even
enter into university, therefore it is imperative for the scholars to define
first what the students expect before entering the university. Service
quality was only one of many dimensions on which satisfaction is based
(Clemes, 2008). Empirical study of Sulieman (2011) mentioned that
reliability, tangibility, assurance and responsiveness have significant
association with customer satisfaction. Students are considered the key
stakeholder of higher education institutions.
Service Quality (SQ) and Customer Satisfaction in HEI
The prevailing higher education is a dynamic and competitive
one (Dehghan, Dugger, Dobrzykowski, & Balazs, 2014), where higher
education institutions need to increase their efforts to improve their
service quality(Clemes, Cohen, & Wang, 2013).Service quality in higher
education sector is a combination of different inside and outside class
room activities such as class room based activities communication with
lecturers and other staff(Asaduzzaman, Rahman, & Hossain, 2013).In the
present scenario there are numerous factors forcing universities to adopt
quality education because of internationalization of higher education
(Rasli, Shekarchizadeh, & Iqbal, 2012; Sultan and Wong, 2010), increase
in the number of private universities (Halai, 2013) and availability of
different measurement tool for assessing service quality such as
SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, HEdPERF, HESQUAL, (Parasuraman et al.,
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 114 Volume XI Number 03
1988; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Abdullah, 2005;Teeroovengadum,
Kamalanabhan, & Seebaluck, 2016). Relatively few research studies
have attempted to measure service quality in hihger education industry,
(Datta & Vardhan, 2017;Ibraheem, 2016; Kara, Tanui, & Kalai,
2016;Twaissi & Al-Kilani, 2015;Donlagic & Fazlić, 2015; Porral &
Levy-Mangin, 2013; Chopra, Chawla, & Sharma, 2014;Shah, 2013;
Rasli, Shekarchizadeh, & Iqbal, 2012). Around the world, hihger
education industry are facing declining enrolment and retention problems
(Rowley, 2013).
Service quality (SQ) in HEI is not only essential but also it is a
significant parameter of education excellence. Alves & Raposo (2010)
urged that positive perception of service quality has a significant effect
on students’ satisfaction and satisfied students would attract more
students through mouth marketing.According to Sapri, Kaka&Finch,
(2009) consumers are the life blood of any organization and students
considered the key customers of higher education institutions; therefore,
academic performance of the faculty members and efficiency of the
administration can inspired and motivated the students which lead to
students’ satisfaction.Various researchers (Rasli, Shekarchizadeh, &
Iqbal, 2012;Ahmed, et al., 2010;Elliot & Shin, 2002) suggested that
service quality is a strategic variable for higher education institutions to
make a strong perception in students mind and also a significant
measurement tool in educational excellence.
Methodology Geographical Scope
This research study is restricted to investigate the relationship
between service quality and customer satisfaction. The higher education
institutions which have been selected for collecting the responses of
students include public sector universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Pakistan.
Population
In this research students of public universities in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa served as the population of the study.
Sample and sampling technique:
A sample of 245 students of higher education institutions was
selected for this research study. Sampling units were selected on the
basis of convenience sampling technique. This is one of non-probability
sampling technique where respondents are selected on the basis of their
ease of access. Questionnaire was distributed to different level of
students of management sciences of public universities of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa.
Sample of the Study:
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 115 Volume XI Number 03
According to Gaur & Gaur(2009) a sample size of 200-300
should be take into considerationfor a proper analysis because asuitable
sample size is significant for finding the accuratefactor
structure.Following are the table which shows the sample size of the
universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Table 1 showing the sample size of public sector universities of
Khyber Pakhunkhwa S.No. Public Sector Universities Students Sample
1 Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan 7147 33
2 Hazara University, Mansehra. 11385 53
3 Islamia College University, Peshawar. 3368 16
4 KUST Kohat 3591 17
5 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal 1313 06
6 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar 4037 19
7 University of Malakand, Chakdara. 4304 20
8 University of Peshawar, Peshawar. 9874 46
9 University of Science and Technology, Bannu. 2304 11
10 Gomal University, D.I.K 5330 24
Total 52653 245
Source: (HEC, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa university wise enrolment of year 2014-15)
Data Collection
Primary and secondary both type of data were employed for the
purpose of this study. The first hand data related to this study were
collected from the students of ten public higher education institutions
located in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The secondary data was obtained from
research journals, books, library, internet and others sources.
