86 
UDK: 658.562:378(497.5) 
Članek začnemo s pregledom relevantne 
teorije in potem predstavimo rezultate 
raziskovalne študije, ki je zajela študente 
Fakultete za turistični in hotelski menedžment 
v Opatiji (Hrvaška). Cilji 
študije so: (1) predstaviti kratek pregled 
obstoječih orodij/metod za merjenje 
izkušenj študentov, (2) oceniti študentska 
pričakovanja o kakovosti storitev visokega 
izobraževanja v turizmu, (3) preizkusiti 
zanesljivost prilagojene lestvice 
SERVQUAL, (4) ugotoviti število dimenzij 
kakovosti storitev visokega izobraževanja 
v turizmu. Študija je razvila in izpopolnila 
lestvico SERVQUAL in tako prispevala 
k razumevanju koncepta kakovosti 
storitev visokega izobraževanja v 
turizmu na Hrvaškem. 
Ključne besede: kakovost storitev, 
SERVQUAL, multivariantna statistična 
analiza, visoko izobraževanje, Hrvaška 
Iz vleče k 
UDC: 658.562:378(497.5) 
This paper starts with background theory 
and the outlines the results of an 
exploratory study conducted on students 
at the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality 
Management in Opatija (Croatia). The 
aims of the study are to: (1) provide a brief 
review of the existing tools for measuring 
students’ experience, (2) assess students’ 
expectations of service quality in tourism 
higher education, (3) test the reliability of 
a modified SERVQUAL scale, (5) establish 
the number of dimensions of service quality 
in tourism higher education. This study has 
contributed to knowledge about the service 
quality construct in tourism higher 
education in Croatia by refining and 
developing the SERVQUAL scale. 
Key words: service quality, SERVQUAL, 
multivariate statistical analysis, higher 
education, Croatia 
A b s t r a c t 
JEL: C81 
dr. Suzana Marković, Assist. Prof. 
University of Rijeka 
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality 
Management in Opatija 
Merjenje pričakovane kakovosti storitev 
visokega izobraževanja v turizmu 
EXPECTED SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT 
IN TOURISM HIGHER EDUCATION 
10 
NG, ŠT. 1–2/2006 PREGLEDNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANKI/REVIEW PAPERS 
Introduction 
There is a growing acknowledgement that economies of the 21st century need 
to be knowledge-based rather than commodity-based and be driven by knowledge 
development, innovation and commercialization. Knowledge will become the 
fundamental factor underpinning successful tourism and hospitality organizations. 
Tourism and hospitality management education is now at a point where there is a 
sufficient base of theory such that the field can easily move well beyond vocational 
training and expose students to a wide range of ideas, knowledge and theory. The 
key challenge for tourism and hospitality education is not to stay with narrow 
vocationalism simply to satisfy the employment needs of industry but to harness 
the development of knowledge that will contribute to the successful development 
of tourism and hospitality industry as a whole. 
Croatia’s current major educational reform campaign is aimed at restructuring 
the school system. One of its central tasks is to diversify higher education in 
response to the growing divergence in youths’ professional orientation and values 
of choice. Following other reforms during the transition process, higher education 
in Croatia began a process of transformation, modernization and diversification. 
When completed, it will fundamentally alter the profile of the traditional university. 
In these circumstances many discussions about the future of Croatian higher 
education concern the issues of finance and management. 
In today’s competitive environment, where all students have many options 
open to them, factors that enable higher education to attract and retain students 
should be seriously studied. Tourism and hospitality management higher education 
institutions, which want to have competitive edge in the future, may need to begin 
searching for new and creative ways to attract, retain and foster stronger 
relationships with students. 
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the applicability and 
reliability of the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1988) in higher 
education quality measurement and to determine the relationship between 
expectations and perceptions of academic service quality in tourism and hospitality 
management higher education in Croatia. Academic service was defined as service 
that is not directly related to classroom activity. This included adaptation of 
Parasuraman et al.’s (1988) constructs of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, 
assurance and empathy. 
Various statistical analyses were performed including descriptive statistics, 
paired samples statistics, factor analysis and reliability analysis. Results of this 
study will help management to understand the expectations of their customers 
about the quality of services they provide and it will also help them make 
improvements when the results indicate service quality shortfalls.
87 
MARKOVIĆ: EXPECTED SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT IN TOURISM HIGHER EDUCATION 
Theoretical background 
Service quality concept in tourism and hospitality 
higher education 
The field of tourism and hospitality education is a unique, 
rather close-knit academic area. The size and scope of the 
tourism and hospitality industry itself has always been difficult 
to define since few people can agree on what it encompasses. 
An early definition of tourism and hospitality included any 
and all business and services whose primary objective was 
serving people outside of a private home. 
Tourism and hospitality management education is one 
segment of the larger tourism and hospitality industry. It 
could be argued that the formal preparation of industry 
professionals, via tourism and hospitality education 
programs, is the single most important segment. 
So what is tourism and hospitality education? Carl Riegel 
(1995) has defined it as a field of multidisciplinary study which 
brings the perspectives of many disciplines, especially those 
found in the social sciences, to bear on particular areas of 
application and practice in the hospitality and tourism industry. 
Simply put, it is a field devoted to preparing students, 
generally, for management positions in tourism and hospitality. 
Tourism and hospitality education as a field of study is finally 
getting the respect, that has deserved for so long. 
Higher education, like most business and organizations 
today, is increasingly concerned about the quality of its goods 
and services. There is increased competition for a shrinking 
pool of students and those students are becoming more 
sophisticated and demanding. While some organizations 
make products that are largely tangible, higher education’s 
product is largely intangible. As a result, assurance of quality 
