Service Quality Report Final-version

Service Quality Study: GCU Students with Disabilities 1.0

Introduction and Background

The attainment of quality in products and services became a pivotal concern in the 1980s but while quality of tangible goods had been well described and measured; Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valarie, A., and Berry, Leonard, L. (PZB) found that quality in services had at that time been largely undefined and under-researched. This finding led to an extensive research study (PZB 1985) to put forward a model of service quality and instruments. The further development of the SERVQUAL model in a series of publications (PBZ 1990; 1991; and PZB 1988; 1991; 1993; 1994a; 1994b) has led to it being the most widely used measure of service quality but the most severely criticised. The service quality shortfall is represented in Gap 5 of the SERVQUAL model (Figure 1) which contests that any discrepancy between customer expectations and their perceptions of the service delivered, is a result of the influences exerted from the customer side, with the shortfalls (Gaps 1-4 in SERVQUAL model) being caused by the service provider. The portability of the SERVQUAL scale into the non-profit and voluntary sector was found to be problematic for the measurement of service quality. The five SERVQUAL ‘RATER’ dimensions: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy and Responsiveness and their associated service quality attributes were not transferable into the sector and this led to the need for primary research to establish the specific service quality attributes used in the evaluation of service quality by service recipients. Early research work (Donnelly, Shiu, Dalrymple and Wisniewski, 1996; Vaughan and Shiu 1995; Vaughan and Shiu 1996; Shiu, Vaughan and Donnelly, 1997; Vaughan and Shiu 2001) in the area of service quality within the non-profit and voluntary sector had signaled the need for a bespoke service quality model and instruments for the measurement of the disabled consumers’ view of the quality of service delivery. 1.1

Primary Research into Service Quality in Non-Profit and Voluntary sector: Disabled Consumer Segment

Primary research was needed to establish the specific service quality attributes used in the evaluation of service quality by disabled recipients. This would then enable a multi-item scale to be developed to specifically measure service quality in the disabled consumer segment of the non-profit and voluntary sector. Qualitative research was undertaken, involving 7 focus group discussions across two major Scottish voluntary organisations, to gain an insight into how disabled service users define and evaluate overall service quality within the non-profit and voluntary. Analysis of the transcripts using grounded theory produced 40 emerging service quality attributes across 12 hypothesised dimensions which were then compared to the SERVQUAL model.

1

FIGURE 1

Word-of-Mouth Communications

Personal Needs

Past Experience

Expected Service Gap 5

CUSTOMER

PROVIDER

Perceived Service Gap 4 Service Delivery Gap 3

Gap 1

External Communications to Customers

Service Quality Specifications Gap 2 Management Perceptions of Customer Expectations

Figure 1 (Conceptual Model of Service Quality Zeithaml et al. 1990)

2

A quantitative confirmatory study was then conducted to capture data on expectations, perceptions and importance of the 40 identified service quality attributes. Principal Component Analysis was used in the analysis of the resultant data to determine the degree of redundancy in the 40 service quality attributes. This revealed that 99% of the variation (or information) in the data could be explained by around 26 attributes. Hence, for the loss of a 1% amount of information, the survey instrument can potentially be reduced by 14 attributes (from 40 to 26). Correlation Analysis was also applied to determine pairs or clusters of attributes considered conceptually similar by respondents and so identify attributes that had a high correlation with one or more attributes. Qualitative analysis of the attribute correlations resulted in 26 attributes across 10 hypothesised service quality dimensions as follows: Service Quality Dimensions A Access (distinct from PZB) R Responsiveness C Communication H Humaneness S Security E Enabling/Empowerment C Competence R Reliability E Equity T Tangibles The 10 dimensions were arranged under the acronym ARCHSECRET which infers no ordering of each dimension rather it was a convenient title for the emerging hypothesised model of service quality for the non-profit and voluntary sector. The results of this early research resulted in a multi-item scale to measure service quality as perceived by disabled service users within the non-profit and voluntary sector. The resultant scale comprised a set of service quality features that were distinct from SERVQUAL and a set of ten hypothesised dimensions attuned to the nature of service quality evaluations from service recipients in the voluntary sector. The key anticipated benefits from using ARCHSECRET as a measurement tool are that it measures service user perceived service shortfalls; it improves the quality of decision making in the allocation of scarce resources to these areas of shortfall; and it can be used to track service quality performance in a continuation audit of the organisation’s quality of service delivery. It is believed that the ARCHSECRET scale could be a powerful diagnostic tool for management in their bid to sustain continuous quality improvement and ensure the most effective use of scarce resources.

3

1.2

GCU ARCHSECRET Service Quality Study: Students with Disabilities

ARCHSECRET is a model and instruments for measuring service quality, based on the assumption that service quality is critically determined by the difference between customers' expectations of excellence and their perceptions of the service actually delivered. The ARCHSECRET model has been developed specifically for the disabled consumer segment of the market. The GCU study was undertaken to investigate the level of service quality shortfall experienced across the 10 dimensions of the ARCHSECRET model by students with disabilities. The questionnaire was a highly structured instrument whose format was as follows: Type of Disability: Learning, Visual, Hearing, Medical, Mental Health, Mobility Number of years experience of the University Level of satisfaction (CSAT) with overall services, using 7 point Semantic Differential ‘degree of satisfaction’ scale

• • •

Completely dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Mildly dissatisfied

1

2

3

Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 4

Mildly satisfied

Very satisfied

Completely satisfied

5

6

7

Perceptions of Service Performance: Set of 26 statements across the 10 dimensions of ARCHSECRET, benchmarked against excellence in SQ, using a 7 point Likert ‘degree of agreement’ scale

•

Absolutely Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Slightly Disagree

1

2

3

Neither Disagree nor Agree 4

Slightly Agree

Strongly Agree

Absolutely Agree

5

6

7

Access: (3 statements) 1. The organisation is willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of the client’s right to services. 2. The organisation ensures accessibility to physical facilities, personnel, equipment, communication materials and the service. 3. The organisation makes available information, advice and support on potential funding sources to the clients.

Responsiveness: (4 statements) 4

4. Staff at the organisation provide prompt and timely service to clients. 5. The organisation constructively handles client complaints. 6. The organisation is willing to defend and fight for individual client rights. 7. The organisation provides a flexible service to meet individual client needs. Communication: (4 statements) 8. Staff at the organisation are polite and courteous with clients. 9. Staff at the organisation are willing to listen to individual client’s point of view. 10.Staff at the organisation communicate in a language that is understood by clients. 11.The organisation provides complete and accurate information to clients in good time. Humaneness: (3 statements) 12.Staff at the organisation are willing to help with client concerns and to reassure them in terms of their personal anxieties. 13.Staff at the organisation respond sympathetically to individual client needs, while respecting their privacy. 14.Staff at the organisation respect client confidences and feelings. Security: (2 statements) 15.Clients of the organisation feel safe under the care of the staff. 16.The organisation maintains accurate and secure client records. Enabling/Empowerment (2 statements) 17.The organisation creates the environment to enable individual clients to take responsibility for their personal development. 18.The organisation provides opportunities and support for clients to attain their personal goals. Competence: (3 statements) 19.The organisation is able to deliver the level of service required by clients, with clearly stated terms and conditions. 20.The organisation has the required number of staff who have the ability to do the job. 21.The organisation is able to deliver the full range of services to meet the changing needs of individual clients. Reliability: (3 statements) 22.Staff at the organisation deliver the appropriate service as promised. 23.The organisation provides a dependable service which does not vary over time. 24.The behaviour of staff at the organisation make you feel that you can trust them and have confidence in them. Equity: (1 statement) 25.The organisation delivers an equitable service across individual clients as well as groups of clients. Tangibles: (1 statement) 26.The organisation has a full range of up-to-date physical facilities and equipment. •

