Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the performance of five alternative measures of service quality in the high education sector – service quality (SERVQUAL), importance‐weighted SERVQUAL, service performance (SERVPERF), importance‐weighted SERVPERF, and higher education performance (HEdPERF).Design/methodology/approachData were collected by means of a structured questionnaire containing perception items enhanced from the SERVPERF and HEdPERF scales and expectation items from the SERVQUAL scale, modified to fit into the higher education (HE) sector. The first draft of the questionnaire was subject to a pilot testing through a focus group and an expert evaluation. Data were gathered from a sample of 360 students of a Portuguese University in Lisbon. Scales were compared in terms of unidimensionality, reliability, validity and explained variance.FindingsIt can be concluded that SERVPERF and HEdPERF present the best measurement capability, but it is not possible to identify which one is the best.Research limitations/implicationsSince the study only examined the measurement capabilities of the five instruments at a single faculty, the collection of more data in other institutions is required in order to provide more general results.Practical implicationsThe current results do make available some important insights into how the five alternative instruments of service quality in an HE context compare with one another.Originality/valueThe paper attempts to develop insights into comparative evaluations of five measuring instruments of service quality in an HE setting.

Perceived Quality and Corporate Image in Mobile Services: The Role of Technical and Functional Quality

“…Research in the field of service quality has increased dramatically over the last three decades (selected examples: Angell, Heffernan and Megicks 2008;Ban and Ramsaran, 2017;Babakus and Boller 1992;Brochado 2009;Finn and Lamb 1991;Firdaus 2006;Murgulets et al 2002;Parasuraman et al 1985Parasuraman et al , 1988Parasuraman et al , 1991Parasuraman et al , 1994Shekarchizadeh, Rasli and Hon-Tat 2011;Zeithaml et al 1990Zeithaml et al , 1993). Service quality is usually explained through the disconfirmation theory (Brown and Kirmani 1999;Jiang, Klein and Crampton 2000;Oliver 1997;Oliver 1980;Spreng and Page 2003;Spreng and Mackoy 1996): Service quality determines the extent to which the services provided have met customers' expectations.…”

Higher Education Quality and Student Satisfaction Nexus: Evidence from Zambia

“…Regarding the proper definition of service quality and how it should be measured, there has been debate among researchers. For instance, research shows that there is no consensus on the definition of "service quality" in higher education institutions which by extension has raised controversy in measurement methodologies (Doherty, 2008;Brochado, 2009). Therefore, a number of service quality frameworks are being employed to assess service quality.…”

“…Prior studies exploring service quality in higher education in Colombia (Cardona & Bravo, 2012), Jordan (Twaissi & Al-Kilani, 2015), Petruzzellis, D'Uggento & Romanazzi (2006) in Italy and Portugal (Brochado, 2009), suggest that customer satisfaction can be explained by perceived service quality. However, besides Helgesen and Nesset (2007) in Norway as well as Brown & Mazzarol (2009) in Australia and Ali et al (2016) in Malaysia who explore the link between student satisfaction and loyalty, there is a shortage of studies linking service quality, student satisfaction and behavioural intentions of loyalty and positive word of mouth.…”

Towards an Identification and Classification of Service Quality Attributes in Higher Education

“…HE institutions should ensure that all services encounters are managed to enhance consumer perceived quality [8]. While there is a consensus on the importance of service quality issues in HE, the identification of service quality attributes and implementation of the right measurement tool are a challenge that practitioners who aim to gain a better understanding of the quality issues of students' experiences face [9]. In fact, the use of the most appropriate evaluation tool would help managers to assess service quality provided by their institutions, thus having the ability to use the results to better design service delivery [10], [11].…”