Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to investigate and report students’ perception of service quality in a university by examining the perceptual context of service quality with respect to students’ loyalty behavior, image of the university and culture/values.
Design/methodology/approach
A research framework is developed for quality assessment with three hypotheses. A questionnaire with 65 instruments was used for gathering the required data for the analysis. The questionnaire was sent through email to all engineering students. The analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, gap analysis and hypotheses tests. Seven dimensions of service quality were identified: the original dimensions of the SERVQUAL, namely, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles. Two additional dimensions image and culture/value were added for the research to understand perceived service quality and loyalty.
Findings
The results provide a significant positive correlation between service quality and student's loyalty. It also shows that there is statistically significant relation between the image of the institution and the perceived service quality, and culture/values of the students in the institution and perceived service quality.
Research limitations/implications
This study used data collected from a survey in the university in a given period.
Practical implications
The findings indicate that to provide quality education, meeting students’ needs, wants and expectations of services quality should be carefully understood and addressed. Management also needs to consider factors such as corporate image and culture/value, as they have the ability to heavily impact the type of services provided by the institution.
Originality/value
The findings presented in this paper fill the gap in the current literature by providing empirical knowledge on the quality of service assessment and customer satisfaction in the higher education context. The study is the first of its kind in Qatar’s context and provides opportunities for higher institutions to focus more on current students’ services. This can lead to an increased brand value representing one of the premier institutes of higher education in the Middle East Gulf Region.
Keywords
Citation
Shurair, A.S.A. and Pokharel, S. (2019), "Stakeholder’s perception of service quality: a case in Qatar", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 493-510. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2017-0023
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Amal S.A. Shurair and Shaligram Pokharel.
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
The service sector is considered an important sector in many countries (Abdullah, 2006) due to which the research on the measurement of service quality has also increased (Baron et al., 2009). Many service organizations recognize that good service quality may bring customer satisfaction and increased customer loyalty. Therefore, many researchers mention that customer loyalty and customer satisfaction can be used as an outcome of service quality measures implemented in an organization (Orel and Kara, 2014; Chou et al., 2014; Hussain et al., 2015; Kasiri et al., 2017). Many organizations have considered quality as a strategic weapon for enhancing business performance and achieving operational efficiency (Garvin, 1983; Anderson and Zeithaml, 1984; Zeithaml et al., 1993; Sureshchandar et al., 2002; DeShields et al., 2005). Lupo (2014) and Štimac and Šimić (2012) mention that the education sector is also service-oriented and, therefore, understanding of the service and its continuous measurement becomes important in the education sector as well.
The education sector provides services at different levels of students’ learning. Therefore, the quality of service in education is important not only in primary and secondary education, but also more prominently so in the higher education sector. In most cases, primary and secondary education systems are handled by the governments (O’Sullivan, 2006; Braathe and Otterstad, 2014; Rose, 2015; Van der Bij et al., 2016), and quality is defined, implemented and measured through various assurance tools.
In the higher education system, as students generally have a choice to enter a university and a program, service quality and satisfaction become more important. Globalization and increased liberalization of the labor market have also provided opportunities to the students to evaluate the service quality of educational institutes besides the number of programs. Yeo (2009) mentions that, on the side of the educational institution, service quality can form a baseline for adaptation to globalization. However, as the number and types of programs are similar among the higher education institutes, globally or locally, the institutes have to work on the marketing of differentiating factor and building of its image. This is very prominent in the industrial sector (Clow et al., 1997; Alves and Raposo, 2010) in which companies believe that better perception of company image means the better perception of quality and satisfaction. Therefore, attempts by institutions to build the image in the higher education system can make them more competitive (Štimac and Šimić, 2012). It is realized that students tend to focus on the evidence of service quality provided by the institution (Bhuian, 2016) when it comes to higher education. Therefore, not only the quality assurance measures adopted by the university system but also the service perception becomes important.
In some countries, branch campuses of international universities have been established to tap the students from the regional pool. These campuses are often expected to provide the same education and service quality to students as their parent institution. However, Bhuian (2016) mentions that the education and service quality perception between the parent institution and the branch campus can be different. This may happen due to the smaller size of the campus and the smaller number of services offered in branch campuses compared to their parent institution.
Some authors acknowledge that the measurement of education quality is difficult due mainly to the complicated nature of the educational product, different conceptualization of service quality, and varied stakeholders’ perceptions (Becket and Brookes, 2006). One of the factors that institutions should consider is that as the main stakeholders of the university, students’ perception of education quality is global, and is based on their exposure to services and their quality throughout their student years (Rojas-Méndez et al., 2009; Jancey and Burns, 2013). The importance of services provided to the current students by the faculty, unit heads and the supporting staff is mentioned in Nadiri et al. (2009) and Clewes (2003). An interaction between the students and the teachers is also mentioned by Alt (2015) as a factor for the learning environment in the higher education institute. Martin et al. (2015) mention service users can benefit if service providers can provide a facilitative environment in their campuses. Therefore, it is necessary for higher education institutions to also focus on a continuous improvement of services.
