7/28/2019 Athiyaman_Exploring Graduates’ Perceptions of the Quality of Higher Education-OCR.pdf http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/athiyamanexploring-graduates-perceptions-of-the-quality-of-higher-education-ocrpdf 1/6 Exploring Graduates' Perceptions of the Quality of Higher Education Abstract Background Literature In the 1990s, some firms gained competitive advantage by providing a better product or service to the customer (Belohlav 1993). As a co nsequence, interest in th e me asurement of service quality is hi gh . However, as highlighted by several researchers, service quality is an elusive and abstract concept that is difficult to define and measure (Bolton and Drew 1991; Glow and Vorhies 1993; Boulding, Kalra, Staelin and Zeithmal 1993). For several years, academic researchers measured service quality by em pl oying uni-dimensional scales (Zeithmal 1988). Hjorth-Anderson (1984) argues that uni-d imensional scales are inappropriate to measure a multi-dimensional concept like quality. Recognising the pitfalls of the uni-dimensional measures of quality, Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry (1988) constructed a multi-item of scale perceived service quality. Galled SERVQUAL, the instrument, as claimed by its developers, assessed customers' perceptions of service quality along five dimensions: tangibles; reliability; responsiveness; assurance; and empathy. Parasuraman ~ 1988) defined quality as the discrepancy between customers' expectations of service quality and their perceptions of the actual quality services received. Although, the multiple-item scale (SERVQUAL) was refined to be applicable across a broad spectrum of services (Zeithmal, Parasuraman and Berry 1990), the dimensionality and 'external validity' of the scale have been questioned. In July 1992, Cronin and Taylor assessed the dimensionality of SERVQUAL and found that its 5-dimension structure (as proposed by Parasuraman ~ 988) did not emerge in empirical examinations. They also argued that service quality dimensions differ from industry to industry and consequently, a service quality scale developed for one industry may not be valid for another. Morgan and Piercy (1992: l l6) offer a similar argument. They observe: Thus the service quality literature has left confusion as to the appropriateness of quality scales such as SERVQUAL in measuring service quality across a wide range of industries, including higher education. The Study
6
Embed
Athiyaman_Exploring Graduates’ Perceptions of the Quality of Higher Education-OCR.pdf
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/28/2019 Athiyaman_Exploring Graduates’ Perceptions of the Quality of Higher Education-OCR.pdf
Chart 1: Mean lmportance Rating for Seven Dimensions
4,7
4,6
4,5
4,4
42
• .1
"!,""!;Ã."The horizontal line that cuts across the dimensions is the 'grand mean'.
Measuring Service Quality
Instrument
A series of discussions were held with senior academic and administrative staff of the University. Based on
these discussions, several dim ensions identif ied from th e qua lit ative research were combined to gether,
and some new dimensions were added. The result was a 15 item instrument of service quality that was
presumed to tap three dim ensions of quali ty: ph ysical facili ties, academic staff, and cognitiv e outco mes. A
pre-test conducted amon g a co nve nience sample of stud ents, incl udin g gr adu ates, did no t r ev eal any
discrepancy in the 15-item measuring in stru men t.
As mentioned earl ier, the cur rent ope ration of se rvice quality is b ased on 'g ap th eory, tha t is, th edifference between clients' expectations about performance of a service and their assessment of the actual
performance of th e servi ce. Alt hough the l i t erature on mea suring service qualit y arg ues for simp le
performance based mea sures (for exa mple, Cro nin an d T ay lor 19 92), the ga p th eor y ap pr oach of
measuring service quality has foun d wi de ap pl ication in in du stry (for examp le, Rigotti and Pit t 1992).
Hence, the gap theory approach of measuring service quality was adopted for this study. The instrument
(quality scale) used in the stud y had tw o sec tions. The firs t on 'ex pectations' contained 15 statements to
ascertain what the students of the University would expect of services at an outstanding university. The
second on 'perceptions contained a matching set of statements to measure the students assessment of the
University's services. All items were anchored with a 5-point scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1
(strongly disagree).
