a study on students’ perception towards the quality of services provided by the students’ ...

A STUDY ON STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARDS THE

QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE STUDENTS’

RESIDENTIAL HALL,

UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA

NURUL HAMIZA BINTI HAMZAH


2009

A STUDY ON STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARDS THE

QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE STUDENTS’

RESIDENTIAL HALL,


A thesis submitted to the College of Business in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree Master of Science (Management)

Universiti Utara Malaysia

by

Nurul Hamiza Binti Hamzah

©Nurul Hamiza Binti Hamzah, 2009. All right reserved

ii

PERMISSION TO USEPERMISSION TO USEPERMISSION TO USEPERMISSION TO USE

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of requirements for a post graduate degree from

Universiti Utara Malaysia, I agree that the University Library may make it freely available for

inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in

part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by my supervisor or, in his absence, by the Assistant

Vice Chancellor of College of Business, UUM. It is understand that any copying or publication

or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall due recognition shall be given to me

and to Universiti Utara Malaysia for any scholarly use which maybe of any material from thesis.

Request for permission to copy or to make other use of materials in this thesis, in whole or in

part, should be addressed to:

Assistant Vice Chancellor

College of Business


06010 Sintok

Kedah Darul Aman

iii

ABSTRACTABSTRACTABSTRACTABSTRACT

Quality is an ongoing process of building and sustaining relationships by assessing,

anticipating and fulfilling stated and implies needs. Quality is one of the core functions for

service organizations. Customers’ satisfaction is depending on the service quality that they

received from the service provider. Poor service quality will lead to bad impressions to the

organization itself. It also will reduce the popularity to the organization. Besides that, it will give

a bad image and low reputation to the organization in long term. The main purpose of this study

is to determine Students’ Perception towards Service Quality of Students’ Residential Hall,

College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia. Ninety six respondents participated in this

survey. Questionnaires were distributed to eight UUM Residential Halls. The findings showed

that “Tangible” has been identified as the most important indicator of good service quality as

compared to other four (4) dimensions; reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.

Based on the regression analysis, results showed that only “assurance” dimension showed a

significant relationship towards the perception of students on the total services provided by the

Residential Halls. This indicates that students need knowledgeable and courteous staff to deal

with them. Some recommendations for future studies are also discussed. It is hope that the

outcome of this study can be a benchmark for the management to improve their quality of

services that are provided to the students.

iv

ABSTRAKABSTRAKABSTRAKABSTRAK

Kualiti adalah suatu proses yang berterusan untuk mengekalkan hubungan dengan pelajar

serta untuk menjangkakan dan memenuhi kehendak-kehendak mereka yang sentiasa berubah-

ubah. Kualiti merupakan salah satu fungsi teras bagi organisasi perkhidmatan. Kepuasan

pelanggan bergantung kepada kualiti perkhidmatan yang diterima oleh pelanggan. Kualiti

perkhidmatan yang tidak memuaskan akan mengakibatkan tanggapan yang buruk terhadap

organisasi itu sendiri. Ia juga akan mengurangkan kepopularan kepada organisasi tersebut. Selain

itu, ia akan memberikan gambaran/imej yang buruk dan reputasi yang rendah kepada organisasi

untuk jangkamasa yang panjang. Tujuan utama kajian ini adalah untuk menentukan Persepsi

Pelajar terhadap Kualiti Perkhidmatan di Dewan Penginapan Pelajar, Kolej Perniagaan,

Universiti Utara Malaysia. Seramai 96 responden terlibat di dalam kajian ini. Dapatan kajian

menunjukan bahawa dimensi “Tangible” adalah yang terpenting jika dibandingkan dengan lain-

lain dimensi iaitu “Kebolehpercayaan” (Reliability) “Kecepatan Bertindak” (Responsiveness),

“Jaminan” (Assurance) dan “Empati” (Empathy). Keputusan analisis regresi menunjukkan hanya

dimensi “Jaminan” (Assurance) mempunyai hubungan yang signifikan terhadap persepsi pelajar

tentang keseluruhan perkhidmatan yang diberikan oleh Dewan Penginapan Pelajar. Ini

menunjukkan bahawa para pelajar memerlukan kakitangan yang berpengetahuan dan bersopan-

santun ketika berurusan dengan mereka. Cadangan kajian di masa hadapan turut dibincangkan.

Harapan dari hasil kajian ini akan dijadikan sebagai tanda aras untuk pihak pengurusan

memperbaiki kualiti perkhidmatan yang dibekalkan kepada para pelajar.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTACKNOWLEDGEMENTACKNOWLEDGEMENTACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise due to Allah SWT, the Lord of the world that makes it possible for me to

complete this project paper. Blessing and salutation also be on Prophet of Allah SWT,

Muhammad SAW.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to the

following individuals whose guidance and contribution in preparing this paper.

Firstly, I would like to express my gratefulness and appreciation to my supervisor, Assoc.

Prof. Dr. Nor Azila binti Mohd Noor for her guidance, encouragement and advices throughout

the process of completing this project paper. Word of appreciation also goes to Tuan Haji

Mohamad Zainol Abidin bin Adam of UUM COB and Dr. Nor Idayu binti Mehat for their

tolerance and concerns. I am truly indebted for their contribution in terms of time, patience,

attentions and efforts for the completion of this project paper.

A very special thank to my beloved husband, Kissman bin Rahmat and my daughter,

Nurul Aniss binti Kissman whose love, faith, patience and continuous supports have gave me the

encouragement to complete this study. I also would like to express my gratefulness to my

beloved parents, Assoc. Prof. Hamzah bin Samat and Puan Hamidah binti Hussain and my

siblings, Mimie, Farah and Hafiz for their constant demonstrations of love and continuous moral

supports throughout my years of study. I would like to thank all respondents of this study

without which this study would not have been successful. Last but not least, my thanks to all of

my friends especially to Kak Lina and Kak Milia, my colleagues and all individuals who are

involved direct and indirectly in the process of completing this study.

Thanks a million to all of you.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE

Certification of Project Paper .. .. .. .. .. .. .. i

Permission to Use.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ii

Abstract.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iii

Abstark.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iv

Acknowledgement.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. v

Table of Contents.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vi

List of Tables.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ix

List of Figures .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction and Background of Study.. .. .. .. .. .. 1

1.2 Problem Statement.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2

1.3 Research Objectives.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5

1.4 Significance of Study.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6

1.5 Scope of the Study.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7

1.6 Limitation of Study.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8

1.7 Definition of Terms.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9

vii

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11

2.2 The Importance of Service Quality.. .. .. .. .. .. 11

2.3 The Role of Consumers in Service Delivery.. .. .. .. .. 13

2.4 Service Quality.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15

2.5 Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality.. .. .. .. .. 18

2.6 Research Framework.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19

2.7 Research Hypothesis.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21

3.2 Research Methodology.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21

3.3 Population and Sample.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 22

3.4 Questionnaire Design.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23

3.5 Data Collection and Procedures.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 25

3.6 Technique of Data Analysis.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27

4.2 Profile of the Respondents.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27

4.3 The Average and Standard Deviations of Dimensions of Service Quality 29

4.4 Correlation between Dimensions of Service Quality and Total Quality 34

viii

4.5 Regression Analysis between Dimensions of Service Quality and

Total Quality.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 36

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 37

5.2 Discussions.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 37

5.3 Recommendations.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 39

5.4 Conclusion.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40

REFERENCES.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 41

APPENDICES:.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 46

ix

LIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Number of students according to Residential Hall .. .. .. 3

Table 3: Likert Scale Score for SERVQUAL items.. .. .. .. .. 24

Table 3.1: Likert Scale Score for Question 1 and 2 in Section 3.. .. .. 25

Table 4: Background of Respondents.. .. .. .. .. .. 28

Table 4.1: The Average and Standard Deviation of Dimension of

Service Quality (Tangible).. .. .. .. .. .. 29


Service Quality (Reliability).. .. .. .. .. .. 30


Service Quality (Responsiveness).. .. .. .. .. 31


Service Quality (Assurance).. .. .. .. .. .. 32


Service Quality (Empathy).. .. .. .. .. .. 33


Service Quality (Overall Quality).. .. .. .. .. 34

Table 4.7: Correlations between Dimensions of Service Quality and

Total Quality.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 35

Table 4.8: Regression Analysis between Dimensions of Service Quality and

x

Total Quality.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 36

LIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram for Theoretical Framework.. .. .. .. 19

1

1111 INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

__________________________________________________________________

1.1 Introduction and Background of Study

Customer satisfaction is a measure of how products and services supplied by a company

met or surpassed customers’ expectation. It has been accepted as a key performance indicator for

business organization. In a competitive marketplace where businesses compete for customers,

customers’ satisfaction is a key differentiator and increasingly has become a key element of

business strategy.