Primary Data:
This research study a specific questionnaire have been adapted
from the study of (Parasuraman et al. 1988) SERVQUAL model, Noel-
Levitz customer satisfaction inventory, and competitiveness dimensions
derived from the previous literature to conduct survey of the students of
the sampled Khyber Pakhtunkhwa universities. The nature of the study is
also explained to respondents and their confidentially of any information
provide assure. Respondents have been provided with complete
instructions as to how the questionnaire will be completed and returned.
The close-ended questionnaire has been developed on a five point Liker
scale.
Secondary Data:
Second hand data was also used for further information.
Secondary data has been collected from books, Journals, annual reports,
university prospectus newspaper, articles and internet etc. All sources of
secondary data are duly acknowledged at the reference section of the
research.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 116 Volume XI Number 03
Table 2 Variables Identified for Questionnaire
Authors Variables identified Section in
Questionnaire
Parasuraman et al., (1985, 1988) Tangibles (SERVQUAL)
Service
Quality
Parasuraman et al., (1985, 1988) Reliability (SERVQUAL)
Parasuraman et al., (1985, 1988) Responsiveness(SERVQUAL)
Parasuraman et al., (1985, 1988) Assurance(SERVQUAL)
Parasuraman et al., (1985, 1988) Empathy (SERVQUAL)
Noel-Levitz (2010) Student Satisfaction
Inventory (SSI)
Customer
Satisfaction
Tool used for analysis:
SPSS and AMOS software version 20 statistical tool was used for the
examination of data.
Data Analysis:
Table 3 Demographic Profile of the Respondents Respondents Percentage
Gender Male students 196 80%
Female students 49 20%
Education Bachelor 89 36.3%
Master 121 49.4%
MS/M.Phil. 22 9.0%
PhD 13 5.3%
Age
16-20 62 25.3%
21-25 132 53.9%
26-30 36 14.7%
31-35 14 5.7%
36+ 01 0.4%
Duration <1 82 33.5%
1-2 Years 117 47.8%
2-3 Years 38 15.5%
3-4 Years 8 3.3%
The table 3 reveals the demographic summary of the respondents
of the public universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. There are 245
respondents taken from public sector universities out of which 196 were
male and 49 were female with the percentage of 80% and 20%
respectively. The majority number 121 (49.4%) students was studying in
master classes, 89 (36.3%) in bachelor classes, 22 (9.0%) and 13 (5.3%)
studying in M.Phil. and PhD. Classes respectively. The above table
further depicts the age of the students included in this study, where the
mostlystudents were in the range of 21-25 years. The duration of the
students in the public sector universities was included 1-2 years of range
where the number of respondents who stayed for 1-2 years with 47.8%.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 117 Volume XI Number 03
Reliability
To ensure the reliability of data Cronbach Alpha statistics was a
suitable tool suggested by (Kline, 2011; Byrne, 2010; Hair et al.,
2010).The below table 4 depicts the stepwise reliability analysis for the
students’ measurement instrument. The analysis of the table discloses
that Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of reliability, clearly exceeded the
threshold value of 0.6, as suggested by (Yong et al. 2010). The entire
Cronbach’s alpha are greater than 0.7, this indicates good subscale
reliability and internal consistency of the items. Results given in the
following table indicates that reliability of all the constructs related to
service quality, customer satisfaction and competitiveness is well above
0.7. Scale items was also analysed to check either eliminating an item
would increase the construct reliability. It was found that reducing an
item would improve the construct reliability.
Table 4 Reliability Statistics of Service Quality and Customer
Satisfaction
Instrument (initial)
No. of
items
(initial) Conbach
Alpa coefficient
(Final)
No. of
items.
(Final) Cronbach
Alpha coefficient
Tangible 4 0.743 4 0.743
Reliability 5 0.807 4 0.858
Responsiveness 4 0.871 4 0.871
Assurance 4 0.938 4 0.938
Empathy 5 0.629 4 0.823
C/Satisfaction 12 0.801 8 0.924
Assumption Statistics
The current study followed the suggestions of Hair et al., (2010) where
Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure sample adequacy and Bartlett’s-
Test-of-Sphericity (BTS) were examined. According to the above-
mentioned researchers, (KMO) needs to be greater than 0.7 and (BTS)
needs to be significant at P < 0.001 levels, for researchers to proceed
with exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The following table depicts the
results of KMO, BTS and significant at p level of the present study.
