Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education

Applying SERVQUAL: Using service quality perceptions to improve student

satisfaction and program image
Jess L. Gregory,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jess L. Gregory, (2019) "Applying SERVQUAL: Using service quality perceptions to improve
student satisfaction and program image", Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2018-0268
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2018-0268
Downloaded on: 14 May 2019, At: 07:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8 times since 2019*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:300473 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-7003.htm

Service quality
Applying SERVQUAL perceptions
Using service quality perceptions to improve
student satisfaction and program image
Jess L. Gregory
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies,
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA Received 18 December 2018
Revised 5 February 2019
Accepted 11 March 2019
Abstract
Purpose – Austerity approaches in higher education require choosing the highest leverage strategies of
increasing student satisfaction. Attending to student perceptions of program/service quality (SERVQUAL) is
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

a means to identify areas that have the greatest return on investment. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – This study explores how a program has applied the SERVQUAL model
and survey to identify areas for growth.
Findings – The survey of 57 students in a cohort-based doctoral program demonstrated the smallest gaps
(highest satisfaction) with the domains of empathy (1.33) and responsiveness (1.30) and the lowest with
reliability (2.03), tangibles (1.97) and assurance (1.90).
Practical implications – While not all of the five dimensions are within the purview of a program to
address (some may require funding that is determined at a college or university level), many of the gaps can
be addressed by adopting procedures and policies that increase transparency so that students can
moderate their expectations and faculty and staff can provide reliable information. Additionally, the use of
the SERVQUAL model provided this program with specific, actionable information that could be used to
improve the program.
Originality/value – The study includes a review of studies that have applied the SERVQUAL model in
higher education. The application of SERVQUAL to a cohort-based doctoral program to identify program
improvements and steward program image fits into a gap in the extant literature.
Keywords SERVQUAL, Service quality, Student satisfaction, Market-driven forces in education
Paper type Research paper

Increasing availability of programs both in brick and mortar institutions and online has
created a landscape of higher education that is more similar to a marketplace than in the
past (Chopra et al., 2014; Mills, 2012; Parker, 2012). Shrinking budgets and increasing
competition have placed greater pressures on institutions of higher education (Chopra et al.,
2014; Shekarchizadeh et al., 2011). Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006) lament this fact,
likening students to consumers and higher education to a service industry. Exacerbating
this issue are the competing institutional desires to attract and matriculate as many
students as possible and to elevate the institutional reputation and image, which has
traditionally been elevated through exclusivity (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006).
Woodall et al. (2014) cite that consumerist pressures, that make the application of a
business model in higher education relevant, stem from global shifts in the funding models.
Further, they assert that the widening field of institutions and educational opportunities have
contributed to the increasing focus on perceived value and student satisfaction (Woodall et al.,
2014). Hasan et al. (2009) took this further suggesting a future where students might take a
professor to court for not teaching “properly” (p. 164). Other researchers have also stressed the
increasing level of competition in the higher education sector driving a consumerist approach
(Hasan et al., 2008; Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka,
2006; Teeroovengadum et al., 2016). For nearly every statement written about how institutions
Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education
The author would like to thank Charity Anderson at Rutgers University for providing critical feedback © Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
on an early version of this manuscript. DOI 10.1108/JARHE-12-2018-0268
 JARHE of higher education are becoming more and more subject to market-style forces, a contrasting
statement indicating the application of business models to education exists (Berg and Seeber,
2016; Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006).
Berg and Seeber (2016) warn that consumerism has already taken hold in higher
education but describe it in terms of power, “With increasing corporatization, power is
transferred from the faculty to managers of the university, economic justifications dominate,
and the familiar ‘bottom-line’ eclipses pedagogical and intellectual concerns” (Berg and
Seeber, 2016, p. x). Authors further admonish that a novice, consumer is always right, the
market-driven approach can lead to grade inflation (Emanuel and Adams, 2006) and
superficial learning (Berg and Seeber, 2016). Others push the resistance further citing that
the models of the business world “morally contradict” the values of higher education
(Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006, p. 319). Emanuel and Adams take a more pragmatic
approach. While they reference the reservations of academics, they also report on how the
failure to recognize the service industry nature of higher education can have deleterious
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

