See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256197526

DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDENT UNIVERSITY SATISFACTION SCALE:

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Article · July 2012

CITATIONS READS

5 1,182

1 author:

Shelina Bhamani
Institute of Business Management
25 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Experiential Project Based Learning-ExPBL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shelina Bhamani on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDENT UNIVERSITY SATISFACTION SCALE:

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Dr. Nasreen Hussain

Head of Department (Education)
Institute of Business Management

Shelina Bhamani
Research Scholar, Department of Education
Institute of Business Management

Abstract
This research study aimed to explore and highlight the development of the Student
University Satisfaction Scale (SUSS). The paper elicits the process of development and
piloting of the tool, its validity, and its reliability. A sample of 73 students from different
universities was chosen for the study. The tool is divided in two sections: demography
survey and satisfaction survey. The satisfaction survey has 32 items categorized under six
facets. The findings of the study presented high level of reliability with Cronbach’s alpha
(.911).
Keywords: Scale Development, Student Satisfaction, University Facilities, Academic
Quality, Quality Assurance, Assessment

Introduction and Background Literature

Education is considered a means for the development and empowerment of the
social, economical and political growth of a country; therefore, the importance of
education and its delivery to the citizens is imperative. Hence, it should be the
responsibility of the government and education service providers to focus on education
access and quality of provision for the students. Although the literacy level in Pakistan is
barely minimal, Beedle & Burkill (2008) and Fry, Ketteridge and Marshall (2003) claim
that the status is improving through the induction of ICT in education and increased
funding for higher education.
The higher education sector is growing very rapidly in Pakistan, which is due to the
rise in industrial market and employment opportunities in the not for profit sector.
Consequently, youth and students in the recent time are focusing on acquiring degrees that
could provide them with learning and skill set aspired by the market. Hence, it is vital for
the practitioners involved in higher education sector to ensure quality assurance and
improvement to meet the expectations of the students. This entails researchers, university
management, and faculty to explore and investigate students’ expectations and what
satisfies them. Thus, quality indicator in education and higher education delivery becomes
vital for any institutional sustainability and growth. Quality is a complex term that can be
defined in many aspects and also it is interpreted differently by different individuals.
Manoharan (2009) states that although quality and excellence have become buzz
words in higher education, they cannot be used as a yardstick that measures quantitative
and qualitative services provision of the institution. However, they include a
comprehensive set of processes that effect the educational institutions, quality of
instruction, quality of faculty, student relationship, quality of learning facility, and quality

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 332

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

of innovation. Similarly, the quality in higher education pertaining to quality of faculty

members, learning environment, learning activities, extracurricular activities, and
community development activities influences individual student satisfaction and their
perceptions about the institution they are currently enrolled in. (Clark, 2004 & Jones,
2009).
Student satisfaction in the higher education is a significant assessment issue for
educators and the universities. Many of the research studies have indicated positive
correlation of students’ retention and overall satisfaction (Cleary, 2001; Kara & Kaynak,
2005 & Grahm & Gisi, 2000).
Selvan (2009) draws attention to higher education incorporating students’ feedback
in their quality improvement planning each year. According to him, this allows the
university to restore students’ confidence in the ability of the university that they have
selected to study and facilitate stronger student retention with the university.
Incorporating student feedback can influence positively the service quality of any
educational institution as well as support the university in various ways. Several studies
have shown the positive impact of incorporating and investigating student satisfaction with
the university and its long term positive impact on the quality increase of the university
(Mahmood, Mahmood & Malik, 2012 & Dimas, Goula & Pierrakos, 2011).
In the study by Solinas, Masia, Maida and Muresu (2012), it was highlighted that
assessing and incorporating student perspective can support universities to take appropriate
procedures to strengthen their academic practices. Fraser (2005) mentions that the role of
higher education and universities is to identify issues that concern students to enable
universities to work on them. This can assist universities not only to support student
enrolled in various programs, but also contribute in the community development aspects.
Fraser shares four overarching concerns through which this can be done:
1. Maintaining a corporate memory of, and sustained engagement of the issues
and innovations in teaching in higher education.
2. Engaging in comprehensive and systematic implementation of teaching and
learning initiatives.
3. Creating and facilitating communities of learning involved in the iterative and
dynamic top-down/bottom-up engagement and management of educational
initiatives.
4. Investigating, articulating and disseminating scholarship in teaching and
learning and educational development. (p.51)

