Service Quality Report Final-Version

Service Quality Study: GCU Students with Disabilities
1.0 Introduction and Background
The attainment of quality in products and services became a pivotal concern in the 1980s
but while quality of tangible goods had been well described and measured; Parasuraman,
A., Zeithaml, Valarie, A., and Berry, Leonard, L. (PZB) found that quality in services had
at that time been largely undefined and under-researched. This finding led to an extensive
research study (PZB 1985) to put forward a model of service quality and instruments.
The further development of the SERVQUAL model in a series of publications (PBZ
1990; 1991; and PZB 1988; 1991; 1993; 1994a; 1994b) has led to it being the most
widely used measure of service quality but the most severely criticised.
The service quality shortfall is represented in Gap 5 of the SERVQUAL model (Figure
1) which contests that any discrepancy between customer expectations and their
perceptions of the service delivered, is a result of the influences exerted from the
customer side, with the shortfalls (Gaps 1-4 in SERVQUAL model) being caused by the
service provider.
The portability of the SERVQUAL scale into the non-profit and voluntary sector was
found to be problematic for the measurement of service quality. The five SERVQUAL
‘RATER’ dimensions: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy and Responsiveness
and their associated service quality attributes were not transferable into the sector and
this led to the need for primary research to establish the specific service quality attributes
used in the evaluation of service quality by service recipients.
Early research work (Donnelly, Shiu, Dalrymple and Wisniewski, 1996; Vaughan and
Shiu 1995; Vaughan and Shiu 1996; Shiu, Vaughan and Donnelly, 1997; Vaughan and
Shiu 2001) in the area of service quality within the non-profit and voluntary sector had
signaled the need for a bespoke service quality model and instruments for the
measurement of the disabled consumers’ view of the quality of service delivery.
1.1 Primary Research into Service Quality in Non-Profit and Voluntary sector:
Disabled Consumer Segment
Primary research was needed to establish the specific service quality attributes used in the
evaluation of service quality by disabled recipients. This would then enable a multi-item
scale to be developed to specifically measure service quality in the disabled consumer
segment of the non-profit and voluntary sector.
Qualitative research was undertaken, involving 7 focus group discussions across

two major Scottish voluntary organisations, to gain an insight into how disabled
service users define and evaluate overall service quality within the non-profit and
voluntary. Analysis of the transcripts using grounded theory produced 40 emerging
service quality attributes across 12 hypothesised dimensions which were then
compared to the SERVQUAL model.
1
FIGURE 1
Word-of-Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience

Communications
Expected Service
Gap 5
CUSTOMER Perceived Service
Gap 4
PROVIDER External
Service Delivery
Communications
to Customers
Gap 3
Gap 1 Service Quality

Specifications
Gap 2
Management
Perceptions of
Customer Expectations
Figure 1 (Conceptual Model of Service Quality Zeithaml et al. 1990)
2
A quantitative confirmatory study was then conducted to capture data on
expectations, perceptions and importance of the 40 identified service quality
attributes. Principal Component Analysis was used in the analysis of the resultant
data to determine the degree of redundancy in the 40 service quality attributes. This
revealed that 99% of the variation (or information) in the data could be explained
by around 26 attributes. Hence, for the loss of a 1% amount of information, the
survey instrument can potentially be reduced by 14 attributes (from 40 to 26).
Correlation Analysis was also applied to determine pairs or clusters of attributes

considered conceptually similar by respondents and so identify attributes that had a high
correlation with one or more attributes. Qualitative analysis of the attribute correlations
resulted in 26 attributes across 10 hypothesised service quality dimensions as follows:
Service Quality Dimensions

A Access (distinct from PZB)
R Responsiveness
C Communication
H Humaneness
S Security
E Enabling/Empowerment
C Competence
R Reliability
E Equity
T Tangibles
The 10 dimensions were arranged under the acronym ARCHSECRET which infers no
ordering of each dimension rather it was a convenient title for the emerging hypothesised
model of service quality for the non-profit and voluntary sector.
The results of this early research resulted in a multi-item scale to measure service
quality as perceived by disabled service users within the non-profit and voluntary
sector. The resultant scale comprised a set of service quality features that were
distinct from SERVQUAL and a set of ten hypothesised dimensions attuned to the
nature of service quality evaluations from service recipients in the voluntary sector.
The key anticipated benefits from using ARCHSECRET as a measurement tool are
that it measures service user perceived service shortfalls; it improves the quality of
decision making in the allocation of scarce resources to these areas of shortfall; and
it can be used to track service quality performance in a continuation audit of the
organisation’s quality of service delivery. It is believed that the ARCHSECRET
scale could be a powerful diagnostic tool for management in their bid to sustain
continuous quality improvement and ensure the most effective use of scarce
resources.
3
1.2 GCU ARCHSECRET Service Quality Study: Students with Disabilities
ARCHSECRET is a model and instruments for measuring service quality, based on the
assumption that service quality is critically determined by the difference between
customers' expectations of excellence and their perceptions of the service actually
delivered. The ARCHSECRET model has been developed specifically for the disabled
consumer segment of the market.
The GCU study was undertaken to investigate the level of service quality shortfall
experienced across the 10 dimensions of the ARCHSECRET model by students with
disabilities.
The questionnaire was a highly structured instrument whose format was as follows:
• Type of Disability: Learning, Visual, Hearing, Medical, Mental Health, Mobility

• Number of years experience of the University
• Level of satisfaction (CSAT) with overall services, using 7 point Semantic
Differential ‘degree of satisfaction’ scale
Completely Very Mildly Neither Mildly Very Completely

dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied
nor satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
• Perceptions of Service Performance: Set of 26 statements across the 10

dimensions of ARCHSECRET, benchmarked against excellence in SQ, using a 7
point Likert ‘degree of agreement’ scale
Absolutely Strongly Slightly Neither Slightly Strongly Absolutely

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Access: (3 statements)
1. The organisation is willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of the
client’s right to services.
2. The organisation ensures accessibility to physical facilities, personnel,
equipment, communication materials and the service.
3. The organisation makes available information, advice and support on
potential funding sources to the clients.
Responsiveness: (4 statements)
4
4. Staff at the organisation provide prompt and timely service to clients.
5. The organisation constructively handles client complaints.
6. The organisation is willing to defend and fight for individual client rights.
7. The organisation provides a flexible service to meet individual client needs.
Communication: (4 statements)
8. Staff at the organisation are polite and courteous with clients.
9. Staff at the organisation are willing to listen to individual client’s point of view.
10.Staff at the organisation communicate in a language that is understood by clients.
11.The organisation provides complete and accurate information to clients in
good time.
Humaneness: (3 statements)
12.Staff at the organisation are willing to help with client concerns and to
reassure them in terms of their personal anxieties.
13.Staff at the organisation respond sympathetically to individual client needs,
while respecting their privacy.
14.Staff at the organisation respect client confidences and feelings.
Security: (2 statements)
15.Clients of the organisation feel safe under the care of the staff.
16.The organisation maintains accurate and secure client records.
Enabling/Empowerment (2 statements)
17.The organisation creates the environment to enable individual clients to take
responsibility for their personal development.
18.The organisation provides opportunities and support for clients to attain their
personal goals.
Competence: (3 statements)
19.The organisation is able to deliver the level of service required by clients,
with clearly stated terms and conditions.
20.The organisation has the required number of staff who have the ability to do
the job.
21.The organisation is able to deliver the full range of services to meet the
changing needs of individual clients.
Reliability: (3 statements)
22.Staff at the organisation deliver the appropriate service as promised.
23.The organisation provides a dependable service which does not vary over time.
24.The behaviour of staff at the organisation make you feel that you can trust
them and have confidence in them.
Equity: (1 statement)
25.The organisation delivers an equitable service across individual clients as well
as groups of clients.
Tangibles: (1 statement)
26.The organisation has a full range of up-to-date physical facilities and equipment.
• Overall service quality assessment (SQ), using a 7 point good/bad Semantic

