VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HO CHI MINH CITY

INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER

EDUCATION:
APPLYING HEDPERF SCALE IN
VIETNAMESE UNIVERSITIES

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

BACHELOR OF ARTS in BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Student’s name: TRAN THI HOANG LAM (BABAIU15234)

Advisor: DR. LE DINH MINH TRI

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

2019
 SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION:
APPPLYING HEDPERF SCALE IN
VIETNAMESE UNIVERSITIES

APPROVED BY: Advisor APPROVED BY: Commitee

-------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Dr. Le Dinh Minh Tri

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------
THESIS COMMITTEE

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis would not be completely accomplished without the precious

encouragement and support from a number of persons. Initially, from the bottom of my
heart, I would like to say thank you to my advisor, Dr. Le Dinh Minh Tri, who has always
been willing to assist me whenever I need his help. Futhermore, Mr.Tri did not hestitate to
give me continous guidance as well as motivated me a lot from his knowledge, personalities
and professional skills. From my perspectives, without his belief, assistance, contribution,
this thesis will not be definitely completed.
Subsequently, it would be a mistake not mentioning all my friends who were
always ready to support, share and encourage me, rain or shine.
Later, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to my
beloved parents for their unconditional love, infinite belief and devotion almost 4 years at
the university and throughout my entire life. Besides, if there is no sacrifice from my
parents, I can not pursue my higher education. Once again, I would like to tell Mom and
Dad that there is no word can describe your valuable contribution to take me to the best I
could.

iii
 TABLES OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... x
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background of research .................................................................................... 1
1.2. Rationale of research ......................................................................................... 2
1.3. Research problem and objectives ..................................................................... 3
1.4. Research Methodology ...................................................................................... 4
1.5. Scope and Limitation......................................................................................... 5
1.6. Implications of the Study .................................................................................. 5
1.7. Structure of Research ........................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER II...................................................................................................................... 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 7
2.1. Definition of concepts ........................................................................................ 7
2.1.1 Service quality .................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Higher Education Marketing ............................................................................ 8
2.1.2.a General information ................................................................................... 8
2.1.2.b A student – A customer in higher education ................................................ 9
2.1.2.c Student Satisfaction.................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Service quality in higher education ................................................................ 11
2.1.4 Service quality measurements ......................................................................... 13
2.1.5 Technical service quality and Functional service quality .............................. 14
2.2. Theorical framework ....................................................................................... 16
2.3. Conceptual framework.................................................................................... 19
2.4. Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER III .................................................................................................................. 21
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 21
3.1. Research approach .......................................................................................... 21
3.2. Research Design ............................................................................................... 22
3.3. Measurement Scale .......................................................................................... 23
3.4. Sample size ....................................................................................................... 29
3.5. Sampling method ............................................................................................. 29

iv
 3.6. Pilot Test ........................................................................................................... 30
3.7. Data collection .................................................................................................. 30
3.7.1. Primary data.................................................................................................. 30
3.7.2. Secondary data .............................................................................................. 30
3.8. Questionnaire design ....................................................................................... 31
3.9. Data Processing ................................................................................................ 33
3.10. Data analysis methods ..................................................................................... 33
3.10.1. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 33
3.10.2. Reliability Test .......................................................................................... 34
3.10.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................................... 34
3.10.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.................................................................. 35
CHAPTER IV .................................................................................................................. 36
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................... 36
4.1. Final sample ..................................................................................................... 36
4.2. Demographic of respondents .......................................................................... 36
4.2.1. Studying situation ......................................................................................... 36
4.2.2. Categories of university ................................................................................ 37
4.2.3. Academic level .............................................................................................. 38
4.2.4. Year of study ................................................................................................. 39
4.2.5. Gender ........................................................................................................... 40
4.2.6. Age ................................................................................................................. 42
4.3. Descriptive Statistics........................................................................................ 43
4.3.1. Non-Academic Aspects ................................................................................. 43
4.3.2. Academic Aspects.......................................................................................... 44
4.3.3. Access ............................................................................................................ 45
4.3.4. Program Issues ............................................................................................. 46
4.3.5. Reputation ..................................................................................................... 46
4.3.6. Understanding............................................................................................... 47
4.3.7. Functional service quality ............................................................................ 47
4.3.8. Technical service quality .............................................................................. 49
4.3.9. Student satisfaction....................................................................................... 49
4.4. Reliability Test ................................................................................................. 50
4.4.1. Non-Academic Aspects ................................................................................ 51
4.4.2. Academic Aspects ........................................................................................ 53
4.4.3. Access ............................................................................................................ 55
4.4.4. Program Issues ............................................................................................. 56
4.4.5. Reputation ..................................................................................................... 56
4.4.6. Understanding............................................................................................... 57
4.4.7. Functional service quality ............................................................................ 58
4.4.8. Technical service quality .............................................................................. 59

v
 4.4.9. Student satisfaction....................................................................................... 60
4.5. Exploratory Factor Analysis........................................................................... 61
4.5.1. The first Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA).............................................. 62
4.5.2. The second Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ......................................... 64
4.6. Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA) ............................................................ 70
4.6.1. The relevance of model estimate .................................................................. 70
4.6.2. Unidimensional Estimate ............................................................................. 71
4.6.3. Composite Reliability and Variance Explained Estimate ........................... 72
4.6.4. Convergent Validity ...................................................................................... 73
4.6.5. Discriminant Reliability................................................................................ 75
4.7. Hypotheses Testing .......................................................................................... 77
4.7.1. Hypothesis Testing Results ........................................................................... 77
4.7.2. Boostrapping ................................................................................................. 80
CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................... 82
CONCLUSTION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................... 82
5.1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 82
5.1.1 Theoretical contribution .................................................................................. 82
5.1.2 Practical contribution ...................................................................................... 84
5.2. Implications ...................................................................................................... 86
5.3. Limitations and recommendations for further research ............................. 87
LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................ 88
APPENDIX A: CRONBACH’S ALPHA AFTER CONDUCTING EXPLOTARY
FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) ....................................................................................... 100
APPENDIX B: COMPOSITE RELIABILITY (CR) AND AVARAGE VARIANCE
EXPLAINED .................................................................................................................. 103
APPENDIX C: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................... 105
APPENDIX D: BẢNG KHẢO SÁT ............................................................................. 112

vi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Definitions of factors ........................................................................................... 17
Table 2: List of hypotheses ................................................................................................ 20
Table 3: Measurement Scale.............................................................................................. 23
Table 4: Questionnaire Design .......................................................................................... 31
Table 5: Cronbach’s alpha criteria for Reliability Test ..................................................... 34
Table 6: Studying situation ................................................................................................ 36
Table 7: Categories of university....................................................................................... 37
Table 8: Academic level .................................................................................................... 38
Table 9: Year of study ....................................................................................................... 39
Table 10: Gender ............................................................................................................... 40
Table 11: Age .................................................................................................................... 42
Table 12: Descriptive Statistic of Non-Academic Aspects ............................................... 43
Table 13: Descriptive Statistic of Academic Aspects ....................................................... 44
Table 14: Descriptive Statistic of Access .......................................................................... 45
Table 15: Descriptive Statistic of Program issues ............................................................. 46
Table 16: Descriptive Statistic of Reputation .................................................................... 46
Table 17: Descriptive Statistic of Understanding .............................................................. 47
Table 18: Descriptive Statistic of Functional service quality ............................................ 47
Table 19: Descriptive Statistic of Technical service quality ............................................. 49
Table 20: Descriptive Statistic of Student satisfaction ...................................................... 49
Table 21: Cronbach’s Alpha Value Criteria ...................................................................... 50
Table 22: Reliability Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects ............................................... 51
Table 23: Item – Total Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects ............................................ 51
Table 24: Reliability Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects ............................................... 53
Table 25: Item – Total Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects after rejecting NACA10 ..... 53
Table 26: Reliability Statistics of Academic Aspects ....................................................... 53
Table 27: Item – Total Statistics of Academic Aspects..................................................... 54

vii
Table 28: Reliability Statistics of Academic Aspects ....................................................... 54
Table 29: Item – Total Statistics of Academic Aspects after rejecting ACA8, ACA9 ..... 55
Table 30: Reliability Statistics of Access .......................................................................... 55
Table 31: Item – Total Statistics of Access ....................................................................... 55
Table 32: Reliability Statistics of Program Issues ............................................................. 56
Table 33: Item – Total Statistics of Program Issues .......................................................... 56
Table 34: Reliability Statistics of Reputation .................................................................... 56
Table 35: Item – Total Statistics of Reputation ................................................................. 57
Table 36: Reliability Statistics of Understanding .............................................................. 57
Table 37: Item – Total Statistics of Understanding ........................................................... 57
Table 38: Reliability Statistics of Understanding .............................................................. 58
Table 39: Item – Total Statistics of Understanding after rejecting UNDER3 ................... 58
Table 40: Reliability Statistics of Functional service quality ............................................ 58
Table 41: Item – Total Statistics of Functional service quality ......................................... 58
Table 42: Reliability Statistics of Functional service quality ............................................ 59
Table 43: Item – Total Statistics of Functional service quality after rejecting FSQ4 ....... 59
Table 44: Reliability Statistics of Technical service quality ............................................. 59
Table 45: Item – Total Statistics of Techinical service quality ......................................... 60
Table 46: Reliability Statistics of Student satisfaction ...................................................... 60
Table 47: Item – Total Statistics of Satisfaction................................................................ 60
Table 48: KMO and Bartlett's Test .................................................................................... 62
Table 49: Pattern Matrix .................................................................................................... 62
Table 50: KMO and Bartlett's Test 2 ................................................................................. 64
Table 51: Total Variance Explained .................................................................................. 65
Table 52: Rotated Component Matrix ............................................................................... 66
Table 53: The result estimate summary of the scale in research model ............................ 72
Table 54: Standardized Regression Weight....................................................................... 73
Table 55: Regression Weight ............................................................................................ 75

viii
Table 56: Results of structural model ................................................................................ 78
Table 57: Regression Weights (Group number 1 – Default model) .................................. 81

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Research Model.................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2: Research Design ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3: Categories of university ..................................................................................... 37
Figure 4: Academic level ................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5: Year of study ...................................................................................................... 39
Figure 6: Gender ................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 7: Age .................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 8: The results of CFA ............................................................................................. 71
Figure 9: Formular for the composite reliability and Average variance extracted ............ 73
Figure 10: The result of structural model .......................................................................... 80

x
 ABSTRACT

In recent years, higher education sector has developed more and more
dramatically. Thus, students will have a wide range of choices in pursuing their tertiary
education. To survive in this significantly competitive market, a number of universities
have been struggling for some time. And, service quality has played a vital role in
universities’growth.
Thus far, there is no research conducted to examine several kinds of factors
included in HEdPERF scale (Abdullah, 2005) in Vietnamese universities. Hence, the main
purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the analytical characteristics by applying
HEdPERF model (Abdullah, 2005) which impact on technical service quality and
functional service quality in Vietnamese universities. The paper is also objected to seek
out the connection between technical service quality, functional service quality and student
satisfaction in Vietnamese universities.
This study has been carried out for a three-month period since February in 2019
in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam. Additionally, the research framework of this study consists
of a bunch of factors, particularly, non-academic aspects, academic aspects, access,
reputation, program issues, understanding, technical service quality, functional service
quality and student satisfaction.
The conceptual model supposed will be examined owing to a quantitative
questionaire of potential students. Structual equation modelling was used to analyze a
group of 300 respondents. The respondents in this research were broken into different
groups regarding to year of study, academic program and many kinds of education
institutions.
As a consequence, this research contributes to indicate how each feature
certainly affects technical service quality and functional service quality. In addition, it
delicates to illustrate the links between technical service quality, functional service quality

xi
and student satisfaction. Later, with this broader understanding, leaders in universities can
launch new strategies bettering existing service quality to boost student fulfillment.

xii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of research

In general, higher education has dominated other fields due to the fact that it
consists of typical determinants of services (DeShields, Kara and Kaynak, 2005).
Meanwhile, this sector has coped with reduced financial aid and fierce internalization
competition. To deal with this issue, leaders decided to concentrate on market-oriented
marketing strategies which are certainly popular in other service zones. Recently,
universities have been in the face of several obstacles to enhance their worth (Heck &
Johnsrud, 2000). Besides, one of key indicators improving this value is a higher level of
student satisfaction. Student enjoyment also has a connection with educational quality,
moreover, based on it, educators are able to come up with solutions to the problems (Cheng,
1990).
In Vietnam, national leaders allocated approximately VND 224,826 billion for
education which accounted for nearly 20% of National Budget (Hoang, 2015). It can be
clearly be seen that Vietnamese populations actually pay much attention to education
sector. Not only do universities compete with local universities but they also face with
numberous students deciding to study abroad. Hence, there is a neccessary for leaders of
education institutions to concentrate on service quality in order to meet student’s demands.
It was not supprising when there have been numerous researchers devoting to
look into the relations between service quality and the satisfaction of consumers in distinct
industries, particularly, pharmaceutical and banking (Hafeez, 2012). In addition, a diversity
of research models about the fulfillement of customers’ needs was built up and flourished
via previous studies. Authors would like to adopt a bunch of factors causing effects on

1
customer satisfaction, to be more specific, they are service quality, expense, customer
prospect, brand image, customer indicators. Subsequently, there is a large variety of
research about customer satisfaction in numerous sectors, in detail, telecommunications,
agricultur, supermarket, to name but a few (Cong and Thuy, 2007). These studies got
success in finding out the reliable model and factors affecting customer satisfaction. In
contrast, there are few research in connection to tertiary education, therefore, this research
can be seen as one of the examinations using existing theoretical model so as to analyze
the connections of service quality and student satisfaction as well in Vietnamese education
institutions.

1.2. Rationale of research

In general, “Service quality” is a phrase having a critical and outstanding

meaning. The previous authors spent a long time making the framework headway better as
well as examined specific characteristics affecting service quality. Besides, owing to
effective approach, researchers have taken full advantages of knowledge to aggregate
service quality transformative conceptions in quality improvement (Zeithaml et al., 1985).
A comprehensive approach mentions to the consideration of both functional (process) and
technical (outcome) quality as proposed by Gronroos (1978, cited in Kang, 2006).
However, the viewpoint of transformative service quality indicates that there will be an
acquirement to run for the technical (outcome) service quality broadly (Lomas, 2007;
Zachariah, 2007; Cheng, 2011). To handle these issues, this study was set up to thrive a
model using the holistic perspectives (included in technical service quality and functional
service quality). It seems clear that exploring the meaningful dedication of reasonable
comprehensive framework may support to enhance the service quality in higher education
sector. Feasibly, it is time to attempt to redefine and redesign service quality model based
on new method. All in all, the sum of this problem is that comprehensive specific service
quality scales for detail setting, particularly, higher education is more possible to catch up

2
(Zeithaml et al., 1985; Carman, 1990; Finn and Lamb, 1991; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Brown and Koenig, 1993).
Additionally, in tertiary education, a number of researchers contributed to
measure the quality of service through several commonly outstanding scale, however,
HEdPERF scale dominated others. In detail, HEdPERF consist of six determinants,
namely, academic and non-academic service, program issues, access, reputation and
understanding (Abdullah, 2005). In addition, Abdullah (2006b) and Brochado (2009)
investigated and made a comparision of effectiveness among typically well-known scales
combining HEdPERF-SERVPERF and SERVQUAL in higher education sector.
According to Sultan and Wong (2010b) and (Abdullah, 2006b), after researching the
affiliation between students' perception and indicators of service quality in the tertiary
education sector, HEdPERF scale can be observed as a comprehensive measuring method
inasmuch as it combines a diversity of service attributes in the context of universities. In
spite of an analysis about the good outcome of HEdPERF scale, there is a lack of an
exploration about the influence of service quality factors on student satisfaction by using
HEdPERF dimensions affecting 2 both sides: technical service quality and functional
service quality. However, this kind of scales has already been applied within higher
education sector in other nations, especially, Asian countries. By the same token,
Vietnamese universities are found to have similar characteristics with the mention of
geographical locations and culture, these education institutions are thus in capable of
adopting HEdPERF scale to examine service quality. In addition, the purpose of this
research is to illustrate how service quality impacts on student fulfillment in tertiary
education. On account of this study, the insights can recommend some strategies to
reinforce and boost student satisfaction completely.

1.3. Research problem and objectives

According to the General Statistics Office of Vietnam (preliminary 2006), there

are 253 public universities founded (increase 15% compared with 2005) and 46 non-public

3
universities founded (increase 31.4% compared with 2005) among 1662 Vietnamese
students. In constrast, Vietnamese higher education has faced with many problems such as
obsolete training programs, unmovable teaching and learning methods, a gap between
theory and reality. Furthermore, many research activities nearly have not been invested and
cared about completely. A consequence of these challenges is posed that there is a big deal
related to service quality in Vietnamses tertiary education. Apart from the reasons
mentioned above, not many authors figure out the relations of features in HEdPERF scale
and service quality within Vietnamese universities. Therefore, educators are confused as
well as have a tendency to allocate their budget to unneccessary categories.
As a consequence, this study attempts to:
- Examine dimensions of the quality of servce by applying HEdPERF scale
in Vietnamese universities.
- Figure out the relationships between the dimensions from HEdPERF scale,
technical service quality, functional service quality and student satisfaction within
Vietnamese higher education sector.

1.4. Research Methodology

This research is developed owing to Quantitative method primarily

- Quantitative method: Finding out how students perceive service quality after
experiencing a duration of study programs and their fulfillment in view of surveys.
- Survey: total 300 participants.
As other previous research, both primary and secondary data are taken
advantage of analyzing in this study. According to Bryan & Cramer (1990), these
categories contribute to the legibility and intensity of the outcome.
It would also be a mistake not mentioning the important role of primary data.
In accordance with Saunders et al., (2009), primary data is practical due to its update
information and realistic points. In this research, questionnaires can be seen as the key
contributor to gather primary data, furthermore, they are shared in terms of online forms

4
and survey papers. In particular, a Google Doc Form is designed and delivered to
respondents through Facebook and Email. Additionally, secondary data is known as the
reanalyzed data used for other purposes already. Particularly, this sort can suggest a helpful
reference to solve the research objectives with the research questions. Moreover, secondary
data contains published documents, raw data, published official statistics, mention but a
few. Then, available journals, previous research are reviewed for more updated
information.