Customers’ satisfaction is an ambiguous and abstract concept and the actual manifestation of the

state of satisfaction will vary from person to person and product/service to product/service. The

state of satisfaction depends on a number of factors, both psychological and physical variables,

which correlate with satisfaction behaviors such as return and recommend rate. The level of

satisfaction can also vary depending on other options the customer may have and other products

against which the customer can compare the organization's products.

In the context of education, satisfaction of existing students towards the university’s services

would transfer a positive impact to the public and this will make the university acquire a

competitive advantage (DiDomenico and Bonnici, 1996).

2

Universiti Utara Malaysia is situated in Northern of Peninsular Malaysia. It offers many types

of services to their “main customers” which are the students.

Universiti Utara Malaysia is concerned about quality and accountability and it aims to achieve

their vision which is to be “The World Class University”. The service provided must fulfill

customers’ needs and wants in order to help the customers to achieve their satisfaction to the

fullest.

After the transition that has been made by top management of the university in the year of 2007,

this universiti is divided into three (3) main academic colleges namely, College of Business

(COB), College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) and College of Law, Government and International

Studies (COLGIS) that have been organized under one university (UUM). It is one of the higher

learning institutions in this country that educates the professionals in management. In this

relation, UUM should increase its efficiency, effectiveness and productivity in order to serve

their customers the best services.

Hence, this study intended to determine the level of satisfaction achieve by its customers through

the services that is being provided.

Students’ Residential Hall, College of Business consists of eight (8) residential halls namely DPP

MAS, DPP TNB, DPP PROTON, DPP TRADEWINDS, DPP PETRONAS, DPP EON, DPP

TM and DPP SIME DARBY.

3

The functions of Students’ Residential Hall College of Business, UUM is to provide the

conducive accommodations and best facilities to almost 8,000 students who are staying in these

eight (8) of the residential halls that has been organized under College of Business itself.

Besides providing the conducive accommodation to stay, all the students who is staying at

Students’ Residential Hall, College of Business provide facilities such as food courts, cafeterias,

common rooms, computer labs, shops, laundry facilities, recreation and sports facilities and

others to fulfill students’ needs and wants.

Table 1 showed the total number of students registered in Students’ Residential Hall, College of

Business as at 1st February 2009. The sample of this study would focus on the students who are

registered and stayed in all eight (8) Students’ Residential Hall, College of Business, UUM.

Table 1: Number of students according to Residential Hall

No. Students’ Residential Hall Number of students

1. DPP MAS 1,218

2. DPP TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD 1,045

3. DPP PROTON 1,021

4. DPP TRADEWINDS 1,160

5. DPP PETRONAS 986

6. DPP EON 1,029

7. DPP TM BERHAD 1,030

8. DPP SIME DARBY 1,055

TOTAL 8,544

Source: “SAIS” (Students’ Affairs Information System), 1st September 2009.

4

1.2 Problem Statement

Education services are difficult to be standardized due its tangibility (DiDomenico and

Bonnici, 1996). Tangible can be described as the appearance of physical facilities, equipment,

personnel, printed and visual communication materials. Despite of the services given to the

students, the top management of the Higher Education (HE) institution should measure their

service quality in order to function efficiently and effectively. Satisfaction of existing students

towards the university services would bring the positive impact to the outsiders/public. Beside

that, it will encourage the university to acquire a competitive advantage (DiDomenico and

Bonnici, 1996).

This study intended to determine the students’ perception towards the quality of services

provided at Students’ Residential Hall, College of Business, UUM. In order to discover on how

to determine the students’ perception towards the quality of services provided at Students’

Residential Hall, College of Business, UUM, this study will identify whether five (5) dimensions

of service quality (tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) have significant

influence on the service quality that is being perceived by the students of UUM COB.

5

1.3 Research Objective

Firstly, the purpose of this study is to determine the students’ perception towards the

quality of services provided at Students’ Residential Hall, College of Business, UUM based on

five (5) dimensions of service quality. These dimensions have been introduced by Parasuraman

et al. (1985, 1989). Hence, the outcome of this study can be a benchmark for the management to

improve the quality of services that is being provided to the students.

Secondly, this study intends to identify the relationship between the five (5) dimensions of

service quality with the total (overall) service quality.

6

1.4 Significance of Study

Quality is the customers' perception of the value of the suppliers' work output. We

cannot separate the process and the human factor. When Quality has been built into a product, it

will generate emotions and feelings within those who have taken part in its creation. When we

have made something that we are proud of, or when we have produced a product that brings

smiles to our customers, then we have achieved Quality.

This study contributes to both the students and the organization. Academically, it will widen the

dimensions of quality service in organization. For the purpose of this study, the primary

participants in the service of education are the students. Poor service quality can reduce the

popularity of the organization. Besides that, in the long term it will give the bad image and low

reputation of the organization itself.

As been discussed earlier, this study focus on the students’ perception towards the quality of

services provided by Students’ Residential Halls, College of Business, UUM. In general, the

findings of this study will help the management of the Students’ Residential Hall, College of

Business, UUM to get a better understanding on students perception and impression of the

service quality that is being provided by the Residential College.

7

1.5 Scope of the Study

The respondents of this study are only UUM students. The sample of this study are

students who registered and stayed in all eight (8) Students’ Residential Hall, College of

Business, UUM only.

Respondents that are selected are those students who are legally registered at their current

residential hall. In this relation, there are more than 8,000 students who are legally registered at

UUM COBs’ Residential Halls.

8

1.6 Limitation of the Study

There are some limitations for this study. Firstly, the study is only limited to determine

students’ satisfaction towards service quality at Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB. The

sample of this study is only limited to the students who are staying at Students’ Residential

Halls, UUM COB.

Perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

Perception to service quality is subjective, so, it is difficult to measure. The outcomes of this

study will help the management of Students’ Residential Halls, UUM COB to improve their

quality of services that provided to the students. The other limitations of the study are the

constraints of time. This is because the study took only less than five months to be completed.

Last but not least since this study is a cross-sectional study, then the result is only true at the time

the study is being conducted.

9

1.7 Definition of Terms

Quality : Quality is the ongoing process of building and sustaining relationships by

assessing, anticipating, and fulfilling stated and implied needs.

Service : A service is the diametrically opposed non-material counter piece of a

physical good.

Quality of service : Can be defined as level of customer satisfaction towards quality of

service provided

Customer : Customer is also a client, a buyer or a purchaser is the buyer or user of

the paid products of an individual or organization, mostly called the

supplier or seller.

Satisfaction : Satisfaction refers to the situation where people feel their perception

exceeds the expectation.

Perception : Perception is the process by which organisms interpret and organize

sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world.

DPP : DPP also known as “Dewan Penginapan Pelajar” which means

“Students’ Residential Hall” in English.