Differential scale
5
Extremely Very Fairly Neither poor Fairly Very Extremely
poor poor poor nor good good good good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
• Importance of the 10 ARCHSECRET SQ dimensions, each scored out of 100
Please rate the importance of the following ten service quality dimensions, by
inserting a mark out of 100 for each. Insert your mark in the answer box provided.
1. Access to overall services
2. Responsiveness to your needs
3. Communication style and information provision
4. Humaneness in dealing with you
5. Security of your care
6. Enabling/Empowerment of your development
7. Competence in overall service delivery
8. Reliability of overall service delivery
9. Equity of overall service delivery
10. Tangibles: up-to-date range of physical facilities
• ‘Additional Comment’ open-ended question on how the university could

improve its service delivery
Section 2 Summary of Key Findings
6
The key findings are extracted from the detailed and comprehensive analysis of the
survey results which are contained in Section 3 of the report. Qualitative comments
inserted in the ‘Additional Comments’ section of the questionnaire have been
included under the key finding areas as is appropriate to highlight the statistical
results reported.
2.1 Service Quality (SQ) and Customer Satisfaction (CSAT)
Service Quality (SQ) 82% stated it was GOOD

82% of the respondents stated that the quality of the services provided by the
University was fairly up to extremely good; with 11% declaring it to be fairly down
to extremely poor and 6% were uncertain. This is an excellent result for the
University as the vast majority of our students with disabilities are demonstrating a
very positive attitude on the quality of service delivery.
Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) 79% said that they were SATISFIED

79% of the respondents stated that they were mildly up to completely satisfied with
the overall services provided by the University, with 16% being mildly down to
completely dissatisfied and 4% were uncertain. Customer Satisfaction is normally
taken as a measure of customer experience with specific episodes of service delivery
and so is primarily outcome driven and may fluctuate over a given period. In the
case of the 16% who displayed a level of dissatisfaction, this demonstrates the under
performance of services received in relation to their expectations. Continuous
feedback on the performance of University services for this group of students will
highlight the key areas of service delivery that require improvement.
2.2 Service Quality Attributes (26)
Access Dimension
1. Attribute 1 “The terms and conditions of your right to services are negotiated”
The students’ response was predominantly positive.
63% of respondents stated that they agreed with the statement, with 7%
disagreeing. The positive response from students (63%) could suggest that
they have resonance with this attribute of service quality and are content
with it. In the case of those 30% students displaying uncertainty on this
attribute, the reason could be that they have had no experience to date of this
aspect of service quality and therefore cannot comment.
2. Attribute 2 “The service, physical facilities, equipment, staff, and

communication materials are accessible to you”
The students’ response was very positive.
76% of respondents agreed with this statement, with 15% disagreeing and
8% being uncertain.
Qualitative comments by students:
7
“The service is the best I have ever come across and cannot suggest anything
better.”
“I don’t feel that the university could improve its service delivery, as it has
provided anything I have asked for”.
“As a student with a visual and mobility disability, I recently booked a room in
the library to carry out an interview. I was informed that only one room may be
suitable for this but even then the chairs would have to be moved.”
“The lecture rooms should be equipped adequately in order to enable those with
hearing difficulties to benefit from the lectures. I for one attend them in vain –
even with the help of a hearing aid, I cannot hear my lecturers!”
Action: 1. Review the infrastructure of the University to assess its ability to
meet the needs of students with disabilities in relation to hearing aid loops in
lecture rooms, easier access to labs and seminar rooms, space between seats,
provision of one lift in each building dedicated for use of physically disabled
students and staff.
2. Conduct a regular audit of specialist equipment available for students with
disabilities, with the audit details disseminated to all staff in the University
3. Attribute 3 “Information, advice and support on potential funding sources are

made available to you”
The students’ response was fairly positive.
60% of respondents agreed with this statement, with 23% disagreeing and
16% being uncertain. The 40% of students either disagreeing with or being
uncertain about this feature of service delivery could suggest that there is a
service shortfall in students being informed on funding sources, for example,
the Disability Students Allowance (DSA). Registration for the DAS by our
students directly affects the amount of money received by the University into
the Student Disability Premium Fund.
“Information regarding funding and entitlements should be made more explicit.”
“The University could improve its service delivery by making all students aware
of types of funds available to them.”
Action: Review the processes and procedures followed by Disability Services

to inform and encourage students with disabilities to access all relevant
funding sources, in particular the Disability Students Allowance (DSA).
Responsiveness dimension
4. Attribute 4 “Staff provide prompt and timely service to you” again the
students’ response was highly positive.
81% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and
9% being uncertain. This is overall a good result on this service quality
attribute.
8
“..as a student with dyslexia I hate having to approach individual lecturers before
they present to request copies of their presentation as this is supposed to be
organised by the department and given to me 2 days before the lecture this never
happens.”
“I would like to get more information on the lectures.”
5. Attribute 5 “Your complaints are constructively handled” students displayed a

diverse range of views in response to this service quality item.
33% being uncertain. In the case of the 1 in 3 students who declared
uncertainty on this item then this could be because they did not have any
cause for complaint or that they were not satisfied with the outcome.
Qualitative comment by student:
“If the university could speed up the resolution of complaints then this would
improve its service.”
Action: An analysis of student complaints received by the University, by
disability and School, along with their outcomes may shed further light on
the uncertainty (33%) of students with this service quality attribute.
6. Attribute 6 “The University is willing to defend and fight for your individual
rights” also displayed a fairly diverse range of views.
38% being uncertain. As with attribute 5, the latter percentage is high for the
neutral point of the scale, with over one in three respondents displaying
uncertainty as to the University’s willingness to champion their individual
rights.
“Having declared my hearing and mental health disability to student records, I
expected to be contacted by the disability service department. I did not hear from
them. Furthermore, due to having a hearing impairment, I asked lecturers for
written material: speaking notes etc and a room with a better acoustic but I did not
receive them.”
“I feel that a ‘hidden’ disability such as dyslexia causes some problems among
other students at times in the library. For example, there is (or used to be) a
photocopier machine designated for ‘disabled’ students. I assumed that I could use
this machine but when I did so, another student got really angry saying that I was
not in a wheelchair and should not be using it!”
“I have a severe mental illness. I have been very disappointed in the help
provided by student services……Staff in general seem to have little
understanding of how to help someone who is mentally ill and hence fragile. I do
not expect lecturing staff to be familiar with mental illness, but I do expect student
services and the departmental disability officer to be experts. In my case it is
helpful for staff to be patient, calm, quiet, positive and kind. I find it very
distressing when staff are agitated, stressed, negative, disorganised or angry. I
would recommend training for staff in how to deal with people who are mentally
9
ill. Unfortunately, there is a big difference between people thinking they can help
and people actually being able to help. I would recommend that all students with
mental illness have a member of staff who can act as their advocate within the
university.”
“I have had to rely heavily on one lecturer who has been very helpful, but the
people that should have been helping me have been unable to. I recommend that
the university sends its disability support staff including the Departmental
Disability Coordinators on a mental health course. I am lucky that I am a mature
student who has persevered in spite of difficulties. If I had been a school leaver I
would have given up. I also recommend that every student with mental illness
should have someone to act as an ‘advocate’ within the university system.”
Action: Staff Development in mental health awareness training; production

of Mental Health Guidelines for staff; consideration of an ‘Advocacy’
support system for students with mental health needs.
7. Attribute 7 “A flexible service is provided to meet your individual needs”

