Chapter 3 Conceptual Research Model and Hypotheses Development
3.3 Hypotheses Development
The following hypotheses have been formulated based on a review of the literature as discussed in Chapter2 and focus group discussions as detailed will be discussed in Chapter4.
3.3.1
Hypotheses Relating to Research Objective 1
As suggested by Cronin and Taylor (1994), the dimensional sets of service quality need to be confirmed for each industry setting. Moreover, Ueltschy and Krampf (2001) suggest that service quality scales tend to be culturally sensitive. Social Factors Quality has not been explored or confirmed as a primary dimension of service quality in a higher educational context. However, scholars do report that perceived higher education service quality consists of at least 3 primary dimensions: Interaction Quality, Physical Environment Quality, and Outcome Quality (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2008; Jain, Sinha, & De, 2010; Ling et al., 2010; Mai, 2005).
University students aggregate the perceptions of Interaction Quality, Physical Environment Quality, Outcome Quality, (Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2008), and Social Factors Quality to form their overall higher education service quality perceptions. The primary dimensions of higher education service quality are hypothesized to have a significant positive impact on students’ overall perceptions of service quality. Therefore, the following four hypotheses are formulated:
H1. There is a significant positive relationship between the Interaction Quality primary dimension and students’ overall service quality perceptions.
H2. There is a significant positive relationship between the Physical Environment Quality primary dimension and students’ overall service quality perceptions.
H3. There is a significant positive relationship between the Outcome Quality primary dimension and students’ overall service quality perceptions.
H4. There is a significant positive relationship between the Social Factors Quality primary dimension and students’ overall service quality perceptions.
3.3.2
Hypothesis Relating to Research Objective 2
Several researchers have assessed which primary dimensions have the least and most impact on customers’ overall perceptions of service quality in various industries: such as higher education (Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2008); mobile communications (Clemes, Shu, et al., 2014); accommodation (Clemes, Gan, et al., 2011; Clemes et al., 2009), and online paid services (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006). The findings relating to the primary dimensions in these studies are varied as the results suggest that Outcome Quality is the most important primary dimension (Clemes et al., 2013; Fassnacht & Koese, 2006), while other results indicate that Interaction Quality as the most important (Clemes, Shu, et al., 2014; Clemes et al., 2008). However the relative importance of the four higher education service quality primary dimensions in students’ service evaluations has not been clearly identified. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated in order to determine the most and least important primary dimensions of higher education service quality for HEIs:
H5. Students will vary in their perceptions of the importance of each of the primary dimensions.
3.3.3
Hypotheses Relating to Research Objective 3
Several researchers have investigated the interrelationships between service quality and the higher order constructs in various industries, for example, customers’ perceptions of service quality are proposed to positively affect customer satisfaction (Aga & Safakli, 2007; Brown & Mazzarol, 2009; Clemes, Brush, et al., 2011; Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2009; Clemes, Gan, et al., 2011; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Douglas, McClelland, & Davies, 2008; Lai et al., 2009; Lee, Lee, & Yoo, 2000;
Sumaedi, Bakti, & Metasari, 2011; Tam, 2004), corporate image (e.g. university image) (Aydin & Özer, 2005; Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2009; Hu et al., 2009; Kandampully & Hu, 2007; Lai et al., 2009; Nguyen & Leblanc, 1998), and customer loyalty (Clemes et al., 2009; Cronin et al., 2000; Dado, Petrovicova, Cuzovic, & Rajic, 2012; Kyle et al., 2010; Lai et al., 2009; Qin & Prybutok, 2008; Saha & Theingi, 2009). The interrelationships can be assessed in a higher educational context since students are regarded as customers of institutions (Yousapronpaiboon, 2014; Helgesen, 2008).
Moreover, Astin (1999) and Hernandez et al. (1999) suggest that there is a relationship existing between students’ perceptions of service quality and student involvement. However, to date, no empirical research has investigated these interrelationships within the higher educational context. Therefore, the following four hypotheses are formulated:
H6: Higher perceptions of Service Quality positively affect Student Satisfaction.
H7: Higher perceptions of Service Quality positively affect University Image.
H9: Higher perceptions of Service Quality positively affect Student Loyalty.
However, some researchers have confirmed a direct, significant relationship between service quality and customer loyalty (Clemes et al., 2009),and service quality and student loyalty (Annamdevula & Bellamkonda, 2016), while others indicate an insignificant causal path between service quality and customer loyalty (Cronin et al., 2000; Hu et al., 2009; Osman & Sentosa, 2013), and service quality and student loyalty (Perin et al., 2012). As suggested in the literature, the relationship between service quality and customer loyalty may be mediated by customer satisfaction (Kuo et al., 2013; Yu & Ramanathan, 2012). In the higher educational context, the possible mediation effect between Service Quality and Student Loyalty has not been tested. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H10: Student Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Service Quality and Student Loyalty.
Within the higher educational context, University Image is proposed to positively affect both Student Satisfaction (Alves & Raposo, 2010; Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2008; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007b; Kuo & Ye, 2009) and Student Loyalty (Standifird, 2005; Bush et al., 1998; Sevier, 1994). Therefore, the following two hypotheses are formulated:
H11: Higher University Image positively affects Student Satisfaction.
H12: Higher University Image positively affects Student Loyalty.
Student Involvement is proposed to have a positive impact on both Student Satisfaction (Mavondo et al., 2004; Astin, 1999; Hernandez et al., 1999) and University Image (Astin, 1999; Hernandez et al., 1999). However, to date, no other published studies have empirical examined the interrelationship between Student Involvement and Student Loyalty. No research to date has tested Student
Involvement as a mediating variable betweenService Quality and Student Satisfaction/Service Quality and University Image. Therefore, the following five hypotheses are formulated:
H13: Higher Student Involvement positively affects Student Satisfaction.
H14: Higher Student Involvement positively affects University Image.
H15: Higher Student Involvement positively affects Student Loyalty.
H16: Student Involvement mediates the relationship between Service Quality and Student Satisfaction.
Further, Student Satisfaction is proposed to positively influence Student Loyalty (Brown & Mazzarol, 2009; Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2008; Helgesen & Nesset, 2009; Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005; Schertzer & Schertzer, 2004). Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H18: Higher Student Satisfaction positively affects Student Loyalty.
3.3.4
Hypotheses Relating to Research Objective 4
Previous research within the higher educational context (Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes et al., 2008) indicate that students’ perceptions of higher education service quality, satisfaction, university image, and future behavioural intentions, may vary according to students’ demographic factors; such as gender, age, years-of-study, and study major. Krause & Coates (2008) suggest that different students may have different levels of student involvement. Gender is noted as a demographic variable that may moderate the interrelationships among the higher order constructs in various service industries (e.g. Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Kwun, 2011; Humbert & Drew, 2010). The focus groups used that took part in this study recommend that the Years-of-study can be an important demographic variable that may moderate the interrelationships among the constructs in the higher educational context. However, published studies on exploring the gender difference and Years-of-study difference of student perceptions relating to the interrelationships among the higher order constructs in the higher education industry are sparse.Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated to test whether or not the perceptions of the interrelationships among the higher order constructs are different between the First Year and Third Year students, and between Males and Females:
H19. Student perceptions relating to interrelationships among Service Quality, Student Satisfaction, Student Involvement, University Image, and Student Loyalty will differ between the First Year and Third Year students.
H20. Student perceptions relating to interrelationships among Service Quality, Student Satisfaction, Student Involvement, University Image, and Student Loyalty will differ between Males and Females.
Figure 3-1 Proposed Conceptual Research Model and Hypotheses