INTRODUCTION
Higher education in Vietnam
The Vietnamese Education Law of 2012 defines higher education as encompassing both undergraduate and postgraduate studies, with undergraduate programs leading to diplomas or bachelor's degrees, and postgraduate programs resulting in master's and doctorate degrees The higher education system in Vietnam is structured into various institutions: colleges provide college and lower-level programs; universities are authorized to offer college, undergraduate, master's, and doctorate programs as designated by the Prime Minister; and research institutes can offer doctorate programs and, in collaboration with universities, can provide master's programs with the Prime Minister's approval.
Vietnam's tertiary education system comprises two main types: public universities and colleges funded by the Government, and non-public institutions, which include semi-State, self-funded, and private universities and colleges, as outlined in Decision 9/2001/QD-BGD&DT by the Ministry of Education and Training on August 28, 2001 A key distinction lies in the Government's managerial approach, where public institutions must adhere strictly to Government regulations regarding tuition and financial policies, as specified in Decree 49/2010/ND-CP dated May 14, 2010, while non-public institutions enjoy greater autonomy.
In the last decade, Vietnam's higher education sector has undergone significant transformations, marked by the expansion and establishment of various new educational institutions, alongside enhancements in quality (Nguyen, Oliver, Priddy, 2009).
As of 2011, Vietnam had 386 universities and colleges, comprising 306 public and 80 non-public institutions, with the number rising to 409 by early 2012 (Vietnam education system, 2012) Despite this growth, opportunities for higher education remain limited, and quality control poses significant challenges (Nuffic Nesco Vietnam, 2009) The increase from 322 institutions in 2006 to 409 in 2012 highlights ongoing issues in quality assurance, particularly as faculty qualifications are often low and inconsistent across different types of institutions The Ministry of Education and Training acknowledged in report No.760 (2009) the difficulty in overseeing all higher education institutions nationwide, especially in the non-public sector, where its managerial effectiveness is notably limited (Mai Lan, 2011).
Non-public tertiary education is rapidly developing in the 21st century; however, it faces a crisis in Vietnam The Vice Minister of the Ministry of Education and Training, Bui Van Ga, emphasized the need for non-public institutions to enhance their quality to gain societal prestige and attract more students Quality in higher education is increasingly important to both society and learners, yet there is a significant disparity in quality between public and non-public sectors within Vietnam's higher education system.
In higher education, a significant issue between public and non-public sectors is tuition fees, which are the amounts paid by students or their families to cover educational expenses Non-public institutions have greater autonomy in setting tuition levels, as outlined in Decree 49/2010/ND-CP issued by the Government on May 14, 2010 This autonomy places tuition as a primary concern for students (Huy Lan, 2012), according to the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Education and Training.
Bui Van Ga emphasized the necessity for non-public education organizations to clearly disclose their tuition rates, enabling students to make informed registration decisions and preventing future dissatisfaction According to Do Hop (2012), students anticipate a high level of service quality that aligns with the tuition fees charged by universities Therefore, it is essential to carefully evaluate the relationship between service quality in higher education and the tuition costs that students incur for the services they receive.
The Fundamental and Comprehensive Renovation of Higher Education in Vietnam, outlined in Resolution 14/2005/NQ-CP on November 2, 2005, emphasizes the importance of establishing a quality assurance system Despite this focus, Vietnamese educators and educational leaders remain uncertain about effectively implementing quality assurance and accreditation within the local context (Nguyen, Oliver, Priddy, 2009).
The expansion of higher education has provided students with a wider array of choices for their studies and services As students bear the full cost of their education, they are entitled to high-quality services that meet their needs (Senthilkumar & Arulraj, 2010) Consequently, educational institutions are competing to attract students by delivering exceptional services at competitive tuition rates In this context, examining the relationships between service quality, pricing, and customer satisfaction in Vietnam's higher education sector—particularly within public and private institutions—can offer valuable insights for both practitioners and researchers.