1.5. Scope and Limitation

Initially, due to the fact that this research is about higher education sector, it
will concentrate on Vietnamese persons falling into 18 to 36 years old in Ho Chi Minh city.
On account of personal reasons, the ability to complete the survey of different aging
populations is relatively distinct. It seems clear that the proportion of people who fall into
18 to 20 age group reached the highest figure. Therefore, the consequences of this study
are found to speak for only objective people.
Subsequently, the questionnaires were spreaded in mainly public and private
universities, at the meantime, the ratios of the results collected from other international
universities located in Vietnam, particularly, experienced the lower numbers. Thus, it can
not be on the behalf of the whole research population. This is the reason why researchers
should make efforts to expand the research scope more equally.
Later, besides six elements of HEdPERF scale influencing technical service
quality and functional service quality, these factors may directly impact on student
satisfaction. Further researchers should try their best to dig into this point.

1.6. Implications of the Study

The results of this paper may indicate service quality level in Vietnamese
universities. A broader comprehension of components influencing on two types of service

5
quality and the duty of student enjoyment may help Vietnamese educators improve their
strategies so as to reinforce the quality of service.

1.7. Structure of Research

Chapter I: Introduction
Making an overview for the topic of thesis as well as its background in short
regarding to the rationale, issue decription, research objectives, research scope and
withdraws, advantages of the study and summary of research format.
Chapter II: Literature Review
Revising numberous theories and definitions in relation to the research and
previous relative studies.
Chapter III: Research Methodology
Providing some illustrations about the roots of theory concerning the topic and
framework will be put into use in this study, moreover, proposing methods used in the
research, giving some explanations for the process and later, modifying the scales to gather
data.
Chapter IV: Data analysis and Discussion
Describing data analysis process, presenting the consequences and having a
dicussion about the outcomes through analyzed data.
Chapter V: Conclusion and Recommendations
Giving the sum of the research conclusion in conjunction with constraints and
recommendations for the research in the future.

6
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review included three parts. The first part focused on explaining historical
background through giving definitions of the research topic. The second part is reviewing
the previous studies which have same field to develop direction for the research. The last
part introduces the conceptual framework, research hypothesis of this study.

2.1. Definition of concepts

2.1.1 Service quality

“Service quality” is a term which causes several difficulties in detailing and

estimating, thus, this concept also receives a great deal of concern and arguments in
research (Wisniewski, 2001). Among various definitions, the common explanation is that
service quality as the scale service could satisfy customers’ demands (Lewis and Mitchell,
1990; Dotchin and Oakland, 1994). Besides, consumers can be seen as the sole critic of
service quality (Berry et al., 1990). According to Berry et al. (1985, p. 46), a comparison
between consumers’ respects and practical experience leads to the perception of service
quality. In addition, if there are conflicts between accomplishment and perceived service
quality, consumers are thus dissatified (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985). Harvey
and Knight (1996) contributed to define the quality in tertiary education. Moreover, they
also made a suggestion that a diversity of factors, namely, consistency, appropriate goals,
value of money, is totally impacted by the quality.

7
 2.1.2 Higher Education Marketing

2.1.2.a General information

In agreement with Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka (2015); Marginson (2006),

tertiary education sector is significantly affected by international race which can be seen
as one of the up-to-date trend. It can be involved that whether studying at local universities
or becoming an abroad student will be entirely beneficial for students in some ways.
Notably, students can attend oversea universties located in countries using English as
official language (Choudaha 2017; Marginson 2006; Mazzarol & Soutar 2002). To
compete with other rivals in this tough market, there is a neccessary for education
institutions to be more dynamic in their further plans at all costs. The priority of marketing
strategies and policies are emphasized more during student recruitment process, the given
occurence supposes over and above a research command in relation to tertiary education
marketing.

Initially, in the tertiary education documentary materials, not only are there
several arguements about internationl and domestic rivalry in university sector (Gibbs
2001; Marginson 2006), but some research are also carried out with traditional marketing
platform to look into students’ experience in quality. As a matter of fact, several research
are conducted to explore an association of theories of brand (e.g. Stephenson et al. 2016),
celebrity (e.g. Nguyen & LeBlanc 2001), fragmentation (e.g. Constantinides & Zinck
Stagno 2011) and the quality of service (e.g. Sultan & Wong 2013; Teo & Soutar 2012).
Furthermore, they have a propesity to concentrate on seeking out the consumer, fulfillment
and value from student viewpoints (discussed in Hemsley‐Brown & Oplatka 2006).

Subsequently, according to Moogan et al. (1999); Simões & Soares (2010),

there are several facets regarding to service industry in higher education. Actually, it is
viewed as a reliability service that makes customers have mixed feelings about decision
making due to risky consequences. Moreover, it also plays a major part in buyers’ career

8
path and found to be hard for purchasers to rate the quality even after aquiring and using
(Patti & Chen 2009; Walsh et al. 2015).

Later, tertiary education option is thus a crucial choice for the further jobs of
students. Additionally, in a comparison to other products of service, it offers a quite range
of challenges for marketing excecutives in universities (Canterbury 2000; Moogan et al.
1999). As illustrated by Rutter et al. (2016), on account of innovations related to the
Internet and digital marketing, Internet portal and public network are becoming the
dominant enrollment channels for education institutions, particularly, for the international
universities (Hobsons 2017; Teng et al. 2015).

2.1.2.b A student – A customer in higher education

The question “Is a student a customer?” has caused several arguments for such
a long time. There are two different approaches developed in treatment to students in
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). In particular, the first access is student customer
approach while the second one is student product approach. Lovelock & Young (1979);
Zeithaml & Bitner (1996); Bateson (2002) concur about that student can be seen as a
consumer and/or collaborator to come up with education service.
In contrast, many researchers (Franz, 1998; Albanese, 1990; Emery, Kramer &
Tian, 2001) confront that students can not be considered as customers. Moreover, Carrol
(2007) declares that Lisa Bevill, this is exemplified by the Associate Director of
Admissions at a business school in Madrid that there is a fine line between students and
customers. Gradually, this basic concept becomes a long-term association. “It implies the
concept that the customer is always right and should be treated as such. However, this is
hardly the case with MBA students and we should not lose sight of this because the
relationship between MBA student and school is more profound.”
In spite of contrasting point of views, students can actually be seen as customers
that obtains the fundamental customer service rules, besides, the total quality

9
administration to the education environment actually gets astounding support (Conway,
Mackay & Yorke, 1994; John, 1998; Bejou, 2005; Obermiller, Fleenor & Raven, 2005).
Besides, whether viewing the student as a customer or not relies on how to complete a
definition about a customer (Marcel and Harris, 2000). Customers require exclusive
services and other help to complete missions, whereas, students getting along with their
education institutes can give a hand for educators to advance teaching methods because of
their mindful feedbacks. Thus, students should be viewed as the potential customers in this
field.
2.1.2.c Student Satisfaction
Firstly, customer satisfaction can be examined in terms of experience, service
quality, prospects, perceived value and service quality assessment (Ali and Amin, 2014).
To be more specific, satisfaction is an definition which consists of experience, fulfillment
and expectation as well (Arif and Ilyas, 2013; Kotler and Clarke, 1987). Likewise, when
consumers are willing to make an evaluation after experiencing services. In addition,
numerous research determine that satisfaction can be seen as a consequence after service
appointment (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Bolton and Drew, 1991). Furthermore, fascination
is also observed as overall perception with several indicators (Fornell, 1992).
Secondly, in accordance with Sultan and Wong (2013), it seems clear that
students are primary consumers. Many authors showed that students are primary customers
within universities because of their choices and purchase in services (Kuh and Hu, 2001).
Additionally, Elliott and Healy (2001) indicated that student enjoyment is formed as
shortened behavior. Student satisfaction is also a key contributor to find out the level of
accuracy and credibility from service quality offered (Sapri et al., 2009). In fact, this
perspective was approved by Barnett (2011), in detail, student fulfillment plays a
fundamental part in evaluating service quality in higher education sector.
There is a diversity of elements giving several explanations of student
satisfaction. To be more specific, program quality, non-academic occasions and other
tertiary education facets are the leading indicators of student enjoyment (Kaldenberg et al.,

10
1998). As reported by Grossman (1999), educators are tend to higher prioritize in order to
satisfy students’ needs. Apart from these viewpoints, Appleton-Knapp and Krentler (2006)
broke aspects in relation to student satisfaction into bureaucratic facets and personal
components. Specifically, institutional feautures compound of education quality,
immediate response, prospects, teaching methods, research prominence, quantity of
students (Dana et al., 2001; Fredericksen et al., 2000; Krentler and Grundnitski, 2004;
Porter and Umbach, 2001). Meanwhile, personal indicators can be used to predict student
fulfillment, namely, age, gender, career, personality, favorable learning genre, students’
avarage point (Brokaw et al., 2004; Fredericksen et al., 2000; Porter and Umbach, 2001).
To guarantee student fascination, university leaders should pay attention to both of these
components, which is as stated by Chahal and Devi (2013).

2.1.3 Service quality in higher education

In accordance with Sultan and Wong (2013), it can be concluded that if tertiary
institutions are able to widely combine both an analysis of students' perception in service
quality and marketing strategies, fascinating and retaining students will be actually much
easier. Among strategies resulting in the success of public - private universities, sustaining
and improving service quality has played a vital role in this field (Teeroovengadum, V. et
al., 2016). Guolla (1999) implied that students' perceived service quality is a priority to
student fulfillment. In particular, students' positive perceptions always get on well with
their satisfaction. Furthermore, these students may recommend for freshman by word-of-
mouth or even get back to their institutions in order to attend other education beyond.
(Marzo- Navarro et al., 2005; Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002; Mavondo et al., 2004; Schertzer
and Schertzer, 2004). It involves that all key factors akin service quality are required to get
more focused. Additionally, “if service quality is to be improved, it must be reliably
assessed and measured”, Nadiri et al. (2009, p.525).
Subsequently, owing to well-done service values, educators find it easier to
complete acquisition from student enjoyment. This point can be observed as the

11
fundamental part in making sure stable competitive advantages in global education
industry. Fascinated students are about to spread their own positive advices to others via
word-of-mouth, hence, this is key contributor to bring about benefits for universities. Over
and above that, it actually reinforces education institutions’s position in the harsh market.
Not only do leaders stay focused on quality but they also fulfill students with abilities and
talents, meanwhile, emotions related to learning experience in the university are mentioned
(Munteanu et al., 2010). Activities in education cordinated by instructors and lecturers
cause a significant effect on graduates. Shevlin et al., (2000) indicated that it is becoming
more and more popular that lecturers are better regarding punctuality, efficiency,
reasonable access with students (Elliott and Shin, 2002).
Up to now, there are more and more controversies and literature giving an
account of service quality, particularly, perceived service quality, however; Bendapudi &
Leone (2003); Yoon, Seo & Yoon (2004) are in consummate accord with service creation
and consumption determining quality. In accordance with Gronroos (2000)’s claim,
customers can build a successful partnership with the organization through their
participation. Furthermore, there is a necessity for institutions to conduct and apply the
whole structure which can motivate service providers to put to use as well as boost
customers take part in the process (Yoon, Seo & Yoon 2004). Customer participation
obviously makes contribution to guarantee quality intake and outcomes (Zeithaml, Bitner
& Gremler, 2006). Besides, meeting customers’ recommendation also assist organizations
attempt to propose more tempting quality services (Ojo, 2010).
Thus far, it is such a tremendous big deal that higher education institutions
(HEIs) make a detail decription about service quality in tertiary education sector in practice
(Quinn, Lemay, Larson & Johnson, 2009). Researchers above have characterized the
quality of service in tertiary education with regard to education, administration and
supporting services.
Additionally, unless there is sustainability in service sector in terms of clarity,
accuracy and reliability without specific side including internal and external customers of

12
the institution, service quality can not be improved (Trivellas and Dargenidou, 2009).
Govender and Ramroop (2012) point out that back-up activities for internal customers to
understand their part will affect service perception. It may be considered that the
perceptions of the service provider should be enhanced by means of offering a positive
environment. Subsequently, according to DeShields Jr, Kara and Kaynak (2005), a positive
service undergoes plays a fundatmental role in improving student enjoyment in university.
Additionally, high value and a concentration on personal requirements certainly boost
positive environment created by the educational organizations (Adela, 2008). Hence, there
is a need for university educators to promote high quality services in order to differentiate
and compete completely. Paying more attention to core university capacities can be seen
as the distinct factor resulting in quality services (Ong & Nankervis, 2012).

2.1.4 Service quality measurements

In current years, a number of researchers have made good efforts to carry out
many studies so as to find out how different sorts of service quality instruments applied in
many sectors. SERVQUAL, SERVPERF and a merged SER- IMPERF scale are three main
methods used to test the relevant efficiencies (Anvari Rostami, E.A. et al., 2005).
In other words, there was a plenty of research applied SERVQUAL scale to
assess the quality of service in tertiary education. For instance, the perception of service
quality was observed to be low in typical facets of service quality, in particular, tangibles,
reliability, assurance, respontiveness and empathy via SERVQUAL scale (Zeshan, Afridi
and Khan, 2010).
Because education is basically a service industry, service quality issues are
always concerned much more than others. The relation between students and staff plays a
crucial part in education environment, namely, service delivery and customer satisfaction.
Furthermore, both this personal interaction and the labor-intensive nature of service turn
into likely service quality experience (Hill 1995, as cited by De Jager & Gbadamosi, 2010:
253). According to Cronin and Taylor (1994), the service-quality-service productivity

13
controversy has been taken place for quite some time. Most of debate have been got
involved in the use of the “gap” methods, not to mention the effective approval the use of
performance – based rules (Babakus & Mangold, 1992, as cited by Cronin & Taylor, 1994:
126).
Regardless of popular usage for quality evaluation in tertiary education
(Sunanto, Taufiquarrahman & Pangemanan, 2007; Rajasekhar, Muninarayanappa &
Reddy, 2009; Shekarchizadeh, Rasli & Hon-Tat, 2011), the SERVQUAL measure was not
ultilized as much as expected. Alridge and Rowley (1998) assert that there is no criticism
within its function in higher education. Some of negative comments insists of a requirement
to raise the similar questions twice and a snapshot of perceptions catching simultaneously.
To put it another way, Hair et al. (2006: 11) indicates that all educational tasks completed
through SERVQUAL in universities would make a suggestion to use this measure as long
as there is not too much adjustment. Adopting the SERVQUAL measurement for the
evaluation of service quality in universities leads to a bundle of criticisms and restraints.
To that end, Firdaus (2005) developed the HE performance-only model (HEdPERF) and
modify to get better. Among various outstanding measures of service quality, HEdPERF,
which stands for Higher Education PERFormance, is the most fruitful method bringing
about more trustworthy estimations and build-up effectiveness than others (Abdullah,
2006b and Brochado, 2009). Along with this viewpoint, Firdaus (2006) also offered
HEdPERF (Higher Education PERFormance-only) as an innovative measurement scale
which could accommodate the needs of examining the service quality’s dimensions within
higher education context. HEdPERF model testing many key factors in higher education
service quality, which was firstly invented by Firdaus Abdullah in 2005, has approached
the most reliable results.

2.1.5 Technical service quality and Functional service quality

Generally, the basic theory of service quality firstly defined by Gronroos (1982,
1984) consists of technical service quality and functional service quality. It goes without

14
saying that corporate image can be reinforced by technical service quality and functional
service quality. Although other factors can take effects on the image of a business but just
a few.
Technical service quality correlates to the service performance, while
functional service quality results in the service perception of service delivery. This
customers’ viewpoint of a bundle of service quality determinants is seemed to be the reason
causing perceived service. A comparison between perceived service and expected service
can bring about the perceived service quality. So, it is so much easier that this paper can
take advantage of these two dimensions to do a further evaluation.
Technical quality involves in what is supplied when the service process was
carried out (e.g. person’s understanding, tangibles and technical quick fixes). These are the
relatively measurable attributes of the service, which the clients and providers can easily
make an evaluation (Gronroos, 1984). In a different manner, functional quality (process)
is linked to how to provide service and the individual behavior devoted by the service
laborer during the service meetings. It seems that there are more troubles in measuring
technical quality (Gronroos, 1984). A research managed by Afzal et al., (2010) asserted
that there are completely eight components of tertiary education service quality which
consists of design, delivery and evaluation, academic convinences, non-academic
convinences, identification, counselling, student representation, study favorable
circumstances and the amount of members. In Bitner and Zeithaml’s opinion (1996), the
disciplining methods of the academic abilities and their connection with students also
result in student fulfillment. Moreover, this is supported by Kuh and Hu (2001) who
strongly believed that student satisfaction and effective interaction between student and
faculty have a stable relationship. Equivalently, Kara and De Shields (2004) indicated that
a bunch of facets included ability accomplishment, consultative staff achievement, and
classes is observed as the key factors used to evaluate student satisfaction.

15
 2.2. Theorical framework

In reference to the previous literature, theoretical framework is thriven,

furthermore, it will support to advance this research.
Before HEdPERF scale is promoted as the most oustanding model to measure
service quality, both SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al, 1988) and SERPERF (Cronin and
Taylor, 1992) were broadly used in higher education context. In other words, Abdullah
(2006) who devised and developed HEdPERF concludes that HEdPERF model could adapt
SERVPERF model (see e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992) with only perception approach. Not
only is this innovative scale aim at getting a particular overview of service quality in
tertiary education, but it also measures student experience (Abdullah, 2006a). As a
consequence of exploratory and confirmatory analysis, every single item from the
instrument has been examined with reasonable and logical results (Abdullah, 2006a).
Moreover, according to Sultan and Wong (2010), HEdPERF model collects more relative
variances than SERVPERF measure did. So productive is that HEdPERF scale can be
applied to enhance service quality in education institutions (Abdullah, 2006a). By means
of testing six determinants, namely, non-academic components, academic elements,
celebrity, connection, curriculum problems and comprehension, the findings from the
previous research found it easier to discover the students’ perception of service quality.
Obviously, education institutions still will get on well with service provider.
Though few HEdPERF dimensions could be put into use in tertiary education
setting in many countries, this measure still leads to many considerable results. This is
examplified by Kimani (2011) who did an evaluation about the perceived service quality
among students of universities in Kenya. Using HEdPERF scale to look into the affliation
of factors toward service quality, Kimani (2011) could get the positive student perception
about service quality affecting general satisfaction. Then, an experimental investigation
carried out by Ravichandran, Kumar and Venkatesan (2012) tested HEdPERF scale in
professional engineering organizations in India with the help of 106 participants. As a

16
consequence of applying multiple regression, the research determined some primary
variables which are relevant to overall service quality. Moreover, on account of HEdPERF
measure, Kumar and Yang (2014) indicated that celebrity, approachability, program
problems and career expectation were main factors of enjoyments among students.
Fulfillment definitely strove student loyalty. This HEdPERF model is proposed to be more
helpful and valuable on usage intention of this study.
In addition, the framework includes six primary features derived from
HEdPERF scale, which are described completely as below:
Table 1: Definitions of factors

The feature regarding to the responsibilities taken by administrative

Non-Academic
office. They are in charged of satisfying the studying demands in
Aspects
universities.

