Determining Service Quality Indicators to Recruit and Retain International Students in Malaysia Higher Education Institutions: Global Issues and Local Challenges

Abstract

International student mobility has become an effective global strategy for tertiary institutions’ economic growth, revenue, and diversity. This study aimed to provide service quality indicators that can be used to improve international student mobility services in Malaysian public universities. The sample comprised international students in Malaysia, with 1273 students from 76 countries participating. The SERVQUAL model and instrument were used, and the indicators were determined using the measurement model (MM) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The findings of MM and AHP ranked courtesy and communication as the highest indicators, and AHP found that soft skills were required to improve service quality at Malaysian higher education institutions. These findings contribute to understanding what is needed to improve the university quality service system in Malaysian public universities. The results also apply to other universities, especially Southeast Asian countries involved in internationalisation practices. Practical implications were provided to improve internationalisation service quality at colleges and universities, with suggestions for future study.

1. Introduction

In the past few decades, the number of international students enrolled in tertiary education outside their home countries has increased significantly. This enrollment increment is due to the global demand for higher education, the perceived value of studying at prestigious or highly ranked higher institutions abroad, and better employment opportunities in the home or host country after graduation. Host countries reap economic and workforce benefits from the presence of international students in their universities. Because of this, many countries are now attempting to attract international students through academic promotion, quality education, common culture, and by forming social and diplomatic relationships [1]. Their higher education institutions adopt various strategies in response to globalisation and internationalisation, a signal that there have been profound structural and social initiatives as educational providers have invested in sustaining global relevance and survival [2]. Host countries should estimate the profits or gains from international student enrollment in their universities and look at this opportunity from the bigger picture by looking at the reasons that brought international students to their countries as well as their expectations and satisfaction while ensuring that they meet these through high-quality educational services.

The internationalisation of higher education can be understood as creating a multicultural learning and research environment, attracting international students and staff, and redesigning curricula [3]. Malaysia is among the countries seeking to attract international students. Indeed, The Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia has charted its Internationalization Policy [4] and National Educational Blueprint 2013–2025 to become a regional higher education hub. Nonetheless, continuous and concerted efforts are needed to enable Malaysian institutions to deliver services that meet quality standards, merit international recognition, and generate reciprocated stakeholder satisfaction.

With the sense of continuing to improve the quality system overall, the Ministry aspires to raise its U21 ranking for research output from 36th out of 50 countries to the top 25 and to increase the number of international students in Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs) from 108,000 today to 250,000 by 2025, as stated in [5]. Moreover, an intensified campaign for international students and lecturers seeks to hit a 10% enrollment target [4].

In 2013, [6] reported 80,779 international students from various countries enrolled in Malaysian local institutions of higher learning in 2009 compared to 69,164 in 2008, noting an increase of 16.8% in just a year. This continuous influx of international students contributes significantly to reshaping higher education perspectives in the country. Against this backdrop, higher institution service providers are attempting to become more responsive to the needs of a broad-based clientele as they wrestle with sustaining their academic significance in the national and global spheres. The situation requirements demand that institutions create strategies to best support international students [7]. Nonetheless, the MOE has no specific guidelines on what is needed to increase the number of international students. No strategy has been put forward, and no empirical study has been conducted to obtain feedback from international students on how they perceive the quality of service provided by Malaysian public universities and what is required to improve services [8]. Hence, services’ strengths and weaknesses must be identified for continuous improvement because depending only on good facilities and affordable fees to attract international students will lead to ignoring other important social and academic factors. These factors that drive student mobility, cultural diversity in higher education, and economic development are the focus of this study.

This study is significant as far as student mobility is concerned for cultural diversity in higher institutions and economic development. More specifically, for Malaysia to remain competitive and remain as a regional education hub and achieve the stated goal of attracting 250,000 international students by 2025, quality service indicators from international students’ perspectives should be developed that will serve as measures for quality university service performance and be utilised as pointers for continuous quality improvement [9]. In the global context, this study appeals to other universities interested in the internationalisation of education, as the findings could be replicated in other contexts to effectively recruit and maintain international students at higher institutions.

International student mobility plays a big role in internationalising higher education globally. Due to COVID-19 and high competition in the study abroad market, countries around the world should look into the welfare of international students and ensure the diversification of international mobility [10] to attract international students in the post-pandemic period. Beyond Malaysia, this sends a clear message to higher institutions worldwide to develop long-term strategies to improve the international student mobility that the world health crisis has diminished. This research sets out to create indicators that will lead to service improvement for international students to fill this knowledge gap. Hence, the following research objectives guide this research. They are to:

RO1. Determine the indicators that lead to continuous service quality for Malaysian public universities;

RO2. Provide indicators through modelling and hierarchical decision-making processes that could help to attract, recruit, and retain international students.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Framework

This study draws parameters from The Gap Model (The Service Quality Model), which stipulates and explains requirements that help produce a high-quality service [11]. It is an important customer satisfaction framework and has been extensively used worldwide to measure quality service and gaps between what customers perceive as service qualities and their expectations [12]. Quality service was reported to increase customer satisfaction [13].

