This site uses cookies for learning about our traffic, we store no personal details. ACCEPT COOKIES DECLINE COOKIES What are cookies?
univerge site banner
Original Article | Open Access | Int. J. Manag. Account. 6(3), 40-54 | doi: 10.34104/ijma.024.040054

Effects of Service Quality on Student Satisfaction: A Study Using the SERVQUAL Model

Md. Amanur Rahman Mail Img ,
Sayed Azharul Islam Mail Img ,
Nur-E-Alam Siddiki Mail Img ,
Ripon Kumar Paul* Mail Img ,
Prosenjit Tarafdar Mail Img

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of service quality of higher education institutions on student satisfaction using the SERVQUAL model. Conducted in the Khulna region, Bangladesh, the quantitative research collected data from students across various universities using a questionnaire comprising 24 Likert scale statements. SPSS v27 was used for statistical analysis.  The findings revealed a positive and significant effect of university service quality on student satisfaction. The study also suggested that the service quality of the universities can explain a 90% variation in student satisfaction. These findings have the potential to empower educational institutions in identifying areas of strength and improvement, fostering continuous growth and benchmarking against peers. Prospective and current students can leverage this study to evaluate or plan for higher education institutions. The study was limited on various fronts including time constraints, financial limitations, and probable respondents biases. Addressing these limitations can enhance the accuracy and applicability of future studies.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the intricate relationship between service quality and student satisfaction is essential for institutions of higher education striving to meet the diverse needs and expectations of their student body. In todays competitive educational landscape, where universities compete not only for enrolment but also for reputation and retention rates, delivering high-quality services has become imperative. This study seeks to explore the effects of service quality on student satisfaction, employing the SERVQUAL model as a conceptual framework to delve into the nuanced dimensions of service provision within academic settings. 

Despite the considerable body of literature exploring the relationship between service quality and student satisfaction within higher education, a notable research gap exists regarding the nuanced interplay between specific dimensions of service quality and their differential effects on student satisfaction. While existing studies have provided valuable in-sights into the overall impact of service quality on student perceptions, there remains a dearth of empirical research that comprehensively examines how variations in individual service dimensions contribute to overall satisfaction levels (Sari, 2023). This study aims to fill this gap by examining the direct relationship between service quality and student satisfaction, as well as the individual effects of SERVQUAL Model dimensions on satisfaction. This study aims to address gaps in previous research by providing specific insights into unclear areas and focusing on two primary objectives. First, it seeks to analyze the direct relationship between university service quality and satisfaction among students. Second, it seeks to investigate the unique effects of SERVQUAL Model aspects on student satisfaction. These objectives of the study will be achieved through answering the following research questions

1. Does Tangibles exhibit a positive and signifi-cant relationship with Student Satisfaction?

2. Is there a positive and significant relationship between Reliability and Student Satisfaction?

3. Does Responsiveness demonstrate a positive and significant relationship with Student Satis-faction?

4. Is there a positive and significant relationship between Assurance and Student Satisfaction?

5. Does Empathy show a positive and significant relationship with Student Satisfaction?

Previous research usually included mediating or moderating variables, resulting in a little investi-gation of the direct relationship between service quality and student happiness. This study aims to enhance understanding of this topic by emphasizing these objectives.

Review of Literature

The literature related to this study revolves around two core concepts- Service Quality and Student Satisfaction.

Service Quality  

Service quality is a measure of how well a business meets its customers expectations. Customers acq-uire services in response to unique demands (Kandampully, 1998). They have particular criteria and expectations for how a companys service delivery meets those demands, whether they are conscious of it or not. A firm with great service quality provides services that meet or surpass their consumers expectations (Zeithaml, 1990). Service quality is integral for establishing sustainable posi-tive relationships with consumers (Abu hasan & Ilias, 2008). In the context of universities, service quality refers to the extent to which the educational institution meets or exceeds students expectations and needs in various aspects of their academic and non-academic experiences (Onditi & Wechuli, 2017). It encompasses the delivery of services and support related to teaching, learning, administrative processes, facilities, and overall campus environ-ment (Kok, 2011). Service quality in universities is measured by factors such as the reliability of academic programs, responsiveness of faculty and staff to student inquiries and needs, assurance of academic support services, empathy in addressing student concerns, and the quality of physical facilities and resources available to students (Hussain & Birol, 2011). Additionally, it involves aspects related to communication, accessibility, transparency, and fairness in administrative processes and policies. Overall, service quality in universities aims to create a positive and supportive environment conducive to student success, satisfaction, and holistic development (Aithal & Maiya, 2023).

Student Satisfaction 

Student satisfaction encompasses perceptions meeting expectations in educational services, influ-encing happiness and contentment throughout academic life (Taskın et al., 2023). Research indi-cates correlations between satisfaction and factors like curriculum quality, teaching effectiveness, and career preparation (Mahi et al., 2018). Online learning quality significantly impacts student satis-faction and retention (Misnan et al., 2018). Studies employ various scales, such as the University Students Satisfaction Scale (U-SSS), to gauge satisfaction levels (Ozok et al., 2022). Factors influencing satisfaction include support services, teaching quality, and social support (Kim, 2020). Simulation-based learning and staff behavior contribute to satisfaction in healthcare education (Camilleri, 2021). Academic satisfaction relates to faculty competence, curriculum design, and learning facilities (Syahmer et al., 2022). However, there may not be a direct correlation between personal satisfaction and academic achievement (Malik et al., 2013). Overall, evaluating student satisfaction is crucial for program efficacy and student success (Alaa, 2015).

