MID-TERM ASSIGNMENRT

_________________________________

Analyzing the factors affect student satisfaction with

dormitory. A case study of International school, Thai
Nguyen University

Full name:
Nguyn Th Uyn
Eng name:
Taylor
ID:
IB 2011 - 036
Class :
ISIB K1
Teacher:
MBA. Quan Thai Ha
Topic:
Scientific of writing
Date of submit: April 10, 2015
Submitted by: Nguyen Thi Uyen

Table of Contents
Brief introduction.......................................................................................3
Research questions:.............................................................................4
Research objectives:.............................................................................4
Conceptual framework:.........................................................................4
Chapter 4: Results and discussion...........................................................5
4.1 Results............................................................................................5
4.1.1 Information of respondents.......................................................6
4.1.1.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of
International school...........................................................................8
4.1.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student
satisfaction.......................................................................................21
4.1.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between
groups in demographic information.................................................24
4.2 Discussion.....................................................................................25
4.2.1 Information of respondents.....................................................25
4.2.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of
International school.........................................................................26
4.2.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student
satisfaction.......................................................................................27
4.2.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between
groups in demographic information.................................................28
Appendix.................................................................................................29

Brief introduction
This research topic is about analyzing the factors that affect student satisfaction with
dormitory: A case study of International school, Thai Nguyen University is an
empirical study provides an overview of student dormitory status and the satisfaction
level of international

school

student.

Based

on

the

findings,

the

policy

recommendations will be suggested to improve the quality and services of dormitory

to meet needs and aspirations of students as well as their parents.
To conduct this research, the researcher has set up a conceptual framework to
answer all research questions and gain all objectives which were expected. They will
be presented below:
Research questions:
What are factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International school?
Is there any relationship between those factors and student satisfaction?
What are solutions for improving the service quality of the dorm to improve student
satisfaction level?
Research objectives:
Identify factors that affecting the students satisfaction for the dormitory of
International School.
Explore the relationship between those factors and student satisfaction.
Purpose solutions for improving service quality in the dormitory to improve student
satisfaction level.
Conceptual framework:
This part will provide the conceptual framework by study the period theories of the
relationship between satisfaction and quality of service, as well as patterns practical
related research in literature review. This section will not only explain the key factors
(variables) and the relationship between models, theories that are mentioned in
chapter 2 but also draw the way how the researcher will do to conduct this research.

Based on what the researcher has found out of literature review, the relationship
between service quality and student satisfaction can be shown in figure 1. The three
service quality dimensions have been selected from SERVQUAL model; those are
responsiveness, empathy and reliability. By studied the previous theories, there are
three more factors have the relationship with student satisfaction: Price, physical
facilities and serving capacity. To determine the level of student satisfaction with each
factor that was mentioned, the author will test six hypotheses below:
H1: Price of the dorm has significant relationship with student satisfaction.
H2: Physical facilities of the dorm have significant relationship with student
satisfaction.
H3: Serving capacity of the dorm has significant relationship with student satisfaction.
H4: Responsiveness has significant relationship with student satisfaction.
H5: Empathy has significant relationship with student satisfaction.
H6: Reliability has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

Chapter 4: Results and discussion

This chapter will present the results of research that were conducted based on the
methodology described in chapter 3. It includes two main sections. The first section

describes a process of analyzing raw data by using some data analysis techniques.
The second section shows a detailed discussion of results that the researcher has
found. This section will discuss about the meaning of findings which is presented in
the first section, the limitation of research and suggestions for further research.
4.1 Results
Result was get from data analysis process which has described in chapter 3.The
structure of this part will be presented according to the research questions/objectives.
4.1.1 Information of respondents
This study was conducted entire population so respondents are all students (k1-k4)
who live in the dorm of IS. The researcher has clarified all responses; both of them
are suitable with the requirement. The demographic statistics are provided within
figure 1, 2, 3 which describe gender, course, and nationality of respondents.
4.1.1.1 Gender
Pie chart above presents the gender of respondent, it can be clearly seen that male
only make up 21.88% in total of student; but the amount of female is about three
times as the male. To find out more detail, please go to appendix 1 for clear statistic.

Figure 4.1.1.1: Percentage of respondent by gender

4.1.1.2 Course

This pie chart illustrates respondents kind of course in four categories from course1
to course 4. A significant number of students come from course 1 (35.94%). Amount
respondents who are students of course 2 and 4 is less than a bit with 21.88%. The
lowest percentage of students who response the questionnaire are in course 3
(18.75%).

Figure 4.1.1.2: Percentage of respondents by course

4.1.1.3 Nationality
Figure 3 compares the differences of nationality between students in the dorm. The
majority of population is Vietnamese, it shows 81.2 percent of respondents are
Vietnamese. The dorm includes Pilipino and Lao students because of they are
international student who are joining exchange student program .The number of
foreigners is approximate 18,7 percent within 12,5 percent of respondents are
Pilipino and 6,2 percent are Lao.

Figure 4.1.1.3: Percentage of respondents by nationality

4.1.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International
school.
Exploratory Factors Analysis (EFA)
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to determine the number of continuous
latent variables that are needed to explain the correlations among a set of observed
variables.
Suitable criteria uses for conducting analysis to explore factors that:

Factor Loading > 0.5

0.5 < KMO < 1
Bartlett testing has Sig < 0.05
Total Variance Explained > 50%
Eigenvalue > 1

The original model includes 6 factors and 37 items which is expected to effect to
student satisfaction with service quality of the dorm. All of 37 items will be used for
Exploratory Factors Analysis (EFA) . EFA is conduct by extraction method- Principle
Component analysis, varimax method, testing of KMO (KaiserMeyerOlkin) and
Bartlett .
Table 4.1.2.1: Results of the first time Factors Analysis:
Value

Comparison

KMO
Sig in Bartletts test
Total Variance Explained
Eigenvalue

0.527
0.000
81.696%
1.529

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1
2
3
4
ser27 .836
ser28 .791
em29 .789
ser25 .739
em31 .720
res23 .692
res24 .667
em30 .633
.515
em32 .594
fac12
.854
fac9
.818
fac13
.788
fac11
.771
fac8
.701
fac16
.692
fac15
.662
fac14
.545
res17
.532
reli36
.825
reli37
.792
reli35
.778
reli34
.698
em33
.618
res22
.732
pri6
.711
ser26
.634
pri5
.570
res20
.568
res19
res18
res21
pri4
pri3
pri2
pri1
fac7
fac10
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a.

