The literature contains various studies in higher education service quality and its dimensions pertaining to actual ratings and perceived importance thereof. This section attempts to address the core findings comprising these studies.
Pariseau and McDaniel (1997) in a service quality study into Business Faculties in the USA found that Assurance was rated as the topmost dimension trailed by Responsiveness, Empathy, Reliability and Tangibles.
The study by Radder and Han (2009:110) focused on measuring the quality of service in a higher educational institute by using a modified SERVQUAL questionnaire where service quality was measured on six dimensions: “Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, general amenities, and room amenities” with the last two dimensions replacing the tangibility dimension of the original SERVQUAL questionnaire. The study undertook to measure service quality of student accommodation at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
Concerning the results of the study, service quality for student housing comprised four aspects:
interaction, empathy, general amenities and room amenities thus showing that service quality is a multi-level construct (Radder & Han, 2009:115-116). However, assurance was not found to make a contribution to service quality in this study. It is also noteworthy that all the gap scores in the study were negative, suggesting a service quality problem. In the main though, one of the conclusions of the study was that SERVQUAL is a valuable instrument for measuring non- academic service quality at a University.
An adapted version of the SERVQUAL scale was also used in assessing service quality at tertiary educational institutions studied by Joseph et al. (2003) cited in Harris and Paddey (2010:6). In this
69 study, the adaped SERVQUAL scale included the following dimensions “cost; degree content and structure; physical aspects, facilities and resources; value of education and a general dimension for other aspects relating to service” (Paddey, 2010:6).
Using an adapted version of the SERVQUAL scale in a study at University of Kwa Zulu-Natal (UKZN), Naidoo (2011:129) found that “students were very dissatisfied with the quality of services provided...” That is, there were negative gaps for each SERVQUAL dimension.
In a service quality study into Polytechnics in Nigeria, the research revealed that Tangibles were the most important and the least important were Reliability and Empathy (Iro-Idoro, Ayodele, &
Orija (2014).
According to Mohammadi and Mohammadi (2014:89) in studying service quality at a medical university, Reliability was rated the highest followed by Empathy, and the lowest score was for Responsiveness. In addition, the largest gap for Responsiveness and the smallest was for Reliability.
Kontic (2014:646) in a service quality study using the SERVPERF model in Serbian higher education, found Assurance, Reliability, and Responsiveness were the key service quality factors in the study.
Hence, the aforementioned empirical studies helps to highlight significant findings from the literature pertaining to the perceived ratings and importance placed by students on service quality and its dimensions.
Various service quality studies were conducted within the higher education context internationally and in South Africa. Table 3.1 illustrates the most relevant international studies in higher education service quality since 2004 based on the service quality model/instrument used and the main findings or focus of these studies.
70 Table 3.1: Select International Studies Specific to Higher Education Service Quality
AUTHOR/S/DATE INSTRUMENT
USED/CONTEXT
MAIN FOCUS/FINDINGS
Tan and Kek (2004). Enhanced
SERVQUAL/Singapore
Service quality gap analysis.
Abdullah (2006). HEdPERF vs
SERVPERF/MALAYSIA
HEdPERF more effective than SERVPERF
Voss, Gruber and Szmigin (2007).
Exploratory using laddering techniques/European
Universities.
Explored areas such as lecture qualities, desirable values, etc.
Brochado (2009). Comparing alternative instruments in measuring service quality/Portugal.
SERVPERF and HEdPERF were best.
Nadiri, Kandampully and Hussain (2009).
SERVPERF/Eastern
Mediterranean University (EMU)
SERVPERF did not form five dimensions but instead loaded onto two – Tangibles and intangibles.
Gallifa and Batallé (2010). SERVQUAL/SERVPERF/
SPAIN
Comparing different campuses on SERVQUAL/SERVPERF dimensions.
Faganel (2010). Adapted
SERVPERF/Slovenia
Comparing staff and student perceptions of quality. Found differences.
71
AUTHOR/S/DATE INSTRUMENT
USED/CONTEXT
MAIN FOCUS/FINDINGS
Chuah, and Sri Ramalu (2011)
SERVQUAL Responsiveness, Assurance
and Empathy were significant predictors of service quality.