can be more difficult than in traditional manufacturing 
industries. Further, unlike tangible goods, the higher 
education product cannot be returned if the customer is 
dissatisfied. The money-back guarantee is virtually unheard 
of. The process of total quality management (TQM) must 
be a goal of higher education if higher education is to survive 
in the 21st century. 
To understand this objective, the term quality must be 
defined and discussed. Webster’s dictionary defines quality 
as not only the basic character or characteristic that makes 
something good or bad, commendable or reprehensible, but 
also the degree of excellence a thing processes, or superiority. 
Webster’s goes on to define quality control or assurance as 
a system for maintaining desired standards in a product. The 
two definitions comprise the most simplistic basis for 
achieving quality assurance in any organization, including 
higher education. Obviously an organization must define 
itself, as through a mission statement and then set goals and 
objectives that will support that mission before it can hope 
to measure its outcome against the stated goals. This is 
quality assurance. Quality is everybody’s job, part of our 
job requirements. You cannot create quality without a quality 
culture in your organization. Change in culture starts from a 
change in leadership culture and continues only with 
continuous measurement and feedback (Lomas, 1999). 
The global quality assurance movement is increasing 
business’s capacity to survive increased competition. So too, 
it will be with higher education. In both, customer 
expectations have been raised. Quality process management 
is fast becoming an organizational survival skill (Lickson et 
al., 1994). TQM is a system of delineating, measuring and 
periodically comparing objectives and outcomes, with the 
goal of improving organizational work processes, products 
and services. The purpose is to deliver perceived quality 
and value to the customer. 
University and faculty handbooks clearly state that the 
duties of a faculty member will include teaching, research 
and service. While teaching and research guidelines and 
expectations are generally spelled out quite clearly either at 
the university or faculty levels, service is more open to 
interpretation and may be more flexible in scope. Service is 
any activity in which the faculty member offers his or her 
professional expertise or time to others, either within or 
outside of the academic community. 
To more narrowly define service commitments, the broad 
category of service can be broken down to internal service 
and external service. Internal service includes activities 
directly related to the administration of one’s academic unit 
as well as the greater college and/or university. External 
service activities include not only providing professional 
assistance to the community at large, but also participation 
in professional societies, service on academic and industry 
boards, and making preparations to groups and associations. 
In contrast to internal service, external service can be even 
harder to delineate and as a result, evaluate. Together, these 
two forms of service represent a very important contribution 
that faculty members make to their institutions and the 
external environment. 
The service component of a tourism and hospitality 
educator’s job plays a critical role in professional 
development, in a faculty member’s level of visibility in an 
institution and the greater tourism and hospitality industry, 
and contributes significantly to the effectiveness of the 
various academic units. In recent years, service has been a 
relatively underappreciated aspect of faculty responsibilities. 
However, the role of service may finally be getting some of 
the attention that it has deserved for so long. 
Many of the tourism and hospitality managers who will 
be responsible for meeting the challenges of tomorrow are 
the tourism and hospitality management students of today. 
How well prepared they are to meet these challenges depends 
on the quality of the current tourism and hospitality 
management curriculum and educators. 
Service Quality Concept 
Quality is an elusive and indistinct construct 
(Parasuraman et al., 1985). »Quality« is not a singular but a 
multi-dimensional phenomenon. Explication and 
measurement of quality also present problems for 
researchers, who often bypass definitions and use 
unidimensional self-report measures to capture the concept.
88 
NG, ŠT. 1–2/2006 PREGLEDNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANKI/REVIEW PAPERS 
Efforts in defining and measuring quality have come 
largely from the goods sector. According to the prevailing 
Japanese philosophy, quality is zero defects - doing it right 
the first time. Crosby (1979) defines quality as conformance 
to requirements. 
Quality in a service organization is a measure of the extent 
to which the service delivered meets the customer’s expectations. 
Knowledge about the quality of goods is insufficient 
to understand service quality. Three characteristics of 
services - intangibility, heterogeneity and inseparability - must 
be acknowledged for a full understanding of service quality. 
First, most services are intangible (Berry, 1980). Because 
they are performances rather than objects, precise manufacturing 
specifications concerning uniform quality can rarely 
be set. Most services cannot be counted, measured, inventoried, 
tested or verified in advance of sale to ensure quality. 
Because of intangibility, the firm may find it difficult to 
understand how consumers perceive their services and evaluate 
service quality (Zeithaml, 1981). 
Second, services, especially those with high labor 
content, are heterogeneous: their performance often varies 
from producer to producer, from customer to customer, and 
from day to day. Consistency of behavior from service 
personnel (uniform quality) is difficult to ensure (Booms 
and Bitner, 1981) because what the firm intends to deliver 
may be entirely different from what the consumer receives. 
Third, production and consumption of many services are 
inseparable (Gronroos, 1984). As a consequence, quality in 
services is not engineered at the manufacturing plant and then 
delivered intact to the consumer. In labor intensive services, 
for example, quality occurs during service delivery, usually 
in an interaction between the client and the contact person 
from the service firm. The service firm may also have less 
managerial control over quality in services where consumer 
participation is intense because the client affects the process. 
Service quality has been discussed by only a handful of 
researchers (Lewis and Booms, 1983; Sasser, Olsen and 
Wyckoff, 1978). Examination of their researcher and other 
literature on services suggests three underlying themes: 

 Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to 
evaluate than goods quality. 

 Perceptions of service quality result from a comparison 
of consumer expectations with actual service performance. 

 Quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome 
of a service; they also involve evaluations of the process 
of service delivery. 
Researchers and managers of service firms concur that 
service quality involves a comparison of expectations with 
performance: Service quality is a measure of how well the 
service level delivered matches customer expectations. 
Delivering quality service means conforming to customer 
expectations on a consistent basis (Lewis, 1983). 
In line with this thinking, Grönroos (1984) developed a 
model in which he contends that consumers compare the 
service they expect with perceptions of the service they 
receive in evaluating service quality. Grönroos (1984), for 
example, postulated that two types of service quality exist: 
technical quality, which involves what the customer is 
actually receiving from the service, and functional quality, 
which involves the manner in which the service delivered. 
Sasser, Olsen and Wyckoff (1978) discussed three 
different dimensions of service performance: levels of 
material, facilities and personnel. Implied in this trichotomy 
is the notion that service quality involves more than outcome; 
it also includes the manner in which the service is delivered. 
Lehtinen and Lehtinen’s (1982) basic premise is that 
service quality is produced in the interaction between a 
customer and elements of the service organization. They use 
three quality dimensions: physical quality, which includes 
the physical aspects of the service, corporate quality, which 
involves the company’s image or profile and interactive 
quality, which derives from the interaction between contact 
personnel and customers as well as between some customers 
and other customers. 
Higher education can be termed a »pure« service, as 
distinguished by the degree of »person-to-person« interaction 
(Solomon et al., 1985). Viewing higher education (or 
education in general) as a service (Dotchin and Oakland, 
1994) can facilitate generalizing service quality dimensions 
for this sector. Identifying the specific characteristics of any 
service industry necessitates finding its unique dimensions 
in addition to the features it has in common with other 
services. More careful generalization is required to the case 
of higher education due to its complex characteristics. 
Service Quality Measurement 
There is a plethora of measurement tools and techniques 
for assessing service quality and consumer satisfaction levels. 
The leading protagonists in the area of service measurement 
studies have been Parasuraman et al. (1985) with 
development and subsequent refinement in 1988 and 1991 
of the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1991). 
The SERVQUAL instrument consists of 22 statements 
for assessing consumer perceptions and expectations 
regarding the quality of a service. Respondent are asked to 
rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the given 
statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Consumers’ perceptions 
are based on the actual service they receive, while consumers’ 
expectations are based on past experiences and information 
received. The statements represent the determinants or 
dimensions of service quality. Refinement of this work 
reduced the original service dimensions used by consumers 
to judge the quality of a service from ten to five. The five 
key dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1991) that were 
identified are as follows: 
1. Reliability – the ability to perform the promised service 
dependably and accurately. 
2. Tangibles – the appearance of physical facilities, 
equipment, personnel and communications materials. 
3. Responsiveness – the willingness to help the consumers 
and to provide prompt service.
89 
MARKOVIĆ: EXPECTED SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT IN TOURISM HIGHER EDUCATION 
4. Assurance – the knowledge and courtesy of employees 
and their ability to convey trust and confidence. 
5. Empathy – the provision of caring, individualized 
attention to consumers. 
One of the purposes of the SERVQUAL instrument is to 
ascertain the level of service quality based on the five key 
dimensions and to identify where gaps in service exist and 
to what extent. The gaps are generally defined as: 

 Gap 1 (positioning gap) – pertains to managers’ 
perception of consumers’ expectations and the relative 
importance consumers attach to the quality dimensions. 

 Gap 2 (specification gap) – is concerned with the 
difference between what management believes the 
consumer wants and what the consumers expect the 
business to provide. 

 Gap 3 (delivery gap) – is concerned with the difference 
between the service provided by the employee of the 
business and the specifications set by management. 

 Gap 4 (communication gap) – exists when the promises 
communicated by the business to the consumer do not 
match the consumers’ expectations of those external 
promises. 