effects on “enrollment, retention, funding, job security, and the viability of the university”
(Emanuel and Adams, 2006, p. 537).
Chopra et al. (2014) frame the argument in terms of the increasing volume of institutions of
higher education competing for students. They suggest that the greater number of options for
students have empowered students to more deeply consider the available programs. When
choosing a program, prospective students consider practical factors such as location, cost, course
availability and parking as well as reputational factors: the university’s overall reputation and
within that, the program’s reputation (Brennan, 2001; Poock and Love, 2001). Brown and
Mazzarol (2009) found that institutional image was of the greatest importance, beyond that of
service elements, in perceived value of a program. Perceived service quality, SERVQUAL, has a
positive impact on image ( Jiewanto et al., 2012). Program or university image can be leveraged
for marketing purposes to increase market share (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006).
The increase in globalization contributes to the current shift toward marketization of
higher education (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006) but Chopra et al. (2014) caution that
neither a wholly traditional, educationalist approach nor a fully market-driven approach will
best serve institutions of higher education. They propose a service quality lens to inform
improvement efforts in higher education. Emanuel and Adams (2006) affirm this stating
that, “failure by faculty to realize that their students are their customers can lead to attitudes
and behaviors that are inappropriate and potentially disruptive to the university’s customer
service goals. Thus, a service orientation by the faculty should be considered just as
important as effective teaching methods and technologies” (Emanuel and Adams, 2006,
p. 537). The current study applies the service quality lens (SERVQUAL; Berry et al., 1985) to
help leadership identify how to dedicate the finite resources of human and financial capital
and maximize student satisfaction to enhance word of mouth advertising and reputation
stewardship of a doctoral program in Connecticut. SERVQUAL is both a theoretical model
and an instrument that enables educators and administrators to measure the level of service
quality experienced by customers.
SERVQUAL provides the program leadership actionable information through gap
analysis. This method is less cumbersome than some other methods of program evaluation
like the program prioritization process (Dickeson, 2010). Like the Dickeson model,
the Baldridge and Excellence in Higher Education Model from Rutgers also rely on a deep
self-study process that requires a deep dive into the intricacies of the institution’s leadership,
assessment, planning outcomes measurement and more (Mizikaci, 2006; Ruben, 2007). The
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation published guide for evaluators
and evaluation users that is over 300 pages (Yarborough et al., 2011), unlike these models,
the SERVQUAL approach relies on a gap analysis that a practitioner can employ to gain
insights to effect positive change in a program.
 Purpose Service quality
Parasuraman et al. (1994) described service quality as a gap between a student’s expectations perceptions
and his or her perception of their experience. Moreover, student satisfaction can thus be
described as a situation where the experience fulfils the expectation (Hasan et al., 2008). The
level of perceived quality is not determined by either the level of technical (what is offered) and
functional dimensions (how it is offered, e.g. interactions with employees) alone, but by the
difference between the expected quality and experienced quality (Grönroos, 1984). This gap
between the expected and the experienced is one way to operationalize service quality and
satisfaction. This study describes how measuring perceptions of service quality can provide
higher education programs information that aids in the efficient allocation of limited resources.
Specifically, this study investigated how one program applied SERVQUAL to identify
opportunities for growth.
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

Theoretical framework
The SERVQUAL model (Figure 1), while debated in the business literature (Cronin and
Taylor, 1994; Parasuraman et al., 1994), grounded this work. The SERVQUAL model,
developed to measure customer perceptions of service quality, quantifies the technical and
functional dimensions described by Grönroos (1984) without the inclusion of image that
may be a confounding factor (Parasuraman et al., 1988). In higher education, the element of
image is more likely a function of student satisfaction and perceived quality that is
tempered with the legacy of alumni satisfaction and a history of exclusivity. The original
SERVQUAL scale used customer perceptions of banking, credit card companies, repair and
maintenance companies and telecommunications firms to test the items and develop the
factors. While SERVQUAL has been used in higher education internationally, and in some
business schools within the USA, the application of SERVQUAL to a doctoral program is
novel. With the increase of doctoral options available to prospective students, an evaluation
of SERVQUAL was expected to be helpful for this program and anticipated that it can help
similar programs to focus attention in high leverage areas. Parasuraman et al. suggested
that the SERVQUAL instrument could be used to periodically measure trends in service
quality and to identify which of the five dimensions was most important to customer
perceptions of quality. They also posited that the tool could help pinpoint areas in need of
managerial attention, the focus of the current investigation.
More specifically, the study measured the five dimensions of service quality assessed in
the SERVQUAL model: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy
(Table I; Berry et al., 1985, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1994). While all five dimensions can be