Ref. [14] introduced the Service Quality Model in 1985. The model deals with the customer’s experience and expectations when choosing a product by creating a SERVQUAL scale as a measurement. The original ten service quality dimensions were tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, competence, courtesy, access, knowing the customer, security, credibility, and communication. Parasuraman and his colleagues proposed that service quality was a function of differences in expectations and performance and quality results and processes [15]. They envisioned five different gaps, and the ten dimensions of service quality were later redefined and collapsed into each other due to the similarities in scales and meanings. The result was the final five dimensions of service quality as they are known today:

• Tangibles: The appearance of facilities, physical equipment, location, and the mien of the institution’s personnel;
• Empathy: Caring and individualised attention that the firm provides to its customers;
• Reliability: The ability to perform the promised or advertised service accurately and reliably;
• Assurance (including communication, competence, credibility, courtesy, and security): employees’ knowledge, politeness, and ability to inspire confidence and trust;
• Responsiveness: The willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.

This study added the following factors to improve international student service further:

• Courtesy is about the friendliness of local/international lecturers with international students and their willingness to provide support;
• Access emphasises university management’s availability to address international student issues and the accessibility of the academic facilities;
• Competence and Quality Instruction emphasises a lecturer’s pedagogical skills, teaching skills, and mood of lecture delivery. It also talks about lecturer creativity in teaching and classroom management. Quality instruction emphasises local/international lecturers’ classroom preparedness, subject matter, learning engagement, and assessment;
• Reputation deals with the university’s reputation, ranking, world recognition, image, and collaboration;
• Orientation talks about how the university introduces the campus to international students, academic programmes, cultural awareness, and well-being, and follows up on international students’ progress;
• Communication is a medium of language used by administrators and university activities or programmes. It talks about their ability to communicate in English and the availability of English programmes for international students;
• Understanding the Customer relates to how university management handles diversity, cultural awareness, relationships with international students, and academic support.

This study added the above seven factors to the 30-year-old Parasuraman service quality model to meet today’s needs. Due to globalisation and liberalisation affecting world economies, the organisational focus has changed from maximisation of profit to maximisation of customer satisfaction. Furthermore, the pressures of global competition force organisations to look beyond processes to the services delivered [16]. Studies have reported the effect of customer empathy on service satisfaction and loyalty [17,18,19] and employee empathy’s influence on customer orientation behaviour [20]. Nowadays, customer service and satisfaction are attributed to physical services or tangibles and intangibles, such as employers understanding customer feelings, problems, wellbeing, attention, and convenience.

The five Parasuraman factors are tangibles, focusing on physical infrastructure, while the seven additional factors are intangibles, focusing on soft skills. Thus, in today’s world, tangible factors seem insufficient to measure customer satisfaction, as customers today tend to have wide and different expectations, and what satisfies some customers will not satisfy others. In an educational context, research is scarce on employer service quality in terms of soft skills, which are essential in today’s organisations. Moreover, in today’s educational world, where higher institutions must strive to maintain and sustain themselves, Parasuraman’s five factors are insufficient to measure university service quality. In this 21st century, students at higher institutions perceive things differently, and their expectations and needs are unlimited. As educational service providers, higher education institutions must meet the expectations of students if they want to survive.

Using the Gap Model (SERVQUAL) in the Malaysian context, refs. [13,21] found that international students perceived a negative service quality gap in higher education institutions. Based on the roles that the Gap Model plays in measuring service quality and customer satisfaction, this study proposed a model for international student mobility service quality improvement in Malaysian public universities as perceived by international students.

2.2. Quality Management, Service in Higher Institution, International Student Satisfaction: A Global Perspective

Quality has always been a major challenge for authors and researchers to define. After long debates and arguments, some agreed that quality could be primarily standards-driven by focusing on meeting a predefined set of standards or meeting some specifications and requirements to achieve the highest benchmarks in the pursuit of excellence. Others perceive quality as primarily stakeholder-driven, in this case, being accountable to the public through a transformative learning experience service that will benefit employers and students [22]. In sum, quality service or service quality can be perceived as meeting and exceeding set service standards, assuming accountability, and providing a service that will enrich customers’ experience and satisfaction.

However, service quality and management have been studied for decades. The study by [23] was one of the earliest. The researchers investigated the application of quality service in the bank sector, proposing five tangible factors: responsiveness, assurance, reliability, and empathy [24]. Since then, many studies have used these dimensions to measure service quality in different sectors.

Research on higher education service quality has recently increased due to global university rankings, student mobility, and diversity. Furthermore, quality management is considered a core value in satisfying organisational customers. Higher educational institutions have been compelled to draft strategies to ensure survival in a new globalised environment ([10], 2018). Moreover, the belief from the early 1980s and through the 1990s that high-quality services resulted in tangible benefits in profits, market share, and cost savings is increasingly evident in organisational practices [9,13]. Quality management aims to address and satisfy customer concerns [25]. Therefore, in higher educational institutions, student satisfaction is one of the utmost obligations for administrators. The expectations force universities to perform better and develop strategies for quality teaching, academic research, leadership, and management [26].