10

Tangible : Appearance of physical facilities, equipments, personnel, printed and

visual and communication materials.

Reliability : Ability to perform promised service reliably and accurately.

Assurance : Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust

and confidence.

Responsiveness : Willingness to help customers to provide prompt service.

Empathy : The firm provides care and individualized attention to its customers.

UUM, COB : Universiti Utara Malaysia, College of Business.

11

2222 LITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEW

__________________________________________________________________

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews literatures in the context of this study. In this section, discussion

will be based on the importance and the dimensions of service quality, the role of consumer in

service delivery, service quality and customer satisfaction. Research framework and research

hypothesis are also discussed in this chapter.

2.2 The Importance of Service Quality

Service quality often makes the difference between a successful and unsuccessful

business. In fact, service quality has become the great differentiator, the most powerful

competitive weapon and the most service organization possesses.

Quality is defined as “conformance to specifications,” but this phrase can be misleading. Quality

as conformance to customer specification is the customers’ definition of quality which is

important to business to consider and deliver.

12

There are several researchers who studied about customers’ satisfaction and perception.

According to Zeithmal and Bitner, (2000), service quality differs from quality of goods, in that

services are intangible while goods are tangible. This presents a challenge to marketers. Services

cannot be easily communicated to customers, and hence quality may be difficult for customers to

assess. Services are characterized as being tangible, perishable, produced and consumed

simultaneously, and heterogeneous. A major challenge for companies is to deliver service quality

consistently and at all times.

Service and product quality is in the mind of customer. This means that measuring quality

requires talking to customers. Quality reflects the extent to which product or service meets or

exceeds customers’ expectations. Rust and Oliver (1994), found that for companies to understand

how customers perceive their quality, they must measure customers’ satisfaction with their

products and services. Perceived service quality is considered as a component of students’

satisfaction (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). Parasuraman et al., (1998) concluded that customers’

satisfaction led to perceived service quality. They also concluded that service quality and

students satisfaction is highly correlated.

Another study conducted by Pariseau and McDaniel (1997) found that the most important

determinants of overall service quality for students are assurance dimensions. This is because

assurance dimensions are important since it concerns with knowledge, courtesy and the ability to

inspire trust.

On the other hand, Frost and Kumar (2000), found that responsiveness influenced service quality

the most. However, Curry and Sinclair (2002) found that reliability is the most important

determinants in service quality.

13

2.3 The Role of Consumers in Service Delivery

One distinctive aspect of services is that consumers are often part of the production and

delivery processes. In many services, the consumer is required to contribute information and/or

effort before the service transaction takes place (Kelly et al., 1990). The consumer’s input

constitute the raw material that is transformed by the service organization’s employees into a

service product.

Consequently, the consumer contributes directly to the quality of service delivered, and to his or

her satisfaction/ dissatisfaction (Mills et al., 183, p.302). If the inputs provided by the consumer

are inadequate and or inappropriate, this may well lead to service problems and failures.

Zeithmal et al., (1990) also identified some factors which can influence the consumer’s

perception of service performance. These include tangibles, such as the food eaten in the

restaurant, the physical surroundings which the service transaction takes place, the equipment

involved, and so on; the perceived competence and credibility of service providers, and their

responsiveness, reliability and courtesy.

The customer is an integral part of the service and uNless he or she performs his or her role

effectively, the desired service outcome is not possible. In addition to contributing to their own

satisfaction by improving the quality of service delivered to them, some customers simply enjoy

participating in service delivery. These customers find the act of participating to be untrinsically

attractive (Bateson, 1983, 1985; Dabholkar, 1996).

14

Another role that customers can play in service delivery is that they can contribute to their own

satisfaction and the ultimate quality of the services they receive. Customers may not bother

whether they have increased the productivity of the organization through their participation, but

they probably do bother a great deal about whether or not their needs are fulfilled (Kelly et al.,

1990).

In addition, many services require close personal interaction between the service provider and

the consumer. Whether or not such interaction is perceived by the consumer to be satisfactory

may depend on a variety of factors, ranging from the appearance of the service provider (by the

top management of the organization and the supporting staffs) and their perceived competence,

to the personality characteristics of, and the interpersonal attraction between, the participants.

Although some of these factors may contribute to service heterogeneity and variability, they are

not easy to control (Mills et al., 1983).

15

2.4 Service Quality

Perceived service quality is defined as the consumers’ judgment about an entity’s overall

excellent or superiority (Zeithaml, 1987). It differs from the objective quality which is defined by

Garvin 1983 and Hjorth- Anderson (1994) as a form of attitude, related but not equivalent to

satisfaction, and results from a comparison of expectations with perceptions of performance.

Researchers such as Garvin (1983), Dodds and Monroe (1984), Holbrook and Cofman (1985),

Jacoby and Olson (1985) and Zeithaml (1987) have emphasized the difference between the

objective and perceived quality. For example, Holbrook and Cofman (1985), noted that

consumers do not use the term of quality in the same way as researchers and marketers, who

define it conceptually. The conceptual meaning distinguishes between mechanistic and

humanistic quality. “Mechanistic” (quality) involves an objective aspect or feature of thing or

event while “humanistic” (quality) involves the subjective response of people to object and is

therefore a highly relativistic phenomenon that differs between judges” (Holbrook and Cofman,

1985, p.33).

Another key in defining the service role is to use every opportunity to communicate and

reinforce services standards such as in meetings and training sessions; in internal media such as

wallet cards, desk signs and wall posters; and in performance measurement, appraisal and reward

system.

Defining employees’ service role clearly, consistently and credibly is important to any

organization’s efforts to improve service. The behavior guiding and motivational benefits of

16

service standards are well worth the investment necessary to develop and reinforce them. Service

employees need to know what excellent service means and why they should care about

delivering it. The delivery of quality in goods and services has become a marketing priority of

the 1980s (Leonard and Sasser, 1982; Rabin, 1983).

Marketers of tangible goods defined and measured quality with increasing level of precision. On

the other hand, marketers of services experience difficulty in understanding and controlling

quality. This is because services are performances rather than objects, precise manufacturing

specifications for uniform quality rarely can be established and enforced by the firm. Quality in

services is not engineered at the manufacturing plant, then, delivered intact to the customer.

Furthermore, the performance of service especially those with a high labor content often differs

among employees, among customers and from day to day. In most services, quality occurs

during service delivery, usually in an interaction between the customer and contact personnel of

the service firm. For this reason, service quality is highly dependent on the performance

employees, an organizational resource that cannot be controlled to the degree that components of

tangible goods can be engineered (Crosby, 1979; Garvin, 1983).

Thompson et. al., (1985) noted that delivering high service quality produces measurable benefits

in profit, cost savings and market share. Therefore, an understanding of the nature of service

quality and how it is achieved in organizations has become a priority for research. Joseph &

Joseph (1997) noted that when dealing with physical facilities, students consider quality

universities as being those that have excellent academic, accommodation, as well as excellent

campus layout.

17

Specific variables related to management commitment to service quality include the proportion

of resources committed to service quality (rather than to other goals), the existence to which

managers believe their attempts to improve service quality will be recognized and rewarded in

the organization (Leonard and Sasser , 1982). Though the contact person maybe totally

committed to serving the consumer, he or she cannot perform well because control over the

service has been dispersed among multiple organizational units, which is a major problem in

service businesses (Zeithaml, Parasuaraman and Berry, 1985). Pariseau and McDaniel (1997)

found that the most important determinants of overall quality for students are assurance,

reliability and empathy.

Curry and Sinclair (2002) found that is “reliability” is the most important determinant in service

quality. Assurance dimensions become important as this factor is related to with knowledge,

courtesy and an ability to inspire trust and confidence.