Research problem statement
The significance of service industries is growing alongside economic development in various countries, drawing increasing attention from both the business world and academic research Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate various service-related issues, aiming to enhance real business practices and contribute to academic knowledge Notably, research on service quality and customer satisfaction has become a central focus within service theory.
Service quality is a key factor influencing customer satisfaction, as identified by Cronin and Taylor (1992) The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction is complex, with various interacting elements (Cronin et al., 2000) In addition to service quality, customer satisfaction is affected by product quality, price, and both situational and personal factors (Zeithaml et al., 2000) Price itself is a multifaceted concept, encompassing objective price, perceived price, and both monetary and nonmonetary service costs (Zeithaml, 1988) Many studies focus on perceived price, which reflects customer perceptions of sacrifices made to obtain a service, rather than objective price, due to the intricate nature of service pricing (Chen et al., 1993) However, the role of price in customer satisfaction has not been extensively explored in prior empirical research (Bei & Chiao, 2001 as cited in David et al.).
2007) especially in relationship with service quality and customer satisfaction
Senthilkumar and Arulraj (2010) stated that among the service sectors, higher education system has direct bearing on society for society and economic development
Higher education institutions are increasingly focusing on service quality and customer satisfaction as they transition into a more commercialized sector (Brown & Clignet, 2000, as cited in Kathleen & Julie, 2001) Research on service quality in higher education is relatively new compared to the commercial sector (Parves & Ho, 2010) Most quality models from the business world have been adapted for education, yet defining quality in higher education remains complex and multifaceted (Chua, 2004; Harvey & Green, 1993) This complexity contributes to the absence of a definitive method for measuring service quality (Clewes, 2003) Recent studies have primarily focused on a dimensional approach to service quality (Parves & Ho, 2010) The SERVQUAL scale, developed by Parasuraman et al (1985, 1988), measures quality as the difference between perception and expectation, while Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) introduced SERPERF, which focuses solely on perception Although SERVQUAL is widely used and criticized across various industries (Ana & Rui, 2009), both SERVQUAL and SERPERF are generic measures not specifically tailored for higher education Therefore, there is a pressing need for instruments that are specifically designed to assess service quality in the context of higher education (Firdaus, 2006).
The emergence of challenges in higher education prompted the creation of HEDPERF – Higher Education Performance, a measurement scale for service quality developed by Firdaus in 2006 This tool is tailored specifically for the higher education sector, incorporating context-specific items relevant to the industry To improve HEDPERF's effectiveness in assessing service quality within tertiary education, Firdaus has made significant enhancements.
A study conducted in 2006 compared HEDPERF and SERPERF, revealing that HEDPERF provided more reliable estimations, greater explanatory power, and a better overall fit than SERPERF However, research on HEDPERF has been limited to a few countries and a single university context, specifically in Malaysia (Firdaus, 2005, 2006) and Portugal (Ana & Rui, 2009) Therefore, it is essential to apply this instrument in other countries and across various tertiary institutions (Firdaus, 2006).
Measuring service quality and customer satisfaction in higher education is a critical focus for tertiary educators Despite the challenges in assessing customer satisfaction in this sector, recent studies highlight service quality as a key factor influencing customer satisfaction In the context of higher education in Vietnam, while many researchers explore the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction, few have adapted the HEDPERF instrument to effectively measure the dimensions of service quality impacting customer satisfaction Most recent research tends to rely on SERVQUAL or SERPERF and often concentrates on specific institutions, limiting the generalizability of the findings.
This study investigates the relationships among service quality, service price, and customer satisfaction in higher education in Vietnam, utilizing the HEDPERF scale to assess service quality It aims to compare these relationships between public and non-public higher education institutions Additionally, the research incorporates perceived tuition as an independent variable affecting service quality and customer satisfaction, which will be further detailed in the literature review section.
