students' satisfaction

Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 1 |

Full title: Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

Authors: Mohammad Alhamwan

Matric no. 94610

PhD Student

Universiti Utara Malaysia

e-mail: [email protected]

Khan Sarfaraz Ali

Matric no. 94373

PhD Student

College of Business



Abdo Ali Homaid

Matric no. 93090

PhD Student



Abstract:

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships of several factors for students‟ satisfaction. Students‟

satisfaction is considered a vital link and aspiration to education success, credibility and gradual development in an

academic institution. From the literature, six antecedents of students‟ satisfaction are identified. Each variable is

measured using 5-point interval scale: facilities (5 items), study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5

items), perceived quality (4 items), collectivism culture (5 items) and satisfaction (5items). Using primary data

collection method, 250 questionnaires were distributed to target respondents of both graduate and post-graduate

students of Universiti Utara Malaysia. The responses collected were 203 completed questionnaires representing

81.2 percent response rate. The data were analyzed using Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 7.

Confirmatory factor analysis of measurement models indicate adequate goodness of fit after a few items were

eliminated through modification indices verifications. Goodness of fit for the revised structural model shows

adequate fit. This study has established five direct causal effects: (1) facilities and students‟ satisfaction; (2) study

content and planning and students‟ satisfaction (3) acquired skills and students‟ satisfaction; (4) perceived quality

and students‟ satisfaction and (5) collectivism culture and students‟ satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also

manage to present first time findings on four mediating effects: (1) perceived quality mediates relationship between

facilities and students‟ satisfaction; (2) perceived quality mediates relationship between study content and planning

and students‟ satisfaction; (3) perceived quality mediates relationship between acquired skills and students‟

satisfaction and (4) perceived quality mediates the relationship between collectivism culture and students‟

satisfaction. The findings are discussed in the perspective of International students and their view towards foresaid

factors.

Keywords: student satisfaction, facilities, study content and planning, acquired skills, perceived quality,

collectivism culture

Correspondence to:

Mohammad Alhamwan

Telephone: 60194808390

Khan Sarfaraz Ali


Abdo Ali Homaid



Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

Mohammad Alhamwana, Khan Sarfaraz Ali

b &

Abdo Ali Homaid

c

a, b, c

PhD Student, Universiti Utara Malaysia

Abstract:

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships of several factors for students‟ satisfaction.

Students‟ satisfaction is considered a vital link and aspiration to education success, credibility and

gradual development in an academic institution. From the literature, six antecedents of students‟

satisfaction are identified. Each variable is measured using 5-point interval scale: facilities (5 items),

study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5 items), perceived quality (4 items), collectivism

culture (5 items) and satisfaction (5items). Using primary data collection method, 250 questionnaires

were distributed to target respondents of both graduate and post-graduate students of Universiti Utara

Malaysia. The responses collected were 200 completed questionnaires representing 80 percent response

rate. The data were analyzed using Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 7. Confirmatory

factor analysis of measurement models indicate adequate goodness of fit after a few items were

eliminated through modification indices verifications. Goodness of fit for the revised structural model

shows adequate fit. This study has established five direct causal effects: (1) facilities and students‟

satisfaction; (2) study content and planning and students‟ satisfaction (3) acquired skills and students‟

satisfaction; (4) perceived quality and students‟ satisfaction and (5) collectivism culture and students‟

satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also manage to present first time findings on four mediating effects:

(1) perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and students‟ satisfaction; (2) perceived

quality mediates relationship between study content and planning and students‟ satisfaction; (3)

perceived quality mediates relationship between acquired skills and students‟ satisfaction and (4)

perceived quality mediates the relationship between collectivism culture and students‟ satisfaction. The

findings are discussed in the perspective of International students and their view towards foresaid

factors.

Keywords: student satisfaction, facilities, study content and planning, acquired skills, perceived

quality, collectivism culture

1. Introduction

Student satisfaction is one of the major goals of universities. A satisfied student population is a source of

competitive advantage with outcomes such as positive word of mouth (WOM) communication, student

retention and loyalty. The creation and the delivery of superior customer value become important in

creating a sustainable advantage in the highly competitive international education market (Kotler and

Fox, 2002). Universities are expected to cope with the challenges of cultural diversity, varied learning

styles, the changing demands of students who are presented with a much wider choice of study

destinations, educational programs and study environments than before. The international education

market has become very attractive to universities in terms of pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits to the

respective institutions and the country and, like many other organizations, universities are, therefore,

concerned with market share, productivity, return on investment and the quality of services offered to

their customers (LeBlanc and Nha, 1997). In earlier works, Oliver (1989) identified several types of

satisfaction: satisfaction-as-contentment, satisfaction as pleasure, satisfaction-as-relief, satisfaction-as-

novelty and satisfaction-as-surprise. Later, the same author depicted another definition for satisfaction.

