Does service matter? An examination of donor perceptions of service quality in college athletics.
Shapiro, Stephen L.
Introduction
The delivery of high quality service is one of the most important
aspects of any service organization (Pride & Ferrell, 2003). The
quality of service provided can lead to additional sales and repeat
customers. Based on the abstract nature of service characteristics,
customers will look for evidence of quality service. This evidence can
be found through employees, location, price, and communication material
(Kotler & Keller, 2006). In service organizations, the level of
quality is the most important factor in customer satisfaction (Zeithaml
& Bitner, 2000). Subsequently, measurement and evaluation of
customer perceptions of service quality is extremely valuable.
The impact of service perceptions is evident within the non-profit
sector. Service quality has been shown to influence donor satisfaction,
retention, commitment, and lifetime value (Sargeant, 2001; Sargeant,
West, & Ford, 2001; Shiu, Vaughan, & Donnelly, 1997). The
importance of understanding the impact of service quality has increased
for two reasons. First, the current economic climate has presented new
fundraising challenges. According to Giving USA (2009), charitable
giving in the Unites States decreased by 5.7% in 2008 (after adjustment
for inflation), which is the first decline in contributions since 1987
and one of the steepest declines since 1974. The decrease in fundraising
revenue has forced non-profit organizations to do more with limited
resources. Second, donors have a variety of options in terms of
voluntary support. The number of non-profit organizations registered
with the IRS was 1.4 million in 2005, which was a 27.3% increase over a
10-year period (Blackwood, Wing, & Pollack, 2008). Due to increased
competition for charitable contributions, non-profit organizations have
transitioned to a market-oriented approach to managing the
donor/organization relationship (Vaughan & Shiu, 2001). As a result,
the value of service quality and donor perceptions of service is
apparent within the non-profit sector.
The importance of service quality has been investigated in
non-profit organizations (Brady, Noble, Utter, & Smith, 2002;
Sargeant, 2001; Vaughan & Shiu, 2001). These studies have examined
the nature of services and the impact of perceived service quality on
donor behavior. There has also been a wealth of service quality research
in sport, including spectator sport (Greenwell, Fink, & Pastore,
2002; McDonald, Sutton, & Milne, 1995; Murray & Howat, 2002),
recreational sport (Crompton, MacKay, & Fesenmaier, 1991; Ko &
Pastore, 2004, 2005), and sport tourism (Shonk & Chelladurai, 2008).
However, service quality research in the area of college athletic
fundraising is non-existent. Current athletic departments rely heavily
on charitable contributions as a revenue source. Fundraising accounts
for approximately 25% of generated revenue for Football Bowl Subdivision
(FBS) institutions and 27% of generated revenue for Football
Championship Subdivision (FCS) institutions, respectively (Fulks, 2009).
Due to the increasing need for voluntary support in college athletics and the influence of service quality perceptions in the non-profit
sector, it is critical to explore the value college athletic donors
place on service excellence.
In addition, college athletic departments are unique in that they
depend on charitable contributions, but are not considered a charity.
According to Brady et al. (2002), organizations that produce revenue by
offering a service, yet generate supplemental income through donations
are considered charitable hybrids. Brady et al. developed the
services-philanthropic giving model, which provides a conceptual
framework for understanding the relationship between service perceptions
and charitable contributions through an examination of university
fundraising. The service-related portion of this framework may also be
applicable to college athletic development.
Thus, the primary purpose of this investigation was to examine
donor perceptions of service quality in college athletics. First, the
construct of service quality was analyzed within the context of college
athletic donors. Previous research has identified service quality as a
multi-dimensional construct in a variety of for-profit and non-profit
organizations (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &
Berry, 1985, 1988; Sargeant, 2001; Schneider & White, 2004).
However, service quality has not been examined with a sample of college
athletic donors. Second, service quality was measured to understand its
influence on donor satisfaction. Previous research has shown a positive
relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction (Brady et
al., 2002; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
Specifically, Brady et al. found a significant relationship between
these constructs and future donor intentions in higher education.
Finally, service quality was measured to understand its influence on
donation behavior outcomes, specifically, donor longevity and donation
amount. There is evidence of a service quality influence on donor
longevity in the non-profit sector (Sargeant, 2001; Sargeant et al.,
2001); however, this relationship has not been investigated with college
athletic donors. The influence of service quality on gift amount has not
been previously examined. A better understanding of the impact of
service quality and its relationship to both donor satisfaction and
donor behavior outcomes can help athletic departments develop strategies
to recruit and retain contributors.
Review of Related Literature
The Service Quality Construct
Considerable attention has been given to the development of an
instrument to measure the construct of service quality in order to
understand its impact on organizational success. Parasuraman et al.
(1985) performed an exploratory investigation of service quality and
developed an initial service quality scale entitled SERVQUAL. The
researchers identified gaps between consumer expectations and
organizational performance. Ten determinants of service quality were
developed from this investigation (Reliability, Responsiveness,
Competence, Access, Courtesy, Communication, Credibility, Security,
Understanding, and Tangibles). Parasuraman et al. (1988) used this
service quality framework to extend SERVQUAL. Through a process of
revisions and pilot tests, a 44item, five factor instrument was
developed. The model measured consumer expectations of 22 service
quality items and perceptions of performance regarding those same 22
items. The five factors (Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, and Empathy) incorporated all of the themes from the original
framework.
