Determinants of Student Loyalty in Higher Education A Tested Relationship Approach in Latin America.pdf

Determinants of Student Loyalty in Higher Education A Tested Relationship Approach in Latin America.pdf

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wlab20
Latin American Business Review
ISSN: 1097-8526 (Print) 1528-6932 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wlab20
Determinants of Student Loyalty in Higher
Education: A Tested Relationship Approach in Latin
America
José I. Rojas-Méndez , Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga , Ali Kara & Arcadio Cerda-
Urrutia
To cite this article: José I. Rojas-Méndez , Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga , Ali Kara & Arcadio
Cerda-Urrutia (2009) Determinants of Student Loyalty in Higher Education: A Tested
Relationship Approach in Latin America, Latin American Business Review, 10:1, 21-39, DOI:
10.1080/10978520903022089
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10978520903022089
Published online: 26 Jun 2009.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 515View related articles Citing articles: 38 View citing articles

2. Determinants of Student Loyalty in Higher
Education: A Tested Relationship
Approach in Latin America
JOSE´I. ROJAS-ME´NDEZ
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ontario, Canada
ARTURO Z. VASQUEZ-PARRAGA
College of Business Administration, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, Texas
ALI KARA
Division of Business and Economics, University College, The Pennsylvania
State University, York, Pennsylvania
ARCADIO CERDA-URRUTIA
Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chile
ABSTRACT.Student loyalty is a critical measure in the success of
higher education institutions that aim at retaining students until gra-
duation and then attracting them back. This study examines the rela-
tive importance of relationship pathways among key factors affecting
student loyalty in the following order: perceived service quality, satis-
faction, trust, and commitment. The findings reveal that perceived ser-
vice quality and student satisfaction do not translate directly into
student loyalty, but, rather, indirectly through the mediation of trust
and commitment. Implications of the findings are discussed.
RESUMEN.La lealtad del estudiante es un indicador crı´tico para
medir el e´xito de las instituciones de educacioon superior que desean
conservar a los alumnos hasta su graduacioon, y atraerlos nuevamente
maas tarde. Este estudio examina la importancia relativa que tiene el
desarrollo de esta relacioon cuanto a los principales factores que afec-
tan a la lealtad estudiantil, en el siguiente orden: calidad percibida
del servicio; satisfaccioon, confianza y compromiso. Las conclusiones
Received April 25, 2008; revised August 4, 2008; accepted April 13, 2009.
Address correspondence to Jose´I. Rojas-Me´ndez, Associate Professor of International
Business and Marketing, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 925 Dunton Tower,
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Latin American Business Review, 10:21–39, 2009
Copyright#Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1097-8526 print=1528-6932 online
DOI: 10.1080/10978520903022089
21

3. demuestran que la calidad percibida del servicio y la satisfaccioon del
estudiante no se traducen directamente en su lealtad, sino que la
afectan indirectamente, a trave´sdelamediacioon de la confianza y
el compromiso. Presentamos una discusioon de sus consecuencias.
RESUMO.A lealdade do aluno e´um indicador decisivo para o
sucesso das instituic¸o˜es de ensino superior que visam reter os
alunos ate´a graduac¸a˜o e atraı´-los de volta posteriormente. Este
estudo examina a importaˆncia relativa dos caminhos de relacio-
namento entre os principais fatores que afetam a lealdade do
aluno, nessa ordem: qualidade do servic¸o percebida, satisfac¸a˜o,
confianc¸a e compromisso. As descobertas revelam que a qualidade
do servic¸o percebida e a satisfac¸a˜o do aluno na˜o sa˜o diretamente
traduzidas em lealdade do aluno mas, sim, de forma indireta
atrave´s da mediac¸a˜o entre a confianc¸a e o compromisso. Sa˜o
discutidas as implicac¸o˜es das descobertas.
KEYWORDS. commitment, higher education, perceived service
quality, satisfaction, student loyalty, trust
INTRODUCTION
Even though the concept of relationship marketing has begun to influence
marketing practices and academic research in various areas and industries,
it is, for the most part, ignored by higher educational institutions (Henning-
Thurau, Langer, and Hansen, 2001). Statistics indicate that more than 40%of
all college entrants in the United States leave higher education without
earning a degree, 75%of these students drop out in the first two years of
college, and 56%of a typical entering class cohort will not graduate from
that college (Tinto, 1975, 1993). More recent statistics indicate that 26.4%
of freshmen in the United States do not return the following fall semester
and that 46.2%of students fail to graduate (Reisberg, 1999).
Similarly, statistics show that 74%of all college entrants in Chile in 1993
left higher education without having earned a degree by 1998 (Bernasconi
and Rojas, 2002). The dropout rate in the first year of college for professional
careers was 30%during the same period. Yet, in two-year college programs,
the dropout rate was 54%for 1997–1998 (Bernasconi and Rojas, 2002).
To help reverse such trends, college administrators will have to establish
appropriate programs that promote, establish, develop, and maintain
successful long-term relationships with both current and former students.
However, such programs have to be based on a clear understanding of
how long-term relationships with students can be developed and sustained.
This study attempts to explain long-term student loyalty in higher
education institutions by examining key factors influencing the process
22 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

