SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

The SERVQUAL instrument to measure service

quality in higher education – A case study
1,*
Ana Rolo1* , Rui Alves2, Margarida Saraiva33, and
and Gracieth
Gracieth Leandro
Leandro44
1CICE, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Portugal
2Instituto
Politécnico de Setúbal, Portugal
3Universidade de Évora, Portugal
4Universidade Agostinho Neto, Luanda

Abstract:. Students and employers, are the "clients" of Higher Education

Institutions (HEI), so it is important to obtain their feedback on the quality of
HEI and the courses they attend. This article aims to listen to students' opinion
as "clients" of higher education, based on their expectations and perceptions,
to measure the quality of the service of HEI. The results from empirical
research were presented on the measurement of expectations and perceptions
to assess the quality of services provided by a HEI perceived by students, based
on observations obtained through survey. Quantitative methodology and data
analysis techniques were applied. The SERVQUAL questionnaire was filled
by 271 students who attended the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year of the five undergraduate
courses taught by the institution, in the academic year 2021/2022. The values
obtained for the expectations were very high which translated into negative
deviations (Gaps). Thus, we can conclude that ESCE students are very
demanding, have high expectations or are very demanding when they classify
perceptions by assigning them low values.
Keywords: Higher Education, Service Quality, SERVQUAL.

1 Introduction
Schools have generally been outside the concepts and theories of management. However, a
school is an organization, with a similar structure to the one of the public companies.
In the current political and economic context, characterizes by cuts in the budget and
shortage of students, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) directors started to give greater
attention to the problem of quality and to act as a company in the global market.
Thus, HEI, which in the past did not have to concern to attract students (the number of
students applying for Higher Education was always much higher than the vacancies available,
even considering competition from institutions private) have had to readapt to a very different
reality in recent years. The decrease in the birth rate that has been observed in Portugal
(Figure 1), has contributed to the decrease in the student population applying for higher
education, so, there is more supply than demand according to the market laws. In another
hand, HEI are integrated in a competitive market, and they face challenges due to the
evaluation of the results of the services of education and training that they offer. The school

*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

increasingly needs to be competitive to make the difference from its competitors through the
quality of education and reputation of the institution. Prestige is constructed on quality
objectives. There is a need for urgent changes in the education system and schools. This can
be obtained by the implementation of a new model of management centered on the quality
of services supplied to customers.

Fig. 1. Birth Rate Evolution (1960-2021) .

Source: https://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Taxa+bruta+de+natalidade-527.

The Portuguese higher education system is now characterized by: high number of public and
private institutions; excessive numbers of graduation courses; absence of a relationship
between educational activities and academic research and an inappropriate name of courses
for marketing purposes.
In this context, quality plays a key role in differentiating the offer and will influence
students' choice, forcing HEIs to prioritize these aspects, as they cannot remain outside the
concepts and theories of marketing and management.
Another challenge relates to the evaluation of the results of the education and training
services they offer, by external entities. To this end, structures were created with the aim of
evaluating and monitoring the activities carried out by HEIs, such as the Higher Education
Assessment and Accreditation Agency (A3ES). The main objective of A3ES “is to improve
the quality of performance of higher education institutions and their study cycles and ensure
compliance with basic requirements” (in http://www.a3es.pt).
This article aims to listen to students' opinion as "clients" of higher education, based on
their expectations and perceptions, to measure the quality of the service of HEI and to identify
characteristics of services that are important to students in order to provide guidelines for
ESCE's strategic planning. By having access to this information, ESCE can accomplish its
mission more efficiently.
Research Questions:
1. Does quality in education have 5 dimensions as is out forward Parasuraman et al. to
the quality of services?
2. Do the dimensions have the same relative importance?
3. Are the dimensions identified as most important by the students included as priorities
in the strategic planning of ESCE – IPS?
4. What are the most important determinants of overall service quality in ESCE?

The paper is organized as follows: Section 1 describes the theoretical basis and presents
SERVQUAL Model as well as the description of the Expectations versus Perceptions as basis

2
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

of this construct. Section 2 - Data and Methods, presents the methodological approach
applied in the analysis of data gathering and the description of the case study. Section 3 shows
some of the results and introduces a discussion of findings. At the end, Section 4, presents
the identified limitations and future research directions.

