measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system

7/28/2019 measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system

1/33

2013

NILANGSHU DUTTA(M-11-11)

PARITOSH KOTWAL(M-11-12)

RAHUL BHARADWAJ(M-11-13)

SHEKHAR JYOTI DUTTA(M-11-14

MEASURING THE SERVICE QUALITY GAP IN

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES


2/33

ABSTRACT

The government educational system of India has lost its sheen with todays parents.

Even educated institutions are disassociating themselves with the AICTE and the

UGC. This could either be due to globalization and privatization or due to a major

cut in government finances in the higher educational system. With the educational

system widely unchanged for over five decades and management quota allotments

rampant among the private institutions, the Indian educational system needs to be

looked at from a different perspective.

Education is a service directly influenced by the Service provider, and the

effectiveness of the services offered depends on the quality of the academic

services offered. As colleges continue to become student oriented, understanding

students perceptions, services offered are becoming more important. Assessment

and the quality of educational services have been the dominant area in the present

context of education.

In this paper, we have started with the concept of service quality using the model of

service quality gaps. SERVQUAL as an effective approach will be studied and its role

in the analysis of the difference between customer expectations and perceptions

will be highlighted. The GAPS model will also be used to measure the various service

quality gaps.

We will make a primary survey of students from various educational institutes using

a standard questionnaire and then analyze the data to see where the gaps exist

which can be filled.


3/33

Service firms like other organizations are realizing the significance of customer-

centered philosophies and are turning to quality management approaches to help

managing their businesses. The study will outline the fact that although SERQUAL

could close one of the important service quality gaps associated with external

customer services, it could be extended to close other major gaps and therefore, it

could be developed in order to be applied for internal customers, i.e. employees and

service providers.


4/33

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Dr. Kavita Srivastava, for her

assiduous guidance, timely suggestions and co-operation at every step, which have been

invaluable in executing the project. Her suggestions & critique form the backbone of this

report.

We wholeheartedly thank all the people who generously gave us their time and filled out

the questionnaire for us and also gave us valuable insights. We also acknowledge the help

received from various people who were directly or indirectly involved with this project.

Last but not the least, we would like to thank our parents and family for their hard work

and also our classmates who took some time out of their busy schedule to discuss the

project report and gave their valuable insights about the manuscript.

Yours Faithfully

Shekhar Jyoti Dutta(M-11-14)

Rahul Bhardwaj(M-11-13)

Paritosh Kotwal(M-11-12)

Nilangshu Dutta(M-11-11)


5/33

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Education System ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 10

SERVQUAL .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Tangibility........................................................................................................................................... 10

Responsiveness .................................................................................................................................. 11

Assurance ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Empathy ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Importance ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Tangibility........................................................................................................................................... 11

Responsiveness .................................................................................................................................. 11

Assurance ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Empathy ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 12

DEFINITIONS: ......................................................................................................................................... 12

Gap .................................................................................................................................................... 12

Perception .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Expectation ........................................................................................................................................ 12

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 15

Research Work ........................................................................................................................................... 15

Research Objective ................................................................................................................................. 15

Research Design ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 16

Sample Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 16

Presentation & Analysis of Results ............................................................................................................. 17

Interpretation of Results ............................................................................................................................ 19

ANNEXURE-I ............................................................................................................................................... 23

QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................................................... 23

ANNEXURE-II .............................................................................................................................................. 26


6/33

Table-1 ................................................................................................................................................... 26

Table -2A ................................................................................................................................................ 26

TABLE 2B ................................................................................................................................................ 28

TABLE 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 28

TABLE 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 29

TABLE 5 ....................... ........................... ......................... .......................... ........................... ................. 30


7/33


8/33

IntroductionIn todays world the word service holds a lot importance both statistically and

theoretically. In todays world consumer- marketer relationship has evolved to its

highest form which is relationship stage. The concept of consumer loyalty measures

the sustainability of the company and its products among the competitors in the

market.

As the market grows competition grows and subsequently the power of bargain

goes more to the hands of consumers. This is the reason why people are becoming

more demanding and their endless needs are becoming very dynamic in nature.

So to make customers loyal, companies not only meet their needs but try to exceed

their expectations to make a positive association and increase their brand equity.

So in order to make that relationship strong and keep the customer needs fulfilled,

there has to be some mechanism which can be used as tools to assess and monitor

the performance.