He pointed out that satisfaction is the consumer‟s fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product or

service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of

consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under-or-over fulfillment (Oliver, 1997). More and

more universities have gradually adopted a marketing approach as they compete to attract and retain top


quality students. As higher education meets all the classical features of services (Cherubini, 1996;

Pellicelli, 1997; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2002), the concepts of service quality and customer satisfaction are

directly applicable, moving the universities closer to their market needs. Since new generation students

have more influence and greater awareness as consumers, becoming more interactive and selective as

regards their future, it becomes even more difficult to attract them (Sigala and Baum, 2003).

With this merger and acquisition exercise, Universities will need to increase their services and image to

attract more International students. For Universities to adequately monitor their students‟ related

programs, academic services need to be updated of the drivers of students‟ satisfaction in education

sector. This is the main impetus of doing this research.

Thus, the objective of this study is to examine the causal relationships of several antecedents of students‟

satisfaction in the context of a University in Northern Malaysia. This paper is structured as follows. First,

we review the academic literature on the antecedents of students‟ satisfaction: facilities, study content

and planning, acquired skills, perceived quality, and collectivism culture. Next, we present the research

framework, methods, measures and findings. Finally, the results were discussed in terms of its

contribution to the development of education services and recommendations for future research.

2. Literature Review

Much of the original work on students‟ satisfaction defines student satisfaction level has been found to

be one of the factors that affects the quality and overall effectiveness of a university program (Aitken,

1982; Astin, Korn, & Green, 1987; Bailey, Bauman, & Lata, 1998; Love, 1993; Suen, 1983). In addition,

student recruitment and retention have always been the core activities of higher educational institutions.

Student satisfaction has been identified a factor that affects student recruitment and retention (Hatcher, et

al., 1992; Love, 1993). This basically implies that the higher the level of satisfaction with the educational

environment, the higher the likelihood that the student will stay at the educational institution and

recommend the institution to others. As a result, student satisfaction has been integrated as a part of the

discussion in respect of institutional effectiveness and student outcomes (Astin, Korn, & Green, 1987;

Bailey, Bauman, & Lata, 1998).

For instance, state systems are now putting policies in place to obligate state educational institutions to

provide data and evidence to show that they are offering quality education and education-related

activities to students in an effective and efficient manner (Hatcher, Prus and Fitzgerald, 1992; Redd,

1998). Student outcomes, student retention, attrition, and graduate rates are some of the key measures of

the quality and overall effectiveness of the higher educational institution (Hatcher, et al., 1992; Redd,

1998). The implementation of these policies provides incentives and encouragement for higher

educational institutions to study factors that affect the quality and overall effectiveness of their programs.

Increased competition, dynamic educational environment, challenges such as budget cut, higher costs in

obtaining college education, changing demographics in the population, declining enrollments, and a

general public call for accountability have educational institutions realize the importance of student

satisfaction (Cheng & Tam, 1997; Kotler & Fox, 1995). Studies have shown student satisfaction to have

a positive impact on student motivation, student retention, recruiting efforts and fundraising (Borden,

1995; Frazer, 1999). The students‟ positive feeling and satisfaction is contingent to the students‟

academic and social experiences obtained at the particular institution (Aitken, 1982; Betz, Menne, Starr,

& Klingensmith, 1971; Danielson, 1998; Hatcher, et al., 1992; Stikes 1984; Tinto, 1993). As a result,

student satisfaction among graduate students is assumed and only usually considered when competition

affects enrolment. There is need for more research in higher education that focuses more on student

needs and concerns for the purposes of improving academic programs. In addition, extrinsic factors need

to be considered as well. Being able to identify and address students‟ needs and expectations allows

educational institutions to attract and retain quality students as well as improve the quality of their

programs (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Therefore, it is vital for educational institutions to determine and

deliver what is important to students.


