Content uploaded by Abdelmutalab Adam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdelmutalab Adam on Nov 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Abdelmutalab Adam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdelmutalab Adam on May 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Abdelmutalab Adam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdelmutalab Adam on May 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
46
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
ﺔﻠﻤﺎﺸﻟﺍ ﺓﺩﻭﺠﻟﺍ ﺔﻠﺠﻤ)2015 ( ﺩﻠﺠﻤ16 ﻡﻗﺭ ﺩﺩﻋ)1 :(46-61
ﺔﻠﺠﻤ ﺔﻠﻤﺎﺸﻟﺍ ﺓﺩﻭﺠﻟﺍ ﺓﺭﺍﺩﺇ
Total Qualaity Management Journal
Journal homepage:
http://journals.sustech.edu/
Evaluation of service quality dimensions in higher education institutions: T
Th
he
e
C
Ca
as
se
e
o
of
f
S
Su
ud
da
an
n
U
Un
ni
iv
ve
er
rs
si
it
ty
y
o
of
f
S
Sc
ci
ie
en
nc
ce
e
a
an
nd
d
T
Te
ec
ch
hn
no
ol
lo
og
gy
y
Abdelmutalab Ibrahim Abdelrasul Adam
Development and Quality Deanship, Sudan University of Science &Technology,
Khartoum, Sudan. Tel: +249183743683 - Fax: +249183743681 - PO Box: 6070, E-
mail: abdelmutalab@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to examine the service quality dimensions in higher
education in Sudan. A variety of Service Quality dimensions has been examined.
This study used a self-administered questionnaire adapted from the SERVQUAL
model as a tool to get responses from the students. Based on random sampling on
250 students employing a survey instruments that measure five dimensions of
quality attributes, the main implication is that all the five dimensions of service
quality are a negative, meaning students are not satisfied with the service delivered
by Sudan University of science and Technology (SUST). Implications and
limitations of the study are highlighted and further research discussions are
suggested.
ﺺﻠﺨﺘﺴﻤﻟا :
ﻑﺩﻬﻟﺍ ﻭﻫ ﺔﻗﺭﻭﻟﺍ ﻩﺫﻫ ﻥﻤ ﺔﺴﺍﺭﺩ ﺩﺎﻌﺒﺃ ﺔﻤﺩﺨﻟﺍ ﺓﺩﻭﺠ ﻲﻓ ﻲﻟﺎﻌﻟﺍ ﻡﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟﺍ ﻲﻓ ﻥﺍﺩﻭﺴﻟﺍ ﺩﻗﻭ ﺭﺎﺒﺘﺨﺍ ﻡﺘ ﺔﻋﻭﻤﺠﻤ
ﻥﻤ ﺔﻋﻭﻨﺘﻤ ﺩﺎﻌﺒﺃ ﺙﻴﺤ ﺕﺎﻤﺩﺨﻟﺍ ﺓﺩﻭﺠ ﺔﺴﺍﺭﺩﻟﺍ ﻩﺫﻫ ﻲﻓ ﻡﺩﺨﺘﺴﺍ ﺎﻨﺎﻴﺒﺘﺴﺍ ﺎﻴﺘﺍﺫ ﻥﻤ ﺎﺴﺒﺘﻘﻤ ﺓﺩﻭﺠ ﺱﺎﻴﻗ ﺝﺫﻭﻤﻨ
ﺕﺎﻤﺩﺨﻟﺍ ﺓﺍﺩﺄﻜ ﻰﻠﻋ لﻭﺼﺤﻠﻟ ﻥﻤ ﺩﻭﺩﺭ ﺔﻨﻴﻋ ﻰﻠﻋ ﻙﻟﺫ ﻲﻓ ﺍﺩﻤﺘﻌﻤ ﺏﻼﻁﻟﺍ ﻥﻤ ﺔﻴﺌﺍﻭﺸﻋ250 ﺎﺒﻟﺎﻁ ﻊﻤ
ﻡﺍﺩﺨﺘﺴﺍ ﺢﺴﻤﻟﺍ ﺕﺍﻭﺩﺃ ﺱﻴﻘﺘ ﻲﺘﻟﺍ ﻭ ﺩﺎﻌﺒﺃ ﺕﺎﻤﺴ ﺔﺠﻴﺘﻨ ﻲﻟﺍ ﺔﺴﺍﺭﺩﻟﺍ ﺕﻠﺼﻭﺘﻭ ،ﺔﻤﺩﺨﻟﺍ ﺓﺩﻭﺠ ﻲﻫ ﻭ ﺔﻴﺴﻴﺌﺭ
ﻥﺃ ﻊﻴﻤﺠ ﺩﺎﻌﺒﺃ ﺔﻤﺩﺨﻟﺍ ﺓﺩﻭﺠ ﺔﻴﺒﻠﺴ ﺕﺀﺎﺠﻴ ﺍﺫﻫﻭ ، ﻥﺍ ﻲﻨﻌﺏﻼﻁﻟﺍ ﻥﻋ ﻥﻴﻀﺍﺭ ﺭﻴﻏ ﺔﻤﺩﻘﻤﻟﺍ ﺔﻤﺩﺨﻟﺍ لﺒﻗ ﻥﻤ
ﻠﻟ ﻥﺍﺩﻭﺴﻟﺍ ﺔﻌﻤﺎﺠ ﻡﻭﻠﻌﻭ ﺎﻴﺠﻭﻟﻭﻨﻜﺘ . ﺔﺴﺍﺭﺩﻟﺍ ﺕﻁﻠﺴ ﺎﻤﻜ ﺏﻨﺍﻭﺠ ﻲﻠﻋﺀﻭﻀﻟﺍ ﺭﻭﺼﻘﻟﺍﻭ ﺔﻗﺭﻭﻟﺍ ﺕﺤﺭﺘﻗﺍ
ﺕﺎﺴﺍﺭﺩﻟﺍ ﻥﻤ ﺩﻴﺯﻤ ﺀﺍﺭﺠﺇ ﻼﺒﻘﺘﺴﻤ ﻲﻟﺎﻌﻟﺍ ﻡﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟﺍ ﻲﻓ ﺔﻤﺩﺨﻟﺍ ﺓﺩﻭﺠ ﺩﺎﻌﺒﺍ ﻉﻭﻀﻭﻤ ﻲﻓ ﺔﻴﺜﺤﺒﻟﺍ.
Keywords: SERVQUAL Instrument; Student Satisfaction; Service Dimensions.
Introduction