As noted by Oldfield and Baron (2000), any attempt to deliver quality service, those who exert

control or influence upon any of the customer groups needs to be constantly aware that

interaction between students and staff lies at the heart of good service delivery. This is because

students would view the member of staff dealing with them as the sample to generalize their

perception towards the institution.

18

2.5 Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality

Research conducted by Oliver and Swan (1989) to study the level of satisfaction towards

the salesperson found that buyer inclination interact with the salesperson in the future is the only

function of satisfaction. Satisfaction in this case was viewed as a function of fairness where

fairness significantly mediated the role of outcomes and input effect of satisfaction. This

suggested that satisfaction is directly sensitive to equity and indirectly to the component in

equity. A study comparing the utilities of four (4) attributes by Ostrom and Lacoucci (1985)

suggested that the price of fees on the students on the services given by the college and

university were the least attributes compare to the quality and friendliness.

Smith and Ennew (2001) outlined interesting aspect about Gronross Model. They highlighted

that there was a hidden aspect in the choice of satisfaction perception of customer between which

is more the affective indignation and the technical functionality. For example the particular

facility obtained by the students could be judged according to how reliable they are (technical

functionality) or according to their ages, appearance, courtesy and empathy (affective). The

perfect reliability facility which is not up to date, but are capable of carrying out the task, may

still be negatively rated if users expect the university to provide up to date facility.

19

2.6 Research Framework

This study involves five (5) variables. Five (5) variables are the independent variables

and one (1) is dependent variable.

Independent variables consists of five (5) dimensions of service quality namely tangibles,

reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. On the other hand, the independent variable

is the overall service quality.

Those variables can be shown in Figure 1.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram for Theoretical Framework Model

TANGIBLE

RESPONSIVENESS

RELIABILITY

ASSURANCE

EMPATHY

OVERALL

QUALITY

OF SERVICE

20

2.7 Research Hypothesis

The hypotheses for this study are:

H1 : The higher the tangibility of the service provided, the higher is the service quality

perceived by the students.

H2 : The higher the reliability of the service provided, the higher is the service quality


H3 : The higher the responsiveness of the service provided, the higher is the service quality


H4 : The higher the assurance of the service provided, the higher is the service quality


H5 : The higher the empathy of the service provided, the higher is the service quality


21

3333 RESEARCH METHODOLOGYRESEARCH METHODOLOGYRESEARCH METHODOLOGYRESEARCH METHODOLOGY

______________________________________________________________________________

3.1 Introduction

This chapter explains the method that is being used in this study. It includes the research

design, population and samples, instrumentation, data collection procedures and technique of

data analysis.

3.2 Research Methodology

This study is the cross-sectional study whereby data are collected once. In addition, this

study looks at the relationship between all the five (5) dimensions of service quality such as

tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy (independent variables) with the

overall quality of service (dependent variable).

22

3.3 Population and Sample

The population of this study are all the students at Universiti Utara Malaysia with the

average total of 20,000 students. It includes students from the entire program offered and from

the first until the final year students.

The sample of this study is the undergraduate and postgraduate students of UUM COB.

Respondents are selected based on the convenience sampling due to the time constraints.

Respondents were the students that are dealing with Students’ Residential Hall, College of

Business, UUM.

The respondents are limited to those who are staying only at the Students’ Residential Hall,

UUM COB. Students’ Residential Hall which is consist of eight (8) Students’ Residential Hall

namely DPP MAS, DPP TNB, DPP PROTON, DPP TRADEWINDS, DPP PETRONAS, DPP

EON, DPP TM and DPP SIME DARBY. The total of UUM COB students who are legally

staying at all the eight (8) DPPs are more than 8,000 student altogether.

23

3.4 Questionnaire Design

This study adpoted the instruments that have been developed by Parasuraman et. al.,

1985. It is argued that with the minor modification, these instrument can be adapted to any

service organizations (Parasuraman et. al., 1985, 1998; Brown et. al., 1993; Joseph & Joseph,

1997; Pariseau & McDaniel, 1997; Oldfield & Baron, 2000; Wisniewski, 2001).

The survey involved statements relating to students’ perceptions, evaluated on a five (5) point of

Likert Scale ranging from 5-strongly agree and 1-strongly disagree. Questionnaires will be

divided into three (3) sections, where Section A captured demographic information; Section B

captured information about students’ perception towards service provided. On the other hand,

Section C captured information regarding overall and personal perception towards service

provided.

Section 1: Demographic Information

This section consisted of six (6) questions to obtain respondents’ demographic

information. Questions asked are related to age, gender, race, level of study at UUM, current

semester of the students and highest level of education.

24

Section 2: Students’ Perception of Service

This section consisted of 25 statements to assess student’s perception towards service

received across five (5) dimensions that are tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and

empathy.

Section 3: Summary Information

This section consisted of two (2) items of overall evaluation about quality of service and

personal level of satisfaction on quality of services provided by the administrative or

management of College of Business, UUM.

For each statement in Section 2, Likert Scale score is being used ranging from 1 to 5 represented

in Table 3 as stated below:

Table 3: Likert Scale for SERVQUAL items

SCALE SCORE

Strongly Agree 5

Agree 4

Neutral 3

Disagree 2

Strongly Disagree 1

25

Each statement in Section 3 used Likert Scale score ranging from 1 to 5 represented as

shown in Table 3.1 as stated below:

Table3.1: Likert Scale Score for Question 1 and 2 in Section 3

__________________________________________________________

SCALE SCORE

Excellent 5

Good 4

Neutral 3

Poor 2

Very Poor 1

3.5 Data Collection Procedures

The data collected for this study is based on two (2) types of data namely Primary Data

and Secondary Data. The Primary Data is collected through questionnaires while Secondary Data

is collected through library research from the journals, thesis and books.

Data collections were done within 1-2 weeks. 100 self-administered questionnaires were

distributed at the counter of this Students’ Residential Hall such as DPP MAS, DPP TNB, DPP

PROTON, DPP TRADEWINDS, DPP PETRONAS, DPP EON, DPP TM and DPP SIME

DARBY.

26

3.6 Technique of Data Analysis

Data in this study were analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistical methods.

Descriptive methods were used to describe behavior of data in general and some inferential

analysis was performed to understand the relationship among variables.

All the premier data in this study were processes by using the Statistical Packages for Social

Science (SPSS) version 12.0 software.

Descriptive statistics were used to describe or understand about demographics profile of

respondent. Besides that, the same method was used to study about dimensions of variables. This

indicates the used of mean and median. Meanwhile correlation and regression analysis were used

to measure relationship between dimensions of two (2) studied variable.

27

4444 RESULT AND ANALYSISRESULT AND ANALYSISRESULT AND ANALYSISRESULT AND ANALYSIS

______________________________________________________________________________

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discussed the results obtained from this study.

4.2 Profile of The Respondents

This study has a total number of 96 respondents. The results are shown in Table 4. Table

4 shows that the highest percentage (90.6%) of respondents’ age ranges from 20-25 years old

followed by the students’ age in range between 20-30 years old. Only 4.2% respondents’ had the

age less than 20 years old.

Percentages of female students are higher than male students with 53.1% male and 46.9% female

students. From the race profiling, Malay students has the highest percentage (50%) as compared

to Chinese (26%), Indian (15.6%) and other races (8.3%).

28

In this study, the number for undergraduate students (92%) is higher than the postgraduate

students (7.3%). Majority of the respondents were in semester four (4) (36.5%), followed by the

semester two (2) students (27.1%), semester six (6) students (17.7%), semester three (3) students

(7.3%), semester five (5) students (5.2%), semester seven (7) and above students (4.2%) and the

lowest percentage (2.1%) was in semester one (1).