Theoretical framework

Facilities and Students’ Satisfaction

In general the literature does not treat facilities as a potential differentiator or subject them to separate

research (Price et al., 2003). The paradox of facilities Management‟s (FM) claims for strategic or value

adding status on the one hand, and the subject‟s largely operational rhetoric on the other (Grimshaw,

1999), has become widely recognized in recent years. Facilities could for example be essential to attract

key research personnel, or to provide environments for faster knowledge creation. Its impact on student

perceptions of their pedagogic experience (Fleming and Storr, 1999) is not widely appreciated in the

literature on lecture theatre design or pedagogy. Most University marketing surveys pay comparatively

little weight to facilities-related factors, despite evidence of their impact on the student experience

(Green et. Al, 1994, cited in Yorke, 2000) and by reviews of literatures on lecture theatre design and

learning experience, which found a wide (an unbridged!) gulf between the architectural and pedagogical

approaches (Fleming and Storr, 1999). Characteristics of the student should fit with the ability of the

institutions to respond adequately to those characteristics, ultimately leading to increased student

satisfaction, academic achievement and personal growth. This study investigates the degree to which

facilities influence on student satisfaction.

Study Content & Planning and Students’ Satisfaction

Measuring student satisfaction is not an easy task to attempt. Therefore, the indicators that are used

differ from one author to another. For example, Browne et al. (1998) found that global satisfaction

within a university was driven by a student‟s assessment of course quality and other curriculum-related

factors associated with a university. Borden (1995) found that student satisfaction is related to the match

between student priorities and the campus environment (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Therefore, it is vital for

educational institutions to determine and deliver what is important to students. Being able to identify and

address students‟ needs and expectations allows educational institutions to attract and retain quality

students as well as improve the quality of their programs (Elliott & Shin, 2002). For the purpose of the

present research, student satisfaction is defined as an evaluating summary of educational experience,

based on the discrepancy between prior expectation and the performance perceived after passing through

the educational cycle.

Acquired Skills and Students’ Satisfaction

In general, all the authors suggest evaluating the quality of the service process as such and only the study

by Brady and Cronin (2001) suggests (in Māris and Zaksa, 2012) including also the evaluation of the

service result. In the case of higher education the result of the study process are the acquired skills and

readiness for the labour market. The higher education reforms require introducing the student-centred

and study result-oriented education. Accordingly, when assessing the student-perceived quality the

higher education institution managers also have to require the study result assessment. As a result of the

study process the student acquires the added value – new knowledge and skills that, in their turn,

enhance his competitiveness in the labour market. Consequently, by becoming aware of the gains from

the service after its completion the student can evaluate the acquired results (Māris and Zaksa, 2012).

This study aims at looking into the degree to which acquired skills influence on student satisfaction.

Perceived Quality and Students’ Satisfaction

In general, the perceived quality is defined as the customer‟s judgment about an entity‟s overall

excellence or superiority (Rowley, 1997). Parasuraman et al. (1991) support the notion that service

quality is an overall evaluation similar to attitude. Besides, the customer perception of the quality may

differ from the one described in the quality standards or regulatory documents for the provision of the

service. It also relates to students. Many researchers state that customer assessments of continuously

provided services may depend on performance. A performance-based measure may explain more of the

variance in an overall measure of service quality (Oliver, 1989; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Boulding et al.,

1993). Marketing research conducted before has proved that customer loyalty is affected by the

customer-perceived quality, satisfaction and overall image of the organization (Kotler and Fox, 1995;


Zeithaml, 2000; Helgesen, 2006). In the area of higher education Elliot and Healy describe satisfaction

as a short-term attitude that has arisen after evaluating one‟s acquired experience during the use of the

higher education service (Elliot and Healy, 2001). Walker believes that students being incapable of

assessing the higher education quality as a whole more focus on the quality of environment and classes

delivered by the academic staff (Walker 1995). Rossiter (1995) argues that the functional relationship

between perceived quality and satisfaction is exponential. To put it another way, (dis)satisfaction with

more recent encounters will have a larger impact on perceived quality than (dis)satisfaction with

previous encounters. As Johnson et al. (2001) point out; the customer-perceived quality can be

composed by a multitude of diverse factors. The previously created customer-perceived quality and

satisfaction models contain essential drawbacks and along with the change of times and environment as

well as acquisition of new knowledge the models of perceived quality and satisfaction evaluation must

be updated and adapted to the new conditions.

