06 Student Satisfaction

JournalofQualityandTechnologyManagement
VolumeVII,IssueII,December,2011,Page91114
AN EMPIRICAL MODEL OF STUDENT

SATISFACTION: CASE OF PAKISTANI PUBLIC
SECTOR BUSINESS SCHOOLS
A. Ijaz1, S.M. Irfan2, S. Shahbaz2, M. Awan2, M. Sabir3
1Institute of Quality and Technology Management,
University of the Punjab, Lahore Pakistan
2COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
3Department of Geography, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore
ABSTRACT
Quality is key determinant for customers before purchasing a product or availing
any type of service and it also plays a significant role in measuring the
performance of product/service and the organization as well. This issue has
realized the organizations from manufacturing and service sector, how to
compete and gain competitive edge in the market by delivering quality product or
services as per customer requirements. These organizations had integrated
quality management principles and quality tools and techniques to gain
competitive edge. Education sector is also among the service sector and
considered to be the back bone and major contributor in national and economic
development. Quality education is also a challenge for the universities and also
many of the universities around globe are putting their efforts to deliver quality
of educational services to their customers to gain their satisfaction. In Pakistan,
service sector is one of the rapidly growing sectors contributing more than 53%
of GDP. To gain competitive edge these service organizations require
knowledgeable and highly skilled management professionals to cope up with these
challenges. This study aims to investigate the service quality of business schools
in public sector and how these institutions are successful in gaining student
satisfaction.
A modified SERVQUAL instrument is used to evaluate the service quality of
four business schools working under public sector universities based on student
perceptions.
Total 501 students from 4 public sector business schools participated in this
study. Structure equation modeling was used to develop service quality and
student satisfaction model. Results of this study indicate that business schools are
successful in gaining student satisfaction.
AnEmpiricalModelofStudentSatisfaction:CaseofPakistaniPublicSectorBusinessSchools
Keywords: SERVQUAL, Student satisfaction, Business schools, Structural

equation model (SEM), Pakistan
INTRODUCTION
Quality has become an icon for the customers before purchasing any
product or availing any service. Service sector is one of the rapidly
growing sectors in most of the economies of the world and this trend can
also be seen in Pakistan. According to statistics division of Pakistan
(2010), service sector is contributing more than 53% of the total GDP.
Service sector is also gaining importance like the manufacturing sectors,
due to globalization and increased competitive environment among the
local and global companies (Petruzzellis et al., 2006).
Today the organizations are facing challenges from their customers and
these challenges have created a cutthroat business environment which
ultimately creates challenges for the managers to find the best and ways
to meet the need and wants of their stakeholders. It has also set challenges
for the universities to develop a human capital with the latest
management knowledge and skills and enables students to become a
change agent for the industry. Now the universities are making efforts to
cope with the challenges of varied learning styles, cultural diversity, and
changing student demands with more choices of study which includes;
destinations, educational programs and study environment than before
(Arambewela & Hall, 2009).
Educational sector is an important sector which plays a significant role in
the development of human capital and ultimately in the economic
development of the country. Education sector has become an industry in
many countries of the world especially in UK, Malaysia, U.A.E etc., and
this factor is also influencing in other parts of the world especially the
countries with tuition based systems (DeShields et al., 2005). Like the
manufacturing and service organizations, concept of quality has also
evolved among the educational institution and it helps to develop a
competitive environment which ultimately raises the importance of
measuring quality of services among the business schools (Gbadamosi et
al., 2008).
92|
It had also been explored that universities starts realizing that education
sector should be considered as a business like other service industries and
they should be more focused on student expectations and perceptions. A
number of top universities around the globe had opened their campuses
in many of developing countries specially; Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,
UAE etc. and some of the universities are making joint ventures with the
local universities in developing countries in the form of dual degree
programs or split degree programs. It has increased competition among
the educational institutions and quality is the key parameter in order to
improve performance and gain student satisfaction. Student satisfaction
can be gained by delivering superior customer values and it had become
essential in creating a sustainable advantage in this competitive
international education market (Kotler & Fox, 1995).
Student satisfaction has become a major challenge for the universities and
it has been recognized that student satisfaction is the major source of
competitive advantage and this satisfaction also leads towards student
retention, attraction for new students and positive word of mouth
communication, as well (Arambewela & Hall 2009).
It has been recognized and reported in earlier studies that long term
survival and success of the universities depending upon the quality of
services and the effort made by them to achieve that distinguishes one
university from other universities (Aly & Akpovi, 2001; Kanji et al., 1999).
In some earlier studies it had been reported that universities were also
implementing quality management principles and used these principles
as a strategic tool to gain competitive edge (Montano and Utter, 1999;
Swift, 1996) and improved performance (Kanji & Tambi, 1998).
Now the concept of quality and customer satisfaction had been evolved in
educational sector and got considerable attentions (Ana Brochado, 2009).
These trends have also been seen in the developing countries like
Pakistan. During the last one decay Higher education commission of
Pakistan (HEC) had made revolutionary development in promoting
higher education in Pakistan and currently, we have 132 universities in
public and private sector. HEC is now focusing to promote quality
education in the country and many universities had adopted quality
management principles as a key to success and implemented ISO
standards as a first step towards quality to excel.
|93
Today, organizations are facing new challenges set by the stakeholders

