2013

MEASURING THE SERVICE QUALITY GAP IN EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

NILANGSHU DUTTA(M-11-11) PARITOSH KOTWAL(M-11-12) RAHUL BHARADWAJ(M-11-13) SHEKHAR JYOTI DUTTA(M-11-14)

ABSTRACT
The government educational system of India has lost its sheen with todays parents. Even educated institutions are disassociating themselves with the AICTE and the UGC. This could either be due to globalization and privatization or due to a major cut in government finances in the higher educational system. With the educational system widely unchanged for over five decades and management quota allotments rampant among the private institutions, the Indian educational system needs to be looked at from a different perspective. Education is a service directly influenced by the Service provider, and the effectiveness of the services offered depends on the quality of the academic services offered. As colleges continue to become student oriented, understanding students perceptions, services offered are becoming more important. Assessment and the quality of educational services have been the dominant area in the present context of education. In this paper, we have started with the concept of service quality using the model of service quality gaps. SERVQUAL as an effective approach will be studied and its role in the analysis of the difference between customer expectations and perceptions will be highlighted. The GAPS model will also be used to measure the various service quality gaps. We will make a primary survey of students from various educational institutes using a standard questionnaire and then analyze the data to see where the gaps exist which can be filled.

Service firms like other organizations are realizing the significance of customercentered philosophies and are turning to quality management approaches to help managing their businesses. The study will outline the fact that although SERQUAL could close one of the important service quality gaps associated with external customer services, it could be extended to close other major gaps and therefore, it could be developed in order to be applied for internal customers, i.e. employees and service providers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Dr. Kavita Srivastava, for her assiduous guidance, timely suggestions and co-operation at every step, which have been invaluable in executing the project. Her suggestions & critique form the backbone of this report. We wholeheartedly thank all the people who generously gave us their time and filled out the questionnaire for us and also gave us valuable insights. We also acknowledge the help received from various people who were directly or indirectly involved with this project. Last but not the least, we would like to thank our parents and family for their hard work and also our classmates who took some time out of their busy schedule to discuss the project report and gave their valuable insights about the manuscript.

Yours Faithfully Shekhar Jyoti Dutta(M-11-14) Rahul Bhardwaj(M-11-13) Paritosh Kotwal(M-11-12) Nilangshu Dutta(M-11-11)

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Education System ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 10 SERVQUAL.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Tangibility........................................................................................................................................... 10 Responsiveness .................................................................................................................................. 11 Assurance........................................................................................................................................... 11 Empathy ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Importance ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Tangibility........................................................................................................................................... 11 Responsiveness .................................................................................................................................. 11 Assurance........................................................................................................................................... 11 Empathy ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 12 DEFINITIONS: ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Gap .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Perception.......................................................................................................................................... 12 Expectation ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Research Work ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Research Objective................................................................................................................................. 15 Research Design ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 16 Sample Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 16 Presentation & Analysis of Results ............................................................................................................. 17 Interpretation of Results ............................................................................................................................ 19 ANNEXURE-I ............................................................................................................................................... 23 QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................................................... 23 ANNEXURE-II .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Table-1 ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table -2A ................................................................................................................................................ 26 TABLE 2B ................................................................................................................................................ 28 TABLE 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 28 TABLE 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 29 TABLE 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 30

Introduction
In todays world the word service holds a lot importance both statistically and theoretically. In todays world consumer- marketer relationship has evolved to its highest form which is relationship stage. The concept of consumer loyalty measures the sustainability of the company and its products among the competitors in the market. As the market grows competition grows and subsequently the power of bargain goes more to the hands of consumers. This is the reason why people are becoming more demanding and their endless needs are becoming very dynamic in nature. So to make customers loyal, companies not only meet their needs but try to exceed their expectations to make a positive association and increase their brand equity. So in order to make that relationship strong and keep the customer needs fulfilled, there has to be some mechanism which can be used as tools to assess and monitor the performance. But it is necessary to understand that service processes are different from manufacturing processes, especially due to their intangible nature and the direct participation of clients. One of the methodologies used are known to be SERVQUAL. The SERVQUAL model was propounded by Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry in 1985. According to them this model can be used to assess any organization of any type of service provided.

