UnivQual: a holistic scale to assess student perceptions of service quality at universities

This is a pre-print of an article published in Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. The final authenticated version is available online at: Marimon, F.; Mas-Machuca, M.; Berbegal-Mirabent, J.; Llach, J. (2019). UnivQual: A holistic scale to assess student perceptions of service quality at universities. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(1/2): 184-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1302795 For Peer Review Only UnivQual: A holistic scale to assess student perceptions of service quality at universities Journal: Total Quality Management & Business Excellence Manuscript ID Draft Manuscript Type: Original Article Keywords: higher education, perceived service quality, student satisfaction, assessment, university governance Abstract: The aim of this study is twofold. First, we validate a scale to assess the quality of the university experienced by students (UnivQual). Three main dimensions are envisioned: (i) “curriculum”, which refers to the quality of the learning methods and the coordination efforts throughout the whole study period; (ii) “skills development”, referring to the skills that students might acquire and (iii) “services and facilities” of the university. Second, we analyze the role of the aforementioned dimensions and their impact on student satisfaction. Results reveal that the “curriculum” dimension is the main antecedent of student satisfaction, whereas “services and facilities” do not play a significant role, although they are necessary to provide good service. The empirical application considers a survey of 2,557 undergraduate students that finished their degrees in 2013 at universities located in the region of Catalonia (Spain). The paper ends with recommendations for university managers and public administration authorities. URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence For Peer Review Only UnivQual: A holistic scale to assess student perceptions of service quality at universities Abstract The aim of this study is twofold. First, we validate a scale to assess the quality of the university experienced by students (UnivQual). Three main dimensions are envisioned: (i) “curriculum”, which refers to the quality of the learning methods and the coordination efforts throughout the whole study period; (ii) “skills development”, referring to the skills that students might acquire and (iii) “services and facilities” of the university. Second, we analyze the role of the aforementioned dimensions and their impact on student satisfaction. Results reveal that the “curriculum” dimension is the main antecedent of student satisfaction, whereas “services and facilities” do not play a significant role, although they are necessary to provide good service. The empirical application considers a survey of 2,557 undergraduate students that finished their degrees in 2013 at universities located in the region of Catalonia (Spain). The paper ends with recommendations for university managers and public administration authorities. Keywords: higher education, perceived service quality, student satisfaction, assessment, university governance Page 1 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 2 Introduction Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are expected to excel at three different missions: teaching, research and knowledge transfer. Recent trends, such as the commercial competition imposed by economic forces, have forced universities to focus on the quality of the service as a way to obtain sustainable competitive advantages (Abdullah 2006; Poole et al. 2000; Sohail and Shaikh 2004). This approach highlights the importance of understanding student satisfaction regarding their educational experience (Abdullah 2006). In recent years, the concept of service quality related to satisfaction has stood as a central point for the higher education (HE) system (Abdullah 2006; Oldfield and Baron 2000). University managers want to assure and increase their share in this competitive market; however, to do so, they need to ensure student satisfaction, as they are the active recipients of the service and, therefore, can act as advocates or detractors of their university. Moreover, adopting a wider view, the quality of the university system also creates a reputation for the region or the country. Accordingly, not only university managers but also public authorities are interested in preserving and improving the status of their universities. However, evidence suggests that some reforms that have been introduced in recent years in the HE system have acted as barriers rather than as facilitators (Cheng and Tam 1997), signaling the need for a better understanding of how universities work, and an awareness of the specific nature of the HE system in terms of quality assurance. Within the academic literature on university quality, there is an increasing interest in identifying the antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction in HEIs (Letcher and Neves 2010; Mahmood 2011). In the quality context, perceived quality is commonly considered an antecedent of student satisfaction (Snipes et al. 2005). However, other studies show different dimensions as antecedent