Content uploaded by Mairaj Jafri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mairaj Jafri on Dec 24, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
35
Students’ Perception of Relative Importance of the Five SERVQUAL And SERVPERF Dimensions
In Educational Institutions: A Selected Study of Private Universities in Sind
Nabila Hassan
1
and Mairaj Hussian Jafri
2
Abstract
This research was designed to evaluate service quality of private universities of SIND according to
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models in the perception of students. Survey research was conducted in
which 510 responses were gathered from 10 private universities on 7 point Likert scale. A structured
questionnaire was used with five dimensions of service quality (Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, and Empathy). Then analysis was done on both models by one sample t-test, and ANOVA. The
results of the study have found that, with all the limitations and paucity of resources, the two models are
capable of pointing grey areas. These grey areas need to be addressed on immediate grounds as the level
of competition is increasing day by day.
Keywords: Service Quality, Service Performance, Measuring Instrument, SERVQUAL, SERVPERF,
Private Universities, Five Determinants, Dimensions
1. Introduction
Pakistan’s demographic structure mainly features lower middle class and middle class. According
to Global Wealth Report 2015, Pakistan has 18th largest middle class in the world and its rising (Credit
Suisse, 2015) i.e. 38 per cent heads belongs to this class (approximately 84 million) which is a population
size much larger than the total population of countries like Germany and Turkey (approx. 80 million).
Reports have also suggested that future of Pakistan’s stability, political, regional and economic growth
significantly depends on the success of lower middle and middle class (Zaidi, 2017). Whereas the success
of these population’s segments perceivably dependent on the education and qualifications acquired during
their adulthoods. Therefore, for the people of these segments, it is natural to have high expectations from
institutions of higher education. However, in reality, it has been observed that students get disappointed
and unable to hold high motivation during their course of study consequently thwarting the learning abilities
and future success of students (Ames, 1990; Marshall, 1987; Sobral, 2004).
One could argue several reasons for the above scenario. In which one reason could be that
comparatively, Pakistan’s Higher Education Industry is in its early stages of maturity, where universities are
more focused on growth rather than on evaluation and testing of their service offerings from student’s
perspectives. This affirms a rapid surge in the growth of public and private universities all across Pakistan.
Just in last 20-25 years, universities for different disciplines have been established. However, the major
proportion of new entrants is somehow more focused on offering business education/courses. Same is the
case for Pakistan’s second largest province Sind where an estimated 40 such institutions are existing
aiming to provide quality education in the field of business and management. With this amount of
competition, it is mandatory that, one should continuously evaluate and compare their service offering with
competitors to determine the status of their competitive advantage.
In literature, there exist numerous methods/models to measure service quality however
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) work – consisting of five dimensions; reliability, tangibility,
assurance, responsiveness, and empathy – is widely acknowledged and used by researchers in various
industries. In addition, work on measuring services performance by Cronin and Taylor (1992) also
possesses great importance. Studies such as Hill, (1995) investigated the used of quality in higher
education whereas Anderson (1995) used SERVQUAL to evaluate quality of distraction department in
educational set up; Landrum, Prybutok, Zhang, and Peak (2009) studied impact of service performance in
Educational institutions.
1
PhD Scholar, University of Karachi and Instructor at Pakistan Navy School of Logistics. mrsmairajjafri@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Pakistan Navy School of Logistics. mairajjafri@gmail.com
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
36
Therefore, as the number of new educational institutions emerging in Pakistan aiming to provide
quality education, there exists a need to address quality and performance issues in their respective
offerings. They need to evaluate all the attributes comprising their service offering. In order to achieve this
objective, this research has used SERVQUAL and SERVPERF service quality models. These tools take
values based on empirical and analytical research.
1.1. Aim
This research was aimed to evaluate users’ perceptions of relative importance of the five
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF dimensions in Private universities of Sind, Pakistan. However, the objectives
set as follows;
Determine the relative importance of each dimension of the service quality
Determine students’ expectations and perception of the current level of service
Measure the service quality of each of the sampled educational institutions through SERVQUAL
and SERVPERF models according to the perception of students.
Assess need to improve the quality of service educational institutions with respect to determinants
of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models.
Give recommendations to improve the service quality of educational institutions.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Service Quality
Parasuraman et al. (1988) initiated efforts for defining and measuring service quality in eighties.
They identified that the concept of quality which is widespread in the goods sector cannot be extended to
the services sector. As services are intangible, assorted, perishable that is why services require a distinct
framework for quality elucidation and measurement, on the contrary consumers can assess product quality
in goods sector because of tangible indications, quality in the service mainly recognized by experience that
is very much hard to measure and evaluate (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Zeithaml & Bitner, 2001).
Moreover, (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1988) explained service
quality as a difference between what do consumers want and what do they get in actual. On this very
concept they introduced a service quality measurement scale called ‘SERVQUAL.’ Parasuraman et al.
(1988) believed that if experienced service is less than the expected service, it entails unsatisfactory service
quality otherwise satisfactory. Parasuraman et al. (1988) conducted an empirical research work, in which
they recognized a set of 22 items forming five diverse dimensions as a construct of service quality. In that
particular study they gauged customers’ expectations and perceptions on 7 point Likert scale to find
perception minus expectations gap scores. They concluded; greater level of service quality exists if the
scores of perception minus expectations are greater.
Moreover, the use of gap scores is instinctively attractive and theoretically reasonable; the gap
scores provide added information other than that which is already contained in the perception element of
service quality scale (Iacobucci, Grayson, & Ostrom, 1994). Nonetheless, a poor fit has also been found by
many researchers in service quality when they measured it through a Parasuraman et al. (1988) (e.g.,
Babakus & Mangold, 1992; Carman, 1990). Brown, Churchill, & Peter (1993) conducted a research in
which they found that by applying this gap model any researcher may find different scores according to
different mental filters therefore; they were not in favour of this gap model.