2 Theoretical Basis
basis
In this section, we introduce a literature review os the SERVQUAL Model and a brief
description about other models that can be applied to measure HEI service quality.

2.1 SERVQUAL model

Model
SERVQUAL is a multidimensional research instrument designed to measure service quality
by capturing respondent’s expectations and perceptions along five dimensions of service
quality [1, 2].
According to the same authors [2, 3], the main objective of the SERVQUAL model is to
design measurement scales that allow evaluating the quality of services based on the
difference between expectations and perceptions of customers. The service expected by the
customer is the standard or “benchmark” against which experiences are compared; as
performance exceeds expectations, service quality increases and vice versa.
The measurement of quality in services is characterized by being complex, abstract,
multifactorial (influenced by multiple factors with different weights) and intangible and is
defined as the degree of adjustment between the characteristics of the service and the
attributes valued by the customer. These characteristics are not always easy to translate, due
to the nature of the service itself, which enjoys the following characteristics: intangibility (it
has no physical existence, cannot be viewed or touched, which prevents the establishment of
precise specifications), perishability (production and consumption occur simultaneously),
inseparability (the customer participates in the production process, being able not only to
participate passively, but also as a co-producer of the service) and variability (their
performance varies from person to person, from consumer to consumer and from day to day).
If we intend to define service, [4] defines it as a process constituted by a set of intangible
activities that, generally but not always, are carried out through interaction between
customers and resources of the entity providing the service (human, physical and computer
resources), activities that are provided as solutions to customer problems.
[5], states that a service is a psychological and fundamentally personal result. For this
author, the purpose of listening to customers about what they are experiencing is to find out
what to improve to keep customers or get new ones. The customer's participation is an
excellent opportunity to listen to him; [6] states that all major service quality studies agree
that service quality is so subjective that it can only be measured in terms of what consumers
want or define as quality.

Expectations versus Perceptions

perceptions

The SERVQUAL model measures the expectations - what the customer expects to get from
a given experience or service and constitute a frame of reference or basis for the consumer to
evaluate the performance of each service. Customer expectations, when correctly identified,
are valuable information for organizations.
The model also measures customers' perceptions of the service they experience, which
reflect their experience.


3
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

Fig. 2. SERVQUAL Model.

Source: Own processing.

As observed in Figure 2, Service Process is measured by the difference between

customers’ expectations before service experience and their perceptions after service
experience. The result of this difference can be positive, null or negative. If it is positive, the
service exceeded the customer's initial expectations and customers classify service quality as
ideal; if it is null, quality is classified as satisfactory; if the result is negative, the perception
of service quality has not the best and didn’t achieve customers’ expectations; in this case
quality is considered unacceptable.

2.2 Other models

Models
There are are
There other models
other to measure
models thethe
to measure quality ofof
quality services
servicesinineducation,
education,such
suchasasHEdPERF
HEdPERF
(Higher Education Performance-only) as used by [7]. In their study, the authors proposed 41-
item instrument based on the SERVPERF model. The purpose of this scale is to measure
service quality specifically in the higher education sector, as according to the author, the
generic scales presented previously may not be adequate for this purpose. The results were
crucial because previous studies have produced scales that bear a resemblance to the generic
measures of service quality, which may not be totally adequate to assess the perceived quality
in higher education. Previous research focus only on academic’s quality and gives few
attention to non-academic aspects of the educational experience.
The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) is another model applicable
to measuring quality in services. This excellence model has been widely used by Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs), but knowledge about its application in the context of HEIs is
still limited [8, 9].
This research [10, 11] presents the comparison of the SERVPERF model with other
generic instruments. determine which of these three instruments has superior measurement
capacity in terms of one-dimensionality, reliability, validity and explained variance of service
quality. The HEdPERF, designed exclusively for higher education, is empirically tested as
the most comprehensive and industry-specific scale.

3 Data and methods

Methods
In order to test the SERVQUAL model and answer the listed research questions, the
questionnaire was applied to ESCE (School of Business Administration) students at the
Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal.