Expectations

Program Gap

Perception
Figure 1.
Notes: The program seeks to maximize The possible gap
service quality by minimizing the gap operationalized
through the
between student expectations and SERVQUAL model
perceptions
 JARHE Definition from Parasuraman
Dimension et al. (1988) Operationalization in higher education

Reliability Ability to perform the Are courses scheduled consistently so students can finish
promised service dependably their program? Is the delivered program of expected quality
and accurately or format? Are there more or fewer classes available online
than the student expected? Is the time to degree completion
what the student expected?
Assurance Knowledge and courtesy of Do faculty provide advising with accurate information? Are
employees and their ability to faculty and staff polite to inquire? Are the policies and
inspire trust and confidence procedures of the program clear?
Tangibles Physical facilities, equipment, What do the classrooms look like? How is parking? Is the
and appearance of personnel website up-to-date? Are there broken links on the website?
Do faculty and staff appear professional? Is there someone
answering the phone or greeting students if they come to
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

the office?
Empathy Caring, individualized Do students feel that they receive individual attention? Do
attention the firm provides its students feel heard? Do students feel that faculty, staff, and
customers the program overall care about them?
Responsiveness Willingness to help Do emails get timely replies? Are students helped to get
Table I. customers and provide answers or pushed off to other departments? Do students
Dimensions of prompt service have the ability to communicate with faculty and staff via
SERVQUAL or the means they prefer, rather than the ones that are
RATER model preferred by faculty and staff?

measured, not all are within a program’s resources to change. Specifically, the tangible
elements, such as the newness of buildings, the availability of technology and
the appearance of classrooms and furniture may be beyond the power of programs to
change. Faculty and staff do have the ability to impact the other four dimensions that were
all evaluated as more important to student satisfaction (Hasan et al., 2008).
There have been critiques that the five dimensions that comprise the RATER model of
SERVQUAL were too generic and were not as deep as other models of service quality and
student satisfaction that use a much longer survey (Yusoff et al., 2015). Internationally,
SERVQUAL has been applied to higher education settings to evaluate programs and
determine how institutions could improve perceptions of service (Table II; Chopra et al., 2014;
Shekarchizadeh et al., 2011; Soares et al., 2017; Yusoff et al., 2015). To date, the SERVQUAL
model has not been applied to doctoral programs in the USA.
The higher education applications of SERVQUAL range from determining which of the five
factors are most important to student satisfaction (Teeroovengadum et al., 2016) to gain a better
understanding of the influence of demographic factors on SERVQUAL (Yusoff et al., 2015).
Other researchers have sought to better understand the five factors (Chopra et al., 2014) or refine
the instrument (Shekarchizadeh et al., 2011). The studies that were most similar to the current
undertaking were conducted in Brazil (Soares et al., 2017), South Africa (Rigotti and Pitt, 1992),
and Malaysia (Hasan et al., 2008). Hasan et al. focused both on assessing the levels of satisfaction
through the SERVQUAL model and on identifying the dimensions that have the greatest
impact on satisfaction. They found that empathy and assurance significantly predict
satisfaction. Rigotti and Pitt included graduate students in both business and education to look
for gaps between expectations and perceptions as a measure of satisfaction. They affirmed the
reliability and validity of the instrument and pointed to the role of leadership in managing the
advertising of a program to ensure that what is promised is what is delivered. Soares also
prioritized the dimensions and found that reliability and tangibles were the most important
factors, closely followed by assurance. The metrics to determine the importance value were
based on the expectations of students for these items.
 Author(s) Year Setting
Service quality
perceptions
Soares et al. 2017 One institution of higher education in Brazil
Baniya 2016 One business school in Nepal
Teeroovengadum et al. 2016 One university in Mauritius
Yusoff et al. 2015 One private business school in Malaysia
Chopra et al. 2014 Management and education students in India
Yousapronpaiboon 2014 One private university in Thailand
Foropon et al. 2013 One College of Business in the USA and one university in France
Abili et al. 2012 One public university in Iran
Jiewanto et al. 2012 One private university in Surabaya
Abari et al. 2011 One public university in Iran
Chin Wei and Sri Ramalu 2011 One public university in Malaysia
Khan et al. 2011 One public university in Pakistan
Shekarchizadeh et al. 2011 Five public universities in Malaysia
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