These results indicates that KMO and BTS was significant at p < 0.001
level, representing the data are adequate for factor analysis.
Table 5 Assumption Statistics of Service Quality Dimensions and
Customer Satisfaction Variable DCM* KMO** BTS*** SIG****
Tangible 0.512 0.698 162.267 .000
Reliability 0.123 0.766 507.724 .000
Responsiveness 0.207 0.716 381.924 .000
Assurance 0.072 0.765 637.542 .000
Empathy 0.206 0.708 382.606 .000
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 118 Volume XI Number 03
Customer Satisfaction 0.002 0.877 1500.407 .000
* Determinant of Correlation Matrix
** Kaiser Meyer Olkinmeasures of sampling adequacy
*** Bartletts Test ofSpherecity
**** Significance, p< 0.001
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):
The (CFA) process determines whether the hypothesised
structure delivers a good fit to the data. According to Hair et al. (2006)
CFA specifies how variables measured logically and systematically
represents the variables involved in a theoretical model. The (CFA)
would verify that items are properly aligned with the correct facets
within the general construct being measured. There are number of fit
indices for structural equation modelling (SEM) in the literature.
However, there are certain recommendations available for reporting fit
indices. Hancock & Mueller (2010) suggested RMSEA, SRMR and at
least one of CFI, TLI and NFI. Bandalos& Finney (2010) recommended
CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR and Chi-square provides guidance on the fit
statistics for CFA. The Root-Mean-Square-Error-of-Approximation
(RMSEA) has a range of zero to one and a smaller RMSEA value
showing a better fit. The RMSEA relates to the model’s residual.
According to Hu &Bentler (1999) recommended value is closed to 0.08
for SRMR and RMSEA value of 0.06 or lower indicates good model fit,
although a value of 0.08 or lower is considered adequate
(Browne&Cudeck, 1993). According to Byrne (2006) Comparative Fit
Index CFI measures overall enhancement of a suggested model against
an independence model when the observed variables are not correlated.
The values of CFI are found between zero to one and higher values
representing the better model fit but and an adequate model fit value for
CFI is 0.90 or higher (Hu &Bentler, 1999). The Normed-Fit-Index NFI
and Non-normed-Fit-Index NNFI are also the model fit indicators and
their values higher than 0.90 are deemed to be considerable (Kline, 2011;
Byrne, 2010). The Goodness-of-Fit-Index GFI shows the percentage of
available variance / co-variance in the dataset explained by the model
and minimum value for GFI should be 0.90 (Kline, 2011).
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM): According to Schumacker& Lomax (2010, 12), a number of
models are used in SEM to show the relationships between observed
variables with the objective of testing a hypothesised theoretical model.
These theoretical models can be tested using (SEM) that hypothesises
variables to define constructs and depict the relationship between such
constructs. In SEM a theoretical model is developed from the sample
data and the researcher is able to identify whether the hypothesised
model is supported by the sample observed data or not.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 119 Volume XI Number 03
Model Fit Summary:
CMIN/DF GFI TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR
1.251 0.923 0.924 0.931 0.045 .0230
Hypotheses Testing
“A hypothesis is a testable statement of relationship derived from theory”
(Le& Corbett, 2009). The hypothesis must be testable, determines the
nature of relationship between constructs and derived from a theoretical
context. According to Sarstedt& Mooi, (2014) certain steps need to be
followed like formulate hypothesis, select relevant test, select level of
significance, estimate test statistics, make decision on test and interpret
the results. The hypothesis setting composed of null and alternative
statements. Sarstedt & Mooi, (2014) suggested that null (HO) hypothesis
indicates no difference in a statement while in alternative hypothesis the
researcher expects some difference. According toGaur & Gaur(2009) a
null (HO) hypothesis is not accepted if the (p-value) obtain is less than
and accepted if it is greater than the significance level at which
hypothesis are tested.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 120 Volume XI Number 03
P-value or Significance Level
Significance level is a criterion that is used for accepting or not accepting
a null hypothesis is called p-value or significance level(Gaur & Gaur,
2009). They further suggested a p-value of 0.05 is a standard for social
sciences research. Therefore this research study also takes a p-value of
0.05 as a standard for accepting or rejecting of hypotheses.