Parasuraman et al. (1988) laid the groundwork for the examination
of service quality in multiple industries; however, there have been
issues in using this instrument across various fields. Schneider and
White (2004) mention that a variety of studies using SERVQUAL have found
different factor structures. In addition, scholars have argued that the
traditional structure of SERVQUAL does not provide a complete evaluation
of a consumer's service quality perceptions (Cronin & Taylor,
1992; Finn & Lamb, 1991). The SERVQUAL instrument may have to be
modified to fit the unique qualities of different industries. Other
authors have developed industry-specific service quality instruments
based on the SERVQUAL framework including the Retail Service Quality
Scale (Dabholkar, Thorpe, & Rentz, 1996) for the retail industry,
and QUESC for sport consumers (Kim & Kim, 2005)
The original SERVQUAL instrument measured service quality through a
disconfirmation model. The disconfirmation model examines the difference
between consumer expectations and consumer perceptions of organizational
performance (Vaughan & Shiu, 2001). This gap between expectations
and performance helps determine the extent of service quality through
the eyes of the consumer. Significant attention has been given to the
effectiveness of the disconfirmation approach. There is evidence in the
service marketing literature suggesting the benefits of focusing
specifically on a more parsimonious, performance-based measure (Bolton
& Drew, 1991; Cronin & Taylor, 1992, 1994). Cronin and Taylor
(1992) re-examined the SERVQUAL structure in terms of consumer attitudes
and satisfaction. The authors contend that the SERVQUAL instrument is
focused on the perceived level of consumer satisfaction because it uses
a disconfirmation model where an assessment of attitudes toward service
quality would be a more accurate measure.
Cronin and Taylor (1992) developed SERVPERF, which is an
attitudinal-based service quality instrument. The SERVPERF instrument
reduced the size of the original SERVQUAL instrument in half by
eliminating the expectation/performance gap structure and measuring
consumer attitudes through one set of the original 22 service quality
items. Most empirical evidence supports the use of a more parsimonious
measure of service quality (Cronin & Taylor, 1994). Additionally,
Cronin and Taylor contend that an attitudinal based measure "better
reflects long-term service quality attitudes in cross-sectional
studies" (p. 127).
Service Quality in Non-Profit Organizations
As mentioned previously, there has been limited research on service
quality within the non-profit sector and literature on service
perceptions within the area of college athletic fundraising is
non-existent. Service quality has been identified as a factor that may
influence donor satisfaction and donor behavior, but additional research
is needed to examine the relative importance of service quality within
this environment. Shiu et al. (1997) examined the portability of the
SERVQUAL instrument within the context of the voluntary sector. The
authors concluded that donor service quality perceptions have value and
influence; however, the SERVQUAL measure must be refined in order to be
an effective measure of donor service quality perceptions.
From a non-profit perspective, performance-based measures of
service quality have been used to assess donor attitudes toward the
level of service provided by charitable organizations. Brady et al.
(2002) used an adapted attitudinal service quality measure to examine
service perceptions in their study of donations to higher education.
Empirical evidence supported the use of a performance-based measure in
this examination; however, a three-item, uni-dimensional measure of
service quality was used as part of a larger service model examining
aspects of service quality, value, sacrifice, and satisfaction. A
multi-dimensional instrument focused specifically on service quality
perceptions was not tested.
Sargeant (2001) used a modified service quality instrument to
measure performance-based attitudes. Sargeant measured the effect of
service quality on donor retention. A sample of donors from multiple
charities in the United Kingdom was surveyed for this study. Perceptions
of donor service quality were examined to determine if the quality of
service may have an impact on donor attrition. A modified
SERVQUAL/SERVPERF scale was used that focused on attitudes, consistent
with Cronin and Taylor (1992). An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was
conducted on the adapted service quality instrument and three factors
were identified from the analysis:
Responsiveness: The focus of this sub-dimension is the
organizational response to donors. The organization provides personal
attention and meets the needs of donors. In addition, the organization
is quick to respond to issues or questions.
Feedback: This factor refers to the ability of the organization to
communicate clearly to donors and provide timely feedback. The
organization provides courteous and convenient communication to
individual donors. Additionally, the organization provides accurate
information on how donations are being utilized.
Effectiveness: This sub-dimension refers to donor confidence that
the organization cares about its stakeholders. Donations are used
appropriately and the organization delivers on promises to donors.
Sargeant's (2001) adapted donor service quality instrument
provides aspects of Cronin and Taylor's (1992) attitudinal SERVPERF
instrument, along with unique sub-dimensions that appear to capture
facets of the donor/non-profit organization relationship. The
modification of previous service quality measures in the for-profit
sector further supports the notion that service quality measures must be
flexible for different types of industries.
Sargeant's (2001) adapted donor service quality scale may be
applicable in terms of college athletic donors; however, further
investigation is warranted. First, the adapted service quality scale was
assessed with only one sample using an exploratory data reduction
technique. The factor structure identified by Sargeant provides a
conceptual foundation for future examination, but the factor structure
should be confirmed in order to evaluate an appropriate model fit.