Rotation converged in 12 iterations

0.5<0.527<1
0.000<0.005
81.696 > 50%
1.529>1

.521
.507

.793
.741
.618
.868
.703
.795
.625
.578
.545

Based on the above result, after conducting EFA, factors can be grouped into 9
groups. All evaluable criteria are statistical below:
KMO =0.527 so factor analysis is suitable.
Sig. (Bartlett's test) = 0.000 (sig. <0.05) proved that variables are correlated in
population.
Eigenvalues = 1.529> 1 represent the fraction of variation explained by each factor,
the extracted factor has the most meaningful of information summary.
The total variance explained:
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings (Cumulative %) = 81.696% >50%. This proves
that 81.696%of the data variance is explained by 7 new factors.
Factor loading coefficient of item Em30 explain for both factor 1 and factor 3, item
fac15 also explain for 2 factors (1 and 8), factor loading coefficient of item Res17
has deviation <0.3 so cannot identify which factors it will explain.
=> So that the researcher will analyze factor the second time. However, it will be
quite long for all analysis and present all time of analyzing. Wherefore, the
researcher just presents the final results of analyze factors. The more details will be
presented in appendix 4.
Table 4.1.2.2 :Results of the last time Factors Analysis:
Criteria
KMO
Sig in Bartletts test
Total Variance Explained
Eigenvalue

Value
0.586
0.000
79.776%
1.232

Comparison
0.5<0.586<1
0.000<0.005
79.776 > 50%
1.232>1

Rotated Component Matrixa

ser27
em29
em31
ser28
res24
res23
ser25

Component
1
2
.806
.797
.794
.750
.738
.726
.711

em32
.683
fac9
.849
fac12
.814
fac11
.795
fac8
.789
fac13
.755
fac16
.714
fac14
.537
reli36
.859
reli37
.814
reli35
.718
reli34
.680
em33
.527
res19
.822
res18
.709
res21
.672
res20
.566
ser26
.523
pri5
pri6
res22
fac10
pri4
pri3
pri2
pri1
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

.807
.677
.638
.546
.880
.735
.834
.696

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Thus, after conducting EFA, factors can be grouped into 7 groups. All evaluable
criteria are statistical below:
KMO =0.586 so factor analysis is suitable.
Sig. (Bartlett's test) = 0.000 (sig. <0.05) proved that variables are correlated in
population.
Eigenvalues = 1.232 > 1 represent the fraction of variation explained by each factor,
the extracted factor has the most meaningful of information summary.
The total variance explained:
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings (Cumulative %) = 79.776 % >50%. This proves
that 79.776 % of the data variance is explained by 7 new factors.
Factor loading coefficient of all items is > 0.5
Testing of Cronbachs alpha
Using Cronbachs alpha to test the reliability of the scales used in the research.
Cronbachs Alpha coefficients will use for testing and correlation of total variables.The
variable does not guarantee reliable models will be excluded from the study and does
not appear when exploratory factor analysis.

Criteria for evaluating the reliability of the scales are:

Minimum alpha is 0.6
Corrected Item-Total Correlation minimum is 0.3.
After finish EFA measurement to extract unsuitable items out of the model, the
researcher tests the reliability of the scale include seven factor are listed below:
1. Serving capacity and empathy
2. Physical facilities
3. Reliabilities
4. Responsiveness
5. Service price
6. Price
7. Compared price
In addition, the researcher tests Cronbachs alpha for dependent variable is student
satisfaction with the dorm of International School, Thai Nguyen University. Summary
table of Cronbachs alpha is presented below:
(For more details about result of testing Cronbachs alpha please go to appemdix 5)
Table 4.1.2.3: Cronbachs alpha results of dependent and independent variables
No

Dependent and N

of Cronbachs alpha

independent

variables
Serving capacity 8

0.925

0.671

and empathy
Physical

0.895

0.559

items

The

smallest

corrected

item-total correlation

facilities
3

Reliability

0.908

0.733

Responsiveness

0.805

0.509

Service price

0.713

0.426

Price

0.782

0.642

Compared price

0.793

0.660

Student

0.855

0.326

satisfaction
Through this table of Cronbachs alpha results, all Cronbachs alpha is > 0.6 as well
as all Corrected Item-Total Correlation are > 0.3. Hence, the scale of research is
reliability enough to conduct.
=> Thus, after testing Cronbachs alpha, 33 items appeared after finished EFA are
suitable and none of them has to out of the model. Based on EFA and Cronbach
testing, research model has to adjust to suitable with following analyzing. Adjusted
model is presented in figure 4.2.1 below:
In a result, after doing factor analysis process, 33 items are gathered into 7 groups. A
table of grouping and naming is set up below:

Table 4.1.2.4: New grouping and naming factor

Factor
X1

Items
Ser27

Description
The protecting

Em29

situation of the dorm regularly

and empathy
Closing and opening time of the dormitory

Em31

are reasonable.
You feel comfortable when they are talking

Ser28

with the dorms manager.