Techniques used to test the Hypotheses:
Structural equation modelling SEM is used as a device to check the
predetermined hypotheses. There were total five hypotheses developed
from the previous literature in order to elaborate the relationship between
service quality dimension and customer satisfaction.
Table 6 Tool used for Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses Tool use for testing Hypotheses
H1: Tangibility has a significant
relationship with customer satisfaction. Structural Equation Modelling
H2: Reliability has a significant
relationship with customer satisfaction. Structural Equation Modelling
H3: Responsiveness has a significant
relationship with customer satisfaction. Structural Equation Modelling
H4: Assurance has a significant
relationship with customer satisfaction. Structural Equation Modelling
H5: Empathy has a significant
relationship with customer satisfaction. Structural Equation Modelling
This research study utilized goodness-of-fit measures to test the
hypothesised model.
Table 7 Significant relationship between SQ Dimensions and
Customer Satisfaction (CS)
Dependent Independent Estimate (S.E.) (C.R.) (P)
Satisfaction <--- Tangible -.142 .102 -1.402 .161
Satisfaction <--- Reliability .055 .024 2.319 .020
Satisfaction <--- Responsiveness .300 .031 9.565 ***
Satisfaction <--- Assurance .517 .057 9.050 ***
Satisfaction <--- Empathy .374 .037 9.989 ***
The above table indicates the relationship between service
quality domains thus; responsiveness (C.R = 9.565, 0.300), empathy
(C.R = 9.989, 0.374), reliability (C.R= 2.319, 0.055), and assurance
(C.R= 9.050, 0.517) positively and statistically significant with customer
satisfaction. Moreover, tangible had a negative and statistically
insignificant (p < 0.05) influence on students satisfaction (C.R = -1.402, -
0.142). Therefore, the hypothesised relationship between service quality
dimensions and students satisfaction is partially supported through
responsiveness, empathy, reliability and assurance aspects of higher
education.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 121 Volume XI Number 03
Moreover, the construct tangible (t = -1.402, -0.142) had a
negative insignificant relationship with universities competitiveness. The
findings supported hypotheses H2, H3, H4, and H5 respectively.
Therefore, it is concluded that in public higher education environments,
perceived students service quality is supported through responsiveness,
empathy, reliability and assurance. This also indicates that (SQ) has a
significant connection with customer satisfaction. Students perceived
(SQ) major determinants had a positive and statistically significant
influence on their satisfaction. Therefore, hypotheses H2, H3, H4 and H5
are also partially supported. Only the dimension tangible in the path
coefficient indicates negatively insignificant influence on customer
satisfaction. It is concluded that hypothesised relationship between
tangible and customer satisfaction is not supported with respect to
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s public HEI.
Discussion: This study examines the association between the (SQ)
dimensions and students satisfaction. As such it employed a quantitative
approach (Saudners et al., 2009).Previous researchers exploring (SQ) in
higher education industry in Zambia (Mwiya et al., 2017),in Jordan
(Twaissi& Al-Kilani, 2015), and Colombia (Cardona & Bravo, 2012)
have used a similar approach. The resultsof this study suggests that
perceived empathy, responsiveness, reliability and assurance each
dimension significantly affect overall customer satisfaction in public
sector universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan). Based on the
comprehensive path analysis model, the main predictor of students’
satisfaction is perceived empathy.
The conclusions from this study have supported the model and
the hypothesised relationship. It means higher the perceived level of
(SQ) in responsiveness, assurance, reliability and empathy to student’s
needs, the higher the level of students’ satisfaction. These results
resonate with previous study of(Khan, Ahmed, & Nawaz, 2011), that a
significant association was observed among dimensions (reliability,
assurance, responsiveness and empathy) with students’ satisfaction while
dimension tangible had an insignificant relationship with satisfaction in
higher education sector. There is significantly negative gap is observed
in the expectation and perception of the (SQ) of higher education
students (Chopra, Chawla, & Sharma, 2014). According to Diab et al.,
(2016) assurance, emapthy, tangibility and reliability were the most
important dimensions of servcie quality that had positive influence on
customer satisfaction. Truong et al., (2016) used regression anlaysis to
determine the influentail servcie quality dimensions that affect students
satisfaction in private colleges in Vitenam. The research study found that
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 122 Volume XI Number 03
all the SERVQUAL dimensions impacted on students perceptions of
service quality in turn effecting on satisfaction. Similarly in a study in
Malaysian hihger education institutions, it was determined that four
service quality dimensions had a significant connection with (CS) and
hihgly correlated with one another (Chui et al., 2016).