Higher education is facing pressure to improve value in its activities (Heck and
Johnsrud, 2000).The present tenet for enhancing educational value is to expend
effort on continuous improvement, to focus on stakeholder interests, and to increase
student satisfaction. Student satisfaction is often used to assess educational quality,
where the ability to address strategic needs is of prime importance (Cheng, 1990).
Quality in education can be said to be determined by the extent to which students’
needs and expectations can be satisfied. Various concepts and models have been
developed to measure student and stakeholder satisfaction. The present research
built upon the SERVQUAL instrument. The research provides an increased body of
knowledge surrounding the service quality dimensions, with specific focus on the
higher education sector. The research also provide guidance for higher education
managers wanting to understand the dynamics of customer service perceptions in
47
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Sudan, and improve the quality of service delivered, in order to enhance customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty.
Service Quality dimensions
A variety of approaches has been applied to explain the multidimensional nature of
service quality these are:
1. Stevenson and others (1999)
One approach, used by Stevenson and others 1999 (Stevenson 1999), is to simply
apply Garvin’s 8 dimensions of product quality to services.
(1) Performance: The primary operating characteristics of a product.
(2) Features: The ‘bells and whistles’ of a product (i.e., those characteristics that
supplement the basic functions).
(3) Reliability: The probability that a product will fail within a specified period
of time.
(4) Conformance: The degree to which the design or operating characteristics of
a product meet pre-established standards.
(5) Durability: The amount of use a product can sustain before it physically
deteriorates to the point where replacement is preferable to repair.
(6) Serviceability: The speed, courtesy, competence, and ease of repair.
(7) Aesthetics: The look, feel, taste, smell, and sound of a product.
(8) Perceived Quality: The impact of brand name, company image, and
advertising.
No empirical basis has been provided for these dimensions also question whether the
8 product dimensions capture all the important aspects of service transactions.
Evans & Lindsay (1999)
Evans & Lindsay (1999) provide a list of 8 service dimensions that are
drawn from the work of several other researchers.
(1) Time; Customer waiting time
(2) Timeliness; On-time completion.
(3) Completeness; Customers get all they ask for.
