JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS

2016, VOL. 91, NO. 3, 148–158

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1145623

An empirical analysis of the service quality gap in business education: Evidence

from higher education in Pakistan
Amber Sardar, Shehla Amjad, and Ubaid Ali
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This survey investigated the relationship and gap between students’ expectations and perceptions expected service; gap;
of perceived service quality of education, emphasizing the least effective service quality dimension. perceived service; perceived
The study was based on primary data, which turned out to be most significant. Data were collected service quality; Parasuraman
from 349 of 405 students through a questionnaire (86.1% response rate). The research specified that PZB and service quality
dimensions
there existed a gap (7.6% overall gap) between the expectations and perceptions of the students
that was an indicator of improvement in quality of education being delivered by applying paired
t-tests. Perceived reliability was the most important service quality dimension found in the current
study (< .001) and tangibility, the fifth dimension of service quality, appears to be insignificant
(< 0.778), and was never found negative by any of the past researchers, indicating a null effect of
physical structure of the classroom on quality of education. The work attempted to develop an
understanding of the comparative assessments of two mindsets of the receivers. The results provide
valuable feedback that could be used for identifying and improving weak service quality
dimensions among institutes in Pakistan. No such study was carried out before at this level in
Pakistan.

Introduction expected service quality and perceived service quality of

In developing economies education contributes to econ-
omies development and plays a vital role in development
of societies. Education is a service industry and competi-
tion in the educational environment is increasing and
contributing to the growing importance of service quality
measurement at institutes especially in higher education
(Gbadamosi & De Jager, 2008; Quinn, Lemay, Larsen, &
Johnson, 2009). Therefore, it is essential for institutes to
participate actively in upgrading and monitoring their
quality of services and should commit for continuously
improving the quality because its presence can be a
source of their development as well as offer greater
returns for future.
This research work attempts to measure the service
quality offered by educational institutes of Pakistan in
the perception of the students by using service quality
gap concept. The main objectives of this research study
were to (a) analyze the effect of service quality dimen-
sions on the expectations and perception of students, (b)
assess the expected service quality by the students, (c)
assess the perceived service quality by the student pro-
vided by university faculty, and (d) find the gap between
education. These objectives will help identify service
quality gap and the most affecting service quality dimen-
sion. This will help faculty to bring improvements in
quality education in future.
Literature review
Service quality definition and dimensions
Quality improvements and its initiatives have been the
main focus of academic researchers in higher education
in the past years (Avdjieva & Wilson, 2002, Barnes &
Vidgen, 2003; Lassar, Manolis, & Winsor, 2000; Yavas &
Yasin, 2001).
Unlike goods’ quality, which can be easily measured
with some independence, service quality is immaterial,
untouchable, and intangible. The unique features of
services such as intangibility, imperceptibility, and het-
erogeneity make measurement of quality a very com-
plex issue. Quality of services is not yet defined in a
proper way; different researchers have offered various
definitions. The definition of quality has evolved in dif-
ferent stages (i.e., including quality is excellence, quality

CONTACT Amber Sardar amber@ciit.net.pk COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Department of Management Sciences, University Road,
Tobe Camp, Abbottabad 22010, Pakistan.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.com/vjeb.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

is value, quality is conformance to specifications). Now
it is that quality is meeting or exceeding customers’
expectations (Reeves & Bednar, 1994). Some quality
researchers have believed that service quality has a
strong bond with the expectations of the customers and
can be measured by evaluating clients’ expectations
(Brocato & Potocki, 1996; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Jabo-
noun & Al Tamimi, 2003; Lewis, 1991; Nitecki, 1998).
One valuable source of information is student expecta-
tions and a good knowledge of the expectation of the
students can also help in developing and designing
valuable lectures and teaching methods (Sander, Steven-
son, King, & Coates, 2000). Understanding of level of
expectations and its role that may be positive or nega-
tive in the overall service quality leads to the formula-
tion of first hypothesis of the study: There is a positive
relationship between expected service quality and over-
all service quality.
Some claimed that service quality is the measure of
perceptions of customers and has no relation with cus-
tomers’ expectations (Saleh & Ryan, 1991; Saravanon &
Roak, 2007; Yarmohammadian, ForoughiAbari, Anasri,
& Kiani, 2009). In the absence of the objectivity, quality
should be measured by considering consumers’ percep-
tions of service quality and must identify the strengths
and weaknesses of it on the basis of these perceptions.
This leads to design an instrument that measures service
quality and gives the results in tangible form.
Karatepe, Yavas, and Babakus (2005) also strived to
develop a scale for measuring service quality using a per-
ception-only approach. The respondents of his study
were asked to fill in the questionnaires based on their
perception. This study developed an instrument with 20
items to measure bank customers’ perception about ser-
vice quality. The results showed that service quality can
be conceptualized by knowing the dimensions of cus-
tomers perceptions of the service being delivered. Based
on past research, to see the effect of customer perception
in measuring overall service quality in education envi-
ronment led to the formulation of second hypothesis of
the study: There is a positive relationship between per-
ceived service quality dimensions and overall service
quality.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) indicated
that measurement of service quality is accomplished by
considering variance between the clients’ expectations
from the services they expect before its delivery to the
perception of received service that he attained. This was
the most precise definition of its time and it was consid-
ered most appropriate by other researchers as well. As
O’Neill and Palmer (2004) also emphasized the impor-
tance of expectations and perception in defining service
quality. They defined service quality in higher education
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 149
as the difference between what a student expects to
receive and his or her perceptions of actual delivery.
According to the Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry
(PZB) model, if the expectations are greater than percep-
tions, there exists a service quality gap i.e., low service
quality and vice versa. Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1991,
1994) identified five dimensions for defining and mea-
suring service quality: assurance, reliability, responsive-
ness, empathy, and tangibility that are defined as:

Facilities: Physical facilities that are provided in the
classrooms, organization building and staff appear-
ances are the facilities. It is also called as tangibility.

Reliability: the ability to perform services exactly
and reliably (i.e., dependability of services is
reliability).

Responsibility: Quick response in serving the clients
in no time is responsibility (i.e., the timely delivery
of the service). The more responsivene the lecturers
are, the higher the quality of service is.

Guarantee: How much a teacher is knowledgeable is
a guarantee. He or she must show courteous behav-
ior to meet the stipulated time is assurance.

Sympathy: The ability to attend the client person-
ally, with one-to-one communication (i.e., individ-
ual attention). Empathy may be a more appropriate
word.
Bronchado (2009) also seconded the research finding
of PZB and proved that five dimensions that included
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tan-
gibility best measure service quality. The PZB definition
laid the foundation of importance of expected service
quality and perceived service quality in defining overall
service quality. Based on the previous findings the
hypotheses of the study was designed to find out whether
there existed a significant or nonsignificant relationship
between expected service quality and perceived service
quality with overall service quality.
The concept of service quality gap was also intro-
duced by PZB. They stated that if the expectations are
greater or less than perceptions, there exists a service
quality gap (i.e., in case expectations are greater than
perceptions, a low service quality is indicated and vice
versa). To support this argument, a third hypothesis is
formulated that stated: There is a gap between expected
service and perceived service quality in business insti-
tute of Pakistan.
Service quality measurement tool
The quality of services is measured by numerous
researchers in different setups (Avdjieva & Wilson, 2002;
Banwet & Datta, 2002; Barnes & Vidgen, 2003; Hair,
150 A. SARDAR ET AL.
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995; Hill, 1995; Lassar
et al., 2000; Yavas & Yasin, 2001).
The first tool for measuring service quality was also
presented by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985)
based on his concept of service quality gap. To measure
service quality, Parasuraman et al. (1985) presented the
SERVQUAL model through a series of researches (Para-
suraman et al., 1985, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991a, 1991b,
1993, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1990, 1991;
Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1992, 1993). This
SERVQUAL model is used as a tool to measure service
quality. After the success of the tool, a number of
researchers used SERVQUAL model (Barnes, 2007; Bro-
chado, 2009; Gao & Wei, 2010; LaBay & Comm, 2003;
Lee & Tai, 2008; McElwee & Redman, 1993; O’Neill &
Palmer, 2001; Smith & Clarke, 2007; Tyran & Ross,
2006; Yang, Yan-Ping, & Jie, 2006; Yeo, 2008) to measure
service quality in different environments. The SERVQ-
UAL model was tested on four different service settings.
These were credit-card processing, banking, repair and
maintenance, and long-distance telephone service. It was
considered as the most tested model in past years (Faga-
nel, 2010).
On the contrary, many researchers adopted different
tools for measuring service quality. For example: Lehti-
nen and Lehtinen (1992) used a three-dimensional
model for measuring service quality; Sachdev and
Verma (2004) used the image model the Gr€onroos
European customer satisfaction (ECSI); the ECSI index
was used by Martensen, Grønholdt, Eskildsen, and Kris-
tensen (2000); Faganel (2010) applied SERVPERF; and
Abdullah (2006) used with HEdPERF to find service
qualities.
Primary consumer
The quality of education is always stakeholder relative
(Harvey & Green, 1993; Rowley, 1997; Tam, 2001). The
first milestone for measuring the quality of service is to
find out the primary consumer of the service. In educa-
tional context, service customers are active participants
of the service delivery process and they are the students
(Bateson, 2002; Kelley, Donnelly, & Skinner, 1990; Love-
lock & Young, 1979; Mills & Morris, 1986) and second
the quality of delivered service to the students is depen-
dent on the level at which they have received these serv-
ices and the level where their expectations are met
(Berry, Zeithaml, & Parasuraman, 1985; Gr€onroos, 1984;
Haywood-Farmer & Nollet, 1991; Parasuraman et al.,
1985; Tolman, 1932).
Many stakeholders are involved in service quality
(e.g., parents, government). But students should be
treated as primary customers as they are the direct
recipients of education. Based on the previous assump-
tion, institutes are striving to become highly competitive
to satisfy their customers and at the end get greater
returns in future (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Joseph &
Joseph, 1998; Kotze & du Plessis, 2003; Lengnick-Hall,
Claycomb, & Inks, 2000). It was found by the researchers
that there is a positive relationship between values and
expectations of customers with their perception and par-
ticipation. In improving service quality through these
perceptions have to be achieved by considering (Clay-
comb, Lengnick-Hall, & Inks, 2001); perceptions of
customers about organizational climate in which they
are getting services (Kelley et al., 1990); satisfaction of
customers (Cermak, File, & Prince, 1994) and beneficial
outcomes level (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2000) perceived by
them. According to Lengnick-Hall et al. (2000), customer
role clarity and their ability to contribute efficiently dur-
ing the delivery of services are also affected by student’s
value and expectations of that service delivery process.
The service quality perceptions of students can positively
lead to student satisfaction and satisfied students may
attract new students through different communication
modes such as word of mouth (Marzo-Navarro, Pedraja-
Iglesias, & Rivera-Torres, 2005; Mavondo, Tsarenko, &
Gabbott, 2004; Schertzer & Schertzer, 2004; Wiers-Jens-
sen et al., 2002). As students are considered the primary
stakeholders, the researches are carried on students’ per-
ceptions and expectations. Other stakeholders come in
next priority.
In Pakistan, presently there are very few institutes
that provide quality of education through the expecta-
tion-perception model but in very limited resources
and they are not focused on satisfying their customers
and to improve their services through it (Qureshi,
Mehmood, & Sajid, 2008). The issue of delivering
quality of education is the main concern of the
schools. The pathway that will lead to assessing the
quality of education being delivered is to find the
actual gap that exists between the expectations and
the perceptions of the students (PZB). This article
intended to measure students’ expectations and per-
ception about service quality before and after delivery
of the service, finds the least effecting service quality
dimension and recommendations and implications for
future research are specified.
Hypotheses
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework. Service qual-
ity is the dependent variable whereas expectations and
perceptions are the independent variables.
Based on the conceptual framework the following
hypotheses are developed:

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Based on Pariseau and McDaniel (1997, p. 206).
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a positive relationship
between expected service quality and overall ser-
vice quality.
H2: There is a positive relationship between perceived
service quality dimensions and overall service
quality.
H2a: There is a positive relationship between per-
ceived assurance and overall service quality.
H2b: There is a positive relationship between perceived
responsiveness and overall service quality.
H2c: There is a positive relationship between perceived
reliability and overall service quality.
H2d: There is a positive relationship between per-
ceived empathy and overall service quality.
H2e: There is a positive relationship between perceived
tangibility and overall service quality.
H3: There is a gap between expected service and per-
ceived service quality.
Research methodology
The research was based on primary data gathered
through standardized questionnaire. The respondents
of the study were the undergraduate students studying
in education courses of HEC recognized institutes.
The total study sample comprised of 50 of 138 insti-
tutes of Pakistan. Nonprobability convenience sam-
pling method was used and 405 questionnaires were
distributed among students. There were two question-
naires, each having a total of 22 questions. All of the
service quality variables were measured on 5-point
Likert-type scale. The study was based on the before-
and-after analysis. The students of the last semesters
in the university were asked to fill in first question-
naire about what were their expectations from the
university before commencement of their study and
what they perceived in their four years study tenure
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 151
through a second questionnaire. The gap between the
two showed the difference in the expectations and
perception of the students that ultimately leads to the
findings of the level of service quality being delivered.
The two independent variables were expectations and
perceptions of the students whereas the dependent
variable was perceived service quality. The perceived
service quality might have three results depending on
the data collected:

If perceptions exceeds, ES<PS leads to quality sur-
prise: If this is the case the educational institutes
have to maintain the status quo and has little need
to strive for quality improvements.

If expectations meets, ES D PS is satisfactory qual-
ity: If this is the status of an educational institute
then the universities must put an effort to reach to a
high level of quality delivery.

If Expectations not met, ES>PS is unacceptable
quality: This is the state where educational institutes
has to be cautious and vigilant in making policies
for the improvement of the quality. They must
strive to reach an optimum level to compete in the
market for greater business returns.
Statistical techniques used to analyze the data were
reliability analysis, regression analysis, and sample t-test.
Findings
The demographic characteristics of respondents were
age, gender, and marital status. Of 349 respondents 90%
approximately belonged to the age group of 21–25 years,
as the respondents were undergraduate students; 9.46%
belonged to the age group of less than 20 years and very
few were in age group of 26–30 years. Of 349 respond-
ents, 70.4% were male students and 29.5% were female
students.
152 A. SARDAR ET AL.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Assurance Responsiveness Reliability Empathy Tangibility

Expected Perceived Expected Perceived Expected Perceived Expected Perceived Expected Perceived Overall
Statistics assurance assurance responsiveness responsiveness reliability reliability empathy empathy tangibility tangibility quality