Total quality management is reported to lead university leadership and management to achieve their desired goals regarding continuous quality improvement in higher education, the core of which is student satisfaction [27]. Studies have been conducted on student satisfaction and educational quality concerning higher educational services provided by different universities around the globe. Ref. [8] argued that universities should improve their services and increase student satisfaction to retain and attract students. Ref. [28] studied the expectations and perceptions of overseas students towards service quality of higher education institutions in Scotland using a survey of 200 postgraduate and undergraduate overseas students from China and Taiwan studying at Glasgow, Strathclyde, Stirling, West of Scotland (UWS), and Glasgow Caledonian Universities. They found a perceptual gap between students’ expectations and their actual experiences of the education services delivered to them.

Achieving international student satisfaction is paramount for student mobility. Many studies have reported on how the service quality of educational institutions significantly impacts student satisfaction across many countries. These findings have led many institutions around the world to establish courses/programs in English to expose students to diversity and obtain intercultural skills. Across Southeast Asia, Thailand is seen as a good example of creating international programs to attract international students, and the number of enrolled has increased from 71,204 in 2013 to 144,065 in 2018 [29]. Similarly, Indonesia offers scholarships and English programs to attract more international students [30].

Taiwan has experienced an annual increase in international students applying to its universities and has seen this as an opportunity to expand its educational options. Universities in Taiwan have improved their services while realising the cruciality of student choice [31]. Moslehpour et al. found that service quality was the most significant variable influencing student satisfaction, which, in turn, strongly affected institutional reputation. International student satisfaction was reported to mediate between the academic and nonacademic aspects of service quality and institutional reputation.

Ref. [21] showed the importance of universities’ quality service and international student satisfaction in the United States. The study reported that nonacademically related services, specifically the components of reliability, empathy, and tangibles, were highly valued by international students and predicted their overall satisfaction.

Internationalisation practices have improved in China, and China has become one of the global destinations for international students to study. Ref. [32], who studied international student satisfaction in China, found that female international students were less satisfied with the service than males, but in general, international students reported higher satisfaction, especially with teaching services and learning resources. However, they reported discrimination, prejudice, verbal insults, physical assault, and hostility against international students. They said they were prone to discrimination on and off campus [33], cited by [34]. However, new studies on international students in China are needed to investigate whether the mistreatments still exist, given the changing world situation.

Singapore also has witnessed a high rate of international student mobility, and the number of international students studying at higher institutions has increased tremendously, from 9000 in 1997 to 75,000 in 2014. Ref. [35] found a strong correlation between university service quality and international satisfaction. In light of this, university quality management is essential for quality assurance for higher institutions. Good service and management are considered strategies to stimulate student mobility and achieve satisfaction. Moreover, quality service can be seen as a trust factor between management and students. To stay competitive in the student mobility market, universities worldwide should constantly improve their services to achieve quality education.

2.3. Internationalisation of Higher Education and Student Mobility: A Global Context

Since the middle of the last century, the internationalisation of tertiary education has moved from a single activity to a major aspect of college and university reform and is considered one of the major impacts of the 21st century on higher education [36]. The evolution of internationalisation in tertiary education is due to increasing globalisation [37,38] and the regionalisation of economies and societies as the growth of the knowledge economy. Mobility is referred to as “internationalisation abroad,” which is the key aspect of the internationalisation of tertiary reform [17,39,40]. After the World Wars, security-driven international cooperation and exchange between the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom gave birth to international education among those countries. European countries joined the internationalisation of higher education by initiating research projects, scholarships, and flagship institutions that encourage student and staff exchanges.

In the 1980s, internationalisation was used for income generation in the United Kingdom, which recruited international students to study at British universities. The United States, Australia, and Canada followed suit, using internationalisation activity as a commercial model [40]. Over the past 30 years, student mobility, scholars, and programs have manifested internationalisation in higher education, and reputation and branding have contributed to the paradigm shift from cooperation to competition. As a result, international education became a commodity, an industry, and a source for generating revenue, reputation, and soft power [17].

Due to the economic globalisation that has spread to many nations, the internationalisation of higher education has undergone many changes. Australia and China have shown an interest in internationalising their higher education system. It started with federal Minister John Dawkins in the late 1980s/early 1990s in Australia. China began the process when the country joined the WTO in 2001. Both countries have invested in the internationalisation of higher education, but each has a different aim in its implementation.

For Australia, this investment is expected to improve the economy by expanding the country’s international education industry, developing transnational higher education, and recruiting more international students. In contrast, China expects to produce advanced technology and knowledge through overseas graduates and collaboration with international partners to run the universities. Transnational higher education is also expected to strengthen national development to enhance soft power worldwide while building world-class universities, increasing international student enrollment, and constructing more Confucius Institutes [41].

