Higher Education Service Quality Scale Development for Measuring Service Quality across Campus

1. Higher Education Service QualityScale Development for Measuring Service Quality across Campus Cary C. Countryman, Ph.D. Clayton Hubner, Ph.D. Cecilia Yiu Chan

2. 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

3. Service Quality and Higher Education • Knowledgeable consumers • Greater competition • Bad reputation (word of mouth) • Focused improvements • Assessment Efforts

4. Measuring Service Quality • Participation – Consumers providing feedback • Accurate measurements • Defining quality • Identifying all of the dimensions or factors of quality

5. 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

6. Applications of SERVQUAL • Retailing • Lodging • Historic Houses (HISTOQUAL) • Restaurants/Food Service • Health Care • Many different types of service settings

7. 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

8. 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).

9. Criticism of SERVQUAL • Expectations • Focus on providing service not outcomes • Wording • 7-point Likert type scale (neutral midpoint) • Difficulty to replicate results (five factors)

10. 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

11. Survey • Tangibles • P1: Admissions office has up-to-date equipment • P2: Physical facilities are visually appealing (not used) • P3: Admissions office employees are well dressed and appear neat • P4: The appearance of the physical facilities is in keeping with the type of services provided (not used) • Reliability • P5: 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 dependable • P8: Admissions office provides their services at the time they promise to do so. • P9: Admissions office keeps their records accurately.

12. 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. • Assurance • P14: 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)

13. 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

14. Demographics

15. Results • Reliability • Factor Analysis • Regression

16. Reliability

17. Factor Analysis

18. Regression • Regression with Satisfaction with the University

19. Regression • Regression with Satisfaction with Admissions • Regression with Enjoyment with Admissions

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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