List of Figures
List of Tables
1.1 The Background
1.2 The SERVQUAL Metric
1.3 The SERVPERF Metric
1.4 Criticisms on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
1.5 The Problem Statement
1.6 Objectives of Research
1.7 Significance of this Research
2. Literature Review
2.1 Service Quality Research
2.2 The Service Quality Models
2.2.1 Gronroos' Service Quality Model
2.2.2 The SERVQUAL Model
2.2.3 The SERVPERF Model
2.2.4 The Three-Component Model
2.2.5 The Multilevel Model
2.3 Discussion on Service Quality Models
2.4 Metric Development -
3. Structural Models, Hypothesis & the Metric
3.1 The Structural Model
3.2 Research Hypothesis
3.3 Metric Preparation
4. Research Methodology
4.1 Nature of Research and the Variables
4.2 Research Framework
4.3 Sample Selection and its Rationale
4.4 Development of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Metric
4.5 Organizational Profile and Demographics
4.6 Reliability, Validity and Practicality
4.6.1 Reliability of the Instrument
4.6.2 Validity of the Instrument
4.7 Practicality of the Instrument
4.8 Data Collection Strategies
4.9 Statistical Procedures
4.10 Types of Data Analysis
5. Analysis and Results
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
5.2 Reliability Analysis
5.3 Distribution Pattern
5.4 Factor Analysis
5.5 Comparisons of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
5.5.1 Department-wise Comparison
126.96.36.199 Electronics Engineering Department
188.8.131.52 Computer Science & Engineering Dept.
184.108.40.206 Mechanical Engineering Department
5.5.2 Institution-wise Comparison
5.5.3 Dimension-wise Comparison
6. Findings, Implications & Conclusions
6.3 Scope for future work
I Reliability of the Instruments
II SERVQUAL Multi-dimensional Scale
III Service Quality Metric
This research work has been very exciting and interesting, and at times a daunting task too. Without the help and assistance of a large number of my friends, colleagues and students it would not have been possible. While I would like to personally acknowledge each one of them in this special page, it would be impossible to refer in detail, every individual. So, while acknowledging the help of all those who have involved, let me be specific to the following.
I am deeply indebted to:
- Dr. Gopalakrishna B., my guide, who was kind enough to take me as a research scholar and provide me with his invaluable guidance from- start to finish. His unstinting support and encouragement has enabled me to complete this work.
- All my colleagues who supported me and encouraged me during the course of this work.
- To all the respondents of this research without whose inputs the work would not have been possible.
- To all my earlier and contemporary researchers who have given enough arguments to agree or disagree with the two metrics available today for service quality evaluation.
- Finally, my sincere thanks to my wife Chandrika Raj who has helped me to keep myself awake late nights with refreshing cups of coffee thus enabling me to complete this project on time.
Dr. Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues
Service quality measurement is in the forefront of management literature since the past few decades, especially post liberalization and globalization. This is because of the tremendous pressure service providers are facing in the domestic and international market. This has lead to the development of several instruments to measure service quality and the two prominent ones are SERVQUAL and SERVPERF.
The use of a particular instrument in a given situation, or to a specific service industry is not clear and is subjective as well as context based. The research literature has no significant evidence on whether both the instruments totally differ in their outcomes, or concur with their each other in some cases. It is in this context this project work has made an attempt to determine the correlation and relationship between the two metrics.
The SERVPERF and SERVQUAL are the two Service quality measurement instruments widely used in the measurement of service quality in various service sectors such as banking, hospitals, tourism, insurance etc. But the service quality literature indicates that there exists a significant difference in the philosophy of service quality measurement in these two metrics, and also, the results while these two metrics are used need not necessarily match.
According to Parasuraman et al. (1985) the direction of gap between customer Perception and Expectation as measured by SERVQUAL affects Service quality. Accordingly, customers will have ‘Perception’ of high service quality to the extent that their ‘Expectation’ is lower than perceived service performance, and if the converse is true they would perceive low service quality. The second string lead by Cronin & Taylor (1992) argue that unweighted performance based SERVPERF metric, which takes into consideration only customer ‘Perception’ as the basis is a better measure of Service quality.