Other countries have also invested in transnational education. In Japan and Singapore, internationalisation is mainly used as a way to remain competitive in this century’s global knowledge-based economy [42]. Indonesia has also jumped on the wagon by intensifying its internationalisation, adding international student mobility to its universities’ assessment in 2017. The aim was to reap financial benefits through international student tuition fees and to boost tourism. Following in their footsteps, the Philippines and Vietnam have improved their educational system and services by establishing partnerships with global universities to attract more international students [30].

According to [6], more than six million international students are studying in different higher education institutions worldwide, with 976,853 international students studying in the United States, 509,160 in Australia, and 489,019 in the United Kingdom. In pursuit of better and more reputable universities, 341,751 American university students were reported studying abroad in 2017–2018 [34], and 378,340 students from the United Kingdom were enrolled at overseas higher institutions from 2015 to 2017 [41,43].

The internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Malaysia and worldwide has been growing [44]. As such, there is tough competition, as every institution aims to become one of the premier choices for international students. Higher education Institutions (HEIs) in Malaysia and other countries have used different types of assessments to improve their service quality. Well-developed quality assessment systems can provide HEIs with valuable insights to improve quality service while justifying resource allocations [45]. Well-managed quality services could be essential to attracting students and generating income [46].

3. Methods

This research used two types of quantitative analyses: measurement model (MM) from the structural equation model and analytical hierarchy process (AHP), to obtain international students’ perceptions about the quality service system provided by Malaysian public universities. Two methods reduce doubts and bias while giving credibility to the findings. The study population comprised international students of different nationalities from Asian, African, European, and American continents. The list of international students studying in Malaysian public universities was obtained from the Malaysian Ministry of Education. According to the 2018 regional report of the [47], 34% (n = 33,068) of international students study at public universities in Malaysia, while 66% (n = 103,198) are at private institutions. This study did not include private university students due to the difficulty of locating them because most did not reside on campus.

3.1. Participants and Setting

This study included 1273 international students from 76 countries. Based on 33,068 (34%) international students studying in public universities in Malaysia, as reported by (APAIE), the sample size represents 3.85% of the international students in Malaysia. More than 2000 questionnaires were distributed face-to-face in 2019–2020, and 1350 were returned for data collection. Of that number, 1273 were used, and 77 questionnaires were discarded due to unsuitability. Ref. [48]’s table proposed 379 samples for a population of 30,000, a number exceeded here, with the assumption of a population proportion of 0.5 error and confidence of 95%.

This study uses stratified sampling by dividing the international student population into different strata based on continents (Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas). Then, quota sampling was used to select countries from each continent for the continent representation. The selected countries served as a quota for that particular continent. Most participants were from Asia (n = 850), as Asian students lead the population of international students in Malaysia, followed by Africa (n = 399), the Americas (n = 13), Europe (n = 8) and Australia (n = 3) (

Table 1. Demographic information according to nationality.

Country	Frequency	Percent	Country	Frequency	Percent
Afghanistan	26	1.7	Mauritania	1	0.1
Algeria	42	2.7	Mauritius	1	0.1
Australia	4	0.3	Morocco	7	0.4
Bangladesh	27	2.2	Myanmar	4	0.3
Benin	1	0.1	New Zealand	1	0.1
Brunei	3	0.2	Niger	1	0.1
Cameroon	1	0.1	Nigeria	109	6.9
Canada	4	0.3	Oman	17	1.1
Central Africa	4	0.3	Pakistan	57	3.1
Chad	4	0.3	Palestine	25	1.6
China	149	9.3	Philippines	9	0.6
Comoros	8	0.5	Puerto Rico	1	0.1
Cote d’Ivoire	1	0.1	Qatar	6	0.4
Djibouti	2	0.1	Russia	1	0.1
Egypt	16	1.0	Saudi Arabia	17	1.1
Eritrea	4	0.3	Senegal	6	0.4
Ethiopia	3	0.2	Sierra Leone	2	0.1
Gambia	12	0.8	Singapore	17	1.1
Germany	1	0.1	Somalia	54	3.4
Ghana	6	0.4	South Africa	1	0.1
Guinea	17	1.1	Sri Lanka	10	0.6
Guinea-Bissau	1	0.1	Sudan	31	2.0
India	55	3.5	Sweden	1	0.1
Indonesia	144	9.1	Syria	14	0.9
Iran	34	2.2	Taiwan	4	0.3
Iraq	49	3.1	Tanzania	8	0.5
Italy	3	0.2	Thailand	26	1.7
Japan	6	0.4	Tunisia	9	0.6
Jordan	57	3.6	Turkmenistan	1	0.1
Kazakhstan	2	0.1	Turkey	14	0.9
Kenya	7	0.4	UAE	4	0.3
Korea_Japan	1	0.1	Uganda	6	0.4
Kuwait	1	0.1	UK	2	0.1
Laos	1	0.1	USA	3	0.2
Libya	19	1.2	Uzbekistan	4	0.3
Lithuania	5	0.3	Vietnam	3	0.2
Maldives	10	0.6	Yemen	67	4.3
Mali	2	0.1	Zimbabwe	1	0.1
Total		1273		100.0

).