The academic facets refer to the main tasks and functions of

Academic
academic staffs which are transmitting of knowledge through
Aspects
research.

Access is in relation to the ease of contact, reachability and

Access
availability of items.

This view can be seen as the image of the institution perceived by

Reputation
students.

This component concentrates on the importance of specialization

Problem Issues
offered by education institutions.

This attribute is about the service's capacity to understand the

Understanding
students' specific needs (e.g counseling, health services).

17
 Besides, service quality customer perception has connection with customer
satisfaction. By virtue of a research on service quality perceived by students at a South
Africa university, Combrinck (2006) claims that there was students’ uncertain behavior
toward service quality despite the fact that postgraduate students’ evaluation about service
quality was pessimistic. Additionally, Hasan and Ilias (2008) had a discussion about the
most dimensions having contribution to student satisfaction. In two private universities, the
previous research already investigated approximately 200 undergraduate students
regarding to age, tangibility, responsiveness and reliability, particularly, they were not as
important as empathy and assurance. Hishamuddin & Azleen (2008) implied that owing to
a research in Malaysian universities, there was a stable correlation between service quality
factors and student satisfaction. To illustrate more about students’ prospects of foreign
universities in the matter of specific and inherent promises, Prugsamatz, Pentecost and
Ofstad (2006) do a research among Chinese students in Australia. Meaningful information
sources on students’ expectation of higher education institutions are as a result of passby
experiences, promotion and word of mouth. The more a customer is interacted with certain
promises in service quality, the higher the expectations of university’s service quality is.
Khodayari (2011) also believed that consumer expectations and perceptions are reflected
by perceived service quality. Therefore, this study also hypothesizes the linkages between
students’ perception about the quality of service and student satisfaction. From undeniable
explanations mentioned above, this research definitely comes up with several hypotheses
which offer the affliations of key elements based on HEdPERF scale and technical service
quality and functional service quality.

18
 2.3. Conceptual framework

Figure 1: Research Model

In general, the given research model has a combination of two parts.

Particularly, the first one examine how each dimension influences on technical servcice
quality and functional service quality. As a matter of fact, the second section is to figure
out the connections of two sorts of service quality and student enjoyment within
Vietnamese universities. Due to these characteristics, this research was tested by means of
Exploratary Factor Analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tools, in light
of results, all indicators in this model actually fit the threshold values.

19
 2.4. Hypothesis

Table 2: List of hypotheses

Hypothesis Desciption

H1 Non-Academic aspects affect functional service quality

H2 Academic aspects affect functional service quality

H3 Access affects functional service quality

H4 Reputation affects functional service quality

H5 Program issues affect functional service quality

H6 Understanding affects functional service quality

H7 Non-Academic aspects technical service quality

H8 Academic aspects technical service quality

H9 Access affects technical service quality

H10 Reputation affects technical service quality

H11 Program issues affect technical service quality

H12 Understanding affects technical service quality

There is a link between student’s perceived functional service quality

H13
and student satisfaction
There is a connection between student’s perceived technical service
H14
quality and student satisfaction

20
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research approach

It seems clear that the quantitative approach plays a major part in examining the
quantitative impacts of independent variables from influencing factors to dependent
variables. In agreement with Marshall et al (1996), this kind of research method also does
a good turn to make a pre-determined hypotheses test. Additionally, this study’s core is the
rational approach concentrating on figuring out all the explanation plus theories with
hypotheses (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). It is meant to be a reason for selecting
quantitative method. Quantitative method seems more structured and its results are
elucidated, hence, the results of analysis are definitely different from that of qualitative
method. Quantitative method is thus the most sensibly effective method for determining
the influence of factors in HEdPERF model on the quality of service and student
fascination as well.
Quantitative method explores numerous variables included in a large quantity
of factors by analyzing statistical data. In accordance with Oneil (2005), quantitative strives
for identifying which the hidden truth are in hypotheses. Besides, it is neccessary for
researchers to design surveys containing multiple choices questions. Consequently,
researchers find it easier to turn information into analytical numbers. When using this
approach, questionaires, the study should be adopted many structured methods, for
instance, questionnaires, surveys, to name but a few.
Due to the fact that quantitative approach can assist to describe and explain the
attributes and their effects, it is used broadly. Moreover, this kind of research approach also

21
does a favor to categorize factors, propose philosophical hypotheses and meaningful
suggestions.
To meet the demand for this paper, quantitative approach will be carried out by
questionnaire survey. Owing to the fact that survey is cost-effective to gather a great deal
of standardized data, it is chosen in this study. Furthermore, this approach also allows to
compare more easily and recommend possible cause – effect relationship (Saunders et al.,
2009).

3.2. Research Design

The process of this research consists of seven major stages as follow:

1. Identifying the research problem.
2. Setting the research objectives.
3. Reviewing the literatures.
4. Constructing the research model.
5. Gathering the data.
6. Making an analysis of the collected data.
7. Reaching the conclusion and suggesting recommendations.

22
 Figure 2: Research Design

3.3. Measurement Scale

Table 3: Measurement Scale

Variables Item No. Instrument Source

When I have problem, Leblanc and
Non-Academic
NACA1 administrative staffs show a Nguyen (1997);
aspects
sincere interest in solving it. Kwan and Ng
Administrative staffs pay warming (1999); Oldfield
NACA2
attention. and Baron (2000);
NACA3 Inquiries are handled efficiently. Holford and

23
 Administration offices keep Reinders (2001);
NACA4
accurate and retrievable records. Joseph et al.
When the administrative staffs (2005); Abdullah
NACA5 promise to complete a task (2006); Zachariah
punctually, they do so. (2007); Trivellas
Administrative staffs show positive and Dargenidou
NACA6
work attitude towards students. (2009); Kwek et
Administrative staffs are good at al. (2010); Sultan
NACA7
catching up with students. and Wong (2011);
Administrative staffs have good Narang (2012)
NACA8
knowledge of the systems.
Students are treated equally by the
NACA9
staffs.
The staffs respect the terms of
NAC10 confidentiality when I disclose
information to them.
Academic When I have problem, lecturers Owlia and
ACA1
Aspects show a sincere interest in solving it Aspinwall (1996);
Lecturers deal in a courteous Leblanc and
ACA2
manner Nguyen (1997);
Lecturers have the knowledge to Kwan and Ng
ACA3 answer my questions relating to the (1999); Holford
course content and Reinders
Lecturers show positive attitude (2001); Telford
ACA4
towards students and Masson
Lecturers communicate well in the (2005); Abdullah
ACA5
classroom (2006); Zachariah

24
 Lecturers provide advises and (2007); Trivellas
ACA6
intructions about my progress and Dargenidou
Lecturers are highly trained in their (2009); Kwek et
ACA7
respective field al. (2010);
The hand-outs are provided Shekarchizadeh et
ACA8
adequately by the lecturers al. (2011); Sultan
The documentations are provided and Wong (2011);
ACA9
adequately by the lecturers Narang (2012)
Academic staffs are willingness to
Access ACCE1
respond my request for assistance.
Academics staffs allocate
ACCE2
sufficient time for consultation.
Faizan (2016)
The staffs ensure that they are
ACCE3
easily contacted.
Academic staff are knowledgeable
ACCE4
to respond my request.
Program The university runs excellent Owlia and
PROG1
Issues quality programs. Aspinwall (1996);
The university offers a wide range Leblanc and
PROG2 of program with various Nguyen (1997);
specializations. Kwan and Ng
The university offers curriculum (1999); Holford
PROG3
with flexible structure. and Reinders
(2001); Telford
There is a relevance of course
and Masson
PROG4 content to the future/current job of
(2005); Abdullah
students
(2006); Zachariah

25
 (2007); Trivellas
and Dargenidou
(2009); Kwek et
al. (2010);
Shekarchizadeh et
al. (2011); Sultan
and Wong (2011);
Narang (2012)
The university has a professional
Reputation REPU1
image.
The academic program run by the
REPU2 Faizan (2016)
university is renowned.
The university’s graduates are
REPU3
easily employable.
Availability of lecturers to guide Cuthbert (1996);
Understanding UNDER1
and advise students. Owlia and
Availability of adequate health Aspinwall (1996);
UNDER2
service facilities. Soutar and
The university operates an McNeill (1996);
UNDER3
excellent counselling service. Leblanc and
Nguyen (1997);
Joseph and Joseph
The university has favourable
(1997); Kwan and
ambient conditions (ventilation,
UNDER4 Ng (1999); Hill et
noise, odour, etc) prevailing within
al. (2003);
the campus.
Lagrosen et al.
(2004); O’Neill

26
 and Palmer
(2004); Sohail and
Shaik (2004);
Telford and
Masson (2005);
Angell et
al.(2008); Narang
(2012); Wong et
al. (2012)
Functional Leblanc and
The university provided good
Service FSQ1 Nguyen (1997);
service right from the beginning.
Quality Kwan and Ng
The lecturers and administrative (1999); Oldfield
FSQ2
staffs are courteous. and Baron (2000);
The lecturers and administrative Holford and
FSQ3
staffs are always willing to assist. Reinders (2001);
The lecturers and administrative Joseph et al.
staffs always give me (2005); Abdullah
FSQ4
efficient/prompt service dealing (2006); Zachariah
with complaints. (2007); Trivellas
and Dargenidou
Administrative procedures are
(2009); Kwek et
clear and well structured so that
FSQ5 al. (2010); Sultan
service delivery times are
and Wong (2011);
minimum.
Narang (2012)

27
Technical
All knowledge I gain from my
Service TSQ1
university is completely valuable.
Quality Harvey and Green
The university helps students (1993); Harvey
acquire adequate knowledge and and Knight
TSQ2 skills to perform future job, (1996); Lomas
increase in knowledge, abilities (2007); Watty
and skills. (2005); Srikanthan
The university develops students' and Dalrymple
TSQ3 problem-solving skills with respect (2003, 2005,
to their field of study. 2007)
The university has the high level of
TSQ4
employment
The university increases in self-
TSQ5
confidence of students
Student I am satisfied with my decision to
SAT1
satisfaction register at this university.
My choice to choose this
SAT2 Faizan (2016),
university was a wise one.
Teo, R. and
I think I did the right thing when I
SAT3 Soutar, G.N.
chose to study at this university.
(2012),
I feel that my experience with this
SAT4
university has been enjoyable.
Overall, I am satisfied with this
SAT5
university.

28
 3.4. Sample size

To maintain the reliability of the paper, there is a necessary for researchers to

create a sample which has at least 100 respondents. To be more illustrated, n must be higher
than 100 while n represents for the number of respondents (Hair, 2006). Moreover, it is
compulsory that the sample size is fivefold higher than the measurement items. That is to
say, n>=5*k, k stands for the figures of items in research scale. This study has 45 items
that means the sample size needs to be at least 225. Furthermore, Roger (2006) asserted
that a significant study needs from 150- 200 samples, whereas, Comfrey and Lee (1992)
implied that the sample size needs to be 200-300 to get reliable results. All in all, this study
is considered to have a sample size having 300 samples.
The total inhabitants studying in Ho Chi Minh City universities are the targeted
population to set up a sample. To take part in the study, there is a need for students to
completely register in their corresponding universities. Besides, samples are chosen
considering studying duration, academic program, studying mode to guarantee full
representation.

3.5. Sampling method

It can clearly be observed that a sample is the group of individuals who actually
participate in your study, significantly, a sample will always be a subset of the
population. From this indicator, it is compulsory that a sample could speak out all elements
of the population, hence, there is a similarity in the consequences of sample and population
as well. In agreement with Naresh (2009), prescribing the accurately detailed description
of population is found to be an arduous task. Notably, this study focus on group of students
pursuing Vietnamese universities, in Ho Chi Minh city, who are target persons of the study.
As a result of restraint in time and resource, convenient sampling is much more
suitable for this research in order to enhance. “Convenient sampling is an approach in
which any willingly inherent individuals is considered as participants” Cooper and
Schindler (2006). Subsequently, e-questionnaires are carried out to reach target

29
respondents. Subsequently, a few numbers of hard copies are also made to deliver to
customers. Both English and Vietnamese are used in questionnaires. It is believed that this
solution can devote to gain more and more participants as well as undiscriminatory
consequences.

3.6. Pilot Test

Orginally, the survey coule be properly delivered to a number of respondents in

case a pilot test was completed. Not only do this kind of examination delicate to figure out
the efficiency, but it also ensure the understanding level of questionnaires. There is
absolutely no confusion during completing survey stage. Owing to this test, researchers
find it easier to recognize misapprehentions, misjudgments, revise and edit unclear words.

3.7. Data collection

Alike other previous research, both primary and secondary data are taken
advantage of analyzing. According to Bryan & Cramer (1990), these categories contribute
to the legibility and acuteness of the outcome.
3.7.1. Primary data
It would also be a mistake not mentioning the important role of primary data.
In accordance with Saunders et al., (2009), primary data is practical due to its update
information and realistic views. In this paper, primary data is picked up through
questionnaires, meanwhile, questionnaires are shared in terms of online forms and survey
papers. In particular, a Google Doc Form is designed and delivered to respondents through
Facebook and Email.
3.7.2. Secondary data
Additionally, secondary data is known as the reanalyzed data used for other
purposes already. Particularly, this sort can suggest a helpful reference to solve the research
objectives with the research questions. Moreover, secondary data contains published

30
documents, raw data, published official statistics, etc. Then, available journals, previous
researches are reviewed for more updated information.

3.8. Questionnaire design

According to Cooper and Schindler (2008), this research adopted Likert scale
which is a typicl 5 levels (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) while in the Likert
scale, 1 point was presented as extremely negative, 5 points were as extremely positive.
Furthermore, this kind of scale is normally supposed to investigate respondents’ behavior.
In the beginning of the questionnaire, a short question made sure that only
students who have already studied at one university in Ho Chi Minh City completed the
questionnaire. The rest of the questionaire was conducted following to the three parts of
this study: six elements of HEdPERF scale, two types of the quality of services, and the
effects toward student fulfillment. The survey ended up with a final section which collects
demographic information. In particularly, it is a quite variety of attributes such as age,
gender, year of study, education.
Table 4: Questionnaire Design

Variable Question Scale

Are you currently studying at a 0 = No
Elimination
university in Vietnam? 1 = Yes
1 = Public University
Types of Which type of university are you 2 = Private University
university studying? 3 = International University
in Vietnam
1 = Bachelor
Which program of higher education
Academic level 2 = Master
are you studying?
3 = PhD

31
 1 = < 1 year
Studying How long have you studied at this 2 = 1-2 years
duration university? 3 = 2-3 years
4 = 3-4 years
1 = Male
Gender What is your gender?
2 = Female
1 = 18-20 years old
2 = 21-25 years old
Age What is your age? 3 = 26-30 years old
4 = 31-35 years old
5 = over 36 years old

32
 3.9. Data Processing

This research collected exactly 300 finished surveys from numerous

participants. In the initial period of measurement validation, researchers makes use of
Cronbach Alpha analysis in order to assess reliability while convergent and discriminant
validity are determined by means of validity tests.
Before implementing steps to determine how about the hypotheses, AMOS 22
was done to complete CFA to analyze the reliability and validity of factors measured by
adopting several scales containing a variaty of items. The measurement model combined
of academic aspects, non-academic aspects, access, program issues, reputation,
understanding, technical service quality, functional service quality and student fulfillment.

3.10. Data analysis methods

To examine a variety of characteristics in proposed research model, this study

is required to be analyzed by means of two different common software, namely, SPSS 20
and AMOS 22. In particular, they are Statistical Package for the Social Sciencesǁ software
and Analysis of MOment Structures program respectively. As mentioned from previous
section, this research experienced four primary phases of data analysis, which are
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Test, Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory
Factor Analysis.
3.10.1. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics take responsibility for transforming the raw data into a
new form that will contribute to represent more detailed information of elements clearly.
As reported by Hair, et al., (2003), these brand-new patterns satisfy visual representations
and graphic analysis, furthermore, these statistics are displayed in proportion (Zikmund,
2003). Moreover, several categories of research data, in particular, frequencies, measures
of central tendency and dispersion, are determined thanks to descriptive statistics.

33
 3.10.2. Reliability Test
In accordance with Cavana et al. (2001), “Cronbach’s alpha is a reliability
coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set are positively correlated to one another.
Cronbach‟s alpha is calculated in respects of average intercorrelations among the items
measuring the concepts”. As reported by Tavakol & Dennick (2011), Cronbach’s alpha is
an effective method with the purpose of evaluating reliability of the measurement scale.
Additionally, the cofficient getting the value fluctuates from 0 to 1, whereas, Cronbach‘s
alpha value is nearly up to 1 that means internal consistency of the items in scales are
larger. The given table illustrate the figures for principles of Cronbach‘s alpha values:
Table 5: Cronbach’s alpha criteria for Reliability Test

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient Correlation degree

Less than 0.6 Poor
0.6 to less than 0.7 Moderate
0.7 to less than 0.8 Goode
0.8 to less than 0.9 Very good
0.9 and above Excellent

3.10.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis can be seen as another crucial step after assessing
the convergent validity above. It would be a mistake not concentrating on many facets in
in relation to the findings of exploratory factor analysis. “Exploratory Factor Analysis is
statistical method used to describe variability among observed, correlated variables in term
of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables called factors” (Mohammed &
Pathan, 2013). It seems clear that EFA gives a hand to eliminate invalid features as well
as adjust and add valid factors into relative groups (Hairetal, 2009). In fact, three values
are also tested via EFA test which are Bartlett‘s test of Sphericity, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Eigenvalue. Besides, this study definitely used

34
extraction method is Principal component analysis with factor rotation which is Promax.
Later, this technique is made use of determining factors affect service quality.
3.10.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) can be observed as an effective method
applied in the analysis to limit which parameters are and are not estimated. CFA orginally
took up in the 1960s and 1970s, widely in the work of Jöreskog (1969).
In a comparison with EFA, CFA is observed as the theory-driven and intends
to be the ability of a predefined factor model (specified on the theory’s ground) to fit a
group of observed data . In contrast, CFA finds out whether a determined class of elements
really figure out the variances in the observed variables in the way that previously
supposed. Gorsuch [5] asserted that “confirmatory factor analysis is powerful because it
provides explicit hypothesis testing for factor analytic problems”, and treated it to be “more
theoretically important and should be the much more widely used of the two major factor
analytic approaches” (p. 134). This examination is able to evaluate the level of good-fitting
of model as well as contribute to standardize the conceptual framework.