Second, reliability and validity measures were not assessed for the
adapted service quality instrument. Reliability and validity-related
evidence will provide further support for this specific measure of
service quality within the context of charitable contributors. Finally,
a sample of college athletic donors has not been examined. Service
quality perceptions may be different for college athletic donors
compared to the traditional non-profit donor population.
An understanding of the attributes of service quality in the
non-profit sector is essential when investigating donor perceptions in
college athletics. Non-profit organizations will differ from for profit
organizations in terms of perceptions of service quality (Vaughan &
Shiu, 2001). Furthermore, according to Schneider and White (2004),
components of service quality can vary from industry to industry based
on the characteristics of consumers. The population of college athletic
donors is unique in terms of characteristics (Hammersmith, 1985; Shulman
& Bowen, 2001) and motivations (Billing, Holt, & Smith, 1985;
Gladden, Mahony, & Apostolopoulou, 2005; Mahony, Gladden, &
Funk, 2003). These factors present a unique service environment for
college athletic departments. An examination of the importance of
service quality in this environment will provide athletic departments
with valuable information regarding their relationship with donors and
perceptions of service in the area of college athletic development.
Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Donor Behavior Outcomes
Service quality and satisfaction are closely related facets of
consumer perceptions. There is a relationship between these constructs,
but they are not identical. According to Parasuraman et al. (1988)
service quality is an attitude or judgment. Quality perceptions are
based on a consumer's appraisal of the product or service
(Zeithaml, 1988). Satisfaction, on the other hand, is based specifically
on the transaction. It is a response to a product or service-related
consumption experience (Linder-Pelz, 1982). For example, it is possible
for a consumer to be satisfied with a product or service even though a
high level of service was not provided. Still, consumer attitudes formed
by the level of service provided can influence overall satisfaction.
There has been some discrepancy regarding the relationship between
these two variables. Some authors argue that satisfaction acts as an
antecedent to service quality (De Ruyter, Bloemer, & Peeters, 1997;
Rust & Oliver, 1994; Swan & Bowers, 1998). The rationale for
this relationship is that transactions that are considered satisfactory
over time will create a positive perception of service quality. Other
authors have made the argument that service quality acts as an
antecedent to customer satisfaction (Brady et al., 2002; Cronin &
Taylor, 1992; Gotlieb, Grewal, & Brown, 1994; Parasuraman et al.,
1985, 1988). Therefore, as the perception of quality service increases,
customers are more likely to be satisfied with their overall experience.
Cronin and Taylor examined these relationships and provided empirical
support that service quality should be considered an antecedent of
customer satisfaction. Service quality is one of many indicators (i.e.,
price, value, convenience) which influence overall customer
satisfaction.
Brady et al. (2002) examined this relationship with college
students (who will become potential donors) as part of a larger giving
model. Their findings were consistent with Cronin and Taylor (1992).
Sargeant (2001) investigated overall donor satisfaction and found that
donors who scored high in perceptions of satisfaction were 1.8 times
more likely to remain active contributors; however, the relationship
between service quality and donor satisfaction was not examined.
Perceived service quality by athletic donors may also have an influence
on overall satisfaction.
Previous research has also focused on the influence of service
quality and customer satisfaction on purchase intentions in a variety of
industries (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
These studies found a direct relationship between service quality and
purchase intentions. Other studies have found that service quality
indirectly influences purchase intentions through customer satisfaction
(Gotlieb et al., 1994; Shonk & Chelladurai, 2008). In terms of donor
behavior, Brady et al. (2002) found that service quality (among other
indicators) played a significant role in donor satisfaction; however,
the relationship between satisfaction and giving intent was not
significant. Additionally, Sargeant (2001) found that service quality
had a significant impact on donor longevity. Donors who perceived the
level of service to be high were likely to be loyal contributors.
Sargeant did not examine the influence of satisfaction on donor length.
In summary, there have been some contradictory findings regarding
the relationships between service quality, satisfaction, and donor
behavior. The literature on these variables within the non-profit sector
is limited and research has not been conducted with college athletic
donors specifically. There may be existing relationships between service
quality, donor satisfaction, and donor behavior within the context of
college athletic development. Further investigations are needed to
provide additional evidence of an existing relationship between these
variables.
Methods
Sample
The population for the current study consisted of current college
athletic donors. An online survey was sent to all current donors from an
NCAA Division I institution located in the mountain region of the United
States. The athletic department of interest competes at the Football
Bowl Subdivision (FBS) level, but is not a member of a BCS conference.
The athletic programs at the institution being examined have a wealth of
tradition and historical success; however, the revenue-generating sports
have achieved only moderate success in the past decade. The donor list
consisted of 1,800 current annual donors. A total of 502 usable surveys
were returned for a response rate of 27.9%.
Instrumentation
The questionnaire used for the current study contained three
sections with a total of 32 items. The first section had four items
which focused on donor information such as donation amount, donor level,
and total years as a donor. The second section was comprised of a
20item, adapted version of Cronin and Taylor's (1992) SERVPERF
service quality instrument developed by Sargeant (2001). The adapted
SERVPERF was created for use in the non-profit sector. One item was
dropped because it was not relevant to college athletics. All 20 scale
items used in the current study are reported in Table 1. These items
were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. The adapted service quality measure is
made up of three sub-dimensions: Responsiveness (9 items), Feedback (8
items), and Effectiveness (3 items). Reliability was not reported in
previous examinations using this scale in the non-profit sector. This
was an important part of the data analysis process within the current
study. The third section of the survey contained one item measuring
overall donor satisfaction adapted from Sargeant. The satisfaction item
was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Very
Dissatisfied to 5 = Very Satisfied. The final section of the survey had
seven items focused on demographics in order to profile the typical
donor at the institution being examined.