2.2. Dimensions of Service Quality
Sasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978) listed seven service attributes which they believe adequately
embrace the concept of service quality while Johnston (1995) identified eighteen dimensions. Parasuraman
et al. (1985) initially listed ten determinants of service quality that can be generalized to any type of service
however, later they regrouped ten dimensions in the well-known five dimensions in the SERVQUAL MODEL
(Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1990) (see table 1).
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
37
Table No. 1: Dimensions of Service Quality
Author(s)
Dimensions of Service Quality (Determinants)
(Sasser, Olsen, & Wyckoff,
1978)
Security, Consistency, Attitude, Completeness, Condition,
Availability, and Training
(Parasuraman et al., 1985)
Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Competence, Access,
Courtesy, Communication, Credibility, Security
(Parasuraman, Berry, &
Zeithaml, 1990)
SERVQUAL MODEL
Tangible – physical look of building, employees, equipment etc.
Reliability – promised service is provided regularly.
Responsiveness – Every time ready to help customers.
Assurance – Ability of staff to express confidence.
Empathy – employees show care and concern towards
employees.
(Johnston, 1995)
Attentiveness/helpfulness, Responsiveness, Care, Availability,
Reliability, Integrity, Friendliness, Courtesy, Communication,
Competence, Functionality, Commitment, Access, Flexibility,
Aesthetics, Cleanliness/tidiness, Comfort, Security
Parasuraman et al. (1990) proposed to subjectively measure service quality by finding out the
extent of discrepancy between customers’ expectations or desires and their perceptions of the actual quality
of performed service. It is worthy to note that Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1991), re-examined the
scale's reliability by reapplying it to three services; a telephone company, two insurance companies, and
two banks. Their results reconfirmed the scale’s reliability and validity, sub-classified the Tangibles
dimension into two sub-dimensions, and recommended minor changes in the wording of the expectation
section of the questionnaire.
To test the reliability of the SERVQUAL scale, Cronin and Taylor (1992) used four scales;
SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, importance-weighted SERVQUAL, and importance-weighted SERVPERF in
their survey. They executed this survey in four different services; pest control, banking, dry-cleaning, and
fast food. Subsequently, they found that SERVPERF was the best amongst all of them in defining service
quality of different service providing companies.
Teas (1993) also examined the validity of SERVQUAL, tested the proposed gap between consumers'
perception and normative expectations on three local discount stores. He reported, "The measures lack
discriminate validity with respect to the concepts of attribute importance, performance forecasts, and classic
attribute ideal points." (p.29). He concurred with Cronin and Taylor (1992) that using un-weighted perceived
performance as a service quality measure provides better concurrent and construct validity.
Moreover, in order to reveal the effectiveness of the SERVPERF instrument many attempts have
been made. Asubonteng, McCleary, and Swan (1996) assert that SERVPERF unites easiness of function
and flexibility that is why managers accept it. Furthermore, he clarifies that administrators know the
consequences, which are acquired by using SERVPERF model, may assist the organizations in identifying
the direction in which the organizations should move. However, Anderson (1995) asserts that SERVPERF’s
gets failed in drawing attention on most of the past social researches and psychosomatic theory. Moreover,
it was explained that the focus of service quality dimensions is more towards particular service which is
offered.
2.3. Importance of Service Quality in Educational Sector
Babin and Griffin (1998), defined a customer as anyone who pays money to acquire an
organization’s products or services. In this context Hill (1995) describe students in education as primary
customer. However, Waugh (2002) suggested that viewing students as customers created some tensions
in universities that they are too aligned with businesses. Some researchers also view academic faculties
as customers of university administration. Although the primary participant in education is student, there is
also a strong underlying assumption that the industry, parents, Government, and even society as a whole
are the “customer” of education.
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
38
Several studies treated students as customer applied SERVPERF in education, for example, to
private universities (Rigotti & Pitt, 1992) and higher educational institutions (McElwee & Redman, 1993).
Zammuto, Keaveney, and O’Connor (1996) (as cited in Hossain, 2013) found that perceived poor service
quality by students will slowly reduce the admiration of institution which ultimately disturb funding
mechanism consequently number of applicant for the study will reduce.
With regards to advanced education Abdullah (2006) stressed that advanced education
establishments need to look for better model of assessing students' perceptions. Advanced education
establishments need to focus on two issues predominantly, first how partners (society) value the aptitudes
and capacities of their graduates (Ginsburg, 1991; Lawton, 1992), and second how their customers
(students) feel about their instructive experience (Pimovski, 1991; cited in Abdullah, 2006).
In Pakistan, higher educational institution quality is generally evaluated by Higher Education
Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. HEC in Pakistan has devised several mechanisms to control and monitor
universities however, it does not account or calculate the gap in perception and expectations of students.
In this regard, (Hattie, 1990; Soutar & McNeil, 1996) authors have argued that in higher education,
centralized control mechanism setup by government may have several drawbacks such as centralized
performance indicators tend to become measures of activity rather than true measures of the quality of
students’ educational service (Soutar & McNeil, 1996). These performance indicators may have something
to do with the provision of higher education, but they certainly fail to measure the quality of education
provided in any comprehensive way (Abdullah, 2006).
Studies have shown that, Educational institutes are conducting student satisfaction survey with the
aim to improve quality of service offered to students (Low, 2000). Hill (1995) investigated the use of service
quality in higher education; Anderson (1995) used SERVPERF to evaluate quality of administration
department in educational set up studied impact of service quality in Educational institutions.