Hence, the problem identified in this project is: do these two metrics concur in their results, or is there a significant difference in their outcomes as applicable to a given service sector. The study also extends to the correlation between the outcomes of these two metrics and looking into the possibility of drawing implications based on the combined outcome.
The research is partly qualitative and partly quantitative in nature. Qualitative in the sense that it analyses existing metrics of service quality based on meta-analysis and, through the use of secondary data, discusses the relative importance of both the metrics in service sectors. The research becomes quantitative, as it deals with descriptive statistics and tests various hypotheses using standard statistical tools. Keviat diagrams have been used to identify the service quality gaps.
Significance of this Research
The results of this project work will add to the body of knowledge of service literature in the sense that the empirical study has proved that there is a significance difference in the outcomes of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics. Further, using the combined outcome of these two metrics and Gap analysis, the implications drawn have identified that Tangibles and Reliability are the two dimensions which have received higher level of Service quality satisfaction by the customers and Empathy and Assurance are the dimensions of least satisfaction. Responsiveness seems to be moderately satisfactory dimension among the five Service quality dimensions. These implications would help the service providers to strengthen the weaker dimensions.
Limitations and Scope for future Research
Even though the sample size is adequate in comparison to that of the universe, the study outcome cannot be generalized as it is based on a focused research in a particular higher educational institute. So, to generalize the results on a concrete basis several samples may have to be drawn at national and international level owing to the fact that educational services today are global in nature. However, as the selection of the respondents and service providers is such that they are from different parts of the country the results can be generalized to a considerably high level. The study can be extended at national level, and if System Dynamics approach is applied, simulation may be possible to study the influence of each of the Service quality dimensions on the overall service of the sector under consideration.
The research has clearly indicated that there is a significant difference in the outcomes of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics. The reliability of the study was 0.8815, which is at adequately acceptable level. Tangibles and Reliability are highly scored, and Empathy and Assurance are least scored, whereas, Responsiveness is moderately scored Service quality dimension. It can be concluded that if meaningful outcome has to be obtained, both these metrics have to be applied to a service sector and based on the combined inference drawn, suggestions should be made for quality enhancement.
List of Figures
2.1 Gronroos' Service Quality Model (Nordic Model)
2.2 The SERVQUAL Model
2.3 The SERVPERF Model
2.4 The Three-Component Model
2.5 The Multilevel Model
3.1 Structural Model: Service Quality Dimensions
4.1 The Research Framework
4.2 The Research Process
5.1 Normal Distribution Pattern of Data
5.2 Gap Analysis (Electronics Department)
5.3 Gap Analysis (Computer Science Department)
5.4 Gap Analysis (Mechanical Department)
5.5 Gap analysis (Overall)
List of Tables
2.1 Chronology of Service Quality Research
4.1 Descriptive Information of SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Dimensions
4.2 Changes to the Standard SERVQUAL/SERVPERF Instrument
5.1 Overall Descriptive Statistics
5.2 Frequency Classification of Data
5.3 Factor Analysis
5.4 Mean Score and Rank of Electronics Department (n = 25)
5.5 Rank order correlation of Electronics Department
5.6 Correlation Matrix (SERVQUAL) of Electronics Department
5.7 Correlation Matrix (SERVPERF) of Electronics Department
5.8a Paired Sample Correlation & t-test of Electronics Department
5.8b Paired Sample t-test of Electronics Department
5.9 Mean Score and Rank Computer Science Department
5.10 Rank Order Correlation Computer Science Department
5.11 Correlation Matrix (SERVQUAL) Computer Science Department
5.12 Correlation Matrix (SERVPERF) Computer Science Department
5.13 Paired Sample of Computer Science Department
5.14 Mean Score and Rank of Mechanical Department
5.15 Rank Order Correlation of Mechanical Department
5.16 Correlation Matrix (SERVQUAL) of Mechanical Department
5.17 Correlation Matrix (SERVPERF) of Mechanical Department
5.18 Paired Sample t-test of Mechanical Department
5.19 Overall Mean Score and Rank
5.20 Overall Rank Order Correlation
5.21 Overall Paired Sample t-test
5.22 One-way ANOVA for Combined Sample
6.1 Satisfaction Level Range of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
1.1. The Background
Since the 90s service sectors have taken more stringent measures to enhance their performance and effectiveness in search of achieving ‘differentiation’ in the market. Quality consciousness is further enhanced by the Globalization and Liberalization due to fierce competition. As the quality consciousness among the service sectors increased, the need to measure the quality of service also increased and this prompted for the development of metrics for the measurement of service quality. There have been several attempts made by a group of researchers who have systematically identified the variables that quantify the service quality among which the two most popular metrics are SERVQUAL and SERVPERF.
