UNIVERSITY OF GHANA STUDENTS` PERCEPTION OF SERVICE

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA

STUDENTS` PERCEPTION OF SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN GHANA AND ITS EFFECTS ON

THEIR LOYALTY

BY

BUKARI ZAKARI

(10508491)

THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT

OF MARKETING AND ENTERPRENEURSHIP, UNIVERSITY OF

GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT

FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL IN MARKETING DEGREE

JUNE, 2016

University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh

i

DECLARATION

I do hereby declare that this work is the result of my own research and has not been presented

by anyone for any academic award in this or any other university. All references used in my

work have been fully acknowledged.

I bear sole responsibility for any penalty that will be associated with this work

…………………………………… ……………………………….

BUKARI ZAKARI DATE

(STUDENT)


ii

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this thesis was supervised in accordance with procedures laid down by the

university.

…………………………………………………….. .…………………………………………………

PROF. ROBERT EBO HINSON DATE

(SUPERVISOR)

……………….…………………… …………………….………………

DR MAHAMA BRAIMAH DATE

(CO-SUPERVISOR)


iii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my Family: Abubakar Siddique my dad, Mariama Seidu my mom,

and my brothers and sisters.


iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this thesis would have been almost impossible without the contribution of

others. Their contribution to the completion of this work cannot be overemphasized. First, I

would like to thank Allah for his guidance and protection. My deepest gratitude goes to my

Supervisor and role model, Prof. Robert Ebo Hinson, for his immerse support throughout my

study. I am also grateful to Dr. Braimah Mahamah for his contribution towards the completion

of this thesis. I would like to acknowledge the support of Prof. Bedman Narteh (Head of my

Department); Dr Amoafo Samson; Dr Raphael Odoom; Mr Tutut-Boahene Bernard, Mr Kailan

Ibn-Hamid, Dr Thomas Anim Dorson; Mr Twum Kojo, Mr John Paul and Mrs Elizerberth

Opong for their readiness and willingness at all times to provide directions when called on. I

appreciate the effort of Mr Abudu Bukari of Ghana Portland Cement; Mr Kelley George; Mrs

Fidelis Quansah, Mrs Iyisha Ishao, Ms Maroufatu Yahuzah and Dr Charity Afua Boateng for

their dependable support and encouragement during the period.


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ i

CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. xiv

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ xvi

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research Gaps .................................................................................................................. 8

1.3 Research Problem ........................................................................................................... 11

1.4 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 13

1.4.1 General Objective ........................................................................................................ 13

1.4.2 Specific Objectives:..................................................................................................... 13

1.5 Research Questions: ....................................................................................................... 14

1.6 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 14

1.7 Scope/Delimitation of the Study .................................................................................... 15

1.8 Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 16

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 16

2.1 Theoritical Literature...................................................................................................... 16


vi

2.2 Concept of Service ......................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Characteristics of Services .......................................................................................... 17

2.2.1.1 Intangibility .............................................................................................................. 17

2.2.1.2 Inseparability ............................................................................................................ 18

2.2.1.3 Heterogeneity ........................................................................................................... 18

2.2.1.4 Perishability .............................................................................................................. 19

2.2.1.5 Ownership ................................................................................................................ 19

2.3 Service Marketing Mix................................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Product/Service ........................................................................................................... 20

2.3.2 Price ............................................................................................................................. 20

2.3.3 Promotion .................................................................................................................... 21

2.3.4 Place ............................................................................................................................ 21

2.3.5 People .......................................................................................................................... 22

2.3.6 Process ......................................................................................................................... 22

2.3.7 Physical evidence ........................................................................................................ 22

2.4 The Concept of Quality .................................................................................................. 23

2.4.1 Quality Defined ........................................................................................................... 23

2.5 Service Quality ............................................................................................................... 24

2.5.1 Contemporary Views on Service Quality.................................................................... 27

2.5.2 Models of Service Quality........................................................................................... 28

2.5.3 Gronroos Model .......................................................................................................... 28

2.5.3.1 Servqual .................................................................................................................... 30

2.5.3.2 Gummerson`s 4 Q model ......................................................................................... 31

2.6 Dimensions of Service Quality ...................................................................................... 32

2.6.1 Reliability .................................................................................................................... 32

2.6.2 Responsiveness............................................................................................................ 33

2.5.3 Assurance .................................................................................................................... 33


vii

2.5.4 Empathy ...................................................................................................................... 34

2.5.5 Tangibles ..................................................................................................................... 35

2.6 SERVPERF .................................................................................................................... 35

2.7 HEdPERF Model............................................................................................................ 36

2.8 Significance of Service Quality...................................................................................... 37

2.9 Concept of Customer ...................................................................................................... 38

2.10 Students as Customers of Higher Education ................................................................ 38

2.11 Customer Perception .................................................................................................... 40

2.12 Students Perception ...................................................................................................... 40

2.13 Students` Expectations and Perceptions ....................................................................... 42

2.14 Students` Expectation and Experience ......................................................................... 43

2.15 Service Quality in Higher Education ........................................................................... 45

2.16 Assessing Service Quality in Higher Education .......................................................... 47

2.17 Students` Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 47

2.18 Determinants and Influences of Customer Satisfaction ............................................... 49

2.18.1 Product and Service Features .................................................................................... 49

2.18.2 Customer Emotion..................................................................................................... 50

2.18.3 Attribution for Service Success or Failure ................................................................ 50

2.18.4 Perception of Equity and Fairness ........................................................................... 50

2.18.5 Other consumers, Family Members and Co-workers ................................................ 50

2.19 Students Loyalty ........................................................................................................... 51

2.19.1 Antecedents of Students loyalty ................................................................................ 52

2.19.2 Institutional Reputation/ Image ................................................................................. 52

2.19.2.1 Importance of Institutional Reputation/ Image ...................................................... 55

2.19.3 Trust .......................................................................................................................... 56

2.20 Post grdaduate Students` Satisfaction and Retention ................................................... 57

2.20.1 Internal Environment................................................................................................. 58


viii

2.21 Undergraduates Students Satisfaction and Retention. ................................................. 58

2.22 Empirical Evidence ...................................................................................................... 60

2.23 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 64

2.24 Components of the Conceptual Framework ................................................................. 68

2.24.1 Service Quality Dimensions (SERVQUAL) ............................................................. 68

2.24.2 Relationship Between the Variables in the Model: ................................................... 68

2.24.2.1 Service Quality and Students Satisfaction ............................................................. 68

2.24.2.2 Service Quality and Students Loyalty .................................................................... 69

2.24.2.3 Students Satisfaction and Students Loyalty ........................................................... 69

2.24.2.4 Institutional Image and Students Loyalty............................................................. 69

2.24.2.5 Students Satisfaction and Students’ Loyalty .......................................................... 69

2.24.3 Students Loyalty ........................................................................................................ 70

2.24.4 Level of Education Satisfaction and Retention ......................................................... 70

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................. 71

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 71

3.1 Overview of Ghana ........................................................................................................ 71

3.2 Education in Ghana ........................................................................................................ 71

3.3 Administration ................................................................................................................ 73

3.4 Progress and Developments in University Education .................................................... 74

3.5 Historical Overview of Higher Education ...................................................................... 74

3.6 Access to Quality Education in Ghana ........................................................................... 76

3.7 Private Universities ........................................................................................................ 76

3.8 Quality Assurance in Ghana`s Higher Education .......................................................... 77

3.9 Studies in the Ghanaian Education Sector ..................................................................... 77


ix

CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................... 79

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 79

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 79

4.2 Research Approach ........................................................................................................ 79

4.3 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 80

4.4 Research Strategy ........................................................................................................... 81

4.5 Sampling Plan ................................................................................................................ 82

4.6 Population and Sampling ............................................................................................... 82

4.6.1 Target Population ........................................................................................................ 83

4.7 Sample Size .................................................................................................................... 83

4.8 Sampling Technique ....................................................................................................... 84

4.9 Data Collection and Instrumentation.............................................................................. 85

4.9.1 Primary data collection ............................................................................................... 85

4.10 Contact Method ............................................................................................................ 86

4.11 Survey Method ............................................................................................................. 86

4.12 Data Source .................................................................................................................. 87

4.13 Primary Source ............................................................................................................. 87

4.14 Instrumentation............................................................................................................. 87

4.15 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...................................................................................... 89

4.16 Reliability and Validity Analysis. ................................................................................ 91

4.16.1 Validity ...................................................................................................................... 91

4.16.2 Reliability .................................................................................................................. 92

4.17 Normality Checking ..................................................................................................... 92

4.18 Multicollinearity ........................................................................................................... 93

4.19 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 93

4.20 Descriptive Statistical Analysis .................................................................................... 94

4.21 Inferential Statistical Analysis ..................................................................................... 95


x

4.22 Regression Analysis ..................................................................................................... 95

CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................................... 96

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................................................... 96

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 96

5.2 Profile of Respondents ................................................................................................... 97

5.3 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................................... 98

5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) .......................................................................... 101

5.5 Discriminant Validity ................................................................................................... 103

5.6 Hypothesis Testing Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)............................... 105

5.7 Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................. 110

5.8 Service Quality and Students Loyalty Devoid of Institutional Reputation .................. 110

5.9 Service Quality and Students Satisfaction Deviod of Institutional Reputation ........... 111

5.10 Students` Satisfaction and Students` Loyalty Devoid of Institutional Reputation..... 112

5.11 Service Quality and Students Satisfaction When Controlled for Institutional

Reputation .......................................................................................................................... 113

5.12 Service Quality and Students Loyalty When Controlled for Institutional Reputation

............................................................................................................................................ 113

5.13 Service Quality, Students Satisfaction, Loyalty and Institutional Reputation ........... 114

5.14 Variation in Students Satisfaction of Service Quality among Degree Level ............. 115

5.15 Variation in Students` Loyalty among Degree Level................................................. 115

CHAPTER SIX ...................................................................................................................... 116

SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 116

6.1 Summmary of Findings ................................................................................................ 116

6.1.1 Service Quality and Students’ Loyalty...................................................................... 116

6.1.2 Service Quality and Students’ Satisfaction ............................................................... 116

6.1.3 Students’ Satisfaction and Students’ Loyalty............................................................ 116


xi

6.1.4 The Interaction Effects of Service Quality Dimensions’ Students’ Satisfaction and

Students’ Loyalty Devoid of Institutional Reputation ....................................................... 117

6.1.5 The interaction effects of service quality dimensions,’ students’ satisfaction and

students’ loyalty when controlled for institutional reputatiion .......................................... 117

6.1.6 Variation between the level of education Post graduates and Undergraduates

satisfaction and loyalty ....................................................................................................... 117

6.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 118

6.3 Implication of Findings ................................................................................................ 118

6.4 Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions ........................................... 120

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 122

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 146


xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Definitions of Quality .............................................................................................. 23

Table 2.2 Definitions of Service Quality ................................................................................. 25

Table 2.3 Definitions of Service Quality continued ................................................................ 26

Table 2.4 Definitions of Perception ......................................................................................... 40

Table 2.5 Definitions of Quality in Higher Education ............................................................. 45

Table 5.1 Dermographics Profile ............................................................................................. 97

Table 5.2 – t test (descriptive statistics) ................................................................................... 99

Table 5.3 - t test (descriptive statistics) continued ................................................................. 100

Table 5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results ................................................................... 102

Table 5.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results continued .................................................. 103

Table 5.6 Descriptives, Correlations and AVEs .................................................................... 104

Table 5.7 Fit Indices of Models ............................................................................................. 105

Table 5.8 Structural Model Assessment Results.................................................................... 107

Table 5.9 Structural Model Assessment Results continued ................................................... 108

Table 5.10 Test of variations among undergraduates and postgraduates’ satisfaction. ......... 109

Table 5.11 Test of variations among Undergraduates and Postgraduates Loyalty. ............... 110


xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 67


xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

UNCTAD - United Nation Commission on Trade and Development

GDP - Gross Dosmestic product

UNESCO - United Nation Education Sciengtific and Sultural Organization

NAB - National AccredetationBoard

UK - United Kingdom

MDG - Millineum Development Goal

HEI - Higher Educational Institution

EMBA - Executive Masters of Business Administration

UG - University of Ghana

UGBS - University of Ghana Business School

HEdPERF - Higher Education Performance

SERVPERF - Customer Perception of Service performance

SERVQUAL - MultippleItemScale Measuring Consumer perception of Service

(Customer Expectation of Service Performance)

GES - Ghana Education Service

NCTE - National Council for Tertiary Education

PNDC - Provissional National Neffence Council

KNUST - Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

UCC - University of Cape Coast

CITO - Chief Information Technology Officer

MBA - Masters in Business Adminstration

MSC - Masters of Mcience

MPHIL - Masters of Philosophy

PHD - Doctor of Philosophy

SPSS - Statistical Product for Services Solution

CFA - Confirmatory Factor Analysis


xv

GFI - Goodness of Fit Index

CFI - Comparative Fit Index

RMSEA - Root Mean Square-Error of Approximation

AGFI - Average Goodness of Fit Index

VIF - Variance Inflation Factor


xvi

ABSTRACT

The proliferation of higher educational institutions has given students a wider variety of options

as to where to persue their studies. In this era of competition, measuring service quality in

higher education has become a vital tool to determine the level of students` perception of

service quality in order to achieve their loyalty. This study focuses on Ghanaian students’

perception of service quality in higher educational institutions and its effects on their loyalty.

The SERVQUAL model was adopted as a conceptual framework for this study. The study

sought to examine the interaction and non-interaction effects of service quality dimensions,

institutional reputation and level of education on students’ satisfaction and loyalty. The

quantitative approach was adopted, using a questionnaire to collect data from 379 students

attending the University of Ghana Business School. Regression analysis and the structural

equations model (SEM) were used to analysed the data. The findings revealed, that there is a

variation in the key service quality dimension that were peculiar to the undergraduate and post

graduate students. Tangibles, assurance, institutional reputation and responsiveness were found

to be peculiar to undergraduates; whereas, institutional reputation, tangibles and empathy were

found to be crucial to postgraduate students. Finally, findings from the study revealed that

institutional reputation plays a vital role in predicting students` satisfaction and loyalty. The

study therefore, recommended that managers of higher educational institutions should

concentrate on institutional reputation as a strategic tool in achieving students’satisfaction and

loyalty. Again, it is recommended that managers of higher educational institutions identify the

specific quality dimensions that are peculiar to students at different levels, and design a

different service quality strategy for these groups, in their quest to achieve students` satisfaction

and loyalty.


1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The service industry has grown to become a dominant area in the global economy (United

Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2014). The services sector

contributed to the global Gross Domestic Products (GDP) by 71.21% in 2011 (UNCTAD,

2014). The sector contributed to Ghana`s GDP by 48.4 and 49.5% in 2012 and 2013

respectively (Ghana Statistical Service Report, 2014). A review of literature suggests a wide-

spread need for service quality considerations to boost customer value, attract, retain and

foster relationship with customers to achieve competitive advantage (Hasan, Ilias, Rahman,

& Razak, 2009).

Consequently, the concept seems to have attracted research attention within the last two

decades to enhance understanding in theory and practice (Brochado, 2009). The concept has

now become a fundamental concern of well established organizations strategic plans (Chopra,

Chawla, & Sharma, 2014). Management of higher education in developing countries are

now embarking on service quality as a key to success (Abukari & Corner, 2010). Past

and current scholars have conducted studies in various sectors of the service industry

including; banking (Hinson, Mensah, & Mahmoud, 2006) healthcare (Akortsu & Abor, 2011)

and education (Hinson & Otieku, 2005; Fosu & Owusu, 2015; Abukari & Corner, 2010) to

understand the suitability and applicability of the service quality concept in these relevant

service sectors.

Service quality has been defined differently by various scholars. In the view of Lewis and

Booms (1993) “service quality is a measure of how well a service level delivered matches


2

customers’ expectations”. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994) define service quality

as “ a trade-off between customer expectation and their perception of actual service

performance”. Others however, argue that service quality is a direct result of perception of

performance and service quality is generally the perceived quality by customers

(Parasuraman, 2000). Gronroos (1984) posits that service quality is the outcome of customer

evaluation of his or her service experience from the service encounter compared with what

they were expecting. Taking the above definitions into consideration, service quality in

education could be defined as students’ evaluation of how services delivered by an

educational institution meets the expectation of the students. Hence, quality is defined by

the students and not the institution. These definitions suggest that customer perception is

central to service research.

Customer expectation is the belief about the service delivery that serves as a benchmark

or standard against which the overall performance of an organization could be evaluated;

perception on the other hand, is the subjective assessments of actual service experience

through interaction with the service provider (Zeithaml, Bolton, Deighton, Keiningham,

Lemon, & Petersen, 2006). Lindsay and Norman (1977) define “perception as the process

by which organisms interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of

the world”. All the definitions describe perception as the process or phenomenon by which a

person perceives any object and interprets it. However, in recent times understanding

students’ perception has become imperative to management of higher educational institutions,

as students view service quality as a sample of their educational experience, depending on

the trade-off between their prior expectation and experience after passing through the

educational cycle (Oliver, 1981).


3

Scholars in service marketing literature have acknowledged the importance of perception

(Arambewela & Hall, 2009; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988).

The issue of service quality and perception remains at the forefront of many research agenda

as a result of the significant role it plays in gathering, organizing, analyzing and interpreting

information acquired from the environment to make a coherent picture of the world (Lindsay

& Norman , 1977). The concept has been widely researched in area such as the banking

industry, hospitality industry, health sector as well as education (Lindsay & Norman, 1977).

In recent times, the service quality research is gaining attention in higher education

institutions. This is as a result of globalization, liberalization, restructuring and educational

reforms which has made the higher education institutions independent, coupled with drastic

changes with a reduced public funding (Regassa, Tolemariam, Ferede, Hunde, & Lemma,

2013). This has paved way for competition in the sector, allowing individual entrepreneurs

to enter the market (Regassa et al., 2013). A wider variety of options has therefore been

open to the students and other stakeholders when making choices concerning higher

education.

Forecasting into the future, the demand and enrolment for higher education globally and

nationally is going to increase more than double (Gibney, 2013). The number rose between

2000 and 2010, worldwide from 19 to 29 percent according to (Haddad, 2003). Students`

enrolment globally is expected to reach 262 million by 2025 compared with 178 million in

2010 (Gibney, 2013). In Sub- Saharan Africa, gross enrolment is expected to move from

20 to 25 (Haddad, 2003). The number of internationally mobile students is expected to

almost double to 8 million by 2025 (Gibney, 2013). The high quality of education in some

countries than others, higher ambitions of parents, students and more sophisticated

requirements of the marketplace which has forced developing countries to contest with more


4

advanced countries in a viable knowledge-based globally, can be a contributory factor to this

rapid growth (Materu, 2007). The tertiary education environment has now become a global

village, students are more informed and have up to date information within the global

academic environment (Materu, 2007). This has put more pressure on management to

implement quality measures to meet and exceed students’ desire as well as to meet global

academic standards.

The 21st century has experienced a basic education deficit of approximately 50 million

children out of school and about 850 million illiterate youths and adults (Haddad, 2003).

In an attempt to curb the situation there will be an increase in the demand for higher

education (Haddad, 2003). In this situation quality i s likely to be sacrificed at the expense of

the number. Hence, any academic institution that will be proactive enough to define quality

from stakeholders` (students, employers, parents, government etc) perspectives will be in the

best position to attract the majority of the applicants, as quality plays a vital role in students’

choice, employers’ choice to employ and parents’ decision to select.

Sub Saharan African, a Sub region of about 740 million people, can boast of about 200 public

universities with an escalating number of private Universities (Materu, 2007). All these

institutions a re competing for the percentage of the age cohort to enroll i n their institution

and the only way to be the preferred choice of the majority is to deliver quality service and

quality can only be defined by the students, by understanding their perception of service

quality.

In Ghana the story is not different, the growth of the sector has been a phenomenon, since

independence. The statistics from the National Accreditation Board (NAB) reveals that, as at


5

2007, there were 17 private universities in the country, the number rose to 76 by 2015 National

Accreditation Board (NAB), (2015). In the case of the public sector the number rose from 5

Universities to 11 Universities within the same period. The proliferation of these universities

has given students more tertiary education options. Understanding students’ perception will be

the best way management can deliver quality service to gain competitive advantage in this

turbulence environment (Regessa et al., 2013).

The growth of quality management has emerged as a key management issues over the past

few decades across all industries in the world, with the services sector being no exception.

Management of higher education institutions are now beginning to realize the significant

role of customer centered philosophy (Shaney, 2012). For instance, UNESCO emphasized

quality education as a fundamental human right, which should be the primary focus of every

education institution. In line with this, the external examiner system was established in UK

and other Commonwealth countries and the American Accreditation and Government

Ministerial control was established in Europe and other parts of the world (Abukari & Corner,

2010). Between 1968 and 2006, 17 regulatory bodies were established in Sub Saharan Africa

to regulate the quality issues of higher education institutions (Materu, 2007). In Ghana, the

National Accreditation Board, Quality Assurance systems and National Council for Tertiary

Education were establish in 1993 to ensure that quality education is delivered to students

(Abukari & Corner, 2010). Empirical evidence in our tertiary education system is students’

evaluation of faculty at the end of each semester. These regulatory bodies over the years have

put in place systematic measures to ensure that quality service is delivered to students, yet

we cannot be convinced that, without empirical and scientific research, all quality issues

within our higher educational experience can completely be handled (Fosu & Owusu, 2015).


6

Materu (2007) conducted a research on quality issues in higher educations in Sub-Saharan

Africa, including six detailed country case studies; Ghana, Cameroon, Mauritius, Nigeria,

South Africa and Tanzania between November, 2005 and December, 2006 and called for

more insight into quality management issues in higher education institutions to help improve

upon the quality of the sector in the Sub-region. As quality education is a power fu l tool

that will help facilitate the achievement of t he Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and

to help shape the national and international policies to facilitate the potential of the country’s

productivity growth (Materu, 2007).

Quality implementation in the higher education sector is believed to be able to help change

students’ perceptions and improve the retention of skilled human capital (Materu, 2007).

As the majority of emigrants are attracted by quality and standing of tertiary education, it is

interesting to note that, only a few return home to apply the knowledge acquired (Materu,

2007). For instance, between 1990 and the year 2000 the tertiary education emigrants from

Sub- Saharan African rose from 23 to 31.4 percent (Docquier & Marfouk, 2005 as cited in

Materu, 2007). Quality education will again help to improve the attractiveness of local base

institutions’ and help to increase the number of qualified students studying in these institutions.

Yet, higher educational institutions in the sub-region still face challenges of implementing

appropriate practical measures to ensure that the programmes offered are of sufficient quality

and relevant to the stakeholders (Abukari & Corner,2010). Hence, institutions that will strive

to deliver service that will meet students, parents, employers’ requirements will be in good

standing to attract the majority of these students.

Higher education is very critical to the national development and has a tremendous impact on

a nation`s success, as a result of the role it plays in producing competent and skilled


7

professionals to facilitate socio-economic development (Materu, 2007; Abukari & Corner,

2010; Fosu & Owusu, 2015; Regassa et al., 2013). On this basis, management of higher

education institutions, policy makers and practitioners are putting measures in place to

improve quality of higher education in the sub-region (Materu, 2007). Service quality can

help improve the standards of higher education in the sub- region.

Previous studies on service quantity i n higher education h a s encompassed areas such as

service quality on the EMBA programme (Hinson & Otieku,2005), student satisfaction

(Hasan et al., 2009), quality in higher education (Adullah, 2005), quality for the higher

educational system (Sahney, 2012), management and educational institutions (Chopra,

Chawla, & Sharma, 2014), excellence in business education (Sohail & Shaikh, 2004) and

perception of service quality, (Fosu & Owusu, 2015). Findings from these studies reveal

that service quality can help managers of higher educational institutions to re-engineer their

services to meet students’ desires and needs. To this end, the management of higher education

institutions are confronted with the following questions; what are the perceptions of the

students towards quality of service delivered by their institution? Can their perception of

service quality influence their loyalty decisions?

Sub Saharan African countries have been urged to study students’ perception of service quality

in higher education institutions as a strategic tool for competitive advantage (Materu, 2007;

Chopra, Chawla & Sharma, 2013). Among the quality management issues in Ghana`s higher

educational system is students` perception of service quality of our educational experience,

(Fosu & Owusu, 2015). Students’ perception (expectation and experience) as define earlier

on could be negative or positive based on information acquired from the academic

environment which will leads to positive or negative behavioral intention.


8

For the case of University of Ghana Business School (UGBS) in 2005 the EMBA students

infered that, they pay $8000 for four semesters programme, and for that matter expected more

programmes and good facilities hence, will not recommend UBGS EMBA to friends and

relatives, but rather will recommend that of Ghana Institute of Management and Public

Administration and that of Leicester distance learning programme, (Hinson & Otieku, 2005).

This is an indication that students pay more attention to quality of service and the nature of

programmes offered by their institutions. This has a deamener on their loyalty decisions.

Currently it costs $10,000 to enroll in EMBA programme, Mphil used to be free, now it cost

not less than GHC 10,000, about GHC 20,000 for regular MBA, not less GHC2,000 for under

graduate studies. Hence, getting an insight about students’ perception of service quality is

essential to the management of University of Ghana (UG), so as to facilitate managerial

decisions regarding the level of quality required to influence students’ perception positively

to keep University of Ghana at a competitive advantage. For this reason, the idea of going

beyond the institutional expectation to actual performance is becoming a key priority in the

management agenda (Hinson & Otieku, 2005). Against this background, the study examines

students’ perception of service quality in higher educational institutions in Ghana. Findings

from the study will help management of Ghanaian universities, policy makers and regulatory

bodies to identify which aspect of our educational experience needs to be given more attention

when it comes to quality issues in higher education.

