Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Yükseköğretimde Hizmet Kalitesi Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 161 - 173, 03.05.2021
https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.688862

Abstract

Öğrenciler yükseköğretim kurumlarını tercih ederken son derece eleştirel ve analitik hale gelmiştir. Bu öğrenciler tarafından tercih edilebilirlik ve mevcut öğrencilerin elde tutulabilirliği ile bağlılığı yükseköğretim kurumları için önem taşımaktadır. Yükseköğretim kurumlarının en önemli temsilcilerinden olan üniversiteler sundukları hizmetlerin kalitesiyle ilgili paydaşları tarafından doğrudan ve dolaylı olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu değerlendirmelerin sonucu artan hizmet kalitesi ve memnuniyet araştırmalarının ise kurumların sıralanmasından, tercih edilebilirliğine, finans politikalarına kadar çok çeşitli yansımaları olabilmektedir. Bu araştırmada yükseköğretimde sunulan hizmetlerin kalitesini lisans öğrencilerinin memnuniyet algılarına göre belirlemeye yönelik Türkiye yükseköğretim kurumlarına özgü bir ölçek geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda uzman görüşleri sonucu beşli Likert tipinde 53 maddelik yedi boyutlu ilk taslak oluşturulmuştur. Ölçeğin deneme formu Türkiye'de yer alan bir kamu üniversitesinin 15 fakültesinde öğrenimlerine devam eden 346'sı kadın, 149'u erkek toplam 500 lisans öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Öğrencilerin sunulan hizmetlerden yararlanmış olması için en az ikinci sınıf seviyesinde olmasına dikkat edilmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda üç alt boyuta sahip 29 maddelik bir yapı ortaya konmuştur. Alt boyutlar "Akademik hizmetler", "İdari hizmetler" ve "Kampüs olanakları" olarak adlandırılmıştır. 1782 farklı katılımcı üzerinden gerçekleştirilen doğrulayıcı faktör analizi bulguları, ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini desteklemektedir. Tüm bulgular sonucu Yükseköğretimde Hizmet Kalitesi Ölçeği, yükseköğretimde sunulan hizmetlerin niteliğini ölçmek için güvenirliği ve geçerliği yüksek ve yükseköğretim kurumlarına yönelik bir ölçek olarak kabul edilebilir.

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma Ankara Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü tarafından desteklenmiştir.

Project Number

16B0630001

References

  • Abdullah, F. (2005). HEDPERF versus SERVPERF the quest for ideal measuring instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 305–328.
  • Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31–47.
  • Alauddin, M., Ashman, A., Nghiem, S., & Lovell, K. (2017). What determines students’ expectations and preferences in university teaching and learning? An instrumental variable approach. Economic Analysis and Policy, 56, 18–27.
  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 53–66.
  • Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236–54.
  • Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2012). Development of HiEdQUAL for measuring service quality in Indian Higher Education Sector. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(4), 412–416.
  • Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing. 31(7), 528–540.
  • Bektaş, H., & Ulutürk Akman, S. (2014). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi ölçeği: Güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik analizi. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, 18, 116–133.
  • Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21, 318–327.
  • Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69–82.
  • Bülbül, H., & Demirer, Ö. (2008). Hizmet kalitesi ölçüm modelleri SERVQUAL ve SERPERF’in karşılaştırmalı analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 181–198.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 32, 470–483.
  • Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33–55.
  • Chua, C. (2004). Perception of quality in higher education. Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum, July 7–9, 2004, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Cronin, J. J. Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring services quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.
  • Çınkır, Ş., & Yıldız, S. (2018). Bir Bologna değerlendirme çalışması: Eğitim yönetimi lisansüstü program yeterliklerine ilişkin kazanımların incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 8(1), 55–67.
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Ölçek geliştirme kuram ve uygulamalar. (Çev. Ed. Totan, T.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Donaldson, B., & McNicholas, C. (2004). Understanding the postgraduate education market for UK-based students: A review and empirical study. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 9(4), 346–360.
  • Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 19–35.
  • Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-1. Temel kavramlar ve işlemler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Eroğlu, E. (2004). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi. Ankara: Nobel yayın dağıtım.
  • Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1–22.
  • Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–123.
  • Gürbüz, E., & Ergüden, A. (2008). Yükseköğretim kurumlarında hizmet kalitesi ölçü ve modelleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Ho, S., & Wearn, K. (1996). A higher education TQM excellence model: HETQMEX. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), 35–42.
  • Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobâlca, C., & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 124–140.
  • Mwiya, B., Bwalya, J., Siachinji, B., Sikombe, S., Chanda, H., & Chawala, M. (2017). Higher education quality and student satisfaction nexus: Evidence from Zambia. Creative Education, 8, 1044–1068.
  • Odabaşı, Y. (2004). Satışta ve pazarlamada müşteri ilişkileri yönetimi. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
  • Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(4 Suppl. 1), 33–44.
  • Onditi, E. O., & Wechuli, T. W. (2017). Service quality and student satisfaction in higher education ınstitutions: A review of literature. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 7(7), 328–336.
  • Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1996). A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), 12–20.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale forme asuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(19), 12–40.
  • Ramsden, P. A. (1991). Performance Indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.
  • Rowley, J. (2003). Designing student feedback questionnaires. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(3), 142–9.
  • Sultan, P., & Wong, H. (2010). Performance based service quality model: An empirical study on Japanese universities. Quality Assistance in Education 18(2), 1266–143.
  • Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2001). A holistic model for total quality service. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(4), 378–412.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, E. (2009). Lisrel ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: Temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık: Ankara.
  • Yılmaz, V., Filiz, Z., & Yaprak, B. (2007). SERVQUAL yöntemiyle yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesinin ölçülmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 299–316.
  • Zammuto, R. F., Keaveneu, S. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (1996). Rethinking student semas: Assessing and improving service quality. Journal of Marketing in Higher Education, 7(1), 45–69.
  • Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Service marketing. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  • Zineldin, M. (2000). Total relationship management (TRM) and total quality management (TQM). Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(1/2), 20–28.
  • Zineldin, M., Camgöz Akdag, H., & Vasicheva, V. (2011). Assessing quality in higher education: New criteria for evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 231–243.