Qatar considers education to be one of the prominent pillars of the National Vision 2030 and the National Development Strategy [QGSDP (Qatar General Secretariat for Development Planning), 2011]. The government has invested heavily in the higher education sector as well, providing support to Qatar University and Hamad Bin Khalifa University, and welcoming the establishment of branch campuses of prominent international universities. Borahan and Ziarati (2002) mention that this emphasis by the government on higher education can have a better impact on increasing the quality of higher education. Such investments mean that institutes need to focus more on the quality of education, as it will have a direct bearing on a country’s competitiveness. The availability of competing institutions for higher education makes the perception of service quality even more important for the prospective students. Therefore, the motivation of the study is to measure students’ perception of service quality at an educational institute by using quality metrics. The perception of the students can become a driving factor for the decision makers to develop measures to enhance service quality in the institution. As this type of study has not been done before in Qatar University, it also provides an opportunity to set the determinants by examining the largest university.
The remaining of the paper is as follows. The review of the relevant literature is presented in Section 2 followed by the Section 3, in which research methodology and the conceptual framework is discussed. In Section 4, data analysis, results are discussions are presented. The conclusions of the study and possible future work are given in Section 5.
2. Review of related research
2.1 Service in the higher education sector
Management of service quality is important in higher education institutes due to their inherent aim of producing quality graduates. Due to increased competition, globalization and the reduction of funds allocated by the government, higher education institutions need to put more focus on quality (Temizer and Turkyilmaz, 2012). They need to develop strategic and operational planning to differentiate their service with competing institutions by addressing the needs of various stakeholders. The following are some of the points considered by the researchers:
The institutions should monitor the quality of services and be committed to measure and improve it on a continuous basis (Brochado, 2009).
An institution’s ability in meeting students’ wants and expectations can affect a student’s choice to enroll in higher studies (Plank and Chiagouris, 1997).
Satisfaction of students is an extremely vital issue for higher education management (Douglas et al., 2008).
Students are analytical and critical when deciding on the education institution, and they look at evidence of good service quality (Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Donaldson and McNicholas, 2004).
Students develop different perceptions on service quality across different years of their study (Sumaedi et al., 2012; Moyo and Ngwenya, 2018) and the perception on quality differs with the gender of the students (Joseph et al., 2005; Sumaedi et al., 2012).
2.2 Service quality measurement
Many studies have used SERVQUAL as a tool to measure service quality. The model was developed based on the service gap between the expectations and perception of a customer towards the quality of a service (Parasuraman et al., 1988). The SERVQUAL model has five quality gap dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles) and 22 items under each of the two sections (expectation and preception). The definitions of quality dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles) for a university system are given in Smith et al. (2007).
Buttle (1994) mentions that the SERVQUAL tool provides a platform for the assessment of quality in different dimensions, with a simple scaled analysis, and with a standard procedure. Several authors have used SERQUAL for assessing higher education service quality (Yeo, 2009; Calvo-Porral et al., 2013; Cuthbert, 1996; Enayati et al., 2013; Shaari, 2014; Vaz and Mansori, 2013). Smith et al. (2007) use the SERVQUAL method for the evaluation of service quality in higher education. The authors have briefly cited other methods for measuring service quality and mention that SERVQUAL is the most widely used and superior method to measure service quality because of the scale that it uses to represent the customer’s judgment on the service. Therefore, the SERVQUAL method is used in this paper as well.
2.3 Service quality and corporate image/reputation
Image and reputation refers to the brand of an institution that has delivered services to the highest quality. It identifies the uniqueness of the services (such as in terms of number of majors, number of students and cost of the programs) provided by the institution. Judson et al. (2006) mention that one of the major aspects of students’ choice of an institution is its image or reputation. Therefore, image or reputation essentially emphasizes the awareness of an university (Joseph et al., 2012) in terms of its services. Sultan and Yin Wong (2013) state that branding of higher education is a marketing tool for gaining competitive advantages. A study by Štimac and Šimić (2012) in three European countries show that the three major reasons for students’ choice of a university are employability (after completing the program), program quality and the image and the reputation of the institution. Another study by Ali et al. (2016) recognizes the value of image in service provision. The authors develop a relationship between the student loyalty and image in their study. Unlike Štimac and Šimić (2012) and Ali et al. (2016) mention image and reputation as two different factors that can lead to student satisfaction. The authors argue that reputation influences student satisfaction, which in turn will influence the image. As reputation is associated with the delivery, the image can be considered a different factor to measure student satisfaction. The study by Ali et al. (2016) can be considered as one of the closest ones related to our work. Sarstedt et al. (2013) also mention of the importance of evaluating customers’ perception of image. Oliver (1980) adds that image and reputation have a role in setting the customers' expectations, although Sultan and Yin Wong (2014) mention of a difficulty in establishing a relation between image and service quality as higher education institutions are perceived as assets for social well-being and human development.
2.4 Service quality and culture/values
Culture/values are defined here in terms of individual perception rather than the culture and values adopted by a higher education institute. Culture/values can refer to individual characteristics in terms of opinions and perceived outcomes based on their own behavior or social relationship (Aparicio et al., 2016). Therefore, the perception towards services provided by the university can change based on the composition of the student body. The importance of the link between service quality and values comes from the means-end models. The models assume that customers use and acquire services or products to achieve their desired ends. According to Flint et al. (2002), Gutman (1982) and Payne and Holt (2001), these models seek to explain how customers' choices of services or products enable them to achieve desired ends. In this case, services and products are considered means, while the personal values of the customers are considered ends.