1.2 Research Gaps

Previous studies on service quantity in higher education has encompassed areas such as service

quality on the EMBA programme (Hinson & Otieku, 2005), student satisfaction (Hasan et al.,


9

2009 Ali & Abdirisaq, 2014), service quality in higher education ( Abdullah, 2005), designing

quality for the higher educational system (Sahney, 2012), management and education

institutions (Chopra, Chawla, & Sharma, 2014), teaching and students outcome (Samuelsson

& Lindbleand, 2015), “ Quality, Value and Customer Satisfaction on Behavioral

intentions”(Cronin & Talor, 1992), perception of the quality of teaching and learning (Abdul-

Hamid, 2004 Rasli, Shekarchizadeh & Iqbal, 2012),excellence in business education (Sohail

& Sheikh, 2004), student perception,(Fosu & Owusu, 2015) and quality service in a developing

economy context (Abukari & Corner, 2010). Empirical evidence from these studies have

shown that intstitutional reputation has not been, given much attention as to how it can interact

with service quality to achieve student’s satisfaction and loyalty. Despite the growing body of

research in these areas, it is still not clear how institutional reputation interacts with variables

such as, loyalty and satisfaction (Beerli Palacio, Menses& Perez ,2002), hence the need to

examine the two constructs to see how they will behave to predict behavioral intentions.

Not withstanding the number of research in the arear of service quality on personal and

academics factors affecting students’ satisfaction and retention, the issue of non-academics’

aspects of university services and its influence on satisfaction and retention behavior is yet to

be given attention (Sickler, 2013).

These studies emphasize a call for more studies exploring students’ perception of service

quality in higher education institutions and its effects on their loyalty decisions (Chopra,

Chawla & Chawla, 2014; Fosu & Owusu, 2015; Abukari & Corner, 2010). Hassan et al., (2009)

note that service quality dimension can influence students’ satisfaction, however the various

factors that contribute most to students’ satisfaction has not been clearly highlighted. The

authors therefore recommend that, since students’ perception of service quality play a vital role


10

in their satisfaction and loyalty decisions, future research should investigate service quality and

students’ perception in higher education institutions. These studies point out that, service

quality issues in public higher education institutions in developing economy like Ghana has

not been well researched (Abukari & Corner, 2010). Hence, more research is required through

a comprehensive approach to study the effects of service quality on students’ perception in

higher education institutions of learning in a developing economy context (Abukari & Corner,

2010).

In a study of service quality in higher education institutions in Ghana, Abukari and Corner

(2010) attempted to respond to this call. The study presented evidence on the relationship

between service quality dimensions and students satisfaction, how service quality contributes

to students’ satisfaction and its overall effects on students’ perception of service quality. The

study further presented empirical evidence on critical factors in service quality dimension that

contribute most to students’ satisfaction. However, the study failed to acknowledge how

perception of service quality can influence students’loyalty decisions as well as how

institutional reputation and satisfaction can influence the relationship.

Service quality dimension has been identified by these studies to influence students’ perception

of service quality (Hinson & Otieku, 2005; Hill, 1995; Anderson, 1995; Cuthbert, 1996; Kwan

& Ng, 1999; Sohail & Shaikh, 2004; Sahney Banwet & Karunes, 2004; Ali & Abdirisaq,

2014; Abukari & Corner, 2010; Fosu & Owusu, 2015). The majority of these studies tended

to concentrate only on service quality dimension developed by (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &

Berry, 1985; Cronin & Taylor, 1992) in developed economy. The concentration has, however

been on how the five service quality dimensions by Parasuraman et al., (1985) affects either

students’ satisfaction or perception of service quality in educational institution; ( Ali &


11

Abdirisaq , 2014; Fosu & Owusu , 2015 & Sahney,2012). The interaction effects of service

quality, institutional reputation, satisfaction and loyalty has not been given a considerable

attention. Very little however, has been done on service quality issues in higher educational

institutions in developing economies on students’ behavioral prediction studies and more

importantly with respect to the integrating service quality dimensions with university image to

identify the various factors that influences the students’ perception of service quality and its

effects on their loyalty

“Service quality has attracted considerable attention within the tertiary education sector, but

despite this little work has been concentrated on identifying its determinants from the stand

point of the students being primary customers” (Abdullah, 2005, p.87). Again previous

research has been too myopic with an over emphasis on the quality of academics and very little

attention paid to the non-academic aspects of the educational experience (Abdullah, 2005).

Furthermore, how students level of education can interact with service quality dimensions to

influence their satisfaction and loyalty has not been given much attention to date.

1.3 Research Problem

The study therefore, sougth to fill the above gap by examining the interaction and non-

interaction effects of service quality dimensions and institutional reputation on studentions

satisfaction and their loyalty. The study also examined how the students level of education can

influence their satisfaction and loyalty. Perception and satisfaction of service quality has been

identified in the marketing literature to influence behavioral loyalty decisions (Eggert & Ulaga,

2002; Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000; Ravald & Grönroos,

1996; Liljander & Strandvik, 1995; Gross 1997; Zeithaml, 2000). Most of these empirical

studies tended to focus on developed economy with more concentration on academics’ aspects,


12

with very little attention paid to the non-academics’aspects of the educational experience

(Abdullah, 2005).

In Ghana, the establishment of the quality assurance systems, the National Accreditation Board

and National Council for Tertiary Education in 1993 has brought more reforms into the

educational sector. The students are therefore exposed to more tertiary education options than

ever before (Fosu & Owusu, 2015), hence the need to deliver quality service to students

(Abukari & Corner, 2010). Again, from satisfaction to intention to retention behavior needs to

be carfully examined (Kara & De Shield 2004). There is an assertion that quality in service

marketing is based on the notion that quality has to be judged on the assessment or user

perspective (Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985, as cited in Fosu & Owusu, 2015).

However, empirical evidence has shown that the, research conducted in marketing literature on

services in the field of higher education from the user perspective is significantly weak

(Abdulah, 2005; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Despite numerous studies having been carried out in

the field over the years, there still exist a significant disparity concerning the best way to define

and measure service quality (Fosu & Owusu, 2015). To add to the above is that no single model

of service quality is accepted, past experience with the service therefore will go a long way to

influence expectations (Fosu & Owusu, 2015). Furthermore, consumers’ expectations are

influenced by marketing mix activities; ideology and word of mouth communication, hence

past experience will influence their expectations (Gronroos, 1984).

Again, students` perception could be positive or negative depending on their expectation and

experience, and the consequence of perception either negative or positive will be very critical

to an institutional success. Hence, measuring the kind of perception that the students form about

the university will go a long way to influencing managerial decisions regarding the level of

quality they need to deliver to meet students` desires and needs. This will help them achieve


13

students’ satisfaction and loyalty. In doing this, they need to be concern about how their

students feel about their service experience, but rather not only show concern about the value

of the society and the abilities of their graduates (Lawson, 1992, as cited in Abdullah, 2006).

It is therefore very important to determine how the variables within SERVQUAL model,

institutional reputation and students’ satisfaction can influence students’ perception and its

loyalty decisions. This study specifically examines the interaction and non-interaction effects

of service quality and institutional reputation on the loyalty of the students of University of

Ghana as well as how their level of education can influence their satisfaction and loyalty

decisions.

1.4 Research Objectives

1.4.1 General Objective

The main objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between students’

perception of service quality in higher education institutions in Ghana and their loyalty, taken

into consideration the role of institutional reputation and students’ level of education.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives:

Specifically, the objectives of this study were to:

Determine the relationship between students’ perception of service quality and their

loyalty,

To find out the effects of students’ satisfaction of the various dimensions of service

quality on their loyalty,

To assess the relationship that level of education establishes between students’

perception of service quality, their satisfaction and loyalty and


14

To examine the interaction and non- interaction effects of servivice quality and

institutional reputation on students’ satisfaction and loyalty.

1.5 Research Questions:

What is the relationship between students’ perception of service quality and their

loyalty?

What are the effects of students’ satisfaction of the various dimensions’ of service

quality on their loyalty?

What kind of relationship does the level of education establish between students’

perception of service quality and their satisfaction?

What are the interaction and non-interaction effects of service quality and

institutionalreputation on students’ satisfaction and loyalty?

1.6 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will:

Create awareness for all concerned bodies about the current quality status of education

institutions in Ghana,

Help the University administrators in compiling information that can be used in

planning, implementation and monitoring of the programmes that are geared towards

maintaining quality of education,

Contribute towards enhancing and ensuring quality in higher education through policy

measures emanating from the recommendation of the study and

Serve as a springboard for further investigation of the issues under discussion.


15

1.7 Scope/Delimitation of the Study

This study is confined to assessing the quality of education in the University of Ghana Business

School. It explores service quality from students’ perspectives, based on how the istitutional

reputation and level of education will influence their perception of service quality dimensions

in predicting their satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, conceptually this study investigates the

quality of education in the University of Ghana Business School, by emphasizing students`

concern on quality dimensions in the teaching and learning process. Finally, the study

examineds the students` loyalty decision from the students’ point of view.

1.8 Organization of the Study

The study is divided into six basic chapters.

Chapter one explains in detail the background of the study, problem statement, objective of the

study, research questions, significance of the study and scope and organization of the study.

Chapter two provides a brief review of the theoretical and empirical literature and conceptual

framework. Chapter Three focused on the context of the study. Chapter Four outlines the data

sources and research approach, research instrument, sampling plan, contact method and data

analysis technique. This chapter gives an account of the methodology. It provides the rationale

for choosing a specific method or technique and a details of the data collection and presentation

for the research. Chapter Five presents the results and the discussion of the findings. Chapter

six present a summary of the findings, conclusions reached, recommendations made and

limitations of the study.


16

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoritical Literature

2.2 Concept of Service

Studies into services as a distinct research discipline did not emerge until the late 1970s

(Zeithaml & Bitner, 2002). The last 40 years have seen a significant upsurge in services having

dominated economic activities globally, and this has led to the growth of several economies

(Abdullah 2006). Many definitions have been given by scholars as to what constitute a service.

Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler (1996) define service “as a deeds, processes and performances

provided or co-produced by one entity or person for another entity or person”. Kotler and Keller

(2006) define “service as any act or performance that one party can offer to another that is

essentially intangible and does not result in the ownership of anything”. According to Lovelock

and Wirtz (2007) services is “something that can be bought and sold but cannot be dropped on

the foot”. Lovelock and Wirtz (2007) defined service as “economic activities offered by one

party to another, most commonly employing time-based performances to bring about desired

results in recipients themselves or in objects or other assets for which purchasers have

responsibility”.

The above definitions capture centrally the intangible nature of services demonstrating the most

fundamental differences between goods and services. It is important to also note that as well as

the differences, there exist similarities between goods and service hence it is appropriate to

distinguish further to broaden the definition of service (Beaumont, 2007).


17

Some scholars however contend that “service” and “services” mean different thing to different

people (Solomon, Surpremant, Czepiel, & Gutman, 1985). Whilst “service” involves the whole

organization`s performance in delivering the to the customer, “services” referred to something

that can be offered to the customer. Needless to say, “services” definitions are result oriented

or directed at the value created since it is something of value delivered to a performance to

meet customers’ desire (Nimako, Azumah, Donkor & Vernica, 2011). In a typical educational

institution, “services” may include specific services such as: access to lectures, access to

library, extracurricular activities etc.

2.2.1 Characteristics of Services

Services are distinguished from goods as they possess unique characteristics and thus are

treated differently from physical goods. There appears to be a general consensus between

scholars that the following characteristics; intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity,

perishability and ownership differentiate services from goods (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &

Berry, 1988; Fisk, Brown, & Bitner, 1993; Zeithaml, Bitner & Gremler, 1996; Palmer, 2001).

2.2.1.1 Intangibility

“Services are activities performed by the provider, unlike physical goods they cannot be seen,

tasted or felt, heard or smelt before they are consumed” (Berry, 1980). Services cannot be

stored or inventoried (Berry, 1980). “They cannot be patented and readily displayed or

communicated as compared to goods” (Berry, 1980). Berry (1980) argues that even though

the performance of most services is supported by tangibles, the essence of what is purchased is

the performance. Thus, services are experienced when performed. Examples are making or

receiving telephone calls, having a haircut and attending lecturers. In order to increase the

tangibility of services marketers must emphasize the important aspectss, instead of just


18

describing the features. Marketers must also develop strong visual symbols and images for their

firms (Hinson, 2012). For example, MBA students after being taught by lecturers at a Business

Schools may not fully understand the benefits received from the service itself. The only

tangible components that the students see about the service are the lecture facilities on campus.

2.2.1.2 Inseparability

Inseparability “referred to simultaneous delivery and consumption of services” (Kotler, 2006).

Thomas (1978) contends that the degree of this participation is a function of the extent to which

the service is people based or equipment based. The implication here is that people based

services tend to be less standardized than equipment based services or goods producing services

(Hinson,2012). Company employees must know that they (physically) and their actions

(attitudes) go into the perceived service quality of the customer. Management and employees

must be trained to behave appropriately. In the case of higher education this characteristic may

come in a form involving students enrolling in a programme, lecture sessions commencing and

information being transferred from lecturers to students at the same time.

2.2.1.3 Heterogeneity

Heterogeneity reflects a potential for high variations or inconsistency in service delivery

(Zeithaml, Bitner & Gremler 1996). According to Zeithaml et al., (1996), “service marketers

find it difficult to control the quality of the service performances because it is dependent on

fallible employees as one of its main inputs”. Ensuring consistency in service quality therefore

poses a great challenge to service marketers due to the heterogeneous nature of service. In

managing this, automation of routine services should be employed to ensure quality, as

standardization is maintained (Arpin, 2007). In the education context, no two lecturers can


19

deliver their modules in the same manner and besides no two students will experience the

lecturer of the service delivery in the same way.

2.2.1.4 Perishability

Kotler, (2006) defines perishability as the inability of a service to be inventoried or stored.

Services are “time dependent” and “time important”and this tends to make them highly

perishable. The issue of perishability is primarily the concern of the service provider. Service

consumers usually become aware of the perishability of services where there is insufficient

supply of a particular service or when they have to wait to consume a particular service. The

inability of a service provider to build and maintain stock means that fluctuations in demand

cannot be accommodated in the same way as goods, this poses many quality management

problems (Zeithaml, et al., 1996). An example in an education institution is once courses are

delivered to students the service is completes and they cannot return the courses` taught to them

if they wish to withdraw from the programme.

2.2.1.5 Ownership

The last characteristic of service that distinguishes it from goods is ownership. Customers only

receive the right to a service when they have paid for it. Many scholars argue that payment for

services, does not result to physical transfer of ownership to customers, but only give the

purchaser the right to access it, (Roberts, 2005). Customers are not certain, as to whether the

right service has been delivered to them as a result of lack of ownership, they perceived it as

risk and the result cannot be assured (Roberts, 2005). The inability to own a service also has

its associated consequences on the distribution of services (Roberts, 2005). In a university, for

instance, students pay to only get access to lectures, library, hostel accommodation etc.

however they do not get a physical transfer of those services to themselves.


20

2.3 Service Marketing Mix

The marketing mix “refers to specific organizational factors a firm can control to deliver value

to internal and external customers on a repeated basis” (Hinson, 2012). The traditional

marketing mix model was primarily directed as seemed useful for physical goods. The extended

marketing mix “is a marketing toolbox that expands the number of controllable variables from

four in the original marketing mix model to seven” (Hinson, 2012).

2.3.1 Product/Service

According to Hinson (2012), a product “is the core benefit that consumers derive from the

consumption of a particular service or product”. It is the responsibility of marketers to ensure

that the quality of the service delivered meets customers’ requirements, including the;

technical, functional and emotional aspects of the service. Other scholars categorized “product”

into three basic levels; namely the core product, actual product and augmented product (Kotler

& Keller 2006). The core product, which is the first level, represents what the consumer

actually pay for in terms of benefits. The second level being the actual product comprises of

the brand name, features, packaging, parts, and styling whilst the final level, the augmented

component consists of the additional services and benefits that is emannated from the first two

levels of the product (Kotler & Keller 2006).

2.3.2 Price

Price can be defined “as the amount of money that consumers are willing to pay for a product

or service” (Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001). “Prices are determined by several factors

including market share, competition, material cost, product identity and customers’ perceived

value of the product” (Bearden et al., 2001). Zeithaml (1998) defines price from a customer’s


21

cognitive conception as something that must be sacrificed to obtain certain kinds of products.

Armstrong, Kotler, and He (2000) defined price as “the amount of money charged for a product

or service, or the sum of the values that the customer exchanges for the benefit of having or

using the product or service”

2.3.3 Promotion

Promotion is a communication procedure that linked a business to its various publics (Kotler

& Keller, 2006). Promotion in a service-oriented corporation that includes marketing

communications tools that can be employed by a service firm to influence the image and

perceptions of their corporate and sub brands in the minds of consumers for the benefit of the

firm (Hinson, 2012). Promotional tactics that can be employed to project quality of a service

include through-the-line advertising, sponsorships, personal selling, and positive word of

mouth communication.

2.3.4 Place

“Place refers to having the right product, in the right location, at the right time to be purchased

by consumers” (Hinson, 2012). The place element in the service marketing mix refers to how

available the service is to the service customer (Hinson, 2012). Place in a service-oriented

company includes the extent of accessibility of the service (Hinson,2012). Service must be

made accessible to the service customer at the right place and at the right time without

inhibitions to the consumer.


22

2.3.5 People

Due to the simultaneity of production and consumption in services, employees occupy the key

position in influencing customer’s perception of service quality. Hence, all individual actors

who play a role in influencing the consumption of a service form an integral part of the extended

marketing mix (Hinson, 2012). This element includes the dressing of employees, personal

appearance and their attitudes, which influence the customer’s perception of the service.

2.3.6 Process

Process refers to procedures, mechanisms, and the flow of activities by which services are

acquired or consumed (Zeithaml et al.,1996). Process decisions are an essential part of the

marketing strategy and radically affect how a service is delivered to customers. The process

must be perceived by the customer as being relevant and value-laden (Hinson, 2012). The

customer judges the service by the operational flow of the service and actual delivery steps

experienced (Hinson, 2012). Some services may, however, be so complex and hence require

the customer to follow complicated steps in order to obtain satisfaction.

2.3.7 Physical evidence

This represents “the environment in which the service is delivered” (Hinson, 2006). It is any

tangible good that facilitate the performance and communication of the service. The ability and

environment in which the service is delivered, both in terms of the tangible goods that helps to

communicate and perform the service, and the intangible experience of existing customers and

the ability of the business to relay that customer satisfaction to potential customers are entailed

in physical evidence (Hinson, 2006). Customers are more concerned about some tangibles

clues to the likely quality of a service by examining the touchable evidence. For example,

prospective students of a university may look at the facilities and infrastructure on campus.


23

2.4 The Concept of Quality

Over the years, the issue of quality has been applied to products and performances. The term

quality however, has attracted considerable debate among academics and business practitioners

when applying concept to service delivery as a result of the escalating growth of the service

industry. Zeithaml and Bittner (2000) posit that it is difficult to defined the term quality. These

authors further stress the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of quality. Scholars

in the field have defined the term differently from different perspectives.

2.4.1 Quality Defined

Table 2.1 Definitions of Quality

AUTHOR(S)

AND YEAR

DEFINITIONS MAJOR THEMES

Crosby

(1974)

“Quality is conformance to requirements”. Meeting requirement

Deming,

(1968)

Defines quality as “the degree to which

performance meet expectations”.

Meeting expectation

Feigenbaum,

(1983)

Quality “means best for a certain customer

conditions that is the actual use and the selling

price of a product or service”.

Fit for Purpose

Gilmore,

(1974)

Quality is “the degree to which a specific

product satisfies the wants of a specific

consumer”.

Customer satisfaction

Deming,

(1968)

Quality “consists of the capacity to satisfy a

want”.

Customer satisfaction

Sahney et al.,

(2004)

Quality “is a property of products or services or

processes producing these product or services”.

Focus on the process

Juram1989

cited in

Sahney et al.,

(2004)

Defines quality “as meeting or exceeding

customer expectations”

Customer expectation

Lovelock and

Wirtz, 2007

“Quality is how a customer defines it and must

be defined from customers’ perspectives”

Customer focus


24

SOURCE: Author`s own tabulation based on the literature review

From the table above it is evident that, people view quality from different perspectives. Yet

everyone understands what is mean by quality. “In a manufacturing product, the consumer as

the user recognizes the quality of fit, finish, appearance, function and performance” (Deming

1968). The quality of service may be related based on the level of satisfaction by the customer

receiving the service. The final decision in this evaluation lies with the consumer. The

objective here is to ensure that the consumer is satisfied to pay for the product or the service

provider. Scholars in the relevant field of knowledge (Deming, 1968; Tuchman, 1980; Leffler,

1982; Gilmore, 1974s; Crosby, 1974; Broh, 1982) view quality differently. This provides the

means to assess quality using a relative measure. Resister (1995) gave a broader view of the

quality definition by defining quality as an attitude about how to conduct a business irrespective

of the type of business. According to this author, the attitude consists of two things, the first

part emphasizes on meeting customer expectations, needs and wants, whereas, the second part

emphasizes doing it in an efficient way. This, therefore, implies that inefficient process does

not lead to excellence. Hence quality goes beyond just the product or service provided to how

it is provided. This makes employee and management training an essential tool for ensuring

effective internal communication to achieve a successful quality concept in an organization.

For the purpose of this study, quality will be viewed from Gronroos, (2001) perspective, that

is quality is perception, therefore managing quality is all about managing perception

(expectation and experience).

2.5 Service Quality

According to Hirvenon, (2007), the growth of the service industry in the global economy has

resulted in a growing interest in service quality. The concentration of the concept used to be on

tangible goods. Scholars (Hirvenon, 2007; Dale, 2003; Douglas, Mc Celland, & Davis, 2008)


25

have argued that it is difficult to define and measure service quality compared to tangible goods.

The service quality concept has received considerable debate in the marketing research

literature. However, as a result of the challenges in defining and measuring it, the concept has

still not been given a definite definition (Winsiewski, 2001). Various definitions have emerged

over the years, with different interpretations of what the term service quality actually means.

The table below presents a brief overview of definitions of service quality.

Table 2.2 Definitions of Service Quality

AUTHOR(S)

AND YEAR

DEFINITIONS MAJOR THEMES

Gronroos

(1982)

Defines service “quality as customer perceived

quality which is defined as the confirmation or

disconfirmation of the customer’s expectation of the

service compared with the customer’s perception of

the service actually delivered”.

The difference

between customer

expectation and

actual service

performance.

(Asubonteng,

McCleary &

Swan, 1996).

Also defined it as “the extent to which a service

meets customers’ needs or expectations”.

Meeting

expectation.

Parasuraman,

Zeithaml and

Berry (1988)

Defines service quality as “a form of attitude related,

but not equivalent to satisfaction, that results from a

comparison of expectations with perceptions of

performance”.

The difference

between expectation

and performance.

Lewis and

Smith (1989)

Suggests that “perceived service quality is a

consumer judgment which is derived after comparing

expectations of service with their perceptions of

actual service performance”. Customers therefore

evaluate services as they interact with the service

provider in a service encounter.

The difference

between expectation

and performance.

Parasuraman,

Zeithaml and

Defines service quality “as a consumer attitude

reflecting the perceived overall superiority and

Consumers

perceptions


26


26

Berry, (1988)

excellence in the process and outcome of a service

provider”.

Gronroos

(1984)

Posits that “perceived service quality is a global

judgment or attitude relating to service

performance”.

Actual performance

Zeithaml and

Bitner (2003)

“Service quality “is the ability of the service

organization to meet or exceed customer

expectations”.

Meeting customer

or exceeding

customer

expectation.

Zeithaml et

al., (2006)

Defines it as “the extent of the discrepancy between

customers’ expectations or desires and their

perception”.

Differences

between customers’

perception and their

expectation.

Lewis and

Mitchell,

(1990);

Asubonteng et

al., (1996)

“Service quality is the extent to which service

delievery meets customers’ needs or expectations”.

Customer focus.


It is evident from the above definitions that, to implement service quality is a difficult task, as

people have diverse needs and expectations and will demand different levels of service quality.

Against this background, a complete understanding of a customer`s requirements will be

essential to management of various organization in their quest to deliver quality service to their

customers. Service quality in higher education could therefore be defined as students’

Table 2.3 Definitions of Service Quality continued


27

measurement or evaluation of how service delivered by an educational institution matches with

the expectations of the students (Fosu & Owusu, 2015). It also infers that the quality of service

delivered is defined by the students and not the institutions. Hence, educational institutions

must first understand students’ expectations as the basis for developing and delivering quality

service (Fosu & Owusu, 2015).

2.5.1 Contemporary Views on Service Quality

It is evident from the review of marketing literature that the concept of service quality has

received considerable attention from both academics and practioners over the last three

decades. Marketing researchers (Gronroos, 1982; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Gummesson, 1993;

Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Abdullah, 2005) have relentlessly conducted studies in the various

areas of service quality to enhance the understanding of the field both in theory and in practice.

Their studies have not only contributed to the development and the expansion of service quality

as an important area for research, but have actually contributed immensely in attracting a

considerable interest among academics, practitioners and service quality researchers as well as

laying the foundation in which research may be carried out in the field.

Different opinions have emerged concerning the growing interest in service quality by

marketing researchers and practitioners alike. Some are of the view that, interest has been

aroused because of its contribution to bottom line performance (Ewing & Caruana, 1999.