and the competitive business environment due to globalization.
Organizations requires highly skilled, knowledgeable and experienced
managers that are able to deal with these issues and finding the best
suitable ways to accelerate their organizations both at local as well as
international level. Due to the expansion and growth in the service sector,
business schools in Pakistan especially in public sector are facing
mounting pressures from their stakeholders and their competitors from
private sectors. It is need of the hour that public sector institutions had to
make strategies and continuously monitor their education quality to make
their customers, and stakeholders happy and gain strategic advantage
over their competitors.
Business schools plays a significant role to develop and train management
specialists for the industry by integrating their curricula and benchmark
with best business schools in the world and enables their student to lead
their industry. The objective of this study is to evaluate the student
perceptions about the service quality of business schools in the public
sector universities. Secondly, a service quality and student satisfaction
model will be developed by using structural equation modeling (SEM) to
observe the relationship among them.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Service Quality
The concept of quality had been evolved from excellence to value, to
conformance to specification, and to meeting and exceeding customer
expectations (Reeves & Bendnar, 1994, p-441). The first two definitions
are quite close to assess and measure the quality of product or services,
whereas the third is more appropriate to assess the quality of the product
(Pariseau & McDaniel, 1997). Quality issues related to measure the quality
of services was a subject to a large number of investigation by the
practitioners and academicians over past 25 years due to its intangible
and complex nature (Prabha et al. 2010). Prabha et al. (2010) further
explored that studies on measuring the service quality of educational
institutions had also been the focus of increased attentions during the last
couple of years due the tough competition among the educational
institutions and the demand for excellence in education. Due to the
abstract nature of services as compared to products, measurement of
94|
service quality and to its characteristics was also difficult and complicated
task for the academicians and practitioners (Parasuraman et al., 1988;
Carman, 1990). However, service quality had been frequently studied in
the service marketing literature and measuring the service quality and
development of an instrument had been an issue of discussion
(Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1988). Service quality was also considered as to
what extent a service is adequate to meet the customers need and wants
(Lewis & Mitchell, 1990; Dotchin & Oakland, 1994). Service quality may
be conceptualized as customers or consumers overall feeling about the
superiority or inferiority of the services they received from the service
providers (Zeithaml et al., 1990). Most commonly referred definition of
service quality is the difference between customer expectations which a
customer will receive from a service provider and the perceptions about
the services being received by customer from the service provider
(Parasuraman et al., 1988; Grnroos, 2001). Quality, performance and
satisfaction are considered to be the key factors and these factors are
interrelated in a causal relationship or some time these three factors are
used as synonymously due to the similarity in meaning (Cronin et al.,
2000; Bitner and Hubert, 1994). Still there is no precise definition of
service quality in educational point of view however, according to ONeill
and Palmer (2004, p: 42), service quality in educational setup had been
defined as the difference between what a student expects to receive and
his/her perceptions of actual delivery.
Service Quality Models and SERVQUAL
The first instrument to measure the service quality was developed by
Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry (1985). This instrument was comprised
of five different gaps and due to this reason this is also known as gap
model and later this model was refined by Parasuraman et al. (1991) and
SERVQUAL instrument was based on gap 5. SERVQUAL based on gap 5,
comprised of 5 service quality dimensions based on 22 items; tangible (4
items), reliability (4 items), responsiveness (4 items), assurance (5 items)
and empathy (5 items). According to Buttle (1995), these three researcher
and academicians since 1985, further developed, propagated and
promoted this instrument through a series of publications by
Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml. Till now a number of service quality
model were presented to measure the service quality in different service
environments. A study conducted by Nitin Seth et al., (2005), reported 19
|95
service quality models used till now to measure the service quality. These
models are given in the table below.
96|
Table 1: Service Quality Models

SERVICE QUALITY MODEL
Technical and functional quality model
1)
GAP model
2)
Attribute service quality model
3)
Synthesized model of service quality
4)
Performance only model (SERVPERF)
5)
Ideal value model of service quality
6)
Evaluated performance and normed quality
7)
model
IT alignment model
8)
Attribute and overall affect model
9)
Model of perceived service quality and
10)
satisfaction
PCP attribute model
11)
Retail service quality and perceived value
12)
model
Service quality, customer value and customer
13)
satisfaction model
Antecedents and mediator model
14)
Internal service quality model
15)
16)
Internal service quality DEA model
17)
Internet banking model
18)
19)
IT-based model
Model of e-service quality (Santos, 2003)
Source: Nitin Seth et al. (2005)
AUTHOR
Grnroos, 1984
(Parasuraman et al., 1985)
(Haywood-Farmer, 1988)
(Brogowiczet al., 1990)
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992)
(Mattsson, 1992)
(Teas, 1993)
(Berkley and Gupta, 1994)
(Dabholkar, 1996)
(Spreng and Mackoy, 1996)
(Philip and Hazlett, 1997)
(Sweeney et al., 1997)
(Oh, 1999)
(Dabholkar et al., 2000)
(Frost and Kumar, 2000
(Soteriou and Stavrinides,
2000)
(Broderick and
Vachirapornpuk, 2002)
(Zhuet et al., 2002)
(Santos, 2003)
However, SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml

and Berry (1985, 1988) were the most commonly used model and had
been widely used in almost all the service organizations (Riadh Lidhari,
2009; Smith et al., 2007; Lee & Tai, 2008; Brochado, 2009) and hundreds of
unpublished articles using SERVQUAL, conference proceedings and in
online journals.
Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
|97
Customer satisfaction and service quality has become an important topic

of discussion among the academicians and researchers for the last couple
of decades and this trend can also been seen in higher education also
(Avdjieva & Wilson, 2002, Barnes, 2006). Superiority of the service quality
is strongly dependent on customer satisfaction which can be measured
from customer expectations and perceptions (Cronin & Taylor, 1992;
Christou & Sigala, 2002; Ekinci, 2004). Students are the primary customers
for an educational institutions and their satisfaction will leads towards
loyalty, retention and positive word of mouth (Arambewela & John Hall,
2009; Mavondo et al., 2004; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). Banwet and Datta
(2003) believed that customer satisfaction creates loyalty, whereas
satisfied students were attracted to attend another course/module or
another higher degree from the same university.
Number of definitions about the satisfaction exists in service and
consumer marketing literature. According to Oliver (1997), satisfaction is
a pleasurable fulfillment which means that consumption of services was
according to their needs and wants and thus fulfillment causes pleasure.
It may be consumer sense about the consumption of services according to
customer parameters against pleasure versus displeasure (Oliver, 1999).
Student satisfaction is still a complex phenomenon and it has different
dimensions (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005a, b; Richardson, 2005). According
to Elliott and Shin (2002. p:198), student satisfaction is defined as; the
favorability of a students subjective evaluation of the various outcomes
and experiences associated with education. Student satisfaction is being
shaped continually by repeated experiences in campus life.
On the basis of literature the following six hypotheses were developed:
H01:
H11:
H02:
H12:
H03:
98|
Tangibles has a no positive effect on service quality of the business

schools
Tangibles has a positive effect on service quality of the business
schools
Reputation has no positive effect on service quality of the business
schools
Reputation has a positive effect on service quality of the business
schools
Cooperation and support has no positive effect on service quality
of the business schools
H13:
H04:
H14:
H05:
H15:
H06:
H16:
Cooperation and support has positive effect on service quality of

the business schools
Reliability has a positive effect on service quality of the business
schools
Reliability has a positive effect on service quality of the business
schools
Responsiveness has no positive effect on service quality of the
business schools
Responsiveness has a positive effect on service quality of the
business schools
Service quality of business schools has no positive effect on
student satisfaction
Service quality of business schools has a positive effect on student
satisfaction
METHODOLOGY
This study is empirical in nature and the results were based on
assessment of the respondents. For this purpose a questionnaire was
designed using modified SERVQUAL model to measure the service
quality of business schools in public sector and how the quality of
services will helpful to gain student satisfaction. Questionnaire for this
study was comprised of 52 questions, which are further subdivided in to
6 constructs out of which; 5 constructs used to measure service quality
and the 6th constructs used to measure the student satisfaction about the
overall service quality of the business school. These constructs are
tangibles (15 items), reputation (11 items), cooperation and support (8
items), reliability (8 items) responsiveness (6 items) and student
satisfaction (5 items). The responses were measured on a five point Likert
scale [5] for excellent and [1] for poor. The population of this study
comprises all student studying graduate and undergraduate level in 4
public sector universities in the city Lahore. Personal efforts were made to
collect the data. This city is also known as hub of educational institutions.
A total of 550 questionnaires were distributed among students and a total
501 questionnaire were selected for the analysis and the remaining 49
questionnaire were rejected due to incomplete response. Therefore, it
represents a very good rate of 91% of the total population. The data was
entered into SPSS 16.0 and Amos 16.0 was used to develop a structural
equation model to draw inferences. Reliability of the data was checked
using Cronbach Alpha which provides a value of 0.956 is more than the
|99
acceptable value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978; Hair et al., 2006; Zikmund, 1998)
and a value ranges between 0 and 1 and the value close to 1 provides
more reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). As reliability of the data
plays a significant role in analyzing the results.
Demographics of the data are reported in table 2. The participants of this
study are the male and female students. Male respondents were 299, thus
representing 60% of the total population, whereas the female respondents
were 202 and thus representing 40% of the total population. The students
were from three different disciplines; BBA were 261 representing 52% of
the total population, MBA were 167 representing 33% of the total
population and there were only 73 students from MS and representing
only 15% of the total population. Majority of the Student population were
between 18 to 22 years of age group and only 8% of the population was
above 22 years of age.
Table 2: Demographics of the Study
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Age
18-20
21-22
23-24
above 24
Total
Year
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
Total
Frequency
299
202
501
Percentage
60%
40%
100%
263
197
52%
39%
27
14
501
5%
3%
100%
175
149
106
71
501
35%
30%
21%
14%
100%
Discipline
BBA
MBA
MS
Total
Institution
COMSATS
Punjab
University
LCWU
GCU
Total
Frequency
261
167
73
501
Percentage
52%
33%
15%
100%
211
176
42%
35%
65
49
501
13%
10%
100%
Students from four different public sector universities were selected the
highest number of students were 42% from COMSATS, 35% from Punjab
University, 13% students were from Lahore College Women University,
where as 10% respondents were from Government College University.
Highest numbers of respondents, 35%were the student of first year, 30%
100|
respondents were second year students, 21% students were in third year
and 14% students were in fourth year.
Tangible: First service quality construct is tangible which includes the
infrastructure, facilities and the physical structure of the organization.
This construct includes 15 items representing the building, playgrounds,
class room structure, library, transport, hostel, mosque, cleanliness, and
computer labs. The Cronbach alpha for this construct is 0.870 providing
an adequate value. These items were labeled as Tan1 to Tan15.
Reputation: It represents the overall goodwill of the institution among
students and at national level. This factor consists of 11 items representing
institution ranking, highly skilled faculty, strong curricula, internationally
recognized degree, and student acceptability in the job market. These 11
items were measured on a five point Likert scale, 1=poor to 5= excellent.
Cronbach alpha for this construct is 0.856. Items of this constructs were
further labeled as Rep1 to Rep15.
Cooperation and Support: Third factor of this study was the cooperation
and support provided to the students during their studies. It includes
faculty and institutional concern for the students and educational
environment that adds value to his/her learning. This construct consists
of 8 items and the Cronbach alpha for this construct was 0.856. Items of
this constructs were labeled as CaS1 to CaS8.
Reliability: This factor represents the ability to deliver or perform
services consistently and accurately to win the customer satisfaction and
increased quality of services. This construct consists of 8 factors. The
Cronbach alpha for this factor was 0.852 and items were labeled as Rel1 to
Rel8.
Responsiveness: This factor represents the willingness of the
organization to facilitate the customers by delivering timely services. The
Cronbach alpha for this study was 0.863 and it consists of 6 items and
these items were coded as Resp1 to Resp6.
Student satisfaction: The final construct consists of 5 items used to
measure the student satisfaction in terms of student retention attraction,
job assurance (acceptability of degree), increased learning, reputation and
positive word of mouth. Cronbach alpha for this construct was 0.854. This
|101
construct is used as dependent variable and 5 items used in this construct