Relationship between the Service Quality and Student Satisfaction 

The service quality of educational institutes is a crucial factor behind student satisfaction, especially in higher-level education. There have been a lot of studies that have investigated the association between student satisfaction and service quality. An investigation conducted in 2019 shows that there is a favorable and significant impact of service quality on students (Chandra et al., 2019). However, the same study shows that student satisfaction fosters a direct influence on student attachment which increases the universitys reputation. Another rese-arch conducted in 2020 found out significant impact of service quality on student satisfaction and student loyalty (Purwanto & Cahyono, 2020). The same investigation suggests that service quality can be improved by working on parameters like tangibles, empathy, responsiveness, reliability, and assurance. A study conducted in 2020 by Alsheyadi and Albalushi measured student satisfaction utilizing the SERVQUAL Model and showed that tangibles, assurance, reliability, empathy, and responsiveness dimensions have a direct influence on student satisfaction (Forid et al., 2022). Studies comparing public and private universities show that govern-ment-owned institutions tend to excel in quality culture and service provision (Iqbal et al., 2023), while private universities in Bangladesh prioritize factors such as comfortable facilities and attentive staff to enhance student satisfaction and loyalty (Hoque et al., 2023). Research in Chittagong, Bangladesh, indicates that both private and public universities management and academic character-istics significantly influence student satisfaction (Mahi et al., 2018). Moreover, service quality plays a crucial role in generating student loyalty and satisfaction, with universities recognizing its impor-tance in maintaining competitiveness (Doan, 2021; Twum & Peprah, 2020). Service quality, defined as meeting or exceeding stakeholder expectations, greatly impacts students perceived value and trust in educational institutions (Abdel-Aziz, 2019). For public universities, ensuring service quality is essential for student retention, attracting foreign students, and building trust with stakeholders who invest in education (Iqbal et al., 2023). In essence, prioritizing service quality not only enhances student satisfaction but also contributes to the overall success and reputation of educational institu-tions. 

SERVQUAL 

Numerous studies, including those by (Anisseh and Akbari, 2023; Wang, 2022; Fazli-Salehi et al, 2019), have utilized the SERVQUAL model to assess service quality in higher education. Other studies, such as those by Shafaqat et al. (2020) and Marimon et al. (2019) have proposed alternative approaches. Modified versions of SERVQUAL have been applied in various countries, including Pakistan and Oman (Eldean & Bartamani, 2018; Muhammad et al., 2018). Tools like HEISQUAL (Alhazmi, 2020) and HEdPERF (Muhammad et al., 2018) have been suggested for measuring service quality in higher education institutions. These studies highlight the importance of analyzing and improving service quality to enhance student satisfaction and experi-ence, identifying areas for enhancement such as administrative efficiency and non-academic services. Overall, the SERVQUAL model serves as a comprehensive framework for evaluating service quality, aiding organizations in understanding consumer satisfaction and addressing gaps between perception and expectation to improve service delivery effectively. The SERVQUAL Model has 5 dimensions. They are discussed below: 

Tangibles 

Tangibles, such as physical facilities and amenities, significantly influence student satisfaction in univer-sities (Solinas et al., 2012; Wardi et al., 2018). A visually appealing and well-equipped campus enhances satisfaction levels (Ningsih et al., 2020). Research indicates that tangibles play a crucial role in shaping overall service quality perceptions (Shahdadnejad & Vakil Alroaia, 2013). While tangibles positively impact satisfaction, other factors like dependability and responsiveness may not have a substantial effect (Agus, 2017). The physical aspects of universities, including infrastructure and learning resources, are closely tied to student satis-faction (Khairusy & Febriani, 2023). Improvements in intangibles, such as teaching quality and infra-structure, can enhance overall student happiness and loyalty (AlBalushi & Kamareddine, 2019). Tangi-bles, alongside other factors like faculty quality and curriculum, contribute significantly to student satis-faction and retention (Skea, 2017). Thus, investing in infrastructure and service environment is crucial for enhancing student satisfaction and global competitiveness (Mizintseva et al., 2016). There-fore, from the existing literature, it can be hypothe-sized that, 

H1: Tangibles has a positive and significant relation-ship with student satisfaction. 

Reliability

Reliability, a key dimension in service quality, assesses a universitys ability to deliver services consistently and as promised. Studies emphasize its significance in enhancing student satisfaction and overall service quality (Nurrahmawati et al., 2019). For instance, in IT service sections, reliability was found to be crucial for both employees and students (Janky et al., 2022). Research also indicates that reliability significantly impacts student satisfaction, with variances observed among universities (Yuniarti, 2014). Addressing reliability is crucial to bridge the gap between students expectations and perceptions of service quality (Torres et al., 2014). While some studies highlight areas where univer-sities fall short of meeting expectations, others show that students rate service reliability higher than average (Hrnciar & Madzik, 2015). Improving reliability is essential for universities to enhance student happiness and maintain competitiveness (Ali, 2014). Therefore, from the existing literature, it can be hypothesized that,  

H2: Reliability has a positive and significant relationship with student satisfaction. 

Responsiveness 

Responsiveness, the promptness, and effectiveness of a universitys service delivery, significantly impacts student satisfaction (Harangi-Rákos et al., 2022). Positive student perceptions of digital learning during the pandemic underscore the impor-tance of universities adapting swiftly to new techno-logies (Banahene et al., 2018). Service quality, measured by HEdPERF, positively affects student happiness in private universities (Jereb et al., 2018). Factors like program concerns and faculty assistance influence student satisfaction (Caruso et al., 2014). Enhancing both teaching and non-teaching aspects, including responsiveness, is crucial for universities to improve satisfaction and reputation (Raut et al., 2022). Positive staff-student relationships and student-instructor interaction contribute to overall satisfaction and value for money (Haverila & Haverila, 2021; Rowan & Grootenboer, 2016). University social responsibility positively influences student loyalty through its impact on service quality and satisfaction (Latif et al., 2021). However, the relationship between loyalty and satisfaction is complex and influenced by cognitive and emotional factors (Kok Keong et al., 2018). Nonacademic staff behavior directly affects student satisfaction levels (Sivalingam, 2015). Sustainability initiatives and learning environments also shape student happiness (Arambewela & Hall, 2013; Enache, 2011). Classroom amenities and faculty qualifications are crucial for student satisfaction in Saudi Arabian universities (Alashwal, 2020). Responsive conduct, including quality instruction and support services, enhances student satisfaction and retention (Carter, 2014; Najib et al., 2011). Variables like a classroom setting, resource availability, and student-faculty rapport impact student satisfaction (Benjamin, 2019). Satisfaction with academic success and service quality predicts overall student satisfaction (Pseiridis et al., 2017; Sanjay & Govender, 2018). Improving the learning process and non-teaching assistance can elevate satisfaction levels (Bawam-enewi et al., 2022). Overall, responsiveness and service quality significantly influence student satisfaction and institutional reputation (Hwang & Choi, 2019; Wang & Liu, 2022). Therefore, from the existing literature, it can be hypothesized that,

H3: Responsiveness has a positive and significant relationship with student satisfaction. 