Others are also of the view that it contributes to market share, customer satisfaction and loyalty,

(Zeithaml et al., 2006, Parasuraman et al., 1994). In another case it is argued that, although the

concept is not regarded as an important business requirement, it is a competitive weapon that

is crucial to corporate profitability and survival (Voss, 2004; Maddern , Maull , Smart , &

Barker, 2007; Newman, Cowling, & Leigh, 1998). In this regard, various institutions seeking


28

to achieve competitive advantage in the industry in which they operate need to embark on

service quality delivery as a strategic tool to achieve customer satisfaction, delight and loyalty.

Kotler and Keller, (2006) posit that customer satisfaction is an antecedent to loyalty through

delivery of high value product and services that meets the needs and wants of customers. To

successfully achieve customer loyalty and retention it is worthy to note that, management of

various institutions needs to understand and satisfy customer needs and requirement, so as to

gain a competitive advantage in the industry in which they operate (Day, 1994). That is, the

primary assumptions underlying the marketing concept (Day, 1994).

2.5.2 Models of Service Quality

2.5.3 Gronroos Model

Gronroos (1984) proposed a functional and technical quality model of service quality. The

model is made up of three different dimensions: functional quality, technical quality and image

quality. The model embraces image quality with the functional quality as portrayed by

(Parasuraman et al., 1988), which is more realistic of today’s turbulence global marketplace

than models that only depict functional quality, (Nimako, Azumah, Donkor, & Veronica,

2010). Nimako et al., (2010) posit that, customer evaluations of perceived performance of

service against his/her perceived service quality leads to a measure of service quality.

Technical quality is the clarified quality of what consumer actually obtains as the outcome of

his/her interaction with the service provider and is crucial to them and to their evaluation of the

quality of service (Nimako et al., 2010; Stromgren, 2007). The outcome quality forms an

integral part of the quality experiences and can be measured objectively by customers as it

provides technical solutions to customer’s problem (Nimako et al., 2010). Stromgren, (2007)

posits that customers may find it difficult to evaluate technical aspects. However, they may


29

rely on other measures of quality attributes that are associated with the functional aspects of

the service. The functional aspect is concerned with services delivered (Stromgren, 2007). The

functional aspect is an interrelated process and denotes how the customer receives and

experiences the service delivered (Nimako et al., 2010). Whereas customers can measure

technical quality, functional aspects cannot be measured objectively; customers’ perception of

functional quality is subjective (Stromgren, 2007). Functional quality is a function of how

technical outcome is received.

Gronroos (2000) emphasized the importance of corporate image in his perceived service

quality model, which is similar to the idea proposed by Lithinen and Lithinen (1982). In view

of this the image concept was introduced as an important attribute in the original perceived

quality model to ensure the dynamics aspects of the service perception process (Kang & James,

2004).

A well-managed and favorable image is an asset to any firm, as it influences customers’

perceptions of a firm’s communication efforts as well as operations in many respects (Kang &

James, 2004; Zeithaml et al., 2006; Stromgren, 2007). Any service firm that builds a positive

and favorable image in the minds of customers, will surely enjoy customer loyalty and “petty,

petty” mistakes will be forgiven when service failure occurs (Zeithaml et al., 2006;

Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 2006; Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000; Kang & James, 2004). It is

however, very essential to note that service firms that often commit mistakes are likely to

communicate negative impressions in the minds of customers and its image will be damaged.

Service failure is inevitable and service customers are likely to experience it even in the firms

with “world class” systems and employ state of the art technologies in service delivery

(Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003; Hinson, 2006). If service failure occurs repeatedly over time and the


30

provider fails to address the mistakes, the provider’s image will be affected negatively and the

impact of the mistake will be severe in the customer’s mind (Kang & James, 2004). Once a

positive image is formed customers can neglect minor mistakes (Kang & James, 2004;

Strongren, 2007). On the other hand, if service failures occur frequently customers form

negative image and the impact on perceived service quality will be remarkably greater than

anticipated (Hirvonen, 2007). The perceived image can be described as a sample in terms of

how customers perceive service quality (Kang & James, 2004; Hirvonen, 2007; Strongren,

2007). The model is noted for its usefulness in service quality evaluations involving

consequences and procedures, yet critic have argued that, the role of consumers has not been

taken into consideration in the process (Nimako et al., 2010).

2.5.3.1 SERVQUL

The SERVQUAL scale was developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988). The model

performs an analysis of an organization’s service quality performance against customer service

quality requirement (Parasuraman et al.,1988). According to these authors, the respondents

complete a series of scales which measures their expectations of a particular company base on

a specific service characteristic. Customers are required to record their perceptions of that

company’s performance on those same dimensions. In a situation where perceived

performance ratings fall below expectations, quality is poor (Parasuraman et al.,1988). They

posit that, the gap from the analysis may be used as a standard for service quality enhancement.

This model therefore provides detailed information about customer perceptions of service i.e.

the customer’s benchmark performance levels as perceived by customers, customer comments

and suggestions as well as impressions from employees with respect to customer expectations.


31

The SERVQUAL scale assumes service quality as containing five dimensions which can be

measured through 22 items under five heading, namely tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,

assurance and empathy (Parasuramanan et al., 1985;1988;1991). Relating these dimensions to

higher education, they include appearance of the institution’s physical facilities, equipment,

personnel, and communication material (Tangibles), the capacity of the university to

accomplish the promised service dependably and accurately (Reliability), the readiness of the

university to help the students and deliver quick service (Responsiveness), the knowledge and

politeness of teachers and their capacity to carry trust and confidence (Assurance) and caring,

individualized attention the university delivers to its students (Empathy) Parasuraman et al.

(1985; 1988; 1991).

The five SERVQUAL dimensions identified by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, & 1991) have

been generally used in evaluating higher education service quality; According to Cuthbert

(1996), notwithstanding the criticisms several authors have made, the SERVQUAL scale still

seems to be the most useful model for the evavluation of service quality in higher education.

Cuthbert, (1996) further contentd that, expectations should be taken into consideration when

measuring service quality in higher education. Hill (1995) studied how expectations and

perceptions of service quality can be stable over time in the higher education context. His

empirical study concluded students` perception of service quality experienced was less stable

over time compare to expectation.

2.5.3.2 Gummerson`s 4 Q model

In 1993 Gummerson developed the 4 Q model based on the earlier models. The main brain

behind the model was that a service has both tangibles and intangible dimensions. The main


32

purpose of the model is to help develop and manage quality, irrespective of the type of offering,

whether pure service or tangible goods. The 4 Q model emphasizes customer expectation and

their experience as well as how these two constructs affects corporate image. The model further

explains how customer perception can affect corporate image as well as how customer

perception contributes to brand reputation.

2.6 Dimensions of Service Quality

Customers judge service quality by certain criteria. According to Kotler, Asplund, Rein, and

Heider (1999) and Parasuraman et al. (1988) these criteria determine customers’ perceptions

of service quality. The determinants as proposed by Parasuraman et al (1988) include access,

credibility, knowledge, reliability, security, competence, courtesy, responsiveness, time,

timeliness, empathy, communication, and tangibles. Five key quality dimensions were later

identified by Parasuraman et al. (1988). The SERVQUAL is an intensive assessment that

replicates the customer’s perception of a particular service, quality dimension namely

Reliability, responsiveness, assurance, Empathy, and Tangibles (Parasuraman et

al.,1985,1988).

2.6.1 Reliability

Parasuraman et al., (1988) defined reliability as the ability to perform service dependably and

accurately. The ability of a firm to deliver promises is the most vital factor to providing quality

services. Organizations who fulfill their promises on service delivery, provision, resolutions

and pricing are often seen as customer oriented and are preferred organizations to do business

with, in the eyes of customers (Robert, 2005). Thus, customers want to be loyal to firms that

fulfill their promises, more importantly, their promises about the service delivery as well as

core service as salient charracteristics. Therefore, organizations should note that, customers’


33

expectations of reliability are a very important predictor of their perception (Zeithaml & Bitner,

2003 as cited in Robert, 2005). In higher education, when a service is delivered to students at

the time it was promise to be delivered, may be consided reliable by the students (Arpin, 2007).

University staff dealing with student’s problems promptly, ensuring error free records by the

administrative staff, performing the services correctly to students the first time; among others

are some of the determinants of the reliability of an institution.

2.6.2 Responsiveness

Zeithaml and Bitner, (2003) defined “responsiveness as the willingness to help customers and

provide prompt service”. Customers evalutate a firm’s responsiveness by taking into

consideration the length of time it takes to address their request, questions, complaints and

problems (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003). Responding quickly to a request or complaints leads to a

higher rating on this dimension. For a successful service experience regarding this dimension,

organizations’ need to view service delivery from the customer’s perspectives and not the

organizations. Organizations should set standards for responsiveness according to the

customers’ requirements because their notion of what constitutes speed and promptness might

differ from the custmers. Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) contend that, designing service

employee’s jobs, having a clear job description and training form a strong foundation for

responsiveness. Zeithaml and Bitner., (2003) argue that customer`s standards for prompt

services may be different from organizational standards. In the context of higher education, a

university student’s standards for prompt service are more likely to be different from

management standards.

2.5.3 Assurance


34

This refers to the ability of a service firm to inspire trust and confidence in the firm through

knowledge, politeness, trust and worthiness of the employees (Zeithaml & Bitner 2002). This

dimension refers to the firm’s employees. Are employees skilled workers who are able to gain

the trust and confidence of the customers? Ensuring that employees possess the right attitude

toward quality is of the utmost importance to service organizations particularly. According to

Walker, (1995) employees’ degree of friendliness, credibility, trustworthiness and competence

will be reflected in customers’ perception of service quality. Organizations can enforce the

assurance dimension in the minds of customers by providing strong evidence of the service to

the customers particularly at the early stages of the relationship (Walker, 1995). In the context

of higher education, the provider would be interested in building trust and loyalty between its

employees and students. In the early stages of the student-institution relationship, the student

may need tangible evidence to access the assurance dimension (Walker, 1995). According to

Zeithaml and Bitner (2002), visible evidence of degree, honours, special certifications and

other awards would give a new customer (student) confidence in a service provider. In the

context of this study, an example could be the link between a lecturers and students in a

university.

2.5.4 Empathy

The empathy dimension “refers to how the company cares and gives individualized attention

to their customers, to make the customers feel extra value and special” (Ziethaml & Bitner,

2002). An organization’s ability to obtain information about their customers’ personal issues,

needs and desires goes a long way in helping to create customized and personalized services

for customers. This invariably makes the organization more competitive. In the context of

higher education, this dimension includes giving personal attention to students and

understanding their specific needs (Arpin, 2007).


35

2.5.5 Tangibles

Parasuraman et al (1988) defined the tangible dimension as the appearance of a service firm’s

facilities, employees, equipments and communication materials. ‘Tangibles’ is about creating

first hand impressions. Tangibles have the capacity of attracting existing customers to approach

the service provider’s customer service centers, and more importantly, eliciting positive

perceptions of the service provider in the minds of the potential customer (Nimako et al., 2010).

Teaching can be regarded as highly intangible, because services represent performance or

actions rather than objects (Fosu & Owusu, 2015), Services, including education, are difficult

for students to comprehend (Fosu & Owusu, 2015). Thus, implying that managers of

educational institutions can manage physical evidence by providing tangible clues to service

quality; for instance, by reducing service complexity where possible and encouraging word-of-

mouth recommendations from others. Bitner (1992) explains the position of the more physical

constituent of delivery systems in education context; which is known as ‘services cape’.

2.6 SERVPERF

Although the SERVQUAL model has been used extensively over the years, it has received

various criticisms. Cronin and Taylor (1992) were among the researchers who criticized the

SERVQUAL scale of measurement. In questioning the conceptual base of the model, they

contend that the scale is confusing with customer satisfaction. Furthermore, they posited that

the Expectation component of SERVQUAL be rejected and rather the Performance element

alone be used. Cronin and Taylor (1992) further suggest that measuring perceptions alone

might provide a better indicator of service quality than measuring the differences between

expectations and perceptions. On the operational perspective.) Buttle (1996) finds difficulty in


36

conceptualizing expectations, the limited number of items in each dimension, the problems

related to the double administration of the instrument which fuels customer confusion and

boredom as the key challenges associated with SERVQUAL. A study by Carman (1990)

empirically tested SERVQUAL in four different areas and observed that the dimensions were

not general enough to cater for the needs of all industries. This led to the proposal of the

SERVPERF model. Cronin and Taylor (1992) empirically supported their argument through a

study across four industries including, banks, pest control, dry cleaning and fast food

2.7 HEdPERF Model

Both the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models have been criticized on their operational

effectiveness to serve industry specific service quality e.g Carman (1990), Cronin and Taylor

(1992) and Abdullah (2005) suggested that industry-specific service quality measures may be

more appropriate. Abdullah (2006) contends that generic measurements (SERVQUAL and

SERVPERF) of service quality may not be totally suitable for assessing perceived quality

education making it more needed for scholars to create a specific scale for higher education. It

has also been identified that little has been done in the development of service quality models

specifically for higher education (Fosu & Owusu 2015).

In view of these challenges, Abdullah (2005) proposed a service quality model specifically for

higher education. This model, known as HEdPERF (Higher Education Performance-only), is a

new and improved comprehensive performance based measuring scale that attempts to capture

the authentic determinants of service quality within higher education. The model, which

comprised of as set of 41 items (Abdullah, 2006) did not only consider academic components,

but also aspects the student considers in their overall assessment of service quality in higher

education.


37

Five dimensions of the service quality concept were identified; they are non-academic aspects,

academic aspects, reputation, and access and programme aspects. Non-academic aspects

consist of items that are essential to enable students to fulfill their study obligations, and relates

to duties carried out by non-academic staff. It captures how administrative staff communicates

to students; how students are treated and the knowledge possessed about the institution by

administrative staff. Academic aspects relate to the responsibilities of academics. It includes

positive attitudes, good Communication skills, adequate consultation, regular response to

students`problems and subcontracting ability of teaching staffs, which recount to the

responsibilities of academics. Reputation aspect of HEdPERF has to do with the professional

image the institution projects to the outside world and the employment of graduates from the

institution. Abdullah (2005) explains access as including issues such as approachability, ease

of contact, availability and convenience. Programme issues relate to the ability of the

institution/university to offer a wide range and reputable academic programmes/specializations

with flexible structures and health services (Abdullah, 2005).

2.8 Significance of Service Quality

Many scholars have reported the significance of good service quality in the marketing efforts

of organisations. According to Zeithaml and Bitner (2003), service quality can help companies

attract more and better customers to the business. The business can gain a positive reputation,

which invariably leads to higher market share and the ability to charge better prices than the

competition when quality of service is good Zeithaml and Bitner (2003). Aggressive service

quality greatly aids offensive marketing efforts which involve market capture, market share,

and reputation and price premiums (Hirvonen, 2007) Vibrant organizations have implemented

quality systems to ensure that they delight their customers (Hirvonen,2007). Industries which


38

have seen successful implementation of quality systems have derived the following benefits;

reduction in complaints from customers, both internal and external, reduction in the cost of the

product, reduction in production time, increased systems efficiency, boost morale of workers

and improve customer satisfaction (Hirvonen, 2007)

2.9 Concept of Customer

A customer is the recipient of a good, service, product, or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor,

or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration (Resister, 1995). A customer may

or not also be a consumer, but the two notions are distinct, even though the terms are commonly

confused. A customer purchase goods; a consumer uses them; (Anderson, Jain & Chintagunta

1993). The term ‘customer’ is commonly referred to end-users of a product. Shank, Walker

and Hayes, (1995) suggests that “customer” is a generic term referring to anybody who receives

a service or a product from some other person or group of people”. Customers can be

categorized into internal and external, where internal customers refer to the staff or employees

and external customers refer to other stakeholders of an organization. Within the external

customer group include; clients, suppliers, consumers, and constituents.

2.10 Students as Customers of Higher Education

Different authors have identified that higher educational institutions have a great number of

customer groups. These customers come with different requirements, complementary or

contradictory among themselves (Juran 1988). Joseph and Joseph (1997) divided customers in

higher education into six different actors who are linked to the educational value chain. These

include; current students, potential students, employees, employers, government and industry.

The authors further classified customers into internal and external; internal customers are those

who work to satisfy the needs of the external customers (Juran, 1988). Customer classification


39

into internal or external is based on their location and the frequency of interaction the institution

has with them. Students can therefore be classified as internal or external. This also depends

on the role developed by them during their course (Juran, 1988).

Yeo (2008) finds that those who regard students as primary customers of higher education

associate them with being involved in the input and output of the learning process. On the other

hand, those who see students as potential employees and primary customers hold that it is vital

to consider the economic reality of the situation where course modules should be tailored to

the needs of the employers. Jaraiedi and Ritz (1994) agree with the latter view arguing that

students have no conception of what they need to learn and that education is preparing them

with the aim of achieving long term benefits. With this long term perspective, the authors

further argue that potential employers are primary customers while students are regarded as

secondary customers.

Joseph and Joseph (1997), however, suggest that, since students are primary beneficiaries of

education they should be treated as primary customers. Students now do not consider

themselves as active learners and participants in the attainment of their education, but also as

customers of the educational “goods” the institutions deliver as well as the services evaluators

of what these institutions offer.


40

2.11 Customer Perception

Table 2.4 Definitions of Perception

AUTHOR(S) DEFINITIONS MAJOR THEMES

Strydom,

Jooste and Cant

(2000)

Define customer perceptions as “the process of

receiving, organizing and assessing meaning to

information or stimuli detected by the customer’s

five senses”.

Making meaning

about the world

around us based on

our experience.

Kotler and Fox

(1995)

Defines “perception as the process by which an

individual selects, organizes and interprets

information inputs to create a meaningful picture

of the world”.

Making sense out of

the world us based on

base our experience.

Nadri,

Kandampully

and Hussein,

(2009)

Services marketers often view quality in terms of

perceived service quality.

Quality is judged by

the perceived service

quality

Rust and Oliver

as cited in

Beaumont,

(2007).

Posit that, perceptions can also be explained as

“the end result of a number of observations by the

customer due to the subjective nature of service

quality”.

Perception is based

on expectation and

experience


2.12 Students Perception

Students’ perception is a major concept in this study. According to Zeithaml, Bitner and

Gremler, (1996), perceived service quality is the outcomes from the comparison of customer

service expectations of real performance. In the context of higher education, perceived service


41

quality is the overall appraisal of the institution’s services (Fosu & Owusu, 2015). Perceived

service quality could be the student’s evaluation of a number of service encounters with office

staff, tutors, lecturers, the head of department etc. (Oilfield & Baron 2000). When students

appraise course lecturer highly we would hope it is because the lecturer has shaped effective

learning Centra & Gaubatz, 2005). This belief is actiually the foundation for many rationality

studies that have been conducted with student assessments of courses and instructors (Centra

& Gaubatz, 2005). According to Oilfield and Baron (2000), students evaluate services of

higher education using three main criteria. These, according to the authors, has been labeled as

requisite encounters which essentially enable students to fulfill their study obligations;

acceptable encounters which refers to what students acknowledge as being desirable but not

essential during their programme and functional, which Oilfield and Baron (2000) define as an

encounter of a practical or utilitarian nature.

Several authors find the relationship between students’ perceptions and their ratings of service

quality. For instance, Dickinson (2015) in his study found that students` perceptions of learning

in a course is connected more closely with student evaluations of teaching than did differences

in pre- and post-test scores. Ryan and Harrison (1995) and Cashin and Downey (1992, 1999)

found that students’ perceptions of learning were highly associated with their overall ratings of

education effectiveness (Centra & Gaubatz, 2005).

Cuthbert (1996) holds that, in the context of higher education, experiences of students are

varied and continuous, over months and years and this highlights the relevance of the context

when measuring perceived service quality.


42

2.13 Students` Expectations and Perceptions of Service Quality its relationship on their

Satisfaction and Loyalty

Studies have found that students` expectations are a valuable source of information for

managers of higher education (Hill, 1995). Higher education managers may respond

appropriately to the idealistic expectations of students, especially new graduates, if they are

able to know their expectations (Scherter & Scherter, 2004). These institutions can thus respond

to student’s expectations at a more realistic level as they would be able to, at least inform

students of what is realistic to expect from lecturers (Hill, 1995). Hill, (1995) posit that the

knowledge of student’s expectations may help lecturers design their teaching methods and

programmes. Perceived quality of services provided by higher education depends on students`

expectations and values (Telford & Mason, 2005). Several studies have indicated a positive

impact of expectations and values on variables such as student participation, role clarity and

motivation to participate in the service encounter (Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, & Inks, 2001).

According to the literature review, perceived service quality is an antecedent to student

satisfaction (Marzo-Navarro, Pedraja-Iglesias, & Rivera-Torres, 2005). Positive perceptions of

service quality can lead to student satisfaction (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005) and satisfied

students may then engage in behaviors by engaging in positive word-of-mouth communication

and return to the university to take other courses (Wier-Jenssen, Stensaker, & Grogaard 2002;

Mavondo & Zaman., 2004). It is therefore hypothesized that;

H1; There is a significant positive relationship between perception of service quality and

students` loyalty.

H2; There is a significant positive relationship between perception of service quality and

students` satisfaction.


43

2.14 Students` Expectation and Experience

According to Gronroos (1982), perception of quality of service being perceived by a customer

is the comparism between their expectation and real life experience. Quality management is

synonymous to managing perception and two things form customer perception that is

expectation and experience (Gronroos, 1991). In a situation where customer expectation is

greater than experience, perceived quality is low, which leads to customer dissatisfaction. On

the other hand, when experienced is greater than customer expectation, perceived quality is

high which may eventually lead to customer satisfaction (Gronroos, 1991).

Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) argue that customer expectations are belief about the service

delivery which serves as a benchmark against which the organizational performance will be

evaluated. The authors further posit that customer expectation of good and or/ services vary

among different industries as well as individuals. For example, in a university environment,

the expectation of an undergraduate students may be different from the expectation of a PhD

student. A service provided by a university may not meet a PhD student’s expectation and will

be considered poor service, however, an undergraduate student may consider the same service

as high quality. With this understanding, it is essential for managers to ensure that there is

conformity between student’s expectation and their experience. Parasuraman et al., (1988),

identified various types of customer expectation as:

Desired service; This is the level of service that the customer will be willing to receive. For

the case of a university, the desired service level of a student may be a student expecting a

lecturer to give him or her personal attention during consultation as well as in class.


44

Adequate service: This is defined as the level of service the customer is willing to accept. In

a university environment a student may accept further explanation from the lecture after the

lecture ours, due to time constraint, class size and other factors that may prevent students from

understanding what was thought in class.

Service performance that fall below an adequate service level may lead to customer

dissatisfaction and frustration, on the other hand service performance that exceeds the adequate

service level may lead to customer satisfaction and delight (Arpin 2007). Customers may react

negatively or positively depending on the level of their expectations that is their zone of

tolerance (Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007).

In the context of higher education, a university student may be expecting their mid semester

results within a week or their end of semester results three weeks after school has resumed,

which is within their zone of tolerance, the case where the results are released after this time

period will result in frustrations and dissatisfaction.

Predicted service: This is the level of service a customer expects to receive, which influences

their experience (Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007). The adequate level may be higher or lower

depending on the predicted service level. For the example in a university a student may expect

fifteen (15) minutes delayed, while other students are receiving assistance from the lecturer

after a class. In this case the service received is likely not to fall below the adequate service

level.


45

2.15 Service Quality in Higher Education

Table 2.5 Definitions of Quality in Higher Education

AUTHOR(S) DEFINITIONS MAJOR THEMES

Sahney et al.,

(2004)

“Quality in higher education follows the

definitions of quality in general”.

Peters and

Waterman,

(1982),

“Defined service quality in the context of

education as excellence in education”.

Excellence

Feigenbaum,

(1983);

“Defined quality in education as value addition

in education”.

Value

(Gilmore, (1974)

and Crosby,

(1979)

Defined it as “conformance of education output

to planned goals, specifications and

requirements”.

Meeting

requirement.

Crosby, (1979) Defined it as “defect avoidance in the education

process”.

Quality assurance

(Parasuraman et

al., (1985).

Define quality in education as “meeting or

exceeding customer expectations of education”.

Meeting and

exceeding students’

expectation.


Literature pertaining to service quality in the higher education sector is significantly low

(Beaumont, 2007). Traditionally, many researchers have focused their efforts on commercial

services (Sultan & Wong, 2010). Institutions of higher education are increasingly realizing that

they are part of the service industry and are putting more emphasis on student’s satisfaction as

they face increasing competition. (DeShieds, Kara, & Kainak, 2005).


46

De hield et al., (2005) also argue that it is imperative for higher education institutions to apply

market-orientated principles and strategies that are used by profit making organizations.

Hemsly-Brown and Oplatka (2006) found that these principles are being applied to higher

education in the bid to achieve competitive advantage.

Hill (1995) contends that, as higher education is considered a service, then it should exhibit all

the classical features of a service. This makes its measurement in the industry a complex issue.

Many scholars have attempted to discuss the framework towards the research into services

marketing from an educational perspective (Kara & DeShield, 2004)). Service quality literature

suggests the importance for managers of higher educational institutions to monitor the quality

of services they render in order to commit themselves to continuous improvement (Kara &

DeShield, 2004). Measuring service quality from an educational perspective has received

considerable debate. Many researchers have posited on the best way to define service quality

in higher education institutions (Shank et al., 1995). It is, however, profound to note that higher

educational institutions have become a conducive environment for researchers to understand

the role and importance of service quality in that industry (Shank et al., 1995). This may be

due to the competitive nature of the education industry and its associated challenges.

The measurement of service quality has however turned out to be a controversial issue because

of the difficulty in defining quality (Shank et al., 1995). Parasuraman et al 1998 suggested that

service quality concepts result from the comparison of performance perception with

expectation. Other scholars disagree and argue that it is derived from perceptions of

performance only (Cronin & Taylor 1992) claiming that including expectations in the

measurement is irrelevant coupled with the misleading information it provides for the model

intended to evaluate perceived service quality.