Overall service quality assessment (SQ), using a 7 point good/bad Semantic Differential scale 5

Extremely poor 1 •

Very poor 2

Fairly poor 3

Neither poor nor good 4

Fairly good 5

Very good 6

Importance of the 10 ARCHSECRET SQ dimensions, each scored out of 100

Please rate the importance of the following ten service quality dimensions, by inserting a mark out of 100 for each. Insert your mark in the answer box provided. 1. Access to overall services 2. Responsiveness to your needs 3. Communication style and information provision 4. Humaneness in dealing with you 5. Security of your care 6. Enabling/Empowerment of your development 7. Competence in overall service delivery 8. Reliability of overall service delivery 9. Equity of overall service delivery 10. Tangibles: up-to-date range of physical facilities ‘Additional Comment’ open-ended question on how the university could improve its service delivery Section 2 Summary of Key Findings •

6

Extremely good 7

The key findings are extracted from the detailed and comprehensive analysis of the survey results which are contained in Section 3 of the report. Qualitative comments inserted in the ‘Additional Comments’ section of the questionnaire have been included under the key finding areas as is appropriate to highlight the statistical results reported. 2.1

Service Quality (SQ) and Customer Satisfaction (CSAT)

Service Quality (SQ) 82% stated it was GOOD 82% of the respondents stated that the quality of the services provided by the University was fairly up to extremely good; with 11% declaring it to be fairly down to extremely poor and 6% were uncertain. This is an excellent result for the University as the vast majority of our students with disabilities are demonstrating a very positive attitude on the quality of service delivery. Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) 79% said that they were SATISFIED 79% of the respondents stated that they were mildly up to completely satisfied with the overall services provided by the University, with 16% being mildly down to completely dissatisfied and 4% were uncertain. Customer Satisfaction is normally taken as a measure of customer experience with specific episodes of service delivery and so is primarily outcome driven and may fluctuate over a given period. In the case of the 16% who displayed a level of dissatisfaction, this demonstrates the under performance of services received in relation to their expectations. Continuous feedback on the performance of University services for this group of students will highlight the key areas of service delivery that require improvement. 2.2

Service Quality Attributes (26)

Access Dimension 1.

Attribute 1 “The terms and conditions of your right to services are negotiated” The students’ response was predominantly positive. 63% of respondents stated that they agreed with the statement, with 7% disagreeing. The positive response from students (63%) could suggest that they have resonance with this attribute of service quality and are content with it. In the case of those 30% students displaying uncertainty on this attribute, the reason could be that they have had no experience to date of this aspect of service quality and therefore cannot comment.

2.

Attribute 2 “The service, physical facilities, equipment, staff, and communication materials are accessible to you” The students’ response was very positive. 76% of respondents agreed with this statement, with 15% disagreeing and 8% being uncertain. Qualitative comments by students:

7

“The service is the best I have ever come across and cannot suggest anything better.” “I don’t feel that the university could improve its service delivery, as it has provided anything I have asked for”. “As a student with a visual and mobility disability, I recently booked a room in the library to carry out an interview. I was informed that only one room may be suitable for this but even then the chairs would have to be moved.” “The lecture rooms should be equipped adequately in order to enable those with hearing difficulties to benefit from the lectures. I for one attend them in vain – even with the help of a hearing aid, I cannot hear my lecturers!” Action: 1. Review the infrastructure of the University to assess its ability to meet the needs of students with disabilities in relation to hearing aid loops in lecture rooms, easier access to labs and seminar rooms, space between seats, provision of one lift in each building dedicated for use of physically disabled students and staff. 2. Conduct a regular audit of specialist equipment available for students with disabilities, with the audit details disseminated to all staff in the University 3.

Attribute 3 “Information, advice and support on potential funding sources are made available to you” The students’ response was fairly positive. 60% of respondents agreed with this statement, with 23% disagreeing and 16% being uncertain. The 40% of students either disagreeing with or being uncertain about this feature of service delivery could suggest that there is a service shortfall in students being informed on funding sources, for example, the Disability Students Allowance (DSA). Registration for the DAS by our students directly affects the amount of money received by the University into the Student Disability Premium Fund. Qualitative comments by students: “Information regarding funding and entitlements should be made more explicit.” “The University could improve its service delivery by making all students aware of types of funds available to them.” Action: Review the processes and procedures followed by Disability Services to inform and encourage students with disabilities to access all relevant funding sources, in particular the Disability Students Allowance (DSA).

Responsiveness dimension 4.

Attribute 4 “Staff provide prompt and timely service to you” again the students’ response was highly positive. 81% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and 9% being uncertain. This is overall a good result on this service quality attribute. Qualitative comments by students:

8

“..as a student with dyslexia I hate having to approach individual lecturers before they present to request copies of their presentation as this is supposed to be organised by the department and given to me 2 days before the lecture this never happens.” “I would like to get more information on the lectures.” 5.

Attribute 5 “Your complaints are constructively handled” students displayed a diverse range of views in response to this service quality item. 55% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 12% disagreeing and 33% being uncertain. In the case of the 1 in 3 students who declared uncertainty on this item then this could be because they did not have any cause for complaint or that they were not satisfied with the outcome. Qualitative comment by student: “If the university could speed up the resolution of complaints then this would improve its service.” Action: An analysis of student complaints received by the University, by disability and School, along with their outcomes may shed further light on the uncertainty (33%) of students with this service quality attribute.

6.

Attribute 6 “The University is willing to defend and fight for your individual rights” also displayed a fairly diverse range of views. 51% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 11% disagreeing and 38% being uncertain. As with attribute 5, the latter percentage is high for the neutral point of the scale, with over one in three respondents displaying uncertainty as to the University’s willingness to champion their individual rights. Qualitative comments by students: “Having declared my hearing and mental health disability to student records, I expected to be contacted by the disability service department. I did not hear from them. Furthermore, due to having a hearing impairment, I asked lecturers for written material: speaking notes etc and a room with a better acoustic but I did not receive them.” “I feel that a ‘hidden’ disability such as dyslexia causes some problems among other students at times in the library. For example, there is (or used to be) a photocopier machine designated for ‘disabled’ students. I assumed that I could use this machine but when I did so, another student got really angry saying that I was not in a wheelchair and should not be using it!” “I have a severe mental illness. I have been very disappointed in the help provided by student services……Staff in general seem to have little understanding of how to help someone who is mentally ill and hence fragile. I do not expect lecturing staff to be familiar with mental illness, but I do expect student services and the departmental disability officer to be experts. In my case it is helpful for staff to be patient, calm, quiet, positive and kind. I find it very distressing when staff are agitated, stressed, negative, disorganised or angry. I would recommend training for staff in how to deal with people who are mentally

9

ill. Unfortunately, there is a big difference between people thinking they can help and people actually being able to help. I would recommend that all students with mental illness have a member of staff who can act as their advocate within the university.” “I have had to rely heavily on one lecturer who has been very helpful, but the people that should have been helping me have been unable to. I recommend that the university sends its disability support staff including the Departmental Disability Coordinators on a mental health course. I am lucky that I am a mature student who has persevered in spite of difficulties. If I had been a school leaver I would have given up. I also recommend that every student with mental illness should have someone to act as an ‘advocate’ within the university system.” Action: Staff Development in mental health awareness training; production of Mental Health Guidelines for staff; consideration of an ‘Advocacy’ support system for students with mental health needs. 7.