Table 4: Background of Respondents

Profiling Percentage (%)

Age:

Less than 20 years old

20-25 years old

26-30 years old

4.2

90.6

5.2

Gender:

Male

Female

46.9

53.1

Race:

Malay

Chinese

Indian

Others

50.0

26.0

15.6

8.3

Study Level at UUM:

Masters Degree

First Degree

7.3

92.7

Semester:

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven and Above

2.1

27.1

7.3

36.5

5.2

17.7

4.2

29

4.3 The Average and Standard Deviations of Dimensions of Service Quality

Students’ perception on the quality of service at Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB are

measured on five (5) dimensions:

i. Tangibles iv. Assurance

ii. Reliability v. Empathy

iii. Responsiveness

These perceptions are tabulated in Table 4.1 until Table 4.6. The first dimension (tangible) is

rated as satisfied by the students. The average score for this dimension is 3.8542 where students

tend to feel that the equipment at the halls were up to date. This is show as in Table 4.1:

Table 4.1: The Average and Standard Deviations of Dimensions of Service Quality

Variables Mean Standard

Deviations

Tangible: 3.8542 0.69795

P1: Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB

should have up to date equipment.

4.15 0.929

P2: When students have problems,

universities should be sympathetic and

reassuring.

3.98 1.056

P3: The physical facilities at Students’

Residential Hall, UUM COB will be

usually appealing.

3.73 0.774

P4: The material associated with Students’

Residential Hall, UUM COB will be

usually appealing.

3.70 0.742

P5: Employees of Students’ Residential

Hall, UUM COB will be neat appearing.

3.72 0.817

30

The second dimension (reliability) has the mean of 3.3208. This means that the student

moderately feels that there is no courtesy’s attitude among the UUM COBs’ employees. It

implies the employees are not always willing to help students when they have problems. This is

show as in Table 4.2:



Deviations

Reliability: 3.3208 0.75029

P6: Employees of UUM COB are not

always willing to help students when the

students have problems.

3.01 1.174

P7: Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB

will keep the accurate records in order to

serve the best services.

3.48 0.870


Hall, UUM COB will provide their

services at the time they promise to do so.

3.32 0.923


Hall, UUM COB will perform the service

right the first time.

3.29 1.015

P10: Student should be able to feel safe in

their transactions with the UUM COB

employees.

3.50 1.016

31

“Responsiveness” is the third dimension for the research framework. From the mean score of

3.4542, it means that the students are satisfied with the quality of services that provided by the

UUM COBs’ employees This is show as in Table 4.3:



Deviations

Responsiveness: 3.4542 0.4855


Hall, UUM COB will never be too busy

respond to the student request.

3.45 0.869


Hall, UUM COB will always willing to

help students.

3.42 0.925


Hall, UUM COB will give prompt to

student.

3.36 0.860

P14: The employees should not be expected

to have operating hours convenient to all

their students.

3.56 0.892


Hall, UUM COB do not give you

individual attention.

3.48 0.906

32

The average score of the fourth dimension (Assurance) is rated 3.5125. It means that in average

the students also satisfied with the UUM COBs’ employees that provided the good quality of

services to the students itself. For example, most of the employees can be trusted and they are

knowledgeable. This is show as in Table 4.4:



Deviations

Assurance: 3.5125 0.60441


Hall, UUM COB will have knowledge to

answer the students’ questions.

3.63 0.771


Hall, UUM COB will b courteous with the

students.

3.57 0.791

P18: The employees of your Students’

Residential Hall, UUM COB can be

trusted.

3.60 0.761

P19: The employees of your Students’

Residential Hall, UUM COB did not tell

students exactly when services will be

performed.

3.20 0.841

P20: When UUM COB promised to do

something by certain time, they

(employees) should do so.

3.56 0.904

33

The last dimension in this study is empathy with mean = 3.5354. It is also rated as satisfied by

the UUM COBs’ students. It shows that students are willing to place their excellent Students’

Residential Hall at their heart. This is show as in Table 4.5:



Deviations

Empathy: 3.5354 0.64596

P21: It is unrealistic to expect employees to

know what the needs of their students are.

3.20 0.947

P22: Students’ Residential Hall, UUM

COB does not have operating hours

convenient to all its students.

3.41 0.936

P23: An excellent Students’ Residential

Hall, UUM COB will have employees who

give students personal attention.

3.55 0.950

P24: Excellent Students’ Residential Hall

of UUM COB will always understand the

specific needs of students.

3.74 0.885

P25: Excellent Students’ Residential Hal of

UUM COB willingness to place the

interest of the student at heart.

3.78 0.897

34

Finally, the overall quality was measured in order to identify whether UUM COBs’ Residential

Halls are in good performance. The obtained results in Table 4.6 showed that the overall quality

is good with the average score 3.1771. This value represents that the UUM COBs’ students are

satisfied with quality of service provided by the UUM COBs’ and their respective residential

hall.


Overall Quality 3.1771 0.67660

C1: Overall quality of services that provided

by Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB.

3.17 0.721

C2: Students’ personal perception to the

quality of services that provided by

Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB.

3.19 0.685

4.4 The Average and Standard Deviations of Dimensions of Service Quality

Table 4.7 shows the correlation analysis of the data of this study. It shows that only the

tangible dimension is significantly correlated to total quality of services. Other dimensions show

no significant relationship with quality.

35

The correlation table measured the linear relationship between each dimension and the total

quality. However, it is best to measure the total quality based on a single regression model with

all dimensions occur simultaneously. Result from regression analysis shows that the best fit

model is:

Total Quality = 0.884 Assurance.

This model has R2 = 0.942 and F-value= 1542.124**. This shows that the independent variables

contribute 94% to the dependent variable. In other words, it means that 94% of the perception on

service quality is contributed by the independent variable.

Table 4.7: Correlations between Dimensions of Service Quality and Total Quality

Dimensions of Service Quality Total Quality

Tangible -2.19(*)

Reliability -0.20

Responsiveness .127

Assurance .180

Empathy .019

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

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

36

4.5 Regression Analysis between Dimensions of Service Quality and Total Quality

From the five (5) dimensions of the independent variables, it shows that only assurance is

significantly related to service quality (β= 0.59). The other four (4) dimensions show non-

significant result.

Table 4.8: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis between Dimensions of Service

Quality and Total Quality (N= 96)

Dimensions of Service Quality B SE B Β

Tangible -.083 .130 -.100

Reliability .113 .121 .119

Responsiveness .239 .174 .259

Assurance .538 .208 .590

Empathy 0.98 .182 .108

Note: R2= 0.942; F= 1542.124**; Sig. F= .000

B= Unstandardized Coefficient; SE B= Standard error of coefficient; β= Beta coefficient

37

5555 DISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONDISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONDISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONDISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings of this study. It also underlined some

recommendations and lastly an overall conclusion is being made.

5.2 Discussions

As stated earlier, the main purpose of his study is to determine the Students’ Perception

Towards the Quality of Services Provided by Students’ Residential Hall, College of Business,

UUM based on five (5) dimension of service quality which introduced by Parasuraman et. al

(1985. 1989). Hence, the outcome of this study can be benchmark for the management to

improve their quality of services that provided to the students of UUM COB.

This study also identify the relationship between the five (5) dimensions of service quality

(tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) with the overall service quality that

38

perceived by the students. Results from the correlation analysis showed that only tangibility is

significantly correlated to the total quality of services whereas, results from regression analysis

showed that assurance as an important indicator to explain the total of services.

Based on the correlation analysis, tangible has been identified as the most important indicator as

compared to other four (4) independent variables; reliability, responsiveness, assurance and

empathy. It shows that students in this campus especially for those who are staying at Students’

Residential Hall, College of Business, UUM will form their impression about quality of service

with the management of UUM COB that they deal through the tangibility aspect of the services

offered. Besides that, with all the equipments and facilities are up to date and in a good

condition, students will feel more comfortable and tend to satisfied with the services that they

perceived.