Low (2000) noted that, provision of service quality is the key source of attraction, satisfaction and
retention of students and it has direct impact on funding, job security and viability of educational institute.
The teaching staff (tangibles), the teaching methods (responsiveness and reliability) and administration of
university leads to student satisfaction (Marzo Navarro, Pedraja Iglesias, & Rivera Torres, 2005). The
quality issue should be considered by every personnel of institutes whether in front-line contact, teach
students or part of management (Low, 2000). The management of university should focus on service
quality, information and facilities to increase satisfaction and loyalty of university students, and service
quality is most important of all (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). Satisfaction of students reflects perception of
service quality differences offered (Gruber, Fuß, Voss, & Gläser-Zikuda, 2010). Communication and
responsiveness are most crucial determinants of student satisfaction but absence of responsiveness,
tangibles, communication leads students to dissatisfaction (Douglas, McClelland, & Davies, 2008).
Donaldson and Runciman (1995) explain service quality is a key performance measure in
educational excellence and is a main strategic variable for universities to increase market share. Perceived
quality creates positive image in the mind of students which ultimately leads them to satisfaction (Alves &
Raposo, 2010). Mazzarol (1998) say that higher education institutions should maintain a distinctive image
to have a competitive advantage. Customer satisfaction is dependent on customer expectations and
perception regarding service quality (Christou & Sigala, 2002; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Ekinci, 2003).
Students with positive experience at educational institution are more likely to be more satisfied with
institute then those who don’t have positive experience (DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005). Students have
certain expectations with the institutes and how well these expectations are met affects students’ level of
satisfaction with the institutions and their perceptions regarding institutional effectiveness (Juillerat &
Schreiner, 1996). Service quality is positively related to students’ satisfaction and students’ loyalty; so
management should pay attentions most to the quality of service offered (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007).
In the light of above literature review, it could be concluded that SERVQUAL and SERFPERF
scales are appropriate in measuring performance and quality of services. Based on these facts, the current
study will try to evaluate the quality and performance of services offered by educational institutions
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
39
(universities) by using both the scales. Therefore, the next section of this research will highlight the method
used to construct the scales’ validity and sample size used to achieve the objectives of the research.
3. Research Methodology
The current study is an attempt to measure students’ perceptions regarding service quality of
private universities of Sind through SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models. It is a comparative assessment
of the SERVQUAL and the SERVPERF scales in the Pakistani framework in terms of their validity, ability
to explain variance in the overall service quality, power to distinguish among service objects/firms,
parsimony in data collection, and more importantly, their analytical ability to provide insights for managerial
interventions in case of quality shortfalls.
3.1. Research Design
This research followed descriptive research design, in which quantitative approach was applied,
where participants were required to share their experiences and personal views. Primary data was collected
using a questionnaire previously used by (Foo, 1999). Data was collected using Simple Random Sampling
Technique from 700 students of 10 private universities in Sind on 7 point Likert scale, in which 22 structured
questions were used ranging from 1 to 7. However, 510 questionnaires were found useful and remaining
190 were discarded i.e. 72 per cent response rate. The 22 questions were distributed among the 5
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF dimensions as depicted in figure 1.
Figure 1: SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Model
3.2. Reliability and Validity of the Instrument
To ensure reliability of the instrument, the researcher had followed test/retest technique. The
researcher administered it to a plot sample of (20) subjects outside the study sample in the same
universities from which the subjects are chosen with a two week period between pre-test and post-test. The
reliability of the test is concluded by using Cronbach’s Coefficients alpha to measure the internal
consistency of the five SERVQUAL and SERVPERF dimensions. Subsequently, the value of Cronbach
alpha was found 93%. Moreover, several studies have tested and validated SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
scales which are used in this study (such as; Landrum & Prybutok, 2004; Landrum, Prybutok, Peak, & Qin,
2010; Landrum et al., 2009).
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
40
3.3. Statistical Techniques
The questionnaire was divided into two parts, Part-1 and Part-2. In part 1, mean of the rankings
assigned by respondents have been taken to measure priority given to each dimension of service quality.
Then in part 2, one sample t-test and one way ANOVA was used to measure the perception of students
about the quality of service and institutional variance respectively.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Overall result of dimensions (Part-1)
Table 2: Overall Results of Dimensions
Dimension
Percentage %
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5
Tangibility
28
16
23
16
17
Reliability
22
23
27
17
11
Responsiveness
18
31
15
20
16
Assurance
16
16
20
29
19
Empathy
16
14
15
19
36
Part 1 of survey findings (see table 3) indicated that, most respondents assigned ranked 1 to
tangible attributes of universities such as; physical appearance of the institute, instructors (professors),
class room environment, cafeteria, laboratory, library etc. This illustrates, universities should prioritise their
efforts in the design and development of tangibles while planning the strategy for providing quality services
to students. The least concerned dimension of service quality was found as empathy. This is due to the fact
that, the university students belong to a mature age group where care and concern are not that important,
here quality of other items which plays direct role in making their future progress successful are more
important for them.
The other dimensions such as responsiveness and reliability have secured second and third rank.
This illustrates, students want their universities to be more responsive and expected them to take quick and
timely actions on their queries and complaints. In addition, most respondents indicated that, knowledge and
politeness of staff and their ability to express trust and confidence is not as important as tangibility and
responsiveness dimensions. Therefore, most of the respondents ranked assurance at No. 4. Moreover,
respondents also acknowledge the fact that it is very hard for any university to provide the promised service
regularly and perfectly.
