IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jconsa/v53y2019i1p167-200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Validity of Consumer Ratings for Higher Education: Evidence from a New Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Rothwell

Abstract

This analysis assesses the validity of using consumer surveys to measure the quality of colleges using new survey data from the Strada‐Gallup Education Consumer Survey. I develop an individual consumer rating based on responses to 14 items related to the quality of education and implement two validity tests: Do higher ratings predict higher welfare, and do they correspond to objective quality measures? I conclude that they do. Indeed, the mean ratings of at least 20 other alumni provide a better prediction of individual satisfaction than popular college rankings from media sources. Consumers rate their experiences higher after attending not‐for‐profit colleges that generate better economic opportunities, enroll students with higher test scores, employ well‐paid faculty, and graduate a higher percentage of students who eventually earn doctorates. I conclude that survey‐based consumer ratings of postsecondary institutions can provide valid and reliable quality comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Rothwell, 2019. "Assessing the Validity of Consumer Ratings for Higher Education: Evidence from a New Survey," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 167-200, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jconsa:v:53:y:2019:i:1:p:167-200
    DOI: 10.1111/joca.12201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12201
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joca.12201?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jconsa:v:53:y:2019:i:1:p:167-200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-0078 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.