Based on the regression analysis, it showed that only the “assurance” dimensions showed a

significant relationship in explaining the perception on the total of services. This indicates that

students need knowledgeable and courtesy staff to deal with them. For students, they perceived

the quality of the service given is good based on their judgement on the knowlegability and

courtesy of the staff when they interacted with them.

This result was supported by previous study that was conducted by Hendershot, Wright and

Hadeson (1992). Furthermore, based on the findings, it can be concluded that students will feel

that they are being appreciated when the staff explain the situation courteously and try their very

best in solving the problem. Students also insisted that they should get the services as promised

by the staff. Therefore, there are no reasons why the administrative staff should cannot provide

39

the good services to students since students deserve to have it. This is because students are the

‘main customer’ to the university.

5.3 Recommendations

There are few recommendations to improve quality of service of Students’ Residential

Hall, College of Business, UUM. The recommendations as stated below:

Firstly, excellent service is an integral to an organization’s future. Effective and efficient service

provided by any organization will lead to customer satisfaction. Previous research found that

there is a significant relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction level. Quality

service can be the long term strategy to convince customers about the service offered by an

organization.

Management of UUM COB must find the best alternatives in order to fulfill or satisfy students’

needs and wants. This is because students are the ‘main customer’ or ‘primary customer’ to

UUM COB directly. According to Anderson (1995), management should provide an on ongoing

training for staff. Denton (1989) suggested that training program to the staff is the best way to

ensure excellent service quality. Training program will enable the employee to be prepared to do

specific tasks which can maximize the employee’s potential.

40

Another way to improve the quality of services that is being provided by the organization, is

through creating a “courtesy campaign” such as “customer friendly” program. This will

encourage all the staff realize that students are the ‘main priority’ in daily business operation.

The management of UUM COB should take a smart action such as to organize any motivational

programs purposely targeted at their administrative staff. These motivational programs can

encourage the staff to work smart, built self esteem and increase their level of confidence in

order to serve and provide good quality services to the students.

5.4 Conclusion

Service experiences are the outcomes of interactions between the organizations, related

system/processes, service employees and customer satisfaction with service experiences. In

many services, customers themselves have vital roles to play in creating service outcomes and

ultimately enhancing or detracting from their own satisfaction and the value received. In the

context of education industry, satisfaction of the university’s service quality will enhance the

university image and will help the university to achieve their goals.

41

Universiti Utara Malaysia is now moving towards “World Class University” and wanted to be

known as the best management university among other higher learning institution in this country.

In order to achieve these goals, UUM should plan and implement the best strategy towards

provided and deserve the high quality of services to their main customers which are the student

itself. Knowledge and courteous employees will develop customer trust and confidence.

Therefore, the university should train their employees on how to serve good quality services to

the students. In this relation, employees should keep their promise because student insists to get

service as promised by the staff. This will give good impression from students of the services

that is being provided to them.

As a conclusion, effective and efficient services that provided by any organization is dependent

on the level of customer satisfaction that is obtained by the customer.

42

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bateson, (1985). Management Service Marketing: Text and Reading, 3rd

ed. Orlando. The Dryen

Press.

Berry, L.L, Zeithaml, V.A, and Parasuraman, A. (1990). Five Imperatives for Improving Service

Quality. Sloan Management Review. Vol. 29, 29-38.

Curry and Sinclair, E. (1992). Assessing the Quality of Physiotherapy Services Using

SERVQUAL. International Journal Healthcare Quality Assurance. Vol. 15 No.5, 197-205.

Denton, K. (1989). Quality Service. Gulf Publishing Co. USA.

Didomenico, E. and Bonnici, J. (1996, Spring). Assessing Service Quality within the Educational

Environment. Education. Vol. 116 No. 3, 353-359.

43

Frost, F.A. and Kumar, M. (2000). INTERSERVQUAL- An International Adaption of the Gap

Model in A Large Service of Organization. Journal of Services Marketing. Vol. 14 No. 5, 358-

377.

Garvin, D.A. (1983). Managing Quality. The Strategic and Competitive Edge. New York: Free

Press.

Hendershott, A., Wright, S., and Henderson, D. (1992). Quality of Life Correlates for University

Student. NASPA Journal, 30 (I): 10-19.

Joseph, M. and Joseph, B (1997). Service Quality in Education: A Student Perspective. Quality

Assurance in Education. Vol. 5, No.1, 15-21.

Leonard L. Berry, A. Parasuraman, and A. Zeithaml (1998). The Service Quality Puzzle.

Business Horizon. 35-43.

Leonard L. Berry, Zeithaml. A, & Berry, L.l (Summer 1990). Five Imperatives for Improving

Service Quality. Sloan Management Review.

44

Mary Jo Bitner, Valarie A. Zeithaml. (2000) Customer Contributions Roles in Service Delivery.

International Journal of Service Industry Management. Vol.8, No. 3, 193-205.

Oldfield, B.M and Baron, S. (2000). Student Perception of Service Quality in UK University

Business and Management Faculty. Quality Assurance in Education. Vol. 8, No.2, 41-50.

Oliver, Richard L; Rust, Roland T. Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial

Insight. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73(3), pg. 311-336.

Parasuraman (1985). Problems and Strategies in Service Marketing. Journal of Marketing. Vol.

49, 33-46.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A. & Berry, L.l (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and

It’s Implication for Future Research. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 49, No. 31, 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A and Berry L.L (1998). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for

Measuring Customer Perceptions of Quality. Journal of Retailing. Vol. 64, No. 1, 12-40.

45

Pariseau, S.E and McDaniel, J.R (1997). Assessing Service Quality in School of Business.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 14 (3): 64-218.

Sasser (1982). Management of Service Operations. Text and Cases Boston: Ally and Bacon.

Smith, R. Ennew, C. (2001, January). Service Quality and Its Impact on Word of Mouth

Communication in Higher Learning [online]. Available:

http://www.unim.nothing.ac.uk/dbm/papers/2001-01.pdf (2002, Sept, 15).

Wisniewski, M (2001). Using SERVQUAL to Assess Customer Satisfaction with Public Sector

Services. Managing Service Quality. 11 (6): 380-388.

Zeithaml, V.A., L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996, April). The Behavioral Consequences of

Service Quality. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 60, 31-46.

Zeithmal, Parasuraman, Berry (June 1985). Quality Counts in Services, Too. Business Horizons.

44-52.

APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

AAAA

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, UUM

______________________________________________________________________________

JUN 2009

Dear students,

I’m a final semester student of Master of Science (Management), College of Business, Universiti

Utara Malaysia. I would like to invite you to participate in a survey on “A Study on Students’

Perception towards the Quality of Services provided by the Students’ Residential Hall,

Universiti Utara Malaysia.”

The purpose of this study is to determine Students’ Perception towards Service Quality at

Students’ Residential Halls, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia.

This survey is undertaken for academic purpose and part of my graduation. To ensure your

confidentially, you are not required to write your name on the questionnaire. I really hope that

you will spend your time in order to participate in this study by completing all the attached

questionnaires and return it to the representative who gives you this questionnaire.

Thank you very much for your time and your co-operations in participating in this survey.

Yours sincerely,

NURUL HAMIZA BINTI HAMZAH (S88311)

Master of Science (Management)

College of Business



______________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 1

Please answer the following questions concerning your demographic. Please circle for each

question.