For the analytical hierarchy process, 18 students were carefully selected from 1273 participants from different continents and countries. AHP prefers small sample sizes, and studies on AHP applications in management and engineering have no restriction on the sample size used for analysis. Some studies’ sample sizes range from four to nine [49]. The selected participants (students) were briefed on answering the AHP questionnaire, as the insistency of the participants’ responses easily affects the AHP consistency level and results. The selection of the students (participants) also was based on the continent of origin using a stratified sampling procedure.

3.2. Instrumentation

This research used the SERVQUAL instrument for service quality developed by Parasuranam et al. (1985) [50]. The SERVQUAL instrument consisted of five factors (tangibles, empathy, reliability, assurance, and responsiveness (Appendix A)). This study added seven factors to expand the range of services to be examined. For the AHP, this study used an AHP-based designed survey. Researchers compared each criterion, that is, tangibles, empathy, reliability, courtesy, assurance, competence and quality instruction, responsiveness, understanding customers, orientation, reputation, access, and communication.

3.3. Data Analysis

The measurement model (MM) from a structural equation model (SEM) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) were used to analyse the data. The measurement model was used to underline the factors that could lead to indicators for higher service quality as perceived by international students. This study applied MM to create a unique model and indicators for areas of service quality that international students believed needed further improvement. The structural equation model comprises confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the measurement model (MM), and path analysis. CFA helps to determine the reliability, validity, and model fit, while path analysis assists in determining the effect of an exogenous variable on an endogenous variable. For this study, CFA was employed by applying 16 indices to confirm the reliability and the model fit. The measurement model was then considered to determine the relationship and the leading indicators.

AHP helps arrange and analyse complexity in decisions and assists in drawing a suitable conclusion when there is a group decision problem in government, business, and education. AHP can be used when the issue involves human perceptions and judgments and when deciding on choice, ranking, periodisation, benchmarking, and quality management. This can be applied to rank the indicators and decide upon the best indicator(s) that can be used for continuous quality management services and practices by making pairwise comparisons and calculating the weight derived from each criterion. AHP serves the same purpose as the measurement model by making pairwise comparisons and ranking the respondents’ preferences through weightage. Both AHP and measurement model strengthen the results of this study.

Both AHP and SEM can be combined to know the importance of the factors, the fitness of the proposed hypothesised model, and the relative weight [51]. In addition, the measurement model aims to provide the significant factors, and AHP aims to rank these factors and their alternatives [51]. In this study, the measurement model assists in determining the factors that lead to best-quality service practice, while AHP helps to rank those factors.

The Analysis of a Moment Structures (AMOS) statistical software was used for the measurement model, while TimbangTara 1.0 statistical software was used for the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). TimbangTara 1.0 is a newly developed statistical software for AHP by Malaysian computer engineer Razali Husain 2008. TimbangTara is an award-winning support and gap-analysis decision-support tool for small and medium enterprises. TimbangTara is user-friendly, accurate, reliable, and effective at making executive management decisions. The software has many analytical features, being robust in evaluating any decision model.

3.4. AHP Process

This study incorporated the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to strengthen the findings of the measurement model. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was performed to determine the best or strongest indicators for public universities’ continuous quality service in Malaysia regarding international student mobility and improvement in internationalisation practices. AHP is a multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) method that has been the most-used method worldwide. MCDM generally comprises six steps: (1) problem formulation, (2) identifying the requirements, (3) setting goals, (4) identifying various alternatives, (5) developing criteria, and (6) identifying and applying decision-making techniques [39,52].

This study provided a framework by following [53]’s guidelines for decision-making. This involved defining the goal; identifying the criteria, subcriteria, and scale for best quality service indicators; performing the pairwise comparison; deciding geometric means; calculating indicator weight; checking for consistency; developing overall priority ranking; and selecting the best alternative.

Figure 1 presents the levels of conducting AHP. Level one presents the goal of this study by examining the leading priorities or criteria to improve international student mobility service in Malaysian public universities and internationalisation strategies. Level 2 presents the study’s criteria, and level 3 displays the subcriteria by defining each criterion for more comprehension. Level 4 shows the alternatives that are derived from the criteria and subcriteria. It is a grouping and categorisation of unique criteria and subs to a unique class with the same meaning and characteristics.

Table 2. Pairwise parent nodes and geometric means for all groups of criteria.