4.2. SERVPERF Analysis
The reliability and internal consistency of the five dimensions were measured by using the
Cronbach’s Alpha that was found 0.934. Descriptive statistics showed that the overall mean is 4.726 which
is moving from mid towards high perception area with the standard deviation of 1.2696 i.e. in general the
variance is high and dispersion of response is greater. For individual independent variable mean, the
standard deviation is higher.
However, in order to extract more meaningful information of the data from descriptive measures,
study used coefficient of variation tool that combine mean and standard deviation. This illustrated that the
dimension empathy has the largest value of CV i.e. 30.15 %, which shows that empathy has the greatest
relative speed. Respondents in different universities were spread out and showed variable responses for
this dimension. This could be due to the fact that, data was collected from different universities. They do
treat students differently, i.e. the administration and other staffs are courteous, in some universities they
shows care and concern for students while other universities staff do not treat students well. The least value
of CV is found in the tangibility and reliability mean i.e. 24.48 and 23.97 %. Therefore, it could be said that,
mean values indicate, majority of dimensions are seeking for improvement. None of the dimension has
mean near to the highest level of perception i.e. 6 or 7 In addition, they are variably distributed in the data.
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
41
In order to fulfill the other study objectives, the researcher has used One-sample t-test and ANOVA.
The following table shows the perception of students for the quality of service in their respective university
(only private universities of Sindh) using One-Sample t-test.
Table No. 3: Measuring the Perception Using One Sample T Test
DIMENSIONS
Statements
Test Value = 5
Mean
SD
T
Df
Sig.(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Tangibility
Professional Teacher
5.08
1.387
82.701
509
.000
5.078
Teaching Aid
4.52
1.504
67.866
509
.000
4.520
Cleanliness
5.05
1.525
74.768
509
.000
5.049
Seating
4.65
1.645
63.784
509
.000
4.645
Cafeteria
4.02
1.766
51.345
509
.000
4.016
Reliability
Reliable Performance
4.98
1.402
80.311
509
.000
4.984
Promised Services
4.42
1.575
63.406
509
.000
4.422
Service At Right Time
4.29
1.605
60.351
509
.000
4.288
Complete Info
5.02
1.536
73.834
509
.000
5.022
Notice Before Cancelling
Admission
n
4.91
1.585
69.975
509
.000
4.912
Responsiveness
Listening Complaints
4.32
1.689
57.817
509
.000
4.324
Adjustment of Classes
4.68
1.657
63.803
509
.000
4.680
Exam Re Schedule
4.56
1.899
54.262
509
.000
4.563
Corrective Measures
4.43
1.589
62.933
509
.000
4.427
Assurance
Your Trust on Teachers
5.34
1.515
79.569
509
.000
5.337
Parent's trust in Teachers
5.02
1.579
71.770
509
.000
5.020
Secure Environment
5.08
1.700
67.533
509
.000
5.084
Conducive Environment
4.74
1.447
73.992
509
.000
4.741
Empathy
Care and Concern
4.90
1.618
68.360
509
.000
4.898
Understanding of Needs
4.71
1.644
64.712
509
.000
4.710
Students' Best at Heart
4.58
1.639
63.153
509
.000
4.584
Courteous Staff
4.56
1.722
59.863
509
.000
4.565
The One-sample t test used to evaluate the mean of each and every item of each dimension with
a hypothesized value of mean. Here researcher has taken hypothesized value 5, because the scale, which
was used for this study, was from 1 to 7, and researcher wanted to check where service quality lies above
average that was also used by (Zeshan, Afridi, & Khan, 2014). The results of t-test show that, in assurance
all the items mean values are above the tested value 5 except for conducive environment which has a mean
value of 4.74 (nearly 5). This indicates that students and parents have trust in teachers’ abilities and they
perceived that university should provide secure and sound environment for their studies. This is also an
indication that universities in Sindh do have qualified faculty to teach their students.
For other dimensions, they have shown variable responses. Such as for tangibility the results
suggested that the mean values are greater than tested value for only two tested items these are;
professional teachers and cleanliness, again as for assurance the most rated tangible item is teachers here.
This also validates the above-discussed findings. However, other tangible items such as cafeteria, seating
arrangement, and teaching aid where rated low against the tested value.
In reliability, the three tested items Reliable Performance (4.98), Complete Info (5.02), and Notice
before Cancelling Admission (4.91) were near to the tested value, while the other two items promised
services, service at the right time were below the test value. This shows that universities have good
communication mechanism for providing information to students, but still there are gaps found in two items.
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
42
Empathy and responsiveness showed below average response as the mean values were below
the tested value 5, which indicates, universities are not so proactive in terms of listening students’
complaints, such as adjustment of regular classes, re-schedule of examination. Universities are also slow
in taking corrective measures if anything goes wrong. In relation to care and concern, and understanding
of students’ need the mean values were below the tested value that shows, universities need to place some
extra measures. In addition, the staffs need to be more responsive and courteous as the students’ response
for this item is also below the tested value 5. Therefore, the result of one sample t-test of SERVPERF model
shows that, the situation is not very bad at universities in Sindh. However, there are few grey areas that
should be addressed as soon as possible in responsiveness and empathy dimensions.