Attribute 7 “A flexible service is provided to meet your individual needs” student response was overall positive. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% disagreeing and 16% being uncertain. The accessibility of the curriculum (Teachability) for students with disabilities is an important aspect of service delivery. Qualitative comments by students: “The University could improve its service delivery by regular checks on disabled students to ensure that they are copying with the demands of university.” “Being a student with multiple disabilities and suffering a measurable amount of stress, the service which was offered within the University to me is a once in a lifetime opportunity, that has helped me maintain my studies.” “..the disability staff are perfect, as they respond and attend to my needs and treat me as an individual person first, and that I have a disability second- which is more important to me.” Action: 1. Continued use of the Teachability tool a) to identify any aspects of our teaching provision which could cause difficulties for students with disabilities and b) to consider the changes to practice which are necessary to enhance the accessibility of the curriculum. 2. Ensure Teachability is a standing item on the agenda of Module Evaluation and Enhancement Groups (MEEGs), Programme Boards and Divisional Boards

Communication dimension 8.

Attribute 8 “Staff are polite and courteous with you” student response was extremely positive. 92% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 5% disagreeing and 3% being uncertain. This result reflects well on this aspect of the quality of our service delivery.

10

9.

Attribute 9 “Staff are willing to listen to your individual point of view” student response was again very positive. 85% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 8% disagreeing and 7% being uncertain.

10.

Attribute 10 “Staff communicate in a language that you understand” again student response was very positive. 85% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 6% disagreeing and 9% being uncertain.

11.

Attribute 11 “Complete and accurate information is provided to you in good time” student response was overall positive. 71% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 20% disagreeing and 9% being uncertain. One in five, however, of students disagreed with the statement and this is of concern, raising implications for information transfer to our students with disabilities. Qualitative comments by students: “The University could make you aware of who to contact and which services are available when you enroll on a course.” “The university could improve its service delivery by making it easier to find out information and/or services which are relevant to disabled students. “ “The University could improve its service delivery by letting the student know they must ask and seek out help. I expected to be told to do something or see someone. No one informed me of who to see and I asked a little too late for this.” “The University could improve its service delivery by having up-to-date records, send out reminder letters and provide more information about service and available resources for disabled students when joining the University.” “Lecture notes are provided after the lecture and this is too late for someone with a learning disability.” Actions: •

• • • • •

Develop a web site or portal for students with disabilities which contains all relevant information and forms, with a interactive facility for communication Make available specialized induction programmes for students with disabilities Enrolment forms should be modified to enable students with disabilities to complete them with the same levels of independence and confidentiality as other students Clearing application forms should include a section for students to disclose a disability Make available on Blackboard lecture notes and learning materials as is appropriate prior to the lecture delivery Produce and make available where requested programme specifications, descriptions and support materials in different formats, such as Braille, large print, tape and disc versions.

11

•

Ensure that all computer software used in programme and module delivery is compliant with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001 • Modification of the CELCAT timetabling software to indicate if the room/lab was accessible by physically impaired students • Production of a map of routes around campus for physically disabled students Humaneness dimension 12.

Attribute 12 “Staff reassure you in terms of your personal anxieties, concerns and problems” overall student response was positive. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 14% disagreeing and 16% being uncertain. Qualitative comments by students: “The staff at the university have been extremely good in helping me discover my disability and providing support thereafter. I believe my course marks would be far lower if not for their help and I am now studying at degree level – something I doubted several years ago.”

13.

Attribute 13 “Staff are sympathetic to your individual needs, while respecting your privacy” student response was positive overall. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% disagreeing and 14% being uncertain. Qualitative comments by students: “I have studied at Glasgow Caledonian University for three years now and have found the staff to be very helpful and extremely understanding about my multiple disabilities (visual, medical and mental health). I made a conscious decision to study at GCU because I knew they had, and were committed to a comprehensive university wide policy disability policy. However, this policy exceeded all my expectations and I truly believe that I would not have managed to progress this far in my degree programme without the help and support of the staff at the University.”

14.

Attribute 14 “Staff respect your confidences and feelings” again student response was very positive. 77% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 6% disagreeing and 18% being uncertain.

Security dimension 15.

Attribute 15 “You feel safe under the care of the staff” was again an overall positive result. 75% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 8% disagreeing and 17% being uncertain. As students with disabilities are potentially a more

12

vulnerable group within the student population, it is reassuring that 3 out of 4 students gave a positive response to this statement. 16.

Attribute 16 “Accurate and secure student records are maintained” student response was fairly positive. 66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 5% disagreeing. Over one in four (29%) were uncertain on the security and accuracy of student records which is of concern. Action: Ensure the database of GCU students with disabilities is regularly updated for accuracy and completeness, with accessibility to staff as is compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Enabling/Empowerment dimension 17.

Attribute 17 “The university environment enables you to take responsibility for your personal development” displayed a very positive result. 83% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 3% disagreeing and 14% being uncertain.

18.

Attribute 18 “Specific opportunities and support for you to attain your personal goals are provided” student response was positive. 77% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 9% disagreeing and 14% being uncertain. Qualitative comments by students: “There is a lack of community (for students with disabilities) which is inevitable perhaps as students are atomistic and self-serving.” “I think there should be an increase in the availability of sports facilities and sports groups in all universities to aid physical and mental development.” Action: University Disability Forum, acting as advisers to the Executive Human Resources Group, should bring forward proposals for enabling students with disabilities to meet their social and leisure goals.

Competence dimension 19.

Attribute 19 “The required level of service is delivered, with clearly stated terms and conditions” student response was overall positive. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 15% disagreeing and 15% being uncertain. The Partners in Delivery (PiD) project which is a partnership agreement between each student in GCU setting out what is expected by each party has the potential to further enhance this aspect of service quality. Qualitative comments by students: “More emphasis placed on support services within first week of University.”

20.

Attribute 20 “The required number of staff have the ability to do the job” student response was positive overall.

13

72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and 19% being uncertain. Emphasis on staff development in Disability Awareness and Teachability Training are important to enable staff to meet the needs of students with disabilities. 21.

Attribute 21 “The full range of services is delivered to meet your changing needs” student response was positive overall. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 11% disagreeing and 17% being uncertain. Given the 38% who either disagreed or were uncertain, actions proposed under attributes 2, 7 and 11 also apply to this attribute in order to be more responsive to the needs of our students with disabilities

Reliability dimension 22.

Attribute 22 “Staff deliver the appropriate service as promised” student response was again positive overall. 71% of respondents agreed with the statement, with at least 12% disagreeing and 15% being uncertain. All staff should ensure that promises made to students can be delivered within the time and conditions specified. Promises made create expectations of service delivery which, if not met, lead to student dissatisfaction.

23.

Attribute 23 “A dependable service which does not vary over time is provided” student response is again fairly positive. 68% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% disagreeing and 19% being uncertain. The Reliability dimension of service quality was given a 99% importance rating by respondents in the survey. Reliability of service delivery is crucial to students with disabilities and as such 32% of students either disagreeing or being uncertain on the dependability of our service delivery requires attention. Action: Provision of on-going staff development to disseminate ‘good practice’ in service delivery to our students with disabilities.

24.

Attribute 24 “The behaviour of staff makes you feel that you can trust them and have confidence in them” student response was very positive. 80% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 8% disagreeing and 12% being uncertain. Again with the importance rating of 99% for the Reliability dimension, it is good to receive strong support for the delivery of this attribute. Qualitative comments by students: “The university places too much emphasis on appearance when attitudes are more important. I feel my department is far more concerned with being seen to comply with the legislation, rather than addressing my needs.”