According to Gutman (1982) and De Chernatony et al. (2000), values are defined in terms of the customers’ mental image, personal values or cognitive representations underlying customers’ goals and needs. Therefore, customer evaluation of service quality is partially based on whether the services enable the receiver to achieve the desired values. Huber et al. (2001) state that the means-end theory postulates the linkages between the services or products attributes, the resulted consequences from consumption and the personal values of the customers.
Culture also plays a role in the perception of a service. For example, Malhotra et al. (2005) state that expectations are related to actual service perceptions, which vary significantly in different cultures. Shih (2006) points out that culture is among the factors affecting customer behavior. The author adds that human life and customers behavior is influenced by the culture in terms of shaping values, beliefs, and attitude. The study finds that service quality is influenced by national culture. Gayatri et al. (2011) argue that culture has an effect on customer behavior and purchasing habits. Karami et al. (2016) also show that customers' culture and values have an important effect on the perception and expectation of service quality. Barbulescu (2015) mentions that culture characterizes a population in terms of their shared attitudes, values and practices. Therefore, although culture and values may be assessed separately, in the analysis presented in this paper, they are treated as one variable.
2.5 Service quality and behavioral intentions (loyalty)
Yao et al. (2019) mention of two aspects of loyalty: behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. Behavioral loyalty refers to the continuous relationship with the institution and attitudinal loyalty refers to the intentions for positive recommendations. Therefore, with respect to an educational institution, loyalty refers to a student's willingness to pursue further studies or participation in university programs (events, training or certifications) in their universities, and to provide recommendations in terms of programs, infrastructure, or facilities provided by the university. Webb and Jagun (1997) mention loyalty in higher education as a student's intention to return to the university for further studies or to provide positive feedback to fellow acquintances to enrol in the university he/she attended.
Olorunniwo et al. (2006) mention that loyal customers have positive impacts on the success of institutions. Yao et al. (2019) mention that in service institutes, both behavioral and attitudinal loyalty have to be examined separately. However, as this research is related to the students who can be both recommenders and come back for higher studies and training, both aspects are considered to be one loyalty factor.
Dado et al. (2011) mention that loyalty should not only be considered for the period a student spends at the institution but also be continuously considered after graduation as well. Annamdevula and Bellamkonda (2016) state that establishing and maintaining long-term relations with current students and alumni can help management in improving quality. Higher education institutions benefit from graduates pursuing higher level education as they do with tuition-paying students (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001). In most universities, most of the loyal and academically competent students would like to continue to pursue their higher education at their alma mater.
Al-Rousan and Mohamed (2010) mention that loyal customers are likely to give positive recommendations. In the higher education context, loyal students can spread positive comments and referrals about the institution to others (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001). Vaz and Mansori (2013) mention that as higher education is globalized, it is difficult to attract quality students by using conventional marketing. Therefore, referral by loyal students and alumni can create an undercurrent to attract good students to the institutions.
Studies have attempted to develop the relationship between loyalty and service quality. For example, Helgesen and Nesset (2007) develop a relationship in Norwegian higher education in the following order: service quality influencing satisfied customers which subsequently influence the loyalty of the customers. Other studies also empirically support this sequence of the relationship (Dabholkar et al., 2000; Deng et al., 2010).
Ali et al. (2016) investigate the relation of the original dimensions of the HEdPERF scale with student satisfaction and loyalty. Their findings show that factors such as academic and non-academic activities in the institution, as well as access to faculty and staff to resolve student issues, influence student satisfaction. When the students are satisfied, they will be more loyal to the institution and its programs.
A study by Boulding et al. (1993) on a group of MBAs finds a positive impact of service quality on loyalty intentions. Bitner (1990) proposes an evaluation model to examine the impact of service quality on customers' satisfaction. The findings indicate a direct relation between service quality and customers' loyalty.
2.6 Summary
The review shows that when it comes to education, measurement of service quality is important. The students are the main stakeholders and they go through the services during their duration of the study. Studies have shown that there are links between service quality, stakeholders’ satisfaction and loyalty. The studies also show that not only the established SERVQUAL dimensions, but also other dimensions can be used to assess service quality in a higher education institute. Therefore, this research focuses on the understanding and assessing the impact of SERVQUAL, image, culture/values on student satisfaction on service quality and their loyalty in the higher education sector. This study is focused on a national university in Qatar.
3. Research methodology
The research methodology adopted in this paper is given in Figure 1. The study focuses on the service quality assessment and evaluation based on the survey response from students at Qatar University. The survey focused on current students (graduate and undergraduate) as it is easier to understand their current perception of service quality. This is to note that some of the current graduate students are also alumni of the university.
3.1 Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework used in this study is shown in Figure 2. The framework consists of main parts: the first part is the dimensions of service quality, which includes two new dimensions, image and culture/values for measurement, the inclusion of which is a contribution in this study.
The second part is related to identifying loyalty aspects of the students, through their perception on coming back to the university, referring to the prospective stakeholders and the career service opportunities provided to the students. Figure 2 shows the framework of analysis adopted in this research. Eight different service quality dimensions are measured, but the hypothesis is tested only for the three of them. The framework shows that student demographics are just the input to show the heterogeneity of the respondents.