Collectivism Culture and Student’s Satisfaction

Collectivistic values are required to maintain good relationships with the students‟ family and primary

in-group identification, whereas individualistic values and behavioral competences may be required for

success in a college environment that is becoming so closely aligned with the North American model. In

what has proven to be a very influential review, LaFromboise, Coleman, and Gerton (1993) described

bicultural competence as the ability to develop and maintain competence in two cultures. They

considered knowledge of cultural beliefs and values as a distinct dimension of bicultural competence

along with positive attitudes toward both cultures, confidence in one‟s continued well-being,

communication ability, mastery of culturally appropriate roles and behaviors, and a well-developed

social support system in both cultural groups. In the study of bicultural competence of college students in

Hawaii, Yamada and Singelis (1999) defined the living experience in both collectivistic and

individualistic culture as one of the indicators of bicultural competence. LaFromboise et al.‟s review

described the extensive benefits of bicultural competence for healthy adjustment and effective

functioning in both cultures. In a recent study (David, Okazaki, & Saw, 2009), bicultural competence

was positively associated with life satisfaction and negatively associated with depression in a mixed U.S.

sample of Asian American, African American, Latino/a, multiracial, and international undergraduate

students. A study that sampled high school students, college students, and adults from South Korea

reported that collectivistic values were positively related to trust toward professionals in seeking

professional help while individualistic values were negatively associated with stigma tolerance related to

mental health (D.-H. Lee & Yoo, 2000).

3. Methodology

This study formulates the antecedents of student‟s satisfaction as shown in Figure 2. In the research

framework, it shows that facilities, study content and planning and acquired skills have direct influence

on students‟ satisfaction while perceived quality mediates the relationship and collectivism culture

influences the relationship. The literature indicates that facilities, study content and planning and

acquired skills are direct antecedents of student‟s satisfaction. Collectivism culture is an indirect

antecedent of student‟s satisfaction through perceived quality.

When this research framework is translated into the hypothesized model (see Table 2), the manifesting

variables are drawn with the error terms for each latent variables. The four exogenous variables contain

four and five (observed) variables respectively. For endogenous latent variables Students‟ Satisfaction

the manifesting variables are five. The subsequent error terms are labeled as in the diagram. Table 1

summarizes the operational definitions of all latent variables used in this study. Afterwards, eight

hypotheses are derived from the structural model for the study (see Table 2).


Sampling and instrument A total of 250 international students were requested to complete a questionnaire that contained measures

of the constructs of concern. The questionnaires were distributed to the respondents at their workplace

by using purposive sampling method. A response rate of about 81.2% was collected back corresponding

to 203 responses.

Each variable is measured using previously developed instrument as follows: 5-point interval-scale of

(1)-strongly disagree to (5)-strongly agree. There are also five demographic questions included in the

instrument which use ordinal and nominal scale such as name, age, gender, education, and marital status.

Data Screening and Analysis The 203 dataset were coded and saved into SPSS version 16 and analyzed using AMOS version 7.0.

Several statistical validity tests and analysis were further conducted such as reliability (Cronbach‟s

alpha) and composite reliability tests, validity tests using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for

construct convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities. Subsequently, the data was subjected to

descriptive analysis, correlation and structural equation modeling analysis. The steps in SEM analysis

are CFA analysis, measurement analysis, discriminant analysis (average variance extracted), composite

reliability analysis, and direct indirect impact analysis (mediating effects), testing the fit for the

hypothesized structural model, revised model, competing model, and comparison of nested model

analysis.

4. Results

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The respondents‟ ages ranged from twenty to above forty years old maximum having age between 20

and 29 years old. There are more female (65.5%) than male respondents (34.5%). The respondents are

mostly single students (67%%) followed by married (32%%) and divorced (1%). Their qualification

varies from Under graduate (42.2%), Masters Degree (22.7%), and PhD/DBA (35%) (Table 9).

Descriptive Analysis of Variables The research framework consists of four exogenous and one endogenous variable (Table 8). Each

construct shows Cronbach alpha readings of acceptable values of above 0.68, well above Nunnally,

(1970) recommendation of 0.60 limit. Composite reliability shows similar high readings for variables

above 0.87. The CR for Student Satisfaction is 0.942985 and Cronbach‟s alpha is .81. Here, the highest

CR and Cronbach‟s alpha among the IVs I for Acquired Skills (0.964069 and .85). While, the lowest

Cronbach‟s alpha is Collectivism Culture (.68). Facilities have lowest CR (0.87748). Perceived Quality

has CR 0.900853 and Cronbach‟s alpha .75. Study Content & Planning have 0.915175 as CR and .78 as

Cronbach‟s alpha.

Convergent Validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis -CFA) From the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) result in Table 10, it is observed that the regression

estimates or factor loadings of all manifesting observed variables or items are adequate ranging from

0.91 to 0.99. The factor loadings of latent to observed variable should be above 0.50 (Hair et al.,

2006).This indicates that all the constructs conform to the construct convergent validity test. After

deletions were made using modification indices suggestions, the remaining numbers of items for each

construct are as follows: facilities (5 items), study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5

items), perceived quality (4 items) and students‟ satisfaction (5 items).