(4) Courtesy; Treatment by employees.
(5) Consistency; Same level of service for all customers.
(6) Accessibility and convenience; Ease of obtaining service.
(7) Accuracy; Performed correctly every time.
(8) Responsiveness: Reaction to special circumstances or requests.
While intuitively appealing, there is little empirical evidence to support these service
quality dimensions.
Parasuraman, et al (1988)
Parasuraman, et al (1988) provides a list of 5 service dimensions that are empirically
derived and are called the SERVQUAL Dimensions.
(1) Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel
(2) Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and
accurately
(3) Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service
(4) Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence
(5) Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers
While empirically derived, these dimensions were developed and tested in just 4
types of service industries and may not be universally applicable.
Mowen (1995)
However, Mowen (1995) is of the view that neither the five dimensions of
Parasuraman's research team nor Garvin's eight dimensions of product quality are
adequate and proposes the following eight dimensions as being more appropriate
48
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
and capable of taking care of both service quality and goods quality
(1) Performance: The absolute level of performance of the good or service on
the key attributes identified by customers.
(2) Number of attributes: The number of features/attributes offered.
(3) Courtesy: The friendliness and empathy shown by people delivering the
service or good.
(4) Reliability: The consistency of the performance of the good or service.
(5) Durability: The product's life span and general sturdiness.
(6) Timeliness: The speed with which the product is received or repaired; the
speed with which the desired information is provided or service is received.
(7) Aesthetics: The physical appearance of the good; the attractiveness of the
presentation of the service; the pleasantness of the atmosphere in which the
service or product is received.
(8) Brand Equity: The additional positive or negative impact on perceived
quality that knowing the brand name has on the evaluation of perceived
quality.
KQCAH Scale
Empirical analysis of the JCAHO hospital industry quality dimensions indicates that
there are really 8 dominant dimensions referred to as the KQCAH Scale. Sower, V.,
et al (1998)
(1) Efficacy,
(2) Appropriateness,
(3) Efficiency,
(4) Respect & Caring,
(5) Safety
(6) Continuity
(7) Effectiveness
(8) Timeliness, and;
(9) Availability.
Results in the literature shows that many authors have used a variety of attributes to
measure service quality dimensions, but there still uncertainty about which attributes
are more likely to measure Service Quality in higher education. However, the
dimensions of quality and the measurement approach to the service quality are still
been debated and unsettled with little agreement on what it is or how to measure it.
Table 1: Service Quality dimensions: Similarities
Approach Dimensions Similarities
Stevenson
and others
(1999)
Evans &
Lindsay (1999)
Parasuraman,
et al (1988)
Mowen
(1995)
KQCAH
Scale
Stevenson and
others (1999)
Reliability Performance
Reliability
Durability
Aesthetics
Evans & Lindsay
(1999)
Responsiveness Courtesy
Timeliness
Timeliness
Parasuraman, et
al (1988)
Reliability Responsiveness Reliability Empathy
(Respect &
Caring,)
Mowen (1995) Performance
Reliability
Durability
Aesthetics
Courtesy
Timeliness
Timeliness
KQCAH Scale Timeliness Empathy
(Respect &
Caring,)
Timeliness
49
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
The SERVQUAL instrument:
Parasuraman et al. published a conceptual paper in 1985(A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research,") identifying five service
quality gaps (see Figure 1).
Gap 1: measure the Difference between consumer expectations and management
perceptions of consumer expectations. It emerges as a result of the lack of a
marketing research orientation, inadequate upward communication and too many
layers of management.
Gap 2: measure the Difference between management perceptions of consumer
expectations and service quality specifications. It emerges as a result of inadequate
commitment to service quality, a perception of unfeasibility, inadequate task
standardization and an absence of goal setting.
Gap 3: measure the Difference between service quality specifications and the
service actually delivered. It emerges as a result of role ambiguity and conflict, poor
employee-job fit and poor technology-job fit, inappropriate supervisory control
systems, lack of perceived control and lack of teamwork.
Gap 4: measure the Difference between service delivery and what is communicated
about the service to consumers. It emerges as a result of inadequate horizontal
communications and propensity to over-promise.
Gap5: measure the discrepancy between customer expectations and their perceptions
of the service delivered, it emerges as a result of the influences exerted from the
customer side and the shortfalls (gaps) on the part of the service provider. In this
case, customer expectations are influenced by the extent of personal needs, word of
mouth recommendation and past service experiences.