4. of generating loyalty during the school years. Those factors (perceived
service quality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment) are articulated in a
model that is assumed to be comprehensive enough to explain loyalty.
Other studies that have examined student loyalty in higher education insti-
tutions may have used other factors or included one or more factors
investigated here but then failed to provide a comprehensive explanation
of how long-term student loyalty is generated and sustained. Alves and
Raposo (2007) included university’s image perceived by students and
student satisfaction as potential predictors of student loyalty in Portugal.
Similarly, Helgesen and Nesset (2007) studied the drivers of student loyalty
in a Norwegian University College and focused on image of study pro-
gram, image of the University College and student satisfaction as antece-
dents of student loyalty. Other studies may have examined student
loyalty after graduation and successfully found that such loyalty involves
long-term relationships (Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen, 2001).
Yet, it is unclear how post-graduation loyalty is generated unless it is
backtracked to the school years in order to understand its sources and
antecedents.
College-student long-term relationships are first examined based on the
literature. A conceptual model of student loyalty is then introduced, dis-
cussed, and used to derive some hypothesized relationships. The methodol-
ogy used to generate and analyze the empirical data is spelled out. Finally,
the results obtained are described and discussed to arrive at research conclu-
sions and practical recommendations.
LITERATURE REVIEW
College-Student Long-Term Relationships
Although studentperformancemay not be studied as a fundamental product
of consumption, studentbehaviorcan certainly be studied from the perspec-
tive of consumer behavior. A student is also a consumer—despite the pecu-
liarity of this designation due to the nature of education. He=she consumes
educational services just like any other and, thus, can be studied as a consu-
mer of educational services.
A comprehensive piece of research in this area is a study carried out by
Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen (2001) in which perceived service
quality, trust, commitment, and loyalty are included as the main constructs
to investigate the relationship between educational organizations and their
students. Consequently, they proposed post-graduation loyalty as the main
objective of educational institutions. Yet, their study neither included the
long-term process by which students generate loyalty to their institution
nor the concept of satisfaction—a significant factor in other studies of
long-term relationships.
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 23

5. Loyalty
Loyalty involves a process in which customer’s cognition, affect, conation,
and behavior take place (Oliver, 1999). We focus on loyalty involving an
identifiable intention to behave, such as repurchasing a specific brand or pro-
viding a financial or non-financial support to one’s alma mater.
In educational services, loyalty requires developing a solid relationship
with students who eventually provide the financial basis for future university
activities (Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen, 2001). In this framework,
student loyalty is a sort of strategic competitive advantage because (1) seek-
ing new students is definitely more cost intensive than keeping existing ones,
and (2) it is assumed that student loyalty may pay off after graduation, as
alumni continue supporting their academic institution, not only by word of
mouth but also through financial contributions to the institution and through
job offers to new graduates.
Antecedents of Student Loyalty
Antecedents of student loyalty have been identified in previous research.
Two streams of research are relevant when explaining student loyalty.
One emphasizes service quality; the other one emphasizes long-term
relationships.
Service Quality
In educational relationships, service quality is treated as ‘‘people-based’’
rather than ‘‘equipment-based’’ (Thomas, 1978). Moreover, Tang and Zairi
(1998a, 1998b, 1998c) found that university staff members are more
empowered than employees in other service industries, such as financial
institutions, due to greater autonomy in communicating with and assisting
students. Therefore, we should expect that human interaction (e.g.,
student-program administrator, student-instructor, and student-secretary)
play a significant role in defining and assessing service quality in educa-
tional settings.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) define perceived service qual-
ity as ‘‘a global judgment, or attitude, relating to the superiority of the ser-
vice.’’ Perceived service quality is what the consumer feels a firm should
provide, whereas satisfaction is the result of comparing expected perfor-
mance with actual performance.
Long-Term Relationships
The literature on long-term relationships has been concentrated on the role
that satisfaction, trust, and commitment play in such relationships.
24 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