was labeled as Sat1 to Sat5.
102|
Table 3: Variable Used In the Study

Latent Variable
Tangibles
Reputation
Cooperation and
Support
Reliability
Responsiveness
Satisfaction
Measured
Variable
Tan 1
Tan 2
Tan 3
Tan 4
Tan 5
Tan 6
Tan 7
Tan 8
Tan 9
Tan 10
Tan 11
Tan 12
Tan 13
Tan 14
Tan 15
Rep1
Rep2
Rep3
Rep4
Rep5
Rep6
Rep7
Rep8
Rep9
Rep10
Rep11
CaS1
CaS2
CaS3
CaS4
CaS5
CaS6
CaS7
CaS8
Rel1
Rel2
Rel3
Rel4
Rel5
Rel6
Rel7
Rel8
Resp1
Resp2
Resp3
Resp4
Resp5
Resp6
Sat1
Sat2
Sat3
Sat4
Measured Variables
SRW
building and play grounds

adequate Library facilities
Hostel facilities
Wi-Fi services for students
Multimedia facilities in each room
Cleanliness in the campus
Mosque and prayer area
Parking facilities
Transport facilities
Canteen, photocopy and book shop
Computer labs and other labs
Well equipped class rooms
Easily accessible location
waiting facility for discussion/guests
Efficient mode of information sharing
Highly skilled and renowned faculty
Among Top universities in Pakistan
Strong in Research and development
Add values in student abilities
Globally accepted degree
Curricula meet industry demand
Credit hours can be transferred
skilled and educated supporting staff
Seminars & Talks from industry experts
High job market for graduates
Scholarships & financial assistance
Faculty is concerned about their students
Supporting staff is willing to help
Faculty helps to resolve student issues
Supporting staff takes care of student
Management concerns for student
Progress is communicated to parents
Provides healthy environment
Job enhancement cell
Classes and exams are properly scheduled
Industrial visit to increase learning
Results and exams are at scheduled time
Faculty evaluation system
Open house to attract with parents
Timely delivery of lectures
Fair student evaluation system
Degrees /convocation at scheduled time
Feedback mechanism
Complaints are resolved efficiently
Student matters or issues are responded
Changes in schedule are communicated
Teachers are easily accessible
Management in contact with parents
Satisfaction (Cronbach alpha =)
Loyalty
retention
Job assurance
Increased learning
0.305
0.253
0.319
0.507
0.316
0.480
0.399
0.413
0.580
0.508
0.598
0.540
0.606
0.612
0.587
0.542
0.650
0.568
0.663
0.539
0.495
0.485
0.685
0.649
0.635
0.618
0.533
0.661
0.558
0.694
0.735
0.819
0.806
0.796
0.360
0.547
0.647
0.404
0.582
0.635
0.810
0.637
0.536
0.703
0.722
0.783
0.822
0.708
0.609
0.807
0.822
0.762
Cronbach
Alpha
0.870
0.856
0.856
0.852
0.863
0.854
|103
Sat5
reputation, word of mouth
0.537
To test the developed hypothesis of the proposed service quality of