student response was overall positive.
16% being uncertain. The accessibility of the curriculum (Teachability) for
students with disabilities is an important aspect of service delivery.
“The University could improve its service delivery by regular checks on disabled
students to ensure that they are copying with the demands of university.”
“Being a student with multiple disabilities and suffering a measurable amount of
stress, the service which was offered within the University to me is a once in a
lifetime opportunity, that has helped me maintain my studies.”
“..the disability staff are perfect, as they respond and attend to my needs and treat
me as an individual person first, and that I have a disability second- which is more
important to me.”
Action: 1. Continued use of the Teachability tool a) to identify any aspects of
our teaching provision which could cause difficulties for students with
disabilities and b) to consider the changes to practice which are necessary to
enhance the accessibility of the curriculum.
2. Ensure Teachability is a standing item on the agenda of Module Evaluation
and Enhancement Groups (MEEGs), Programme Boards and Divisional
Boards
Communication dimension
8. Attribute 8 “Staff are polite and courteous with you” student response was
extremely positive. 92% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 5%
disagreeing and 3% being uncertain. This result reflects well on this aspect of
the quality of our service delivery.
10
9. Attribute 9 “Staff are willing to listen to your individual point of view” student
response was again very positive. 85% of respondents agreed with the
statement, with 8% disagreeing and 7% being uncertain.
10. Attribute 10 “Staff communicate in a language that you understand” again

student response was very positive. 85% of respondents agreed with the
statement, with 6% disagreeing and 9% being uncertain.
11. Attribute 11 “Complete and accurate information is provided to you in good

time” student response was overall positive. 71% of respondents agreed with
the statement, with 20% disagreeing and 9% being uncertain. One in five,
however, of students disagreed with the statement and this is of concern,
raising implications for information transfer to our students with disabilities.
“The University could make you aware of who to contact and which services are
available when you enroll on a course.”
“The university could improve its service delivery by making it easier to find out
information and/or services which are relevant to disabled students. “
“The University could improve its service delivery by letting the student know
they must ask and seek out help. I expected to be told to do something or see
someone. No one informed me of who to see and I asked a little too late for this.”
“The University could improve its service delivery by having up-to-date records,
send out reminder letters and provide more information about service and
available resources for disabled students when joining the University.”
“Lecture notes are provided after the lecture and this is too late for someone with
a learning disability.”
Actions:
• Develop a web site or portal for students with disabilities which

contains all relevant information and forms, with a interactive facility
for communication
• Make available specialized induction programmes for students with
disabilities
• Enrolment forms should be modified to enable students with
disabilities to complete them with the same levels of independence and
confidentiality as other students
• Clearing application forms should include a section for students to
disclose a disability
• Make available on Blackboard lecture notes and learning materials as
is appropriate prior to the lecture delivery
• Produce and make available where requested programme
specifications, descriptions and support materials in different formats,
such as Braille, large print, tape and disc versions.
11
• Ensure that all computer software used in programme and module
delivery is compliant with the Special Educational Needs and
Disability Act (SENDA) 2001
• Modification of the CELCAT timetabling software to indicate if the
room/lab was accessible by physically impaired students
• Production of a map of routes around campus for physically disabled
students
Humaneness dimension
12. Attribute 12 “Staff reassure you in terms of your personal anxieties, concerns
and problems” overall student response was positive.
16% being uncertain.
“The staff at the university have been extremely good in helping me discover my
disability and providing support thereafter. I believe my course marks would be
far lower if not for their help and I am now studying at degree level – something I
doubted several years ago.”
13. Attribute 13 “Staff are sympathetic to your individual needs, while respecting
your privacy” student response was positive overall.
“I have studied at Glasgow Caledonian University for three years now and have
found the staff to be very helpful and extremely understanding about my multiple
disabilities (visual, medical and mental health). I made a conscious decision to
study at GCU because I knew they had, and were committed to a comprehensive
university wide policy disability policy. However, this policy exceeded all my
expectations and I truly believe that I would not have managed to progress this far
in my degree programme without the help and support of the staff at the
University.”
14. Attribute 14 “Staff respect your confidences and feelings” again student
response was very positive.
Security dimension
15. Attribute 15 “You feel safe under the care of the staff” was again an overall
positive result.
17% being uncertain. As students with disabilities are potentially a more
12
vulnerable group within the student population, it is reassuring that 3 out of
4 students gave a positive response to this statement.
16. Attribute 16 “Accurate and secure student records are maintained” student
response was fairly positive.
66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 5% disagreeing. Over
one in four (29%) were uncertain on the security and accuracy of student
records which is of concern.
Action: Ensure the database of GCU students with disabilities is regularly
updated for accuracy and completeness, with accessibility to staff as is
compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information
(Scotland) Act 2002.
Enabling/Empowerment dimension
17. Attribute 17 “The university environment enables you to take responsibility for
your personal development” displayed a very positive result.
18. Attribute 18 “Specific opportunities and support for you to attain your
personal goals are provided” student response was positive.
“There is a lack of community (for students with disabilities) which is inevitable
perhaps as students are atomistic and self-serving.”
“I think there should be an increase in the availability of sports facilities and
sports groups in all universities to aid physical and mental development.”
Action: University Disability Forum, acting as advisers to the Executive
Human Resources Group, should bring forward proposals for enabling
students with disabilities to meet their social and leisure goals.
Competence dimension
19. Attribute 19 “The required level of service is delivered, with clearly stated
terms and conditions” student response was overall positive. 70% of
respondents agreed with the statement, with 15% disagreeing and 15% being
uncertain. The Partners in Delivery (PiD) project which is a partnership
agreement between each student in GCU setting out what is expected by each
party has the potential to further enhance this aspect of service quality.
“More emphasis placed on support services within first week of University.”
20. Attribute 20 “The required number of staff have the ability to do the job”
student response was positive overall.
13
19% being uncertain. Emphasis on staff development in Disability Awareness
and Teachability Training are important to enable staff to meet the needs of
students with disabilities.
21. Attribute 21 “The full range of services is delivered to meet your changing
needs” student response was positive overall.
17% being uncertain. Given the 38% who either disagreed or were
uncertain, actions proposed under attributes 2, 7 and 11 also apply to this
attribute in order to be more responsive to the needs of our students with
disabilities
Reliability dimension
22. Attribute 22 “Staff deliver the appropriate service as promised” student

response was again positive overall.
71% of respondents agreed with the statement, with at least 12% disagreeing
and 15% being uncertain. All staff should ensure that promises made to
students can be delivered within the time and conditions specified. Promises
made create expectations of service delivery which, if not met, lead to student
dissatisfaction.
23. Attribute 23 “A dependable service which does not vary over time is
provided” student response is again fairly positive.
19% being uncertain. The Reliability dimension of service quality was given
a 99% importance rating by respondents in the survey. Reliability of service
delivery is crucial to students with disabilities and as such 32% of students
either disagreeing or being uncertain on the dependability of our service
delivery requires attention.
Action: Provision of on-going staff development to disseminate ‘good
practice’ in service delivery to our students with disabilities.
24. Attribute 24 “The behaviour of staff makes you feel that you can trust them
and have confidence in them” student response was very positive.
12% being uncertain. Again with the importance rating of 99% for the
Reliability dimension, it is good to receive strong support for the delivery of
this attribute.
“The university places too much emphasis on appearance when attitudes are more
important. I feel my department is far more concerned with being seen to comply
with the legislation, rather than addressing my needs.”
14
“The level of service at the university is impeccable. Since discovering I had a
learning disability the staff whom I approached have been understanding,
supportive and caring.”
Action: Provision of on-going staff development to disseminate ‘good

practice’ in service delivery to our students with disabilities.
Equity dimension
25. Attribute 25 “An equitable service is delivered to individual students, as well

as groups of students” student response was overall positive.
20% being uncertain. There is still room for improvement, however, on this
aspect of service delivery.
“Support and assistance as a part-time student is limited and there is no access to
special equipment e.g. voice activated software and laptop for home use.
Disability funding is not available for part-time courses; therefore low paid
students with disabilities have difficulty in funding support to complete the
course. Perhaps equipment should be made available on loan.”
Action: Part-time Programme/Module Teams, using the Teachability tool,

should review the accessibility of specialist equipment required in the
delivery of their curriculum for part-time students with disabilities.
Tangibles dimension
26. Attribute 26 “A full range of up-to-date physical facilities and equipment are
provided” student response tended towards the positive end of the degree of
agreement scale.
66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing but
almost one in four (24%) being uncertain on the provision of a full range of
up-to-date facilities.
“I would like more loop systems fitted in lecture halls, this is not the case despite
new buildings being in place.”
“The only thing that holds me back, in terms of up-to date facilities, is that I
would prefer a loop system in some of the lecture halls, especially the newer
ones.”
“ICT should allow students with visual impairment the right to adjust the display
on campus PC’s. Accessibility to PC’s is poor except in the Visual Impairment
(VI) room in the library.”
Action (in line with Attribute 2):