Among the two popular metrics mentioned above, SERVQUAL is more popular and has a wide application in service quality measurement and has number of applications in a variety of settings. In service quality measurement, Health care applications are numerous (Babakus and Mangold, 1992; Bebko and Garg, 1995; Bowers et al., 1994; Headley and Miller, 1993; Licata et al., 1995; Lytle and Mokwa, 1992; O’Connor et al., 1994; Reidenbach and Sandifer-Smallwood, 1990; Woodside et al., 1989). Other settings include a dental school patient clinic, a business school placement center, a tire store, and acute care hospital (Carman, 1990); independent dental offices (McAlexander et al., 1994); at AIDS service agencies (Fusilier and Simpson, 1995); with physicians (Brown and Swartz , 1989; Walbridge and Delene, 1993); in large retail chains such as: kMart, WalMart, and Target (Teas, 1993); in General Insurance sectors (Gopalakrishna, Varambally and Rodrigues, 2007), and banking, pest control, dry cleaning, and fast-food restaurants (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).
Cronin and Taylor (1992) found that their measure of service performance (SERVPERF) produced better results than SERVQUAL. SERVPERF instrument has also many applications in diversified areas. There are several studies to compare the two instruments and discuss on which one of the two measures Service quality in the true sense. In the light of this background this research is carried out to seek relationship between the two most popular metrics of Service Quality measurement.
1.2. The SERVQUAL Metric
Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1990) developed SERVQUAL, which was originally measured on 10 aspects of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding or knowing the customer, and tangibles. It measured the gap between customer expectations and experience. By the early nineties the authors had refined the model to the useful acronym RATER:
1. Reliability - ability to perform the promised service accurately and dependably.
2. Assurance - knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence.
3. Tangibles – physical facilities, equipment, and the appearance of personnel.
4. Empathy - caring and individualized attention to customers.
5. Responsiveness - willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service.
The SERVQUAL instrument consists of a 22-items for assessing service quality based on customer’s perceptions, which is, by his turn, the difference between the customer’s perceived quality and customer expectation. The perceived quality is assessed based on service quality dimensions that correspond to the criteria used by consumers when assessing service quality. There are 10 potentially overlapping dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, communication, credibility, assurance, competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing the customer, and access. A more detailed description of those dimensions can be found in Zeithan et al. (1990). Afterwards, these dimensions were reduced to five, namely: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy. Using those 10 or 5 dimensions as the evaluation criteria the specification of service quality becomes the gap between customers’ Expectations and their Perceptions (Parasuraman et al, 1985). This performance-expectation model was also adopted by other authors (e.g. Brown and Swartz, 1989).
The SERVQUAL has its detractors and is considered overly complex, subjective and statistically unreliable. The simplified RATER model however is a simple and useful model for qualitatively exploring and assessing customers' service experiences and has been used widely by service delivery organizations. It is an efficient model in helping an organization shape up their efforts in bridging the gap between ‘perceived’ and ‘expected’ service. Nyeck, Morales, Ladhari, and Pons (2002) stated the SERVQUAL measuring tool, “remains the most complete attempt to conceptualize and measure service quality” (p. 101). The main benefit to the SERVQUAL measuring tool is the ability of researchers to examine numerous service industries such as healthcare, banking, financial services, and education (Nyeck, Morales, Ladhari, & Pons, 2002). The fact that SERVQUAL has critics does not render the measuring tool moot. Rather, the criticism received concerning SERVQUAL measuring tool may have more to do with how researchers use the tool. Nyeck, Morales, Ladhari, and Pons (2002) reviewed 40 articles that made use of the SERVQUAL measuring tool and discovered that “few researchers concern themselves with the validation of the measuring tool” (p. 106).