Table No. 4: ANOVA
DIMENSIONS
Variances
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Tangibility
Between Groups
33.330
9
3.703
2.940
.002
Within Groups
629.848
500
1.260
Total
663.178
509
Reliability
Between Groups
12.371
9
1.375
1.070
.383
Within Groups
642.273
500
1.285
Total
654.644
509
Responsiveness
Between Groups
23.924
9
2.658
1.482
.151
Within Groups
896.528
500
1.793
Total
920.451
509
Assurance
Between Groups
21.360
9
2.373
1.421
.176
Within Groups
835.352
500
1.671
Total
856.712
509
Empathy
Between Groups
30.065
9
3.341
1.649
.099
Within Groups
1012.771
500
2.026
Total
1042.836
509
The above table of ANOVA shows that there are no statistically significant differences exist within
and between the groups that were used except for the dimension tangibility where the significant value is
less than 0.05 (p < 0.05 = 0.002) therefore post hoc test was conducted for this dimension only.
Table No. 5: Multiple Comparisons (a)
Tukey HSD
Mean Differences (J)
(I)
(I-J)
Dependent
Variable
BAHRIA
DIHE
Iqra
Newport
Sistec
Comsit
Indus
Szabist
CBM
Tangibility
(P)
IBA
Sukkar
.168
-.202
.259
.645
-.052
.140
-.198
.352
.420
BAHRIA
-.370
.091
.478
-.220
-.028
-.366
.184
.252
DIHE
.461
.847*
.150
.342
.004
.554
.622
Iqra
.386
-.311
-.119
-.457
.093
.161
Newport
-.698*
-.506
-.843*
-.293
-.226
Sistec
.192
-.146
.404
.472
Comsit
-.338
.212
.280
Indus
.550
.618
Szabist
.068
Multiple Comparison (b)
Tukey HSD
Sig
Dependent
Variable
(I)
BAHRIA
DIHE
Iqra
Newport
Sistec
Comsit
Indus
Szabist
CBM
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
43
Tangibility
IBA
Sukkar
.999
.997
.976
.117
1.000
1.000
.997
.798
.664
BAHRIA
.858
1.000
.562
.992
1.000
.869
.998
.984
DIHE
.585
.011
1.000
.910
1.000
.239
.167
Iqra
.794
.906
1.000
.606
1.000
.999
Newport
.046
.486
.013
.937
.993
Sistec
.997
1.000
.584
.446
Comsit
.918
.993
.969
Indus
.256
.180
Szabist
1.000
The two multiple comparison tables a and b show that among the groups the statistical significant
difference exists between DIHE and Newport (sig = .847*), between Newport and Sistec (sig = -.698*), Indus
(sig = -.843*). The table (b) of respective significant values indicate that statistically significant difference
exists between these universities for the dimension tangibility as the value of p is less than 0.05 i.e. 0.01
(between DIHE and Newport), 0.04 (between Newport and Sistec), and 0.01 (between Newport and Indus
university).
Therefore, we can conclude that, there was a statistically no significant difference between
universities expect for the dimension Tangibility where the sig < 0.05 as determined by one-way ANOVA.
Therefore, post-hoc test (Tukey HSD) for dimension tangibility was performed that revealed that, the
tangibles offered by universities specifically for Newport were statistically significantly lower (mean value =
4.17). However, DHIE and Indus offering in this regard were above average (mean value = 5.02). Moreover,
for other universities there were no statistically significant differences exists for this dimension. (p>0.05).
4.3. SERVQUAL Analysis
Descriptive statistics for P-E shows that all the dimensions have mean scores below zero. The
negative signs indicates the gaps in expectation and performance i.e. students are not getting the services
which they were expecting from their respective university. In this regards each dimension have different
results for sampled universities, however, IQRA university scores were the lowest for every dimension. This
shows that, students of IQRA University are not getting the services what they were expecting from the
university. On the other hand, BAHRIA university mean scores were highest for every dimension i.e. the
gap of expectation and perception is less than all the other sampled universities, i.e. students of BAHRIA
University are getting services, which they were expecting from the university. However, still the ideal
condition where perception/performance should be higher than expectation is not met by any of the
universities sampled.
Table No. 6: One-Sample Test P - E
Dimensions
Statements
Test Value = 1
Mean
SD
T
Df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Tangibility
Professional Teacher
-.72
1.821
-8.947
509
.000
-.722
Teaching Aid
-1.06
1.965
-12.192
509
.000
-1.061
Cleanliness
-.83
1.956
-9.623
509
.000
-.833
Seating
-.96
2.152
-10.042
509
.000
-.957
Cafeteria
-1.46
2.347
-14.035
509
.000
-1.459
Reliability
Reliable Performance
-.95
1.773
-12.036
509
.000
-.945
Promised Services
-1.22
1.977
-13.884
509
.000
-1.216
Service At Right Time
-1.15
2.093
-12.458
509
.000
-1.155
Complete Info
-.68
2.018
-7.637
509
.000
-.682
Notice Before Cancelling
Admission
-.76
2.035
-8.486
509
.000
-.765
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
44
Responsiveness
Listening Complaints
-1.15
2.297
-11.316
509
.000
-1.151
Adjustment of Classes
-.77
2.284
-7.621
509
.000
-.771
Exam Re Schedule
-.85
2.562
-7.535
509
.000
-.855
Corrective Measures
-.97
2.074
-10.571
509
.000
-.971
Assurance
Your Trust on Teachers
-.55
1.987
-6.194
509
.000
-.545
Parent's trust in Teachers
-.64
2.065
-6.992
509
.000
-.639
Secure Environment
-.69
2.150
-7.210
509
.000
-.686
Conducive Environment
-.82
1.914
-9.718
509
.000
-.824
Empathy
Care and Concern
-.80
2.162
-8.334
509
.000
-.798
Understanding of Needs
-.93
2.166
-9.651
509
.000
-.925
Students' Best at Heart
-1.00
2.117
-10.666
509
.000
-1.000
Courteous Staff
-1.05
2.231
-10.600
509
.000
-1.047
In order to evaluate the gap between the Perception and expectation of service quality, study has
used One-sample t test on P-E values. Expectation (E) of service quality were measured using the same
scale of 1 to 7 and then subtracted with the respective Perceived score which was already accumulated in
the first part of data collection. Then one sample t-test was applied on P-E scale to evaluate the mean of
each and every item of each SERVQUAL dimensions with a hypothesized value of mean i.e. 1 (the
hypothesized value 1 shows perceptions are higher than expectations which should be the case of
measuring the gap of expectation and perception).