According to Brown and Bond (1995), "the gap model is one of the best received
and most heuristically valuable contributions to the services literature". The model
identifies five key discrepancies or gaps relating to managerial perceptions of
service quality, and tasks associated with service delivery to customers. The first
four gaps (Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap 3, Gap 4,) are identified as functions of the way in
which service is delivered, whereas Gap 5 pertains to the customer and as such is
considered to be the true measure of service quality. The Gap on which the
SERVQUAL methodology has influence is Gap 5. In the following, the
SERVQUAL approach is demonstrated.
SERVQUAL methodology:
Clearly, from a Best Value perspective the measurement of service quality in the
service sector should take into account customer expectations of service as well as
perceptions of service. However, as Robinson (1999) concludes: "It is apparent that
there is little consensus of opinion and much disagreement about how to measure
service quality". One service quality measurement model that has been extensively
applied is the SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988,
1991, 1993, 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1990). SERVQUAL as the most often used
approach for measuring service quality has been to compare customers' expectations
before a service encounter and their perceptions of the actual service delivered
(Gronroos, 1982; Lewis and Booms, 1983; Parasuraman et al., 1985). The
SERVQUAL instrument has been the predominant method used to measure
consumers’ perceptions of service quality
Parasuraman, et al (1988) provides a list of 5 service dimensions that are empirically
derived and are called the SERVQUAL Dimensions.
(1) Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel
(2) Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and
accurately
50
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
(3) Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service
(4) Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence
(5) Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers.
In the SERVQUAL instrument, 22 statements (Figure 1) measure the performance
across these five dimensions, using a seven point likert scale measuring both
customer expectations and perceptions (Gabbie and O'neill, 1996). It is important to
note that without adequate information on both the quality of services expected and
perceptions of services received then feedback from customer surveys can be highly
misleading from both a policy and an operational perspective.
Figure 1: SERVQUAL (Service Quality Model)
51
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Research Methodology and Data Collection
The methodology developed in this study is largely driven by the research objective
which is to examine the service quality dimensions and to establish the number of
dimensions of service quality in higher education in Sudan, with five null
hypotheses based on the service quality dimensions(Tangibility, Reliability ,
Responsiveness , Assurance and Empathy ) that, there will be no statistically
significant difference between the expected degree of the dimension attributes and
one that perceived by students, and to answer the following research questions:
What is the expected level of educational service quality? What is the perceived
level of educational service quality? What is the level of each the service quality
dimensions?
In order to answer the research questions and to obtain data for the determination of
service quality dimensions and perceived service quality in higher education, this
study used a self-administered (structured) questionnaire adapted from the
SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al, 1994) as a tool to get responses from the
subjects.
The study employed a stratified random sampling technique that consisted of two
types of strata. The first stratum is according to the year of study, the second stratum
is according to the College. the questionnaires were distributed to diverse
participants, for the application of the measurement tool; the present study involved
students (250 students) from different colleges of Sudan University of science and
technology (College of Medical Laboratory Science, College of Engineering,
College of Education, College of business studies and College of Veterinary
Medicine) which is a leading higher education university in our country. The
sampling applied in a way that its results can be generalized according to the
universe.
An important consideration in sample design is the choice of sample size. Larger
samples provide greater precision but are more costly to undertake. A common
approach to choosing the sample size is to specify the precision desired and then
determine the optimal sample size providing that precision.
Roscoe (1975) proposes that the appropriate sample sizes for most research to be
greater than 30 and less than 500. Taking into considerations these guidelines, we
decided to choose 250 undergraduate students as our sample.
The questionnaires were distributed to diverse participants, for the application of the
measurement tool; the present study involved students (250 students) from different
colleges of Sudan University of science and technology (College of Medical
Laboratory Science, College of Engineering, College of Education, College of
business studies and College of Veterinary Medicine) which is a leading higher
education university in our country. The sampling applied in a way that its results
can be generalized according to the universe.
The survey instrument consisted of two parts. In part A of the questionnaire, survey
respondents were asked to state their level of agreement of each statement for five
dimensions of service quality in education on a Seven point Likert ordinal scale (1
represent “strongly disagree” to 7 represent “strongly agree”; 4 denotes average ).