4
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

study –– ESCE
3.1 Case Study ESCE
ESCE was founded in 1994, and from the beginning sought an opening strategy that would
allow ESCE to offer its students, courses that would provide training to integrate them into
the business world. Although the school did not have it at the time, a culture of quality was
being built in the continuous search for higher levels of performance and this has been its
aim in recent years. Being competitive is having the ability to respond to market needs. ESCE
knows that the differentiating factor between HEIs is related to quality improvement, which
is why it has institutionalized a set of procedures capable of permanently evaluating the
pedagogical functioning of the subjects and the quality of the teaching-learning process.

3.2 Methodology

The case study is one where the modified SERVQUAL Model was applied to ESCE to
measure the students’ expectations and perceptions of the service quality carried by this
institution. A quantitative methodology was used, and data analysis techniques were applied
to the available elements, with the aid of the SPSS statistical software. The SERVQUAL
questionnaire (Appendix 1), using a likert scale of 7 points, was completed by a stratified
sample of 271 students, attending the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of the five undergraduate courses
offered by ESCE in the 2021/2022 academic year. The questionnaires were distributed by
email to students using the Survey Monkey platform. The response rate was 26%.
This SERVQUAL questionnaire includes a third section, that measures the relative
importance of the five dimensions to the students. These scores are then used to weight the
perceived service quality measure for each dimension.
To proceed to the interpretation of Principal Components (PC’s), we used Oblimin
rotation, the same method used by [2]. We found the first PC is related to Reliability and the
fourth PC is Tangibility. This two PCs are the same dimensions defended by the authors. The
other PC’s do not coincide exactly with the model; the second PC corresponds to Reputation,
and is constituted by the questions G16, G18, G20, G21 and G22; third dimension can be
assigned for Professors, and the last by Attendance Level (G19) - (Appendix 1). A measuring
instrument such SERVQUAL scale needs to have trustworthiness and validity in acceptable
degrees. To measure the reliability of the dimensions, we calculated Croanbach’s Alpha
coefficient to analyse the internal consistency of the scale for the variables (items) restrained
in each dimension. We consider acceptable coefficients bigger or equal to 0.7 [12]. The
values obtained for the Alpha of Croanbach in the 22 items was 0.86 (Appendix 2). That
value indicates that items can be applied to the analysis with acceptable reliability.

4 Results and Discussion

The results of the questionnaire allow us to observe that the students who answered the survey
attributed greater importance to the “capacity of the teaching staff” and the least important
dimension was the “appearance of the physical equipment”. In literature, we always find
reliability first and tangibility last. The other three dimensions in the path without specific
order a time that varies according to the area of application, therefore it coincides with our
results. As followed by the authors, the GAP variable was calculated (Gap results from the
difference between expectations and perceptions, and which will be identified by G1, G2, …,
G22). Then, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied. The values obtained for
expectations are very high, resulting in negative gaps. Only the Tangibility dimension items
show positive differences, so we can conclude that ESCE students are quite demanding and
have high expectations. The data were adjusted for the application of the PCA using the
Bartlett Test, where p-value = 0.000, and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Statistics (KMO) = 0.840. We

5
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

used Kaiser criteria and scree plot to extract the five main components. The retained
components explain 64.38% of the accumulated variance. To proceed with the interpretation
of the components, oblique rotation was applied, as in the original SERVQUAL Model.
The use of expectations in measuring the quality of services is particularly important
because they provide essential information in situations where different groups have similar
perception values, which would make us think that there were no differences in the
assessment of quality. However, analysing the expectations and consequently the values of
the gaps (differences), the conclusions may change.
It is strategic for Higher Education Institutions to know the level of student satisfaction,
since they act as disseminators of information by sharing their experience through forums,
chats or the so-called "word of mouth", now supported by social networks that make it
exponential [8]. A student's bad experience can take on overwhelming proportions if shared
on social media.
Regarding the research questions, we can conclude that:
1. After applying the PCA, we had five dimensions according to the studies carried out
by the authors [1, 2, 3]. However, the dimensions are not exactly the same. Although some
of the dimensions are the same, there are differences that can be explained by the unique and
specific characteristics of the HEI and by adapting the questions from the original
questionnaire.
2. Dimensions do not all have the same relative importance.
3. From data analyse, it was possible to observe that the dimensions to which the
respondents attributed greater importance was the “Reliability” and “Professors”. These two
dimensions are included as priorities in the strategic planning of ESCE – IPS. Reliability is
measured and monitored through student surveys, control of the success rate in the course in
terms of grades and student results. “Professors” dimension, it has been a constant
commitment: the offer of pedagogical training, and in innovative pedagogical tools; support
for scientific production and scientific projects, Erasmus mobility and support for
participation in congresses and conferences. Collaborative work and the establishment of
internal research networks were also encouraged.
The appearance of the physical equipment was the aspect valued as least important by the
students. We can also observe that the values obtained for expectations were very high, which
resulted in negative gaps. We can conclude that ESCE students are quite demanding, have
high expectations or are very demanding in classifying perceptions, assigning them low
values.
4. The dimension considered most important by the students who responded to the survey
was the quality of teaching and the reputation of the institution (with 42.7%), followed by
teaching capacity. The least important dimension was the appearance of the physical
equipment (tangibility).

