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