Higher Education Service Quality Scale Development for Measuring Service Quality across Campus
description
Transcript of Higher Education Service Quality Scale Development for Measuring Service Quality across Campus
Higher Education Service QualityScale Development for Measuring Service Quality across Campus
Cary C. Countryman, Ph.D.Clayton Hubner, Ph.D.
Cecilia Yiu Chan
BYU-Hawaii
• 2400 students• Mission to serve Asia and the Pacific• 50% are international students• Students represent 70 different countries• At least two-thirds of our students speak two
or more languages
Service Quality and Higher Education
Knowledgeable consumers Greater competition Bad reputation (word of mouth) Focused improvements Assessment Efforts
Measuring Service Quality
Participation – Consumers providing feedback Accurate measurements Defining quality Identifying all of the dimensions or factors of
quality
SERVQUAL
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40 22 scale items (expectations/perceptions) Likert-type scale (7 points) Five dimensions/factors: Reliability, Assurance,
Tangibles, Empathy, Responsiveness
Applications of SERVQUAL
Retailing Lodging Historic Houses (HISTOQUAL) Restaurants/Food Service Health Care
Many different types of service settings
SERVQUAL in Education
Howard & Sobol (2004): Service quality in six different areas
Mahapatra & Khan (2007): EDUQUAL Hughey & Chawla (2003): Academic computer lab O’Neill (2003): University orientation Banwet (2004): Graduate and post-graduate students
in engineering and management institutes Stodnick & Rogers (2008): “Students as customers” -
classroom experience
SERVQUAL & Admissions
Research has shown that the quality of support services, such as an admissions office, strongly influence student retention (Hossler & Bean, 1990)
Ruby (1998) demonstrated how SERVQUAL can be used to ascertain student satisfaction in four areas of support services at a university (academic records, admissions, career services, and financial aid).
Criticism of SERVQUAL
Expectations Focus on providing service not outcomes Wording 7-point Likert type scale (neutral midpoint) Difficulty to replicate results (five factors)
Research Methodology
Modified version of SERVQUAL Wording changes Non-applicable scale items dropped
Focused on perceptions, not expectations Survey administered outside of the Admissions
Office
SurveyTangiblesP1: Admissions office has up-to-date equipmentP2: Physical facilities are visually appealing (not used)P3: Admissions office employees are well dressed and appear neatP4: The appearance of the physical facilities is in keeping with the type of services
provided (not used)
ReliabilityP5: When the Admissions office promises to do something by a certain time, it is done
by that time.P6: When students have problems, the Admissions office is sympathetic and
reassuring.P7: Admissions office is dependableP8: Admissions office provides their services at the time they promise to do so.P9: Admissions office keeps their records accurately.
Survey (continued)Responsiveness (reverse scored)P10: Admissions office does not tell students exactly when services will be performed.P11:You do not receive prompt service from Admission office employees. P12: Employees of Admissions office are not always willing to help customers.P13: Employees of Admission office are too busy to respond to customer request
promptly.
AssuranceP14: You can trust employees of the Admissions office.P15: You feel safe in your transactions with Admission office employees.P16: Employees of the Admissions office are polite.P17: Their employees get adequate support to do their jobs well (not used)
Survey (continued)Empathy (reverse scored)P18: Does not give you individual attention (not used)P19:Employees of the Admissions office do not give you personal attention.P20:Employees of the Admissions office do not know what your needs are.P21: The Admissions office does not have your best interests at heart.P22: The Admissions office does not have operating hours convenient to all their
customers.