Composite Reliability

The calculations of composite reliability based on the standardized factor loadings obtained from the

final revised structural model. The equation for composite reliability is as follows:

Composite reliability = ( standardized loading)2

standardized loading)2 + j

The readings of composite reliability of all exogenous latent constructs are well above 0.87 (Table 11).

Discriminant Validity

To substantiate discriminant validity, average variance extracted (AVE) is compared to correlation

squared of the interrelated variables of concerned (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (see table 12). The

variance extracted is calculated and presented in Table 13. The AVE is derived from the calculation of

variance extracted using the following equation:

Variance Extracted (VE) = (standardized SMC2 )

(standardized SMC2) + j

Nomological Validity

Nomological validity examines whether the correlations between constructs in the measurement theory

makes sense such that correlations must be positive or negative according to theory stipulated (Hair et al.

2006). From 14, it is observed that all directions of correlations are in the hypothesized direction as

stipulated in the hypotheses in accordance to theory. Thus, it can be deducted that nomological validity

is substantiated for all measures used in this study.

Goodness of Fit of Structural Model To arrive to the structural model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on every construct

and measurement models (Table 10). The goodness of fit is the decision to see the model fits into the

variance-covariance matrix of the dataset. The CFA, measurement and structural model has a good fit

with the data based on assessment criteria such as GFI, CFI, TLI, RMSEA (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All

CFAs of constructs produced a relatively good fit as indicated by the goodness of fit indices such as

CMIN/df ratio (<2); p-value (>0.05); Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of >0.95; and root mean square error

of approximation (RMSEA) of values less than 0.08 (<0.08) (Hair et al., 2006).

Table 10 shows that the goodness of fit of generated or revised model is better compared to the

hypothesized model. This is expected as hypothesized model is usually strictly confirmatory (Byrne,

2001). GFI of revised model is 0.96 compared to GFI of hypothesized model of 0.95. Root mean square

Error Approximation (RMSEA) also shows a better readings of 0.18 for revised model compared to

0.042 for hypothesized model (<0.08).

Hypotheses Results

Since the results of hypothesized model (Figure 3) did not achieve model fit (p<0.000), hence, the

explanation of hypotheses result will be based on generated or revised model (Figure 4). The result

demonstrates that facility is a significant positive antecedent of students‟ satisfaction. Hence, study

content and planning has a positive significant impact on students‟ satisfaction (CR=4.861; P<0.001) or

H2 is asserted. Acquired skills have a positive and direct impact on students‟ satisfaction. (CR=2.267;

P<0.001), i.e H3 is also asserted. Study content and planning has a positive and direct impact on


students‟ satisfaction (CR=4.861; p<0.05), i.e H2 is asserted. Similarly, alternatively, hypotheses H1and

H5 are not asserted (insignificant Beta). Thus these hypotheses are rejected.

Mediating Effect Analysis of Revised Model

Table 7 shows the indirect effect estimates to test the mediating effects of customer satisfaction. From

the result, H2, H3, and H4 are supported. For H1: perceived quality mediates the relationship between

facilities and students‟ satisfaction. There are significant increases of indirect effects for these

relationships compared to direct impacts. Alternatively, H1 was not supported because the indirect

impact is less than the direct impact. This means that perceived quality does not mediate the relationship

between collectivism culture and students‟ satisfaction but rather perceived quality is directly related to

students‟ satisfaction.

Overall Comparison between structural models

Figure 3 and figure 4 indicate the overall comparison between two structural models (hypothesized and

revised) derived from the study. It shows that hypothesized model produces four significant direct

impacts while revised model produces three significant direct impacts. Even though there are more

significant direct impacts in hypothesized model, the results could not be generalized due to non-

achievement of p-value (p<0.05). It seems that three significant direct impacts of acquired skills to

students‟ satisfaction (H2), Study content and planning to students‟ satisfaction (H3) and facilities to

students‟ satisfaction (H4) are consistently significant across the two structural models. Alternatively,

one direct path i.e. the path from collectivism culture to students‟ satisfaction (H1) is consistently

insignificant across the structural models.