Several authors have investigated and used five SERQUAL dimensions (responsiveness, reliability, assurance, empathy and tangibles) in a higher education context (Calvo-Porral et al.,2013; Cuthbert, 1996; Enayati et al., 2013; Shaari, 2014; Vaz and Mansori, 2013). However, as mentioned in Section 2, few authors such as Ali et al. (2016), Sultan and Yin Wong (2014) and Sarstedt et al. (2013) have mentioned the importance of image in the evaluation of service quality. The service quality perception can change with image and the culture/values that are followed or perceived at or around the location of the higher education. Ali et al. (2016) refer to various aspects of image of an educational institution and mention that academic attributes, media coverage, campus appearance, personal attention given to the students and familiarity of the organization can be some of the factors that relates to the image of the university. Therefore, the perception of quality can be based on the image of the university. Similar to the image dimension, culture/values are important personal traits of an individual (Aparicio et al., 2016). As mentioned earlier, culture/values are ingrained in terms of attitudes and practices. Therefore, the service perception can be different among students. Therefore, the null hypotheses with two new service dimensions are developed first. The first null hypothesis relates image and service quality and the second null hypothesis relates to culture/value and service quality as given below.
There is no significant correlation between image and service quality in the higher education sector.
There is no significant correlation between culture/value and service quality in the higher education sector.
For the next hypothesis, the relation between the service quality and loyalty is considered. The importance of loyalty is highlighted by many researchers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001; Olorunniwo et al., 2006; Al-Rousan and Mohamed, 2010). In Qatar’s higher education sector, the link with the value part is very important considering the Qatar National Vision 2030. The vision expects the development of a modern and world-class system of education in which the best education is provided. The vision stipulates the education system respecting Qatari society’s heritage and values (General Secretariat for Development Planning, Dec 2015).
Many researchers investigated and proved the positive and statistically significant impact of service quality and customers’ satisfaction on loyalty (Dabholkar et al., 2000; Helgesen and Nesset, 2007; Deng et al., 2010; Ali et al., 2016). As mentioned earlier, students judge their willingness to come back to their university and make a rational judgment on referral based on the experience that they have received, while they were going through the curriculum. Only a student exposed to a good service quality may be loyal to the university. Therefore, the third hypothesis is constructed to investigate service quality and students' loyalty in higher education:
There is no significant correlation between student's loyalty behavior and service quality in the higher education sector.
3.2 Questionnaire design
The survey questionnaire followed the SERVQUAL tool and contained three sections. The first section was focused on the profile of the survey respondents. The second section was focused on university service quality dimensions to assess the respondents expectation and perception of service quality: (questions 1-5 for culture/value); (questions 6-10 for image); (questions 11-14 for tangibles); (questions 15-17 for reliability); (questions 18-21 for responsiveness); (questions 22-25 for assurance); and (questions 26-29 for empathy). The third section was focused on the respondent's loyalty. As the student population is mostly composed of Arabic native speakers, an Arabic version of the questionnaire was also made available. This was expected to connect students to the exact meaning of the question. The questionnaire was piloted with some professors and selected graduate students from Master in Engineering Management Program.
3.3 Data collection
A mass email, upon the authorization from the university, was sent to the College of Engineering (CENG) students in the university to solicit responses. The CENG was chosen as it had not only a large pool of undergraduate programs, but it also started graduate programs (both masters and PhD) since 2010. An engineering student goes through all of the university services as with any student from other disciplines. Therefore, this supported randomness and mitigated bias. The participants were requested to rate the items in the questionnaire on a seven-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 indicating strong disagreement to 7 indicating strong agreement. The sample characteristics are discussed in Section 4.
4. Data analysis, results and discussions
The analysis of data, results and discussions based on the results are given below. This is to note that the results presented here are purely based on the responses obtained from the returned questionnaire survey.
4.1 Sample characteristics
At the time of survey, the university had a population of about 17,000; about 15,000 of them were at undergraduate level. Due to the ease in administration of the survey, only engineering college students (4,000) were chosen. The number of responses required for reasonable analysis assuming 95 per cent confidence interval and 5 per cent margin of error is 351. The survey was sent to all engineering program students and a total of 397 responses were found to be usable for the analysis. The details of respondents’ profile are given in Table I. The distribution of students in terms of gender, nationality and education level in the university is also given as a comparison to the responses.
4.1.1 Reliability of the instruments.
The reliability of the items under the seven dimensions of service quality was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The coefficient ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 for service quality expectation dimensions, and 0.98 for overall service quality expectation. Similarly, the coefficient ranged from 0.87 to 0.95 for service quality perception dimension, and 0.98 for overall service quality perception. These values are above the acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.7 mentioned by Hair (2006) and are in the range of excellent consistency (0.9-1.0) as mentioned by George (2011). This shows that the instrument is very reliable in providing consistent results.
4.1.2 GAP analysis.
The gap analysis between perception and expectation is important to understand the opportunity to enhance quality. Jackson et al. (2011) mention that the gap exists when there is a comparison between what is experienced and what is the actual perceived experience. Various reasons that can lead to the gap between the perception and expectation are also given in Parasuraman et al. (1988).