14

“The level of service at the university is impeccable. Since discovering I had a learning disability the staff whom I approached have been understanding, supportive and caring.” Action: Provision of on-going staff development to disseminate ‘good practice’ in service delivery to our students with disabilities. Equity dimension 25.

Attribute 25 “An equitable service is delivered to individual students, as well as groups of students” student response was overall positive. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and 20% being uncertain. There is still room for improvement, however, on this aspect of service delivery. Qualitative comments by students: “Support and assistance as a part-time student is limited and there is no access to special equipment e.g. voice activated software and laptop for home use. Disability funding is not available for part-time courses; therefore low paid students with disabilities have difficulty in funding support to complete the course. Perhaps equipment should be made available on loan.” Action: Part-time Programme/Module Teams, using the Teachability tool, should review the accessibility of specialist equipment required in the delivery of their curriculum for part-time students with disabilities.

Tangibles dimension 26.

Attribute 26 “A full range of up-to-date physical facilities and equipment are provided” student response tended towards the positive end of the degree of agreement scale. 66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing but almost one in four (24%) being uncertain on the provision of a full range of up-to-date facilities. Qualitative comments by students: “I would like more loop systems fitted in lecture halls, this is not the case despite new buildings being in place.” “The only thing that holds me back, in terms of up-to date facilities, is that I would prefer a loop system in some of the lecture halls, especially the newer ones.” “ICT should allow students with visual impairment the right to adjust the display on campus PC’s. Accessibility to PC’s is poor except in the Visual Impairment (VI) room in the library.” Action (in line with Attribute 2): 1. Improve the infrastructure of the University to meet the needs of students with disabilities through hearing aid loops in lecture rooms, easier access to

15

2.3

labs and seminar rooms, space between seats, provision of one lift in each building dedicated for use of physically disabled students and staff. 2. Conduct a regular audit of specialist equipment available for students with disabilities, with the audit details disseminated to all staff in the University. ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS (10): RATING OF IMPORTANCE Importance Rating of 10 Dime nsions N E/E REL COMS RESP HUM SEC ACC COMP EQU TAN

118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118

Mean 100.00 99.00 98.00 91.00 88.00 87.00 86.00 84.00 84.00 82.00

The 3 top rated dimensions are Enabling/Empowerment at 100%; closely followed by Reliability 99% and Communication 98%. The remaining 7 dimensions were also rated highly on importance level across the range from 91% to 82% as shown in the table above. This result reinforces the relevancy of the 10 service quality dimensions of the ARCHSECRET multi-attribute scale. For the University, it is critical to ensure that there are no major shortfalls in service delivery across the 3 top rated service quality dimensions and to a lesser extent across the remaining 7 dimensions. Given this, an analysis is required of Gap Scores across the 10 dimensions of service quality benchmarked against the standard of excellence. GAP SCORES FOR 10 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS

16

Dimension Gap Scores 0 -0.2

Acc

Resp Comm Hum

Sec

E/E Comp

Rel

Equ

Tan

-1.69

-1.68

Mean Gap Score

-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2

-1.27 -1.39

-1.4 -1.64

-1.6 -1.8

-1.87

-1.67

-1.6 -1.71

-1.87

-2

A mean gap score of ‘0’ reflects excellence but in most organisations, it is anticipated that there will be a shortfall of at least ‘1’ in service delivery. As gap score moves from 1 and approaches ‘2’ this starts to represent a shortfall which demands attention by the organisation. Gap scores of 2 and more signal a more serious situation which demands urgent action. Resources are not infinite for any organisation and so it is practical to target those dimensions which have been rated high in terms of importance by the customers. The top 3 importance rated dimensions produced the 3 lowest mean gap scores. Enabling/Empowerment (100% importance rating) displayed a low mean gap score of -1.39. Reliability (99% importance rating) had a relatively low mean gap score of -1.6. Communication (98% importance rating) produced the lowest mean gap score of -1.27. Hence the 3 top importance rated dimensions produced the lowest 3 mean gap scores. This is good news for the University in that any shortfall in service delivery is relatively low across those dimensions rated in the top 3 by the students with disabilities. The two dimensions that produced the highest mean gap score were Responsiveness -1.87 (91% importance rating) and Access -1.87 (86% importance rating). A full analysis of the service quality attributes comprising each of these two dimensions is contained in Section 3.5. Key issues arising from this analysis are as follows: Responsiveness • Over 1 in 2 students with a Hearing and Mobility impairment signaled their discontent with the University’s service performance in constructive handling of their complaints. This is worth noting despite small number of students in each category. • A high percentage of students (86%) with a hearing impairment declared a concern with the University’s willingness to defend and fight for their individual

17

rights. Overall, students with disabilities reported a high service shortfall in the University’s willingness to champion their individual rights. Over 1 in 2 students (57%) with a hearing impairment signaled their discontent with the University’s performance in providing a flexible service. At least 7 out of 10 students with a hearing impairment (71%) signaled their discontent with the University’s willingness to negotiate the terms and conditions of this group of disabled students ‘right’ to services.

• •

Access • Over 1 in 2 students (57%) with a hearing impairment expressed their discontent with the University’s performance in ensuring access to physical facilities, staff, and communication materials. • Over 1 in 2 students with hearing (57%) and medical impairments (54%) expressed their discontent with the University’s performance in providing information, advice and support on sources of potential funding. Action: Review level of service provision for students with a hearing impairment Section 3

ARCHSECRET H.E. Survey Data: Descriptive Statistics

Appendix 1 contains a list of variables and their labels 3.1

SERVICE QUALITY (SQ) BAR CHART (%s have been rounded up or down by SPSS) Bar Chart of SERVICE QUALITY 50

40

41

30

25 20 16

Percent

10 8 6 3

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SQ

Mean 5.53

Standard Deviation 1.47

Semantic descriptors at each point on the scale are as follows:

18

Extremely poor 1

Very poor 2

Fairly poor 3

Neither poor nor good 4

Fairly good 5

Very good 6

Extremely good 7

The distribution of responses on service quality across the 7 point semantic differential scale ‘Poor/Good’ is predominantly positive. 82% of the respondents stated that the quality of the services provided by the University was fairly up to extremely good; with 11% declaring it to be fairly down to extremely poor and 6% were uncertain. This is an excellent result for the University as the vast majority of our students with disabilities are demonstrating a very positive attitude on the quality of service delivery.

3.2

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (CSAT) BAR CHART (%s have been rounded up or down by SPSS) Bar Chart of CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 50 45 40

30

20 19 15

Percent

10

11 5

0 1

4

2

3

4

5

6

7

CSAT

Mean 5.37

Standard Deviation 1.47

Semantic descriptors at each point on the scale were as follows: Completely Very Mildly dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied 1

2

3

Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 4

19

Mildly satisfied

Very satisfied

Completely satisfied

5

6

7

The distribution of responses on customer satisfaction, across the 7 point semantic differential scale ‘Dissatisfied/Satisfied’ reflects predominantly positive values. 79% of the respondents stated that they were mildly up to completely satisfied with the overall services provided by the University, with 16% being mildly down to completely dissatisfied and 4% were uncertain. Customer Satisfaction is normally taken as a measure of customer experience with specific episodes of service delivery and so is primarily outcome driven and may fluctuate over a given period. In the case of the 16% who displayed a level of dissatisfaction, this demonstrates the under performance of services received in relation to their expectations. Continuous feedback on the performance of University services for this group of students will highlight the key areas of service delivery that require improvement.