Cooper (2000) argued that this type of scale is considered to be an interval scale.
Therefore, measurement of central tendency and its dispersion can be made.
Demographic backgrounds of respondents were asked in part B of the questionnaire.
Some were assigned to certain categories and it is mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive. Thus it possessed a property of a nominal scale.
The data from the questionnaire was collected during the summer of 2014. All
completed questionnaires were reviewed for completeness, accuracy and quality of
52
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
data. The useable questionnaires were coded and entered into a preset SPSS
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) (16) software program.
The analyses of the research data include descriptive statistics such as the
calculation of frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation as a method of
data examination.
Servqual Results:
A total of 22 questions related to five dimensions (Table 3) were asked. The level of
satisfaction was measured by a 7-point Likert scale, with 7 – indicating the highest
satisfaction level against their desired service level, and 1 – indicating the lowest
satisfaction level against their desired service level.
Following this, the Gap Score for each dimension is calculated by subtracting the
Expectation score from the Perception score. A negative Gap score indicates that the
actual service (the Perceived score) was less than what was expected (the
Expectation score). In the present study, all the Gap Scores calculated are negative
(Table 3) indicating that for each service quality attribute of Sudan University of
Science and Technology student’s expectations are not being met. The ‘paired
samples t-test’ was also used to calculate the gap scores for each dimension (Table
2). The mean scores are presented in column five in Table 2. All the t-values are
well above the critical value of ‘2’ and the significance level is below 1 % (p < .01)
level. Unfortunately all the dimensions exhibit a negative Mean Gap score ranging
from ‘-1.54’ to ‘-1.96’. The general Mean Gap figure for all the 22 attributes is –
1.80. The assurance Dimension has the smallest negative mean gap score (– 1.45),
while the Reliability Dimension has the largest negative mean gap score (– 1.96).
The main implication is that, all the five dimensions of service quality are a
negative, meaning students are not satisfied with the service delivered by Sudan
University of science and Technology (SUST)
Table 2: The Gap Score for all dimensions
t-test Gap
Score
Perceived score Expectation score Dimensions
5.40 1.93 - 3.76 5.69 Tangibles a
15.16
1.96- 3.61 5.57 Reliability b
13.89 1.74- 3.88 5.62 Responsiveness
c
6.85 1.54- 4.37 5.91 Assurance d
7.44 1.87- 3.52 5.39 Empathy e
29.15 -1.8 3.83 5.63 Average
53
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Table 3: Calculation of SERVQUAL Scores
Findings on the hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1
H0: There will be no statistically significant difference between the expected
tangible items and one that perceived by students.
HA: There will be statistically significant difference between the expected tangible
items and one that perceived by students.
TANGIBILITY – Appearances in satisfying students:
The SERVQUAL gap score for tangibility is -1.93 (Figure 2 ) ,the expectation
score is 5.69, exceeded the perception score which is 3.76, combined with the fact
that it received the highest dimension importance score(23.5), indicates that Sudan
University of Science and Technology students are dissatisfied with the overall
tangible appearances (equipment, materials, physical facilities and employees) of
Sudan University of Science and Technology.
Dimension Statement
Expectation
Score
Perception
Score
Gap
Score
Average
Servqual
Score For
the
dimension
Average
for
Dimension
Tangibles 1 5.81 3.43 -2.38
3.7675
-1.925
2 5.74 3.27 -2.47
3 6.05 4.63 -1.42
4 5.17 3.74 -1.43
Reliability 5 5.61 3.70 -1.91
3.618
-1.954
6 5.46 3.65 -1.81
7 5.50 3.38 -2.12
8 5.45 3.53 -1.92
9 5.84 3.83 -2.01
Responsiveness
10 5.76 4.13 -1.63
3.8825
-1.74
11 5.56 3.68 -1.88
12 5.66 4.04 -1.62
13 5.51 3.68 -1.83
Assurance 14 5.75 4.36 -1.39
4.375
-1.5375
15 5.98 4.34 -1.64
16 5.78 3.90 -1.88
17 6.14 4.90 -1.24
Empathy 18 4.80 3.19 -1.61
3.524
-1.872
19 6.10 3.67 -2.43
20 5.03 3.43 -1.60
21 5.37 3.57 -1.80
22 5.68 3.76 -1.92
Unweighted Average SERVQUAL score: -1.8057
54
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Based on the t-test, it can be concluded that there is statistically significant
difference between the expected tangible attributes and one that perceived by
students.