The mean scores of gap analysis for the survey are given in Table II. The highest gap score is seen for reliability and the lowest gap for culture/values. The negative gap indicates students having higher expectations on all fronts. The highest gap score between students’ expectation and perception was the reliability dimension with mean gap score of −1.28. This conforms to the results arrived at by Smith et al. (2007) where the study reported that reliability has the highest gap score. Reliability is a vital component in the delivery of services. It refers to the institutional ability to perform the services as mentioned. The student responses indicate that there is some misalignment in terms of service timings, approach to service requirements, and the persistence in providing the right service. The lowest value in culture/values may have resulted due to the composition of the students who share similar culture/values and language (Arab).
4.1.3 Hypothesis testing.
The results from hypotheses testing are given below. Summary of the results for the chosen dimensions is given in Table VII. The Pearson correlation coefficient is used for the acceptance/rejection of the hypothesis and regression analysis is used to assess the predictive power of tested dimensions.
4.1.3.1 H01 (image and service quality).
The Pearson correlation coefficient (presented in Table III) between perceived image and perceived service quality is considered statistically significant at level 0.01. Therefore, H01 is rejected. That means, in the studied institution, students perceive that image and service quality are closely related.
The regression analysis for predictive power of image dimension on perceived service quality given in Table IV shows the regression coefficient as 0.469. This means that 46.9 per cent of the variations in perceived service quality are explained by the predictor variable (image).
The model is significant at level 0.01 with an F-value of 349.163 indicating a significant relationship between image and perceived service quality, i.e. the image of an institution is important in evaluating service quality. Customers' expectations and evaluation of service quality are affected by branding and image of the institution, and sometimes the image can play the role of norms or expectations settler if the customers have no earlier experience dealing with the service provider. This view conforms with that of Sarstedt et al. (2013) who pointed to the importance of image in evaluating an institution because of its power on the perception an institute’s name. This also conforms to the results arrived at by Sultan and Yin Wong (2012, 2013, 2014).
4.1.3.2 H02 (culture/values and service quality).
The correlation coefficient between culture/values and perceived service quality is considered statistically significant at level 0.01 (Table V). Therefore, H02 is also rejected. That means, in the studied institution, students perceive that culture/values and service quality are closely related.
The regression analysis for predictive power of culture/values dimension on perceived service quality, given in Table VI, shows that 38.3 per cent of the variations in perceived service quality are explained by predictor variable (culture/value).
The model is considered significant at 0.01 level with F-value of 245.041 indicating a significant relationship between culture/value and perceived service quality. Shih (2006) mentions that culture does affect consumers' behavior. The author added that culture influences human life and consumer behavior through shaping values, belief and attitudes. Customers in different countries have different cultures and values, which results in different perceptions of quality of services. This finding also conforms to that of Carrillat et al. (2007), Ueltschy et al. (2007) and Witkowski and Wolfinbarger (2002).
4.1.3.3 H03 (loyalty and service quality).
The Pearson correlation coefficient between student's loyalty, service quality dimensions and perceived service quality are provided in Table VII. The results indicate that loyalty has a statistically significant positive correlation with the seven service dimensions of service quality and with perceived service quality. This means that an enhancement in service quality perception and/or the perception of the seven dimensions will lead to an increase in loyalty. Therefore, H03 is also rejected.
4.1.4 Discussion on findings.
The research focused on image and culture/values dimensions in the education sector, likely done for the first time to assess the service quality in the education sector. Therefore, this contributes to the literature. Specifically, the study is done in Qatar’s higher education context and in the largest national university.
The findings show that the perceptual difference is highest for the reliability dimension. This dimension refers to an institution’s ability to perform the provided services accurately and dependently. With negative scores, it can be mentioned that the students look for dependable services for specific needs on certain academic issues. The academic support units such as counselling and academic support units, which exist in the university, would have to be more proactive and reach out to the students.
The study also shows the value of the image of an institution. Current students are the future ambassadors of the university. Therefore, engaging current students in activities that highlight the potential of the university management, facilities, and faculty is useful. Therefore, emphasis on image building with current students can enhance the reputation of the university. This type of activity may build up student loyalty for many years to come.
Based on the findings, it can be noted that measurement of service quality should be a continuous process either at the university level or at the national level. As the perception on service quality is related to its action on image building, it has to focus more on highlighting the achievements and uniqueness of the university. Offering market-based training, certifications, and graduate programs can also help the university build its image and loyalty. The study shows that reliability has the highest negative score. To provide a reliable service, the university can announce service timings, present key personnel to contact (or a student help desk for all student services), and communicate with students on the outcomes of the provided service. In most cases, expectations become higher when service receivers are not aware of the element of services that they should seek from a particular unit in the university. As most of the university students come with similar cultures and values, providing them the opportunity to interact and to participate in the university events and programs can help to boost perception on university services.
In terms of the body of knowledge, this study advances the research on service quality by verifying that not only the five main service quality dimensions, but other dimensions are equally important to understand the perceived value of service quality in an institution. There has been no current research encompassing these all dimensions, specifically related to the Qatar context.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Delivery of service is important in the education sector, mainly due to the need to enhance its service in the face of competing choices that students have in higher education. Like commercial service-based organizations, educational institutes also face competition in terms of the programs they provide to the students. Therefore, to remain sustainable, institutions need to have a good understanding of service perceptions and expectations. Such an understanding can help to enhance the level of service at all times.
