An Assessment of the Educational Service Quality Rendered: A Stakeholder’s Perception
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.V2.I1.136Keywords:
Educational service quality, Empathy, Reliability, Responsiveness, SERVPERF model, SERVQUAL model, Stakeholder perception, TangiblesAbstract
This study evaluates the educational service quality of Holy Cross of Mintal, Inc. (HCMI) by examining stakeholder perceptions and institutional performance. Anchored on the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988) and the SERVPERF model (Cronin & Taylor, 1994), the study adopts a descriptive-quantitative design with a predictive-discriminant approach. Data were collected from 200 stakeholders, including students, parents, alumni, and employees, using a 44-item questionnaire adapted from Baniya (2016) and measured through a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics and discriminant analysis were employed to determine service quality levels and identify variables that distinguish the highest perception group. Findings reveal an overall “High” level of service quality (M = 3.86), with Assurance emerging as the strongest dimension, while Tangibles recorded the lowest score. The distribution of responses indicates that 75.5% of stakeholders fall within high and very high satisfaction levels. Discriminant analysis identified Reliability, Responsiveness, and Empathy as the key predictors of the “Very High” perception group, with Reliability as the most significant determinant. These results indicate that consistent service delivery and human-centered engagement are critical in achieving higher stakeholder satisfaction. The study concludes that while HCMI demonstrates strong institutional performance driven by human capital, improvements in infrastructure and technological resources are necessary. It recommends strengthening operational reliability, enhancing responsiveness and empathy, and investing in ICT and facilities to elevate stakeholder satisfaction. The findings align with Sustainable Development Goals such as SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). The study contributes to educational, institutional, and technological sustainability by promoting data-driven service improvement, strengthening stakeholder trust, and supporting continuous quality enhancement in educational institutions.
References
Al-Adwan, A. S., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Berger, H. (2023). Service quality and student satisfaction: The moderating role of institutional image in private schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2023-0045
Al-Fraihet, A., Al-Ayasrah, B., & Al-Madi, F. (2022). Trust and assurance in educational service quality: A longitudinal study in faith-based institutions. Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, 30(4), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2022-0102
Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800110
Galeeva, R. B. (2016). SERVQUAL application and adaptation for educational service quality assessments in Russian higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-06-2015-0024
González-Campos, J. S., Muñoz-Cantero, J. M., & Losada-Puente, L. (2023). Service quality and institutional reputation: A discriminant analysis of stakeholder perceptions in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2023.2184567
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2023). The service-value chain in higher education: Examining the link between employee empathy and stakeholder loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 34(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSIM-2023-045
Jiang, X., Liu, Y., & Zhang, R. (2024). Administrative responsiveness and parent loyalty in the digital age: A post-pandemic analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143223115678
Mwiya, B., Bwalya, J., & Kaulungombe, B. (2022). Service quality and student loyalty: The mediating role of institutional image and reliability. Frontiers in Education, 7, 845673. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.845673
Nurcholis, A., Setyawan, A., & Rohman, A. (2023). Tangibility and technological infrastructure: Assessing the modern learner’s expectations in private education. Journal of STEM Education Research, 6(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-023-00091-z
Orel, F. D., & Kara, A. (2024). From satisfaction to delight: Examining the thresholds of stakeholder loyalty and reliability in education. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103521
Setiono, B., & Hidayat, R. (2022). Quality of school academic service design and stakeholder conformity: A reliability-centered approach. Journal of Educational Management and Leadership, 3(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEML-10-2022-0054
Tan, C., Lim, H., & Ng, S. (2022). The silent middle: Identifying at-risk stakeholders in private higher education through perceptual stratification. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2045618
Vinh, N. Q., & Khanh, N. T. (2023). Brand resonance and satisfaction in mission-driven schools: The role of responsiveness and empathy. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35(5), 1102–1120. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-08-2022-0691
Zhang, L., & Zhang, J. (2024). Precision service management: A new paradigm for educational institutional growth and stakeholder responsiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 60(1), 122–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X23121588