Overall Measurements (satisfaction/enjoyment) I am satisfied with the Admissions office I enjoyed my experiences with the Admissions office
Demographicsn = 159 students
NationalityUS Mainland 76 47.8%Asia/Pacific Islands 83 52.2%
StatusFreshman 91 57.2%Transfer 67 42.1%Visiting student 1 0.7%
GenderFemale 100 62.9%Male 59 37.1%
Results
Reliability Factor Analysis Regression
ReliabilityItem to Total Correlation Alpha
Reliability 0.927127P5 0.834933P6 0.843047P7 0.815158P8 0.840126P9 0.715045
Responsiveness 0.868939P10 0.589387P11 0.769211P12 0.748644P13 0.784632
Tangibles 0.509528P1 0.381248P3 0.381248
Item to Total Correlation Alpha
Assurance 0.904674P14 0.862731P15 0.857432P16 0.719117
Empathy 0.858096P19 0.720493P20 0.705745P21 0.774314P22 0.616976
Factor AnalysisFactor 1
ResponsivenessP11 0.733730P12 0.805197P13 0.804486
EmpathyP19 0.781509P20 0.704604P21 0.743328P22 0.701287
Factor 2ReliabilityP5 0.830606P6 0.826540P7 0.822893P8 0.809820P9 0.714193
Factor 3AssuranceP14 0.860161P15 0.857216P16 0.740443
Regression with Satisfaction with the University
Regression
Beta Std. Err. B Std.Err. p-levelIntercept -23.2994 0.967957 0.000000Factor 1 Responsiveness + Empathy 0.438502 0.041693 10.2130 0.971054 0.000000Factor 2 Reliability 0.632162 0.041693 14.7235 0.971054 0.000000Factor 3 Assurance 0.377000 0.041693 8.7806 0.971054 0.000000R=.85676190 R-sq=.73404095 Adjusted R-sq=.72882607F(3,153)=140.76 p<.00000 Std.Error of estimate: 12.128
Regression with Satisfaction with Admissions
Regression with Enjoyment with Admissions
Regression
Beta Std. Err. B Std.Err. p-levelIntercept 4.522293 0.079844 0.000000Factor 2 Reliability 0.371612 0.068202 0.436436 0.080099 0.000000Factor 3 Assurance 0.381532 0.068202 0.448086 0.080099 0.000000R=.53259966 R-sq=.28366240 Adjusted R-sq=.27435931F(2,143)=30.491 p<.00000 Std.Error of estimate: 1.0004
Beta Std. Err. B Std.Err. p-levelIntercept 4.312102 0.086313 0.000000Factor 2 Reliability 0.374978 0.67898 0.4782 0.086589 0.000000Factor 3 Assurance 0.386549 0.67898 0.492957 0.086589 0.000000R=.53854340 R-sq=.29002900 Adjusted R-sq=.28080860F(2,154)=31.455 p<.00000 Std.Error of estimate: 1.0815
Discussion
• Our experience supports observations in the literature that replicating the five-factor solution for SERVQUAL is problematic• Some factors fail to form at all• Other factors combine or collapse into one
• Unsurprising that “tangibles” failed to form a viable factor since most students interact with the admissions office via mail, email or phone and are often unaware of the physical assets
Discussion
• That “responsiveness” and “empathy” formed a single factor is quite interesting• Response items relating to both variables had
negative wording and hence were reverse scored• Possible “sympathy-effect” given cultural make up
of students (Hofstede) and religious background (don’t judge others…too harshly)
• Response item wording may make it difficult for L2 speakers to attenuate the underlying emotions
Discussion
• Both “reliability” and “assurance” formed strong, distinct factors• Reliability’s emphasis of timeliness, accuracy, and
dependability are closely related to what every student would like to experience regarding admissions decisions
• Given the extensive disclosure of personal and confidential information during the admissions process, it is understandable that students desire trust and safety (assurance)
Discussion
• Regression results for “satisfaction level” for the University suggests that student experience with Admissions is well defined by just three factors• Adjusted R2 of nearly .73 and strong F-Statistic
indicate that much of the variance is explained by the three factors used as independent variables
• The large beta for “reliability” is indicative of the importance that students place on timeliness, accuracy dependability, and a sympathetic disposition in the admissions process
Discussion
• Other two regressions still noteworthy despite the smaller adjusted R2 values (w/ strong F’s)• “Reliability” and “assurance” have significant
influence on student satisfaction with admissions and their enjoyment of the admissions process, reinforcing the importance of timeliness, accuracy dependability, a sympathetic disposition, trust and safety in the admissions process
• Values consistent with student expectations for a fair, reliable, confidential, delay-free process
Future Research
Newer version of SERVQUAL Linguistic modifications for those speak
English as a second language Other university services and departments Comprehensive service quality scale for higher
education Other universities