The Link between Perceived Service Quality Dimensions and ...

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:

[email protected] † Dr.Shahid Jan Kakakhel, Chairman Department Of Management Sciences,

Islamia College University, Peshawar.

mailto:[email protected]

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:



H1: There is significant relationship between tangible and customer

satisfaction in higher education institutions.

H2: There is significant relationship between reliability and customer


H3: There is significant relationship between responsiveness and

customer satisfaction in higher education institutions.

H4: There is significant relationship between assurance and customer


H5: There is significant relationship between empathy and customer


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



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).



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.,



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:



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.



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%.



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



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.



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.



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


H3: Responsiveness has a significant


H4: Assurance has a significant


H5: Empathy has a significant


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.



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



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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

The Link between Perceived Service Quality Dimensions and ...

Documents

Transcript of The Link between Perceived Service Quality Dimensions and ...