Upload
shekhardutta123
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
1/33
2013
NILANGSHU DUTTA(M-11-11)
PARITOSH KOTWAL(M-11-12)
RAHUL BHARADWAJ(M-11-13)
SHEKHAR JYOTI DUTTA(M-11-14
MEASURING THE SERVICE QUALITY GAP IN
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
2/33
ABSTRACT
The government educational system of India has lost its sheen with todays parents.
Even educated institutions are disassociating themselves with the AICTE and the
UGC. This could either be due to globalization and privatization or due to a major
cut in government finances in the higher educational system. With the educational
system widely unchanged for over five decades and management quota allotments
rampant among the private institutions, the Indian educational system needs to be
looked at from a different perspective.
Education is a service directly influenced by the Service provider, and the
effectiveness of the services offered depends on the quality of the academic
services offered. As colleges continue to become student oriented, understanding
students perceptions, services offered are becoming more important. Assessment
and the quality of educational services have been the dominant area in the present
context of education.
In this paper, we have started with the concept of service quality using the model of
service quality gaps. SERVQUAL as an effective approach will be studied and its role
in the analysis of the difference between customer expectations and perceptions
will be highlighted. The GAPS model will also be used to measure the various service
quality gaps.
We will make a primary survey of students from various educational institutes using
a standard questionnaire and then analyze the data to see where the gaps exist
which can be filled.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
3/33
Service firms like other organizations are realizing the significance of customer-
centered philosophies and are turning to quality management approaches to help
managing their businesses. The study will outline the fact that although SERQUAL
could close one of the important service quality gaps associated with external
customer services, it could be extended to close other major gaps and therefore, it
could be developed in order to be applied for internal customers, i.e. employees and
service providers.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
4/33
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Dr. Kavita Srivastava, for her
assiduous guidance, timely suggestions and co-operation at every step, which have been
invaluable in executing the project. Her suggestions & critique form the backbone of this
report.
We wholeheartedly thank all the people who generously gave us their time and filled out
the questionnaire for us and also gave us valuable insights. We also acknowledge the help
received from various people who were directly or indirectly involved with this project.
Last but not the least, we would like to thank our parents and family for their hard work
and also our classmates who took some time out of their busy schedule to discuss the
project report and gave their valuable insights about the manuscript.
Yours Faithfully
Shekhar Jyoti Dutta(M-11-14)
Rahul Bhardwaj(M-11-13)
Paritosh Kotwal(M-11-12)
Nilangshu Dutta(M-11-11)
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
5/33
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Education System ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 10
SERVQUAL .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Tangibility........................................................................................................................................... 10
Responsiveness .................................................................................................................................. 11
Assurance ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Empathy ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Importance ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Tangibility........................................................................................................................................... 11
Responsiveness .................................................................................................................................. 11
Assurance ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Empathy ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 12
DEFINITIONS: ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Gap .................................................................................................................................................... 12
Perception .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Expectation ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Research Work ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Research Objective ................................................................................................................................. 15
Research Design ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 16
Sample Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 16
Presentation & Analysis of Results ............................................................................................................. 17
Interpretation of Results ............................................................................................................................ 19
ANNEXURE-I ............................................................................................................................................... 23
QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................................................... 23
ANNEXURE-II .............................................................................................................................................. 26
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
6/33
Table-1 ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Table -2A ................................................................................................................................................ 26
TABLE 2B ................................................................................................................................................ 28
TABLE 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 28
TABLE 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 29
TABLE 5 ....................... ........................... ......................... .......................... ........................... ................. 30
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
7/33
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
8/33
IntroductionIn todays world the word service holds a lot importance both statistically and
theoretically. In todays world consumer- marketer relationship has evolved to its
highest form which is relationship stage. The concept of consumer loyalty measures
the sustainability of the company and its products among the competitors in the
market.
As the market grows competition grows and subsequently the power of bargain
goes more to the hands of consumers. This is the reason why people are becoming
more demanding and their endless needs are becoming very dynamic in nature.
So to make customers loyal, companies not only meet their needs but try to exceed
their expectations to make a positive association and increase their brand equity.
So in order to make that relationship strong and keep the customer needs fulfilled,
there has to be some mechanism which can be used as tools to assess and monitor
the performance.
But it is necessary to understand that service processes are different from
manufacturing processes, especially due to their intangible nature and the direct
participation of clients. One of the methodologies used are known to be SERVQUAL.