20

3.3

26 ATTRIBUTES OF ARCHSECRET MODEL

A Bar Chart is produced for each of the 26 service quality attributes. The 7 point semantic differential scale used for the response to each attribute is as follows: Absolutely Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Slightly Disagree

1

2

3

Neither Disagree nor Agree 4

Slightly Agree

Strongly Agree

Absolutely Agree

5

6

7

Please note that the percentages on the following Bar Charts have been rounded up or down by SPSS and therefore not all will necessarily total 100%. Access: Right to services 40

30 30

20

28

21

14

Percent

10

0

3

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AC_RIGHT

Mean 5.06

Standard Deviation 1.37

The degree of agreement with Attribute 1 “The terms and conditions of your right to services are negotiated” on the Access dimension was predominantly positive. 63% of respondents stated that they slightly up to absolutely agree with the statement, with 7% (8/118) disagreeing. The positive response suggests that these students have resonance with this attribute of service quality and they are content with it. There are a high number of respondents, however, nearly one in three (30%), displaying uncertainty. The reason could be that these students have had no experience to date of this aspect of service quality and therefore cannot comment.

21

Access: Facilities 40

32

30 28

20 16

Percent

10 8 6

6

2

3

3

0

1

4

5

6

7

AC_FACS

Mean 5.41

Standard Deviation 1.68

The degree of agreement with Attribute 2 “The service, physical facilities, equipment, staff, and communication materials are accessible to you” on the Access dimension is highly positive. 76% of respondents agreed with this statement, with 15% disagreeing and 8% being uncertain. It would appear that there are a number of students (15%) who are displaying concerns with access to facilities. The type of disability of this group of students was spread over learning (61%), visual (20%), hearing (57%), mental health (50%) and mobility (22%).

Access: Funding sources 30

25 21

20

16 14

14

Percent

10

5

4

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AC_FUNDS

Mean 4.92

Standard Deviation 1.77

22

The degree of agreement with Attribute 3 “Information, advice and support on potential funding sources are made available to you” on the Access dimension was fairly positive. 60% of respondents agreed with this statement, with 23% disagreeing and 16% being uncertain. The 40% of students either disagreeing with or being uncertain about this feature of service delivery could suggest that there is a service shortfall in students being informed of funding sources, for example, the Disability Students Allowance (DSA). Given the importance of students with disabilities registering for the DSA this is an area that deserves attention. Registration for the DAS by our students directly affects the amount of money received by the University into the Student Disability Premium Fund.

Responsiveness: Timely service 40

34 30

24

23

20

Percent

10 9

0

3

3

1

2

4 3

4

5

6

7

RP_TIME

Mean 5.42

Standard Deviation 1.47

The degree of agreement with Attribute 4 “Staff provide prompt and timely service to you” on the Responsiveness dimension was predominantly positive. 81% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and 9% being uncertain. This is overall a good result on this service quality attribute.

23

Responsiveness: Complaints 40

33

30

25 20 16 14

Percent

10 8 3

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

RP_COMPL

Mean 4.86

Standard Deviation 1.44

The degree of agreement with Attribute 5 “Your complaints are constructively handled” on the Responsiveness dimension displayed a diverse range of views. 55% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 12% (14/118) disagreeing and 33% being uncertain. The latter percentage is high for the neutral point of the scale, with one in three of respondents declaring their uncertainty on the constructive handling of their complaints. This could be because they did not have any cause for complaint or that they were not satisfied with the outcome. A breakdown of student complaints by disability into the University or through the School may shed further light on this finding. Responsiveness: Individual rights 50

40 38 30

24

20

17

Percent

10

10

0 1

5

4

2

3

4

5

6

7

RP_IND_R

Mean 4.89

Standard Deviation 1.48

24

The degree of agreement with Attribute 6 “The University is willing to defend and fight for your individual rights” on the Responsiveness dimension also displayed a fairly diverse range of views. 51% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 11% (13/118) disagreeing and 38% being uncertain. As with attribute 5, the latter percentage is high for the neutral point of the scale, with over one in three respondents displaying uncertainty as to the University’s willingness to champion their individual rights. Given the GCU Mission Statement as an inclusive and wider access university, this issue may be worth pursuing.

Responsiveness: Flexible service 30 27

27

6

7

20 18 16

Percent

10

7

0

3

3

1

2

3

4

5

RP_FLEX

Mean 5.34

Standard Deviation 1.53

The degree of agreement with Attribute 7 “A flexible service is provided to meet your individual needs” on the Responsiveness dimension was overall positive. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% disagreeing and 16% being uncertain. The accessibility of the curriculum (Teachability) for students with disabilities is an important aspect of service delivery.

25

Communication: Polite 50 46 40 35 30

20

Percent

10

11

0 2

4

3

3

4

5

6

7

COM_POLI

Mean 6.12

Standard Deviation 1.10

The degree of agreement with Attribute 8 “Staff are polite and courteous with you” on the Communication dimension was extremely positive. 92% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 5% (6/118) disagreeing and 3% being uncertain. This result reflects well on this aspect of the quality of our service delivery. Communication: Listen to point of view 50

40 39 30 27 20 19

Percent

10 7 4

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

COM_LIST

Mean 5.74

Standard Deviation 1.47

The degree of agreement with Attribute 9 “Staff are willing to listen to your individual point of view” on the Communication dimension was again very positive. 85% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 8% (10/118) disagreeing and 7% being uncertain.

26

Communication: Understandable Language 50

40

41 35

30

20

Percent

10 9

9

4

5

3

0 1

2

3

6

7

COM_LANG

Mean 5.89

Standard Deviation 1.36

Responses to Attribute 10 “Staff communicate in a language that you understand” on the Communication dimension were very positive. 85% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 6% (7/118) disagreeing and 9% being uncertain.

Communication: Accurate information 40

34 30

20

21 16

Percent

10

10

9

7 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

COM_ACCU

Mean 5.16

Standard Deviation 1.64

27

The degree of agreement with Attribute 11 “Complete and accurate information is provided to you in good time” on the Communication dimension was overall positive. 71% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 20% disagreeing and 9% being uncertain. One in five, however, of students disagreed with the statement and this is of concern, raising implications for information transfer to our students with disabilities.

Humaneness: Reassurance for concerns 40

32

30

20

20 16

18

Percent

10 8 0

3

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HUM_REAS

Mean 5.20

Standard Deviation 1.53

The degree of agreement with Attribute 12 “Staff reassure you in terms of your personal anxieties, concerns and problems” on the Humaneness dimension was overall a positive result. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 14% disagreeing and 16% being uncertain.

28

Humaneness: Sympathetic to needs 40

32

30

26 20

14

14

4

5

Percent

10 7 4

0 1

2

3

6

7

HUM_SYMP

Mean 5.37

Standard Deviation 1.52

The degree of agreement with Attribute 13 “Staff are sympathetic to your individual needs, while respecting your privacy” on the Humaneness dimension was positive overall. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% (15/118) disagreeing and 14% being uncertain. Humaneness: Respect confidences 40

30

31 27

20 18

19

Percent

10

3

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HUM_RESP

Mean 5.50

Standard Deviation 1.36

The degree of agreement with Attribute 14 “Staff respect your confidences and feelings” on the Humaneness dimension was very positive. 77% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 6% (7/118) disagreeing and 18% being uncertain.

29

Security: Safe under staff care 40

30

31

24 20

20 17

Percent

10

5 3

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SEC_SAFE

Mean 5.40

Standard Deviation 1.57

The degree of agreement with Attribute 15 “You feel safe under the care of the staff” on the Security dimension was again an overall positive result. 75% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 8% disagreeing and 17% being uncertain. As students with disabilities are potentially a more vulnerable group within the student population, it is reassuring that 3 out of 4 students gave a positive response to this statement. Security: Student records 40

30 29 25 22

20 19

Percent

10

3

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SEC_RECD

Mean 5.25

Standard Deviation 1.35

The degree of agreement with Attribute 16 “Accurate and secure student records are maintained” on the Security dimension was fairly positive. 66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 5% (6/118) disagreeing. Over one in four (29%) were uncertain on the security and accuracy of student records which is of concern.