There has been a significant lack of literature and studies in Pakistan that
investigate student satisfaction (Khan, Nawaz, Ahmed & Naqvi, 2011); therefore, the core
purpose of the study was to develop a tool on student university satisfaction and explore its
reliability by piloting it in private universities. The main objective of the development of
the tool was to have a contextually appropriate measure that can investigate student
satisfaction and provide insights to the university management, educationists,
academicians, and researchers to plan and strategize initiates for student satisfaction in the
universities.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 333

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

Methodology
A quantitative paradigm was chosen for the study using survey method and scale
development strategy was employed as a design for this research study. A sample of 73
students was selected from seven private universities situated in Karachi and Sukkur, two
big cities of Pakistan for the study and informed consent was sought from each participant.
The ranking of these universities ranged from best to average as per Higher Education
Commission, Pakistan information given on its website.
The overall survey tool comprised two main sections. Section A focused on the
demographic of the students that had variables of gender, programme of study, level of
study, mode of study, financing of the study and GPA scored in the last semester (see
Table 1) and section B consisted of Student University Satisfaction Scale (SUSS), which
had 32 items (see Appendix A).
Table 1: Demographic Description of the Sample
Variables Frequency Percentage
Female 24 33
Gender Male 49 67
Employed 52 71
Employment Status Unemployed 21 29
Single 61 84
Martial Status Married 12 16
Masters 23 32
Level of Study Graduate 50 68
Full Time 45 62
Mode of Study Part Time 28 38
The study followed data management procedure by initially providing students
with a consent form to read and sign. Later, they were given the demographic section and
the scale to respond to. Once the data was collected, it was coded and entered by the data
entry associate. The data was then analyzed using Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Analysis
to explore the reliability of the tool and each item. Moreover, the tool was designed
considering the six key major facets that influence student satisfaction at a university level
(See Table 2).

Table 2: Facets and Indicators

Facet 1: Learning Facilities
1 I find university’s learning environment conducive.
2 I find classrooms well equipped with educational resources.
3 I find IT labs well equipped to meet students’ need.
4 I find a wide range of resources relevant to my studies in university’s library.
5 I find a wide range of research journals in university’s library.
Facet 2: Curriculum
6 I find curriculum student friendly.
7 I find assignments are aligned to meet the objectives.
8 I am satisfied with the time allocation for assignments submission.
9 I find assessment procedures fair and transparent.
10 Appropriate recognition for star students is observed.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 334