1. Improve the infrastructure of the University to meet the needs of students
with disabilities through hearing aid loops in lecture rooms, easier access to
15
labs and seminar rooms, space between seats, provision of one lift in each
building dedicated for use of physically disabled students and staff.
2. Conduct a regular audit of specialist equipment available for students with
disabilities, with the audit details disseminated to all staff in the University.
2.3 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS (10): RATING OF IMPORTANCE
Importance Rating of 10 Dime nsions
N Mean
E/E 118 100.00
REL 118 99.00
COMS 118 98.00
RESP 118 91.00
HUM 118 88.00
SEC 118 87.00
ACC 118 86.00
COMP 118 84.00
EQU 118 84.00
TAN 118 82.00
The 3 top rated dimensions are Enabling/Empowerment at 100%; closely followed

by Reliability 99% and Communication 98%. The remaining 7 dimensions were
also rated highly on importance level across the range from 91% to 82% as shown
in the table above. This result reinforces the relevancy of the 10 service quality
dimensions of the ARCHSECRET multi-attribute scale. For the University, it is
critical to ensure that there are no major shortfalls in service delivery across the 3
top rated service quality dimensions and to a lesser extent across the remaining 7
dimensions. Given this, an analysis is required of Gap Scores across the 10
dimensions of service quality benchmarked against the standard of excellence.
GAP SCORES FOR 10 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS
16
Dimension Gap Scores
0
-0.2 Acc Resp Comm Hum Sec E/E Comp Rel Equ Tan
-0.4
-0.6
Mean Gap Score
-0.8
-1
-1.2 -1.27
-1.39
-1.4
-1.6
-1.64
-1.6 -1.67 -1.71 -1.69 -1.68
-1.8 -1.87 -1.87
-2
A mean gap score of ‘0’ reflects excellence but in most organisations, it is anticipated
that there will be a shortfall of at least ‘1’ in service delivery. As gap score moves
from 1 and approaches ‘2’ this starts to represent a shortfall which demands
attention by the organisation. Gap scores of 2 and more signal a more serious
situation which demands urgent action. Resources are not infinite for any
organisation and so it is practical to target those dimensions which have been rated
high in terms of importance by the customers.
The top 3 importance rated dimensions produced the 3 lowest mean gap
scores. Enabling/Empowerment (100% importance rating) displayed a low mean gap
score of -1.39. Reliability (99% importance rating) had a relatively low mean gap
score of -1.6. Communication (98% importance rating) produced the lowest mean
gap score of -1.27. Hence the 3 top importance rated dimensions produced the
lowest 3 mean gap scores. This is good news for the University in that any shortfall
in service delivery is relatively low across those dimensions rated in the top 3 by the
students with disabilities.
The two dimensions that produced the highest mean gap score were Responsiveness
-1.87 (91% importance rating) and Access -1.87 (86% importance rating). A full
analysis of the service quality attributes comprising each of these two dimensions is
contained in Section 3.5. Key issues arising from this analysis are as follows:
Responsiveness
• Over 1 in 2 students with a Hearing and Mobility impairment signaled their
discontent with the University’s service performance in constructive handling of
their complaints. This is worth noting despite small number of students in each
category.
• A high percentage of students (86%) with a hearing impairment declared a
concern with the University’s willingness to defend and fight for their individual
17
rights. Overall, students with disabilities reported a high service shortfall in the
University’s willingness to champion their individual rights.
• Over 1 in 2 students (57%) with a hearing impairment signaled their discontent
with the University’s performance in providing a flexible service.
• At least 7 out of 10 students with a hearing impairment (71%) signaled their
discontent with the University’s willingness to negotiate the terms and conditions
of this group of disabled students ‘right’ to services.
Access
• Over 1 in 2 students (57%) with a hearing impairment expressed their discontent
with the University’s performance in ensuring access to physical facilities, staff,
and communication materials.
• Over 1 in 2 students with hearing (57%) and medical impairments (54%)
expressed their discontent with the University’s performance in providing
information, advice and support on sources of potential funding.
Action: Review level of service provision for students with a hearing impairment
Section 3 ARCHSECRET H.E. Survey Data: Descriptive Statistics
Appendix 1 contains a list of variables and their labels
3.1 SERVICE QUALITY (SQ) BAR CHART

(%s have been rounded up or down by SPSS)
Bar Chart of SERVICE QUALITY

50
40
41
30
25
20
16
10
Percent
8
6
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SQ
Mean 5.53 Standard Deviation 1.47
Semantic descriptors at each point on the scale are as follows:
18
Extremely Very Fairly Neither poor Fairly Very Extremely
poor poor poor nor good good good good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The distribution of responses on service quality across the 7 point semantic

differential scale ‘Poor/Good’ is predominantly positive. 82% of the respondents
stated that the quality of the services provided by the University was fairly up to
extremely good; with 11% declaring it to be fairly down to extremely poor and 6%
were uncertain. This is an excellent result for the University as the vast majority of
our students with disabilities are demonstrating a very positive attitude on the
quality of service delivery.
3.2 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (CSAT) BAR CHART

(%s have been rounded up or down by SPSS)
Bar Chart of CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

50
45
40
30
20
19
15
10
11
Percent
5 4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CSAT
Semantic descriptors at each point on the scale were as follows:
Completely Very Mildly Neither Mildly Very Completely

dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied
nor satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19
The distribution of responses on customer satisfaction, across the 7 point semantic
differential scale ‘Dissatisfied/Satisfied’ reflects predominantly positive values. 79%
of the respondents stated that they were mildly up to completely satisfied with the
overall services provided by the University, with 16% being mildly down to
completely dissatisfied and 4% were uncertain. Customer Satisfaction is normally
taken as a measure of customer experience with specific episodes of service delivery
and so is primarily outcome driven and may fluctuate over a given period. In the
case of the 16% who displayed a level of dissatisfaction, this demonstrates the under
performance of services received in relation to their expectations. Continuous
feedback on the performance of University services for this group of students will
highlight the key areas of service delivery that require improvement.
20
3.3 26 ATTRIBUTES OF ARCHSECRET MODEL
A Bar Chart is produced for each of the 26 service quality attributes.