Assurance

Assurance, characterized by employee skills and expertise, is crucial for student satisfaction in higher education (Rachuonyo & Kiriri, 2018). It signifi-cantly impacts word of mouth and service quality perceptions, influencing student happiness and loyalty (Widikusyanto, 2022). Students perception of trust and security in educational services is vital for their satisfaction (Mashenene, 2019). A positive view of assurance leads to higher satisfaction levels, while its absence may result in discontent (Rouf et al., 2016). Assurance, along with other service quality factors, determines overall student satisfac-tion and affects various aspects, including dormitory living and academic services during crises like COVID-19 (Krishnan & Hoo, 2021; Susanti et al., 2019). Strengthening assurance and overall service quality is essential for improving student satisfaction in higher education (Tamnge, 2016). Therefore, from the existing literature, it can be hypothesized that,

H4: Assurance has a positive and significant relationship with student satisfaction. 

Empathy 

Empathy, crucial for understanding and prioritizing customer needs, is strongly correlated with student satisfaction and well-being in universities (Commey et al., 2020; Munoz et al., 2022; Santos et al., 2023). It positively impacts student start-ups, adjustment to university life, and academic service quality (Kashapov et al., 2022; Park, 2022; Ross et al., 2022). Universities fostering empathy enhance student satisfaction, engagement, and retention, thereby boosting competitiveness (Elsharnouby, 2015; Tubulingane & Baporikar, 2020). Factors such as faculty competence, educational resources, and institutional support significantly influence student happiness and academic success (Khairusy & Febriani, 2023; Lai et al., 2015; Sinclaire & K., 2014). Additionally, self-compassion among students correlates with higher life satisfaction and better resilience to challenges (Diaconu & Dinescu, 2012; Terry et al., 2012). Prioritizing student satis-faction through empathetic actions and effective resource management enhances teaching and lear-ning processes, contributing to overall institutional success (Hamed et al., 2022; Hendricks et al., 2020; Kasalak & Dağyar, 2020). Therefore, from the existing literature, it can be hypothesized that,  

H5: Empathy has a positive and significant relation-ship with student satisfaction. 

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development   

The conceptual model derived from the literature above is as follows: 

METHODOLOGY

For this study, a quantitative method is implemented to statistically evaluate the relationship between service quality and student satisfaction using the SERVQUAL Model. Different statistical data and their traits such as reliability, regression analysis, correlation, and ANOVA test, and their results will be analyzed to investigate the hypothesis. This study is focused on approximately 15000 students studying in different public universities of Khulna, Bangladesh according to the information collected from the university website.  According to Hair et al. (2012) there is a technique to determine adequate sample size (Ainur, 2017). It suggests that every parameter should take 5 observations. This study has a total of 24 items.  Following this technique, the adequate sample size for this study is 24×5=120. However, 125 samples were used to conduct this study because increasing sample size leads to better statistical results (Choi et al., 2021). A convenient sampling technique was implemented for sampling. Google form was used to collect required data from students. Data was collected from students from 3 public universities in Khulna. They are Khulna University, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, and Khulna Agriculture University. Help from representatives in different universities was acquired for data collection. The five-point Likert scale has been used in the questionnaire. The purpose of the study was clarified to the respondents with other ethical issues. The survey data was collected using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed with the influence and help of previously done studies that are relative to this study. The questions or statements were adapted from (Parasuraman, 1988; Meesala and Paul, 2018). The questionnaire had 24 items and it was separated into 6 portions. Each portion contained variables and related statements. Each statement was closed-ended and had a 5-point Likert Scale for answering them. Where the points denote like this 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree. Among the independent vari-ables, Tangibles had 4 statements, Reliability had 4 statements, Responsiveness had 4 statements, Assu-rance had 3 statements, Empathy had 2 statements and Student Satisfaction as a Dependent variable had 7 statements in the questionnaire. Respondents demographic information was not collected through the questionnaire. The construct of the questionnaire the number of items and the sources are described below:

To analyze the collected data, descriptive analysis will be used which includes a Reliability test, Student Satisfaction scenario (Mean, Mode), Corre-lation analysis, Regression Analysis, ANOVA Test, and finally Coefficient interpretation will be done to test the hypotheses. 

RESULTS

Reliability Analysis 

The high value of Cronbachs Alpha means the better reliability of the instrument and its intention to measure. The above table showcases that Cron-bachs Alpha (α) value for all variables is higher than 0.71 which indicates that they have good statistics and are acceptable (Cronbach, 1951). The value of the reliability of the overall data set is 0.787 which is statistically a good number according to scholars. So, it can be said that the data used for this study to measure dependent and independent vari-ables are quite accurate and reliable. 

Univariate Analysis 

Univariate analysis is the simplest and easiest form of analyzing statistical data and it is a descriptive analysis (Pacheco Salles et al., 2020). Univariate data includes central tendencies such as median, mode, mean, and dispersion such as range, standard deviation, variance, quartiles, maximum, etc. (Zaman et al., 2023). 

Here, the mean value portrays the average response collected from the respondents/participants. Accor-ding to the above table, the mean values of indepen-dent variables (Tangibles, Reliability, Responsive-ness, Assurance, and Empathy) are 4.1320, 4.1320, 4.1780, 4.1200, and 4.1600. This level of value indicates a high level of satisfaction among students. The mode value represents the most commonly observed responses from the respondents. According to the above table, it can be said that most of the students are highly satisfied with the tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy traits of their respective universities. Here, the table shows that the overall student satisfaction mode value is 4.71 which mean most respondents are highly satisfied with the service quality of the universities they study. 

Correlation Analysis 

Table 4: Correlations.

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

Source: Presented by the researcher using SPSS v27 Outputs. 