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

Facet 3: Teaching and Learning

11 I am satisfied with the quality of teachers in my university.
12 Teaching and learning in my university is interactive.
13 Teachers are generally student friendly and focus on specific individual needs.
14 I find my teachers providing equal opportunities of learning.
15 I find my teachers supportive to my professional needs of improvement.
16 I can access my teachers out of the class to meet my remedial needs.
Facet 4: University Climate
17 There are a wide range of opportunities for recreational activities.
18 I am satisfied with the students’ counseling services in my university.
19 I am given remedial support at my university.
20 I am given respect here regardless of my cast or creed and gender.
21 I am given opportunities to practice my learning through internships.
Facet 5: Administrative Facilities
22 I am satisfied with the transportation facilities provided to the students.
23 I find quality, hygienic and affordable food in the university’s cafeteria.
24 I am satisfied with the toilet facilities in my university.
25 I am satisfied with the water facilities in my university.
26 It is convenient for me to access administration department for inquiry.
Facet 6: Policies and Procedures
27 I find academic policies of my university student-friendly.
28 I find administrative policies of my university student-friendly.
29 There are a wide range of scholarship opportunities for students.
30 I find everyone following code of ethics in my university.
31 I am kept updated of all the university relevant news through university portal.
32 University incorporates students’ evaluation for its quality improvement.
Results and Analysis
The initial draft of the scale was developed by the primary researchers. One focus
group discussion with 15 university students was held and a draft of 25 indicators
prepared. Additionally, the researchers supplemented the tool with seven more indicators.
Later, the tool was sent to two educationists and three faculty members to provide their
input in the scale. The feedback of the faculty members resulted in categorizing the
indicators into six broad facets that in their opinion contributed to student satisfaction. The
six facet categorization was considered to peg the relevant indicators with an overarching
variable so that it could easily be explored from the data at a glance to find out which
component of the university predicts influences and contributes in students’ overall
satisfaction. Table 3 gives the reliability index of each item of the scale using Cronbach’s
Alpha Reliability.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 335

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

Table 3: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability: Items Analysis

If
# Items M S.D. Deleted
1 I find university’s learning environment conducive. 2.34 .583 .907
2 I find classrooms well equipped with educational resources. 2.55 .668 .907
3 I find IT labs well equipped to meet students’ need. 2.47 .625 .908
4 I find a wide range of resources relevant to my studies in university’s 2.36 .695 .907
library.
5 I find a wide range of research journals in university’s library. 2.29 .716 .910
6 I find curriculum student friendly. 2.11 .636 .907
7 I find assignments are aligned to meet the objectives. 2.18 .694 .907
8 I am satisfied with the time allocation for assignments submission. 2.25 .641 .912
9 I find assessment procedures fair and transparent. 2.19 .68 .91
10 Appropriate recognition for star students is observed. 2.27 .672 .907
11 I am satisfied with the quality of teachers in my university. 2.29 .716 .907
12 Teaching and learning in my university is interactive. 2.38 .659 .907
13 Teachers are generally student friendly and focus on specific individual 2.27 .651 .907
needs.
14 I find my teachers providing equal opportunities of learning. 2.33 .579 .907
15 I find my teachers supportive to my professional needs of improvement. 2.34 .671 .906
16 I can access my teachers out of the class to meet my remedial needs. 2.26 .624 .911
17 There are a wide range of opportunities for recreational activities. 2.15 .681 .911
18 I am satisfied with the students’ counseling services in my university. 2.11 .657 .909
19 I am given remedial support at my university. 1.88 .6 .909
20 I am given respect here regardless of my cast or creed and gender. 2.59 .663 .913
21 I am given opportunities to practice my learning through internships. 2.07 .77 .906
22 I am satisfied with the transportation facilities provided to the students. 1.99 .754 .908
23 I find quality, hygienic and affordable food in the university’s cafeteria. 2.01 .677 .911
24 I am satisfied with the toilet facilities in my university. 2.12 .686 .909
25 I am satisfied with the water facilities in my university. 2.22 .84 .908
26 It is convenient for me to access administration department for inquiry. 2.27 .75 .91
27 I find academic policies of my university student-friendly. 2.05 .743 .907
28 I find administrative policies of my university student-friendly. 2.1 .748 .906
29 There are a wide range of scholarship opportunities for students. 2.03 .687 .911
30 I find everyone following code of ethics in my university. 2.14 .631 .909
31 I am kept updated of all the university relevant news through university 2.33 .783 .911
portal.
32 University incorporates students’ evaluation for its quality improvement. 2.23 .677 .908

