Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Do Quality of Services and Institutional Image Impact Students’ Satisfaction and Loyalty in Higher Education?

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate whether the quality of educational services and the university’s institutional image influence students’ overall satisfaction with their university experience as well as the possible consequences of these relationships on students’ loyalty. In particular, in today’s increasingly competitive higher education environment, such concepts have become of strategic concern in both public and private universities. To explain the complex system of relationships among these constructs, several hypotheses were formulated and tested through a structural equation model. Data were collected through a web questionnaire handed out to 14,870 students enrolled at the University of Pisa. The results provide valuable insight and show that teaching and lectures and teaching and course organization are the main determinants of students’ satisfaction and students’ loyalty among the more academic components of the educational service. Furthermore, the crucial role played by university image is worth noting, both for its direct and indirect effects on students’ satisfaction as well as on students’ loyalty and on teaching and lectures.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In particular, "rules of thumb" conventional cutoff values were: at least 0.95 for both CFI and TLI and at least 0.90 as an acceptable fit; a value not exceeding 0.06 for RMSEA; a value less than 0.08 for SRMR; less than 0.90 for WRMR; and between less than 2 and 5 for the relative model Chi-square.

  2. In the following, asterisks indicate parameters significantly different from zero at levels p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***), respectively.

  3. In the case of one factor that is influenced directly and indirectly by another factor, the overall effect on such factor is given by the sum of the direct and indirect effects, where the indirect effect is computed by the product between the coefficients of the involved factors.

References

  • Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: Three instruments compared. International Journal of Research & Method in Education,29(1), 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghaza, A., Hashemia, A., & Atashgaha, M. S. S. (2015). Factors contributing to university image: The postgraduate students’ points of view. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,25(1), 104–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,18(5), 571–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The influence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management,24(1), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arpan, L., Raney, A., & Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,8(2), 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arslan, S., & Akkas, O. A. (2014). Quality of college life (QCL) of students in Turkey: Students’ life satisfaction and identification. Social Indicators Research,115(2), 869–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16(1), 74–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, G., & James, R. (2000). The market in Australian higher education and the concept of student as informed consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,22(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,21(1), 102–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bini, M., & Masserini, L. (2016). Students’ satisfaction and teaching efficiency of university offer. Social Indicators Research,129(2), 847–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty with higher education. Higher Education,58, 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 297–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: Reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing,56(3), 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana, S. W., Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (2001). Student perception of teaching effectiveness: A preliminary study of the effects of professors’ transformational and contingent reward leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Education,2, 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBourgh, G. A. (2003). Predictors of student satisfaction in distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: What matters most? Journal of Professional Nursing,19(3), 149–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeShields, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. International Journal of Educational Management,19(2), 128–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education,14(3), 251–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, P. O., Alves, H. B., & Raposo, M. B. (2010). Understanding university image: A structural equation model approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing,7, 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K., & Healy, M. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,10(4), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student Satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,24(2), 199–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskildsen, J., Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., & Kristensen, K. (1999). Benchmarking student satisfaction in higher education based on the ECSI methodology. In Proceedings of the TQM for higher education institutions conference: Higher education institutions and the issue of total quality, Verona, (30–31 August) (pp. 385–402).