Figure 2: Tangibility Dimension - Average Perception Score
Hypothesis 2
H0: There will be no statistically significant difference between the expected degree
of reliability and one that perceived by students.
HA: There will be statistically significant difference between the expected degree of
reliability and one that perceived by students.
RELIABILITY – Ability of Sudan University of Science and Technology staff to
perform promised services dependably and accurately:
According to the average SERVQUAL perception value for reliability is 3.61 out of
a possible 7 (Figure 3), combined with the fact that the expectation score (5.57)
exceeded the perception score (3.61). The gap score is -1.95, indicates that
performance of all of the dimensions listed under Reliability (acting according to
promises, sincerity in problem solving, performing the service right at the first time,
providing service at the promised time and insistence on error free records) is
dissatisfactory. Put more succinctly, Sudan University of Science and Technology
students are dissatisfied with the ability of Sudan University of Science and
Technology to provide promised services dependably and accurately.
Based on the t-test, it can be concluded that there is statistically significant
difference between the expected reliability attributes and one that perceived by
students.
55
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Figure 3: Reliability Dimension – Average Perception Score
Hypothesis 3
H0: There will be no statistically significant difference between the expected degree
of responsiveness and one that perceived by students.
HA: There will be statistically significant difference between the expected degree of
responsiveness and one that perceived by students.
RESPONSIVENESS - Response and willingness of employees in providing
service:
The SERVQUAL gap score for responsiveness is 1.74- . (Figure 4) { the
expectation score(5.60) exceeded the perception score( 3.70)}, indicates that Sudan
University of Science and Technology students are dissatisfied with the overall This
score indicates that the Sudan University of Science and Technology students are
dissatisfied with the overall responsiveness of Sudan University of Science and
Technology. Specifically, they are dissatisfied with the Sudan University of Science
and Technology performance in the areas of informing when services will be
performed, providing services promptly, willingness to help, and never being too
busy to respond to request for service.
Based on the t-test, it can be concluded that there is statistically significant
difference between the expected responsiveness attributes and one that perceived by
students.
Figure 4: Responsiveness Dimension – Average Perception Score
56
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Hypothesis 4
H0: There will be no statistically significant difference between the expected degree
of assurance and one that perceived by students.
HA: There will be statistically significant difference between the expected degree of
assurance and one that perceived by students.
ASSURANCE: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence
The SERVQUAL gap score for assurance is -1.54 (Figure 5 ) indicates that, Sudan
University of Science and Technology students feels unsafe in their transaction with
the staff of Sudan University of Science and Technology. Additionally they indicate
that the staffs of Sudan University of Science and Technology are consistently not
courteous, that they aren’t possessing good knowledge when answering questions
and that their behavior instills confidence.
Based on the t-test, it can be concluded that there is statistically significant
difference between the expected assurance attributes and one that perceived by
students.
Figure 5: Assurance Dimension – Average Perception Score
Hypothesis 5
H0: There will be no statistically significant difference between the expected degree
of empathy and one that perceived by students.
HA: There will be statistically significant difference between the expected degree of
empathy and one that perceived by students.
EMPATHY - Performance in personal care, understanding students and convenient
operating hours:
The SERVQUAL gap score for empathy is 1.87 (Figure 6) , indicates that, Sudan
University of Science and Technology students are dissatisfied with the overall
empathy displayed and demonstrated by Sudan University of Science and
Technology. Sudan University of Science and Technology students responded that
they aren’t believe that the Sudan University of Science and Technology provides
individual attention, hasn’t convenient operating hours, has employees who provide
personal attention, who have their (teaching staff and employee ) bad interests at
heart.
Based on the t-test, it can be concluded that there is statistically significant
difference between the expected empathy attributes and one that perceived by
students.
57
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Figure 6: Empathy Dimension – Average Perception Score
Discussion
Five hypotheses were evaluated by SPSS (16). Table 4 presents a summary of the
results; all the five null hypotheses were rejected. That conclude There is statistically
significant difference between students expectations and items of five dimensions
(tangible, reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy) that perceived by
students. which means Sudan University of Science and Technology is currently
providing good higher education service (69.1% ) but is not meeting the overall
expectations of its students, who are dissatisfied with the level of service quality
offered to them (Gap Score (Gap 5) is -1.8,).
