See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282567033

Students Satisfaction towards the University:

Does Service Quality Matters?

Article · August 2011

DOI: 10.5296/ije.v3i2.1065

CITATIONS READS

15 170

2 authors:

Francis Chuah Subramaniam Sri Ramalu

Universiti Utara Malaysia Universiti Utara Malaysia
26 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 205 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tourism in Sarawak: Perspectives of Malaysians, Visitors from Neighboring and Distant Countries
View project

Research Publication View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francis Chuah on 22 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Students Satisfaction towards the University: Does

Service Quality Matters?

Chuah Chin Wei

School of Business Management, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia,
06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Tel: 60-4-928-3774 E-mail: francischuah@uum.edu.my

Subramaniam Sri Ramalu (Corresponding author)

School of Business Management, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia,
06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Tel: 60-4-928-3781 E-mail: subra@uum.edu.my

Received: November 7, 2011 Accepted: December 3, 2011 Published: December 10, 2011
doi:10.5296/ije.v3i2.1065 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v3i2.1065

Abstract
This study examines the relationship between service quality (SQ) and the level of student’s
satisfaction (SS) using a field study of 100 undergraduate students in one of the university in
Malaysia. The findings of this study reveals that SQ is a vital factor that determines the level
of SS. Specifically, the result of this study reveals that the better the SQ provided by the
university, the higher the level of SS. Responsiveness, assurance, and empathy are the three
dimensions of SQ that is significantly related to the level of SS. The findings of this study
have made significant contribution to the body of knowledge in student’s satisfaction
management in higher education institutions. The findings of this study also made practical
implication to management of higher education especially in the area where SQ improvement
is needed
Keywords: Service quality, Customer satisfaction, University
1. Introduction
The importance of both service quality (SQ) and customer satisfaction (CS) has received
considerable attention in the recent years (Ibanez, Hartman & Calvo, 2006; Sureshchandar,

1 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Rajendran, & Anantharaman, 2002). Organizations leveraging on SQ capabilities have

reported competitive advantage such as increase of retention and loyalty (Ruyter, 1997;
Shemwell, Yavas & Bilgin, 1998; Alexandris, Dimitriadis & Markate, 2002). In an era of
globalization and stiff competition, organizations began to shift the paradigm of service
quality to customer’s perspective (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). By relying on this
paradigm; a customer will judge the quality of service if the service he/she received meets
his/her expectations (Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988).
Numerous studies had been conducted on service quality (SQ) and customer satisfaction (CS)
in the marketing/management field for the past 30 years. Despite this development, limited
research has been done in education field particularly in Malaysian context. Few noticeable
research on service quality in higher education institutions are those of Hishamuddin, Azleen,
Rahida and Mohd Zulkeflee (2008), Nek Kamal, Azman, Zubrina and Salomawati (2009),
and Muhammad, Rizwan and Ali (2010). Findings from these studies reported that student’s
satisfaction towards services provided by the university is crucial determinants of
institutional survival and excellence. Nek Kamal et al. (2009) for instance emphasizes that
the proper use of dimensions in SQ in providing services will increases the student’s
perception towards the value of services. For example, the tangibility of facilities within the
institution is important in creating the image of excellence of the institutions (Muhammaed,
Rizwan & Ali, 2010). This finding echoed in Landrum (2007) whereby SQ found to be an
important element that determines the success of an institution.
Therefore, this study intends to look into the service quality (SQ) provided by the public
institution of higher education and the level of student satisfaction (SS) in one of the public
university in Malaysia. The present study contributes to research on SS and SQ in both
knowledge and practical aspect. By testing the existing model of SQ and SS in the local
context, the results of this study will further reassure whether the existing relationships
established from past researches can be generalize to higher education institution in Malaysia.
While majority of the studies have been conducted in western context, little is known about
the effects of SQ on SS in eastern culture like Malaysia. Practically; the research contributes
to educators and management of higher institution by highlighting the important factors
affecting student’s satisfaction. This will enable the management of the university to identify
the strength and weaknesses in the present service quality offered to students and make
necessary improvement to increase student’s satisfaction.
2. Theoretical Development and Hypotheses
2.1 Student Satisfaction
For the past 30 years ending 2011, customer satisfaction (CS) has been an intensively
discussed subject in the area of consumer and marketing research. According to Wilkie (1990)
and Perkins (1991), there have been more than 1200 articles published in the area of customer
satisfaction research. The number of the articles published should be doubled or tripled by
now since the topic itself has manage to gain more and more attention from scholars around
the world. In this study, the CS referred to student satisfaction (SS) since students are
considered as a customer for the higher learning institutions. For this study, customer refers to