In this paper, a model is developed to examine students’ perception on service quality. It is shown that service quality offered by an education institution is impacted by service quality dimension such as image, culture/values, and loyalty. The paper reports the outcomes based on a survey conducted in a large university in Qatar. The analysis of survey responses shows that the students have a higher level of expectation on service quality for all the measured dimensions. The continuity or the reliability of service is one of the major factors that needs to be focused on by the institution.
Through the hypothesis testing, it is shown that image and culture/values have significant impacts on student expectations and perceptions of service quality. The study also shows that there is a significant positive association between the provided services quality and student loyalty: the higher the perceived quality level, the more loyal students the institution will end up having. The measurement instruments proposed here are reliable; therefore, the tools proposed in this study may be used for across-the-board evaluation of quality by higher authorities like the Ministry of Education in different campuses of universities in Qatar. Such an evaluation may provide some avenues to continuously increase the level of higher education sector in Qatar.
5.1 Limitations and future work
The exact numbers presented in the paper should be used with caution, as the response is limited to only 397 students. Although statistically significant, it is possible that the survey did not cover every aspect of student expectations or perceptions. Therefore, the research can be extended across different colleges within the university. This will help to validate the student perception from one college to another and will help to adopt best practices in delivering service quality.
The study can also be program-based or service-type-based (like various types of student services or academic services). Students in different programs may perceive service quality differently due to the size of the student population and other factors like composition of instructors in terms of number and expertise.
The cost of education in these institutions can also be studied to relate it with service quality. As we considered only one university, we did not consider price to be a factor. However, in multi-university studies, the relation between the cost and service quality can also be explored.
This study had a small number of alumni (existing graduate students) responses, but they were not assessed separately due to their small number. As the number of alumni and their perceptions on service quality can also be considered import factors, the study can be extended to assess alumni perception on service quality. The results from such a survey can also be compared with the perception of the existing students at the university.
Figures
Profile of the respondents (N = 397)
| Profile | Parameters | Responses (%) | Distribution in university (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 85 | 70 |
| Male | 15 | 30 | |
| Age | Less than 25 | 76 | – |
| 25 years and Above | 24 | – | |
| Nationality | Qatari | 55.3 | 58 |
| Non-Qatari | 44.7 | 42 | |
| Education level | Undergraduate | 87.9 | 87.5 |
| Graduate | 12.1 | 12.5 |
Gap analysis – perceived service quality level by students
| Dimensions | Item | Gap (P-E) | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Culture/value | P01-E01 | −0.53 | 7 |
| P02-E02 | −0.57 | ||
| P03-E03 | −0.59 | ||
| P04-E04 | −0.29 | ||
| P05-E05 | −0.58 | ||
| Average | −0.51 | ||
| Image | P06-E06 | −0.97 | 5 |
| P07-E07 | −0.55 | ||
| P08-E08 | −0.90 | ||
| P09-E09 | −0.76 | ||
| P10-E10 | −0.85 | ||
| Average | −0.81 | ||
| Tangibles | P11-E11 | −0.59 | 6 |
| P12-E12 | −0.80 | ||
| P13-E13 | −0.42 | ||
| P14-E14 | −0.56 | ||
| Average | −0.59 | ||
| Reliability | P15-E15 | −1.17 | 1 |
| P16-E16 | −1.39 | ||
| P17-E17 | −1.29 | ||
| Average | −1.28 | ||
| Responsiveness | P18-E18 | −0.95 | 3 |
| P19-E19 | −0.77 | ||
| P20-E20 | −0.96 | ||
| P21-E21 | −0.87 | ||
| Average | −0.89 | ||
| Assurance | P22-E22 | −0.96 | 4 |
| P23-E23 | −0.84 | ||
| P24-E24 | −0.71 | ||
| P25-E25 | −0.88 | ||
| Average | −0.85 | ||
| Empathy | P26-E26 | −1.18 | 2 |
| P27-E27 | −0.76 | ||
| P28-E28 | −0.76 | ||
| P29-E29 | −1.26 | ||
| Average | −0.99 |
Image and perceived service quality descriptive correlation test
| Perceived service quality | Image |
|---|---|
| Pearson correlation | 0.685 |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
Model summary of image and perceived service quality
| Model | R | R Squared | Adjusted R Squared | Std. Error of the Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.685 | 0.469 | 0.468 | 0.78171 |
Predictors: (Constant), Image; Dependent Variable: Perceived Service Quality
Culture/value and perceived service quality correlation test
| Perceived service quality | Culture/value |
|---|---|
| Pearson correlation | 0.619 |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
Model summary of culture/value and perceived service quality
| Model | R | R square | Adjusted R square | Std. error of the estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.619a | 0.383 | 0.381 | 0.84290 |
aPredictors: (Constant), culture/value; dependent variable: perceived service quality
Pearson correlation with perceived service quality, service quality dimensions and student loyalty
| Loyalty | |
|---|---|
| Loyalty | |
| Pearson correlation | 1 |
| Significance (2-tailed) | |
| N | 397 |
| Perceived service quality | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.494** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
| Empathy | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.461** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
| Culture/value | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.304** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
| Image | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.283** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
| Tangibles | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.277** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
| Reliability | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.351** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
| Responsiveness | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.454** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
| Assurance | |
| Pearson correlation | 0.409** |
| Significance (2-tailed) | 0.000 |
| N | 397 |
**correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
References
Abdullah, F. (2006), “Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P.K. and Ragavan, N.A. (2016), “Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public universities”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 70-94.