6. Satisfaction
There is no clear consensus among researchers on the definition of satisfaction.
However, most definitions refer to an evaluative, affective, or emotional
response (Oliver and Swan, 1989) that evolved with the experience a consumer
has with goods or service over time. In a meta-analysis performed for satisfac-
tion, Geyskens et al. (1999) found that this construct is the most popular one
among empirical investigations of channel relationships. According to Ruekert
and Churchill (1984), the construct of satisfaction is of key importance in under-
standing channel relationship. However, there is no consensus regarding
the conceptualization and measurement of customer satisfaction (Geyskens
et al., 1999).
Satisfaction is a cumulative construct that includes not only satisfaction
with specific products and services but also with the various aspects of the
organization, such as the physical facilities and the interaction with employ-
ees. Moreover, satisfaction is positively related to trust (Anderson and Narus,
1990; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh, 1987). According to Michell, Reast, and Lynch
(1998), satisfaction is a foundation of trust.
Trust
Trust has been found to be a key issue for a successful relationship between
two or more parties. For instance, Berry (1993) argued that trust is fundamen-
tal to the development of loyalty toward retailers; Sherman (1992) identified
trust as pivotal to the success of strategic alliances; and Spekman (1988)
labeled trust as the cornerstone of strategic partnerships. Therefore, it is no
surprise that the trust construct has been introduced as a factor that can pre-
dict future intentions (Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman, 1993; Morgan
and Hunt, 1994).
In the educational field, students’ trust may be understood as the stu-
dents’ confidence in the university’s integrity and reliability. Students’ trust
is developed through personal experiences with the institution’s employees.
If an educational institution desires to build long-term relationships with its
constituents, it has to develop trust as part of the relationships. The lack of
trust may severely undermine long-term relationships (Andaleeb, 1994). Pre-
vious research has shown that commitment in a highly dependent partner-
ship, such as the educational one, can be significantly attenuated in the
absence of trust (Andaleeb, 1994).
Commitment
Similarly to the inclusion of trust into the relational marketing arena, the con-
struct of commitment has received attention only recently as a mediator
between consumer satisfaction and consumer behavior (Dwyer, Schurr,
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 25

7. and Oh, 1987; Gundlach, Achhrol, and Mentzer, 1995; Morgan and Hunt,
1994). According to Tinto (1975, 1993), student’s commitment is determined
by his or her degree of integration, both academic (participation in university
societies and committees) and social (friendships and acquaintances with
fellow students). Thus, commitment refers to the fit between the student’s
abilities, skills, and value system and the university’s expectations, demands,
and values.
A Conceptual Model of Student Loyalty
A long-term student loyalty model would have a significant impact on the
study of higher education institutions and their relationship with their stu-
dents. It would also have some practical consequences for the colleges
who would like to apply relationship marketing.
Previously established key relationships constitute good points of
departure to model student loyalty. For instance, Oliver (1993) proposed a
conceptual model that attempts to integrate both service quality and satisfac-
tion by suggesting that perceived service quality is an antecedent of satisfac-
tion. Spreng and MacKoy (1996) conducted a study specifically designed to
assess the distinction between perceived service quality and satisfaction.
Their results indicate that these two constructs are distinct even though
service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction.
Other studies have operationalized service quality and satisfaction as
two distinct but related constructs. Caruana (2002) found that satisfaction
mediates the relationships between service quality and service loyalty. Yet,
de Ruyter, Wetzels, and Bloemer (1998) and Bloemer, de Ruyter, and Wetzels
(1999) found that service quality has a direct influence on service loyalty, dif-
ferences among some industries, notwithstanding. Similarly, Lee-Kelley,
Davies, and Kangis (2002) found that a higher level of perceived quality of
service produces a higher intended loyalty; and Soteriou and Stavrinides
(2000) proposed that service quality is needed to gain both competitive
advantage and customer loyalty in bank services. Service quality, along with
product quality and price, was found to correlate positively with both satis-
faction and loyalty (Bei and Chiao, 2001; Boulding et al., 1993).
Using a meta-analysis of 71 studies dealing with satisfaction, Geyskens
et al. (1999) found that satisfaction, trust, and commitment are conceptually
and empirically distinct constructs. The study reports that trust is positively
correlated with satisfaction (r¼0.767) and commitment (r¼0.524) and that
there is a pattern of causality from satisfaction to commitment. Satisfaction
has a positive effect on trust (b¼0.646, p<0.001), which, in turn, has a posi-
tive effect on commitment (b¼0.524, p<0.001). In a study carried out in
Germany with over 1,000 students, Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen
(2001) found that perceived service quality and students’ emotional commit-
ment are the key determinants of student loyalty.
26 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

8. More specifically, using cross-sectional data, Geyskens et al. (1999)
found that over time satisfaction will develop first, trust will develop in the
medium term, and commitment will emerge only in the long term. This
study attempts to partially replicate and extend those studies in the area of
education.
The model used in this study integrates the knowledge gained from
research performed in relationship marketing. It includes the constructs
reviewed from the literature in a linear sequence: service quality, satisfaction,
trust, commitment, and loyalty (see Figure 1). All the constructs are needed to
explain student loyalty. In other words, neither perceived service quality, nor
satisfaction, nor trust, nor commitment should be studied in isolation. It is
their combined contribution that explains student loyalty and helps, in prac-
tice, build student loyalty. Previous studies support the approach used here.
Thus, the following proposition:
P1 Student loyalty is directly explained by commitment, which in turn is
directly explained by trust, which in turn is explained by satisfaction,
which in turn is explained by service quality in the long-term relation-
ship between higher education institutions and their students. All
antecedents of loyalty, except commitment, may have some effect
on loyalty; but their influence is indirect, not direct.
This proposition can be converted into hypotheses. Each model path
will be represented in a separate hypothesis, as follows.
H1: Student loyalty is positively and directly influenced by Commitment.
H2: Commitment is positively and directly influenced by Trust.
FIGURE 1Proposed model.
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 27