conditions of student satisfaction such as image, service technical quality or functional service quality (Alves and Raposo 2010, 2007). Page 2 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 3 Other studies, like Gruber et al. (2010) affirm that student satisfaction is based on a relatively stable person-environment relationship. As for the drivers, they show that students are particularly satisfied with the geographic location of the university and the atmosphere among students. However, students are mostly dissatisfied with the university buildings and the quality of the lecture theaters. More recently, Jain et al. (2013) show the determinants to include seven dimensions: input quality, curriculum, academic facilities, industry interaction, interaction quality, support facilities and non-academic processes. Given this lack of agreement, it is possible to argue that the determinants of student satisfaction in HE are, to some extent, unknown. Among the HEI stakeholders, students can be considered one of the most important players in assessing university quality, as they are direct recipients of the services that universities offer (Hill 1995). Accordingly, following Dlacic et al. (2014), we consider students as primary customers of HE services. Certainly, the HE industry needs to understand the perceived quality of their students in order to attract and sustain the student body in their institution (Kara and Deshields 2004). Service quality from the lens of student satisfaction is a topic that, in recent years, is gaining awareness, being considered “a newly emerging field of concern” for the academic community (Nadiri et al. 2009). According to Brochado (2009), while there is an agreement on the relevance of service quality in HE, the definition of a correct measurement instrument is still a challenge. Therefore, future research efforts are needed to understand completely how students evaluate their learning experience at universities. Aiming to bring light to this issue, this paper pursues a double objective. First, we define and validate a scale to assess the perceived quality of students once they have completed their university studies. Second, we assess the usefulness of the scale and examine how each of the different dimensions of this scale of university quality contributes to explain student Page 3 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 4 satisfaction. The empirical application considers a survey of 2,557 undergraduate students that finished their degrees in 2013 at universities located in the region of Catalonia (Spain). The original contribution of this study is justified by the urgent need to find a scale that considers university service quality from a holistic perspective. The existing literature offers numerous scales; however, they tend to be narrowly focused on a particular service (e.g., the library service, the student claim office, international office, etc.) or designed to assess a particular subject taught at the university. In an era of global competition, universities are expanding their academic offer, introducing innovative teaching methods, providing teaching resources to lecturers, and updating the general services of the university, among others. All these services will be considered when students evaluate their experience at the university. Student opinions will be determinant of the future success of the university. A positive experience might turn into positive word-of-mouth and recommendations for new students to enroll at a particular university. On the contrary, a negative experience might prevent students from doing so. In this paper, we aim to address this theoretical and empirical gap by defining and validating a new scale (UnivQual) that could be applied at any university, regardless of the area of knowledge. The paper is structured as follows. The next section summarizes the current state of assessing university quality in the HE system, followed by the methodology. The results are then presented and discussed. The paper ends with concluding remarks, including the limitations and possible avenues for future research. Theoretical underpinnings Service quality in higher education Literature about HEI is rich. Universities have been addressed from many different perspectives; however, little evidence is found when considering HEIs as service industries, Page 4 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 5 and how these institutions ensure and deliver quality to their multiple stakeholders. In this regard, Rowley (1997) advised that, to measure the quality of HEIs, all stakeholder perspectives, from students to the legislators, should be considered. Recent research on this topic mainly concentrates on examining customer satisfaction (students) concerning specific services offered at HEIs, such as the library, the cafeteria, the scholarship program or internships, among others, since the student experience involves much more than teaching and learning (Petruzzellis and Romanazzi 2010). In this field, different techniques are used to assess service quality. Quinn et al. (2009) reviewed the methods and standards used in such studies, and listed the following: Total Quality Management (TQM), Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Six