Education System
Like all the other service which are intangible in nature, one of the most important and most scrutinized service sector is the education system in any country. In India as well we see various public, private and semi-government schools, colleges and even B-schools. And considering the stat that over 50% of Indian population is constituted of people aged below 25 years it is very vital for the growth of the country and its individuals as well that the provided service is of acceptable standards so we have considered high education services as the area of research. Higher education institutions are also in search of improvements in teaching service quality to satisfy the expectations of their students and the market. However, since education services have very particular characteristics, the SERVQUAL model must be adapted according to the most important determining factors: reliability, tangibility, responsibility, security and empathy, as proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985. So the objective of this paper is to adapt SERVQUAL methodology to measure various gaps in the education service sector and present results with interpretation and possible solutions for improvement.

Literature Review
Here we shall provide the necessary literature for readers to build their understanding and application about the SERVQUAL model.

SERVQUAL The concept of SERVQUAL comes from SERVICE + QUALITY. The concept was first presented by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1985. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), regardless of the type of service, consumers basically use the same criteria to assess quality. Service quality is a general opinion the client forms regarding its delivery, which is constituted by a series of successful or unsuccessful experiences. Managing gaps in service will help the company improve its quality. But gaps are not the only means clients use to judge a service. They can also use five broad-based dimensions as judgment criteria: reliability, tangibility, responsibility, security and empathy (LOVELOCK, 2001). These are the Five dimensions which are used to identify and measure various service gaps which in turn constitutes the major Consumer gap.

Reliability It means whether the company is reliable in providing the service? Whether it fulfills its promises? Are the company and its services consistently and constantly performing well? Tangibility Whether the service has any tangible aspects associated with it like Machines, Ambience, people or staff etc?

Responsiveness Are the service providers considerably quick in providing service? Assurance Are the employees well-informed, educated, compatible and trustworthy to their job and hence with the customers? Empathy Whether the company is able to understand the feeling of the customer? Does it provide careful and personalized attention? Importance

Reliability It is the most important dimension of the service quality because unless the service is reliable no customer wants to be associated with that. Tangibility Since the services are completely intangible hence it is very difficult for the customer to assess and compare them. So these services need to be associated with some tangible assets. Responsiveness This dimension provides company and employees receptiveness towards the customer. Assurance This dimension encompasses the companys competence, courtesy and precision.

Empathy This is a psychological aspect of the service communication. When the customer accepts that his needs are properly understood by the company. Methodology The SERVQUAL method works on various gaps that are created by the actual service delivery and the promised service. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry have given various gaps based on the above mentioned dimensions of service quality. DEFINITIONS: Gap The gap exists when the perception of the customer is either lags or leads the expectation. If the perception is more than expectation than the equity is good and consumer considers the service in high regards. On the other if the perception lags behind the expectation then it is considered that the service provider is not capable to provide the optimum service and the dissatisfaction level of customer with that service increases.

Perception It is the level of performance which the customer perceives after experiencing the service.

Expectation It is the level of performance which customer had in advance which is generally formed by any prior search or by any recommendation from a peer or friend.

SERVQUAL is an instrument to measure quality that stems from this model and works with the difference in scores (gaps) in the form of a questionnaire. The models five gaps are shown in below chart. Source : Parasuraman et al .(1985)

The SERVQUAL scale (questionnaire) has two sections: one to map client expectations in relation to a service segment and the other to map perception in relation to a certain service company.

Source : Parasuraman et al .(1985)

Methodology
To measure the above gaps we have prepared questionnaire based on consumer perception & consumer expectation both. These questionnaires comprise all the above dimensions of SERVQUAL. All the respondents were asked to fill their responses in a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire is a standard questionnaire developed by Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L (1985) in A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41 -50. The results and the detailed analysis of the results are given in the forthcoming sections.

Research Work
Research Objective To identify the present different producer gaps in education service sector and measure them to assess the total consumer gap. Research Design To conduct the research we have used online surveying where 41 respondents all of whom are students have participated. The participants were mostly students in either graduate or post graduate colleges because we believe that we could get more consistent data with this sample.