The result of one sample t-test shows tangibility mean values are lowest i.e. the perceptions are
lower than expectation. The biggest gaps were in two items Cafeteria and Teaching Aid (mean value are -
1.46 and -1.06) while mean value of seating also has -0.96 value. This shows the major disappointments
faced by students were in cafeteria and teaching aid, these two areas of universities need improvement.
The seating arrangements are also below their expectations. The other two items Cleanliness and
Professional teachers also needed improvement as their mean values (-0.83 and -0.72 respectively) were
below the test value +1.
The second lowest mean dimension was reliability. All the five items tested are negative, Promised
Services and Service at right time with the lowest value of -1.22 and -1.15 respectively. The reliable
performance was also below test value with mean -0.95. This shows that students were promised for
different services at the time of admission, also the service delivery is slow or students are getting the
delayed services that ultimately question the reliability in performance. Whereas the item complete info
mean was -0.68, which indicate that students are facing less difficulties in getting complete information from
university.
As far as the other dimensions are concerned, they have also shown mean below the test value.
Such as responsiveness and empathy, whereas dimension assurance mean scores were less deviated
from test value. Here all four item means were ranged from -0.82 to -0.55 i.e. the P-E gap for the item
parents and students’ trust on teachers, secure and conducive environment was less than the other items
of dimension assurance. Students are not highly disappointed with their teachers and expressed trust on
the ability of teachers as well.
Table No. 7: ANOVA
Dimensions
Variances
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Tangibility (P-E)
Between Groups
43.430
9
4.826
2.246
.018
Within Groups
1074.460
500
2.149
Total
1117.890
509
Reliability (P-E)
Between Groups
31.655
9
3.517
1.657
.097
Within Groups
1061.564
500
2.123
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
45
Total
1093.218
509
Responsiveness (P-E)
Between Groups
51.916
9
5.768
1.726
.080
Within Groups
1670.927
500
3.342
Total
1722.843
509
Assurance (P-E)
Between Groups
26.440
9
2.938
1.056
.394
Within Groups
1391.056
500
2.782
Total
1417.496
509
Empathy (P-E)
Between Groups
65.479
9
7.275
2.119
.027
Within Groups
1716.669
500
3.433
Total
1782.148
509
The above table of ANOVA for P-E shows that there are no statistically significant differences exist
within and between the groups that were used except for the dimension tangibility and Empathy where the
significant value is less than 0.05 (i.e. p < 0.05 = 0.01 and 0.02 respectively) therefore post hoc test was
conducted for these two dimensions only.
Table No. 8: Multiple Comparisons (a)
Dependent Variable (I)
Mean Difference (I-J)
(J) Universities
BAHRIA
DIHE
Iqra
Newport
Sistec
Comsit
Indus
Szabist
CBM
Tangibility
(P-E)
IBA Sukkar
-.393
-.115
.474
.369
-.035
-.248
-.270
.435
.140
BAHRIA
.278
.867
.763
.358
.146
.123
.828
.534
DIHE
.589
.484
.080
-.133
-.155
.550
.255
Iqra
-.104
-.509
-.721
-.744
-.039
-.333
Newport
-.404
-.617
-.639
.065
-.229
Sistec
-.213
-.235
.470
.175
Comsit
-.022
.682
.388
Indus
.705
.410
Szabist
-.294
Empathy
(P-E)
IBA Sukkar
-.718
.075
.356
-.385
.049
-.588
-.055
.276
-.556
BAHRIA
.793
1.07
4
.333
.767
.130
.663
.994
.162
DIHE
.280
-.460
-.027
-.664
-.130
.201
-.632
Iqra
-.741
-.307
-.944
-.410
-.079
-.912
Newport
.434
-.203
.330
.661
-.171
Sistec
-.637
-.104
.228
-.605
Comsit
.533
.865
.032
Indus
.331
-.501
Szabist
-.833
Table No. 9: Multiple Comparisons (b)
Tukey HSD
Sig.
Dimensions
(I)
(I-J) Universities
Bahr
ia
DIHE
Iqra
Newport
Sistec
Comsit
Indus
Szabist
CBM
Tangibility
(P-E)
IBA Sukkar
.946
1.000
.824
.962
1.000
.998
.996
.847
1.000
BAHRIA
.996
.106
.266
.963
1.000
1.000
.100
.741
DIHE
.617
.851
1.000
1.000
1.000
.637
.998
IQRA
1.000
.716
.324
.282
1.000
.979
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
46
NEWPORT
.920
.587
.535
1.000
.999
SISTEC
.999
.998
.736
1.000
COMSIT
1.000
.328
.955
INDUS
.283
.936
SZABIST
.987
Empathy
(P-E)
IBA Sukkar
.653
1.000
.993
.990
1.000
.864
1.000
.998
.879
BAHRIA
.561
.123
.997
.514
1.000
.791
.144
1.000
DIHE
.999
.972
1.000
.791
1.000
1.000
.809
IQRA
.616
.997
.276
.986
1.000
.279
NEWPORT
.971
1.000
.998
.693
1.000
SISTEC
.766
1.000
1.000
.783
COMSIT
.937
.324
1.000
INDUS
.996
.948
SZABIST
.327
The two multiple comparison tables a and b show that, statistically there were no significant
differences exists in the means of institutions except for the dimensions tangibility and empathy however,
the differences in Means of table ANOVA must have been occurred by chance.