The SERVQUAL model was propounded by Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry in
1985. According to them this model can be used to assess any organization of any
type of service provided.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
9/33
Education System
Like all the other service which are intangible in nature, one of the most important
and most scrutinized service sector is the education system in any country. In India
as well we see various public, private and semi-government schools, colleges and
even B-schools. And considering the stat that over 50% of Indian population is
constituted of people aged below 25 years it is very vital for the growth of the
country and its individuals as well that the provided service is of acceptable
standards so we have considered high education services as the area of research.
Higher education institutions are also in search of improvements in teaching service
quality to satisfy the expectations of their students and the market. However, since
education services have very particular characteristics, the SERVQUAL model must
be adapted according to the most important determining factors: reliability,
tangibility, responsibility, security and empathy, as proposed by Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry, 1985.
So the objective of this paper is to adapt SERVQUAL methodology to measure
various gaps in the education service sector and present results with interpretation
and possible solutions for improvement.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
10/33
Literature Review
Here we shall provide the necessary literature for readers to build their
understanding and application about the SERVQUAL model.
SERVQUAL
The concept of SERVQUAL comes from SERVICE + QUALITY. The concept was first
presented by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1985.
According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), regardless of the type of
service, consumers basically use the same criteria to assess quality. Service quality is
a general opinion the client forms regarding its delivery, which is constituted by a
series of successful or unsuccessful experiences. Managing gaps in service will help
the company improve its quality. But gaps are not the only means clients use to
judge a service. They can also use five broad-based dimensions as judgment criteria:
reliability, tangibility, responsibility, security and empathy (LOVELOCK, 2001).
These are the Five dimensions which are used to identify and measure various
service gaps which in turn constitutes the major Consumer gap.
ReliabilityIt means whether the company is reliable in providing the service? Whether it fulfills
its promises? Are the company and its services consistently and constantly
performing well?
Tangibility
Whether the service has any tangible aspects associated with it like Machines,
Ambience, people or staff etc?
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
11/33
Responsiveness
Are the service providers considerably quick in providing service?
Assurance
Are the employees well-informed, educated, compatible and trustworthy to their
job and hence with the customers?
Empathy
Whether the company is able to understand the feeling of the customer? Does it
provide careful and personalized attention?
Importance
Reliability
It is the most important dimension of the service quality because unless the service
is reliable no customer wants to be associated with that.
Tangibility
Since the services are completely intangible hence it is very difficult for the
customer to assess and compare them. So these services need to be associated with
some tangible assets.
Responsiveness
This dimension provides company and employees receptiveness towards the
customer.
Assurance
This dimension encompasses the companys competence, courtesy and precision.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
12/33
Empathy
This is a psychological aspect of the service communication. When the customer
accepts that his needs are properly understood by the company.
Methodology
The SERVQUAL method works on various gaps that are created by the actual service
delivery and the promised service. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry have given
various gaps based on the above mentioned dimensions of service quality.
DEFINITIONS:
GapThe gap exists when the perception of the customer is either lags or leads the
expectation. If the perception is more than expectation than the equity is good and
consumer considers the service in high regards. On the other if the perception lags
behind the expectation then it is considered that the service provider is not capable
to provide the optimum service and the dissatisfaction level of customer with that
service increases.
Perception
It is the level of performance which the customer perceives after experiencing the
service.
ExpectationIt is the level of performance which customer had in advance which is generally
formed by any prior search or by any recommendation from a peer or friend.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
13/33
SERVQUAL is an instrument to measure quality that stems from this model and
works with the difference in scores (gaps) in the form of a questionnaire. The
models five gaps are shown in below chart.
Source : Parasuraman et al .(1985)
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
14/33
The SERVQUAL scale (questionnaire) has two sections: one to map client
expectations in relation to a service segment and the other to map perception in
relation to a certain service company.
Source : Parasuraman et al .(1985)
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
15/33
Methodology
To measure the above gaps we have prepared questionnaire based on consumer
perception & consumer expectation both. These questionnaires comprise all the
above dimensions of SERVQUAL. All the respondents were asked to fill their
responses in a five-point Likert scale.
The questionnaire is a standard questionnaire developed by Parasuraman, A.,
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L (1985) in A conceptual model of service quality and its
implication for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41-50.
The results and the detailed analysis of the results are given in the forthcoming
sections.
