Karen O. Jabrica
University Research Center
New Era University
How to Cite:
Jabrica, K. O., (2024). Who Serves Better? A Comparative Analysis of Graduating Students’ Satisfaction across University Services. NEU Knowledge Journal: A Compilation of Researches of New Era University Faculty, Staff, Students, and Administrators,1(1), 79 – 96.
ABSTRACT
This study investigated graduating students’ satisfaction with ten key university services — Quality of Education, Discipline, Enrollment, Canteen, Cashier, Clinic, Guidance and Counseling, Library, Registrar, and Sports—using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Extremely Poor) to 7 (Excellent). Because the data violated the normality assumption, the Friedman test was used in place of repeated-measures ANOVA to examine overall differences in satisfaction levels across services. Results revealed statistically significant differences among the ten services, χ²(9) = 170.03, p < .001. Post hoc analyses using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction (α = .0011) indicated that Canteen (M = 5.53, Mdn = 6.00, IQR = 2.00, SD = 1.32) and Cashier (M = 5.70, Mdn = 6.00, IQR = 2.00, SD = 1.18) were rated significantly lower than most other services, though their ratings still fell within the “Good” to “Very Good” range. Conversely, Guidance and Counseling (M = 6.32, Mdn = 7.00, IQR = 1.00, SD = 0.92), Discipline (M = 6.16, Mdn = 6.00, IQR = 1.00 SD = 1.04), and Library (M = 6.10, Mdn = 6.00, IQR = 2.00, SD = 1.02) emerged as the highest rated services, reflecting strong student approval of academic support and administrative efficiency. These findings suggest that while most services meet satisfactory standards, targeted improvements in transactional and facility-based services such as the Cashier and Canteen could further enhance the overall student experience. The study provides empirical evidence to guide institutional quality assurance, service management, and continuous improvement initiatives in higher education settings.
Keywords: student satisfaction, university services, Friedman test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, higher education, service quality.
INTRODUCTION
Schools do not only provide classroom instruction but also deliver different services that support students in their studies and overall well-being. These include the Registrar, Cashier, Library, Guidance, Clinic, Canteen, Sports, and other offices that make school life more organized and comfortable. (Hill et al., 2003; Parasuraman et al., 1988)
Good service quality in education is important because students are both learners and clients. When services are efficient, reliable, and student-centered, they help create a positive school experience (Douglas et al., 2008). On the other hand, weak services — such as slow transactions, lack of facilities, or poor responsiveness — can cause frustration and affect the reputation of the school (Weerasinghe & Dedunu,2017).
In the Philippine school setting, students regularly interact with many offices aside from their teachers. They go to the Registrar for records, the Cashier for payments, the Library for study resources, the Guidance and Clinic for support, and the Canteen and Sports for health and recreation. Each of these services has a unique role, but students may perceive them differently depending on their experiences. Comparing how students rate these services can give administrators a clearer picture of which areas are strong and which need improvement.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
1. Research Question 1: Do students’ satisfaction ratings differ significantly across the various university services?
Null Hypothesis (H01): The ratings for all services are equal, meaning there is no significant difference in how participants rate different services. Alternative Hypothesis (Ha1): At least one service is rated significantly differently than others.
2. Research Question 2: If differences exist, between which specific university services do students’ satisfaction ratings significantly differ?
Null Hypothesis (H02): There are no significant pairwise differences in students’ satisfaction ratings between any university services.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha2): There is at least one pairof university services where students’ satisfaction ratingsdiffer significantly.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study employed a quantitative, descriptive comparative research design. The focus was to examine whether there were significant differences in graduating students’ satisfaction ratings across ten university services: Quality of Education, Discipline, Enrollment, Canteen, Cashier, Clinic, Guidance, Library, Registrar, and Sports.
Sample Size
An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power3.1 (Faul et al., 2007) to determine the minimum sample size for a repeated-measures design. Parameters were set at α = .05, power(1 – β) = .80, a small effect size (Cohen’s f = .10), one group, and 10 measurements (the ten services). The analysis indicated that a minimum of N = 80 was required. The actual sample consisted of 235 graduating students, which substantially exceeds the minimum requirement and provides sufficient power to detect even small effects.
Data Collection Procedure
The study used stratified systematic random sampling techniques to ensure the sample was representative of the population of graduating students. The sample was stratified based on college affiliation, ensuring that each college was represented in the sample. Within each stratum, systematic random sampling was employed, with research assistants instructed to select respondents at an interval of four seats among the graduates.
To ensure the accurate and unbiased collection of data, 18 student-volunteers were trained as research assistants. These student-volunteers were provided with detailed instructions on how to administer the survey. Specifically, they were instructed to distribute the questionnaires to graduating students only after the students had returned to their assigned seats following their appearance on stage. This timing was chosen to minimize distractions and ensure that the respondents could focus fully on the questionnaire.