The dorms manager answers students

Res2

enthusiastically.
Public services (security, sanitation ...) are

4
Res2

guaranteed.
The security

3
Ser25

gambling) is solved well.

The dorm board of

Em32

enthusiastic with work.

The school is always

employees

situation

Group name
the Serving
capacity

check

(theft,

fighting,

management
concern

is

about

X2

Fac9

students life.
Room size is large enough for bathroom Physical facilities

Fac1

function.
Location and hanging area are convenient

2
and spacious.
Fac11 Room design ensures for ventilation and

X3

X4

X5

Fac8

lighting.
Room size is large enough for learning

Fac1

function.
The dorm was built standard (non-cracked

3
Fac1

walls, impermeable cap).

The dorm ensures the requirements of fire

6
Fac1

prevention.
Electric and water are provided stability.

4
Reli3

Time overcome these problems quickly.

6
Reli3

You believe in the commitment of the

7
Reli3

Dormitory staffs
.When you appeal

5
Reli3

Dormitory resolved quickly and flexibly.

When facilities (bed, lamps, toilet ...)

damaged, the Dormitory keeps timely to

Em33
Res1

repair.
The school listens students idea regularly.
Catering services are fit the needs of

9
Res1

students
Health care for students is always met fully.

8
Res2

The valet parking is safe and spacious.

1
Res2

Refreshment (canteen) is fit the needs of

0
Ser26
Pri5

students.
Canteens staffs are cheerful and friendly.
Prices in canteen at the dorm is suitable.

or

complain,

Reliability

the

Responsiveness

Service price

X6

X7

Pri6

Valet parking prices at the dorm is suitable

Res2

The power and water problems are

2
Fac1

processed quickly.
The rooms equipment (bed, chair, table,

0
Pri4

lamp,..) is provided sufficiently.

Water prices at the dorm is suitable.

Pri3

Electric prices at the dorm is suitable.

Pri2

The dorms price is suitable compared to

Pri1

other inn houses.

The dorms price is suitable with given

Price

Compared price

service by the school.

Adjusted research model:

Adjusted hypotheses:
H1: Serving capacity and empathy has significant relationship with student
satisfaction.
H2: Physical facilities have significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H3: Reliability has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H4: Responsiveness has significant relationship with student satisfaction.
H5: Service has significant relationship with student satisfaction.
H6: Price has significant relationship with student satisfaction.
H7: Compared price has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

Correlation coefficient analysis

Correlation is a technique for investigating the relationship between two quantitative,
continuous variables. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of the strength
of the association between the two variables. However if there is strong correlate
between 2 independent variables, it may leads to multicollinearity problem when
analyze regression.
Study need to consider multicollinearity when doing regression analysis if correlation
coefficient >0.3.
The meaning of correlation coefficient r
r < 0.2 : no correlation
r from 0.2 to 0.4 : weak correlation
r from 0.4 to 0.6 : average correlation
r from 0.6 to 0.8 : strong correlation
r from 0.8 to < 1 : very strong correlation
The researcher will create new variables represent for each group of variable
(average mean):
X1 represents for Ser27, Em29, Em31, Ser28, Res24, Res23, and Ser 25.

X2 represents for Fac12, Fac11, Fac8, Fac13, Fac16, and Fac14.

X3 represents for Reli36, Reli37, Reli35, Reli34, and Em33.
X4 represents for Res19, Res18, Res21, Res20 and Ser26.
X5 represents for Pri5, Pri6, Res22 and Fac10.
X6 represents for Pri4 and Pri3.
X7 represents for Pri2 and Pri1.
Unstandardized regression equation of model follows this type:
Y = 0+ 1*X1 + 2*X2+3*X3+ 4*X4+ 5*X5 + 6*X6 + 7*X7
Result of coefficient correlation analysis

X1
serving

Correlations
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
physical reliability responsivenes Service price

capacity facilities

price

Y
student
satisfaction

and
empathy
X1

serving

Pearson

capacity

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.258*

.642**

.565**

.145

.086

.677**

.039

.000

.000

.253

.501

.000

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

.258*

.396**

.078

.308* .349**

.569**

.039
64

64

.001
64

.542
64

.013
64

.642**

.396**

.439**

.000
64

.001
64

64

.000
64

.007
64

.005
64

.000
64

.565**

.078

.439**

.282*

.118

.247*

.000
64

.542
64

.000
64

64

.024
64

.353
64

.049
64

.145

.308*

.337**

.282*

.216

.346**

.253

.013

.007

.024

.087

.005

1
and
empathy
X2

Pearson
physical
facilities

X3
reliability

X4
responsiven
ess
X5

Service
price

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.005
64

.000
64

.337** .348**

.797**

N
Pearson

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

.086

.349**

.348**

.118

.216

.318*

.501
64

.005
64

.005
64

.353
64

.087
64

64

.010
64

.677**
.569**
Correlation
satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
N
64
64
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

.797**

.247*

.346** .318*

.000
64

.049
64

X6
price

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

student

.005
64

.010
64

64

After finished coefficient analysis, factor X7 - compared price does not appear in the
model. So after testing correlation coefficient X7 is removed out of the model.
All sig. value between independent variables and student satisfaction is <0.05, some
couple of variables also has sig. value <0.05 but some has sig. value >0.05.
Student satisfaction has biggest correlation coefficient with X3- reliability (0.797) and
smallest with X4-responsiveness (0.247).
Correlation coefficient of some couple of variables is quite big (> 0.6).
4.1.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student
satisfaction.
Regression analysis
The researcher use regression analysis to analyze the relationship between
independent variables (6 factors) and dependent variable (student satisfaction) in this
part. Regress model will help to describe type of relationship and to predict
dependent variable value when independent variables value is known.
After testing correlation, X7 was removed out so that he researcher sets up
hypothesis to examine the relationship between independent variables and
satisfaction (6 hypotheses):
Table 4.1.3.1: Hypothesis to test the relationship
Hypothesi
s

