1. Introduction
Service quality is defined as the ability of an organization to meet or exceed customer expectations (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). Empirical research measuring service quality has been conducted within various social science disciplines in the fields of business administration and marketing. Private educational facilities can also be viewed from a marketing perspective in terms of a customer relationship. A private university’s business success can be affected by the quality of its educational services, which also affects customer satisfaction. In the context of higher education, a common belief is that universities that provide strong employment opportunities for graduates are top universities. This has emerged as an important success factor for private universities. With this in mind, private institutes of higher learning are interested in creating business related services that can contribute to creative thinking and can help students obtain the knowledge and skills needed for employment. A private university’s educational service is an important business that enables students, who are the consumers, to realize material and mental satisfaction, and to contribute to maximizing their achievement.
The quality of educational business services has been studied based on SERVQUAL as suggested by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 1988). Service quality has been increasingly recognized as a critical factor in the success of any experiential education (Park & Kim, 2012). The service quality in the field of education and higher learning particularly is not only essential and important, but it is also an important parameter of business excellence (Azam, 2018). Private Korean universities are striving to provide excellent business service quality in order to realize the ultimate goal of fostering talented professionals. In addition, they are actively interested in helping students find meaningful employment by providing courses related to careers, business, and startups.
The topic of measuring service quality has been studied widely in the past few decades (Kahlah, Amina, & Kahlah, 2012). So far, studies on the application of service quality have mainly focused on business research and marketing. However, there have been several studies on service quality applied to higher education. These studies used business service quality as an important independent variable for the success of educational institutions (Abu Hasan, Ilia’s, Abd Rahman, & Abd Razak, 2008; Al-Alek & Lamasery, 2012; Azam, 2018; Eres & Clothe, 2013; Kahlah, Amina, & Kahlah, 2012; Khodadadi & Khodadadi, 2011; Prentice, McLaughlin, & Brady, 2018; Yousapronpaiboon, 2014).
Today, universities are highly interested in employment, start-up, and business-related education services as a way to help students develop convergence knowledge to prepare for the fourth industrial revolution and overcome the current employment problems. Private universities are even more desperate to utilize these programs. These practical education courses are based on business subjects such as economics, accounting, finance, and distribution. They also include courses that can help students learn about start-ups and find employment after graduation.
This study was conducted with the goal of changing the needs of private universities, while recognizing the importance of implementing excellent service quality and maximizing student satisfaction. This study aims to identify the impact of important variables on service quality. The purpose of this research is to analyze the impacts that service quality has on satisfaction, commitment, performance, and loyalty for students at a private university in Korea. Surveys were conducted to identify the following research questions: 1) How do education SERVQUAL factors (tangibles, responsiveness, reliability, assurance, and empathy) affect customer satisfaction? 2) How do education SERVQUAL factors affect customer commitment? 3) How does customer satisfaction or commitment affect education performance? 4) How does customer satisfaction, commitment or performance affect their loyalty in higher education?
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Service Quality
According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985), the term ‘service quality’ was described as the ability of an organization to meet or exceed customer expectations. They identified the first 10 determinants (Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Competence, Access, Courtesy, Credibility, Security, Communication and Understanding) of service quality that could be generalized to any type of service. And then Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) regrouped the well-known 5 dimensions of the SERVQUAL model and cataloged 22 items by Tangibles, Assurance, Empathy, Reliability and Responsiveness. Cronin and Taylor (1992), of course, proposed measuring Performance only without Expectation as a service quality, and suggested that SERPERF would be more effective, but SERVQUAL must still be a widely used measure.
From this point of view, many studies have used Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry’s SERVQUAL model to assess service quality in educational institutions. In a study with undergraduates in Iran, Khodayari and Khodayari (2011) examined a gap between Expectations and perceptions among the dimensions of the SERVQUAL, and showed that Reliability, Tangibility, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy were important for customers. Al-Alak and Alnaser (2012) examined the relationship between SERVQUAL dimensions (Tangibles, Responsiveness, Reliability, Assurance and Empathy) and overall service quality satisfaction for undergraduate students in the Faculty of Business at the University of Jordan. Their results indicated that the Assurance and Reliability dimensions of service quality were the two most important for improvement.
Akhlaghi, Amini, and Akhlaghi (2012) found that in the case of technical and vocational colleges, there are quality gaps in all five SERVQUAL dimensions; the largest gap is for Responsiveness and the smallest gap is for Reliability. Yousapronpaiboon (2014), in a study with undergraduates from a private university in Thailand, found that in all 5 dimensions of SERVQUAL, a gap was observed between undergraduates’ perceptions and expectations. In this case, higher education did not meet the expectations of these undergraduates.
This SERVQUAL model is one of the most commonly used models for evaluating expectations and perceptions of service quality (Azam, 2018; Seng & Ling, 2013; Yousapronpaiboon, 2014). These 5 dimensions are identified as follows:
First, Tangibles refers to the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communication materials.
Second, Responsiveness refers to the willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service.
Third, Reliability refers to the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Fourth, Assurance refers to the knowledge, courtesy of employees and ability to convey trust and confidence in the customer towards the service provider.
Fifth, Empathy refers to the provision of caring, individualized attention provided to customers.
2.2. Satisfaction
Satisfaction has been defined as a psychological state after experiencing products and services of enterprise with static and continuous emotions (Oliver, 1980). The concept of Satisfaction has been approached primarily in the marketing field in the sense of customer satisfaction, and the definition of customer satisfaction and factors affecting Satisfaction have been studied in a number of works of literature (Lee, Jung, & Seong, 2019).