But it is necessary to understand that service processes are different from

manufacturing processes, especially due to their intangible nature and the direct

participation of clients. One of the methodologies used are known to be SERVQUAL.

The SERVQUAL model was propounded by Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry in

1985. According to them this model can be used to assess any organization of any

type of service provided.


9/33

Education System

Like all the other service which are intangible in nature, one of the most important

and most scrutinized service sector is the education system in any country. In India

as well we see various public, private and semi-government schools, colleges and

even B-schools. And considering the stat that over 50% of Indian population is

constituted of people aged below 25 years it is very vital for the growth of the

country and its individuals as well that the provided service is of acceptable

standards so we have considered high education services as the area of research.

Higher education institutions are also in search of improvements in teaching service

quality to satisfy the expectations of their students and the market. However, since

education services have very particular characteristics, the SERVQUAL model must

be adapted according to the most important determining factors: reliability,

tangibility, responsibility, security and empathy, as proposed by Parasuraman,

Zeithaml and Berry, 1985.

So the objective of this paper is to adapt SERVQUAL methodology to measure

various gaps in the education service sector and present results with interpretation

and possible solutions for improvement.


10/33

Literature Review

Here we shall provide the necessary literature for readers to build their

understanding and application about the SERVQUAL model.

SERVQUAL

The concept of SERVQUAL comes from SERVICE + QUALITY. The concept was first

presented by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1985.

According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), regardless of the type of

service, consumers basically use the same criteria to assess quality. Service quality is

a general opinion the client forms regarding its delivery, which is constituted by a

series of successful or unsuccessful experiences. Managing gaps in service will help

the company improve its quality. But gaps are not the only means clients use to

judge a service. They can also use five broad-based dimensions as judgment criteria:

reliability, tangibility, responsibility, security and empathy (LOVELOCK, 2001).

These are the Five dimensions which are used to identify and measure various

service gaps which in turn constitutes the major Consumer gap.

ReliabilityIt means whether the company is reliable in providing the service? Whether it fulfills

its promises? Are the company and its services consistently and constantly

performing well?

Tangibility

Whether the service has any tangible aspects associated with it like Machines,

Ambience, people or staff etc?


11/33

Responsiveness

Are the service providers considerably quick in providing service?

Assurance

Are the employees well-informed, educated, compatible and trustworthy to their

job and hence with the customers?

Empathy

Whether the company is able to understand the feeling of the customer? Does it

provide careful and personalized attention?

Importance

Reliability

It is the most important dimension of the service quality because unless the service

is reliable no customer wants to be associated with that.

Tangibility

Since the services are completely intangible hence it is very difficult for the

customer to assess and compare them. So these services need to be associated with

some tangible assets.

Responsiveness

This dimension provides company and employees receptiveness towards the

customer.

Assurance

This dimension encompasses the companys competence, courtesy and precision.


12/33

Empathy

This is a psychological aspect of the service communication. When the customer

accepts that his needs are properly understood by the company.

Methodology

The SERVQUAL method works on various gaps that are created by the actual service

delivery and the promised service. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry have given

various gaps based on the above mentioned dimensions of service quality.

DEFINITIONS:

GapThe gap exists when the perception of the customer is either lags or leads the

expectation. If the perception is more than expectation than the equity is good and

consumer considers the service in high regards. On the other if the perception lags

behind the expectation then it is considered that the service provider is not capable

to provide the optimum service and the dissatisfaction level of customer with that

service increases.

Perception

It is the level of performance which the customer perceives after experiencing the

service.

ExpectationIt is the level of performance which customer had in advance which is generally

formed by any prior search or by any recommendation from a peer or friend.


13/33

SERVQUAL is an instrument to measure quality that stems from this model and

works with the difference in scores (gaps) in the form of a questionnaire. The

models five gaps are shown in below chart.

Source : Parasuraman et al .(1985)


14/33

The SERVQUAL scale (questionnaire) has two sections: one to map client

expectations in relation to a service segment and the other to map perception in

relation to a certain service company.

Source : Parasuraman et al .(1985)


15/33

Methodology

To measure the above gaps we have prepared questionnaire based on consumer

perception & consumer expectation both. These questionnaires comprise all the

above dimensions of SERVQUAL. All the respondents were asked to fill their

responses in a five-point Likert scale.

The questionnaire is a standard questionnaire developed by Parasuraman, A.,

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L (1985) in A conceptual model of service quality and its

implication for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41-50.