Content

H1

Serving capacity and empathy has no relationship with student

satisfaction.
H2
Physical facilities have no relationship with student satisfaction.
H3
Reliability has no relationship with student satisfaction.
H4
Responsiveness has no relationship with student satisfaction.
H5
Service price has no relationship with student satisfaction.
H6
Price has no relationship with student satisfaction.
Multi-regression analysis will be applied in the model by using enter method
Regression analysis result
Model

Standardized

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

Coefficients
Beta

Tolerance

(Constant)

1.567

.123

VIF

serving capicity and empathy

.430

4.911

.000

.448

2.231

physical facilities

.236

3.451

.001

.733

1.364

reliability

.496

5.693

.000

.452

2.210

-.268

-3.583

.001

.614

1.629

Service price

.112

1.698

.095

.787

1.271

price

.034

.514

.609

.788

1.269

responsiveness

a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction

Based on regression table, there are two variables have significant level Sig. (pvalue) dont attain significant level 5% =0.05: Service price(X5) = 0.095 and Price(X6)
=0.609.
So that for all listed hypotheses:
Model not rejects H5 and H6, it means Service price and Price dont affect student
satisfaction with the dorm of International School.
Model rejects H1, H2, H3 and H4, it means Serving capacity and empathy, physical
facilities, facility and responsiveness affect student satisfaction with the dorm of
International School.
After extract two variables has sig. >0.05 (X5 and X6) out of regression model, run
model again with variables which are kept and the result is shown below:

Model

Standardized

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

Coefficients
Beta

Tolerance

(Constant)

2.467

.017

VIF

serving capicity and empathy

.391

4.614

.000

.487

2.053

physical facilities

.272

4.185

.000

.828

1.207

reliability

.541

6.577

.000

.518

1.929

-.233

-3.196

.002

.659

1.517

responsiveness
a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction

Thus, after regression analysis process, all of variables has suitable significant value
(<0.05). Consequently, the model rejects H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5, it means service
capacity and empathy, physical facilities, reliability and responsiveness really affect
student satisfaction with the dorm of International School.
Through statistic result, all variables has Tolerance>0.0001, and VIF < 10. These
variables are suitable in this model, the standardized regression model is presented:
Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4.
Table 4.1.3.2: Summary of regression analysis result (more detail in appendix 6)
Criteria
R
R Square (R^2)
Adjusted R^2
Testing sig. of F
Durbin- Watson coefficient
Standardized regression

Value
0.891
0.793
0.779
0.000
1.791

Comparison

0.000 < 0.05

1 < 1.791< 4
Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4.

model
F- test uses in analysis of variance is a method of hypothesis testing about the
suitability of multi-regression model. In this case, F has sig. = 0.000 <0.005, so the
used model is suitable and data can be used. Adjusted R square = 0.779 =77.9%. It
means in 100 vary of satisfaction, there are 77,9% vary of satisfaction that is
explained by 4 factors in service quality. Thus, the model can explain very well in
reality.

Durbin- Watson coefficient = 1.791 (belong interval from 1 to 4) it is also suitable for
this model.
=> Final standardized regression model of this research:
Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4
4.1.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between groups in
demographic information.
ANOVA analysis Analysis of variance
Hypothesis H1: There is no difference about satisfaction level between male and
female.
Hypothesis H2: There is no difference about satisfaction level between different
courses.
Hypothesis H3: There is no difference about satisfaction level between different
countries.
To test three hypotheses above, the researcher using ANOVA analysis to test Leneve
statistic and the results is listed in appendix 7)
For H1: Levene testing shows that significant level sig. of all independent variables in
analysis of variance are greater than 0.05 (> 0.05). Therefore, H1 is not rejected; it
means there are no differences about satisfaction level between male and female.
Result shows that H2, H3 arent rejected, too. It means that students are in any
course or come from any country; there are no differences about satisfaction level
between them.
4.2 Discussion
This part will provide an overview of what were findings and its meaning in the study
by the researcher. Discussion part also helps the researcher make sense for his/her
findings for the result and present it logically. This part will be presented follow the
order which is written in results part.

4.2.1 Information of respondents

4.2.1.1 Gender
The result shows that there are more female live in the dorm than male. This may
explain based on characteristic of students. Male students have free psychology than
female student so they would rather live outside than live in the dorm.
4.2.1.2 Course
The amount of respondents distribute quite steadily in four courses. It may lead a
good result in this study because the proportion of respondent divide by course is
balance rate.
4.2.1.3 Nationality
Vietnamese student account for a very big proportion of respondents compare to the
number of foreign student. This result can completely explain because the amount of
foreign students who are exchange student is quite small.
4.2.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International
school.
EFA was conduct to serves to identify a set of latent constructs underlying a battery
of measured variables. After analyze the result, factors was grouped into 7 new
groups. It means suggested model has to adjust for suitable with EFA results.
After testing Cronbacks alpha of reliability, all variables are suitable with setting up
condition (Cronbachs alpha is > 0.6 as well as all Corrected Item-Total Correlation
are > 0.3). It means that the scales used in the research are reliability and
standardized.
In correlation coefficient analysis (Pearson test), all sig. value between independent
variables and student satisfaction is <0.05, it means that between them has
correlation. Student satisfaction has biggest correlation coefficient with X3- reliability

