MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402655158 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.3017

Reliability And Validity Analysis Of The Extended SERVQUALIn Higher Educational Institution

2023· article· en· W4402655158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ms. Ridwana Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)ValidityReliability engineeringInstitutionPsychologySociologyEngineeringPsychometricsClinical psychologySocial sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is focuses on the reliability testing of the instrument used in the data collection using the calculation of Cronbach’s Alpha. Individual reliability of each construct was measured using the SPSS. The tool used to check the validity of the scale is done by the content validity ratio. The descriptive statistics was performed to measure the gap between the perceived quality and student expectation. This was the pilot study performed for the development of the measurement and structural model in the future research. The finding of the present study is the seven dimensions of extended SERVQUAL was measured i.e., reliability, responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, tangibility, teaching quality and learning outcome. The study found that the value of cronbach alpha was more than the threshold limit i.e., 0.70 and Content Validity ratio(CVR) was found to be more than the threshold limit. Different parameter where used to evaluate the student satisfaction. The seven dimension were taken as the extended SERVQUAL in which highest gap was found to be learning outcome and minimum gap found in the teaching quality. The co-relation between the dimensions was studied, there is the positive correlation in the items of one variable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.352
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.044 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207