Romson L. Agustin
Melencio G. Marcos
Jachelle Anne D. Terrago
New Era Univesity
How to Cite:
Agustin, R. L., Marcos, M. G., & Terrago, J. A. D. (2024). College students’ satisfaction rating on NEU’s student services (Part I: Registrar’s Office). NEU Knowledge Journal: A Compilation of Researches of New Era University Faculty, Staff, Students, and Administrators, 1(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.64303/kj-urc-neu-cssRop1r0uENSs
ABSTRACT
Satisfaction rating on the services provided by Registrar’s Office was measured using a 6-item questionnaire with 7-point Likert scale (7 – Excellent, 6 – Very Good, 5 – Good, 4 – Neither Good or Poor, 3 – Poor, 2 – Very Poor, 1 – Extremely Poor) and was analyzed using nonparametric statistics because the data did not meet normality assumption. The survey was given to 200 randomly selected College students and yielded 91.5% response rate. This sample size was estimated based on power analysis as recommended by Cohen (1988). Respondents were asked to rate office/venue (VENUE), staff/workers (STAFF), office procedure (PROCED), equipment/facility (EQUIP), service delivery (DELIVER), and service provider competence (COMPETN). The survey met content validity standard and reliability test, with estimated internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of .89. One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank test revealed that median satisfaction rating of College students was Good (p < .001). Kruskal- Wallis test showed that the satisfaction ratings across year levels was not statistically significantly different (p = .100).
Keywords: Satisfaction rating, One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, Kruskal-Wallis test
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to assess the satisfaction ratings of the students regarding the services provided by the University Registrar’s Office. Researchers were interested to know the satisfaction of the students based on office/venue where the Registrar 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: Satisfaction rating of students is equal to 4 (“Neither Poor nor Good”).
Ha: Satisfaction rating of students is not equal to 4.
Research Question 2: Are there differences in the satisfaction ratings across year levels?
Ho: 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 of 200 was calculated based on one-way ANOVA design involving four groups (first year, second year, third year, and fourth year), .25 effect size (medium), .05 significance level, and .86 power (Cohen, 1988).
Survey Questionnaire and Distribution
The 6-item questionnaire consisted 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 Good nor Poor (N), and 3 – Poor (P), 2 – Very Poor (VP), 1 – Extremely Poor (EP). Three 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 questionnaire was reviewed for content validity by two test construction professionals before it was used. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) was estimated to be .89, greater than .70 recommended minimum acceptable value to be considered as reliable or consistent (Bohrnstedt and Knoke, 1988). Inter-correlation of items ranged from .48 to .65, meaning, items were moderately to strongly correlated (Salkind, 2000). With high estimate of internal consistency and reliability and intercorrelation of items, a summated score (SCORE) was used as index of the over-all rating: SCORE = VENUE + STAFF + PROCED + EQUIP +DELIVER + COMPETN. Average of SCORE is denoted by AVG.
Statistical Analysis
Tests of normality of AVG for the whole sample and for every year level were not satisfied (Table 1). Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of Normality for the entire sample (n = 183) was statistically significant (p < .001). Shapiro-Wilk tests (for n < 50) of AVG for first year (p < . 001), second year (p < .001), third year (p = .020) and fourth year (p = .001) were also statistically significant, and their distributions were found negatively skewed. Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances was satisfied, F(3, 179) = 1.82, p = .144. Because assumption of normality was not satisfied, nonparametric techniques were used to address the research questions. Specifically, One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test were employed to answer research question 1 and research question 2, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Response Rate
Out of 200 survey questionnaires distributed, 183 were returned (91.5% response rate) and all were found usable. Among the year levels, second year had the least number of respondents (37 or 20.2%) (Table 2).
Survey Response
In general, Registrar’s Office received positive rating with more than 60% of the respondents rated each item with Good to Excellent (Figure 1). Among the items, EQUIP and COMPETN registered the highest percentage of respondents who gave Good to Excellent rating with more than 80%. On the other hand, DELIVER had the lowest percentage of respondents with positive rating with less than 70%.
In terms of year level, second year students gave the highest overall satisfactory rating of 5.40 (Good in Likert Scale) while fourth year students gave the least satisfactory rating of 4.98 (Table 2). To determine whether differences in rating across year levels were significant, hypothesis testing was performed.
Research Question 1
One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank test for median was statistically significant (p < .001) which means that the population median was significantly different from the hypothesized value of 4. The same test was applied to all components of AVG and showed that medians of VENUE, STAFF, PROCED, EQUIP, DELIVER and COMPETN were significantly different from 4 (with Bonferroni adjusted alpha of .007), p < .001 (Table 3). Moreover, since the distribution of the sample is negatively skewed (-1.34), the overall satisfaction rating is unsurprisingly found greater than 4. And, students giving the Registrar’s Office a Good rating affirmed these findings and explanation.
Research Question 2
Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the differences in satisfaction ratings across year levels was not significant, Chi-square (3, N = 183) = 6.25, p = .100. This means that satisfaction rating of students does not differ among groups or year levels. In summary, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the average rating of students for the Registrar’s Office is Good and ratings of students do not differ significantly across year levels.
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.