47

2.16 Assessing Service Quality in Higher Education

Service quality has since emerged as a strategic tool for managers of higher education to

achieve competitive advantage in the face of rising competition. Hence measuring service

quality in higher education has become an important exercise to determine students’ level of

satisfaction and possibility of continued enrolment (Fosu & Owusu, 2015). As a result, both

academics and practitioners alike are interested in accurately determining service quality in

order to better appreciate its indispensable antecedents and significance, and ultimately,

develop methods for refining quality to accomplish competitive advantage and build customer

loyalty (Abdullah, 2006).

However due to the elusive nature of service quality constructs, it has made it extremely

difficult to define and measure (Abdullah, 2006). The past two to three decades has seen some

scholars attempting to define the evaluation standard of service quality independent of any

particular service context, for instance, SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) and

SERVPERF (Cronin & Taylor 1992). The SERVQUAL frame measures service quality by

comparing perception of performance with expectation whereas SERFPERF assumes only the

perception of performance. The expectation of performance scale on the other hand compares

the gap between perceived performance and the ideal amount of a feature rather than the

customer’s expectations Parasuraman et al., 1985). Diverse studies using these scales find

difficulties resulting from the conceptual or theoretical component as much as from the

empirical component (Abdullah, 2006).

2.17 Students` Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction has often been used interchangeably with service quality (Palmer, 2011).

This has led to difficulties when attempting to distinguish between the theoretical concepts


48

(Beaumont, 2007). Munteanu, Ceobanu and Bobalaca and Anton, (2010) posit that like service

quality, customer satisfaction is an abstract and ambiguous concept and, as such, many scholars

have attempted to reach a consensus on the definition of the concepts (Giese & Cote, 2001).

Satisfaction according to Oliver (1999) is the perception of pleasurable fulfillment of a service.

Althiyaman (1997) provides a contrasting view and explains satisfaction as the result of the

evaluation of a specific transaction or consumption experience.

Kunanusorn and Puttawong (2015) define satisfaction as an overall customer attitude towards

a service provider, or an emotional reaction to the differences between what customers

anticipate and what they receive herein regarding the fulfillment of some needs, goals or desire.

The authors found that it is important for higher education institutions to satisfy their customers

(students) in order to ensure their retention. For instance, it is likely that a dissatisfied student

will reduce the number of courses or drop out of a university completely. Student satisfaction

or dissatisfaction hence lead to student retention or attrition (Kara & DeShield, 2004).

According to a study done by Banwet and Datta (2003), satisfied students are found to be loyal

and satisfied students were likely to attend another lecture delivered by the same lecturer or opt

for another course taught by him/her. Using a survey of 168 students, the study revealed that

students pay more attention to the result of the lecture (skills and knowledge received,

capability of class notes and reading materials etc) than any other dimension. This goes to

support a similar study by Schneider and Bowen (1995).

Studies have found that a positive perceptions of service quality has a significant influence on

student satisfaction (Alves & Raposo, 2010). Satisfied students would therefore attract more

students through word of mouth communication. According to Hanaysha, Abdullah and

Worokka, (2011), students can be moved or stimulated by both academic performance and


49

administrative efficiency of their institution. The authors posit that higher education institution

are like other service providers whose success and growth is dependent on the students’

perception and thus, one of the easiest yet powerful marketing strategy is through positive word

of mouth. Perrault and Thomas (2011) argue that customer perception is essential to an

organization, since services are intangible and will, to a large extent, depends on positive

perception. Perception therefore plays a vital role in determining customer satisfaction of a

service delivered to them. In the context of higher education, a university student may develop

bad perception of service quality in a situation where the services delivered falls below

expectation, thereby leading to dissatisfaction which may result in a decrease in the student’s

loyalty. Thomas (2011) further, postulates that student satisfaction is a vital antecedence and

as such is a major driver of student loyalty. It is therefore hypothesized that;

H3; There is a significant positive relationship between student’s satisfaction and student’s

loyalty.

2.18 Determinants and Influences of Customer Satisfaction

Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) identify the basic determinants of customer satisfaction as;

“product or service features and perception of service quality”. Arpin (2007) also posit that,

customers` emotional responses and their attributions are very important determinants of

satisfaction.

2.18.1 Product and Service Features

Customer satisfaction of a product or service is, to a large extent influenced by their assessment

of that product or service`s features (Zeithaml & Bitner 2003). In higher education institutions

a student`s evaluation of campus facilities, helpfulness and courtesy of lecturers, administrative

staff as well as the variety of courses the institutions offer may influences their satisfaction.


50

2.18.2 Customer Emotion

Customer perception of satisfaction of product or service can also be influence by their

emotion, which may be influenced by the product or service experience (Zeithaml, 2003). A

lecturer can deliver a module in a particular manner to a class which may influence their overall

satisfaction with the module.

2.18.3 Attribution for Service Success or Failure

Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) opine that there are perceived causes of an event, which can

influence perception of satisfaction. Arpin (2007) realize that, customers tend to look out for

the causes of a situation when they are taken by surprise by an outcome, they try to find out the

reason for causes which eventually influences their satisfaction. For instance, if students realize

that, the cause of a problem is not the fault of a lecturer or administrative staff and is unlikely

to occur in future, they are unlikely to be dissatisfied (Arpin 2007). A typical example is when

they realize that the delay in releasing an exam result is due to a system failure.

2.18.4 Perception of Equity and Fairness

According to Zeithaml and Bitner (2003), perception of equity and fairness is another major

determinant of customer satisfaction. The issue of fairness is crucial to customer perception of

service quality. For example, university students may be dissatisfied with a course provision,

if they are not getting good value for their money.

2.18.5 Other consumers, Family Members and Co-workers

Consumer satisfaction is influenced by other people (Arpin, 2007). In a University community

student’s perception of satisfaction can be influenced by several factors including their

experiences, behavior as well as the view of other students (Arpin, 2007)


51

2.19 Students Loyalty

Student loyalty is one of the major goals of educational institutions (Thomas, 2011). It has been

defined as the loyalty of students after their time at an educational institution (Althiyaman,

1997; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007; Mohamad, 2009; Thomas, 2011). Oliver (1999) defines

customer loyalty as “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or patronize a preferred

product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same-brand

set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to

cause switching behavior. According to Thomas (2011), student loyalty has botha short term

and a long term impact on educational institution; student loyalty is therefore the combination

of the student’s willingness to provide positive word of mouth about the institution and make

recommendations concerning the educational institution to family, friends, employers and

organizations whenever there is an opportunity (Kunansorn & Puttawong, 2015). Students are

therefore good advocates of educational institutions as their behavior after school goes a long

way to affect the growth and reputation of the institution.

According to the iterature review (Oliver, 1997; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990; Dick & Bassu,

1994) customer loyalty is manifested in various forms including a commitment to rebuy or

patronize a preferred product or service. Scholars including Hennig-Thurau, Langer and

Hansen (2001); Marzo-Navarro et al (2005) found that student loyalty contains an attitudinal

component and behavioral component. They further posit that, the attitudinal component of

customer loyalty is further developed by partitioning it into cognitive and affective dimensions.

The behavioral component of loyalty has been viewed as relying on a customer’s actual conduct

regardless of the attitudes or preferences that underlie that conduct (Hennig-Thurau et al.,

2005). Other scholars (Kahn, Kalwani, & Morrison, 1986; Bearden et al., 2001) supports the


52

notion that repeat purchase can capture the loyalty of a consumer towards the brand of interest.

By these explanations, a customer becomes ‘loyal’ to an organization if they buy from it and

then continue to buy from it. Loyalty thus is concerned with repurchase activity regardless of

any internally held attitudes or preferences. In this context, educational institutions can enhance

student loyalty if they focus on tactics that will effectively increase the amount of repurchase

behavior for example: service quality, improving brand preference, student’s satisfaction etc.

(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2005)

However, the existence of situational factors (e.g. stock-out and non-availability), intrinsic

factors (e.g individual fortitude) or social cultural factors (e.g. social bonding) `that can

distinguish between repeat purchase and brand loyalty has led to more studies to understand

and operationalize brand loyalty beyond behavioral measures (Dick & Basu, 1994).

The attitudinal perspective of loyalty has been referred to as “a state of mind”. (Hennig-Thurau

et al., 2005). This implies that customers can be seen as ‘loyal’ to an organization if they have

a ‘positive preferential attitude’ towards it. This definition places more emphasis on

‘willingness’ than actual behavior and as such increasing customer loyalty is equivalent to

increasing the brand preference of the customer (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2005)

2.19.1 Antecedents of Students loyalty

Kunansorn and Puttawong, (2015) identify service quality, Institutional reputation/ image, trust

and commitment as main antecedents to customer loyalty.

2.19.2 Institutional Reputation/ Image


53

Image is defined as the overall impression that a customer holds about an object (Kunanusorn

& Puttawong, 2015). Kotler and Armstrong (2010) define corporate image as the overall

impression in the mind of the public about a firm. In the view of Kim and Lee (2010), it is the

perception of an organization that customers hold in their memories. Kotler and Fox (1995)

studied that image bases on “incomplete information” and it differs between various

organizations. Some authors have examined the relationship between image and perceptions of

customers (Gronroos, 2011; Kunanusorn & Puttawong, 2015). According to Gronroos (2001),

image has an impact on how customers perceived communications and operations of a firm in

many aspects. Organizations can be viewed as having a positive image if it is the customers’

perception that they could obtain benefits or interest from that particular organization.

Corporate image serves as a mirror through which the overall organization`s operation is

perceived and is a sample of the organization in the eye of the public. Kim and Lee (2010)

further posit that signaling theory has provided a framework for explaining the relationship

between corporate image and customer loyalty. According to these authors, customers use cues

such as capabilities and social responsibilities to evaluate the quality and value of the

intangibles. Kotler and Armstrong (2010) realizes that corporate image has a very strong

influence on customer loyalty. Kunanusorn and Puttawong (2015) argue that corporate image

has an association with physical and behavioral attributes of a firm such as business name,

architecture, variety of products/services and the impression of quality communicated by the

people interacting with the firm`s clients. They further argue that there is a positive relationship

between corporate image and customer loyalty in the telecommunication, education and

retailing sectors.


54

The image expectation that customers and users have about a firm with respect to the nature

and quality of their services goes a long way to influence customer loyalty and behavioral

intention (Agyei & Kilika, 2014). Corporate image thus affects customer evaluation of service

quality, satisfaction and loyalty. Brown and Dacin (1997) posit that corporate image is deriving

from customer satisfaction of perception and firm capabilities. The capabilities refer to the

company`s expertise in delivering products/services offerings such as innovation and high

service quality.

The academic reputation of an institution, quality of lectures, tutors and provision of facilities

as well as market orientation are all major contributors of student satisfaction (Mavondo &

Zaman, 2000). The authors also found that satisfied students provide positive word of mouth

about the institution to prospective students. Scholars have agreed that in pursuit of excellence

in higher education it is vital to emphasise the recognized programme in the context of

accreditation and reputable or industrial specialization Hanaysha et al., (2011). The

prospective students in their decision making process consider factors such as academic

reputation, service, employment prospect and teaching as the most important factors in their

choice (Hanaysha et al., 2011). Hanaysha et al., (2011) found in a study conducted in U.S that

students highly consider academic reputation and programme and thus influence their

perception of service quality. The selection of higher education differs from consumer

products, bccause it becomes even more complex when relating it to quality, cost and career

implications.

However, it has also been argued that applying a dynamic brand function to higher education

has the same effect as it does in other commercial contexts (Zhao, 2012). A good image helps

a firm in a competitive market to compete favorably as it differentiates it from competitors


55

(Mohamad, 2009). Image has often been found to be a variable with the greatest direct

influence on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Alves & Raposo, 2007). University

image has been found to have a direct and positive influence on positive behavioral intention

(students’ loyalty) (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007; Brown & Mazzarol, 2009). Mohamad (2009)

found that the effect of student satisfaction plays a significant role in establishing a relationship

between university image and student loyalty. It is therefore hypothesized that:

H1f; There is a significant positive relationship between institutional reputation and student’s

loyalty.

H1g; Students` satisfaction can play a role between institutional reputation and students

loyalty.

2.19.2.1 Importance of Institutional Reputation/ Image

Gummesson (1993) emphasized the importance of corporate image in the service quality

experience in his 4Q model, which is similar to the idea proposed by Lehtinen and Lehtinen

(1982) and Gronroos (1982; 1984). According to these authors, customers bring their past

experiences and overall perceptions of a service firm to each encounter, as they often have

frequent contact with the same service firm (Gronroos, 2001; Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003;

Zeithaml et al., 2006; Kang & James, 2004). In the light of this the image component was

introduced as an important element in the Gummerson 4Q model to reinforce customer

perceived quality, expectations and experiences.

Hirvonen (2007) identified four main roles that image plays in influencing customer

perceptions about service quality. He first identified positive word-of-mouth communication

from satisfied customers. Contrary negative image can lead to unfavorable word-of-mouth

communication. Secondly, he identified image as a filter through which technical and


56

functional quality can be seen. This function influences customer perception of a firm`s

performance. Hirvonen (2007) posit that, if a service provider has a positive image in the minds

of customers, minor mistakes will be overlooked. On the other hand, if the provider’s image

is negative the impact of any mistake will often be severe in the mind of customers. Hence, a

positive image becomes a shelter and minor mistakes and problems are overlooked whereas a

bad image leads to customer dissatisfaction with a service encounter (Hirvonen, 2007; Kang &

James, 2004).

Image has internal implications on employees’ performance, which also affects external

customers. If employees are not sure of the overall corporate image it may affect their attitude

and performance levels, which may eventually influence the relationship that exists between

them and customers which may further have an influence on their perceptions of service quality

(Gronroos, 2000; Hirvonen, 2007). He finally realizes that, image is a function of customer

expectations. If expectation is below perceived service quality a positive image will be formed

in the minds of customers. On the other hand, if customers’ perceived quality is below

expectation, the opposite effects will result (Hirvonen 2007; Kang & James, 2004).

2.19.3 Trust

Trust is considered as one of the most relevant antecedents of stable and collaborative

relationships (Akbar & Parvez, 2009). Moorman Deshpande and Zaltman, (1993) defined trust

as the willingness to depend on an exchange partner in whom confident is instilled. Trust is

necessary for institutions to build and maintain long term relationships (Singh & Sirdeshmukh,

2000). It is explained in the higher education context to mean that, if a student is loyal to his/her

institution, he/she will also trust the institution. Trust in this context is developed through the


57

experience students have with the institution. Student trust therefore can be inferred as their

confidence in the institution’s integrity and reliability, and this is dependent on the personal

experiences of the students with the faculty members (Henning-Tharau et al., (2001) and Saad-

Andaleeb (1994) argued that the lack of trust in institutions may seriously affect long term

relationships. Studies have also found that commitment in a highly dependent association, such

as higher education, can be large extenuated in the absence of trust (Saad-Andaleeb, 1994).

2.20 Post grdaduate Students` Satisfaction and Retention

Lo, (2010) contends that, students` satisfaction can be subjective, based on how well a learning

environment helped to achieve their academic objectives. Letcher and Neves, (2010) posit that,

satisfaction has the potential of building post graduates’ students’ self-confidence, which, will

eventually help in developing their skills and acquisition of knowledge. Trotter and Roberts

(2006) and Fearn, (2008), however, argue that, it can help decreased student attrition and

improve their experience. It is however, argued that, students’ satisfaction in general to a large

extent depends on the level of quality they received (Arambewela & Hall, 2013; Li, 2005).

Therefore, postgraduates’ students’satisfaction can be conceptualized through different salient

dimensions. These dimensions, according to Memon, Salleh, Baharom and Harun, (2014),

includes; internal and external university environment, and supervisors’ feedback. More

recently, Ibrahim, Rahman and Yasin (2014), found that, a campus environment that is

conducive to learning was the most significant predictor of student satisfaction. According to

these authors, student satisfaction is an essential tool for current students’ retention, and can

leads to offensive marketing. External and internal learning environments and supervisors’

feedback was, however, identified as the salient antecedents to achieving a higher level of

satisfaction and retention among postgraduate students (Memon et al., 2014). For the purpose

of this study, only internal environmental factors will be considered.


58

2.20.1 Internal Environment

Arambewela, Hall, and Zuhair, (2006) identified the following internal environmental factors

that can influence postgraduates’ perception of quality of education and satisfaction as;

reputation of the institution, student facilities and post-study marketability of a degree. They

strongly argue that, these factors influence the students’ level of satisfaction. Zepke and Leach,

(2007), contend that postgraduate students are highly conscious of their study outcomes, future

careers employment prospect and research supervision. Others are also of the view that student

satisfaction has a strong relationship with the quality of higher education perceived by the

student, and that this perception will be influenced by many factors concerning the educational

service, including expectation of service and image of the institution (Zhao ,2012). Again, Li

(2005), Opine that an institution’s image and learning quality significantly influence the

satisfaction of students at postgraduate business school in the US and the UK. Kuo and Ye

(2009) supported the notion that internal environmental factors, such as service quality and an

institution’s image, were the most salience factors that influenced the level of postgraduates’

students’ satisfaction and retention. Memon et al., (2014) found that, these factors not only

influences students` satisfaction and retention, but also enhanced their academic performance.

They further posit that, quality education is not the only factor that influences postgraduate

students’ satisfaction and retention, institutional reputation can lead to higher levels of

satisfaction and reputation.

2.21 Undergraduates Students Satisfaction and Retention.

According to Sickler (2013), students enter college with the ultimate desire of obtaining a

degree, however, students change, both physically and emotionally, during this period.

According to the author, some of the changes could lead to college success and other changes


59

can lead to college withdrawal. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) identified two groups of

theories and models underpinning student changes in college. They include; developmental

theories which focuses on intraindividual change and describes the salient characteristics of

student development as a function for ages, stages, and movement along a given dimension.

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) also suggested four categories of developmental theories that

influences changes in college students, psychosocial development, cognitive-structural

theories, typological models and person-environment interaction theories.

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) again, identified the college impact model as a theory that

influences students’ changes in college. This models concentrates on the interaindividual

drivers of student change and cannot be recognize as a developmental factor. College impact

models assumes that personal change is influenced by the characteristics of the institution the

student attends or the experiences they have while enrolled (Sickler,2013). Sickler (2013)

posit that the variables may be student-related, such as gender or academic achievement,

structural and organizational, such as institution size and admissions selectivity, or

environmental, such as the academic, social, or political environment on campus.

Sickler (2013) asserts that student satisfaction and loyalty are a function of three sets of

elements: inputs, such as demographic characteristics, family backgrounds, and academic and

social experiences; environment, such as the total college experience, including people,

programmes, policies, experiences; and outcomes, such students’ knowledge, skills, values,

attitudes and behaviors after college.

Tinto (1975) believes that students enter college with a lot of personal, family, and academic

skills, predilections and intentions. As the student interacts with the various structures and

members within the institution, these intentions and outlooks are continually adjusted. Tinto


60

(1975) opine that, rewarding and incentives associated with formal and informal systems within

the institution lead to greater student integration and increased persistence. Whereas, negative

interactions and experiences hinder the integration progression, leading to reduced institutional

commitment and possible defection. More so, Bean (1980) introduced the Model of Student

Withdrawal. This model proposes that students hold certain inherit characteristics that affect

their perceptions and interactions with the institution. These perceptions and interactions, in

turn, influences the students` level of satisfaction with the institution`s services and the level

of satisfaction then directly affects the students` level of commitment to the institution. Bean

(1980) further argued that, the extent of institutional commitment is a major determinants of

retention. It is therefore, hypothesised that;

H4: Students` level of education can play a moderating role between service quality, students

satisfaction and loyalty.

2.22 Empirical Evidence

Mosavi and Ghaedi (2011) investigated the effects of various dimensions of perceived quality

(social, emotional and conditional) on commitment and further explored the effects of

commitment on customer advocacy behaviors’ including information sharing, marketing

research support, word-of-mouth recommendations and increasing purchase intentions. Using

students of Shiraz University in Iran the study found a significant positive relationship between

customers’ perceived value and commitment. The study further found that most impacts of

commitment are word-of-mouth, repurchase intentions, information sharing and marketing

research support.

Kwan and Ng (1999) examined the effects of students’ perceived quality on students’

satisfaction. The study measured students’ perception of service quality using 22 statements


61

that were divided into seven dimensions. The study revealed that, perceived service quality has

a positive significant effect on students’ satisfaction.

Ali and Abdrisaq (2014) In examining the relationships between service quality dimensions

and student’s satisfaction, found that there is a positive significant relationship between service

quality dimensions and student’s satisfaction. The study further examined the critical factors

in service quality dimensions that mostly contribute to students’ satisfaction. Using 120

graduate students from three universities in Mogadishu, the findings revealed that reliability

has the strongest relationship followed by empathy, with tangibility recording the weakest

relationship. It is therefore Hypothesized that;

H1ao: There is no significant relationship between tangible dimension and student satisfaction

H1c: There is a significant positive relationship between the reliability dimension and students`

satisfaction.

H1e: There is a significant positive relationship between the empathy dimension and students’

satisfaction.

Hassan, Ilias, Rahman and Razak (2009) in their study examine the relationship between the

overall service quality dimensions and student satisfaction using a modified SERVQUAL

questionnaire comprising 35 items. Two hundred undergraduate students from two private

universities in Malaysia were sampled for the study. The study found that empathy elements

established the strongest relationships with students` satisfaction followed by assurance factors.

The findings further established that, these two dimensions were very important in explaining

student’s satisfaction and that any effort to improve assurance and empathy dimensions will

help students give better evaluation to their satisfaction. It therefore hypothesized that;


62

H1b: There is no statistically significant positive relationship between the assurance dimension

and students’ satisfaction and loyalty

Lee, (2013) examined the moderators influencing service quality, customer satisfaction and

loyalty in mobile phone services. The result of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis

reveals that, service quality positively affects customer loyalty. It was found that service quality

positively influences customer satisfaction, which further influences customer loyalty.

Abas, Ghaleb and El-refae, (2012), in their study of the relationship between service quality,

satisfaction and behavioral intention, found a significant positive relationship between service

quality, satisfaction behavioral intention. Using a sample size of 1200 students, the study

reveals tangibles (ß=.310, P=.00) and empathy (β=.380, P=.00) shows the strongest

relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioral intention, followed by reliability

(β=.22, P=00) and responsiveness (β=.10, P=.00). However, the assurance dimension was not

found to play a significant role in predicting satisfaction and behavioral intention. It is therefore

hypothysized that;

H1aa; There is a significant positive relationship between the tangible dimensions and

students’ satisfaction and loyalty

H1d: There is a significant positive relationship between the responsiveness dimension and

students’ satisfaction and loyalty.

Sickler (2013) studied the salient undergraduate students’ perceptions of service quality that

predict students’ retention. Using a total of 483 freshmen and continuing students of a large

institution in the United States, the study found that the overall student satisfaction is a

significant predictor of student retention. The study further reports that students placed greater


63

emphasis on the institution’s concern for them than the institution itsel; this provides the ability

to predict student satisfaction. This finding is supported by a study conducted by Kerlin (2000),

which found that students place less emphasis on tangible aspects of service quality including

appearance of the institution’s facilities and greater emphasis in the aspects that can affect their

personal needs.

Carter (2009) examined the relationship between service quality perceptions and students’

intentions to recommend the university to a friend or colleague. Using the constructs of class

availability, professor`s knowledge, job advancement, facilities, and tuition. The study

established that, service quality significantly influences both student satisfaction and intention

to recommend, therefore, service quality was found to have a significant impact on student`

overall satisfaction and retention. Aldridge and Rowley (1998) argue that, quality is different

from satisfaction and that quality is a general attitude, whereas satisfaction is linked to specific

transactions” Others however, argue that the concept of perceived quality of university services

leads to overall satisfaction with the university (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al.,

1985, 1988).

Agyei and Kilika, (2014) examined the relationship between the corporate image and customer

loyalty in the telecommunications market in Kenya. The study found a significant positive

relationship between corporate image and customer loyalty. The findings further revealed that

service quality and brand image are significant predictors of customer loyalty. The result of the

analysis reveals an R2 = 0.25 in the relationship. It was found that service quality predicts

customer loyalty at (β=.400, P<.001) indicating that service quality is a good predictor of

customer loyalty. Corporate image predicts customer loyalty at (β=.323, P<.001) indicating

that it is a good predictor.


64

2.23 Conceptual Framework

This conceptual framework is on perception of service quality, institutional reputation, level of

education and satisfaction used in studying student’s loyalty. A review of available literature

has shown a positive relationship between students’ perceptions of service quality and students’

loyalty (Hinson & Otieku, 2005; Fosu & Owusu, 2015) as well as their satisfaction and loyalty

(Seok Lee, 2013; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000). Again a review of available literature has

shown that there is a limited research on the collective effects of students’ perception of service

quality, institutional satisfaction, and their loyalty (Chopra, Chawla & Sharma, 2014). Against

this background, the framework below depicts the conceptual framework for this study. It is

a pictorial representation of the relationship between perception of service quality and

students’ satisfaction on their loyalty. The framework proposes that, customer satisfaction is

directly related to service quality dimensions (tangibility, reliability, assurance, empathy and

responsiveness) and institutional image and students’ loyalty. The framework further proposes

that the level of education also moderates the relationship between service quality dimensions

and institutional image on students’ satisfaction.