 Gap 5 (perception gap) – is the difference between the 
consumers internal perception and expectation of the 
services (Zeithaml et al., 1990). 
The lower the mean score, the larger the gap in service 
quality and conversely the higher the mean score, the smaller 
the gap. Gaps 1 to 4 are within the control of an organization 
and need to be analyzed to determine the cause or causes 
and changes to be implemented which can reduce or even 
eliminate Gap 5. The surveying of employees can help to 
measure the extent of Gap 2 to 4 (Zeithaml et al., 1990). 
This may reveal a difference in perception as to what creates 
possible gaps. 
As with any research tool, there are concerns expressed 
by other researchers. Lam (1997) and O’Neill and Palmer 
(2001) have reviewed the criticisms of the original 
instrument. Criticisms include the failure to drawn on the 
various disciplines of psychology, social sciences and 
economics. Other issues relate to measuring time, stability 
over time, the measuring scale, the service quality 
dimensions and the use of difference scores. Another 
criticism was the generic nature of the instrument. It was 
suggested that the survey instrument needed to be customized 
for use in the specific industry to which it was being applied 
by including additional related questions (Carman, 1990; 
Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brown et al., 1993). Other 
researchers refuted the criticism when they proposed that 
practitioners require a generic model to ensure reliability, 
which allows both cross-industry and cross-functional 
comparisons to be made (Pitt et al., 1997). 
Fick and Ritchie (1991) examined the operation of the 
SERVQUAL instrument in four major tourism sectors: 
airline, restaurant and ski area service. They found that the 
two most important expectations concerning service were 
reliability and assurance for all four sectors. Some of the 
inadequacies they identified included problems with 
positively and negatively worded statements; the inability 
of the 7-point Likert scale to distinguish subtle differences 
in expectations and perceptions; its inability to take into 
account any relationship existing between the levels of 
expectations and performance and the cost of that service; 
and an inadequate attempt to include those tangible factors 
contributing to the overall quality of the service expectations. 
It should be noted that Parasuraman et al. (1991) have since 
addressed some of the problems in their modified version. 
Bojanic and Rosen (1994) examined the nature of the 
association between service quality as perceived by 
consumers and its determinants by applying SERVQUAL 
in a restaurant setting. The dimension that rated highest on 
expectation was assurance, followed by reliability, tangibles, 
access, knowing your customer, and responsiveness. In this 
study, the empathy dimension segmented into two: knowing 
the customer and access. 
Lee and Hing (1995) assessed the usefulness and 
application of the SERVQUAL instrument in measuring and 
comparing the service quality of two fine dining restaurants. 
The findings suggest that for both establishments, assurance 
and reliability were the highest expectations and tangibles 
were the lowest. 
An adapted/modified version of SERVQUAL instrument 
was used in lodging (Knutson, Stevens, Wullaert, Patton and 
Yokoyama, 1990) and restaurant settings (Stevens, Knutson 
and Patton, 1995). In the former, only the expectation items 
(and not the perception) were adapted to capture the 
consumers’ expectations of service quality in a hotel 
experience. Reliability had the highest mean score, followed 
by assurance, responsiveness, tangibles and empathy. The 
findings of the restaurant study revealed that reliability 
ranked first, followed by tangibles, assurance, 
responsiveness and empathy. Both the lodging and restaurant 
customers ranked reliability as first on the hierarchy; the 
only difference between the two was that tangibles ranked 
second for the restaurant and fourth for the lodging 
customers. 
In their research in the hotel sector, Gabbie and O’Neill 
(1996) reported that the highest expectations of consumers 
related to the dimensions of reliability and assurance while 
the dimensions of tangibility and empathy were lowest in 
their ranking. 
This discussion demonstrates that most of the studies 
used a modified or adapted version of the SERVQUAL scale 
in the hospitality and tourism area. 
Viewing higher education (or education in general) as a 
service (Dotchin and Oakland, 1994; Zimmerman and Enell, 
1988) can facilitate generalizing service quality dimensions 
for this sector. However, identifying the specific characteristics 
of any service industry necessitates finding its unique 
dimensions in addition to the features it has in common with 
other services. More careful generalization is required for the 
case of higher education due to its complex characteristics.
90 
NG, ŠT. 1–2/2006 PREGLEDNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANKI/REVIEW PAPERS 
McElwee and Redman (1993) used a model of service 
quality dimensions (SERVQUAL) developed by Parasuraman 
et al. (1985, 1988) as the basis for an adapted model for higher 
education. In view of the framework structure of SERVQUAL, 
their main emphasis was placed on functional (interactive) 