Research Work
Research Objective
To identify the present different producer gaps in education service sector and
measure them to assess the total consumer gap.
Research Design
To conduct the research we have used online surveying where 41 respondents all
of whom are students have participated. The participants were mostly students
in either graduate or post graduate colleges because we believe that we could
get more consistent data with this sample.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
16/33
Research Methodology
Sample Characteristics
We have surveyed 41 respondents the demographic characteristics are as
follows:
Sex Frequency Education Frequency
Male 23 Graduation &
Post-Grad.
25
Female 18 Graduation &
Post-Grad.
16
Graduate
61%
Post-
Graduate
39%
Education
Male
56%
Female
44%
Sex Ratio
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
17/33
Presentation & Analysis of Results
As given in Annexure-II the average scores of the respondents as per their
responses are calculated as below:
SERVQUALDIMENSIONS
STATEMENTS
EXPECTEDSERVQUAL(E) MEANSCORE
PERCEIVEDSERVQUAL(P) MEANSCORE
SERVQUALGAP (P-E)
TOTALSERVQUALGAP
TANGIBILITY
V1 4.59 3.8 -0.78
-1.12195
V2 3.8 3.61 -0.20
V3 4 3.95 -0.05
V4 3.71 3.61 -0.10
RELIABILITY
V5 4.59 3.24 -1.34
-4.4878
V6 4.32 3.32 -1.00
V7 3.73 3.32 -0.41
V8 4.41 3.17 -1.24
V9 4.76 4.27 -0.49
ASSURANCEV10(-) 2.59 1.78 -0.80
-3.21951V11(-) 2.69 2.15 -0.34
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
18/33
V12(-) 3.12 2.49 -1.05
V13(-) 2.76 2.1 -1.02
RESPONSIVENESS
V14 4.24 3.68 -0.56
-2.34146
V15 4.44 3.98 -0.46
V16 4.2 3.83 -0.37
V17 4.54 3.59 -0.95
EMPATHY
V18(-) 2.02 2.12 0.10
-0.21951
V19(-) 2.22 2.07 -0.15
V20(-) 2.37 2.34 -0.02
V21(-) 2.68 2.46 -0.22
V22(-) 2.34 2.41 0.07
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
19/33
Interpretation of Results
The statistical package, SPSS (17.0), was used to analyze the data received
from the questionnaire.
The Questions were precoded beforehand and the data analyzed usingdescriptive and multivariate statistical analysis.
Paired t-sample tests were performed to see if there were any significant
differences among the perceptions and expectations among students.
All the 22 variables were analyzed w.r.t. the gap scores obtained. They were
factor analyzed to determine the existence of underlying dimensions of
service quality.
A principal component analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation was
conducted on the 22 expectations (expectations scale) and 22 perception
statements (perceptions scale) measuring the service quality. Factors with an
eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 were chosen for interpretation. Only
variables with factor loading coefficients of 0.45 were considered; that is,
items with less than 0.45 were excluded.
A reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha) was performed to test the reliabilityand internal consistency of each of the expectation and perception attributes.
Alpha ranges from 0 to 1, and is a measure of the internal consistency of
multi-item scales. A coefficient alpha of 0.50 or higher is considered to be
adequately reliable for group data purposes.
The aim of this study was to determine the quality gap of educational services
using SERVQUAL. As the results show in all of the five SERVQUAL dimensions,
there is a negative quality gap.
Negative quality gaps mean students' expectations are greater than their
perceptions, and it indicates dissatisfaction. Thus, improvements are needed
across all five SERVQUAL dimensions.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
20/33
In this study, the greatest and the least negative quality gap are in the
reliability and empathy dimensions respectively (Table 3). This means that in
the reliability dimension, when the educational institutes promise to do
something by a certain time, they dont do so, When students have problems,
these Educational Institutes should be sympathetic and reassuring, theEducational Institutes should be dependable, they should provide their
services at the time they promise to do so, and the Educational Institutes
should keep their records accurately.
SERVICE DIMENSIONS
SERVICE QUALITY GAP (PERCEPTIONS -
EXPECTATIONS)
TANGIBILITY -1.12195122
RELIABILITY -4.48780488
ASSURANCE -3.2195122
RESPONSIVENESS -2.34146341
EMPATHY -0.2195122
The paired samples statistics (Table 4) was used to test the significant mean
difference (gap) between students' expectations and perceptions of service
quality. Paired samples t-test confirmed the hypothesis that there is a
statistically significant difference between average ratings of expectations and
perceptions by the students, suggesting that respondents distinguishedbetween SERVQUAL dimensions.