5. Discussion This study attempts to examine the causal relationships between four antecedents of students‟

satisfaction in the education sector. The conceptual underpinning used is that of the Herzberg‟s two-

factor theory explaining satisfaction (Herzberg, 1959). As expected, the hypothesized model do not

achieve model fit (p value=0.000, p <0.001). This implies that hypothesized model could not be

generalized to the population. This is expected because the sample was only concentrated in one

University only. This new finding for this study indicates that quality of services offered by Universities

should be given priority since it can directly affect the students‟ satisfaction.

This study has found very interesting findings regarding several significant indirect paths effects or

mediating paths. This indirect path is justified to compensate for the insignificant direct paths found

earlier (e.g: facilities and students‟ satisfaction; study content and planning and students‟ satisfaction

acquired skills and students‟ satisfaction; perceived quality and students‟ satisfaction). All direct paths

are mediated by one mediator proposed in this study which is perceived quality. For example, the

relationship between facilities and study content will be very much improved if the satisfaction and

acquired skills have been taken into consideration by students. Likewise, perceived quality is another

important mediator needed to improve relationship between facilities, study content and acquired skills.

It is therefore necessary to ensure that University provides satisfactory services to students to gain

satisfaction.

6. Suggestion for Future Research The findings could not be generalized for the whole University of Malaysia because it was only

conducted in the Universiti Utara Malaysia. This model has shown some interesting findings which

could be applied for utilization in research on a bigger scale to include the whole of Malaysia and Asian

region.


7. Conclusion This study has established four direct causal effects: (1) facilities and students‟ satisfaction; (2) study

content and planning and students‟ satisfaction (3) acquired skills and students‟ satisfaction; (4)

perceived quality and students‟ satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also manage to present first time

findings on three mediating effects: (1) perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and

students‟ satisfaction; (2) perceived quality mediates the relationship between study content and

students‟ satisfaction; and (3) perceived quality mediates the relationship between acquired skills and

students‟ satisfaction.

8. References

Aitken, N. D. (1982). College student performance, satisfaction and retention. Journal of Higher

Education, 53, 32-50.

Astin, A., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987, Winter). Retaining and satisfying students. Educational

Record, 36-42.

Bailey, B. L., Bauman, C., & Lata, K. A. (1998). Student retention and satisfaction: The evolution of a

predictive model. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424797).

Borden, V. M. H. (1995). Segmenting student markets with a student satisfaction and priorities Survey.

Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 73-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02207767

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process model of service

quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, pp.30,

7-27.

Browne, B. A., Kaldenberg, D. O., Browne, W. B., & Brown, D. (1998). Students as customers: factors

affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of Marketing for Higher

Education, 8(3), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v08n03_01

Cherubini, S. (1996), Marketing dei servizi, Franco Angeli, Milano.

Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: reexamination and extension. Journal

of Marketing, pp.56, 55–68.

David, E. J. R., Okazaki, S., & Saw, A. (2009). Bicultural self-efficacy among college students: Initial

scale development and mental health correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 211–

226

Elliot, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this

important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 2002.

Elliot, K.M. and Healy, M.A. (2001), “Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to

recruitment and retention”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp.1–1.

Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction; an alternative approach to assessing this

important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24, 197-

209.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518

Fleming, D and Storr, J. (1999). “The impact of lecture theatre design on learning experience”, Facilities,

Vol: 17. No. 7/8. Pp: 231-6.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02207767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v08n03_01


Green, D. with Branningan, C., Mazelan, P. and Giles, L. (1994), “Measuring student satisfaction: a

method of improving the quality of the student‟s experience”, in Hazelgrove, S. (Ed.), The

Student Experience, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Grimshaw, B. (1999). “Facilities management: the wider implications of managing change”, Facilities,

Vol: 17. No. 1/2, pp: 24-30.

Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001). The evolution and

future of national customer satisfaction index models. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.

22, pp.217–45.

Hatcher, L., Kryter, K., Prus, J. S., & Fitzgerald, V. (1992). Predicting college student satisfaction,

commitment and attrition from investment model constructs. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 22(16), 1273-1296.

Helgesen, Ø. (2006), “Are loyal customers profitable? Customer satisfaction, customer (action) loyalty

and customer profitability at the individual level”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22,

pp. 245–66.

Kotler, P. and Fox, K.F. (1995), Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism:

Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412.

LeBlanc, G. and Nha, N. (1997), „„searching for excellence in business education: an exploratory study

of customer impressions of service quality‟‟, The International Journal of Educational

Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 72-80.

Lee, D.-H., & Yoo, S.-K. (2000). An exploratory study on attitudes toward seeking professional help

among Koreans. Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 12(2), 55–68

Love, B. J. (1993). Issues and problems in the retention of Black students in predominately White

institutions of higher learning. Equity and Excellence in Education, 26(1), 27-37.