67

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework

H1, H1a-H1f

H4

H4

Source: Adapted from Karatepe (2011)

H2

SERVICE QUALITY

DIMENSIONS

TANGIBLES

ASSURANCE

EMPATHY

RELIABILITY

RESPONSIVENES

INSTITUTIONAL

REPUTATION

STUDENTS’

SATISFACTION

STUDENT

LOYALTY

Level of

education

H3


68

2.24 Components of the Conceptual Framework

This section gives a vivid description of the elements within the conceptual framework. The

diagram above gives a pictorial representation of the variables in the model and their

interactions as well as their relationships. Perception of service quality has a direct relationship

with students’ loyalty. Students’ satisfaction of the various dimensions of service quality can

influence the perception their loyalty. The level of education can moderate the relationship

between students’ perception of service quality, their satisfaction and loyalty.\

2.24.1 Service Quality Dimensions (SERVQUAL)

The service quality concept has been extensively acknowledged in the literature review;

however, the relationship between perception of service quality and students’ loyalty is

discussed in relation to the conceptual framework of the study. Parasuraman et al., (1988)

model of service quality (SERVQUAL), students’ satisfaction and loyalty is guiding the

conceptualization of this thesis. Service marketing literature has identified five major

determinants of service quality (Tangibility, Reliability, Empathy Responsiveness and

Assurance). These dimensions have been discussed indepth in the literature review.

2.24.2 Relationship between the Variables in the Model:

2.24.2.1 Service Quality and Students Satisfaction

This concept has been thoroughly discussed in the literature review. Scholars such as, Alves

and Raposo, (2010) and Fosu and Owusu, (2015) argued for positive relationship between

quality dimensions and students’ satisfaction.


69

2.24.2.2 Service Quality and Students Loyalty

Marketing scholars and practitioners; Seok-Lee (2013) and Parasuraman and Grewal (2000),

posit that service quality has a direct relationship with behavioral intention (loyalty decisions),

2.24.2.3 Students Satisfaction and Students Loyalty

Eggert and Ulagga (2002) posit that there is a strong relationship between satisfaction and

behavioral intention (loyalty dimensions) such as repurchase intention, alternative

considerations and recommendations.

2.24.2.4 Institutional Image and Students Loyalty

Kim and Lee (2010) posit that corporate image, brand awareness, service price and service

quality are major antecedent for achieving customer loyalty in a mobile telecommunications

industry. Hence, corporate image plays a key role in establishing and sustaining customer

loyalty. Corporate image relates positively with customer loyalty in education,

telecommunications and retailing sectors (Kim & Lee, 2010). The image and expectation that

consumers hold with respect to the nature and quality of their services influences their loyalty

(Rowly & Dawes, 1999). Corporate image influences consumers’ behavioral intention. Kim

Lee (2010) further posit that corporate image has a significant influence on evaluation of

service, satisfaction and loyalty.

2.24.2.5 Students Satisfaction and Students’ Loyalty

Scholars have argued that customer loyalty is a composite of a number of qualities driven by

the objectives of achieving customer satisfaction which, will intend enable the customer to

show commitment to an organization`s offering. This commitment leads to a customer making

a continual investment in an ongoing relationship with an organization. Viewing customer


70

loyalty from this perspective is a product of a combination of attitude and behaviors. The

attitude includes repurchase intention, recommendation to others as well as commitment to the

firm that is resistance to switch to competitors. Scholars Boahene and Agyapong (2011)

identified service quality and customer satisfaction as an antecedent to customer loyalty

2.24.3 Students Loyalty

The study examined the students’ loyalty from the perception of service quality and satisfaction

on three variables, namely; students’ recommendation (Sickler, 2013); alternative

consideration (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002); continued enrolment (Dodds et al., 1991; Parasuraman

& Grewal, 2000) and word of mouth communication (Ravald & Gronroos 1996; Liljander &

Strandvik, 1995; Gross, 1997; & Dolds et al., 1991).

2.24.4 Level of Education Satisfaction and Retention

Studies have shown that students` level of education can influence their satisfaction and loyalty

and can therefore moderate the relationship between their perception of service quality and

these two constructs (Sickler, 2013; Memon et al., 2014)


71

CHAPTER THREE

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

3.1 Overview of Ghana

Ghana is geographically located at the Western part of Africa with a total land size of about

238,583 square kilometers (Brayed, 2009). In 2010, Ghana`s population stood at about 25

million with an annual growth rate of about 2.7% per annum (Baryeh, 2009). Formally

colonized by the British, Ghana gained its independence from its colonial masters on the 6th

of March 1957 (Baryeh, 2009). The country is subdivided into ten regions with Accra in the

Greater Accra region as the capital. The political system in the country is a multiparty

democracy Baryeh, (2009).

3.2 Education in Ghana

Ghana over the years has adopted a series of reforms in education. Education evolution in

Ghana involved all levels including primary education, secondary and Tertiary education

(Asabere-Ameyaw, 2016). The foremost step towards establishing a strong foundation in

Ghana’s education can be dated back in 1951 by first president Dr. Nkrumah, under a policy

called Accelerated Development Plan (Asabere-Ameyaw, 2016). This policy is noted for some

remarkable progress in the educational sector including rapidly increasing the enrolment in

primary schools’ introduction of emergency teachers training, appointment of pupil teachers

and provision of facilities to middle, secondary and technical schools (Asabere-Ameyaw,

2016).

Higher education systems in Ghana were reformed and expanded extensively (Utuka, 2010).

In 1987, the government formed a university rationalization committee (URC) to work towards

reforming the management, academic structure and the funding of tertiary institutions in Ghana


72

(Utuka 2010). Proposals brought forth by the committee reflected in a government white paper

in 1991, which sought to significantly expand tertiary education as a whole to meet the demand

of school leavers and the needs of employers, and to ensure that those previously denied

education could have access (Utuka, 2010).

In spite of interventions made in Ghana’s education systems over the years, there seems to be

a plethora of challenges leaving a toll on the quality of teaching and learning (Ministry of

education, 2003). Demand for higher education is high and as a result the state funded

universities have to refuse many applications from a good number of qualified students (Utuka,

2010).

The educational reforms started in the mid-1980s, and higher education in Ghana has

experienced a varied and significant transformation (Utuka, 2010). For instance, there have

been increases in the number of undergraduates and a significant expansion in post graduate

education (Utuka, 2010). www.dictionary.com definse higher education as education beyond

high school specifically that provided by colleges and graduate professional schools. British

dictionary also defines higher education as education and training in college. It is a qualification

that covers the degree level and takes not less than three years to complete( www.wg.

Aegee.or/ewg/higher education.gh). It offers a wide range of qualification ranging from

diploma to doctorate degrees. Taking the above definitions into consideration, the Higher

education sector in Ghana consists of colleges of educations, polytechnics and universities. It

can be inferred that, over the last decades, the number of higher education institutions have

expanded rapidly, particularly private university colleges, in the face of rising student

enrolments. Currently Ghana has six public universities, five public professional universities,

ten public polytechnics, and thirty-eight colleges of education across the country (National


http://www.dictionary.com/

http://www.wg/

73

Accreditation Board, 2015). In the private sector, there are over 76 private university colleges

with the majority affiliated to government universities in Ghana and four private colleges of

education (National Accreditation Board, 2015).

Public universities have had a near monopoly in providing tertiary education in Africa (Utuka,

2010). Immediately after independence, public universities had a state monopoly like other

African countries (Ghana Education Service Report,2001). With full funding from the state,

the main objective of these public universities was to train the manpower needed for the rapid

transformation of the country (Utuka, 2010). Initially, the government depended significantly

on foreign capital and foreign personnel to meet the lack of qualified and trained manpower

(Ghana Education Report, 2001). This necessitated government to focus on expanding the

capacity of higher education by developing systems and infrastructure to train the needed

manpower for Ghana (Utuka, 2010).

Due to increasing demand for higher education in the country, government had the challenge

of financing education in this sector and hence adopted a legal regime that allows for the active

participation of private universities (Utuka, 2010). This led to a rapid growth of private

provision of tertiary education over the last decade.

3.3 Administration

The Ministry of Education (MoE) has a general obligation for education sector policy, planning

and monitoring (Ghana Education Service Report, 2001). The primary objectives of the

ministry is to ensure that “quality education is delivered to all Ghanaians at all levels to enable

them to obtain skills that will support them to improve their potential, to be fruitful, to facilitate


74

poverty reduction and to promote socio-economic growth and national development” (Ghana

Education Service Report, 2001).

Education delivery and implementation is devolved to institutions, districts and regions

through various agencies of the Ministry of Education. Among these, the Ghana Education

Service (GES) is the agency that implements the basic and senior secondary education

components, including tchnical and vocational institutes (Ghana Education Service Report,

2001) Ghana Education Service is therefore responsible for schools (Ghana Education Service

Report, 2001). The other agencies take care of the rest of the education sector. The National

Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) and the Non-Formal Education Division (NFED) have

important sub-sectorial areas of responsibility like quality like issues and many others

regarding education delivery (Ministry of education, 2003).

3.4 Progress and Developments in University Education

During the period of independence, Ghana had only two (public) tertiary institutions

(universities) (Baryeh, 2009). The last decade has witnessed phenomenal growth (Baryeh,

2009). Currently, Ghana has 11 public universities, about 76 private university colleges, 10

public polytechnics and 38 college of educations (NAB, 2015). This growth can be interpreted

to mean continued high demand for tertiary education.

3.5 Historical Overview of Higher Education

Ghana`s higher education development can be traced back to 11th August 1948 when the

University College of the Gold Coast (now University of Ghana) was established by the British

colonial government in a special relationship with the University of London, to offer a limited

programme of study (Baryeh,2009). In 1961, the university college was granted a full fledged


75

university status with the powers to award its own degrees (Baryeh,2009). According to this

author, between 1972 and 1973, the total student’s enrollment was estimated at 2530 with 450

academic staff. To solve the problem of rapid population growth as well as increasing demand

for higher education it became very important for the nation to establish new universities. In

line with this, the Kumasi College of Technology was raised to a university standing and was

renamed Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology by an Act of Parliament on

August 22, 1961 (Daniel, 1996 cited in Baryeh, 2009). An international commission, in line

with the country’s development objectives, urged for the establishment of a third university

(Baryeh,2009). The University College of Cape Coast was established in December 1962 and

was raised to a full university status in October 1971 by an Act of Parliament, the University

of Cape Coast Act 1971, and subsequently the University of Cape Coast Law 1992 (PNDC

LAW 278) (University of Cape Coast Calender, 1995-2005). The main purpose was to deliver

graduate teachers for the increasing number of secondary schools and teacher training colleges.

In 1992, the University of Education, Winneba was added to train teachers for the nation`s

secondary schools and was affiliated to the University of Cape Coast (Baryeh, 2009). The

University has three campuses located in two of the country`s ten regions (Baryeh, 2009). The

University of Development Studies was established by Provisional National Defense Council

(PNDC) Law 279 in May, 1992, (Agbodeka, 1998 cited in Bayeh, 2009). The University has

four campuses spread over four regions of the country namely, Brong Ahafo, Northern, Upper

East and Upper West Regions (Baryeh, 2009).

Currently, the statistics from the national accreditation board reveals that the country has 38

colleges of education, 10 polytechnics and 10 public universities. In addition to this, the

National Accreditation Board has accredited 76 private universities and university institutions

that offer various programmes (NAB, 2015).


76

3.6 Access to Quality Education in Ghana

Chiyan Chao (1998) cited in Britwum, Jonah and Tay (2001) defines access as “the ability to

progress through the education cycle without delay or dropouts”. The Government of Ghana

over the years has its desire to provide tertiary education to all Ghanaians as specify in the

Article 25 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana (Britwum et al., 2001). In response to the Jontien

Declaration of Education for All and the implementation of education reforms in 1987 and

1991; the, University of Ghana (UG). University of Cape Coast (UCC) and Kwame Nkrumah

University of Science and Technology (KNUST) were able to change their level of enrolment

significantly from 4,569, 1,491, and 3,506 in 1987 to 4, 017, 2000 and 3,980 respectively in

1991 (Britwum et al., 2001). The tertiary education reforms in 1991 further aggravated

Government`s commitment to increased access to tertiary education and in response; UG, UCC

and KNUST further increase their level of enrolment from 4,017,2000 and 3,980 in 1991 to

9,095, 7,722 and 8,573 respectively in 1999 ((Britwum et al., 2001). Currently, statistics from

the Chief Information Technology Officer (CHITO) of University of Ghana`s office the

indicate that, the University has not less than 40000 students.

3.7 Private Universities

The expansion of private higher education institutions is apparent in most parts of the world

(Baryeeh,2009). Although the expansion of the sector can be attributed to a number of reasons.

Altbach, (1998) argues that the main reasons are related to massification and financing. An

increased in demand for access to higher education and the change of thinking about the

financing of higher education has led to the growth of the sector (Baryeh, 2009). The change

in concept from the traditional idea that higher education is a public good that has to be

provided by society to private good, has also been the major derivatives for the growth of

private higher education (Baryeh, 2009). In line with the general rational plus the national


77

political and ideological changes, the country has seen a tremendous growth in private higher

education institutions since the year 2000 (Baryeh, 2009). Currently there are 76 accredited

private higher education institutions dotted across the length and breadth of the country (NAB,

2015).

3.8 Quality Assurance in Ghana`s Higher Education

The education sector reforms in 1987 stress quality of education at all levels (Britwum et al.,

2001). However, it was realized that, twelve years after the reforms, the quality of education is

still below expectation (Britwum et al., 2001). Several studies have been carried out by

researchers and organizations on tertiary education and have concluded that, in the face of

increased resource input to the sector, the reforms still fail to raise the level of quality required

for the sector (Britwum et al., 2001). Whilst researchers have agreed that, at the tertiary level,

there is a falling standard in academic performance of students, yet enough systematic studies

have not been conducted to examine the level of quality of education in Ghana (Britwum et al.,

2001).

3.9 Studies in the Ghanaian Education Sector

Several studies have been carried out in the higher education sector, including; quality and

experience (Hinson & Otieku, 2005; Tutu-Boahene & Akwensivie, 2014) and quality and

perception (Fosu and Owusu, 2015). The study provided a brief summary of these studies as

shown below.

Tutu-Boahene and Akwensivie (2014) studied the services experience perspectives in

Ghanaian private universities. Specifically, the study examined the relationships that exists

between student experiences and service quality indicators using Grummesson’s 4Q model of

delivering quality. The empirical data gathered from 700 students of three universities in Accra


78

found that there is a positive but insignificant relationship between student experiences and

service quality indicators. It also revealed that service quality indicators such as output quality,

process quality, interactive quality and outcome quality impact on service experience of

students.

Fosu and Owusu (2015) studied Ghanaian students’ perception of service quality in higher

education. Adopting the HEdPERF model as a conceptual framework with a sample of 372

students from Tamale Polytechnic, the study found that excellent and quality programmes run

by the institution, highly educated instructors, timely delivery of promises by staff, reputation

of the programmes offered by the institution and access to materials at the institution’s library

were salient criteria that influenced the students’ perception of service quality. The study

posited that higher education institutions can affect students’ perceptions by introducing

programme that are highly marketable with various areas of specialization, recruiting high

caliber of lectures and delivering promises on time.

Abukari and Corner`s, (2010) study on how to deliver higher education to meet local needs in

a developing economy context used the experience of the students from university of

development studies. The study concluded that, the basis for any quality should be grounded

on the principle of mutual benefit to all stakeholders.

Hinson and Otieku (2005) examined service quality from Ghana`s first executive programme

from students’ perspectives. The study reveals that the students were more concern about the

facilities and conducive classroom setting.


79

CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses how the study was undertaken, outlines procedures that were used in

achieving the stated objectives and provides justification for each step taken. It entails the

research design of the study, the population of the study, and the sample size that was used. It

includes the sampling techniques that were employed in the study, detailsof the research

instruments used the source of data for the study and how this data was analysed.

4.2 Research Approach

In the view of Hair, Wolfinbarger, Ortinau and Bush (2008) research approach is a broad

category of research design. According to Hair, Wolfinbarger, Ortinau and Bush (2008)

determining the most appropriate research approach is to a large extent a function of the

research objectives as well as the level of information requirement. Hair et al., (2008) and

Creswell, (2009) identified three (3) main research approaches: namely Qualitative;

Quantitative; and Mix methods. In addition, Creswell (2009) argued that the researcher

decision on which approach to adopt for a specific study, is influenced by the researcher’s

personal philosophy; nature of research problem; researchers personal experience and the target

audience for the study.

Creswell (2009) define qualitative research as a means for exploring and understanding the

meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. Alternatively, the

quantitative research approach is a means for testing objective theories by examining the

relationship among variables (Creswell, 2009). Furthermore, the mixed methods approach is

an approach to inquiry that combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches. This


80

encompasses the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches concurrently so that the

overall strength of a study is stronger than using one approach (Creswell & Clark, 2007).

The researcher adopted a quantitative research approach for this study because it uses

standardized procedures and replication of findings is assumed (Neuman, 2007). The study was

based on the determinants of service quality perceptions of students in higher educational

institutions. The study was carried out on the basis of five (5) service quality dimensions

developed by Parasuraman et al., (1988) with some modifications to suit the current study.

Again, in order to test the hypotheses of the study, quantitative data was required. Similar

studies (Fosu & Owusu, 2015; Joseph & Joseph, 1997; Oldfield & Baron, 2000; Joseph &

Joseph,1999; Telford & Masson, 2005; Eggert & Ulaga,2002; Agarwal, Eramilli & Dev, 2003;

Hinson, Mensah & Mahmoud, 2006) have used the quantitative research approach and thereby

supports the use of the approach in this study.

4.3 Research Design

Scholars in the relevant field of knowledge have defined research design from different

perspectives. However, Cooper and Schindler, (2008) realizes that no single definition is

absolute. In the view of Creswell (2009), research design is the plan and procedures for

research that span the decisions from broad assumptions to detailed methods of data collection

and analysis in achieving objectives and answering the research questions. Again, Cooper and

Schindler (2008) define a research design as the blueprint for achieving study objectives and

answering research questions. Research scholars (Hair et al., 2008; Zikmund & Babin, 2010)

have identified three main research designs exploratory; descriptive; and causal. An

exploratory research according to (Hair et al., 2008) generates insights and deepens the


81

understanding of a phenomenon / research problem, descriptive research, on the other hand,

describes the existing characteristics of a given target audience. In addition, a causal research

design, collects data that enables decision makers to determine cause and affect relationships

between two or more variables (Hair et al., 2008). This study used the exploratory research

design in order to understand and seek deeper insight into students’ perception of service

quality in higher educational institutions of learning and their loyalty decisions as well as the

role that their level of education and institutional reputation play in this relationship. (Robson,

2000; Hair et al., 2008). Furthermore, exploratory research was used to clarify any equivocal

situations and discover new insight that may be prospective for opportunities (Zikmund &

Babin, 2010).

The study was conducted based on the cross sectional survey to measure the responses of the

students of the University of Ghana. A Cross-sectional study examines a particular

phenomenon at a specific period of time (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). The cross

sectional method was deemed appropriate because the data was collected once at a particular

time period and analysed. This technique is relatively cheaper to use and ensures for easy data

collection involving students from diverse backgrounds; gender, experiences and age. This

was done to enable the researcher to complete the study within a given stipulated period.

4.4 Research Strategy

Creswell (2009) identified survey and experimental research as the two main research

strategies. Zikmund and Babin (2010) further argued that the most appropriate method of

collecting primary data is the survey strategy. According to these authors, the survey is a

research technique in which a sample is interviewed in a particular manner or the behavior of

respondents is observed and described in a given situation. The survey research was used by


82

the researcher instead of the experimental research as a results of its numeric description of

trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample using a questionnaire to

gathering primary data (Creswell, 2009).

Furthermore, a survey because respondents (the students) are the actual consumers of the

services of University of Ghana and not assumed as in experiment. Again, the survey method

provides; quick, inexpensive, efficient, and accurate means of assessing information regarding

a given population. To add to the above, this allows the use of statistical tools in analyzing the

sample survey results very easily (Zikmund & Babin, 2010). Research of service quality in

higher education has used this method to achieve their desired objectives (Fosu & Owusu 2015,

Abukari & Corner, 2010, Brochado, 2009).

Under the survey research strategy, the cross-sectional study was employed. According to

Kuada and Hinson (2012), a cross-sectional design involves the collection of information from

a given sample of population at one point in time. Kumar (1996) further posit that this design

is suitable for studies that aim to analyze a phenomenon, situation, problem, attitude or issue

by considering a cross-section of the population at one point in time. This method is thus less

expensive and less time consuming compare to the longitudinal design. It is interesting to know

that some service quality in higher education researchers have employed the cross-sectional

design (Hinson & Otieku, 2005; Fosu & Owusu, 2015; Abukari & Corner, 2010)

4.5 Sampling Plan

The sampling plan consists of three components, namely; target population, sampling size and

sampling procedure (Malhotra & Dash, 2011).

4.6 Population and Sampling


83

4.6.1 Target Population

Population is defined as encompassing “the total collection of all members, cases or elements

about which the researcher wishes to draw conclusions (Huysamen, 1994). Malhotra and Dash,

(2011) also define the population of a study as the aggregate of all elements, sharing some

common set of characteristics that comprise the target audience for the purpose of the research

interest. Malhotra and Birk, (2006) defined target population as the group to which the results

of the study are intended to apply. In other words, the target population is the group to which

the results of the study are generalized.

In this study, the target population comprises of the students of the University of Ghana

Business school. This target population is crucial to the strategic decisions of the University

when it comes to service quality issues, hence the need for their participation in the study.

Scholars have advocated for the inclusion of students as they are the best target group when

the researcher is interested in perception of service quality of higher educational institutions

(Fosu & Owus,2015; Abukari & Corner,2010).

Considering the broad nature of the education industry of Ghana, the intricacies involved in

service quality coupled with time constraints, the researcher could only look at the relationship

between service quality dimensions, level of education, institutional reputation, satisfaction

and loyalty decisions from University Ghana students’ perspective.

4.7 Sample Size

This is the fraction of the target population that is being considered for the study (Malhotra &

Dash, 2011). According to a sample size table developed by Kriechje and Morgan, (1970), and

Bartlett, Kotrlik and Hinggins (2001), a population between 6000 to 8000 can have a minimum


84

sample size of 367. Currently, the statistics from the Chief Information Technology Office

(CITO) of University of Ghana reveals that there are 7436 students at the Business School.

Using Yamane`s (1967) formula, a sample size of three hundred and seventy-nine (379)

respondents (the students) was drawn from the target population (students of University of

Ghana Business School) for the purpose of the study. This sample size is line with the result of

the sample size calculator proposed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) and the one proposed by

Bartlett, Kotrlik and Hinggins (2001). Finally, similar studies have used sample sizes above

200 (Abukari & Corner, 2010; Fosu & Owusu, 2015). The sample size was drawn owing to

the fact that the population of students of University of Ghana Business School is too large for

the study. The sample size for the study was drawn based on the Taro Yamane`s formula of

sample size in order to obtain reliable data at (95% level of confidence and 5% error level)

(Yamane, 1967). The formula is given by n=N / [1+N (e)2 ]

Where n represents sample size

“ N represents research population

“ e represents a sample error (5%)

Yamane`s formula was adopted because similar researchers including Fosu and Owusu, (2015),

Fosu and Poku (2014) and Al-Fatal (2010), have use this formula in their study of higher

education and it has proved worthwhile.

4.8 Sampling Technique

According to Webb, (2000), there are two main types of sampling techniques. These are the

probability sampling and non-probability sampling. With probability sampling, all elements

are given equal chances of being selected, whereas with the non-probability sampling, the

chances of selection depend on the discretion of the researcher. They are sampled to achieve

the demands of research the objectives (Webb, 2000).


85

This study used a probability sampling technique under this technique a stratified sampling was

used to divide the students of University of Ghana Business School into seven into strata as

follows: undergraduates, regular MBA, weekend MBA, MSc/MA MPHIL, EMBA and PHD.

This was done to ensure that there is fair participation among all the degree levels in the

business school. A convenient sampling method was then used to select the target respondents

after the stratification. Webb (2000), posit that, sample members under this sampling technique

should meet certain criteria, which are appropriate to the successful completion of their

investigation. The criteria were based on respondents’ exposure to service quality issues at the

University of Ghana. Again, a probability sampling techniques such as simple random

sampling techniques was used because all the students at the University of Ghana Business

School have reasonable knowledge about the issues under investigation and are required to

participate in the study. Also, only students at the business school were considered, these group

of students have more knowledge and experience about the variables under consideration. A

simple random sampling technique again helped the researcher to select the most accessible

respondents to provide accurate information for the study. Again, a probability sampling

specifically simple random sampling method was used because of the large nature of the total

population, hence, the chance of a respondent (student) being selected for the study was

dependent on the random selection.

4.9 Data Collection and Instrumentation

4.9.1 Primary data collection

Data collection is the process of gathering information. Data was gathered by observation and

interviews. Survey requires direct participation of research participants’ involvement that

involve filling out a questionnaire (Zikmund & Babin, 2010).


86

The study utilized structured the questionnaires as the primary data collection instrument.

Results from this procedure were used in the analysis stage. Self-administration of the

questionnaires was done by the researcher. After explaining the purpose of the survey and

obtaining consent, the respondents were asked to fill out the questionnaires. Respondents were

also engaged in face to face interaction to facilitate clarification of issues and obtain feedback.

The study employed the used of questionnaires since many previous studies on service quality

in higher education have relied on questionnaires to collect data (Hinson & Otieku, 2005;

Fosu & Owusu, 2015).