According to Kotler, Armstrong, and Wong (2000), customer satisfaction was defined as a person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a product or perceived performance in relation to expectations. From a similar perspective, many studies have investigated Satisfaction as a leading factor to forecast a customer’s future behavioral intentions (Koo, 2005; Kwon & Yu, 2014; Lee & Bea, 2006; Lee, Jung, & Seong, 2019, Lee & Lee, 2018; Sung, Kim, & Youn, 2014).
From a higher education perspective, satisfaction is shaped by students’ expectations. Elliott and Shin (2002) expressed that student satisfaction is continually shaped by various outcomes and their experiences on campus. From a similar view, in cases of private universities in Albania, Coscun (2014) investigated essential factors on student satisfaction. Richardson (2005) uses various dimensions to measure the quality of the educational environment and satisfaction. These dimensions included student evaluation of teaching, course modules, perceptions of academic quality and satisfaction.
2.3. Commitment
The concept of Commitment appears in the field of organizational psychology and has mainly been studied in the workplace. It has thus become a very fashionable term in recent years in the field of business and has been highlighted in the academic realm (Rodríguez-Izquierdo, 2020). Accordingly, Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, and Bakker (2002) defined commitment as a state of psychological well-being related to studies that are positive and meaningful. Kahu and Nelson (2018) expressed that it is an evolving concept that encompasses a variety of institutional practices and student behaviors related to satisfaction and achievement, including homework time, adaptability, social and academic integration, and teaching practices.
Christenson, Reschly, and Wylie (2012) argued that Commitment consists of 3 dimensions, behavioral commitment (how students are involved in learning in aspects such as effort), emotional commitment (the positive emotions that the student experiences during the learning process, such as euphoria), and cognitive commitment (cognition related to the use of effective learning strategies).
Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, and Bakker (2002) found that Commitment consists of 3 dimensions. First, vigor was defined as high levels of energy and mental endurance while studying, characterized by the desire to invest effort in the tasks performed, even when difficulties appear in the process. Second, dedication was described as a high level of involvement in studies, which manifests a feeling of significance, inspiration, enthusiasm, and pride when challenged by the task. Third, absorption was characterized as a high state of concentration and immersion that makes time pass quickly when tasks are performed. Much of the research points to the predictive character of commitment in relation to success and performance (Lutz & Culver, 2010; Rodríguez-Izquierdo, 2020; Svanum & Bigatti, 2009).
2.4. Performance
Performance, or achievement, is the extent to which a student, teacher or institution has attained their short or long-term educational goals. Student performance in higher education is especially affected by various socioeconomic, psychological, and environmental factors (Hijazi & Naqvi, 2006). In light of this, many papers investigated performance as an important antecedent to forecast students’ future behavior (Akessa & Dhufera, 2015; Mushtaq & Khan, 2012; Shahzadi1 & Ahmad, 2011). Mushtaq and Khan (2012) explored the important factors that affect the students’ performance, and found that communication, learning facilities, proper guidance and family stress are the factors that affect student performance. Shahzadi1 and Ahmad (2011) conducted a study on the performance of university students and found that there are 4 important factors (home environment, study habits, learning skills and academic interaction) which affect the performance and retention of students in higher education institutions.
Like some studies from an education perspective, Shahijan, Sajad, and Guptan (2018) found that performance is affected by student’s satisfaction, and Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that commitment is linked to customer outcome including performance. Also, Rojas-Mendez, VasquezParraca, Kara, and Cerda-Urrutia (2009) found performance as an important factor leads to customer’s loyalty.
2.5. Loyalty
Customer loyalty has been studied by many researchers as it is an important strategic goal of a company and it is an important factor of customer satisfaction in the service industry (Shin, Hwang, Lee, & Cho, 2015). Czepiel and Gilmore (1987) viewed Loyalty as a result of a dynamic emotional process and stated that Loyalty is a tendency supported by commitment, a positive attitude, previous knowledge, consentience, and trust.
In marketing related research, loyalty is analyzed as a component of one (general loyalty), two (attitudinal and behavioral) or four dimensions (cognitive, affective, conative, action). Based on this approach, loyalty models were approached and tested (Bobalca, Gatej(Bradu), & Ciobanu, 2012; Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006; Harris & Goode, 2004; McMullan & Gilmore, 2002; Oliver, 1999).
In educational business, loyalty requires developing a strong relationship with students who eventually provide the financial basis for university activities (Henning-Thurau, Langer, & Hansen, 2001). Rojas-Mendez, Vasquez-Parraca, Kara, and Cerda-Urrutia (2009) explained student loyalty in higher education institutions by examining key factors influencing loyalty, PSQ (Perceived Service Quality), Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment. These factors were examined within a model that is assumed to be comprehensive enough to explain loyalty.
Kang, Song, and Hwang (2013) viewed loyalty as a student’s behavioral intention, such as pride in the university that students feel, active promotion of classes, and the recommendations of friends. With this in mind, student loyalty can be used as a critical measure in the business success of higher education institutions that aim to retain students until graduation.
3. Research Method
3.1. Research Model
Based on the review above, the proposed model is shown in Figure 1. This study adopted Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988)’s approach, and the dimensions of SERVQUAL were defined as the ability of higher education organizations to meet or exceed undergraduates’ expectations.