Ahmed et al. 2010 Three public, three private universities in Pakistan

De Jager and Gbadamosi 2010 Two universities in South Africa
Kiran 2010 One academic library in Malaysia
Oliveira and Ferreira 2009 One public university in Brazil
Hasan et al. 2008 One private college and one private university in Malaysia
Arambewela and Hall 2006 Five universities in Australia
Emanuel and Adams 2006 Students in Basic Speech Communication courses in a Historically Black
College/University in the USA
Sherry et al. 2004 One business school in New Zealand Table II.
Ruby 1998 Ten christian colleges in the USA Published, empirical
Pariseau and McDaniel 1997 Two private business schools in the USA research that used the
Cuthbert 1996 One university in the UK SERVQUAL model in
Rigotti and Pitt 1992 One business program in South Africa higher education

The current study did not seek to determine which of the five dimensions were most important
to a student’s satisfaction; rather it served as a snapshot of student satisfaction in a cohort-based
educational leadership doctoral program, in the state of Connecticut. For a geographically small
state, there are a relatively high number of EdD programs; there are six comparable EdD
programs in CT. There are additional PhD programs in Connecticut, but those programs are
full-time and of a slightly different character than the program studied. The data were collected
in the fall of 2017. The program studied had limited human and fiscal resources to invest and so
strategic allocation of these limited resources is prudent. The SERVQUAL model framed the
study and the recommendations for the program.

Methods
This study used a survey approach that collected data from 57 students in October of 2017.
The survey was a minimally adapted (changed customer to student, etc.) version of the
SERVQUAL instrument (44-item, seven-point Likert scale, strongly agree to strongly
disagree), and included a single open-ended comment box to allow for qualitative feedback
on the domains or survey. The adaptations were consistent with the other institutions of
higher education that have adapted the SERVQUAL instrument (Table II). The open-ended
question, “While nothing is required here, you may enter any comments you wish,” garnered
seven qualitative responses that ranged in length and content. The SERVQUAL instrument
(Parasuraman et al., 1988) includes five expectation and five perception items for reliability
(α ¼ 0.83) and empathy (α ¼ 0.86) and four expectation and four perception items for
tangibles (α ¼ 0.72), assurance (α ¼ 0.81), and responsiveness (α ¼ 0.82).
The sample was drawn from 13 cohorts of a single doctoral program in Connecticut.
Email invitations to participate were sent to 110 current students and alumni (51.8 percent
 JARHE response rate). Demographic questions were not included in the survey[1], but the program
reports that 63.8 percent of students identified as female and 36.2 percent male. This
proportion is slightly less balanced than other programs that report gender information
in the state. The other programs that publicly share this information ranged from 49.8 to
62.6 percent female. Because demographic questions were not included, disaggregation of
responses based on gender, age or cohort within the program was not possible.

Results
Of these qualitative comments, some provided insights that respondents are unwilling or
ill-equipped to articulate what, specifically, leaves them dissatisfied with the program. One
respondent said, “I am becoming increasingly disappointed by my experiences in the program,
and while some employees make it enjoyable, others have made me question why I even
continue with the program.” The data from this response are important but unusable. It is
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

compelling from the point of view that something needs to change in the program, but does not
provide the program with actionable information. Too often programs get this kind of data, data
that tell the program to improve, but not how to do so. The SERVQUAL model operationalizes
this type of information, assessing the gaps between the respondent’s expectations and what
they perceive. The results of this work identified opportunities for program improvement in
each of the five SERVQUAL areas, but the gaps were not equivalent (Table III). The data in
Table III show the largest gap exists in the dimensions of reliability and tangibles, with the
smallest in the dimensions of empathy and responsiveness. In order to affect the image of a
program, small improvements to narrow the gap between expectations and perceived service
contribute to large reputational gains. Consistent attention to making small improvements leads
to sustained growth.
While there were several efforts to improve communication in the recent past, one
respondent clarified that reliability, responsiveness, and assurance were issues that plague
the program, “There is a disconnection among the professors when it comes to verbal
communication of program events[…] I get different information from everyone when
I have questions about them or what future years will look like in the program, for example
timeline of the program. It does not seem like the professors are on the same page.” Looking
at recent events in the program, it is clear how well-intentioned program improvements were
implemented without full buy in. After a long history of laissez-faire leadership, a new leader
of the program revised all the forms that students needed so that they had consistent font
and language. The next new leader made all the same forms into fillable PDFs that could be
completed online, then the next leader went back to requesting the original forms be filled
out on paper, with the old formatting. This left faculty and students confused as to which
were the correct versions of forms to be completed.
Not all the comments were negative, a positive quote from the survey in the data set
indicated that empathy, the element of SERVQUAL with the strongest relationship to student
satisfaction (Hasan et al., 2008) and loyalty (Soares et al., 2017) read, “Classes, conferences at the
end of the semesters (during the first year), and constant follow-up with students helped to