Research objectives
According to above discussion, this study is formulated to obtain following objectives:
(1) To test the impact of university service quality on student satisfaction in higher education service
(2) To test the impact of perceived tuition on student satisfaction in higher education service;
(3) To test the impact of perceived tuition on university service quality in higher education service;
(4) To explore the differences in above relationships of university service quality, perceived tuition and student satisfaction between two types of university (public universities and non-public universities).
Scope of the research
This research focuses on higher education in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, analyzing data from two public and two non-public universities It examines the determinants of higher education service quality using the HEDPERF scale and the perceived tuition dimension to assess their impact on undergraduate student satisfaction, deliberately excluding other stakeholders from the study.
Significance of the research
This study introduces the HEDPERF measurement instrument within the context of higher education in Vietnam, offering a significant contribution to the field It provides valuable insights for researchers in this service industry, particularly as previous studies have predominantly concentrated on the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models.
This finding offers valuable insights for higher education institutions, enabling them to identify the key components of service quality that influence customer satisfaction By understanding the relationship between perceived tuition and service quality, these institutions can enhance their performance and boost satisfaction levels Furthermore, the comparison between public and non-public sectors highlights specific determinants tailored to each context, providing practical implications for improvement.
Organization of the thesis
This research is organized into five key sections: the introduction, literature review and hypotheses, research methodology, results and limitations, and finally, the conclusion.
This chapter examines the current state of higher education in Vietnam and explores existing research on the relationships between service quality, perceived price, and customer satisfaction in tertiary education It also outlines the research problem, objectives, and significance of the study.
Chapter 2 - Literatures review and hypotheses
Chapter 2 presents the theoretical foundation of the research, including the definition of each concept, namely, service quality, perceived price, customer satisfaction in higher education context and their relationship in literature From that, the hypotheses are derived and proposed for this research
The research method outlines the process for developing measurement tools and conducting surveys, consisting of two key steps: qualitative research to refine the draft measurement scale and quantitative research design to evaluate the hypotheses.
Chapter 4 designed to present the findings of this research The results are exhibited corresponding to each step of the data analysis Accordingly, the research hypotheses are tested
Chapter 5 – Discussion, Implications and Limitations
The final chapter of this study highlights the research findings, emphasizing their exploratory significance while linking them to real-world conditions for practical application Additionally, it acknowledges the limitations of the study to guide future research directions.
Chapter 2 LITERATURES REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Chapter 2 reviews and discusses about the theories of service quality, perceived price, customer satisfaction and the relationships among these concepts in service industries, especially in higher education context
Various approaches have been utilized to measure customer-perceived service quality, with SERVQUAL and SERPERF being widely recognized in many service sectors In the higher education industry, a new measurement scale called HEDPERF was developed specifically for this context (Firdaus, 2006), although it has not been extensively tested across different countries This research focuses on six components of HEDPERF—Non-academic aspects, Academic aspects, Reputation, Access, Understanding, and Program issues—to evaluate university service quality.
This chapter emphasizes the importance of incorporating perceived tuition as a key factor in the research model related to service pricing in higher education Additionally, it approaches customer satisfaction from the perspective of students, who are the primary consumers of higher education services Based on these considerations, a research model is established along with corresponding hypotheses.
In the realm of higher education, various stakeholders define the concept of a customer, with Weaver (1976) identifying four key groups: the government, government administrators, educators, and actual customers, which include learners, their families, employers, and society at large Among these, students are typically regarded as the primary customers, as they are the direct beneficiaries of the learning process (Sirvanci, 1996) Galloway (1998) further supports this notion by emphasizing that students are the main customers in educational services Therefore, it is crucial to identify the determinants of service quality in higher education from the students' perspective (Firdaus, 2006).
This empirical study utilizes the HEDPERF instrument to assess the determinants of service quality and predict customer satisfaction from the perspective of students as primary customers It highlights the relationship between perceived service quality, pricing, and overall student satisfaction.
2.1.2 Service quality concept and measurement
Extensive research has been conducted on customers' perceived service quality (Corneliu Munteanu et al., 2010) Lewis and Booms (1983, p.100) defined service quality as a measure of the alignment between the delivered service level and customer expectations.