Al-Rousan, M.R. and Mohamed, B. (2010), “Customer loyalty and the impacts of service quality: the case of five star hotels in Jordan”, International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 13, pp. 886-892.
Alt, D. (2015), “Using structural equation modeling and multidimensional scaling to assess students’ perceptions of the learning environment and justice experiences”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 69, pp. 38-49.
Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2010), “The influence of university image on students’ behavior”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Annamdevula, S. and Bellamkonda, R.S. (2016), “The effects of service quality on student loyalty: the mediating role of student satisfaction”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 446-462.
Anderson, C.R. and Zeithaml, C.P. (1984), “Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and business performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Aparicio, M., Bacao, F. and Oliveira, T. (2016), “Cultural impacts on e-learning systems' success”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 31, pp. 58-70.
Barbulescu, A. (2015), “Quality culture in the Romanian higher education”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 191, pp. 1923-1927.
Baron, S., Harris, K. and Hilton, T. (2009), Services Marketing: text and Cases, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Becket, N. and Brookes, M. (2006), “Evaluating quality management in university departments”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 123-142.
Bhuian, S.N. (2016), “Sustainability of Western branch campuses in the Gulf region: students’ perspectives of service quality”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 49, pp. 314-323.
Binsardi, A. and Ekwulugo, F. (2003), “International marketing of British education: research on the students' perception and the UK market penetration”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 21 Nos 4/5, pp. 318-327.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Borahan, N.G. and Ziarati, R. (2002), “Developing quality criteria for application in the higher education sector in Turkey”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 913-926.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), “A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-27.
Braathe, H.J. and Otterstad, A.M. (2014), “Education for all in Norway: unpacking quality and equity”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 1193-1200.
Brochado, A. (2009), “Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 174-190.
Buttle, F.A. (1994), What's Wrong with SERVQUAL?, Manchester Business School, Manchester.
Calvo-Porral, C., Lévy-Mangin, J.-P. and Novo-Corti, I. (2013), “Perceived quality in higher education: an empirical study”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 601-619.
Carrillat, F.A., Jaramillo, F. and Mulki, J.P. (2007), “The validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales: a meta‐analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 472-490.
Chou, P.F., Lu, C.S. and Chang, Y.H. (2014), “Effects of service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty in high-speed rail services in Taiwan”, Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, Vol. 10 No. 10, pp. 917-945.
Clewes, D. (2003), “A student-centred conceptual model of service quality in higher education”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Clow, K., Kurtz, D., Ozment, J. and Ong, B. (1997), “The antecedents of consumer expectations of services: an empirical study across four industries”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 230-248.
Cuthbert, P.F. (1996), “Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 2”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 31-35.
Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, C.D. and Thorpe, D.I. (2000), “A comprehensive framework for service quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 139-173.
Dado, J., Taborecka-Petrovicova, J., Cuzovic, S. and Rajic, T. (2011), “An empirical examination of the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in higher education setting”, Serbian Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 203-218.
De Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (2000), “Added value: its nature, roles and sustainability”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-56.
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wei, K.K. and Zhang, J. (2010), “Understanding customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical study of mobile instant messages in China”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 289-300.
DeShields, O.W., Jr, Ali, K. and Kaynak, E. (2005), “Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two-factor theory”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 128-139.
Donaldson, B. and McNicholas, C. (2004), “Understanding the postgraduate education market for UK-based students: a review and empirical study”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 346-360.
Douglas, J., McClelland, R. and Davies, J. (2008), “The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-35.
Enayati, T., Modanloo, Y., Behnamfar, R. and Rezaei, A. (2013), “Measuring service quality of Islamic Azad university of Mazandaran using SERVQUAL model”, Iranian Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 99-116.
Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (2002), “Exploring the phenomenon of customers' desired value change in a business-to-business context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 102-117.
Garvin, D.A. (1983), “Quality on the line”, Harvard Business Review, No. 5, pp. 65-73.
George, D. (2011), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Study Guide and Reference, 17.0 Update, 10th ed., Pearson Education India, Noida.
Gayatri, G., Hume, M.H. and Mort, G.S. (2011), “The role of Islamic culture in service quality research”, Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 35-53.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 60-72.
Hair, J.F. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Helgesen, Ø. and Nesset, E. (2007), “What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study evidence”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 126-143.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M.F. and Hansen, U. (2001), “Modeling and managing student loyalty: an approach based on the concept of relationship quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 331-344.
Huber, F., Herrmann, A. and Morgan, R.E. (2001), “Gaining competitive advantage through customer value oriented management”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Hussain, R., Al Nasser, A. and Hussain, Y.K. (2015), “Service quality and customer satisfaction of a UAE-based airline: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 42, pp. 167-175.
Jackson, M.J., Helms, M.M. and Ahmadi, M. (2011), “Quality as a gap analysis of college students' expectations”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 392-412.
Jancey, J. and Burns, S. (2013), “Institutional factors and the postgraduate student experience”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 311-322.
Joseph, M., Mullen, E.W. and Spake, D. (2012), “University branding: understanding students’ choice of an educational institution”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Joseph, M., Yakhou, M. and Stone, G. (2005), “An educational institution's quest for service quality: customers' perspective”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 66-82.
