Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Student and faculty perceptions of service quality: the moderating role of the institutional aspects

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore key attributes of service quality in the Croatian higher education system. In particular, the study aims to compare student and faculty perceptions of service quality and to identify institutional aspects that may affect the perceptions of these two customers. Principal component analysis is used to define key dimensions of service quality and independent sample t test or one-way between groups ANOVA to analyse the impact of institutional aspects on customer perceptions. The findings of this study showed that students and faculty separate service quality dimensions in a similar manner. The study also provides insight into the effects of institutional aspects on customer perceptions. The results revealed that ownership status, research orientation, and size significantly moderate customer perceptions of the service quality. The findings reported in this paper draw attention to the importance of the customer perceptions in the higher education context and the role of institutional characteristics in the formation of customer perceptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Statistical software PASW Statistics 18 was used to perform empirical analysis in this paper.

  2. PCA analysis was run separately for students and for faculty and the results of those analysis are then compared and interpreted.

  3. Arithmetic mean for each variable on each of five factors separately for students and for faculty was computed and then t tests and one-way between-groups ANOVA were conducted.

References

  • Ali, N. A., Mahat, F., & Ziari, M. (2010). Testing the criticality of HR-TQM factors in the Malaysian higher education context. Total Quality Management, 12(11), 1177–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Turki, U., & Duffuaa, S. (2003). Performance measures for academic departments. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(6/7), 330–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G. (2010). Student perception and central administrative services: The case of higher education in Italy. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 941–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R., & Cole, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on multiplying factors for various Chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(series B), 296–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual, work, and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 154–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J., & Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: a replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55, str. 17–31.

  • Brandon-Jones, A., & Silvestro, R. (2010). Measuring internal service quality: Comparing the gap-based and perception-only approaches. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 30(12), 1291–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2), 174–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58, 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, T. S., McKeachie, W., & Lin, Y. G. (2010). Faculty perception of teaching support and teaching efficacy in Taiwan. Higher Education, 59, 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A., Ghosh, C., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2009). Assessing students’ rating in higher education: A SERVQUAL approach. Total Quality Management, 20(9–10), 1095–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2010). Development of the Australian survey of student engagement (ASSE). Higher Education, 60, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J, Jr, & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extensions. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dužević, I., Miloloža, H., & Delić, M. (2014). Application of Focus Group Interviews for Business Curriculum Development in Higher Education. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(13), 229–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagle, L., & Brennan, R. (2007). Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Díaz, M. J., Carballo Santaolalla, R., & Galán González, A. (2010). Faculty attitudes and training needs to respond the new European Higher Education challenges. Higher Education, 60(1), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firdaus, A. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, R. B., Meyer, L. H., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., & Rees, M. (2012). Faculty and students conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 64(1), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredman, N., & Doughney, J. (2012). Academic dissatisfaction, managerial change and neo-liberalism. Higher Education, 64, 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, J. E. (2012). Linking student effort to satisfaction: The importance of faculty support in creating a gain-loss frame. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16, 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giardini, A., & Frese, M. (2008). Linking service employees’ emotional competence to customer satisfaction: A multilevel approach. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C. (2001). The perceived service quality concept—A mistake? Managing Service Quality, 11(3), 150–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Y., van der Rijst, R., van Veen, K., & Verloop, N. (2014). And never the two shall meet? Comparing Chinese and Dutch university teachers about the role of research in teaching. Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9734-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwarng, H. B., & Teo, C. (2001). Translating customers’ voices into operations requirements—A QFD application in higher education. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 18(2), 195–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kara, A., & DeShields, O. W. (2004). Business student satisfaction, intentions and retention in higher education: An empirical investigation. Marketing Educator Quarterly, 3(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keiser, H. (1974). An indeks of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazibat, T., Baković, T., & Dužević, I. (2014). How perceived service quality influences student satisfaction? Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 25(8), 923–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marković, S. (2006). Student’s expectations and perception in Croatian tourism and hospitality higher education: SERVQUAL versus UNIQUAL. South East Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 78–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, J., & Colohan, G. (2004). Quality or control? Management in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munaf, S. (2009). Motivation, performance and satisfaction among university teachers: Comparing public and private sectors in Pakistan and Malaysia. South Asian Journal of Management, 16(4), 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostroški, Lj (Ed.). (2011). Higher education 2010: Statistical reports. Zagreb: Croatian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1996). A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 521–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, M., & Lee, L. (2011). What makes an upper-division course upper-division? Differing perspectives of students and faculty. The College Quarterly, 14(4). http://www.collegequarterly.ca/2011-vol14-num04-fall/pritchard-lee.html. Accessed December 25, 2013.

  • Qureshi, T. M., Shaukat, M. Z., & Hijazi, S. T. (2010). Service quality SERVQUAL model in Higher Educational Institutions, What factors are to be considered? Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(5), 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosh White, N. (2007). The customer is always right? Student discourse about higher education in Australia. Higher Education, 54(4), 593–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, V. J. (2004). Faculty members’ intention to leave: A national study of their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. F., Healy, R., & Sullivan, J. (2011). Oh, won’t you stay? Predictors of faculty intent to leave a public research university. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9448-5

  • Sadler, I. (2012). The influence of interactions with students for the development of new academics as teachers in higher education. Higher Education, 64(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahney, S., Banwet, D. K., & Karunes, S. (2008). An integrated framework of indices for quality management in education: A faculty perspective. The TQM Journal, 20(5), 502–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandmaung, M., & Khang, D. B. (2013). Quality expectations in Thai higher education institutions: Multiple stakeholder perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(3), 260–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J. C., & Jung, J. (2013). Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9668-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snipes, R. L., Oswald, S. L., LaTour, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2005). The effect of specific job satisfaction facets on customer perceptions of service quality: An employee-level analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1330–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sojkin, B., Bartkowiak, P., & Skuza, A. (2012). Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: The case of Poland. Higher Education, 63, 565–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, M., & Yang, S. U. (2009). Student-university relationship and reputation: A study of the links between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioural intentions towards their university. Higher Education, 57, 787–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutić, I., & Jurčević, M. (2012). Strategic management process and enhancement of quality in higher education. Poslovna izvrsnost/Business Excellence, 4(1), 147–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavares, O., & Cardoso, S. (2013). Enrolment choices in Portuguese higher education: Do students behave as rational customers? Higher Education, 66(3), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Leadership and service quality in higher education—The case of the Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(3), 294–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Porter, S. R. (2002). How do academic department impact student satisfaction? Understanding the contextual effects of departments. Research in Higher Education, 43(2), 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trade, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, J.F.Kennedy Sq. 6, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Ines Dužević

  2. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, J.F.Kennedy Sq. 6, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Anita Čeh Časni

Authors
  1. Ines Dužević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anita Čeh Časni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ines Dužević.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dužević, I., Čeh Časni, A. Student and faculty perceptions of service quality: the moderating role of the institutional aspects. High Educ 70, 567–584 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9857-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9857-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation