Purpose - The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that affect FPT students

satisfaction about Google Meet (a distance learning support platform) in the Covid-19
pandemic. This paper reviewed published research on online learning and satisfaction since
2012, primarily focusing on how theories, practices and assessments apply to FPT students
satisfaction.

Methodology - The model proposed in this study is E-SERVQUAL. The authors test the
hypotheses through multiple regression analysis based on a survey of 160 online students.

Key words - Online learning, customer satisfaction, Google Meet, FPT students.

Paper type Research paper.

INTRODUCTION

The world is currently in a period of extremely rapid change along with the inevitable
development of the market economy and the explosive development of science, technology
and technology, especially communication technology. In the trend of globalization and
increasingly thorough integration, anyone or a nation who does not want or does not have time
to renew their thinking and participate in the general trend will quickly be left behind.

Education, especially university education, is a matter of deep concern, not only by industry
experts but also for all students who are directly enrolled in university programs. In the past
two years, the education industry has undergone a lot of changes due to the impact of external
circumstances. In particular, the covid 19 epidemic has brought many unavoidable disruptions
and major changes in education. In the context of the Covid-19 epidemic, localities need to
strictly implement social distancing. Therefore, going to school for students is completely
impossible and everyone has to use online learning to overcome that.

FPT university is one of the most famous universities in Vietnam because of the teaching
quality. In the situation that the Covid19 epidemic is spreading across the country. According
to the regulation of the ministry of education, FPT university has changed the teaching method
from offline to online through the platform namely Google Meet. Although there are many
advantages, there are also many disadvantages of this platform. In order to evaluate how
effective the Google Meet online learning platform is, we decided to conduct a research project
with an audience of all students who are in the process of majoring at FPT University in the
locality of the country. Thereby, it is also possible to see some of the limitations of the GG
Meet online learning platform from which to propose solutions with a constructive spirit of
2
contribution. Our group's theme is “Research on the satisfaction of FPT students about Google
Meet - a distance learning support platform during the covid 19 pandemic”.

On April 28, 2020, Google began offering free online conferencing service - Google Meet to
bring an application that can make studying and working easier during the pandemic. Before
that, there were a number of applications with such functions, there were applications created
to serve the organization of conferences, remote group meetings, a typical example is Zoom -
one of the most popular video communication tools for remote work and learning, in the context
that many people around the world have to use online meetings and learning due to the outbreak
of the Covid-19 epidemic.The problem here is that each application has different service
features to best serve users.Since its launch, Google Meet has also had updates, renewed
features and brought new versions more convenient to help users have a smoother experience.
Although Google Meet has flaws or inconveniences in use, it is only a small problem that can
be fixed. To be able to market a perfect application is quite difficult. Using Google Meet will
also be easy for users when they can directly enter the room via the link without downloading,
so that is also a point that makes users feel satisfied. Google meet has only just been launched,
but it brings users many new, convenient features and also combines with other google
applications. Therefore, the number of Google meet users has also increased and the Google
side is gradually improving the Google Meet application to serve users as well as create a
foothold for Google Meet in the market.

This study shows the positive and negative experiences of students during online learning on
google meet platform during the Covid pandemic. Therefore, the main objective of this study
is to examine the effect of the service quality of Google Meet on student satisfaction in terms
of convenience and efficiency during use. This research seeks to address the issue with the
following research question:

● RQ1: How satisfied are FPT students about Google Meet - a distance learning support
platform during covid?

● RQ2: What are the most effective strategies for increasing satisfaction of students while using
Google Meet?

Currently, the scope of this research is aimed at students by majors of all FPT campuses
nationwide who are studying online using Google Meet software.

3
Methodology and Data Overview

- Preliminary research: conducted through qualitative research methods.

- Formal research: This study uses a quantitative research method by creating a large-scale
survey with related questionnaires. The survey was sent to 1000 FPT students using Google
Meet platform to study across the country with simple random sampling method and is
expected to receive 300 responses.

- Processing research data: using SPSS software to verify.

Research Outline

This thesis consists of 5 chapters:

Chapter 1: An overview of the research topic

Chapter 2: Theories and research model

Chapter 3: Research methods and procedures

Chapter 4: Presenting the method of information analysis and research results

Chapter 5: Summary of results, recommendation for the developers of the GG Meet software.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The satisfaction of FPT students about Google Meet - a distance learning support platform
during the covid 19 pandemic: A Literature Review

1. Definition of online learning

Online learning is the process of answering a sequence of questions given (maybe partial)
knowledge of the correct answers to previous questions and possibly additional available
information. The study of online learning algorithms is an important domain in machine
learning, and one that has interesting theoretical properties and practical applications.