Figure 1: Research Model
In this study, SERVQUAL was measured by 5 all dimensions, Tangibles, Responsiveness, Reliability, Assurance and Empathy. Satisfaction, Commitment and Performance are used as meaningful mediating variables, and factors of these variables are measured by multidimensional scales. Loyalty is used as the most important dependent variable in this study.
3.2. Research Hypothesis
3.2.1. The Impact of Service Quality on Satisfaction
For this study, dimensions of service quality can be used as independent variables, because they play an important role in the academic success of undergraduates and raising the reputation of universities. Several research papers have indicated that positive perceptions of service quality have a significant influence on satisfaction (Alves & Raposo, 2010), and that positive perceptions of service quality have a significant influence on commitment (Ding, Hu, Verma, & Wardell, 2010; Rodríguez-Izquierdo, 2020).
Abu Hasan et al. (2008) hypothesized about the relationship between service quality and satisfaction in private higher education institutions. From a similar view, the research of students in a public university in Ghana, Mattah, Kwarteng, and Mensah (2018) found positive relationships among education service quality, satisfaction and loyalty. In the case of a private university in Ireland, Prentice, McLaughlin, and Brady (2018) studied the relationships between service quality, value and satisfaction on student customer intentions and behavior, and found that perceptions of good service quality will have a significant positive impact on satisfaction. In a study of Saudi Arabian private higher education institutions, Azam (2018) hypothesized about the relationship between service quality dimensions and satisfaction and highlighted that there is a significant relationship among the four dimensions (Assurance, Empathy, Reliability, Responsiveness) and customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Thus, the following hypotheses can be set up.
H1: Service quality has a positive effect on satisfaction.
H1-1: Tangibles of service quality have a positive effect on satisfaction.
H1-2: Responsiveness of service quality has a positive effect on satisfaction.
H1-3: Reliability of service quality has a positive effect on satisfaction.
H1-4: Assurance of service quality has a positive effect on satisfaction.
H1-5: Empathy of service quality has a positive effect on satisfaction.
3.2.2. The Impact of Service Quality on Commitment
From a similar perspective, Sumardi and Fernandes (2018) analyzed the relationship between management process alignment, service quality, organizational commitment and high performance. They found that the mediation variables have significant effects on service quality and organizational commitment. Additionally, there is a relationship between management process alignment and high educational performance in Makassar, Indonesia. Trivellas and Santouridis (2014) studied the relationship between service quality and organizational commitment in higher education and found that good service quality will have a significant positive impact on commitment. Thus, the following hypotheses can be set up.
H2: Service quality has a positive effect on commitment.
H2-1: Tangibles of service quality have a positive effect on commitment.
H2-2: Responsiveness of service quality has a positive effect on commitment
H2-3: Reliability of service quality has a positive effect on commitment.
H2-4: Assurance of service quality has a positive effect on commitment.
H2-5: Empathy of service quality has a positive effect on commitment.
3.2.3. The Impact of Satisfaction and Commitment on Performance
Several studies were carried out to explore factors affecting university students’ performance. In general, students’ performance in higher education is affected by various socioeconomic, psychological, and environmental factors (Hijazi & Naqvi, 2006). More recent efforts have examined student satisfaction, commitment, achievement, and behavioral intention independently as measures of students’ success (Hoffman & Lowitzki, 2005). As in the study on the experiential model of international students’ satisfaction and performance, Shahijan, Sajad, and Guptan (2018) reported that performance is affected by different factors such as university image, students’ expectations and experience, service quality, and degree of satisfaction, and stated that there is a positive linkage between satisfaction and performance.
From a similar point of view, commitment has been linked to many beneficial outcomes including performance (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Spedding, Hawkes, and Burgess (2017) found a positive relationship between commitment and performance. Thus, the following hypotheses can be set up.
H3-1: Satisfaction has a positive effect on performance.
H3-2: Commitment has a positive effect on performance.
3.2.4. The Impact of Satisfaction, Commitment and Performance on Loyalty
Loyalty involves a process in which a customer’s cognition, affect, conation, and behavior take place (Oliver, 1999). Mattah, Kwarteng, and Mensah (2018) found a positive relationship between satisfaction, commitment and loyalty from the research of students in a public university in Ghana. Annamdevula and Bellamkonda (2016) proposed a mediation model that links service quality and student loyalty via student satisfaction by the survey from three oldest state universities in India. They found effects of service quality on student loyalty with the mediator satisfaction. From the research, satisfaction is considered as a mediating variable.
In educational business, loyalty can be used as a critical measure in the success of higher education institutions. Antecedents of loyalty, such as service quality, motivation, satisfaction, trust, and commitment have been identified in previous research (Lee & Lee, 2018; Rodríguez-Ardura and Meseguer-Artola, 2017; Rojas-Mendez, Vasquez-Parraca, Kara, & Cerda-Urrutia, 2009; Song & Kim, 2012).
This procedure was designed to explain loyalty in higher education institutions by examining key factors. Satisfaction, Commitment and Performance were examined within a model that is assumed to be comprehensive enough to explain Loyalty. Thus, the following hypotheses can be set up.
H4-1: Satisfaction has a positive effect on loyalty.
H4-2: Commitment has a positive effect on loyalty.