In these results, the correlation between Tangibles and Student satisfaction is 0.871. It indicates that there is a highly favorable relationship between variables. The p-value of the correlation between Tangibles and Student Satisfaction is significant at 0.000, this is less than 0.001 which interprets that the correlation coefficient is statistically significant. In these above results, the correlation between Reliability and Student Satisfaction is 0.884 which is the highest among all other variables. This indi-cates a strong positive relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The p-value of the correlation between Reliability and Student Satisfaction is significant at 0.000, which is less than 0.001 which indicates that the correlation coefficient is statistically significant. In these acqui-red results, the correlation between Responsiveness and Student Satisfaction is 0.862. This indicates a very strong relationship between variables. The p-value of the correlation between Responsiveness and Student Satisfaction is significant at 0.000, this is less than 0.001 which indicates that the corre-lation coefficient is statistically significant. In these results, the correlation between Assurance and Student Satisfaction is also 0.862, which indicates a high level of strong connection between variables. The p value of the correlation between Assurance and Student Satisfaction is significant at 0.000, this is less than 0.001 which indicates that the correlation coefficient is statistically significant. In these results, the correlation between Empathy and Student Satisfaction produces a value of 0.849 which describes a strong positive relationship bet-ween variables. The p-value of the correlation between Empathy and Student Satisfaction is significant at 0.000, which is less than 0.001 which indicate that the correlation coefficient is statis-tically significant (Aktar MS., 2021).

Regression Analysis 

Table 5: Model Summary. 

Predictors: (Constant), Empathy, Assurance, Reliability, Tangibles, Responsiveness 

Dependent Variable: Student Satisfaction 

Source: Presented by the researcher using SPSS v27 Outputs. 

By interpreting the above table, it can be said that the value of R is 0.951 which is an indicator of highly strong positive correlation between depen-dent and independent variables. Here, the value of R2 is 0.904 which assess how much available variability of the dependent variable (Student Satis-faction) is caused for by independent variables (Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy). Adjusted R2 gives an idea of how good the model fits. In the above table, an R2 value of 0.900 suggests that independent variables (Tangi-bles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy) can explain 90% of the impact on student satisfaction. 

a. Dependent Variable: Student Satisfaction 

b. Predictors: (Constant), Empathy, Assurance, Reliability, Tangibility, Responsiveness 

Source: Presented by the researcher using SPSS v27 Outputs.  

The significance value in the above table suggests how good the model is or the quality of the model. The significance value is 0.000 (p<0.05), which means the model used for this study matches the data because the lower significance value interprets that the model is well fit. 

It is obvious from the accompanying table that the models p-value is 0.014 which falls below 0.05. It implies that the hypothesis is supported by the model. It reveals a significant association between the independent variable (Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy) and the dependable variable (Student Satisfaction). The other independent variables P values are 0.014, 0.030, 0.002, 0.000, and 0.000, respectively. These values reveal that there is a positive and strong correlation between student satisfaction and tangi-bles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. It suggests that there is a positive and strong correlation between every independent variable and the dependable variable. Regarding Tangibles, the dependent variable, student satis-faction, and the independent variable, Tangibles, have a significant and positive connection (p-value of 0.000<0.05) with a beta value of.206. The statistical significance of the difference between the impacts of Biological Hazard and the constant is demonstrated by the value of t statistics being above +2, particularly 3.467. The first hypothesis (H1) is accepted based on the findings. It suggests that there is a high association between student satisfaction and tangibles. Furthermore, in the reliability example, the dependent variable (student satis-faction) and the independent variable (reliability) show a positive and significant connection (p-value =.030<0.05). The beta value is 157. T statistics has a value of 2.194, which is more than +2. This suggests that there is statistical significance in the relative impact of the constant and dependability. Thus, it is determined to accept the second hypothesis (H2). The outcome reveals that student satisfaction is greatly impacted by reliability. The association between responsiveness (the independent variable) and student satisfaction (the dependent variable) is positive and significant, as demonstrated by the responsiveness beta value of 0.189 and the p-value of .002<0.05. T statistics have a value of 3.100, which is likewise more than +2. This demonstrates that a statistically significant link between respon-siveness and student satisfaction exists. It follows that the third hypothesis (H3) is true and accepted. The outcome reveals that responsiveness has a large favorable influence on student satisfaction. Addi-tionally, the dependent variable, student satisfaction, and the independent variable, assurance, have a positive and significant correlation, as evidenced by the beta value of 0.257 and the p-value of 0.000<0.05 for assurance. T statistics has a value of 4.976, which is more than +2. This suggests that there is a statistically significant association bet-ween Assurance and student satisfaction. The fourth hypothesis (H4) is accepted in light of this observation. As a result, the data that is given, reveals that assurance has a statistically significant effect on student satisfaction. Lastly, for Empathy, the independent variable and student satisfaction indicate a positive and significant relationship (beta value of.237 and p-value of.000<0.05, respectively). T statistics has a value of 4.774, which is higher than 2. It implies that there is a substantial and positive relationship between empathy and student satisfaction. The conclusion in this case adds sup-port to the fifth theory. Consequently, the fifth hypothesis (H5) is accepted. As a result, the findings reveal that empathy greatly affects student satis-faction. 

Table 8: Hypothesis.

