Jofrell H. Garcia
Zaldy D. Petorio
Jachelle Anne D. Terrago
New Era University
How to Cite:
Garcia, J. H., Petorio, Z. D., & Terrago, J. A. D. (2024). College students’ satisfaction rating on NEU’s student services (Part II: Guidance Office). NEU Knowledge Journal: A Compilation of Researches of New Era University Faculty, Staff, Students, and Administrators, 1(1), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.64303/kj-urc-neu-SSp2ueNss-CssR0
ABSTRACT
Satisfaction rating on the services rendered by Guidance Office was measured using 6-item questionnaire with 7-point Likert scale and was analyzed using parametric statistics because the data satisfy the assumptions of normality and of homogeneity of variances. The survey was distributed to 208 randomly selected College students and yielded a response rate of 98.1%. Respondents were asked to rate Guidance Office concerning its office/venue (VENUE), staff/workers (STAFF), office procedure (PROCED), equipment/facility (EQUIP), service delivery (DELIVER), and service provider competence (COMPETN). The survey instrument underwent content validity evaluation and responses exhibited internal consistency reliability, with an estimated Cronbach’s Alpha of .90. Result of One-Sample t-test (α = .05) showed that the mean satisfaction rating was Good (p < .001), effect size (d) = 1.06 (> large according to Cohen, 1988), 95% CI of Mean Difference (1.07, 1.39). ANOVA test showed statistically significant differences in satisfaction ratings across year levels, p = .001, effect size (partial η) = 28 (medium), observed power = .95. Tukey HSD test revealed that the fourth year students’ rating was significantly higher than first year students’ (p = .050), second year students’ (p = .001) and third year students’ (p = .014). Other pairwise comparisons were found not statistically significantly different (p > .05).
Keywords: Satisfaction rating, One-Sample t-test, ANOVA, Tukey HSD
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to assess the satisfaction ratings of the students regarding the services provided by the University Guidance Office. Researchers were interested to know the satisfaction of the students based on office/venue where the Guidance Office is located, attitude of staff and workers, office procedure, equipment and facilities, service delivery, and service provider competence. Researchers were also interested to find out whether there were differences in the ratings of the students based on their year level.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Research Question 1: What is the satisfaction rating of students?
Ho: Mean satisfaction rating of students is equal to 4 (“Neither Poor nor Good”), μ = 4.
Ha: μ is not equal to 4.
Research Question 2: Are there differences in the satisfaction ratings across year levels?
Ho: Mean satisfaction ratings of students from different year levels are the same, μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4
Ha: Not all of the μs are equal
METHODOLOGY
Sample Size
Sample size was determined based on the following specifications: One-Way ANOVA with four groups (first year, second year, third year, and fourth year College students), .85 power, .25 effect size (medium), and .05 significance level. With this specification, 208 respondents (52 per group or year level) were required as recommended by Cohen (1988).
Survey Questionnaire and Distribution
The 6-item instrument consists of questions about (1) venue/ambiance (VENUE), (2) staff (STAFF), (3) office procedure (PROCED), (4) equipment/facility (EQUIP), (5) service delivery (DELIVER), (6) service provider competence (COMPETN). Respondents were asked to answer each question using a 7-point Likert scale, where: 7- Excellent (EX), 6- Very Good (VG), 5-Good (G), 4- Neither Poor nor Good (N), and 3- Poor (P), 2- Very Poor (VP), 1- Extremely Poor (EP).
Two trained student-volunteers administered the survey to randomly selected students in different buildings where the classes were held at different times of the day. Surveyors were instructed not to choose friends or relatives and make sure that the respondents filled out the questionnaire independently.
Validity and Reliability
The survey questionnaire was reviewed and content validated by two test construction developers before it was used. Survey responses showed internal consistency reliability with an estimated Cronbach’s Alpha of .90, greater than .70 recommended minimum acceptable value for responses to be considered reliable or consistent (Bohrnstedt and Knoke, 1988).
Inter-correlation of items ranged from .55 to .70, i.e., items were strongly correlated (Salkind, 2000). With high estimate of internal consistency and reliability and inter-correlation of items, a summated score (SCORE) was used as index of the over-all rating: SCORE= VENUE+ STAFF+ PROCED+ EQUIP+ DELIVER+ COMPETN. Average SCORE is denoted by AVG.
Statistical Analysis
Assumption of normality of AVG for the whole sample (n = 204) was not satisfied as shown by significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (for n ≥ 50). However, all year levels satisfied normality assumption (Table 1). On the other hand, Levene’s test showed assumption of homogeneity of variances was met, F(3, 200) = 1.280, p = .282. These results gave support for the use of One-Sample t-test and one-way ANOVA to address research questions 1 and 2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Response Rate
Out of 208 survey questionnaires distributed, 204 were returned (98.1% response rate) and all were found usable. All year levels had comparable number of respondents or had comparable sample sizes (Table 2).
Survey Response
In general, Guidance Office received positive rating with more than 60% of the respondents rated each item at least Good (i.e., total of Good, Very Good , and Excellent) (Figure 1). Among the items, VENUE had the highest percentage of respondents who gave Good to Excellent rating with 79%. On the other hand, STAFF had the lowest percentage of respondents with positive rating (66.7%).
In terms of year level, fourth year students gave the highest overall satisfactory rating of 5.77 (Good to Very Good in Likert Scale) while second year students gave the least satisfactory rating of 4.88 (Table 2). To determine whether differences in rating across year levels were significant, hypothesis testing was performed.
Research Question 1
One-Sample t-test for AVG was highly statistically significant, t(203) = 15.162, p < .001, effect size (d) = 1.06 (> large according to Cohen, 1988). This means that the sample mean (5.23) is significantly different from the hypothesized mean (4), 95% CI of Mean Difference (1.07, 1.39). Hence, the students gave the Guidance Office a Good rating.
Research Question 2
ANOVA test for AVG is highly significant, F(3, 200) = 5.823, p = .001, effect size (Partial η2) = .28, medium according to Cohen (1988), observed power = .95. Post hoc analysis using Tukey HSD revealed that 4th year students (M = 5.77, SD = .88) gave a satisfaction rating statistically significantly higher than that given by 1st year students (M = 5.19, SD = .98), p = .05; by 2nd year
students (M = 4.88, SD = 1.30), p = .001; and by 3rd year students (M = 5.09, SD = 1.25), p = .014. Other pairwise comparisons were found not statistically significantly different (p > .05) (Table 3).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bohrnstedt, George W. and Knoke, David. (1988). Statistics for Social Data Analysis. 2nd Edition. USA:F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Cohen, Jacob. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition. USA:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Salkind, Neil J. (2000). Exploring Research. 4th Edition. USA:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
SPSS v23.