Procedure
Questionnaires were administered through an online format. The
athletic department used in the current study sent e-mails to all
current donors. Each potential participant received an introductory
e-mail explaining the purpose of the study along with a link to the
web-based survey. A follow up e-mail was sent to all potential
participants two weeks later in an effort to increase response rate. In
addition, an incentive in the form of entrance into a drawing for
basketball conference tournament passes was offered to respondents. This
information was kept separate from survey responses to maximize
anonymity and confidentiality.
Data Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was initially conducted on the
adapted non-profit service quality instrument to examine the factor
structure of the service quality construct based on the sample of
current donors. Previous theory on service quality and scale development
of SERvQUAL and SERVPERF (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al.,
1985, 1988; Sargeant, 2001) drove specification of the factor model;
therefore, CFA was the most appropriate factor analytic technique
(Brown, 2006). Multiple measures of fit were used to examine the factor
structure of the adapted non-profit service quality instrument. Overall
goodness of fit was assessed using a robust chi-squared test. According
to Hu and Bentler (1999), this test can be sensitive to sample size and
should not be used exclusively in determining model fit. Consequently,
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), and the comparative fit index (CFI) were examined
to provide additional sources of fit that are widely accepted in applied
research and have shown satisfactory performance in model simulation
analyses. SRMR assesses absolute model fit, RMSEA examines model
parsimony, and CFI evaluates the fit of researcher specified factor
solution (Brown, 2006). According to Hu and Bentler, SRMR values close
to .08 or below, RMSEA values close to .06 or below, and CFI values
close to .95 or greater provide evidence of adequate model fit.
Modification indices were subsequently examined to determine if
revisions to the initial factor structure could improve model fit, and
if revisions could be adequately justified based on prior research.
Convergent and discriminant validity assessments were conducted on the
final service quality solution. Average variance extracted (AVE) and
correlations between factors were assessed for validity-related
evidence. Additionally, alpha coefficients and average interitem
correlations were examined within each factor of the adapted service
quality instrument in order to assess internal consistency and
reliability-related evidence.
Means and standard deviations were subsequently calculated for each
sub-dimension of service quality. In order to examine the influence of
the service quality factors on donor satisfaction, a multiple linear
regression model was developed. The dependent variable was donor
satisfaction and the independent variables were the three service
quality factors (Responsiveness, Feedback, and Effectiveness). However,
the dependent variable in this model is not completely continuous due to
the scaled nature of the donor satisfaction variable. Therefore, an
ordinal regression procedure or PLUM (Polytomous Universal Model) was
used to examine this relationship. According to Norusis (2008), the PLUM
procedure is an extension of the general linear model that incorporates
the ordinal nature of the dependent variable. Finally, standard OLS multiple linear regression models were also developed to examine the
influence of service quality on donor longevity and donation amount.
Multiple linear regression assumptions were examined for these
equations (Linearity, Independence, Normality, and Equality of
Variances). Descriptive statistics, residual plots, and statistical
tests for normality and equality of variances showed that none of the
assumptions were violated in the regression equations. In addition,
potential multicollinearity issues within the model were examined. Both
variance inflation factors and tolerance statistics were examined for
multicollinearity issues. The results suggested there were no
multicollinearity issues in either of the regression equations used in
the analysis. A significance level of .05 was established a priori in
analyzing the regression models and related variable correlations.
Results
Demographic Profile
The typical current donor was male (76.9%), Caucasian (92%), and
married (74.1%). The majority of current donors had at least a
bachelor's degree (86.1%), an annual household income of $100,000
or more (55.9%), and reside in the same state as the institution being
examined (85.9%). In addition, the average donor age was 50.6. In terms
of donation information, the average annual donation was $732.15 and the
average length of annual giving was 9.48 years.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Table 1 provides information on each of the three donor service
quality factors and their respective items. CFA was conducted on the
adapted three-factor, 20item donor service quality model. The results
indicated that the data fit the model well. Absolute fit, parsimony
correction, and comparative indices all represented a reasonable fit:
[X.sup.2](167) = 611.35, p = <.001; RMSEA = .073; SRMR = .057; CFI =
.98. An examination of modification indices indicated the presence of
correlated residuals. Allowing multiple correlated residuals to be
estimated would have improved the overall model fit, but none of these
could be justified conceptually. The final model consisted of three
sub-dimensions of service quality. The Responsiveness factor contained a
total of nine items; the Feedback factor contained a total of eight
items; and the Effectiveness factor contained a total of three items.
All t-values were greater than 2.0, which is considered satisfactory
(Thompson, 2004). A summary of the anchors, factor loadings, t-values,
and standard errors in the final donor service quality structure are
presented in Table 2.
Validity and Reliability
Convergent and discriminant validity were used to provide
validity-related evidence of the final donor service quality structure.