H5: Performance has a positive effect on loyalty
3.3. Sample and Data Collection
To carry out this research, a survey was conducted on undergraduates involved in business at E. university in Korea. This university is a private university located in Gyeonggi province that aims to develop medical-health care. The university operates convergence medical business departments that include a number of subjects that help students broaden their knowledge about careers and find employment.
A questionnaire was given to students during the last week of the Fall 2019 semester. A total of 280 students, (about 40 students per class) taking 8 courses related to business administration, responded to the questionnaire. These courses include introduction to management, economics, accounting, distribution, practical finance, employment information search, venture start-up, and entrepreneurship. The survey was conducted by a self-administered method that requires respondents to fill out the questionnaire directly. Of the 270 total questionnaires collected through the survey, 252 were used for statistical analysis, while 18 were excluded as they were found to be insincere or could not be used as data due to missing parts of the survey. In addition, the statistical program SPSS 22.0 was used for empirical analysis for the paper.
The frequency analysis of the participants (N=252) was conducted to explain demographic characteristics and is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Among the survey participants, 68.3% (N=172) reported their gender as female and 31.7% (N=80) as male. This is the same as the student distribution pattern of the university, where there are far more girls out of all students. According to the respondents’ grade distribution, 36.5% (N=92) were freshmen, followed by 28.6% (N=72) seniors, 21.0% (N=53) juniors, and 13.9% (N=35) sophomores. In the survey of respondents’ major departments, 58.7% (N=148) were in natural science, followed by 17.5% (N=44) in humanities/ social studies, 13.9% (N=35) in engineering, and 9.6% (N=25) in arts and physical training.
3.4. Measures
In order to measure the constructs in the suggested model, validated measurement items were adapted from literature reviews and slightly revised to ensure their appropriateness for the service quality of private universities in Korea. From the basic data of the study, demographic variables were measured by nominal measures. In addition, the derived items were measured on a 5point Likert-type scale, anchored from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
3.4.1. Measures of Service Quality
The dimensions of Service Quality, as it is related to tangibility, assurance, empathy, reliability and responsiveness were measured using 25 items from Al-Alak and Alnaser (2012), Akhlaghi, Amini, and Akhlaghi (2012), Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988), Park and Kim (2012), Yousapronpaiboon (2014).
First, as for tangibles, the study used 5 items including ‘The business class is well-organized with an external environment’, ‘The business class is equipped with proper facilities and equipment for education’, ‘Equipment and facilities work well for the business class’, ‘The overall atmosphere of the college’s business education facilities is good’, and ‘Facilities are suitable for taking business related classes’.
Second, as for responsiveness, the study used 5 items including ‘The business class professor answers questions easily’, ‘The business class professor quickly proceeds with feedback on the contents of the education’, ‘The business class professor offers a variety of knowledge as well as the contents of the lecture’, ‘The business class professor provides a variety of information about career and selfdevelopment’, and ‘The business class professor is quick to consult and answer questions’.
Third, as for reliability, the study used 5 items including ‘The business class proceeded correctly according to the schedule’, ‘Attendance and evaluation are properly managed in the business class’, ‘Credits are granted fairly and reliably’, ‘The business class starts and ends on time’, and ‘Requirements related to the business class are accurately handled’.
Fourth, as for assurance, the study used 5 items including ‘The business class professor has sufficient knowledge of the education’, ‘The business class professor gives appropriate answers to the questions’, ‘The business class professor’s attitude, words and actions give credibility’, ‘The business class professor’s behavior and lectures are giving me confidence’, and ‘After the business class, I gained confidence in the subject’.
Fifth, as for empathy, the study used 5 items including ‘Contents of the business class reflect the interests of the students well’, ‘The business class induces discussion participation and is not just a general lecture’, ‘The business class professor understands what the students need’, ‘There is smooth communication with the professor during the business class’, and ‘Contents of the business class are well considered for the position of the students’.
3.4.2. Measure of Satisfaction and Commitment
For satisfaction, 4 items were used including ‘The business class was consistent with what was expected’, ‘The business class was better than expected.’, ‘I am satisfied with the quality level of the professor’s expertise, and teaching ability’ and ‘I am generally satisfied with the business class curriculum.’ These are borrowed From Al-Alak andAlnaser (2012), Ding, Hu, Verma, and Wardell (2010), Lee, Jung, and Seong (2019), Lee and Lee (2018), and Oliver (1980).
Commitment was measured with 6 items adapted from Ding, Hu, Verma, and Wardell (2010), Lee and Lee (2018), and Rodríguez-Izquierdo (2020). These items include ‘I am sure that I have carried out the tasks of this business class properly’, ‘I was able to do as well in the business class as I wanted’, ‘I understood what to learn in the business class’, ‘I concentrated on the material in this business class’, ‘The contents of the business class were not easy, but I could understand it with my ability’, and ‘I was able to complete my assignments without any particular effort’.
3.4.3. Measure of Performance
Performance was measured by 5 items adapted from Akessa and Dhufera (2015), Mushtaq and Khan (2012), Park and Kim (2012), and Shahzadi1 and Ahmad (2011). These items include ‘The contents and presentation of the business class helped me improve my knowledge’, ‘I felt the need to learn new information through the business class’, ‘I fulfilled my purpose by taking this business class’, ‘I felt my knowledge improved from the business class’, and ‘The business class has helped self-development’.