The surveyors were explicitly instructed to remind respondents not to confer or communicate with others while completing the questionnaire. This was done to maintain the integrity of the responses and ensure that each participant’s feedback was independent and unbiased.
Research Instrument
The primary data collection tool was the 10-item University Experience Survey (UES). The items in the questionnaire were:
11. Quality of Education (EDUCATION)
12. Policies and Rules on Discipline (DISCIPLINE)
13. Enrollment Procedure (PROCEDURE)
14. Canteen Services (CANTEEN)
15. Cashier Services (CASHIER)
16. Clinic Services (CLINIC)
17. Guidance and Counseling Services (GUIDANCE)
18. Library Services (LIBRARY)
19. Registrar Services (REGISTRAR)
20. Sports and Recreation Services (SPORTS)
Respondents rated these items using a 7-point Likert scale, where 7 = Excellent, 6 = Very Good, 5 = Good, 4 =Neither Poor nor Good, 3 = Poor, 2 = Very Poor, and 1 = Extremely Poor. This scale was chosen to provide a nuanced understanding of students’ perceptions across a range of services and experiences within the university.
Validity and Reliability
Before the administration of the UES, the content validity of the questionnaire was evaluated by three experts in test construction, who reviewed the items and provided feedback. Their comments and suggestions were incorporated into the final version of the questionnaire to ensure that it effectively captured the constructs of interest.
For reliability, internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha. The questionnaire was tested with 50 respondents, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90, which exceeds the minimum acceptable value of 0.70 (Bohrnstedt &Knoke, 1988). This high level of reliability indicates that the instrument consistently measured student satisfaction across different university services.
Statistical Analysis
The primary analysis compared students’ satisfaction ratings across the ten services. The analysis was initially planned using repeated – measures ANOVA (within factors). However, tests of normality (Kolmogorov – Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk) revealed that the data significantly deviated from normal distribution (p <.001 for all services). Therefore, the nonparametric Friedman test was employed to examine overall differences among the services.
For post hoc analysis, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted to compare services pairwise. To control for Type I error inflation from multiple comparisons, the Bonferron icorrection was applied by adjusting the significance level (α/number of comparisons).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for students’ satisfaction ratings across ten university services. Results indicate that the overall level of satisfaction among graduating students was generally high, with mean ratings ranging from 5.53 to 6.32 on a 7-point scale. The highest-rated services were Guidance and Counseling (M = 6.32, Mdn = 7.00, IQR= 1.00, SD = 0.92), Discipline (M = 6.16, Mdn = 6.00, IQR =1.00 SD = 1.04), and Library (M = 6.10, Mdn = 6.00, IQR =2.00, SD = 1.02), suggesting strong satisfaction with academic support and student welfare functions. Conversely, Canteen (M = 5.53, Mdn = 6.00, IQR = 2.00, SD = 1.32) and Cashier (M = 5.70, Mdn = 6.00, IQR = 2.00, SD = 1.18) received the lowest mean scores, indicating relative dissatisfaction in areas related to campus facilities and administrative transactions. Despite these differences, all median scores fall within the “Very Good” to “Excellent” range, reflecting an overall positive perception of university services.
Research Question 1
Friedman test was conducted to examine whether students’ satisfaction ratings differed significantly across the ten university services (Table 2). The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference, χ²(9) = 170.032, p < .001, indicating that satisfaction levels were not uniform across services. This finding suggests that students evaluated certain university services more favorably than others, warranting further pairwise comparisons to identify which specific services differed significantly in satisfaction ratings. Given the ordinal nature of Likert – scale data and the violation of normality assumptions, the Friedman test was the appropriate nonparametric alternative to repeated measures ANOVA, ensuring valid results despite the non-normal distribution of responses.
Research Question 2
Wilcoxon signed-rank post hoc tests was conducted following the significant Friedman test, which revealed overall differences in students’ satisfaction ratings across ten university services (Table 3). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was chosen as a nonparametric alternative to paired t-tests, appropriate for ordinal data derived from a 7-point Likert scale. To address the increased risk of Type I error due to multiple pairwise comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied, adjusting the alpha level from .05 to .0011 (α =.05 / 45). Consequently, only p-values less than .0011 were considered statistically significant.
The post hoc analysis indicated several noteworthy patterns in the students’ satisfaction ratings. Services such as Canteen and Cashier consistently obtained significantly lower satisfaction scores compared with most other offices. Specifically, Canteen services were rated significantly lower than Education, Discipline, Clinic, Guidance, Library, Registrar, and Sports. Similarly, the Cashier’s Office was rated significantly lower than Guidance, Library, and Registrar, among others. These findings suggest that students perceived transactional and facility – based services as less efficient and less satisfying relative to offices that directly support their academic and personal development.