30

Enabling/Empowerment: Personal development 50

40 38 32

30

Percent

20

10

14

13

4

5

0 1

2

3

6

7

EE_PDEV

Mean 5.80

Standard Deviation 1.21

The degree of agreement with Attribute 17 “The university environment enables you to take responsibility for your personal development” on the Enabling/Empowerment dimension displayed a very positive result. 83% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 3% (4/118) disagreeing and 14% being uncertain. Enabling/Empowerment: Personal goals 40

34 30

24 20 19 14

Percent

10 6 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

EE_GOALS

Mean 5.43

Standard Deviation 1.39

The degree of agreement with Attribute 18 “Specific opportunities and support for you to attain your personal goals are provided” on the Enabling/Empowerment dimension was positive. 77% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 9% (11/118) disagreeing and 14% being uncertain.

31

Competence: Service level 40

32

30

20

21 17

15

Percent

10 8 3

0

1

4 2

3

4

5

6

7

CP_SLEV

Mean 5.13

Standard Deviation 1.50

The degree of agreement with Attribute 19 “The required level of service is delivered, with clearly stated terms and conditions” on the Competence dimension was overall positive. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 15% disagreeing and 15% being uncertain. The Partners in Delivery (PiD) project which is a partnership agreement between each student in GCU setting out what is expected by each party has the potential to further enhance this aspect of service quality. Competence: Staff Number and Ability 40

30

31 28

20 19

13

Percent

10

0

3

3

1

2

4 3

4

5

6

7

CP_NOSTF

Mean 5.41

Standard Deviation 1.51

32

The degree of agreement with Attribute 20 “The required number of staff have the ability to do the job” on the Competence dimension was positive overall. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and 19% being uncertain. Staff Development and its emphasis underlie this attribute and, in particular, Disability Awareness and Teachability Training are important for staff in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. Competence: Full range of services 40

35 30

23

20 17 14

Percent

10 8 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

CP_FULLS

Mean 5.32

Standard Deviation 1.51

The degree of agreement with Attribute 21 “The full range of services is delivered to meet your changing needs” on the Competence dimension was positive overall. 72% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 11% disagreeing and 17% being uncertain. Given the 38% who either disagreed or were uncertain, service range provision could be further improved and be more responsive to the needs of our students with disabilities

33

Reliability: Service promised 40

30 30 27 20

15

14

Percent

10 9

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

RL_PROMS

Mean 5.35

Standard Deviation 1.54

The degree of agreement with Attribute 22 “Staff deliver the appropriate service as promised” on the Reliability dimension was again positive overall. 71% of respondents agreed with the statement, with at least 12% disagreeing and 15% being uncertain. All staff should ensure that promises made to students can be delivered within the time and conditions specified. Promises made create expectations of service delivery which, if not met, lead to student dissatisfaction.

Reliability: Dependable service 40

32

30

23

20 19

13

Percent

10 7 3

0

1

3 2

3

4

5

6

7

RL_DEPEN

Mean 5.19

Standard Deviation 1.63

34

The degree of agreement with Attribute 23 “A dependable service which does not vary over time is provided” on the Reliability dimension tended towards the positive end of the scale. 68% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 13% disagreeing and 19% being uncertain. The Reliability dimension of service quality was given a 99% importance rating by respondents in the survey. Reliability of service delivery is crucial to students with disabilities and as such 32% of students either disagreeing or being uncertain on the dependability of our service delivery requires attention.

Reliability: Staff you can trust 50

40

40

30

20

21 19

Percent

10

12

4

0 1

2

3 3

4

5

6

7

RL_TRUST

Mean 5.64

Standard Deviation 1.51

The degree of agreement with Attribute 24 “The behaviour of staff makes you feel that you can trust them and have confidence in them” on the Reliability dimension was very positive on this attribute. 80% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 8% (10/118) disagreeing and 12% being uncertain. Again with the importance rating of 99% for the Reliability dimension, it is good to receive strong support for the delivery of this attribute.

35

Equity: Equitable service 30 28 25 20

20 17

Percent

10

7 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

EQ_ESERV

Mean 5.31

Standard Deviation 1.46

The degree of agreement with Attribute 25 “An equitable service is delivered to individual students, as well as groups of students” on the Equity dimension was overall positive. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and 20% being uncertain. There is still room for improvement, however, on this aspect of service delivery.

Tangibles: Range of facilities/equipment 30 27

26 24 20

13 10

Percent

8

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TAN_RANG

Mean 5.32

Standard Deviation 1.47

36

The degree of agreement with Attribute 26 “A full range of up-to-date physical facilities and equipment are provided” on the Tangibles dimension tended towards the positive end of the scale. 66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing but almost one in four (24%) being uncertain on the provision of a full range of up-to-date facilities. Again issues raised in the CBS Teachability Report on facilities available to our students with disabilities need to be pursued by the School and the University. 3.4

10 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS: RATING OF IMPORTANCE

The mean rating of the importance of the 10 ARCHSECRET dimensions by respondents is contained in the table below in ascending order. Importance Rating of 10 Dime nsions N E/E REL COMS RESP HUM SEC ACC COMP EQU TAN

118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118

Mean 100.00 99.00 98.00 91.00 88.00 87.00 86.00 84.00 84.00 82.00

The 3 top rated dimensions are Enabling/Empowerment at 100%; closely followed by Reliability 99% and Communication 98%. The remaining 7 dimensions were also rated highly on importance level across the range from 91% to 82% as shown in the table above. This result reinforces the relevancy of the 10 service quality dimensions of the ARCHSECRET multi-attribute scale. For the University, it is critical to ensure that there are no major shortfalls in service delivery across the 3 top rated service quality dimensions and to a lesser extent across the remaining 7 dimensions. Given this, an analysis is required of Gap Scores across the 10 dimensions of service quality benchmarked against the standard of excellence.

37

3.5 GAP SCORES FOR EACH OF THE 10 ARCHSECRET DIMENSIONS

Dimension Gap Scores 0 -0.2

Acc

Resp Comm Hum

Sec

E/E Comp

Rel

Equ

Tan

-1.69

-1.68

Mean Gap Score

-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2

-1.27 -1.39

-1.4 -1.64

-1.6 -1.8

-1.87

-1.67

-1.6 -1.71

-1.87

-2

The above chart displays the mean gap scores across the 10 service quality dimensions benchmarked against the standard of excellence in service quality delivery. The gap scores are calculated by subtracting service Performance (P) scores from Expectations (E) of Excellence scores (P-E) for each of the 10 service quality dimensions. A mean gap score of ‘0’ reflects excellence but in most organisations, it is anticipated that there will be a shortfall of at least ‘1’ in service delivery. As gap score moves from 1 and approaches ‘2’ this starts to represent a shortfall which demands attention by the organisation. Gap scores of 2 and more signal a more serious situation which demands urgent action. Resources are not infinite for any organisation and so it is practical to target those dimensions which have been rated high in terms of importance by the customers. The top 3 importance rated dimensions produced the 3 lowest mean gap scores. Enabling/Empowerment (100% importance rating) displayed a low mean gap score of -1.39. Reliability (99% importance rating) had a relatively low mean gap score of -1.6. Communication (98% importance rating) produced the lowest mean gap score of -1.27. Hence the 3 top importance rated dimensions produced the lowest 3 mean gap scores. This is good news for the University in that any shortfall in service delivery is relatively low across those dimensions rated in the top 3 by the students with disabilities. Reviewing the remaining 7 SQ dimensions, it was decided to focus on those two dimensions that had produced the highest mean gap score viz. Responsiveness and Access which were rated 91% and 86% respectively in terms of their importance rating. It is worth considering each of these dimensions in terms of the individual attributes contained in them. 38

