Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality,
Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste

For a better campus sporting experience: Scale development and

T
validation of the collegiate sportscape scale
⁎
Sunyun Shina, Weisheng Chiub, Hyun-Woo Leec,
a
Department of Sports and Leisure Studies, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Sinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea
b
Lee Shau Kee School of Business and Administration, The Open University of Hong Kong, 30 Good Shepherd Street, Ho Man Tin, Kowloon, Hong
Kong
c
Sport Management, Georgia Southern University, 62 Georgia Ave, Statesboro GA 30460, USA

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: A collegiate sportscape scale is developed to measure the elements contributing to students’
College sports sport-related experiences on campus. The results revealed a 14-item scale. Specifically, the col-
Sportscape legiate sportscape scale consists of four factors: sport and physical education classes (4 items),
Scale development sport facilities (4 items), varsity teams (3 items), and intramural sports (3 items). The scale was
Education environment
found to be a valid and reliable measure to assess students’ sport-related experience on campus.
Furthermore, collegiate sportscape positively influenced students’ loyalty toward the university
both directly and indirectly through satisfaction. This scale can be useful for administrators to
better understand students’ experience on campus.

1. Introduction

Students’ experience in higher education is dependent upon the set of interactions that occur between students and educational
institutions. This affects their emotional, rational, physical, spiritual, and sensorial levels as well as the development of knowledge,
skills, and abilities (Gentile, Spiller, & Noci, 2007). Taking a managerial perspective to examine educational administration, it is
imperative to understand which experience prominently affects a student's satisfaction with his or her institution. Gaining a better
understanding of this relationship can assist university administrators in creating an optimal student experience and attracting
prospective students.
A comprehension of the parts of the experiences and its interconnection is necessary to understand a whole—holistic—experience.
To understand a student's holistic university experience, an interdisciplinary lens can be used to look at the phenomenon from
multiple disciplines. For instance, when we apply a managerial perspective, considering students as the primary customers of uni-
versities, identifying the experiences universities provide that students perceive to be most valuable can be a critical factor in
evaluating a university's service quality (Athiyaman, 1997; Woodall, Hiller, & Resnick, 2014). Universities must also provide op-
portunities for positive extracurricular experiences in order to better promote the optimal experience—achievement of high grati-
fication (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)—for students. Yu and Kim (2008) argued that such effort from universities, promoting better
university experiences, can generate not only the loyalty of students through satisfaction, but can also reveal the quality of life factors
that attract potential students. In addition, to evaluate the holistic student experience, it would seem rational to use a measurement
tool that utilizes previously identified determinants from multiple domains to evaluate not only the teaching component of higher
education institutions, but also the total service environment (Abdullah, 2006; Hill, 1995; Tan & Kek, 2004). Hence, in this study, we

⁎
Correspondence to: School of Health and Kinesiology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA.
E-mail address: hlee@georgiasouthern.edu (H.-W. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2017.12.002
Received 21 June 2017; Received in revised form 30 November 2017; Accepted 28 December 2017
1473-8376/ Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

adopted the blended viewpoints from management and quality of life to better elucidate the various aspects of a university student's
experience. Specifically, we’ve explicated student experiences related to sports activities on campus and assessed a collegiate
sportscape scale and examined its effect on satisfaction and loyalty.
From a physical and mental health standpoint, Disch, Harlow, Campbell, and Dougan (2000) asserted that matters related to
physical health are an essential element of college students’ on-campus experience. Accordingly, a large body of research has de-
monstrated how sport plays an important role in the higher education sector. For example, intramural sports programs provide a
powerful medium for students’ interaction (Belch, Gebel, & Maas, 2001). Also, numerous benefits have been found for recreational
sports involvement, including: stress reduction (Kanters & Forrester, 2000; Ragheb & McKinney, 1993), self-esteem (Collins, Valerius,
King, & Graham, 2001; Evans, Hartman, & Anderson, 2013; Haines, 2001; Kanters & Forrester, 1997a, 1997b), enhanced GPA (Belch
et al., 2001; Bryant, Bradley, & Milborne, 1994; Huesman, Brown, Lee, Kellogg, & Radcliffe, 2009; Trudeau & Shephard, 2008),
student development (Huesman et al., 2009; Nesbitt, 1998; Trudeau & Shephard, 2008), and ease of social integration (Bryant et al.,
1994; Evans et al., 2013; Huesman et al., 2009).
By measuring various aspects of students’ sport-related experience, administrators can develop a more comprehensive under-
standing of the roles and benefits of sport-related services offered on campus. Furthermore, testing its influence on students’ sa-
tisfaction and loyalty can provide essential data to better manage universities. As we’ve reviewed in the previous paragraphs, lens
from management, quality of life, and physical and mental health can be applied to investigate students’ sports-related experience.
However, there was no study comprehensively scrutinizing students’ sports-related experience and its effect on satisfaction and
loyalty, particularly in the context of higher education. Moreover, there is no measurement tool that can be used to assess the various
experiential aspects of sports activities on campus. Hence, in order to fill the void in the extant literature, the current study attempted
to develop and validate a new scale to measure environmental factors of collegiate sports activities. Naming it the collegiate
sportscape scale, we applied theories from spectator sport management, service marketing, and participant sport administration to
develop a more holistic measure.
Given the importance of environmental factors of collegiate sports activities for both students and administrators, the main
purpose of this study was to develop and validate the collegiate sportscape scale in order to better understand students’ sport-related
experience on the campus. For the purpose, specifically, we adopted the theories from various disciplines explaining the environ-
mental setting of a service experience. Further, a systematical procedure was employed to develop, assess, and test the measures.