M 3.62 3.48 3.52 2.73 3.58 3.46 3.5 3.38 3.52 3.35 3.23
Median 3.75 3.5 3.5 2.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.25
Mode 4 3.5 4 2.8 3.6 4 3.8 4 3.75 3.5 3.5
SD 0.67 0.72 0.74 0.55 0.74 0.69 0.72 0.72 0.76 0.72 0.72
Minimum 1.75 1.25 1 1.2 1 1.6 1 1.4 1 1.25 1
Maximum 5 5 5 4.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.75

Reliability analysis of mean values for responsiveness (expected vs. per-

The reliability analysis of the scale was tested using
Cronbach’s alpha through SPSS 17.0. The reliability of
questionnaire was found to be .913 that showed a high
reliability of the scale used. This questionnaire was used
since 1985 by Parasuraman and it was considered the
most reliable by all the researchers who researched using
this questionnaire (Barnes, 2007; Brochado, 2009; Gao &
Wei, 2010; LaBay & Comm, 2003; Lee & Tai, 2008;
McElwee & Redman, 1993; Smith & Clarke, 2007; Tyran
& Ross, 2006; Wright & O’Neill, 2002; Yang et al., 2006;
Yeo, 2008).
The values for Cronbach’s alpha also showed that reli-
ability of items lies between .901 and .913. This ranged
supported the argument that how items of each variable
were internally consistent and truly measuring the vari-
able in the questionnaire. There were four questions
asked for measuring expected and perceived assurance,
expected and perceived responsiveness, and expected
and perceived tangibility, and five questions were asked
to measure expected and perceived empathy and
expected and perceived reliability. All alpha values were
high showing all the items were accurately measuring
their specific variable.
ceived) was 0.79. It shows that the least effecting dimen-
sion is responsiveness (Table 1).
Regression analysis
Linear regression was used to find out extend and degree
of variation for each service quality dimension that
explained its relationship with other variables.
Expected service quality
Regression analysis of overall quality and Expected ser-
vice was showed in Table 2.
Result in Table 2 showed that overall model is fit
and F is significant however effect of independent vari-
able (expected quality) on dependent variable (overall
quality) is not significant. This means expected quality
(independent variable) has no relation with overall
quality (dependent variable). That rejected our first
hypothesis (i.e., H1; there is a positive relationship
between expected service quality and overall service
quality).

Perceived service quality

Descriptive analysis
Regression analysis of overall quality and perceived ser-
The descriptive analysis of responses of the respondents vice is shown Table 3.
and the measures of dispersion in their responses were Result in Table 3 showed that overall model is fit and
shown in Table 1. The table indicates a comparison of F is significant; however, the effect of independent vari-
expected and perceived service quality dimensions sepa- able (perceived quality) on dependent variable (overall
rately in terms of minimum and maximum values,
mean, median, mode, and standard deviation of the data. Table 2. Coefficient for regression for expected service quality.
Mean values for assurance (expected vs. perceived) were Variable Coefficient SE p
3.62 and 3.48, respectively. A difference of 0.14 indicated Constant 0.814 0.202 .000
a little deviation. Students perceived values were a little Expected quality ¡0.041 0.059 .493
less than expected value (i.e., little gap existed between Test statistics
R2 .365
the two). Adjusted R2 .362
Similarly reliability, empathy, and tangibility have lit- F 99.548
p .000
tle differences of 0.12, 0.12, and 0.17 whereas difference
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 153

Table 3. Coefficient for regression for perceived service quality.
Variable Coefficient SE
Constant 0.814 0.202
Expected quality .780 0.064
Test statistics
R2 .380
Adjusted R2 .371
F 42.117
p .000

significant at .05.
quality) is also significant. This means perceived quality
(independent variable) has a positive relation with over-
all quality (dependent variable). That accepted our sec-
ond hypothesis (i.e., There is a positive relationship
between perceived service quality dimensions and overall
service quality).
For subhypotheses, item-wise coefficients are
shown in Table 4. Table 4 indicated that all the per-
ceived service quality dimensions are significant,
showing a positive relationship in overall service
quality except for tangibility. H2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d are
accepted and 2e is rejected. The rejection of H2e
exhibited that tangibility has null effect on overall
service quality. The current survey has presented a
unique result showing that well-equipped classes,
good quality furniture etc. has no effect on the quality
of education being delivered.
Independent sample t-test
For testing the third hypothesis, H3, a paired t-test was
applied on two variables expected quality (EQ) and per-
ceived quality (PQ). See Figure 2.
By descriptive statistics, it was deduced that the
responses of the respondent lied around the mean values.
A little difference of means showed a little gap in expect-
ations and perceptions of the students. The result is sig-
nificant, t(349) D 2.956, p D .003. We reject the null
hypothesis in favor of the alternative. Only less than
once of every 100 times we repeated this experiment
(and the null hypothesis was true) would we get a t statis-
tic of this size. We therefore, conclude that it is more
likely to have been due to some systematic and deliberate
p cause. If all other confounds are eliminated, this system-
atic cause must have been gap in quality:
.000
.000
h2 D ð2:956Þ2 6 ½ð2:956Þ 2 C 349 D 0:024:
So, 2.4% of the difference can be explained by the
quality gap.
A significant gap in quality is seen and is noticed,
t(349) D 20956, p D .003, h2 D .024, in the expected and
perceived service quality. It was found that the value of
expected service quality (M D 3.41, SD D 0.60) is greater
than perceived service quality (M D 3.28, SD D 0.57).
The difference between the two variables is significantly
different (p > .01, t D 2.96) as shown in graph. This
accepts our third hypothesis that there is a gap between
expected and perceived service quality. As per PZB defi-
nition of quality, when a gap exists between the two vari-
ables, there exists quality gap. If expectations exceed
perceptions, a low quality is indicated and in this condi-
tion institutes need to make improvements regarding the
delivery of lecture, responsiveness of teacher, empathy,
and reliability. This can be achieved by introducing dif-
ferent training sessions, seminars, and workshops. Thus,
our third hypothesis is accepted.
An item-wise t-test is also applied for supporting the
results of third hypotheses. The results were shown in
Tables 5 and 6.
After application of the t-test on all service quality
dimensions, it was found that all the relationships
between service quality dimension pairs were significant
(< .000).
Descriptive analysis institutes wise
The data were collected from eight business institutes of
Pakistan, including Institutes 1–7.
According to the statistics given in Table 7, Institute 3
showed a little gap in expectations and perceptions of
their students. This little gap shows a better quality of
education as compared to other institutes. This survey
was based on expectations and perceptions, Institute 3 is