35
 CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Final sample

Generally, the survey attracted 335 respondents in both two means included
online Google form and paper form. At the meantime, the research got the valid data with
a group of 300 surveys completed after delving into and eliminated unfounded samples.
Therefore, 89% was recorded to the respone ratio of this study. In addition, this research
possessed totally 300 final samples which are made use of examining data.

4.2. Demographic of respondents

In the light of demographic information, researchers find it esier to accumulate

data as well as categorize respondents based on their personal facts. There is no doubt that
this class of information does a good turn in order to figure out the typical traits of students
who are observed as the customer within higher education sector. In detail, this study
focuses on five primary aspects of demographic information which are classification of
education institution, academic level, time to study, age and gender.
4.2.1. Studying situation
Table 6: Studying situation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid Yes 300 100.0 100.0 100.0

36
 Initially, Table 6 indicates that the total participants are studying at a university.
Owing to data selector, this consequence contributed to guarantee that all participants are
following a university, hence, the results are found to be more reliable.
4.2.2. Categories of university
Table 7: Categories of university

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Valid Public University 91 30.3 30.3 30.3

Private University 116 38.7 38.7 69.0

International 93 31.0 31.0 100.0

University
Total 300 100.0 100.0

Categories of university

31% 30%

Public University
Private University
International University
39%

Figure 3: Categories of university

The given table and pit chart illustrates the proportion of university types which
was chosen by respondents, namely, public university, private university and internation

37
university located in Vietnam. There is no gap between the rate of public university and
international university established in Vietnam (30% and 31% respectively). Besides, the
percentage of participants entering private university was approximately 39%, which
dominated the graph. It can clearly be seen that despite possessing different figures, there
is still a similarity among these kinds of universities.
4.2.3. Academic level
Table 8: Academic level
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid Bachelor 137 45.7 45.7 45.7

PhD 31 10.3 10.3 56.0

Master 132 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0

Academic level

44% 46%
Bachelor
PhD
Master
10%

Figure 4: Academic level

According to Table 8 and Figure 4 above, the number of undergraduates are
137, besides, respondents pursuing master program are 132. Meanwhile, the ammount of

38
participants with PhD/Doctor degree is made up of 10%, which experiences the lowest
figure. In fact, in Vietnam higher education sector, the growth of PhD programs has not
advanced as other academic programs, hence, the low figures for respondents entering PhD
course can be reasonable.
4.2.4. Year of study
Table 9: Year of study

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Valid < 1 year 41 13.7 13.7 13.7

1-2 years 83 27.7 27.7 41.3

2-3 years 98 32.7 32.7 74.0

3-4 years 78 26.0 26.0 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Year of study

13%
26%

< 1 year
28%
1-2 years
2-3 years
33% 3-4 years

Figure 5: Year of study

39
 As stated by Table 9 and Figure 5, there are 98 respondents who have spent
from 2 to 3 years at their universities, which accounts for 33%. Moreover, the propotion of
this part reachs the highest number. The ratio of students studying from 1 to 2 years are
approximately 28%, which is followed by that of respondents experiencing from 3 to 4
years with 26%. Meanwhile, the lowest percentage is recorded to respondents only
studying less than a year (13%).
4.2.5. Gender
Table 10: Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid Male 124 41.3 41.3 41.3

Female 176 58.7 58.7 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

Gender

41%

59% Male
Female

Figure 6: Gender

40
 In accordance with the given table and pie graph, this research can identify the
ratio of respondents’ gender. It can be observed that both masculine and feminine people
in the research pay much attention to their education as well as service offered during their
time to study. This view is explained via Table 10 and Figure 6. The total number of male
is 124, whereas, there are 176 female respondents taking part in this study.

41
 4.2.6. Age
Table 11: Age
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid 18-20 years old 109 36.3 36.3 36.3

21-25 years old 88 29.3 29.3 65.7

26-30 years old 55 18.3 18.3 84.0
31-35 years old 39 13.0 13.0 97.0
Over 36 years old 9 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0

Age

3%
18-20 years old
13%
37% 21-25 years old
18% 26-30 years old
31-35 years old
Over 36 years old
29%

Figure 7: Age
The populations aged from 26 to over 36 years old are almost persons pursuing
PhD/Doctor degree, hence, the figures for respondents in this aging group are not high as
much as other categories. In particular, the amount of 26-30 year-old respondents is 18.3%
and that of 31-35 year-old respondents follows with 13%. As reporte above, people who
fall into from 18 to 20 years old has the dominating number over the chart, which is 36.3%.

42
In addition, 21-25 year-old respondents possesses 29.9%, which is higher ninefold than the
proportion of respondents aged over 36 years old.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics can be observed as the reliable method which can sum up
a group of quantitative information. Besides, analysis process is taken place to test the
primary elements of data due to descriptive statistics. Importantly, this method assist this
research illustrate more about the behavior as well perception of respondents toward
service quality’s facets. The frequency of variables, mean and standard deviation values
are represented by descriptive statistics. In addition, it is neccessary to concentrate more
on Mean as well Standard deviation due to the fact that these figures will be applied in
order to specify the main point of distribution value and the level of dispersion. The lower
the dispersion level, the higher the valid data.
4.3.1. Non-Academic Aspects
Table 12: Descriptive Statistic of Non-Academic Aspects
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
NACA1 300 1 5 2.81 .992
NACA2 300 1 5 2.90 .976
NACA3 300 1 5 2.86 1.016
NACA4 300 1 5 2.90 .916
NACA5 300 1 5 2.84 1.000
NACA6 300 1 5 2.95 .994
NACA7 300 1 5 2.81 .970
NACA8 300 1 5 3.19 1.064
NACA9 300 1 5 2.72 1.026

43
 NACA10 300 1 5 3.60 1.163

It can clearly be seen that the avarage mean value is 2.958 with the figures
fluctuate from 2.72 to 3.60. Looking at the information in more detail, almost items in Non-
Academic Aspects are entirely less than 3.0, especially, there are two items (NACA8 and
NACE10) reaching the higher level of mean with 3.19 and 3.60 respectively. It seems clear
that students are not virtually fascinated by services offered by non-acedemic staffs at their
education institutions. To be more specific, this research can not earn positive outcomes
since employees taking responsibilities for handling to service issues are found to lack of
attention to students. Furthermore, their behaviour is another key factor resulting in the
students’ dissatisfaction. In contrast, on account of NACA8 with 3.19 of Mean value, non-
academic staffs are always willing to certainly serve students, rain or shine. Similarly,
administraters of universities are in an attempt to treat student well, this view is illustrated
by NACA10 having Mean value at 3.60.
4.3.2. Academic Aspects
Table 13: Descriptive Statistic of Academic Aspects
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
ACA1 300 1 5 3.46 1.146
ACA2 300 1 5 3.78 .990
ACA3 300 1 5 3.52 1.083
ACA4 300 1 5 3.59 1.055
ACA5 300 1 5 3.34 1.065
ACA6 300 1 5 3.56 .984
ACA7 300 1 5 3.69 .933
ACA8 300 1 5 3.53 1.095

44
 ACA9 300 1 5 3.86 1.060

As illustrated, in comparison with Non-Academic Aspects, forturnately,

Academic Aspects experiences the ideal value of Mean, namely, 3.592. It is by virtue of
the flutuation from 3.34 to 3.86 of the Mean value among the whole items. Besides, the
lowest number of Mean at 3.34 is recorded to ACA5. This consequence indicates that
students perceived how lecturers make great efforts to catch up with students in each
lesson. It is as a result of well communication between students and lecturers to expand
their personal network. Importantly, due to the expectation to widen students’ knowledge,
lecturers do not hestitate to deliver a ton of documentation to students. Undoubtedly,
students are genuinely fascinated by this devotion. Actually, this indication is explained
through the Mean value of AC9 at 3.86, which dominates other items over the chart.
4.3.3. Access
Table 14: Descriptive Statistic of Access
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
ACCE1 300 1 5 3.40 .985
ACCE2 300 1 5 3.39 .977
ACCE3 300 1 5 3.46 .999
ACCE4 300 1 5 3.42 1.000
As stated in Table 14, there is no much difference among the Mean value of
four items. The figure of Mean Value reachs 3.4175. The positive level of Mean Value
demonstrates that most of students have an intention to concern more about the
appoachability of universities and time response of tertiary education staffs. Moreover,
students mostly pay attention to the capacity to keep up with education officiers which is
implied by ACC3 with 3.46 Mean value.

45
 4.3.4. Program Issues
Table 15: Descriptive Statistic of Program issues
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
PROG1 300 1 5 3.78 .820
PROG2 300 1 5 3.66 .883
PROG3 300 1 5 3.67 .789
PROG4 300 1 5 3.79 .817
As luck would have it, this study gets better results of Program Issues’ Mean
Value, particularly, the avarage of Mean possesses 3.725. It involves that academic
curriculum draws most attraction from students since every single person expect to enhance
expertise for pursueing the career paths. There is no similarity in the Mean value of two
item – PROG1 and PROG4 (3.78 and 3.79 correspondingly). Furthermore, Due to the
priority of future jobs, students definitely have some consideration for the quality of
programs and the actual scientific value of knowlegde acquired.
4.3.5. Reputation
Table 16: Descriptive Statistic of Reputation
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
REPU1 300 1 5 3.21 .768
REPU2 300 1 5 3.34 .762
REPU3 300 1 5 3.24 .812
According to three items of Reputation, the avarage of Mean is calculated, at
3.26. While REPU1 has 3.21 of Mean value, REPU3 experiences 3.24 and REPU2 has the
dominating figure (3.34) over the given table. The implication is that the ceblerity level of
higher education institution can be viewed as one of key elements. Actually, both

46
university’s renown and curriculum’s fame are gain students’ attention. Moreover,
university’s reputation contributes to demonstrate its high service quality in significantly
harsh competition.
4.3.6. Understanding
Table 17: Descriptive Statistic of Understanding
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
UNDER1 300 1 5 3.57 1.027
UNDER2 300 1 5 3.59 .962
UNDER3 300 1 5 3.56 .991
UNDER4 300 1 5 3.72 .848
Understanding is other component letting students get concentration on since
from the Descriptive Statistic table, it has the avarage mean value at 3.61. In particular,
UNDER1, UNDER2, UNDER3 are similar to each other with Meanvalue. Notably,
UNDER4 is significantly different from the others with 3.72 which means that students
surroundings can be the facet affecting them in many fields. If the circumstances in relation
to ambience are not well-equipped, it is out of question for universities in order to fascinate
students.
4.3.7. Functional service quality
Table 18: Descriptive Statistic of Functional service quality
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
FSQ1 300 1 5 3.87 .752
FSQ2 300 1 5 3.85 .715
FSQ3 300 1 5 3.81 .656
FSQ4 300 1 5 3.16 1.109

47
 FSQ5 300 1 5 3.85 .730
In accordance with the figures for Functional service quality’s descriptive
statistic, the avarage is totally 3.708 which delicates to support the vital role of this factor
in tertiary education sector. It seems clear that the numbers of FSQ1, FSQ2, FSQ3 and
FSQ5 are entirely higher than 3.8. In other words, students have a tendency to consider
how service is distributed to students and this sort of service quality is actually reinforced
with the help of service meetings. In contrast, the students taking part in this research seems
not to focus on the time repsonse for complaints arose.

48
 4.3.8. Technical service quality
Table 19: Descriptive Statistic of Technical service quality
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation
TSQ1 300 1 5 3.90 .743
TSQ2 300 1 5 3.93 .749
TSQ3 300 2 5 3.83 .711
TSQ4 300 1 5 3.83 .735
TSQ5 300 1 5 3.85 .776

The descriptive statistics in Table 19 illustrates how students considerate about

the outcome of service process. Owing to the range of Mean value reported above,
Technical service quality possesses the Mean value at 3.868 which is from neutral to
agreement scale. As a result, it can be wrapped up that students are absolutely concerning
about the quality of technical service. It can be stated in the Mean column of the given
table that TSQ1 and TSQ2 have the leading figures for this element (3.90 and 3.93
respectively). This remarkable point can be explained by that students devote all their
resources to pursue career path as well as advance majors. In particular, their concern is in
terms of specific knowledge, soft skills and capabilities as well.
4.3.9. Student satisfaction
Table 20: Descriptive Statistic of Student satisfaction
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
SAT1 300 2 5 3.84 .753
SAT2 300 1 5 3.86 .803
SAT3 300 1 5 3.85 .828

49
 SAT4 300 2 5 3.88 .767
SAT5 300 2 5 3.93 .760

It is as stated that five different components (SAT1, SAT2, SAT3, SAT4,

SAT5) are the contribution to the quite high avarage mean value with 3.872. Additionally,
this factor dominates other specific factors left. Thus, this result emphasizes on the
fundamental role of student satisfaction over the scale. It can be seemed that there is a
hestitation of student about their decisions when entering university. However, numerous
students are entirely fascinated with their choices due to what a universities provided and
backed up them. This is the reason why the Mean value of Student satisfaction is in a range
from 3.84 to 3.93.

4.4. Reliability Test

It is widely believed that reliability test is renowned for ability to carry out a
thorough evaluation of the correlation as well as consistency of every single item and
question of the survey (Sekaran, 2000). The study is not capable of removing invalid items
in a effort to reduce at least the unreliable findings’ stakes without applying this kind of
test. By means of shrewdly calculating the mean value of the correlation coefficients, the
Cronbach’s Alpha value standards are as stated by George and Mallery (2003) which
follows specific extent as below:
Table 21: Cronbach’s Alpha Value Criteria
Cronbach’s Alpha Value
a > 0.9 Excellent
0.8 < a < 0.9 Good
0.7 < a < 0.8 Acceptable
0.6 < a < 0.7 Questionable
0.5 < a < 0.6 Poor

50
 a <0.5 Unacceptable

In addition, from the explanation abobe, it can be concluded if Cronbach’s

Alpha value is higher, the correlations of measurement items are more powerful.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake not mentioning Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
which may be taken as an indication of Cronbach value’s changes once there is a
elimination of corresponding item out of the scale.
4.4.1. Non-Academic Aspects
Table 22: Reliability Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.869 10

Table 23: Item – Total Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects

Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's
Items if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
NACA1 23.17 34.445 .696 .879
NACA2 23.08 35.247 .633 .884
NACA3 23.13 34.639 .657 .883
NACA4 23.08 36.130 .596 .887
NACA5 23.15 34.092 .723 .877
NACA6 23.03 35.247 .619 .886
NACA7 23.17 34.476 .712 .878
NACA8 22.79 36.381 .469 .898
NACA9 23.26 33.011 .804 .870
NACA10 25.98 43.535 .146 .894

51
 There are a sum of 10 items in Non-Academic Aspects with the Cronbach’s
Alpha at 0.869 (>0.8). In contrast, NACA10 is the sole item which has “Corrected Item-
Total Correlation” lower than 0.3( at 0.146) among the rest items, “Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted” at 0.894. This is the reason why NACA10 needs to be eliminated to make
sure the scale’s reliability.