2 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

university students, hence students satisfaction towards services offered by public institution
has become the focus of this research.
McDougall and Levesque (2000) defined customer satisfaction (CS) as “a cognitive or
affective reaction that emerges in response to a single or prolonged set of service encounters.”
Customer satisfaction can be a multi-dimensional construct (Hu, Jay & Thanika, 2009; Bitner
and Hubbert, 1994; Price, Arnould & Tierney, 1995; Sureshchandar et.al., 2002) or a
one-dimensional construct (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Regardless of how customer satisfaction
is measured, it is proven that a satisfied customers will exhibit loyalty and provide positive
word-of-mouth as per reported by Kim, Lee and Yoo (2006). Machleit and Mantel (2001)
describe customer satisfaction as the heart of all marketing activities and there is no doubt
that customer satisfaction has been identified as one of the most important determinant to
customer loyalty.
In the context of higher learning institution, the student satisfactions (SS) play an important
role in determining the originality and accuracy of the education system. This is because the
higher the level of satisfaction experienced by the student, the better the student’s ability to
groom their skill development, course knowledge and mentality (Muhammad et al., 2010).
Zeithaml (1988) mentioned that the student satisfaction is an evidence to measure how well
effective an institution administrates itself as well as its educational system. Rodie and Klein
(2000), posited that if an institution possesses essential educational facilities with affective
teaching and training staff, the student will most likely be more motivated, loyal and good
performers in their academic.
2.2 Service Quality
According to Zeithaml and Bitner (2003), service quality (SQ) is defined as a focused
evaluation that reflects the customer’s perception of specific dimensions of services provided.
The particular perception towards the dimensions of services is influenced by several factors
which includes the quality of the services received, the quality of the product, the price factor
as well as both situational and personal factor (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003).
The most notable contribution towards the measurement of quality of a given service is by
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985). Their Service Quality (SERVQUAL) model which
is a multi-item scale developed to assess customer perceptions of service quality in service
and retail businesses (Parasuraman et.al., 1988). At least 293 important articles have been
written from 1976 to 1995 on service quality and if consider article in which service quality
forms a part of the published articles, the number would be more than 4000 articles (Philip &
Hazlett, 1997). These numbers clearly shows the importance of service quality and the
researcher’s attentions to the topic.
The initial SERVQUAL model by Parasuraman (1985) consists of ten dimensions namely:
i. Reliability: How well does the service being delivered as promised
ii. Responsiveness: How fast does the response be given to customers
iii. Competence: How well does the service provider possesses the knowledge and skill

3 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

needed to serve the customers

iv. Access: How convenient does customers are able to access the service provider
v. Courtesy: How approachable does the staff of the service provider
vi. Communication: How well does the service provider kept the customers informed
vii. Credibility: How well does the service provider can be trusted
viii. Security: How well does the service provider protect the privacy of customers
ix. Understanding of customer: How well does the service provider make its effort to
understand the needs and wants of the customer
x. Tangible: How well does the service provider equipped with tangible facilities to serve
the customer.
Parasuraman and Berry (1991) later condensed the ten dimensions of service quality (SQ)
into five dimensions which consist of 22 attributes. The newly condensed five dimensions of
SQ are as follows:
i. Tangibles: The physical facilities, equipment that is needed to provide services
ii. Reliability: The ability to deliver the desired service dependably, accurately and
consistently.
iii. Responsiveness: The ability to response to customers request on time
iv. Assurance: The ability to convey trust and confidence to customers toward the services
provided
v. Empathy: The ability to show personal caring and attention to customers.
The SERVQUAL instrument has demonstrated excellent validity and reliability in previous
research (Babakus & Boller, 1992; Bolton & Drew, 1991; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). It is
applicable to various industries, for example, the adaptation of the instruments in the
professional service industries (Freeman & Dart, 1993), health care (Lam, 1997), and tourism
(Tribe & Snaith, 1998).
The first few adapters of SERVQUAL measurement are Kettinger and Lee (1994) and Pitt et
al. (1995). They adapted the SERVQUAL measurement instrument into the information
system (IS) context. Since then, the adaptation of SERVQUAL began to expand in an
extensive array of industries. Harrison-Walker (2000) adapted the instrument and made a
survey in a saloon industry. The finding of the study indicates that consumers do not clearly
differentiate the interaction aspects of reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
This means that consumer in the saloon industry gives a general, overall attitude towards
their interaction quality with the hairdressers. Azman, Muhammad Madi and Balakrishnan
(2009) adapted the instrument to measure the effects of service quality towards the
satisfaction of academic staff in public institution of higher learning. The finding of the study
indicate that the dimension of service quality indeed impact the satisfaction of academic staff.

