06 Student Satisfaction

7/30/2019 06 Student Satisfaction

1/26

JournalofQualityandTechnologyManagementVolumeVII,IssueII,December,2011,Page91 114

AN EMPIRICAL MODEL OF STUDENTSATISFACTION: CASE OF PAKISTANI PUBLIC

SECTOR BUSINESS SCHOOLS

A. Ijaz1, S.M. Irfan2, S. Shahbaz2, M. Awan2,M. Sabir31Institute of Quality and Technology Management,

University of the Punjab, Lahore Pakistan2COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

3Department of Geography, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore

ABSTRACT

Quality is key determinant for customers before purchasing a product or availingany type of service and it also plays a significant role in measuring the

performance of product/service and the organization as well. This issue hasrealized the organizations from manufacturing and service sector, how tocompete and gain competitive edge in the market by delivering quality product orservices as per customer requirements. These organizations had integratedquality management principles and quality tools and techniques to gaincompetitive edge. Education sector is also among the service sector andconsidered to be the back bone and major contributor in national and economicdevelopment. Quality education is also a challenge for the universities and alsomany of the universities around globe are putting their efforts to deliver qualityof educational services to their customers to gain their satisfaction. In Pakistan,service sector is one of the rapidly growing sectors contributing more than 53%of GDP. To gain competitive edge these service organizations requireknowledgeable and highly skilled management professionals to cope up with thesechallenges. This study aims to investigate the service quality of business schoolsin public sector and how these institutions are successful in gaining studentsatisfaction.

A modified SERVQUAL instrument is used to evaluate the service quality offour business schools working under public sector universities based on studentperceptions.

Total 501 students from 4 public sector business schools participated in thisstudy. Structure equation modeling was used to develop service quality andstudent satisfaction model. Results of this study indicate that business schools aresuccessful in gaining student satisfaction.


2/26

AnEmpiricalModelofStudentSatisfaction:CaseofPakistaniPublicSectorBusinessSchools

92|

Keywords: SERVQUAL, Student satisfaction, Business schools, Structuralequation model (SEM), Pakistan

INTRODUCTION

Quality has become an icon for the customers before purchasing anyproduct or availing any service. Service sector is one of the rapidlygrowing sectors in most of the economies of the world and this trend canalso be seen in Pakistan. According to statistics division of Pakistan(2010), service sector is contributing more than 53% of the total GDP.Service sector is also gaining importance like the manufacturing sectors,due to globalization and increased competitive environment among the

local and global companies (Petruzzellis et al., 2006).

Today the organizations are facing challenges from their customers andthese challenges have created a cutthroat business environment whichultimately creates challenges for the managers to find the best and waysto meet the need and wants of their stakeholders. It has also set challengesfor the universities to develop a human capital with the latestmanagement knowledge and skills and enables students to become achange agent for the industry. Now the universities are making efforts to

cope with the challenges of varied learning styles, cultural diversity, andchanging student demands with more choices of study which includes;destinations, educational programs and study environment than before(Arambewela & Hall, 2009).

Educational sector is an important sector which plays a significant role inthe development of human capital and ultimately in the economicdevelopment of the country. Education sector has become an industry inmany countries of the world especially in UK, Malaysia, U.A.E etc., andthis factor is also influencing in other parts of the world especially thecountries with tuition based systems (DeShields et al., 2005). Like themanufacturing and service organizations, concept of quality has alsoevolved among the educational institution and it helps to develop acompetitive environment which ultimately raises the importance ofmeasuring quality of services among the business schools (Gbadamosi etal., 2008).


3/26

JournalofQualityandTechnologyManagement

|93

It had also been explored that universities starts realizing that educationsector should be considered as a business like other service industries andthey should be more focused on student expectations and perceptions. Anumber of top universities around the globe had opened their campuses

in many of developing countries specially; Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,UAE etc. and some of the universities are making joint ventures with thelocal universities in developing countries in the form of dual degreeprograms or split degree programs. It has increased competition amongthe educational institutions and quality is the key parameter in order toimprove performance and gain student satisfaction. Student satisfactioncan be gained by delivering superior customer values and it had becomeessential in creating a sustainable advantage in this competitiveinternational education market (Kotler & Fox, 1995).

Student satisfaction has become a major challenge for the universities andit has been recognized that student satisfaction is the major source ofcompetitive advantage and this satisfaction also leads towards studentretention, attraction for new students and positive word of mouthcommunication, as well (Arambewela & Hall 2009).

It has been recognized and reported in earlier studies that long termsurvival and success of the universities depending upon the quality of

services and the effort made by them to achieve that distinguishes oneuniversity from other universities (Aly & Akpovi, 2001; Kanji et al., 1999).In some earlier studies it had been reported that universities were alsoimplementing quality management principles and used these principlesas a strategic tool to gain competitive edge (Montano and Utter, 1999;Swift, 1996) and improved performance (Kanji & Tambi, 1998).