Dimension Expectation Perception Gap

Reliability 6.58 4.55 2.03

Assurance 6.73 4.83 1.90
Table III. Tangibles 5.88 3.91 1.97
Quantitative Empathy 5.35 4.02 1.33
SERVQUAL Responsiveness 5.16 3.86 1.30
survey results Note: n ¼ 57
 relieve the worries of not surviving the doctoral program.” Empathy and responsiveness had Service quality
the lowest gaps between the students’ expectations and their perceptions. This commendable perceptions
fact affords its own challenge, as these human elements reside within the faculty’s circle of
influence. Other domains, such as reliability can be within the faculty or other employee control,
but may also be subject to other factors and therefore more difficult to influence directly.
The program would benefit from explicit attention to the actions that drive perceptions
of reliability (e.g. when something is promised by a date, deliver on that date or before; keep
accurate records). These are within the control of program faculty and staff, as opposed to
the tangibles that are constrained by budget. To be fair to the program employees, there are
factors outside the program control that may be influencing this gap in the expectations and
perceptions. These factors include but are not limited to changing university structures, or
other offices that impede implementation or delivery, or reductions in support staff or
faculty that mean each person does more with existing or reduced resources. Even so, the
employees can adopt procedures and policies that increase transparency so that the
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

students can moderate their expectations.

If resources have been reduced in the department, then the promises made by employees
must also be adjusted. Overpromising and underdelivering lead to dissatisfaction. Faculty and
other program employees can also reduce the gap in reliability through improved systems of
communication. While protecting information may appeal to some when high levels of anxiety
surround change, accountability, and depleted resources, this lack of transparency erodes trust
within the program and contributes to increased gaps in the domain of reliability. Extending
trust is the fastest way to build trust (Covey, 2008) and that can remediate problems with
reliability. This strategy holds embedded challenges, particularly in a high-stress environment,
but it can also offer rewards to those leaders brave enough to try. Mother Theresa is
erroneously credited with saying that “honesty and transparency make you vulnerable. Be
honest and transparent anyways” (Keith, 1968/1972, p. 11).
A program can do little to improve the tangibles save request funds or other resources to
improve them, but programs can impact the domain of assurances; the third largest gap for
this program. Assurance, or the knowledge of employees and their ability to inspire trust
and confidence (Berry et al., 1990), connects to the largest gap of reliability, but this
dimension differs from reliability and represents the interpersonal interactions. Assurance
includes the courtesy of a secretary answering the phone and the quality of answers
provided, where reliability focuses more on the phone being answered at all. One of the
qualitative responses spoke to this directly, “There is a general appearance of disorder
within the program – a variety of opinions (which can be healthy) on how the program
should be run, variety of leaders over the past three years, etc. The present is confusing at
times to members of the program.” The program studied can develop responsiveness scores
much in the same way the program addresses reliability. By addressing the programmatic
elements such as policies and procedures as well as increasing transparency, more people
will be able to provide the right answers and engender trust. Failure to address these issues
will likely result in negative word-of-mouth and diminished program reputation.
A diminished reputation will make it harder to attract high-quality applicants in the
relatively saturated market of doctoral programs in Connecticut.
This program demonstrated greater strengths in responsiveness and empathy,
providing evidence that the will to serve student concerns exists. These structures could
be developed further. Faculty can become disheartened if the focus remains consistently on
areas needing improvement. Capitalizing on things that are already done well, small wins,
and incremental growth can build energy around program improvement efforts (Schmoker,
1996). The studied program can capitalize on the relatively smaller gap in the areas of
empathy and responsiveness, utilizing these strengths as a means to differentiate the
program among the field of competing programs while addressing areas with larger gaps.
 JARHE The effort for program improvement must be communicated not just in what needs to be
done but why the change is necessary (Fullan, 2008). Leadership of the studied program,
and any other program that finds an undesirable gap in a SERVQUAL analysis ought to
demonstrate how addressing the gap is consistent with the vision and mission of the
program. Starting with communicating the raison d’être strengthens any call for action and
failure to do so may undermine program improvement efforts (Sinek, 2009).
All programs have opportunities for growth and improvement, but haphazard initiatives
and pet projects can lead to faculty disengagement without significant improvement in the
delivered program (Sinek, 2014). Fractured approaches to improvement do not respect that
institutions are complex systems that require a shared vision (Kofman and Senge, 1993).
The SERVQUAL model provides a quantitative framework to remove any ego investment
from prior initiatives and identify areas ripe for growth. Data from this study shows that
reliability was the dimension with the largest gap. Reliability in this model is “the ability to
perform the promised service dependably and accurately” (Berry et al., 1990, p. 29). The
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