2. Theoretical background

“Sportscape” is a neologism created by Wakefield and Sloan (1995) and has developed into one of the most important factors
influencing spectator satisfaction and attendance. It stemmed from the term “servicescape” which was initially defined as the built
environment surrounding the service (Bitner, 1992). Furthermore, Bitner expanded this definition to include the social environment,
and further defined servicescape as “immediate physical and social environments surrounding a service experience, transaction or
event” (Bitner, 2000, p. 37). She argued that the physical and social environment surroundings would affect an individual's behaviors
toward a particular destination, such as the desire to stay, explore, affiliate, and return or avoid.
Servicescape contributed to the literature of service quality by considering and identifying the environmental aspects where a
service is provided. Servicescape plays a significant role in influencing customers’ experience of the service encounters. Given in-
tangibility of services, customers’ evaluation is often influenced by visible and tangible cues. Servicescape creates not only im-
pressions of the service but also expectations about the price and quality of the service (Bebko, Sciulli, & Garg, 2006). Moreover,
servicescape can also entertain customers, thereby creating emotions and changes in the state of mind through the sensory qualities of
the environment (Baker & Cameron, 1996; Fernandes & Neves, 2014), further affecting their satisfaction and future intentions of re-
patronage (Fernandes & Neves, 2014; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996).
Aligning with the definition of servicescape, sportscape was defined as the entire experience of physical and social environment
evaluated by a fan attending a sporting event (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). It has been found that spectators’ perception of sportscape
affects their level of satisfaction, which in turn led to their desire to stay longer in the stadium (Lambrecht, Kaefer, & Ramenofsky,
2009; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994, 1996). More importantly, empirical studies supported the idea that spectators’ experiences of
sportscape have a positive influence on their repeat attendance and loyalty toward the stadium (de Carvalho, Boen, & Scheerder,
2015; Fernandes & Neves, 2014; Hill & Green, 2000; Lee, Heere, & Chung, 2013; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). Some scholars have
also investigated the influences of sportscape on individual's participation in sport, and found that sportscape had a strong impact on
participation frequency at multiple sport facilities (Hill & Green, 2012; O’Reilly, Berger, Hernandez, Parent, & Séguin, 2015).
However, these previous studies were primarily conducted in the contexts of spectator sports, including golf events, football, and
baseball games. In the context of higher education, a student's sporting experience can include both participation sports and spectator
sports. Many opportunities are provided on the campus for students to experience sports activities. For example, universities gen-
erally house various sport facilities for student use, such as fitness centers or gyms (Ko & Pastore, 2007). Students can also enroll in a
diverse array of physical activity courses (Evans et al., 2013; Trudeau & Shephard, 2008). Many also provide opportunities for
students to participate in intramural sports organized by university recreation departments (Sturts & Ross, 2013; Webb & Forrester,
2015). In addition, students can spectate varsity sport competitions on campus. Hence, the collegiate sportscape needs to reflect each
of these environmental aspects of sport opportunities provided on campus.
As aforementioned, higher education can be regarded as a primary service good, and therefore students can be viewed as cus-
tomers like other service sectors (Athiyaman, 1997; Woodall et al., 2014). In the same vein, the collegiate sportscape plays a similar
role with servicescape or sportscape in the context of higher education. In addition, the collegiate sportscape may significantly

23
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

contribute to students’ experience as they spend a large portion of their time on the campus (Sirgy et al., 2010; Sirgy, Grzeskowiak, &
Rahtz, 2007). Thus, as compared to other service sectors, students have a higher frequency of service encounters which to a large
extent contribute to their sport-related experience on the campus.
To date, limited and sporadic literature has attempted to define the broad concept of sportscape. For example, Wakefield and
Sloan (1995) identified factors of sport stadium experience and Yoshida and James (2011) assessed the service quality factors from a
multidisciplinary viewpoint. However, the concept of sportscape in these studies were only established in the context of spectator
sports. On the other hand, factors of sport-related experiences for students that exists in the college settings, the collegiate sportscape,
has not been identified. It should be noted that numerous sport outlets such as sport facilities, physical activity courses, intramural
sports, and experience of spectating varsity sport games can all contribute to the sportscape in the higher education. Consequently,
the development of a measurement assessing students’ total sport-related experience on campus is warranted. Therefore, this study
integrated existing literature alongside interviews with experts in order to develop the collegiate sportscape scale used to measure
students’ sport-related experience on campus.