9. H3: Trust is positively and directly influenced by Satisfaction.
H4: Satisfaction is positively and directly influenced by Perceived
Service Quality (PSQ).
METHODOLOGY
Measurement and Questionnaire
The questionnaire included three sections of questions for an exploratory
study on the subject (see study 1). The first section consisted of 178 questions
designed to collect students’ PSQ in a full range of college experiences.
Respondents were asked to indicate (1) the lowest score they would accept
before they can get upset, (2) the desired score, and (3) an actual assessment
regarding the item being considered. Thus, students were required to pro-
vide three answers to each question related to college experiences.
The second section contained 21 items aimed at measuring constructs
for satisfaction, trust, commitment, and loyalty, as recommended in the litera-
ture. To measure satisfaction, similar items to the ones used by Voss,
Parasuraman, and Grewal (1998) were adopted. To measure trust and
commitment, items used by Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen (2001)
were used. To measure loyalty, we focused on capturing the students’ inten-
tion rather than actual behavior (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Oliver,
1999). Each construct had between 4 and 8 indicators, which were rated on a
7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Items were randomly ordered. Finally, the third section contained various
demographic and socioeconomic questions.
A pilot study (previous to study 1) revealed no problems in the under-
standing of the questions. Thus, the actual survey proceeded without
changes in the final questionnaire. A self-report questionnaire administration
in classroom settings was used.
Data Collection
Data were collected regarding students’ PSQ, satisfaction, trust, commitment,
and loyalty toward the college of business from two samples of freshman,
sophomore, junior, and senior students attending classes at multiple sections
of a public Chilean university in two years, 2002 and 2004. The first sample
was aimed at an exploratory study (study 1), whereas the second sample was
aimed at a confirmatory study (study 2). Participation in the surveys was
voluntary and about 30%of registered students completed the survey during
class sessions.
The samples included 363 completed surveys in the first sampling and
389 in the second, for a combined sample of 752 students. Table 1 reveals
the demographic characteristics of all samples.
28 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

10. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Study 1
In an exploratory study, items representing various facets of students’ PSQ
were generated by (1) reviewing past research in services and satisfaction lit-
erature; (2) implementing two focus groups, each with 10 undergraduate
business students (the first group bracketed into freshmen and sophomores,
the second, into junior and senior students); and (3) establishing a focus
group with 8 alumni. Focus groups were used to generate new insights from
the source of service quality, taking into account that another measure, satis-
faction, is more an outcome than a source. Students and alumni were chosen
randomly from a sample frame held at the College of Business and they were
invited to participate in the one-hour session. All responses were kept con-
fidential. Responses were recorded using written notes and a tape recorder.
The main purpose of the focus group was to draw on student and alumni
recollections regarding attitudes, feelings, beliefs, and experiences vis-a`-vis
service quality and student satisfaction within the college and university
environment. This process resulted in the generation of 178 neutral (not
positive or negative) statements using 9-point rating scales (1¼lowest;
9¼highest).
TABLE 1Sample Profile (in%)
Observed variables
Initial sample
2002
Replication
sample 2004
Combined
sample
Gender
Males 43.5 43.4 43.5
Females 54.8 55.8 55.3
Missing 1.7 0.8 1.2
Career
Accounting 26.4 40.1 33.5
Business Administration 55.6 59.1 57.4
Psychology 15.7 – 7.6
Missing 2.2 0.8 1.5
Student Seniority
Freshman 37.5 14.4 25.5
Sophomore 14.9 20.1 17.6
Junior 16.5 24.4 20.6
Senior 28.6 39.3 34.2
Missing 2.5 1.8 2.1
Age Groups
<20 years old 27.8 16.5 21.9
20–24 64.7 75.1 70.1
25–29 4.7 7.4 6.1
30þ 1.1 0.2 0.7
Missing 1.7 0.8 1.2
Total Sample 100 (363) 100 (389) 100 (752)
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 29