Responsiveness dimension comprises 4 attributes, with individual results as follows: Responsiveness: Timely service 50

40

40

30 28

27

Frequency

20

10

0

11 4

3

-6.0

-5.0

Std. Dev = 1.47 Mean = -1.6

5 -4.0

N = 118.00 -3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

GAP4

“Staff provide prompt and timely service to you”: 24% (28/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 76% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 34% (40/118) of responses were contained in gap score 1, 23% (27/118) in gap score 2, 9% (11/118) in gap score 3 and 10% (12/118) in gap scores 4 or more. Responsiveness: Complaints 50

40 39 30

30

20 19

Frequency

16 10

Std. Dev = 1.44

9

Mean = -2.1 4

0 -6.0

-5.0

-4.0

N = 118.00 -3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

GAP5

“Your complaints are constructively handled”: 14% (16/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 86% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 26% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 16% in gap score 2, 33% in gap score 3 and 11% in gap scores 4 or more. Performance on this attribute of service quality is of some concern as there are 44% of respondents falling into gaps 3 or more.

39

Responsiveness: Individual Rights 50 45 40

30 28

Frequency

20

20

10

12 6

5

-5.0

-4.0

0 -6.0

Std. Dev = 1.48 Mean = -2.1 N = 118.00

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

GAP6

“The University is willing to defend and fight for your individual rights”: 17% (20/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 83% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 24% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 10% in gap score 2, 38% in gap score 3 and 11% (13/118) in gap scores 4 or more.

Responsiveness: Flexible service 40

32

30

20

32

21

Frequency

19

10 Std. Dev = 1.53

8

Mean = -1.7 0

3

3

-6.0

-5.0

N = 118.00 -4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

GAP7

“A flexible service is provided to meet your individual needs”: 27% (32/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 73% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 27% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 18% in gap score 2, 16% in gap score 3 and 12% in gap scores 4 or more.

40

Access Dimension comprises 3 attributes, with individual results as follows: Access: Right to services 40

35 33

30

25 20

Frequency

17 10 Std. Dev = 1.37 Mean = -1.9 0

3

3

2

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

N = 118.00 -3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

GAP1

“The terms and conditions of your right to services are negotiated”: 14% (17/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 86% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 28% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 21% in gap score 2, 30% in gap score 3 and 7% in gap scores 4 or more Access: Facilities 40 38 33

30

20

Frequency

19

10

0

10 7

7

-5.0

-4.0

Std. Dev = 1.68 Mean = -1.6

4 -6.0

N = 118.00 -3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

GAP2

“The service, physical facilities, equipment, staff, and communication materials are accessible to you”: 32% (38/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 68% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 28% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 16% in gap score 2, 9% in gap score 3 and 15% in gap scores 4 or more.

41

Access: Funding Sources 40

30 29 25 20 19

Frequency

17

17

10 Std. Dev = 1.77 6

Mean = -2.1

5

N = 118.00

0 -6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

GAP3

“Information, advice and support on potential funding sources are made available to you”: 25% (29/118) of respondents declared the performance on this attribute to be excellent. The remaining 75% of respondents believed that there was a shortfall in service on this attribute: 21% of responses were contained in gap score 1; 14% in gap score 2, 16% in gap score 3 and 24% in gap scores 4 or more. 3.6

10 DIMENSIONS OF ARCHSECRET MODEL

For the 10 dimensions of service quality, the mean score of the respondents’ degree of agreement across the attributes making up a dimension was calculated. Histograms were produced, along with mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for dimensions 1-8 which contained more than one attribute and Bar Charts for dimensions 9 and 10 which have only one attribute. The details of the output can be viewed in Appendix 1. Overall the results were very positive across the 10 dimensions of service quality 3.7

TYPE OF DISABILITY

The range of disabilities, declared by respondents across the 6 types of disability, is displayed in the Bar Chart below.

42

Type of Disability 60 50

52

40 30

Percent

20

20

10 8 Missing

8

6

4

0

Visual

Medical

Learning

Hearing

Mobility

Mental Health

DIS_TYPE

A Learning disability was declared by 52% of students; with the remaining number distributed across medical (20%), mobility (8%), Hearing (6%), Visual (4%) and less than 2% falling in the mental health category. 3.8.1

NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF THE SERVICES OF THE UNIVERSITY

The mean number of years of experience of the services of their University was over 2 years (mean 2.3), with a median of 2 years and a range of experience from 1 year to 10 years.

Number of years experience 50

40

30

Frequency

20

10

0 1

2

3

4

Number of years experience

43

5

7

10

Appendix 1: List of variables and labels Please note that the percentages have been rounded up or down by SPSS and therefore not all will necessarily total 100%. Variable Service Quality Customer Satisfaction Access: Right to services Access: Facilities Access: Funding sources Responsiveness: Timely service Responsiveness: Complaints Responsiveness: Individual rights Responsiveness: Flexible service Communication: Polite Communication: Listen to point of view Communication: Understandable language Communication: Accurate information Humaneness: Reassurance for concerns Humaneness: Sympathetic to needs Humaneness: Respect confidences Security: Safe under staff care Security: Student records Enabling/Empowerment: Personal development Enabling/Empowerment: Personal goals Competence: Service level Competence: Number of staff Competence: Full range of services Reliability: Service promised Reliability: Dependable service Reliability: Staff you can trust Equity: Equitable service Tangibles: Range of facilities/equipment Access Dimension: mean score Responsiveness Dimension: mean score Communication Dimension: mean score Humaneness Dimension: mean score Security Dimension: mean score Enabling/Empowerment Dimension: mean score Competence Dimension: mean score Reliability Dimension: mean score Equity Dimension: mean score Tangibles Dimension: mean score

44

Label sq csat ac_right ac_facs ac_funds rp_time rp_compl rp_ind_r rp_flex com_poli com_list com_lang com_accu hum_reas hum_symp hum_resp sec_safe sec_recd ee_pdev ee_goals cp_slev cp_nostf cp_fulls rl_proms rl_depen rl_trust eq_eserv tan_rang ac_score rp_score co_score hu_score se_score ee_score cp_score rl_score eq_score ta_score

+ve 82% 79% 63% 76% 60% 81% 55% 51% 72% 92% 85% 85% 71% 70% 72% 77% 75% 66% 83% 77% 70% 72% 72% 71% 68% 80% 70% 66% 76% 83% 89% 82% 82% 87% 79% 80% 70% 66%

uc 6% 4% 30% 8% 16% 9% 33% 38% 16% 3% 7% 9% 9% 16% 14% 18% 17% 29% 14% 14% 15% 19% 17% 15% 19% 12% 20% 24% 7% 7% 7% 7% 12% 10% 6% 6% 20% 24%

-ve 11% 16% 7% 15% 23% 10% 12% 11% 13% 5% 8% 6% 20% 14% 13% 6% 8% 5% 3% 9% 15% 10% 11% 14% 13% 8% 10% 10% 17% 9% 3% 11% 6% 3% 15% 14% 10% 10%