Table 4: Summary of hypotheses testing
No Hypothesis The result
1 Ho1:There will be no statistically significant difference between
the expected tangible item
s and one that perceived by students
Rejected
2 Ho2:There will be no statistically significant difference between
the expected degree of reliability and one that perceived by
students
Rejected
3 Ho3:There will be no statistically significant difference between
the expected degree of responsiveness and one that perceived by
students
Rejected
4 Ho4: There will be no statistically significant difference between
the expected degree of assurance and one that perceived by
students.
Rejected
5 Ho5:There will be no statistically significant difference between
the expected degree of empathy and one that perceived by
students
Rejected
The assurance Dimension has the smallest negative mean gap score (– 1.45) which
mean it’s the highest quality Dimension from the student viewpoint , while the
Reliability Dimension has the largest negative mean gap score (– 1.96) which mean
it’s the lowest quality Dimension from the student viewpoint .
The study revealed that all the five SERVQAUL dimensions are not up to the
students expectations. Specially the Reliability Dimension where the students
expected a university staff who act according to promises, sincerity in problem
solving, performing the service right at the first time, providing service at the
58
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
promised time and insistence on error free records, but they actually provided with
64.8 % reliable service. (5.57 expected, 3.61 perceived). Also analysis of the
difference between the expectation of service quality and perceived service quality
revealed room for improvement in all Dimensions. When considering the value
placed upon the five aspects and applying that information to the Gap 5 results;
reliability, tangibles and empathy are the areas where the most effort should be
focused on.
This study has focused on the student’s evaluation of higher education service
quality dimensions. Future research should focus on the evaluation of service
quality from other stakeholders viewpoints (such as the university staff, government,
industries, society etc.). A comprehensive study would help the university to review
and improve its overall higher education service quality
REFERENCES
Brown, S. W., and Bond III, E. U. (1995). The internal market/external market
framework and service quality: Toward theory in services
marketing. Journal of Marketing Management. 11(1-3): 25-39.
Cheng, Y. C. (1990). Conception of School Effectiveness and Models of School
Evaluation: A Dynamic Perspective. Chinese University Education
Journal.18 (1): 47-61.
Cooper, D. R. Schindler (2001). Business Research Methods: McGraw-Hill
International
Evans, J.R., and Lindsay, W.M. (1996). The Management and Control of Quality:
West Publishing.
Gabbie, O., and O'Neill, M. A. (1996). SERVQUAL and the Northern Ireland hotel
sector: a comparative analysis-part 1. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal. 6(6): 25-32.
Grönroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European journal of
marketing. 16(7): 30-41.
Heck, R.H., Johnsrud, L. K., and Rosser, V.J. (2000). Administrative effectiveness
in higher education: Improving assessment procedures. Research in higher
education, 41(6): 663-684.
Lewis, R. C., and Booms, B. H. (1983). The marketing aspects of service
quality.Emerging perspectives on services marketing. 65(4): 99-107.
Mowen, J. C., and Minor, M. (1995). Customer Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Inc.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual. Journal of
retailing. 64(1).p. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of
expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality:
implications for further research. the Journal of Marketing. p.111-124
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985) A conceptual model of
service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing.
49:41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1991). Understanding customer
expectations of service. Sloan Management Review. 32(3): 39-48.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1993) More on improving service
quality measurement. Journal of retailing. 69 (1): 40-147.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994). Alternative scales for
measuring service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric
and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing. 70(3):201-230.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1990) Guidelines for Conducting
Service Quality Research." Marketing Research .2(4).
59
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Robinson, S. (1999). Measuring service quality: current thinking and future
requirements. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. 17(1).p. 21-32.
Roscoe, A. M., Lang, D., and Sheth, J. N. (1975). Follow-up methods,
questionnaire length, and market differences in mail surveys. The Journal of
Marketing.p. 20-27.
Sower, V., Duffy, J., Kilboume, W., and Kohers, G. (1998) Development and Use of
the KQCAH Scale.
Appendix A: The Research Questionnaire
Sudan University of Science &Technology
College of Graduate Studies
Deanship of Quality and Development
Research Questionnaire
Part 1:
This survey deals with your expectations and perceptions of your college. All
responses are anonymous so you do NOT need to record your name on the survey.