11. Data were collected using the first sample for the 178 items reflecting
PSQ and the 21 items reflecting long-term relationships (L-TRs). Results were
factor analyzed to obtain latent variables. An exploratory principal compo-
nent analysis with Varimax rotation was performed. The results obtained
show that PSQ is comprised of five dimensions, each one representing a
service source or quality as follows: (1) service quality from instructors, (2)
service quality from program director, (3) service quality from secretaries,
(4) service attitude, and (5) competence development. The first three dimen-
sions represent service source, while the last two dimensions reflect quality
of the service. Each source dimension was formed by four indicators and
each quality dimension was formed by three indicators.
The items reflecting L-TRs were also factor analyzed using principal
components analysis with Varimax rotation. Results showed a four-factor
solution representing the 4 constructs used to examine long-term relation-
ships: (1) satisfaction, (2) trust, (3) commitment, and (4) loyalty.
The reliability of the scales for all the constructs was established utilizing
Cronbach’s alpha. All coefficients are well above the accepted baseline of
0.70 recommended by Nunnally (1978): service quality of instructors
(0.74); service quality of program director (0.96); service quality of secretaries
(0.85); service attitude (0.78); competence development (0.86); satisfaction
(0.81); trust (0.74); commitment (0.85); and loyalty (0.77).
Factor analysis performed in the first study also served to clean the
instrument to obtain more-parsimonious measures of PSQ. Consequently,
70 items of 178 were deleted from the questionnaire due to their
non-significant contribution to the measure. The abbreviated questionnaire
was used in the second study.
Study 2
Before examining the data for testing purposes, a purification of the model
involved several steps. Particular attention was given to the standardized
parameter estimates for causal paths and their respective standard error
and critical ratio. Those variables having loadings at below the recom-
mended level of 0.40 for an analytic investigation (Ford et al., 1986) were
dropped in further analyses. Second, all variables showing standardized resi-
duals higher than 2.58 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1988) were analyzed, and
those found to be constantly affecting the model by showing high level of
standardized residuals were dropped. Finally, allt-values (critical ratios)
lower than 1.96 indicated that the corresponding variable was not significant
(Hatcher, 1994); hence, these were also dropped from the model.
As a consequence of the aforementioned steps, the final model consists
of 18 items dealing with PSQ, comprising five different factors: instructors
(4), program director (4), secretaries (4), service attitude (3), and competen-
cies development (3); and 12 items for the L-TR process: satisfaction (3), trust
30 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

12. (3), commitment (3), and loyalty (3). The items retained in each factor
(see Appendix A) were included in the final model.
Combined Sample
The two samples were merged after testing for equivalence in order to exam-
ine the stability of the structural model and the path coefficients. Indeed, all
indices are similar across samples and, as expected, are only slightly lower
for the merged sample. The GFI and AGFI are close to 0.90 and the RMSEA
is under 0.05, indicating a good fit of the model to the data. The comparative
fit index (CFI) is well above 0.90 for each independent sample. Similarly, the
other indices of comparative fit and parsimonious fit are above their recom-
mended thresholds. The Hoelter’s (1983) Critical N (which relates the
adequacy of the sample size to the model) is well above 200, indicating that
the samples are large enough to allow for an adequate fit to the model.
The results were first examined using a correlation matrix (Table 2) and
multiple regressions (Table 3). The correlation matrix shows that all correla-
tion coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level. The regression results show
that all components of PSQ, except secretaries, significantly affect satisfac-
tion, and that the proposed model of L-TRs to explain student loyalty is
sound. All predictors of loyalty generate an R-squared of .554 and all predic-
tors, except PSQ, have highly significant unstandardized coefficients.
A structural equation model (SEM) that reveals the relationships among
the latent variables was used to test for validity of the measurements and to
evaluate the usefulness of the model. All possible relationships among latent
variables were tested by using alternative nested models to the one presented
in Figure 1. Hair et al. (1998) recommend that the comparison between alter-
native models should be based on parsimonious fit measures. In fact, the
analyses showed that relationships other than those hypothesized were not
significant or, if significant, were much lower than hypothesized. The
TABLE 2Correlation Matrix for the Theoretical Constructs
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Instructors (1) 0.73
Program Director (2) 0.44 0.83
Secretaries (3) 0.46 0.56 0.79
Service Attitude (4) 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.71
Competencies Development (5) 0.60 0.44 0.42 0.53 0.72
Satisfaction (6) 0.42 0.38 0.28 0.40 0.41 0.82
Trust (7) 0.44 0.46 0.34 0.43 0.43 0.68 0.70
Commitment (8) 0.35 0.26 0.17 0.29 0.30 0.65 0.53 0.84
Loyalty (9) 0.31 0.26 0.13 0.29 0.34 0.60 0.52 0.72 0.77
Note. Diagonal entries are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients; all others are correlation coefficients. All
correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level.
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 31