According to SERVQUAL model,
Service quality = Perception - Expectation
1.3. The SERVPERF Metric
Cronin and Taylor (1992) had re-examined and extended the SERVQUAL model with a more focused approach on the conceptualization of the model SERVPERF. This model is basically ‘Perception’ part of SERVQUAL model, which measures Service quality in terms of perceptions of customers based on the performance of service providers.
Service quality = Perception
1.4. Criticisms on SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
Francis Buttle (1996) critiques SERVQUAL in the article "SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda" on a number of theoretical and operational bases. He particularly notes that SERVQUAL's five dimensions (Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness) are not universals, and that the model fails to draw on established economic, statistical and psychological theory. Although SERVQUAL's face and construct validity are in doubt, it is widely used in published and modified forms to measure customer expectations and perceptions of service quality.
Lages and Fernandes (2005) in the article "The SERPVAL (Service Personal Values) scale: A multi-item instrument for measuring service personal values" suggests that consumer final decisions are taken at a higher-level of abstraction. Similarly to the SERVQUAL scale, the SERPVAL scale is also multi-dimensional. It presents three dimensions of service value to peaceful life, social recognition, and social integration. All three SERPVAL dimensions are associated with consumer satisfaction. While service value to social integration is related only with loyalty, service value to peaceful life is associated with both loyalty and repurchase intent.
Brown, Churchill and Peter (1993) had expressed their primary focus of critique on the difference score (i.e. perception minus expectation) with psychometric concerns about conceptualization. They come to a general agreement that the SERVQUAL 22 items are reasonably good predictors of service quality in its wholeness, however, they observe that careful scrutiny of the 22 items by and large deal with the element of human interaction intervention in the service delivery.
Sureshchandar et al., (2001), comment in general on both SERVQUAL and SERVPERF instruments and claim that these metrics have overlooked some other important factors of service quality like core service, systematization, standardization of service delivery (the non-human element), and the social responsibility of the service organization.
1.5. The Problem Statement
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics are widely in use for the measurement of Service quality, but it is not clear whether their results match. There are a group of researchers who argue that the measure of Service quality is through ‘Perception minus Expectation’, as used in SERVQUAL but another group of researchers consider only ‘Perception’ as the measure. The main problem identified in this research is to carry out an empirical investigation on whether the two metrics concur in their measurement or they differ significantly. The problem statement gives rise to the following research questions:
1. Do both the metrics i.e. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF produce the same outcome while measuring the service quality w.r.t. the five dimensions: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness?
2. Is there a significant difference in the results obtained by SERVQUAL and SERVPERF?
3. If they differ in their measurement, are there some dimensions in which they agree or do they differ w.r.t. all the five dimensions?
4. Can the inferences be drawn based on the interpretation of the results on combined evaluation of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF?
1.6. Objectives of the research
With the above problem statement, it is clear that the cardinal objective of this research is to study whether the SERVPERF and SERVQUAL metrics concur in their outcome of service quality measurement, or if there is a significance difference in their outcomes. Following sub-objectives have been formulated to accomplish this main objective:
1. Prepare a SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metric for the measurement of service quality in a chosen service organization.
2. Validate the metric for use in the chosen service sector.
3. Apply the metric to collect data for Service quality measurement.
4. Build hypothesis to test if there is a significant difference in the measurement of service quality as measured by the two metrics and analyze the same.
5. Identify the dimensions, if any, w.r.t. which the two instruments concur and attempt to find reasons for the difference.