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 336

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

The overall scale reliability appeared to be a = .911. As can be seen from the Table
3, the reliability analysis displayed Item 1 (M = 2.3, S.D. = .583, a = .907 ), Item 2 (M =
2.5, S.D. = .668, a = .907), Item 3 (M = 2.4, S.D. = .625, a = .908), Item 4 (M = 2.3, S.D. =
.695, a = .907), Item 5 (M = 2.2, S.D. = .716, a = .910), Item 6 (M = 2.1, S.D. = .636, a =
.907), Item 7 (M = 2.1, S.D. = .694, a = .907), Item 9 (M = 2.1, S.D. = .680, a = .910),
Item 10 (M = 2.2, S.D. = .672, a = .907), Item 11 (M = 2.2, S.D. = .716, a = .907), Item 12
(M = 2.3, S.D. = .659, a = .907), Item 13 (M = 2.2, S.D. = .651, a = .907), Item 14 (M =
2.3, S.D. = .579, a = .907), Item 15 (M = 2.3, S.D. = .671, a = .906), Item 18 (M = 2.1,
S.D. = .657, a = .909), Item 19 (M = 1.8, S.D. = .600, a = .909), Item 21 (M = 2.0, S.D. =
.770, a = .906), Item 22 (M = 1.9, S.D. = .754, a = .908), Item 24 (M = 2.1, S.D. = .686, a
= .909), Item 25 (M = 2.2, S.D. = .840, a = .908), Item 26 (M = 2.2, S.D.= .750, a = .910),
Item 27 (M = 2.0, S.D. = .743, a = .907), Item 28 (M = 2.1, S.D. = .748, a = .906), Item 30
(M = 2.1, S.D. = .631, a = .909) and Item 32 (M = 2.2, S.D. .677, a = .908) if deleted from
the scale will result in a low reliability. If Item 16 (M = 2.2, S.D. = .624, a = .911), Item 17
(M = 2.1, S.D. = .681, a = .911), Item 23 (M = 2.0, S.D. = .677, a = .911), Item 29 (M =
2.0, S.D. = .687, a = .911) and Item 31 (M = 2.3, S.D. = .783, a = .911) are deleted from
the scale, the reliability will remain the same. However, if Item 8 (M = 2.2, S.D. = .641, a
= .912) and Item 20 (M = 2.5, S.D. = .663, a = .913) are deleted from the scale, it will
result in higher reliability.
Since, the reliability of the tool is very high in the given sample, there is a strong
possibility of other universities using the tool to measure student satisfaction. This can be
used by all the practitioners and researchers who target student satisfaction, assessment of
quality in the university, and student perception from the developing countries.

Conclusion
The aim of the study was to construct a scale that could serve the purpose of
investigating student university satisfaction. This study also served the purpose of piloting
a tool for the authors to carry forward a large scale study. It is crucial to note that this
scale is developed to facilitate authors’ for their large scale study on the investigation of
business student university satisfaction and thus the sample size for this study is relatively
limited and focused using convenient sampling method. However, this can widely be used
in various fields of higher education for the following purposes:
1. Assessment of university facilities and academic quality
2. Quality assurance
3. Investigation of student satisfaction with the university
4. Investigation of the parent satisfaction with the university

Additionally, SUSS can also serve the purpose of annual student university
evaluation survey. Literature review shows that there is a considerable need to investigate
and consider student satisfaction for institutions effectiveness in competing world
(Middaugh, 2010). This study aimed at bridging the gap in the contextually applicable
literature and devised a scale that can be implied in a Pakistani context and countries with
the similar geographical and contextual background. It cannot be ignored that educational
institutions that focus on their student satisfaction have been in the highest ranking and
considered top most universities in the world. Consequently, the focus of higher education
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 337
 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

sector is to make learning student friendly to sustain, retain, and encourage youth of the
nation to acquire education for the betterment of the country and world at large.
Authors’ Note:
This scale can be utilized by the researchers keen to examine perception of key
stakeholders like students, faculty, management and parents. We are aware of the
complexity of research and its dynamics involved in scale development; hence, we would
welcome feedback, suggestions and plans of modification in the tool. Please write to us on
nasreenhuss@gmail.com and shelina.bhamani@gmail.com if you wish to utilize the tool
for your study so that we can provide you with the scoring key and data entry guideline.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 338