Table 4. Item-wise coefficients.

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient

Model B SE b t p

(Constant) .752 .178 4.219 .000

Perceived assurance .138 .065 .138 2.134 .034
Perceived responsiveness .197 .084 .150 2.350 .019
Perceived reliability .249 .073 .239 3.419 .001
Perceived empathy .199 .068 .199 2.919 .004
Perceived tangibility –.023 .061 –.022 –.370 .711
154 A. SARDAR ET AL.

Figure 2. Graphical representation of t-test.

a government university, and students may have low application of regression. The p value was significant
level of expectations. As a result, whatever they receive is that connoted overall quality had a significant relation-
a bit higher or equal to what they expected. ship with perception of customers of institutes that was
The difference of overall quality of education what they had received in the institute had a significant
imparted by different universities is basically based on effect on overall quality of education. Thus, our second
the expectations and perceptions of their students that hypothesis was accepted.
may differ from area to area and sector to sector. The By applying regression analysis, it was found that four
mean differences between different perceived service of five perceived service dimensions were impacting over-
quality dimensions and overall quality of institutes under all quality (i.e., assurance, reliability, empathy, and respon-
study are shown in Table 7. siveness). Tangibility showed an insignificant relationship
with overall quality. This point could be explained by
Findings and conclusion arguing that whatever education environment was pro-
vided, if the faculty had the qualities of assurance, reliabil-
Passed years revealed that a lot of attention was drawn
ity, responsiveness, and empathy, then tangibility has least
toward measurement of quality of education and took
effect on the perception of students. Faculty should have a
measures to improve service quality. Whether it was
high level of proficiency to provide accurate and depend-
goods or services provided quality standards were to be
able services than tangibility does not matter.
met.
Other service quality dimensions lied in between. To
It was found that there doesn’t exist a significant rela-
jot down a list of determinants from the most effecting to
tionship between expected service quality by the
the least effecting overall, the list was populated as per-
respondents with overall quality. If universities are striv-
ceived reliability, perceived empathy, perceived responsive-
ing to achieve high education quality standards they
ness, perceived assurance, and perceived tangibility.
have to take in account the perceptions of the students
To check quality level, the difference between expecta-
rather than what they are expecting. By applying regres-
tions of the students and their perceptions was calculated
sion analysis, it was found that expected service quality
that indicated the level of the gap between them and this
did not impact overall quality in this study. The first
gap specified that, at what level the service quality stand-
hypothesis was rejected.
ards had touched. A paired sample tDtest was applied to
On the other side, it was found that there existed a
check the gap. The t value was 8.80 and p value was .000,
strong positive relationship with the perceptions of the
deducing that there was a significant difference between
students with overall quality of education after
expected service quality and perceived service quality.
Thus, our third hypothesis, that there exists a gap
Table 5. Paired samples correlations. between expected service and perceived service quality,
Pair Description N Correlation p was accepted.
Pair 1 EA and PA 349 .464 .000
Pair 2 ER and PR 349 .401 .000 Implications and recommendations
Pair 3 EREL and PREL 349 .491 .000
Pair 4 EE and PE 349 .478 .000 Higher education in Pakistan has gained substantial
Pair 5 ET and PT 349 .391 .000
standing in the recent times. With the advancement in
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 155

Table 6. Paired samples test.