(0.797), and smallest with X4-responsiveness (0.247). It demonstrates that reliability

has strongest correlation with satisfaction.
Some couple of variables also has sig. value <0.05, between them has correlation
with each other. In addition, correlation coefficient of some couple of variables is quite
big (> 0.6), it may lead to multicollinearity problem when analyze regression.
It may be a limitation of research; this limitation appears when the correlation
between couple of variables are > 0.3. ; multicollinearity is a state of very high
intercorrelation or inter-associations among the independent variables. It is therefore
a type of disturbance in the data, and if present in the data the statistical inferences
made about the data may not be reliable.
The cause of multicollinearity may come from nature of variables: available
relationship between variables in the model. For instance, responsiveness= f( serving
capacity and empathy, physical facilities).
For further research, to reduce multicollinearity , research can extract variable
through 2 steps:
Step 1: Test a couple of variables has strong correlation
Suppose that X1 has strongly correlate with X2 => Many information about Y belong
to X1 also belong to X2 => extract X1 or X2.
Step 2: Calculate R square or Standardized R square in regression:
For example, R^2 of Y for X1, X2, X3,Xn = 0.978
R^2 when extract X1 = 0.899
R^2 when extract X2 = 0.911 => extract X2

4.2.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student
satisfaction.
Based on the standardized regression equation that the researcher has founded in
regression analysis: Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4, student satisfaction
depends on 4 factors:
X1 Service capacity and empathy
X2- Physical facility
X3- Reliability
X4- Responsiveness
Based on regression model, standardize beta coefficients of X1, X2, X3 >0, it means
these independent variables have positive relationship with satisfaction. So that

when each factor (service capacity and empathy/ physical facilities/ reliability)
develops positively, students satisfaction also increases by positive way. By
contrast, standardized beta coefficient of X4 <0, it expresses a negative relationship
between responsiveness and satisfaction. It means, when all factors are unchanged,
if responsiveness develops positively, student satisfaction will decrease, and vice
versa.
This equation will help the dorm manager improve student satisfaction level by adjust
factors in this model as its way of affecting.
This result of research is different from previous studies in this field and also not
expect by the researcher. Previous models shows that responsiveness has positive
relationship with satisfaction ( Nguyen Thi Kim Bau, 2012), (Nguyen Thi Thuy Giang,
2012). This finding is not expected by the researcher because in fact, this may be
unreasonable. It may lead a future research to make clearly about this finding
because this research is conducted as a case study of International school.
Research can not apply for other cases in this field.

4.2.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between groups in

demographic information.
Results get from ANOVA analysis shows that there is no difference between
satisfaction level of student between each of demographic information (gender,
course and nationality).
It means that levels of requirements about service quality of students are not
depending on these demographic factors.

Appendix
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Dear Guys,

My name is Uyen, an international school student, are undertaking a thesis to

graduate my course. To this end I kindly request you complete the following short
questionnaire regarding to your experience, your thinking and feeling about
international schools dormitory. It should take no longer than 15 minutes of your
time. Your response is utmost important to me. It not only helps me to complete
excellently our subject but also help you exchange your opinions, your thinking and
your feeling about our school dormitory. Your response will help describe the dorm

quality status and the relationship between each factor to identify your satisfaction
level.
Please do not enter your name or contact details on the questionnaire. It remains
anonymous.
Kindly return the completed questionnaire to me as soon as possible.
Should you have any queries or comments regarding this survey, you are welcome to
contact
me
telephonically
at
01656665515
or
email
me
at
banmaixanh1410@gmai.com.

Best regard,

Nguyen Uyen

Strongly agree

Agree

Certain

Disagree

Part 1: Interviewers opinion

(Start with Questions in Part A to G )
You circle the numbers below to select the
level of assessment of you for the following
information, with the minimum value of 1 and
the maximum of 5:
1 - Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly
A. Priceagree
1. The dorms price is suitable with given
service by the school.
2. The dorms price is suitable compared to

Strongly disagree

QUESTIONNAIRE TO SURVEY THE FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT

SATISFACTION TO THE DORMITORY OF INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, THAI
NGUYEN UNIVERSITY.

other inn houses.

3. Electric prices at the dorm is suitable.

4. Water prices at the dorm is suitable.

5. Prices in canteen at the dorm is suitable.

6.Valet parking prices at the dorm is suitable

B. Physical facilities
7. Room size is large enough for sleeping
space.

8. Room size is large enough for learning

function.

9. Room size is large enough for bathroom

function.

10. The rooms equipment (bed, chair, table,

lamp,..) is provided sufficiently.
11. Room design ensures for ventilation and
lighting.
12. Location and hanging area are convenient
and spacious.
13. The dorm was built standard (non-cracked
walls, impermeable cap).
14. Electric and water are provided stability.

15. The drainage system of dormitory is good.

16. The dorm ensures the requirements of fire

prevention.
C. Responsiveness
17. Health services are provided fully.

18. Health care for students is always met fully.

19. Catering services are fit the needs of

students.

20. Refreshment (canteen) is fit the needs of

students.
21. The valet parking is safe and spacious.

22. The power and water problems are

processed quickly.

23. The security situation (theft, fighting,

gambling) is solved well.
24. Public services (security, sanitation ...) are
guaranteed.
D. Serving capacity
25. The dorm board of management is
enthusiastic with work.
26. Canteens staffs are cheerful and friendly.
27. The protecting employees check the
situation of the dorm regularly.
28. The dorms manager answers students
enthusiastically.
E. Empathy
29. Closing and opening time of the dormitory
are reasonable.
30. The board of manager regularly hold talks,
meeting to meet the needs of students.
31. You feel comfortable when they are talking
with the dorms manager.
32. The school is always concern about
students life.
33. The school listens students idea regularly.
F. Reliability
34. When facilities (bed, lamps, toilet ...)
damaged, the Dormitory keeps timely to repair.
35.When you appeal or complain, the
Dormitory resolved quickly and flexibly.
36. Time overcome these problems quickly.