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
The above findings and analysis indicated few positives with some negatives areas of Private
Universities in Sindh offering Business studies. In terms of items defining the dimensions, the study partly
evaluated perceptions (P) and then the level of service quality using P-E (gaps in expectation and
perception). The first part perception results highlighted the most neglected area as “Cafeteria” (dimension
= Tangibility) and second is “Service at the right time”, while the most bright item was “Your trust on
Teachers” and second in line was “Secure Environment”. The university wise results show that, DIHE and
Indus universities have above average physical attributes than the other universities while Newport
university have low standards in Seating, Cafeteria, Teaching Aid, etc. The second dimension reliability
results indicated BAHRIA University (Karachi Campus) with some grey areas such as “Promised services”
and “Service at the right time”, however; the Post Hoc test did not confirm this statement as it shows for
dimension reliability statistically no significant differences exists between the means. For P-E, the
universities wise results indicated different set of universities as under performers. The variations in results
illustrates universities are not providing promised services. In this regard, IQRA university students’ gap of
perception and expectation was wider than all the other universities, while in the results of BAHRIA
University this gap was narrower. This situation strongly shouts that universities with wider gaps in P-E
scores need to focus on their performance in the targeted areas such as Cafeteria, Seating arrangements,
teaching aid, delivery of promised services, listening to students’ complaints etc.
In addition, for reliability and responsiveness, researcher found that, items means such as; reliable
performance, promised service, right service, information about the exams, response to complaints and
corrective measures taken by the administration in resolving pupils issues got the least mean in our analysis
through SPSS. This situation indicates, the majority of sampled universities are facing cultural and quality
Human Resource acquisition problem except for few such as DIHE and Indus that were slightly above
average. This could be due to the fact that in the past most educational institutions having inconsistent
Human resource acquisition policies as compare to the corporate sector. This issue could be resolved
through the HR development programs where these institutes may enhance the skills and level of
motivation of admin staff by engaging them in career development programs. Recently, universities were
funded by the HEC to develop their infrastructure and resources which were a good sign however, like most
public sector organization, educational institutions also rate the development of administration employees
on least priority or not-to-do list. Another progress could be made by having better supervision of admin
staff. Supervision, in our educational institutions and many private organizations as well is lacking. This
may be due to the complacent attitude of higher managers. Most of the supervisions done by the heads of
educational institutions are ceremonial in nature in order to just show their presence. However, in relation
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
47
to the quality measures, studies have shown that, in developed countries such as US, and developed
European Union state universities’ heads obligatorily use 2-3 hours with the students on weekly/biweekly
basis and the same exercise is done by their deputies and other managers working in public and private
universities. These practices if facsimile in our universities could result in remarkable impact in increasing
the quality of educational services.
In general, assessment of service quality through SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models by using
the scale of 1 to 7 has produced different results. It is difficult to establish between two measures, which
scale offers pragmatic and organizationally realistic analysis. In our case, the two scales suggested two
different sets of results as far as university wise result is concerned. This shows that, the possibility of
variation in results exists when the responses are collected by using Perceptions and Perception-
Expectations scales. However, the results of both scales show similarities in item - wise results as they
suggested the same neglected areas. All the dimensions and their respective items tested suggested that
the students are seeking improvement in majority of items; students want potential quality level in almost
every service attribute.
Moreover, results of the study have found that, with all the limitation and paucity of resources, the
two scales are capable of pointing grey areas. These grey areas need to be addressed on immediate
grounds as the level of competition is increasing day by day. One bad word of mouth could seriously
damage the reputation of private universities. In Pakistan, the issue of fake degrees is also on rise which
in recent past highlighted the names of few universities; therefore, it is very important for private universities
to take measures in all neglected areas specially the admin staff. Train them well so that they serve better.
Also, the Perception-Expectations scales show negative values i.e. the gap exists. The students’ perception
of delivered service is below their expectations. Universities need to work hard to improve their
performance.
References
Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher
education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(6), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2005.00480.x
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The influence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of
Educational Management, 24(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013060
Ames, C. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 409–421.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2003.10516388
Anderson, E. A. (1995). Measuring service quality at a university health clinic. International Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance, 8(2), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526869510081866
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. J., & Swan, J. E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service quality. Journal
of Services Marketing, 10(6), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049610148602
Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Hospital Services: An Empirical
Investlgatlon. Health Service Research, 26(2), 767–786. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069855/pdf/hsresearch00075-0070.pdf
Babin, B. J., & Griffin, M. (1998). The nature of satisfaction: An updated examination and analysis. Journal of Business
Research, 41(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00001-5
Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1993). Improving the measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
69(1), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(05)80006-5
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal
of Retailing, 66(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00084-3
Christou, E., & Sigala, M. (2002). Conceptualising the measurement of service quality and TQM performance for hotels:
the HOSTQUAL model. Acta Turistica, 14(2), 140–169. Retrieved from
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20033012429
Credit Suisse. (2015). World Wealth Report 2015. Credit Suisse. Zurich. Retrieved from https://publications.credit-
suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=F2425415-DCA7-80B8-EAD989AF
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing,
56(3), 55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252296
DeShields, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher
education: applying Herzberg’s two‐factor theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2),
128–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510582426
Donaldson, B., & Runciman, F. (1995). Service quality in further education: An insight into management perceptions of
service quality and those of the actual service provider. Journal of Marketing Management, 11(1–3), 243–256.