Sigma, ISO 9001, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, and the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP). As for the specific use of each method, TQM was the approach most widely used (e.g., Ali et al. 2010; Geng and Tam 1997; Mergen et al. 2000; Saunders and Walker 1991). Moreover, Quinn et al. (2009) also detected that both QFD and ISO 9001 certification were gaining popularity, with the latter being recently implemented in K–12 education in the United States. On the contrary, Six Sigma was underrepresented and was only used when the purpose of the evaluation was to determine the correct functioning of administrative units. Finally, they found little evidence mirrored either in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award or in the AQIP. Almost all the aforementioned methods come from the manufacturing industry, revealing the need for unambiguous methods and tools specifically designed for the service context, able to capture customer perceptions of the quality delivered in the service encounter. According to the literature (Ladhari 2009), one of the most popular scales used to measure service quality is the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al. 1990, 1985). SERVQUAL operationalizes service quality by comparing the perceptions of the service received with the Page 5 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 6 expectations. Since this scale was published, a number of variations flourished. In the specific context of HE, Brown and Mazzarol (2009) adapted the SERVQUAL scale and found that one of the most important antecedents of perceived value was the image of these institutions, whereas the perceived quality of people and processes, and the infrastructures and tangibles of the service had weak and vague impacts. Other adaptations of the SERVQUAL scale in HEIs include the works of Dib and Alnazer (2012), Dlacic et al. (2014), Hasan et al. (2009), Nadiri et al. (2009), Shaney et al. (2006), and Yeo and Li (2014). Further, a series of studies examine how universities perform using not just the SERVQUAL scale, but also comparing the results with other scales. In this direction, Abdullah (2006) tested and compared remarkably the relative efficacy of three measuring instruments of service quality: HEdPERF (Higher Education PERFormance), SERVPERF (SERVice PERFormance) and the moderating scale of HEdPERF-SERVPERF. More recently, Brochado (2009) compared the three scales: SERVQUAL, HEdPERF and SERVPERF (but only considered the perceptions of the service quality). Both studies converged in the difficulties resulting from the conceptual and empirical components of the measurement. The recent work of Yeo and Li (2014) also supports this lack of agreement. Antecedents of student satisfaction in HE As mentioned before and according to the second objective of this study – finding how the perceived quality dimensions affected student satisfaction – it is worth reviewing the literature that has investigated potential antecedent conditions of student satisfaction. For instance, Alves and Raposo (2007) suggested a conceptual model to evaluate student global satisfaction, and found two main influencing factors: the image and the perceived value (consisting of customer expectations, and technical and functional quality perceived). The study also examines the consequences of student satisfaction, with findings revealing that a Page 6 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 7 main implication is student loyalty, manifested in the form of word-of-mouth; in this respect, students become university brand advocates or detractors. More recently, Tsinidou et al. (2010) identified the quality determinants in the Greek HE system. These authors measured the relative importance that students gave to different aspects related to service quality by running an analytical hierarchical process (AHP). The factors identified were: (i) academic staff, (ii) administrative services, (iii) library’s services, (iv) curriculum structure, (v) location, (vi) facilities, and (vii) career prospects. In this same vein of thought, Letcher and Neves (2010) carried out a stepwise regression analysis to determine students’ “overall” satisfaction, measured via three dimensions: fulfilling expectations, value of investment, and recommendation of the program. Antecedents included eight different factors: (i) self-confidence, (ii) satisfaction with the curriculum, instruction and classes, (iii) satisfaction with quality of teaching of subject matter, (iv) satisfaction with extracurricular activities and career opportunities, (v) satisfaction with student advising, (vi) quality of teaching and instructor feedback, (vii) satisfaction with computing facilities, and (viii) satisfaction with student quality and interaction. Similarly, in a recent study, Mahmood (2011) analyzed the effect of factors – lecturers, research courses, facilities and supervisor support – on HE quality. Methodology Data collection and sampling To assess the perceived quality and the student satisfaction in HEIs, the authors signed an agreement with AQU (the Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency) to explore a survey that the AQU had sent to recent graduates of Catalan universities. The AQU is the primary