4 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Ravichandran, Mani, Kumar and Prabhakaran (2010) in their study on influence of service
quality on customer satisfaction in the context of banking industry found that only the
dimension of responsiveness is significantly related to customer satisfaction.
2.3 Service Quality and Student’s Satisfaction
It is noticeable that service quality (SQ) has always been a critical prerequisite for ensuring
the satisfaction of customer in order to maintain a long term relationship with the customer
and to sustain customer loyalty (Spreng & Mckoy, 1996). According to Lassar, Manolis and
Winsor (2000), it is crucial to understand the antecedents and determinants of customer
satisfaction (CS) since it has an extraordinary high monetary value for service organization in
a very competitive business environment. This statement is further support by Bitner (1990)
as he researched 145 tourists and found that SQ has been an important determinant of CS.
Prior study by Bigne, Moliner and Sanchez (2003) revealed that the overall dimension of
service quality (SQ) have a significant relationship with satisfaction at (r = 0.66). A study in
the higher education setting by Ham and Hayduk (2003) shows that there is a significant
positive correlation between SQ and student satisfaction (SS) with the dimension of
reliability (r=0.547) has the strongest relationship with SS followed by empathy and
responsiveness (both r’s=0.5431), assurance (r=0.492) and tangibility (r=0.423).
A recent research by Hishamuddin et al., (2008) in the Malaysian higher learning institution
indicates that there are significant and positive relationships between the dimensions of
service quality (SQ) and student satisfaction (SS). The dimension of empathy is strongly
correlated with SS (r= 0.640) followed by assurance (r=0.582), tangibility (r=0.568),
responsiveness (r=0.556) and reliability (r=0.555). The alpha coefficients for the dimensions
of SQ are above 0.75 indicates that the 22 attributes for SQ can be used to measure the SQ in
the education industry (Nunally, 1978). This supports the argumentation that with minor
modification the instrument can be adapted to any service organizations (Parasuraman et.al.,
1985, 1998; Brown, Churchill & Peter, 1993; Joseph & Joseph, 1997; Pariseau & McDaniel,
1997; Oldfield & Baron, 2000; Wisniewski, 2001).
Drawing from the above literature discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1: Service quality is related to student satisfaction.
Specifically:
H1a: There is a relationship between the tangible dimension of service quality and student
satisfaction.
H1b: There is a relationship between the reliability dimension of service quality and
student satisfaction.
H1c: There is a relationship between the responsiveness dimension of service quality and
student satisfaction.
H1d: There is a relationship between the empathy dimension of service quality and student
satisfaction.

5 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

H1e: There is a relationship between the assurance dimension of service quality and
student satisfaction.
From the above literature discussion and proposed hypothesis, we developed a conceptual
framework for this study as shown in Figure 1.
Independent variable Dependent Variable

Service Quality Dimensions

 Tangible
 Responsiveness Student’s satisfaction
 Reliability
 Assurance
 Empathy

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of effects of Service Quality towards the student’s

satisfaction
3. Methodology
Data were obtained from students using a structured questionnaire through a field survey.
Respondents for the study were students who are currently studying in one of the public
university in northern region of Malaysia. The students are required to rate their level of
satisfaction towards the service quality provided in the area of: i) the academic department, ii)
the university sport center, iii) the university residential hall, iv) the transportation services
provided by the university and finally, v) the internet services provided by the university. A
total of 250 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents using the convenient sampling
method. Of these, 100 usable questionnaires received, representing 40% of response rate.
The sample included 27 (27%) male and 73 (73%) female. We studied 4 (4%) participants
aged less than 20 years old, 95 (95%) participants aged between 21 to 25 years old and 1 (1%)
participant aged between 26 to 30 years old. Out of the 100 participants, 23 (23%) are Malay
students, 68 (68%) are Chinese students, 7 (7%) are Indian students and 2 (2%) are student
from other races. Majority of the participants in this study are year 3 student (74 students)
followed by year 1 student (12 students). The demographic statistic of this study is exhibited
in Table 1.