6. Identify weaker dimensions of service quality and make suggestions to improve the same.
1.7. Significance of this Research
The service quality literature is shrouded in mystery regarding which instrument to be used for measurement of service quality, as there are a number of models which describe service quality. The choice of a particular model to a great extent is subjective as the researcher chooses a model which he feels covers most of the measurable parameters. A good number of researchers have applied the available metrics and empirically evaluated the quality of service in various organizations. There are also a sizable number of articles available on criticizing the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics, which are popularly used by service quality researchers. This research throws light on, do these two instruments concur in their results or significantly differ in their results. Hence, the outcome of this research adds to the body of knowledge of service literature. Education sector is considered to be one of the largest service organization post liberalization, and as these two metrics are tested in an educational set-up, the outcomes of this research not only identify the pitfalls but also make suggestions to improve upon the same.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Service quality literature is rich in models, hypotheses and criticisms owing to the fact that active research has been in progress since the past two decades. The chronological order of Service quality research has been tabulated in the beginning and the focus of this chapter is on the review of various models proposed to measure service quality and discussions on the two models viz., SERVQUAL and SERVPERF.
2.1. Service Quality Research
The literature review indicates that Service quality research is in the forefront of many countries owing to the fact that today’s global economy is basically a service economy. It is to be noted that almost all the organizations compete to some degree on the basis of service and it is difficult to name even one industry for which service matters are unimportant (Zeithmal et al., 1990). A lot of research is in progress round the globe on issues of Service quality enhancement in service industries to name a few: banking, health-care, transportation, hospitality, hospitals, health care, insurance, education, and tourism. The chronological order of some significant research and the outcome has been listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Chronology of Service quality research
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Hence, there is a clear evidence that Service quality research is a potential area of research and there has been enough work undertaken so far and the research is still in progress. The above chronological research also indicates that there have been different approaches to Service quality and several tools are available to measure Service quality. There is also a diversified view on measurement issues and there exists evidence to prove that generalization of quality dimensions is not possible and inconsistencies exist when it comes to the relationship between quality management and business performance. The focus of this research is to test whether a significance difference exists in the measurement of service quality when the two basic models namely SERVQUAL and SERVPERF are used. Hence, following key models have been chosen for discussion from the chronological outcomes of service quality research.
2.2. The Service Quality Models
Even though the Service quality research is flooded with models, the focus of this chapter is to discuss the most relevant models which significantly influence service quality and contributes to the parameters of this research. The chosen models have been discussed in the following sections.
2.2.1. Gronroos' Service Quality Model
One of the oldest models in service quality measurement is the model developed by Gronroos developed in 1984. According to this model, the customer's perception of service has two components:
1. Technical quality - What the consumer receives, i.e., the technical outcome of the process
2. Functional quality - How the consumer receives the technical outcome; or "expressive performance of a service"
Functional quality is generally perceived to be more important than technical quality according to Gronroos assuming. The Technical quality and Functional quality lead to Expected service and perceived service as shown in Fig. 2.1.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.1: Gronroos' Service Quality Model (Nordic Model)
(Source: Gronroos, 1984)
2.2.2. SERVQUAL Model
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry developed the SERVQUAL model in the 1988. Service quality results from a comparison of perceived with expected performance (Fig. 2.2) and is based on the disconfirmation paradigm, which creeps in from the discrepancies between prior expectation and actual performance.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.2: The SERVQUAL Model
(Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1988)
The ‘Perception’ of service by the customer is based on the ‘Performance’ level of Service quality. Parasuraman et al.’s (1985; 1988) basic model was that consumer perceptions of quality emerge from the gap between performance and expectations, as performance exceeds expectations, quality increases; and as performance decreases relative to expectations, quality decreases (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1988). Thus, performance-to-expectations “gaps” on attributes that consumers use to evaluate the quality of a service form the theoretical foundation of SERVQUAL.