program may wish to dig deeper with follow up exit interviews to gather additional data,
but that is a defensive posture. Attending to delivering on the promises is an area that will
improve student satisfaction, thereby boosting program image. It cannot be determined
from these data whether a culture of overpromising is contributing to the perceived gap, or
whether it is underperformance against shared expectations. Therefore, both the clarity on
what the program can actually deliver, would be an important point for discussion, the
danger of overpromising, and finally, ensuring all faculty have the tools, resources and
supports they need to deliver the promised program. When the faculty in this program
address these three elements, the gap in the SERVQUAL reliability data ought to decline.
This program, as well as any other that choses to collect SERVQUAL data, can
immediately use the gap analysis to make large or small changes to a program to enhance
positive elements or remediate large gaps. The leadership of the studied program can
address many of the issues identified with increased and improved communication. Ideally,
the program will find a way to make information available to all stakeholders so that
everyone is aware of what the program offers and what external pressures exist that affect
the program. This level of transparency fosters a shared understanding of expectations,
thereby reducing the influence of a possible culture of overpromising. Moving beyond a
faculty discussion to making information publicly available, perhaps on a website, builds in
additional accountability; and therefore, this may be a less popular approach. The studied
program, and other programs in a similar situation, must identify what shared goals and
priorities exist and what actions the program faculty and the administration are willing to
take to reduce the gap in SERVQUAL and improve the program image.
Comparing the results of the current study to other studies that used SERVQUAL in
higher education in the USA, the gaps found here were greater than those found in some
other studies of undergraduates (Ruby, 1998; Foropon et al., 2013). They are more consistent
with the female participants in another undergraduate study in the USA (Emanuel and
Adams, 2006). The only study of graduate students in the USA to use the SERVQUAL
model surveyed full-time graduate students with a mean age of 22, a different population
than in the current study of part-time doctoral students. In this study, small gaps in all
elements of SERVQUAL were found (Pariseau and McDaniel, 1997). The gaps in the
Pariseau and McDaniel study were smaller than those found in the current study.
For this program and any other program that seeks operational data on how to target
discrete areas that can more globally impact student satisfaction and program image, the
SERVQUAL instrument can provide this information. Once the data are collected, the program
leadership can adjust programmatic elements and develop initiatives grounded in data to
improve the program and narrow the measured gaps. Periodically, the SERVQUAL tool can be
used to evaluate the impact of implemented changes and determine if adjustments to
 improvement efforts are required. The current study illustrates how SERVQUAL can provide Service quality
concrete information about a program to inform decisions and assess change efforts with a perceptions
smaller commitment of resources than larger self-study models (e.g. Baldridge, Dickeson or
Rutgers’ Excellence in Higher Education models).

Educational significance
While academics may rail against this conceptualization, the growing number of programs from
both for profit and non-profit organizations that compete for the same students requires
programs and institutions to focus not only on providing a quality educational program, but
also evaluate the degree to which the program meets the expectations of students (Chopra et al.,
2014). Every program has to determine how it spends its financial and human capital, using the
SERVQUAL model can aid educational leaders in determining which program areas will
generate the greatest return on investment in student satisfaction.
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