4.10 Contact Method

Questionnaires were administered personally to the students of University of Ghana Business

School. This choice of method helped the researcher to have very high level (percentage)

redeeming rate and helped to explain questions that respondents found difficult to understand

and also enable the researcher to observe the respondents (the students). The questionnaires

were administered at a range of about ten to fifteen minutes per respondent over a period of

three weeks. This was to adjust the time period of the entire study. Only close-ended questions

were administered; This was done to help facilitate the coding.

4.11 Survey Method

Both self-completion method and the interviewer administered method was employed by the

researcher. This survey method was chosen to facilitate successful administration of the

questionnaire by allowing those who could successfully complete it without the researcher`s

assistance to do so and provided help for those who faced difficulties in the process.


87

4.12 Data Source

The sources of data needed to address research problems can either be primary or secondary

(Hair et al., 2008). According to these scholars, the sources of data depend on two basics issues

that are: 1. whether the data already exist, and 2. the extent to which the researcher knows the

purpose for which the data was gathered. These sources of data collection are discussed below;

Secondary data is data that has already been collected for some purpose other than the one

under consideration (Webb, 2000). Wilson (2000) defines secondary data as information that

has been previously gathered for some purpose other than the current research project.

Secondary sources of data include the internet websites like Google scholar, Emerald, and

Science direct and University libraries like the University of Ghana library. At these sources,

existing data and information on students’ perception of service quality were sourced. These

were collected to guide the researcher in primary data collection, analysis and discussion of the

findings of the study (Webb, 2000).

4.13 Primary Source

Primary data are collected directly from first hand sources to address the current research

problem (Webb, 2000). Primary data for testing the hypothesis were collected via self-

administered questionnaires from the Students of University of Ghana Business School. The

study used primary data because of the high level of consumer behavior involvement in the

study.

4.14 Instrumentation

Structured questionnaires were employed to collect data which was subjected to quantitative

analysis with the aid of SPSS version 22 to achieve the objective of the study. A structural

equation model Amos was used to analysed the effect of service quality dimensions on


88

students` perception of service quality and how it influences their loyalty. It was also used to

analyze how the level of education, institutional reputation, students’ satisfaction and service

quality dimensions interact and its effects on loyalty decisions from students’ perspectives. As

stated by Saunders et al. (2007), the validity and the reliability of the data you collect, as well

as the response rate you achieve, depends, to a large extent, on the design and the structure of

your questionnaire. In this study, the questionnaire design was approached in one way that is

by adopting questions used in other questionnaires.

The questionnaires consist of five sections using a summated rating method, which required

respondents to circle the number that accurately represents their perception of each statement.

The first part of the questionnaire covered the respondents’ personal information. The second

section addressed questions relating to students’ perceptions of service quality as well as how

institutional reputation can influence their perception of service quality dimensions,

satisfaction and loyalty. The third section evaluated students’ satisfaction. The SERVQUAL

model developed by Parasuraman, et al., (1988) was adopted as the instrument for service

quality measurement. Only performance perceptions of the students were measured which

implies that the study adopted a modified SERQUAL model by (Parasuraman et al.,1988). A

five-point Likert scale, which measures the extent to which respondents agree or disagree with

statements, was used. The Likert scale is an appropriate format for measuring the respondent's

agreement to a series of beliefs or statements about a given object (Webb, 2000). The 5-point

rating scale was used to measure the respondents’ perceptions with regards to the constructs

under investigation. The descriptors ranged from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree).

The Section A contained seven questions pertaining to the student`s personal profile, while

Sections B required the respondents to evaluate the service components of the University of


89

Ghana, in which only perceptions data was collected and analysed. Specifically, section B

consisted of 40 perception-items, questionnaire adopted from (Fosu and Owusu, 2015 &

Hassan et al.,2009). All the items in sections B were presented as statements on the

questionnaire, using the same rating scale throughout the entire study.

In addition to the main scale addressing individual items, respondents were asked in Section C

to provide their overall level of satisfaction, based on the level of servicev quality received,

questionnaire adopted from (Hassan et al., 2009). Finally, the respondents were asked in

section D to indicate the extent to which they will be loyal to the university base on their

perception of service quality, questionnaire adopted from (Rojas-Mendez, Vasquez- Parraga,

Kara & Cerda – Urrutia,2009). The drafted questionnaire was eventually subjected to a pilot

testing with a total of 50 students, and they were asking to comment on any perceived

ambiguities, omissions or errors concerning the draft questionnaire. Respondents were asked

to indicate the extent to which each item reflects the University`s service quality on a 5-point

likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The reliability test (Cranach`s alpha)

was used to determine the internal consistency and the reliability of the instruments. The

students’ loyalty was measured by six items on a 5-point Likert scale, questionnaire adopted

from Rojas-Mendez et al., (2009) modify to suit the current study. The first item measured the

students’ recommendations as a result of the service quality delivery. The second and the fifth

items measured the students continued enrolment decision as a result of the quality of the

service delivered. The third item measured students` decision to look for an alternative

institution. The fourth item measured the word of mouth communication and students’

recommendations base on the level of service quality experienced.

4.15 Confirmatory Factor Analysis


90

According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham, (2006) factor analysis is a technique

particularly suitable for analyzing the patterns of complex, multidimensional relationships

encountered by researchers, and it is also used to determine whether the information can be

condensed or summarized in a smaller set of factors or components. These components are, by

definition, highly inter-correlated, and assumed to represent dimensions within the data. Factor

analysis can reduce data by identifying representative variables from a much larger set of

variables or create an entirely new set of variables. Scholars have concluded that, to run factor

analysis, the preferable sample size should be 100 or more. The critical assumptions underlying

factor analysis are more conceptual than statistical. According to Hair et al., (2006) it is the

obligation of the researcher to ensure that the experiential patterns are conceptually valid and

appropriate to study with factor analysis, as the technique has no means of defining suitability

other than correlations among variables.

Hair et al. (2006), identifies the following rules of thumb for conducting factor analysis:

1. A strong conceptual background needs to support the assumption that a structure does exist

before the factor analysis.

2. A statistically significant Bartlett’s test of spericity (sig.<0.05) indicates that sufficient

correlations exist among variables.

3. MSA (KMO) values should exceed 0.50 for both the overall test and each individual

variable; variables with values less than 0.50 should be omitted from the factor analysis one at

a time, with the smallest one being omitted each time. According to Hair et al., (2006), a

principal component analysis model is the most appropriate type of factor analysis when a

researcher is considering data condensation. A confirmatory factor analysis was employed for

the purpose of achieving simpler and theoretically more meaningful factor (CFA) solutions.

CFA helped to improves the interpretation by reducing some of the ambiguities that were


91

accompanied initially. This method was employed because all the variables were adopted from

the literature.

4.16 Reliability and Validity Analysis.

4.16.1 Validity

Validity refers to whether the statistical instrument measured what it intended to measure i.e.

accuracy measurement (Saunders et al., 2007). Validity of statistical instruments can be done

both internally and externally. The following forms of internal and external validity were used

in the study.

Face Validity: This involves assessing whether a logical relationship exists between the

variables and the proposed measure (Hair et al., 2006; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). In

this study a questionnaire-based survey was used to measure students’ perception of service

quality in higher educational institutions and their loyalty as well the role the level of education

and institutional reputation played in this relationship as it was found logical.

Content Validity: Content validity refers to whether a measurement instrument has acceptable

and representative coverage of the concepts in the variables being measured (Saunders et al.,

2007). To achieve content validity, the questionnaire for this study was given to research

experts in marketing for review.

Criterion Validity: This refers to ensuring validity by showing a correlation between the

measurement instrument and some standard that is thought to accurately measure the variable

being measured (Saunders et al., 2007). In this study, the questionnaire adopted was compared

with other validated SERVQUAL instruments that have been developed and used in several

studies.


92

Construct Validity: This involves measuring an instrument to a general theoretical framework

in order to determine whether the device confirms a series of hypothesis derived in an existing

theory (Saunders et al., 2007). This was ensured by deriving the determinants of students’

perception and service quality from the already established Parasuraman et al., (1988) model.

External Validity: According to Saunders et al., (2007), the external validity refers to the extent

to which the results of a study could be generalised. In this study, external validity was ensured

by generalising the findings and results to customers (Students) in Ghana (using the students

of the University of Ghana).

4.16.2 Reliability

Reliability is an examination of the degree of consistency between multiple measurements of

a variable (Hair et al., 2006). To ensure that the questionnaire is able to elicit the required

information for the study, a sample of the questionnaire was pre-tested. Cronbach’s alpha was

used to determine the reliability of the measurement instrument. The measure ranges from 0 to

1. A value of 1 indicates perfect reliability, and the value 0.70 is considered to be the lower

level of acceptability (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & William, 1998). Nunnally (1978) also posit

that, Cronbach’s alpha of each instrument should be greater than the recommended levels of

0.70 to ensure the satisfactory internal consistency of the measured items under each

correspondent construct. Theerefore, a Cranach’s alpha of at least 0.70 was ensured, this

being the widely accepted limit for a high reliability test.

4.17 Normality Checking

Before any multivariate analysis is performed, it is very crucial to confirm the assumption of

data normality (Hair et al., 2006). According to them, whether the data are normally distributed


93

can be indicated by measures of distributions, such as skewness and kurtosis. In this study,

skewness and kurtosis was used to assess the normality.

4.18 Multicollinearity

When two or more independent variables are highly correlated, this is known as

multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2006). In another case multicollinearity takes place when one

single independent variable is highly correlated with a set of other independent variables. Hair

et al. (2006), identified the two most common measures for assessing multicollinearity as;

tolerance and the variance inflation factor. Tolerance refers to a direct measure of

multicollinearity, that is, the amount of variability of the selected independent variable not

explained by the other independent variables. Variance inflation factor refers to a measure of

multicollinearity as an inverse of the tolerance value. According to Hair et al. (2006) tolerance

values of up to 0.10 and a VIF of up to 10 are the acceptable levels.

4.19 Analysis

Zikmund and Babin, (2010) define data analysis as the application of reasoning to understand

the data that have been gathered. The authors further posit that data analysis may involve

determining consistent patterns and summarizing the relevant details revealed in an

investigation. Primary data collected were entered into the Statistical Product for Services

Solution (SPSS) version 22 and with the aid of regression analysis and the structural equation

model Amos, the relationship between service quality and students’ perception was examined

and the hypotheses statistically tested. The appropriate analytical technique for data analysis

was determined by the characteristics of the research design and nature of data gathered.

According to Zikmund and Babin, (2010) statistical analysis varies from univariate, bivariate


94

to multivariate analysis. This section addresses how the raw data were processed. It comprised

of entering, checking and coding data; reliability analysis, multicollinearity and validity.

Entering, Checking and Transforming the Data

Data processing generally begins by editing and coding the data. According to Zikmund and

Babin (2010), editing involves cross examining the questionnaire for omissions, legibility, and

consistency in classification. The editing process helped to correct problems such as

interviewer errors that is an answer that was recorded in a wrong portion of the questionnaire

and incomplete questionnaires before the data were transferred to the SPSS Amos software for

analysis. The process of interpreting, categorizing, recording, and transferring the data to the

software programmes is refereds to as coding. The coding process facilitate the computer or

hand tabulation. The data were edited for non-answered questions. Questionnaires that the

respondents did not complete were withdrawn from the data set. The data were then coded and

entered into SPSS vession 22 Amos Software. The frequencies command in SPSS was to

detect any coding error. Data was re-coded and transformated into different variables.

4.20 Descriptive Statistical Analysis

Pallant, (2011) posit that, prior to doing many of the statistical analyses (e.g. t-test, ANOVA,

correlation), in studies involving human participants, it is important to subject the data to

descriptive analysis before any further data validation and analysis. Descriptive statistics such

as measures of central tendency, which includes the mean, standard deviation, range of scores,

skewness and kurtosis were used. They helped to indicate the extent to which the respondents

disagreed or agreed with the statements in the questionnaire and indicate how each statement

performed from the respondents’ point of view. Descriptive statistics allow the researchers to

present the data acquired in a structured, accurate and summarized manner (Huysamen, 1994).


95

4.21 Inferential Statistical Analysis

According to Sekaran (2003), “inferential statistics allow researchers to infer from the data, the

relationship between two variables; differences in a variable amongst different subgroups; and

how several independent variables might explain the variance in a dependent variable.”

4.22 Regression Analysis

A regression is a statistical process used to estimate the strength of a relationship between one

or more dependent variables and one or more independent variables (Saunders et al., 2007).

Regression analysis could be simply involving one dependent variable and one independent

variable, or multiple involving one dependent variable and two or more independent variables

(Saunders et al., 2007). The regression analysis was used in order to detect and predict the

relationship between students’ perception and servicen quality dimensions. Unlike the Pearson

correlation analysis, regression analysis enabled us to infer relationships between more than

two variables simultaneously.


96

CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Introduction

The analysis and discussion is presented in six sections. Firstly, the demographic

characteristics of the respondents are examined. Secondly, the results of the descriptive

statistics are examined. Thirdly, the result of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are

discussed. The fourth section provides an analysis of the hierarchical multiple regression

results. The fifth sections presents two structural path models, one involving service quality

dimensions, students’ satisfaction and their loyalty devoid of institutional reputation, and one

that controls for the institutional reputation. The sixth section presented the moderating effects

of the level of education on students’ satisfaction and loyalty. The final part of the chapter

discusses the findings of this study.


97

Table 5.1 Dermographics Profile

Frequency Percentage

Gender of Respondents Male 212 61.6

Female 132 38.4

Age of Respondents Below 20 years 91 26.5

20-30 years 199 57.8

30 and above 54 15.7

Income Level of

Respondents

Below 1000 199 57.8

1001-2000 47 13.7

2001-3000 34 9.9

3001-4000 23 6.7

4001-above 41 11.9

Educational Background Diploma 37 10.8

Undergraduate 197 57.3

Masters

(MBA/EMBA/MPHIL)

99 28.8

PhD 11 3.2

Occupational Background Business/Self-Employed 77 22.4

Public Servant 45 13.1

Private Sector 43 12.5

Not working/Unemployed 177 51.5

Others 2 0.6

Residential Status Resident 109 31.7

Non-resident 235 68.3

N=344 Source; field survey 2016

5.2 Profile of Respondents

Three hundred and forty-four (344) valid questionnaires were used for the analysis out of 379

administered questionnaires, this accounted for 90.765%. The data on gender revealed, 212

males (61.6%) and 132 females (38.4%). The age distribution of the respondents showed,

students less than 20 years old represented 91 (26.5%), those who were between 20 and 30


98

years old accounted for 179 (57.8%) and respondents above 30 years of age were 54 (15.7%).

The analysis on educational background of the respondents revealed that, 11 (3.2%) were PHD

candidates, Master’s degree students accounted for 99 (28.8%) of the respondents,

undergraduates (first degree) students represented 197 (57.3%) and Diploma students recorded

37 (10.8). The analysis on the respondents’ income level (monthly) revealed that, 199(57.8)

earn less than GHC 1000 per month, those who earn between GHC 1001 and 2000 per month

accounted for 47(13.7%), 34 (9.9%) earn between GHC 2001 and 3000, between GHC 3001

and 4000 income group accounted for 23 (6.7%) and the rest 41(11.9%) earn more than GHC

4000 cedis per month. With respect to the respondents’ residential status, those who were

residents on campus accounted for 109 (31.09) where as those who were not residents on

campus were 235 (68.3%). The statistics on the respondents’ occupational background

established that, 77 (22.4%) were either doing their own business or self-employed, 45(13.1%)

were public servant, 43(12.5%) works in the private sector, 177 (51.5) were either not working

or they were unemployed, the rest, 2 (0.6%) did not indicate their occupational background.

5.3 Descriptive Statistics

In studies involving human participants, prior to doing many of the statistical analyses (e.g. t-

test, ANOVA, correlation), it is important to subject the data to descriptive analysis before any

further data validation and analysis (Pallant, 2011). These descriptive statistics include

measures of central tendency such as the mean, standard deviation, range of scores, skewness

and kurtosis. The table below displays the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the

survey instrument. They indicate the extent to which the respondents disagreed or agreed with

the statements in the questionnaire and indicate how each statement performed from the

respondents’ point of view. From the table the highest mean was 4.0174 (Professional image

of university) while the lowest was 2.0669 (Registration is timely and error free). The 53


99

variables displayed in Table 5.2 below represent the components of the constructs depicted in

the conceptual framework for the study.

Table 5.2 – t test (descriptive statistics)

Variables CODE Mean s.d

Physical facility TAN1 3.3256 1.18977

Classroom lighting TAN2 3.6890 1.13224

Appearance of building, grounds etc. TAN3 3.4331 1.07240

Overall cleanliness TAN4 3.3750 1.11526

Comfortable classrooms and study rooms TAN5 3.2471 1.12226

Conducive decor and atmosphere TAN6 3.3372 1.06205

Appearance of academic & non-academic staff TAN7 3.4942 1.03014

Adequate parking space TAN8 3.3023 1.15119

Adequate computers in lab TAN9 2.8314 1.13803

Up-to-date computers TAN10 3.0581 1.08372

Access to internet facilities TAN11 2.8953 1.16838

Up-to-date software in computers TAN12 3.142 1.0131

Available and accessible course materials TAN13 3.1047 1.06115

Good and attractive course materials TAN14 3.1628 .99691

Friendly and courteous lecturers ASS1 3.5262 1.06599

Friendly and courteous admin staff ASS2 3.2994 1.05000

Research efficient/productive lecturers ASS3 3.6221 1.01141

Highly accredited lecturers ASS4 3.6860 1.06370

Innovative lecturers and agents of change ASS5 3.3866 1.05474

Adequately knowledgeable university staff of rules and procedures ASS6 3.4099 .99445

Source; field survey 2016


100

Table 5.3 - t test (descriptive statistics) continued

Variables CODE Mean s.d

Adequate university security ASS7 3.3372 1.09715

Timely and error-free registration REL1 3.0349 1.14487

Accurately kept records REL2 3.2703 1.01857

General reliability of lecturers REL3 3.2587 1.03295

Sincere and problem solving admin staff REL4 2.9971 1.08930

Provision of services on time and as promised REL5 3.0843 1.03658

Sincere and problem solving lecturers REL6 3.3227 1.00318

Excellent quality programmes on offer REL7 3.6250 .98179

Always available personnel to assist RES1 3.0349 1.11390

Capable lecturers to attend to problems when they arise RES2 3.4564 .97093

Seldom information seeking with 'run-around' scenario RES3 3.1453 .99669

Channels for students’ complaints available RES4 2.9767 1.12721

Efficient and prompt query address RES5 2.9593 1.07642

Admin staff with students' interest at heart EMP1 2.948 1.1694

Convenient computer access EMP2 3.0959 1.10107

Convenient study room access EMP3 3.1221 1.09979

Willingness of staff to give attention to students EMP4 3.0959 1.08237

Empathetic and supportive lecturers to students’ needs EMP5 3.1919 1.04608

Fair and unbiased treatment of students EMP6 3.1395 1.11614

Professional image of university REP1 4.0174 1.11169

Reputable academic programmes REP2 3.9709 1.04101

Easily employable graduates of the university REP3 3.3314 1.10686

Satisfaction with decision to attend university SAT1 3.6890 1.16273

Choice of university being wise SAT2 3.8256 1.10859

Happiness in decision to enrol in university SAT3 3.7907 1.14149

Right decision made on university enrolment SAT4 3.8110 1.12579

Happy to have enrolled in university SAT5 3.7558 1.16745

Recommend Legon to friends and relatives SLOYAL1 3.7384 1.18353

Reconsider university in further education SLOYAL2 3.5610 1.19122

Non-consideration of alternative university when in need of

academic services

SLOYAL3 3.2297 1.19871

Communicate positively about university to friends and relatives SLOYAL4 3.6715 1.04962

Non-negative communication about services provided by

university

SLOYAL5 3.3459 1.18523

Re-choose the university in case of next choice SLOYAL6 3.4767 1.22154



101

5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Since the survey scale measures were adopted from literature, a confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) was conducted on the variables. The variables were checked for their loadings and

reliabilities. The reliability and validity of the measures represent the constructs being

examined and evaluate the psychometric properties of scaled measures (Fornell & Larcker,

1981). On the basis of this, six variables (SLOYAL5, REL1, TAN9, TAN10, TAN11 and

TAN1) were dropped during the CFA because their loadings were less than the threshold value

of 0.5. The composite reliabilities gave an indication of the internal consistency, which means

that the measures consistently represent the same latent construct. The composite construct

reliability of each construct ranged from 0.776 (responsiveness) to 0.959 (satisfaction), which

meets the acceptable criteria (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006). Table5.4 and Table

5.5 presents the standardized loadings and the t-value of each variable indicator. All indicators

had significant standardized loadings of ρ ≤ 0.001, and t-values of the individual indicators

ranged from 5.018 to 27.634 (Fornell & Larker, 1981). All the eight constructs were tested for

their goodness of fit and authentication of scales of the measurement of the constructs by the

CFA. The model fit indices in the measurement model exhibited a good fit on the data (Χ2 =

3275.669, df = 1648, GFI = .907, CFI = .938, RMSEA = .054, PCLOSE = 0.069). These indices

meet the acceptable criteria for the overall model fit of the sample group suggested by Kline

(2005).


102

Table 5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Constructs

(Cronbach’s

Alphas)

Items Standardized

Loading t-value P

Composite

reliability

Tangibles (α =

0.862) TAN14 0.543 Fixed 0.856

TAN12 0.566 8.626 ***

TAN8 0.583 8.489 ***

TAN7 0.56 8.153 ***

TAN6 0.628 9.245 ***

TAN5 0.634 9.237 ***

TAN4 0.664 9.198 ***

TAN3 0.667 9.322 ***

TAN2 0.634 8.837 ***

TAN1 0.614 8.962 ***

Assurance (α =

0.845) ASS7 0.63 Fixed 0.843

ASS6 0.684 10.327 ***

ASS5 0.714 10.835 *** ASS4 0.639 10.272 ***

ASS3 0.656 10.424 ***

ASS2 0.66 10.015 ***

ASS1 0.628 9.664 ***

Reliability (α = 801) REL7 0.598 Fixed 0.809

REL6 0.701 9.687 ***

REL5 0.649 9.258 ***

REL4 0.676 9.284 ***

REL3 0.655 9.297 ***

REL2 0.58 8.738 ***

Responsiveness (α =

0.783) RES1 0.721 Fixed 0.776

RES2 0.666 11.074 ***

RES3 0.566 9.826 ***

RES4 0.643 11.741 ***

RES5 0.596 11.338 ***

Χ2 = 3275.669, df = 1648, GFI = .907, CFI = .938, RMSEA = .054



103

Table 5.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results continued

Constructs

(Cronbach’s

Alphas)

Items Standardized

Loading t-value P

Composite

reliability

Empathy (α =

0.864) EMP1 0.668 Fixed 0.858

EMP2 0.686 11.604 ***

EMP3 0.67 11.368 ***

EMP4 0.775 12.533 ***

EMP5 0.752 12.289 ***

EMP6 0.693 11.684 ***

Reputation (α =

0.801) REP1 0.881 Fixed 0.826

REP2 0.896 19.775 ***

REP3 0.54 10.478 ***

Satisfaction (α =

0.959) SAT1 0.893 Fixed 0.959

SAT2 0.945 27.634 ***

SAT3 0.922 27.418 ***

SAT4 0.88 25.565 ***

SAT5 0.9 25.359 ***

Loyalty (α =

0.890) SLOYAL1 0.851 Fixed 0.892

SLOYAL2 0.821 18.345 ***

SLOYAL3 0.665 13.572 ***

SLOYAL4 0.771 16.691 ***

SLOYAL6 0.827 18.554 ***

Χ2 = 3275.669, df = 1648, GFI = .907, CFI = .938, RMSEA = .054


5.5 Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity compares the variance-extracted estimates of the dimensions with the

square of the parameter estimate between the measurements. Table5. 4 shows the means,

standard deviations, whereas Table 5.6 correlation values among the seven constructs. The


104

means ranged from 3.10 (Empathy) to 3.77 shared by (reputation) and (satisfaction), and the

standard deviations from 0.73 to 1.06. The correlations among the constructs ranged from 0.234

to 0.762. The lowest correlation was that between loyalty and tangibles (r = 0.234), and the

highest was that between value for empathy and responsiveness (r = 0.762). The results

demonstrated the strength and direction of relationships among the factors. This was carried

out to cater for multicollinearity and to confirm that the factors are distinct from each other and

not measuring the same attributes. The average variance-extracted (diagonals) estimates

measure the amount of variance captured by a construct in relation to the variance due to

random measurement error. The variance extracted scores of the constructs ranged from 0.506

(Tangibles) to 0.825 (satisfaction), which suggests adequate convergent validity (Bagozzi &

Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Table 5.6 Descriptives, Correlations and AVEs

Constructs Mean s.d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tangibles 3.35 0.73 (.506)

Assurance 3.47 0.75 .641** (.535)

Reliability 3.26 0.73 .568** .712** (.515)

Responsiveness 3.11 0.77 .523** .550** .654** (.510)

Empathy 3.10 0.85 .508** .524** .633** .762** (.542)

Reputation 3.77 0.92 .530** .569** .449** .345** .296** (.624)

Satisfaction 3.77 1.06 .546** .584** .475** .402** .382** .623** (.825)

Value 3.35 1.02 .399** .430** .384** .363** .389** .408** .391** (.649)

Loyalty 3.54 0.98 .234** .348** .300** .368** .337** .351** .507** .496** (.624)

Source; Fied Survey, 2016


105

5.6 Hypothesis Testing Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

To help understand and evaluate the various hypotheses made earlier in this study, the study

employed a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. SEM is essentially considered a

preferred modeling method (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012) because researchers can use it to control for

measurement error, provide information on the degree of fit of the tested model, and test

multiple relationships (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). Two structural paths were estimated to test the

hypotheses between the constructs. The first structural model dealt with the framework without

institutional reputation while the second structural model controlled for institutional reputation.

