Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multivariate approach to the assessment of quality

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most quality assessment studies utilize a univariate approach to the assessment of quality. While the univariate approach has some merit, this study presents an alternative—the multivariate approach. Factor analysis identified three clusters of variables potentially linked to quality. These clusters, labeled “faculty research,” “input,” and “student,” were later used as bases for measuring departmental excellence. Seven indicators based on these clusters were developed. The indicators that combined the first and second clusters and the indicators that combined all three clusters appeared to have produced the best estimates of departmental excellence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, W. F. (1972). University and departmental determinants of the prestige of sociology departments.American Sociologist 7 (November): 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, W. F., and Barlow, H. M. (1972). Stratification theory and organizational rank: Resources, functions and university prestige in the United States.Pacific Sociological Review 15 (October): 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1985).Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W., and Henson, J. W. (1977). New measures of college selectivity.Research in Higher Education 6: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, W., and Solmon, L. C. (1981). Are reputational ratings needed to measure quality?Change 13 (October): 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelson, L. J. (1960). Graduate schools and the productivity of their graduates.American Journal of Sociology 66 (September): 171–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R. T., and Lingenfelter, P. E. (1973).Assessing Quality in Doctoral Programs: Criteria and Correlates of Excellence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. and Margulies, R. Z. (1974). The reputations of American professional schools.Change 6: 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, A. H. (1965). Quality and quantity in higher education.Journal of the American Statistical Association 60 (March): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. G. (1967).The Mobile Professors. Washington, DC: The American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1976).A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1987).A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartter, A. M. (1966).An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartter, A. M. and Solmon, L. C. (1977). The Cartter report on the leading schools of education, law, and business.Change 9: 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction to essentials. (I) The purpose and underlying models. (II) The role of factor analysis in research.Biometrics 21: 190–215, 405–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemente, F., and Sturgis, R. (1974). Quality of department of doctoral training on research productivity.Sociology of Education 47: 287–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, C. F., and Blackburn, R. T. (1985a). Program quality in higher education: A review and critique of literature and research. InHigher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, J. C. Smart (ed.). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, C. F., and Blackburn, R. T. (1985b). “Correlates of Departmental Quality in Regional Colleges and Universities.”American Educational Research Journal, 22 (Summer): 279–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, W. M., and Catt, V. (1977). Productivity ratings of graduate programs in psychology based on publication in theJournals of the American Psychological Association.American Psychologist 32: 793–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, W. P. (1976).The Ranking Game: The Power of the Academic Elite. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Printing and Duplicating Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, D. E. (1975).Science Development: An Evaluation Study. Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, D. E., and Karpf, R. S. (1981). Ranking academic departments: Empirical findings and a theoretical perspective.Research in Higher Education 14: 305–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, W. F. (1974). Undergraduate origins of U.S. medical students.Journal of Medical Education 49: 1005–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C. F., and Rodgers, S. A. (1971). Physics department ratings: Another evaluation.Science 174 (November): 565–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C. F., and Rose, Harriett A. (1972). What are the ratings rating?American Psychologist 27: 197–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, W. N. (1975).Rankings of Graduate Engineering Departments. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D., and Villimez, W. (1970). The productivity of sociologists at 45 American universities.American Sociologist 5 (August): 244–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glower, D. D. (1980). A rational method for ranking engineering programs.Engineering Education 70: 788–794, 842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourman, J. (1967).The Gourman Report: Ratings of American Colleges. Phoenix, AZ: The Continuing Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourman, J. (1977a).The Gourman Report: A Rating of Undergraduate Programs in American and International Universities. Los Angeles: The National Education Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourman, J. (1977b).The Gourman Report: A Rating of Graduate and Professional Programs in American and International Universities. Los Angeles: The National Education Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourman, J. (1982).The Gourman Report: A Rating of Undergraduate Programs in American and International Universities. Los Angeles: The National Education Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourman, J. (1983).The Gourman Report: A Rating of Graduate and Professional Programs in American and International Universities, rev. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: The National Education Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, R. T., and Sims, P. D. (1982). Quality of faculties and programs of graduate departments of educational administration.Educational Administration Quarterly 8: 67–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, G. R. (1970). The organizational set: A study of sociology departments.American Sociologist 5: 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., and Clark, D. L. (1978). Levels of R&D productivity in schools of education.Educational Researchers 7: 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1971). Inputs, outputs, and the prestige of university science departments.Sociology of Education 44 (Fall): 375–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, D. R., and Yeager, J. H., Jr. (1978). The distribution of publication success within and among top economic departments: A disaggregate view of recent evidence.Economic Inquiry 16 (October): 593–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janes, R. W. (1969). The student faculty ratio in graduate programs of selected departments of sociology.American Sociologist 4: 123–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Lyle V., Lindzey, G., and Coggeshall, P. E. (eds.) (1982).An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Social and Behavioral Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, R. T. (1963). Library characteristics of colleges ranking high in academic excellence.College and Research Libraries 24: 369–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso, C. D. (1975). How does your law school measure up?Student Lawyer 4: 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S., and Wolfe, L. M. (1987). A latent-variable causal model of faculty reputational ratings.Research in Higher Education 27: 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., and Mueller, C. W. (1978).Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, R. H., and Goodrich, H. B. (1952).Origins of American Scientists. New York: Russell and Russell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, R. H., and Greenbaum, J. J. (1953).The Younger American Scholar: His Collegiate Origins. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, D. D., and Vaughan, T. R. (1969). Quality in graduate education: A reevaluation of the rankings of sociology departments in the Cartter Report.American Sociologist 4 (February): 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavender, A. D., Mathers, R. A., and Pease, J. (1971). The student-faculty ratio in graduate programs of selected departments of sociology: A supplement to the Janes Report.American Sociologist 6: 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, J. K., and Green, K. C. (1980).A Question of Quality: The Higher Education Ratings Game. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 5. Washington, DC: American Associates for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, L. S. (1968). On subjective and objective rankings of sociology departments.American Sociologist 3 (May): 129–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. C. (1978). Faculty citation and quality of graduate engineering departments.Engineering Education 68 (April): 739–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magoun, H. W. (1966). The Cartter report on quality in graduate education.Journal of Higher Education 37: 481–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulies, R. Z. and Blau, P. M. (1973). America's leading professional schools.Change (November): 21–27.