As shown in Table 5 and 6 the study used factor analysis to reduce the 22
statements into a set of underlying dimensions or factors that portray the
expectation and perception of the students. In addition, for the purpose of
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
21/33
quality control of the factors, the data were first tested by KMO and Bartletts
test, a statistical test for the overall significance of all correlations within a
correlation matrix. This indicated that factor analysis could be performed to
further analyze the data.
Factor analysis was applied to 22 statements on expectations and 22
statements on perceptions of higher education services, with responses on 5-
point Likert scale.
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used in the analysis.
Suitability of factor analysis was determined by correlation and alpha
reliability.
Varimax rotation defined 4 significant factors on the expectations scale and 4
significant factors on the perceptions scale.
A four-dimensional solution in expectations scale, results in the following
factors (refer to Table 5):
Factor 1: Reliability (5 statements, alpha = 0.713)
Factor 2: Assurance and Empathy (9 statements, alpha = 0.778)
Factor 3: Tangibility (4 Statements, alpha = 0.708)Factor 4: Responsiveness (4 Statements, alpha = 0.786)
Varimax rotation defined 4 factors on the perception scale. (Table 6)
Factor 1: Reliability (5 statements, alpha = 0.786),
Factor 2: Tangibility (4 statements, alpha = 0.694),
Factor 3: Responsiveness and empathy (9 statements, alpha = 0.800)
Factor 4: Assurance (4 statements, alpha = 0..771)
The situation in the perception scale confirms four SERVQUAL factors while
four in the expectation scale; factor analysis confirm four factor SERVQUAL
dimensions. Also, reliability analysis was conducted to measure the inside of
each of the factors. Alpha coefficient for the total expectations scale totals
0.782, and for the perceptions scale totals 0.860.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
22/33
DISCUSSION
The negative quality gap in service dimensions can be used as a guideline for
planning and allocation of resources (Campbell, J.L., Ramsay, J., Green., J., 2001).
Thus, the five SERVQUAL dimensions can be classified to four priority groups forallocation of resources and organizational attempts to eliminate or reduce negative
quality gaps, so that the responsiveness dimension is placed in the first priority, the
assurance, empathy and tangibles dimensions are placed in the second priority, and
the reliability dimension is placed in the third priority. If the afore mentioned
priorities are taken into account and the quality gap is attended to, the resultant
improved will benefit other dimensions as well; the negative quality gap (or quality
improvements) in one dimension, in the customers' viewpoint, can affect the
negative quality gaps (or quality improvements) in other dimensions (Lamei, A.,
2000.).
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
23/33
ANNEXURE-I
QUESTIONNAIREThese questionnaire are divided into two parts.
PART-I:
Measuring Customer Expectations:
1. Educational Institutes should have up to date equipment.
2. Educational Institutes physical facilities should be visually appealing.
3. Educational Institutes employees should be well dressed and appear neat.4. The appearance of the physical facilities of the educational institutes should
be in keeping with the type of services provided.
5. When the educational institutes promise to do something by a certain time,
they should do so.
6. When students have problems, these Educational Institutes should be
sympathetic and reassuring.
7. The Educational Institutes should be dependable.
8. They should provide their services at the time they promise to do so.9. The Educational Institutes should keep their records accurately.
10.(-)The Educational Institutes shouldnt be expected to tell students exactly
when services will be performed.
11.(-)It is not realistic for students to expect prompt service from employees of
these educational institutes.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
24/33
12.(-)Their employees dont always have to be willing to help students.
13.(-)It is okay of the employees are too busy to respond to students requests
promptly.
14.Students should be able to trust the employees of these educational
institutes.
15.Students should be able to feel safe in their transactions with the employees
of these educational institutes.
16.The employees of these educational institutes should be polite.
17.Their employees should get adequate support from these educational
institutes to do their job well.
18.(-)The educational institutes should not be expected to give students
individual attention.
19.(-)Employees of the educational institutes cannot be expected to give
students personal attention.
20.(-)It is unrealistic to expect employees of these educational institutes to know
what the needs of the students are.
21.(-)It is unrealistic to expect the educational institutes to have their students
best interests in mind.