Judson, K.M., Gorchels, L. and Aurand, T.W. (2006), “Building a university brand from within: a comparison of coaches' perspectives of internal branding”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 97-114.
Karami, M., Maleki, M.M. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2016), “Cultural values and consumers’ expectations and perceptions of service encounter quality”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 2-26.
Kasiri, L.A., Cheng, K.T.G., Sambasivan, M. and Sidin, S.M. (2017), “Integration of standardization and customization: impact on service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 91-97.
Lupo, T. (2014), “Evaluation to support stakeholder centered design and continuous quality improvement in higher education services”, in Davim, J.P (Ed.), Engineering Education: Curriculum, Pedagogy and Didactic Aspects, Chandos Publishing, Sawston, pp. 67-97.
Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G. and Wu, L. (2005), “Dimensions of service quality in developed and developing economies: multi-country cross-cultural comparisons”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 256-278.
Martin, A.J., Bottrell, D., Armstrong, D., Mansour, M., Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L. and Collie, R.J. (2015), “The role of resilience in assisting the educational connectedness of at-risk youth: a study of service users and non-users”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 74, pp. 1-12.
Moyo, A. and Ngwenya, S.N. (2018), “Service quality determinants at Zimbabwean state universities”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 374-390.
Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J. and Hussain, K. (2009), “Students’ perceptions of service quality in higher education”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 523-535.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. and Udo, G.J. (2006), “Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the service factory”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Orel, F.D. and Kara, A. (2014), “Supermarket self-checkout service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty: Empirical evidence from an emerging market”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 118-129.
O’Sullivan, M. (2006), “Lesson observation and quality in primary education as contextual teaching and learning processes”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 246-260.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Payne, A. and Holt, S. (2001), “Diagnosing customer value: Integrating the value process and relationship marketing”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, p. 159.
Plank, R.E. and Chiagouris, L. (1997), “Perceptions of quality of higher education: an exploratory study of high school guidance counselors”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 55-67.
QGSDP (Qatar General Secretariat for Development Planning) (2011), “Qatar national development strategy2011-2016”, available at: www.eisourcebook.org/cms/February%202016/Qatar%20vision%202011-2016%20(2011).pdf (accessed 21 February 2017).
Rojas-Méndez, J.I., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., Kara, A. and Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009), “Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: a tested relationship approach in Latin America”, Latin American Business Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Rose, P. (2015), “Three lessons for educational quality in post-2015 goals and targets: clarity, measurability and equity”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 40, pp. 289-296.
Sarstedt, M., Wilczynski, P. and Melewar, T.C. (2013), “Measuring reputation in global markets-a comparison of reputation measures’ convergent and criterion validities”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 329-339.
Shaari, H. (2014), “Service quality in Malaysian higher education: adult learners' perspective”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 86-90.
Shih, C.H. (2006), “Effects of culture on service quality and customer satisfaction ratings”, The University of Utah, available at: http://0-search.proquest.com.mylibrary.qu.edu.qa/docview/304986407?accountid=13370 (accessed 21 February 2017).
Smith, G., Smith, A. and Clarke, A. (2007), “Evaluating service quality in universities: a service department perspective”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 334-351.
Sultan, P. and Yin Wong, H. (2012), “Service quality in a higher education context: an integrated model”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 755-784.
Sultan, P. and Yin Wong, H. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of service quality in a higher education context”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 70-95.
Sultan, P. and Yin Wong, H. (2014), “An integrated-process model of service quality, institutional brand and behavioural intentions”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 487-521.
Sumaedi, S., Bakti, G.M.Y. and Metasari, N. (2012), “An empirical study of state university students' perceived service quality”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 164-183.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2002), “Determinants of customer-perceived service quality: a confirmatory factor analysis approach”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 9-34.
Štimac, H. and Šimić, M.L. (2012), “Competitiveness in higher education: a need for marketing orientation and service quality”, Economics and Sociology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 23-34.
Temizer, L. and Turkyilmaz, A. (2012), “Implementation of student satisfaction index model in higher education institutions”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 3802-3806.
Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Eggert, A. and Bindl, U. (2007), “Service quality and satisfaction: an international comparison of professional services perceptions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 410-423.
Vaz, A. and Mansori, S. (2013), “Malaysian private education quality: application of SERVQUAL model”, International Education Studies, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 164-170.
Van der Bij, T., Geijsel, F.P. and ten Dam, G.T.M. (2016), “Improving the quality of education through self-evaluation in Dutch secondary schools”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 49, pp. 42-50.
Webb, D. and Jagun, A. (1997), “Customer care, customer satisfaction, value, loyalty and complaining behavior: validation in a UK university setting”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 139-151.
Witkowski, T.H. and Wolfinbarger, M.F. (2002), “Comparative service quality: German and American ratings across service settings”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 11, pp. 875-881.
Yao, T., Qiu, Q. and Wei, Y. (2019), “Retaining hotel employees as internal customers: effect of organizational commitment on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty of employees”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 76, pp. 1-8.
Yeo, R.K. (2009), “Service quality ideals in a competitive tertiary environment”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 62-76.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993), “The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Further reading
Gutman, J. (1991), “Exploring the nature of linkages between consequences and values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 143-148.