3.4.4. Measure of Loyalty
Loyalty was measured using 4 items adapted from Bobalca, Gatej(Bradu), and Ciobanu (2012), Kang, Song, and Hwang (2013), and McMullan and Gilmore (2002). The 4 items include ‘I will recommend the business class to others’, ‘I have been talking positively about the business class’, ‘I will talk about the business class in a good way to others’, and ‘I would like to take another class from the professor if I have a chance’.
4. Results
4.1. Verification of the Reliability and Validity
In order to analyze the reliability and validity of the questionnaire measurement, Exploratory Factor Analysis and Cronbach’s α were verified (Choi & Lee, 2019). Cronbach’s α is widely known as an internal consistency estimate of the reliability of test scores. The extraction of factor analysis was based on principal component analysis. The rotation of the factors was conducted to maintain independence among the factors and to simplify the loading of each factor by using the varimax method, which is an orthogonal rotation method. A factor loading greater than 0.5 can be considered a significant variable.
4.1.1. Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Independent Variables
This study conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis to verify the validity of 25 independent variables of the educational service quality. As a result, 5 factors were extracted as shown in Table 2. These factors explain 85.312% of the total variance. The KMO value was used as a coefficient that verifies the suitability of the sample size, and it was high at 0.953 (df=300). Bartlett’s test indicated that data were sufficient to proceed for the factor analysis, because correlation between variables was statistically significant (p<0.001).
Table 2: Analysis of the Validity and Reliability of Independent Variables
The reliability analysis of independent variables (educational service quality) shows that Cronbach’s α coefficient for factor 1 (reliability) is 0.948, factor 2 (assurance) is 0.956, factor 3 (empathy) is 0.953, factor 4 (tangibles) is 0.940, and factor 5 (responsiveness) is 0.972, and all of them were high values. Measuring variables using this study were applied similarly to those of existing studies. As a result, it was confirmed that values on the educational service quality were obtained as indicators of the validity (convergent and discriminant validity) and the reliability of variables.
4.1.2. Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Mediating and Dependent Variables
This study conducted an exploratory factor analysis to verify the validity of 15 mediating variables: satisfaction (4), commitment (6), performance (5) and 4 dependent variables (loyalty) of the educational service quality. As a result, 4 factors were extracted as shown in Table 3. These factors explain 87.077% of the total variance. The KMO value was used as a coefficient that verifies the suitability of the sample size, and it was high at 0.964 (df=136). Also Bartlett’s test indicated that data were sufficient to proceed for the factor analysis, because correlation between variables was statistically significant (p<0.001).
Table 3: Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Mediating and Dependent Variables
The reliability analysis of measuring variables shows that Cronbach’s α coefficient for factor 1 (performance) is 0.953, factor 2 (commitment) is 0.919, factor 3 (satisfaction) is 0.966, and factor 4 (loyalty) is 0.971.
4.2. Correlation
This study conducted a correlation analysis of educational business service quality, satisfaction, commitment, performance, and loyalty. Prior to testing the hypothesis, a Pearson correlation analysis is performed to determine the degree, strength, and direction of correlation between variables. The results were shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Correlation between Variables
Convergent validity is determined to be statistically valid if the factor loads loaded in each construct is statistically significant and the standardized factor loads is 0.5 or more. Correlation analysis shows that the correlation between all variables is positive. The discriminant validity between the variables was significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.3. Hypothesis Verification
4.3.1. Hypothesis 1 Verification
The results of the multiple regression analysis for Hypothesis 1: ‘Service quality (tangibles, responsiveness, reliability, assurance and empathy) has a positive effect on satisfaction’ were shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Regression Analysis between Service Quality and Satisfaction
The result shows that the R² is .704. This implies that 5 independent variables explained about 70.4% of the variance in the dependent variable of satisfaction. The adjusted R2, reflecting the degree of freedom (d.f.= 5, 246), was found to be .698. Durbin-Watson is 2.008, close to the reference value of 2 and not close to 0 or 4, so it is judged that there is no correlation between the residuals, and the regression model is appropriate. The F Value 116.894 (p= .000) of the regression model indicated an overall significant effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable (education satisfaction).
The results of the verification of significance of independent variables put into the multiple regression equation for the dependent variable (satisfaction) are as follows; Tangibles (t= 2.394, p= .017< .05), responsiveness (t= 3.065, p= .002< .01), assurance (t= 2.394, p= .001< .01), and empathy (t= 3.065, p= .000< .01) have a significant effect on satisfaction. However, reliability (t= -.383, p= .702 > .05) has no significant effect on satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 1 (tangibles, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) is accepted partially.
4.3.2. Hypothesis 2 Verification
The results of the multiple regression analysis for Hypothesis 2: ‘Service quality (tangibles, responsiveness, reliability, assurance and empathy) has a positive effect on commitment’ were shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Regression Analysis between Service Quality and Commitment
The result shows that the R² is .623. This implies that 5 independent variables explained about 62.3% of the variance in the dependent variable of commitment. The adjusted R2, reflecting the degree of freedom (d.f.= 5, 246), was found to be .616. Durbin-Watson is 2.011, close to the reference value of 2 and not close to 0 or 4, so it is judged that there is no correlation between the residuals, and the regression model is appropriate. The F Value 81.415 (p= .000) of the regression model indicated an overall significant effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable (commitment).