Responsiveness is an imperative dimension of (SQ) and had a
significant association with overall service quality and customer
satisfaction (Rasli et al., 2012; Rehman 2012; Ladhari et al. 2011).
Assurance had a significant association with customer satisfaction
(Siddiqi 2010; Lo et al., 2010). Empathy had a significant relationship
with satisfaction (Rehman, 2012; Arasli, 2005).According to Kontic
(2014) assurance was the most important dimensions of service quality in
Serbian higher education industry. In addition, a study conducted in a
university library services, responsiveness was considered one of the
most important construct of service quality (McClean, 2012). Calvo-
Porral et al, (2013) found tangible to be the most important dimension in
Spanish research study, at a university of Technology (Green, 2014) and
Nigerian Polytechnics institutes (Iro-Idoro et al., 2014). In addition, the
dimension empathy rated low importance with the study findings of (Iro-
Idoro et al., 2014), but in contrast rated highly in other studies (Green,
2014; Kontic 2014; Calvo-Porral et al, 2013).
Conclusion
Measuring the service quality based on customer perception is a complex
job, however to some-extent this study can get a slight understanding
about the quality provided by the higher education institutions in Khyber
Pakhunkhwa, (Pakistan).The service quality concept has also been
acknowledged by the universities and now concentrating and making
efforts to achieve students’ satisfaction by providing of teaching and
non-teaching services. From the point of view of the respondents the
result of the research study shows that customer perception toward
empathy, assurance, responsiveness and reliability dimension of service
quality has the highest influence on customer (students) satisfaction. The
result also depicts that customer expectation toward empathy dimension
of service quality has the maximum effect on customer (students)
satisfaction.
Limitations and Future research Suggestions: There are few inherent limitations within the study that needed to be
addressed: This study has conducted only in public sector universities in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan). As the sample of this study was obtain
from students enrolled in management sciences within the public sector
universities only. It would be beneficial for future research to extend this
investigation and replicate the study to other departments and higher
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 123 Volume XI Number 03
education’s institutions. Due to small sample size the result of the study
cannot be generalized. Though, a more comprehensive research study
can be conducted by taking a large sample size and including all the
public and private universities in Pakistan to develop a comprehensive
service quality and students satisfaction model. In future, the research
could be evaluated including other stakeholders reactions based on the
conceptual model of this study.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 124 Volume XI Number 03
References Abdullah, F. (2005). HEdPERF versus SERVPERF: The quest for ideal
measuring instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality
Assurance in Education, 13(4), 305-328.
Abdullah, F. (2006a). The development of HEdPERF: A new measuring
instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. Interational
journal of consumer studies, 30(6), 569-581.
Abdullah, F. (2006b). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF
versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intellignece and Planing, 1, 31-47.
Ahmed, S., & Masud, M. M. (2014). Measuring service quality of a higher
educational institute towards student satisfaciton. American Journal of
Educational Research, 2(7), 447-455.
Aly, N., & Akpovi, J. (2001). Total quality management in California public
higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(3), 127-131.
Arambewela, R; Hall, J. (2006). A comparative analysis of international
education satisfaction using SERVQUAL. Journal of Services Research,
141-163.
Asaduzzaman, Rahman, M., & Hossain, M. (2013). Service quality and student
satisfaction: A case study on private universities in Bangladesh.
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences,
128-135.
Bharwana, T. K., Bashir, M., & Mohsin, M. (2013). Impact of service quality on
customer satisfaction: A study from service sector especially private
colleges of Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Scientific
and Research Publications, 3(5), 1-7.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of
service changes on customer attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 55, 1-10.
Cerri, S. (2012). Assessing the quality of higher education services using a
modified SERVQUAL scale. Annales Universitatis Apulensis series
Oeconomica, 14(2), 664-679.
Channoi, R. (2014). Comprehensive hierarchical model of beach resort hotel
stays in Thailand: An empirical analysis. 1-155.
Cheruiyot, T. K., & Maru, L. C. (2013). Service quality and relative
performance of public universities in East Africa. The TQM Journal, 25(5),
533-546.
Chopra, R., Chawla, M., & Sharma, T. (2014). Service quality in higher
education: A comparative study of management and education institutions.
NMIMS Management Review, 59-72.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-examination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
Cronin, T., & Taylor, S. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 125-131.