  • Morgan, D. L., Kearney, R. C., and Regens, J. L. (1976). Assessing quality among graduate institutions of higher education in the United States.Social Science Quarterly 57 (December): 670–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (1969).Graduate Education: Parameters for Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrener, K., and Bent, D. H. (1975).SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norusis, M. (1985).Advanced Statistics Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oromaner, M. J. (1970). A note on analytical properties and prestige of sociology departments.American Sociologist 5 (August): 240–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D., and Snell, J. L. (1962).The Education of Historians in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrowsky, W. R., Brown, E. L. and Duffy, J. A. (1973). National universities and the ACE ratings.Journal of Higher Education 44: 495–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roose, K. D. and Andersen, C. J. (1970).A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, D.C.: The American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunier, M. E. (1985). Objective measures as predictors of reputational ratings.Research in Higher Education 23: 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., and Fiedler, F. E. (1971). The measurement of scholarly work: A critical review of the literature.Educational Record 52 (Summer): 225–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solmon, L., and Astin, A. W. (1981). Departments without distinguished graduate programs.Change 13 (October): 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somit, A., and Tanenhaus, J. (1964).American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline. New York: Atherton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, D. L. (1986). The assessment of quality in higher education: A critical review of the literature and research.Research in Higher Education 24(3): 223–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidball, M. E., and Kristiakowski, V. (1976). Perspective on academic women and affirmative action.Educational Record 54: 130–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D. S. (1981). Methods of assessing quality.Change 13 (October): 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D. S. (1984). Who is Jack Gourman and why is he saying all these things about my college?Change (Nov./Dec.): 14–19.

  • Wispé, L. G. (1969). The bigger the better: Productivity, size, and turnover in a sample of psychology departments.American Psychologist 24: 662–668.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, University of Oklahoma, 73019-0260, Norman, OK

    David L. Tan (Assistant Professor of Higher Education)

Authors
  1. David L. Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tan, D.L. A multivariate approach to the assessment of quality. Res High Educ 33, 205–226 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973579

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973579

Keywords

Search

Navigation