4
Online learning is performed in a sequence of consecutive rounds, where at round t the learner
is given a question, xt, taken from an instance domain X , and is required to provide an answer
to this question, which we denote by pt. After predicting an answer, the correct answer, yt, taken
from a target domain Y, is revealed and the learner suffers a loss, l(pt,yt), which measures the
discrepancy between his answer and the correct one. While in many cases pt is in Y, it is
sometimes convenient to allow the learner to pick a prediction from a larger set, which we
denote by D.

2. Service quality and e-service quality

Service quality perception wildly has been studied in the last three decades. Zeithaml (1988)
defines service quality as an assessment of customers from the overall excellence of service. It
is because of the service quality nature, which is intangible, heterogeneous and inseparable. In
recent decades, many models have been developed for measuring service quality and the first
attempt was by Gronroos in 1984. He believes in distinguishing between technical quality as
an outcome for performance of service and functional quality as a subjective perception of
service delivered. Rust and Oliver (1994) expanded Gronroos model in 1994 by adding a
service environment as a new dimension.

The idea of e-service is one of the prominent applications of utilizing the use of Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in different ways, but it is difficult to provide a
comprehensive definition for e-service. Along with the development of the internet and web-
based technologies, online customers use necessary information on products and services.
Zeithaml et al. (2001) is believed to be the first one who provided a formal definition of website
service quality or e-service quality. According to Zeithaml et al. (2001), e-service quality is
defined as the extent to which a website facilitates efficient and effective shopping, purchasing,
and delivering of products and services. As stated, the meaning of service is comprehensive,
which includes both pre- and post website service aspects. There are virtually a number of
criteria that customers use in evaluating websites in general and service quality delivery through
websites. Some of them include information availability and content, ease of use,
privacy/security, graphic style and fulfillment (Babakus et al., 2003; Chang, 2007; Chiu et al.,
2005; Zeithaml et al., 2002). E-service quality can be also described as the consumer’s
judgment about an entity’s (service’s) overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1988).

E-SERVQUAL MODEL

5
Zeithaml et al. (2001, 2002) developed the e-SERVQUAL measure of e-service quality to study
how customers judge e-service quality. This new model was drawn up through a three-stage
process involving exploratory focus groups and two phases of empirical data collection and
analysis. It contains seven dimensions: efficiency, reliability, fulfillment, privacy,
responsiveness, compensation and contact. The first four dimensions are classified as the core
service scale, and the latter three dimensions are regarded as a recovery scale, since they are
only salient when online customers have questions or problems.

3. Customer satisfaction

There is growing managerial interest in customer satisfaction as a means of evaluating quality.

High customer satisfaction ratings are widely believed to be the best indicator of a company's
future profit. Satisfaction can be broadly characterized as a post-purchase evaluation of product
quality given pre-purchase expectation.

Customer satisfaction can be experienced in a variety of situations and connected to both goods
and services. It is a highly personal assessment that is greatly affected by customer expectations.
Satisfaction also is based on the customer’s experience of both contact with the organization
and personal outcomes. Some researchers define a satisfied customer within the private sector
as “one who receives significant added value” to his/her bottom line - a definition that may
apply just as well to public services.

In today's competitive business environment marketing managers are more influenced by

customer expectations and meeting the demand for customer satisfaction is very important for
them. Every organization must define customer satisfaction regarding their market. So customer
satisfaction could not be defined only by standard or quality of product. Customer satisfaction
is about relationships between the customer and product or service and the provider of a product
or service.

Customer satisfaction is a highly personal assessment that is greatly influenced by individual

expectations. Some definitions are based on the observation that customer satisfaction or
dissatisfaction results from either the confirmation or disconfirmation of individual
expectations regarding a service or product. To avoid difficulties stemming from the
kaleidoscope of customer expectations and differences, some experts urge companies to
“concentrate on a goal that’s more closely linked to customer equity.” Instead of asking whether

6
customers are satisfied, they encourage companies to determine how customers hold them
accountable.