First, convergent validity was assessed with reference to average
variance extracted (AVE). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), AVE
scores above .50 indicate an adequate ratio of total variance that is
due to the latent variable. Table 2 lists the AVE scores for each of the
three factors in the donor service quality scale. The AVE scores for
each factor ranged from .50 to .65, which provides evidence of the
scale's convergent validity. Second, discriminant validity was
assessed to observe whether the factors were distinct from one another.
AVE scores should be greater than the square of the correlations between
factors to ensure discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
The AVE scores for all three factors in the service quality scale were
greater than the squared correlations among the respective factors,
providing evidence of the scale's discriminant validity.
The internal consistency of scores from the subscales of the
adapted donor service quality instrument was estimated using alpha
reliability (Cronbach's alpha estimation). Internal consistency was
satisfactory with coefficient alphas above the standard .70 cutoff for
all three service quality sub-scales (Cronbach, 1951). In addition,
item-to-total correlations (ITTC) and average interitem correlations
were examined for each factor. According to Robinson, Shaver, and
Wrightsman (1991) average inter-item correlations should be above .30
along with adequate coefficient alpha scores. Average inter-item
correlations for the service quality scale were .559, .443, and .548 for
Responsiveness, Feedback, and Effectiveness, respectively. Table 2
provides a summary of Cronbach's alpha estimates, ITTC, and average
interitem correlations for the service quality scale.
Multiple Linear Regression
The first multiple linear regression equation examined the
influence of service quality on donor satisfaction. Prior to regression
analysis, Pearson correlations were conducted on donor satisfaction and
each of three service quality sub-dimensions. Responsiveness, Feedback,
and Effectiveness were all significantly correlated with donor
satisfaction (p < .001). The ordinal regression equation was found to
be significant [X.sup.2](3) = 255.63, p < .001. Table 3 provides a
summary of regression statistics for the individual service quality
sub-dimensions. All three service quality factors were found to be
significant. An examination of coefficients indicates that the
relationships between all three factors and satisfaction were positive
and Feedback appeared to have the strongest influence. Strength of
association was also examined through the Nagelkerke index, which is an
evaluation of goodness of fit. This test is similar to that of [R.sup.2]
in linear regression, but should not be looked at as explained variance in the dependent variable (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The
model had a Nagelkerke [R.sup.2] score of .465, indicating a
satisfactory goodness of fit.
The second multiple linear regression equation examined the
influence of service quality on donor longevity. This regression
equation was not found to be significant. The final multiple linear
regression equation examined the influence of service quality on
donation amount. The third multiple linear regression was not found to
be significant as well. In summary, there was no evidence supporting the
contention that service quality has an influence on donor longevity or
gift amount for this particular sample of college athletic donors.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the construct of
service quality within the context of college athletic fundraising.
Service quality has been investigated in the non-profit sector (Brady et
al., 2002; Sargeant, 2001; Vaughan & Shiu, 2001); however, research
on college athletic donor service quality perceptions has been
non-existent up until this point. Validity and reliability was examined
on an adapted version of Sargeant's donor service quality scale
with a sample of current college athletic donors. The service quality
scale had satisfactory fit statistics and the three sub-dimensions
(Responsiveness, Feedback, and Effectiveness) indicated adequate
convergent and discriminant validity. Additionally, alpha reliability,
ITTC, and average interitem correlations indicated sufficient
reliability-related evidence. Therefore, the adapted donor service
quality scale appears to be a satisfactory measure of service quality
for the current sample of college athletic donors.
The secondary purpose of this study was to examine the influence of
service quality on overall donor satisfaction and donor behavior
outcomes (donor longevity and gift amount). The first multiple linear
regression model indicated that service quality explained a significant
portion of variability in donor satisfaction. All three service quality
sub-dimensions were found to be significant predictors of donor
satisfaction. However, the second and third regression models did not
provide evidence of a significant linear relationship between service
quality and donor longevity or gift amount. Although the lack of a
significant relationship between service quality and donor behavior
outcomes was unexpected, these results highlight the importance of
understanding the unique role that service quality may play in college
athletic fundraising. The following sections discuss theoretical and
practical implications for sport managers.
Theoretical Implications
Preliminary assessments were conducted on the adapted donor service
quality scale developed by Sargeant (2001). Results of the current study
were consistent with Sargeant's examination of service quality in
the non-profit sector. CFA clearly identified a three-factor 20-item
structure. Only one item was deleted due to interpretability issues
within the context of college athletic fundraising. These results
provide evidence of an adequate measure of donor service quality within
an athletic department setting. The three facets of donor service
quality (Responsiveness, Feedback, and Effectiveness) provide a
framework for investigations regarding the role of service quality in
college athletic fundraising. Future examinations are necessary to
cross-validate these findings with additional samples of college
athletic donors. Still, the current findings support the use of a
performance-based, attitudinal measure of college athletic donor service
quality perceptions.
Results from the first research question indicated service quality
explained a significant portion of the variability in donor
satisfaction. These results are consistent with the previous literature
(Brady et al., 2002; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Gotlieb et al., 1994;
Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988). All three sub-dimensions of service
quality had a significant influence on donor satisfaction. These
findings provide additional support for a multi-dimensional measure of
service quality within the voluntary sector. Responsiveness, Feedback,
and Effectiveness are separate components of the donor service quality
construct that affect donor satisfaction in different ways.