Now the concept of quality and customer satisfaction had been evolved ineducational sector and got considerable attentions (Ana Brochado, 2009).These trends have also been seen in the developing countries likePakistan. During the last one decay Higher education commission ofPakistan (HEC) had made revolutionary development in promotinghigher education in Pakistan and currently, we have 132 universities inpublic and private sector. HEC is now focusing to promote qualityeducation in the country and many universities had adopted qualitymanagement principles as a key to success and implemented ISOstandards as a first step towards quality to excel.


4/26


94|

Today, organizations are facing new challenges set by the stakeholdersand the competitive business environment due to globalization.Organizations requires highly skilled, knowledgeable and experiencedmanagers that are able to deal with these issues and finding the best

suitable ways to accelerate their organizations both at local as well asinternational level. Due to the expansion and growth in the service sector,business schools in Pakistan especially in public sector are facingmounting pressures from their stakeholders and their competitors fromprivate sectors. It is need of the hour that public sector institutions had tomake strategies and continuously monitor their education quality to maketheir customers, and stakeholders happy and gain strategic advantageover their competitors.

Business schools plays a significant role to develop and train managementspecialists for the industry by integrating their curricula and benchmarkwith best business schools in the world and enables their student to leadtheir industry. The objective of this study is to evaluate the studentperceptions about the service quality of business schools in the publicsector universities. Secondly, a service quality and student satisfactionmodel will be developed by using structural equation modeling (SEM) toobserve the relationship among them.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Service Quality

The concept of quality had been evolved from excellence to value, toconformance to specification, and to meeting and exceeding customerexpectations (Reeves & Bendnar, 1994, p-441). The first two definitionsare quite close to assess and measure the quality of product or services,whereas the third is more appropriate to assess the quality of the product(Pariseau & McDaniel, 1997). Quality issues related to measure the qualityof services was a subject to a large number of investigation by thepractitioners and academicians over past 25 years due to its intangibleand complex nature (Prabha et al. 2010). Prabha et al. (2010) furtherexplored that studies on measuring the service quality of educationalinstitutions had also been the focus of increased attentions during the lastcouple of years due the tough competition among the educationalinstitutions and the demand for excellence in education. Due to the

abstract nature of services as compared to products, measurement of


5/26


|95

service quality and to its characteristics was also difficult and complicatedtask for the academicians and practitioners (Parasuraman et al., 1988;Carman, 1990). However, service quality had been frequently studied inthe service marketing literature and measuring the service quality and

development of an instrument had been an issue of discussion(Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1988). Service quality was also considered as towhat extent a service is adequate to meet the customers need and wants(Lewis & Mitchell, 1990; Dotchin & Oakland, 1994). Service quality maybe conceptualized as customers or consumers overall feeling about thesuperiority or inferiority of the services they received from the serviceproviders (Zeithaml et al., 1990). Most commonly referred definition ofservice quality is the difference between customer expectations which acustomer will receive from a service provider and the perceptions about

the services being received by customer from the service provider(Parasuraman et al., 1988; Grnroos, 2001). Quality, performance andsatisfaction are considered to be the key factors and these factors areinterrelated in a causal relationship or some time these three factors areused as synonymously due to the similarity in meaning (Cronin et al.,2000; Bitner and Hubert, 1994). Still there is no precise definition ofservice quality in educational point of view however, according to ONeilland Palmer (2004, p: 42), service quality in educational setup had beendefined as the difference between what a student expects to receive and

his/her perceptions of actual delivery.

Service Quality Models and SERVQUAL

The first instrument to measure the service quality was developed byParasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry (1985). This instrument was comprisedof five different gaps and due to this reason this is also known as gapmodel and later this model was refined by Parasuraman et al. (1991) andSERVQUAL instrument was based on gap 5. SERVQUAL based on gap 5,comprised of 5 service quality dimensions based on 22 items; tangible (4items), reliability (4 items), responsiveness (4 items), assurance (5 items)and empathy (5 items). According to Buttle (1995), these three researcherand academicians since 1985, further developed, propagated andpromoted this instrument through a series of publications byParasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml. Till now a number of service qualitymodel were presented to measure the service quality in different serviceenvironments. A study conducted by Nitin Seth et al., (2005), reported 19


6/26


96|

service quality models used till now to measure the service quality. Thesemodels are given in the table below.