Customer satisfaction is the degree to which a customer perceives that an individual, firm or
organization has effectively provided a product or service that meets the customer’s needs in
the context in which the customer is aware of and/ or using the product or service. Satisfaction
is not inherent in the individual or the product but is a socially constructed response to the
relationship between a customer, the product and the product provider /maker. To the extent
that a provider/ maker can influence the various dimensions of the relationship, the provider
can influence customer satisfaction.

Although the definition of customer satisfaction has been widely debated as organizations
attempt to measure it, the definition of customer satisfaction could be summarized as follows.

The customer satisfaction definitions listed below are arranged in chronological order by
Millana and Esteban (2004). For further readings about development of customer satisfaction
concept articles of listed authors' can be useful for researchers.

4. Research model

Figure 1: Research Model

Efficiency

7
The ‘design of the user interface’ best provides the quality dimension of tangibility in the
SERVQUAL model. It covers overall design (Kaynama & Black, 2000; Szymanski & Hise,
2000), ease of navigation (Kaynama & Black, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 2000), and overall ease of
use (Dabholkar 1996), called ‘efficiency’ in Zeithaml et al. (2000), and aesthetics (Zeithaml et
al., 2000).

H1: online service quality efficiency of Google Meet has an impact on Student satisfaction.

Reliability

Reliability is the next SERVQUAL dimension for online services and it is parallel to the case
of offline services, where customers expect search engines, payment facilities etc. to function
reliably, and the information presented on the website to be dependable. Two aspects of online
service reliability can be distinguished (Cox & Dale, 2001). The reliability perception is driven
by the correct technical functioning of the site, or the technical aspects of the user interface,
while the outcome aspect is defined by the accuracy of service promises, billing and product
information (Zeithaml et al., 2000).

H2: online service quality reliability of Google Meet has an impact on Student satisfaction.

Responsiveness

The quality of support customers receive when faced with questions or running into problems,
and the speed with which this support is provided, largely determine customer evaluations of
post transaction services. Customer support is appreciated during the pre-transaction stage,
particularly for online services: the online customer is relatively powerless in enforcing help,
having to rely on the willingness of the firm to provide support. The faster a provider responds
to requests, the better the service will be evaluated (Van Riel et al, 2004).

H3: online service quality responsiveness of Google Meet has an impact on Student
satisfaction.

Assurance

In the classical SERVQUAL model an important quality dimension is assurance, or the degree
to which service staff and premises instigate trust in the customer. Online customers generally
cannot reach the employees, or the physical facilities of the firm they are dealing with

8
(Reichheld & Schefter, 2000), so trust needs to be established in other ways. It is the impression
of assurance the website makes on the customer, which could lead to trust. The security and
privacy dimension used by Zeithaml et al. (2000), which ‘involves the degree to which the
customer believes the site is safe from intrusion and personal information is protected’
(Zeithaml et al., 2000) is part of the assurance dimension. Trust is often claimed to be the most
important online service quality dimension (Papadopoulou et al., 2001; Petersen, 2001; Roy et
al., 2001; Urban et al., 2000).

H4: online service quality assurance of Google Meet has an impact on Student satisfaction.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1. Survey instruments

All constructs were measured using multiple items, five-point, Likert scales ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. Likert-type scales were originally introduced by Rensis
Likert as an alternative to the more time-intensive and judgment-based Thurstone approach to
attitude scaling. Indeed, their ease of construction, intuitive appeal, adaptability, and usually
good reliability have been key factors in fostering their widespread use. Wherever possible,
initial scale items were taken from previously validated measures in e-satisfaction, online
shopping customer satisfaction and web site quality literature and then reorganized and adapted
to the current context.

Service quality was evaluated from five dimensions: efficiency, reliability, responsibility,
assurance, security/privacy. These items adapted from the items initially developed by
Zeithaml et al. (2002).

The survey instrument consists of three sections. In the first section, there is a filter question to
reduce respondent burden and not waste participant or researcher time in collecting
meaningless data. In the second section, respondents were asked to fill in their personal
information: gender, major, learning place, grade. In the third section, they were asked to
identify the extent to which they agree or disagree with the items based on their using Google
Meet experience. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale from 1 - strongly
disagree to 5 - strongly agree.

