Service quality in a higher education context: an integrated model

Purpose – The aim of this study is to develop and empirically test an integrated model incorporating the antecedents and consequences of service quality in a higher education context. Design/methodology/approach – This research employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The data from three focus groups, conducted at the Central Queensland University (CQU), Rockhampton, Australia, generated key themes and their interrelationships. The theoretical model was then tested using structural equation modelling technique on a sample of 528 university students. Findings – The findings show that information (marketing communications) is more statistically significant than past experience as the antecedents of service quality. The consequences of service quality are composed of trust, satisfaction, and image. Overall, the results suggest a good validity of the theoretical model and the key paths in the model are found statistically significant, except past experience affecting service quality. Originality/value – The model provides a good explanation of a university brand image, and perceived service quality was found playing an important role in this model. Universities intending to enhance their image are encouraged to consider focusing their efforts on marketing communication information, service quality, student satisfaction and trust. Introduction A marketing approach to examine students' perceptions of service quality in the context of higher education may improve service functions, and attract and retain students. Students look for evidence of quality of services when making an uncertain and high risk decision of choosing a university (Angell et al., 2008; Donaldson and McNicholas, 2004). Ignoring the nature and importance of service quality may not be advantageous for universities in the higher education industry. Australian higher education institutions are some of the popular destinations for students. However, the Bradley report published in December 2008 states that there is a clear sign that the quality of the educational experience is declining. One of the significant recommendations of this study emphasises course experience as perceived by the students (Bradley et al., 2008). Higher education is a pure service that requires greater amount of interpersonal contact. As higher education provision is a service and students are expected to fund their educational expenses, it seems appropriate that universities make a shift from being product‐led, i.e. relying on the product to sell, towards a more customer‐led approach (Angell et al., 2008). The customer‐centric approach (or student‐centred approach) of service quality in educational literature has gained momentum as the increasing cost of education has created a new generation of students with greater awareness than ever before (Stodnick and Rogers, 2008). This approach could also result in improving quality within a higher education context. A number of studies in service quality of higher education (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009; Chitty and Soutar, 2004; Martensen et al., 2000) have empirically examined the applicability of the European customer satisfaction index (ECSI) model, an integrated model developed to measure customer satisfaction in the commercial service sector. The ECSI model considers “corporate image” as a built‐ in variable, and indicates that corporate image is an antecedent to expectation and service quality. While corporate image is built over the years accumulating customers' (and stakeholders') satisfaction and trust, considering corporate image as an antecedent variable may provide little managerial implications when the goal is to build corporate image in a highly competitive market. Although the ECSI model and its instruments are developed based on the commercial service sectors, its applicability in value‐based higher education sector needs careful examination. Improving service quality within a higher education context is often mentioned as an internal goal without any explicit references to what is meant by service quality in higher education. Discussing better quality without defining what it is, how it is perceived by students, what are the antecedents and consequences of quality improvements, how it can be improved and enhanced is of little value. Thus, the aim of this paper is to understand the role of service quality and its antecedents and consequences in an Australian higher education context. More specifically, this study shows the image formation process, in the context of a university, as one of the consequences of service quality evaluation mediated through student satisfaction and student trust. The empirical findings in this study shed light on what affects service quality and how perceived service quality affects institutional image. Policy makers in the higher education industry can make use of the findings to strengthen their universities' image by reinforcing marketing communications, service quality, and student satisfaction and trust. Literature review Service quality: the critical measures and the integrated models The current studies develop a number of measures of service quality in commercial service settings. Of these service quality measures most of the studies have used either the SERVQUAL (perception‐ minus‐expectation) measure (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) or the SERVPERF (perception‐only) measure (Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994). Empirical studies on service quality in terms of relative superiority between the SERVQUAL scale and the SERVPERF scale have been examined. On the one hand, studies find that the SERVPERF scale is a better alternative than the SERVQUAL scale (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brady et al., 2002; Brown et al., 1993; Jain and Gupta, 2004; Zhou, 2004). On the other hand, the SERVQUAL has received much attention as a measure of service quality (Chebat et al., 1995; Furrer et al., 2000; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003). However, one study (Carrillat et al., 2007) states that both the SERVQUAL and the SERVPERF scales have received more than 46 per cent of total citations in service quality literature between 2002 and 2007. Thus, the effectiveness of the SERVQUAL and the SERVPERF scales is often contingent upon the nature and objective of a study. Although there are debates in relation to superiority of these service quality measures, the SERVPERF measure of service quality has been termed as an effective measure for the purpose of explaining variance in dependent constructs (Cronin et al., 2000; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1996). For example, one cross‐sectional study reported that the SERVPERF approach is a superior measure to the SERVQUAL approach in explaining and predicting the overall degree of students' satisfaction (Li and Kaye, 1998). A similar finding is also evident in another longitudinal study (Dabholkar et al., 2000). Dabholkar et al. (2000) use three measures, namely the SERVPERF measure; measured disconfirmation, i.e. explicit comparisons are made in the instruments after the service is received; and computed disconfirmation, i.e. expectations (before the service experience)‐ minus‐perceptions (after the service experience). The findings state that the SERVPERF measure is superior over computed disconfirmation and measured disconfirmation. The study recommends that if the objective of the study is to predict service quality or to gauge its determinants, the SERVPERF measure should be used rather than disconfirmation. In other words, the SERVPERF measure is more appropriate to use in developing an integrated model and explaining causal relationships. Therefore, the present research is centred upon the SERVPERF measure. The SERVPERF measure has been used in the current studies to develop and examine a number of integrated models including the Swedish customer satisfaction barometer (SCSB) (Fornell, 1992), the American customer satisfaction index (ACSI) model (Fornell et al., 1996), and the ECSI model (Cassel and Eklöf, 2001). In contrast, the Norwegian customer satisfaction barometer (NCSB) (Johnson et al., 2001) is conceptualised on the SERVQUAL perspective. The key focus of attention in these models is to determine the extent of customer satisfaction across national level industries. Service quality measures in higher education context Service quality research has been extended to the higher education domain. The current literature attempts to measure functional performances of educational services either following the SERVQUAL or the SERVPERF measures. Appendix 1 shows 15 research studies that followed these measures in order to find the key aspects or dimensions of service quality in various country contexts. These studies are published in the last 14 years. The findings of these studies suggest that dimensions of higher education service quality vary widely in the context of culture, university and even school or department. One of the reasons for this is that student perception is shaped by culture, previous interaction, and experience and marketing communication messages. Dimensions of higher education service quality also vary because of manipulation of research instruments (Stodnick and Rogers, 2008; Angell et al., 2008). Service quality models in higher education context Higher education institutions are service organisations (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2001; Joseph and Joseph, 1997; Sultan and Wong, 2010a). The concept of relationship marketing is of high importance in services marketing, especially, the services that require high‐contact and long‐term contact to get an outcome. Maintaining relationships with tertiary students in a higher education environment can produce long‐term benefit to the university. Several studies have attempted to develop and examine integrated models in the context of higher education. Appendix 2 provides summarised findings of major studies that examined integrated models in the context of higher education. In short, st