Parasuraman et al (1985) introduced a dimensional approach to define service quality as the difference between customer expectations and actual performance across various quality dimensions They developed a service quality model based on gap analysis, which highlights the discrepancies between expected and perceived service.
Gap 1: Difference between expectation of consumers and perceptions of service managers about those expectations;
Gap 2: Difference between perceptions of service managers about consumer‘s expectations and service quality specifications;
Gap 3: Difference between service quality specifications and actual service delivered to consumers
Gap 4: Difference between actual service delivery and the information consumers received through communications about service delivery;
Gap 5: Difference between consumer‘s expectation and actual service perceived by consumers; this gap covers the four previous gaps (Parasuraman et al, as cited in Nitin Seth et al, 2004)
Base on this exploratory research, SERVQUAL scale is developed to measure customers‘ perceptions of service quality SERVQUAL approaches five dimensions of service quality:
(1) Tangibility (the physical appearance of facilities, personnel, and equipment materials);
(2) Reliability (the ability to perform the service accurately and dependably)
(3) Responsiveness (the ability to provide prompt service);
(4) Assurance (the ability to convey trust and confidence);
(5) Empathy (the ability to provide individualized attention to customers)
The SERVQUAL scale measures service quality through 22 items of five above dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991)
Although SERVQUAL is criticized by many researchers, it still seems to be the most practical model for measuring service quality (Cuthbert, 1996b) Cronin and Taylor
In 1992, it was proposed that the gap model for measuring service quality was insufficient both conceptually and operationally, leading to a focus on performance perception as the basis for service quality This resulted in the development of SERPERF, a performance-based instrument that, while a variant of SERVQUAL, accounted for more variance in service quality measurements (Cronin & Taylor, 1994) However, in the realm of higher education, the SERVQUAL measurement scale remains more widely used and applied than the SERPERF instrument (Ana & Rui, 2009).
2.1.3 Service quality in higher education
Defining service quality in higher education remains a topic of considerable debate (Becket & Brookes, 2006) Researchers have developed measurement instruments like SERVQUAL and SERPERF to assess service quality in tertiary education (Parves & Ho, 2010) Many have customized established service quality dimensions to create tailored measurement tools (Firdaus, 2006) While generic measures have significantly influenced the service quality domain, they may not effectively assess perceived quality in the higher education context (Senthilkumar & Arulraj, 2010) This highlights the need for a specific service quality measurement instrument designed for higher education.
Firdaus (2006) introduced HEdPERF, a novel measuring instrument designed to assess service quality in the higher education sector This comprehensive approach focuses on performance and is based on six key factors.
Factor1: non-academic aspects This factor consists of items related to duties undertook by non-academic staff which are necessary for students to implement their study responsibilities
Factor2: academic aspects This factor refers solely to the responsibilities of academics
Factor3: reputation This factor is described by the items that suggest the importance of tertiary institutions in developing a professional image
Factor4: access This factor consists of items that associate with such issues as approachability, ease of contact, availability and convenience
Factor5: understanding This factor mentions to the attention of students specific need regarding to counseling services as well as health services
Factor6: programs issues This factor includes the items related to the ability of providing various and reputable academic programs, major specializations with flexibility in structure and syllabus (Firdaus, 2006)
This instrument scale evaluates service quality in higher education, encompassing 41 items across six key factors: non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, program issues, and understanding It is designed from the perspective of students, who are considered the primary customers in the tertiary education sector.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Literatures review
In the realm of higher education, various stakeholders define the concept of a customer, with Weaver (1976) identifying four key groups: the government, government administrators, educators, and actual customers, which include learners, their families, employers, and society at large Among these, students are typically regarded as the primary customers, as they are the direct beneficiaries of the learning process (Sirvanci, 1996) Galloway (1998) also supports this view, emphasizing that students are the main customers in educational services Therefore, it is crucial to identify the determinants of service quality in higher education from the students' perspective (Firdaus, 2006).