The 7 point semantic differential scale used for the response to each attribute is as
follows:
Absolutely Strongly Slightly Neither Slightly Strongly Absolutely

Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please note that the percentages on the following Bar Charts have been rounded up
or down by SPSS and therefore not all will necessarily total 100%.
Access: Right to services

40
30
30
28
20 21
14
10
Percent
0 3 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AC_RIGHT
The degree of agreement with Attribute 1 “The terms and conditions of your right to
services are negotiated” on the Access dimension was predominantly positive. 63%
of respondents stated that they slightly up to absolutely agree with the statement,
with 7% (8/118) disagreeing. The positive response suggests that these students have
resonance with this attribute of service quality and they are content with it. There
are a high number of respondents, however, nearly one in three (30%), displaying
uncertainty. The reason could be that these students have had no experience to date
of this aspect of service quality and therefore cannot comment.
21
Access: Facilities
40
30 32
28
20
16
10
8
Percent
6 6
3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AC_FACS
The degree of agreement with Attribute 2 “The service, physical facilities,

equipment, staff, and communication materials are accessible to you” on the Access
dimension is highly positive. 76% of respondents agreed with this statement, with
15% disagreeing and 8% being uncertain. It would appear that there are a number
of students (15%) who are displaying concerns with access to facilities. The type of
disability of this group of students was spread over learning (61%), visual (20%),
hearing (57%), mental health (50%) and mobility (22%).
Access: Funding sources

30
25
20 21
16
14 14
10
Percent
5
4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AC_FUNDS
22
The degree of agreement with Attribute 3 “Information, advice and support on
potential funding sources are made available to you” on the Access dimension was
fairly positive. 60% of respondents agreed with this statement, with 23%
disagreeing and 16% being uncertain. The 40% of students either disagreeing with
or being uncertain about this feature of service delivery could suggest that there is a
service shortfall in students being informed of funding sources, for example, the
Disability Students Allowance (DSA). Given the importance of students with
disabilities registering for the DSA this is an area that deserves attention.
Registration for the DAS by our students directly affects the amount of money
received by the University into the Student Disability Premium Fund.
Responsiveness: Timely service

40
34
30
24
23
20
10
9
Percent
3 4
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RP_TIME
The degree of agreement with Attribute 4 “Staff provide prompt and timely service
to you” on the Responsiveness dimension was predominantly positive. 81% of
uncertain. This is overall a good result on this service quality attribute.
23
Responsiveness: Complaints
40
33
30
25
20
16
14
10
Percent
3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RP_COMPL
The degree of agreement with Attribute 5 “Your complaints are constructively

handled” on the Responsiveness dimension displayed a diverse range of views. 55%
of respondents agreed with the statement, with 12% (14/118) disagreeing and 33%
being uncertain. The latter percentage is high for the neutral point of the scale, with
one in three of respondents declaring their uncertainty on the constructive handling
of their complaints. This could be because they did not have any cause for complaint
or that they were not satisfied with the outcome. A breakdown of student
complaints by disability into the University or through the School may shed further
light on this finding.
Responsiveness: Individual rights

50
40
38
30
24
20
17
10
10
Percent
5 4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RP_IND_R
24
The degree of agreement with Attribute 6 “The University is willing to defend and
fight for your individual rights” on the Responsiveness dimension also displayed a
fairly diverse range of views. 51% of respondents agreed with the statement, with
11% (13/118) disagreeing and 38% being uncertain. As with attribute 5, the latter
percentage is high for the neutral point of the scale, with over one in three
respondents displaying uncertainty as to the University’s willingness to champion
their individual rights. Given the GCU Mission Statement as an inclusive and wider
access university, this issue may be worth pursuing.
Responsiveness: Flexible service

30
27 27
20
18
16
10
7
Percent
3 3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RP_FLEX
The degree of agreement with Attribute 7 “A flexible service is provided to meet

your individual needs” on the Responsiveness dimension was overall positive. 72%
of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% disagreeing and 16% being
uncertain. The accessibility of the curriculum (Teachability) for students with
disabilities is an important aspect of service delivery.
25
Communication: Polite
50
46
40
35
30
20
10
11
Percent
4 3
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
COM_POLI
The degree of agreement with Attribute 8 “Staff are polite and courteous with you”
on the Communication dimension was extremely positive. 92% of respondents
agreed with the statement, with 5% (6/118) disagreeing and 3% being uncertain.
This result reflects well on this aspect of the quality of our service delivery.
Communication: Listen to point of view

50
40
39
30
27
20
19
10
Percent
7
3 4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COM_LIST
The degree of agreement with Attribute 9 “Staff are willing to listen to your
individual point of view” on the Communication dimension was again very positive.
85% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 8% (10/118) disagreeing and
7% being uncertain.
26
Communication: Understandable Language
50
40
41
35
30
20
10
Percent
9 9
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COM_LANG
Responses to Attribute 10 “Staff communicate in a language that you understand”

on the Communication dimension were very positive. 85% of respondents agreed
with the statement, with 6% (7/118) disagreeing and 9% being uncertain.
Communication: Accurate information

40
34
30
20 21
16
10
10
9
Percent
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COM_ACCU
27
The degree of agreement with Attribute 11 “Complete and accurate information is
provided to you in good time” on the Communication dimension was overall
positive. 71% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 20% disagreeing and
9% being uncertain. One in five, however, of students disagreed with the statement
and this is of concern, raising implications for information transfer to our students
with disabilities.
Humaneness: Reassurance for concerns

40
30 32
20
20
18
16
10
Percent
3 3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HUM_REAS
The degree of agreement with Attribute 12 “Staff reassure you in terms of your
personal anxieties, concerns and problems” on the Humaneness dimension was
overall a positive result. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 14%
disagreeing and 16% being uncertain.
28
Humaneness: Sympathetic to needs
40
30 32
26
20
14 14
10
Percent
7
4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HUM_SYMP
The degree of agreement with Attribute 13 “Staff are sympathetic to your individual
needs, while respecting your privacy” on the Humaneness dimension was positive
overall. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% (15/118)
Humaneness: Respect confidences

40
30
31
27
20
19
18
10
Percent
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HUM_RESP
The degree of agreement with Attribute 14 “Staff respect your confidences and
feelings” on the Humaneness dimension was very positive. 77% of respondents
agreed with the statement, with 6% (7/118) disagreeing and 18% being uncertain.
29
Security: Safe under staff care
40
30
31
24
20
20
17
10
Percent
5
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SEC_SAFE
The degree of agreement with Attribute 15 “You feel safe under the care of the staff”
on the Security dimension was again an overall positive result. 75% of respondents
agreed with the statement, with 8% disagreeing and 17% being uncertain. As
students with disabilities are potentially a more vulnerable group within the student
population, it is reassuring that 3 out of 4 students gave a positive response to this
statement.
Security: Student records

40
30
29
25
20 22
19
10
Percent
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SEC_RECD
The degree of agreement with Attribute 16 “Accurate and secure student records
are maintained” on the Security dimension was fairly positive. 66% of respondents
agreed with the statement, with 5% (6/118) disagreeing. Over one in four (29%)
were uncertain on the security and accuracy of student records which is of concern.
30
Enabling/Empowerment: Personal development
50
40
38
30 32
20
14 13
10
Percent
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EE_PDEV
The degree of agreement with Attribute 17 “The university environment enables you
to take responsibility for your personal development” on the
Enabling/Empowerment dimension displayed a very positive result. 83% of
respondents agreed with the statement, with 3% (4/118) disagreeing and 14% being
uncertain.
Enabling/Empowerment: Personal goals

40
34
30
24
20
19
14
10
Percent
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EE_GOALS
The degree of agreement with Attribute 18 “Specific opportunities and support for
you to attain your personal goals are provided” on the Enabling/Empowerment
dimension was positive. 77% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 9%
(11/118) disagreeing and 14% being uncertain.
31
Competence: Service level
40
30 32
20 21
17
15
10
Percent
4
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CP_SLEV
The degree of agreement with Attribute 19 “The required level of service is

delivered, with clearly stated terms and conditions” on the Competence dimension
was overall positive. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 15%
disagreeing and 15% being uncertain. The Partners in Delivery (PiD) project which
is a partnership agreement between each student in GCU setting out what is
expected by each party has the potential to further enhance this aspect of service
quality.
Competence: Staff Number and Ability