business school and student satisfaction regression analysis may be used.
However, it is evident from the literature that structure equation
modeling or latent variable model is a useful technique (Hair et al., 2008)
and considered to be more powerful in investigating the casual
relationships among the categorical variables (Bollen, 1989; Bollen &
Long, 1993). Therefore, for this study SEM technique was used to test the
hypothesis.
The tested theoretical model of this study is presented in figure 1 using
structure equation modeling (SEM) techniques through AMOS 16.0 and
the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) was used (Jreskog & Srbom,
2004). The sample size for this study was 501 records and which is an
acceptable range of 100 to 200 for using MLE procedures and the number
of observations required for each parameter estimated should be between
5 and 10 observations (Hair et al., 2008). Therefore, all the parameters
were met before running the SEM model for this study. According to
Bollen (1989), multiple indices should be used as it is possible for a model
to be adequate on one fit index but may be inadequate on many others.
We examined normed chi-square test, comparative fit index (CFI),
goodness of fit index (GFI) and the root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA) as suggested by (Jreskog and Srbom, 2004). A
non-significant chi-square (i.e., p > 0.05) indicates that the proposed
model is an adequate presentation of the entire set of relationships. The
most flexible acceptance value of the normed chi-square must not be
higher than 5, but to be more cautious it should not go above 3 (Pedhazur
& Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991). Significant values of the above parameters
are also stated in table 4.
Table 4: Level of Significance for Model Fit Indices
Index
Normed chi-square
(CMIN/df)
Value range
As low as 2 and as high as 5
Goodness of fit index

(GFI)
Comparative fit
index (CFI)
Root mean square
error approximation
Less than 1 and equal to 1

representing a very good fit
Values ranges from 0 to 1 and
close to 1 indicated a well fit
Less than 0.5 close fit and less
than 0.08 reasonable
104|
Author
Pedhazur & PedhazurSchmelkin, 1991, Marsh &
Hocevar, 1985;
Jreskog and Srbom
(1984)
Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler,
1999
Browne & Cudeck, 1993;
Byrne, 2001
(RMSEA)
approximation
The path diagram of the propped service quality and student satisfaction
is represented in figure 1. The test for goodness of fit of the proposed
model for service quality of business schools and student satisfaction is
quite satisfactory. The values of the chi-square is 5851.730, degree of
freedom is 1319, p-value is .000 indicating that specified model is correct
and the departure of the data from the model is significant at the .05 level.
Values of the indices of path diagram of the proposed model for goodness
of fit are given in the table 5.
Table 5: Goodness of fit index for the given model
Index
Normed chi-square (CMIN/df)
Goodness of fit index (GFI)
Comparative fit index (CFI)
Root mean square error approximation (RMSEA)
Values for the proposed

4.413
.744
.866
0.065
Results reported in above table 5 are evident that the entire proposed
model had achieved the flexible level of normed chi-square, goodness
of fit index, comparative fit index and root mean square error
approximation and our results are falling within the described range
of values as stated in table 4. Therefore, we can say that our proposed
model provides a reasonable fit.
|105
e1
e2
e3
e4
e5
e6
e7
e8
e9
tan1
tan2
tan3
tan4
tan5
tan6
tan7
tan8
tan9
.30 .25 .32 .51 .32 .48
e16
rep1
e17
rep2
e18
rep3
e19
rep4
e20
rep5
e21
rep6
e22
rep7
e23
rep8
e24
rep9
e25
rep10
e26
e27
rep11
cas1
e28
cas2
e29
cas3
e30
cas4
e31
cas5
e32
cas6
e33
cas7
e34
cas8
e35
rel1
e36
rel2
e37
rel3
e38
rel4
e39
rel5
e40
rel6
e41
rel7
e42
rel8
.41.58
.40
e10
.51
e11
e12
e13
e14
e15
tan10 tan11 tan12 tan13 tan14 tan15

.60 .54 .61 .61 .59
Tangibles
.54
.65
.57
.66
.54
.50
.48
.69
.65
.64
.62
e512
e49
e50
e511
e52
e53
sat4
sat5
.75
Reputation
sat1
sat2
sat3
e54
.84
.81
.61
e513
.86
.82
.76
.54
Student Satisfaction
Service Quality
.77
.53
.66
.56
.69
.73
.82
.81
.80
e517
Cooperation
.85
.79
e514
.36
.55
.65
.40
.58
.63
.81
.64
e515
e516
Reliability
.54 .70
resp1
resp2
e43
e44
Responsiveness
.72
.78
.82 .71
resp3 resp4 resp5 resp6

e45
e46
e47
e48
Figure 1: Path Diagram for the proposed model
106|
The first service quality construct is tangible which is comprised of

15 items and all items provide a positive and direct effect on
service quality like; institution building and grounds
(0.305*0.75=0.23). The factors like transport facilities for the
students (0.58*0.75=0.435), waiting facilities and discussion rooms
for students (0.612*0.75=0.459) and similarly all other items of this
construct has a positive effect on service quality of business
schools in Pakistan. The standardized regression weight for this
construct is 0.75. Therefore, our null hypothesis H01 is rejected and
thus hypothesis H11 is accepted that student perceive that tangibles
has a positive effect on service quality of business schools in public
sector of Pakistan.
Second is reputation and was comprised of 11 items and all items
provide a positive and direct effect on service quality like; high
ranked university in the Pakistan (0.650*0.84=0.55). The factors like
skilled and educated supporting staff (0.685*0.84=0.58),
scholarships & financial assistance for student (0.618*0.84=0.52)
and similarly all other items of this constructs has a positive effect
on service quality of business schools in Pakistan. The
standardized regression weight for this construct is 0.84.
Therefore, our null hypothesis H02 is rejected and thus hypothesis