5 Final Considerations
considerations
This study intended to draw attention to the problem of measuring students' expectations
versus perceptions, which translates into a somewhat thankless task since the object of study
is immaterial, and therefore there is an enormous subjectivity associated with this
measurement.
In terms of practical implications, this study provides a structure and an application of
SERVQUAL instrument that can be used by higher education institutions with a view to
continuously improve educational quality [13].
Evaluating service quality level and understanding how various dimensions impact
overall service quality enable educational institutions to efficiently design the service to

6
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

provide a better allocation of resources and a better service to students [7]. Higher Education
Institutions should concentrate their efforts on the perceived dimensions to focus their energy
on a few attributes which are more important to service quality.
According to [17], whose article sought to gather articles on measuring the quality of care
in HEIs through the HEdPERF scale. They found the HEdPERF scale application in studies
in Brazil, China, Croatia, India, Malaysia, Portugal, Sri Lanka and Turkey [17, 18, 19].

5.1 Limitations and Future Researchdirections

future research Directions

Despite the consensus regarding the relevance of service quality in HEI, it is still a challenge
to identify the most adequate measurement instrument [20] that allows best understanding of
prior aspects and consequences of service quality, in order to promote methods that can
improve quality and achieve a competitive edge.
When measuring customer expectations in terms of service quality, all research methods
have limitations and weaknesses, so mixed models (qualitative and quantitative) should be
used to minimize weaknesses and identify consistent information.
In this study, the SERVQUAL instrument is used to assess student satisfaction, through
the difference between their expectations and perceptions [1, 2]. It should be noted that the
results may have been influenced by the Covid 19 pandemic [15], since some of the students
joined ESCE when we were in distance learning carried out through different platforms
(zoom, moodle and Teams). Therefore, we think that this study would have better results if
it also considered these other components or if it considered only perceptions, as there are
critics who argue that expectations may be related to an ideal situation, an excellent
institution, which does not exist. This study especially focused on SERVQUAL scales, which
is no replacement for more specific research, considering other methods that may be applied
in the educational sector for evaluating service quality such us HEdPERF or SERVPERF.
The data resulting from the SERVQUAL application must be analysed in detail in order
to identify deficiencies in quality and define corrective actions.
Furthermore, when an HEI intends to implement quality improvement, it can use the
SERVQUAL instrument, but with some restrictions [18], so that in future research other
models already identified, HEdPERF [7, 11, 17] or EFQM [8] will be used.

References
1. A. Parasuraman, L. Berry, V. Zeithaml, Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale, Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 57-67 (1991)
2. A. Parasuraman, V. Zeithaml, L. Berry, A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50 (1985)
3. A. Parasuraman, V. Zeithaml, L. Berry, SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring
customer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40 (1988)
4. C. Gronroos, Service management and marketing: A customer relationship
management approach, Second Ed., John Wiley & Sons (2000)
5. K. Albrecht, Serviços com qualidade: A vantagem competitiva, São Paulo: Makron
Books (1992)
6. J. Quinn, Intelligent enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry,
Free Press (1992)
7. F Abdullah, The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service
quality for the higher education sector, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
30(6), 569 – 581 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00480.x