Scale Development
~~ -. T h e in st rum ent wa s mail ed to a random sam ple of 1471 of the University' s 1993 graduates. A total
of 877 useable responses were received. The responses were split into equal groups: one group served as
the primary scale development sam ple, and another was used to cross-validate the finding s.
Item-scale Correlati ons
As the firs t step in pu ri fy ing th e scale items, the corrected item -total correl ation was comp leted. This
requires the comput ation of c orrel ations for each of the items in the scale with all ot her it ems in the scale.
Table 2 presents the results of this exercise. From the data in Table 2, it is clear that item 11 can be deleted
from the scale since it has the lowest item-total correlation, leaving a 14-item instrument.
7/28/2019 Athiyaman_Exploring Graduates’ Perceptions of the Quality of Higher Education-OCR.pdf
Well prepared and organised .73Present material clearly .77
Tell what they expect of students .71
Concerned about student learning .78
Provide feedback on students' progress .80
Exercise close supervision of student work .56
Available regularly for student consultation .58
Will enhance students' communication skill s .73
Will enhance students' capacity for problem solving .68
Will ensure its graduates are computer litera te .65
Would provide effective bridging courses in arcas such as mathematics .69
Validity
The concurrent validity of the three facet quality scale was explored by computing a Pearson correlation
coefficient betwee n scores on th e qu al ity scal e and sco res on a si ngl e it em me asure of qu al ity . Th e
correlation (r=0.2516, p < 0.001) was significant. To explore the discriminant validity of the scale, scores on
the quality scale were correlated with a 'satisfaction' measure obtained from the respondents regarding the
Universit y's pl acement serv ices. The corr elation was sign ifi cant (r= 0.1 167, p=0.01), but lo wer th an th e
c orrelation coeff icient of co ncu rrent va li dity . Ac cord ing to C hu rc hil l (1 979) discr iminant va li dity i s
established when the correlation between two different measures of the same variable is higher than the
correlation between the me asure of th at var iable and th ose of any ot her va riab le. Hence, i t can be
concluded tha t th e me asuring in stru ment use d in th e st ud y ex hi bits the cha racterist ics of a v al idinstrument.
Summary
The purpose of the study described above was to develop an instrument to measure clients perception of
the quality of hi gher education institut ions. The study used a sample of gradu ates of a med ium siz e
university to d ev elop th e sc ale. Al th ough th e re l i abil i ty ( i nte rnal con sistency) and c on current and
discriminant val idi ty of th e scale were established, addit ional research is needed to fu ll y e xa mine the
psychometric pro perties of th e scale. For exa mple, the 'co nstruct ' va lid ity of t h e s cale needs to be
established. In addition, Peter, Churchill and Brown (1991) argue that measures using 'difference scores'
are not as reli able as other dire ct meas ures. A stu dy to de ter min e the val id ity of th e above assertion iscurrently in progress. To attain sustainable competitive advantage, higher education institutions need to
compare their per forma nce with th eir c l ie nts' expectations. The pro posit ion that service f irms wh ic h
provide high quality services perform better than their competitors is supported in the literature (Betrand
1989). The instrument developed in this study could help higher education institutions measure quality
and make inform ed deci sions about strategies and tactics to improv e their ma rket po sitio n.
References
Belholav, J A (1993) "Quality, Strategy, and Competit iveness". ~ ~ ~ ~ pring, 56-67.
Betrand, K (1989) "Putting Customers First: GTE Telephone Operations' opinion surveys improve how it
provides service". ~~ ~ ~ ~ ecember , 30-32, 34.
Bolton, R N, Dr ew, J H (1 991) "A M u l ti stage Model of Cus tomers' Assessments of Service Quality and
V alue" . arch, 375-384 .
7/28/2019 Athiyaman_Exploring Graduates’ Perceptions of the Quality of Higher Education-OCR.pdf