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

37. You believe in the commitment of the

Dormitory staffs.
G. Evaluate generally
38. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms
price.
39. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms
physical facilities.

40. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms

serving capacity.

41. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms

responsiveness.

42. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm

managers empathy.

43. Generally, you are satisfied with the

concerns of international school.

44. You are willing to introduce International

school dorm to other international students who
have need of finding resident.

Part 2: M. Interviewee information

45. Gender

Male

Female

46. Course

K1

K2

K3

K4

Vietnamese

Filipino

Lao

Timor

47. Nationality

Appendix 2: Coding table

Main survey (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)

Price
1
Pri1
2

Pri2

Pri3

Pri1The dorms price is suitable with given service by

the school.
Pri2 The dorms price is suitable compared to other
inn houses
Pri3 Electric price at the dorm is suitable.

Pri4

Pri4 Water prices at the dorm is suitable.

Pri5

Pri5 Prices in canteen at the dorm is suitable.

Pri6

Pri6 Valet parking prices at the dorm is suitable.

Physical facilities
7
Fac7

Fac7 Room size is large enough for sleeping space.

Fac8 Room size is large enough for learning function.

Fac8

Fac9

Fac9 Room size is large enough for bathroom

function.

10

Fac10

11

Fac11

Fac10 The rooms equipment (bed, chair, table,

lamp,..) is provided sufficiently.
Fac11 Room design ensures for ventilation and
lighting

12

Fac12

13

Fac13

14

Fac14

15

Fac15

Fac15Customer service staff is always ready to help

you.

16

Fac16

Fac16The dorm ensures the requirements of fire

prevention

Fac12 Location and hanging area are convenient and

spacious
Fac13 The dorm was built standard (non-cracked
walls, impermeable cap)
Fac14Electric and water are provided stability.

Responsiveness
17 Res17

Res17 Health services are provided fully.

18

Res18

Res18 Health care for students is met fully.

19

Res19

Res19Catering service are fit the needs of students.

20

Res20

Res20 Refreshment (canteen) is fit the needs of

students

21

Res21

Res21 The valet parking is safe and spacious.

22

Res22

23

Res23

24

Res24

Res22 The power and water problems are processed

quickly.
Res23 The security situation (theft, fighting, gambling)
is solved well.
Res24 Public services (security, sanitation ...) are
guaranteed.

Serving capacity
25 Ser25
26
27

Ser26
Ser27

28

Ser28

Empathy

Ser25 The dorm board of management is enthusiastic

with work
Ser26 Canteens staffs are cheerful and friendly
Ser27The protecting employees check the situation of
the dorm regularly
Ser28 The dorms manager answers students
enthusiastically

29

Em29

30

Em30

31

Em31

32

Em32

33 Em33
Reliability
34 Reli34
35

Reli35

36
37

Reli36
Reli37

Evaluate generally
38 Eva38
39

Eva39

40

Eva40

41

Eva41

42

Eva42

43

Eva43

44

Eva44

Interview information
45
Gender
46
Course
47
Nationality

Em29 Closing and opening time of the dormitory are

reasonable
Em30The board of manager regularly hold talks,
meeting to meet the needs of students
Em31You feel comfortable when they are talking with
the dorms manager
Em32The school is always concern about students
life.
Em33The school listens students idea regularly.
Reli34 When facilities (bed, lamps, toilet ...) damaged,
the Dormitory keeps timely to repair
Reli35When you appeal or complain, the Dormitory
resolved quickly and flexibly.
Reli36Time overcome these problems quickly.
Reli37You believe in the commitment of the Dormitory
staffs.
Eva38Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms
price.
Eva39Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms
physical facilities..
Eva40Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms
serving capacity.
Eva41Generally, you are satisfied with the dorms
responsiveness.
Eva42 Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm
managers empathy
Eva43 Generally, you are satisfied with the concerns
of international school
Eva44 You are willing to introduce International school
dorm to other international students who have need of
finding resident
Gender(1=male, 2=female)
Course(1=K1, 2=K2, 3=K3, 4=K4)
Nationality(1= Vietnamese, 2=Filipino, 3=Lao, 4=Timor)

Appendix 3: Descriptive statistic of respondents

gender
Frequency

Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

17

26.6

26.6

26.6

47

73.4

73.4

100.0

Total

64

100.0

100.0

course
Frequency

Valid

Missing

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

15

35.7

37.5

37.5

11.9

12.5

50.0

10

23.8

25.0

75.0

10

23.8

25.0

100.0

Total

40

95.2

100.0

4.8

42

100.0

System

Total

nationality
Frequency

Valid

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

37

88.1

92.5

92.5

4.8

5.0

97.5

2.4

2.5

100.0

40

95.2

100.0

4.8

42

100.0

Total
Missing

Percent

System

Total

Appendix 4: EFA results

First time
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

.527
2636.541

df

666

Sig.

