Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Firdaus Abdullah (Sun,) studied this question.