Research Methodology
Sample Characteristics We have surveyed 41 respondents the demographic characteristics are as follows:

Sex Male

Frequency 23

Education Graduation Post-Grad.

Frequency & 25

Female

18

Graduation Post-Grad.

& 16

Education

Sex Ratio

PostGraduate 39% Graduate 61%

Female 44% Male 56%

Presentation & Analysis of Results

As given in Annexure-II the average scores of the respondents as per their responses are calculated as below:

SERVQUAL DIMENSIONS

STATEM ENTS V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6

EXPECTED SERVQUAL (E) MEAN SCORE 4.59 3.8 4 3.71 4.59 4.32 3.73 4.41 4.76 2.59 2.69

PERCEIVED SERVQUAL (P) MEAN SCORE 3.8 3.61 3.95 3.61 3.24 3.32 3.32 3.17 4.27 1.78 2.15

SERVQUAL GAP (P-E) -0.78 -0.20 -0.05 -0.10 -1.34 -1.00 -0.41 -1.24 -0.49 -0.80 -0.34

TOTAL SERVQUAL GAP

TANGIBILITY

-1.12195

RELIABILITY V7 V8 V9 V10(-) V11(-)

-4.4878

ASSURANCE

-3.21951

V12(-) V13(-) V14 RESPONSIVE V15 NESS V16 V17 V18(-) V19(-) EMPATHY V20(-) V21(-) V22(-)

3.12 2.76 4.24 4.44 4.2 4.54 2.02 2.22 2.37 2.68 2.34

2.49 2.1 3.68 3.98 3.83 3.59 2.12 2.07 2.34 2.46 2.41

-1.05 -1.02 -0.56 -0.46 -0.37 -0.95 0.10 -0.15 -0.02 -0.22 0.07 -0.21951 -2.34146

Interpretation of Results
The statistical package, SPSS (17.0), was used to analyze the data received from the questionnaire. The Questions were precoded beforehand and the data analyzed using descriptive and multivariate statistical analysis. Paired t-sample tests were performed to see if there were any significant differences among the perceptions and expectations among students. All the 22 variables were analyzed w.r.t. the gap scores obtained. They were factor analyzed to determine the existence of underlying dimensions of service quality. A principal component analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation was conducted on the 22 expectations (expectations scale) and 22 perception statements (perceptions scale) measuring the service quality. Factors with an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 were chosen for interpretation. Only variables with factor loading coefficients of 0.45 were considered; that is, items with less than 0.45 were excluded. A reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha) was performed to test the reliability and internal consistency of each of the expectation and perception attributes. Alpha ranges from 0 to 1, and is a measure of the internal consistency of multi-item scales. A coefficient alpha of 0.50 or higher is considered to be adequately reliable for group data purposes. The aim of this study was to determine the quality gap of educational services using SERVQUAL. As the results show in all of the five SERVQUAL dimensions, there is a negative quality gap. Negative quality gaps mean students' expectations are greater than their perceptions, and it indicates dissatisfaction. Thus, improvements are needed across all five SERVQUAL dimensions.

 In this study, the greatest and the least negative quality gap are in the reliability and empathy dimensions respectively (Table 3). This means that in the reliability dimension, when the educational institutes promise to do something by a certain time, they dont do so, When students have problems, these Educational Institutes should be sympathetic and reassuring, the Educational Institutes should be dependable, they should provide their services at the time they promise to do so, and the Educational Institutes should keep their records accurately.