	Tangible	Empathy	Reliability	Assurance	Responsiveness	Competency and Quality Insurance	Courtesy	Access	Reputation	Orientation	Understanding Customer
Tangible	1	0.47	0.67	0.34	0.23	0.35	0.35	0.43	0.60	0.45	0.41
Empathy	2.11	1	0.41	0.33	0.38	0.40	0.35	0.35	0.53	0.76	0.50
Reliability	1.48	2.47	1	0.55	0.36	0.56	0.65	0.74	0.69	0.62	0.62
Assurance	2.92	3.04	1.83	1	0.24	0.33	0.51	0.53	0.81	0.66	0.59
Responsiveness	4.39	2.63	2.74	4.25	1	0.48	0.40	0.68	0.78	0.94	0.75
Competency and Quality Insurance	2.86	2.49	1.79	2.99	2.09	1	0.75	0.77	0.86	0.82	1.28
Courtesy	2.84	2.82	1.54	1.97	2.49	1.34	1	0.42	0.78	0.95	0.71
Access	2.32	2.83	1.36	1.89	1.47	1.29	2.36	1	0.72	1.00	0.56
Reputation	1.66	1.89	1.44	1.23	1.28	1.16	1.28	1.40	1	1.00	0.50
Orientation	2.21	1.31	1.62	1.53	1.06	1.21	1.06	1.00	1.00	1	0.45
Understanding Customer	2.46	2.00	1.61	1.68	1.34	0.78	1.40	1.79	1.99	2.23	1
Communication	2.52	1.85	2.42	1.90	1.60	1.13	1.20	1.65	1.97	2.38	1.83

presents the calculation of geometric means through pairwise comparison, which is important in generating criteria to determine the weights. Pairwise Comparison for Geometric Means.

This study checked for the consistency ratio (CR) to identify errors in judgment. CR is used in AHP to know whether the proposed criterion can be used to make a decision. According to AHP, a CR of less than 0.1 (10%) indicates pairwise comparison judgment consistency. This study performed CR and consistency index (CI) using TimbangTara AHP software. CI is calculated using the following formula or equation: CI = λ_max − n/n − 1, where ‘n’ is the number of criteria or subcriteria of each level and λ_max is the biggest eigenvector in the matrix [54]. Table 2 shows the consistency ratio of 5%. The pairwise comparison matrices and the judgment were consistent and accepted from this ratio and values. Thus, the decision can proceed.

4. Findings

4.1. Measurement Model

Through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Figure 2 and

Table 3. Fit indices for continuous quality service in Malaysian public universities.

Model Fit
			Absolute Fit Measures
	X2	DF	X2/DF	RMR	RMSEA	GFI	AGFI	p
Criteria				<0.05	<0.05	≥0.90	≥0.90
Obtained	2220.222	562	3.334	0.037	0.043	0.918	0.900	0.001
	Incremental Fit Measures					Parsimony Fit Measures
	NFI	RFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	PRATIO	PNFI	PCFI
Criteria	≥0.90	≥0.90	≥0.90	≥0.90	≥0.90	≥0.50	≥0.50	≥0.50
Obtained	0.938	0.927	0.956	0.948	0.956	0.844	0.792	0.807

below show that the model for continuous quality service in Malaysian public universities met all the fit indices that were used to measure and assess the structural equation model (SEM), as [55,56] recommend. The absolute fit aimed at measuring the acceptability of the overall model was met, as RMR was 0.040, RMSEA was 0.041, GFI was 0.918, and AGFI was 0.900, which are all above the recommended criteria. The incremental fit of the model was also achieved, as NFI was 0.933, RFI was 0.923, IFI was 0.953, TLI was 0.946, and CFI was 0.953. The parsimony fit measures were also met, as PRATIO was 0.865, PNFI was 0.807, and PCFI was 0.824.

Based on the measurement model, the variance results in

Table 4. Variances and rankings of variables based on measurement model.

Factor	Estimate/Weight	p Value	Ranking
Courtesy	0.881	0.001	1
Competency and Quality Instruction	0.840	0.001	2
Reliability	0.796	0.001	3
Access	0.789	0.001	4
Assurance	0.780	0.001	5
Tangible	0.780	0.001	5
Responsiveness	0.765	0.001	6
Reputation	0.721	0.001	7
Empathy	0.679	0.001	8
Communication	0.606	0.001	9
Orientation	0.597	0.001	10
Understanding the Customer	0.527	0.001	11

show that the highest variable in rank based on the model estimates is courtesy (0.881), followed by competency and quality instruction (0.840), reliability (0.796), access (0.789), assurance (0.780), tangible (0.780), responsiveness (0.765), reputation (0.721), empathy (0.679), and communication (0.606). The variables with the lowest estimates are orientation (0.597) and understanding the customer (0.527).

Based on this finding, the university management and staff courtesy towards students from other countries seemed to play a major role in recruiting and retaining international students in Malaysian public universities. Hence, the attitudes and behaviours demonstrated by the employers toward employees/customers could determine whether the customers—in this case, students—will or will not patronise the place again or seek the service. Customer courtesy impacts customer experience, satisfaction, and loyalty.

4.2. AHP Results

According to

Table 5. Weights for all groups and each indicator based on AHP.

