Yüksekö¤retimde Hizmet Kalitesi Ölçe¤inin Gelifltirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çal›flmas›

Ö¤renciler yüksekö¤retim kurumlar›n› tercih ederken son derece elefltirel ve analitik hale gelmifltir. Bu ö¤renciler taraf›ndan tercih edilebilirlik ve mevcut ö¤rencilerin elde tutulabilirli¤i ile ba¤l›l›¤› yüksekö¤retim kurumlar› için önem tafl›maktad›r. Yüksekö¤retim kurumlar›n›n en önemli temsilcilerinden olan üniversiteler sunduklar› hizmetlerin kalitesiyle ilgili paydafllar› taraf›ndan do¤rudan ve dolayl› olarak de¤erlendirilmektedir. Bu de¤erlendirmelerin sonucu artan hizmet kalitesi ve memnuniyet araflt›rmalar›n›n ise kurumlar›n s›ralanmas›ndan, tercih edilebilirli¤ine, finans politikalar›na kadar çok çeflitli yans›malar› olabilmektedir. Bu araflt›rmada yüksekö¤retimde sunulan hizmetlerin kalitesini lisans ö¤rencilerinin memnuniyet alg›lar›na göre belirlemeye yönelik Türkiye yüksekö¤retim kurumlar›na özgü bir ölçek gelifltirmek amaçlanm›flt›r. Bu kapsamda uzman görüflleri sonucu beflli Likert tipinde 53 maddelik yedi boyutlu ilk taslak oluflturulmufltur. Ölçe¤in deneme formu Türkiye’de yer alan bir kamu üniversitesinin 15 fakültesinde ö¤renimlerine devam eden 346’s› kad›n, 149’u erkek toplam 500 lisans ö¤rencisine uygulanm›flt›r. Ö¤rencilerin sunulan hizmetlerden yararlanm›fl olmas› için en az ikinci s›n›f seviyesinde olmas›na dikkat edilmifltir. Aç›mlay›c› faktör analizi sonucunda üç alt boyuta sahip 29 maddelik bir yap› ortaya konmufltur. Alt boyutlar “Akademik hizmetler”, “‹dari hizmetler” ve “Kampüs olanaklar›” olarak adland›r›lm›flt›r. 1782 farkl› kat›l›mc› üzerinden gerçeklefltirilen do¤rulay›c› faktör analizi bulgular›, ölçe¤in yap› geçerli¤ini desteklemektedir. Tüm bulgular sonucu Yüksekö¤retimde Hizmet Kalitesi Ölçe¤i, yüksekö¤retimde sunulan hizmetlerin niteli¤ini ölçmek için güvenirli¤i ve geçerli¤i yüksek ve yüksekö¤retim kurumlar›na yönelik bir ölçek olarak kabul edilebilir.

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

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

PDF

___

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.
Bektafl, H., & Ulutürk Akman, S. (2014). Yüksekö¤retimde hizmet kalitesi ölçe¤i: 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 karfl›laflt›rmal› analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 181–198.
Büyüköztürk, fi. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek gelifltirmede kullan›m›. E¤itim 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.
Ç›nk›r, fi., & Y›ld›z, S. (2018). Bir Bologna de¤erlendirme çal›flmas›: E¤itim yönetimi lisansüstü program yeterliklerine iliflkin kazan›mlar›n incelenmesi. Yüksekö¤retim Dergisi, 8(1), 55–67.
Çokluk, Ö., fiekercio¤lu, G., & Büyüköztürk, fi. (2014). Çok de¤iflkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamalar›. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yay›nlar›.
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Ölçek gelifltirme kuram ve uygulamalar. (Çev. Ed. Totan, T.). Ankara: Nobel Yay›n Da¤›t›m.
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.
Erkufl, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek gelifltirme-1. Temel kavramlar ve ifllemler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Ero¤lu, E. (2004). Yüksekö¤retimde hizmet kalitesi. Ankara: Nobel yay›n da¤›t›m.
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). Yüksekö¤retim kurumlar›nda hizmet kalitesi ölçü ve modelleri. Ankara: Detay Yay›nc›l›k.
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.
Odabafl›, Y. (2004). Sat›flta ve pazarlamada müflteri iliflkileri yönetimi. ‹stanbul: Sistem Yay›nc›l›k.
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 ›nstitutions: 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. Tavflanc›l, E. (2010). Tutumlar›n ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yay›n Da¤›t›m.
Y›lmaz, V., & Çelik, E. (2009). Lisrel ile yap›sal eflitlik modellemesi: Temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yay›nc›l›k: Ankara.
Y›lmaz, V., Filiz, Z., & Yaprak, B. (2007). SERVQUAL yöntemiyle yüksekö¤retimde 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.