Masterarbeit, 2009
77 Seiten
1. Introduction
1.1 The Background
1.2 The SERVQUAL Metric
1.3 The SERVPERF Metric
1.4 Criticisms on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
1.5 The Problem Statement
1.6 Objectives of Research
1.7 Significance of this Research
2. Literature Review
2.1 Service Quality Research
2.2 The Service Quality Models
2.2.1 Gronroos' Service Quality Model
2.2.2 The SERVQUAL Model
2.2.3 The SERVPERF Model
2.2.4 The Three-Component Model
2.2.5 The Multilevel Model
2.3 Discussion on Service Quality Models
2.4 Metric Development
3. Structural Models, Hypothesis & the Metric
3.1 The Structural Model
3.2 Research Hypothesis
3.3 Metric Preparation
4. Research Methodology
4.1 Nature of Research and the Variables
4.2 Research Framework
4.3 Sample Selection and its Rationale
4.4 Development of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Metric
4.5 Organizational Profile and Demographics
4.6 Reliability, Validity and Practicality
4.6.1 Reliability of the Instrument
4.6.2 Validity of the Instrument
4.7 Practicality of the Instrument
4.8 Data Collection Strategies
4.9 Statistical Procedures
4.10 Types of Data Analysis
5. Analysis and Results
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
5.2 Reliability Analysis
5.3 Distribution Pattern
5.4 Factor Analysis
5.5 Comparisons of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
5.5.1 Department-wise Comparison
5.5.1.1 Electronics Engineering Department
5.5.1.2 Computer Science & Engineering Dept.
5.5.1.3 Mechanical Engineering Department
5.5.2 Institution-wise Comparison
5.5.3 Dimension-wise Comparison
6. Findings, Implications & Conclusions
6.1 Findings
6.2 Implications
6.3 Scope for future work
6.4 Conclusions
The primary objective of this research is to empirically investigate whether the two prominent service quality measurement instruments, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, yield concurrent results or differ significantly when applied to the higher education sector, specifically an engineering institute.
1.2. The SERVQUAL Metric
Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1990) developed SERVQUAL, which was originally measured on 10 aspects of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding or knowing the customer, and tangibles. It measured the gap between customer expectations and experience. By the early nineties the authors had refined the model to the useful acronym RATER: 1. Reliability - ability to perform the promised service accurately and dependably. 2. Assurance - knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence. 3. Tangibles – physical facilities, equipment, and the appearance of personnel. 4. Empathy - caring and individualized attention to customers. 5. Responsiveness - willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service.
The SERVQUAL instrument consists of a 22-items for assessing service quality based on customer’s perceptions, which is, by his turn, the difference between the customer’s perceived quality and customer expectation. The perceived quality is assessed based on service quality dimensions that correspond to the criteria used by consumers when assessing service quality. There are 10 potentially overlapping dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, communication, credibility, assurance, competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing the customer, and access. A more detailed description of those dimensions can be found in Zeithan et al. (1990). Afterwards, these dimensions were reduced to five, namely: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy. Using those 10 or 5 dimensions as the evaluation criteria the specification of service quality becomes the gap between customers’ Expectations and their Perceptions (Parasuraman et al, 1985). This performance-expectation model was also adopted by other authors (e.g. Brown and Swartz, 1989).
1. Introduction: Outlines the background of service quality measurement, the significance of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics, and defines the research problem and objectives.
2. Literature Review: Provides a comprehensive chronological overview of service quality research, discusses prominent models, and explores academic criticisms of existing metrics.
3. Structural Models, Hypothesis & the Metric: Presents the structural model for this study, defines the research hypotheses, and describes the preparation of the modified questionnaire.
4. Research Methodology: Details the research design, including nature of variables, data collection strategies, reliability and validity tests, and statistical procedures.
5. Analysis and Results: Presents the empirical findings based on descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and comparative performance testing (t-tests and ANOVA) across departments.
6. Findings, Implications & Conclusions: Synthesizes the results, discusses implications for educational service providers, outlines limitations, and provides concluding remarks.
Service Quality, SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, Higher Education, Engineering Education, Customer Perception, Gap Analysis, Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, Responsiveness, Statistical Analysis, Instrument Validation, Educational Management.
The research focuses on conducting a comparative empirical study of the two most widely used service quality metrics, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, to determine if they produce consistent results.
The study is conducted within the higher education sector, specifically analyzing service quality in a private engineering college.
SERVQUAL defines service quality as the gap between customer perception and expectation (P-E), whereas SERVPERF measures service quality solely based on customer perception.
The study utilizes descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha for reliability, factor analysis, rank order correlation, paired sample t-tests, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
The research concludes that there is a significant difference in the outcomes of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF; they do not concur, implying they measure service quality differently.
The five key dimensions analyzed are Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness.
The original instruments were designed for general service sectors; therefore, modifications were necessary to tailor the items to the specific educational context of an engineering institute.
The study suggests that institutions should prioritize enhancing 'Human Factors', specifically focusing on Empathy (individualized student attention) and Assurance (faculty training), which were identified as weaker dimensions.
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!

