Other Service Quality Models Applied in Higher Education

In addition to the widely implemented SERVQUAL model, various models have been

developed and implemented to asses service quality in the context of higher education. A service performance model (SERVPERF) was developed by Cronin and Taylor (1992), derived from SERVQUAL initial model, using all 5 major dimensions but concentrating solely on customers’ perception, denoted by (P) in SERVQUAL, and ignoring expectations (E). The SERVPERF model has been adopted by different researchers (Oliver, 1993; McAlexendder et al., 1994). Based on their feedback, they claimed that measuring the perception of the customer using performance only (SERVPERF model) outperforms the perception-expectation gap model (SERVQUAL model). However, Parasuraman et al. (1996) questioned SERVPERF practicality. This is against what Taylor and Cronin’s findings who stated that performance-based measure (SERVPERF) has the edge

compared to SERVQUAL measure. According to Parasuraman et al. (1996), a perfect service quality scale is psychometrically correct and diagnostically vigorous enough to give insights to the managers for curative conducts in the event of shortcomings. The authors stated that managers are more

26

interested in the identification of shortfalls and the gaps between customers’ perceptions and expectations than the accurate identification of perception of service quality only.

In their study, Abdullah et al. (2006a) modified the SERVPERF model, so it could fit more the higher education context. Thus, they have developed an upgraded version based on performance- only measures, called the higher education performance ( HEDPERF) model. The model has 2 sections; the first targets the participants information and profile and the second deals with various aspects of higher education services. They identified 6 dimensions being suitable for the

Malaysian higher education sector: reputation, understanding, academic aspects, non-academic aspects, program issues and access.

Considering the different service quality models developed by various researchers, Brochado (2009) compared the performance of different service quality models including HEDPERF,

SERVPERF, and importance-weighted SERVQUAL. In terms of the reliability and validity criteria, the author reported that the HEDPERF and SERVPERF models yield the highest scores.

Nevertheless, a combined HEDPERF-SERVPERF model was developed in 2006 by Abdullah (2006b). The dimensions of the new model included academic aspects, non-academic aspects, empathy and reliability. However, Abdullah (2006c) compared the three models (HEDPERF, SERVPERF and HEDPERF-SERVPERF) and found that the HEDPERF model was a better fit for the higher education sector. However, most of Abdullah (2006) study was concentrated on the Malaysian higher education institutions only, and thus limits the generalization of his research’s result across the overall context of higher education. Therefore, his studies require additional investigation and testing to evaluate the feasibility and validity of the HEDPERF model as an effective model for the higher education sector.

Moreover, Martilla and James (1977) proposed the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) model derived from the SERVQUAL model. Following some criticism, this initial IPA model was later adjusted by O’Neil and Palmer (2004) in order to suit the education sector. Despite the fact that the IPA model is based primarily on performance, it also considers the priority that the

customers give to each of the service features. Thus, it relies on what customers perceive as being important and attempts to categorize the importance of service quality dimensions with respect to the customers. In the regard, the importance aspect is what makes IPA model more convenient because it depends on consumers’ perceptions of what is important. In addition, service quality was evaluated largely using importance or performance paradigm (Ennew et al., 1993). Unlike

SERVQUAL model, the scale was customized to a five-point scale rather than a seven-point scale. According to Cox III (1980) there is no single number of points for a scale that is appropriate for all

27

situations or under all circumstances. However, according to Cronbach (1951), the seven-point scale has proved to be more reliable as it allows for a wider differentiation of responses (Finn, 1972; Masters, 1974; Alwin, 1992). For this reason, the seven- point scale will be implemented in this study.

Compared to the previous models, O’Neil and Palmer (2004) considered the IPA model more convenient for higher education, as past, current and future student perceptions of actual

performance can be correlated. IPA develops research results to look like a graph to aim at exact service improvement, considering that the quality cannot be improved unless it is regularly

measured (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). The model dimensions are divided into 4 quadrants s shown in Fig. 2.5, where each quadrant characterizes simultaneous relations between importance and performance, being either high or low. Low ratings are not expected to have a big impact on the overall perceptions, but higher ratings are most probably going to have a crucial role in determining customer satisfaction (Barsky, 1995). Items in Quadrant 1 need exceptional attention since they rank high in importance but rate low in performance. In Quadrant 2, both importance and

performance are ranked highly which means that keeping up the good work is crucial at this point. Items in Quadrant 3 are rated lower in both importance and performance. These services are not high priority which requires no additional resources to be assigned to them. Items in Quadrant 4 are rated high in performance, but low in importance. This indicates resources overloading. This also explains the need of having to move the resources that are specifically assigned to these items to a different aspect.

Therefore, IPA is considered a good management tool that is used to increase market opportunities (Raymond & Chu, 2000). In recent years, IPA model has become increasingly popular due to its simplicity, applicability and diagnostic value (Joseph and Joseph, 1997; Ford et al., 1999).

Moreover, IPA was widely applied in several contexts and areas including hospitality and tourism industry, health and education. Nevertheless, IPA was highlighted as a part of a holistic marketing research technique used to analyse the consumer attitudes towards the products or service (Kuo et al., 2011; Lee & Chen, 2015).

28

Figure 2.5 IPA model- Martilla and James (1977)

To overcome the weaknesses of the SERVPERF and HEDPERF models, another model was developed by Sultan and Wong (2010), as the performance higher education (PHED) model. PHED model was implemented to measure the service quality performance at different Japanese universities where only international students participated. Based on the findings, the researchers identified 8 service quality dimensions being the most convenient for the context of the

investigation: capability, dependability, effectiveness, efficiency, semester and syllabus,

competencies, assurance and unusual situation management. However, the study findings could not be generalized as the survey was limited to only international students.

In addition, a recent study by Randheer (2015) adjusted the HEDPERF model by introducing culture (CUL) as an additional dimension of the service quality model, in addition to the 6 dimensions in HEDPERF. As the Arab Gulf cultural aspects and traditions are rooted into the educational system with a very high impact, Randheer (2015) considered and implemented the Arab cultural aspects within the existing HEDPERF model to measure service quality in higher education for 750 business students in 5 different Saudi Arabian universities. They found that the CUL-HEDPERF model with its 7 dimensions: culture, reputation, understanding, access, academic aspects, non- academic aspects and program issues, is more suitable than HEDPERF and SERVPERF models in assessing service quality in higher education institutions in the Gulf region.

Analysing and evaluating the above models developed for service quality assessment, none of these models is completely suitable for service quality measurement within private higher education

29

institutions in Lebanon. With the urgent need for such instrument within the Lebanese higher education sector, modifying an existing model, or proposing a new model by combining two or more models together appears to be more reliable in obtaining a more convenient model.