7/26


|97

Table 1: Service Quality Models

SERVICE QUALITY MODEL AUTHOR

1) Technical and functional quality model Grnroos, 19842) GAP model (Parasuraman et al., 1985)3) Attribute service quality model (Haywood-Farmer, 1988)4) Synthesized model of service quality (Brogowiczet al., 1990)5) Performance only model (SERVPERF) (Cronin and Taylor, 1992)6) Ideal value model of service quality (Mattsson, 1992)7) Evaluated performance and normed quality

model(Teas, 1993)

8) IT alignment model (Berkley and Gupta, 1994)9) Attribute and overall affect model (Dabholkar, 1996)10) Model of perceived service quality and

satisfaction(Spreng and Mackoy, 1996)

11) PCP attribute model (Philip and Hazlett, 1997)12) Retail service quality and perceived value

model(Sweeney et al., 1997)

13) Service quality, customer value and customersatisfaction model

(Oh, 1999)

14) Antecedents and mediator model (Dabholkar et al., 2000)15)

Internal service quality model (Frost and Kumar, 200016) Internal service quality DEA model (Soteriou and Stavrinides,

2000)

17) Internet banking model (Broderick andVachirapornpuk, 2002)

18) IT-based model (Zhuet et al., 2002)19) Model of e-service quality (Santos, 2003) (Santos, 2003)Source: Nitin Seth et al. (2005)

However, SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml

and Berry (1985, 1988) were the most commonly used model and hadbeen widely used in almost all the service organizations (Riadh Lidhari,2009; Smith et al., 2007; Lee & Tai, 2008; Brochado, 2009) and hundreds ofunpublished articles using SERVQUAL, conference proceedings and inonline journals.

Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction


8/26


98|

Customer satisfaction and service quality has become an important topicof discussion among the academicians and researchers for the last coupleof decades and this trend can also been seen in higher education also(Avdjieva & Wilson, 2002, Barnes, 2006). Superiority of the service quality

is strongly dependent on customer satisfaction which can be measuredfrom customer expectations and perceptions (Cronin & Taylor, 1992;Christou & Sigala, 2002; Ekinci, 2004). Students are the primary customersfor an educational institutions and their satisfaction will leads towardsloyalty, retention and positive word of mouth (Arambewela & John Hall,2009; Mavondo et al., 2004; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). Banwet and Datta(2003) believed that customer satisfaction creates loyalty, whereassatisfied students were attracted to attend another course/module oranother higher degree from the same university.

Number of definitions about the satisfaction exists in service andconsumer marketing literature. According to Oliver (1997), satisfaction isa pleasurable fulfillment which means that consumption of services wasaccording to their needs and wants and thus fulfillment causes pleasure.It may be consumer sense about the consumption of services according tocustomer parameters against pleasure versus displeasure (Oliver, 1999).Student satisfaction is still a complex phenomenon and it has differentdimensions (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005a, b; Richardson, 2005). According

to Elliott and Shin (2002. p:198), student satisfaction is defined as; thefavorability of a students subjective evaluation of the various outcomesand experiences associated with education. Student satisfaction is beingshaped continually by repeated experiences in campus life.

On the basis of literature the following six hypotheses were developed:

H01: Tangibles has a no positive effect on service quality of the businessschools

H11: Tangibles has a positive effect on service quality of the businessschools

H02: Reputation has no positive effect on service quality of the businessschools

H12: Reputation has a positive effect on service quality of the businessschools

H03: Cooperation and support has no positive effect on service qualityof the business schools


9/26


|99

H13: Cooperation and support has positive effect on service quality ofthe business schools

H04: Reliability has a positive effect on service quality of the businessschools

H14: Reliability has a positive effect on service quality of the businessschools

H05: Responsiveness has no positive effect on service quality of thebusiness schools

H15: Responsiveness has a positive effect on service quality of thebusiness schools

H06: Service quality of business schools has no positive effect onstudent satisfaction

H16: Service quality of business schools has a positive effect on student

satisfaction

METHODOLOGY

This study is empirical in nature and the results were based onassessment of the respondents. For this purpose a questionnaire wasdesigned using modified SERVQUAL model to measure the servicequality of business schools in public sector and how the quality ofservices will helpful to gain student satisfaction. Questionnaire for this

study was comprised of 52 questions, which are further subdivided in to6 constructs out of which; 5 constructs used to measure service qualityand the 6th constructs used to measure the student satisfaction about theoverall service quality of the business school. These constructs aretangibles (15 items), reputation (11 items), cooperation and support (8items), reliability (8 items) responsiveness (6 items) and studentsatisfaction (5 items). The responses were measured on a five point Likertscale [5] for excellent and [1] for poor. The population of this studycomprises all student studying graduate and undergraduate level in 4public sector universities in the city Lahore. Personal efforts were made tocollect the data. This city is also known as hub of educational institutions.A total of 550 questionnaires were distributed among students and a total501 questionnaire were selected for the analysis and the remaining 49questionnaire were rejected due to incomplete response. Therefore, itrepresents a very good rate of 91% of the total population. The data wasentered into SPSS 16.0 and Amos 16.0 was used to develop a structuralequation model to draw inferences. Reliability of the data was checked

using Cronbach Alpha which provides a value of 0.956 is more than the


10/26


100|

acceptable value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978; Hair et al., 2006; Zikmund, 1998)and a value ranges between 0 and 1 and the value close to 1 providesmore reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). As reliability of the dataplays a significant role in analyzing the results.

