Service quality is conceptualised by several scholars as a hierarchical construct consisting of primary dimensions and sub-dimensions (Akter et al., 2013; Brady & Cronin, 2001; Clemes et al., 2014; Clemes et al., 2013; Clemes, Gan, et al., 2011; Clemes et al., 2008; Dagger et al., 2007; Hossain et al., 2014; Pollack, 2009; Wu & Cheng, 2013). However, the exact dimensional set representing service
quality needs to be confirmed for each industry setting, as the dimensions may differ in kind and in number. (Clemes, Gan, et al., 2011; Cronin & Taylor, 1994).
In an early study, Clemes et al. (2001) empirically identified two primary dimensions and seven pertaining sub-dimensions for university education in New Zealand, and in a further study ten sub- dimensions and three primary dimensions were identified in an extension of the original study (Clemes et al., 2008). Clemes et al. (2013) empirical identified thirteen sub-dimensions and three primary dimensions in a study on higher education in China. Teeroovengadum, Kamalanabhan, and Seebaluck (2016) identified nine sub-dimensions and five primary dimensions for higher education in Mauritius using EFA. However, the dimensional set was not subjected to multiple regression analysis or confirmed using CFA. The sets of sub-dimensions were relatively stable across Clemes et al.’s (2008) and Clemes et al.’s (2013) studies. As the main focus of this current research is on the Student Loyalty and its interrelationships with the other higher order constructs (including Student
Involvement), a precise sets of sub-dimensions were not factored in this study.
Four primary dimensions of higher education service quality were investigated and confirmed in this current study. Three were based on the extant literature (Interaction Quality, Physical Environment Quality, and Outcome Quality) and one (Social Factors Quality) derived from the focus group
discussions, discussions with academics, and discussed in the literature on higher education (Austin, 1984; Austin, 1999; Huang & Chang, 2004; Joseph, Yakhou, & Stone, 2005; Moore et al., 1998; Yin & Lei, 2007).
Interaction Quality focuses on how well the higher education service is delivered to the students by the lecturers. As teaching is suggested as a service encounter (Chung & McLarny, 2000), the service encounter in an educational context is defined as the dynamic interaction between students and lecturers (Schlesinger et al., 2015). The quality of the student-lecturer interface taking place during service delivery is critical to the HEI’s performance, as the perceptions of higher education service quality are significantly influenced by the service delivery processes of HEIs.
Physical Environment Quality focuses on the quality of the physical features surrounding the service production process (Clemes et al., 2013; Elliott, Hall, & Stiles, 1993). Students assess higher
education service quality based on their perceptions of the physical facilities and the personnel appearance. The physical environment of HEIs in which the service takes place has a significant impact on students’ perceptions of overall higher education service quality.
Outcome Quality focuses on what customers gain from the service process and whether the customers’ needs were fulfilled (Rust & Oliver, 1994). Students measure outcome quality based on whether the HEIs provide a good personal development and academic development for students.
Social Factors Quality focuses on students’ social experiences in HEIs based on the extra-curricular activities, social activities and social practice activities offered by the HEIs. Participating in these out- of-class activities plays an important role in students’ university experiences, as taking part in these activities helps encourage the social interactions of students and builds more positive relationships between students and the HEIs (Yin & Lei, 2007). The social factors of the HEIs has a significant impact on students’ perceptions of overall higher education service quality.
The results of the statistical analysis show significant and positive relationships between the four primary dimensions and students’ overall perceptions of higher education service quality (supporting Hypotheses 1 to 4). The results also confirm that the higher education service quality measurement model for China’s HEIs consists of four first-order primary dimensions and one second-order overall higher education service quality construct.
The results in this current study show that university students evaluate higher education service quality offered by the HEIs represented in the sample through four primary dimensions (at a primary- dimensional level), and then their perceptions of all four primary dimensions are combined together to reflect students’ overall higher education service quality perceptions.
The four primary dimensions (Interaction Quality, Physical Environment Quality, Outcome Quality, and Social Factors Quality) that were confirmed in this study to conceptualise higher education service quality. This result is consistent with previous studies that have confirmed at least three primary dimensions in kind for higher education in China (Clemes et al., 2013) and higher education in New Zealand (Clemes et al., 2008). However, the number of primary dimensions differ from those in the Clemes et al.’s (2008) and Clemes et al.’s (2013) research as social factors has been included as a fourth dimension in this current study.
In addition, the confirmation of the three primary dimensions in kind and number is consistent with numerous studies conducted on other industries and in different cultural settings that have also confirmed the three primary dimensions: mobile communications in China (Clemes, Shu, et al., 2014); the gaming industry in Macau (Wu & Hsu, 2012); professional sport in New Zealand (Clemes, Brush, et al., 2011); ski resorts in northern Greece (Kyle, Theodorakis, Karageorgiou, & Lafazani, 2010); agribusiness in the US (Gunderson, Gray, & Akridge, 2009); phone and hairdresser services in U.S. (Pollack, 2009); travel agencies in Spain (Martínez Caro & Martínez García, 2008); full-service restaurants in China (Chow et al., 2007); fast food, photograph developing, amusement parks and dry cleaning services in U.S. (Brady & Cronin, 2001).
Moreover, the number of primary dimensions confirmed in this study is consistent with Wu and Cheng’s (2013) findings on the airline industry, Dagger et al.’s (2007) findings on health care, and Ko and Pastore’s (2005) findings on the recreational sport industry.
Wu and Cheng (2013) confirmed four primary dimensions (Interaction Quality, Physical Environment Quality, Outcome Quality, and Access Quality) that customers perceived important in their
assessment of airline industry service quality. Wu and Cheng (2013) suggest that customers may perceive the ease and speed with their reaching of desired locations (Access Quality) as one of the important attributes of airline industry service quality. Dagger et al. (2007) confirmed four primary dimensions (Interpersonal Quality, Technical Quality, Environment Quality, and Administrative Quality) that drive customers’ perceptions of health care service quality. Dagger et al. (2007) suggest that customers may perceive the administration of complex and divergent health care services (Administrative Quality) as one of the important attributes of health care service quality. Ko and Pastore (2005) confirmed four primary dimensions (Program Quality, Interaction Quality, Outcome Quality, Physical Environment Quality) that customers perceived important in their evaluations of recreational sport service quality. Ko and Pastore (2005) suggest that customers may perceive the excellence of the program (Program Quality) as one of the important attributes of recreational sport service quality.
In a similar vein, students may perceive their social experiences that are based on extra-curricular activities, social activities and social practice activities offered by the HEIs (Social Factors Quality) as one of the important attributes of higher education service quality. Therefore, Social Factors Quality is identified as the fourth primary dimension of higher education service quality in this study.