DISCUSSION

With the aim of investigating the effects of higher education service quality on student satisfaction, the study found that service quality indeed has a profound impact on the satisfaction of university students (Chandra et al., 2019). On account of the determinants of the SERVQUAL model, the study confirms that the factors namely, Tangibles, Reli-ability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy- all have positive and significant effects on Student Satisfaction. This aligns with the findings from the majority of the previous studies. The study found that the Tangibles, such as the physical facilities and the amenities have a positive and significant effect on student satisfaction. This aligns perfectly and confirms the findings by (Agus, 2017; AlBalushi and Kamareddine, 2019; Khairusy and Febriani, 2023; Mizintseva et al., 2016; Ningsih et al., 2020; Shahdadnejad and Vakil Alroaia, 2013; Skea, 2017; Solinas et al., 2012; Wardi et al., 2018). On a similar note, Reliability, a key dimension representing the universitys ability to deliver the services consis-tently and as promised, was also found to positively and significantly affect student satisfaction. This aligns perfectly with the findings of (Ali, 2014; Hrnciar and Madzik, 2015; Janky et al., 2022; Nurrahmawati et al., 2019; Torres et al., 2014). Responsiveness, indicating the promptness and effectiveness of a universitys service delivery, also had a positive and significant effect on student satisfaction. This was in tune with the findings of (Alashwal, 2020; Arambewela and Hall, 2013; Banahene et al., 2018; Bawamenewi et al., 2022; Biswas et al., 2022; Carter, 2014; Caruso et al., 2014; Dhawan, 2022; Ghansah et al., 2019; Harangi-Rákos et al., 2022; Haverila and Haverila, 2021; Hwang and Choi, 2019; Jereb et al., 2018; Kok Keong et al., 2018; Latif et al., 2021; Najib et al., 2011; Pseiridis et al., 2017; Sanjay and Govender, 2018; Sivalingam; 2015). The study also concludes that Assurance, indicating the employees skills and expertise, has a positive and significant effect on student satisfaction. This too aligns perfectly with the findings of (Krishnan and Hoo, 2021; Mashenene, 2019; Rachuonyo and Kiriri, 2018; Rouf et al., 2016; Susanti et al., 2019; Tamnge, 2016; Widikusyanto, 2022; Yusof et al., 2022).  Finally, the study concludes that Empathy, very crucial for understanding and prioritizing student needs, was found to have a positive and significant effect on student satisfaction. This aligns with the findings of (Commey et al., 2020; Santos et al., 2023; Munoz et al., 2022; Park, 2022; Kashapov et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2022; Tubulingane and Baporikar, 2020; Elsharnouby, 2015; Khairusy and Febriani, 2023; Sinclaire and K., 2014; Lai et al., 2015; Diaconu and Dinescu, 2012; Terry et al., 2012; Kasalak and Dağyar, 2020; Hamed et al., 2022; and Hendricks et al., 2020). 

CONCLUSION

This study was aimed to understand the relation-ship between service quality of universities and student satisfaction. The SERVQUAL model and its dimen-sions that are related to student satisfaction were put under statistical test to prove the proposed hypo-thesis. All the dimensions (Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, and Assurance) of the SERVQUAL model have a significant and positive relationship with Student Satisfaction. Previously conducted studies had mediating and moderating factors for which the impact of dimensions of the SERVQUAL model couldnt be evaluated with Student Satis-faction directly. However, this result suggests that it has a significant direct relationship with the depend-able variable.  The result of this study also focuses on that the students are exposed to Tangible proof of the institution. Reliability can strongly boost Student Satisfaction. Furthermore, Responsive-ness can also have a strong positive impact on the satisfaction of students. Assurance is another positive trait that is very helpful for enhancing student satisfaction. Empathy showed a great impact on student satis-faction. This study can help to understand how student satisfaction can be increased among students. As this study was done in the confinement of the Khulna region, the findings of this study may not apply to different geographic or demographic backgrounds. The education industry is one of the most crucial service-providing industries in the society. Higher education institutions contribute to the betterment of society by providing quality services. Student Satisfaction can improve ones personal and societal performance. When students are satisfied it can enhance the brand value and reputation of universities which is very crucial for this competitive world in the current scenario.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Sincere thanks are extended to everyone who helped the researcher complete this successful research project, especially to the students who took part in the study as respondents.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No conflicts of interest are disclosed by the author.

Article References:

  1. Abdel-Aziz, A. S. (2019). Effect of service quality on graduates satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education. 
  2. Abu hasan, H. f., & Ilias, A. (2008). Service quality and student satisfaction: A case study at private higher education institutions. Inter Business Research, 1, 163-175. 
  3. Agus, S. (2017). Analisis faktor-faktor yang memengaruhi kepuasan layanan akademik mahasiswa prodi diploma i kepabeanan dan cukai. 
  4. Ainur, A. K. (2017). Sample Size and Non-Normality Effects on Goodness of Fit Mea-sures in Structural Equation Models. Per-tanika J. of Science & Technology. 
  5. Aithal, P., & Maiya, A. K. (2023). Deve-lopment of a New Conceptual Model for Improvement of the Quality Services of Higher Education Institutions in Academic, Adminis-trative, and Research Areas. Inter J. of Management, Technology and Social Sciences (IJMTS), 8(4), 260-308. 
  6. Alaa, A. (2015). Undergraduate Medical Research Programme: A Cross-Sectional Study of Students Satisfactions, Perceived Chall-enges, and Attitudes. Global J. of Health Science. 
  7. Alashwal, M. (2020). Quality Education Factor Effects on Student Satisfaction in Saudi Arabian Universities. J. of Education and Practice. 
  8. AlBalushi, M. Y., & Kamareddine, P. F. (2019). Examining International Students Satisfaction at UK universities Using the Weka Data Mining Tool. EasyChair Pre-print. 
  9. Alhazmi, F. (2020). Saudi University Students Perceptions of Service Quality in Higher Education. J. of Edu. and Learn., 9, 151. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n5p151    
  10. Ali, Y. S. (2014). Service Quality Provided by Higher Education Institutions in Somalia and Its Impact on Student Satisfaction. European J. of Business and Management. 
  11. Anisseh, M., Sharifi, N., & Akbari, Z. (2023). Evaluation of universities service quality through Servqual method. J. of Engineering Management and Competi-tiveness, 13, 3-10. https://doi.org/10.5937/JEMC2301003A   
  12. Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2013). The inter-actional effects of the internal and external university environment, and the influence of personal values, on satisfaction among inter-national postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Edu., 38(7), 972-988. 
  13. Aktar MS. (2021). Determinates service quality and its effect on patients satisfaction of private medical college hospitals, Rangpur, Bangladesh, Int. J. Manag. Account. 3(4), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.34104/ijma.021.0910105 
  14. Banahene, S., Kraa, J. J., & Kasu, P. A. (2018). Impact of HEdPERF on students satisfaction and academic performance in Ghanaian universities; mediating role of attitude towards learning. Open J. of Social Sciences, 6(5), 96-119. 
  15. Bawamenewi, A., Sitanggang, N., & Nasrun. (2022). Higher Education Manage-ment in Academic Service to FKIP Student Satis-faction. Indonesian J. Of Educational Research and Review. 
  16. Biswas, K., Bose, S., & Shams, S. (2022). Determinants and Consequences of Student Satisfaction in Australian Universities: Evi-dence from QILT Surveys. Accounting & Finance. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12930   
  17. Camilleri, M. A. (2021). Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: a systematic review and a post-COVID-19 outlook. Inter J. of Quality and Service Sciences, 13(2), 268-281. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-03-2020-0034   
  18. Carter, P. (2014). A Case Study oF Student Satisfaction. 
  19. Caruso, D., Carter, L., & Erichsen, S. (2014). Student satisfaction and WIL: a case study of a marketing capstone unit. 
  20. Chandra, T., Hafni, L., & Chandra, J. (2019). The influence of service quality, university image on student satisfaction and student loyalty. Benchmarking: An Inter J., 26(5), 1533-1549. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2018-0212   
  21. Choi, J., Nandram, B., & Keane, T. (2021). Large Sample Problems. Inter J. of Statistics and Probability, 10, 81. 
  22. Commey, N. O., Adom, K., & Abubakar, A. (2020). Service Quality and Business Students Satisfaction in Private Ghanaian Universities. The Moderating Role of Brand Positioning J. of Marketing and Consumer Research, 74. https://doi.org/10.7176/JMCR/74-04   
  23. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psycho-metrika, 16, 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555   
  24. Dhawan, S. (2022). Higher Education Quality and Student Satisfaction: Meta-Analysis, Sub-group Analysis and Meta-Regression. Meta-morphosis, 21(1), 48-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/09726225221082376   
  25. Diaconu, M., & Dinescu, F. (2012). Student Satisfaction, Resultant Of Marketing Orien-tation Of University Under Current Condi-tions. Scientific Bulletin - Economic Sci-ences, 11, 3-9. https://ideas.repec.org/a/pts/journl/y2012ispecialp3-9.html   
  26. Doan, T. T. T. (2021). The effect of service quality on student loyalty and student satis-faction: An empirical study of universities in Vietnam. The J. of Asian Finance, Eco-nomics and Business, 8(8), 251-258. 
  27. Eldean, N., & Bartamani, M. (2018). University Service Quality in the Com-munity Service and Continuing Education Center at Sultan Qaboos University: An Empirical Study Using SERVQUAL Scale. J. of Educat. and Psychol. Studies 12, 16. https://doi.org/10.24200/jeps.vol12iss1pp16-39   
  28. Elsharnouby, T. H. (2015). Student co-creation behavior in higher education: The role of satisfaction with the university exp-erience. J. of marketing for higher edu-cation, 25(2), 238-262. 
  29. Enache, I. (2011). Customer behaviour and student satisfaction. Bulletin of the Tran-silvania University of Brasov. Series V: Economic Sciences, 4(53). 
  30. Fazli Salehi, R., Esfidani, M., Torres, I., & Zúñiga, M. (2019). Developing a Specia-lized Service Quality Model for Univer-sities. Services Mark. Quarterly, 40, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2019.1630175   
  31. Forid, M., Hafez, M., & Khan, W. (2022). Student Satisfaction and Retention: Impact of Service Quality and Digital Transfor-mation. Marketing and Management of Innovations. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 13, 2022. 
  32. Ghansah, B., Andoh, J., & Okogun-Odompley, J. (2019). The Determinant of Student Satisfaction in Academic and Administrative Services in Private Uni-versities. Inter J. of Applied Management Sciences and Engin., 6, 58-73. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAMSE.2019070104   
  33. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares struc-tural equation modeling in strategic man-agement research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long range planning, 45(5-6), 320-340. 
  34. Hamed, S., Jamil, S., & Rafiq, H. A. (2022). University Branding And Student Satis-faction: The Emerging Landscape of Univer-sities in Pakistan. Pakistan J. of Educational Research, 5(2). 
  35. Harangi-Rákos, M., Ștefănescu, D., & Fen-yves, V. (2022). Thrown into Deep Water: Feedback on Student Satisfaction & mdash; A Case Study in Hungarian and Romanian Universities. Education Sciences, 12(1), 36. 