Name	Description	Global Weights	Ranking
Communication	Administrators’ ability to communicate in English and the availability of English programs for international students	0.1300	1
Understanding Customer	University management handling diversity, cultural awareness, inclusiveness and support	0.1107	2
Competence Quality Instructor	Lecturer’s teaching skills, creativity, the mood of delivery, classroom preparedness and assessment	0.1056	3
Access	University management availability to deal with international student issues and accessibility of the academic facilities	0.1001	4
Courtesy	Lecturers’ relationship with international students, academic support in studies/research and international students with the local community in Malaysia	0.0993	5
Responsiveness	Universities’ willingness to help international students and provide prompt service	0.0961	6
Reputation	University’s reputation/ranking/world recognition/image/collaboration	0.0852	7
Orientation		0.0795	8
Assurance	Staff’s knowledge/courtesy/trust/confidence when offering services to international students	0.0629	9
Reliability	Keeping the promise or advertised services consistently over a period of time and handling students’ service problems.	0.0551	10
Empathy	Compassion and caring for international students	0.0419	11
Tangibles	The appearance of facilities, physical equipment, location, and the appearance of the institution’s personnel	0.0337	12

and Figure 3, the synthesised results regarding the goal show communication with the highest vector score and weight of 0.130 (13.0%), followed by understanding customers, with a score of 0.110 (11%). The third-highest score was competency and quality instruction, with 0.105 (10.5%), followed by access, with a score of 0.100 (10%). The fifth-highest score was courtesy, with a score of 0.993 (9.9%), followed by responsiveness, with a score of 0.096 (9.6%). The seventh-highest score was reputation, with a score of 0.0852 (8.5%), while orientation, with a score of 0.0795 (7.9%), was the last to contribute 80% based on the 80/20 rule. However, assurance, reliability, empathy, and tangible did not contribute to the 80% based on Pareto’s law of 80/20. Based on the AHP findings, the public universities in Malaysia should consider communication as the leading indicator and the remaining seven indicators (courtesy, responsiveness, understanding customers, competence and quality instruction, access reputation, and orientation) in improving quality service international student mobility.

4.3. Overall Weights and Ranking

The hierarchy structure with recorded weights for the main criteria was developed in TimbangTara AHP Software 1.0.

4.4. Pareto Principle

This study applied the Pareto principle to support the synthesis results from TimbangTara AHP findings. The Pareto principle is the 80/20 rule, in which 80% of the output comes from 20% of the input. The Pareto chart below shows that eight factors (communication, courtesy, responsiveness, understanding customers, competence and quality instruction, access, reputation, and orientation) make 80% of the contributions to the indicators that improve universities’ quality service for international student mobility and internationalisation policy. The Pareto Figure 4 supports the priorities figure concerning the goal. The 80/20 ratio in Pareto can be determined by calculating each criterion’s weight. Thus, calculating weights, starting from communication to orientation, yielded 80%, while weights of assurance, reliability, empathy, and tangibles resulted in 20%.

Therefore, the priorities concerning goals show communication as the highest priority, while the results of Pareto consider not only communication but all the eight criteria for contributing 80% of the output. Hence, according to the Pareto principle of 80/20, for Malaysian public universities to improve international student mobility service and internationalisation strategies, communication, courtesy, responsiveness, understanding of the customer, competence and quality instruction, access, reputation, and orientation should be considered.

5. Discussion

This study examined the best indicators to improve the Malaysian public universities’ international student quality service system using the measurement model (MM) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) model. From the MM results, the highest-ranking dimensions scored above 0.8 were courtesy and competency and quality instruction. Courtesy is the highest dimension from the MM and second-highest from the AHP because it signifies the importance of the staff treating international students with respect and consideration, as well as the friendliness of academic and nonacademic staff towards international students when delivering academic and nonacademic services. This finding aligns with [57], who found that kindness and support in service delivery significantly drive relationship quality and enhance a customer’s perceived value regarding patronage intentions.

According to Pareto’s principle, competency and quality instruction had the second-highest ranking dimension according to MM and factors contributing to 80% of the quality service. This result is not surprising due to the impact of lecturers’ teaching skills and innovative classroom management on international students who might have experienced different learning delivery techniques before coming to Malaysia. Refs. [58,59] confirmed this. They found that lecturer competency and quality classroom instruction improve the quality of human resources in an academic setting, students’ perceptions of service quality, and influence their loyalty towards the institution.

Second, the dimensions between the ranks of 3rd to 8th are the ones that scored above 0.7. These dimensions are reliability, access, assurance, tangibles, responsiveness, and reputation. These results align with those of [8], who found reliability, access, assurance, and responsiveness among the essential factors needing urgent attention from university service providers based on the perceptions of international students in Malaysia. There are disparities between different findings on the impact of tangibles in quality service, as most research on local students found the visibility of service quality to be highly significant. In contrast, other studies found the factor to have a weak-to-medium impact because many international students consider tangibles to be essentials of quality and not an added advantage.

Third, empathy and communication are the 9th and 10th dimensions in ranking, as they are above 0.6 in the measurement model estimates. Orientation and understanding the customer are the lowest in ranking, with estimates above 0.5. For empathy and communication, the weak perception might come from negative experiences with educational services received by international students. Thus, more focus must be placed on this aspect due to its role as the affective and cognitive aspects of educational services and its influence on international students’ service experiences. Several studies, such as [2,60,61,62], have all confirmed that communication, orientation, and understanding of the students (customers) are important. Communication between the university and students by the university and host country officials and understanding the worldview of the international students and their perspectives of what constitutes quality will help a host country in its efforts toward internationalisation and global benchmarking strategy.