Results from the final research questions showed no significant
service quality influence on donor longevity and/or gift amount. These
findings were contrary to Sargeant's (2001) study in which service
quality had a significant impact on donor length. The results present a
number of theoretical issues regarding the importance of service quality
in college athletic giving. First, the role service quality plays may be
reduced in an environment such as college athletics due to other factors
which could have a stronger impact on donor behavior. Previous research
has shown a positive relationship between athletic success and
charitable contributions to the institution as a whole (Baade &
Sundberg, 1996; Grimes & Chressanths, 1994) and athletic-specific
giving (Humphreys & Mondello, 2007; Stinson & Howard, 2007). The
influence of team success on donations may have a stronger impact on
donor behavior compared to service quality perceptions.
Another example of a factor that may reduce the role of service
quality is tangible donor benefits. Stinson and Howard (2004, 2007)
suggested that athletic success increases donations due to a tangible
exchange. Team success leads to an increase in demand for tickets, and
spectators who want priority seating must make a charitable
contribution. These benefits are one of the main motivations for
athletic donations (Gladden et al, 2005; Mahony et al., 2003). The
institu tion examined in this study has a preferred seating system for
donors and has recent postseason appearances in revenue-generating
sports. Therefore, the strength of these factors could have played a
part in the limited influence of service quality on donor behavior.
Second, although service quality did not have a direct influence on
donor behavior in this study, it did have a significant influence on
donor satisfaction. Perhaps an indirect relationship exists between
service quality and donor outcomes mediated by donor satisfaction. As
noted in the review of literature, service quality models have
identified this relationship (Gotlieb et al., 1994; Shonk &
Chelladurai, 2008); however, this complete relationship has not been
found in the fundraising literature. Brady et al. (2002) found a
significant relationship between service quality and satisfaction, but
not satisfaction and donor intentions. A model examining this
relationship with college athletic donors may provide a better
understanding regarding the role of service quality in this environment.
Third, although the Sargeant (2001) donor service quality instrument fit
the data well, perhaps there are other sub-dimensions of service quality
that are not being measured by this scale. For example, the tangible
exchange between the donor and the athletic department (Stinson &
Howard, 2004, 2007) may offer unique service quality facets not
identified through Sargeant's non-profit instrument. A modification
of this instrument with additional service quality factors may be
appropriate for college athletic fundraising research.
Finally, further examination of athletic donor service quality
perceptions within the current study may shed some light on the lack of
a significant relationship with outcome variables. The donor length
variable was subsequently broken down into three categories: New Donor
(1-2 years), Moderate Donor (3-7 years), and Loyal Donor (8+ years).
Table 4 provides a summary of mean service quality scores for each group
of donors. The results show a minimal difference in service quality
perceptions between the three groups. It appears that scores for each
sub-dimension of service quality are above the scale mid-point for all
donors regardless of longevity. Current donors in this study indicated a
satisfactory level of service across the board. These results provide
evidence of a consistent level of service regardless of donor length.
The importance of service quality may become more apparent when
comparing current donors to lapsed donors who made a decision to stop
contributing.
Practical Implications
The state of the current economy and the increase in options for
voluntary support creates a more challenging environment for present day
college athletic departments. According to Shiu et al. (1997), in an
adverse economic climate it is pivotal for fundraising organizations to
adopt a management style that is more customer friendly. Donors are
being more selective with their discretionary income. Improving or
maintaining the level of service provided to donors can be a
cost-effective cultivation strategy for college athletic departments.
From a practical standpoint, service quality is something that
athletic development offices can control. The role of service quality
may be reduced due to the importance of winning (and tangible benefits
based on winning); however, an athletic fundraising office cannot
control team performance and its effect on the value of ticket-oriented
benefits. Athletic development offices can focus attention on providing
a consistent level of service to donors regardless of team performance
in order to take advantage of service quality effects on overall donor
satisfaction.
The current study provides evidence of the relationship between all
three of the service quality factors and donor satisfaction. College
athletic departments can improve perceptions of responsiveness in a
number of ways. First, it is essential for individual donors to
understand the importance of their contribution, regardless of the
amount. College athletic development offices must provide individual
attention to donors. Thanking donors for their gift and communicating
how contributions are being utilized are productive methods.
Additionally, development officers must respond to the wants and needs
of donors promptly and efficiently. These actions can help to create a
customer-oriented relationship between the athletic department and the
individual donor.
Second, proper feedback is essential to any donor/organizational
relationship. Athletic departments must provide courteous and timely
communication to all contributors. A variety of communication outlets
can be used to offer effective feedback. Traditionally, mail and
telephone communication were widely accepted; however, technological
advances allow for a multitude of avenues for feedback, including email,
webpages, message boards, and texting. These types of communication
offer more interaction between the athletic department and the donor. An
interactive relationship, with multiple options for feedback, can
strengthen the affiliation between the donor and the development office.
These methods for improving perceptions of service can have tangible
effects for the athletic department. The current study provided evidence
of a positive relationship between service quality perceptions and donor
satisfaction. Improvements in the level of service can be an effective
recruitment and retention strategy with minimal costs to the athletic
department.