The results and the detailed analysis of the results are given in the forthcoming

sections.

Research Work

Research Objective

To identify the present different producer gaps in education service sector and

measure them to assess the total consumer gap.

Research Design

To conduct the research we have used online surveying where 41 respondents all

of whom are students have participated. The participants were mostly students

in either graduate or post graduate colleges because we believe that we could

get more consistent data with this sample.


16/33

Research Methodology

Sample Characteristics

We have surveyed 41 respondents the demographic characteristics are as

follows:

Sex Frequency Education Frequency

Male 23 Graduation &

Post-Grad.

25

Female 18 Graduation &

Post-Grad.

16

Graduate

61%

Post-

Graduate

39%

Education

Male

56%

Female

44%

Sex Ratio


17/33

Presentation & Analysis of Results

As given in Annexure-II the average scores of the respondents as per their

responses are calculated as below:

SERVQUALDIMENSIONS

STATEMENTS

EXPECTEDSERVQUAL(E) MEANSCORE

PERCEIVEDSERVQUAL(P) MEANSCORE

SERVQUALGAP (P-E)

TOTALSERVQUALGAP

TANGIBILITY

V1 4.59 3.8 -0.78

-1.12195

V2 3.8 3.61 -0.20

V3 4 3.95 -0.05

V4 3.71 3.61 -0.10

RELIABILITY

V5 4.59 3.24 -1.34

-4.4878

V6 4.32 3.32 -1.00

V7 3.73 3.32 -0.41

V8 4.41 3.17 -1.24

V9 4.76 4.27 -0.49

ASSURANCEV10(-) 2.59 1.78 -0.80

-3.21951V11(-) 2.69 2.15 -0.34


18/33

V12(-) 3.12 2.49 -1.05

V13(-) 2.76 2.1 -1.02

RESPONSIVENESS

V14 4.24 3.68 -0.56

-2.34146

V15 4.44 3.98 -0.46

V16 4.2 3.83 -0.37

V17 4.54 3.59 -0.95

EMPATHY

V18(-) 2.02 2.12 0.10

-0.21951

V19(-) 2.22 2.07 -0.15

V20(-) 2.37 2.34 -0.02

V21(-) 2.68 2.46 -0.22

V22(-) 2.34 2.41 0.07


19/33

Interpretation of Results

The statistical package, SPSS (17.0), was used to analyze the data received

from the questionnaire.

The Questions were precoded beforehand and the data analyzed usingdescriptive and multivariate statistical analysis.

Paired t-sample tests were performed to see if there were any significant

differences among the perceptions and expectations among students.

All the 22 variables were analyzed w.r.t. the gap scores obtained. They were

factor analyzed to determine the existence of underlying dimensions of

service quality.

A principal component analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation was

conducted on the 22 expectations (expectations scale) and 22 perception

statements (perceptions scale) measuring the service quality. Factors with an

eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 were chosen for interpretation. Only

variables with factor loading coefficients of 0.45 were considered; that is,

items with less than 0.45 were excluded.

A reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha) was performed to test the reliabilityand internal consistency of each of the expectation and perception attributes.

Alpha ranges from 0 to 1, and is a measure of the internal consistency of

multi-item scales. A coefficient alpha of 0.50 or higher is considered to be

adequately reliable for group data purposes.

The aim of this study was to determine the quality gap of educational services

using SERVQUAL. As the results show in all of the five SERVQUAL dimensions,

there is a negative quality gap.

Negative quality gaps mean students' expectations are greater than their

perceptions, and it indicates dissatisfaction. Thus, improvements are needed

across all five SERVQUAL dimensions.


20/33

In this study, the greatest and the least negative quality gap are in the

reliability and empathy dimensions respectively (Table 3). This means that in

the reliability dimension, when the educational institutes promise to do

something by a certain time, they dont do so, When students have problems,

these Educational Institutes should be sympathetic and reassuring, theEducational Institutes should be dependable, they should provide their

services at the time they promise to do so, and the Educational Institutes

should keep their records accurately.

SERVICE DIMENSIONS

SERVICE QUALITY GAP (PERCEPTIONS -

EXPECTATIONS)

TANGIBILITY -1.12195122

RELIABILITY -4.48780488

ASSURANCE -3.2195122

RESPONSIVENESS -2.34146341

EMPATHY -0.2195122

The paired samples statistics (Table 4) was used to test the significant mean

difference (gap) between students' expectations and perceptions of service

quality. Paired samples t-test confirmed the hypothesis that there is a

statistically significant difference between average ratings of expectations and

perceptions by the students, suggesting that respondents distinguishedbetween SERVQUAL dimensions.