52
 Table 24: Reliability Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.894 9

Table 25: Item – Total Statistics of Non-Academic Aspects after rejecting NACA10
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's
Items if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
NACA1 23.17 34.445 .696 .879
NACA2 23.08 35.247 .633 .884
NACA3 23.13 34.639 .657 .883
NACA4 23.08 36.130 .596 .887
NACA5 23.15 34.092 .723 .877
NACA6 23.03 35.247 .619 .886
NACA7 23.17 34.476 .712 .878
NACA8 22.79 36.381 .469 .898
NACA9 23.26 33.011 .804 .870

The reliability test is conducted again with 9 items left after removing
NACA10. The statistics are illustrated via Table 25. Finally, the orginal Cronbach’s Alpha
at 0.869 turns into 0.894, on another note, 9 rest items of scale are continously kept.
4.4.2. Academic Aspects
Table 26: Reliability Statistics of Academic Aspects
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.832 9

53
 Table 27: Item – Total Statistics of Academic Aspects
Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
ACA1 28.87 28.586 .650 .801
ACA2 28.55 29.780 .658 .801
ACA3 28.81 29.071 .653 .801
ACA4 28.74 29.001 .683 .798
ACA5 29.00 29.749 .601 .807
ACA6 28.77 30.064 .633 .804
ACA7 28.64 30.685 .611 .807
ACA8 28.81 33.287 .268 .845
ACA9 28.47 34.732 .161 .855

Similarly, since the Cronbach’s Alpha of Academic Aspects reachs 0.832

(greater than 0.8), the reliability of this scale is guaranteed. Nevetherless, both item
ACA8 and ACA9 should be deleted due to the fact that their “Corrected Item-Total
Correlation” are lower than 0.3 (with 0.268 and 0.161 respectively). It can be wraped up
that there is a significantly poor affliation between these two items and the others.
Table 28: Reliability Statistics of Academic Aspects
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.876 7

54
Table 29: Item – Total Statistics of Academic Aspects after rejecting ACA8, ACA9
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's
Items if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
ACA1 21.49 21.869 .668 .858
ACA2 21.16 22.839 .690 .855
ACA3 21.42 22.285 .673 .857
ACA4 21.36 22.157 .713 .851
ACA5 21.61 22.914 .618 .864
ACA6 21.38 23.361 .632 .862
ACA7 21.26 23.850 .617 .864

The fruitful improvement of Cronbach’s Alpha from 0.832 to 0.76 is taken by

means of running Reliability Test again. Besides, ACA1, ACA2, ACA3, ACA4, ACA5,
ACA6, ACA7 are maintained over and above.
4.4.3. Access
Table 30: Reliability Statistics of Access
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.826 4

Table 31: Item – Total Statistics of Access

Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
ACCE1 10.27 6.193 .643 .784
ACCE2 10.28 6.135 .666 .774
ACCE3 10.22 6.491 .555 .824

55
 ACCE4 10.25 5.733 .747 .735
Access scale also gets an ideal value of Cronbach’s Alpha with 0.826 owing to
the close relationship among four items of this component. Hence, a combination of
ACCE1, ACCE2, ACCE3, ACC4 will be not disposed.
4.4.4. Program Issues
Table 32: Reliability Statistics of Program Issues
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.851 4

Table 33: Item – Total Statistics of Program Issues

Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
PROG1 11.12 4.226 .797 .765
PROG2 11.24 4.519 .609 .848
PROG3 11.23 4.621 .690 .812
PROG4 11.11 4.549 .679 .816
A certain connection of four items in Program Issues component is as reported
in agreement with Cronbach’s Alpha value at 0.851, and the Corrected Item-Total
Correlation number are totally higher than 0.3. The rejection of any item can not support
to boost the Cronbach’s Alpha value, hence, these four items are definitely remained for
the further steps.
4.4.5. Reputation
Table 34: Reliability Statistics of Reputation
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.851 4

56
 Table 35: Item – Total Statistics of Reputation
Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
REPU1 6.59 2.056 .651 .793
REPU2 6.46 1.928 .743 .704
REPU3 6.56 1.927 .663 .785
In accordance with Table 34, 0.851 is recorded to the Cronbach’s Alpha which
contributes to prove the reliability of Reputation. Furthermore, these figures are in a bid to
demonstrate the close relation among items as well as their ability to stand for Reputation
feature. Looking at the column of Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted, it can be observed
that there is no need to take off any item inasmuch as three items do not affect the
Cronbach’s Alpha number.
4.4.6. Understanding
Table 36: Reliability Statistics of Understanding
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.739 4

Table 37: Item – Total Statistics of Understanding

Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
UNDER1 10.87 4.531 .613 .630
UNDER2 10.85 4.799 .603 .638
UNDER3 10.88 5.881 .292 .812
UNDER4 10.72 5.005 .670 .612

57
 On the basic of the given table above, Understanding factor experiences the
lower number of Cronbach’s Alpha than other elements, however, this one is acceptable
over and above. The number of Cronbach’s Alpha can be enhanced when bloting out
UNDER3 (0.739). Thus, this research will keep going on without that item.
Table 38: Reliability Statistics of Understanding
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.812 3
Table 39: Item – Total Statistics of Understanding after rejecting UNDER3
Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
UNDER1 7.31 2.581 .680 .726
UNDER2 7.29 2.841 .653 .751
UNDER4 7.16 3.158 .665 .746
Pre-test definitely devotes to increase the Cronbach’s Alpha up to 0.812,
besides, the figures for Corrected Item-Total Correlation are greater than 0.3.
Consequently, UNDER1, UNDER2, UNDER4 are eligible for EFA analysis later.
4.4.7. Functional service quality
Table 40: Reliability Statistics of Functional service quality
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.733 5

Table 41: Item – Total Statistics of Functional service quality

Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
FSQ1 14.66 5.334 .578 .657

58
 FSQ2 14.69 5.352 .618 .646
FSQ3 14.73 5.562 .619 .652
FSQ4 15.38 5.434 .241 .832
FSQ5 14.68 5.314 .612 .646
It seems clear that Functional service quality possesses the lowest number of
Cronbach’s Alpha with 0.733 among other indicators. Looking at the information of
Corrected Item-Total Correlation in more detail, the value of FSQ4 is only 0.241 (lower
than 0.3), it leads to an elimination of this item. On the behalf of this step, the Cronbach’s
Alpha value is improved completely and reachs 0.851. The rest items actually satisfy the
demands, therefore, they are still made use of applying for the further stages. This view is
as stated by two givne tables below.
Table 42: Reliability Statistics of Functional service quality
Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.851 4

Table 43: Item – Total Statistics of Functional service quality after rejecting FSQ4
Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
FSQ1 11.51 3.100 .667 .786
FSQ2 11.53 3.193 .677 .781
FSQ3 11.57 3.443 .641 .798
FSQ5 11.53 3.173 .664 .787

4.4.8. Technical service quality

Table 44: Reliability Statistics of Technical service quality

Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

59
 .868 5

Table 45: Item – Total Statistics of Techinical service quality

Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
TSQ1 15.44 6.047 .665 .846
TSQ2 15.41 5.821 .733 .829
TSQ3 15.51 6.124 .682 .842
TSQ4 15.51 5.876 .732 .830
TSQ5 15.49 5.976 .645 .852

As illustrated, Technical service quality component receives the great

Cronbach’s Alpha value (0.868) which means this scale is absolutely good. Furthermore,
the figures for Corrected Item-Total Correlation are completely higher than 0.3, which
delicates to support the strong affliation of items.

4.4.9. Student satisfaction

Table 46: Reliability Statistics of Student satisfaction

Cronbach’s Alpha N of value

.840 5

Table 47: Item – Total Statistics of Satisfaction

60
 Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Items if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Deleted Correlation Deleted
SAT1 15.52 6.338 .639 .808
SAT2 15.50 6.110 .648 .806
SAT3 15.51 6.063 .633 .811
SAT4 15.48 6.284 .639 .808
SAT5 15.43 6.252 .657 .803
Last but not least, the relations of five items in Student satisfaction feature are
powerfully confirm as the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.840. Importantly, the removal of any item
may result in the decline of Cronbach’s Alpha value. As a consequence, EFA analysis will
be carried out with full of these five items.

4.5. Exploratory Factor Analysis

As illustrated by Norris (2009), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is dominant

with the capacity of figuring out the primary frames as well as detecting the hidden
connections arose over variables. Hair et al., (1998) actually upholds that EFA may be
viewed as the key contributor to the adjustment of measurement scale. Notably, the
research takes advantage of Exploratory Factor Analysis in order to diminish the amount
of item through forming them within a component. To be more specific, this study
definitely used extraction method is Principal component analysis with factor rotation
which is Promax. To operating this process, several essential conditions are in need of
being obtained:
• The KMO’s value should vary from 0.5 to 1 so as to be well-served for Factor
analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
• The significance level of Bartlett‘s test is required to be lower than 0.05

61
 • From the Total Variance Explained table, the cummulative proportion of
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings should reach the figure which is greater than
50%.
• Every single factor must have the Eigen value which is higher than 1.
• According to Rotated Component Matrix, in case an item distributed in over
two groups, both the largest absolute value and the smallest absolute value are
demanded to be at least 0.3 (Jabnoun and A1-Tamimi, 2003).

4.5.1. The first Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

As illustrated, the Bartlett’s test is in need of exposing significane lower than

0.5 when the value of KMO can be varied from 0.6 to 1.0. The first exploratory factor
analysis takes place with KMO =. 886 and Barlett’s test having Sig. =. 000 (<.05),
furthermore, this devotes to confirm that EFA is totally suitable over and above.
At the eigen value, namely, 1.217, this study has a combination of nine factors,
meanwhile, compared to the prior research, there is no new factor arose and the figure of
Cumulative of Variance is 56.375% (it is qualified). Howerver, both two items NACA8
and FSQ3 have the unqualified weight ( < .50), thus, they are actually swipped out.
Undoubtedly, exploratory factor analysis for the second time will be definitely operated.
The following results are showed below:
Table 48: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .886

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 6713. 614

Sphericity df 946
Sig. 0.000
Table 49: Pattern Matrix

Factor

62
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
NACA9 .866
NACA1 .782
NACA5 .752
NACA7 .730
NACA3 .699
NACA2 .662
NACA4 .651
NACA6 .641
NACA8
ACA4 .761
ACA3 .739
ACA2 .719
ACA1 .717
ACA6 .695
ACA7 .681
ACA5 .673
SAT2 .739
SAT1 .725
SAT3 .723
SAT5 .685
SAT4 .638
TSQ1 .769
TSQ2 .729
TSQ3 .712
TSQ4 .695
TSQ5 .692

63
PROG1 .976
PROG4 .717
PROG3 .701
PROG2 .672
ACCE4 .869
ACCE1 .719
ACCE2 .702
ACCE3 .607
REPU2 .853
REPU1 .761
REPU3 .751
UNDER4 .790
UNDER2 .766
UNDER1 .735
FSQ1 .746
FSQ2 .741
FSQ5 .737
FSQ3

4.5.2. The second Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Table 50: KMO and Bartlett's Test 2

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .879

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 6304.049

Sphericity df 861
Sig. 0.000

64
 Looking at the information of Table 50 in more detail, after the second EFA
process, the number of KMO reaches 0.879, whereas, the significance coffecient
experiences the pretty good figure which is 0.000 (< 0.5).
Table 51: Total Variance Explained
Rotation
Extraction Sums of Squared Sums of
Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings Squared
Factor
Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total Total
Variance % Variance %
1 9.694 23.081 23.081 9.276 22.087 22.087 5.131
2 4.074 9.700 32.782 3.636 8.657 30.743 4.449
3 3.655 8.702 41.484 3.191 7.598 38.341 5.320
4 2.597 6.185 47.668 2.188 5.209 43.550 6.481
5 1.879 4.475 52.143 1.500 3.571 47.121 4.937
6 1.687 4.017 56.159 1.317 3.137 50.258 4.751
7 1.463 3.484 59.643 1.034 2.461 52.719 3.259
8 1.357 3.230 62.873 .943 2.245 54.964 4.339
9 1.136 2.706 65.579 .712 1.695 56.659 5.661
10 .803 1.913 67.492

It can be viewed that 56.659% is recorded to the cummulative value of

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings (higher than 50%) as well as the eigen value equals
to 1.136 among 9 factors. It seems clear that there is no item arose in comparison with the
originally proposed research model. To sum up, throung the seconde EFA, 42 observed
variables meet the conditions of EFA at all costs. It turns out that in this stage, this research
will not erase any factor.

65
 Subsequently, a number of factor loandings can be confirmed to be greater than
0.5, moreover, the qualified factors of this study solely distribute to the only dimension.
This remarkable point makes a major contribution to make sure Convergent Validity and
Discriminant Validity as well.
Table 52: Rotated Component Matrix
Factor
I
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N .
ACA9 856
N .
ACA1 791
N .
ACA5 744
N .
ACA7 732
N .
ACA3 699
N .
ACA4 660
N .
ACA2 654
N .
ACA6 652
A .
CA4 773

66
 Factor
I
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A .
CA3 746
A .
CA1 716
A .
CA2 714
A .
CA6 692
A .
CA7 681
A .
CA5 665
S .
AT2 747
S .
AT1 737
S .
AT3 702
S .
AT5 697
S .
AT4 624
T .
SQ1 771

67
 Factor
I
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

T .
SQ2 742
T .
SQ4 719
T .
SQ3 715
T .
SQ5 714
P .
ROG1 971
P .
ROG4 720
P .
ROG3 703
P .
ROG2 669
A .
CCE4 871
A .
CCE1 727
A .
CCE2 710
A .
CCE3 608

68
 Factor
I
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

R .
EPU2 851
R .
EPU1 755
R .
EPU3 748
U .
NDER4 787
U .
NDER1 726
U .
NDER2 711
F .
SQ1 706
F .
SQ2 705
F .
SQ5 702

In addition, there is no compelling reason why this study could pass by assuring
the Composite Reliability (CR) of entire scales. To be more detailed, Cronbach’s Alpha
test will be performed once again with aim of examining 42 variables derived from 9
dimensions after EFA stage. In acccordance with the research results, the measurement
scale compounding 9 factors can satisfy the compulsory demands of Cronbach’s Alpha
which are mentioned above. Consequently, it marks that the further research process will

69
be carried on thanks to the reliability of the scale. Appendix A would do a good turn to
illustrate more about the ins and outs of result.

It can be wrapped up that the entire measurement scale with a combination of

42 observed variables from 9 factors fulfills criteria of Convergent Validity, Discriminant
Validity and Composite Reliability. There is no doubt that this measurement scale will be
investigated and made use for the next Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA) in order to
reach the latest conclusion.

4.6. Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA)

4.6.1. The relevance of model estimate

The findings of CFA illustrate that Chi-square = 932.627; df = 783; p= .000 ;

CMIN/df = 1.191 ( satisfy the condition <2); GFI = .879; CFI = .974 và TLI =.971; RMSEA
= .025 (meet the demand < .08). According to Hair et al. (2010), GFI < 0.9 is still
acceptable. From these reasons above, the model of this study ensures all level of
suitability. The stastically figures of EFA are as reported by the given Figure

70
 Figure 8: The results of CFA
4.6.2. Unidimensional Estimate
In agreement with Steenkamp & Van Trijp (1991), the relevance of research
model with data can be seen as the neccessary and sufficiency conditions to help the
combination of observed variables become unidimensional. However, this view is rejected
if the errors of observed variables have correlations to each other.

71
 The results make an illustration that the research model actually reaches the
general conformity extent as well as there is no linkgae between the observed variables’
errors. Therefore, the given scale attain its unidimensionality.
4.6.3. Composite Reliability and Variance Explained Estimate
In general, the Composite Relialility cofficient (CR) causes a fluctuation from
0.799 to 0.899 which are greater than 0.7. Besides, the numbers of the Avarage Variance
Explained are in range between 50.6% and 62.4% which satisfy the criteria (higher than
50%). As a consequence, the research also enable to make sure the scale’s reliablity. The
entire results are displayed as following.
Table 53: The result estimate summary of the scale in research model
Composite Variance Cronbach’s alpha
Scale
Reliability (ρc) Explained (ρvc) coefficient (a)

Academic Aspects 0.877 50.6% 0.876

Non-Academic
0.899 52.8% 0.898
aspects

Access 0.831 55.4% 0.826

Program Issues 0.858 60.4% 0.851

Reputation 0.832 62.4% 0.827

Understanding 0.814 59.4% 0.812

Functional Service
0.799 57.0% 0.798
Quality

72
 Technical Service
0.869 57.0% 0.868
Quality

Student
0.840 51.2% 0.84
Satisfaction
Note: Formular for the composite reliability and Average variance extracted
as below:

Figure 9: Formular for the composite reliability and Average variance extracted
4.6.4. Convergent Validity
The component scale with the research model are reported to guarantee
convergent validity because of several undeniable explanations. Initially, not only is the
Average variance extracted higher than 50%, but the reliability cofficient is also larger than
0.7 as mentioned above. In addition, the load coefficients of the observed variables with
the respective factors ranged from 0.617 to 0.878 (detailed in Table 55), which is greater
than 0.50. From that, it can be concluded that the component scales in the research model
ensure well enough.
Table 54: Standardized Regression Weight
Items Estimate
NACA9 <--- NACA 0.856
NACA1 <--- NACA 0.759
NACA5 <--- NACA 0.761
NACA7 <--- NACA 0.761
NACA3 <--- NACA 0.694
NACA2 <--- NACA 0.662

73
 Items Estimate
NACA4 <--- NACA 0.624
NACA6 <--- NACA 0.671
ACA4 <--- ACA 0.78
ACA3 <--- ACA 0.728
ACA2 <--- ACA 0.753
ACA1 <--- ACA 0.726
ACA6 <--- ACA 0.67
ACA5 <--- ACA 0.653
ACA7 <--- ACA 0.659
SAT1 <--- SAT 0.692
SAT2 <--- SAT 0.709
SAT3 <--- SAT 0.693
SAT5 <--- SAT 0.746
SAT4 <--- SAT 0.735
TSQ1 <--- TSQ 0.71
TSQ2 <--- TSQ 0.809
TSQ5 <--- TSQ 0.69
TSQ4 <--- TSQ 0.819
TSQ3 <--- TSQ 0.739
PROG1 <--- PROG 0.878
PROG3 <--- PROG 0.779
PROG4 <--- PROG 0.76
PROG2 <--- PROG 0.679
ACCE4 <--- ACCE 0.852
ACCE2 <--- ACCE 0.764
ACCE1 <--- ACCE 0.726

74
 Items Estimate
ACCE3 <--- ACCE 0.617
REPU2 <--- REPU 0.878
REPU3 <--- REPU 0.752
REPU1 <--- REPU 0.732
UNDER1 <--- UNDER 0.822
UNDER2 <--- UNDER 0.741
UNDER4 <--- UNDER 0.747
FSQ5 <--- FSQ 0.741
FSQ2 <--- FSQ 0.779
FSQ1 <--- FSQ 0.744

4.6.5. Discriminant Reliability

Looking at the information of Table 55 in more detail, the consequences of
discriminant value estimate among a diversity of elements are proved. In particular, all
estimated correlation coefficients have a association with standard errors (S.E.) for p are
<.05, so the correlation coefficients of each pair differ from 1 at 95% confidence.
Consequently, the concepts achieve distinctive value.
Table 55: Regression Weight
Correlation r SE CR P value
NACA <--> ACA 0.143 0.0573 14.9477 0.000
NACA <--> SAT 0.164 0.0571 14.6297 0.000
NACA <--> TSQ 0.311 0.0551 12.5146 0.000
NACA <--> PROG 0.199 0.0568 14.1096 0.000
NACA <--> ACCE 0.242 0.0562 13.4860 0.000
NACA <--> REPU 0.108 0.0576 15.4889 0.000
NACA <--> UNDER 0.155 0.0572 14.7654 0.000

75
NACA <--> FSQ 0.314 0.0550 12.4730 0.000
ACA <--> SAT 0.204 0.0567 14.0363 0.000
ACA <--> TSQ 0.212 0.0566 13.9194 0.000
ACA <--> PROG 0.264 0.0559 13.1727 0.000
ACA <--> ACCE 0.149 0.0573 14.8564 0.000
ACA <--> REPU 0.071 0.0578 16.0776 0.000
ACA <--> UNDER 0.268 0.0558 13.1161 0.000
ACA <--> FSQ 0.331 0.0547 12.2386 0.000
SAT <--> TSQ 0.645 0.0443 8.0194 0.000
SAT <--> PROG 0.293 0.0554 12.7649 0.000
SAT <--> ACCE 0.337 0.0545 12.1562 0.000
SAT <--> REPU 0.292 0.0554 12.7789 0.000
SAT <--> UNDER 0.358 0.0541 11.8693 0.000
SAT <--> FSQ 0.616 0.0456 8.4150 0.000
TSQ <--> PROG 0.397 0.0532 11.3415 0.000
TSQ <--> ACCE 0.426 0.0524 10.9523 0.000
TSQ <--> REPU 0.358 0.0541 11.8693 0.000
TSQ <--> UNDER 0.462 0.0514 10.4719 0.000
TSQ <--> FSQ 0.634 0.0448 8.1700 0.000
PROG <--> ACCE 0.421 0.0525 11.0192 0.000
PROG <--> REPU 0.313 0.0550 12.4869 0.000
PROG <--> UNDER 0.477 0.0509 10.2723 0.000
PROG <--> FSQ 0.478 0.0509 10.2590 0.000
ACCE <--> REPU 0.298 0.0553 12.6952 0.000
ACCE <--> UNDER 0.524 0.0493 9.6476 0.000
ACCE <--> FSQ 0.455 0.0516 10.5651 0.000
REPU <--> UNDER 0.297 0.0553 12.7091 0.000

76
 REPU <--> FSQ 0.338 0.0545 12.1425 0.000
UNDER <--> FSQ 0.452 0.0517 10.6051 0.000

Note:r – correlation cofficients, S.E. = sqrt((1-r2)/(n-2)); C.R.=(1-r)/S.E.; p-

value =TDIST(|C.R.|,n-2,2); n – the number of degree of freedom in model.