3. Method

The procedure for developing the collegiate sportscape scale followed the rigorous scale-development processes proposed by
Churchill (1979) and Hinkin, Tracey, and Enz (1997). We specified the domain of the construct and generated items capturing the
specific domain, purified the measure, confirmed construct validity, and further assessed concurrent validity of the scale. Accord-
ingly, this study was conducted in three phases: (1) scale construction and refinement; (2) confirmation of the collegiate sportscape
scale; and (3) assessment of concurrent validity. Data were collected and analyzed in Korea. The purpose and procedures of each
study are subsequently described.

3.1. Phase I: Scale construction and refinement

The primary purposes of Phase I were to (1) generate a pool of items reflecting the content and domains of the collegiate
sportscape scale, (2) establish the content validity of the initial collegiate sportscape scale, (3) and purify the scale items.

3.1.1. Item generation

Various approaches including in-depth interviews with a panel of experts and a thorough review of literature were employed
during the initial stage of item generation. The definition of collegiate sportscape was presented to the panel to ensure the content
validity. The panel consisted of five professors with specializations in sport management and sport psychology. They were invited to
participate in the semi-structured interviews and provide feedback primarily focusing on the factors that contribute to the overall
sport-related experience of students in the college. Open-ended questions were used to identify the dimensions of a student's col-
legiate sport experience. While many aspects of the sporting experience were identified, commonly recurring and emerging themes
were coded into numbers. Each coded experience was then categorized into overarching dimensions of the sporting experience. After
this, the panel was invited to check others’ responses, and to indicate whether they agreed with the coding procedure of dimensions.
Dimensions of collegiate sportscape were discussed until all panel members and researchers agreed. Consequently, we identified four
constructs that primarily capture the essential facets of collegiate sportscape: sport class, sport facilities, intramural sports clubs, and
supporting varsity teams.
Worthington and Whittaker (2006) suggested that definitions of each construct should be identified prior to generating the items.
Accordingly, based on the theoretical definitions in Table 1, we reviewed the related literature on collegiate sportscape to identify the
items reflecting the four constructs. Initially, 30 items were identified that captured the domains of the four constructs: Items for sport
class and intramural sport clubs were adopted from Ko and Pastore (2007) studies; items for sport facilities were generated based on
Wakefield and Sloan (1995) sportscape scale; Garg, Rahman, and Qureshi (2014) items for servicescape and convenience were used;
and Varsity teams scale was adopted from Bouchet, Bodet, Bernache-Assollant, and Kada (2011) study.

3.1.2. Content adequacy assessment

Following the suggestions of Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma (2003), item contents were analyzed by the panel of five professors
who participated in the initial interview process. It was requested that they submit feedback, suggestions, and ratings for each item
statement on a three-point scale: (1) not representative, (2) somewhat representative, and (3) clearly representative. While the five
reviewers’ cumulative rating score for each item could range from 5 to 15, items with cumulative scores lower than 14 were

Table 1
Operational definitions of four constructs of collegiate sportscape.

Constructs Definition

Sport classes This dimension represents students' experience of participating in a variety of sport and physical educationclasses.
Sport facilities This construct refers students' perception toward sport related physical facilities in the campus.
Varsity teams This dimension embodies students' support to sport team's performance.
Intramural sports clubs This construct represents students' experience of participating in different intramural sport activities.

24
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

Table 2
Collegiate sportscape items following content analysis.

Constructs/ items

Sports class
1. I feel that my physical ability level has increased after having used sports class.
2. Physical education class helped me to improve my physical abilities.
3. I feel that me skill level has increased after participating sports class.
4. I feel that my physical fitness level has increased after having used sports class.
5. The activities that I have participated in sports class have improved my skill performance.
Sport facilities
1. The cleanliness of sports facilities is excellent.
2. The exterior appearance of sports facilities is visually appealing.
3. The physical layout of the equipment and furnishings in sports facilities are comfortable
4. The ambient conditions such as temperature, ventilation, noise, and odor of sport facilities are good
5. The signs, symbols, boards, pamphlets, and other artifacts in the sports facilities are properly placed
Varsity teams
1. For this sporting contest I wanted my team to win.
2. For this sporting contest I was really focused on the performance of the team I support.
3. For this sporting contest the most important thing for me was who wins.
4. For this sporting contest, seeing my team winning was the only thing that mattered for me.
5. Whatever the quality of the game was I wanted the team I support to win.
6. I liked feeling that I could influence the outcome of the game in favor of the team I support
Intramural sport clubs
1. Intramural activity has provided me many opportunities for social interaction.
2. I made many friends through participating in intramural activities.
3. I really enjoyed the social interaction in intramural activity.
4. I feel a sense of family among members of intramural sport clubs

eliminated. That is, items evaluated as clearly representative by four reviewers and no worse than somewhat representative by a fifth
reviewer were retained. This procedure secures clarity and representation of survey items (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Consequently, 20
items were retained as 10 items were excluded. The questionnaire was finalized for subsequent phases of the study after revising the
items based on the experts’ feedback and suggestions. These items are listed in Table 2.
Because this study was conducted in Korea, a back-translation procedure was conducted to minimize discrepancies between the
original and translated questionnaires. The procedures were conducted for a back-translation based on guidelines by Brislin (1970).
First, two experts individually translated the original items from English to Korean. After comparing and adjusting any discrepancy
between these two drafts, a final draft for a Korean version was completed. Second, the other two experts independently back-
translated the Korean version into two English versions. The researchers then compared the two back-translated English versions with
the original English questionnaire to ensure the meaning was conceptually equivalent. Finally, the Korean questionnaire was assessed
by three sports management professors (among the previous panel members) in Korea to ensure the validity of the questionnaire
items.