This study supported the Gap model, which emphasises customer satisfaction and expectations. International students chose Malaysia as their study destination with the hope of obtaining their degrees and graduating on time. They expect good accommodations and quality service to be rendered or provided by higher institutions in Malaysia. They are seen as customers, and every service provider’s priority is to cater to the needs of their respected customers. Higher educational institutions must ensure their students’ satisfaction, especially when the students are from foreign countries because international students pay more than local students. Hence, their needs must be met by providing good facilities (tangibles) and intangibles, such as ensuring the students’ wellbeing.

In the global context, the findings of this study send a crucial message to all higher institutions involved in international student mobility, especially in Southeast Asia, to extend satisfaction beyond learning facilities to emotional facilities. With the current situation in the world, where the COVID-19 outbreak has affected international mobility and global economics, intangible services might play prominent roles in attracting more international students to a country’s institutions. Mental health challenges, such as anxiety, depression, and stress, were reported as one of the pandemic’s major problems. Any institution capable of handling these psychological issues could have an edge over its competitors in terms of student mobility.

6. Practical Implications, Limitations and Future Research

The Malaysia Blueprint 2015–2025 set objectives of attracting 200,000 international students in 2020 and 250,000 in 2025; however, the pandemic, coupled with complaints about academic and nonacademic services, has adversely affected international student enrollment. The findings of this study offer a new approach to attracting more international students to Malaysia by identifying barriers to enrollment and solutions for the MoHE to provide services that address the social wellbeing, satisfaction, and experiences of international students in the country.

Malaysian higher education institutions (HEI) should embrace international students as their top customers because international student mobility in Malaysia has contributed more than six billion Malaysian ringgits to the economy [4]. The HEI must change their educational policy by moving from a tangible-driven strategy for enticing international students to an intangible-driven strategy, moving from infrastructure-centric to human-centric.

To meet the target of attracting 250,000 international students to Malaysia, the goal of the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025, public universities must develop a policy that looks into international student wellbeing, interest, relationships, and communications. Moreover, in Malaysia—or any country interested in attracting international students—university academic and administrative staff should engage in professional development to improve their English language skills, their understanding of other cultures, and ways to develop strong bonds with their educational guests.

This study has some limitations concerning the research population and sample size. First, some international students were unreachable during the data collection period. Future studies could benefit from reaching out to more international students by targeting their residences or consulting with the admissions office to obtain international student data. Second, because the focus was on public higher education institutions, future researchers could further the investigation by including private universities or institutions in Malaysia, as private institutions have more international students than public institutions. Moreover, this study should be replicated using triangulation methods. Researchers also might add other variables, such as international student loyalty and retention, to see if they affect service quality.

7. Conclusions

In general, this study bridges some gaps in the literature. First, most studies on service quality using the Parasuraman five-factor model and the Gap model mainly focus on tangible aspects of quality service. To date, there are few studies on intangible qualities to measure international student satisfaction and expectations. This gap in the literature exists despite the importance of intangible qualities in delivering better education-related services from the customer’s perspective and minimising perceived risk while at the same time improving service quality [50,63]. Moreover, no known studies have used AHP in educational settings, especially to prioritise management decisions and find alternatives to reach university goals.

This study provided indicators for universities to prioritise their quality service decisions and guidance on improving and intensifying internationalisation policy and strategy to attract more international students to Malaysia. The measurement model and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) were used as statistical tools to analyse the data. From the measurement model results, courtesy was the leading indicator, while communication was the leading indicator for the AHP model. Regarding communication, international students seem very concerned with the English proficiency of university management and administrators. Thus, as “internationalers”, they would love the person on the counter or in the office or department they visited to communicate with them in a language they understand. Courtesy is another aspect that needs to be improved. The relationship between international students, their lecturers, and supervisors plays a significant role in completing their studies on time. They also would like a good relationship with Malaysians on and off campus, with good memories to bring back to their home country.

Following Pareto’s principle for the 80/20 rule, both leading factors (communication and courtesy) can be seen as soft skills that Malaysian public university administrators or leaders should cultivate to improve their international student mobility service, internationalisation policy, and strategy to attract more international students. However, the other eight factors or indicators (communication, courtesy, responsiveness, understanding customers, competence and quality instruction, access, reputation, and orientation) should not be ignored for their contributions to improving international student service and internationalisation strategies.

Aligning with the theory of customer satisfaction, emotional aspects and human connections are the new areas that this study suggests to educational leaders, managers, and MOHE to achieve international student high satisfaction. Theoretically, a human needs motivation and satisfaction. The more motivated and satisfied international students are, the more their interest in studying in Malaysia increases. Providing services to increase satisfaction among international students is necessary for Malaysian public universities and MOHE to reach their target of hosting 250,000 international students by 2025. As far as international student mobility serves as a source of economic growth, competitiveness, and diversity for universities around the world, improving the psychosocial wellbeing of international students should be paramount for university management and policymakers, and providing continuous quality services should be essential.