Demographics of the data are reported in table 2. The participants of thisstudy are the male and female students. Male respondents were 299, thusrepresenting 60% of the total population, whereas the female respondentswere 202 and thus representing 40% of the total population. The studentswere from three different disciplines; BBA were 261 representing 52% ofthe total population, MBA were 167 representing 33% of the totalpopulation and there were only 73 students from MS and representingonly 15% of the total population. Majority of the Student population werebetween 18 to 22 years of age group and only 8% of the population was

above 22 years of age.

Table 2: Demographics of the Study

Gender Frequency Percentage Discipline Frequency Percentage

Male 299 60% BBA 261 52%

Female 202 40% MBA 167 33%Total 501 100% MS 73 15%

Total 501 100%

Age Institution

18-20 263 52% COMSATS 211 42%

21-22197 39% Punjab

University176 35%

23-24 27 5% LCWU 65 13%

above 24 14 3% GCU 49 10%Total 501 100% Total 501 100%Year

1st year 175 35%

2nd year 149 30%

3rd year 106 21%

4th year 71 14%Total 501 100%

Students from four different public sector universities were selected thehighest number of students were 42% from COMSATS, 35% from PunjabUniversity, 13% students were from Lahore College Women University,where as 10% respondents were from Government College University.Highest numbers of respondents, 35%were the student of first year, 30%


11/26


|101

respondents were second year students, 21% students were in third yearand 14% students were in fourth year.

Tangible: First service quality construct is tangible which includes the

infrastructure, facilities and the physical structure of the organization.This construct includes 15 items representing the building, playgrounds,class room structure, library, transport, hostel, mosque, cleanliness, andcomputer labs. The Cronbach alpha for this construct is 0.870 providingan adequate value. These items were labeled as Tan1 to Tan15.

Reputation: It represents the overall goodwill of the institution amongstudents and at national level. This factor consists of 11 items representinginstitution ranking, highly skilled faculty, strong curricula, internationally

recognized degree, and student acceptability in the job market. These 11items were measured on a five point Likert scale, 1=poor to 5= excellent.Cronbach alpha for this construct is 0.856. Items of this constructs werefurther labeled as Rep1 to Rep15.

Cooperation and Support: Third factor of this study was the cooperationand support provided to the students during their studies. It includesfaculty and institutional concern for the students and educationalenvironment that adds value to his/her learning. This construct consists

of 8 items and the Cronbach alpha for this construct was 0.856. Items ofthis constructs were labeled as CaS1 to CaS8.

Reliability: This factor represents the ability to deliver or performservices consistently and accurately to win the customer satisfaction andincreased quality of services. This construct consists of 8 factors. TheCronbach alpha for this factor was 0.852 and items were labeled as Rel1 toRel8.

Responsiveness: This factor represents the willingness of theorganization to facilitate the customers by delivering timely services. TheCronbach alpha for this study was 0.863 and it consists of 6 items andthese items were coded as Resp1 to Resp6.

Student satisfaction: The final construct consists of 5 items used tomeasure the student satisfaction in terms of student retention attraction,

job assurance (acceptability of degree), increased learning, reputation and

positive word of mouth. Cronbach alpha for this construct was 0.854. This


12/26


102|

construct is used as dependent variable and 5 items used in this constructwas labeled as Sat1 to Sat5.


13/26


|103

Table 3: Variable Used In the Study

Latent Variable MeasuredVariable

Measured Variables SRW CronbachAlpha

Tan 1 building and play grounds 0.305Tan 2 adequate Library facilities 0.253

Tan 3 Hostel facilities 0.319

Tan 4 Wi-Fi services for students 0.507

Tan 5 Multimedia facilities in each room 0.316

Tan 6 Cleanliness in the campus 0.480

Tan 7 Mosque and prayer area 0.399

Tan 8 Parking facilities 0.413

Tan 9 Transport facilities 0.580

Tan 10 Canteen, photocopy and book shop 0.508

Tan 11 Computer labs and other labs 0.598

Tan 12 Well equipped class rooms 0.540

Tan 13 Easily accessible location 0.606

Tan 14 waiting facility for discussion/guests 0.612

Tangibles

Tan 15 Efficient mode of information sharing 0.587

0.870

Rep1 Highly skilled and renowned faculty 0.542

Rep2 Among Top universities in Pakistan 0.650

Rep3 Strong in Research and development 0.568

Rep4 Add values in student abilities 0.663

Rep5 Globally accepted degree 0.539

Rep6 Curricula meet industry demand 0.495

Rep7 Credit hours can be transferred 0.485

Rep8 skilled and educated supporting staff 0.685

Rep9 Seminars & Talks from industry experts 0.649

Rep10 High job market for graduates 0.635

Reputation

Rep11 Scholarships & financial assistance 0.618

0.856

CaS1 Faculty is concerned about their students 0.533CaS2 Supporting staff is willing to help 0.661