3.1.3. Item purification

After item generation, the next step was to collect data and employ the process of instrument purification. In Churchill (1979)
procedures for developing psychometric measures, item purification is a step to assess the construct validity. Specifically, Churchill
recommended to assess the reliability and implementing factor analysis. In this study, a student sample from a large university in
Seoul participated in the pilot study for item purification. More specifically, convenience sampling was conducted by two survey
administrators. A total of 200 college students majoring in Physical Education and Sport and Leisure Studies were recruited to
participate in the pilot study. A paper-and-pencil survey was utilized to collect the data. All items were answered on a 7-point Likert-
type scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. We chose to use a 7-point Likert-type scale to better interpret the non-
standardized values reflecting the latent constructs, and also based on suggestions from empirical examination and short-term
memory capacity (e.g., Dawes, 2008; Joshi, Kale, Chandel, & Pal, 2015; Miller, 1956).
The data was further analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to refine the items and examine the factorial structure of
the collegiate sportscape scale. The current study used the maximum likelihood estimation with oblimin rotation to test the adequacy
of model fit. During the EFA process, the factorability of data was tested via the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling
adequacy value or values greater than .60. Moreover, items were retained or eliminated by using the following criteria: (1) a factor
had an eigenvalue equal to, or greater than, 1.0 (Kaiser, 1974); (2) an item had a factor loading equal to, or greater than, .50; (3)
highly cross-loaded items, which are items loaded on more than one factor with factor loadings of .30, were deleted; and (4) a factor
had at least three items (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
In addition, this study examined these measures’ internal consistency by computing item-to-total correlations and Cronbach's
alpha coefficients (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). It suggests that correlation coefficients among construct items should
exceed the cutoff value of .50 (Zaichkowsky, 1985), and Cronbach's alpha coefficients should surpass the suggested value of .70
(Nunnally, 1978).

25
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

3.2. Phase II: Confirmation of the collegiate sportscape scale

The purposes of Phase II were to (1) confirm the factor structure of the collegiate sportscape scale, and (2) provide further
empirical evidence of reliability and validity for the scale. The second data set was collected from the college students of all majors
enrolled in sport activity classes at a large university in Seoul. After securing the permission from class instructors, the questionnaires
were administered to students. To maintain the robustness of the study, before filling out the questionnaire, survey administrators
explained the research purpose and the definition of collegiate sportscape to respondents. A total 345 students from 18 sport activity
classes were recruited to participate in the survey. A paper-and-pencil survey was conducted to collect the data. All items were
answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

3.2.1. Confirmatory factor analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was conducted to confirm the collegiate
sportscape scale's factor structure. In order to evaluate the adequacy of the hypothesized scale model, the ratio of the chi-square
statistic to the degree of freedom (χ2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker and Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) were adopted for testing in this study. CFI and TFI are incremental fit indices using null models to compare
relative fit and RMSEA is an absolute fit index presuming a best fitting model with a fit of zero and then determining the dispersion of
the tested model from the best model. Hair et al. (2010) noted that multiple indicators of fit needs to be used together and suggested
criteria for χ2/df cutoff value of 3, CFI and TLI values larger than .90, and RMSEA value below .08.
Moreover, composite reliability (CR) was calculated to assess the construct's internal consistency as it represents internal con-
sistency of a latent variable construct using standardized loadings and measurement errors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The convergent
validity of measures was assessed through factor loadings for each item and average variance extracted (AVE) score for each factor.
Discriminant validity was evaluated through assessment of AVE square roots and inter-construct correlations.

3.3. Phase III: Concurrent validity

In the Phase III, we attempted to investigate the consequences of collegiate sportscape by examining concurrent validity with the
sample collected from Phase II. In order to provide evidence of the scale validity, satisfaction and loyalty were identified as the
criterion variables. The selection of these variables was justified by previous studies (Hill & Green, 2000; Lambrecht et al., 2009) in
which sportscape was highly correlated with satisfaction and loyalty in spectator sports. Their findings suggested that sportscape is a
strong antecedent of both game satisfaction and school loyalty. As such, we proposed that the total collegiate sportscape positively
predicts students’ satisfaction and loyalty. Additionally, a positive effect of satisfaction on loyalty was predicted based on previous
findings (Rojas-Méndez, Vasquez-Parraga, Kara, & Cerda-Urrutia, 2009). Therefore, we examined the influence of student satisfac-
tions on school loyalty. The scales of student satisfaction and loyalty were adopted and modified from the work of Rojas-Méndez et al.
(2009). All survey items were assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The proposed
model of collegiate sportscape is shown in Fig. 1.