7
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

8. R. Laurett, L. Mendes, EFQM model’s application in the context of higher education:

A systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 36(2), 257-285.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-12-2017-0282 (2019)
9. S. Hajdari, Service quality in higher education institutions an overview of models
assessing it, European Journal of Business and Management Research, 4(3), 1-4 (2019)
10. F. Abdullah, Measuring service quality in higher education: three instruments
compared, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 71-89,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537445 (2006)
11. F. Abdullah, The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service
quality for the higher education sector, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30,
569-581 (2006)
12. M. Bujang, E. Omar, N. Baharum, A review on sample size determination for
Cronbach's Alpha test: A simple guide for researchers. Malays Journal of Medicine
Science. 25(6), 85-99 (2018)
13. V. Teeroovengadum, T. Kamalanabhan, A. Seebaluck, Measuring service quality in
higher education: Development of a hierarchical model (HESQUAL), Quality Assurance
in Education, 24(2), 244-258 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-06-2014-0028
14. P. Kotler, Marketing Management – Global Edition, Pearson Education, Inc. 16th ed. (2021)
15. M. Camilleri, Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education
institutions: a systematic review and a post-COVID-19 outlook, International Journal
of Quality and Service Sciences, 13(2), 268-281 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-
03-2020-0034
16. J. Abbas, HEISQUAL: A modern approach to measure service quality in higher
education institutions, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67, 100933 (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100933
17. D. Silva, G. Moraes, I. Makiya, F. Cesar, Measurement of perceived service quality in
higher education institutions: A review of HEdPERF scale use, Quality Assurance in
Education, 25(4), 415-439. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2016-0058 (2017)
18. K. Fuchs, K. Fangpong, Using the SERVQUAL framework to examine the service
quality in higher education in Thailand. In: Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(2), 363-
370 (2021)
19. F. Khattab, Developing a service quality model for private higher education institutions
in Lebanon, J. Mgt. Mkt. Review, 3(1), 24–33 (2018),
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3157742
20. A. Brochado, Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher
education, Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2), 174-190 (2009)

8
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

Appendix 1

Questionnaire to Measure the Quality of the Services in a Higher Educations

Institution (HEI) – PART A

Please, think about your concept of the ideal High School and the quality of services they provide. This questionnaire
has two parts. The first part is concerned with your perceptions of Higher Education Institutions in general, while the
second part is concerned with College of Business Administration (ESCE) – Polytechnic of Setúbal in particular.
Please, show the extent to which you think that HEI, in general, should possess the feature, please circle 7. If you strongly
disagree that HEI should possess the feature, please circle 1. If your views are not strong circle one of the numbers in
the middle. There are no right or wrong answers. All we are interest in are your expectations about Higher Education
Institutions services.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree Disagree

1. Excellent HEI has modern technical equipment for the education process (i.e., computers/beamers)
2. Physical facilities of excellent HEI are visually appealing (building and surroundings)
3. Excellent HEI has physical facilities (parking, computers) in appropriate dimension to the number of
students
4. Teaching materials are available and up to date (study programs, brochures, student guides)
5. Classes are held in accordance with the schedule of lectures and without delays
6. When you have a problem, excellent HEI staff show a sincere interest in solving it
7. The Excellent HEI takes care about the interest of the students (with the social aspects: residences,
scholarships…)
8. In Excellent HEI the plans of the courses and the programs are fulfilled in integrates
9. The lessons given in excellent HEI are well prepared
10. Academic staff of excellent HEI have scientific abilities to answer student’s questions and doubts
11. Academic staff of excellent HEI are always willing to help students (in classroom)
12. Academic staff are available for consultations and are forthcoming with students
13. Academic staff of excellent HEI have research productivity (publish books, magazine articles, doctoral
thesis)
14. Academic staff of excellent HEI have good communication skills
15. Students of excellent HEI are informed promptly of the important dates such as: examinations,
registrations, seminars
16. Employers trust in the quality of education of excellent HEI
17. Academic staff of excellent HEI apply pedagogic methods in their lessons
18. In excellent HEI, the services supplied by sub-contracted companies (security, cleanness, bar) have
good quality
19. Excellent HEI have class time and office hours convenient to all their students
20. The compositions of academic staff influence excellent HEI reputation
21. The reputation of the HEI influences the choice of the employers
22. The reputation of the HEI influence student’s choice

The 5 factors that characterize service quality are listed below. We ask you to distribute 100 points for each factor,
according to the weight you consider they have in measuring the quality of services.