H12 is accepted that student perceive that reputation of the
institution in the market as well as among students has a positive
effect on service quality of business schools in public sector of
Pakistan.
Third service quality construct is cooperation and support which
comprised of 8 items and all items provide a positive and direct
effect on service quality like; management had a great concern for
their students (0.735*0.77=0.57). The factors like provides healthy
environment to students (0.806*0.77=0.62), supporting staff takes
care of student (0.694*0.77=0.54) and similarly all other items of
this construct has a positive effect on service quality of business
thus hypothesis H13 is accepted that student perceive that
reputation of the institution has a positive effect on service quality
of business schools in public sector of Pakistan.
Fourth service quality construct is reliability which is comprised of
8 items and all items provide a positive and direct effect on service
quality like; Fair student evaluation system (0.810*0.85=0.69). The
factors like results and exams are at scheduled time
(0.65*0.85=0.55), Degrees and convocation at scheduled time
(0.64*0.85=0.54) and similarly all other items of this constructs has
a positive effect on service quality of business schools in Pakistan.
The standardized regression weight for this construct is 0.85.
Therefore, our null hypothesis H04 is rejected and thus hypothesis
H14 is accepted that student perceive that reliability of the
university system has a positive effect on service quality of
business schools in public sector of Pakistan.
Fifth service quality construct is responsiveness which is
comprised of 6 items and all items provide a positive and direct
effect on service quality like; Teachers are easily accessible
(0.82*0.79=0.65). The factors like changes in schedule are
communicated to students (0.78*0.79=0.62), complaints are
resolved efficiently (0.70*0.79=0.55) and similarly all other
constructs has a positive effect on service quality of business
thus hypothesis H15 is accepted that responsiveness has a positive
|107
effect on service quality of business schools in public sector of

Pakistan.
Finally, service quality of business schools has a positive impact on
student satisfaction and regression weight is 0.86. superior quality
of services to their students will helpful for the institutions in
gaining student loyalty with the institution, causes to attract or
retain the existing students for another degree, and finally causes
for positive word of mouth. Therefore, our null hypothesis H06 is
rejected and thus hypothesis H16 is accepted that positive service
quality leads towards student satisfaction.
Table 6 provides information regarding correlation between the five

service quality dimensions namely; tangibles, reputation, cooperation and
support, reliability, responsiveness and student satisfaction. Averages of
all the constructs were calculated and then run the correlation among the
constructs representing the independent variables. There is a significant
correlation among all the constructs with student satisfaction and also
among each other at 0.01 significant levels. However, highest correlation
between satisfaction and reputation of the institution which is 61.7%,
which indicates reputation of the institution plays a significant role while
selecting the institution for study and it also has a significant impact on
student satisfaction while finding their jobs after graduation. The weakest
correlation among student satisfaction and responsiveness is 52.5%,
however, the correlation is positive among them and the p-value among
the variables is 0.000 indicating a significant correlation among them at
1% level of significant. It is also observed that p-value between all the
variables is 0.000 indicates, and positive correlation among all the
variables exists.
Table 6: Correlation among service quality dimensions and student satisfaction
VARIABLES MEAN
S.D
TAN
REP
TAN
3.5464
.59109
1
REP
3.6727
.59916
.523**
1
CAS
3.5044
.78356
.515** .616**
REL
3.68278 .635401 .502** .591**
RESP
3.3756
.84049
.457** .524**
SAT
3.6542
.73636
.532** .617**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
108|
CAS
REL
RESP
SAT
1
.544**
.575**
.587**
1
.662**
.616**
1
.525**
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although measuring the quality of services based on customer
perceptions is a complex task, however, to some extent we can get a little
understanding about the quality of services provided by the service
providers. The concept of quality has also been recognized in the services
sector and now the universities are also concentrating and making efforts
to gain student satisfaction by delivering quality of teaching and nonteaching services (Petruzzellis et al., 2006). The above findings shows that
currently, the business schools working under the public sector
institutions are providing better quality of educational services and are
also successful in gaining student satisfaction. Majority of these public
sector institutions have a very rich history and management graduates
from these institutions have a better job opportunity in the market. As
majority of the managers working on high profile jobs were graduated
from these institutions which are also helpful in making the repute of
these institutes in the market. Public sector institutions have another
sustainable advantage that these institutes have a very good
infrastructure like; their own hostel buildings, mosque, plays grounds,
libraries and transport facility, where as these facilities are missing in the
private institutes to some extent. Secondly, highly skilled and well known
faculty is working in public sector institutions. Major reason of student
satisfaction in the public sector institutions is due to their reputation,
availability of scholarships, and low fees as compared to private
institutions. Due to this reason public sector institutions are successful to
attract the best students which ultimately help to enhance institutional
recognition and their satisfaction. However, these institutions have to
make continuous efforts to enhance quality of educational services update
the curricula according to the local industry requirements and also the
global acceptability. These Institutions need to develop and implement
quality standards and system and continuously monitor it in order to
increase the quality of education and gain competitive edge on rapidly
growing institutes in private sector. This study developed six hypotheses,
and the results of our studies through structural equation modeling
(SEM) show that students perceive that public sector business schools are
providing better quality of services to the student and secondly, the
service quality of these institutions is helpful in gaining student
satisfaction in terms of student loyalty with the institution, student
attraction, positive word of mouth, image building and
student
|109
recognition both at local level as well as international level. Satisfaction