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
48
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1995.9964340
Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with
their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 19–35.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810848396
Ekinci, Y. (2003). An Investigation of the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction. Tourism Analysis, 8(2), 193–196.
https://doi.org/10.3727/108354203774076724
Foo, T. P. L. and F. S. (1999). Service quality assessment : A case study of a Singapore statutory board library Tan ,
P . L ., & Foo , S . ( 1999 ), Singapore Journal of Library & Information Management , ( 28 ), 1-23 . SERVICE
QUALITY ASSESSMENT : A CASE STUDY OF A SINGAPORE STATUTORY. Singapore Journal of Library
& Information Management, (28), 1-23., (28), 1–23.
Ginsburg, M. B. (1991). Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context: Economy, Ideology, and ... - Mark B.
Ginsburg - Google Books. (GINSBERG, Ed.). LONDON AND NEWYORK: ROUTLEDGE; Taylor &Francis.
Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lHOauDdWWEAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Understanding+
Educational+Reforms+in+Global+Context:+Economy,+Ideology+and+the+State&ots=bZYWmRDG5-
&sig=atP26UxRMqHOoXChG7wIHNyNYL8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Understanding Educat
Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education
services: Using a new measurement tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–123.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011022474
Hattie, J. (1990). Performance Indicators in Education. Australian Journal of Education, 34(3), 249–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494419003400304
Helgesen, Ø., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. International
Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710729926
Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as primary consumer. Quality
Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889510093497
Hossain, B. M. S. (2013). Development of a Model to Enhce Effective Total Quality Management in Higher Education
Institutions, 8(2), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.aejsr.2013.8.2.1114
Iacobucci, D., Grayson, K. A., & Ostrom, A. L. (1994). The calculus of service quality and customer satisfaction:
Theoretical and empirical differentiation and integration. Advances in Services Marketing and Management,
3(C), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1067-5671(94)03013-8
Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 6(5), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239510101536
Juillerat, S., & Schreiner, L. A. (1996). The role of student satisfaction in the assessment of institutional effectiveness.
Assessment Update, 8(1), 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.3650080108
Landrum, H., & Prybutok, V. R. (2004). A service quality and success model for the information service industry.
European Journal of Operational Research, 156(3), 628–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00125-
5
Landrum, H., Prybutok, V. R., Peak, D. A., & Qin, H. (2010). Using importance ratings to create an information service
quality measure. International Journal of Services and Standards, 6(3/4), 295.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSS.2010.038674
Landrum, H., Prybutok, V., Zhang, X., & Peak, D. (2009). Measuring IS System Service Quality with SERVQUAL:
Users’ Perceptions of Relative Importance of the Five SERVPERF Dimensions. Informing Science: The
International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12, 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/2038056.2038060
Lawton, S. B. (1992). Why restructure?: an international survey of the roots of reform 1. Journal of Education Policy,
7(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093920070202
Low, L. (2000). Are College Students Satisfied? A National Analysis of Changing Expectations. New Agenda
Series[TM]. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED451816
Marshall, H. (1987). Motivational strategies of three fifth-grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 134–
150. https://doi.org/10.1086/461529
Marzo Navarro, M., Pedraja Iglesias, M., & Rivera Torres, P. (2005). A new management element for universities:
satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), 505–526.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510617454
Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational
Management, 12(4), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549810220623
McElwee, G., & Redman, T. (1993). Upward Appraisal in Practice: An Illustrative Example Using the Qualed Model.
Education + Training, 35(2), EUM0000000000298. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000298
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. a. (1990). Guidelines for Conducting Service Quality Research. Marketing
Research, 2(4), 34–45. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Guidelines+for+Conducting+Service+Qualit
y+Research#0
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale.
Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–450. Retrieved from
GMJACS Volume 7 Number 2 2017
49
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valarie_Zeithaml/publication/304344168_Refinement_and_reassessme
nt_of_the_SERVQUAL_scale/links/5919b21eaca2722d7cfe633d/Refinement-and-reassessment-of-the-
SERVQUAL-scale.pdf
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for
Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251430
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer
perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(99)00084-3
Rigotti, S., & Pitt, L. (1992). SERVQUAL as a Measuring Instrument for Service Provider Gaps in Business Schools.
Management Research News, 15(3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028197
Sasser, E. W., Olsen, R. P., & Wyckoff, D. D. (1978). Management of service operations: Text, cases, and readings.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sobral, D. T. (2004). What kind of motivation drives medical students’ learning quests? Medical Education, 38(9), 950–
957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01913.x
Soutar, G., & McNeil, M. (1996). Measuring service quality in a tertiary institution. Journal of Educational Administration,
34(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239610107174
Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, Performance Evaluation, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality. Journal of
Marketing, 57(4), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252216
Waugh, R. F. (2002). Measuring self-reported studying and learning for university students: Linking attitudes and
behaviours on the same scale. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 573–604.
https://doi.org/10.1348/00070990260377622
Zaidi, S. A. (2017). In Pakistan, it’s middle class rising - The Hindu. The Hindu. Retrieved from
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/in-pakistan-its-middle-class-rising/article17378526.ece
Zammuto, R. F., Keaveney, S. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (1996). Rethinking Student Services: Assessing and Improving
Service Quality. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 7(1), 45–70.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v07n01_05
Zeshan, A., Afridi, T., & Khan, S. M. (2014). Assessing Service Quality in Business Schools : Implications for
Improvement Service Quality in Educational Settings : Past Researches, 2(8), 33–42.
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2001). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firms (2nd
ed.). Boston: Tata-McGraw Hill.