This empirical study utilizes the HEDPERF instrument to assess service quality determinants and predict customer satisfaction from the perspective of students as primary customers It highlights the relationship between perceived service quality, pricing, and overall student satisfaction.
2.1.2 Service quality concept and measurement
Extensive research has been conducted on customers' perceived service quality (Corneliu Munteanu et al., 2010) Lewis and Booms (1983, p.100) defined service quality as the degree to which the delivered service level aligns with customer expectations.
Parasuraman et al (1985) introduced a dimensional approach to define service quality as the difference between customer expectations and actual performance across various quality dimensions They developed a service quality model based on gap analysis, which highlights the discrepancies between expected and perceived service.
Gap 1: Difference between expectation of consumers and perceptions of service managers about those expectations;
Gap 2: Difference between perceptions of service managers about consumer‘s expectations and service quality specifications;
Gap 3: Difference between service quality specifications and actual service delivered to consumers
Gap 4: Difference between actual service delivery and the information consumers received through communications about service delivery;
Gap 5: Difference between consumer‘s expectation and actual service perceived by consumers; this gap covers the four previous gaps (Parasuraman et al, as cited in Nitin Seth et al, 2004)
Base on this exploratory research, SERVQUAL scale is developed to measure customers‘ perceptions of service quality SERVQUAL approaches five dimensions of service quality:
(1) Tangibility (the physical appearance of facilities, personnel, and equipment materials);
(2) Reliability (the ability to perform the service accurately and dependably)
(3) Responsiveness (the ability to provide prompt service);
(4) Assurance (the ability to convey trust and confidence);
(5) Empathy (the ability to provide individualized attention to customers)
The SERVQUAL scale measures service quality through 22 items of five above dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991)
Although SERVQUAL is criticized by many researchers, it still seems to be the most practical model for measuring service quality (Cuthbert, 1996b) Cronin and Taylor
In 1992, it was proposed that the gap model for measuring service quality was insufficient both conceptually and operationally, leading to a focus on performance perception as the basis for service quality This resulted in the development of SERPERF, a performance-based instrument that, while a variant of SERVQUAL, accounted for more variance in service quality measurements (Cronin & Taylor, 1994) However, in the realm of higher education, the SERVQUAL measurement scale remains more widely used and applied than the SERPERF instrument (Ana & Rui, 2009).
2.1.3 Service quality in higher education
Defining service quality in higher education remains a significant debate (Becket & Brookes, 2006) Researchers have developed measurement instruments like SERVQUAL and SERPERF to assess service quality in tertiary education (Parves & Ho, 2010) Many have customized established service quality dimensions for their measurement tools (Firdaus, 2006) While generic measures have influenced the service quality domain, they may not effectively assess perceived quality in the higher education context (Senthilkumar & Arulraj, 2010) This highlights the need for a specific service quality measurement instrument tailored for higher education.
Firdaus (2006) introduced HEdPERF, a novel measuring instrument designed to assess service quality in the higher education sector This comprehensive approach focuses on performance and is based on six key factors.
Factor1: non-academic aspects This factor consists of items related to duties undertook by non-academic staff which are necessary for students to implement their study responsibilities
Factor2: academic aspects This factor refers solely to the responsibilities of academics
Factor3: reputation This factor is described by the items that suggest the importance of tertiary institutions in developing a professional image
Factor4: access This factor consists of items that associate with such issues as approachability, ease of contact, availability and convenience
Factor5: understanding This factor mentions to the attention of students specific need regarding to counseling services as well as health services
Factor6: programs issues This factor includes the items related to the ability of providing various and reputable academic programs, major specializations with flexibility in structure and syllabus (Firdaus, 2006)
This instrument scale evaluates service quality in higher education, encompassing 41 items across six key factors: non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, program issues, and understanding It is designed from the perspective of students, who are considered the primary customers in the tertiary education sector.
