Examining the Constructs Underlying

Student SatisfactionGiovanni Sosa

Chaffey CollegeRP/CISOA 2009

Importance of Student Satisfaction Students seek convenience, quality service,

and value for their tuition dollars (Kress, 2006)

Student Satisfaction is associated with: Student motivation (Goho, 2008) Student retention (Goho, 2008) Increased alumni giving (Bryant, 2006)

Need for Focus in Examining Satisfaction Surveys inquire about an assortment of

program facets Wait times Websites Quality of information offered

But to what extent do such analyses reveal what students care about most?

The Current Study Survey distributed via two points of dissemination:

Course level Program level

Stratified random sampling was conducted to identify sections

Each identified section was randomly assigned to one of the twelve student services programs

1,301 Completed forms, but 407 included in current analysis (listwise deletion)

Facilitating Informed Decision-Making

Factor Analysis Uncover the underlying dimensions of a set of

items Reduce the number of items Two Types:

Exploratory (PCA vs. PAF) Confirmatory

Factor Analysis: Step-by-Step

Assumptions: Sample size Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Bartlett’s Test of Spherecity

Communalities Initial vs. extracted

Factor Analysis: Step-by-Step Determining the Number of Factors

Observed Eigenvalues (Kaiser Criterion) Scree plot Overdetermined Factors Parallel Analysis Interpretability of Factors

Factor Analysis: Step-by-Step Rotation (Varimax & Oblique)

Infinite Number of Rotations Possible (seek simple structure)

Factor loadings Pattern (Partial Correlations) and Structure

Matrices (Zero-Order Correlations) Factor Correlation Matrix

High Correlations Point to Higher Order Factors

Results

Table 1 Loadings by Pattern (P) and Structure (S) matrices, obtained eigenvalues, and percent variance for 3-factor solution with oblimin rotation (N = 407)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Staff

Helpfulness/Competence

Poor Service

Usefulness of Online Services

Item

P S P S P S Program staff provide accurate information .71 .75 Program staff are helpful .75 .81 Program staff are able to answer most of my questions .65 .73 Program staff are professional .79 .75 Program staff demonstrate respect to students .87 .84 Program staff respond to all students equally and fairly .85 .83 Program staff are empathetic to students and their needs .66 .66 Program staff take the time to listen to students .81 .85 Program staff are polite and courteous to students .85 .87 Program staff care about students .72 .78 Program staff are knowledgeable about other support services .69 .74

Program staff are able to refer students to other appropriate support services .71 .77

This service/program is poorly staffed .55 .59 It is difficult to get an appointment .57 .61 The range of services provided fail to meet my needs .53 .55 The information provided is not useful .69 .65 Online services are difficult to access .52 .57 Online materials are poorly organized .64 .72 Program staff lack knowledge about their programs .51 .56 Online services are easy to use .62 .72 Online services are helpful .66 .73 Online materials address most of my questions .62 .65 Online materials provide accurate information .75 .77 Online materials provide useful information .77 .81 % Variance 35.74 6.59 4.72 Extracted Eigenvalues 12.15 2.24 1.61

Results

Table 2 Factor Correlation Matrix (N = 407) Factor 1 2 3 1 1.0 -.45 .47 2 -.45 1.0 -.38 3 .47 -.38 1.0

Implications

Findings highlight what matters most to students

Factor Scores Findings point to possible AUOs