2. Collection data

9
The authors collected data by using a table of questions, based on previous research and
theories. This method of data collection is quite popular, particularly in case of big enquiries.
It is being adopted by private individuals, research workers, private and public organizations
and even by governments. Since we want to collect data on the satisfaction of FPT students
using the google meet platform, we only collect data from FPT students across the country.
Data was collected as an online survey. The survey was made on google form. In this method,
we conducted a questionnaire containing 26 questions, based on the E-SERVQUAL model,
sent via Facebook to the group of FPT students in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh city, Danang and
Cantho, which are exclusively for FPT students in 5 days (from Monday, 5 July to Friday 9
July, 2021), concerned with a request to answer all the questions and return the questionnaire.
The questionnaire is mailed to respondents who are expected to read and understand the
questions and tick in the checkbox for the purpose in the questionnaire itself. The respondents
have to answer the questions on their own. Respondents onlines submitted the survey, and the
data was collected and saved in an excel file.

With the application of the online survey, 260 usable answers have been obtained. Online
surveys have several advantages over traditional surveys: not restricted to a particular
geographical location (Shankar et al., 2003), lower costs (Shankar et al., 2003), faster responses
(Shankar et al., 2003), and more interesting (Edmonson, 1997). This survey collected 276
responses, deleted 16 invalid answers, and retained 260 valid answers.

3. Data Analysis Method

SPSS is a tool to examine causal and effect relationships between a set of independent
variables, where these sets of independent variables do not involve a categorical variable paired
with one categorical dependent variable.

Data analysis generally begins with the calculation of a number of summary statistics such as
the mean, median, etc., and by creating informative graphical displays of the data such as
histograms, box plots, and stem-and-leaf plots. The aim at this stage is to describe the general
distributional properties of the data, to identify any unusual observations (outliers) or any
unusual patterns of observations that may cause problems for later analyses to be carried out
on the data. (Descriptions of all the terms in italics can be found in Altman, 1991.). Following
the initial exploration of the data, statistical tests may be applied to answer specific questions
or to test particular hypotheses about the data.

10
For example, to check whether there was any human error in data, we encode the data, then by
running the mean, median, minimum and maximum, we can check if the data demand the
standard. This process is called the data cleaning check.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a quantitative analysis method used to reduce a set of
many interdependent measures into a smaller set of variables (called factors) so that they are
significant but still contain most of the information content of the original set of variables (Hair
et al. 2009). The two main goals of EFA analysis are to determine the number of factors
affecting a set of measurement variables and the intensity of the relationship between each
factor and each measurement variable.

Hair et al. (2009) suggested that to use EFA the sample size should be at least 50, preferably
100. Mr. Hair suggested, try to maximize the observation ratio per measurement of 5:1, that is,
for every measure variable, a minimum of 5 observations is required. In the survey, except for
demographic questions, our survey has 26 questions (26 x 5 = 130). While our survey collected
276 responses, deleted 16 invalid answers and kept 260 valid answers. It means the sample size
we collected qualifies us for EFA.

The reliability test of Cronbach's Alpha scale is also used to analyze the data in the study. This
is a test that reflects the degree of close correlation between observed variables in the same
factor. It shows which of the observed variables of a factor has contributed to the measure of
the factor concept. The Cronbach's Alpha results of the good factor show that the observed
variables measuring the factor are reasonable, showing the characteristics of the parent factor.
To assess the reliability of the scale, we apply the criteria in testing the reliability of the
Cronbach's Alpha scale:

● If a measurement variable has a correlation coefficient of the total variable

(Corrected Item - Total Correlation) greater than or equal to 0.3, that variable meets
the requirements (Source: Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York,
McGraw - Hill)

● Value of Cronbach's Alpha coefficient

Testing hypotheses will be used to see if the hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 are appropriate and
correct by determining the MEAN value which is equal to the mean of each hypothesis's
responses. New variables are created and we have regression analysis with newly created large
variables. Satisfaction as a dependent variable and five independent variables: efficiency,

11
reliability, responsibility, assurance, security/privacy. From the result of variables
entered/removed table, we can see these independent variables are useful or not to predict the
dependent variable.

Moreover, regression analysis also determines whether the samples taken support this model
through model summary and overall fit statistics.

● R square explains what percentage of the difference changes in the dependent

variable

● The adjusted R square shows how much of the independent variable explains the
dependent variable. The model meets the requirements when the adjusted R square
is equal or greater than 0.5, which means at least 50% of the dependent variable are
explained.

● The Durbin-Watson d, 1.5 < d < 2.5, shows that there is no first order linear
autocorrelation in our multiple linear regression data.