As shown in Table 5 and 6 the study used factor analysis to reduce the 22

statements into a set of underlying dimensions or factors that portray the

expectation and perception of the students. In addition, for the purpose of


21/33

quality control of the factors, the data were first tested by KMO and Bartletts

test, a statistical test for the overall significance of all correlations within a

correlation matrix. This indicated that factor analysis could be performed to

further analyze the data.

Factor analysis was applied to 22 statements on expectations and 22

statements on perceptions of higher education services, with responses on 5-

point Likert scale.

Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used in the analysis.

Suitability of factor analysis was determined by correlation and alpha

reliability.

Varimax rotation defined 4 significant factors on the expectations scale and 4

significant factors on the perceptions scale.

A four-dimensional solution in expectations scale, results in the following

factors (refer to Table 5):

Factor 1: Reliability (5 statements, alpha = 0.713)

Factor 2: Assurance and Empathy (9 statements, alpha = 0.778)

Factor 3: Tangibility (4 Statements, alpha = 0.708)Factor 4: Responsiveness (4 Statements, alpha = 0.786)

Varimax rotation defined 4 factors on the perception scale. (Table 6)

Factor 1: Reliability (5 statements, alpha = 0.786),

Factor 2: Tangibility (4 statements, alpha = 0.694),

Factor 3: Responsiveness and empathy (9 statements, alpha = 0.800)

Factor 4: Assurance (4 statements, alpha = 0..771)

The situation in the perception scale confirms four SERVQUAL factors while

four in the expectation scale; factor analysis confirm four factor SERVQUAL

dimensions. Also, reliability analysis was conducted to measure the inside of

each of the factors. Alpha coefficient for the total expectations scale totals

0.782, and for the perceptions scale totals 0.860.


22/33

DISCUSSION

The negative quality gap in service dimensions can be used as a guideline for

planning and allocation of resources (Campbell, J.L., Ramsay, J., Green., J., 2001).

Thus, the five SERVQUAL dimensions can be classified to four priority groups forallocation of resources and organizational attempts to eliminate or reduce negative

quality gaps, so that the responsiveness dimension is placed in the first priority, the

assurance, empathy and tangibles dimensions are placed in the second priority, and

the reliability dimension is placed in the third priority. If the afore mentioned

priorities are taken into account and the quality gap is attended to, the resultant

improved will benefit other dimensions as well; the negative quality gap (or quality

improvements) in one dimension, in the customers' viewpoint, can affect the

negative quality gaps (or quality improvements) in other dimensions (Lamei, A.,

2000.).


23/33

ANNEXURE-I

QUESTIONNAIREThese questionnaire are divided into two parts.

PART-I:

Measuring Customer Expectations:

1. Educational Institutes should have up to date equipment.

2. Educational Institutes physical facilities should be visually appealing.

3. Educational Institutes employees should be well dressed and appear neat.4. The appearance of the physical facilities of the educational institutes should

be in keeping with the type of services provided.

5. When the educational institutes promise to do something by a certain time,

they should do so.

6. When students have problems, these Educational Institutes should be

sympathetic and reassuring.

7. The Educational Institutes should be dependable.

8. They should provide their services at the time they promise to do so.9. The Educational Institutes should keep their records accurately.

10.(-)The Educational Institutes shouldnt be expected to tell students exactly

when services will be performed.

11.(-)It is not realistic for students to expect prompt service from employees of

these educational institutes.


24/33

12.(-)Their employees dont always have to be willing to help students.

13.(-)It is okay of the employees are too busy to respond to students requests

promptly.

14.Students should be able to trust the employees of these educational

institutes.

15.Students should be able to feel safe in their transactions with the employees

of these educational institutes.

16.The employees of these educational institutes should be polite.

17.Their employees should get adequate support from these educational

institutes to do their job well.

18.(-)The educational institutes should not be expected to give students

individual attention.

19.(-)Employees of the educational institutes cannot be expected to give

students personal attention.

20.(-)It is unrealistic to expect employees of these educational institutes to know

what the needs of the students are.

21.(-)It is unrealistic to expect the educational institutes to have their students

best interests in mind.

22.(-)The educational institutes shouldnt be expected to have opening hours

convenient to all their students.

PART-II:

Measuring Customer Perceptions:

1. Your college has up to date equipment.

2. Your colleges physical facilities are visually appealing.

3. Your colleges employees are well dressed and appear neat.

4. The appearance of the physical facilities of your college is in keeping with the

type of services provided.

5. When your college promises to do something by a certain time, they do so.

6. When students have problems, your college is sympathetic and reassuring.

7. Your college is dependable.

8. Your college provides their services at the time they promise to do so.


25/33

9. Your college keeps their records accurately.

10.(-)Your college does not tell students exactly when services will be performed.

11.(-)You do not receive prompt service from employees of your college

12.(-)Employees of your college are not always willing to help you.

13.(-)Employees of your college are too busy to respond to your requests

promptly.

14.You can trust the employees of your college.

15.You feel safe in your transactions with the employees of your college.

16.Employees of your college are polite.

17.Employees get adequate support from your college to do their job well.

18.(-)Your college does not give you individual attention.

19.(-)Employees of your college do not give you personal attention.

20.(-)Employees of your college do not know what your needs are.

21.(-)Your college does not have your best interests at heart.

22.(-)Your college does not have opening hours convenient to all their students.


26/33

ANNEXURE-II

Table-1

Likert Scale:

Score 5 4 3 2 1

Interpretation Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Disagree Highly

Disagree

Table -2A

SERVQUALDIMENSIONS

STATEMENTS

EXPECTEDSERVQUAL(E) MEANSCORE

PERCEIVEDSERVQUAL(P) MEANSCORE

SERVQUALGAP (P-E)

TOTALSERVQUAL

GAP

TANGIBILITY

V1 4.59 3.8 -0.78

-1.12195V2 3.8 3.61 -0.20

V3 4 3.95 -0.05


27/33

V4 3.71 3.61 -0.10

RELIABILITY

V5 4.59 3.24 -1.34

-4.4878

V6 4.32 3.32 -1.00

V7 3.73 3.32 -0.41

V8 4.41 3.17 -1.24

V9 4.76 4.27 -0.49

ASSURANCE

V10(-) 2.59 1.78 -0.80

-3.21951

V11(-) 2.69 2.15 -0.34

V12(-) 3.12 2.49 -1.05

V13(-) 2.76 2.1 -1.02

RESPONSIVENESS

V14 4.24 3.68 -0.56

-2.34146

V15 4.44 3.98 -0.46

V16 4.2 3.83 -0.37

V17 4.54 3.59 -0.95

EMPATHY V18(-) 2.02 2.12 0.10 -0.21951


28/33

V19(-) 2.22 2.07 -0.15

V20(-) 2.37 2.34 -0.02

V21(-) 2.68 2.46 -0.22

V22(-) 2.34 2.41 0.07

TABLE 2B

SERVICEDIMENSIONS

SERVICE QUALITY GAP(PERCEPTIONS - EXPECTATIONS)

TANGIBILITY -1.12195122

RELIABILITY -4.48780488

ASSURANCE -3.2195122

RESPONSIVENESS -2.34146341

EMPATHY -0.2195122

TABLE 3

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 EXPECTATIONS & PERCEPTIONS 22 .879 .000


29/33

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 EXPECTATIONS -

PERCEPTIONS

.51864 .44128 .09408 .32298 .71429 5.513 21 .00

TABLE 4

FACTORS ANDSTATEMENTS

FACTORLOADINGS

CHRONBACHALPHA

FACTOR 1

E5 .808

0.713

E6 .593

E7 .877

E8 .816E9 .906

FACTOR 2

E10 .496

0.778

E11 .615

E12 .884

E13 .725

E18 .816

E19 .816

E20 .838E21 .773

E22 .865

FACTOR 3

E1 .644

0.708E2 .782


30/33

E3 .628

E4 .816

FACTOR 4

E14 .677

0.786

E15 .793E16 .602

E17 .534

TABLE 5

FACTORS ANDSTATEMENTS

FACTORLOADING

CHRONBACHALPHA

FACTOR 1

P5 .829

0.786

P6 .592

P7 .729P8 .750

P9 .662

FACTOR 2

0.694

P1 .583

P2 .644

P3 .764

P4 .727

FACTOR 3

0.8

P14 .817

P15 .549

P16 .478

P17 .702

P18 .830


31/33

P19 .866

P20 .722

P21 .860

P22 .486

FACTOR 4P10 .697

0.771

P11 .825

P12 .717

P13 .793

REFERENCES

Adee A, Bernie OD. Exploring graduates' perceptions of the quality of higher

education. 2007.http://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdf

Anci DT. How satisfied are our students? Quality management unit Office for

institutional effectiveness university of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South

Africa. 2006.