In comparative research on measurement instruments in higher education in Portugal, Ana and Rui (2009) found that SERPERF and HEDPERF exhibited the best measurement capabilities Similarly, Firdaus (2005) indicated that HEDPERF was generally the superior measurement scale in higher education contexts However, HEDPERF has limitations, particularly as its findings are based on a single industry and a specific national setting, suggesting that the effectiveness of the HEDPERF scale may still be considered premature (Senthilkumar &).
This research focuses on understanding service quality in higher education by utilizing the HEDPERF instrument to assess customer satisfaction The HEDPERF scale, developed in 2006, is specifically designed for the higher education context, making it a comprehensive tool for evaluation Despite its potential, HEDPERF has not been widely applied across various countries and higher education institutions, highlighting the importance of adapting this instrument to the Vietnamese context.
2.1.4 Perceived service price in higher education
According to Zeithaml (1988), price is defined as the sacrifice customers make to acquire specific products or services It is a crucial element of offerings and is interconnected with various factors influencing customer perceptions and behaviors related to the use of these products or services.
Jacoby and Olson (1977) (as cited in Carmen et al., 2006) highlight that the concept of price encompasses both an objective price, which reflects the actual cost of a service, and a perceived price, which is shaped by the user's experience This indicates that price is a multidimensional construct, as noted by Zeithaml.
In 1988, price components were classified into three categories: objective price, perceived non-monetary price, and sacrifice Notably, the objective monetary price often differs from the price understood by consumers Conversely, perceived price refers to the customer's perception of what they sacrifice to obtain a service, as discussed by Zeithaml (1998) and further explored by Lien & Yu (2001) and Aga & Safakli (2007).
According to Lien and Yu (2001), perceived price is influenced by the fairness of the price customers are expected to pay Customers often compare the prices of products or services with other available offers to determine their reasonableness As a result, when customers perceive a price as fair or lower than alternatives, their satisfaction with the product or service increases.
Determining the role of objective pricing in the complex service environment is challenging, leading researchers to propose the use of perceived price (Chen et al., 1993) In the context of higher education, this study defines student perceived price as the evaluation of what students give or sacrifice to obtain services from universities Specifically, the research focuses on the monetary dimension of perceived price, using tuition—the amount students pay for higher education services—as the primary concept of service perceived price in this study.
Research model & hypotheses
This study investigates the dimensions of service quality in Vietnam's higher education sector using the HEDPERF scale, which encompasses non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, assessment, program issues, and understanding factors It incorporates perceived tuition as an independent variable affecting customer satisfaction and aims to predict student satisfaction in higher education Additionally, the research examines the impact of perceived tuition on perceived service quality and compares the relationships among service quality, tuition, and student satisfaction between public and non-public higher education institutions in Vietnam to identify specific differences.
This chapter explores the theoretical framework surrounding service quality, perceived price, and customer satisfaction in higher education, highlighting the positive influence of perceived tuition on university service quality and student satisfaction It emphasizes the beneficial effect of university service quality on student satisfaction and discusses how university type moderates these relationships, particularly between public and non-public institutions Consequently, a research model is proposed, consisting of six hypotheses.
This chapter outlines the research design and methodology employed in this study to investigate the relationships between university service quality, perceived price, and student satisfaction in higher education services in Vietnam The research approach integrates both qualitative and quantitative methods to achieve comprehensive results.
In qualitative research, the aim is to clarify concepts and interpret measurement scales within the higher education context from the students' perspective Adjustments are made to improve the effectiveness of these scales Focus-group interviews are conducted with two groups of six participants each, consisting of third-year and final-year students from both public and private universities, using a pre-prepared interview script The findings from this qualitative research lead to modifications of the measurement scales before they are utilized in the main quantitative survey Data collection for the survey is carried out through convenience sampling from undergraduate students at two public and two private universities.