Māris, P. and Zaksa, K. (2012). “The impact of perceived service quality on student loyalty in higher

education institutions”, in Journal of Business Management, 2012, No.6 ISSN 1691-5348

Oliver, R. L. (1989). Processing of the Satisfaction Response in Consumption: A Suggested Framework

and Research Propositions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining

Behavior, 2, 1-16.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: The Mc

Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Oliver, R. L., Swan, J.E., (1989). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on Merchant

and product satisfaction”. Journal of consumer research, Vol.16, No.3, pp.372–383.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1991). Refinement of expectations as a comparison

standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research. Journal of Retailing,

Vol. 67 No. 4, pp.420–50.

Redd, K. E. (1998). Historically black colleges and universities: Making a comeback. New directions

for higher education (pp. 33-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Rossiter, J.R (1995), Buyer Behavior from the Marketing Manager’s Perspective, Australian Graduate

School of Management, University of New South Wales.

Rowley J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service

contract. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5, no1, pp.7–14.

Sigala, M. and Baum, T. (2003), “Trends and issues in tourism and hospitality higher education:

visioning the future”, Tourism and Hospitality Research. The Surrey Quarterly Review, Vol. 4

No. 4, pp. 367-76.

Suen, H. K. (1983). Alienation and attrition of Black college students on a predominately white

campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(2), 117-121.

Pellicelli, G. (1997). Marketing dei servizi, Utet, Torino.

Walker J. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction: constructualized. Journal of Services Marketing, 9 (1),

pp.5–14.

Yorke, M. (2000), “Benchmarking the student experience”, in Jakson, N. and Lund, H. (Eds),

Benchmarking for Higher Education, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp: 67-84.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitter, M.J. (2002). Il marketing dei servizi, McGraw Hill, Milano.

Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), “Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what we

know and what we need to learn”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,

pp. 67–85.


Figure 1: Two-Factor Satisfaction Model (Herzberg, 1959)

This study is based on Herzberg‟s two-factor theory explaining satisfaction: the factor group

“motivators” contributed to the rise of satisfaction and the factor group “hygiene factors” ensured the

avoidance of dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1959).

Figure 2: RESEARCH FRAMEWORK


Figure 3: Hypothesized Model


Table 1: Operational definition of Variables

Facilities Facilities could for example be essential to attract key research

personnel, or to provide environments for faster knowledge

creation.

Fleming and

Storr (1999)

Study Content &

Planning

Quality and other curriculum-related factors associated with a

university.

Browne et al.

(1998)

Acquired Skills Becoming aware of the gains from the service after its completion

the student can evaluate the acquired results

Māris and Zaksa

(2012)

Perceived

Quality

The perceived quality is defined as the customer‟s judgment about

an entity‟s overall excellence or superiority.

Rowley (1997)

Collectivism

Culture

Bicultural competence as the ability to develop and maintain

competence in two cultures.

LaFromboise,

Coleman, and

Gerton (1993)

Table 2: Hypotheses Formulation

H1 Collectivism culture is related positively with students‟ satisfaction

H2 Acquired skills is related positively to students‟ satisfaction

H3 Study contents and planning are related positively to students‟ satisfaction

H4 Facilities are related positively to students‟ satisfaction

H5 Perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and students‟ satisfaction.

H6 Perceived quality mediates relationship between study content and planning and students‟

satisfaction

H7 Perceived quality mediates relationship between acquired skills and students‟ satisfaction.

H8 Perceived quality mediates the relationship between collectivism culture and students‟

satisfaction.


Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Variables

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

F 203 2.33 5.00 3.6470 .62020

C 203 1.50 5.00 3.5517 .59684

SK 203 2.00 5.00 3.5655 .54190

QU 203 2.25 5.00 3.6293 .53141

CU 203 2.28 5.00 3.7600 .54051

S 203 1.60 5.00 3.7192 .60475

Valid N (listwise) 203

Table 4: Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Matrix of Exogenous Variables

Table 5: Correlation & Correlation square Matrix among Exogenous Variables


Table 6: Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 – Default model)