1. Age 2. Gender

a. Less than 20 years old a. Male

b. 20-25 years old b. Female

c. 26-30 years old

d. Above 30 years old

3. Race 4. Indicate your study level at UUM

a. Malay a. PhD

b. Chinese b. Masters

c. Indian c. First Degree

d. Others

Please specify: _________

5. Semester 6. Highest level of education

a. One a. SPM

b. Two b. STPM

c. Three c. Matriculation

d. Four d. Diploma

e. Five e. Others

f. Six Please specify: _________

g. Seven and above

Please specify: __________


______________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 2: PERCEPTION

The following statements relate your feeling about your Students’ Residential Hall, College of

Business, UUM. Please show the extend to which you think that the College of Business, UUM

should possess the feature described by each statement below. Each of the statement was

accompanied by 5 point of scale, from “Strongly Disagree” (1) and “Strongly Agree” (5). Please

circle the appropriate answer.

There are no right or wrong answers.

Strongly Disagree Partly Agree/ Agree Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

1 2 3 4 5

Tangibles

P1 Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB should have up-to-

date equipment.

1 2 3 4 5

P2 When students have problems, universities should be

sympathetic and reassuring.

1 2 3 4 5

P3 The physical facilities at Students’ Residential Hall, UUM

COB will be usually appealing.

1 2 3 4 5

P4 The material associated with Students’ Residential Hall,

UUM COB will be visually appealing.

1 2 3 4 5

P5 Employees of Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB will

be neat appearing.

1 2 3 4 5

Reliability

P6 Employees of UUM COB are not always willing to help

students when the students have problems

1 2 3 4 5

P7 Students’ Residential Hall, College of Business will keep

the accurate record in order to serve the best services.

1 2 3 4 5


provide their services at the time they promise to do so.

1 2 3 4 5


perform the service right the first time.

1 2 3 4 5

P10 Students should be able to feel safe in their transactions

with UUM COB’s employees.

1 2 3 4 5


______________________________________________________________________________

Responsiveness


never be too busy respond to student request.

1 2 3 4 5


always be willing to help student.

1 2 3 4 5


give prompt to student.

1 2 3 4 5

P14 The employees should not be expected to have operating

hours convenient to all their students.

1 2 3 4 5

P15 Employees of Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB do

not give you individual attention

1 2 3 4 5

Assurance


have knowledge to answer the student questions.

1 2 3 4 5


be courteous with the student.

1 2 3 4 5

P18 The employees of your Students’ Residential Hall, UUM

COB can be trusted.

1 2 3 4 5

P19 The employees of your Students’ Residential, UUM COB

does not tell students exactly when services will be

performed.

1 2 3 4 5

P20 When UUM COB promise to do something by a certain

time, they (employees) should do so.

1 2 3 4 5

Emphaty

P21 It is unrealistic to expect employees to know what the

needs of their students are.

1 2 3 4 5

P22 Students’ Residential Hall, UUM COB does not have

operating hours convenient to all its students.

1 2 3 4 5

P23 An excellent Students’ Residential Hall of UUM COB will

have employees who give students personal attention.

1 2 3 4 5

P24 Excellent Students’ Residential Hall of UUM COB will

always understand the specific needs of the students.

1 2 3 4 5

P25 Excellent Students’ Residential Hall of UUM COB

willingness to place the interest of the student at heart.

1 2 3 4 5


______________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 3: SUMMARY INFORMATION

1. I found the overall quality of services that provided by College of Business, UUM:

Very Poor Slightly Good Excellent

Poor good

1 2 3 4 5

2. Your personal perception to the quality of services that provided by your Students’

Residential Hall, UUM COB:

Very Poor Slightly Good Excellent

Poor good

1 2 3 4 5

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. I’m really appreciated your co-operations. Have a

great day ahead! ☺

APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

BBBB

53

BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS

Statistics Table of Background of Respondents:

Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid less than 20 years old 4 4.2 4.2 4.2

20-25 years old 87 90.6 90.6 94.8

26-30 years old 5 5.2 5.2 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Gender


Percent

Valid Male 45 46.9 46.9 46.9

Female 51 53.1 53.1 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Race


Percent

Valid Malay 48 50.0 50.0 50.0

Chinese 25 26.0 26.0 76.0

Indian 15 15.6 15.6 91.7

Others 8 8.3 8.3 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Age Gender Race Specify others

Indicate your study level at

UUM Semester Specify others

N Valid 96 96 96 96 96 96 96

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Median 2.00 2.00 1.50 3.00 4.00

Mode 2 2 1 3 4

Minimum 1 1 1 2 1

Maximum 3 2 4 3 7

54

Specify others


Percent

Valid 87 90.6 90.6 90.6

Bajau 1 1.0 1.0 91.7

Dusun 1 1.0 1.0 92.7

Iban 1 1.0 1.0 93.8

Indonesian 4 4.2 4.2 97.9

Siammesse 1 1.0 1.0 99.0

Suluk 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Indicate your study level at UUM


Percent

Valid Masters 7 7.3 7.3 7.3

First Degree

89 92.7 92.7 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Semester


Percent

Valid One 2 2.1 2.1 2.1

Two 26 27.1 27.1 29.2

Three 7 7.3 7.3 36.5

Four 35 36.5 36.5 72.9

Five 5 5.2 5.2 78.1

Six 17 17.7 17.7 95.8

Seven and Above 4 4.2 4.2 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Specify others


Percent

Valid 91 94.8 94.8 94.8

eight 4 4.2 4.2 99.0

nine 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

55

TANGIBLES

Statistics Table of Tangibles:

Tangibles: Up to date equipment

Tangibles: Sympathetic

and reassuring

Tangibles: Physical

facilities will be usually appealing

Tangibles: Material

associated will be

visually appealing

Tangibles: Employees will be neat appearing

N Valid 96 96 96 96 96

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.15 3.98 3.73 3.70 3.72

Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mode 5 4 4 4 4

Std. Deviation .929 1.056 .774 .742 .817

Variance .863 1.115 .600 .550 .667

Range 4 4 3 4 4

Tangibles: Up to date equipment


Percent

Valid Strongly Disagree 2 2.1 2.1 2.1

Disagree 2 2.1 2.1 4.2

Partly Agree/Disagree 17 17.7 17.7 21.9

Agree 34 35.4 35.4 57.3

Strongly Agree 41 42.7 42.7 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Tangibles: Sympathetic and reassuring


Percent


Disagree 5 5.2 5.2 9.4


Agree 37 38.5 38.5 63.5

Strongly Agree 35 36.5 36.5 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

56



Percent


Disagree 3 3.1 3.1 4.2


Agree 42 43.8 43.8 83.3

Strongly Agree 16 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Tangibles: Material associated will be visually appealing


Percent


Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 2.1


Agree 46 47.9 47.9 87.5

Strongly Agree 12 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0



Percent


Disagree 3 3.1 3.1 4.2


Agree 42 43.8 43.8 83.3

Strongly Agree 16 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

57

RELIABILITY

Statistics Table of Reliability:

Reliability: Employees

are not always willing to help

students

Reliability: Keep accurate

record

Reliability: Provide

services at the time

Reliability: Employees will perform the service

right the first time

Reliability: Students feel safe in their transactions

N Valid 96 96 96 96 96

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.01 3.48 3.32 3.29 3.50

Median 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00

Mode 3 4 3 3 4

Std. Deviation 1.174 .870 .923 1.015 1.016

Variance 1.379 .757 .853 1.030 1.032

Range 4 4 4 4 4

Reliability: Employees are not always willing to help students


Percent


Disagree 20 20.8 20.8 33.3


Agree 27 28.1 28.1 90.6

Strongly Agree 9 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Reliability: Keep accurate record


Percent


Disagree 6 6.3 6.3 9.4

Partly Disagree/Disagree 38 39.6 39.6 49.0

Agree 40 41.7 41.7 90.6


Total 96 100.0 100.0

58

Reliability: Provide services at the time


Percent


Disagree 10 10.4 10.4 14.6


Agree 33 34.4 34.4 91.7


Total 96 100.0 100.0

Reliability: Employees will perform the service right the first time


Percent


Disagree 16 16.7 16.7 20.8

Partly Disagree/Disagree 35 36.5 36.5 57.3

Agree 30 31.3 31.3 88.5

Strongly Agree 11 11.5 11.5 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Reliability: Students feel safe in their transactions