Institutions of higher education and programs within these institutions find it difficult to
maintain a competitive advantage (Shekarchizadeh et al., 2011). With shrinking fiscal resources
across the board, programs rely more and more on word-of-mouth advertising; partially
determined by program image. Traditionally, institutions of higher education did not depend so
heavily on this informal marketing tool (Chopra et al., 2014). Unfortunately for programs and
institutions of higher education, dissatisfied students may not transfer to different programs to
achieve a satisfying experience, rather they persist to completion, but may speak poorly of the
program to prospective students and others (Shekarchizadeh et al., 2011). Programs and
institutions need to steward their reputations to draw students in an increasingly competitive
market (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006). The studied program exists in a competition-rich
area of EdD programs in Connecticut, but the learnings from this study apply more widely to
programs that find themselves competing for a shrinking pool of prospective students.
To maximize word-of-mouth advertising and gain a competitive advantage, institutions
of higher education and programs within these institutions must embrace their role as a
service industry and steward student (customer) satisfaction. SERVQUAL offers an
alternative to resource intense self-study approaches to gather information programs can
use to improve their programs and minimize the gaps between performance expectations
and perceived functioning. Utilizing the gap analysis periodically can assist programs in
boosting their image and monitoring improvement efforts.

Note
1. Some cohorts in the program were quite small, so collecting age, gender and cohort number could
have been identifying.

References
Abari, A.A.F., Yarmohammadian, M.H. and Esteki, M. (2011), “Assessment of quality of education a
non-governmental university via SERVQUAL model”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 15, pp. 2299-2304, available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042811006434
Abili, K., Narenji Thani, F. and Afarinandehbin, M. (2012), “Measuring university service quality by
means of SERVQUAL method”, Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 204-211.
Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M.M., Ahmad, Z., Ahmad, Z., Shaukat, M.Z., Usman, A. and Ahmed, N. (2010), “Does
service quality affect students’ performance? Evidence from institutes of higher learning”,
African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 2527-2533.
Arambewela, R. and Hall, J. (2006), “A comparative analysis of international education satisfaction
using SERVQUAL”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 6, July, pp. 141-163.
 JARHE Baniya, R. (2016), “Relationship between perception of service quality and students’ satisfaction – a
case study of a management school”, Journal of Education and Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 36-55.
Berg, M. and Seeber, B.K. (2016), The Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1985), “Quality counts in services, too”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 44-52.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1990), “Five imperatives for improving service
quality”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 29-38.
Brennan, L. (2001), “How prospective students choose universities: a buyer behaviour perspective”,
doctoral dissertation.
Brown, R.M. and Mazzarol, T.W. (2009), “The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction
and loyalty within higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 81-95, doi: 10.1007
/s10734-008-9183-8.
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

Chin Wei, C. and Sri Ramalu, S. (2011), “Students satisfaction towards the university: does service
quality matters?”, International Journal of Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-15, available at: https://
doi.org/10.5296/ije.v3i2.1065
Chopra, R., Chawla, M. and Sharma, T. (2014), “Service quality in higher education : a comparative
study of management and education institutions”, NMIMS Management Review, Vol. 24,
April-May, pp. 59-72.
Covey, S.M.R. (2008), The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything, Simon and Schuster,
New York, NY.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based
and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-131.
Cuthbert, P.F. (1996), “Managing service quality in HE: Is SERVQUAL the answer?”, Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 11-16.
De Jager, J. and Gbadamosi, G. (2010), “Specific remedy for specific problem: measuring service quality
in South African higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 251-267.
Dickeson, R.C. (2010), Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve
Strategic Balance, Revised and Updated, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Emanuel, R. and Adams, J.N. (2006), “Assessing college student perceptions of instructor customer service
via the quality of instructor service to students (QISS) questionnaire”, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 535-549, doi: 10.1080/02602930600679548.
Foropon, C., Seiple, R. and Kerbache, L. (2013), “Using SERVQUAL to examine service quality in the
classroom: analyses of undergraduate and executive education operations management
courses”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 20, available at: https://
doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n20p105
Fullan, M. (2008), The Six Secrets of Change: What the Best Leaders do to Help Their Organizations
Survive and Thrive, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Hasan, H.F.A., Ilias, A., Rahman, R.A. and Razak, M.Z.A. (2008), “Service quality and student
satisfaction: a case study at private higher education institutions”, International Business
Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 163-175.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Goonawardana, S. (2007), “Brand harmonization in the international higher
education market brand harmonization in the international higher education market”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 942-948.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2006), “Universities in a competitive global marketplace”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 316-338, doi: 10.1108/09513
550610669176.
 Jiewanto, A., Laurens, C. and Nelloh, L. (2012), “Influence of service quality, university image, and student Service quality
satisfaction toward WOM intention: a case study on Universitas Pelita Harapan Surabaya”, perceptions
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 2012, pp. 16-23, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.
2012.03.155.
Keith, K. (1968/1972), The Silent Revolution: Dynamic Leadership in the Student Council. New Directions
for Student Councils, Number Eleven, 2nd ed., National Association of Secondary School
Principals, Washington, DC.
Khan, M.M., Ahmed, I. and Nawaz, M.M. (2011), “Student’s perspective of service quality in higher
learning institutions: an evidence based approach”, International Journal of Business and Social
Science, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 159-164.
Kiran, K. (2010), “Service quality and customer satisfaction in academic libraries”, Library Review,
Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 261-273.
Kofman, F. and Senge, P.M. (1993), “Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations”,
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 5-23.