If the F-test is highly significant (Sig. < 0.05) in ANOVA table, we assume that the model
explains a significant amount of the variance in Dependent variable (in our model:
Satisfaction).

Through multiple linear regression, the Coefficients table shows the effect of independent
variables on the dependent variable. In our research, we can know the effects of efficiency,
reliability, responsibility, assurance, security/privacy on satisfaction.

● The unstandardized beta-coefficients: each b-coefficient indicates the average

increase in dependent variable associated with a 1-unit increase in a predictor.

● The standardized beta-coefficients (standardized regression coefficients) tell us

the relative strengths of our predictors (independent variables) and show which
variable has the strongest predictor. The larger the standardized beta-coefficients,
the greater the predictor ability.

● At the same time determine whether the independent variables depend on each
other or not. Multicollinearity in the multiple linear regression model is calculated
by VIF index.

12
Rule of thumb: a beta-coefficient is statistically significant if its p-value < 0.05 (Sig.). ->
independent variables can explain the dependent variable.

Tolerance > 0.1 or VIF < 10

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The demographic characteristics of respondents were as follows:
The online survey was evaluated by students studying at FPT University's campuses across the
country, including Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Danang, and Cantho. In which, 55.4% are male,
41.5% are female and 3.1% others. Besides, the percentage of students participating in the
survey from Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, Da Nang, Can Tho is 72.3%, 22.7%, 3.5% and 1.5%
respectively. The students who are taking courses are K13 accounted for 38.8%, K14 accounted
for 29.6%, K15 accounted for 12.3%, K16 accounted for 19.2%. In addition, the students who
filled out the survey are studying in 5 main majors of the university, of which the 2 majors with
the largest number are Business Administration with 43.8% and second is Information
Technology with 39.2%.

Table 1: KMO and Bartlett’s Test

- KMO test > 0.7

- The significance level of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 0,000 (less than 0.05).
Our KMO test is 0.923 so it allows us to make sure that the data we have is suitable for running
factor analysis.
Test the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate that
our variables are unrelated and therefore unsuitable for structure detection. Small values (less
than 0.05) of significance indicate that factor analysis can be useful with our data. And our
result is 0.0

Every single value of MSA (Measurement of Sampling Eligibility) in our results table is greater
than 0.5 so the indicators are worth analyzing. Table 2

13
Table 3: Communalities

14
The Communalities value is the degree to which an item is correlated with all other items.
Large Communalities values are better. If the Communalities value of a variable is low
(between 0.0-0.4), then the variable shows signs of loading multiple factors at the same time.
In the table below, you should define low values in the "Extraction" column. A low value
indicates which variables to discard after you check the pattern matrix or the rotated component
matrix. The threshold criterion of Communalities value > 0.4 is acceptable.

15
 Table 4: Total Variance Explained

This value represents how much the factors are condensed and what percentage of the observed
variables are lost based on the 100% rating. This value should be at greater or equal to 50%,
then the EFA model is suitable.

16
In the Total Variance Explained table in the column Cumulative % needs to have a value of
greater than 50% and in our results table all Cumulative values equal to 61,781% are obtained.
So our model is suitable.

Table 5: EFA factor analysis

- Factor loading ≥ 0.5

- One variable is strongly correlated to one component.
The rotated component matrix shows that:
● The first component (1) is measured by:

17
 ● The second component (2) is measured by: SP_1, SP_2, SP_3, SP_4 => we
interpret component (2) as “Security and Privacy”
● The third component (3) is measured by: RELI_4 => we interpret component
(3) as “Reliability ”
● The fourth component (4) is measured by: RES_2, RES_3, RES_4 => we
interpret component (4) as “Responsibility ”

Table 6.1: Analysis of the second component (Corrected Item - Total Correlation)

Table 6.1: Analysis of the fourth component (Corrected Item - Total Correlation)

All factor scales have Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.7. The results indicate that all
measurement models are reliable.

18
 Table 7: Variables Entered/Removed

Table 8: Model Summary

- adjusted R2 < 0.5
- Durbin-Watson 1.5 < d < 2.5
The results show that the adjusted R2 of our model is 0,231 with the R Square equal to 0.296.
This means that the linear regression explains 24.6 % of the variance in the data.
The Durbin-Watson d = 1.974. We can assume that there is no first order linear autocorrelation
in our multiple linear regression data.