40
30
31
28
20
19
13
10
Percent
4
0 3 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CP_NOSTF
32
The degree of agreement with Attribute 20 “The required number of staff have the
ability to do the job” on the Competence dimension was positive overall. 72% of
uncertain. Staff Development and its emphasis underlie this attribute and, in
particular, Disability Awareness and Teachability Training are important for staff in
meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
Competence: Full range of services

40
35
30
23
20
17
14
10
Percent
3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CP_FULLS
The degree of agreement with Attribute 21 “The full range of services is delivered to
meet your changing needs” on the Competence dimension was positive overall. 72%
of respondents agreed with the statement, with 11% disagreeing and 17% being
uncertain. Given the 38% who either disagreed or were uncertain, service range
provision could be further improved and be more responsive to the needs of our
students with disabilities
33
Reliability: Service promised
40
30
30
27
20
15
14
10
9
Percent
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RL_PROMS
The degree of agreement with Attribute 22 “Staff deliver the appropriate service as
promised” on the Reliability dimension was again positive overall. 71% of
respondents agreed with the statement, with at least 12% disagreeing and 15%
being uncertain. All staff should ensure that promises made to students can be
delivered within the time and conditions specified. Promises made create
expectations of service delivery which, if not met, lead to student dissatisfaction.
Reliability: Dependable service

40
30 32
23
20
19
13
10
Percent
3 3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RL_DEPEN
34
The degree of agreement with Attribute 23 “A dependable service which does not
vary over time is provided” on the Reliability dimension tended towards the positive
end of the scale. 68% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13%
disagreeing and 19% being uncertain. The Reliability dimension of service quality
was given a 99% importance rating by respondents in the survey. Reliability of
service delivery is crucial to students with disabilities and as such 32% of students
either disagreeing or being uncertain on the dependability of our service delivery
requires attention.
Reliability: Staff you can trust

50
40
40
30
20 21
19
10 12
Percent
4
0 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RL_TRUST
The degree of agreement with Attribute 24 “The behaviour of staff makes you feel
that you can trust them and have confidence in them” on the Reliability dimension
was very positive on this attribute. 80% of respondents agreed with the statement,
with 8% (10/118) disagreeing and 12% being uncertain. Again with the importance
rating of 99% for the Reliability dimension, it is good to receive strong support for
the delivery of this attribute.
35
Equity: Equitable service
30
28
25
20
20
17
10
7
Percent
3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EQ_ESERV
The degree of agreement with Attribute 25 “An equitable service is delivered to

individual students, as well as groups of students” on the Equity dimension was
overall positive. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10%
disagreeing and 20% being uncertain. There is still room for improvement, however,
on this aspect of service delivery.
Tangibles: Range of facilities/equipment

30
27
26
24
20
13
10
8
Percent
0 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TAN_RANG
36
The degree of agreement with Attribute 26 “A full range of up-to-date physical
facilities and equipment are provided” on the Tangibles dimension tended towards
the positive end of the scale. 66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with
10% disagreeing but almost one in four (24%) being uncertain on the provision of a
full range of up-to-date facilities. Again issues raised in the CBS Teachability Report
on facilities available to our students with disabilities need to be pursued by the
School and the University.
3.4 10 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS: RATING OF IMPORTANCE
The mean rating of the importance of the 10 ARCHSECRET dimensions by

respondents is contained in the table below in ascending order.
Importance Rating of 10 Dime nsions
N Mean
E/E 118 100.00
REL 118 99.00
COMS 118 98.00
RESP 118 91.00
HUM 118 88.00
SEC 118 87.00
ACC 118 86.00
COMP 118 84.00
EQU 118 84.00
TAN 118 82.00
The 3 top rated dimensions are Enabling/Empowerment at 100%; closely followed

by Reliability 99% and Communication 98%. The remaining 7 dimensions were
also rated highly on importance level across the range from 91% to 82% as shown
in the table above. This result reinforces the relevancy of the 10 service quality
dimensions of the ARCHSECRET multi-attribute scale. For the University, it is
critical to ensure that there are no major shortfalls in service delivery across the 3
top rated service quality dimensions and to a lesser extent across the remaining 7
dimensions. Given this, an analysis is required of Gap Scores across the 10
dimensions of service quality benchmarked against the standard of excellence.
37
3.5 GAP SCORES FOR EACH OF THE 10 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS
Dimension Gap Scores

0
-0.2 Acc Resp Comm Hum Sec E/E Comp Rel Equ Tan
-0.4
-0.6
Mean Gap Score
-0.8
-1
-1.2 -1.27
-1.39
-1.4
-1.6
-1.64
-1.6 -1.67 -1.71 -1.69 -1.68
-1.8 -1.87 -1.87
-2
The above chart displays the mean gap scores across the 10 service quality
dimensions benchmarked against the standard of excellence in service quality
delivery. The gap scores are calculated by subtracting service Performance (P)
scores from Expectations (E) of Excellence scores (P-E) for each of the 10 service
quality dimensions.
A mean gap score of ‘0’ reflects excellence but in most organisations, it is anticipated
that there will be a shortfall of at least ‘1’ in service delivery. As gap score moves
from 1 and approaches ‘2’ this starts to represent a shortfall which demands
attention by the organisation. Gap scores of 2 and more signal a more serious
situation which demands urgent action. Resources are not infinite for any
organisation and so it is practical to target those dimensions which have been rated
high in terms of importance by the customers. The top 3 importance rated
dimensions produced the 3 lowest mean gap scores. Enabling/Empowerment (100%
importance rating) displayed a low mean gap score of -1.39. Reliability (99%
importance rating) had a relatively low mean gap score of -1.6. Communication
(98% importance rating) produced the lowest mean gap score of -1.27. Hence the 3
top importance rated dimensions produced the lowest 3 mean gap scores. This is
good news for the University in that any shortfall in service delivery is relatively low
across those dimensions rated in the top 3 by the students with disabilities.
Reviewing the remaining 7 SQ dimensions, it was decided to focus on those two
dimensions that had produced the highest mean gap score viz. Responsiveness and
Access which were rated 91% and 86% respectively in terms of their importance
rating.
It is worth considering each of these dimensions in terms of the individual attributes
contained in them.
38
Responsiveness dimension comprises 4 attributes, with individual results as follows:
Responsiveness: Timely service

50
40
40
30
28
27
20
Frequency
10
11 Std. Dev = 1.47
Mean = -1.6
5
0 4 3 N = 118.00
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
GAP4
“Staff provide prompt and timely service to you”: 24% (28/118) of respondents
declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 76% of
respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 34%
(40/118) of responses were contained in gap score 1, 23% (27/118) in gap score 2, 9%
(11/118) in gap score 3 and 10% (12/118) in gap scores 4 or more.
Responsiveness: Complaints
50
40
39
30
30
20
19
16
Frequency
10
Std. Dev = 1.44
9
Mean = -2.1
0 4 N = 118.00
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
GAP5
“Your complaints are constructively handled”: 14% (16/118) of respondents

declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 86% of
respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 26% of
responses were contained in gap score 1; 16% in gap score 2, 33% in gap score 3
and 11% in gap scores 4 or more. Performance on this attribute of service quality is
of some concern as there are 44% of respondents falling into gaps 3 or more.
39
Responsiveness: Individual Rights
50
45
40
30
28
20
20
Frequency
10 12
Std. Dev = 1.48
Mean = -2.1
6 5
0 N = 118.00
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
GAP6
“The University is willing to defend and fight for your individual rights”: 17%
(20/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent.
The remaining 83% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on
this attribute: 24% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 10% in gap score 2,
38% in gap score 3 and 11% (13/118) in gap scores 4 or more.
Responsiveness: Flexible service

40
30 32 32
20 21
19
10
Frequency
8 Std. Dev = 1.53

Mean = -1.7
0 3 3 N = 118.00
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
GAP7
“A flexible service is provided to meet your individual needs”: 27% (32/118) of

respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The
remaining 73% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this
attribute: 27% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 18% in gap score 2, 16%
in gap score 3 and 12% in gap scores 4 or more.
40
Access Dimension comprises 3 attributes, with individual results as follows:
Access: Right to services