aspects of quality. Hill (1995) also investigated the 
implications of service quality theory for higher education. 
In another study, Anderson (1995) used SERVQUAL to 
evaluate the quality of an administrative section in a university 
(office of student service). Rigotti and Pitt (1992) used a 
version of the SERVQUAL instrument to evaluate an MBA 
program successfully. It was decided that a modified version 
of the SERVQUAL instrument should be tested on current 
students and an evaluation should be prepared. 
The use of a measure of service quality that is the 
difference between expectations and perceptions was seen 
as a better way to measure satisfaction or dissatisfaction with 
the course experience. The students who form the population 
for this study have already had experience in higher 
education. Thus it was felt that they would base their 
expectations on this prior experience, and so the service 
quality scores should provide a guide as to whether students 
see the quality of their experience declining or improving. 
Exploratory study: SERVQUAL application 
The specific aims of the study are to: (1) test the reliability 
of a modified SERVQUAL scale; (2) establish the number 
of dimensions of service quality in tourism and hospitality 
management higher education; (3) determine which 
dimension is the best predictor of expected service quality 
in higher education, and (4) assess the students’ expectations 
of service quality. 
A modified version of SERVQUAL scale was developed 
for this purpose. The paper focuses on the multivariate 
analysis of SERVQUAL scale, its reliability, its application, 
and the service quality perceptions of students. In addition, 
the implications for future research are discussed. 
Methodology 
This exploratory study analyzed students’ expectations 
of service quality at the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality 
Management in Opatija (FTHM) in Croatia. Questionnaires 
were designed according to the SERVQUAL model of 
measuring service quality expectations and perceptions 
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). The survey instrument (selfadministered 
questionnaire) consisted of two sections: (1) 
statements focused on student expectations of service quality 
at FTHM, and (2) demographic data about the respondents 
(mode of study, year of study, gender, lectures attended). 
Statements in SERVQUAL scale in this study were as 
follows: 22 original SERVQUAL statements (Parasuraman 
et al., 1988) and 18 new statements adapted for tourism and 
hospitality management higher education in Croatia. The scale 
has a total of 40 statements in final SERVQUAL scale. In 
order to minimize the impact on reliability, changes to the 
wording were reduced to minimum necessary to provide the 
appropriate context. Statements were positively and negatively 
worded and pre-tested for wording, layout and comprehension. 
A totally new instruction page was prepared and a 5- 
point Likert scale adopted rather than the 7-point scale used 
originally. The scale was arranged so that »strongly agree« 
was coded as five, while »strongly disagree« was coded as 
one. Each question was associated with the number one to 
five and to complete their answers users were asked to circle 
the number that best matched their opinion. 
Sample Characteristics 
Service quality surveys were conducted in academic year 
2002/2003 with all-year graduate students at the end of the 
summer semester. Students were given verbal and written 
instructions, and completed the questionnaires during the first 
few minutes of class. The respondents remained totally 
anonymous. Of the 500 students surveyed for this study, 444 
returned usable questionnaires giving a response rate of 89 
per cent. This was considered an adequate sample size, since 
other scale developers in the marketing area had used a sample 
size of 200 to analyze group data (Parasuraman et al., 1986). 
There was a sample of 444 graduate students of the 
Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management Opatija, 
comprising 28.2 per cent male and 71.8 per cent female 
respondents (Table 1). Within the sample, 30.6 per cent of 
the students were in their first year, 37.2 per cent in their 
second year, 14.6 per cent in their third year and 17.6 per 
cent students in their final year. Most of the students (95.5 
per cent) were full-time graduate students, and majority of 
them attended more than 75 per cent of the lectures. 
Table 1: Student respondent profile (N = 444) 
Data analysis 
The statistical package SPSS (11.0) was used to analyze 
the data received from the questionnaire. To enable ease of 
data entry, questions were pre-coded beforehand. This also 
confirmed that the design of the questionnaire was suitable 
for such analysis. Each questionnaire was individually 
numbered, with the first variable on the SPSS package 
reflecting this. This enabled the successful identification of 
errors, which when they did occur, were easy to correct.
91 
MARKOVIĆ: EXPECTED SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT IN TOURISM HIGHER EDUCATION 
Appropriate statistical analysis was used to provide useful 
information which relates directly to the objectives detailed 
at the start of this report. Following the completion of the 
data entry, frequencies of all the variables were produced to 