4. Results

4.1. Phase I

For item purification, the 20 initial items of collegiate sportscape were examined with a student sample. A total of 200 university
students majoring in Physical Education and Sport and Leisure Studies participated in the survey. After eliminating 19 incomplete

The proposed model of collegiate sportscape

Fig. 1. The proposed model of collegiate sportscape.

26
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

responses, 181 surveys were further analyzed. Despite the small sample size, it fulfills the standard ratio of subjects-to-variables (5 to
1) for factor analysis (Bryant & Yarnold, 1995). The sample consisted of 72.4% males (n = 131) and 27.6% (n = 50) females. In
terms of year in college, most of them were freshmen (n = 60, 33.1%), followed by sophomores (n = 45, 24.8%), juniors (n = 40,
22.1%), and seniors (n = 36, 19.9%),
A series of EFAs were employed. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy value was .807, indicating that the degree of common
variance was meritorious (Kaiser, 1974). Moreover, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (BTS) was 3450.301 (p < .001), indicating that the
hypothesis of the variables’ variance and covariance matrix as an identity matrix was significantly rejected. Thus, a factor analysis
was deemed appropriate for the sample. Six items were eliminated after eliminating items with factor loadings less than .50 or with
cross-loadings greater than .30 on more than one factor and interpreting the scree plot test and the Kaiser criterion (Hair et al., 2010),
it was determined that a four-factor, 14 item model to measure collegiate was the most interpretable factor structure. This model
accounted for 82.99% of the total variance, and each factor had an eigenvalue of greater than 1. These four factors were labeled as
Sports classes (Eigenvalue = 3.458), Sport facilities (Eigenvalue = 3.109), Intramural sports clubs (Eigenvalue = 2.701), and Varsity
teams (Eigenvalue = 2.350). Table 1 provides the operational definitions of each factor.
Furthermore, the examination of Cronbach's alpha coefficients reported that all constructs ranged from .876–.951, greater than
the .70 threshold (Nunnally, 1978). The inspection of the item-to-total correlations demonstrated that all items were highly corre-
lated (> .50) with their own constructs. Taken together, it revealed adequate internal consistency.

4.2. Phase II

In Phase II, there were a total 345 students participating in the survey from 18 classes from which 296 valid and completed
questionnaires were collected, accounting for 85.8% response rate. The sample consisted of 72.6% males (n = 215) and 27.4%
females (n = 81). In terms of year in college, most of them were freshmen (n = 127, 42.9%), followed by seniors (n = 59, 19.9%),
sophomores (n = 54, 18.2%), juniors (n = 31, 10.5%), and fifth year students (n = 25, 8.4%), indicating that the majority of samples
were freshmen.
As a next step, the normality of the data was examined using skewness and kurtosis statistics to test the violation of the as-
sumption. Skewness statistics of all items ranged within the ± 1.00 cut-off suggested by Kline (2010). Kurtosis values of all items
were smaller than the expected value of 3 suggested by Byrne (2010). The results of skewness and kurtosis statistics of all items
supported the normality of the data.
A CFA was then conducted to examine the factor structure of the collegiate sportscape scale from Phase 1 and provide further
empirical evidence for the scale's reliability and validity. The model revealed an adequate fit to the data: χ2 = 451.74, df = 271, χ2/
df = 3.72, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, and RMSEA = .07 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Next, the reliability of measures was evaluated by
calculating composite reliability (CR). As reported in Table 2, the results showed that the scale possessed good reliability as the values
of CR ranged from .867 to .948, which fulfilled the criterion (.60) suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Moreover, all factor loadings
of the four measures were highly significant (p < .01), ranging from .689 to .972. The AVE values were all greater than .50, fulfilling
the criteria suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Finally, discriminant validity was established as the square roots of AVE for each
construct exceeds the inter-correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Thus, it showed that these measures in this study possessed
adequate psychometric properties (Table 3).

Table 3
Summary of psychometric assessments for collegiate sportscape constructs.

Construct/ items Factor loadings

Sport classes (α = .948, CR = .948, AVE = .822)

I feel that my physical ability level has increased after having used sports class. .951
Sports class helped me to improve my physical abilities. .972
I feel that my physical fitness level has increased after having used sports class. .883
The activities that I have participated in sports class have improved my skill performance. .811

Sport facilities (α = .900, CR = .903, AVE = .701)

The cleanliness of sports facilities is excellent. .873
The exterior appearance of sports facilities is visually appealing. .887
The physical layout of the equipment and furnishings in sports facilities are comfortable. .858
The ambient conditions such as temperature, ventilation, noise, and odor of sport facilities are good. .721

Varsity teams (α = .857, CR = .867, AVE = .690)

For this sporting contest, I was really focused on the performance of the team I support. .689
For this sporting contest seeing my team winning was the only thing that mattered for me. .968
Whatever the quality of the game was I wanted the team I support to win. .811

Intramural sport clubs (α = .943, CR = .944, AVE = .850)

Intramural activities have provided me many opportunities for social interaction .884
I made many friends through participating in intramural activities. .938
I really enjoyed the social interaction in intramural activities. .942

27
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

Table 4
Summary of psychometric assessments for satisfaction and loyalty.

