Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF

Purpose - This paper aims to test and compare the relative efficacy of three measuring instruments of service quality (namely Higher Education PERFormance (HEdPERF), SERVPERF and the moderating scale of HEdPERF-SERVPERF) within a higher education setting. The objective was to determine which instrum...

詳細記述

書誌詳細
出版年:Marketing Intelligence and Planning
第一著者: 2-s2.0-31044435750
フォーマット: 論文
言語:English
出版事項: 2006
オンライン・アクセス:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-31044435750&doi=10.1108%2f02634500610641543&partnerID=40&md5=a72a158b886264af2b79e1dc49178701
id Abdullah F.
spelling Abdullah F.
2-s2.0-31044435750
Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
2006
Marketing Intelligence and Planning
24
1
10.1108/02634500610641543
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-31044435750&doi=10.1108%2f02634500610641543&partnerID=40&md5=a72a158b886264af2b79e1dc49178701
Purpose - This paper aims to test and compare the relative efficacy of three measuring instruments of service quality (namely Higher Education PERFormance (HEdPERF), SERVPERF and the moderating scale of HEdPERF-SERVPERF) within a higher education setting. The objective was to determine which instrument had the superior measuring capability in terms of unidimensionality, reliability, validity and explained variance. Design/methodology/approach - After a pilot test, data were collected from students in two public universities, one private university and three private colleges in Malaysia between January and March 2004, by the "contact person" route. From a total of 560 questionnaires, 381 were usable: a response rate of 68.0 per cent. This sample of nearly 400,000 students in Malaysian tertiary institutions was in line with the generalized scientific guideline for sample size decisions. Data were subjected to regression analysis. Findings - A modified five-factor structure of HEdPERF is put forward as the most appropriate scale for the higher education sector. Research limitations/implications - Since this study only examined the respective utilities of each instrument within a single industry, any suggestion that the HEdPERF is generally superior would still be premature. Nonetheless, the current findings do provide some important insights into how these instruments of service quality compare with one another. Practical implications - The single dominant factor on this study is "access", which has clear implications for institutions' marketing strategies. Originality/value - This is believed to be the first study of its kind carried out among consumers of the higher education service. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

2634503
English
Article

author 2-s2.0-31044435750
spellingShingle 2-s2.0-31044435750
Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
author_facet 2-s2.0-31044435750
author_sort 2-s2.0-31044435750
title Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
title_short Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
title_full Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
title_fullStr Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
title_full_unstemmed Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
title_sort Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF
publishDate 2006
container_title Marketing Intelligence and Planning
container_volume 24
container_issue 1
doi_str_mv 10.1108/02634500610641543
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-31044435750&doi=10.1108%2f02634500610641543&partnerID=40&md5=a72a158b886264af2b79e1dc49178701
description Purpose - This paper aims to test and compare the relative efficacy of three measuring instruments of service quality (namely Higher Education PERFormance (HEdPERF), SERVPERF and the moderating scale of HEdPERF-SERVPERF) within a higher education setting. The objective was to determine which instrument had the superior measuring capability in terms of unidimensionality, reliability, validity and explained variance. Design/methodology/approach - After a pilot test, data were collected from students in two public universities, one private university and three private colleges in Malaysia between January and March 2004, by the "contact person" route. From a total of 560 questionnaires, 381 were usable: a response rate of 68.0 per cent. This sample of nearly 400,000 students in Malaysian tertiary institutions was in line with the generalized scientific guideline for sample size decisions. Data were subjected to regression analysis. Findings - A modified five-factor structure of HEdPERF is put forward as the most appropriate scale for the higher education sector. Research limitations/implications - Since this study only examined the respective utilities of each instrument within a single industry, any suggestion that the HEdPERF is generally superior would still be premature. Nonetheless, the current findings do provide some important insights into how these instruments of service quality compare with one another. Practical implications - The single dominant factor on this study is "access", which has clear implications for institutions' marketing strategies. Originality/value - This is believed to be the first study of its kind carried out among consumers of the higher education service. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
publisher
issn 2634503
language English
format Article
accesstype
record_format scopus
collection Scopus
_version_ 1828987884513787904