Mills, N. (2012), “The corporatization of higher education”, Dissent, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 6-9, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2012.0087
Mizikaci, F. (2006), “A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 37-53, doi: 10.1108/09684880610643601.
Oliveira, O.J.De and Ferreira, E.C. (2009), “Adaptation and application of the SERVQUAL scale in
higher education”, POMS 20th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, May 1-4, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1111/sode.12217
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perc”, Journal of Retailing; Spring, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a comparison
standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”, Journal of Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Vol. 58 No. 1, p. 111.
Pariseau, S.E. and McDaniel, J.R. (1997), “Assessing service quality in schools of business”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 204-218,
doi: 10.1108/02656719710165455.
Parker, L.D. (2012), “From privatised to hybrid corporatised higher education: a global financial
management discourse”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 247-268.
Poock, M.C. and Love, P.G. (2001), “Factors influencing the program choice of doctoral students in
higher education administration”, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 203-223, doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1136.
Rigotti, S. and Pitt, L. (1992), “SERVQUAL as a measuring instrument for service provider gaps in
business schools”, Management Research News, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 9-17.
Ruben, B.D. (2007), Excellence in Higher Education Guide: An Integrated Approach to Assessment,
Planning, and Improvement in Colleges and Universities, National Association of College and
University Business Officers, Washington, DC.
Ruby, C.A. (1998), “Assessing satisfaction with selected student services using SERVQUAL, a market-
driven model of service quality”, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 331-341, doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1059.
Schmoker, M. (1996), Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement, Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, doi: 10.1177/019263650008461515.
Shekarchizadeh, A., Rasli, A. and Hon-Tat, H. (2011), “SERVQUAL in Malaysian universities: perspectives
of international students”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 67-81.
Sherry, C., Bhat, R., Beaver, B. and Ling, A. (2004), “Students as customers: the expectations and
perceptions of local and international students”, HERDSA Conference, Sarawak, July 4-7,
available at: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4984.6808 (accessed November 14, 2018).
Sinek, S. (2009), Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action, Penguin, London.
 JARHE Sinek, S. (2014), Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don’t, Penguin,
New York, NY.
Soares, M.C., Novaski, O. and Anholon, R. (2017), “SERVQUAL model applied to higher education
public administrative services”, Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 338-349.
Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T.J. and Seebaluck, A.K. (2016), “Measuring service quality in
higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 244-258.
Woodall, T., Hiller, A. and Resnick, S. (2014), “Making sense of higher education: Students as
consumers and the value of the university experience”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 48-67.
Yarborough, D., Shula, L., Hopson, R. and Caruthers, F. (2011), The Program Evaluation Standards – A
Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, doi: dx.doi.org/
10.14507/epaa.v10n18.2002.
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 07:42 14 May 2019 (PT)

Yousapronpaiboon, K. (2014), “SERVQUAL: measuring higher education service quality in Thailand”,

Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116 No. 2014, pp. 1088-1095.
Yusoff, M., McLeay, F. and Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2015), “Dimensions driving business student
satisfaction in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 86-104.

Further reading
Clemes, M.D., Cohen, D.A. and Wang, Y. (2013), “Understanding Chinese university students’
experiences: an empirical analysis”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 391-427.

About the author

Dr Jess L. Gregory research centers on student engagement, student satisfaction, program evaluation,
teacher evaluation, and instrument development as well as teacher attitudes towards inclusion.
Recently, Jess has started to investigate a quantitative link between educator mindfulness and mindset.
Jess has presented over 35 peer-reviewed papers at local, regional, national and international
conferences, authored numerous book chapters, 15 peer-reviewed journal articles and two books since
earning her doctorate in 2008. Dr Jess L. Gregory can be contacted at: gregoryj2@southernct.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com