SERVICE QUALITY, PERCEIVED VALUE FOR MONEY, AND STUDENT SATISFACTION: THE COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITY IN THAILAND
Keywords:
Service Quality, Perceived Value For Money, Satisfaction, UniversityAbstract
The study aims to examine the effect of service quality and perceived value for money on student satisfaction with their university, and to compare their effects between that of students in public and private university in Thailand. This research is a quantitative research. The data were collected from fourth year students in two public universities and two private universities. The hypothesized relationships were tested by structural equation modeling. The results of the analysis indicate that service quality has both direct and indirect significant effect on satisfaction at 0.01 significant level while perceived value for money is the mediator. In addition, perceived value for money has significant direct effect on satisfaction at 0.01 significant level. These two variables are able to predict satisfaction at 76 percent (R2=0.76). Moreover, the results indicate that the effect of service quality on satisfaction and the effect of perceived value for money on satisfaction are significantly different between student of public and private universities at 0.01 significant level.
References
Al-Alak, B. A., &Alnaser, A. S. M. (2012). Assessing the relationship between higher education service quality dimensions and student satisfaction. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(1), 156-164.
Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P. K., & Ragavan, N. A. (2016). Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 70-94.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management,18(5), 571-588.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
Baker, D., & Crompton, J. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. The Journal of Marketing, 71-84.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
Churchill, G. A. J., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491-504.
Crompton, J. L., & Love, L. L. (1995). The predictive validity of alternative approaches to evaluating quality of a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 11-24.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 24(1), 3.
Dlacic, J., Arslanagic, M., Kadic-Maglajlic, S., Markovic, S., & Raspor, S. (2014). Exploring perceived service quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1-2), 141-157.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. The Journal of Marketing, 60, 7-18.
Galeeva, R. B. (2016). SERVQUAL application and adaptation for educational service quality assessments in Russian higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(3), 329-348.
Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behavior. Tourism Management, 27, 437-452.
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis, (6thed.) New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halstead, D., Hartman, D., & Schmidt, S. L. (1994). Multisource effects on the satisfaction formation process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 114-129.
Hertzman, J. and Ackerman, R. (2010). Evaluating quality in associate degree culinary arts programs. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 209-226
Hasan, H. F. A., Ilias, A., Rahman, R. A., & Razak, M. Z. A. (2009). Service quality and student satisfaction: A case study at private higher education institutions. International Business Research, 1(3), 163.
Hu, H. H., Kandampully, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2009). Relationships and impacts of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 111-125.
Ilyas, A., Nasir, H., Hussain, F., Malik, M. R., Munir, S., & Sarwar, Z. (2013). Evaluating business schools service quality using SERVQUAL model. Journal of Basic Applied Science Research, 3(5), 710-6.
Khodayari, F., & Khodayari, B. (2011). Service quality in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(9), 38-46.
Kline, R. B. (1988). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: The Guiford Press.
Lampley, J. H. (2001). Service quality in higher education: Expectations versus experiences of doctoral students. College and University, 77(2), 9.
Leslie, L. L., & Brinkman, P. T. (1987). Student price response in higher education: The student demand studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(2), 181-204.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.
McDougall, G. H., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services marketing, 14(5), 392-410.
Mechinda, P., Serirat, S., & Gulid, N. (2009). An examination of tourists’ attitudinal and behavioral loyalty: Comparison between domestic and international tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(2), 129-148.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer percep. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12.
Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002). An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 38-45.
Oliver, R. L., & Rust, R. T. (1994). Service quality: Insights and managerial implication from the frontier. Journal of Service Quality, 15(4), 32-43.
Sandmaung .M. & Khang, D. B. (2013). Quality Expectations in Thai Higher Education Institutions: Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(3), 260-281.
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Sörbom, D. (1987).The detection and correction of specification errors in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 17, 105-129.
Tan, K. C., & Kek, S. W. (2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach. Quality in higher education, 10(1), 17-24.
Telford, R., & Masson, R. (2005). The congruence of quality values in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education,13(2), 107-119.
Yousapronpaiboon, K. (2014). SERVQUAL: Measuring higher education service quality in Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1088-1095.
Yusof, A. R. M., Hassan, Z. F., Rahman, S. A., & Ghouri, A. M. (2012). Educational service quality at public higher educational institutions: A proposed framework and importance of the sub-dimensions. International Journal of Economics Business and Management Studies, 1(2), 36-49.
Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141-1158.
Zeithaml, A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value:A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2-22.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Content and information of the article published at Suthiparithat Journal are based on the sole opinions and responsibility of author(s) only. Neither the editorial board involve in......