40
35
33
30
25
20
17
10
Frequency
Std. Dev = 1.37

Mean = -1.9
0 3 3 2 N = 118.00
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
GAP1
“The terms and conditions of your right to services are negotiated”: 14% (17/118) of
respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The
remaining 86% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this
attribute: 28% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 21% in gap score 2, 30%
in gap score 3 and 7% in gap scores 4 or more
Access: Facilities
40
38
33
30
20
19
10
Frequency
10
Std. Dev = 1.68
7 7
Mean = -1.6
4
0 N = 118.00
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
GAP2
“The service, physical facilities, equipment, staff, and communication materials are
accessible to you”: 32% (38/118) of respondents declared the performance on this
attribute to be excellent. The remaining 68% of respondents believed that there was
a shortfall in service on this attribute: 28% of responses were contained in gap score
1; 16% in gap score 2, 9% in gap score 3 and 15% in gap scores 4 or more.
41
Access: Funding Sources
40
30
29
25
20
19
17 17
10
Frequency
Std. Dev = 1.77

6 Mean = -2.1
5
0 N = 118.00
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
GAP3
“Information, advice and support on potential funding sources are made available
to you”: 25% (29/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to
be excellent. The remaining 75% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall
in service on this attribute: 21% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 14% in
gap score 2, 16% in gap score 3 and 24% in gap scores 4 or more.
3.6 10 DIMENSIONS OF ARCHSECRET MODEL
For the 10 dimensions of service quality, the mean score of the respondents’ degree
of agreement across the attributes making up a dimension was calculated.
Histograms were produced, along with mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for
dimensions 1-8 which contained more than one attribute and Bar Charts for
dimensions 9 and 10 which have only one attribute. The details of the output can be
viewed in Appendix 1. Overall the results were very positive across the 10
dimensions of service quality
3.7 TYPE OF DISABILITY
The range of disabilities, declared by respondents across the 6 types of disability, is

displayed in the Bar Chart below.
42
Type of Disability
60
50 52
40
30
20
20
Percent
10
8 8
4 6
0
Missing Visual Medical Mobility
Learning Hearing Mental Health
DIS_TYPE
A Learning disability was declared by 52% of students; with the remaining number
distributed across medical (20%), mobility (8%), Hearing (6%), Visual (4%) and
less than 2% falling in the mental health category.
3.8.1 NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF THE SERVICES OF THE

UNIVERSITY
The mean number of years of experience of the services of their University was over
2 years (mean 2.3), with a median of 2 years and a range of experience from 1 year
to 10 years.
Number of years experience

50
40
30
20
Frequency
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 7 10
Number of years experience
43
Appendix 1: List of variables and labels
Please note that the percentages have been rounded up or down by SPSS and
therefore not all will necessarily total 100%.
Variable Label +ve uc -ve

Service Quality sq 82% 6% 11%
Customer Satisfaction csat 79% 4% 16%
Access: Right to services ac_right 63% 30% 7%
Access: Facilities ac_facs 76% 8% 15%
Access: Funding sources ac_funds 60% 16% 23%
Responsiveness: Timely service rp_time 81% 9% 10%
Responsiveness: Complaints rp_compl 55% 33% 12%
Responsiveness: Individual rights rp_ind_r 51% 38% 11%
Responsiveness: Flexible service rp_flex 72% 16% 13%
Communication: Polite com_poli 92% 3% 5%
Communication: Listen to point of view com_list 85% 7% 8%
Communication: Understandable language com_lang 85% 9% 6%
Communication: Accurate information com_accu 71% 9% 20%
Humaneness: Reassurance for concerns hum_reas 70% 16% 14%
Humaneness: Sympathetic to needs hum_symp 72% 14% 13%
Humaneness: Respect confidences hum_resp 77% 18% 6%
Security: Safe under staff care sec_safe 75% 17% 8%
Security: Student records sec_recd 66% 29% 5%
Enabling/Empowerment: Personal development ee_pdev 83% 14% 3%
Enabling/Empowerment: Personal goals ee_goals 77% 14% 9%
Competence: Service level cp_slev 70% 15% 15%
Competence: Number of staff cp_nostf 72% 19% 10%
Competence: Full range of services cp_fulls 72% 17% 11%
Reliability: Service promised rl_proms 71% 15% 14%
Reliability: Dependable service rl_depen 68% 19% 13%
Reliability: Staff you can trust rl_trust 80% 12% 8%
Equity: Equitable service eq_eserv 70% 20% 10%
Tangibles: Range of facilities/equipment tan_rang 66% 24% 10%
Access Dimension: mean score ac_score 76% 7% 17%
Responsiveness Dimension: mean score rp_score 83% 7% 9%
Communication Dimension: mean score co_score 89% 7% 3%
Humaneness Dimension: mean score hu_score 82% 7% 11%
Security Dimension: mean score se_score 82% 12% 6%
Enabling/Empowerment Dimension: mean score ee_score 87% 10% 3%
Competence Dimension: mean score cp_score 79% 6% 15%
Reliability Dimension: mean score rl_score 80% 6% 14%
Equity Dimension: mean score eq_score 70% 20% 10%
Tangibles Dimension: mean score ta_score 66% 24% 10%
44
Variable Label Major/Mean
Type of Disability dis_type Learning
Years of experience years 2 years
Access Dimension Importance acc 86%
Responsiveness Dimension Importance resp 91%
Communication Dimension Importance coms 98%
Humaneness Dimension Importance hum 88%
Security Dimension Importance sec 87%
Enabling/Empowerment Dimension Importance E/E 100%
Competence Dimension Importance comp 84%
Reliability Dimension Importance rel 99%
Equity Dimension Importance equ 84%
Tangibles Dimension Importance tan 82%
45
APPENDIX 2: Mean Scores for 10 ARCHSECRET Dimensions
Access Dimension 1
20
18
16
15 15
14
12
10 11
8 Histogram
5 Std. Dev = 1.30

Mean = 5.13
2 2 N = 118.00
0
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
AC_SCORE
3 ATTRIBUTES
Average response scores across the 3 attributes that encompass Dimension 1 “Access
to overall services” were positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale.
76% (90/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with 17% (20/118)
disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain.
Responsiveness Dimension 2
30
20 22
17 17
15
14
10 12 Histogram
8 Std. Dev = 1.24

6
Mean = 5.13
4
0 N = 118.00
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50
RP_SCORE
4 ATTRIBUTES
Average response scores across the 4 attributes that encompass Dimension 2

“Responsiveness to your needs” were highly positive across the continuous degree of
agreement scale. 83% (97/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with at least
9% (10/118) disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up)
46
Communication Dimension 3
50
47
40
30 31
26
20
Histogram
10 Std. Dev = 1.20

8 Mean = 5.7
0 3 N = 118.00
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
CO_SCORE
4 ATTRIBUTES

“Communication style and information provision” were highly positive across the
continuous degree of agreement scale. 89% (104/118) of respondents agreed with the
statement, with at least 3% (3/118) disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain. (%s
rounded up)
Humaneness Dimension 4
20
19
18
17
16
14
12
10
8 Histogram
6
Std. Dev = 1.35
3 Mean = 5.36
2 2 N = 118.00
0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50
HU_SCORE
3 ATTRIBUTES

“Humaneness in dealing with you” were highly positive across the continuous degree
of agreement scale. 82% (96/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with at
least 11% (13/118) disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up)
47
Security Dimension 5
40
36
30 31
29
20
Histogram
14
10
Std. Dev = 1.22
7 Mean = 5.3
0 N = 118.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
SE_SCORE
2 ATTRIBUTES