4.7. Hypotheses Testing

4.7.1. Hypothesis Testing Results

Table 4 indicates the results of the relationships between attributes by adopting
structural equation model (SEM). Among 14 proposed hyphotheses, the results of SEM
actually contribute to approve direct links examinined. The results of Structural Equation
Model (SEM) with Measurement model indicate that the model has 790 degrees of
freedom. Despite having p = .000 (Chi-square = 968.763), the number of Chi-square is
modified based on the degree of freedom, moreover, CMIN/df is 1.226 (satisfy the
condition > 2.00). In addition, other conditions are acceptable, namely, GFI = .874; CFI =
.969; TLI = .966 and RMSEA = .028 (meet the demand < .080), hence, it can be seen that
this model is absolutely suitable with all data collected from respondents.
As illustrated, all correlations hypothesised in this research are demonstrated
owing to Structural Equation Model (SEM). Particularly, the interaction of Understanding
and Functional Service Quality; Academic Aspects and Technical Service Quality;
Program Issues and Technical Service Quality have p value = 0.051 > 5%, 0.284 > 5%
and 0.111 >5% respectively. They are totally meanless at level of reliability 95% because
of p>.05. As a consequence, this study decides to deny 3 hypothesises (H6, H8, H11),
whereas, other relationships are still meaningful to statisticsal significance. Initially, Non-
Academic aspacts are found to affect significantly functional service quality (β = 0.159, p
< 0.05), supporting H1. Next, the finding shows that academic aspects are also dimension
causing an effect on functional service quality (β = 0.005, p < 0.05) in support of H2.

77
Access is another factor having a definite directed effect on functional service quality (β =
0.184, p < 0.05), hence, H3 is supported. Subsequently, other relationship was recorded to
reputation and functional service quality (β = 0.159, p < 0.05) so this also supports for H4.
Next, the link of program issues and functional service quality is examined (β = 0.197, p <
0.05), approving for H5. Additionally, H7 is supported due to the fact that non-academic
aspects have a significant impact on technical service quality (β = 0.184, p < 0.05). The
interaction of access and technical service quality is observed to be crucial (β = 0.152, p <
0.05) , thus, H9 is confirmed. Besides, reputation also affects technical service quality (β
= 0.193, p <0.05), as a result, H10 is fully supported. Understanding is shown to have an
association with technical service quality (β = 0.237, p < 0.05), confirming H12. It can be
seen that functional service quality has a considerable impact on student satisfaction (β =
0.35, p < 0.05), in support of H13. Later, it can clearly be seen that technical service quality
is as the factor undoubtedly connected to student enjoyment (β = 0.459, p < 0.05),
supporting H14.
Table 56: Results of structural model
Standardized
p-value Hypotheses
cofficient
Non-academic aspects ® Functional
0.159 0.007 Supported
service quality
Academic aspects ® Functional service
0.005 0.176 Supported
quality
Access ® Functional service quality 0.184 0.017 Supported
Reputation ® Functional service quality 0.159 0.014 Supported
Program issue ® Functional service
0.197 0.007 Supported
quality
Understanding ® Functional service Not
0.159 0.051
quality supported

78
Non-academic aspects ® Technical
0.184 0.002 Supported
service quality
Academic aspects ® Technical service Not
0.064 0.284
quality supported
Access ® Technical service quality 0.152 0.041 Supported
Reputation ® Technical service quality 0.193 0.002 Supported
Program issue ® Technical service Not
0.112 0.111
quality supported
Understanding ® Technical service
0.237 0.003 Supported
quality
Functional service quality ® Student
0.35 0.000 Supported
satisfaction
Technical service quality ® Student
0.459 0.000 Supported
satisfaction

79
 Figure 10: The result of structural model

4.7.2. Boostrapping
It is widely believe that several reseachers are get used to sampling among
quantitative research methods. In particularly, the sample of the study will be broke down
into two samples with the smaller size. The initial sample is chosen with the purpose of
assessing parameters of model, meanwhile, researchers conduct a pretest thanks to the rest
sample. Furthermore, a repetition of the study would like to be taken place through another
sample which can be viewed as an identical method.
The other thing this study should mention is that boostrap method is also made
use in this research with N = 1000. Ordinary Least Squares Estimation from 500 samples
is calculated average according to the bias. Furthermore, the values of bias are not

80
considerable (from 0.000 to 0.006). Consequently, it can be concluded that all estimations
in this study are completely reliable.
Table 57: Regression Weights (Group number 1 – Default model)
Parameter SE SE-SE Mean Bias SE-Bias
FSQ <--- NACA 0.054 0.002 0.158 -0.001 0.002
FSQ <--- ACA 0.059 0.002 0.177 0.001 0.003
FSQ <--- REPU 0.075 0.002 0.155 -0.004 0.003
FSQ <--- ACCE 0.087 0.003 0.185 0.001 0.004
FSQ <--- PROG 0.087 0.003 0.192 -0.006 0.004
FSQ <--- UNDER 0.11 0.003 0.17 0.011 0.005
TSQ <--- NACA 0.059 0.002 0.183 -0.001 0.003
TSQ <--- ACA 0.054 0.002 0.063 0 0.002
TSQ <--- REPU 0.069 0.002 0.191 -0.001 0.003
TSQ <--- ACCE 0.083 0.003 0.151 -0.001 0.004
TSQ <--- PROG 0.083 0.003 0.117 0.005 0.004
TSQ <--- UNDER 0.091 0.003 0.238 0.001 0.004
SAT <--- FSQ 0.069 0.002 0.351 0 0.003
SAT <--- TSQ 0.066 0.002 0.457 -0.003 0.003

81
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSTION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion

5.1.1 Theoretical contribution

According to Abdullah (2006b) and Brochado (2009), HEdPERF scale is more reliable
than other instruments examined in other comparative research. Compared to other
previous academic studies, there was a loss of testing HEdPERF scale and its forces on
technical quality of service, functional quality of service and student enjoyment as well. In
universities, the quality of service has been investigated in a wide range of research, in the
meantime, not many have concentrated on two categories of service quality: technical
service quality and functional service quality. Actually, this study conducted devotes to fill
a gap which is attached in literature review by looking into the effects of Ho Chi Minh city
universities’s service quality factors (HEdPERF) on two terms of service quality and its
consequences on student fulfillment. Furthermore, this study confirms the hypotheses that
five determinants, namely, non-academic sides, academic features, access, celebrity,
program problems affect functional service quality. However, it seems clear that
understanding still does not cause any effect on functional service quality. It means that
there is no linkage between this facet and the progress of the quality of service though it
takes a leading role in prospering the quality of service. Meanwhile, technical service
quality is generally influenced by three different dimensions, particularly, access,
reputation and non-academic elements. These findings are considerably distinct from the
previous research reported by Afzal et al., (2010). In particular, design, delivery and
evaluation, academic convinences, non-academic convinences, identification, counselling,

82
student representation, study favorable circumstances and the number of members are key
components affecting service quality. In contrast, this study figures out all dimensions
derived from HEdPERF scale (Adullah, 2005) will influence the functional and technical
quality of service in reliance on different levels. Additionally, by means of the statistics
mentioned from Chapter IV above, “Non- academic Aspects” and “Program Issues” cause
several effects on Functional service quality much more than other features among the
scale, whereas, “Understanding” is observed as the facet impacting on Technical service
quality. Importantly, both two terms of the quality of service are mainly affected by “Non-
academic aspects” which means administrative staffs play a fundamental role in
stregthening service supplied. On the contrary, another view being out of control is that
“Academic Aspects” affects on two categories of service quality little and a few. There is
a need for this remarable point to think and put forward suitable strategies for service
quality.
It would be a mistake not mentioning the impacts of technical service quality
and functional service quality on student enjoyment. There is a consistency between the
finding and previous research finding out the impacts of two typical kinds of service
quality, in particular, technical and functional service quality on satisfaction (Teo, R. and
Soutar, G.N., 2012). By way of a comprehensive and developmental procedure, this study
delicates to evolve this measurement scale become more and more reliable and legitimate,
which is used for service quality assessment in universities. There is a combination of six
components and a sum of 42 items within this research on the basic of HEdPERF scale.
Besides, as opposed to other previous research, this paper is in an endeavour to approve
two features of the quality of service, particularly, funtional and technical service quality.
In addition, the success of this research is that several definitions related to service quality
(based on HEdPERF scale) are inconporated entirely in the research model. At the
meantime, the previous research had not discussed and adopted the concepts of service
quality yet so as to explore which the most essential factors are.

83
 In regards to theoretical devotion, the final results of this research can be seen
as the major contributor to put up a quite range of extra-insights of customers. Hence,
researchers will find it easier to get deeper understanding in relation to the service quality
perception in more detail when they are made use of adopting in higher education sector.
In addition, the international expansion and examination of HEdPERF scale is more
beneficial in some ways via several distinct structures in universities. These findings, thus,
bring about a great deal of precious knowledge concerning not only at local extent but also
global rank. Moreover, this instrument can be viewed as a significant tactic which assists
to exclude several issues related to the impacts of sector dissimilarities.

5.1.2 Practical contribution

In general, on the basic of this empirical evaluation of a group of Ho Chi Minh

City students, students’ perception and wisdom about the quality of service are completely
collected. Fortunately, the HEdPERF scale can be made used of applying in Vietnamese
universities. The whole survey questionnaire is as a devotion to identify how service is
performed in Vietnamese education institutions.
Of the proposed hypotheses linked to the tested factors, the hypotheses
regarding to the association of understanding and functional service quality, program issues
and technical service quality, academic aspects and technical service quality are not
supported. Moreover, a group of dimensions consisting of approachability, celebrity and
non–academic determinants are reported to cause a positive dirrect effect on both technical
and functional quality of the service. These results implicate that students having a higher
level of perception to a variation of dimensions in tertiary education quality of the service
(non-academic features, fame and connection) have more tendencies to fascinate with
different extents. Technical service quality and functional service quality may be affected
from these following activities. In particular, students may not feel satisfied with the
behavior of staffs to handle the issues. They are too busy to answer all questions arose from
students punctually and completely. Moreover, meetings with the staffs are not as easy as

84
expected. Both unwillingness to respond the requests and unsufficient in knowledge are
two factors resulting in descreasing technical quality of service and functional quality of
service. Hence, there was a drop in student satisfaction. In addition, it seems that
administrative staffs are the key contributor to the better tecnnical service quality and
functional service quality. Their behavior and ability to overcome obstacles taking place
also relate to two aspects of service quality. Besides, conponent that cause most effects on
student satisfaction is technical service quality. In respect to this view, university managers
should emphasis on seeking out and recognizing the students’ fascination in levels across
the capacities and capacities gained after entering their university. To be more specific, the
celebrity of education institution is one of features enhance technical and functional service
quality, thus, student satisfaction will be improved completely.
In addition, as opposed to other elements, “Non-Academic Aspects” hit the low-
point of mean value. This facet is in relation to the attitude of administrative staffs for
students. Actually, the lower perception of this facet, the less student satisfaction.
As illustrated, globalization growing up dramatically in higher education
market, there is a request for educators to bring about new business plans as well to advance
the quality of service offered. This HEdPERF scale absolutely enables leaders to advance
the quality of service in Vietnamese universities since it can clearly be seen as a supportive
method applied in this aspect. Furthermore, the range of service quality may be all- around
estimated, whereas, solutions to the problems are put into use by university administrator.
The results also illustrate that technical service quality, rather than functional
service quality, causes more effects on student satisfaction, meanwhile, functional service
quality contributes to boost fascination in high contact service sectors (i.e. services that get
more good chances for individual communication) (Mittal and Lassar, 1998). This view
means that students definitely pay attention to the outcome of service process. Students
will look up to their knowledge gained at their universities, whereas, issues about career
path are also mentioned. It can clearly be seen that, these opinions are found to raise student
satisfaction. Besides, the crucial part of functional service quality is completely undeniable.

85
All the process the university supplied for students is meant to student satisfaction. If
functional service quality reachs the low figure, student satisfaction will go down at all
courses. There are some factors remaining unchange that students focus on knowledge,
tangibles and technical solutions after experiecing service quality in their universities.
Hence, it will be not astonishing that technical service quality has several impacts on
student satisfaction. Due to the fact that empirical backup for these links have difficulties
in obtaining, even at p<0.1 (Podsakoff et al., 1995), this support still plays a vital role in
assumtion examining.

5.2. Implications

Among all the dimensions mentioned above, these consequences suggest that
the duties of non academic staffs, approachability and professsional image are most
important characteristics in improving service quality. As a result, educators should put all
their resources as well as concentrate on the sectors perceived by students than
concentrating on other factors which can be seen as the most fundamental attributes of
service quality (Abdullah, 2006b). There is a number of students concerning about the
speed of response, hence, this issue can be handled with the help of an advanced system by
administrative departments.
Universities in Ho Chi Minh city should ensure students have regular access to
staffs by means of email, phone or face to face. Additionally, engaging students and having
good opportunities to personalize advices are totally easier owing to electronic
communication (Jancey and Burns, 2013). As a consequence of following these
suggestions, technical service quality and functional service quality in Vietnamese tertiary
education attributes can be reinforced which will bring about the larger extent of student
fulfillment. Universities adopted these strategies will become more renowed so as to attract
new students, by using students who are studying, as promotion means. In addition, it can
clearly be observed that assessing student fascination is not an easy task based on normal
service quality evaluation. The consequences of this research indicate that students are

86
considerably fascinated with concerns related to access and universities’ reputation.
Consequentely, this view illustrates that Vietnamese universities have been got succeed in
developing professional image and convinence of service offered. In contrast, it will
contribute to expand the network with existing students as well as fresh students (Hanaysha
et al., 2011). There is a need for education institutions in Ho Chi Minh city to enhance and
benchmark themselves against other organizations in this field.

5.3. Limitations and recommendations for further research

In other words, this research is already applied in only higher education sector,
therefore, its consequences may be precise in this field. Inspite of some dominance on
understanding the correlation between two terms of service quality, particularly, technical
and functional service quality and student satisfaction, there are several limitations taking
place in this study. Undoubtedly, these drawbacks are noted and contribute to support for
further research. Generally, data collection was carried out mostly in Vietnam National
universities (in Ho Chi Minh city) so it limits generalisability. Other investigators should
expand the scope of the study in Vietnam so as to get a broader population of students. As
a result, other comparative research in Vietnamese education institutions may bring about
outstanding insights and widen generalizability of the results.
It can clearly be seen that demographics was not the focused issue of this
research, hence, a range of diversified samples can result in further results and improve
behaviour of multiple groups of respondents. Additionally, six dimensions of HEdPERF
scale are used to assess technical service quality and functional service quality of
Vietnamese universities, therefore, further studies should consider more dimensions to
evaluate service quality. Besides, future research can illustrate about the detailed
background of two categories of service quality as well as its effect on student fulfillment
and behaviours.

87
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, F. (2005), “HEdPERF versus SERVPERF: The quest for ideal measuring
instrument of service quality in higher education sector”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 305-328.
2. Abdullah, F. (2006a), “Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF
versus SERVPERF”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31 47.
3. Abdullah, F. (2006b), “The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument
of service quality for the higher education sector”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 569-581.
4. Adela, G. (2008). European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education.
Higher Education, 57, 1-21.
5. Afzal, W., Akram, A., Akram, M. S., and Ijaz, A. (2010), “On students’ perspective
of quality in higher education”, paper presented at 3rd International Conference on
Assessing Quality in Higher Education, 6-8 December 2010, Lahore, Pakistan,
available at:
www.icaqhe2010.org/Papers%20published%20in%203rd%20ICAQHE%202010/28-
Dr%20Waheed% 20Afzal.pdf (accessed 05 Octoeber 2013)
6. Ali, F. and Amin, M. (2014), “The influence of physical environment on emotions,
customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions in Chinese resort hotel industry”,
Journal for Global Business Advancement, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 249–266.
7. Ana Brochado, (2009) "Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality
in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 Issue: 2, pp.174-190.
8. Anvari Rostami, E.A., Torabi Goudarzi, M., & Mohammadloo A., 2005, Comparison
of banking services quality from viewpoints of customers and staff, Modarres Human
Sciences, 4 (3), pp. 23-34.

88
9. Appleton-Knapp, S. L. and Krentler, K. A. (2006), “Measuring student expectations
and their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations”,
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 28, pp. 254-264

10. Arif, S., and Ilyas, M., (2013), "Quality of work-life model for teachers of private
universities in Pakistan", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 282-298
11. Barnett, R. (2011), “The marketised university: Defending the indefensible”, in
Molesworth et al. (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education and the student as
consumer, Routledge, Oxon. pp.39-52.
12. Bendapudi, N. & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer
participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67, 14- 28.
13. Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1985), “Quality counts in services
too”, Business Horizons, May-June, pp. 44-52.
14. Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1990), “Five imperatives for
improving service quality”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 29-38.
15. Bolton, R. N. and Drew, J. H. (1991), “A multistage model of customers´ assessment
of service quality and value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 54 (April), pp. 69-
82.
16. Brochado, A. (2009), “Comparing alternatives instruments to measure services
quality in higher education”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-30.
17. Brokaw, A. J., Kennedy, W. A., and Merz, T. E. (2004), “Explaining student
satisfaction”, Journal of Business Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 10-20.
18. Brown, D.J. & Koenig, H.F. (1993) Applying total quality management to business
education. Journal of Education for Business, 68, 329–329.
19. Canterbury, RM 2000, 'Higher Education Marketing: A Challenge', Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 15-24.
20. Carman, J.M. (1990) Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33–55.