SERVICE DIMENSIONS TANGIBILITY RELIABILITY ASSURANCE RESPONSIVENESS EMPATHY

SERVICE QUALITY GAP (PERCEPTIONS EXPECTATIONS) -1.12195122 -4.48780488 -3.2195122 -2.34146341 -0.2195122

The paired samples statistics (Table 4) was used to test the significant mean difference (gap) between students' expectations and perceptions of service quality. Paired samples t-test confirmed the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference between average ratings of expectations and perceptions by the students, suggesting that respondents distinguished between SERVQUAL dimensions. As shown in Table 5 and 6 the study used factor analysis to reduce the 22 statements into a set of underlying dimensions or factors that portray the expectation and perception of the students. In addition, for the purpose of

quality control of the factors, the data were first tested by KMO and Bartletts test, a statistical test for the overall significance of all correlations within a correlation matrix. This indicated that factor analysis could be performed to further analyze the data. Factor analysis was applied to 22 statements on expectations and 22 statements on perceptions of higher education services, with responses on 5point Likert scale. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used in the analysis. Suitability of factor analysis was determined by correlation and alpha reliability. Varimax rotation defined 4 significant factors on the expectations scale and 4 significant factors on the perceptions scale. A four-dimensional solution in expectations scale, results in the following factors (refer to Table 5): Factor 1: Reliability (5 statements, alpha = 0.713) Factor 2: Assurance and Empathy (9 statements, alpha = 0.778) Factor 3: Tangibility (4 Statements, alpha = 0.708) Factor 4: Responsiveness (4 Statements, alpha = 0.786) Varimax rotation defined 4 factors on the perception scale. (Table 6) Factor 1: Reliability (5 statements, alpha = 0.786), Factor 2: Tangibility (4 statements, alpha = 0.694), Factor 3: Responsiveness and empathy (9 statements, alpha = 0.800) Factor 4: Assurance (4 statements, alpha = 0..771) The situation in the perception scale confirms four SERVQUAL factors while four in the expectation scale; factor analysis confirm four factor SERVQUAL dimensions. Also, reliability analysis was conducted to measure the inside of each of the factors. Alpha coefficient for the total expectations scale totals 0.782, and for the perceptions scale totals 0.860.

DISCUSSION The negative quality gap in service dimensions can be used as a guideline for planning and allocation of resources (Campbell, J.L., Ramsay, J., Green., J., 2001). Thus, the five SERVQUAL dimensions can be classified to four priority groups for allocation of resources and organizational attempts to eliminate or reduce negative quality gaps, so that the responsiveness dimension is placed in the first priority, the assurance, empathy and tangibles dimensions are placed in the second priority, and the reliability dimension is placed in the third priority. If the afore mentioned priorities are taken into account and the quality gap is attended to, the resultant improved will benefit other dimensions as well; the negative quality gap (or quality improvements) in one dimension, in the customers' viewpoint, can affect the negative quality gaps (or quality improvements) in other dimensions (Lamei, A., 2000.).

ANNEXURE-I

QUESTIONNAIRE These questionnaire are divided into two parts. PART-I: Measuring Customer Expectations: 1. 2. 3. 4. Educational Institutes should have up to date equipment. Educational Institutes physical facilities should be visually appealing. Educational Institutes employees should be well dressed and appear neat. The appearance of the physical facilities of the educational institutes should be in keeping with the type of services provided. 5. When the educational institutes promise to do something by a certain time, they should do so. 6. When students have problems, these Educational Institutes should be sympathetic and reassuring. 7. The Educational Institutes should be dependable. 8. They should provide their services at the time they promise to do so. 9. The Educational Institutes should keep their records accurately. 10. (-)The Educational Institutes shouldnt be expected to tell students exactly when services will be performed. 11. (-)It is not realistic for students to expect prompt service from employees of these educational institutes.

12. (-)Their employees dont always have to be willing to help students. 13. (-)It is okay of the employees are too busy to respond to students requests promptly. 14. Students should be able to trust the employees of these educational institutes. 15. Students should be able to feel safe in their transactions with the employees of these educational institutes. 16. The employees of these educational institutes should be polite. 17. Their employees should get adequate support from these educational institutes to do their job well. 18. (-)The educational institutes should not be expected to give students individual attention. 19. (-)Employees of the educational institutes cannot be expected to give students personal attention. 20. (-)It is unrealistic to expect employees of these educational institutes to know what the needs of the students are. 21. (-)It is unrealistic to expect the educational institutes to have their students best interests in mind. 22. (-)The educational institutes shouldnt be expected to have opening hours convenient to all their students. PART-II: Measuring Customer Perceptions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Your college has up to date equipment. Your colleges physical facilities are visually appealing. Your colleges employees are well dressed and appear neat. The appearance of the physical facilities of your college is in keeping with the type of services provided. When your college promises to do something by a certain time, they do so. When students have problems, your college is sympathetic and reassuring. Your college is dependable. Your college provides their services at the time they promise to do so.