Construct/ items Factor loadings

Satisfaction (α = .952, CR = .953, AVE = .871)

I am happy with the service I receive form the university. .944
My opinion about the university service quality is favorable. .967
I am satisfied with what I receive as a student. .887

Loyalty (α = .921, CR = .925, AVE = .806)

If I were faced with the same choice again, I would still choose the same university. .811
I’d recommend my university to someone else to prepare for a career. .930
I have no qualms about recommending the careers offered by this university offers to prospective students. .946

4.3. Phase III

First, the measures of student satisfaction and loyalty were examined. The results supported the reliability and validity of student
satisfaction and loyalty (see Table 4). As a next step, a structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to examine the concurrent
validity of the scale. The results indicated that the proposed model demonstrated an adequate fit with χ2 (161) = 276.569, χ2 /df =
1.697, CFI = .979, TLI = .975, and RMSEA = .049 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Collegiate sportscape had a positive influence on student
satisfaction (β = .646, t = 5.372) and loyalty (β = .219, t = 1.841). In addition, student satisfaction positively led to loyalty (β =
.395, t = 4.190).

5. Discussion

The primary purpose of the current study was to develop a reliable and valid scale for measuring the comprehensive collegiate
sportscape in higher education. Aligning with the sportscape proposed by Wakefield and Sloan (1995) and following Churchill (1979)
methodology for scale development, a 14-item collegiate sportscape scale was developed consisting of four subfactors: sport and
physical education class (4 items), sport facilities (4 items), varsity teams (3 items), intramural sports (3 items). The overall reliability
and validity of the collegiate sportscape scale were found to be appropriate. A series of statistical analyses suggested that the
collegiate sportscape scale possesses good psychometric properties.
The first factor, sports classes, includes four items measuring students’ perception of participating in a variety of physical activity
courses. Courses provided by universities have been known as one of the most important indicators of service quality (Abdullah,
2006; Hill, 1995; Tan & Kek, 2004). For example, course content, teaching quality, and interaction with professors to a great extent
contribute to students’ experience while attending classes. In a similar vein, physical activity courses play a significant role in
students’ sport-related experiences. Through sport and physical educationclasses, students can develop lifelong sports skill and a
healthier lifestyle. It should be noted that students have high expectations of sport and physical education courses in university
campuses (Hill, 1995).
The second factor, sports facilities, consists of four items assessing students' experience of using sport related physical facilities on
the campus. The factor of sports facilities represents the physical aspect of collegiate sportscape and has been known as an indis-
pensable component of student services (Osman, Cole, & Vessell, 2006; Woodall et al., 2014). Sports facilities play a central role at
educational institutions due to a variety of beneficial outcomes for students, including satisfaction and quality of life. Considering the
pivotal role of recreation on college campuses, campus recreation professionals are continually seeking to meet the needs and
expectations of their customers (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) by enhancing and improving the quality of their services (Osman et al.,
2006).
The third factor, varsity teams, contains three items measuring students’ support to the performance of collegiate athletic teams.
Generally, varsity refers to the principal team representing a university, college, or school in sporting games or other competitions.
Varsity athletes are the most physically talented individuals within the university sports community, representing the university as a
whole within regional and national competitions (Sheldon & Watson, 2011). The presence of varsity sports plays an important role of
college sports in educational values (Shulman, Schonfeld, Meserve, & Bowen, 2002). Attending and spectating games of the varsity
team is an experience that students can feel their sense of belonging directly to their universities.
The fourth factor, Intramural sports clubs, includes three items measuring students’ experience of participating in intramural
sports activities. Intramural sports provide the opportunity for students to participate in a variety of recreational sports activities.
Students can enjoy the sports participation experience through a variety of intramural activities (Webb & Forrester, 2015). More
importantly, it should be noted students could experience high degrees of social interaction with other participants while partici-
pating in campus recreational sports (Sturts & Ross, 2013). Through participating in intramural sports, students have a more col-
laborative and interactive experience with other peers during their campus life.
In addition, collegiate sportscape theoretically plays a similar role with servicescape or sportscape in the context of higher
education. Collegiate sportscape has positive influences on students’ satisfaction and loyalty toward the university (Hill & Green,
2000; Lambrecht et al., 2009). Collegiate sportscape significantly affects students’ sport-related experience on the campus. Students’
holistic experience of participating in sports activities on the campus can also satisfy their need and, thereby enhance their loyalty to
the university. The newly developed scale is a useful tool to evaluate students’ sport-related experience on the campus.