Chui, T. B., Ahmad, M. S., Bassim, F. A., & Zaimi, N. A. (2016). Evaluation of
service quality of private higher education using service improvement
matrix. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 132-140.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 125 Volume XI Number 03
Datta, K. S., & Vardhan, J. (2017). A SERVQUAL-based framework for
assessing quality of international branch campuses in UAE: A management
students’ perspective. journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo, 1-9.
Dedeke, A. (2003). Service Quality: A fulfillment-oriented and interactions-
centred approach. Managing Service Quality, 13(4), 276-289.
Diab, M. E., Mohammed, H. E., Mansour, E. H., & Saad, O. (2016).
Investigating the impact of key dimensions of service quality on customers’
satisfaction and loyalty: Evidences from the restaurant industry in Sudan.
Marketing and Branding Research, 153-165.
Donlagic, S., & Fazlić, S. (2015). Quality assessment in higher education using
using the SERVQUAL model. Management, 20, 39-57.
Edden, L., Kalafatis, S., & Mathioudakis, A. (2011). The idiosyncratic
behaviour of service quality, value, satisfaction, and intention to
recommend in higher education: An empirical examination. Journal of
Marketing Management, 27(11-12), 1232-1260.
Elliot, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student Satisfaction: An alternative approach
to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 24(2), 197-209.
Gaur, A. S., & Gaur, S. S. (2009). Statistical method for practice and research a
guide to data analysis using SPSS (2 ed.). New Delhi: SAGE Publication
Inc.
Ghotbabadi, A. R., Feiz, S., & Baharun, R. (2015). Service quality
measurement: A review. International Journal of Academic Research in
business and social sciences, 267-286.
Govender, K. K., & Ramroop, S. (2012). Relationship between the postgraduate
research students’ perception of their role, research climate and service
quality. African Journal of Business Managemen, 6(4), 1642-1651.
Hair, J. F., Black , W. C., Babin , B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6 ed.). Singapore: Prentice-Hall.
Hassan, A., & Ibrahim, M. (2010). Designing quality e-Learning environments
for higher education. Educational Research, 1, 186-197.
HEC. (2014). Annual report 2013-2014. Isalamabad: Higher education
commission Pakistan.
HEC. (2016). Higher education commission of Pakistan. Hihger education
commission of Pakistan.
Ibraheem, M. K. (2016). Relationship between perceived service quality and
student’s satisfaction among undergraduate students: A case study of
private higher education institute in Dubai. International Journal of
Emerging Research in Management &Technology, 5(3), 70-74.
Jiewanto, A., Laurens, C., & Nelloh, L. (2012). Influence of service quality,
university image, and student satisfaction toward WOM Intention: A Case
Study on Universitas Pelita Harapan Surabaya. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 40, 16-23.
Kanakana, M. G. (2014). Assessing service quality in higher education using the
SERVQUAL tool. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 126 Volume XI Number 03
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Bali: Tshwane
University of Technology, Pretoria, 0200, South Africa.
Kara, A. M., Tanui, E., & Kalai, J. M. (2016). Educational service quality and
students’ satisfaction in public universities in Kenya. International Journal
of Education and Social Science, 10(3), 37-48.
Karim, A., & Chowdhury, T. (2014). Customer satisfaction on service quality in
private commercial banking sector. British Journal of Marketing Studies,
2(2), 1-11.
Kariru, N., & Aloo, C. (2014). Customers’ perceptions and expectations of
service quality in hotels in western tourism circuit, Kenya. J. Res.
Hosp.Tourism Cult, 2, 1-12.
Khalifa, B., & Mahmoud, A. B. (2016). What form university image? An
integrated model from Syria. Verslas: Teorija ir praktika / Business: Theory
and Practice, 17, 45-55.
Khan, M. M., & Fasih, M. (2014). Impact of service quality on customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty: Evidence from banking sector. Pakistan
Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, 8, 331-354.
Khan, M. M., Ahmed, I., & Nawaz, M. M. (2011). Students' perspective of
service quality in higher learning institutions: an evidence based approach.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(11).
Khodayari, F., & Khodayari, B. (2011). Service quality in higher education.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(9), 38-46.
Kim, V. W., & Periyayya, T. (2013). Student expectations and branding
strategies among private institutions of higher education in Malaysia.
Malaysian Journal of Chinese Studies, 2, 69-81.