CaS3 Faculty helps to resolve student issues 0.558

CaS4 Supporting staff takes care of student 0.694

CaS5 Management concerns for student 0.735

CaS6 Progress is communicated to parents 0.819

CaS7 Provides healthy environment 0.806

Cooperation andSupport

CaS8 Job enhancement cell 0.796

0.856

Rel1 Classes and exams are properly scheduled 0.360

Rel2 Industrial visit to increase learning 0.547

Rel3 Results and exams are at scheduled time 0.647

Rel4 Faculty evaluation system 0.404

Rel5 Open house to attract with parents 0.582

Rel6 Timely delivery of lectures 0.635Rel7 Fair student evaluation system 0.810

Reliability

Rel8 Degrees /convocation at scheduled time 0.637

0.852

Resp1 Feedback mechanism 0.536

Resp2 Complaints are resolved efficiently 0.703

Resp3 Student matters or issues are responded 0.722

Resp4 Changes in schedule are communicated 0.783

Resp5 Teachers are easily accessible 0.822

Responsiveness

Resp6 Management in contact with parents 0.708

0.863

Satisfaction (Cronbach alpha =)

Sat1 Loyalty 0.609

Sat2 retention 0.807

Sat3 Job assurance 0.822

Satisfaction

Sat4 Increased learning 0.762

0.854


14/26


104|

Sat5 reputation, word of mouth 0.537

To test the developed hypothesis of the proposed service quality ofbusiness school and student satisfaction regression analysis may be used.However, it is evident from the literature that structure equation

modeling or latent variable model is a useful technique (Hair et al., 2008)and considered to be more powerful in investigating the casualrelationships among the categorical variables (Bollen, 1989; Bollen &Long, 1993). Therefore, for this study SEM technique was used to test thehypothesis.

The tested theoretical model of this study is presented in figure 1 usingstructure equation modeling (SEM) techniques through AMOS 16.0 andthe maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) was used (Jreskog & Srbom,

2004). The sample size for this study was 501 records and which is anacceptable range of 100 to 200 for using MLE procedures and the numberof observations required for each parameter estimated should be between5 and 10 observations (Hair et al., 2008). Therefore, all the parameterswere met before running the SEM model for this study. According toBollen (1989), multiple indices should be used as it is possible for a modelto be adequate on one fit index but may be inadequate on many others.We examined normed chi-square test, comparative fit index (CFI),goodness of fit index (GFI) and the root mean squared error of

approximation (RMSEA) as suggested by (Jreskog and Srbom, 2004). Anon-significant chi-square (i.e., p > 0.05) indicates that the proposedmodel is an adequate presentation of the entire set of relationships. Themost flexible acceptance value of the normed chi-square must not behigher than 5, but to be more cautious it should not go above 3 (Pedhazur& Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991). Significant values of the above parametersare also stated in table 4.

Table 4: Level of Significance for Model Fit Indices

Index Value range Author

Normed chi-square(CMIN/df)

As low as 2 and as high as 5 Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991, Marsh &Hocevar, 1985;

Goodness of fit index(GFI)

Less than 1 and equal to 1representing a very good fit

Jreskog and Srbom(1984)

Comparative fitindex (CFI)

Values ranges from 0 to 1 andclose to 1 indicated a well fit

Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler,1999

Root mean square

error approximation

Less than 0.5 close fit and less

than 0.08 reasonable

Browne & Cudeck, 1993;

Byrne, 2001


15/26


|105

(RMSEA) approximation

The path diagram of the propped service quality and student satisfactionis represented in figure 1. The test for goodness of fit of the proposedmodel for service quality of business schools and student satisfaction is

quite satisfactory. The values of the chi-square is 5851.730, degree offreedom is 1319, p-value is .000 indicating that specified model is correctand the departure of the data from the model is significant at the .05 level.Values of the indices of path diagram of the proposed model for goodnessof fit are given in the table 5.

Table 5: Goodness of fit index for the given model

Index Values for the proposed

Normed chi-square (CMIN/df) 4.413Goodness of fit index (GFI) .744

Comparative fit index (CFI) .866

Root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) 0.065

Results reported in above table 5 are evident that the entire proposedmodel had achieved the flexible level of normed chi-square, goodnessof fit index, comparative fit index and root mean square errorapproximation and our results are falling within the described range

of values as stated in table 4. Therefore, we can say that our proposedmodel provides a reasonable fit.


16/26


17/26


|107

Therefore, our null hypothesis H02 is rejected and thus hypothesisH12 is accepted that student perceive that reputation of theinstitution in the market as well as among students has a positiveeffect on service quality of business schools in public sector of

Pakistan. Third service quality construct is cooperation and support which

comprised of 8 items and all items provide a positive and directeffect on service quality like; management had a great concern fortheir students (0.735*0.77=0.57). The factors like provides healthyenvironment to students (0.806*0.77=0.62), supporting staff takescare of student (0.694*0.77=0.54) and similarly all other items ofthis construct has a positive effect on service quality of businessschools in Pakistan. The standardized regression weight for this

construct is 0.75. Therefore, our null hypothesis H03 is rejected andthus hypothesis H13 is accepted that student perceive thatreputation of the institution has a positive effect on service qualityof business schools in public sector of Pakistan.

