Author (s) and publication

Finding (s)

Research place

(LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1997)

­ Reputation, faculty, administrative personnel had a significant relationship with perceived service quality;

­ Curriculum, physical evidence, responsiveness and access to facilities as additional factors influencing perceived service quality.

Canada

(Joseph & Joseph, 1997)

­ Program, academic reputation, and career opportunities had a relationship with service quality;

­ Physical aspects, location, and time didn’t have a direct relationship with service quality.

New Zealand

(Gatfield et al., 1999)

­ Adopted assessment method had a significant relationship with students’ satisfaction;

­ There was a significant difference on satisfaction with students’ work experience;

­ Age and gender had no relationship with students’ satisfaction.

Australia

(Yildiz & Kara, 2009)

­ To develop a measurement for service quality in higher education.

Turkey

(Rojas-Méndez, Vasquez-Parraga, Kara & Cerda-Urrutia, 2009)

­ Students’ satisfaction and perceived service quality did not have a direct relationship with loyalty.

Chile

(Ibrahim, Wang, & Hassan, 2013)

­ There was a gap between perceived service quality and expectation.

Glasgow, Strathclyde, Stirling, West of Scotland

(Jain et al., 2013)

­ Developing a model including program quality: curriculum, industry interaction, input quality, academic facilities; and quality of life: non-academic processes, support facilities, campus and interaction quality.

India

(Garba & Sentosa, 2015)

­ A strongly significant relationship between the reliability, assurance and empathy with satisfaction;

­ An insignificant relationship between tangibility and responsiveness with satisfaction of students.

Malaysia

(Teeroovengadum et al., 2016)

­ Developing a five-dimension HESQUAL model with 48 attributes.

Mauritius

(Ingaldi, 2018)

­ Overview of main methods of service quality analysis.

Poland

(Lu & Pitchayadejanant, 2017)

­ To identify accuracy information, fulfilling, tailed advice, willing assistance, recommendation for the university to friends, and recommendation for friends to study in Thailand.

Thailand

(Khalaf & Khourshed, 2017)

­ Tangibles (Physical Environment) affect, course content essential, Academic staff efficiency the most important, Responsiveness and empathy, economic side and reputation.

Egypt

(Saduov, Madiyarova, Jempeissova, Selezneva, Shtiller,

& Fursova, 2018)

­ Computer facilities, library facilities, academic courses and future job prospects had a significant relationship with perceived service quality.

­ The importance of investing in IT facilities by universities in order to improve students’ satisfaction.

Kazakhstan

(Sokoli, Koren, & Gutierrez, 2018)

­ Curricula had a relationship with students’ satisfaction;

­ Academic and non-academic qualities had a relationship with satisfaction.

U.S.A

(Sokoli, Koren, & Shala, 2019)

­ Using HESQUAL model to measure and improve service quality in higher education.

Slovenia

(Munshi, 2019)

­ To develop a HESQUAL model based on SERVQUAL model.

India

(Osman & Saputra, 2019)

­ Institutional image had a strongly significant impact on students’ satisfaction;

­ Program quality had a significant relationship with service quality.

Bangladesh

(Asnawi & Setyaningsih, 2020)

­ Factors influence the perceived quality of students during the learning process.

Indonesian

(Sameena, 2020)

­ Core and value-added service quality.

UAE

(Lima-Vargas, Obaya, Lima-Vargas, Rosales-Soriano, 2021)

­ The impact of students’ perception of quality towards their institution (teachers and administrators) on their academic performance and gender differences.

USA

(Mortari & Ubbiali, 2021)

­ Service learning is an interesting model that would allow for this and would guide practices that support a democratic education informed by virtue and ethics.

Italy