.000
Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Total

% of

Cumulative

Variance

Extraction Sums of Squared

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Loadings

Total

% of

Cumulative

Variance

Total

% of

Cumulative

Variance

11.627

31.424

31.424

11.627

31.424

31.424

6.041

16.326

16.326

5.461

14.759

46.183

5.461

14.759

46.183

5.659

15.294

31.620

3.166

8.557

54.740

3.166

8.557

54.740

4.609

12.457

44.077

2.849

7.700

62.441

2.849

7.700

62.441

2.883

7.792

51.869

2.041

5.517

67.958

2.041

5.517

67.958

2.634

7.118

58.987

1.433

3.873

71.831

1.433

3.873

71.831

2.586

6.990

65.977

1.385

3.744

75.575

1.385

3.744

75.575

2.574

6.955

72.933

1.162

3.141

78.716

1.162

3.141

78.716

1.714

4.632

77.565

1.103

2.980

81.696

1.103

2.980

81.696

1.529

4.131

81.696

10

.963

2.602

84.298

11

.760

2.053

86.351

12

.676

1.828

88.179

13

.577

1.560

89.739

14

.518

1.400

91.138

15

.441

1.191

92.330

16

.407

1.100

93.430

17

.401

1.083

94.513

18

.303

.819

95.333

19

.289

.781

96.114

20

.249

.673

96.787

21

.209

.564

97.351

22

.191

.516

97.867

23

.148

.399

98.266

24

.123

.333

98.599

25

.107

.289

98.888

26

.097

.262

99.150

27

.066

.178

99.327

28

.056

.150

99.478

29

.049

.133

99.610

30

.036

.096

99.707

31

.031

.084

99.790

32

.025

.068

99.858

33

.021

.057

99.915

34

.014

.037

99.952

35

.010

.026

99.978

36

.005

.013

99.991

37

.003

.009

100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
em33

.836

res24

.776

reli35

.768

reli34

.763

em31

.758

em30

.754

ser28

.734

em32

.732

ser25

.713

reli37

.659

res23

.646

ser27

.632

fac15

.591

reli36

.588

em29

.586

res18

.569

res17

.534

fac16

.523

pri1

.516

-.522

.501

-.524
.500

res19
res21
fac7
fac11

.655

fac8

.626

fac14

.600

fac12

.503

.591

fac9

.535

.590

fac13

.531

.573

fac10

.503

-.502

res20
ser26
pri6

.747

pri5

.573

res22

.541

pri3

.599

pri2

.590

pri4
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 9 components extracted.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1
ser27

.836

ser28

.791

em29

.789

ser25

.739

em31

.720

res23

.692

res24

.667

em30

.633

.515

em32

.594

fac12

.854

fac9

.818

fac13

.788

fac11

.771

fac8

.701

fac16

.692

fac15

.662

fac14

.545

res17

.532

.521
.507

reli36

.825

reli37

.792

reli35

.778

reli34

.698

em33

.618

res22

.732

pri6

.711

ser26

.634

pri5

.570

res20

.568

res19

.793

res18

.741

res21

.618

pri4

.868

pri3

.703

pri2

.795

pri1

.625

fac7

.578

fac10

.545

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 12 iterations.

Final time
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

.586
2102.471

df

528

Sig.

.000

Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Total

% of

Cumulative

Variance

Extraction Sums of Squared

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Loadings

Total

% of

Cumulative

Variance

Total

% of

Cumulative

Variance

10.353

31.372

31.372 10.353

31.372

31.372

5.950

18.032

18.032

4.923

14.917

46.290

4.923

14.917

46.290

4.896

14.835

32.867

3.071

9.307

55.596

3.071

9.307

55.596

3.800

11.514

44.381

2.492

7.551

63.147

2.492

7.551

63.147

3.057

9.264

53.644

1.959

5.938

69.085

1.959

5.938

69.085

2.698

8.177

61.821

1.329

4.026

73.111

1.329

4.026

73.111

2.480

7.516

69.337

1.174

3.559

76.669

1.174

3.559

76.669

2.213

6.705

76.042

1.025

3.106

79.776

1.025

3.106

79.776

1.232

3.734

79.776

.951

2.882

82.658

10

.746

2.260

84.918

11

.687

2.082

87.000

12

.608

1.843

88.842

13

.521

1.578

90.420

14

.482

1.462

91.882

15

.401

1.215

93.096

16

.369

1.119

94.215

17

.303

.919

95.134

18

.289

.875

96.009

19

.250

.758

96.768

20

.207

.628

97.396

21

.168

.509

97.905

22

.146

.444

98.349

23

.117

.354

98.703

24

.103

.313

99.015

25

.078

.237

99.252

26

.054

.164

99.416

27

.049

.149

99.565

28

.043

.131

99.696

29

.037

.112

99.808

30

.026

.080

99.889

31

.015

.045

99.934

32

.014

.041

99.975

33

.008

.025

100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa
Component
1
em33

2
.838

res24

.796

reli35

.791

reli34

.774

em32

.758

em31

.752

ser28

.749

ser25

.747

ser27

.657

reli37

.655

res23

.647

reli36

.616

res18

.585

em29

.580

pri1

.534

res19

.514

res21

.511

-.518
-.521

fac11

.657

fac12

.653

fac14

.645

fac13

.635

fac8

.630

fac9

.630

fac16
ser26
pri6

.743

pri5

.576

res22

.541

pri3

.603

pri2

.501

.591

fac10

.525

-.554

res20
pri4
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 8 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1

ser27

.806

em29

.797

em31

.794

ser28

.750

res24

.738

res23

.726

ser25

.711

em32

.683

fac9

.849

fac12

.814

fac11

.795

fac8

.789

fac13

.755

fac16

.714

fac14

.537

reli36

.859

reli37

.814

reli35

.718

reli34

.680

em33

.527

res19

.822

res18

.709

res21

.672

res20

.566

ser26

.523

pri5

.807

pri6

.677

res22

.638

fac10

.546

pri4

.880

pri3

.735

pri2

.834

pri1

.696

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Appendix 5: Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient

Serving capacity and empathy

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's

N of Items

Alpha
.925

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted

ser27

24.60

31.818

.777

.915

em29

24.52

31.598

.695

.920

em31

24.52

29.926

.790

.912

ser28

24.48

30.057

.781

.913

res24

24.74

29.277

.797

.912

res23

24.77

29.719

.718

.919

ser25

24.61

30.766

.778

.913

em32

24.66

32.719

.671

.921

Physical facilities

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's

N of Items

Alpha
.895

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted

fac9

20.52

20.857

.761

.872

fac12

20.47

21.237

.800

.867

fac11

20.38

23.476

.660

.885

fac8

20.55

22.252

.727

.877

fac13

20.53

21.396

.754

.873

fac16

20.27

22.198

.633

.888

fac14

20.73

23.024

.559

.896

Reliability

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's

N of Items

Alpha
.908

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted

reli36

13.86

11.837

.768

.888

reli37

13.88

10.841

.736

.897

reli35

13.80

11.022

.846

.870

reli34

13.89

12.099

.783

.886

em33

13.83

11.351

.733

.895

Responsiveness

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's

N of Items

Alpha
.805

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted

res19

13.52

7.460

.745

.725

res18

13.66

7.531

.509

.798

res21

13.83

7.668

.600

.765

res20

13.34

7.721

.568

.775

ser26

13.59

8.023

.563

.776

Service price
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's

N of Items

Alpha
.713

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted

pri5

9.86

5.043

.685

.540

pri6

9.69

5.837

.449

.680

res22

9.95

5.633

.426

.696

fac10

10.02

5.444

.462

.675

Price

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's

N of Items

Alpha
.782

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted

pri4

3.66

.959

.642

pri3

3.50

.921

.642

Compared price

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's

N of Items

Alpha
.793

2
Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted

pri1

3.84

.832

.660

pri2

3.67

.700

.660

Appendix 6: Regression results

First time:

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

Residual
Total

df

Mean Square

25.202

4.200

6.132

57

.108

31.334

63

Sig.
.000b

39.043

a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction

b. Predictors: (Constant), price , serving capicity and empathy, Service price, physical facilities,
responsiveness, reliability
Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Coefficients

Coefficients

B
(Constant)

.475

.303

.390

.079

physical facilities

.215

reliability

Sig.

Collinearity
Statistics

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

1.567

.123

.430

4.911

.000

.448

2.231

.062

.236

3.451

.001

.733

1.364

.419

.074

.496

5.693

.000

.452

2.210

-.279

.078

-.268

-3.583

.001

.614

1.629

Service price

.106

.062

.112

1.698

.095

.787

1.271

price

.027

.053

.034

.514

.609

.788

1.269

serving capicity and

empathy
1

Std. Error

responsiveness

a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction

Second time:
ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

Residual
Total

df

Mean Square

24.858

6.214

6.476

59

.110

31.334

63

Sig.
.000b

56.616

a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction

b. Predictors: (Constant), responsiveness, physical facilities, reliability, serving capicity and
empathy
Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Coefficients

Coefficients

B
1

(Constant)

Std. Error
.679

.275

.355

.077

physical facilities

.247

reliability

.456

serving capicity and

empathy

Sig.

Collinearity
Statistics

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

2.467

.017

.391

4.614

.000

.487

2.053

.059

.272

4.185

.000

.828

1.207

.069

.541

6.577

.000

.518

1.929

responsiveness

-.243

.076

-.233

-3.196

.002

.659

1.517

a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction

Appendix 7: ANOVA results

By gender
ANOVA
Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Squares
serving capicity and
empathy

Between Groups

.524

.262

Within Groups

37.568

61

.616

Total

38.092

63

.255

.128

Within Groups

37.693

61

.618

Total

37.948

63

.438

.219

Within Groups

43.552

61

.714

Total

43.990

63

.122

.061

Within Groups

28.718

61

.471

Total

28.839

63

.229

.114

Within Groups

34.841

61

.571

Total

35.069

63

.030

.015

Within Groups

48.579

61

.796

Total

48.609

63

.330

.165

Within Groups

31.004

61

.508

Total

31.334

63

Between Groups
physical facilities

Between Groups
reliability

Between Groups
responsiveness

Between Groups
Service price

Between Groups
price

Between Groups
student satisfaction

.425

.655

.207

.814

.307

.737

.129

.879

.200

.819

.019

.981

.325

.724

By course:
ANOVA
Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Squares
serving capicity and
empathy

Between Groups

1.513

.504

Within Groups

36.579

60

.610

Total

38.092

63

1.107

.369

Within Groups

36.840

60

.614

Total

37.948

63

1.390

.463

42.600

60

.710

Between Groups
physical facilities
reliability

Between Groups
Within Groups

.827

.484

.601

.617

.653

.584

Total

43.990

63

1.466

.489

Within Groups

27.374

60

.456

Total

28.839

63

.435

.145

Within Groups

34.634

60

.577

Total

35.069

63

.864

.288

Within Groups

47.746

60

.796

Total

48.609

63

.282

.094

Within Groups

31.052

60

.518

Total

31.334

63

Between Groups
responsiveness

Between Groups
Service price

Between Groups
price

Between Groups
student satisfaction

1.071

.368

.251

.860

.362

.781

.182

.908

By nationality
ANOVA
Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Squares
serving capicity and
empathy

Between Groups

.524

.262

Within Groups

37.568

61

.616

Total

38.092

63

.255

.128

Within Groups

37.693

61

.618

Total

37.948

63

.438

.219

Within Groups

43.552

61

.714

Total

43.990

63

.122

.061

Within Groups

28.718

61

.471

Total

28.839

63

.229

.114

Within Groups

34.841

61

.571

Total

35.069

63

.030

.015

Within Groups

48.579

61

.796

Total

48.609

63

.330

.165

Within Groups

31.004

61

.508

Total

31.334

63

Between Groups
physical facilities

Between Groups
reliability

Between Groups
responsiveness

Between Groups
Service price

Between Groups
price

Between Groups
student satisfaction

.425

.655

.207

.814

.307

.737

.129

.879

.200

.819

.019

.981

.325

.724