Development of Service Quality Scale in Higher Education: A Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 161 - 173, 03.05.2021
https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.688862

Abstract

Students have become highly critical and analytical in selecting the higher education institution they would like to study at. It has become important for higher education institutions to be preferred by such prospective students as well as ensuring the commitment and retention of their current students. Universities, as the most important representatives of higher education institutions, are evaluated directly and indirectly by their stakeholders regarding the quality of the services they provide. Service quality and satisfaction surveys based on these evaluations can have a wide variety of implications on institutional rankings, preferability, financial policies, etc. This study aims to develop a scale specific to Turkish Higher Education Institutions to determine the quality of services offered in higher education according to the satisfaction perceptions of undergraduate students. Accordingly, the first draft of a 53-item seven-dimensional five-point Likert type scale was created. The piloting version of the scale was applied to a total of 500 undergraduate students, of whom 346 were female and 149 male, who were continuing their studies in 15 faculties of a public university in Turkey. Further, particular care was taken to include students who were in their second year or higher seniority at the university so that they would have had sufficient time to benefit from the services offered. A 29-item structure with three sub-dimensions was revealed as a result of the exploratory factor analysis performed. The sub-dimensions were named as "Academic services", "Administrative services", and "Campus facilities". The findings of the confirmatory factor analysis conducted on 1782 participants support the structure validity of the scale. Based on the findings, the Service Quality in Higher Education Scale has been determined to be a highly reliable and valid scale that can be used to specifically measure the quality of services offered in higher education.