provide a starting point for analysis. Data were analyzed using 
descriptive and multivariate statistical analyses. Paired 
samples statistics (paired samples correlations and paired 
samples t-test) comparing the service statements were 
performed to see if there were any significant differences 
among them. Additional variables were created to re-code the 
negatively scored questions to the equivalent positive code. 
The 40 service quality variables were factor analyzed to 
determine the existence of underlying dimensions of 
expected service quality. A principal component analysis 
with orthogonal varimax rotation was conducted on the 40 
expectation statements measuring the service quality of 
higher education. 
The purpose of the analysis was to summarize the 
information contained in the original 40 variables into 
smaller sets of explanatory composite factors which define 
the fundamental constructs assumed to underline the original 
variables. Factors with an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 
1 were chosen for interpretation. Only variables with factor 
loading coefficients of 0.45 were considered; that is, items 
with less than 0.45 were excluded. 
A reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha) was performed 
to test the reliability and internal consistency of each of the 
expectation attributes. Alpha ranges from 0 to 1, and is a 
Notes: Expectations scores are measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Mean value of 1 = »strongly believe that the statement is wrong«; 
Mean value of 5 = »strongly believe that the statement is not wrong«. a Statement with the highest mean score, b Statement with 
the lowest mean score. 
(-) negatively worded statements. 
Table 2: Expected service quality in Croatian higher education
92 
NG, ŠT. 1–2/2006 PREGLEDNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANKI/REVIEW PAPERS 
measure of the internal consistency of multi-item scales. A 
coefficient alpha of .50 or higher is considered to be 
adequately reliable for group data purposes. 
Results 
The study’s findings are presented in the following order: 
(1) students’ expectations, (2) identification of expected 
service quality dimensions, and (3) reliability of the modified 
version of the SERVQUAL scale. 
Table 2 shows the means for students’ expectations by 
questionnaire statements. The range of expected service quality 
statements was from 1 (very low perceptions) to 5 (very high 
perceptions). The mean scores in this study ranged from 2.53 
to 4.86, with an overall of 4.17 for expectations scale. 
In expectations scale, the statement E1 »faculty should have 
up-to-date equipment« was considered most important, 
followed by E35 »faculty should provide students with the 
possibility to purchase literature at a price suitable for students«. 
The least important statement was »working hours of a faculty 
should not be expected to be adjusted to all students«. 
As shown in Table 3 the study used factor analysis to 
reduce the 40 statements into a set of underlying dimensions 
or factors that portray the expectations of the tourism and 
hospitality students in Croatia. In addition, for the purpose of 
quality control of the factors, the data were first tested by 
Bartlett’s test, a statistical test for the overall significance of 
all correlations within a correlation matrix. This indicated that 
factor analysis could be performed to further analyze the data. 
Factor analysis was applied to 40 statements on 
expectations of higher education services, with responses 
on a 5-point Likert scale. Principal component analysis with 
varimax rotation was used in the analysis. The suitability of 
factor analysis was determined by correlation and alpha 
reliability. The criteria for the number of extracted factors 
were based on the characteristic value, variance percentage, 
factor importance and factor structure. Significant factors 
were considered to be those with characteristic value 
equaling or exceeding one. All factors with a value less than 
1 will be considered insignificant and should be disregarded. 
The result amounting to at least 45 per cent of the total 
cumulative variance was considered a satisfactory solution. 
It is considered that a variable has practical importance and 
that it can be included in a factor when its correlation degree 
equals or exceeds 0.50 (Nunnally, 1967). However, 14 
statements are deleted from the expectations scale because 
their factor loadings are less than 0.45. Most of the deleted 
statements are new statements included in SERVQUAL 
scale. The results of factor analysis and reliability analysis 
are presented in Table 3. 
On the basis of varimax rotation 7 significant factors 
were defined on the expectations scale. Factor analysis 
results indicate factor structure with relatively high factor 
coefficients on the corresponding factors. This confirms that 
the factors overlapped the least possible, and that they were 
independently structured. High factor coefficients indicate 
correlation of variables with the factors they define. 
Communality of each of the variables is relatively high 
ranging from 0.50 to 0.82, and this indicates the variance of 
original values being well covered by the factors. 
A seven-dimensional solution for the expectations scale 
results in the following factors (refer to Table 3): 