28
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

6. Implications

The primary theoretical implication of this study is the development and evaluation of a psychometrically sound measure of
collegiate sportscape which is a new step in this line of research and could be used in the context of higher education. According to
Churchill (1979) and Netemeyer et al. (2003), a reliable and valid measurement scale is important to establish strong theoretical
background and develop new knowledge. Sportscape is not a new concept and has been widely applied in various sport settings since
Wakefield and Sloan's work in 1995. However, sportscape has not previously been used in the context of higher education to
understand college students’ sport-related experience and satisfaction on campus. This study delimits and extends the scope of
sportscape and provides a brief and psychometrically sound scale not only for sport management researchers but also higher edu-
cation researchers. In addition, sportscape had positive and significant influences on student satisfaction and loyalty, which was
consistent with the previous studies of sportscape in the context of spectator sports. This work made significant contributions in terms
of not only empirically examining the consequences of collegiate sportscape, but also the concurrent validity of the scales.
Moreover, the collegiate sportscape can be adopted for its main purpose, assessing and hence improving the higher education
environment. Educators or administrators of higher education can use this instrument to assess how students perceive the collegiate
sportscape on campus and develop corresponding strategies and policies for improvement accordingly. For example, university
administrators can apply this scale to obtain students’ perceptions regarding sportscape on campus through an average score across
the four factors. These simple average scores assess the importance of each construct that contributes to overall collegiate sportscape.
This could help university administrators identify the needs and desires of students and improve upon sport facilities and physical
education courses. It can also help identify those university services associated with sports which could be essential elements of
competitiveness for the prosperity and sustainable growth of the university (Woodall et al., 2014).

7. Limitations and future research

Although the current study developed a reliable and sound scale, the study is not without limitations. First, this study was
conducted mainly at a major university in Korea which provides various sport related services (i.e., Sport and physical educationclass,
sport facilities, varsity teams, and intramural sports). However, other universities may operate their sport service to different extents.
For example, for universities that do not have varsity teams, students may have limited experiences attending varsity collegiate games
and competitions which could lead to different results. In addition, cultural differences may have affected the results as Korean's
socially oriented culture may lead to biased responses showing tendencies to avoid confrontation and new situations (Kim, Pan, &
Park, 1998). In other words, students’ willingness to try new sport-related experience could be different in other cultural settings and
result in different response tendencies to the collegiate sportscape scale. Second, the current study was carried out through a
questionnaire examining students' overall sport-related experience at one point of time. This cross-sectional design of the study made
it impossible to assess students’ change of experience toward sport service during their time on campus life. Third, the student sample
in Phase I were primarily students majoring in the sports discipline and students taking 1 credit sport classes. This may result in a bias
sample that is more engaged in sports compared to other students. Finally, although this study examined how collegiate sportscape
influences students’ satisfaction and loyalty, a suggestion for future research is to investigate the consequences of collegiate
sportscape. For a more comprehensive understanding of the influence of collegiate sportscape, variables such as quality of life or
student adjustment should be taken into consideration in future research.

References

Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: A new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 30(6), 569–581.
Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528–540.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Baker, J., & Cameron, M. (1996). The effects of the service environment on affect and consumer perception of waiting time: An integrative review and research
propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338–349.
Bebko, C. P., Sciulli, L. M., & Garg, R. K. (2006). Consumers' level of expectation for services and the role of implicit service promises. Services Marketing Quarterly,
28(2), 1–23.
Belch, H. A., Gebel, M., & Maas, G. M. (2001). Relationship between student recreation complex use, academic performance, and persistence of first-time freshmen.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 38(2), 254–268.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.
Bitner, M. J. (2000). The servicescape. In T. A. Swartz, & D. Iacobucci (Eds.). Handbook on services marketing & management (pp. 37–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bouchet, P., Bodet, G., Bernache-Assollant, I., & Kada, F. (2011). Segmenting sport spectators: Construction and preliminary validation of the sporting event experience
search (SEES) scale. Sport Management Review, 14(1), 42–53.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm, & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.). Reading
and understanding multivariate statistic (pp. 99–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bryant, J. A., Bradley, J. L., & Milborne, C. (1994). Comparing student participation in campus recreation to other aspects of campus life. Paper presented at the NIRSA
annual conference review.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Collins, J. R., Valerius, L., King, T., & Graham, A. P. (2001). The relationship between college students' self-esteem and the frequency and importance of their
participation in recreational activities. Recreational Sports Journal, 25, 2.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
de Carvalho, M., Boen, F., & Scheerder, J. (2015). Sportscape as a constraint on soccer attendance: Is it predicted by place attachment and by team identification?
Journal of Facility Planning, Design, and Management, 3(2), 134–147.

