Saudi University Students’ Perceptions of Service Quality in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher education institutions (HEIs), like any other organizations, consider the customer experience to be an intrinsic component of their strategic plans, decision-making processes, and development. In the higher education (HE) context, the students are the customers and demand high service quality to inform their decisions. This article evaluates the perception of quality of service (QoS) in a HE setting from the perspective of students studying at King Khalid University (KKU) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). A modified service quality (SERVQUAL) instrument is used to measure five constructs: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The research also assesses whether there is a connection between the participants’ responses and key demographic variables. Permission was granted to distribute 500 questionnaires to all the students in the selected college. Of these, 350 questionnaires were returned, and 298 were deemed useful. The data collected to assess perceptions of QoS was analyzed using SPSS, a t-test, and a cutoff point (3.4). The table of variance analysis and ETA square identified relationships between the participants’ answers and the demographic variables. Evaluation of all the services was lower than predicted. The highest rated construct was assurance with mean (3.0116), responsiveness with mean (2.8465), tangibles with mean (2.7843), reliability with mean (2.6914), and empathy with mean (2.5558). There were statistically significant differences found in the students’ evaluation for the first dimension (tangibles) associated with gender difference, with the average evaluation by male students being (2.9532), and the average evaluation by female students (2.6685); otherwise demographic characteristics had no statistically significant influence on students’ evaluations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".