9. Your college keeps their records accurately. 10. (-)Your college does not tell students exactly when services will be performed. 11. (-)You do not receive prompt service from employees of your college 12. (-)Employees of your college are not always willing to help you. 13. (-)Employees of your college are too busy to respond to your requests promptly. 14. You can trust the employees of your college. 15. You feel safe in your transactions with the employees of your college. 16. Employees of your college are polite. 17. Employees get adequate support from your college to do their job well. 18. (-)Your college does not give you individual attention. 19. (-)Employees of your college do not give you personal attention. 20. (-)Employees of your college do not know what your needs are. 21. (-)Your college does not have your best interests at heart. 22. (-)Your college does not have opening hours convenient to all their students.

ANNEXURE-II
Table-1

Likert Scale:
Score 5 4 Agree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 Disagree 1 Highly Disagree

Interpretation Strongly Agree

Table -2A
EXPECTED SERVQUAL (E) MEAN SCORE 4.59 3.8 4 PERCEIVED SERVQUAL (P) MEAN SCORE 3.8 3.61 3.95

SERVQUAL DIMENSIONS

STATEMENT S V1

SERVQUAL GAP (P-E) -0.78 -0.20 -0.05

TOTAL SERVQUAL GAP

TANGIBILITY

V2 V3

-1.12195

V4 V5 V6 RELIABILITY V7 V8 V9 V10(-) V11(-) ASSURANCE V12(-) V13(-) V14 V15 RESPONSIVE NESS V16 V17 EMPATHY V18(-)

3.71 4.59 4.32 3.73 4.41 4.76 2.59 2.69 3.12 2.76 4.24 4.44 4.2 4.54 2.02

3.61 3.24 3.32 3.32 3.17 4.27 1.78 2.15 2.49 2.1 3.68 3.98 3.83 3.59 2.12

-0.10 -1.34 -1.00 -0.41 -1.24 -0.49 -0.80 -0.34 -3.21951 -1.05 -1.02 -0.56 -0.46 -2.34146 -0.37 -0.95 0.10 -0.21951 -4.4878

V19(-) V20(-) V21(-) V22(-)

2.22 2.37 2.68 2.34

2.07 2.34 2.46 2.41

-0.15 -0.02 -0.22 0.07

TABLE 2B SERVICE DIMENSIONS TANGIBILITY RELIABILITY ASSURANCE RESPONSIVENESS EMPATHY SERVICE QUALITY GAP (PERCEPTIONS - EXPECTATIONS) -1.12195122 -4.48780488 -3.2195122 -2.34146341 -0.2195122

TABLE 3
Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 EXPECTATIONS & PERCEPTIONS 22 Correlation .879 Sig. .000

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Pair 1 EXPECTATIONS PERCEPTIONS .51864 Std. Deviation .44128 Std. Error Mean .09408 Lower .32298 Upper .71429 t 5.513 df 21 Sig. (2-tailed) .000

TABLE 4

FACTORS AND STATEMENTS FACTOR 1 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 FACTOR 2 E10 E11 E12 E13 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 FACTOR 3 E1 E2

FACTOR LOADINGS .808 .593 .877 .816 .906 .496 .615 .884 .725 .816 .816 .838 .773 .865 .644 .782

CHRONBACH ALPHA

0.713

0.778

0.708

E3 E4 FACTOR 4 E14 E15 E16 E17

.628 .816 .677 .793 .602 .534

0.786

TABLE 5

FACTORS AND STATEMENTS FACTOR 1 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 FACTOR 2 P1 P2 P3 P4 FACTOR 3 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18