Hanaysha, Abdullah and Warokka (2011).
SERVPERF/SERVQUAL dimensions/Malaysia
Focus on relationships between service quality and satisfaction.
Sultan and Wong (2011:11). Qualitative and quantitative study/Central Queensland University
“The core dimensions of service quality are academic service quality, administrative service quality and facilities service quality in the context of Central Queensland University (CQUni).”
Al-Mushasha and Nassuora (2012:1474).
Modified SERVQUAL in elearning/Jordanian
universities.
“Interface design, Reliability, Responsiveness, trust, personalisation.”
Calvo-Porral, Lévy-Mangin and Novo-Corti (2013).
SERVQUAL/Spain. Tangibles and Empathy were most important dimensions.
Yousapronpaiboon (2014). SERVQUAL/Thailand Expectations did not meet perceptions. Highest negative gap was for Tangibles and lowest for Reliability.
Source: Compiled by researcher.
72 As can be evidenced from Table 3.1, the relevant international studies as reported in the literature have used mainly the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales in measuring higher education service quality. The focus of most of these studies was to understand student perceptions of service quality and its key dimensions as well as the determination of gaps between expectations and perceptions.
Due to the fact that the majority of international studies reported using the SERVQUAL or SERVPERF models, the most important service quality dimension was mainly related to the dimension of Tangibles.
In addition to the international studies in higher education service quality as reported in Table 3.1, Table 3.2 reports on the most relevant South African studies on higher education service quality based on the service quality model used and the main findings/focus.
Table 3.2: South African Studies Specifically Pertaining to Higher Education Service Quality
AUTHOR/S/DATE INSTRUMENT
USED/CONTEXT
MAIN FOCUS/FINDINGS
de Jager and Gbadamosi (2010)
52 questions/Management students at two South African universities.
Service quality is a multi- dimensional variable loading on 13 factors.
Diedericks (2012) SERVPERF/Two institutions with focus on Business Students
SERVPERF is a useful tool in measuring service quality.
McClean (2012). Appreciative Inquiry
Method/Library Service at a university.
Three themes revealed – Empathy, professionalism and Responsiveness.
Veerasamy et al. (2012) SERVQUAL/International students at a South African university.
Found gaps between expectations and perceptions.
73
AUTHOR/S/DATE INSTRUMENT
USED/CONTEXT
MAIN FOCUS/FINDINGS
Green (2014). SERVQUAL/University of
Technology
High expectations for Tangibles, Reliability and Assurance. Highest perceptions were for the Assurance dimension.
Naidoo (2014) SERVQUAL/South African
University
Service quality gaps identified.
van Schalkwyk and Steenkamp (2014).
SERVQUAL/Private Higher Education Institutions in South Africa
Service quality is important
and SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF are beneficial.
Source: Compiled by researcher.
As is evidenced in Table 3.2, the majority of South African studies on higher education service quality were mainly based on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models and were primarily focused on gap analyses. Again, similar to the international studies, a high importance was placed on Tangibles, but in addition, Assurance and Reliability also emerged as important dimensions.
Based on the aforementioned most relevant studies within the milieu of service quality in higher education, there is a dearth of information on how service quality was rated and the importance placed on service quality dimensions particularly with reference to demographic groups such as gender and academic field of study. Hence, this study aims to address this gap in knowledge.
In addition, based on the aforementioned discussion on service quality, although some studies have attempted to show the key dimensions or factors that contribute to higher education service quality, there is generally a dearth of information in the literature on the influence that service quality and its dimensions have on OVERALL SERVICE QUALITY (OSQ). Hence, based on this gap in knowledge, this study hypothesises that:
74 H1: Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy have a significant
positive effect on OVERALL SERVICE QUALITY (OSQ).
However, whilst it is important for higher education marketers to assess student perceptions of their service quality, it is just as important, if not more important, to assess student satisfaction which is “a broader concept than service quality” as service quality is a construct contributing to satisfaction (Chebat, Oumlil, & Academy of Marketing Science, 2015:52). A discussion of student satisfaction follows.