  • Forero, C. G., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Gallardo-Pujol, D. (2009). Factor analysis with ordinal indicators: A Monte Carlo study comparing DWLS and ULS estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,16(4), 625–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foskett, N. H., & Hemsley-Brown, J. V. (2001). Choosing futures: Young people’s decision-making in education, training and careers markets. London: Routledge/Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,32(3), 251–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management,23(2), 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, H., & Peterson, M. W. (2003). Factors that promote faculty involvement in and satisfaction with institutional and classroom student assessment. Research in Higher Education,44(2), 173–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,7(3), 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, D. E., & Schmidt, S. L. (1995). Understanding student/alumni satisfaction from a consumer’s perspective: The effects of institutional performance and program outcomes. Research in Higher Education,36(2), 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. (1995). Student satisfaction. The New Review of Academic Librarianship,1, 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. (2003). Student feedback. Quality in Higher Education,9(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,18(1), 9–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashim, N. A. B., Abdullateef, A. O., & Sarkindaji, B. D. (2015). The moderating influence of trust on the relationship between institutional image/reputation, perceived value on student loyalty in higher education institution. International Review of Management and Marketing,5(3), 122–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helgesen, Ø., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management,21(2), 126–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemsley-Brown, J. V., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management,19(4), 316–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning-Thurau, T., Lager, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modelling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research,3(1), 331–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilias, A., Hasan, H. F. A., Rahman, R. A., & Yasoa, M. R. (2008). Student satisfaction and service quality: Any differences in demographic factors? International Business Research,1(4), 131–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,34, 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landrum, R., Turrisi, R., & Harless, C. (1998). University image: The benefits of assessment and modeling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,9(1), 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, R. R. (2012). The benefits and satisfaction of participating in campus recreational sports facilities and programs among male and female African American students: A pilot study. Recreational Sports Journal,36(1), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Rivera-Torres, M. P. (2005). Measuring customer satisfaction in summer courses. Quality Assurance in Education,13(1), 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mergen, E., Grant, D., & Widrick, S. M. (2000). Quality management applied to higher education. Total Quality Management,11(3), 345–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous ordered categorical and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika,49(1), 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B., du Toit, S.H.C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.

  • Muthén, B., & Satorra, A. (1995). Technical aspects of Muthén’s LISCOMP approach to estimation of latent variable relations with a comprehensive measurement model. Psychometrika,60(4), 489–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. The International Journal of Educational Management,15(6/7), 303–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield, B., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education,8(2), 85–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palacio, A., Meneses, G., & Pérez, P. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration,40(5), 486–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A. M., & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,16(4), 349–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poturak, M. (2014). Private universities service quality and student’s satisfaction. Global Business and Economics Research Journal,3(2), 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozo-Munoz, C., Rebolloso-Pacheco, E., & Fernandez-Ramierz, B. (2000). The ‘ideal teacher’. Implications for student evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,25(3), 253–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., Kara, A., & Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009). Determinations of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Latin American Business Review,10, 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapri, M., Kaka, A., & Finch, E. (2009). Factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction with regards to higher educational facilities services. Malaysian Journal of Real Estate,4(1), 34–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sojkin, B., Bartkowiak, P., & Skuza, A. (2012). Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: The case of Poland. Higher Education,63, 565–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2003). Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management,17(3), 126–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarus, D. K., & Rabach, N. (2013). Determinants of customer loyalty in Kenya: Does corporate image play a moderating role? The TQM Journal,25(5), 473–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E., & Galambos, N. (2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher Education,45(3), 251–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Porter, S. R. (2002). How do academic departments impact student satisfaction? Understanding the contextual effects of departments. Research in Higher Education,43(2), 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research,60(9), 949–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D., & Jagun, A. (1997). Customer care, customer satisfaction, value, loyalty and complaining behavior: Validation in a UK university setting. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,10, 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucio Masserini.

Appendix

Appendix

Highly qualified teachers (y1)

 

N

%

None

6805

45.8

Little

6408

43.1

Enough

1026

6.9

Much

631

4.2

Total

14,870

100.0

Quality of the teaching activity (y2)

 

N

%

None

7773

52.3

Little

5701

38.3

Enough

891

6.0

Much

505

3.4

Total

14,870

100.0

Quality of research (y3)

 

N

%

None

5881

39.5

Little

7058

47.5

Enough

1046

7.0

Much

885

6.0

Total

14,870

100.0

Organization of exams (appeals, information, bookings) (y4)

 

N

%

None

1005

6.8

Little

3693

24.8

Enough

6648

44.7

Much

3524

23.7

Total

14,870

100.0

Class schedule (y5)

 

N

%

None

964

6.5

Little

3483

23.4

Enough

7729

52.0

Much

2694

18.1

Total

14,870

100.0

Support provided by non-academic personnel (y6)

 

N

%

None

1113

1.5

Little

3413

12.5

Enough

7350

63.8

Much

2995

22.2

Total

14,870

100.0

Online services (y7)

 

N

%

None

730

4.9

Little

3542

23.8

Enough

6747

45.4

Much

3851

25.9

Total

14,870

100.0

Lecture halls (y8)

 

N

%

None

1134

7.6

Little

4915

33.1

Enough

7262

48.8

Much

1559

10.5

Total

14,870

100.0

Laboratories (y9)

 

