Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2005 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 138

Hizmet Kalitesi Değerlendirme Ölçeği'nin Türkçe Versiyonunun Güvenirliği ve Geçerliği

The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Service Quality Assessment Scale

Pages
70–77
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It has been concluded that all of the goodness-of-fit indices of both the expectation and perception model were admissible, with the perception model being slightly better than the expectation model.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to test the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Service Quality Assessment Scale (SQAS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants of this study consist of 636 health-fitness club's members.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It has been concluded that all of the goodness-of-fit indices of both the expectation and perception model were admissible, with the perception model being slightly better than the expectation model.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Service Quality Assessment Scale (SQAS). The participants of this study consist of 636 health-fitness club's members. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) has been used to examine the factor structure of the SQAS instrument. It has been concluded that all of the goodness-of-fit indices of both the expectation and perception model were admissible, with the perception model being slightly better than the expectation model. The composite reliability and variance extracted has also been calculated for expectation and perception model. Analysis indicated that CR values are all above .70 for both expectation model and perception model.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Hizmet Kalitesi Değerlendirme Ölçeği'nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerliği ve güvenirliğini test etmektir. Çalışmaya sağlık ve zindelik kulüplerine üye olan 636 kişi katılmıştır. Ölçeğin faktör yapısını incelemede, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (confirmatory factor analysis) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, beklenen ve algılanan hizmet modelleri için elde edilen uyum indeksi değerleri kabul edilebilir düzeydedir ve algılanan hizmet modeli beklenen hizmet modeline göre biraz daha yüksek kabul edilebilirlik düzeyindedir. Beklenen ve algılanan hizmet modelleri için Bileşik Güvenirlik (Composite Reliability) ve Açıklanan Varyans (Variance Extracted) değerleri de hesaplanmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, hem beklenen hem de algılanan hizmet modelleri için tüm karışık güvenirlik değerlerinin .70'in üzerinde olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRBÜZ, B., KOÇAK, S., LAM, E. T. (2022). Hizmet Kalitesi Değerlendirme Ölçeği'nin Türkçe Versiyonunun Güvenirliği ve Geçerliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 138, 70–77. https://ajindex.com/articles/498001

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A. & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing, 65, 71-89.
  2. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
  3. Fan, Y. W. C, Kwan, W. S. V. & So, K. M. C. (1999). Customer satisfaction assessment of non-government sports and recreation organisations in Hong Kong using SERVQUAL. Retrieved February 15, 2003, from the World Wide Web, http://www.staff.vu.edu.au/PeterKalmund/html/1999_hk.htm
  4. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research,18, 39-50.
  5. Ghobadian, A., Spellaer, S., & Jones, M. (1994). Service quality: Concepts and models. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11 (9), 43-66.
  6. Hadikoemoro, S. (2002). A comparison of public and private university student's expectations and perceptions of service quality in Jakarta, Indonesia. Doctoral dissertation. Publication Number: A AT 3053219, Nova Southeastern University. Harlow, L. L. (1985). Behavior of some elliptical theory estimators with nonnormal data in a covariance structures framework: A Monte Carlo study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angles. Hernon, P. (2002). Quality: New directions in the research. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28 (4), 224-231.
  7. Howat, G., Crilley, G., Absher, J. & Milne, L. (1996). Measuring customer service quality in sports and leisure centres. Managing Leisure, 1 (2), 77-89.
  8. Hoyle, R. H. & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (158-176).
  9. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8.5: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Lam, E. T. C. (2000). Service quality assessment scale (SQAS): An instrument for evaluating service quality of health-fitness clubs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Texas. MacCallum, R. C, Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149. Mawson