In contrast, Guidance and Counseling Services, Library Services, and Registrar Services emerged as the most highly rated offices. The satisfaction levels for these services were significantly higher than those of most other administrative and auxiliary offices, particularly Canteen and Cashier. The consistently superior performance of Guidance, Library, and Registrar offices may reflect their critical role in academic support, documentation efficiency, and student welfare — functions that are central to the student experience. Furthermore, the relatively low standard deviations for these services suggest a high degree of agreement among respondents, indicating consistently positive perceptions across the sample of graduating student.
Meanwhile, Education, Discipline, Clinic, and Sports demonstrated no statistically significant differences among each other in most pairwise comparisons. This suggests that students’ satisfaction with academic instruction, discipline policies, health services, and sports programs was relatively consistent and fell within the “Very Good” range. These findings point to generally uniform service quality in areas directly associated with the institution’s academic and student affairs operations.
The significant differences found between Guidance, Library, and Registrar offices and the lower-rated Canteen and Cashier offices highlight an important service gap. In higher education service quality models, this discrepancy aligns with Parasuraman et al.’s (1988) SERVQUAL dimensions of reliability, responsiveness, and tangibility. Guidance and Library services tend to perform well in reliability and assurance, offering consistent, predictable support that students value. By contrast, Canteen and Cashier services involve high transaction frequency and immediate service expectations, which may heighten sensitivity to delays, resource limitations, or staff responsiveness.
These findings carry important institutional implications. The consistently lower ratings for Canteen and Cashier services suggest the need for targeted administrative interventions — such as streamlining payment systems, implementing cashless transactions, enhancing food service operations, and improving staff training in customer service. On the other hand, maintaining the strong performance of Guidance, Library, and Registrar offices requires continued investment in technology, personnel, and professional development to sustain high service standards.
Overall, the results from Table 3 confirm that while students generally view university services favorably, significant perceptual differences exist between support oriented and transactional offices. These differences under score the necessity for universities to adopt differentiated service management strategies that address both operational efficiency and student-centered quality. The integration of these findings into institutional planning can inform policy decisions, enhance accountability, and strengthen the overall student experience within the university.
Taken together, the results from Tables 1 – 3 demonstrate that graduating students’ satisfaction across university services is generally high but not uniform. The statistically significant differences suggest that students distinguish between service domains based on functional quality, efficiency, and personal interaction.
The findings reinforce the importance of a comprehensive quality assurance system that includes periodic assessment, stakeholder feedback, and targeted service improvements. By integrating student satisfaction data into institutional planning, universities can foster a culture of responsiveness, accountability, and continuous improvement—ensuring that all offices contribute cohesively to the overall student experience.
Ultimately, while the differences across services were modest in magnitude, they provide essential diagnostic information for enhancing institutional performance and aligning university operations with the principles of student centered education and evidence-based management.
Conclusion
Overall, findings revealed that students were generally satisfied with university services, as indicated by median ratings ranging from “Good” to “Excellent.” The Guidance and Counseling (M = 6.32, Mdn = 7), Discipline (M = 6.16,Mdn = 6.00), Library (M = 6.10, Mdn = 6.0), and Registrar (M = 5.93, Mdn = 6.0) offices emerged as the most highly rated, reflecting strong satisfaction with academic support, student welfare, and administrative efficiency. Conversely, the Canteen (M = 5.53, Mdn = 6.0) and Cashier (M = 5.70, Mdn= 6.0) services received lower ratings, suggesting relative dissatisfaction in transactional and facility-related areas.
The effect size, Kendall’s W = .08, indicated a small but meaningful difference across services. Although the overall variation was modest, the consistent statistical pattern across analyses underscores the importance of service differentiation within the university. The findings affirm that students perceive distinctions between support-oriented and transactional offices, and these perceptions contribute significantly to their overall university experience.
In sum, the study highlights that while the institution provides a generally positive service environment, disparities remain in operational efficiency and responsiveness. Strengthening underperforming services and maintaining high-performing ones are critical for sustaining institutional excellence and promoting student-centered service delivery.
Recommendations
In light of the study’s findings, the university is encouraged to prioritize continuous quality improvement by enhancing transactional efficiency, sustaining high-performing services, institutionalizing quality assurance, and fostering aculture of service excellence. Specifically, modernization of the Canteen and Cashier operations through digital and cashless systems, online billing, and facility upgrades can address lower satisfaction ratings. Meanwhile, maintaining the strong performance of the Guidance, Library, and Registrar offices requires ongoing staff development, satisfaction monitoring, and technological integration. Establishing a comprehensive quality assurance framework — with regular surveys, crossoffice benchmarking, and participatory evaluation — will ensure data – driven decision – making and accountability. Cultivating astudent – centered service culture through recognition and training initiatives will further reinforce institutional effectiveness. Future research may include qualitative inquiries, comparative analyses across academic units, and longitudinal tracking to deepen understanding of student satisfaction and guide evidence – based improvements in university service delivery.
REFERENCES
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nded.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810848396
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Hill, F., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL : A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Weerasinghe, S., & Dedunu, H. (2017). University staff, image, and students’ satisfaction in selected state universities. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 9(6), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJEAPS2017.0528