  36. Haverila, M., & Haverila, K. (2021). The impact of the student - instructor rela-tionship on student-centric measures. J. of Applied Research in Higher Education, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2020-0435   
  37. Hendricks, L., Reysen, S., & Đặng, Q. (2020). Student Satisfaction: Importance of Civility and University Identification Predi-ctors. Inter Research in Higher Education, 5, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v5n4p1  
  38. Hoque, U. S., Akhter, N., & Al-Mamun, A. (2023). Assessing Service Quality Using SERVQUAL Model: An Empirical Study on Some Private Universities in Bangladesh. Trends in Higher Education, 2(1), 255-269. 
  39. Hrnciar, M., & Madzik, P. (2015). Quality of Services with Respect to their Unique Characteristics - The Field of Education. Athens J. of Education, 2, 65-76. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.2-1-5   
  40. Hussain, K., & Birol, C. (2011). The assess-ment of non-academic and academic service quality in higher education. Eurasian J. of Educational Research, 42, 95-116. 
  41. Hwang, Y.-S., & Choi, Y. K. (2019). Higher education service quality and student satis-faction, institutional image, and behavioral intention. Social Behavior and Personality: an international j., 47(2), 1-12. 
  42. Iqbal, S., Ashfaq, T., & Rizal Razalli, M. (2023). The effect of quality culture on service quality of public and private Univer-sities: A comparative analysis. Plos one, 18(4), e0283679. 
  43. Janky, B., Schubert, C., & Spaunhorst, R. (2022). Universities as Service Providers. Open Conference Proceedings. 
  44. Jereb, E., Jerebic, J., & Urh, M. (2018). Revising the Importance of Factors Per-taining to Student Satisfaction in Higher Education. Organizacija, 51, 271-285. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018-0020    
  45. Kandampully, J. (1998). Service quality to service loyalty: A relationship which goes beyond customer services. Total quality man-agement, 9(6), 431-443. 
  46. Kasalak, G., & Dağyar, M. (2020). Uni-versity student satisfaction, resource man-agement and metacognitive learning stra-tegies. https://doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v20i1   
  47. Kashapov, M., Smirnov, A., & Solovyeva, E. (2022). Empathy as an intersubjective resource of the university students` adapt-ation in the conditions of digitalization of the educational environment. Perspectives of Science and Education, 56, 152-167. https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2022.2.9    
  48. Khairusy, M., & Febriani, R. (2023). Uni-versity Student Satisfaction A Syste-matic Literature Review. JBTI: J. Bisnis: Teori dan Implementasi, 14, 267-272. https://doi.org/10.18196/jbti.v14i1.17035   
  49. Kim, E. (2020). Feasibility Analysis of Uni-versity Education Satisfaction Survey Tools - Focused on SSI Scale in the U.S. Asia-Pacific J. of Educational Management Research, 5, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.21742/AJEMR.2020.5.1.05   
  50. Kok, H. B., Mobach, M. P., & Omta, O. S. . (2011). The added value of facility man-agement in the educational environment. J. of Facilities Management., 9(4), 249-265. 
  51. Kok Keong, L., Baharun, R., & Abdul Wahid, N. (2018). Provide Good Service Quality to Satisfy Students Needs and Make Them Become Loyal Students. Inter J. of Supply Chain Management, 7, 36-42. 
  52. Krishnan, U. M., & Hoo, W. C. (2021). Service Quality and Students Satisfaction in Public Higher
  53. Education Institutions During Covid-19 in Malaysia. J. of Business and Social Sciences, 2021(1). 
  54. Lai, M.-M., Lau, S. H., & Chew, K.-W. (2015). Assessing antecedents and conse-quences of student satisfaction in higher education: evidence from Malaysia. J. of marketing for higher education, 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1042097   
  55. Latif, K. F., Bunce, L., & Ahmad, M. S. (2021). How can universities improve student loyalty? The roles of university social respon-sibility, service quality, and “customer” satis-faction and trust. Inter J. of Educational Management, 35(4). 
  56. Mahi, U., Kalsom, A., & Aktaruzzaman, K. M. (2018). Impact of service quality (SQ) on student satisfaction: empirical evidence in the higher education context of emerging econo-my. Nilai Malaysia: Islamic Science University of Malaysia Faculty of Leadership and Management., 16, 31-67. 
  57. Malik, M., Nordin, N., & Sirun, N. (2013). An Exploratory Study on the Relationship between Life Satisfaction and Academic Performance Among Undergraduate Stu-dents of UiTM, Shah Alam. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 334-339. 
  58. Marimon, F., Mas-Machuca, M., & Llach, J. (2019). UnivQual: a holistic scale to assess student perceptions of service quality at universities. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30, 184 - 200. 
  59. Mashenene, R. (2019). Effect of Service Quality on Students Satisfaction in Tanzania Higher Education. 
  60. Meesala, A., & Paul, J. (2018). Service quality, consumer satisfaction and loyalty in hospitals: Thinking for the future. J. of Retailing and Consumer Ser., 40, 261-269. 
  61. Misnan, N., Zakaria, Z., & Salleh, W. A. (2018). Service Quality: A Study of Students Satisfaction in Higher Institution. The J. of Social Sciences Research, 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v16-art19-en   
  62. Mizintseva, M., Komarova, T., & Tatiana, Y. (2016). Key Aspects of Managing the Stu-dents Satisfaction with the Learning Envi-ronment at the International University. Indian J. of Science and Technology, 9. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i36/102030   
  63. Muhammad, N., Kakakhel, S., & Ali, F. (2018). Service Quality the Road Ahead for Students Satisfaction. Review of Public Administration and Management, 06. https://doi.org/10.4172/2315-7844.1000250   
  64. Munoz, L., Fergurson, J. R., & Fleming, D. (2022). Does Empathy Matter? An Exp-loratory Study of Class-Transition Satis-faction in Unplanned Course Interruptions. J.  of Marketing Education, 44(2), 217-234. 
  65. Najib, N., Yusof, N. A., & Zainul Abidin, N. (2011). Student residential satisfaction in rese-arch universities. J. of Facilities Man-agement, 9, 200-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725961111148108   
  66. Ningsih, N., Widari, D., & Artawan, I. (2020). Analisa Kepuasan Mahasiswa terha-dap Kuali-tas Pelayanan Pendidikan. WACANA EKON-OMI (J. Ekonomi, Bisnis dan Akuntansi), 19, 24-29. https://doi.org/10.22225/we.19.1.1403.24-29   
  67. Nurrahmawati, N., Wiwitan, T., & Fuady, M. (2019). The Analysis of Private University Service Quality and Image. 
  68. Onditi, E. O., & Wechuli, T. W. (2017). Service quality and student satisfaction in higher education institutions: A review of literature. Inter j. of scientific and research publications, 7(7), 328-335. 
  69. Ozok, H., Kayri, M., & Tanhan, F. (2022). University Student Satisfaction Scale: Validity and Reliability Study. Yuzunci Yil Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi. 
  70. Pacheco Salles, F. L., Maciel Ferreira, D., & Bull Loose, M. E. (2020). Evaluation of the Satisfaction of Undergraduate Students Thro-ugh the Structural Equations Modeling. J. of Education, 200(1), 23-31. 
  71. Parasuraman, A. P., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple- Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. of retailing. 