 Factor 1: Reliability (6 statements, eigenvalue = 6.371, 
18.738 per cent of variance, alpha = 0.7437), 

 Factor 2: Students in scientific work (4 statements, 
eigenvalue = 2.569, 7.556 per cent of variance, alpha = 
0.7281), 

 Factor 3: Empathy (4 statements, eigenvalue = 1.907, 
5.608 per cent of variance, alpha = 0.6802), 

 Factor 4: Assurance (3 statements, eigenvalue = 1.571, 
4.621 per cent of variance, alpha = 0.5255), 

 Factor 5: E-learning (3 statements, eigenvalue = 1.330, 
3.911 per cent of variance, alpha = 0.5255), 

 Factor 6: Responsiveness (3 statements, eigenvalue = 
1.250, 3.678 per cent of variance, alpha = 0.6230), 

 Factor 7: Tangibles (3 statements, eigenvalue = 1.124, 
3.307 per cent of variance, alpha = 0.5569). 
Table 3: Results of factor analysis and reliability analysis 
Notes: (-) negatively worded statements
93 
MARKOVIĆ: EXPECTED SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT IN TOURISM HIGHER EDUCATION 
Five factors from the expectations scale correspond to five 
SERVQUAL factors (dimensions) and two factors (Students 
in scientific work, E-learning) include new statements. 
In addition, reliability analysis was conducted to measure 
the inside of each of the factors. The results indicate that all 
factors exceed the recommended level of 0.50 (Hair et al., 
1995). Alpha coefficients for the expectations scale totals 
0.7783. The relatively high alpha values indicate good internal 
consistency among the statements, and the relatively high 
alpha value for the overall scale indicates that the SERVQUAL 
instrument is reliable and applicable. 
Conclusion 
This study has contributed to knowledge about the service 
quality construct in tourism and hospitality higher education 
in Croatia by refining and developing the existing SERVQUAL 
scale. These findings have demonstrated that the SERVQUAL 
instrument is suitable for use by managers in higher education 
institutions, so that they can confidently design service strategies 
that meet students’ expectations. It has presented further 
challenges to SERVQUAL methodology for assessing students’ 
expectations and perceptions of service quality. 
Further research is being undertaken to validate these 
results. There are several opportunities to extend this study. 
For example, further studies on service quality measurement 
must focus on issues of how different socio-demographic 
variables affect service quality dimensions. Another factor 
that might have to be considered in future research is whether 
the factor structure proposed in this study is valid in other 
faculties in Croatia. 
In this case, the SERVQUAL scale should be treated as 
a useful starting point in the development of service quality 
dimensions in higher education, and not the final answer for 
assessing and improving service quality in higher education. 
References 
1. Anderson, E. (1995) High tech v. high touch: a case study 
of TQM implementation in higher education. Managing 
Service Quality, 5(2), 48-56. 
2. Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. J., Swan, J. E. (1996) 
SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service 
quality. Journal of Service Marketing, 10(6), 62-81. 
3. Athiyaman, A. (1997) Linking student satisfaction and 
service quality perceptions: the case of university education. 
European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540. 
4. Babakus, E., Boller, G. W. (1992) An empirical 
assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business 
Research, 24(3), 253-268. 
5. Barrows, C. W., Bosselman, R. H. (1999) Hospitality 
Management Education, New York, The Haworth 
Hospitality Press. 
6. Bojanic, D. C., Rosen, L. D. (1994). Measuring service 
quality in restaurant: an application of the SERVQUAL 
model. Hospitality Research Journal, 18 (1) 3-14. 
7. Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A. Jr., Peter, J. P. (1993) 
Improving the measurement of service quality. Journal 
of Retailing, 69, 127-139. 
8. Brown, T., J., Churchill, G. A., Peter, J. P. (1993) Research 
note improving the measurement of service quality. 
Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 126-139. 
9. Buttle, F. (1996) SERVQUAL: review, critique, research 
agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1). 
10. Carman, J. M. (1990) Consumer perceptions of service 
quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. 
Journal of Retailing, 60, 33-55. 
11. Cronin, J. J. Jr., Taylor, S. A. (1992) Measuring service 
quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of 
Marketing, 56, 55-68. 
12. Crosby, P. B. (1979) Quality is free. New York, McGraw 
Hill. 
13. Cuthbert, P. F. (1996) Managing service quality in HE: 
is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 1. Managing Service 
Quality, 6(2), 11-16. 
14. Cuthbert, P. F. (1996) Managing service quality in HE: 
is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 2. Managing Service 
Quality, 6(3), 31-35. 
15. Dale, C., Robinson, N. (2001) The teeming of tourism 
education: a three-domain approach. International Journal 
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(1), 30-35. 
16. Davies, B., Baron, S., Gear, T., Read M. (1999) Measuring 
and managing service quality. Marketing Intelligence & 
Planning, 17(1), 33-40. 
17. Doherty, G. D. (1997) Quality, standards, the consumer 
paradigm and development in higher education. Quality 
Assurance in Education, 5(4), 239-248. 
18. Dotchin, J. A., Oakland, J. S. (1994) Total quality 
management in services - Part 1: Understanding and 
classifying services. International Journal of Quality and 
Reliability Management, 11(3), 9-43. 
19. Dotchin, J. A., Oakland, J. S. (1994) Total Quality 
Management in Services: Part 3 – Distinguishing 
Perceptions of Service Quality. International Journal of 
Quality & Reliability Management, 11(4), 6-28. 
20. Fick, G. R., Ritchie, J. R. (1991) Measuring service 
quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of 
Travel Research, 30(2), 2-9. 
21. Gabbie, O., O’Neill, M A. (1996) SERVQUAL and the 
Northern Ireland hotel sector: a comparative analysis – 
part 1. Managing Service Quality, 6(6) 35-41. 
22. Garavan, T. N., Murphy, C. (2001) The co-operative 
education process and organizational socialization: a 
qualitative study of student perceptions of its 
effectiveness. Education + Training, 43(6), 281-302. 
23. Getty, J. M., Thompson, K. N. (1994) A procedure for 
scaling perceptions of lodging quality. Journal of 
Marketing Research, 18(2), 75-96. 
24. Gordon, G. (1995) Higher Education 2005: pointers, 
possibilities, pitfalls, principles. Quality Assurance in 
Education, 3(4), 21-29.
94 
NG, ŠT. 1–2/2006 PREGLEDNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANKI/REVIEW PAPERS 
25. Grönroos, C. (1991) Scandinavian Management and 
Nordic School of Services – Contribution to Service 
Management and Quality. International Journal of 
Service Industry Management, 4(3), 17-25. 
26. Grönroos, C. (1984) A service quality model and its marketing 
implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44. 