1. Appearance of physical facilities and communication materials ________

2. HEI ability to answer to student’s necessities ________
3. Skills of the academic and non-academic staff ________
4. Confidence of academic and non-academic staff ________
5. Quality of educations and prestige of the Institution ________

TOTAL OF POINTS: 100 Points

Questionnaire to Measure the Quality of the Services in a Higher Educations
Institution (HEI) – PART B

9
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

The following questions are related to your feelings about ESCE. Please choose the number of the Likert-
scale, that better represents your perceptions about ESCE.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree Disagree

1. ESCE has modern technical equipment for the education process (i.e., computers/beamers)
2. ESCE physical facilities are visually appealing (building and surroundings)
3. ESCE has physical facilities (parking, computers) in appropriate dimension to the number of students
4. At ESCE, teaching materials are available and up to date (study programs, brochures, student guides)
5. At ESCE, classes are held in accordance with the schedule of lectures and without delays
6. When you have a problem, ESCE staff show a sincere interest in solving it
7. ESCE takes care about the interest of the students (with the social aspects: residences, scholarships…)
8. At ESCE the plans of the courses and the programs are fulfilled in integrates
9. The lessons given in ESCE are well prepared
10. ESCE academic staff have scientific abilities to answer student’s questions and doubts
11. ESCE academic staff are always willing to help students (in classroom)
12. ESCE academic staff are available for consultations and are forthcoming with students
13. ESCE academic staff have research productivity (publish books, magazine articles, doctoral thesis)
14. ESCE academic staff have good communication skills
15. Students of ESCE are informed promptly of the important dates such as: examinations, registrations,
seminars
16. Employers trust in the quality of education of ESCE
17. ESCE academic staff apply pedagogic methods in their lessons
18. At ESCE, the services supplied by sub-contracted companies (security, cleanness, bar) have good
quality
19. ESCE have class time and office hours convenient to all their students
20. The compositions of academic staff influence ESCE reputation
21. The reputation of the ESCE influences the choice of the employers
22. The reputation of the ESCE influence students’ choice

Will you recommend ESCE to your friends and family? Yes No

Personal Information:

Course: CF GRH MKT GDL GSI

\ \ \ \
Year: 1º 2º 3º

Gender: Male: Female:

Age: 20 or less 21 – 25 26 – 30 31 – 35 more than 36

Situation: Full-time student Part-time student

Thank you for your collaboration!!!

Appendix 2

Cronbach’s Coeficients to the items and dimensions

10
SHS Web of Conferences 160, 01011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316001011
IES2022

ƌŽŶďĂĐŚΖƐ
W ZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ
/ƚĞŵ ŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐͲK>/D/E
>ŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ĐŽĞĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ;ǁŚĞŶ
ŝƚĞŵǁĂƐĚĞůĞƚĞĚͿ
Z>//>/dz;Ϭ͕ϴϰϱͿ
'ϱ ƚ^ĐůĂƐƐĞƐĂƌĞŚĞůĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨůĞĐƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĚĞůĂLJƐ Ϭ͕ϴϱϳ Ϭ͕ϴϬϱ

'ϲ tŚĞŶLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂƉƌŽďůĞŵ^ƐƚĂĨĨƐŚŽǁĂƐŝŶĐĞƌĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶƐŽůǀŝŶŐŝƚ Ϭ͕ϳϬϳ Ϭ͕ϴϬϳ

^ƚĂŬĞĐĂƌĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝĨƚŚĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ;ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐŽĐŝĂůĂƐƉĞĐƚƐ͗ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐ͕
'ϳ Ϭ͕ϳϱ Ϭ͕ϴϭϰ
scholarships,…)
'ϴ ƚ^ƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂƌĞĨƵůĨŝůůĞĚŝŶŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞƐ Ϭ͕ϴϭϴ Ϭ͕ϴϬϲ

'ϵ dŚĞůĞƐƐŽŶƐŐŝǀĞŶĂƚ^ĂƌĞǁĞůůƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ Ϭ͕ϰϱϵ Ϭ͕ϴϯϰ

ZWhdd/KE;Ϭ͕ϳϵϬͿ

'ϭϲ dŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƐƚƌƵƐƚŝŶƚŚĞƋƵĂůŝƚLJŽĨĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ Ϭ͕ϲϲϮ Ϭ͕ϳϰϰ