instrument for quality promotion and assurance in the HE system in Catalonia. It is a public body subject to private law under the corresponding government department with jurisdiction Page 7 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 14 Based on this analysis, we can confirm that there are three main factors that capture student perceptions of service quality at HEIs: (i) curriculum, (ii) skill development, and (iii) services and facilities. In the light of these factors, the first and third items act as “enablers” for the second factor. Following the EFQM’s notation, this second factor can be interpreted as the “results” of the process. Consequently, we posit that our scale as in Model 1 has two “enablers” – curriculum, and services and facilities – that explain a “result” – skill development. Figure 1 graphically illustrates this logic. Insert Figure 1 about here The goodness of the fit indices were the same as reported before; thus, the model had the same number of parameters between constructs: a covariance and two step coefficients from enablers to results. The covariance between the two independent constructs was 0.787 and robust, with a t-value = 7.778. The standardized coefficient for “Curriculum” → ”Skill development” was 0.553 (t-value = 8.120) and the standardized coefficient for “Services and facilities” → ”Skill development” was 0.226 (t-value = 3.361). The three parameters were significant. These results signal that, rather than the provision of the services and facilities, it is how the academic program is structured and delivered that has a stronger impact on the skills that will be eventually acquired by students. Perceived quality dimensions as antecedents of student satisfaction Given the data on how students evaluated their whole experience at the university, a new model (Model 2) was proposed. With this model, we aimed to evaluate how each of the three dimensions in the UnivQual scale affected student satisfaction. Figure 2 shows that, in this Page 14 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 15 case, we consider three “enablers” – curriculum, skill development, and services and facilities – as antecedents of student satisfaction. The fit indices obtained in this measurement model estimation were satisfactory: χ 2 Satorra-Bentler was 579.96, with 130 degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.000; therefore, χ 2 /df was 4.45. RMSEA (0.065) and CFI (0.924) also displayed appropriate values. Insert Figure 2 about here Results in Table 7 show that the most important predictor of satisfaction is “curriculum”. It is particularly important as it has a high and robust direct effect, but also an indirect effect through “skill development”. On the contrary, “services and facilities” does not seem to play a role in student satisfaction. Insert Table 7 about here These results can be interpreted by analyzing the responsible agents in charge of monitoring each of the three dimensions. Adopting this perspective, our findings reveal that student satisfaction is highly dependent on (i) the ability of faculty managers to design attractive and sound academic programs and (ii) the expertise and knowledge of the lecturers in charge of transferring knowledge to students, and the teaching method used. Future research should be conducted to examine how universities should manage their human resources in order to maximize their limited resources. Going a step further in this direction, future studies might consider examining the internal coherence of the faculty staff and the duties to which they are assigned. It is of utmost importance to ensure a proper link between Page 15 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 16 teaching and research activities to maximize the synergies between the different tasks faculty members are responsible for conducting (Horta et al. 2012). As for the services and facilities, we can conclude that they have a secondary and weak effect, and only through the “skills development” factor (as an indirect effect). University services tend to be shared by different departments and faculties, meaning that there is a central unit in charge of ensuring their correct functioning and assigning to the different units (departments, faculties, schools) the corresponding resources. Therefore, the latter has little autonomy for governing the shared services and facilities. The overreaching conclusion is that, although to a lower extent, the central government is also shaping student satisfaction. Concluding remarks Two are the main contributions of this study. First, we have designed and validated a scale, UnivQual, to assess holistically student perceptions of the service quality delivered at universities. This scale presents the distinctive feature of being a useful instrument for assessing not just an individual subject or course, but for capturing student perceptions after completing their studies. Accordingly, it contains a number of items that refer to the entire academic program. Second, we test the explanatory power of the different dimensions of the UnivQual scale to predict student satisfaction. There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis. The first finding is that the quality of an academic program is a multifactor construct. We