The results of the verification of significance of independent variables put into the multiple regression equation for the dependent variable (commitment) are as follows; Tangibles (t= .955, p= .340 > .05) have no significant effect on commitment. But responsiveness (t= 3.724, p= .000< .001), reliability (t= 2.022, p= .044< .05), Assurance (t= 2.911, p= .004 < .01) and empathy (t= 3.921, p= .000< .001) have a significant effect on commitment. Thus, Hypothesis 2 (responsiveness, assurance, reliability and empathy) is accepted partially
4.3.3. Hypothesis 3 Verification
The results of the multiple regression analysis for Hypothesis 3: ‘Satisfaction and commitment have a positive effect on performance’ were shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Regression Analysis among Satisfaction or Commitment and Performance
The result shows that the R² is .741. This implies that independent variables explained about 74.1% of the variance in the dependent variable of performance. The adjusted R2, reflecting the degree of freedom (d.f.= 2, 249), was found to be .739. Durbin-Watson is 1.961, close to the reference value of 2 and not close to 0 or 4, so it is judged that there is no correlation between the residuals, and the regression model is appropriate. The F Value 356.652 (p= .000) of the regression model indicated an overall significant effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable (performance).
The results of the verification of significance of independent variables put into the multiple regression equation for the dependent variable (performance) are as follows; Satisfaction (t= 10.920, p= .000 < .001) and commitment (t= 6.893, p= .000 < .001) have a significant effect on performance. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is accepted.
4.3.4. Hypothesis 4 and 5 Verification
The results of the multiple regression analysis for Hypothesis 4 and 5: ‘Satisfaction, commitment and performance have a positive effect on loyalty, and performance has a positive effect on loyalty’ were shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Regression Analysis among Satisfaction, Commitment and Performance and Loyalty
The result shows that the R² is .889. This implies that independent variables explained about 88.9% of the variance in the dependent variable of loyalty. The adjusted R2, reflecting the degree of freedom (d.f.= 3, 248), was found to be .788. Durbin-Watson is 1.824, close to the reference value of 2 and not close to 0 or 4, so it is judged that there is no correlation between the residuals, and the regression model is appropriate. The F Value 311.954 (p= .000) of the regression model indicated an overall significant effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable (loyalty).
The results of the verification of significance of independent variables put into the multiple regression Figure 2: Regression Results of Testing Hypotheses Table 8: Regression Analysis among Satisfaction, Commitment and Performance and Loyalty Independent Variable Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Beta T Sig. Results Β Std. Error (Constant) -.514 .154 -3.329 .001 Satisfaction .434 .066 .367 6.551*** .000 adopted Commitment .176 .066 .134 2.672** .008 adopted Performance .528 .068 .443 7.760*** .000 adopted R = .889, R2 = .791, Adjusted R2 = .788 F = 311.954, Sig. = .000, Durbin-Watson = 1.824 a: Dependent Variable = Loyalty, *: p<.05, **: p<.01, ***: p<.001 equation for the dependent variable (loyalty) are as follows; Satisfaction (t= 6.551, p= .000 < .001), commitment (t= 2.672, p= .008 < .01) have a significant effect on loyalty. Performance (t= 7.760, p= .000 < .001) has a significant effect on loyalty. Thus, Hypothesis 4 and 5 are accepted.
Figure 2: Regression Results of Testing Hypotheses
The results based on the regression analysis of the above hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are shown in Figure 2.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impacts of business service quality on satisfaction, commitment, performance, and loyalty in higher education. The study focused on the educational service environment of a private university in Korea, which has focused on offering convergence medical business departments to students. These departments include a number of subjects that are designed to help students broaden their thinking about jobs and improve their chances of employment. For this purpose, the survey was conducted on undergraduates taking 8 jobrelated courses in business administration at E University. The findings of this paper are summarized as follows.
First, four dimensions of service quality (tangibles, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) have positive effects on satisfaction. These dimensions affect satisfaction in the order of empathy, responsiveness, assurance and tangibles. The lack of an appropriate relationship between reliability and satisfaction reflects how the characteristics of an educational institution are different from that of a company. The overall results are similar to those of previous research on the relationship between service quality and satisfaction (Azam, 2018; Seng & Ling, 2013, Yousapronpaiboon, 2014).
Second, 4 dimensions of service quality (responsiveness, reliability, assurance and empathy) have positive effects on commitment. These dimensions are shown to affect commitment in the order of responsiveness, empathy, assurance and reliability. Responsiveness has been identified as an important factor that can lead to educational immersion and trust. The overall results are similar to those of previous research (Rodríguez-Izquierdo, 2020; Trivellas & Santouridis, 2014).
Third, it has been shown that satisfaction and commitment have positive effects on performance. Comparing the two variables, satisfaction had a slightly stronger effect on performance than on commitment. For high performance, the role of commitment is also emphasized along with the results of satisfaction (Svanum & Bigatti, 2009).
Fourth, satisfaction, commitment and performance have positive effects on loyalty. They are shown to affect Loyalty in the order of performance, satisfaction and commitment. Loyalty is to exchange important information related to the contents of the business class with each other.
Today, universities are undergoing rapid changes in the educational environment, and there are continual needs for development and enhancement of service quality. A private university will be able to draw students’ satisfaction and commitment through the realization of business education service quality that helps students find jobs and develop start-up related thinking and knowledge. This will lead to practical performance that is consistent with the mission of raising employment rates. In addition, universities can establish a specialized convergence business curriculum by continuously providing feedback on students’ high loyalty.