Project Number

16B0630001

References

  • Abdullah, F. (2005). HEDPERF versus SERVPERF the quest for ideal measuring instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 305–328.
  • Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31–47.
  • Alauddin, M., Ashman, A., Nghiem, S., & Lovell, K. (2017). What determines students’ expectations and preferences in university teaching and learning? An instrumental variable approach. Economic Analysis and Policy, 56, 18–27.
  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 53–66.
  • Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236–54.
  • Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2012). Development of HiEdQUAL for measuring service quality in Indian Higher Education Sector. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(4), 412–416.
  • Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing. 31(7), 528–540.
  • Bektaş, H., & Ulutürk Akman, S. (2014). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi ölçeği: Güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik analizi. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, 18, 116–133.
  • Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21, 318–327.
  • Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69–82.
  • Bülbül, H., & Demirer, Ö. (2008). Hizmet kalitesi ölçüm modelleri SERVQUAL ve SERPERF’in karşılaştırmalı analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 181–198.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 32, 470–483.
  • Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33–55.
  • Chua, C. (2004). Perception of quality in higher education. Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum, July 7–9, 2004, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Cronin, J. J. Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring services quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.
  • Çınkır, Ş., & Yıldız, S. (2018). Bir Bologna değerlendirme çalışması: Eğitim yönetimi lisansüstü program yeterliklerine ilişkin kazanımların incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 8(1), 55–67.
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Ölçek geliştirme kuram ve uygulamalar. (Çev. Ed. Totan, T.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Donaldson, B., & McNicholas, C. (2004). Understanding the postgraduate education market for UK-based students: A review and empirical study. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 9(4), 346–360.
  • Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 19–35.
  • Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-1. Temel kavramlar ve işlemler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Eroğlu, E. (2004). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi. Ankara: Nobel yayın dağıtım.
  • Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1–22.
  • Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–123.
  • Gürbüz, E., & Ergüden, A. (2008). Yükseköğretim kurumlarında hizmet kalitesi ölçü ve modelleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Ho, S., & Wearn, K. (1996). A higher education TQM excellence model: HETQMEX. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), 35–42.
  • Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobâlca, C., & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 124–140.
  • Mwiya, B., Bwalya, J., Siachinji, B., Sikombe, S., Chanda, H., & Chawala, M. (2017). Higher education quality and student satisfaction nexus: Evidence from Zambia. Creative Education, 8, 1044–1068.
  • Odabaşı, Y. (2004). Satışta ve pazarlamada müşteri ilişkileri yönetimi. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
  • Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(4 Suppl. 1), 33–44.
  • Onditi, E. O., & Wechuli, T. W. (2017). Service quality and student satisfaction in higher education ınstitutions: A review of literature. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 7(7), 328–336.
  • Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1996). A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), 12–20.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale forme asuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(19), 12–40.
  • Ramsden, P. A. (1991). Performance Indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.
  • Rowley, J. (2003). Designing student feedback questionnaires. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(3), 142–9.
  • Sultan, P., & Wong, H. (2010). Performance based service quality model: An empirical study on Japanese universities. Quality Assistance in Education 18(2), 1266–143.
  • Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2001). A holistic model for total quality service. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(4), 378–412.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, E. (2009). Lisrel ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: Temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık: Ankara.
  • Yılmaz, V., Filiz, Z., & Yaprak, B. (2007). SERVQUAL yöntemiyle yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesinin ölçülmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 299–316.
  • Zammuto, R. F., Keaveneu, S. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (1996). Rethinking student semas: Assessing and improving service quality. Journal of Marketing in Higher Education, 7(1), 45–69.
  • Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Service marketing. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  • Zineldin, M. (2000). Total relationship management (TRM) and total quality management (TQM). Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(1/2), 20–28.
  • Zineldin, M., Camgöz Akdag, H., & Vasicheva, V. (2011). Assessing quality in higher education: New criteria for evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 231–243.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Original Empirical Research
Authors

Şakir Çınkır 0000-0001-8057-938X

Sevgi Yıldız 0000-0003-1116-7896

Gül Kurum 0000-0002-8686-7339

Project Number 16B0630001
Publication Date May 3, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 11 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Çınkır, Ş., Yıldız, S., & Kurum, G. (2021). Yükseköğretimde Hizmet Kalitesi Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 11(1), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.688862

Yükseköğretim Dergisi/TÜBA Higher Education Research/Review (TÜBA-HER) does not officially agree with the ideas of manuscripts published in the journal and does not guarantee for any product or service advertisements on both printed and online versions of the journal. Scientific and legal responsibilities of published manuscripts belong to their authors. Materials such as pictures, figures, tables etc. sent with manuscripts should be original or written approval of copyright holder should be sent with manuscript for publishing in both printed and online versions if they were published before. Authors agree that they transfer all publishing rights to the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA), the publisher of the journal. Copyrights of all published contents (text and visual materials) belong to the journal. No payment is done for manuscripts under the name of copyright or others approved for publishing in the journal and no publication cost is charged; however, reprints are at authors' cost.

To promote the development of global open access to scientific information and research, TÜBA provides copyrights of all online published papers (except where otherwise noted) for free use of readers, scientists, and institutions (such as link to the content or permission for its download, distribution, printing, copying, and reproduction in any medium, without any changing and except the commercial purpose), under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND3.0) License, provided the original work is cited. To get permission for commercial purpose please contact the publisher.