The AMOS output provided some measures which allow assessment of the absolute and

incremental fit of the proposed model.

Table 5.7 Fit Indices of Models

Fit index Recommended

value

Model 1 Model 2

Chi-square/df ≤ 3 (71.713/27) = 2.65 (74.178/31) = 2.39

GFI ≥ 0.90 .964 .966

AGFI ≥ 0.80 .912 .914

CFI ≥ 0.90 .969 .974

RMSEA ≤ 0.08 .069 .064

Source; field survey; 2016

In Model 1 of the study model results, a chi-square of 71.713 (df = 27, p < .01) indicating a

normed chi-square fit value of 2.65. The root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA)

value is 0.069; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is 0.964 with an AGFI of 0.912. Regarding the

incremental fit measures, the comparative fit index (CFI) value was 0.969. In the second model

results, a chi-square of 74.178 (df = 31, p < .01) indicating a normed chi-square fit value of


106

2.39. The root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.064; goodness-of-fit

index (GFI) is 0.966 with an AGFI of 0.914. For the incremental fit measures, the comparative

fit index (CFI) value was 0.974. These results from the structural model assessment statistics

above reveal that the models appear to have established an acceptable fits and therefore

accomplished a satisfactory level of validity.

In Model 1, only the controls were estimated. However, in Model 2, the hypothesized

relationships were included. In Model 1, it was found that regarding the relationship between

service quality dimensions and student’s satisfaction, only Assurance (β=0.274, t-value= 4.764,

p<.001) and Tangibles (β=0.360, t-value= 5.478, p<.001) had a positive and statistically

significant relationship. Hypothesis H1 was partially supported, Hypothesis H1a and H1b were

fully supported where as H1c, Hd and H1d were not. In the relationships between service

quality dimensions and loyalty, Tangibles (β=0.169, t-value= 2.691, p<.05) and

Responsiveness (β=0.192, t-value= 2.602, p<.05) haves positive and statistically significant

relationships. Hypothesis H1 was partially supported, Hypothesis H1a and H1d were fully

supported where as H1b, H1c and H1e were not. There was also a strong positive and statistical

relationship between students’ satisfaction and loyalty (β=0.467, t-value= 8.179, p<.001) in the

first model devoid of institutional reputation. Hypothesis H4 was also suported in this regard.

In Model 2, it was found that regarding the relationship between service quality dimensions

and student’s satisfaction, Institutional reputation (β=0.389, t-value= 7.948, p<.001),

Assurance (β=0.213, t-value= 3.373, p<.001) and Tangibles (β=0.160, t-value= 2.918, p<.05)

had a positive and statistically significant relationship. Hypothesis H2 was partially supported,

Hypothesis H1a and H1b were fully supported, where as H1c, H1d and H1e were not. In the

association between service quality dimensions and loyalty, Tangibles (β=0.183, t-value=


107

2.875, p<.05) and Responsiveness (β=0.190, t-value= 2.584, p<.05) has a positive and

statistically significant relationships. Hypothesis H1 was partially supported, Hypothesis H1a

and H1d were fully supported, where as H1b, H1c and H1e were not. There was also a strong

positive and statistical relationship between students’ satisfaction and loyalty (β=0.431, t-

value= 6.967, p<.001) in the second model in which institutional reputation was controlled for.

Thus hypotheses H4 and H1 were supported in this study. Table 5.6 displays the results of the

hypotheses tests using structural equation modelling.

Table 5.8 Structural Model Assessment Results

Model 1 Model 2

Controls β (t-

value) P β (t-value) P

Gender .041

(.921) 0.357 .040 (.909) 0.363

Age .007

(.132) 0.895 .008 (.160) 0.873

Income -.094 (-

1.867) 0.062

-.094 (-

1.877) 0.061

Education -.030 (-

.585) 0.558

-.036 (-

.700) 0.484

Hypothesized Paths

Satisfaction <--- Tangibles .274

(4.764) 0.000

.160

(2.918) 0.004

Satisfaction <--- Assurance .360

(5.478) 0.000

.213

(3.373) 0.000

Satisfaction <--- Reliability .039

(.566) 0.572 .012 (.190) 0.849

Satisfaction <--- Responsiveness .031

(.445) 0.656 .021 (.328) 0.743

Satisfaction <--- Empathy .007

(.096) 0.923 .051 (.812) 0.417

Loyalty <--- Empathy .110

(1.531) 0.126

.120

(1.671) 0.095



108

Table 5.9 Structural Model Assessment Results continued

Model 1 Model 2

Controls β (t-value) P β (t-value) P

Loyalty <--- Satisfaction .467 (8.179) 0.000 .431 (6.967) 0.000

Loyalty <--- Responsiveness .192 (2.602) 0.009 .190 (2.584) 0.01

Loyalty <--- Reliability -.046 (-.636) 0.525 -.051 (-.706) 0.48

Loyalty <--- Assurance .056 (.771) 0.441 .035 (.478) 0.632

Loyalty <--- Tangibles .169 (2.691) 0.007 .183 (2.875) 0.004

Satisfaction <--- Reputation .389 (7.948) 0.000

Loyalty <--- Reputation .087 (1.427) 0.153

Loyalty <--- Reliability -.046 (-.636) 0.525 -.051 (-.706) 0.48

Loyalty <--- Assurance .056 (.771) 0.441 .035 (.478) 0.632

Loyalty <--- Tangibles .169 (2.691) 0.007 .183 (2.875) 0.004

Satisfaction <--- Reputation .389 (7.948) 0.000

Loyalty <--- Reputation .087 (1.427) 0.153


The Moderating Effect of Educational Level

The moderation analysis was conducted through a sub-group analysis. Two groups of

undergraduates and postgraduates were constructed for this purpose. Drawing from the

suggestions from Arpin, (2007), Sickler, (2013) and Memon et al., (2014) the research further

examined the variations in service quality dimensions and students’ levels of satisfaction and

loyalty among undergraduate and postgraduate students. Table5.7 shows the results for

variations in level of satisfaction while Table5.8 displays the levels of loyalty. From the

sampled respondents, there were a total of 234 undergraduate students and 110 postgraduate

students. Table5.7 displays the results of the variations between the two student categories.


109

Among the undergraduates, institutional reputation, assurance and tangibles were found to be

positively and statistically influencers of student’s satisfaction. On the other hand, tangibles

and reputation were the only positive and statistically significant influencers of students’

satisfaction among postgraduate students.

Table 5.10 Test of variations among undergraduates and postgraduates’ satisfaction.

Undergraduates Postgraduates

Independent variables Β t-value Β t-value

Tangibles .127 2.038** .443 4.011***

Assurance .310 4.159*** -.051 -.443

Reliability -.058 -.772 .061 .565

Responsiveness -.054 -.724 .090 .726

Empathy .042 .610 .071 .552

Reputation .478 8.309*** .267 3.118**

R2 .553 .479

Adjusted R2 .541 .448

F-stats 46.717*** 15.755***

Dependent variable: Student satisfaction *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1


Table 5.8 below displays the results of the variation in loyalty among these categories of

students. The responsiveness dimension and institutional reputation were found to be

statistically positive and significant influencers of undergraduates’ students’loyalty. Whereas,

empathy and institutional reputation were found to be statistically positive and significant

influencers of postgraduates’ students’ loyalty. The ongoing results present some interesting

findings for discussions.


110

Table 5.11 Test of variations among Undergraduates and Postgraduates Loyalty.

Undergraduates Postgraduates

Independent variables Β t-value Β t-value

Tangibles -.124 -1.484 .078 .526

Assurance .114 1.138 .142 .272

Reliability -.047 -.460 -.109 .361

Responsiveness .222 2.234*** .129 .353

Empathy .95 1.014 .250 .084**

Reputation .248 3.214*** .298 .002***

R2 .192 .479

Adjusted R2 .171 .448

F-stats 9.000*** 9.564***

Dependent variable: Student loyalty *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1


5.7 Discussion of Findings.

5.8 Service Quality and Students Loyalty Devoid of Institutional Reputation

The study found that students’ perception of service quality has a significant positive effect on

students’ loyalty. Only the assurance and tangibles dimensions were found to have a

statistically significant relationship with stuidents loyalty. The findings support the previous

research (Seok, 2013, Abas, Ghaleb & El-refae, 2012; Boahene & Agyapong, 2011).

Researchers like Agyei and Kilika, (2014) reported that, the expectation that customers and

users have about a firm with respect to the nature and quality of their services goes a long way


111

to influences their behavioral intention. Seok (2013) reported a significant positive effects of

service quality on customer loyalty. It is therefore worthy to note that, the findings from the

study is in line with established findings by other researchers in different sectors.

Furthermore, previous studies on service quality and students’loyalty (Zethaml et al., 2006;

Parasuraman et al.,1994), found a positive relationship between service quality, market share,

customer satisfaction and loyalty. Similarly, (Voss,2004; Maddern et al,. 2007, Newman &

Cowling,1998) found that, service quality is a competitive weapon, crucial to corporate

profitability and survival.

However, the findings contradict Abas Ghaleb and El- refree (2012) who reported no

significant relationship between the assurance dimension and students’ behavioral intention

and the one which revealed a relationship with empathy dimension. It was also in line with

their other findings which reported a significant positive relationship between tangibles

dimensions and students’ behavioral intention. The findings of Agyei and Kilika, (2014) also

establish that, service quality is a good predictor of customer loyalty.

Moreso, the current findings are inconsistent with Kerlin (2000) who revealed that students

place less emphasis on tangibles aspects of service quality including the appearance of the

institutions facilities and greater emphasis in the aspects that can affects their personal needs.

5.9 Service Quality and Students Satisfaction Deviod of Institutional Reputation

The findings from the study reveals a significant positive relationship between service quality

dimension and students’ satisfaction. Tangibles and responsiveness dimension were found to

have a positive and statistically significant relationship with students’ satisfaction. The current


112

findings is in consistent with (Alves & Raposo, 2010) who reported that perceived service

quality is an antecedent to students’ satisfaction. Marzo-Navarro et al., (2005) also found a

significant positive relationship between service quality and students’ satisfaction. Kwan and

Ng, (2011) also reported positive relationship between service quality and students’

satisfaction. The recent study supports Hassan, et al., (2009) who found a strong relationship

between the assurance dimension and students’ satisfaction and also contradicts their other

findings which reported a strong relationship between the empathy dimension and students’

satisfaction.

The current findings contradict Ali and Raza (2014) who reported weakest relationship

between the tangibles dimensions and students’ satisfaction, but rather found a significant

positive relationship was between reliability and empathy dimensions and students’

satisfaction.

5.10 Students` Satisfaction and Students` Loyalty Devoid of Institutional Reputation

The findings from the study found a significant positive relationship between students’

satisfaction and loyalty. The results of the study confirm the findings of Sickler (2013) who

found that the overall student satisfaction is a significant predictor of student retention. The

findings also in line with Kotler and Keller, (2006) who believe that customer satisfaction is

an antecedent to loyalty through delivery of high value products and services that meets the

needs and wants of customers. The study result also correlates the findings of Day, (1994) who

noted that, to successfully achieve customer loyalty and retention, it is worthy to note that,

management of various institutions needs to understand and satisfy customer needs and

requirement so as to gain competitive advantage in the industry in which they operate.


113

The findings of Abas, Ghaleb and El-refae, (2012) found a strong significant positive

relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioral intention, which is consistence with

the current findings. Kunanusorn and Puttawong (2015), found that it is important for higher

education institutions to satisfy their customers (students) in order to ensure their retention.

They further found that, it is likely for a dissatisfied student to reduce the number of courses or

drop out of a university completely. The current findings are said to support this finding.

Similarly, the findings of DeShield, (2004) concluded that, student satisfaction or

dissatisfaction leads to student retention or attrition. This is also synonymous to the present

findings. The findings of Wier-Jenssen et al., (2002), Mavondo et al., (2000), Schertzer and

Schertzer, (2004) found that, satisfied students may then engage in positive word-of-mouth

communication and return to the university to take other courses. The recent study supports the

above findings.

5.11 Service Quality and Students Satisfaction When Controlled for Institutional

Reputation

The study found a statistically significant positive relationship between service quality

dimensions, students’ satisfaction and institutional reputation. The relationship was established

by the tangibles and the assurance dimensions. The findings again, is in line with that of Alves

and Raposo, (2007) whose findings reveal that image is a variable with the greatest direct

influence on customer satisfaction and loyalty.

5.12 Service Quality and Students Loyalty When Controlled for Institutional Reputation

The study findings reveal that, there exist a statistically significant strong positive relationship

between service quality, institutional reputation and students’ loyalty. The relationship was

identified among Tangibles and Responsiveness dimensions. The current findings reaffirm


114

those of Kotler and Armstrong (2010) who found that corporate image has a very strong

influence on customer loyalty. Nukpezah and Nyumuyo (2009) also found that, corporate

image has an association with physical and behavioral attributes of a firm. Their study

identified a positive relationship between corporate image and customer loyalty in the

telecommunications, education and retailing sectors. The present findings support their

findings.

The result of the study is also in agreement with the findings of Agyei & Kilika, (2014) who

concluded that, the image expectation that customers and users have about a firm with respect

to the nature and quality of their services goes a long way to influence customer behavioral

intention. We can therefore infer that corporate image impacts on customer evaluation of

service quality, satisfaction and loyalty.

The results of the study by Helgesen and Nesset, (2007) and Brown and Mazzarol, (2009) is

also consistence with the findings of the present study which reveals that, university image has

been found to have a direct and positive influence on positive behavioral intention (students’

loyalty).

5.13 Service Quality, Students Satisfaction, Loyalty and Institutional Reputation

The findings from the study reveal that there exists a statistically strong positive relationship

between the service quality dimension, students’ satisfaction and loyaty as shown in the

structural Model 2. The findings support that of Mohamad (2009) who found that, the effect

of student satisfaction plays a significant role in establishing relationship between university

image and student loyalty.


115

5.14 Variation in Students Satisfaction of Service Quality among Degree Level

The findings from the study reveal a significant variation in students’ satisfaction among the

degree level. Institutional reputation, assurance and tangible dimensions were found to be

statistically significant influencers of students’ satisfaction among undergraduates. In another

case, only institutional reputation and tangible dimensions were found to be statistically

influencers of postgraduates’students’satisfaction. These findings go a long way to support the

findings of Arpin, (2007) who establish that, the zone of tolerance influences students’

perception of service quality, which in inturn influences their level of satisfaction, and that the

zone of tolerance could differ among students at diferrent levels. Lo (2010) contend that,

students’ satisfaction can be subjective, based on how well a learning environment helps to

achieve their academic objectives. This is also supported by the current study.

5.15 Variation in Students` Loyalty among Degree Level

The study again revealed a significant variation in loyalty among postgraduates and

undergraduates. Responsiveness and institutional reputation were found to influence

undergraduates’ loyalty. Emparthy and reputation were found to influence postgraduates’

loyalty. Kuo and Ye (2009) found that, service quality and institution image were the most

salient factors that influences post graduates’ students’ satisfaction and retention. The present

study confirms the above findings. Sickler (2013) found that, academic experience and level

of knowledge can infliuences students’ satisfaction and retention. The study re-affirmed the

stated findings.


116

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summmary of Findings

This chapter brings to bear the end of the thesis. It provides the summary, conlusions, and

recommendations of the study based on the findings. The chapter is sub-divided under the

heardings mention above. The summary covers six areas: Service quality and students’ loyalty,

Service quality and students’ satisfaction, students’ satisfaction and students’ loyalty, variation

among degree level, the interaction effects of service quality dimensions’ students’ satisfaction

and students’ loyalty devoid of institutional reputation and the interaction effects of service

quality dimensions, satisfaction and loyalty, when controlled for institutional reputation.

6.1.1 Service Quality and Students’ Loyalty

The findings support Hypothesis 1 that service quality directly leads to students’ loyalty.

Hence, educational institutions that will deliever quality service to students, will be in a position

to gain their loyalty more than those that donot emphasize service quality.

6.1.2 Service Quality and Students’ Satisfaction

The findings support Hypothesis 2 that service quality directly influences students’ satisfaction.

The findings therefore imply that, when educational institution concentrate on delievering

quality service to students they will be able to satisfy them better than the competetion.

6.1.3 Students’ Satisfaction and Students’ Loyalty

The findings support the the Hypothesis 3 that students` satisfaction positively and significantly

influences their loyalty. The findings therefore suggest that, if higher educational institutions

want to achieve students’ loyalty, they must first satisfy them.


117

6.1.4 The Interaction Effects of Service Quality Dimensions’ Students’ Satisfaction and

Students’ Loyalty Devoid of Institutional Reputation

The findings partially support Hypothesis H1f that institutional reputation directly influences

students’ perception of service quality, their satisfaction and loyalty. Hypothesis H1f was

partally rejected since only two out of the five quality dimensions were found to be significant

and positive inflencers of students` satisfaction. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were partially supported

and partially rejected, since only 3 out of the 5 service quality dimensions were found to

statistically and positively influences satistisfaction and loyalty in this model.

6.1.5 The interaction effects of service quality dimensions,’ students’ satisfaction and

students’ loyalty when controlled for institutional reputatiion

The findings partially rejected Hypothesis H1f and partially supported it, since only 2 out of

the five service quality dimensions were found to be statistiacally positive and significant

influencers of students’ satisfaction and loyalty per the out come of the structural equation

model. Hypothesis 2 and 3 were also partially supported and partially supported, per the

outcome of the structural equation model 2.

6.1.6 Variation between the level of education Post graduates and Undergraduates

satisfaction and loyalty

Hypothesis H4 was surported since, the study revealed a significant variation in factors that

affects undergraduates and postgraduates perception.


118

6.2 Conclusions

The paper sought to examine students’ perception of service quality in higher educational

institutions in Ghana and its effects on students’ loyalty using the experience of students from

the University of Ghana Susiness School. Educational institutions that emphasize service

quality as a strategic tool and competive weapon will end up satisfying students, which will

lead to gaining their loyalty. The results of the study revealed that, some service quality

dimensions were pecuiliar to students and as such became an antecedent to satisfaction and

loyalty. Key among the service quality dimensions revealed by the students as a predictor of

their satisfaction and loyalty include tangibles, assurance and responsiveness dimensions.

Institutional reputation was found to influence students’ satisfaction and loyalty. It is therefore,

regarded as the best competitive strategy for satisfaction and loyalty. The findings confirmed

previous findings on service quality dimensions in the literature. However, there were other

findings discovered which were not evident in the extant literature. Therefore, the interpretation

of findings must be done with caution.

6.3 Implication of Findings

In order for educational institutions to achieve students’ satisfaction and loyalty, their managers

must focuse on identifying specific quality dimensions that are peculiar to students by knowing

the kind of perception that they form about their services delivery to them. This can be

achieved through periodic evaluation and review of the institutional service quality from the

students’ perspective. Managers of higher educational institutions must continue to engage

with students to identify their service quality requirements and expectations based on their

experience. They need to appreciate the outcome, if there is the need to make adjustments in

the institutional requirement as a result of changes in students’requirement and expectations.

After identifying these expectations and requirements, there is the need for management to


119

disseminate this information across the board, from the last security man to the vice-chancelor,

as every body`s role is equally important in delivering superior service quality in the institution.

Identifying and understanding students’ expectation and requirement is necessary but not

sufficient for managerial decision making, knowing their level of satisfaction and loyalty as

result of their expectation and experience are equally important. As identified earlier on in the

literature service quality, students’ satisfaction and loyalty, when implemented increases

market share and bottom line performance.

Knowing and identifying service quality alone doesnot lead to students’ loyalty. Managers of

higher educational institutions must view students as customers and as partners of their

institution. Hence, there is the need to create coordinated responses witin the istitution about

the service quality focus of the institution across all departments and all teahinng and non-

teaching staffs, as they all play a key role in dealing with students.

When an educational institution embarks on service quality and customer (students) focus as a

strategic tool and a key to success, students’ satisfaction and loyalty will certainly be achieved

better than those that donot recognized the role of service quality in their success criteria. It is

therefore, essential for managers of higher educational institutions to implement service quality

and be students focused oriented, before considering satisfaction and loyalty issues. When

service quality is successfully implemented the students will be satisfied and will certaingly be

loyal to the university. Service quality dimensions such as tangibles; assurance, responsiveness

and institutional reputation seem to establish a relationship between an institution and their

students’ satisfaction and loyalty. Hence, managers may consider theses dimensions in their

quest to deliever superior service quality that will lead to students’ satisfaction and loyalty.


120

The managers of higher educational institutions should not concentrate only on the quality

issues within their academic experience, but should also be concerned about the employment

ability of their graduates, quality of programmes offered and also build a strong professional

image for their institution, as institutional reputation was found to be a good predictor of

students’ satisfaction and loyalty.

6.4 Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions

There were some in herent limitations, due to the study`s objectives. The present study helped

us to understand the interaction effects of service quality dimensions and institutional

reputation on students’ satisfaction and loyalty as well the overall effects of service quality

dimensions, students’ satisfaction and loyalty without institutional reputation. The study

collected data from only the students from University of Ghana Business School. This poses a

limitation on the researcher’s ability to generalized the findings. With this development,

caution is essential in generalizing the findings, although substantial evidence of relative

efficiency and effectiveness was found in the study.

Given that the current study is limited to only University of Ghana Business School. There is

the need to validate this assertion by further research. Future studies on service quality, students

satisfaction and loyalty should be carried out in other higher educational institutions in different

parts of the country. It will also be worthwhile, if future research compares different

institutions, more importantly private and public higher educational instituttions in the country.

Future research again aspiring to work in this area should consider the various possible market

postioning strategies on the basis of service quality of the institutions of higher learning.

Finally, the questionnaire was administered to only the students at the University of Ghana

Business School and not other colleges and schools. Future studies may consider the responses


121

of students in other colleges and schools within University of Ghana`s perception of service

quality as well how it will influence their satisfaction and loyalty with or without institutional

reputation.


122

REFERENCES

Abbas , B., Ghaleb , A., & EL-refae, A. (2012). Relationship between service quality

satisfaction and behavioral intentions of Malaysian Spa Center. International Journal

of Business and Social Science, 3(1),198-205

Abdul-Hamid, J. (2004). Students' perception of the quality of teaching and learning in

Business Studies Programs. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 12(1

), 71-86.

Abdullah, F. (2005). HEdPERF versus SERVPERF: The quest for ideal measuring

instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality Assurance in

Education, 13(4), 305-328.

Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: Three instruments

compared. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 71-89.

Abukari, A., & Corner, T. (2010). Delivering higher education to meet local needs in a

developing context: The quality dilemmas. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3),

191-208.

Agarwal , S., Erramilli, M. K., & Dev , C. S. (2003). Market Orientation and Performance in

Service firms: role of innovation. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(1), 62-82.

doi:10.1108/08876040310461282.

Agyei, P. M., & Kilika, J. M. (2014). Relationship between Corporate Image and Customer

Loyalty in the Mobile Telecommunication Market in Kenya. Management, 2(5), 299-

308.

Akbar, M. M., & Parvez, N. (2009). Impact of service quality, trust, and customer satisfaction

on customers loyalty. ABAC Journal, 29(1).


123

Akortsu, A. M., & Abor, A. P. (2011). Financing public healthcare institutions in Ghana.

Journal of health organization and management, 25(2), 128-141.

Aldridge, S., & Rowley, J. (1998). Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education.

Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), 197-204.

Al-Fattal, A. (2010). Understanding students’ choice of university and marketing strategies in

Syria Private Higher Education. Retrieved January 9, 2016, from

http://ethesis.whiterose.ac.uk/1115

Ali , S. A., & Abdirisaq , I. M. (2014). Service Quality Provided by Higher Education

Institutions in Somalia and Its Impact on Student Satisfaction. European Journal of

Business and Management.

Ali, M., & Raza, S. A. (2014). Measurement of Service Quality Perception and Customer

Satisfaction in Islamic Banks of Pakistan: Evidence from Modified SERVQUAL

ModelIQRA University. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/64039

Altbach, P. (1998). Competitive higher education knowledge: the university and development.

London: Albex.

Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher

education. Total Quality Management, 18(5), 571-588.

Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The Influence of University Image on Students’ Behavior.

International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 73-85.

Anderson, E. A. (1995). Measuring service quality at a university health clinic. International

Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 8(2), 32-37.


124

Anderson, J. C., Jain , C., & Chintagunta, P. K. (1993). Customer value assessment in

business markets. Journal of Business to Business Marketing, 1(1), 3-29.

Arambewela, R., & Hall , J. (2013). The international effects of the internal and external

university environment, and the influence of personal values, on satisfaction among

international postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 98-972.

Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction.

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 555-569.

Arambewela, R., Hall, J., & Zuhair, S. (2006). Postgraduate International Students from Asia:

Factors Influencing Satisfaction http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v15n02_05. Journal of

Marketing for Higher Education, 15 (2), 105-127.

Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., & He, Z. (2000). Marketing: an introduction. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall .

Arpin, J. (2007). Students' Perceptions of Service Quality at the Durban University of

Technology. Unpublish thesis

Asabre-Ameyaw, C. (2016). Evolution of the educational system in Ghana, Center for

educational Policy. Retrieved from University of Education Winneba Web site:

uew.edu.gh/sites/default

Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. J., & Swan, J. E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: critical

review of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 62-81.

Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perception: the case of

university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540.


125

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi , Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural

equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8-34.

Banwet, D. K., & Datta, B. (2003). A study of the office of perceived lecturer quality on post-

lectur intentions. Work Study, 24, 253-268.

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational Research: Determining

Appropriate Sample Size in Research. Published in Information Technology,

Learning and Performance Journal, 19(1).