22.(-)The educational institutes shouldnt be expected to have opening hours
convenient to all their students.
PART-II:
Measuring Customer Perceptions:
1. Your college has up to date equipment.
2. Your colleges physical facilities are visually appealing.
3. Your colleges employees are well dressed and appear neat.
4. The appearance of the physical facilities of your college is in keeping with the
type of services provided.
5. When your college promises to do something by a certain time, they do so.
6. When students have problems, your college is sympathetic and reassuring.
7. Your college is dependable.
8. Your college provides their services at the time they promise to do so.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
25/33
9. Your college keeps their records accurately.
10.(-)Your college does not tell students exactly when services will be performed.
11.(-)You do not receive prompt service from employees of your college
12.(-)Employees of your college are not always willing to help you.
13.(-)Employees of your college are too busy to respond to your requests
promptly.
14.You can trust the employees of your college.
15.You feel safe in your transactions with the employees of your college.
16.Employees of your college are polite.
17.Employees get adequate support from your college to do their job well.
18.(-)Your college does not give you individual attention.
19.(-)Employees of your college do not give you personal attention.
20.(-)Employees of your college do not know what your needs are.
21.(-)Your college does not have your best interests at heart.
22.(-)Your college does not have opening hours convenient to all their students.
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
26/33
ANNEXURE-II
Table-1
Likert Scale:
Score 5 4 3 2 1
Interpretation Strongly
Agree
Agree Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree Highly
Disagree
Table -2A
SERVQUALDIMENSIONS
STATEMENTS
EXPECTEDSERVQUAL(E) MEANSCORE
PERCEIVEDSERVQUAL(P) MEANSCORE
SERVQUALGAP (P-E)
TOTALSERVQUAL
GAP
TANGIBILITY
V1 4.59 3.8 -0.78
-1.12195V2 3.8 3.61 -0.20
V3 4 3.95 -0.05
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
27/33
V4 3.71 3.61 -0.10
RELIABILITY
V5 4.59 3.24 -1.34
-4.4878
V6 4.32 3.32 -1.00
V7 3.73 3.32 -0.41
V8 4.41 3.17 -1.24
V9 4.76 4.27 -0.49
ASSURANCE
V10(-) 2.59 1.78 -0.80
-3.21951
V11(-) 2.69 2.15 -0.34
V12(-) 3.12 2.49 -1.05
V13(-) 2.76 2.1 -1.02
RESPONSIVENESS
V14 4.24 3.68 -0.56
-2.34146
V15 4.44 3.98 -0.46
V16 4.2 3.83 -0.37
V17 4.54 3.59 -0.95
EMPATHY V18(-) 2.02 2.12 0.10 -0.21951
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
28/33
V19(-) 2.22 2.07 -0.15
V20(-) 2.37 2.34 -0.02
V21(-) 2.68 2.46 -0.22
V22(-) 2.34 2.41 0.07
TABLE 2B
SERVICEDIMENSIONS
SERVICE QUALITY GAP(PERCEPTIONS - EXPECTATIONS)
TANGIBILITY -1.12195122
RELIABILITY -4.48780488
ASSURANCE -3.2195122
RESPONSIVENESS -2.34146341
EMPATHY -0.2195122
TABLE 3
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 EXPECTATIONS & PERCEPTIONS 22 .879 .000
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
29/33
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 EXPECTATIONS -
PERCEPTIONS
.51864 .44128 .09408 .32298 .71429 5.513 21 .00
TABLE 4
FACTORS ANDSTATEMENTS
FACTORLOADINGS
CHRONBACHALPHA
FACTOR 1
E5 .808
0.713
E6 .593
E7 .877
E8 .816E9 .906
FACTOR 2
E10 .496
0.778
E11 .615
E12 .884
E13 .725
E18 .816
E19 .816
E20 .838E21 .773
E22 .865
FACTOR 3
E1 .644
0.708E2 .782
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
30/33
E3 .628
E4 .816
FACTOR 4
E14 .677
0.786
E15 .793E16 .602
E17 .534
TABLE 5
FACTORS ANDSTATEMENTS
FACTORLOADING
CHRONBACHALPHA
FACTOR 1
P5 .829
0.786
P6 .592
P7 .729P8 .750
P9 .662
FACTOR 2
0.694
P1 .583
P2 .644
P3 .764
P4 .727
FACTOR 3
0.8
P14 .817
P15 .549
P16 .478
P17 .702
P18 .830
7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
31/33
P19 .866
P20 .722
P21 .860
P22 .486
FACTOR 4P10 .697
0.771
P11 .825
P12 .717
P13 .793
REFERENCES
Adee A, Bernie OD. Exploring graduates' perceptions of the quality of higher
education. 2007.http://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdf
Anci DT. How satisfied are our students? Quality management unit Office for
institutional effectiveness university of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South
Africa. 2006.