Future Research
Future investigations are needed to understand the impact of
service quality and confirm the adapted donor service quality scale as
an appropriate measure of donor service perceptions. The current
investigation confirmed the structure of Sargeant's (2001) donor
service quality measure through the examination of one sample of
athletic donors. Cross-validation with additional samples of athletic
donors will enhance the generalizability of this measure. Additionally,
other service quality sub-dimensions should be explored that may be
relevant to the college athletic fundraising environment.
Service quality was not found to have an influence on donor
behavior. Further investigations into this relationship are necessary.
The development of a model testing a potential indirect relationship
between service quality and donor outcomes through donor satisfaction is
necessary. In addition, an examination of current donors and donors who
recently stopped giving may identify a relationship between service
quality perceptions and donor loyalty. Finally, the diverse motivations
for making charitable contributions may influence the role that service
quality plays on donor behavior. An examination of the relationship
between service quality and donor motives could provide a better
understanding of the role service quality plays for certain types of
donors.
References
Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). Fourth down and goal to
go? Assessing the link between athletics and alumni giving. Social
Science Quarterly, 77, 789-803.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction
and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804
Billing, J. E., Holt, D., & Smith, J. (1985). Athletic
fund-raising: Exploring the motives behind donations. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Blackwood, A., Wing, K. T., & Pollack, T. H. (2008). Facts and
figures from the Nonprofit Almanac 2008: Public charities, giving, and
volunteering. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of
customers' assessment of service quality and value. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17(4), 375-384.
Brady, M. K., Noble, C. H., Utter, D. J., & Smith, G. E.
(2002). How to give and receive: An exploratory study of charitable
hybrids. Psychology & Marketing, 19(11), 919-944.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied
research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crompton, J. L., MacKay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1991).
Identifying dimensions of service quality in public recreation. Journal
of Park and Recreation Administration, 9, 15-27.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M., & Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the
effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer
behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing,
76(2), 193-218.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service
quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF vs. SERVQUAL:
Reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations
measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125-131.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A
measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and
validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 3-16.
De Ruyter, K., Bloemer, J., & Peeters, P. (1997). Merging
service quality and service satisfaction: An empirical test of an
integrative model. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(4), 387-406.
Finn, D. W. & Lamb, C. W. (1991). An evaluation of the SERVQUAL
scale in retail setting. In R. H. Solomon (Ed.) Advance in consumer
research. Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Fulks, D. L. (2009). 2004-2008 NCAA revenue and expenses of
Division I intercollegiate athletic programs report. Indianapolis, IN:
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Giving USA (2009, June). U.S. charitable giving estimated to be
$307.65 billion in 2008. Glenview, IL: Author.
Gladden, J. M., Mahony, D. F., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2005).
Toward a better understanding of college athletic donors: What are the
primary motives? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 18-30.
Gotlieb, J. B., Grewal, D., & Brown, S. W. (1994). Consumer
satisfaction and perceived quality: Complementary or divergent constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 875-885.
Greenwell, T. C., Fink, J. S., & Pastore, D. L. (2002).
Assessing the influence of the physical sports facility on customer
satisfaction within the context of the service experience. Sport
Management Review, 5(2), 129-148.
Grimes, P. W., & Chressanths, G. A. (1994). Alumni
contributions to academics: The role of intercollegiate sports and NCAA
sanctions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53, 27-41.
Hammersmith, V. (1985). The development of a survey instrument to
profile donors to athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West
Virginia University. Morgantown.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Humphreys, B. R. & Mondello, M. (2007). Intercollegiate
athletic success and donations at NCAA Division I institutions. Journal
of Sport Management, 21 , 265-280.
Kim, D., & Kim, S. Y. (1995). QUESC: An instrument for
assessing the service quality of sport centers in Korea. Journal of
Sport Management, 9, 208-220.
Ko, Y. J., & Pastore, D. L. (2004). Current issues and
conceptualizations of service quality in the recreation sport industry.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(3), 159-167.
Ko, Y. J., & Pastore, D. L. (2005). A hierarchical model of
service quality for the recreation sport industry. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 14(2), 84-97.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Linder-Pelz, S. (1982). Toward a theory of patient satisfaction.
Social Science and Medicine, 16, 577-582.
Mahony, D. F., Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2003). Examining
athletic donors at NCAA Division I institutions. International Sports
Journal, 7(1), 9-27.
McDonald, M. A., Sutton, W. A., & Milne, G. R. (1995). TEAMQUAL
measuring service quality in professional team sports. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 4(2), 9-15.
Murray, D., & Howat, G. (2002). The relationships among service
quality, value, satisfaction, and future intentions of customers at an
Australian sports and leisure centre. Sport Management Review, 5(1),
25-43.
Norusis, M. J. (2008). SPSS 17.0 advances statistical procedures
companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A
conceptual model of service quality and some implications for future
research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of
service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Pride, W. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2003). Marketing concepts and
strategies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991).
Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego,
CA: Aca-demic.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: New
Directions in theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Sargeant, A. (2001). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors
loyal. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(2), 177-192.
Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Ford, J. (2001). The role of
perceptions in predicting donor value. Journal of Marketing Management,
17, 407-428.
