MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161922596 · doi:10.5539/ies.v14n6p51

Service Quality and Student Satisfaction Using ServQual Model: A Study of a Private Medical College in Saudi Arabia

2021· article· en· W3161922596 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamad Tarif Sibai, Bernardo BayJr, Rhodora Dela Rosa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSERVQUALMedical educationService qualityPsychologyHigher educationQuality (philosophy)Descriptive statisticsService (business)MedicineMarketingStatisticsMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study assessed the service quality and satisfaction among Pharmacy students at one of the private medical colleges in Saudi Arabia using ServQual model. Specifically, it sought to determine the respondents’ profile in terms of gender, year level, and grade point average; service quality using SERVQUAL Model; over-all students’ satisfaction of students on the provided college services; and which profile and service quality dimensions best predict the over-all satisfaction of the students. Using a descriptive statistics and Multiple Regression Analysis for data analysis, this paper had 189 respondents. Based on the results, majority of the respondents were female from levels 2, 3, and 4 with above average GPA. Responsiveness, empathy and tangibility dimensions of service quality had a negative gap, which means that the expected services did not meet the perceived services on the cited service quality dimensions. Meanwhile, when overall satisfaction was measured, students expressed satisfaction to the college services. Year level was a predictor for all measures of student satisfaction; while GPA was identified as a negative predictor to student satisfaction in terms of faculty. Students’ satisfaction in terms of faculty was best predicted by responsiveness, assurance, tangibility. Meanwhile, assurance was a predictor of students’ satisfaction in terms of curriculum. Responsibility, responsiveness and assurance, on the other hand were predictors of students’ satisfaction in terms of students services and facilities. Finally, the overall student satisfaction was predicted by responsiveness, assurance and tangibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207