“Security of your care” were highly positive across the continuous degree of
agreement scale. 82% (96/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with 6%
(7/118) disagreeing and 12% (14/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up)
Enabling/Empowerment Dimension 6
50
45
40
35
30
20 22
Histogram
10 12 Std. Dev = 1.14

Mean = 5.6
0 3 N = 118.00
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
EE_SCORE
2 ATTRIBUTES

“Enabling/Empowerment of your development” were highly positive across the
continuous degree of agreement scale. 87% (102/118) of respondents agreed with the
statement, with 3% (3/118) disagreeing and 10% (12/118) being uncertain. (%s
rounded up)
48
Competence Dimension 7
30
20
20
19
18
14 14
10
Histogram
10
8 Std. Dev = 1.37
7
Mean = 5.29
3 2 3 N = 118.00
0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50
CP_SCORE
3 ATTRIBUTES

“Competence in overall service delivery” were positive across the continuous degree
of agreement scale. 79% (93/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with
15% (18/118) disagreeing and 6% (7/118) being uncertain.
Reliability Dimension 8
30
20 22 22
16
13 Histogram
10 12
9
7 7 Std. Dev = 1.44
Mean = 5.40
4
2 3 N = 118.00
0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50
RL_SCORE
3 ATTRIBUTES

“Reliability of overall service delivery” were highly positive across the continuous
degree of agreement scale. 80% (94/118) of respondents agreed with the statement,
with 14% (16/118) disagreeing and 6% (7/118) being uncertain.
49
Equity Dimension 9
30
28
25
20
20
17
10
7
Percent
0 3
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
EQ_SCORE
1 ATTRIBUTE
Responses to the one attribute that encompasses the Equity dimension “Equity of
overall service delivery” were positive across the 7 point degree of
agreement scale. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10%
Tangibles Dimension 10
30
27
26
24
20
13
10
8
Percent
0 2
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
TA_SCORE
1 ATTRIBUTE
Responses to the one attribute that encompasses the Tangibles dimension

“Tangibles: up-to-date range of physical fac ilities” were mildly positive across the 7
point degree of agreement scale. 66% of respondents agreed with the statement,
with 10% disagreeing and almost one in four (24%) being uncertain on the
provision of an up-to-date range of facilities.
50
REFERENCES
Donnelly, M., Shiu, E., Dalrymple, J.F. and Wisniewski, M. “Adapting the SERVQUAL
Scale and Approach to Meet the Needs of Local Authority Services”. In G. K. Kanji (Ed.),
Total Quality Management in Action. Chapman Hall. 1996, 263-266.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, Leonard,L. and Zeithaml, Valarie, A. (1990) An Empirical

Examination of Relationships in an Extended Service Quality Model. Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA.
----, and ----, and ---- (1991) “Perceived Service Quality as a Customer-based Performance
Measure: an Empirical Examination of Organizational Barriers using an Extended Service
Quality Model”. Human Resource Management, 30 (3) 335-364.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valarie, A., and Berry, Leonard, L. (1985) “A Conceptual Model
of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research”. Journal of Marketing, Vol.
49 (Autumn), pp. 41-50.
----, and ----, and ---- (1988). “SERVQUAL: a Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Customer
Perceptions of Service Quality”. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 (Spring), pp. 12-40.
----, and ----, and ---- (1991). “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale”.
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62 (Winter), pp. 12-40.
----, and ----, and ---- (1993). “Research Note: More on Improving Service Quality
Measurement”. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 (Spring), pp. 140-147.
----, and ----, and ---- (1994a) “Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in
Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research”. Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 (January), pp. 111-124.
----, and ----, and ---- (1994b) “Alternative Scales for Measuring Service Quality: a
Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria”. Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-30.
Shiu, Edward, Vaughan, Liz, and Donnelly, Mike (1997) “Service Quality: New Horizons
beyond SERVQUAL. An Investigation of the Portability of SERVQUAL into the
Voluntary and Local Government Sectors”. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, Vol. 2 No.4, pp. 324-331.
Vaughan, E. and Shiu, E. (1995) “Pilot Study of SERVQUAL Model and Instruments”
Consultancy Report for Volunteer Development Scotland (VDS).
----, and ---- (1996) “Measurement of Employee Perceptions of Service Quality within
VDS” Consultancy Report for Volunteer Development Scotland (VDS).
----, and ---- (2001) “ARCHSECRET’: A Multi-item Scale to Measure Service Quality
within the Voluntary Sector’. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp.
Zeithaml, Valarie, A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, Leonard, L. Delivering Quality
Service - Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free
Press 1990.
51

Service Quality Report Final-Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Service Quality Report Final-Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Service Quality Study: GCU Students with Disabilities

1.0 Introduction and Background

Qualitative research was undertaken, involving 7 focus group discussions across

Word-of-Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience

CUSTOMER Perceived Service

Gap 1 Service Quality

Figure 1 (Conceptual Model of Service Quality Zeithaml et al. 1990)

Correlation Analysis was also applied to determine pairs or clusters of attributes

Service Quality Dimensions

• Type of Disability: Learning, Visual, Hearing, Medical, Mental Health, Mobility

Completely Very Mildly Neither Mildly Very Completely

• Perceptions of Service Performance: Set of 26 statements across the 10

Absolutely Strongly Slightly Neither Slightly Strongly Absolutely

• Overall service quality assessment (SQ), using a 7 point good/bad Semantic

• Importance of the 10 ARCHSECRET SQ dimensions, each scored out of 100

1. Access to overall services

2. Responsiveness to your needs

3. Communication style and information provision

4. Humaneness in dealing with you

5. Security of your care

6. Enabling/Empowerment of your development

7. Competence in overall service delivery

8. Reliability of overall service delivery

9. Equity of overall service delivery

10. Tangibles: up-to-date range of physical facilities

• ‘Additional Comment’ open-ended question on how the university could

2.1 Service Quality (SQ) and Customer Satisfaction (CSAT)

Service Quality (SQ) 82% stated it was GOOD

Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) 79% said that they were SATISFIED

2.2 Service Quality Attributes (26)

2. Attribute 2 “The service, physical facilities, equipment, staff, and

3. Attribute 3 “Information, advice and support on potential funding sources are

Action: Review the processes and procedures followed by Disability Services

Qualitative comments by students:

5. Attribute 5 “Your complaints are constructively handled” students displayed a

Action: Staff Development in mental health awareness training; production

7. Attribute 7 “A flexible service is provided to meet your individual needs”

10. Attribute 10 “Staff communicate in a language that you understand” again

11. Attribute 11 “Complete and accurate information is provided to you in good

• Develop a web site or portal for students with disabilities which

22. Attribute 22 “Staff deliver the appropriate service as promised” student

Action: Provision of on-going staff development to disseminate ‘good

25. Attribute 25 “An equitable service is delivered to individual students, as well

Action: Part-time Programme/Module Teams, using the Teachability tool,

Action (in line with Attribute 2):

Importance Rating of 10 Dime nsions

The 3 top rated dimensions are Enabling/Empowerment at 100%; closely followed

GAP SCORES FOR 10 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS

-1.8 -1.87 -1.87

Section 3 ARCHSECRET H.E. Survey Data: Descriptive Statistics

Appendix 1 contains a list of variables and their labels

3.1 SERVICE QUALITY (SQ) BAR CHART

Bar Chart of SERVICE QUALITY

Mean 5.53 Standard Deviation 1.47

Semantic descriptors at each point on the scale are as follows:

The distribution of responses on service quality across the 7 point semantic

3.2 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (CSAT) BAR CHART

Bar Chart of CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Mean 5.37 Standard Deviation 1.47

Semantic descriptors at each point on the scale were as follows:

Completely Very Mildly Neither Mildly Very Completely

A Bar Chart is produced for each of the 26 service quality attributes.

Absolutely Strongly Slightly Neither Slightly Strongly Absolutely

Access: Right to services