Table 9: ANOVA

The F-test is highly significant (Sig. < 0.05). We assume that the model explains a significant
amount of the variance in Customer satisfaction.

19
 Table 10: Coefficients Commented [1]:

- Tolerance > 0.1 or VIF < 10

- Significance value of Beta-coefficient (Sig.) < 0.05

The table shows that Reliability has an impact on Student's satisfaction. Our regression model
is dictated as follow:
Student's satisfaction = 1,082 + 0.251*Reliability.
The results also show that Assurance is the strongest predictor with (β = 0.547). Reliability (β
= 0.246) has lesser impact.
Efficiency and Responsibility have no significant impact on student's satisfaction.
These findings help us to support or reject our hypotheses. Our hypotheses that Reliability are
correlated with student's satisfaction are supported. The hypotheses that Efficiency, Security/
Privacy, Assurance and Responsibility will have an effect on student's satisfaction are rejected.
The examination of excessive multicollinearity shows that the VIF were scrutinized. All VIF
values are within the range of 1,879 to 3,206. Multicollinearity problem does not influence the
regression estimates.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

20
In this paper, we have presented an empirical investigation on the quality of web services using
the E-SERVQUAL system. The proposed study of this paper has been implemented to measure
the quality of Google Meet, an online support platform for learners , which is used by FPT
university. Findings indicated that Reliability and total online service quality of Google Meet
has impacts on students satisfaction. Other variables including Efficiency, Responsiveness,
Assurance, and Security/Privacy were not in sufficient level. Future research in designing and
improving the platform will contribute to website managers for increasing customers'
satisfaction and loyalty. It will be fruitful to help organizations evaluate their web-based service
quality, design improvements and finally embed their websites into future services to achieve
customer satisfaction.

References
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O., & Avci, T. (2003). The effects of management
commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 272–286.
Chang, H.H. (2007). Critical factors and benefits in the implementation of customer
relationship management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(5),
483–508.
Chiu, H.C., Hsieh, Y.C., & Kao, C.Y. (2005). Website quality and customer’s behavioral
intention: An exploratory study of the role of information asymmetry. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 16(2), 185–198.
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.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-Qual: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213–233.
Van Riel, Allard C. R., Semeijn, J., & Pauwels, P. (2004) Online Travel Service Quality: the
Role of Pre-Transaction Services. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
15(4), 475-493.White, H., & Nteli, F. (2004). Internet banking in the UK: Why are there
not more customers? Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 9 (1), 49–56.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A. & Malhotra, A. (2000). A conceptual framework for
understanding service quality: Implications for future research and managerial practice.
Working Paper, Report Nr. 00–115 (Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute).
Zeithaml, V.A, Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 1–52.

21
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22.
Zeithaml, V.A. Parasuraman, A., & Berry, .L.L. (1990). Developing Quality Service:
Balancing Customer Perception and Expectations. The Free Press, New York.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2001). A conceptual framework for
understanding E-service quality: Implication for future research and managerial practice.
MSI Working Paper Series, No. 00-115. Cambridge, MA.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). Service quality delivery through web
sites: A critical review of extant knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 30(4), 362– 375.

Appendices
Questionnaire

Construct Question_Item
Satisfaction Based on all of my experience with Google Meet, I feel satisfied
Downloading speed of GG Meet is in favorable level
Main information finding is in favorable level

Navigation in GG Meet is in favorable level

Efficiency
Notifications finding is in favorable level

Not amaze user in GG Meet

Exiting speed from website is in favorable level

User relying on GG Meet performance
24-hours GG Meet is in favorable level

Not have error in downloading of GG Meet is in favorable level

Reliability
Fast downloading links is in favorable level

Accuracy of presented information is in favorable level

Understandable information is in favorable level

Inform user when GG Meet in problem
Responsibility Compensate to user when GG Meet in problem

Online or phone contact with user

22
 Having online representations

Fast reaction to problems

Thirst to help to user in emergent conditions

Attention to ordered services
On time service delivery
Assurance Fast ratification transmission for entered information

Adjustment between presented service and expected service is in favorable

level
Enough concern to inter user information
User confidence to entered information (except credit card information)
Security/privacy
GG Meet confidence to retain credit card information

User confidence to not abuse of personal information

Gender Your gender?
Grade What grade are you?

Major What is your major?

Campus Which campus of FPT University do you study at?

Use Do you use Google Meet

Table 2

23