89
21. Chahal, H., and Devi, P. (2013), “Identifying satisfied/dissatisfied service encounters
in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education,Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 211-
222.
22. Cheng, M. (2011), "“Transforming the learner” versus “passing the exam”:
Understanding the gap between academic and student definitions of quality", Quality
in Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3–17.
23. Cheng, Y.C., (1990), ‘Conception of school effectiveness and models of school
evaluation: a dynamic perspective’, Education Journal, 18(1), pp. 47–62.
24. Choudaha, R 2017, 'Three waves of international student mobility (1999–2020)',
Studies in Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 825-32.
25. Cong, N. and Thuy, P. (2007), Factors affecting customer loyalty with mobile phone
brands, Journal of Science and Technology Development, 8, pp.42-50.
26. Constantinides, E & Zinck Stagno, MC 2011, 'Potential of the social media as
instruments of higher education marketing: a segmentation study', Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 7-24.
27. Cooper, R. D., & Schindler, S. P. (2008). Business research methods (8th ed.). New
Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.
28. Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service
quality. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125-131.
29. Cronin, J.J. & Taylor, S.A. (1992) Measuring service quality: reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68.
30. Cuthbert, P. F. (1996), "Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?
Part 2", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 31–35.
31. Dana, S. W., Brown, F. W., and Dodd, N. G. (2001), “Student perception of teaching
effectiveness: A preliminary study of the effects of professors' transformational and
contingent reward leadership behaviors”, Journal of Business Education, Vol. 2 No.1,
pp. 53-70.

90
32. DeShieldsJr, W. O., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business
students satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s two-
factor theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128–139.
33. Elliott, K. and Shin, D. (2002), Student Satisfaction: An alternative approach to
assessing this important concept, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 24(2), pp.197-209.
34. Elliott, K. M. and Healy, M. A. (2001), “Key factors influencing student satisfaction
related to recruitment retention”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol.
10 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
35. Faizan Ali Yuan Zhou Kashif Hussain Pradeep Kumar Nair Neethiahnanthan Ari
Ragavan , (2016),"Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction,
image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public
universities", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp.70-94.
36. Finn, D.W. & Lamb, C.W. (1991) An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale in retail
setting. In Advances in Consumer Research Association for Consumer Research (ed.
by R.H. Holman & M.R. Solomon), p. 18. Ann Arbor, MI.
37. Firdaus A. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus
SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31–47.
38. Firdaus, A. (2005). HEdPERF versus SERVPERF The quest for ideal measuring
instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality Assurance in
Education, 13 (4), 305-28.
39. Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish
experience”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 6-21.
40. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
41. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., Shea, P., and Swan, K. (2000), “Student
satisfaction and perceived learning with online courses: Principles and examples

91
 from the SUNY Learning Network”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network,
Vol.14, No. 2, available at:
www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol14_issue2/le/Fredericksen/LE- fredericksen.htm
(qccessed 20 November 2013)
42. Gibbs, P 2001, 'Higher Education as a Market: A problem or solution?', Studies in
Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 85-94.
43. Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1983.
44. Govender, K., K &Ramroop, S. (2012). Relationship between the postgraduate
research students’ perception of their role, research climate and service quality.
African Journal of Business Management, 6(4), 1642-1651.
45. Gronroos, C. (1984) A service quality model and its marketing implications. European
Journal of Marketing, 18, 36–44.
46. Gronroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship
management approach. (2nd ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
47. Grossman, R.P. (1999) “Relational versus discrete exchanges: The role of trust and
commitment in determining customer satisfaction”, The Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 47-58.
48. Guolla Michael. Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship:
applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom. J Mark Theory Pract
1999;7(3):87–97.
49. Hafeez, S. (2012), The Impact of Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty
Programs on Customer’s Loyalty: Evidence from Banking Sector of Pakistan,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(16)
50. Hair, J. (2007). Research Methods for Business.
51. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006),
Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

92
52. Hanaysha, J., Abdullah, H., and Warokka, A. (2011), “Service quality and students’
satisfaction at higher learning institutions: The competing dimensions of Malaysian
universities’ competitiveness”, Journal of Southeast Asian Research.
53. Harvey, L., and Green, D. (1993), "Defining Quality", Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 9–34.
54. Harvey, L., and Knight, P. (1996), Transforming Higher Education, Society for
Research into Higher Education, London.
55. Heck, R.H & Johnsruh, L.K., 2000, “Administrative effectiveness in higher
education: improving assessment procedures”, Research in Higher Education, 41(6),
pp. 663–85.
56. Hemsley-Brown, J & Oplatka, I 2015, 'University choice: what do we know, what
don’t we know and what do we still need to find out?', International Journal of
Educational Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 254-74.
57. Hemsley‐Brown, J & Oplatka, I 2006, 'Universities in a competitive global
marketplace', International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 19, no. 4, pp.
316-38.
58. 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.
59. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., and MacGregor, J. (2003), "Students’ perceptions of quality in
higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15–20.
60. Hoang, M. (2015), Ensuring 20 percent of national budget for education, [online]
Thoibaotaichinhvietnam.vn, Available at:
http://thoibaotaichinhvietnam.vn/pages/nhip-song- tai-chinh/2015-09-21/dam-bao-
20-tong-chi-ngan-sach-cho-giao-duc-dao-tao-24570.aspx [Accessed 29 Jan. 2016].
61. Hobsons 2017, “Global International Student Survey”, The changing dynamics of
international student recruitment, retrived from
https://www.internationalstudentsurvey.com/

93
62. Holdford, D., and Reinders, T. P. (2001), "Development of an Instrument to Assess
Student Perceptions of the Quality of Pharmaceutical Education", American Journal
of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 65, pp. 125–131.
63. Jancey, J., and Burns, S., (2013), "Institutional factors and the postgraduate
student experience", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp.311-322
64. Jöreskog, K. G. (1969)A General Approach to Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood
Factor Analysis. Psychometrika 34: 183–202.
65. Joseph, M., and Joseph, B. (1997), "Service quality in education: a student
perspective", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15–21.
66. Kaldenberg, Browne, W. and Brown D. (1998), “Student customer factors affecting
satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 1-14.
67. Khodayari, F., & Khodayari, B. (2011).Service quality in higher education.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(9), 38 – 46.
68. Kimani, W. S. (2011). Business students’ perception of service quality in Kenyan
private and public universities. Nairobi, Kenya: CUEA Press.
69. Kotler, P. and Clarke, R.N. (1987), "Marketing For Health Care Organizations",
Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
70. Krentler, K. A., and Grundnitski, G. M. (2004), “Moving beyond satisfaction:
Perceiving learning as an assessment measure”, Journal of College Teaching and
Learning, Vol. 1 No. 10, pp. 7-16.
71. Kuh, G.D. and Hu, S. (2001), “The effects of student-faculty interaction in the
1990s”, Review of Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 309 -321.
72. Kumar, J., & Yang, C. L. (2014). Service quality and loyalty of international students
studying in the field of hospitality and tourism, Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Management, 2(3), 97-118.

94
73. Kwan, P. Y. K., and Ng, P. W. K. (1999), "Quality indicators in higher education -
comparing Hong Kong and China’s students", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 20–27.
74. Kwek, L. C., Lau, T. C., and Tan, H. P. (2010), "Education Quality Process Model
and Its Influence on Students’ Perceived Service Quality", International Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 154–165.
75. Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R., & Leitner, M. (2004), "Examination of the
dimensions of quality in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12
No. (2), pp. 61–69.
76. LeBlanc, G., and Nguyen, N. (1997), "Searching for excellence in business
education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of service quality",
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 72–79.
77. Lewis, B. and Mitchell, V. (1990), Defining and Measuring the Quality of Customer
Service, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 8(6), pp.11-17.
78. Lomas, L. (2007), "Zen, motorcycle maintenance and quality in higher education",
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 402–412.
79. Lovelock, C., and Wirtz, J. (2007), “Service Marketing- People, Technology,
Strategy”, Pearson Prentice Hall.
80. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Construct
measurement and validation procedures in mis and behavioral research: integrating
new and existing techniques”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293 - 334.
81. Marcel, F. & Harris, C. (2000). If Students are not Customers, What Are They?
Academic Medicine. 75(12), 1173-1177.
82. Marginson, S 2006, 'Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher
Education', Higher Education, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1-39.
83. Marzo-Navarro Mercedes, Pedraja-Iglesias Marta, Rivera-Torres M Pillar. Measuring
customer satisfaction in summer courses. Qual Assur Educ 2005;13(1):53–65.

95
84. Mavondo Felix T, Tsarenko Yelena, Gabbott Mark. International and local student
satisfaction: resources and capabilities perspective. J Mark High Educ
2004;14(1):41–60.
85. Mazzarol, T & Soutar, GN 2002, '“Push‐pull” factors influencing international
student destination choice', International Journal of Educational Management, vol.
16, no. 2, pp. 82-90.
86. Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998), “Why do customers switch? The dynamics of
satisfaction and loyalty”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-94.
87. Moogan, YJ, Baron, S & Harris, K 1999, 'Decision-Making Behaviour of Potential
Higher Education Students', Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 211- 28.
88. Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobâlcă, C. and Anton, O. (2010), An analysis of
customer satisfaction in a higher education context, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 23(2), pp.124-140.
89. Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., and Hussain, K. (2009), "Students’ perceptions of
service quality in higher education", Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 523–535.
90. Narang, R. (2012),"How do management students perceive the quality of education
in public institutions?", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 357–371.
91. Nguyen, N & LeBlanc, G 2001, 'Image and reputation of higher education institutions
in students’ retention decisions', International Journal of Educational Management,
vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 303-11.
92. O’Neill, M. a., and Palmer, A. (2004), "Importance-performance analysis: a useful
tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher education", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39–52.
93. Ojo, O. (2010). The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in
the telecommunication industry: Evidence from Nigeria. Broad Research in
Accounting, Negotiation, and Distribution, 1(1), 88-100.

96
94. Oldfield, B. M., and Baron, S. (2000), "Student perceptions of service quality in a UK
university business and management faculty", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol.
18 No. 2, pp. 85–95.
95. Ong, W. M., & Nankervis, A. (2012). Service quality in higher education: Students’
perceptions in Australia and Malaysia. Review of Integrative and Business Research,
1(1), 277-290.
96. Owlia, M. S., and Aspinwall, E. M. (1996), "A framework for the dimensions of
quality in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 12–
20.
97. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and Its Implications for Future Research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4), p.41.
98. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple-item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64,
12–40.
99. Patti, CH & Chen, CH 2009, 'Types of Word-of-Mouth Messages: Information Search
and Credence-Based Services', Journal of Promotion Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.
357-81.
100. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Ahearne, M. and Bommer, W.H. (1995),
“Searching for a needle in a haystack: trying to identify the illusive moderators of
leadership behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 423-470.
101. Porter, S. R. and Umbach, P. D. (2001), “Analyzing faculty workload data using
multilevel modelling”. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 171-196.
102. Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P. & Johnson, D. M. (2009). Service quality in higher
education. Total Quality Management, 20(2), 139 – 152.
103. Ravichandran, K., Kumar, S. A., & Venkatesan, N. (2012). Students’ perceptions on
service quality. International Academic Research Journal of Business and
Management, 1(1), 23-38.

97
104. Rutter, R, Roper, S & Lettice, F 2016, 'Social media interaction, the university brand
and recruitment performance', Journal ofBusiness Research, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 3096-
104.
105. Sapri, M., Kaka, A. and Finch, E. (2009), “Factors that influence student’s level of
satisfaction with regards to higher educational facilities services”, Malaysian Journal
of Real Estate, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 34-51
106. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business

students. 5th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

107. Schertzer Clinton B, Schertzer Susan MB. Student satisfaction and retention: a
conceptual model. J Mark High Educ 2004;14(1):79–91
108. Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M. and Griffiths, M. (2000), The Validity of
Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education: Love me, love my lecturers?,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), pp.397-405.
109. Simões, C & Soares, AM 2010, 'Applying to higher education: information sources
and choice factors', Studies in Higher Education, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 371-89.
110. Sohail, M. S., and Shaikh, N. M. (2004), "Quest for excellence in business education:
a study of student impressions of service quality", International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 58–65.
111. Srikanthan, G., and Dalrymple, J. (2003), "Developing alternative perspectives for
quality in higher education", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.
17 No. 3, pp. 126–136.
112. Srikanthan, G., and Dalrymple, J. (2005), "Implementation of a Holistic Model for
Quality in Higher Education", Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 69–
81.
113. Srikanthan, G., and Dalrymple, J. F. (2007), "A conceptual overview of a holistic
model for quality in higher education", International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 173–193.

98
114. Stephenson, AL, Heckert, A & Yerger, DB 2016, 'College choice and the university
brand: exploring the consumer decision framework', Higher Education, vol. 71, no.
4, pp. 489-503.
115. Sultan, P. and Wong, H.Y. (2010a), “Service quality in higher education: A review
and research agenda”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 259-272.
116. Sultan, P. and Wong, H.Y. (2010b), Service quality in a higher education context:
antecedents and dimensions, paper presented at 4th Asian Business Research
Conference, BIAM Foundation, 23-24 December, Dhaka
117. Sultan, P., and Wong, H.Y. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of service
quality in a higher education context: A qualitative research approach”, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp.70-95
118. Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T. J., & Seebaluck, A. K. (2016). Measuring
service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(2), 244–258
119. Telford, R., and Masson, R. (2005), "The congruence of quality values in higher
education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 107–119.
120. Teng, S, Khong, KW & Chong, AYL 2015, 'Study abroad information in the new
media', Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 263-86.
121. Teo, R & Soutar, GN 2012, 'Word of mouth antecedents in an educational context: a
Singaporean study', International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 26, no.
7, pp. 678-95.
122. Trivellas, P., and Dargenidou, D. (2009), "Organisational culture, job satisfaction
and higher education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute
of Larissa", The TQM Journal, Vol.21 No. 4, pp. 382–399.
123. Walsh, C, Moorhouse, J, Dunnett, A & Barry, C 2015, 'University choice: which
attributes matter when you are paying the full price?', International Journal of
Consumer Studies, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 670-81.

99
124. Watty, K. (2005), "Quality in accounting education: what say the academics?",
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 120–131.
125. Wiers-Jenssen Jeannecke, Stensaker Bjørn, Grogaard Jens B. Student satisfac- tion:
towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Qual High Educ 2002;8(2):183–
95.
126. Wisniewski, M. (2001), Assessing customer satisfaction with local authority services
using SERVQUAL, Total Quality Management, 12(7-8), pp.995-1002.
127. Yoon, M. H., Seo, J. H. J., & Yoon, T. S. (2004). Effects of contact employee
supports on critical employee responses and customer service evaluation. Journal of
Services Marketing,18(5), 395–415.
128. Zachariah, S. (2007), Managing Quality in Higher Education: A Stakeholder
Perspective. PhD Thesis, University of Leicester.
129. Zeithaml V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Integrating customer focus
across the firm. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
130. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L. (1985) Problems and strategies in
services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 33–46.
131. Zeshan, A., Afridi, T. and Khan, S. (2010), Assessing service quality in business
schools: implications for improvement, The 3rd International Conference on
Assessing Quality in Higher Education, pp.220-232.