5.2. Limitation
This study has some limitations. They are summarized as follows.
First, the data were from undergraduates of one private university, which means that it is hard to generalize the results as a characteristic of Korea as a whole. Future studies can use larger samples, including students of other private universities, to allow the results to be generalized with more confidence.
Second, since this study focused on practical private universities in Korea, which are focusing on improving employment rates, the direction of the research may not be in line with the case of research-oriented universities. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the scope of the survey to college students in other diverse majors.
Third, this study made a research model by analyzing satisfaction, commitment, and performance as affecting factors in the relationship between service quality and loyalty.
But, from the simplicity of the research model, the results of the study were derived from statistical analysis centered on correlation and regression analysis. For this reason, there is a limit to not checking the research model through a more rational path analysis by applying structure equation model (SEM).
Fourth, there will be a variety of variables that can be mediated between service quality and loyalty. The theoretical review in this study confirmed that there are various variables that may be related to business service quality, such as value (Prentice, McLaughlin, & Brady, 2018; Sung, Kim, & Youn, 2014), motivation (Lee & Lee, 2018), attachment (Lee, Jung, & Seong, 2018), and trust (Lee & Bea, 2006).
The model was simplified by applying only a few important variables. However, as mentioned above, many variables related to business service quality in higher education could be identified. In the future, it is necessary to carry out another empirical study that apply appropriate research models to structure equation model (SEM). Studies related to the application of new variables need to be carried out
References
- Abu Hasan, H. F., Ilias, A., Abd Rahman, R., & Abd Razak, M. Z. (2008). Service quality and student satisfaction: A case study at private higher education institutions. International Business Research, 1(3), 163-175.
- Akessa, G. M., & & Dhufera, A. G. (2015). Factors that influences students academic performance: A case of Rift Valley University, Jimma, Ethiopia. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(22), 55-63.
- Akhlaghi, E., Amini, S., & Akhlaghi, H. (2012). Evaluating educational service quality in technical and vocational colleges using SERVQUAL model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5285-5289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.424
- Al-Alak, B. A., & Alnaser, A. S. M. (2012). Assessing the relationship between higher education service quality dimensions and student satisfaction. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(1), 156-164.
- Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The Influence of university image on students' behavior. International Journal of Educational Management, 24, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013060
- Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). Effect of student perceived service quality on student satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian universities: development of HiEduQual. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 488-517. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2014-0010
- Azam, A. (2018). Service quality dimensions and students' satisfaction: A study of Saudi Arabian private higher education institutions. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 7(2), 275-284.
- Bobalca, C., Gatej(Bradu), C., & Ciobanu, O. (2012). Developing a scale to measure customer loyalty. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 623-628. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00205-5
- Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
- Choi, H. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2018). A study on moment of truth of household telecommunication and distribution services in Korea. Journal of Distribution Science, 16(6), 37-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.15722/jps.16.6.201806.37
- Coscun, L. (2014), Investigating essential factors on student satisfaction: a case of Albania private university, Journal of Education and Social Research, 4(1), 489-503. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n1p489
- Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. The Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600106
- Czepie, J. A., & Gilmore, R. (1987). Exploring the concept of loyalty in services, in services marketing challenge: Integrating for competitive advantage. American Marketing Association, 31, 91-94.
- Ding, D., X., Hu, P. J., Verma, R., & Wardell, D. G. (2010). The impact of service system design and flow experience on customer satisfaction in online financial services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509350674
- Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518
- Eres, F., & Clothey, R. (2013). Perceived service quality in schools of education: A comparative study between Drexel University and Gazi University. American International Journal of Social Science, 2(7), 6-15.
- Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M., (2006). An examination of moderator effects in the Four-Stage Loyalty Model. Journal of Service Research, 8(4), 330-345. DOI: 10.1177/1094670506286325
- Harris, L., & Goode, M. (2004). The four stages of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: A study of online service dynamics. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.002
- Henning-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty-an approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050134006
- Hijazi, S. T., & Naqvi, S. M. M. (2006). Factors affecting students' performance. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, 3(1), 1-10.
- Hoffman J. L., & Lowitzki, K. E. (2005). Predicting college success with high school grades and test scores: Limitations for minority students. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 455-474. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2005.0042
- Kahu, E., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
- Kang, H. G., Song, I. A., & Hwang, H. J. (2013). Influence of the education service quality and result expectations on behavioral intention: Focus on the TOEIC business of a global company. Journal of Distribution Science, 11(2), 71-81.
- Khodayari, F., & Khodayari, B. (2011). Service quality in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(9), 38-46.
- Koo, Y. D. (2005). The Effect of the perception on the physical environment in discount stores on customer satisfaction and intention. Journal of Distribution Science, 3(2), 29-56.
- Kotler, P., Armstrong, J., & Wong, V. (2000). Principle of marketing (2nd ed.). London, UK: Prentice-Hall.
- Kwon, Y. D., & Yu, J. P (2014). Effects of the support and control of franchisors on franchisees' satisfaction and response strategies. Journal of Distribution Science, 12(8), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.12.3.201403.43
- Lee, H. J., Jung, S. K., & Seong, M. H. (2019). The effect of professional sport spectator's experience economy factors on satisfaction: Focused on mediating effects of attachment and a sense of community. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 6(3), 269-282. doi:10.13106/jafeb.2019.vol6.no3.269
- Lee, J. G., & Bea, M. E. (2006). The impact of interpersonal relationships on department stores customer satisfaction and trust, loyalty. Journal of Distribution Science, 4(1), 27-52.