Fourth service quality construct is reliability which is comprised of8 items and all items provide a positive and direct effect on servicequality like; Fair student evaluation system (0.810*0.85=0.69). Thefactors like results and exams are at scheduled time(0.65*0.85=0.55), Degrees and convocation at scheduled time

(0.64*0.85=0.54) and similarly all other items of this constructs hasa positive effect on service quality of business schools in Pakistan.The standardized regression weight for this construct is 0.85.Therefore, our null hypothesis H04 is rejected and thus hypothesisH14 is accepted that student perceive that reliability of theuniversity system has a positive effect on service quality ofbusiness schools in public sector of Pakistan.

Fifth service quality construct is responsiveness which iscomprised of 6 items and all items provide a positive and directeffect on service quality like; Teachers are easily accessible(0.82*0.79=0.65). The factors like changes in schedule arecommunicated to students (0.78*0.79=0.62), complaints areresolved efficiently (0.70*0.79=0.55) and similarly all otherconstructs has a positive effect on service quality of businessschools in Pakistan. The standardized regression weight for thisconstruct is 0.79. Therefore, our null hypothesis H05 is rejected andthus hypothesis H15 is accepted that responsiveness has a positive


18/26


108|

effect on service quality of business schools in public sector ofPakistan.

Finally, service quality of business schools has a positive impact onstudent satisfaction and regression weight is 0.86. superior quality

of services to their students will helpful for the institutions ingaining student loyalty with the institution, causes to attract orretain the existing students for another degree, and finally causesfor positive word of mouth. Therefore, our null hypothesis H06 isrejected and thus hypothesis H16 is accepted that positive servicequality leads towards student satisfaction.

Table 6 provides information regarding correlation between the fiveservice quality dimensions namely; tangibles, reputation, cooperation and

support, reliability, responsiveness and student satisfaction. Averages ofall the constructs were calculated and then run the correlation among theconstructs representing the independent variables. There is a significantcorrelation among all the constructs with student satisfaction and alsoamong each other at 0.01 significant levels. However, highest correlationbetween satisfaction and reputation of the institution which is 61.7%,which indicates reputation of the institution plays a significant role whileselecting the institution for study and it also has a significant impact onstudent satisfaction while finding their jobs after graduation. The weakest

correlation among student satisfaction and responsiveness is 52.5%,however, the correlation is positive among them and the p-value amongthe variables is 0.000 indicating a significant correlation among them at1% level of significant. It is also observed that p-value between all thevariables is 0.000 indicates, and positive correlation among all thevariables exists.

Table 6: Correlation among service quality dimensions and student satisfaction

VARIABLES MEAN S.D TAN REP CAS REL RESP SATTAN 3.5464 .59109 1

REP 3.6727 .59916 .523** 1

CAS 3.5044 .78356 .515** .616** 1

REL 3.68278 .635401 .502** .591** .544** 1

RESP 3.3756 .84049 .457** .524** .575** .662** 1

SAT 3.6542 .73636 .532** .617** .587** .616** .525** 1** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


19/26


|109

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although measuring the quality of services based on customer

perceptions is a complex task, however, to some extent we can get a littleunderstanding about the quality of services provided by the serviceproviders. The concept of quality has also been recognized in the servicessector and now the universities are also concentrating and making effortsto gain student satisfaction by delivering quality of teaching and non-teaching services (Petruzzellis et al., 2006). The above findings shows thatcurrently, the business schools working under the public sectorinstitutions are providing better quality of educational services and arealso successful in gaining student satisfaction. Majority of these public

sector institutions have a very rich history and management graduatesfrom these institutions have a better job opportunity in the market. Asmajority of the managers working on high profile jobs were graduatedfrom these institutions which are also helpful in making the repute ofthese institutes in the market. Public sector institutions have anothersustainable advantage that these institutes have a very goodinfrastructure like; their own hostel buildings, mosque, plays grounds,libraries and transport facility, where as these facilities are missing in theprivate institutes to some extent. Secondly, highly skilled and well knownfaculty is working in public sector institutions. Major reason of studentsatisfaction in the public sector institutions is due to their reputation,availability of scholarships, and low fees as compared to privateinstitutions. Due to this reason public sector institutions are successful toattract the best students which ultimately help to enhance institutionalrecognition and their satisfaction. However, these institutions have tomake continuous efforts to enhance quality of educational services updatethe curricula according to the local industry requirements and also theglobal acceptability. These Institutions need to develop and implementquality standards and system and continuously monitor it in order toincrease the quality of education and gain competitive edge on rapidlygrowing institutes in private sector. This study developed six hypotheses,and the results of our studies through structural equation modeling(SEM) show that students perceive that public sector business schools areproviding better quality of services to the student and secondly, theservice quality of these institutions is helpful in gaining studentsatisfaction in terms of student loyalty with the institution, student

attraction, positive word of mouth, image building and student


20/26


110|

recognition both at local level as well as international level. Satisfactionwith service quality guarantees the students in increased student learningconfidence (McCollough & Gremler, 1999). Earlier studies reveal thatstudent satisfaction has a positive impact on student loyalty and their

findings were also similar to those finding in service marketing literature(Cronin & Taylor 1992, 1994; Sweeney & Soutar 2001).