propose a scale of 17 items arranged in three dimensions: curriculum, skill development, and services and facilities. An in-depth analysis of the aforementioned three dimensions suggests considering two of these factors as “enablers” – curriculum, and services and facilities – for the “result” of the service provided –skill development. How the “curriculum” is designed and implemented strongly affects how students improve their skills (both soft and hard); however, the “services and Page 16 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 17 facilities” play a second-order role, acting as an enabler of the learning process. Nevertheless, both factors are necessary and mutually reinforce each other. In the second stage analysis, we provide evidence that student satisfaction is mainly explained by the content of the program and the learning process. To a lower extent, it also depends on the skills acquired by students after the years they spent at the university. On the contrary, the perceived quality of the services and facilities only has an indirect and marginal effect. Overall, these results suggest that one of the main actors responsible for improving student satisfaction is the faculty. Because students are one of the most important active recipients of university services, their voice should be heard. These conclusions may provide insights for managers when defining the global strategy of universities. Public and local authorities also have in their hands the shared responsibility in that they are in charge of allocating the public resources. We believe this paper provides an original contribution to the existing literature on assessing quality at universities from the student perspective. We hope our findings can be applied to help define attractive academic programs and provide useful insights on how the supporting facilities should be designed to allow students take advantage of their learning process at universities. Future research (both qualitative and quantitative) will also benefit public authorities in charge of allocating the resources. Page 17 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 18 References AQU. (2016). http://www.aqu.cat/site_related/enllacos/sistema_universtari.html#.VsBJxVLt7GB Accessed 8 February 2016. Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31-47. Ali, N. A., Mahat, F., & Zairi, M. (2010). Testing the criticality of HR-TQM factors in the Malaysian higher education context. Total Quality Management, 21(11), 1177-1188. Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management, 18(5), 571-588. Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The influence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 73-85. Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2), 174-190. Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81-95. Cheng, C. Y., & Tam, M. W. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 22-31. Dib, H., & Alnazer, M. (2013). The impact of service quality on student satisfaction and behavioral consequences in higher education services. International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 285-290. Dlačić, J., Arslanagić, M., Kadić-Maglajlić, S., Marković, S., & Raspor, S. (2014). Exploring perceived service quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1-2), 141-157. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser‐Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105-123. Jain, R., Sahney, S., & Sinha, G. (2013). Developing a scale to measure students’ perception of service quality in the Indian context. The TQM Journal, 25(3), 276-294. Kara, A., & DeShields, O. W. (2004). Business student satisfaction, intentions and retention in higher education: An empirical investigation. Marketing Educator Quarterly, 3(1), 1- 25. Page 18 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 19 Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hasan, H. F. A., Ilias, A., Rahman, R. A., & Razak, M. Z. A. (2009). Service quality and student satisfaction: A case study at private higher education institutions. International Business Research, 1(3), 163-175. Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21. Horta, H., Dautel, V., & Veloso, F. M. (2012). An output perspective on the teaching– research nexus: An analysis focusing on the United States higher education system. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 171-187. Ladhari, R. (2009). A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(2), 172-198. Letcher, D. & Neves, J. (2010). Determinants of undergraduate business student satisfaction. Research in Higher Education Journal, 6(March), 1-26. Mahmood, S. T. (2011). Factors affecting the quality of research in education: Student's perceptions. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(11/12), 34-39. Mergen, E., Grant, D., & Widrick, S. M. (2000). Quality management applied to higher education. Total Quality Management, 11(3), 345-352. Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 20(5), 523-535. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2), 85-95. 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(4), 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1990). Guidelines for conducting service quality research. Marketing Research, 2(4), 34-44. Petruzzellis, L., & Romanazzi, S. (2010). Educational value: How students choose university. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(2), 139-158. Poole, M., Harman, E., Snell, W., Deden, A., & Murray, S. (2000). ECU Service 2000: A client-centred transformation of corporate services, 00/16. Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Programme. Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Page 19 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only 20 Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P., & Johnson, D. M. (2009). Service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 20(2), 139-152. Rowley, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 7-14. Saunders, I. W., & Walker, M. (1991). TQM in tertiary education. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 8(5), 91-102. Sohail, M. S., & Shaikh, N. M. (2004). Quest for excellence in business education: A study of student impressions of service quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(1), 58-65. Snipes, R. L., Oswald, S. L., LaTour, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2005). The effects of specific job satisfaction facets on customer perceptions of service quality: An employee-level analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1330-1339. Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227-244. Yeo, R. K., & Li, J. (2014). Beyond SERVQUAL: The competitive forces of higher education in Singapore. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1/2), 95-123. Page 20 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Tables Table 1. Items and codes of the questionnaire to asses perceived quality. UnQu1 The structure of the syllabus has allowed a proper progression of my learning UnQu2 There has been good coordination in the content of the subjects to avoid overlap UnQu3 The volume of work has been consistent with the required number of ECTS of the subjects UnQu4 I am satisfied with lecturers UnQu5 The teaching methodology used by lecturers has helped my learning process UnQu6 The mentoring and personalized attention has been useful and has helped me improve my learning process UnQu7 The online platform (virtual campus) was a suitable environment to generate knowledge and improve my learning UnQu8 Evaluation systems have properly reflected my learning UnQu9 The internships have allowed me to consolidate and apply knowledge and skills acquired during the degree UnQu10 The mobility activities in which I have participated have been relevant for my learning UnQu11 The bachelor’s thesis has allowed me to assess my level of achievement of competencies UnQu12 Facilities (classrooms and teaching areas) have been adapted to facilitate my learning UnQu13 The resources provided by the library services and teaching support have responded to my needs UnQu14 The student support services (information, registration, academic procedures, scholarships, orientation, etc.) have offered me good advice and care UnQu15 I have received adequate response to my complaints and suggestions UnQu16 The information on the website is complete and updated UnQu17 The training received has allowed me to improve my communication skills UnQu18 The training received has allowed me to improve my personal skills (confidence level, independent learning, making decisions, solving new problems, critical analysis, etc.) UnQu19 The training received has allowed me to improve my leadership and teamwork skills UnQu20 The training received has allowed me to improve my skills for a future professional career Page 21 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the sample (student graduates in 2012/2013). Number % Sex No answer 23 .9 Female 1,594 62.3 Male 940 36.8 Total 2,557 100.0 Age No answer 19 .7 Less than 21 years old 2 .1 Between 21 and 24 years old 1,710 66.9 Between 25 and 30 years old 545 21.3 More than de 30 years old 281 11.0 Total 2,557 100.0 Location of high school studies No answer 18 .7 Does not apply 37 1.4 Catalonia 2,301 90.0 Rest of Spain 145 5.7 Europe Union 23 .9 Rest of the world 33 1.3 Total 2,557 100.0 Access to the University No answer 21 .8 From official exam 1,873 73.2 From a professional cycle 328 12.8 From other degree 170 6.6 From the same degree in other university 27 1.1 From previous low-degree 53 2.1 From special examination for people older than 25 years 62 2.4 Others 23 .9 Total 2,557 100.0 Year of the first degree 2007 or before 167 6.5 2008 257 10.1 2009 1,850 72.4 2010 118 4.6 2011 85 3.3 2012 34 1.3 2013 46 1.8 Total 2,557 100.0 Page 22 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Table 3. Matrix of the three components extracted using the principal component analysis and the varimax rotation of the UniQual items. 1 2 3 UnQu5 .707 .313 UnQu8 .686 .275 UnQu3 .673 UnQu2 .664 UnQu4 .646 .295 UnQu1 .617 .318 UnQu6 .531 .276 UnQu11 .413 .263 UnQu19 .325 .812 UnQu18 .312 .798 UnQu20 .326 .749 UnQu17 .289 .747 .262 UnQu9 .489 .458 UnQu14 .352 .715 UnQu16 .286 .302 .643 UnQu13 .309 .618 UnQu15 .456 .618 UnQu12 .389 .541 UnQu10 .346 .522 UnQu7 .299 .339 .411 Percentage of variance extracted 41.64% 7.39% 5.83% Page 23 of 29 URL: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctqm Email: [email protected] Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60