APPENDIX A: CRONBACH’S ALPHA AFTER CONDUCTING EXPLOTARY

FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA)
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Item- Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
1. Academic Aspects: a = 0.876
ACA1 21.49 21.869 .668 .858

100
ACA2 21.16 22.839 .690 .855
ACA3 21.42 22.285 .673 .857
ACA4 21.36 22.157 .713 .851
ACA5 21.61 22.914 .618 .864
ACA6 21.38 23.361 .632 .862
ACA7 21.26 23.850 .617 .864
2. Non-Academic aspects: a = 0.898
NACA1 19.98 27.986 .706 .883
NACA2 19.89 28.894 .622 .891
NACA3 19.93 28.176 .665 .887
NACA4 19.89 29.583 .598 .893
NACA5 19.95 27.790 .720 .882
NACA6 19.84 28.712 .627 .890
NACA7 19.98 28.090 .714 .882
NACA9 20.07 26.841 .799 .874
3. Access: a = 0.826
ACCE1 10.27 6.193 .643 .784
ACCE2 10.28 6.135 .666 .774
ACCE3 10.22 6.491 .555 .824
ACCE4 10.25 5.733 .747 .735
4. Program Issues: a = 0.851
PROG1 11.12 4.226 .797 .765
PROG2 11.24 4.519 .609 .848
PROG3 11.23 4.621 .690 .812
PROG4 11.11 4.549 .679 .816
5. Reputation: a = 0.827

101
REPU1 6.59 2.056 .651 .793
REPU2 6.46 1.928 .743 .704
REPU3 6.56 1.927 .663 .785
6. Understanding: a = 0.812
UNDER1 7.31 2.581 .680 .726
UNDER2 7.29 2.841 .653 .751
UNDER4 7.16 3.158 .665 .746
7. Functional Service Quality: a = 0.798
FSQ1 7.70 1.649 .636 .732
FSQ2 7.73 1.704 .657 .710
FSQ5 7.72 1.701 .634 .733
8. Technical Service Quality: a = 0.868
TSQ1 15.44 6.047 .665 .846
TSQ2 15.41 5.821 .733 .829
TSQ3 15.51 6.124 .682 .842
TSQ4 15.51 5.876 .732 .830
TSQ5 15.49 5.976 .645 .852
9. Student Satisfaction: a = 0.840
SAT1 15.52 6.338 .639 .808
SAT2 15.50 6.110 .648 .806
SAT3 15.51 6.063 .633 .811
SAT4 15.48 6.284 .639 .808
SAT5 15.43 6.252 .657 .803

102
APPENDIX B: COMPOSITE RELIABILITY (CR) AND AVARAGE VARIANCE
EXPLAINED
Avar
age
Compo
Varia
site
nce
Estimate 1l/2 l/2 Reliabil
Expla
ity
ined
(CR)
(AVE
)
NACA9 <--- NACA 0.856 0.2673 0.7327
NACA1 <--- NACA 0.759 0.4239 0.5761
NACA5 <--- NACA 0.761 0.4209 0.5791
NACA7 <--- NACA 0.761 0.4209 0.5791 52.8
0.90
NACA3 <--- NACA 0.694 0.5184 0.4816 %
NACA2 <--- NACA 0.662 0.5618 0.4382
NACA4 <--- NACA 0.624 0.6106 0.3894
NACA6 <--- NACA 0.671 0.5498 0.4502
5.788 3.773 4.227
ACA4 <--- ACA 0.78 0.392 0.608
ACA3 <--- ACA 0.728 0.470 0.530
ACA2 <--- ACA 0.753 0.433 0.567
50.6
ACA1 <--- ACA 0.726 0.473 0.527 0.88
%
ACA6 <--- ACA 0.67 0.551 0.449
ACA5 <--- ACA 0.653 0.574 0.426
ACA7 <--- ACA 0.659 0.566 0.434
4.969 3.458 3.542

103
SAT1 <--- SAT 0.692 0.521 0.479
SAT2 <--- SAT 0.709 0.497 0.503
51.2
SAT3 <--- SAT 0.693 0.520 0.480 0.84
%
SAT5 <--- SAT 0.746 0.443 0.557
SAT4 <--- SAT 0.735 0.460 0.540
3.575 2.441 2.559
TSQ1 <--- TSQ 0.71 0.496 0.504
TSQ2 <--- TSQ 0.809 0.346 0.654
57.0
TSQ5 <--- TSQ 0.69 0.524 0.476 0.87
%
TSQ4 <--- TSQ 0.819 0.329 0.671
TSQ3 <--- TSQ 0.739 0.454 0.546
3.767 2.148 2.852
PROG1 <--- PROG 0.878 0.229 0.771
PROG3 <--- PROG 0.779 0.393 0.607 60.4
0.86
PROG4 <--- PROG 0.76 0.422 0.578 %
PROG2 <--- PROG 0.679 0.539 0.461
3.096 1.584 2.416
ACCE4 <--- ACCE 0.852 0.274 0.726
ACCE2 <--- ACCE 0.764 0.416 0.584 55.4
0.83
ACCE1 <--- ACCE 0.726 0.473 0.527 %
ACCE3 <--- ACCE 0.617 0.619 0.381
2.959 1.783 2.217
REPU2 <--- REPU 0.878 0.229 0.771
62.4
REPU3 <--- REPU 0.752 0.434 0.566 0.83
%
REPU1 <--- REPU 0.732 0.464 0.536
2.362 1.128 1.872
UNDER1 <--- UNDER 0.822 0.324 0.676 0.81

104
 UNDER2 <--- UNDER 0.741 0.451 0.549 59.4
UNDER4 <--- UNDER 0.747 0.442 0.558 %
2.31 1.217 1.783
FSQ5 <--- FSQ 0.741 0.451 0.549
57.0
FSQ2 <--- FSQ 0.779 0.393 0.607 0.80
%
FSQ1 <--- FSQ 0.744 0.446 0.554
2.264 1.291 1.709

APPENDIX C: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Hello everyone,

My name is Lam. I am a senior student at International University – Vietnam

National University in HCMC.

First of all, I would like to thank you for your participation in this survey. This
project is designed to investigate service quality in higher education by applying HEdPERF
scale in Vietnamese universities, illustrate factors in relation to functional service quality
and technical service quality. Moreover, the relationship between service quality factors,
two categories of service quality and student satisfaction in higher education is being
determined within this research. Consequently, I hope that you can spend a little time for
helping me complete this survey. I will require approximately 300 respondents to this
survey so your answers will be extremely valuable contribution to the success of my study.

I commit that the collected information will be kept confidential and used for
research purpose only.

105
 If you have any questions or would like more information about this study,
please do not hesitate to contact me via my email hlamtran97@gmail.com, and discuss
your concerns confidentially.

Thank you so much in advance upon your contribution to this research.

PART 1: FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT SATISFACTION

Please choose the answers that reflect your opinion the most.

(1- Strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Neutral, 4- Agree, 5- Strongly agree)

No. Statement 1 2 3 4 5

Non – Academic
Aspects
1 When I have problem, administrative staffs show a sincere 1 2 3 4 5
interest in solving it

2 Administrative staffs provide caring attention. 1 2 3 4 5

3 Inquiries are dealt with efficiently 1 2 3 4 5

4 Administration offices keep accurate and retrievable records. 1 2 3 4 5

5 When the administrative staffs promise to do something by a 1 2 3 4 5

certain time, they do so.

6 Administrative staffs show positive work attitude towards 1 2 3 4 5

students.

106
7 Administrative staffs communicate well with students. 1 2 3 4 5

8 Administrative staffs have good knowledge of the systems. 1 2 3 4 5

9 Students are treated equally by the staffs. 1 2 3 4 5

10 The staffs respect the terms of confidentiality when I disclose 1 2 3 4 5

information to them.

Academic
Aspects
11 When I have problem, lecturers show a sincere interest in 1 2 3 4 5
solving it

12 Lecturers deal in a courteous manner 1 2 3 4 5

13 Lecturers have the knowledge to answer my questions relating 1 2 3 4 5

to the course content

14 Lecturers show positive attitude towards students 1 2 3 4 5

15 Lecturers communicate well in the classroom 1 2 3 4 5

16 Lecturers provide feedback about my progress 1 2 3 4 5

17 Lecturers are highly educated in their respective field 1 2 3 4 5

107
18 The hand-outs are provided adequately by the lecturers 1 2 3 4 5

19 The documentations are provided adequately by the lecturers 1 2 3 4 5

Access

20 Academic staffs are willingness to respond my request for 1 2 3 4 5

assistance

21 Academics staffs allocate sufficient time for consultation 1 2 3 4 5

22 The staffs ensure that they are easily contacted 1 2 3 4 5

23 Academic staff are knowledgeable to respond my request 1 2 3 4 5

Program Issues

24 The university runs excellent quality programs 1 2 3 4 5

25 The university offers a wide range of program with various 1 2 3 4 5

specializations

26 The university offers programs with flexible structure 1 2 3 4 5

27 There is a relevance of course content to the future/current job 1 2 3 4 5

of students

Reputation

108
28 The university has a professional image 1 2 3 4 5

29 The academic program run by the university is reputable 1 2 3 4 5

30 The university’s graduates are easily employable. 1 2 3 4 5

Understanding

31 Availability of lecturers to guide and advise students 1 2 3 4 5

32 Availability of adequate health service facilities 1 2 3 4 5

33 The university operates an excellent counselling service 1 2 3 4 5

34 The university has favourable ambient conditions (ventilation, 1 2 3 4 5

noise, odour, etc) prevailing within the campus

Functional
Service Quality
35 The university provided good service right from the beginning 1 2 3 4 5

36 The lecturers and administrative staffs are courteous 1 2 3 4 5

37 The lecturers and administrative staffs are always willing to 1 2 3 4 5

help

109
38 The lecturers and administrative staffs always give me 1 2 3 4 5
efficient/prompt service dealing with complaints

39 Administrative procedures are clear and well structured so that 1 2 3 4 5

service delivery times are minimum

Technical
Service Quality
40 All knowledge I gain from my university is completely 1 2 3 4 5
valuable

41 The university helps students acquire adequate knowledge and 1 2 3 4 5

skills to perform future job, increase in knowledge, abilities
and skills
42 The university develops students' problem-solving skills with 1 2 3 4 5
respect to their field of study

43 The university has the high level of employment 1 2 3 4 5

44 The university increases in self-confidence of students 1 2 3 4 5

Student
satisfaction
45 I am satisfied with my decision to register at this university 1 2 3 4 5

46 My choice to choose this university was a wise one 1 2 3 4 5

47 I think I did the right thing when I chose to study at this 1 2 3 4 5

university

110
 48 I feel that my experience with this university has been 1 2 3 4 5
enjoyable

49 Overall, I am satisfied with this university 1 2 3 4 5

PART II: PERSONAL INFORMATION

50. Which type of universtiy are you studying?

• Public University
• Private University
• International Universtity located in Vietnam

51. Which program of higher education are you studying?

• Bachelor
• Master
• PhD/Doctor

52. How long have you studied at this university?

• < 1 year
• 1-2 years
• 2-3 years
• 3-4 years

53. What is your gender?

• Male

111
 • Female

54. What is your age?

• 18-20 years old

• 21-25 years old
• 26-30 years old
• 31-35 years old
• over 36 years old

Thank you for your help

APPENDIX D: BẢNG KHẢO SÁT

Chào anh/chị,

Tôi là Lam, hiện là sinh viên năm cuối trường Đại học Quốc tế - Đại học Quốc
gia Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh.

Trước tiên, tôi xin gửi lời cảm ơn chân thành vì anh/chị đã tham gia cuộc khảo
sát này. Nghiên cứu này được tạo ra nhằm khảo sát về chất lượng dịch vụ ở đại học thông
qua việc áp dụng thang đo HEdPERF tại các trường đại học ở Việt Nam, cũng như các yếu
tố liên quan đến chất lượng dịch vụ chức năng và chất lượng dịch vụ về mặt kỹ thuật. Ngoài
ra, mối quan hệ giữa các yếu tố chất lượng dịch vụ, hai phạm trù chất lượng dịch vụ và sự
hài lòng của sinh viên trong giáo dục đại học cũng được xác định trong nghiên cứu này.
Do đó, tôi hy vọng rằng anh/chị có thể dành chút thời gian để giúp tôi hoàn thành cuộc
khảo sát này. Để hoàn thành nó, tôi cần khoảng 300 người tham gia khảo sát, mỗi câu trả

112
lời của anh/chị sẽ có giá trị đóng góp cực kỳ quý báu đến sự thành công của nghiên cứu
này.

Tôi cam kết mọi thông tin thu được sẽ hoàn toàn được giữ bí mật và chỉ sử dụng
cho mục đích nghiên cứu.

Nếu có bất kì câu hỏi nào hoặc muốn biết thêm thông tin về cuộc khảo sát này,
có thể trao đổi với tôi qua e-mail hlamtran97@gmail.com và đừng ngại trao đổi với tôi về
những lo ngại của anh/chị.

Cảm ơn rất nhiều vì sự đóng góp của anh/chị cho nghiên cứu này.

Phần 1: Các yếu tố tác động đến sự hài lòng của sinh viên

Vui lòng chọn câu trả lời phản ánh đúng nhất với ý kiến của anh/chị.

(1- Hoàn toàn không đồng ý, 2- Không đồng ý, 3- Trung lập, 4- Đồng ý, 5- Hoàn toàn
đồng ý)

Stt Nhận định 1 2 3 4 5

Yếu tố phi học

thuật
1 Khi tôi gặp phải bất cứ vấn đề nào, nhân viên quản lý/ hành 1 2 3 4 5
chính cũng đều chân thành giúp tôi giải quyết

2 Nhân viên quản lý/ hành chính tận tình chu đáo với sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

3 Mọi thắc mắc đều được giải quyết một cách hiệu quả 1 2 3 4 5

4 Văn phòng hành chính giữ chính xác hồ sơ sinh viên và có thể 1 2 3 4 5
truy xuất nếu cần

113
5 Khi một nhân viên quản lý/ hành chính hứa hẹn thực hiện một 1 2 3 4 5
việc gì đó, họ sẽ hoàn thành đúng trong thời gian đề xuất

6 Nhân viên quản lý/ hành chính luôn thể hiện thái độ tích cực, 1 2 3 4 5
niềm nở trong công việc với sinh viên

7 Nhân viên quản lý/ hành chính tích cực trao đổi với sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

8 Nhân viên quản lý/ hành chính có nền tảng kiến thức tốt trong 1 2 3 4 5
hệ thống của mình

9 Mọi sinh viên đều được nhân viên quản lý/ hành chính đối xử 1 2 3 4 5
công bằng

10 Nhân viên quản lý/ hành chính tôn trọng các điều khoản bảo 1 2 3 4 5
mật khi tôi tiết lộ thông tin cá nhân cho họ

Yếu tố học thuật

11 Khi tôi gặp phải bất cứ vấn đề nào, nhân viên quản lý/ hành 1 2 3 4 5
chính cũng đều chân thành giúp tôi giải quyết

12 Giáo viên hướng dẫn giảng dạy một cách lịch sự, ân cần 1 2 3 4 5

13 Giáo viên hướng dẫn có đầy đủ kiến thức chuyên môn để có 1 2 3 4 5

thể trả lời những câu hỏi liên quan tới nội dung môn học

14 Giáo viên hướng dẫn thể hiện thái độ tích cực đối với sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5
của mình

15 Giáo viên hướng dẫn tích cực tương tác khi đến lớp 1 2 3 4 5

114
16 Giáo viên hướng dẫn đưa ra nhận xét/phản hồi về quá trình học 1 2 3 4 5
tập của tôi

17 Giáo viên hướng dẫn được đào tạo chuyên môn cao trong lĩnh 1 2 3 4 5
vực riêng của họ

18 Tài liệu về lý thuyết và bài tập liên quan đến môn học luôn 1 2 3 4 5
được cung cấp đầy đủ từ các giáo viên hướng dẫn

19 Tài liệu của môn học luôn được cung cấp đầy đủ từ các giáo 1 2 3 4 5
viên hướng dẫn

Sự tiếp cận

20 Nhân viên giáo vụ sẵn sàng đáp ứng yêu cầu hỗ trợ từ sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

21 Nhân viên giáo vụ phân bổ đủ thời gian để tư vấn cho sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

22 Việc liên lạc được với nhân viên giáo vụ thật sự dễ dàng 1 2 3 4 5

23 Nhân viên giáo vụ có nền tảng kiến thức chuyên môn để có thể 1 2 3 4 5
phản hồi được yêu cầu từ sinh viên

Vấn đề chương
trình học
24 Trường đang thực hiện một chương trình giảng dạy chất lượng 1 2 3 4 5
tuyệt vời

25 Trường cung cấp hàng loạt các chương trình với các chuyên 1 2 3 4 5
ngành khác nhau

115
26 Trường cung cấp các chương trình giảng dạy với cấu trúc bài 1 2 3 4 5
giảng linh hoạt

27 Có sự liên quan của nội dung khóa học với công việc tương lai 1 2 3 4 5
/hiện tại của sinh viên

Danh tiếng

28 Trường có hình ảnh chuyên nghiệp 1 2 3 4 5

29 Các chương trình giảng dạy của trường đều có uy tín 1 2 3 4 5

30 Sinh viên tốt nghiệp ra trường có cơ hội được tuyển dụng cao 1 2 3 4 5

Sự thấu hiểu

31 Luôn có sẵn giảng viên để hướng dẫn và tư vấn cho sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

32 Luôn có sẵn dịch vụ, thiết bị y tế đầy đủ để phục vụ cho sinh 1 2 3 4 5

viên

33 Trường đại học có dịch vụ tư vấn tuyệt vời 1 2 3 4 5

34 Trường đại học có các điều kiện thuận lợi (thông gió, tiếng ồn, 1 2 3 4 5
khử mùi, vv) trong khuôn viên trường.

Chất lượng dịch

vụ về mặt chức
năng
35 Trường đại học đã cung cấp dịch vụ rất tuyệt vời từ ban đầu 1 2 3 4 5

116
36 Giảng viên và nhân viên hành chính đều rất lịch sự 1 2 3 4 5

37 Giảng viên và nhân viên hành chính luôn sẵn sàng giúp đỡ 1 2 3 4 5

38 Các giảng viên và nhân viên hành chính luôn cung cấp cho tôi 1 2 3 4 5
dịch vụ hiệu quả / kịp thời giải quyết các khiếu nại

39 Thủ tục hành chính rõ ràng và có kết cấu chặt chẽ để có thể 1 2 3 4 5
cung cấp dịch vụ trong thời gian sớm nhất

Chất lượng dịch

vụ về mặt kỹ
thuật
40 Tất cả mọi kiến thức có được ở trường đều thực sự hữu ích đối 1 2 3 4 5
với tôi

41 Trường giúp sinh viên có được kiến thức và kỹ năng đủ để đáp 1 2 3 4 5

ứng cho trong việc trong tương lai, trau dồi chuyên môn, bản
lĩnh và những kỹ năng khác
42 Trường đã giúp cho sinh viên của mình phát triển kỹ năng giải 1 2 3 4 5
quyết những vấn đề, khó khăn trong chính chuyên môn của
mình
43 Trường có tỉ lệ sinh viên được tuyển dụng cao 1 2 3 4 5

44 Trường giúp sinh viên trong việc tự tin vào chính bản thân 1 2 3 4 5
mình

Sự hài lòng của

sinh viên
45 Tôi hài lòng với quyết định của mình khi lựa chọn ngôi trường 1 2 3 4 5
này

117
 46 Việc chọn học ngôi trường này đối với tôi là một lựa chọn sáng 1 2 3 4 5
suốt

47 Tôi nghĩ rằng mình đã làm một việc đúng đắn khi chọn học tại 1 2 3 4 5
ngôi trường này

48 Tôi cảm nhận rằng trải nghiệm của bản thân tại ngôi trường 1 2 3 4 5
này là cực kỳ thú vị

49 Sau cùng, tôi hoàn toàn hài lòng với ngồi trường đại học này 1 2 3 4 5

50. Loại hình trường đại học bạn đang theo học là gì?

• Đại học công lập

• Đại học dân lập/Đại học tư thục
• Đại học Quốc tế tại Vietnam

51. Bạn đang theo học loại hình giáo dục đại học nào?

• Cử nhân
• Thạc sĩ
• Tiến sĩ

52. Bạn đã học ở trường đại học của mình bao lâu rồi?

• < 1 năm
• 1-2 năm
• 2-3 năm
• 3-4 năm

118
53. Xin vui lòng cho biết giới tính của anh/chị:

• Nam
• Nữ

54. Xin vui lòng cho biết nhóm tuổi của anh/chị:

• 18-20 tuổi
• 21-21 tuổi
• 26-30 tuổi
• 31-35 tuổi
• Trên 36 tuổi

Tôi xin chân thành cảm ơn sự cộng tác rất nhiệt tình của anh chị!

119