Please complete the student profile below and then complete the questionnaire.
PLEASE COMPLETE ALL THE QUESTIONS.
The following items are for statistical information only
1- college: ………….……………………2- course: …………………………………
3-Gender: Male Female
4-Age: 5-Year of study
Thanks for your participation
Part 2: THE SERVQUAL INSTRUMENT
P
PERCEPTIONS
The following statements relate to
your feelings about your college.
Please show the extent to which you
believe your college has the feature
described in the statement. Here, we
are interested in a number that shows
your perceptions your college
E
EXPECTATIONS
This survey deals with your opinions of
your college. Please show the extent to
which you think colleges should posses the
following features. What we are
interested in here is a number that best
shows your expectations about your
college.
You should rank each statement as follows:
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Score
Statement
Score
Statement
1
.
The college has modern looking
equipment.
1
.
Excellent
college
will have modern
looking equipment.
2
.
The college's physical features
are visually appealing.
2
.
The physical facilities at excellent
colleges will be visually appealing.
3
.
The college's employees are neat
appearing.
3
.
Employees at excellent colleges will
be neat in their appearance.
4
.
Materials associated with the
service (such as pamphlets or
statements) are visually
appealing at the college.
4
.
Materials associated with the service
(pamphlets or statements) will be
visually appealing at an excellent
college.
5
.
When the college promises to do
something by a certain time, it
5
.
When excellent colleges promise to
do something by a certain time, they
60
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
Features
Points
1
.
The appe
arance of the
University’s
physical
facilities, equipment, personnel and
communication materials.
2
.
The
University
's ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately
3
.
The
University’s
willingness to help customers and provide prompt serv
ice.
does so.
do.
6
.
When you have a problem, the
college shows a sincere interest
in solving it.
6
.
When a student has a problem,
excellent colleges will show a sincere
interest in solving it.
7
.
The college performs the service
right the first time.
7
.
Excellent
colleges will perform the
service right the first time.
8
.
The college provides its service at
the time it promises to do so.
8
.
Excellent colleges will provide the
service at the time they promise to do
so.
9
.
The college insists on error free
records.
9
.
Excel
lent colleges will insist on error
free records.
10
.
Employees in the college tell you
exactly when the services will be
performed.
10
.
Employees of excellent colleges will
tell students exactly when services
will be performed.
11
.
Employees in the college give y
ou
prompt service.
11
.
Employees of excellent colleges will
give prompt service to students.
12
.
Employees in the college are
always willing to help you.
12
.
Employees of excellent colleges will
always be willing to help students.
13
.
Employees in the college are
never too busy to respond to
your request.
13
.
Employees of excellent colleges will
never be too busy to respond to
students' requests.
14
.
The behavior of employees in the
college instills confidence in you.
14
.
The behavior of employees in
excellent colleges will instill
confidence in students
15
.
You feel safe in your transactions
with the college.
15
.
Students of excellent colleges will feel
safe in transactions.
16
.
Employees in the college are
consistently courteous with you.
16
.
Employees of excellent colleges will
be consistently courteous with
students.
17. The college has a knowledgeable
and highly qualified academic staff
(lecturer).
17
.
Academic staff of excellent colleges
will have the appropriate knowledge
and qualification.
18. The college gives you individual
attention.
18
.
Excellent colleges will give students
individual attention.
19. The college has operating hours
convenient to all its students.
19
.
Excellent colleges will have operating
hours convenient to all their students.
20. The college has employees who
give you personal attention.
20
.
Excellent colleges will have employees
who give students personal service.
21. The college has your best
interests at heart.
21
.
Excellent colleges will have their
students' best interest at heart.
22. The employees of the c
ollege
understand your specific needs.
22
.
The employees of excellent colleges
will understand the specific needs of
their students.
SERVQUAL
Importance
Weights
Listed below are the five sets of features pertaining to University and
the services they offer. We would like to know how much each of
these sets of features is important to the customer. Please allocate
100 points among the five sets of features according to how
important it is to you. Make sure the points add up to 100.
61
Total Quality Management Journal 2015, vol. 16 No. (1)
ISSN 1605- 427x e-ISSN (Online):
4
.
The knowledge and courtesy of the
University’s
employees and their ability to
convey trust and confidence.
5
.
The caring individual attention the
University
provides its customers.
Total:
100
Thanks for your participation