At ESCE, the services supplied by sub-contracted companies (security, cleanness, bar,…) have
'ϭϴ Ϭ͕ϳϮϲ Ϭ͕ϳϯϰ
ŐŽŽĚƋƵĂůŝƚLJ

'ϮϬ dŚĞĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶŽĨĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐƚĂĨĨŝŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞƐ^ƌĞƉƵƚĂƚŝŽŶ Ϭ͕ϱϯϮ Ϭ͕ϳϵϵ

'Ϯϭ dŚĞƌĞƉƵƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ŝŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞĐŚŽŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƚŝĞƐĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƐ Ϭ͕ϳϴϯ Ϭ͕ϳϰϰ

'ϮϮ dŚĞƌĞƉƵƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ŝŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞƐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĐŚŽŝĐĞ Ϭ͕ϴϲϱ Ϭ͕ϳϮϱ

WZK&^^KZ^;Ϭ͕ϵϬϳͿ
'ϭϬ Academic staff of ESCE have scientific abilities to answer student’s questions and doubts ͲϬ͕ϰϴϮ Ϭ͕ϵϮϴ
'ϭϭ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐƚĂĨĨŽĨ^ĂƌĞĂůǁĂLJƐǁŝůůŝŶŐƚŽŚĞůƉƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ;ŝŶƚŚĞĐůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵͿ ͲϬ͕ϴϴϲ Ϭ͕ϴϳϵ

'ϭϮ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐƚĂĨĨĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĂƌĞĨŽƌƚŚĐŽŵŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ͲϬ͕ϴ Ϭ͕ϴϳϵ

ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐƚĂĨĨŽĨ^ŚĂǀĞƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ;ƉƵďůŝƐŚŬƐ͕ŵĂŐĂnjŝŶĞĂƌƚŝĐůĞƐ͕ĚŽĐƚŽƌĂů
'ϭϯ ͲϬ͕ϴϮϵ Ϭ͕ϴϴ
ƚŚĞƐŝƐͿ
'ϭϰ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐƚĂĨĨŽĨ^ŚĂǀĞŐŽŽĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŬŝůůƐ ͲϬ͕ϴϮϲ Ϭ͕Ϭϴϴϰ

'ϭϳ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐƚĂĨĨŽĨ^ĂƉƉůLJƉĞĚĂŐŽŐŝĐŵĞƚŚŽĚƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌůĞƐƐŽŶƐ ͲϬ͕ϴϮϴ Ϭ͕ϴϵϰ

dE'/>^;Ϭ͕ϲϴϱͿ
dŚĞĨĂĐƵůƚLJŚĂƐŵŽĚĞƌŶƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘
'ϭ Ϭ͕ϰϴϮ Ϭ͕ϲϵϰ
ĐŽŵƉƵƚĞƌƐͬďĞĂŵĞƌƐͿ

'Ϯ WŚLJƐŝĐĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞǀŝƐƵĂůůLJĂƉƉĞĂůŝŶŐ;ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽŶĚŝŶŐƐͿ Ϭ͕ϲϲϱ Ϭ͕ϲϬϲ

'ϯ WŚLJƐŝĐĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ;ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕ĐŽŵƉƵƚĞƌƐͿŝŶĂƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ Ϭ͕ϳϲϯ Ϭ͕ϲϭϵ

'ϰ dĞĂĐŚŝŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂŶĚƵƉͲƚŽͲĚĂƚĞ;ƐƚƵĚLJƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ďƌŽĐŚƵƌĞƐ͕ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚŐƵŝĚĞƐͿ Ϭ͕ϴϴϴ Ϭ͕ϱϯϵ

ddEE>s>;ͲͿ
^ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚƉƌŽŵƉůLJŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĚĂƚĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐ͗ĞdžĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕
'ϭϱ Ϭ͕ϯϱϮ Ă
ƌĞŐŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƐĞŵŝŶĂƌƐ
'ϭϵ ^ŚĂƐĐůĂƐƐƚŝŵĞĂŶĚŽĨĨŝĐĞŚŽƵƌƐĐŽŶǀŝŶŝĞŶƚƚŽĂůůƚŚĞŝƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ Ϭ͕ϳϲϴ Ă

11