6 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Table 1. Demographic Statistics (N = 100)

Variables Frequency Percentage (%) M SD

Age
< 20 4 4.0 1.97 .223
20 – 25 95 95.0
26 – 30 1 1.0
Gender
Male 27 27.0 1.73 .446
Female 73 73.0
Race
Malay 23 23.0 1.88 .608
Chinese 68 68.0
Indian 7 7.0
Others 2 2.0
College
Business 87 87.0 1.23 .617
Law 3 3.0
Art & Science 9 9.0
Year of Study
Year 1 12 12.0 2.76 .754
Year 2 7 7.0
Year 3 74 74.0
Year 4 & Above 7 7.0

3.1 Measures
3.1.1 Service Quality
Service Quality was measured with the 22-item SERVQUAL instrument developed by
Parasuraman et.al. (1991). The 22-item instrument made up of five dimensions with the
dimension of tangible consists of 4 questions, reliability (5 questions), responsiveness (4
questions), assurance (4 questions), and empathy (5 questions). Numerous studies also
supported similar measurement practice (Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998; Ruyter,Wetzels, &
Bloemer, 1998; Sivadas & Baker-Prewitt, 2000). Respondent were asked to use a 5-point
Likert-type scale to indicate the extent to which they agree with the overall level of service
quality provided by the university. Response choice alternatives ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability value (Cronbach’s alpha) and number of items
in each dimension are presented in Table 1. The reliabilities ranged from 0.65 to 0.94
suggesting that the scale could be used with confidence.
3.1.2 Student Satisfaction
Student satisfaction was measured with the 10-item instrument adapted from various sources
of literature. (Monroe, 1990; Teboul, 1991; Voss, 1998; Klara, 2001; Belman, 1996; Dulen,
1998; Berry, 1980; Lovelock, 1981; Grove & Fisk, 1983; Grove, Fisk & Bitner, 1992). The

7 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

5-point Likert-type scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) is used to
measure the level of agreement toward given statements that represent student satisfaction.
The reliability value (Cronbach’s alpha) for the 10-item instrument stands at 0.876 as
presented in Table 1 suggesting that this self developed instrument could be used with
confidence to represent customer satisfaction.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients and Correlations
The descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 2, along with the correlation
matrix. All five dimensions of service quality (SQ) are correlated positively with student
satisfaction (SS) (tangible r = .41, reliability r = .69, responsiveness r = .76, empathy r =.77,
assurance r =.76, all ps = < .05). The strongest correlation was found between SS and
empathy dimension (r =.77, p = < .05) followed by assurance (r =.76, p = < .05),
responsiveness (r =.76, p = < .05) and reliability (r =.69, p = < .05). The weakest correlation
is with the dimension of tangible (r =.41, p = < .05). The result from correlation test
preliminary support the proposed hypothesis that all dimensions of SQ have a relationship
with SS.
Table 2. Construct intercorrelations and scale reliability values

No of Customer
Variable Mean SD Tangible Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Item Satisfaction

Customer
10 2.71 .68 (.876)
Satisfaction
Tangible 4 3.02 .69 .414* (.754)
Reliability 5 2.46 .77 .689* .468* (.896)
Responsiveness 4 2.40 .83 .759* .477* .762* (.874)
Assurance 4 2.53 .86 .755* .455* .770* .808* (.909)
Empathy 5 2.39 .81 .770* .364* .680* .748* .760 (.891)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal

4.2 Hypothesis Testing

The first hypothesis was: Service quality (SQ) is related to student satisfaction (SS). A simple
linear regression analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis. The result of the regression
analysis for this hypothesis was statistically significant, R2 = .830, Adjusted R2 = .829, F (1,
99) = 479.73, p < .05. 83% of the variance in SS is accounted by SQ. Service quality is
statistically significant (β = .911, p = 0.001). The sub-hypothesis 1, predicted that tangible
(H1a), reliability (H1b), responsiveness (H1c), empathy (H1d) and assurance (H1e) will be
related to SS.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the above mentioned sub-hypothesis.
The result of the multiple regression analysis is shown in Table 3. The regression model is
statistically significant. R2 = .695, F (5, 99) = 42.821, p < .05. The result of the multiple