This study is aimed only at public sector institutions and the selectedinstitutions are considered to be the best business schools in Pakistan andthese institutions were ranked between 1 to 10 positions as notified byhigher education commission of Pakistan. Results of this study shows thatstudents perceives that service quality dimensions like tangibles,cooperation and support, responsiveness, reputation, and reliability had a

significant positive impact on service quality and thus these parametersleads towards students satisfaction.

This study was conducted at a local level and only few public sectoruniversities business schools were considered in Pakistan. Due toshortage of time sample size was not so large, therefore the results of thisstudy cannot be generalized. However, a more comprehensive study canbe conducted by taking a larger sample size and including all theeducational institutions in the country to develop a comprehensive

service quality and student satisfaction model.

REFERENCES:

Aly, N. and Akpovi, J. (2001). Total quality management in Californiapublic higher education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 9,No. 3, pp. 127-31.

Ana Brochado (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measureservice quality in higher education, Quality Assurance inEducation, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 174-190

Arambewela and John Hall (2009). An empirical model of internationalstudent satisfaction, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing andLogistics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 555-569

Avdjieva, M. and Wilson, M. (2002). Exploring the Development ofQuality in Higher Education. Managing Service Quality. Vol. 12,No. 6, pp. 372-383.


21/26


|111

Banwet, D.K. and Datta, B. (2003). A study of the effect of perceivedlecture quality on post-lecture intentions, Work Study, Vol. 52, No.5, pp. 234-43.

Barnes, B.R (2006). Analysing Service Quality: The Case of Post-Graduate

Chinese Students. ISSN nr. 1743-6796Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation

models. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp. 238-246.Berkley, B.J. and Gupta, A. (1994). Improving service quality with

information technology, International Journal of InformationManagement, Vol. 14, pp. 109-21.

Bitner, M.J. and Hubert, A.R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overallsatisfaction versus quality, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds),Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 72-94.Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York:

John Wiley.Bollen, K.A., & Long, S.J. (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models.

London: SAGE.Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure

service quality in higher education, Q. Assur. In Edu. Vol. 17,pp.174-190.

Broderick, A.J. and Vachirapornpuk, S. (2002). Service quality in internet

banking: the importance of customer role, Marketing Intelligence& Planning, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 327-35.

Brogowicz, A.A., Delene, L.M. and Lyth, D.M. (1990). A synthesisedservice quality model with managerial implications, International

Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 27-44.Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model

fit. In Bollen, K.A. & Long, J.S. (Eds.). Testing structural equationsmodels. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buttle Francis (1995). SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-32.

Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer perception of service quality: anassessment of the servqual dimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol.66, Spring, pp. 35-55.

Christou, E. and Sigala, M. (2002). Conceptualising the measurement ofservice quality and TQM performance for hotels: the HOSTQUAL

model, Acta Touristica, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 140-69.


22/26


112|

Cronin, J., Brady, M. and Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentionsin service environments, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp.193-218.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL:reconciling performance-based and perception-minus-expectationsmeasurement of service quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No.1, pp. 125-31.

Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: areexamination and extension, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July,pp. 55-68.

Dabholkar, P.A. (1996). Consumer evaluations of new technology-basedself-service operations: an investigation of alternative models,

International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.29-51.

Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, C.D. and Thorpe, D.I. (2000). Acomprehensive framework for service quality: an investigation ofcritical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinalstudy, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 131-9.

DeShields, O., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of businessstudent satisfaction and retention in higher education: applyingHerzbergs two-factor theory. International Journal of Educational

Management, Vol. 19, No.2, pp.128-39.Dotchin, J.A. & Oakland, J.S., (1994). Total quality management in

services. Service quality. International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement, Vol. 11, No.3, pp.27-42.

Ekinci, Y. (2004). An investigation of the determinants of customersatisfaction, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 197-203.

Elliott, K.M. and Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: an alternativeapproach to assessing this important concept, Journal of HigherEducation Policy and Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 197-209.

Frost, F.A. and Kumar, M. (2000). INTSERVQUAL: an internal adaptationof the GAP model in a large service organization, Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 358-77.

Gbadamosi, Gbolahan & De Jager, Johan. (2008). Measuring ServiceQuality in South Africa Higher Education: Developing aMultidimensional Scale. Global Business and TechnologyAssociation (GBATA), United States. ISBN 1-932917-04-7


23/26


|113

Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketingimplications, European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.36-44.

Grnroos, C. (2001). The Perceived Service Quality Concept A Mistake.

Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 150-152Hair, F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2008).Multivariate Data

Analysis with Readings. London: Prentice-HallHair, J.R., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2006).

Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall International,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988). A conceptual model of service quality,International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 19-29.

Helgesen, O. and Nesset, E. (2007).What accounts for students loyalty?Some field study evidence, International Journal of EducationalManagement, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 126-43.

Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariancestructural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling. Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.

Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linearstructural relationships by maximum likelihood, Instrumentalvariables, and least square methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific

Software.Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer

Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Kanji G. K., & A. Tambi, A. M. (1998). Total quality management and

higher education in Malaysia.Total Quality Management, Vol. 9,No.4/5, pp.130132.

Kanji, G.K., Malek, A. and Tambi, A. (1999). Total quality management inUK higher education institution, Total Quality Management, Vol.10, No. 1, pp. 129-53.

Kotler, P. and Fox, K.F. (1995). Strategic Marketing for EducationalInstitutions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lee, J.-W. & Tai. S.W. (2008). Critical factors affecting customersatisfaction and higher education in Kazakhstanv. International

Journal of Management in Education. Vol. 2, pp. 4659.Lewis, B.R. & Mitchell, V.W. (1990). Defining and measuring the quality

of customer service.Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.8, No.6,pp.11-17.


24/26


114|

Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factoranalysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factormodels and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 97,pp. 562-582.

Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005a).Measuring customer satisfaction in summer courses, QualityAssurance in Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 53-65.

Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005b).A new management element for universities: satisfaction with thecourses offered, International Journal of EducationalManagement, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 505-26.

Mattsson, J. (1992). A service quality model based on ideal valuestandard, International Journal of Service Industry Management,

Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 18-33.Mavondo, F.T., Tsarenko, Y. & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local

student satisfaction: resources and capabilities perspective, Journalof Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 41-60.

McCollough, M., Gremler, D. (1999). Guaranteeing student satisfaction:an exercise in treating students as customers. Journal of MarketingEducation Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 118130.

Montano, C. and Utter, G. (1999). Total Quality Management in HigherEducation, Quality Progress, August, pp. 52-59.

Nitin Seth, S.G. Deshmukh, Prem Vrat, (2005). Service quality models: areview, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,Vol. 22, No. 9, pp.913 949

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

ONeill, M. and Palmer, A., Importance-performance analysis: a usefultool for directing continuous quality improvement in highereducation, Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12,No.1, pp. 39-52.

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction and customer value:a holistic perspective, International Journal of HospitalityManagement, Vol. 18, pp. 67-82.

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction. A Behavioral Perspective on theConsumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol.

63, pp. 33-44.


25/26


|115

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refinement andreassessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67,No. 4, pp. 420-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model

of service quality and its implications for future research, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 49, Autumn, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: amultiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of servicequality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 12-40.

Pariseau, SE, and McDaniel, JR. (1997). Assessing service quality inSchools of Business. Int J Qual Reliab Manag, Vol. 14, pp. 204-218.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991).Measurement, design, andanalysis: Anintegrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Petruzzellis Luca, Angela Maria DUggento, Salvatore Romanazzi (2006).Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 349-364

Philip, G. and Hazlett, S.A. (1997). The measurement of service quality: anew P-C-P attributes model, International Journal of Quality &Reliability Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 260-86.

Prabha Ramseook-Munhurrun, Perunjodi Naidoo, Pushpa Nundlall(2010). A proposed model for measuring service quality insecondary education, International Journal of Quality and Service

Sciences Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 335-351Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D. (1994). Defining quality: alternatives and

implications, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp.419-45.

Riadh Ladhari (2009). A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research,International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 172-198

Richardson, J.T.E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: areview of the literature, Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 387-415.

Santos, J. (2003). E-service quality: a model of virtual service qualitydimensions, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 233-46.

Smith, G. A. & Clarke, A. (2007). Evaluating service quality inuniversities: a service department perspective. Q. Assur. in Edu.Vol. 15, pp. 334-351.

Soteriou, A.C. and Stavrinides, Y. (2000). An internal customer servicequality data envelope analysis model for bank branches,

International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 246-52.


26/26

AnEmpiricalModelofStudentSatisfaction:CaseofPakistaniPublicSectorBusinessSchoolsSpreng, R.A. and Mackoy, R.D. (1996). An empirical examination of a

model of perceived service quality and satisfaction, Journal ofretailing, Vol. 722, pp. 201-14.

Statistics division of Pakistan (2009-2010): www.statpak.gov.pk

Sweeney JC, Soutar GN (2001). Consumer perceived value: Thedevelopment of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. Vol. 77, pp. 203220.

Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1997). Retail servicequality and perceived value, Journal of Consumer Services, Vol. 4No. 1, pp. 39-48.

Swift, J. (1996). Using TQM to identify Education Improvements in theCollege of Education at the University of Miami, Computers andIndustrial Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 1/2, pp. 3-16.

Teas, K.R. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumersperceptions of quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 18-34

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990). DeliveringQuality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions andExpectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Zhu, F.X., Wymer, W.J. and Chen, I. (2002). IT-based services and servicequality in consumer banking, International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 69-90.

Zikmund, W.G. (1998). Essentials of Marketing Research, The Dryden

Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Hinsdale, IL.

Documents

06 Student Satisfaction