Variable Type of Disability Years of experience Access Dimension Importance Responsiveness Dimension Importance Communication Dimension Importance Humaneness Dimension Importance Security Dimension Importance Enabling/Empowerment Dimension Importance Competence Dimension Importance Reliability Dimension Importance Equity Dimension Importance Tangibles Dimension Importance

45

Label dis_type years acc resp coms hum sec E/E comp rel equ tan

Major/Mean Learning 2 years 86% 91% 98% 88% 87% 100% 84% 99% 84% 82%

APPENDIX 2: Mean Scores for 10 ARCHSECRET Dimensions Access Dimension 1 20 18 16

15

14 10

15 12

11

Histogram

8 5

Std. Dev = 1.30 Mean = 5.13

0

2

2

1.50

N = 118.00

2.50 2.00

3.50 3.00

4.50 4.00

5.50 5.00

6.50 6.00

7.00

AC_SCORE 3 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.13

Standard Deviation 1.30

Average response scores across the 3 attributes that encompass Dimension 1 “Access to overall services” were positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 76% (90/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with 17% (20/118) disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain. Responsiveness Dimension 2 30

22

20

17

17 15

14

12

10 8

Std. Dev = 1.24

6

Mean = 5.13

4

N = 118.00

0 1.00

2.00 1.50

3.00 2.50

4.00 3.50

Histogram

5.00 4.50

6.00 5.50

7.00 6.50

RP_SCORE 4 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.13

Standard Deviation 1.24

Average response scores across the 4 attributes that encompass Dimension 2 “Responsiveness to your needs” were highly positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 83% (97/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with at least 9% (10/118) disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up)

46

Communication Dimension 3 50 47 40

30

31 26

20

Histogram

10

Std. Dev = 1.20 8

Mean = 5.7 N = 118.00

3

0 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

CO_SCORE 4 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.7

Standard Deviation 1.20

Average response scores across the 4 attributes that encompass Dimension 3 “Communication style and information provision” were highly positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 89% (104/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with at least 3% (3/118) disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up) Humaneness Dimension 4 20 18 16

19 17

14 12

10

Histogram

8 6

Std. Dev = 1.35 0

3

2 1.00

2.00 1.50

Mean = 5.36 2

N = 118.00

3.00 2.50

4.00 3.50

5.00 4.50

6.00 5.50

7.00 6.50

HU_SCORE 3 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.36

Standard Deviation 1.35

Average response scores across the 3 attributes that encompass Dimension 4 “Humaneness in dealing with you” were highly positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 82% (96/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with at least 11% (13/118) disagreeing and 7% (8/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up)

47

Security Dimension 5 40 36 30

31

29

20

Histogram

14 10

Std. Dev = 1.22 7

Mean = 5.3 N = 118.00

0 2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

SE_SCORE 2 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.3

Standard Deviation 1.22

Average response scores across the 2 attributes that encompass Dimension 5 “Security of your care” were highly positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 82% (96/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with 6% (7/118) disagreeing and 12% (14/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up) Enabling/Empowerment Dimension 6 50 45 40 35 30

20

22

10

Histogram

12

Std. Dev = 1.14 Mean = 5.6 N = 118.00

3

0 2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

EE_SCORE 2 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.6

Standard Deviation 1.14

Average response scores across the 2 attributes that encompass Dimension 6 “Enabling/Empowerment of your development” were highly positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 87% (102/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with 3% (3/118) disagreeing and 10% (12/118) being uncertain. (%s rounded up)

48

Competence Dimension 7 30

20

20

19

18

14 10

14

Histogram

10 8

7

Std. Dev = 1.37 Mean = 5.29

0

3

2

1.00

2.00 1.50

3

N = 118.00

3.00 2.50

4.00 3.50

5.00 4.50

6.00 5.50

7.00 6.50

CP_SCORE 3 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.29

Standard Deviation 1.37

Average response scores across the 3 attributes that encompass Dimension 7 “Competence in overall service delivery” were positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 79% (93/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with 15% (18/118) disagreeing and 6% (7/118) being uncertain. Reliability Dimension 8 30

22

20

22

16 13

10

Histogram

12 9

7 0

4

2 1.00

2.00 1.50

Mean = 5.40 3

N = 118.00

3.00 2.50

Std. Dev = 1.44

7

4.00 3.50

5.00 4.50

6.00 5.50

7.00 6.50

RL_SCORE 3 ATTRIBUTES

Mean 5.40

Standard Deviation 1.44

Average response scores across the 3 attributes that encompass Dimension 8 “Reliability of overall service delivery” were highly positive across the continuous degree of agreement scale. 80% (94/118) of respondents agreed with the statement, with 14% (16/118) disagreeing and 6% (7/118) being uncertain.

49

Equity Dimension 9 30 28 25 20

20 17

Percent

10 7 3

0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

EQ_SCORE 1 ATTRIBUTE

Mean 5.31

Standard Deviation 1.46

Responses to the one attribute that encompasses the Equity dimension “Equity of overall service delivery” were positive across the 7 point degree of agreement scale. 70% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and 20% being uncertain. Tangibles Dimension 10 30 27

26 24 20

13

Percent

10 8

2

0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

TA_SCORE 1 ATTRIBUTE

Mean 5.32

Standard Deviation 1.47

Responses to the one attribute that encompasses the Tangibles dimension “Tangibles: up-to-date range of physical fac ilities” were mildly positive across the 7 point degree of agreement scale. 66% of respondents agreed with the statement, with 10% disagreeing and almost one in four (24%) being uncertain on the provision of an up-to-date range of facilities.

50

REFERENCES Donnelly, M., Shiu, E., Dalrymple, J.F. and Wisniewski, M. “Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale and Approach to Meet the Needs of Local Authority Services”. In G. K. Kanji (Ed.), Total Quality Management in Action. Chapman Hall. 1996, 263-266. Parasuraman, A., Berry, Leonard,L. and Zeithaml, Valarie, A. (1990) An Empirical Examination of Relationships in an Extended Service Quality Model. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. ----, and ----, and ---- (1991) “Perceived Service Quality as a Customer-based Performance Measure: an Empirical Examination of Organizational Barriers using an Extended Service Quality Model”. Human Resource Management, 30 (3) 335-364. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valarie, A., and Berry, Leonard, L. (1985) “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 (Autumn), pp. 41-50. ----, and ----, and ---- (1988). “SERVQUAL: a Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality”. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 (Spring), pp. 12-40. ----, and ----, and ---- (1991). “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale”. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62 (Winter), pp. 12-40. ----, and ----, and ---- (1993). “Research Note: More on Improving Service Quality Measurement”. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 (Spring), pp. 140-147. ----, and ----, and ---- (1994a) “Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 (January), pp. 111-124. ----, and ----, and ---- (1994b) “Alternative Scales for Measuring Service Quality: a Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria”. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-30. Shiu, Edward, Vaughan, Liz, and Donnelly, Mike (1997) “Service Quality: New Horizons beyond SERVQUAL. An Investigation of the Portability of SERVQUAL into the Voluntary and Local Government Sectors”. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 2 No.4, pp. 324-331. Vaughan, E. and Shiu, E. (1995) “Pilot Study of SERVQUAL Model and Instruments” Consultancy Report for Volunteer Development Scotland (VDS). ----, and ---- (1996) “Measurement of Employee Perceptions of Service Quality within VDS” Consultancy Report for Volunteer Development Scotland (VDS). ----, and ---- (2001) “ARCHSECRET’: A Multi-item Scale to Measure Service Quality within the Voluntary Sector’. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. Zeithaml, Valarie, A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, Leonard, L. Delivering Quality Service - Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free Press 1990.

51