with service quality guarantees the students in increased student learning
confidence (McCollough & Gremler, 1999). Earlier studies reveal that
student satisfaction has a positive impact on student loyalty and their
findings were also similar to those finding in service marketing literature
(Cronin & Taylor 1992, 1994; Sweeney & Soutar 2001).
This study is aimed only at public sector institutions and the selected
institutions are considered to be the best business schools in Pakistan and
these institutions were ranked between 1 to 10 positions as notified by
higher education commission of Pakistan. Results of this study shows that
students perceives that service quality dimensions like tangibles,
cooperation and support, responsiveness, reputation, and reliability had a
significant positive impact on service quality and thus these parameters
leads towards students satisfaction.
This study was conducted at a local level and only few public sector
universities business schools were considered in Pakistan. Due to
shortage of time sample size was not so large, therefore the results of this
study cannot be generalized. However, a more comprehensive study can
be conducted by taking a larger sample size and including all the
educational institutions in the country to develop a comprehensive
service quality and student satisfaction model.
REFERENCES:
Aly, N. and Akpovi, J. (2001). Total quality management in California
public higher education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 127-31.
Ana Brochado (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure
service quality in higher education, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 174-190
Arambewela and John Hall (2009). An empirical model of international
student satisfaction, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 555-569
Avdjieva, M. and Wilson, M. (2002). Exploring the Development of
Quality in Higher Education. Managing Service Quality. Vol. 12,
No. 6, pp. 372-383.
110|
Banwet, D.K. and Datta, B. (2003). A study of the effect of perceived

lecture quality on post-lecture intentions, Work Study, Vol. 52, No.
5, pp. 234-43.
Barnes, B.R (2006). Analysing Service Quality: The Case of Post-Graduate
Chinese Students. ISSN nr. 1743-6796
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation
models. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp. 238-246.
Berkley, B.J. and Gupta, A. (1994). Improving service quality with
information technology, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 109-21.
Bitner, M.J. and Hubert, A.R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall
satisfaction versus quality, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds),
Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 72-94.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York:
John Wiley.
Bollen, K.A., & Long, S.J. (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models.
London: SAGE.
Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure
service quality in higher education, Q. Assur. In Edu. Vol. 17,
pp.174-190.
Broderick, A.J. and Vachirapornpuk, S. (2002). Service quality in internet
banking: the importance of customer role, Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 327-35.
Brogowicz, A.A., Delene, L.M. and Lyth, D.M. (1990). A synthesised
service quality model with managerial implications, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 27-44.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In Bollen, K.A. & Long, J.S. (Eds.). Testing structural equations
models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buttle Francis (1995). SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-32.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer perception of service quality: an
assessment of the servqual dimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol.
66, Spring, pp. 35-55.
Christou, E. and Sigala, M. (2002). Conceptualising the measurement of
service quality and TQM performance for hotels: the HOSTQUAL
model, Acta Touristica, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 140-69.
|111
Cronin, J., Brady, M. and Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,
value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions
in service environments, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp.
193-218.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL:
reconciling performance-based and perception-minus-expectations
measurement of service quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No.
1, pp. 125-31.
Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a
reexamination and extension, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July,
pp. 55-68.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1996). Consumer evaluations of new technology-based
self-service operations: an investigation of alternative models,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.
29-51.
Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, C.D. and Thorpe, D.I. (2000). A
comprehensive framework for service quality: an investigation of
critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal
study, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 131-9.
DeShields, O., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business
student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying
Herzbergs two-factor theory. International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 19, No.2, pp.128-39.
Dotchin, J.A. & Oakland, J.S., (1994). Total quality management in
services. Service quality. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 11, No.3, pp.27-42.
Ekinci, Y. (2004). An investigation of the determinants of customer
satisfaction, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 197-203.
Elliott, K.M. and Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: an alternative
approach to assessing this important concept, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 197-209.
Frost, F.A. and Kumar, M. (2000). INTSERVQUAL: an internal adaptation
of the GAP model in a large service organization, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 358-77.
Gbadamosi, Gbolahan & De Jager, Johan. (2008). Measuring Service
Quality in South Africa Higher Education: Developing a
Multidimensional Scale. Global Business and Technology
Association (GBATA), United States. ISBN 1-932917-04-7
112|
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing

implications, European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.
36-44.
Grnroos, C. (2001). The Perceived Service Quality Concept A Mistake.
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 150-152
Hair, F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2008). Multivariate Data
Analysis with Readings. London: Prentice-Hall
Hair, J.R., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall International,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988). A conceptual model of service quality,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 19-29.
Helgesen, O. and Nesset, E. (2007).What accounts for students loyalty?
Some field study evidence, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 126-43.
Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling. Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.
Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear
structural relationships by maximum likelihood, Instrumental
variables, and least square methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific
Software.
Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer
Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kanji G. K., & A. Tambi, A. M. (1998). Total quality management and
higher education in Malaysia.Total Quality Management, Vol. 9,
No.4/5, pp.130132.
Kanji, G.K., Malek, A. and Tambi, A. (1999). Total quality management in
UK higher education institution, Total Quality Management, Vol.
10, No. 1, pp. 129-53.
Kotler, P. and Fox, K.F. (1995). Strategic Marketing for Educational
Institutions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lee, J.-W. & Tai. S.W. (2008). Critical factors affecting customer
satisfaction and higher education in Kazakhstanv. International
Journal of Management in Education. Vol. 2, pp. 4659.
Lewis, B.R. & Mitchell, V.W. (1990). Defining and measuring the quality
of customer service. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.8, No.6,
pp.11-17.
|113
Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor

analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor
models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 97,pp. 562-582.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005a).
Measuring customer satisfaction in summer courses, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005b).
A new management element for universities: satisfaction with the
courses offered, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 505-26.
Mattsson, J. (1992). A service quality model based on ideal value
standard, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 18-33.
Mavondo, F.T., Tsarenko, Y. & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local
student satisfaction: resources and capabilities perspective, Journal
of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 41-60.
McCollough, M., Gremler, D. (1999). Guaranteeing student satisfaction:
an exercise in treating students as customers. Journal of Marketing
Education Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 118130.
Montano, C. and Utter, G. (1999). Total Quality Management in Higher
Education, Quality Progress, August, pp. 52-59.
Nitin Seth, S.G. Deshmukh, Prem Vrat, (2005). Service quality models: a
review, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 22, No. 9, pp.913 949
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
ONeill, M. and Palmer, A., Importance-performance analysis: a useful
tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher
education, Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12,
No.1, pp. 39-52.
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction and customer value:
a holistic perspective, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 18, pp. 67-82.
Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction. A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
63, pp. 33-44.
114|
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refinement and
reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67,
No. 4, pp. 420-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model
of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 49, Autumn, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 12-40.
Pariseau, SE, and McDaniel, JR. (1997). Assessing service quality in
Schools of Business. Int J Qual Reliab Manag, Vol. 14, pp. 204-218.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and
analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petruzzellis Luca, Angela Maria DUggento, Salvatore Romanazzi (2006).
Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 349-364
Philip, G. and Hazlett, S.A. (1997). The measurement of service quality: a
new P-C-P attributes model, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 260-86.
Prabha Ramseook-Munhurrun, Perunjodi Naidoo, Pushpa Nundlall
(2010). A proposed model for measuring service quality in
secondary education, International Journal of Quality and Service
Sciences Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 335-351
Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D. (1994). Defining quality: alternatives and
implications, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp.
419-45.
Riadh Ladhari (2009). A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research,
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 172-198
Richardson, J.T.E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a
review of the literature, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 387-415.
Santos, J. (2003). E-service quality: a model of virtual service quality
dimensions, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 233-46.
Smith, G. A. & Clarke, A. (2007). Evaluating service quality in
universities: a service department perspective. Q. Assur. in Edu.
Vol. 15, pp. 334-351.
Soteriou, A.C. and Stavrinides, Y. (2000). An internal customer service
quality data envelope analysis model for bank branches,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 246-52.
|115
Spreng, R.A. and Mackoy, R.D. (1996). An empirical examination of a

model of perceived service quality and satisfaction, Journal of
retailing, Vol. 722, pp. 201-14.
Statistics division of Pakistan (2009-2010): www.statpak.gov.pk
Sweeney JC, Soutar GN (2001). Consumer perceived value: The
development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. Vol. 77, pp. 203
220.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1997). Retail service
quality and perceived value, Journal of Consumer Services, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Swift, J. (1996). Using TQM to identify Education Improvements in the
College of Education at the University of Miami, Computers and
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 1/2, pp. 3-16.
Teas, K.R. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers
perceptions of quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 18-34
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering
Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and
Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Zhu, F.X., Wymer, W.J. and Chen, I. (2002). IT-based services and service
quality in consumer banking, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 69-90.
Zikmund, W.G. (1998). Essentials of Marketing Research, The Dryden
Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Hinsdale, IL.
116|

06 Student Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 Student Satisfaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JournalofQualityandTechnologyManagement

AN EMPIRICAL MODEL OF STUDENT

Keywords: SERVQUAL, Student satisfaction, Business schools, Structural

Today, organizations are facing new challenges set by the stakeholders

Table 1: Service Quality Models

Internal service quality DEA model

Internet banking model

However, SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml

Customer satisfaction and service quality has become an important topic

Tangibles has a no positive effect on service quality of the business

Cooperation and support has positive effect on service quality of

construct is used as dependent variable and 5 items used in this construct

Table 3: Variable Used In the Study

building and play grounds

reputation, word of mouth

To test the developed hypothesis of the proposed service quality of

Goodness of fit index

Less than 1 and equal to 1

Values for the proposed

.30 .25 .32 .51 .32 .48

tan10 tan11 tan12 tan13 tan14 tan15

resp3 resp4 resp5 resp6

Figure 1: Path Diagram for the proposed model

The first service quality construct is tangible which is comprised of

Therefore, our null hypothesis H02 is rejected and thus hypothesis

effect on service quality of business schools in public sector of

Table 6 provides information regarding correlation between the five

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

recognition both at local level as well as international level. Satisfaction

Banwet, D.K. and Datta, B. (2003). A study of the effect of perceived

Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing

Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor

Spreng, R.A. and Mackoy, R.D. (1996). An empirical examination of a

You might also like