8 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

regression analysis is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Results of multiple regression analysis with dimensions of service quality as
predictor of student satisfaction (N = 100)

Variable β t p
Tangible .032 .477 .634
Reliability .075 .766 .445
Responsiveness .225 2.035 .045
Assurance .242 2.151 .034
Empathy .356 3.772 .000
R2 = .695, Adjusted R2 = .679, F (5, 99) = 42.481, p = 0.001

Responsiveness was positively related to student satisfaction (SS) (β = .225, p < .05)
indicating that the higher the level of responsiveness, the higher the level of student’s
satisfaction. Assurance (β = .242, p < .05) was positively related to SS, indicating that the
higher the level of assurance provided by the university, the higher the level of student’s
satisfaction. Finally, empathy (β = .356, p < .05) was positively related to SS, indicating that
the higher the level of empathy provided by the university, the higher the level of student’s
satisfaction. The above findings support the hypothesis H1c, H1d, H1e. R2 value of .695
indicates that 69.5% of the variance in SS is explained by the five dimensions of SQ.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This study explored how service quality (SQ) is related to the student satisfaction (SS) of
higher learning institution in Malaysia. The result indicated that overall the dimensions of SQ
are related to SS. This means that the better the SQ provided by the institutions of higher
learning, the higher the SS. In this study, only three dimensions is relevant predictors for SQ
namely responsiveness, assurance and empathy. This means that students perceive these three
dimensions of SQ as more important qualities need to be offered by the universities. Looking
at these three dimensions, students rated higher on intangible services rather than tangible
services.
Among the five dimension measured, empathy is the strongest dimension correlated with
customer satisfaction which means that the more the higher learning institution cares about
the students in the institution, the more satisfied the student will be. The finding of the
present study is consistent with the results of previous studies in terms of the direction of the
relationship (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Sureshchandar et al., 2002; Azman et al., 2009;
Ravichandran et al., 2010; Rahim et al., 2010)
5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications
Theoretically, this study contributes to the body of knowledge when the service quality (SQ)
measurement instrument was first time used to measure the service quality in public higher
learning institutions in Malaysia. The high reliability value suggested that the SQ
measurement instrument is suitable to be used in evaluating the quality of services provided
by public universities. This study helps to expand the application of the SQ measurement

9 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

instrument in education context particularly in eastern context.

Practically, finding of the study helps the management of the university to identify the
weaknesses and strength in the present services offered to the students. The management of
the university could take necessary action to improve and overcome these weaknesses to lead
to better student satisfaction. Improvement on the quality of the equipment and facilities used
by the student will help to increase the perceived tangibility of the equipment thus improve
the reliability towards the services provided. On the other hand, they should also work hard to
maintain other elements of service quality that students are currently satisfied with for
example keep being responsive to student requirement and shows their concern towards
student welfare. In addition to that, the SERVQUAL model and its implication on student
satisfaction is least understood among Malaysian universities and students. This study would
help in making the university among the pioneer adopter of SERVQUAL in the public higher
learning institution in Malaysia as it has been proven that the dimension of service quality is
suitable to measure the services administered by the university.
5.2 Limitation and Future Research Directions
This study has several limitations which provide opportunity for future research. First and
foremost, this study is done only in one of the public higher learning institution. A study
among students in private learning institution is needed as it would provide better
understanding about the phenomena that claims that students in the private institution enjoyed
a higher student satisfaction due to a better quality of service. The comparison among private
and government universities would allow validation of the claim that private institution is
better in providing quality services to the student.
Future researchers could also focuses on regional study which looks into the comparison of
service quality of several public institutions across the region such as South East Asia. This
study focuses only one of the public institutions in Malaysia. Therefore, by having a regional
study, a comparison could be done to measure the differences in service quality and students
satisfaction. A standard for benchmarking can be achieved and this could lead to a better
quality for the service provided. Finally, this study looks only to the dimension of service
quality and student satisfaction. Future research could probably look onto the relationship of
service quality towards student’s performance with student satisfaction as a mediating or
moderating factor.
5.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, the research finding presented here contributes to the existing knowledge of
service quality and customer satisfaction both theoretically and practically. The result shown
in the study demonstrates the importance of all elements in service quality (SQ) in assuring
the student’s satisfaction (SS). The result from the research provides opportunities for
university management to improve the weaknesses in the services offered to the student thus
ensuring that the quality of services provided to the student is at the highest level and student
get optimal satisfaction when studying in the particular higher learning institution. We hope
that this research would stimulate more research attention on how SQ could help higher