Baryeh , B. O. (2009). Higher Education Quality in Ghana: How NAB Coping with the

Balance Between Improvement and Accountability. Master’s Thesis,Unpublished.

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student

attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155-187.

Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self‐confidence:

refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research,

28(1), 121-134.

Beaumont, C. (2007). Strategic marketing and management tools used to increase employee

efficiency.

Beerli Palacio, A., Díaz Meneses, G., & Pérez Pérez, P. J. (2002). The configuration of the

university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of

Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505.

Berry, L. L. (1980). Services marketing is different. Business, 30(3), 24-29.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and

employees. The Journal of Marketing, 57-71.


126

Boohene, R., & Agyapong, G. K. (2011). Analysis of the antecedents of customer loyalty of

telecommunication industry in Ghana: The case of vodafone (Ghana). International

Business Research, 4(1), 229-240.

Brayed, C. (2009). Some New thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: a

Hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 34-49.

Britwum, A. O., Jonah, K., & Tay, F. D. (2001). Structural adjustment participatory review

initiative (SAPRI). Ghana country report. Tripartite National Steering Committee.

Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher

education. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2), 174-190.

Broh, R. A. (1982). Managing quality for higher profits. New York: McGraw.

Brown , T. J., Churchill, G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1993). Improving the measurement of servic

quality. Journal of Retailing, 68(1), 39-127.

Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student

satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81-95.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations

and consumer product responses . The Journal of Marketing, 68-84.

Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: R

eview, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), 8-32.

Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the

SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 65, 33-55.


127

Carter, R. E. (2009). The impact of perceived service quality on MBA student satisfaction

and recommendations: Do expectations matter? Services Marketing Quarterly, 30(3),

234-248.

Cashin, W. E., & Downey, R. G. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative

evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 563-572.

Cashin, W. E., & Downey, R. G. (1999). Using global student rating items for summative

evaluation: Convergence with a second criterion. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec,

Canada.

Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2005). Student Perceptions of Learning and Instructional

Effectiveness in College Courses: A Validity Study of SIR II. Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Service.

Chopra, R., Chawla, M., & Sharma, T. (2014). Service Quality in Higher Education: A

comparative Study of Management and Education Institutions . Journal of

Management and Education Institutions, 971-1023.

Claycomb, C., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Inks, L. W. (2001). The Customer as a Productive

Resource: a pilot study and strategic implications. Journal of Business Strategies,

18(1), 47-69.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). International Edition: Business Research Methods.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.


128

Cronin , J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and

extension . Journal of Marketing, 55-68.

Crosby, M. (1974). U.S. Patent No. 3,845,391. Washington, DC: Patent and Trademark

Office.

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: New

American Library.

Cuthbert, P. F. (1996). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 1.

Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 6(2), 11-16.

Dale, B. G. (2003). Managing Quality (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 37-

52.

Deming, R. H. (1968). Characteristics of an effective management control system in an

industrial organization. Harvard University.

DeShieds, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of Business Students

Satisfaction and Retention in Higher Education: Applying Herzberg's Two-factor

theory. International Journal of Education Management, 19(2), 128-139.

Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual

framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113.

Dinkinson, B. J. (2015). Customer loyalty: A multi-attribute approach. Research in Business

and Economics Journal , 1-17.


129

Douglas, J., Mc Celland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The Development of a conceptual model of

student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in

Education, 16(1), 19-35.

Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in

business markets? Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 107-118.

Ewing, T., & Caruana, A. (1999). An internal marketing approach to public sector

management: The marketing and human resource interface. International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 12(1), 17-29.

Fearn, H. (2008). Living the dream. Times Higher Education, 11(17), 862.

Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983). Total Quality Control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fisk, R. P., Brown, S. W., & Bitner, M. J. (1993). Tracking the evolution of the services

marketing literature. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 61-103.

Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2006). Service management: Operations, strategy,

and information technology. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,

39-50.

Fosu, F. F., & Owusu , B. K. (2015). Understanding Ghanaian Students' Perception of

Service Quality in Higher Education. European Journal of Business and

Management, 7(9).


130

Fosu, F. F., & Poku, K. (2014). Exploring the Factors That Influence Students’ Choice of

Higher Education in Ghana. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(28),

209-220.

Ghana Education Service. (2001). The impact of SAP on Access to and quality of tertiary

education. Accra: Assembly Press.

Ghana Statistical Service. (2014). Gross Domestic Product. Accra: Head Office Economic

Statistics Directorate. Retrieved from www. statsghana.gov.gh

Gibney, E. (2013). Adifferent world. The Time higher Education.

Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2001). Defining customer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing

Science Review, 1, 1–34.

Gilmore, H. L. (1974). Product conformance cost. Quality Progress, 7(5), 16-19.

Grönroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European journal of marketing,

16(7), 30-41.

Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European

Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.

Grönroos, C. (1991). Scandinavian management and the Nordic School of Services-

contributions to service management and quality. International Journal of Service

Industry Management, 2(3), 17-26.

Grönroos, C. (2000). Creating a relationship dialogue: communication, interaction and value.

The Marketing Review, 1(1), 5-14.

Grönroos, C. (2001). The perceived service quality concept-a mistake? Managing Service

Quality: An International Journal, 11(3), 150-152.


131

Grönroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: communication, interaction,

dialogue, value. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 19(2), 99-113.

Gronroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing

Theory, 11(3), 279-301.

Gross, I. (1997). Evolution in Customer Value: the gross perspective in customer value:

moving forward-Back to Basics. ISBM Report No 13.

Gummesson, E. (1993). Quality management in service organizations: an interpretation of

the service quality phenomenon and a synthesis of international research. ISQA.

Haddad , D. W. (2003). Tertiary Education Today: Global Trends, Global Agendas, Global

Constraints Knowledge Enterprise, Inc. (USA). International Consultation for

Theological Educators . London: High Wycombe.

Hair, J. F., Wolfinbarger, M. F., Ortinau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (2008). Essentials of marketing

research. McGraw-Hill/Higher Education.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis,

5, . "Black.1998", 87-135.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate

data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hanaysha, J. R., Abdullah, H. H., & Warokka, A. (2011). Service Quality And Students at

Higher Learning Institutions: The Competing Dimensions of Malaysian Universities

Competitiveness. Journal of Southeast Asian Research, 1-10.


132

Hasan, H. F., Ilias, A., Rahman, R. A., & Razak, M. Z. (2009). Service quality and student

satisfaction: A case study at private higher education institutions. International

Business Research, 1(3), 163.

Helgesen, O., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study

evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126-143.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A

systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International

Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and Managing Student

Loyalty An Approach Based on the Concept of Relationship Quality. Journal of

service research, 3(4 ), 331-344.

Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as

primary consumer. Quality assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21.

Hinson, R. (2006). Marketing of Services: A Managerial Perspective. Accra: Sedco Press.

Hinson, R. E. (2012). Service Marketing Excellence: With a twist of Corporate Social

Responsibility. Accra: Sedco Publishing Limited.

Hinson, R., & Otieku, J. (2005). Service quality on ghana's first executive MBA programme:

some exploratory insights. IFE PsychologIA, 13(2), 114-137.

Hinson, R., Mensah, R., & Mahmoud, M. A. (2006). Determinants of Ghanaian bank service

quality in a universal banking dispensation. Banks and Bank Systems, 1(2), 69-81.

Hirvonen, T. (2007). Studying in an international degree programme from expectation to

reality.


133

Huysamen, G. K. (1994). Methodology for the social and behavioural sciences. Southern

Book Publishers.

Ibrahim, M. Z., Rahman, M. N., & Yasin, R. M. (2014). Determining Factors of Students’

Satisfaction with Malaysian Skills Training Institutes . International Education

Studies, 7(6), 9-24. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n6p9

Ilias, A., Hasan, H. F., Rahman, R. A., & Yasoa, M. R. (2008). Student Satisfaction and

Service Quality: Any Differences in Demographic Factors? International Business

Research, 1(4), 131-143.

Jaraiedi, M., & Ritz, D. (1994). Total quality management applied to engineering education.


Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (1997). Service Quality in Education: a student perspective. Quality

Assurance in Education, 5(1), 15-21.

Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on Planning for Quality. Juran Institute Inc.

Kahn, B. E., Kalwani, M. U., & Morrison, D. G. (1986). Measuring variety-seeking and

reinforcement behaviors using panel data . Journal of Marketing Research, 89-100.

Kang, G. D., & James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grönroos's

service quality model. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(4),

266-277.

Kara, A., & DeShields, O. W. (2004). Business student satisfaction, intention and retention in

higher education: An empirical investigation. Marketing Educator Quarterly, 3(1), 1-

25.


134

Karatepe, O. M. (2011). Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: The Moderating

Role of Gender. Journal of Business Economics and Management , 284.

Kerlin, C. (2000). Measuring student satisfaction with the service processes of selected

student educational support services at Everett Community College.

Kim, Y. E., & Lee, J. W. (2010). Relationship between corporate image and customer loyalty

in mobile communications service markets. African Journal of Business Management,

4(18), 4035.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing. Pearson education.

Kotler, P., & Fox, K. (1995). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions (2 ed.). New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Administração de marketing.

Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., & Heider, D. (1999). Marketing places Europe: Attracting

investments, industries, residents and visitors to European cities, communities,

regions and nations. Financial Times Prentice-Hall: Harlow.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Table for determining sample size from a given

population. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Kuada, J., & Hinson, R. E. (2012). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices of foreign

and local companies in Ghana. Thunderbird International Business Review, 521-536.

Kumar, N. (1996). The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships. Harvard

Business Review, 74(6), 92.

Kunanusorn, A., & Puttawong, D. (2015). The mediating effect of satisfaction on student

loyalty to higher education institution. European Scientific Journal, 25-52.


135

Kuo, Y. K., & Ye, K. D. (2009). The causal relationship between service quality, corporate

image and adults’ learning satisfaction and loyalty: A study of professional training

programmes in a Taiwanese vocational institute. Total Quality Management, 20(7),

749-762. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360903037085

Kwan, P. Y., & Ng, P. W. (1999). Quality indicators in higher education: Comparing Hong

Kong and China’s students. Managerial Auditing Journal, 14, 20-27.

Lawson, S. B. (1992). Why restructure? An international survey of the roots of reform.

Journal of Education Policy, 7, 54-139.

Lee, H. S. (2013). Major moderators influencing the relationships of service quality,

customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Asian Social Science, 9(2), 1.

Leffler, K. B. (1982). Ambiguous changes in product quality. The American Economic

Review, 72(5), 956-967.

Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. R. (1982). Service quality: a study of quality dimensions. Service

Management Institute.

Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. R. (1991). Two approaches to service quality dimensions.

Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 287-303.

Letcher, D. W., & Neves, J. S. (2010). Determinant of undergraduate business student

satisfaction . Research in Higher Education Journal, 1-26.

Lewis, B. R., & Mitchell, V. W. (1990). Defining and measuring the quality of customer

service. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 8(6), 11-17.

Lewis, B. R., & Smith, A. M. (1989). Customer Care in the Service Sector: The Customer' s

Perspective. Manchester: FSRC, Manchester School of Management.


136

Lewis, R. C., & Booms, B. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality . American

Marketing Association, 99-104.

Li, W. M. (2005). A comparative study between UK and USA: The student satisfaction in

higher education and its influential factors . Journal of Marketing Management, 21,

859-878. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725705774538471

Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1995). The nature of customer relationships in services.

Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 4(141), 67.

Lindsay, P. H., & Norman , D. A. (1977). Human information processing: An introduction to

psychology.

Lo, C. C. (2010). How student satisfaction factors affect perceived learning. Journal of the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 47-54.

Lovelock, C. H., & Wirtz, J. (2007). Services Marketing (5 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Maddern , H., Maull , R., Smart , A., & Barker, P. (2007). Customer satisfaction and service

quality in UK financial services. International Journal of Operations and Production

Management, 27(9), 999-1019.

Malhotra, N. K., & Dash, S. (2011). Marketing Research An Applied Orientation. Delhi:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Malhotra, N., & Birks , F. D. (2006). Marketing Research: An appled Approach. London:

Prentice-Hall.

Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2005). A new management

element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of

Educational Management, 19(6), 505-526.


137

Materu, P. N. (2007). Higher education quality assurance in Sub-Saharan Africa: status,

challenges, opportunities and promising practices (No. 124). World Bank

Publications.

Mavondo, F., & Zaman, M. (2000). Student satisfaction with a tertiary institution and

recommending it to prospective students. Retrieved January 22, 2016, from http. In

anzmac. org/conference/2000/CDsite/papers/m/Mavondo1.PDF.

Memon, M. A., Salleh, R., Baharom , M. N., & Harun , H. (2014). Factors Influencing the

Satisfaction of International Postgraduate Students in the Malaysian Context—A

Literature Review and A Proposed Model. International Education Studies, 7(11), 76-

80.

Mohamad, M. (2009). Building corporate image and securing student loyalty in Malaysian

higher learning industry. The Journal of International Management Studies, 4(30), 1.

Monroe, K. B. (1990). Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions ( 2nd ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market

research relationships . Journal of Marketing, 81-101.

Mosavi, M., & Ghaedi, J. (2011). A survey on the relationship between perceived value and

customer advocacy behaviour. International Conference on Innovation Management

and Science. 14. Singapore: IACST Press.

Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobâlca, C., & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of customer

satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public Sector

Management, 23(2), 124-140.


138

Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service quality in

higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(5), 523-535.

Nationa Accreditation Board. (2015, April 15). Registered private and public higher

education institutions in Ghana as at 31st December 2015. Retrieved from National

Accreditation Board Web site: http://www.nationalaccreditationboard.com

Neuman, M. G. (2007). Immune dysfunction in inflammatory bowel disease. Translational

Research, 149(4), 173-186.

Newman, K., Cowling, A., & Leigh, S. (1998). Case Study: Services quality, business

process re-enginering, and human resources; a case in point. International Journal of

Bank Marketing, 16(6), 42-225.

Nimako, S. G., Azumah, F. K., Donkor, F., & Veronica, A. B. (2010). Overall customer

satisfaction in Ghana’s mobile telecommunication networks: Implications for

management and policy. ATDF JOURNAL, 6(3/4).

Nukpezah, D., & Nyumuyo, C. (2009). What Drives Customer Loyalty and Profitability?

Analysis of Perspectives from Retail Customers in Ghana's Banking Industry.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK

University Business and Management Faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2),

85-95.

Oliver , R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.

Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-

based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697-713.


139

Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings.

Journal of Retailing.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS.

Australia.

Palmer, R. W. (2001). Guidelines for financing & catchment managment agencies in South

Africa. WRC Report No 1044/1/01.

Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure

readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307-320.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the

SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420.

Parasuraman, A., & Grewal , D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-value-

loyalty chain: a research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28

(1), 168-174.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service

quality and its implications for future research . Journal of Marketing, 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of the service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1),

12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a

comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research.

the Journal of Marketing, 111-124.


140

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Peters , T., Waterman , J., & Robert, H. (1982). In search of excellence-lessons from

American best run companies. London: Harper collins publishers.

Rasli, A., Shekarchizadeh, A., & Iqbal, M. J. (2012). Perception of service quality in higher

education: Perspective of Iranian students in Malaysian universities. International

Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 1(1).

Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European

Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19-30.

Regassa, T., Tolemariam, T., Ferede, B., Hunde, A. B., & Lemma, A. (2013). Quality of

education: the case of Jimma University. Education, 3(5), 267-278.

Reichheld, F. P., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defeciions: Quoliiy comes to services.

Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105-111.

Resister , J. R. (1995). Buyer behavior form marketing managers perspectives: the

measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 68(1), 39-127.

Roberts, G. H. (2005). Auchan's entry into Russia: prospects and research implications.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(1), 49-68.

Robson, C. (2000). Real worl Resarch Methods: The Research for Social Scientists and

Practitioner-Research (2nd ed.). New York: Willey Publishing Company.

Rojas-Mendez, J., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., Kara, & Cerda- Urrutia, A. ( 2009). Determinants

of Student Loyalty in Higher Education: A Tested Relationship Approach in Latin

America. Lating America Business Review, 21-39


141

Rowley, J., & Dawes , J. (1999). Customer loyalty-a recent concept for libraries? Library

Management, 20(6), 345-351.

Ryan, J., & Harrison, P. (1995). The relationship between individual instructional

characteristics and the overall assessment of teaching effectiveness across different

instructional contexts. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 577-594.

Saad-Andaleeb, S. (1994). Hospital advertising: the influence of perceptual and demographic

factors on consumer dispositions. Journal of Services Marketing. Journal of Service

marketing, 8(1), 48-59.

Sahney, S. (2012). Designing quality for the higher educational system: A case of selected

engineering and management Institutions in India. Asian Journal on Quality, 13(2),

116-137.

Sahney, S., Banwet, D. K., & Karunes, S. (2004). Conceptualizing Total Quality

Management in Higher Education. The TQM Magazine, 16(2), 145-159.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students.

London: Pearson Education.

Schertzer, C. B., & Schertzer, S. M. (2004). Student satisfaction and retention: A conceptual

model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1), 79-91.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business A Skill Building Approach. Singapore:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Seok-Lee, L. (2013). Major Moderators Influencing the relationships of service quality,

customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Asian Social Science, 9(2).


142

Shank, M. D., Walker, M., & Hayes, T. (1995). Understanding professional service

expectations: Do you know what our students expect in a quality education? Journal

of Professional Service Marketing, 31(1), 71-89.

Sickler, S. L. (2013). Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Service Quality as a Predictor of

Student Retention in the First Two Years. Doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State

University.

Sickler, S. L. (2013). Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Service Quality as a Predictor of

Student Retention in the First Two Years (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State

University).

Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Consumer

Satisfaction and Loyalty Judgments. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28,

150-167.

Sohail, M. S., & Shaikh, N. M. (2004). Quest for excellence in business education: a study of

student impressions of service quality. The International Journal of Educational

Management, 18(1), 58-65.

Solomon, M. R., Surpremant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman, E. G. (1985). A role of theory

perspective on dyadic interactions: the service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49,

99-111.

Stromgren, O. (2007). Analyzing service quality in a tertiary institution. Journal of

Educational Administration, 34(140), 72-82.

Strydom, J. W., Jooste, C. J., & Cant, M. C. (2000). Marketing Management (4th ed.). Cape

Town: Juta.


143

Sultan, P., & Wong, H. (2010). Performance-based service quality model: An empirical study

on Japanese universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(2), 126-143.

Telford, R., & Masson, R. (2005). The congruence of quality values in higher education.


Thomas, E. J. (1978). Research and service in singlecase experimentation: conflicts and

choices. In Social Work Research and Abstracts, 14(4), 20-31.

Thomas, S. (2011). What drives student loyalty in university: An empirical model for India.

International Business Research, 4 (2), 183-192.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.

Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Trotter, E., & Roberts, C. A. (2006). Enhancing the early student experience. Higher

Education Research and Development, 25(4), 371-386.

Tuchman, B. W. (1980). The decline of quality. New York Times Magazine, 2(104), 38-41.

Tutu-Boahene , B., & Akwensivie , A. M. (2014). Service experience perspectives in

Ghanaian private universities. British Journal of Marketing Studies, 2( 3), 1-13.

UNCTAD, R. (2014). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Review of

Maritime Transport.

Utuka, G. (2010). The emergence of Private Higher education and the issue of quality

assurance. Retrieved from www.devnetoorg.nz

Voss, C. (2004). Are You Being Served? Brand Strategy, 30-31.


144

Walker, J. L. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction: conceptualized. Journal of Services

Marketing, 9(1), 5-14.

Webb, J. R. (2000). Understanding and Designing Marketing Research. London :

International Thompson Business Press.

Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grogaard, J. (2002). Student satisfaction: towards an

empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 183–195.

Wilson, D. T. (2000). Deep relationships: The case of the vanishing salesperson.

Pennsylvania: The pennsylvania State University.

Winsiewski, M. (2001). Using SERVQUAL to access customer satisfaction with public

sector services. Managing Service Quality, 2(6), 380-388.

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: an introductory analysis. New York: Harper and Row.

Yeo, R. K. (2008). Brewing service quality in higher education: Characteristics of ingredients

that make up the recipe. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 266-286.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1998). Customer Perception of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-end

Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers:

what we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 28(1), 67-85.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner , M. S. (2011). Serving marketing: integrating consumer focus

across the firm. New York: Mc Graw.


145

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Services marketing, integrating customer focus

across the firm (4th ed.). New York: Mc Graw-Hill.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus

Across the Firm (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (1996). Services Marketing . New York:

McGraw Hill.

Zeithaml, V. A., Bolton, R. N., Deighton, J., Keiningham, T. L., Lemon, K. N., & Petersen, J.

A. (2006). Forward-Looking Focus Can Firms Have Adaptive Foresight? Journal of

Service Research, 9(2), 168-183.

Zeithaml, V., & Bitner, M. (2002). Services Marketing (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2007). Improving student outcomes in higher education: New

Zealand teachers’ view on teaching students from diverse backgrounds . Teaching in

Higher Education, 12(5), 6. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510701596190

Zhao, X. (2012). A Review on Service Quality and Student Satisfaction of Higher Education.

Soft Computing in Information Communication Technology, 115-122. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29148-7_17

Zikmund, G. W., & Babin, B. J. (2010). Essentials of Marketing Research. Mason,OH: South

WesternCengage Learning.


146

APPENDIX

Dear respondent,

The researcher is an MPhil candidate with the department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship

at the University of Ghana Business School, researching on the topic “Students` perception

of service quality in higher educational Institutions in Ghana”. The researcher will be most

grateful if you could give your views by answering these questions below. The information

obtain will be used for purely academic purpose, specifically in partial fulfilment for the award

of MPhil degree in marketing and will be treated with utmost confidentiality

Thank you.

Personal data

1. Please indicate your gender a) Male [ ] b) Female [ ]

2. Age of the respondents (in years) a) Below 20 years [ ] b 20-30years [ ] c) 30 and above [

]

3. Income level of the respondent (monthly) a) below 1000 [ ] b) 1001-2000 [ ] c) 2001-3000

[ ] d) 3001-4000[ ] e) 40001- and above [ ]


147

4. What programme are you enrolled in a) Diploma [ ] b) Undergraduate [ ] c) Masters (MBA/

EMBA/ MPHIL [ ] d) PHD [ ]

5. Occupational status of the respondents a) Business/ self- employed [ ] b) Public servant [ ]

c) Private Sector [ ] d) Notworking/Unemployed [ ]

e) Others…………………………………………

6. Please indicate whether you are a resident or non-resident

a) Resident [ ] b) Non-resident [ ]

SECTION B: SERVICE QUALITY (SERVQUAL)

Please tick or circle appropriately, how each of the following statements represents your

opinion. Where 1= strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree and 5= Strongly

Agree.


148

TANGIBLES 1 2 3 4 5

1 The physical facilities and lay out of classrooms are visually appealing (i.e.

building and surroundings)

2 Lighting in classrooms are adequate enough for studies

3 Appearance of building and grounds are quite appealing

4 Overall cleanliness is encouraging

5 The classrooms and study rooms are comfortable for students

6 Decoration and atmosphere is conducive for study

7 Appearance of academic and non-academics staffs are presentable

8 Adequate parking space is available

9 Adequate computers available in the lab for students

10 The computers are to Up-to-date

11 There is always access to the Internet facilities

12 The software use in computers are up to date

13 Course materials are available and accessible at the library

14 Materials associated with course delivery (such as handbooks, notices, notice

boards, signs) look good and attractive

ASSURANCE

1 The lecturers have high academic credentials

2 The lecturers are innovative and agents of change

3 The lecturers are research efficient/productive


149

4 Adequate security measures are put in place at the university.

5 The University’s staffs have adequate knowledge on rules and procedures

6 The administrative staffs are friendly and courteous.

7 The lecturers are friendly and courteous

RELIABILITY

1 Registration is timely and error-free

2 This university keeps its records accurately

3 The general reliability of lecturers ie. keeps time/don’t cancel classes

4 The administrative staff show sincere interest in solving student’s problem

5 This university provides its services at a time it promises to do so.

6 The Lecturers sincere interest in solving student’s problem

7 The University runs excellent quality programs

RESPONSIVENESS


150

1 Personnel are always availability to assist you

2 Lecturers show their capacity to solve problems when they arise

3 I seldom get the “run-around” when seeking information on this

University

4 Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available

5 Queries are dealt with efficiently and promptly

EMPATHY

1 The administrative staffs have students’ best interest at heart

2 Access to computer facilities is convenient to students

3 Access to study rooms is convenient to students

4 Staff are willing to give students individual attention

5 The lecturers are sympathetic and supportive to the needs of

students.

6 The University staff are fair and unbiased in their treatment of

individual’s students.

REPUTATION

1 The University has a professional image

2 The academic program run by the University is reputable.

3 The University `s graduates are easily employable

SECTION C STUDENTS` SATISFACTION

1 I am satisfied with my decision to attend this University

Please tick or circle appropriately, how each of the following statements represents your opinion.

Where 1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree and 5= Strongly Agree.


151

2 My choice to enroll in this University is a wise one

3 I am happy on my decision to enroll in this University

4 I did the right decision when I decided to enroll in this

University

5 I am happy that I enrolled in this University

SECTION D STUDENTS LOYALTY

1 I will recommend University of Ghana to friends and relatives

2 I will consider University of Ghana, if I have the opportunity to

further my education

3 I will not look for alternative institution, if I need academics services

4 I will communicate positively about the university to friends and

relatives

5 I will not communicate negatively about the services provides by the

university.

6 If I have a choice to do it all over again, I still will enroll in this

University


Documents

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA STUDENTS` PERCEPTION OF SERVICE