Schneider, B., & White, S. S. (2004). Service quality: Research
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shiu, E., Vaughan, E., Donnelly, M. (1997). Service quality: New
horizons beyond SERVQUAL. An investigation of the portability of
SERVQUAL into the voluntary and local government sectors. Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2(4), 324-31.
Shonk, D. J., & Chelladurai, P. (2008). Service quality,
satisfaction, and intent to return in event sport tourism. Journal of
Sport Management, 22, 587-602.
Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2001). The game of life:
College sports and educational values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2004). Scoreboards vs.
mortarboards: Major donor behavior and intercollegiate athletics. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 13(3), 129-140.
Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2007). Athletic success and
private giving to athletic and academic programs at NCAA institutions.
Journal of Sport Management, 21, 235-264
Swan, J. E., & Bowers, M. R. (1998). Services quality and
satisfaction: The process of people doing things together. Journal of
Services Marketing, 12(1), 59-72.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis:
Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Vaughan, L., & Shiu, E. (2001). ARCHSECRET: A multi-item scale
to measure service quality within the voluntary sector. International
Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 131-144.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and
value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of
Marketing, 52, 2-22.
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Services marketing:
Integrated customer focus across the firm. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Stephen Shapiro, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management
at Old Dominion University. His research interests include college
athletic fundraising, ticket pricing in the primary and secondary
market, and the relationship between attitudes and sport-related
consumption.
Table 1.
Adapted Donor Service Quality Scale
Factors and Items
Responsiveness
SQ11--(Univ) Athletics gives me individual attention
SQ12--(Univ) Athletics has employees that give me individual attention
SQ20--Employees of (Univ) Athletics are never too busy to speak with
me
SQ14--(Univ) Athletics employees seem to understand my specific needs
SQ8--Employees in the (Univ) athletics department have the knowledge
to answer my questions
SQ19--(Univ) Athletics makes me feel like they are always willing to
help if I have a question
SQ1--Employees of (Univ) Athletics are always courteous
SQ15--When I have a problem, (Univ) Athletics shows an interest in
solving it
SQ10--(Univ) Athletics always responds promptly to requests I might
have for information
Feedback
S13--(Univ) Athletics writes to me at times of the year I find most
convenient
S6--(Univ) Athletics communications are visually appealing
S7--(Univ) Athletic keeps me informed about how my money is being used
S16--(Univ) Athletics communications are always courteous
S2--(Univ) Athletics communications are always timely
S9--I feel confident that (Univ) Athletics is using my money
appropriately
S5--I feel safe in my transactions with (Univ) athletics
S3--The behavior of (Univ) Athletics employees instills confidence
Effectiveness
S18--(Univ) Athletics employees have the best interests of their
supporters at heart
S17--(Univ) Athletics employees have the best interests of
student-athletes at heart
S4--When (Univ) athletic promises to provide a service to
student-athletes, it does so
Table 2.
Reliability and Validity Scores for the Adapted Donor Service
Quality Scale
Factors and Items Mean
interitem Factor
ITTC correlation [varies] loading AVE
Responsiveness .559 .92 .65
SQ11 .74 .80
SQ12 .73 .78
SQ20 .77 .87
SQ14 .70 .77
SQ8 .65 .78
SQ19 .78 .89
SQ1 .58 .72
SQ15 .73 .80
SQ10 .75 .83
Feedback .423 .85 .50
SQ13 .55 .64
SQ6 .62 .67
SQ7 .53 .60
SQ16 .60 .75
SQ2 .60 .71
SQ9 .62 .74
SQ5 .55 .69
SQ3 .69 .85
Effectiveness .548 .78 .63
SQ18 .57 .85
SQ17 .69 .79
SQ4 .62 .73
Factors and Items
SE t
Responsiveness
SQ11 -- --
SQ12 .03 30.68 *
SQ20 .03 31.14 *
SQ14 .04 23.67 *
SQ8 .04 24.19 *
SQ19 .03 32.81 *
SQ1 .04 21.13 *
SQ15 .04 25.76 *
SQ10 .04 28.18 *
Feedback
SQ13 -- --
SQ6 .08 13.01 *
SQ7 .08 12.31 *
SQ16 .08 14.91 *
SQ2 .07 15.56 *
SQ9 .08 15.07 *
SQ5 .08 13.80 *
SQ3 .08 15.86 *
Effectiveness
SQ18 -- --
SQ17 .04 21.59
SQ4 .05 18.22
Note: * p < .05; ITTC = Item-to-total correlation; [varies] =
Cronbach's alpha coefficient; AVE = Average variance extracted;
SE = Standard error; = t-values
Table 3. Ordinal Regression Results (Dependent Variable = Donor
Satisfaction)
Variable Estimate Wald p-value
Responsiveness 1.35 27.37 <.001
Feedback 1.44 19.15 <.001
Effectiveness .450 4.15 .042
Note: ([X.sup.2](3) = 255.63, p < .001), Nagelkerke [R.sup.2] = 0.465
Table 4. Mean Service Quality Scores Broken Down by Donor Length
Variable New Moderate Loyal
Donor Donor Donor
Responsiveness 3.63 3.61 3.73
Feedback 3.71 3.74 3.84
Effectiveness 3.60 3.68 3.73
Note: New Donor = 1-2 years, Moderate Donor = 3-7 years, Loyal Donor =
8+ years, 5-Point Adapted Donor Service Quality Scale