10 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

learning institution in delivering better satisfaction to students and at the same time, expand
the research framework by examining and identifying various moderators and mediators that
could enhance the existing relationship between SQ and SS.
References
Alexandris, K., Dimitriadis, N., & Markate, D. (2002). Can perceptions of service quality
predict behavioral intentions? An exploratory study in the hotel sector in Greece. Managing
Service Quality, 12(4), 224 - 231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520210434839
Azman, I., Muhammad Madi, A., & Balakrishnan, P. (2009). Effect of service quality and
perceive value on customer satisfaction. International Journal of Management Perspective,
3(1), 29 - 44.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G. W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale.
Journal of Business Research, 24(3), 253 - 268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(92)90022-4
Belman, D. (1996). Major-league menus. Restaurant USA Magazine, September.
Berry, L. L. (1980). Service marketing is different. Business, 30((May - June)), 24 - 29.
Bigne, E., Moliner, M. A., & Sancez, J. (2003). Perceived service quality and satisfaction in
multi service organizations: the case of spanish public services. The Journal of Services
Marketing, 17(4), 420 - 442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040310482801
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 69 - 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251871
Bitner, M. J., & Hubbert, A. R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction
versus quality: the customer's voice. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: new
directions in theory and practice (pp. 72 - 94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customer's assessment of service
quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 365 - 384.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208564
Brown, T. J., Churchill Jr, G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1993). Research note: improving the
measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 127 - 139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(05)80006-5
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-examination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55 - 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
Dulen, J. (1998). Dazzling by design. Restaurants and Institutions, 108(20), 40 - 49.
Freeman, K. D., & Dart, K. (1993). Measuring the perceived quality of professional business
services. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9(1), 27 - 47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J090v09n01_04
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its markeitng implications. European

11 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36 - 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784

Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1983). The dramaturgy of services exchange: an analytical
framework for service marketing. In L. L. Berry, G. Lynn Shostack & G. D. Upah (Eds.),
Emerging perspectives in service marketing. Chicago: American Marketing.
Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., & Bitner, M. J. (1992). Dramatizing the service experience: a
managerial approach. In Advances in services marketing management. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Ham, L., & Hayduk, S. (2003). Gaining competitive advantages in higher education:
analyzing the gap between expectations and perceptions of service quality. International
Journal of Value-Based Management, 16(3), 223 - 242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025882025665
Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2000). Service quality in the hair salon industry. Journal of Business
Discipline, 1, 37 - 52.
Hishamuddin, F. A. H., Azleen, I., Rahida, A. R., & Mohd Zulkiflee, A. R. (2008). Service
quality and student satisfaction: a case study at private higher education institutions.
International Business Research, 1(3), 163 -175.
Hu, H. H., Jay, K., & Thanika, D. J. (2009). Relationship and impacts of service quality,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study. The Service Industries
Journal, 29(2), 111 - 125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060802292932
Ibanez, V. A., Hartmann, P., & Calvo, P. Z. (2006). Antecedents of customer loyalty in
residential energy markets: Service quality, satisfaction, trust and switching costs. Service
Industries Journal, 26(6), 633 - 650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060600850717
Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (1997). Service quality in education: a student perspective. Quality
Assurance in Education, 5(1), 15 - 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156549
Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. (1994). Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with the
information services function. Decision Sciences, 25(5), 737 - 766.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb01868.x
Kim, W. G., Lee, Y. K., & Yoo, Y. J. (2006). Predictors of relationship quality and relationship
outcomes in luxury restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(2), 143 - 169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348005285086
Klara, R. (2001). Please please me. Restaurant Business, 100(4), 22.
Lam, S. K. (1997). SERVQUAL: A tool for measuring patients' opinions of hospital service
quality in Hong Kong. Total Quality Management, 8(4), 145 - 152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954412979587
Landrum, H., Prybutok, V. R., & Zhang, X. (2007). A comparison of Magal's service quality
instrument with SERPERF. Information and Management, 14(1), 104 - 113.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.11.002