Endogenous variables

Squared Multiple

Correlation (SMC) = R2

Perceived Quality

.540

Students‟ Satisfaction

.597

Cu1

.444

Cu4

.379

SK4

.573

SK5

.655

C2

.520

C3

.691

F3

.642

F4

.287

Qu1

.326

Qu2

.555

S5

.684

S4

.479

Table 7: Indirect Effect of Variables Interaction

Collectivism

Culture

Acquired

skills

Study Content

& Planning

Faciliti

es

Perceived

Quality

Students‟

Satisfaction

Perceived

Quality .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Students‟

Satisfaction -.023 .117 .223 .052 .000 .000

Table 8: Total Effect of Mediating Variable

H

Exogenous

Mediated

Endogenous

Indirect +

Direct Effects

Total

Effect

H1

Collectivism

Culture -

Perceived

Quality -

Students‟

Satisfaction (-.51+000) -.051

H2

Acquired skills

-

Perceived

Quality -

Students‟

Satisfaction (.254+ 000) .254

H3

Study Content &

Planning -

Perceived

Quality -

Students‟

Satisfaction (.486+000) .486

H4

Facilities

-

Perceived

Quality -

Students‟

Satisfaction (.114+000) .114


Table 9: The Profile of Respondents (N=203)

Demographics Frequency Valid Percent

Gender:

Male 70 34.5

Female

133 65.5

Status:

Married 65 32.0

Single 136 67.0

Divorced 2 1.0

Education:

Graduate 86 42.4

Master 46 22.7

Ph.D/ DPA 71 35.0

Graduate 86 42.4

Age:

less than 20 29 14.3

between 20-29 149 73.4

between 30-39 15 7.4

above than 40 10 4.9

Table 10: CFA Of All Measurement and Structured Model (Goodness-of –Fit Indices) (N =203)

Variables

Ite

ms

Items

remaining

Chi-

square χ

DF CMIN/

DF

CFI GFI AGFI NFI RMSE

A

P-

value

Student

satisfaction

5 4 3.470 2 1.735 0.994 0.99

1

0.955 0.986 0.61 0.176

Perceived

quality

4 4 10.910 2 5.455 0.954 0.72 0.862 0.945 0.150 0.004

Facilities 5 4 19.853 2 9.927 0.912 0.95

3

0.765 0.905 0.212 0.000

Study content

planning

5 4 4.159 2 2.080 0.988 0.99

0

0.951 0.979 0.074 0.125

Acquired

skills

5 4 3.067 2 1.533 0.994 0.99

3

0.963 0.985 0.052 0.216

Collectivism

culture

5 4 7.195 2 0.027 0.954 0.98

3

0.914 0.939 0.115 0.027

ENDO 9 5 5.221 4 1.305 0.994 0.99

0

0.962 0.977 0.039 0.265

EXO 20 9 32.277 21 1.537 0.971 0.96

4

0.924 0.924 0.052 0.055

MEASU 29 12 41.437 39 1.062 0.996 0.96

7

0.935 0.938 0.18 0.365

HYPO 29 12 55.589 41 1.356 0.976 0.95

4

0.913 0.919 0.042 0.064


Table 11: Cronbach’s alpha

Variable Name CR

Cronbach’s alpha

Student Satisfaction (1) 0.942985 .81

Perceived Quality (2) 0.900853 .75

Facilities (3) 0.87748 .72

Study Content & Planning (4) 0.915175 .78

Acquired Skills (5) 0.964069 .85

Collectivism Culture (6) 0.882262 .68

Table 12: Average Variance Extracted (AVE)


Table 13: Variances (Group number 1 - Default model)

Table 14: Correlation Matrix

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

Facilities

.399 .109 3.677 *** par_20

Study content &Planning

.329 .066 5.014 *** par_21

Acquired skills

.344 .063 5.477 *** par_22

Collectivism Culture

.250 .086 2.895 .004 par_23

e33

.138 .049 2.811 .005 par_24

e32

.180 .050 3.573 *** par_25

e4

.326 .045 7.265 *** par_26

e5

.206 .050 4.113 *** par_27

e9

.241 .051 4.726 *** par_28

e10

.289 .036 8.069 *** par_29

e12

.514 .070 7.322 *** par_30

e13

.223 .094 2.361 .018 par_31

e19

.192 .049 3.919 *** par_32

e20

.304 .046 6.599 *** par_33

e22

.181 .043 4.235 *** par_34

e23

.202 .037 5.506 *** par_35

e28

.283 .057 4.917 *** par_36

e31

.313 .079 3.965 *** par_37


Figure 4: Final Generated Fit Model

students' satisfaction

Documents

student satisfaction

study content

perceived quality

foresaid factors

khan sarfaraz ali matric

khan sarfaraz ali telephone

c phd student

abdo ali homaid matric