- Lee, S. D., & Lee, Y. K. (2018). Visit push motivation for a trading area and flow, satisfaction, and revisit intention. Journal of Distribution Science, 16(9), 65-77. DOI: 10.15722/jds.16.9.201809.65
- Lutz, M., & Culver, S. (2010). The national survey of student engagement: A university level analysis. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(1), 35-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583881003629814
- Mattah, P. A. D., Kwarteng, A. J., & Mensah, j. (2018). Indicators of service quality and satisfaction among graduating students of a higher education institution (HEI) in Ghana. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 12(1), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-10-2017-0006
- McMullan, R., & Gilmore, A. (2002). The conceptual development of customer loyalty measurement: A proposed scale, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(3), 230-243. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740080
- Mushtaq, I., & Khan, S. N. (2012). Factors affecting students' academic performance. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(9), 17-22.
- Oliver, R. L. (1980). Cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
- Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s105
- Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900403
- Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
- Park, K. Y., & Kim, H. S. (2012). EEPERF(Experiential Education PERFormance): An instrument for measuring service quality in experiential education. Journal of Distribution Science, 10(2), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.15722/JDS.10.2.201202.43
- Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
- Prentice, G., McLaughlin, C., & Brady. J. (2018). Education service quality, value and satisfaction on student customer intentions and behavior. DBS Business Review, 2, 89-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.22375/dbr.v2i0.27
- Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099193
- Rodriguez-Ardura, I., & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2017). Flow in e-learning: what drives it and why it matters. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 899-915. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12480
- Rodriguez-Izquierdo, R. M. (2020). Service learning and academic commitment in higher education. Revista de Psicodidactica, 25(1), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2019.09.0
- Rojas-Mendez, J. I., Vasquez-Parraca, A. Z., Kara, A., & Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009). Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Latin American Business Review, 10, 21-39. DOI: 10.1080/10978520903022089
- Schaufeli, W., Martinez, M., Pinto, M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481. https://www.isonderhouden.nl/doc/pdf/arnoldbakker/articles/articles arnold bakker78.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003
- Seng, E. L. K., & Ling, T. P. (2013). A statistical analysis of education service quality dimensions on business school students' satisfaction. International Education Studies, 6(8), 136-146. doi:10.5539/ies.v6n8p136
- Shahijan, M. K., Sajad, R., & Guptan, V. P. (2018). Marketing public and private higher education institutions: A total experiential model of international student's satisfaction, performance and continues intention. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15, 205-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-018-0198-2
- Shahzadi, E., & Ahmad, Z. (2011). Aa study on academic performance of university students. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Recent Advances in Statistics. (pp. 255-268). Lahore, Pakistan.
- Shin, C. S., Hwang, G. S., Lee, H. W., & Cho, S. R. (2015). The impact of Korean franchise coffee shop service quality and atmosphere on customer satisfaction and loyalty. East Asian Journal of Business Management, 5(4), 47-57. doi: 10.13106/eajbm.2015.vol5.no4.47.
- Song, J. G., & Lim, T. R. (2012). The performance formation model of service quality factors for courier service. Journal of Distribution Science, 10(4), 37-45. DOI: 10.15722/jds.10.4.201204.37
- Spedding, J., Hawkes, A. J., & Burgess, M. (2017). Peer assisted study sessions and student performance: The role of academic engagement, student identity, and statistics self-efficacy. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(1), 144-163. DOI: 10.1177/1475725716687166
- Sumardi, S., & Fernandes, A. A. R. (2018). The mediating effect of service quality and organizational commitment on the effect of management process alignment on higher education performance in Makassar, Indonesia. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 410-425. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2016-0247
- Sung, H. Y., Kim, J. J., & Youn, M. K. (2014). A study upon effects of family restaurant consumption values upon satisfaction, reliability and behavioral intentions in Korea: Focused on college students at metropolitan area. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 1(4), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2014.vol1.no4.29
- Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S. (2009). Academic course engagement during one semester forecasts college success: Engaged students are more likely to earn a degree, do it faster and do it better. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 120-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0055
- Trivellas, P., & Santouridis, I. (2014). Job satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between service quality and organisational commitment in higher education. An empirical study of faculty and administration staff. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(1), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.969595
- Yousapronpaiboon, K. (2014). SERVQUAL: Measuring higher education service quality in Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1088-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.350
Cited by
- Prioritizing Service Supply-Chain Performance Measures Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methodologies vol.7, pp.11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.843
- The Effect of Service Quality and Value of Five-Star Hotel Services on Behavioral Intentions with the Role of Consumer Satisfaction as Mediator vol.7, pp.11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.967
- The Effect of Service Quality and Product Diversity on Customer Loyalty: The Role of Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth vol.7, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.481
- Antecedents of Student Loyalty Within Universities in North Sumatra Province, Indonesia vol.7, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.491
- Element of Marketing: SERVQUAL Toward Patient Loyalty in the Private Hospital Sector vol.8, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.419
- The Effects of Image, Brand and Quality on Customer Loyalty of Sharia Banking vol.8, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no3.1315
- The Influence of Experiential Marketing and Location on Customer Loyalty vol.8, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no3.1327
- What are the Factors that influence the Revitalization of the Health and Beauty Stores in Distribution Channels? vol.19, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.19.12.202112.103