12 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Lassar, V. M., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R. D. (2000). How quality, value, image and
satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 980
–986.
Lovelock, C. H. (1981). Why marketing management needs to be different for services. In J.
H. Donnelly & W. R. George (Eds.), Marketing of services (pp. 5 - 9). Chicago: American
Marketing.
Machleit, K. A., & Mantel, S. P. (2001). Emotional response and shopping satisfaction:
moderating effects of shopper attributions. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 97 - 106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00093-4
McDougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting
perceived value into the equation. Journal of Service Marketing, 14(5), 392 - 410.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040010340937
Monroe, K. B. (1990). Pricing: making profitable decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Muhammed, E. M., Rizwan, Q. D., & Ali, U. (2010). The impact of service quality on
student's satisfaction in higher education institute of Punjab. Journal of Management
Research, 2(2), 1 - 11.
Nek Kamal, Y. Y., Azman, I., Zubrina, R. J., & Salomawati, I. (2010). Service quality
dimensions, perceive value and customer satisfaction: abc relationship model testing.
International Business Education Journal, 2(1), 1 - 18.
Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (1998). The mediating role of corporate image on customers'
retention decisions: an investigation in financial service. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 16(2), 52 - 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652329810206707
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Oldfield, B., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality. Quality Assurance in
Education, 8(2), 85 - 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880010325600
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420 - 450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41 - 51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251430
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multipleitem scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12 - 40.
Pariseau, S. E., & McDaniel, J. R. (1997). Assessing service quality in schools of business.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(2), 230 - 249.
Perkins, D. S. (1991). A consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behavior
bibliography: 1982 - 1990. Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining

13 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Behavior, 4, 194 - 228.

Philip, G., & Hazlett, S. (1997). The measurement of service quality: a new P-C-P attributes
model. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 14(3), 260 - 280.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719710165482
Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. (1995). Service quality: a measure of information
systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 173 - 188. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249687
Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Tierney, P. (1995). Going to extremes: managing service
encounters and assessing provider performance. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 83 - 97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252075
Rahim, M., Osman, M., & Ramayah, T. (2010). Service quality, customer satisfaction and
loyalty: a test of mediation. International Business Research, 3(4), 72 - 80.
Ravichandran, K., Tamil Mani, B., Arun Kumar, S., & Prabhakaran, S. (2010). Influence of
service quality on customer satisfaction: application of SERVQUAL model. International
Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 117 - 124.
Rodie, A. R., & Klein, S. S. (2000). Customer participation in services production and
delivery. In T. A. Swartz & D. Iacobucci (Eds.), Handbook of service marketing and
management (pp. 111 - 126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ruyter, K. (1997). Measuring service quality and service satisfaction: an empirical test of an
integrative model. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 387 - 406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00014-7
Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Bloemer, J. (1998). On the relationship between perceived service
quality, service loyalty and switching costs. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 9(2), 155 - 168.
Shemwell, D. J., Yavas, U., & Bilgin, Z. (1998). Customer-service provider relationships: an
empirical test of a model of service quality, satisfaction and relationship oriented outcome.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9, 155 - 168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564239810210505
Sivadas, E., & Baker-Prewitt, J. (2000). An examination of the relationship between service
quality, customer satisfaction, and store loyalty. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 16(4), 363 - 379.
Spreng, R. A., & Mackoy, R. D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived
service quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 201 - 214.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(96)90014-7
Sureshchandar, G. S., Chandrasekharan, R., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2002). The relationship
between service quality and customer satisfaction - a factor specific approach. Journal of
Service Marketing, 16(4), 363 - 379. Doi: 10.1108/ 08876040210433248.
Teboul, J. (1991). Managing quality dynamics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

14 www.macrothink.org/ije
 International Journal of Education
ISSN 1948-5476
2011, Vol. 3, No. 2: E15

Tribe, J., & Snaith, T. (1998). From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in
Varadero, Cuba. Tourism Management, 19(1), 25 - 34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(97)00094-0
Voss, G. B., Parasuraman, A., & Dhruv, G. (1998). The roles of price, performance and
expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges. Journal of Marketing,
63(October), 46 - 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252286
Wilkie, W. L. (1990). Consumer Behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Wisniewski, M. (2001). Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public sector
service. Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 380 - 388.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006279
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perception of price, quality and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2 - 22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251446
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services Marketing (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright reserved by the author(s).
This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

15 www.macrothink.org/ije

View publication stats