29
S. Shin et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 22–30

Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61–77.
Disch, W. B., Harlow, L. L., Campbell, J. F., & Dougan, T. R. (2000). Student functioning, concerns, and socio-personal well-being. Social Indicators Research, 51(1),
41–74.
Evans, K. E., Hartman, C. L., & Anderson, D. M. (2013). “It's more than a class”: Leisure education's influence on college student engagement. Innovative Higher
Education, 38(1), 45–58.
Fernandes, T., & Neves, S. (2014). The role of servicescape as a driver of customer value in experience-centric service organizations: The Dragon football stadium case.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(6), 548–560.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Garg, R., Rahman, Z., & Qureshi, M. (2014). Measuring customer experience in banks: Scale development and validation. Journal of Modelling in Management, 9(1),
87–117.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to sustain the customer experience:: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer.
European Management Journal, 25(5), 395–410.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25(2), 186–192.
Haines, D. J. (2001). Undergraduate student benefits from university recreation. Recreational Sports Journal, 25(1), 25–33.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis ((7th ed.)). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hill, B., & Green, B. C. (2000). Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty, and the sportscape across three football contexts. Sport Management Review,
3(2), 145–162.
Hill, B., & Green, B. C. (2012). Repeat participation as a function of program attractiveness, socializing opportunities, loyalty and the sportscape across three sport
facility contexts. Sport Management Review, 15(4), 485–499.
Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21.
Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
21(1), 100–120.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Huesman, R., Brown, A. K., Lee, G., Kellogg, J. P., & Radcliffe, P. M. (2009). Gym bags and mortarboards: Is use of campus recreation facilities related to student
success? NASPA Journal, 46(1), 50–71.
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Kanters, M. A., & Forrester, S. (1997aa). Leisure motivation and self-concept: A comparison of campus recreation participants and non-participants. Recreational Sports
Journal, 22(1), 29–33.
Kanters, M. A., & Forrester, S. (1997bb). The motivations and self-esteem of intramural sports participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 21(3), 3–7.
Kanters, M. A., & Forrester, S. (2000). Recreational sport participation as a moderator of college stress. Recreational Sports Journal, 24(2), 11–24.
Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H. S. (1998). High-versus low-context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures. Psychology and Marketing, 15(6),
507–521.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Ko, Y. J., & Pastore, D. L. (2007). An Instrument to assess customer perceptions of service quality and satisfaction in campus recreation programs. Recreational Sports
Journal, 31(1), 34–42.
Lambrecht, K. W., Kaefer, F., & Ramenofsky, S. D. (2009). Sportscape factors influencing spectator attendance and satisfaction at a professional golf association
tournament. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(3), 165–172.
Lee, S., Heere, B., & Chung, K.-S. (2013). Which senses matter more? The impact of our senses on team identity and team loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22(4),
203–213.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–98.
Nesbitt, G. M. (1998). Social-emotional development and extracurricular involvement of sport club participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 22(2), 6–9.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Reilly, N., Berger, I. E., Hernandez, T., Parent, M. M., & Séguin, B. (2015). Urban sportscapes: An environmental deterministic perspective on the management of
youth sport participation. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 291–307.
Osman, R. W., Cole, S. T., & Vessell, C. R. (2006). Examining the role of perceived service quality in predicting user satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a campus
recreation setting. Recreational Sports Journal, 30(1), 20–29.
Ragheb, M. G., & McKinney, J. (1993). Campus recreation and perceived academic stress. Journal of College Student Development.
Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development of the Athlete satisfaction questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20(2), 127.
Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., Kara, A. L. I., & Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009). Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship
approach in Latin America. Latin American Business Review, 10(1), 21–39.
Sheldon, K., & Watson, A. (2011). Coach's autonomy support is especially important for varsity compared to club and recreational athletes. International Journal of
Sports Science and Coaching, 6(1), 109–124.
Shulman, J. L., Schonfeld, R. C., Meserve, L. A., & Bowen, W. G. (2002). The game of life: College sports and educational values. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Rahtz, D. (2007). Quality of college life (QCL) of students: Developing and validating a measure of well-being. Social Indicators
Research, 80(2), 343–360.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., Grzeskowiak, S., Yu, G. B., Webb, D., El-Hasan, K., ... Kuruuzum, A. (2010). Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students: Further Validation of a
Measure of Well-being. Social Indicators Research, 99(3), 375–390.
Sturts, J. R., & Ross, C. M. (2013). Collegiate intramural sports participation: Identified social outcomes. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation &
Tourism, 11, 25–41.
Tan, K. C., & Kek, S. W. (2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach. Quality in Higher Education, 10(1), 17–24.
Trudeau, F., & Shephard, R. J. (2008). Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5(1), 1–12.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66–76.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers' behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing,
10(6), 45–61.
Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 153–172.
Webb, E., & Forrester, S. (2015). Affective outcomes of intramural sport participation. Recreational Sports Journal, 39(1), 69–81.
Woodall, T., Hiller, A., & Resnick, S. (2014). Making sense of higher education: Students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher
Education, 39(1), 48–67.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist,
34(6), 806–838.
Yoshida, M., & James, J. D. (2011). Service quality at sporting events: Is aesthetic quality a missing dimension? Sport Management Review, 14(1), 13–24.
Yu, G. B., & Kim, J.-H. (2008). Testing the mediating effect of the quality of collegelife in the student satisfaction and student loyalty relationship. Applied Research in
Quality of Life, 3(1), 1–21.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.

30