Badri, M.A.; Abdulla, M.; Al-Madani, A.,(2005), Information technology center

service quality, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,

22(8), p.819-848.

Berry LL. Relationship marketing of services-Growing interest, emerging

perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing sciences. 1995;26:76786.

Bolton RN, Drew JH. A Multistage Model of Customers' assessments of service

quality and value. Journal of consumer research. 1991:375384. doi:

10.1086/208564.
http://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdfhttp://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdfhttp://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdfhttp://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdf


32/33

Boulding W, Kalra A, Staelin R, Zeithmal VA. A dynamic process model of service

quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing

Research. 1993;30:727. doi: 10.2307/3172510.

Bradley RB. Analyzing service quality: The case of post-graduate Chinese

students. 2007.

http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documents

Barnes.pdf

Campbell JL, Ramsay J, Green J. Age, gender, socioeconomic and ethnic

differences in patients' assessments of primary health care. Quality in Health

Care. 2001;10:9095. doi: 10.1136/qhc.10.2.90. [PubMed]

Carl AR. Assessing Satisfaction with Selected Student Services using SERVQUAL, a

Market-Driven Model of Service Quality. NASPA Journal. 1998;35:331341.

Carman, J. M., (1990,) Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment

of the SERVQUAL dimension, Journal of Retailing, 69(2): 33-55. Chua Clare.

Perception of Quality in Higher Education. AUQA Occasional Publication. 2007.

http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/program/papers/Chua

Feldman KA. Class size and students' evaluation of college teachers and courses:

A closer look. Research in Higher Education. 1984;21:45116. doi:

10.1007/BF00975035.

Glow KE, Vorhies DW. Building a competitive advantage for service firms. Journal

of services marketing. 1993;7:2232. doi: 10.1108/08876049310026079.

Hedndershoot, Anne B., Sheila P. Wright, And Deborah Henderson (1992).

Quality Of Life Correlates For University Students. NASPA Journal, 30 (1): 11-19.

Kebriaei A, Roudbari M. Quality gap in educational services at Zahedan university

of medical sciences: students viewpoints about current and optimal condition.

Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2005;5:5360.

Kilbourne, W.E., (2004), The applicability of SERVQUAL in crossnational

measurements of health-care quality, Journal of Service Marketing, 18(7); p. 524-

533.
http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documentshttp://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documentshttp://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documents


33/33

LaBay DG, Comm CL. A case study using gap analysis to assess distance learning

versus traditional course delivery. The International Journal of Education

Management. 2003;17:312317. doi: 10.1108/09513540310501003.

Lamei A. Total Quality management in health care. Ministry of Health and

Education of Iran, Quality Improvement Unit; 2000.

Lapidus, Richard S. And Jacqueline J. Brown (1993). Assessing Satisfaction With

The University Experience: An International Perspective. Journal Of Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction And Complaining Behavior, 6(3): 187-196.

Levenson, L.,(2004) The Things That Count: Negative Perceptions Of The

Teaching Environment Among University Academics, 21(3): 34-42.

Long P, Tricker T, Rangecroft M, Gilroy P. Measuring the Satisfaction gap:

Education in the market place. Total quality management. 1999;10:772778.

Markovi, S., (2002), Higher Education Quality measurement: A Case Study in the

Application of SERVQUAL, Congress proceeedings of 17th biennial international

congress Tourism and Hospitality Industry 2004 New trends in Tourism and

Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality

Management Opatija, Croatia.

Marsh HW, Roche L. The use of students' Evaluations and an Individually

Structured Intervention to Enhance University Teaching Effectiveness. American

Educational Research Journal. 1993;30:217251.

Millson F, Kirk-Smith M. The Effect of quality circles on perceived service quality

in financial services Marketing Practice. Applied Marketing Science. 1996;2:75

88. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004137.

Nunnally, J. C., (1967) Psychometric Methods, Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L (1985), A conceptual model of

service quality and its implication for future research, Journal of Marketing,

49(4): 41-50.

Documents

measuring servaqual gap in the indian education system