N

%

None

2816

18.9

Little

6371

42.8

Enough

4751

31.9

Much

932

6.3

Total

14,870

100.0

Cleanliness (y10)

 

N

%

None

943

6.3

Little

4000

26.9

Enough

7763

52.2

Much

2164

14.6

Total

14,870

100.0

Meeting places (y11)

 

N

%

None

791

5.3

Little

4805

32.3

Enough

7646

51.4

Much

1628

10.9

Total

14,870

100.0

Number of seats (y12)

 

N

%

None

1250

8.4

Little

6318

42.5

Enough

6573

44.2

Much

730

4.9

Total

14,870

100.0

Opening hours (y13)

 

N

%

None

536

3.6

Little

2211

14.9

Enough

8121

54.6

Much

4002

26.9

Total

14,870

100.0

Number and variety of journals/databases (y14)

 

N

%

None

347

2.3

Little

3459

23.3

Enough

9705

65.3

Much

1359

9.1

Total

14,870

100.0

Availability of textbooks (y15)

 

N

%

None

250

1.7

Little

2001

13.5

Enough

9297

62.5

Much

3322

22.3

Total

14,870

100.0

Quality of food (y16)

 

N

%

None

627

4.2

Little

3987

26.8

Enough

8869

59.6

Much

1387

9.3

Total

14,870

100.0

Variety of menu (y17)

 

N

%

None

443

3.0

Little

3679

24.7

Enough

8518

57.3

Much

2230

15.0

Total

14,870

100.0

Cleaning (y18)

 

N

%

None

127

0.9

Little

1162

7.8

Enough

9891

66.5

Much

3690

24.8

Total

14,870

100.0

Information on administrative procedures and practices (y19)

 

N

%

None

390

2.6

Little

3093

20.8

Enough

8667

58.3

Much

2721

18.3

Total

14,870

100.0

Online services (y20)

 

N

%

None

168

1.1

Little

1328

8.9

Enough

7578

51.0

Much

5796

39.0

Total

14,870

100.0

Response times to email requests (y21)

 

N

%

None

759

5.1

Little

2868

19.3

Enough

7476

50.3

Much

3767

25.3

Total

14,870

100.0

Relationship with the staff (y22)

 

N

%

None

763

5.1

Little

3317

22.3

Enough

8141

54.7

Much

2649

17.8

Total

14,870

100.0

Support provided by staff (y23)

 

N

%

None

1300

8.7

Little

4032

27.1

Enough

6835

46.0

Much

2703

18.2

Total

14,870

100.0

Prestigious (y24)

 

N

%

None

9372

63.0

Little

4840

32.5

Enough

403

2.7

Much

255

1.7

Total

14,870

100.0

Modern (y25)

 

N

%

None

3707

24.9

Little

8006

53.8

Enough

1942

13.1

Much

1215

8.2

Total

14,870

100.0

Famous (y26)

 

N

%

None

11,455

77.0

Little

2291

15.4

Enough

376

2.5

Much

749

5.0

Total

14,870

100.0

In contact with the labour market (y27)

 

N

%

None

2798

18.8

Little

7190

48.4

Enough

2023

13.6

Much

2859

19.2

Total

14,870

100.0

Satisfaction with the choice of enrolling at the University of Pisa (y28)

 

N

%

None

277

1.9

Little

1476

9.9

Enough

7994

53.8

Much

5123

34.4

Total

14,870

100.0

Satisfaction compared to initial expectations (y29)

 

N

%

None

748

5.0

Little

3261

21.9

Enough

7917

53.2

Much

2944

19.8

Total

14,870

100.0

Overall satisfaction (y30)

 

N

%

None

225

1.5

Little

1861

12.5

Enough

9488

63.8

Much

3297

22.2

Total

14,870

100.0

Intention to enrol again at the University of Pisa (y31)

 

N

%

Yes

1989

13.4

Not

12,881

86.6

Total

14,870

100.0

Intention to recommend the University of Pisa to a relative, a friend or an acquaintance (y32)

 

N

%

Yes

1695

11.4

Not

13,175

88.6

Total

14,870

100.0

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masserini, L., Bini, M. & Pratesi, M. Do Quality of Services and Institutional Image Impact Students’ Satisfaction and Loyalty in Higher Education?. Soc Indic Res 146, 91–115 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1927-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1927-y

Keywords

Navigation