FACTOR LOADING .829 .592 .729 .750 .662 .583 .644 .764 .727 .817 .549 .478 .702 .830

CHRONBACH ALPHA

0.786

0.694

0.8

P19 P20 P21 P22 FACTOR 4 P10 P11 P12 P13

.866 .722 .860 .486 .697 .825 .717 .793

0.771

REFERENCES
Adee A, Bernie OD. Exploring graduates' perceptions of the quality of higher education. 2007. http://www.aair.org.au/jir/May94/Athiyaman.pdf

Anci DT. How satisfied are our students? Quality management unit Office for institutional effectiveness university of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa. 2006. Badri, M.A.; Abdulla, M.; Al-Madani, A.,(2005), Information technology center service quality, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22(8), p.819-848. Berry LL. Relationship marketing of services-Growing interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing sciences. 1995;26:767 86. Bolton RN, Drew JH. A Multistage Model of Customers' assessments of service quality and value. Journal of consumer research. 1991:375384. doi: 10.1086/208564.

Boulding W, Kalra A, Staelin R, Zeithmal VA. A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research. 1993;30:727. doi: 10.2307/3172510. Bradley RB. Analyzing service quality: The case of post-graduate Chinese students. 2007. http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/documents Barnes.pdf Campbell JL, Ramsay J, Green J. Age, gender, socioeconomic and ethnic differences in patients' assessments of primary health care. Quality in Health Care. 2001;10:9095. doi: 10.1136/qhc.10.2.90. [PubMed] Carl AR. Assessing Satisfaction with Selected Student Services using SERVQUAL, a Market-Driven Model of Service Quality. NASPA Journal. 1998;35:331341. Carman, J. M., (1990,) Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimension, Journal of Retailing, 69(2): 33-55. Chua Clare. Perception of Quality in Higher Education. AUQA Occasional Publication. 2007. http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/program/papers/Chua Feldman KA. Class size and students' evaluation of college teachers and courses: A closer look. Research in Higher Education. 1984;21:45116. doi: 10.1007/BF00975035. Glow KE, Vorhies DW. Building a competitive advantage for service firms. Journal of services marketing. 1993;7:2232. doi: 10.1108/08876049310026079. Hedndershoot, Anne B., Sheila P. Wright, And Deborah Henderson (1992). Quality Of Life Correlates For University Students. NASPA Journal, 30 (1): 11-19. Kebriaei A, Roudbari M. Quality gap in educational services at Zahedan university of medical sciences: students viewpoints about current and optimal condition. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2005;5:5360. Kilbourne, W.E., (2004), The applicability of SERVQUAL in crossnational measurements of health-care quality, Journal of Service Marketing, 18(7); p. 524533.

LaBay DG, Comm CL. A case study using gap analysis to assess distance learning versus traditional course delivery. The International Journal of Education Management. 2003;17:312317. doi: 10.1108/09513540310501003. Lamei A. Total Quality management in health care. Ministry of Health and Education of Iran, Quality Improvement Unit; 2000. Lapidus, Richard S. And Jacqueline J. Brown (1993). Assessing Satisfaction With The University Experience: An International Perspective. Journal Of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction And Complaining Behavior, 6(3): 187-196. Levenson, L.,(2004) The Things That Count: Negative Perceptions Of The Teaching Environment Among University Academics, 21(3): 34-42. Long P, Tricker T, Rangecroft M, Gilroy P. Measuring the Satisfaction gap: Education in the market place. Total quality management. 1999;10:772 778. Markovi, S., (2002), Higher Education Quality measurement: A Case Study in the Application of SERVQUAL, Congress proceeedings of 17th biennial international congress Tourism and Hospitality Industry 2004 New trends in Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management Opatija, Croatia. Marsh HW, Roche L. The use of students' Evaluations and an Individually Structured Intervention to Enhance University Teaching Effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal. 1993;30:217 251. Millson F, Kirk-Smith M. The Effect of quality circles on perceived service quality in financial services Marketing Practice. Applied Marketing Science. 1996;2:75 88. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004137. Nunnally, J. C., (1967) Psychometric Methods, Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L (1985), A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41-50.