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

References

Beedle, P., & Burkill, B. (2008). Reflections and teaching today and tomorrow. New
Delhi: Cambridge Publishers.
Clark, B.R. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: Contingencies in case studies and
concepts. Berkshire: England.
Cleary, T.S. (2001). Indicators of quality. Planning for Higher Education, 29(3), 19-28.
Dimas, G.A., Goula, A., & Pierrakos, G. (2011). Quality issues in higher education: A
multicriteria framework of satisfaction measures. Creative Education, 2(3), 305-
212.
Fraser, K. (2005). Education and leadership in higher education: Devloping an effective
institutional strategy. London and Newyork: Routledge Falmer.
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (1999). A handbook of teaching and learning in
higher education. London: Kogan.
Graham, S.W., & Gisi, L.S. (2000). The effects of institutional climate and student service
on college outcomes and satisfaction. Journal of College Development, 41(3), 279-
291.
Jones, S. (2009). Dynamics social norms and the unexpected transformation of women’s
higher education. Social Sciences History, 33, 247 – 291.
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.
Khan, M.M., Nawaz, M.M., Ahmed,I., & Naqvi, I.H. (2011). Teaching and quality in
higher education: What do we need to improve? Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in
Business, 1(4), 37-42.
Mahmood, A., Mahmood, S., & Malik,A. (2012). A comparative study of student
satisfaction level in distance learning and live classroom at higher education level.
Distance Education, 13(1), 128-136.
Manoharran, P.K. (2009). Higher education. A.P.H. Delhi: Publishing Corporation.
Mcghee, P. (2003). The academic quality handbook. London: Kogan Page.
Middaugh, M.F. (2010). Planning and assessment in higher education. New York: Jassey
Bass. Selvan, S.K. (2009). Higher education. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation.
Solinas, G., Masia, M.D., & Muresu, E. (2011). What really affects student satisfaction?
An assessment of quality through university-wide student survey. Creative Education,
3(1), 37-40.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 339

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

Appendix A
Student University Satisfaction Scale

# 1 = Never = N 2 = Sometimes = S 3 = Always = A N S A Code

1 I find university’s learning environment conducive.

2 I find classrooms well equipped with educational resources.

3 I find IT labs well equipped to meet students’ need.

4 I find a wide range of resources relevant to my studies in university’s library.

5 I find a wide range of research journals in university’s library.

6 I find curriculum student friendly.

7 I find assignments are aligned to meet the objectives.

8 I am satisfied with the time allocation for assignments submission.

9 I find assessment procedures fair and transparent.

10 Appropriate recognition for star students is observed.

11 I am satisfied with the quality of teachers in my university.

12 Teaching and learning in my university is interactive.

13 Teachers are generally student friendly and focus on specific individual needs.

14 I find my teachers providing equal opportunities of learning.

15 I find my teachers supportive to my professional needs of improvement.

16 I can access my teachers out of the class to meet my remedial needs.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 340

 ijcrb.webs.com JULY 2012
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 4, NO 3

# 1 = Never = N 2 = Sometimes = S 3 = Always = A N S A

17 There are a wide range of opportunities for recreational activities.

18 I am satisfied with the students’ counseling services in my university.

19 I am given remedial support at my university.

20 I am given respect here regardless of my cast or creed and gender.

21 I am given opportunities to practice my learning through internships.

22 I am satisfied with the transportation facilities provided to the students.

23 I find quality, hygienic and affordable food in the university’s cafeteria.

24 I am satisfied with the toilet in my university.

25 I am satisfied with the water facilities in my university.

26 It is convenient for me to access administration department for inquiry.

27 I find academic policies of my university student-friendly.

28 I find administrative policies of my university student-friendly.

29 There are a wide range of scholarship opportunities for students.

30 I find everyone following code of ethics in my university.

31 I am kept updated of all the university relevant news through university portal.

32 University incorporates students’ evaluation for its quality improvement.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 341

View publication stats