Kim, W. G., Ng, C., & Kim, Y. (2009). Influence of institutional DINESERV on
customer satisfaction, return intention, and word-of-mouth. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 10-17.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3
ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation
& Control (7 ed.). New York: Prentice – Hall.
Kotler, P., & Clarke, R. N. (1987). Marketing for health care organization.
Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management (13 ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., & Wong, V. (2002). Principle of
Marketing (3 ed.). Europe: Pretence Hall.
Kundi, G. M., Qureshi, S. M., Khan, Q. A., & Akbar, R. (2014). Impact of
service quality on customer satisfaction in higher education. (A case study
of Gomal University, DI Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan). Higher
Education, 4, 23-28.
Ladhari, R., Ladhari, I., & Morales, M. (2011). Bank service quality: comparing
Canadian and Tunisian customer perceptions. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 29(3), 224-246.
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 127 Volume XI Number 03
Meštrović, D. (2017). Service quality, students satisfaction and behavioural
intentions in STEM and IC higher education institutions. Interdisciplinary
Description of Complex Systems, 15, 66-77.
Mosahab, R. (2010). The impact of service quality on customer loyalty: A study
of banks in Penang, Malaysia. International Journal of Marketing Studies,
2(2), 57-67.
Oliver. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedent and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. journal of marketing research, 17, 460-469.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in
retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25-48.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of
service quality and its implication for future research. Journal of marketing,
41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-
item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. journal of
Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Rasli, A., Shekarchizadeh, A., & Iqbal, M. J. (2012). Perception of service
quality in higher education: Perspective of Iranian students in Malaysian
universities. International Journal of Academic Research in Management
(IJARM), 10-25.
Rehman, A. A. (2012). Customer satisfaction and service quality in Islamic
banking: A comparative study in Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and
United Kingdom. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 4(2/3), 165-
175.
Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. (2014). A concise guide to market research: The
process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS statistics.
Siddiqi, K. O. (2011). Interrelations between service quality attributes, customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty in the retail banking sector in Bangladesh.
International Journal of Business and Management, 6(3), 12-36.
Sapri, M., Kaka, A., & Finch, E. (2009). Factors that influence student’s level of
satisfaction with regards to higher educational facilities services. Malaysian
Journal of Real Estate, 4, 34-51.
Shaari, H. (2014). Service quality in Malaysian higher education: Adult
learners’ perspective. International Journal of Business and Social Science,
5, 86-90.
Shah, F. T. (2013). Service quality and customer satisfaction in higher education
in Pakistan. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 9(2), 73-89.
Sultan, P., & Wong, H. Y. (2012). Service quality in a higher education context:
An integrated model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24,
755-784.
Stimac, H., & Simic, M. L. (2016). Competitiveness in Higher Education: A
Need for Marketing Orientation and Service Quality. Croatia: Strossmayer
University of Osijek.
Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T. J., & Seebaluck, A. K. (2016).
Measuring service quality in higher education Development of a
Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)
Journal of Managerial Sciences 128 Volume XI Number 03
hierarchical model (HESQUAL). Quality Assurance in Education, 24(2),
244-258.
Tegambwage, A. G. (2017). The relative importance of service quality
dimensions: An empirical study in the Tanzanian higher education industry.
International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary & Multidisciplinary
Studies (IRJIMS), 76-86.
Truong, H. V., Pham, C. H., & Vo, N. H. (2016). Service quality and students
level of satisfaction in private colleges in Vietnam. International Journal of
Financial Research, 7(3), 121-128.
Twaissi, N. M., & Al-Kilani, M. H. (2015). The impact of perceived servcie
quality on students intention in higher education in a Jordanian
governmental university. International Business Research, 8(5), 81-92.
Vaz, A., & Mansori, S. (2013). Malaysian private education quality: Application
of SERVQUAL model. International Education Studies, 6(4).
Yousapronpaiboom, K. (2014). SERVQUAL:measuring higher education
service quality in Tailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1088-
1095.
Zeithaml. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-
end model and synthesis of evidence. journal of marketing, 2-22.
Zeithaml, A. V., Barry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and
determinants of customer expectations of service. Academy of Marketing
Science, 21(1), 1-13.
Zeithaml, A. V., Parasuramn, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and Strategies
in Service Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33-46.
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Services marketing:
Integrating Customer focus across the Firm. Boston: MA: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin
top related