27. Gummesson, E. (1991) Truths and Myths in Service 
Quality. International Journal of Service Industry 
Management, 2(3), 7-16. 
28. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. 
(1995) Multivariate Data Analysis. Fifth edition, Prentice- 
Hall International Inc. 
29. Hill, F. (1995) Managing service quality in higher 
education: the role of the student as primary consumer. 
Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21. 
30. Ho, S. K., Wearn, K. (1996) A higher education TQM 
excellence model: HETQMEX. Quality Assurance in 
Education, 4(2), 35-42. 
31. Holmes, G., McElwe, G. (1995) Total quality management 
in higher education. The TQM Magazine, 7(6), 5-10. 
32. Johnson, F. C., Golomskus, A. J. (1999) Quality concepts 
in education. The TQM Magazine, 11(6), 467-473. 
33. Johnson, R. L., Tsiros, M., Lancioni, R. A.(1995) 
Measuring service quality: a systems approach. Journal 
of Service Marketing, 9(5), 6-19. 
34. Knutson, B. J., Stevens, P., Patton, M., Thompson, C. 
(1990) Consumers’ expectations for service quality in 
economy, mid-price and luxury hotel. Journal of 
Hospitality and Leisure Management, 1(2), 27-43. 
35. Lam, S. K. (1997) Measuring service quality: a test-retest 
investigation of SERVQUAL. Journal of the Market 
Research Society, 39(2), 381-396. 
36. Lawrence, J. L., McCollough, M. A. (2001) A conceptual 
framework for guaranteeing higher education. Quality 
Assurance in Education, 9(3), 139-152. 
37. Lee, Y. L., Hing, N. (1995) Measuring quality in 
restaurant operations: an application of the SERVQUAL 
instrument. International Journal of Hospitality 
Management, 14(3), 293-310. 
38. Lewis, R. C. (1981) The market position: mapping guests’ 
perception of hotel operations. The Cornell HRA 
Quarterly, 22(1), 51-61. 
39. Lewis, R. C., Booms, B. (1983) The Marketing Aspects 
of Service Quality. AMA Proceedings, American 
Marketing Association, Chicago, 99-104. 
40. Lickson, J E., Kaupinnen, T. J., Ogg, A. J. (1994) Quality 
management: The multidimensional leadership 
challenge. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 8, 139-152. 
41. Lockwood, A. (1995) Applying service quality concepts to 
hospitality education. Education + Training, 37(4), 34-40. 
42. Lomas, L. (1999) The culture and quality of higher 
education institutions: examining the links. Quality 
Assurance in Education, 7(1), 30-34. 
43. Lomas, L., Tomlinson, K. (2000) Standards: the varying 
perceptions of senior staff in higher education institutions. 
Quality Assurance in Education, 8(3), 131-139. 
44. Markovic, S. (2002) Higher education quality 
measurement: a case study in the application of 
SERVQUAL, Congress proceedings of the 16th Biennial 
International Congress HOTEL & TOURISM 2002 - 
Human Capital, Culture and Quality in Tourism and 
Hospitality Industry, 141-160. 
45. McAdam, R., Welsh, W. (2000) A critical review of the 
business excellence quality model applied to further education 
colleges. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(3), 120-130. 
46. McElwee, G., Redman, T. (1993) Upward appraisal in 
practice. Educational and Training, 35(2), 27-31. 
47. McElwee, G., Scott, J. (2000) Planning for a successful 
teaching quality assessment exercise in business and 
management: a case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 
8(3), 147-151. 
48. McMillan, J. H., Schumacher, S. (1997) Research in 
Education, New York, Longman. 
49. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Methods. McGraw- 
Hill Book Company. 
50. Oakland, J. S. (1993) Total Quality Management, Oxford, 
Professional Publications. 
51. Oldfield, B. M., Baron, S. (2000) Student perceptions of 
service quality in a UK university business and management 
quality. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2), 85-95. 
52. O’Neill, M., Palmer, A. (1996) Survey timing and consumer 
perception of service quality: an overview of empirical 
evidence. Managing Service Quality, 11(3), 182-190. 
53. Owlia, M. S., Aspinwall, E. M. (1996) A framework for 
the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality 
Assurance in Education, 4(2), 12-20. 
54. Owlia, M. S., Aspinwall, E. M. (1997) TQM in higher 
education – a review. International Journal of Quality 
& Reliability Management, 14(5), 527-543. 
55. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L (1985) A 
conceptual model of service quality and its implication 
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50. 
56. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. (1994) 
Reassessment of expectations as comparison standards 
in measuring service quality: implications for further 
research. Journal of Marketing, 58, 111-124. 
57. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. (1991) 
Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. 
Journal of Retailing, 67, 420-450. 
58. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. (1988) 
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring 
consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of 
Retailing, 64, 12-40. 
59. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. L. (1985) A 
conceptual model of service quality and its implication 
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50. 
60. Rigotti, S., Pitt, L. (1992) SERVQUAL as a measuring 
instrument for service provider gaps in business schools. 
Management Research News, 15(3), 9-17. 
61. Robinson, S. (1999) Measuring service quality: current 
thinking and future requirements. Marketing Intelligence 
& Planning, 117(1), 21-32.
95 
62. Robledo, M. A. (2001) Measuring and managing service 
quality: integrating customer expectations. Managing 
Service Quality, 11(1), 22-31. 
63. Sasser, W. E., Olsen, R. P., Wyckoff, D. D. (1978) 
Management of service operations – text, cases and 
readings. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. 
64. Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., Gutman, E. 
G. (1985) A role theory perspective of dyadic interactions: 
The service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49, 86-96. 
65. Stevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M. (1995) DINESERV: 
A Tools for Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants. 
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 
April, 56-60. 
66. Teas, R. K. (1994) Expectations as a comparison standard in 
measuring service quality: an assessment of a reassessment. 
Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 132-139. 
67. Teas, R. K. (1993) Expectations, performance evaluation 
and consumers’ perceptions of quality. Journal of 
Marketing, 57, 18-34. 
68.Webster’s dictionary. 
69.Yorke, M. (1999) Assuring quality and standards in 
globalize higher education. Quality Assurance in 
Education, 7(1), 14-24. 
70. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. (1990) 
Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer 
Perceptions and Expectations, New York, The Free Press. 
MARKOVIĆ: EXPECTED SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT IN TOURISM HIGHER EDUCATION