2.2.3. The SERVPERF Model
Cronin and Taylor (1992) proposed that perceptions of performance are the only criteria to measure & define Service quality and brought out SERVPERF model (Fig. 2.3).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.3: The SERVPERF Model
(Source: Cronin & Taylor, 1992)
2.2.4. The Three-Component Model
Rust and Oliver (1994) suggested that Service quality is a function of three components viz., Service Product, Service Delivery and Service Environment (Fig. 2.4). The service product is the outcome and the consumer’s perception of the service. The service delivery is the consumption process and any relevant events that occur during the service act. The service environment is the internal and external atmosphere. The service environment is important because it is viewed as an integral role in consumer service perception development (Bitner, 1992).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.4: The Three-Component Model
(Source: Rust and Oliver, 1994)
2.2.5. The Multilevel Model
Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) developed a model which suggests that Service quality follows hierarchical conceptualization (Fig. 2.5) and it follows three levels viz.,
1. Customer’s overall perceptions of Service quality
2. Primary dimensions
3. Sub – dimensions.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.5: The Multilevel Model
(Source: Brady and Cronin, 2001)
2.3. Discussion on Service Quality Models
Adoption of a particular Service quality model into a situation is to a great extent subjective as each of the above models given in the preceding sections defines service quality in its own set of parameters. Zhao et al., (2002) state that Service quality is difficult to measure objectively, since services have been described as intangible, heterogeneous and inseparable. So, a group of researchers started working on the comparison of the results obtained by these models. Based on the results they obtained, researchers also started identifying new dimensions, which were not accounted for in a particular model. So, there has been a wealth of knowledge based on the research of service quality literature.
Churchill and Suprenant (1982) established the fact that Service quality was an attitude. Gronroos (1982) brought out another model by emphasizing the significance of processes and outcomes in defining Service quality. In this Nordic model, Gronroos proposed the concept of Expected service and Perceived service as a measure of service quality. Holbrook and Corfman (1985) expanded on the concept of an act being performed and defined perceived quality as a global value judgment and they indicated that quality does by its nature seem to express general approval. They brought out three specific dimensions of quality viz., implicit features, humanistic features, and operational features in nature. Further, Maynes (1985) quantified service quality by placing a number on the level of satisfaction.
The literature review on Service quality indicates that SERVQUAL metric dominates the literature and is most widely used (Lai et al., 2007), and has been widely tested for its validity and reliability (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Bolton and Drew, 1991; Brown and Swartz, 1989; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994). Although some of these studies failed to support the five dimensional factor structure, Parasuraman et al. (1994) defended the framework on conceptual and practical grounds. Further, Researchers have criticized the SERVQUAL scale for its use of gap scores, measurement of expectations, positively and negatively worded items, the generalizability of its dimensions, and the defining of a baseline standard for good quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Brown et al., 1993; Oliver, 1993).
Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) suggested that service quality be measured using a performance-only index (SERVPERF) instead of the gap-based SERVQUAL scale. They reported that the use of the SERVPERF scale containing only performance items explained more of the variation in service quality than did the entire 44-item SERVQUAL instrument. The SERVPERF instrument contained 21 of the original SERVQUAL performance items. Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued that SERVQUAL confounds satisfaction and attitude. They stated that service quality can be conceptualized as “similar to an attitude”, and can be operationalized by the “adequacy-importance” model. In particular, they maintained that “performance” instead of “performance – expectation” determines service quality and that developed an alternative measurement tool, SERVPERF, which concerns only performance. In their empirical study, SERVQUAL appeared to have a good fit in only two of the four industries examined, whereas SERVPERF had an excellent fit in all four industries. A similar result was obtained from regression analyses.
Cronin and Taylor (1994) argue that SERVQUAL:
1. does not measure either Customer satisfaction or Service quality instead it “appears at best an operationalization of only one of the many forms of expectancy disconfirmation”.
2. does not exhibit construct validity.
3. does not ensure that the dependant measure is performance based.
4. has little empirical and conceptual research support.
On the above grounds they opine that SERVPERF can provide reliable, valid and useful tool for measuring overall service quality levels or attitudes. A group of researchers including Churchill et al. (1993), Carman (1990), Babacus ad Boller (1992) support this argument.
Hence, in consideration of the above discussions it can be very clearly concluded that both of these two instruments (SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) are is use across service quality literature and their relative importance is an issue of analysis.
2.4. Metric Development
The SRVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics have Service quality perception influenced by the five dimensions viz. Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness as per the literature review. The metric used in this research consisted of 22 variables which measured the five dimensions just mentioned (Parasuraman et al., 1988). As the instrument was basically developed for a general service sector, it was to be modified to suit to the requirements of Higher Education settings. The details of the instrument development is given in Chapter 4: Research Methodology.