Badri, M.A.; Abdulla, M.; Al-Madani, A.,(2005), Information technology center
service quality, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
22(8), p.819-848.
Berry LL. Relationship marketing of services-Growing interest, emerging
perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing sciences. 1995;26:76786.
Bolton RN, Drew JH. A Multistage Model of Customers' assessments of service
quality and value. Journal of consumer research. 1991:375384. doi:
10.1086/208564.
http://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdfhttp://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdfhttp://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdfhttp://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdf7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
32/33
Boulding W, Kalra A, Staelin R, Zeithmal VA. A dynamic process model of service
quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing
Research. 1993;30:727. doi: 10.2307/3172510.
Bradley RB. Analyzing service quality: The case of post-graduate Chinese
students. 2007.
http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documents
Barnes.pdf
Campbell JL, Ramsay J, Green J. Age, gender, socioeconomic and ethnic
differences in patients' assessments of primary health care. Quality in Health
Care. 2001;10:9095. doi: 10.1136/qhc.10.2.90. [PubMed]
Carl AR. Assessing Satisfaction with Selected Student Services using SERVQUAL, a
Market-Driven Model of Service Quality. NASPA Journal. 1998;35:331341.
Carman, J. M., (1990,) Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment
of the SERVQUAL dimension, Journal of Retailing, 69(2): 33-55. Chua Clare.
Perception of Quality in Higher Education. AUQA Occasional Publication. 2007.
http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/program/papers/Chua
Feldman KA. Class size and students' evaluation of college teachers and courses:
A closer look. Research in Higher Education. 1984;21:45116. doi:
10.1007/BF00975035.
Glow KE, Vorhies DW. Building a competitive advantage for service firms. Journal
of services marketing. 1993;7:2232. doi: 10.1108/08876049310026079.
Hedndershoot, Anne B., Sheila P. Wright, And Deborah Henderson (1992).
Quality Of Life Correlates For University Students. NASPA Journal, 30 (1): 11-19.
Kebriaei A, Roudbari M. Quality gap in educational services at Zahedan university
of medical sciences: students viewpoints about current and optimal condition.
Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2005;5:5360.
Kilbourne, W.E., (2004), The applicability of SERVQUAL in crossnational
measurements of health-care quality, Journal of Service Marketing, 18(7); p. 524-
533.
http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documentshttp://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documentshttp://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documents7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system
33/33
LaBay DG, Comm CL. A case study using gap analysis to assess distance learning
versus traditional course delivery. The International Journal of Education
Management. 2003;17:312317. doi: 10.1108/09513540310501003.
Lamei A. Total Quality management in health care. Ministry of Health and
Education of Iran, Quality Improvement Unit; 2000.
Lapidus, Richard S. And Jacqueline J. Brown (1993). Assessing Satisfaction With
The University Experience: An International Perspective. Journal Of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction And Complaining Behavior, 6(3): 187-196.
Levenson, L.,(2004) The Things That Count: Negative Perceptions Of The
Teaching Environment Among University Academics, 21(3): 34-42.
Long P, Tricker T, Rangecroft M, Gilroy P. Measuring the Satisfaction gap:
Education in the market place. Total quality management. 1999;10:772778.
Markovi, S., (2002), Higher Education Quality measurement: A Case Study in the
Application of SERVQUAL, Congress proceeedings of 17th biennial international
congress Tourism and Hospitality Industry 2004 New trends in Tourism and
Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality
Management Opatija, Croatia.
Marsh HW, Roche L. The use of students' Evaluations and an Individually
Structured Intervention to Enhance University Teaching Effectiveness. American
Educational Research Journal. 1993;30:217251.
Millson F, Kirk-Smith M. The Effect of quality circles on perceived service quality
in financial services Marketing Practice. Applied Marketing Science. 1996;2:75
88. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004137.
Nunnally, J. C., (1967) Psychometric Methods, Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
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(4): 41-50.