Paired differences

95% CI of the difference

Pair Description M SD SE M Lower Upper t df p (2-tailed)

Pair 1 EA - PA .13754 .72049 .03857 [.06168, .21339] 3.566 348 .000

Pair 2 ER - PR .78582 .72196 .03865 [.70981, .86183] 20.334 348 .000
Pair 3 EREL - PREL .12779 .72115 .03860 [.05187, .20372] 3.311 348 .001
Pair 4 EE - PE .12206 .73696 .03945 [.04448, .19965] 3.094 348 .002
Pair 5 ET - PT .17479 .81753 .04376 [.08871, .26086] 3.994 348 .000

technology and information, the competition of higher
education institutes has expanded. To gain competitive
advantage, they have to work on increasing quality of
education they are providing
With a vision to impart a high quality of education,
institutes had to focus on quality improvement of their
faculty by assessing the perceptions of their students by
conducting similar surveys. These surveys help in identi-
fying the weak areas. Working on these weak areas will
satisfy students. These students in turn, become universi-
ties’ brand ambassadors and market their service by
word of mouth and many other means. This study
enabled managers of institute to anticipate the level of
their education quality by assessing the gap between the
expectations and perception of students and ultimately
strive to lower the gap as much as possible by improving
teaching standards. Trainings of the faculty members
may become the most effective part as well. Trainings
will enable faculty members to enhance their skills and
increase their knowledge to an extent that satisfies
customers.
Second, this study helped institutes in finding the least
effecting dimension in their institute from among five
service quality dimensions. Once the weaker dimension
was recognized, institutes might pay attention to increase
its level that could be achieved either by training or by
using motivation tools. In this study, service quality
dimension responsiveness had a low level. Institute
might train teacher as to how to provide prompt
response to students’ queries. Generally, teachers should
be trained to improve their skills that were related to
lecture delivering. By paying attention to the least effect-
ing dimension, the impact of this attention will affect
overall quality. It was hereby recommended that future
research could be carried out by removing perceived ser-
vice quality dimensions one by one and fostering the
effect on means of perceived service quality and ulti-
mately it will affect the gap that existed between expecta-
tions and perceptions.
Decreasing the quality gap would lead to quality
improvement and at the end it would give them competi-
tive advantage over other institutes and helped to
increase their business. It was also recommended that if
institute focuses on continuous improvements in service
quality, it was hereby necessary to conduct this research
frequently to examine the changes in expectations and
perceptions of the students every year. It would help in
identifying new needs and trends.
According to the results revealed in this study, teach-
ers and instructors must allocate some extra times to
respond to the students’ questions and prepare them for
their future profession and provide theoretical as well as
practical instructions to meet the demands of the stu-
dents. Training may play a major role in it.
It is also recommended that institute must periodi-
cally carry out this research activity to see the increase
or decrease in trends of the perceived traits of the stu-
dents. In case of decreasing trend, the teacher must
focus on the dimension that negatively affects the over-
all quality. And if the trend is increasing, teachers must
be encouraged to maintain the status quo and must be
rewarded to create a positive atmosphere as well. As

Table 7. Institute-wide statistics.

Perceived
Busi_inst Statistics Assurance Responsiveness Reliability Empathy Tangibility OVLQ