Percent


Disagree 9 9.4 9.4 14.6


Agree 41 42.7 42.7 86.5

Strongly Agree 13 13.5 13.5 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

59

RESPONSIVENESS

Statistics Table of Responsiveness:

Responsiveness: Respond

students' request Responsiveness: Willing to help

Responsiveness: Employees will

give prompt to student

Responsiveness: Convenience

operating hours

Responsiveness: Do not give Individual attention

N Valid 96 96 96 96 96

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.45 3.42 3.36 3.56 3.48

Median 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

Mode 3 4 3 3 4

Std. Deviation .869 .925 .860 .892 .906

Variance .755 .856 .739 .796 .821

Range 4 4 4 4 4

Responsiveness: Respond students' request


Percent


Disagree 11 11.5 11.5 12.5


Agree 36 37.5 37.5 89.6

Strongly Agree 10 10.4 10.4 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Responsiveness: Willing to help


Percent


Disagree 14 14.6 14.6 16.7


Agree 40 41.7 41.7 90.6


Total 96 100.0 100.0

60

Responsiveness: Employees will give prompt to student


Percent


Disagree 11 11.5 11.5 13.5


Agree 36 37.5 37.5 92.7


Total 96 100.0 100.0

Responsiveness: Convenience operating hours


Percent


Disagree 6 6.3 6.3 8.3


Agree 36 37.5 37.5 85.4

Strongly Agree 14 14.6 14.6 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Responsiveness: Do not give individual attention


Percent


Disagree 9 9.4 9.4 12.5


Agree 43 44.8 44.8 90.6


Total 96 100.0 100.0

61

ASSURANCE

Statistics Table of Assurance:

Assurance: Know how to

answer question

Assurance: Courteous

with student

Assurance: Can be trusted

Assurance: Doesn't tell

student when service will

be performed Assurance:

Keep promise

N Valid 96 96 96 96 96

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.63 3.57 3.60 3.20 3.56

Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00

Mode 4 4 3 3 3

Std. Deviation .771 .791 .761 .841 .904

Variance .595 .626 .579 .708 .817

Range 4 4 3 4 4

Assurance: Know how to answer question


Percent


Disagree 7 7.3 7.3 8.3


Agree 55 57.3 57.3 92.7


Total 96 100.0 100.0

Assurance: Courteous with student


Percent


Disagree 6 6.3 6.3 7.3


Agree 45 46.9 46.9 90.6


Total 96 100.0 100.0

62

Assurance: Can be trusted


Percent

Valid Disagree 4 4.2 4.2 4.2


Agree 38 39.6 39.6 87.5

Strongly Agree 12 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Assurance: Doesn't tell student when service will be performed


Percent


Disagree 17 17.7 17.7 18.8


Agree 26 27.1 27.1 93.8


Total 96 100.0 100.0

Assurance: Keep promise


Percent


Disagree 9 9.4 9.4 10.4


Agree 35 36.5 36.5 84.4

Strongly Agree 15 15.6 15.6 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

63

EMPATHY

Statistics Table of Empathy:

Empathy: Unrealistic to

expect students'

needs

Empathy: Inconvenience

operating hours

Empathy: Give personal

attention

Empathy: Understand

specific needs

Empathy: Willingness to

place the students' interest

N Valid 96 96 96 96 96

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.20 3.41 3.55 3.74 3.78

Median 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mode 3 3 4 4 4

Std. Deviation .947 .936 .950 .885 .897

Variance .897 .875 .903 .784 .804

Range 4 4 4 4 4

Empathy: Unrealistic to expect students' needs


Percent


Disagree 14 14.6 14.6 19.8


Agree 31 32.3 32.3 93.8


Total 96 100.0 100.0

Empathy: Inconvenience operating hours


Percent


Disagree 12 12.5 12.5 14.6


Agree 31 32.3 32.3 87.5

Strongly Agree 12 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

64

Empathy: Give personal attention


Percent


Disagree 10 10.4 10.4 12.5


Agree 37 38.5 38.5 84.4

Strongly Agree 15 15.6 15.6 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Empathy: Understand specific needs


Percent


Disagree 2 2.1 2.1 4.2


Agree 37 38.5 38.5 79.2

Strongly Agree 20 20.8 20.8 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Empathy: Willingness to place the students' interest


Percent


Disagree 5 5.2 5.2 6.3


Agree 38 39.6 39.6 77.1

Strongly Agree 22 22.9 22.9 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

65

TOTAL QUALITY

Statistics Table of Total Quality:

Total Quality Personal

perception

N Valid 96 96

Missing 0 0

Mean 3.17 3.19

Median 3.00 3.00

Mode 3 3

Std. Deviation .721 .685

Variance .519 .470

Range 4 4

Total Quality


Percent

Valid Very poor 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Poor 13 13.5 13.5 14.6

Slightly Good 53 55.2 55.2 69.8

Good 27 28.1 28.1 97.9

Excellent 2 2.1 2.1 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

Personal perception


Percent

Valid Very poor 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

Poor 10 10.4 10.4 11.5

Slightly Good 57 59.4 59.4 70.8

Good 26 27.1 27.1 97.9

Excellent 2 2.1 2.1 100.0

Total 96 100.0 100.0

CORRELATIONS CORRELATIONS CORRELATIONS CORRELATIONS

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

67

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Tangible 96 3.8542 .69795

Reliability 96 3.3208 .75029

Responsiveness 96 3.4542 .64855

Assurance 96 3.5125 .60441

Empathy 96 3.5354 .64596

Overall 96 3.1771 .67660

Valid N (listwise) 96

Correlations

Tangible Reliability Responsive

ness Assurance Empathy Total

Quality

Tangible Pearson Correlation

1 .315(**) .390(**) .394(**) .511(**) -.219(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) . .002 .000 .000 .000 .032

N 96 96 96 96 96 96

Reliability Pearson Correlation

.315(**) 1 .332(**) .336(**) .473(**) -.020

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 . .001 .001 .000 .848

N 96 96 96 96 96 96

Responsiveness Pearson Correlation

.390(**) .332(**) 1 .686(**) .440(**) .127

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 . .000 .000 .219

N 96 96 96 96 96 96

Assurance Pearson Correlation

.394(**) .336(**) .686(**) 1 .634(**) .180

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 . .000 .080

N 96 96 96 96 96 96

Empathy Pearson Correlation

.511(**) .473(**) .440(**) .634(**) 1 .019

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 . .853

N 96 96 96 96 96 96

Total Quality Pearson Correlation

-.219(*) -.020 .127 .180 .019 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .032 .848 .219 .080 .853 .

N 96 96 96 96 96 96

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

REGRESSION REGRESSION REGRESSION REGRESSION

ANALYSISANALYSISANALYSISANALYSIS

69

Regression

Variables Entered/Removed(b,c)

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1

Empathy, Reliability, Responsiveness, Tangible, Assurance(a) . Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: Total of Quality c Linear Regression through the Origin

Model Summary(c,d)

Model R R Square(a) Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change df1 df2

Sig. F Change

1 .972(b) .945 .942 .78548 .945 310.014 5 91 .000

a For regression through the origin (the no-intercept model), R Square measures the proportion of the variability in the dependent variable about the origin explained by regression. This CANNOT be compared to R Square for models which include an intercept. b Predictors: Empathy, Reliability, Responsiveness, Tangible, Assurance c Dependent Variable: Total Quality d Linear Regression through the Origin

a study on students’ perception towards the quality of services provided by the students’ ...

Documents