  72. Park, D.-Y. (2022). The effects of pro-fessorʼs empathy leadership on student"s learning engagement and learning satisfaction: focused on university students of majoring in hotel & tourism. J. of Hospitality and Tourism Studies. 
  73. Pseiridis, A., Agiomirgianakis, G., & Lianos, T. (2017). The Determinants of Student Satisfaction Acquired by University Educa-tion: The Case of the Hellenic Open Univer-sity. Theor. Econ. Letters, 07, 1318-1334. 
  74. Purwanto, A., & Cahyono, Y. (2020). Impact of Service Quality, University Image and Stu-dents Satisfaction Towards Student Loyalty: Evidence from Indonesian Private Universities. 7, 142-155. 
  75. Rachuonyo, O. M., & Kiriri, P. N. (2018). Impact of Assurance and Responsiveness Dimensions on Customer Satisfaction in Higher Education Sector: A Case of Univer-sities in Kenya. 
  76. Raut, S. K., Sakpal, S., & Soni, R. (2022). Understanding the service quality dimen-sions and achieving resilience in service retail. In Handbook of Research on Supply Chain Resiliency, Efficiency, and Visibility in the Post-Pandemic Era (pp. 136-156). IGI Global. 
  77. Ross, J., Hicks-Roof, K., & Arikawa, A. (2022). Instructor and Student Perceptions of Teacher Empathy in Higher Education. College Teaching, 71, 28-37. 
  78. Rouf, M., Rahman, M. M., & Uddin, M. (2016). Students Satisfaction and Service Quality of HEIs. Inter J. of Academic Rese-arch in Business and Social Sciences, 6, 376-390. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v6-i5/2155   
  79. Rowan, L., & Grootenboer, P. (2016). Student Engagement and Educational Rap-port in Higher Education. Palgrave Mac-millan Cham. 
  80. Sanjay, S., & Govender, K. (2018). South Africa university students perceptions of key education service quality determinants. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(3), 377-388. 
  81. Santos, T., Turpo, J., & Huanca-López, S. (2023). Social Support and Empathy as Predictors of Life Satisfaction in Brazilian University Students. J. of Educational and Social Research, 13, 1. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2023-0084   
  82. Sari, A. (2023). Impact of Service Quality Dimensions on Student Satisfaction in Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta. Inter J. of Social Science and Human Research, 06. 
  83. Shafaqat, S., Kausar, A. R., & Ali, S. A. (2020). Conceptualization of Higher Educa-tion Institutions (HEI) as a service system using SD logic lens. NICE Res. J., 47-99. 
  84. Shahdadnejad, R., & Vakil Alroaia, Y. (2013). The effect of TQM on customer satisfaction in higher education. Man-agement Science Letters, 3, 891-896. 
  85. Sinclaire, & K., J. (2014). An Empirical Investigation of Student Satisfaction with College Courses. Research in Higher Edu-cation J., 22. 
  86. Sivalingam, T. (2015). Factors Influencing Postgraduate Student Satisfaction Towards Non-academic Staff Behaviour in UUM. [Universiti Utara Malaysia]. 
  87. Skea, C. (2017). Student satisfaction in higher education: settling up and settling down. Ethics and Education, 12, 1-14. 
  88. Solinas, G., Maria, D., & Muresu. (2012). What Really Affects Student Satisfaction? An Assessment of Quality through a University-Wide Student Survey. Creative Education, 03. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.31006   
  89. Susanti, D., Rahmidani, R., & Armiati, A. (2019). Analysis of Student Satisfaction on Academic Services ISO 9001: 2008 Certi-fied. 
  90. Syahmer, V., Nurcahyo, R., & Kristinin-grum, E. (2022). Student satisfaction measurement in higher education. Com-munications in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 14-21. 
  91. Tamnge, N. R. (2016). Regresi Logistik Biner dalam Menentukan Pengaruh Kualitas Pelay-anan Terhadap Kepuasan Mahasiswa Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Muhammadiyah Surabaya. J. of Mathematics Education, Science and Technology, 1(2), 222-233. 
  92. Taskın, N., Kandemir, B., & Erzurumlu, K. (2023). University Student Satisfaction and Behavioural Engagement During Emer-gency Remote Teaching. Canadian J. of Learning and Technology, 49(1), 1-26. 
  93. Terry, M., Leary, M., & Mehta, S. (2012). Self-compassion as a Buffer against Home-sickness, Depression, and Dissatisfaction in the Transi-tion to College. Self and Identity - SELF IDENTITY, 12, 1-13. 
  94. Torres, A. G. l., Quiroz, C. P., & Ojinaga, E. P. (2014). Analysis and Quality Assessment on the Service Customer Case: University Insur-gents. Asian J. of Business and Management, 2(2). 
  95. Tubulingane, B., & Baporikar, N. (2020). Student Satisfaction Approach for Enhan-cing University Competitiveness. Inter J. of Tech-nology-Enabled Student Support Services, 10, 31-54. 
  96. Twum, F., & Peprah, W. (2020). The Impact of Service Quality on Students Satisfaction. Inter J. of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10, 169-181. 
  97. Wang, Y., & Liu, C. (2022). The Cons-truction Path of First-Class Undergraduate Majors in Local Application-Oriented Universities in China-an Empirical Study Based on Student Satisfaction Evaluation. J. of Education and Practice, 6(2), 35-55. 
  98. Wardi, J., Putri, D. L., & Hamuddin, B. (2018). Seeing University in Tangibles Dimension: A Landmark as a Marketing Strategy for Unilak, is it Needed? Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 22, 1. 
  99. Widikusyanto, M. (2022). Menguji Lebih Dalam Dampak Dimensi Service Quality Perguruan Tinggi pada Satisfaction, Word of Mouth dan Service Switching (Testing More Deeply The Impact of The Higher Education Service Quality Dimensions on Satisfaction, Word of Mouth and Service Switching). Sains J. Manaj. dan Bisnis, 14, 258-276. 
  100. Yuniarti, Y. (2014). Pengaruh kualitas pelay-anan terhadap kepuasan mahasiswa program ekstensi fakultas ekonomi universitas jambi. Trikonomika, 13(1), 49-61. 
  101. Yusof, N. M., Asimiran, S., & Kadir, S. A. (2022). Student Satisfaction of University Service Quality in Malaysia: A Review. Inter J. of Academic Research in Progre-ssive Education and Development, 11(1), 677-688. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i1/10985   
  102. Zaman, Z., Shanjabin, S., & Islam, S. A. (2023). Impact of Occupational Hazards on Healthcare Professionals Mental (Psycho-logical) Health: Evidence from Government-Owned Hospitals in Khulna, Bangladesh. Inter J. of Human Resource Studies, 13(1). 
  103. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balan-cing customer perceptions and expec-tations. Simon and Schuster.

Article Info:

Academic Editor

Dr. Doaa Wafik Nada, Associate Professor, School of Business and Economics, Badr University in Cairo (BUC), Cairo, Egypt.

Received

April 1, 2024

Accepted

May 8, 2024

Published

May 15, 2024

Article DOI: 10.34104/ijma.024.040054

Corresponding author

Ripon Kumar Paul*

Ripon Kumar Paul, Lecturer, Human Resource Management Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh.

Cite this article

Rahman MA, Islam SA, Siddiki NEA, Paul RK, and Tarafdar P. (2024). Effects of service quality on student satisfaction: a study using the SERVQUAL model, Int. J. Manag. Account6(3), 40-54. https://doi.org/10.34104/ijma.024.040054 

Views
173
Download
126
Citations
Badge Img
Share