CIIT, Isl M 3.5769 § .63 2.7738 § 0.51 3.5969 § 0.55 3.3969 § 0.63 3.5154 § 0.64 3.2808 § 0.60
CIIT, Atd M 3.4703 § 0.68 2.722 § 0.50 3.2915 § 0.72 3.2712 § 0.72 3.3686 § 0.75 2.9534 § 0.90
CIIT, Wah M 3.8382 § 0.40 3.0118 § 0.38 3.7412 § 0.46 3.7294 § 0.56 3.5441 § 0.46 3.3824 § 0.48
Hazara Uni, Mansehra M 3.6786 § 0.72 2.8222 § 0.56 3.6571 § 0.65 3.546 § 0.75 3.2817 § 0.74 3.4683 § 0.66
NUST, Isl M 3.2969 § 0.81 2.6375 § 0.55 3.3125 § 0.82 3.2438 § 0.81 3.2578 § 0.78 3.2109 § 0.65
IM Sciences, Pesh M 3.3417 § 0.63 2.6867 § 0.48 3.4067 § 0.68 3.52 § 0.50 3.275 § 0.65 3.375 § 0.57
IMS, Pesh M 3.3468 § 0.87 2.8065 § 0.64 3.5161 § 0.78 3.3032 § 0.90 3.2823 § 0.90 3.2823 § 0.87
FAST, Isl M 3.2788 § 0.75 2.5308 § 0.60 3.2077 § 0.68 3.2192 § 0.71 3.2837 § 0.66 3.024 § 0.67
a
Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
156 A. SARDAR ET AL.
this is a cross-sectional study and its result might be
valid for a period of time after that, the quality of insti-
tutes may increase or decrease. Summarizing, this study
could be applied on yearly bases to notice the gap if
exists and adopt methodologies to focus on reducing
this gap. The least effective dimensions could be spotted
by conducting this study and remedial measures should
be devised to make the least effecting dimension, the
most contributing in overall quality of education.
Acknowledgements
The authors are especially grateful to the CIIT and all faculty
members from Management Science Department for helping
them carry out this study by dedicating their precious time to
them and helping them in the hour of need.
References
Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: A new
measuring instrument of service quality for the higher edu-
cation sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
30, 569–581.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of
higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Stud-
ies in International Education, 11, 290–305.
Avdjieva, M., & Wilson, M. (2002). Exploring the development
of quality in higher education. Managing Service Quality,
12, 372–383.
Banwet, D. K., & Datta, B. (2002). Effect of service quality on
post-visit intentions over time: The case of library. Total
Quality Management, 13, 537–546.
Barnes, B. R. (2007). Analyzing service quality: The case of
post-graduate Chinese students. Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 17, 313–331.
Barnes, S. J., & Vidgen, R. (2003). Measuring Web site quality
improvements: A case study of the forum on strategic man-
agement knowledge exchange. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 103, 297–309.
Bateson, J. (2002). Consumer performance and quality in serv-
ices. Managing Service Quality, 12, 206–209.
Berry, L. L., Zeithaml, V. A., & Parasuraman, A. (1985). Qual-
ity counts in business too. Business Horizons, 28, 44–52.
Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to
measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assur-
ance in Education, 17, 174–190.
Brocato, R., & Potocki, K. (1996). We care about students one
student at a time. Journal for Quality & Participation, 19,
74–79.
Cermak, D. S. P., File, K. M., & Prince, A. R. (1994). Customer
participation in service specification, and delivery. Journal
of Applied Business Research, 10, 90–97.
Claycomb, V., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Inks, L. W. (2001).
The customer as a productive resource: A pilot study
and strategic implications. Journal of Business Strategies,
18, 193–218.
Cronin, J. J. Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service qual-
ity: Reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56,
55–68.
Faganel, A. (2010). Quality perception gap inside the higher
education Institutes. International Journal of Academic
Research, 2, 213–215.
Gao, Y., & Wei, W. (2010). Measuring service quality and satis-
faction of students in Chinese business education. Retrieved
from http://it.swufe.edu.cn//1930_2.html
Gbadamosi, G., & De Jager, J. (2008, July). Measuring service
quality in South Africa higher education: Developing a mul-
tidimensional scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Global Business and Technology Association, Madrid,
Spain.
Gr€onroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing
implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.
Hair, J. F. Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C.
(1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International Editions.
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment of
Evaluation of Higher Education, 18, 9–34.
Haywood-Farmer, J., & Nollet, J. (1991). Services plus: Effective
service management. Quebec, Canada: Morin.
Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher educa-
tion: The role of the student as primary consumer. Quality
Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21.
Jabonoun, N., & Al tamimi, A. H. (2003). Measuring per-
ceived service quality at UAE commercial banks. Inter-
national Journal of Quality &Reliability Management,
20, 458–472.
Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (1998). Identifying needs of potential
students in tertiary education for strategy development.
Quality Assurance in Education, 6, 90–96.
Karatepe, O. M., Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (2005). Measuring
service quality of banks: Scale development and validation.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12, 373–383.
Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. H., & Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer
participation in service production and delivery. Journal of
Retailing, 66(fall), 315–35.
Kotze, T. G., & du Plessis, P. J. (2003). Students as “co-pro-
ducers” of education: A proposed model of student sociali-
zation and participation at tertiary institutions. Quality
Assurance in Education, 11, 197–214.
LaBay, D. G., & Comm, C. L. (2003). A case study using gap
analysis to assess distance learning versus traditional course
delivery. The International Journal of Education Manage-
ment, 17, 312–317.
Lassar, W. M., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R. D. (2000). Service
quality perspectives and satisfaction in private banking.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18, 181–199.
Lee, J.-W., & Tai, S. W. (2008). Critical factors affecting cus-
tomer satisfaction and higher education in Kazakhstan. Inter-
national Journal of Management in Education, 2, 46–59.
Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. R. (1992). Service quality: A study
of quality dimensions. Milwaukee, WI: Service Management
Institute.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Claycomb, V., & Inks, L. W. (2000).
From recipient to contributor: Examining customer roles
and experienced outcomes. European Journal of Marketing,
34, 359–383.
Lewis, B. R. (1991). Service quality: An international compari-
son of bank customers ’expectations and perceptions. Jour-
nal of Marketing Management, 7, 47–62.
Lovelock, C. H., & Young, R. (1979). Look to consumers to
increase productivity. Harvard Business Review, 57, 168–78.

Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Rivera-Torres, M.
P. (2005). Measuring customer satisfaction in summer
courses. Quality Assurance Education, 13, 53–65.
Martensen, A., Grønholdt, L., Eskildsen, J., & Kristensen, K.
(2000). Measuring student oriented quality in higher educa-
tion: Application of the ECSI methodology. Sinergie Rap-
porti di Ricerca, 9, 371–383.
Mavondo, F. T., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). Inter-
national and local student satisfaction: Resources and
capabilities perspective. Journal of Marketing Higher
Education, 14, 41–60.
McElwee, G., & Redman, T. (1993). Upward appraisal in prac-
tice—an illustrative example using the QUALED model.
Education and Training, 35, 27–31.
Mills, P. K., & Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as “partial”
employees of service organizations: Role development in
client participation. Academic Management Review, 11,
726–735.
Nitecki, D. A. (1998). Assessment of service quality in aca-
demic libraries: Focus on the applicability of the SERVQ-
UAL. Proceedings of the 2nd Northumbria International
Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and
Information Services, 181–196.
O’Neill, M., & Palmer, A. (2001). Survey timing and consumer
perceptions of service quality: An overview of empirical evi-
dence. Managing Service Quality, 11, 182–190.
O’Neill, M., & Palmer, A. (2004). Importance–performance
analysis: A useful tool for directing continuous quality
improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance of
Education, 12, 39–52.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1990). An
empirical examination of relationships in an extended service
quality model. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991a). Per-
ceived service quality as a customer based performance
measure: An empirical examination of organizational bar-
riers using an extended service quality model. Human
Resource Management, 30, 335–364.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A con-
ceptual model of service quality and its implications for
future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1986). SERVQ-
UAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer percep-
tions of service quality. Report No. 86–108. Cambridge,
MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988).
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring con-
sumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
64, 12–40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1991b). Refine-
ment and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of
Retailing, 67, 420–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1993). Research
note: More on improving service quality measurement.
Journal of Retailing, 69, 140–147.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassess-
ment of expectations as a comparison standard in measur-
ing service quality: Implications for future research. Journal
of Marketing, 58, 111–124.
Pariseau, S. E., & McDaniel, J. R. (1997). Assessing service
quality in schools of business. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 14, 204–218.
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 157
Quinn, Lemay, Larsen, & Johnson. (2009). Service quality in
higher education. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 20, 139–152.
Qureshi, A. A., Mehmood, U., & Sajid, A. (2008). Impact of
quality of service delivery in business education. Paper pre-
sented at the 11th QMOD Conference. Quality Manage-
ment and Organizational Development Attaining
Sustainability From Organizational Excellence to Sustain-
able Excellence, Center for Advanced Studies in Engineer-
ing, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Raouf, A., Kalim, R., & Siddiqi, A. F. (2010). Gaps in manage-
ment education: A case study of University of Management
and Technology. US-China Education Review, 7(11), 72.
Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. (1994). Defining quality: Alterna-
tives and implications. Academy of Management Review,
19, 419–445.
Rowley, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher
education and toward a service contract. Quality Assurance
in Education, 5, 7–14.
Sachdev, S. B., & Verma, H. V. (2004). Relative importance of
Service Quality Dimensions; A Multisectoral Study. Journal
of Services Research, 6, 93–116.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality attrib-
utes and choice behavior. Journal of Service Marketing, 7,
59–68.
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). Uni-
versity students’ expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher
Education, 25, 309–323.
Saravanon, R., & Roak, S. P. (2007). Measure the service quality
from customer perception of service quality. Total Quality
Management, 18, 435–449.
Schertzer, C. B., & Schertzer, S. M. B. (2004). Student satisfac-
tion and retention: A conceptual model. Journal of Market-
ing High Education, 14, 79–91.
Smith, G. A., & Clarke, A. (2007). Evaluating service quality in
universities: A service department perspective. Quality
Assurance in Education, 15, 334–351.
Tam, M. (2001). Measuring quality and performance in higher
education. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 47–54.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behaviour in animals and men.
New York, NY: Appleton-Century.
Tyran, C. K., & Ross, S. C. (2006). Service quality expectations
and perceptions: Use of the servqual instrument for require-
ments analysis. Issues in Information Systems, 7, 357–362.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grogaard, J. B. (2002). Stu-
dent satisfaction: Toward an empirical deconstruction of
the concept. Quality of Higher Education, 8, 183–95.
Wright, C., & O’Neill, M. (2002). Service quality evaluation in
the higher education sector: An empirical investigation of
students’ perceptions. Higher Education Research & Devel-
opment, 21(1), 23–39.
Yang, Z., Yan-Ping, L. & Jie, T. (2006, October). Study on qual-
ity indicators in higher education: An application of the
SERVQUAL instrument. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Service Systems and Service Management,
Troyes, France.
Yarmohammadian, M. H., ForoughiAbari, A. A., Anasri,
M., & Kiani, H. (2009). Using strategic planning model
to improve iran higher education NG-NP. Paper pre-
sented at the International Conference on Technology
and Business Management, Al Ghuraair University,
United Arab Emirates.
158 A. SARDAR ET AL.
Yavas, U., & Yasin, M. M. (2001). Enhancing organizational
performance in banks: A systematic approach. Journal of
Services Marketing, 15, 444–453.
Yeo, R. K. (2008). Brewing service quality in higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 16, 266–286.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1990). Five
imperatives for improving service quality. Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 31(4), 29–38.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). The
nature and determinants of customer expectations of service.
Working paper 91–113. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Sci-
ence Institute.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A. M., & Berry, L. L. (1992).
Strategic positioning on the dimensions of service quality.
In T. A. Swartz, D. E. Bowen, & S. W. Brown (Eds.), Advan-
ces in services marketing and management (Vol. 2, pp. 207–
228). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The
nature and determinants of customer expectation of service.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 1–12.
Copyright of Journal of Education for Business is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.