Chapter 3 also mentions about the procedure to analyze the data collected
Accordingly, the process includes test of cronbach‘s alpha coefficient of reliability, EFA by SPSS software and CFA technique, SEM test by AMOS software
This study will be implemented through the combination of qualitative research and quantitative research, which procedure is presented in Figure 3.1
The qualitative research phase aimed to clarify concepts and interpret measurement scale items from the customer's perspective, allowing for necessary modifications to enhance the scale's effectiveness Additionally, this step offered opportunities to generate new ideas and items, thereby improving the research model and measurement scale.
The research utilized focus-group interviews, a widely recognized technique, to gather historical insights and enhance data through participant interaction (Donald & Pamela, 2006) This approach proved beneficial for obtaining a general background on the topic, interpreting existing research findings, and generating new ideas for modifying and supplementing components.
The focus group consisted of undergraduate business students from both public and private universities in Ho Chi Minh City The research aimed to explore the perspectives of students, who are considered the "primary customers" of higher education services Participants were specifically selected from third-year and final-year students to ensure they had sufficient experience with the performance of these services.
A focus group consisting of six participants from both public and non-public sectors was established to ensure diverse opinions on higher education services To maintain the integrity of the insights, participants had not engaged in any related interviews in the past six months Following the guidelines of Donald and Pamela (2006), focus group interviews continued until no new insights emerged An interview script was prepared in advance, as detailed in Appendix 3.1, and the researcher facilitated the discussion, allowing participants to express their views and critique previous ideas The researcher summarized the opinions, ensuring that at least two-thirds of the participants reached a consensus.
The focus group interviews revealed consensus among participants regarding the significance of service quality factors in higher education and the relevance of perceived tuition in measuring student satisfaction However, some items in the measurement scale were found to be unsuitable for the current higher education context in Vietnam, necessitating modifications and enhancements for better alignment Detailed qualitative research findings can be found in Appendix 3.2.
The measurement scale for service quality in the higher education sector was adapted from Firdaus (2006) and refined through qualitative research, resulting in 37 items The perceived price scale, consisting of 5 items, was adapted from Carmen et al (2006) and Chen et al (1994) to fit the higher education context Additionally, the customer satisfaction scale, also with 5 items, was adapted from Taylor and Baker (1994) for the same context All scales utilized a five-point Likert type format, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The scale evaluates student satisfaction across various dimensions, including non-academic aspects related to the duties of support staff, academic responsibilities of faculty, and the university's professional reputation It also considers access to services, emphasizing convenience and approachability, as well as understanding through counseling and health services Additionally, program issues are assessed based on the variety and flexibility of available programs and specializations.
Nacdm1 When I have a problem, administrative staff show a sincere interest in solving it Nacdm2 Administrative staff provide caring and individual attention
Nacdm3 ensures that inquiries and complaints are handled efficiently and promptly Nacdm4 highlights that the administrative staff are always available to assist with any requests Additionally, Nacdm5 emphasizes the staff's commitment to fulfilling promises made regarding timelines.
Nacdm6 Administrative staff show positive work attitude towards students Nacdm7 Administrative staff communicate well with students
Nacdm8 I feel secure and confident in my dealings with this institution
Acadm1 Academic staff have the knowledge to answer my questions relating to the course Acadm2 Academic staff deal with me in a caring and courteous manner
Academic staff are always available to assist me with my requests, demonstrating a genuine interest in resolving any issues I encounter Their positive attitude towards students fosters a supportive learning environment.
Academic staff excel in classroom communication, ensuring effective engagement with students They employ precise methods to assess student performance, providing valuable feedback for improvement Additionally, their extensive education and experience in their respective fields enhance the learning experience, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
Reptt1 The institution has a professional appearance/image Reptt2 The hostel facilities and equipment are adequate and necessary Reptt3 Academic facilities are adequate and necessary
Reptt4 Class sizes are kept to minimum to allow personal attention Reptt5 The institution‘s graduates are easily employable
Reptt6 The institution has an ideal location with excellent campus layout and appearance
At Acces, students receive equal treatment and respect from the staff, who prioritize confidentiality when handling personal information Additionally, the staff are readily accessible by telephone, ensuring effective communication and support for all students.