13. non-significant relationships are not discussed here for the benefit of focus-
ing on the substantial contribution of the article; therefore, the relationships
that were not hypothesized were not included in further analyses.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) performed for both groups of con-
structs, PSQ and L-TRs, revealed acceptable fit indices with all factor loadings
ranging from 0.59 to 0.86 for PSQ, and from 0.61 to 0.86 for L-TRs. Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are above the minimum threshold of 0.70
recommended by Nunnally (1978): service quality of instructors (0.77); ser-
vice quality of program director (0.92); service quality of secretaries (0.85);
service attitude (0.75); competence development (0.78); satisfaction (0.84);
trust (0.74); commitment (0.85); and loyalty (0.77). In addition, all factors
from the first sample were replicated and confirmed with the second sample.
Such findings contribute to the validity of the variables included in the model
(Byrne, 2001).
Regarding the PSQ model, in particular, both the competence of the
teaching faculty and the staff are crucial to form the students’ PSQ in educa-
tion. In other words, PSQ in an educational context is highly dependent on
employees’ performance during the service transactions. In this study, 3 of 5
constructs reflect interactions between students and university personnel,
highlighting the importance of the human element in the service transaction
within the higher education setting. This approach is congruent with the
composition of the SERVQUAL scale as proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
and Berry (1988), in which items dealing with people interactions are cover-
ing more than 60%of the total number of scale items.
Table 4 displays the hypothesized path coefficients. The highest coeffi-
cients are commitment!loyalty (0.93 for the replication sample) and satis-
faction!trust (0.99 for the initial sample). Trust!commitment (0.78 for the
TABLE 3Regression Results for the Basic Models
Dependent variable (model)
Predictor
variable
Parameter
(unstandardized) t p-value R
2
Perceived Service Quality Components
Satisfaction
Intercept 1.720 7.560 .000 .262
Instructors 0.194 4.694 .000
Program Director 0.134 4.159 .000
Secretaries 0.052 1.463 .144
Service Attitude 0.154 4.082 .000
Competences Development 0.127 3.601 .000
Students’ Long-Term Relationships
Student Loyalty
Intercept 1.163 7.817 .000 .554
Commitment 0.534 17.175 .000
Trust 0.128 3.456 .001
Satisfaction 0.163 4.204 .000
32 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

14. TABLE 4Path Coefficients (Standardized Regression Weights) by Sample and Model
Paths
Initial
sample
(beta)
Replication
sample
(beta)
Combined
sample
(beta)
Critical
ratio
Relationship
is
significant
Full Initial Model
PSQ!Commitment 0.0811.172 No
PSQ!Loyalty 0.0480.740 No
PSQ!Trust 0.289 6.089 Yes
PSQ!Satisfaction 0.594 13.942 Yes
Satisfaction!Loyalty 0.0100.070 No
Satisfaction!Commitment 0.651 4.306 Yes
Satisfaction!Trust 0.729 11.754 Yes
Trust!Commitment 0.158 0.847 No
Trust!Loyalty 0.239 1.381 No
Commitment!Loyalty 0.755 12.376 Yes
Parsimonious Tested Model
Commitment!Student Loyalty 0.87 0.93 0.910 20.278 Yes
Trust!Commitment 0.75 0.78 0.768 13.296 Yes
Satisfaction!Trust 0.99 0.95 0.972 14.227 Yes
Perceived Service Quality!
Satisfaction
0.56 0.69 0.636 15.103 Yes
FIGURE 2Structural model of students’ perceived service quality and long-term relationships.
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 33

15. replication sample) and PSQ!satisfaction (0.69 for the replication sample)
are significant but not as strong as the first two relationships. The proposed
hypothesis was tested using these results by examining the critical ratios for
each hypothesized link (see Table 2). All ratios are significant as they are well
above the minimum 1.96 and with the expected sign. Thus, the proposed
hypothesis is well supported.
Moreover, the standardized total effects of each latent variable on
student loyalty offer additional support for the hypotheses. Commitment
has the highest total effect on loyalty (0.93 for the replication sample), of
which all is direct effect, whereas the other variables only have an indirect
effect on loyalty. Trust (0.72) and satisfaction (0.69), in that order, have stron-
ger indirect effects on loyalty than PSQ (0.478). Together, PSQ, satisfaction,
trust, and commitment explain 83%of student loyalty, as manifested in the
results of using structural equation modeling (see Figure 2).
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the study was to explain student loyalty in higher education
institutions by examining key factors influencing loyalty. PSQ, satisfaction,
trust, and commitment were examined within a model that is assumed to
be comprehensive enough to explain loyalty. Two samples were used to per-
form the following: the first sample was used in an exploratory study to
uncover the relationships; the second sample was used in a confirmatory
study to validate the relationships. For a robust analysis, and because both
samples work similarly, the study also examines the merged sample.
The results demonstrate that commitment is the most influential factor—
mainly because of its direct and strong relationship to loyalty. The other
factors have only indirect effects on loyalty and direct relationships in the
following sequence: PSQ to satisfaction, satisfaction to trust, and trust to
commitment, as hypothesized and corroborated. In many ways, these
results resemble those reported by Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen
(2001), but differ significantly from those reported by Alves and Raposo
(2007) and Helgesen and Nesset (2007) who, contrary to our assertion, found
that the influence of satisfaction is directly reflected in the formation of
loyalty.
Among the factors that define service quality, the competence of the
teaching faculty and the staff are paramount. In other words, PSQ in an
educational context is highly dependent on employees’ performance during
service transactions. Similar to the SERVQUAL scale, where items dealing
with people interactions are dominant, in this study, most constructs reflect
the various interactions between students and university personnel, thus
emphasizing the importance of the human touch in service relationships in
higher education institutions.
34 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

16. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The influence of PSQ on the variables reflecting long-term relationships can
be reexamined with the purpose of better understanding such a role in the
context of higher education institutions. The five constructs examined on
behalf of service quality may be expanded with additional constructs or dee-
per exploration of the same constructs. The approach may strengthen not
only the overall relationships but also imbue the parameters of PSQ with
greater influence and=or meaning.
In addition, new research can explore service quality and student loyalty
in various other contexts linked to either careers or social groups. In such
new contexts, such as students in technical careers or higher social classes,
it is possible that the roles of secretaries or program directors are much
weaker compared with the role of instructors in the formation of PSQ. Simi-
larly, it can be expected that the role of service attitude or competence devel-
opment is weaker on larger campuses or in careers in liberal arts.
Furthermore, the model can be applied to students after graduation in order
to know their long-term preferences and loyalties. Expansions—not just
replications—are needed to reach meaningful outcomes that contribute to
a deeper comprehension of the important long-term relationship between
students and education providers.
REFERENCES
Alves, H., and Raposo, M. (2007). ‘‘Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction in
Higher Education,’’Total Quality Management, Vol.18, No. 5, pp. 571–588.
Andaleeb, S. S. (1994). ‘‘Technical Complexity and Consumer Knowledge as
Moderators of Service Quality Evaluation in The Automobile Service Industry,’’
Journal of Retailing, Vol.70, No. 4, pp. 367–381.
Anderson, J. C., and Narus, J. A. (1990). ‘‘A Model of Distributor Firm and Manu-
facturer Firm Working Partnerships,’’Journal of Marketing, Vol.54, No. 1,
pp. 42–58.
Bei, L. T., and Chiao, Y.-C. (2001). ‘‘An Integrated Model for The Effects of Perceived
Product, Perceived Service Quality, and Perceived Prices Fairness on Consumer
Satisfaction and Loyalty,’’Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining, Vol.14, pp. 125–140.
Bernasconi, A., and Rojas, F. (2002).Informe Sobre la Educacioon Superior en Chile:
1998–2003, IESAL=UNESCO Series of National Reports on Higher Education in
Latin America.
Berry, L. (1993). ‘‘Relationship Marketing,’’ In: Berry, L. L., Shostack, G. L., and
Dupah, G. (Eds.),Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing(pp. 25–28),
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Bitner, M. J. (1990). ‘‘Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surround-
ings and Employee Responses,’’Journal of Marketing,Vol.54, No. 2, pp. 69–82.
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 35

17. Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., and Wetzels, M. (1999). ‘‘Linking Perceived Service
Quality and Service Loyalty: A Multi-Dimensional Perspective,’’European
Journal of Marketing, Vol.33, No. 11, pp. 1082–1106.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., and Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). ‘‘A Dynamic Process
Model of Service Quality: From Expectation to Behavioral Intentions,’’Journal
of Marketing Research,30, No. 2, pp. 7–27.
Byrne, B. M. (2001).Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Caruana, A. (2002). ‘‘Service Loyalty: The Effects of Service Quality and the Mediating
Role of Customer Satisfaction,’’European Journal of Marketing, Vol.36, No. 7,
pp. 811–828.
De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., and Bloemer, J. (1998). ‘‘On the Relationship Between
Perceived Service Quality, Service Loyalty and Switching Costs,’’International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol.9, No. 5, pp. 436–453.
Dwyer, R., Schurr, P., and Oh, S. (1987). ‘‘Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships,’’
Journal of Marketing, Vol.51, No. 2, pp. 11–27.
Evanschitzky, H., and Wunderlich, M. (2006). ‘‘An Examination of Moderator Effects
in the Four-Stage Loyalty Model,’’Journal of Service Research, Vol.8, No. 4,
pp. 330–345.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., and Tait, M. (1986). ‘‘The Application of Exploratory
Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology: A Critical Review and Analysis,’’Person-
nel Psychology, Vol.39, No. 2, pp. 291–314.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998).Multivariate Data
Analysis,5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall.
Helgesen, O., and Nesset, E. (2007). ‘‘Images, Satisfaction and Antecedents: Drivers
of Student Loyalty? A Case Study of a Norwegian University College,’’Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol.10, No. 1, pp. 38–59.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and Kumar, N. (1999). ‘‘A Meta-Analysis of
Satisfaction in Marketing Channel Relationships,’’Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol.36, No. 2, pp. 223–238.
Gundlach, G., Achrol, R., and Mentzer, J. (1995). ‘‘The Structure of Commitment in
Exchange,’’Journal of Marketing, Vol.59, No. 1, pp. 78–92.
Hatcher, L. (1994).A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Ana-
lysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.
Henning-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., and Hansen, U. (2001). ‘‘Modeling and Managing
Student Loyalty—an Approach Based on the Concept of Relationship Quality,’’
Journal of Service Research, Vol.3, No. 4, pp. 331–344.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). ‘‘Factorial Invariance and Self-Esteem: Reassessing Race and
Sex Differences,’’Social Forces, Vol.23, No. 4, pp. 527–537.
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. (1988).LISREL 7: a Guide to the Program and its
Application. Chicago: SSPS Inc.
Lee-Kelley, L., Davies, S., and Kangis, P. (2002). ‘‘Service Quality for Customer Reten-
tion in The UK Steel Industry: Old Dogs and New Tricks?’’European Business
Review, Vol.14, No. 4, pp. 276–286.
Michell, P., Reast, J., and Lynch, J. (1998). ‘‘Exploring the Foundation of Trust,’’
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.14, No. 1=3, pp. 159–172.
36 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

18. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., and Zaltman, G. (1993). ‘‘Factors Affecting Trust in Market
Research Relationships,’’Journal of Marketing,Vol.57, No. 2, pp. 81–101.
Morgan, R. F., and Hunt, S. D. (1994). ‘‘The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relation-
ship Marketing,’’Journal of Marketing, Vol.58, No. 3, pp. 20–38.
Naude´, P., and Ivy, J. (1999). ‘‘The Marketing Strategies of Universities in The United
Kingdom,’’The International Journal of Education Management, Vol.13, No. 3,
pp. 126–134.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric Theory,2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). ‘‘A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service Satisfaction:
Compatible Goals, Different Concepts,’’Advances in Services Marketing and
Management, Vol.2, pp. 65–85.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). ‘‘Whence Consumer Loyalty?’’Journal of Marketing, Vol.63,
No. Special, pp. 33–44.
Oliver, R. L., and Swan, J. E. (1989). ‘‘Equity and Disconfirmation Perceptions as
Influences on Merchant and Product Satisfaction,’’Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol.16, No. 3, pp. 372–383.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., and Zeithaml,V. A. (1993). ‘‘Research Note: More on Improv-
ing Service Quality Measurement,’’Journal of Retailing,Vol.69, No. 1, pp. 140–147.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1988). ‘‘SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item
Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,’’Journal of
Retailing, Vol.64, No. 1, pp. 13–40.
Reisberg, L. (1999). ‘‘Colleges Struggle to Keep Would-Be Dropouts Enrolled,’’The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol.46, No. 7, pp. A54–A56.
Ruekert, R. W., and Churchill, Jr. G. A. (1984). ‘‘Reliability and Validity of Alternative
Measures of Channel Member Satisfaction,’’Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol.21, No. 2, pp. 226–233.
Sherman, S. (1992). ‘‘Are Strategic Alliances Working?’’Fortune, Vol.126, No. 6,
Sept., pp. 77–78.
Spekman, R. E. (1988). ‘‘Strategic Supplier Selection: Understanding Long-Term
Buyer Relationships,’’Business Horizons, Vol.31, No. 4, pp. 75–81.
Soteriou, A., and Stavrinides, Y. (2000). ‘‘An Internal Customer Service Quality Data
Envelopment Analysis Model for Bank Branches,’’The International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol.18, No. 5, pp. 246–252.
Spreng, R. A., and MacKoy, R. D. (1996). ‘‘An Empirical Examination of a Model of
Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaction,’’Journal of Retailing, Vol.72, No. 2,
pp. 201–214.
Tang, K. H., and Zairi, M. (1998a). ‘‘Benchmarking Quality Implementation in a
Service: A Comparative Analysis of Financial Services and Institutions of Higher
Education, Parts I,’’Total Quality Management, Vol.9, No. 6, pp. 407–421.
Tang, K. H., and Zairi, M. (1998b). ‘‘Benchmarking Quality Implementation in a
Service: A Comparative Analysis of Financial Services and Institutions of Higher
Education, Parts II,’’Total Quality Management, Vol.9, No. 7, pp. 539–552.
Tang, K. H., and Zairi, M. (1998c). ‘‘Benchmarking Quality Implementation in a Service:
A Comparative Analysis of Financial Services and Institutions of Higher Education,
Parts III,’’Total Quality Management,Vol.9, No. 8, pp. 669–679.
Thomas, D. R. E. (1978). ‘‘Strategy is Different in Service Businesses,’’Harvard
Business Review, Vol.56, No. 4, pp. 158–165.
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 37

19. Tinto, V. (1975). ‘‘Dropout From Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent
Research,’’Review of Educational Research, Vol.45, pp. 89–125.
Tinto, V. (1993).Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student
Attrition,2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Voss, G., Parasuraman, A., and Grewal, D. (1998). ‘‘The Roles of price, Performance,
and Expectations in Determining Satisfaction in Service Exchanges,’’Journal of
Marketing, Vol.62, No. 4, pp. 46–61.
APPENDIX
Items Retained in the Final Model
Perceived Service Quality Student Relationship Management
Instructors Satisfaction
.Instructors’ empathy and attention to
the students (VAR9)
.Degree to which instructors serve
as role models to students (VAR14)
.Instructor’s grasp of the subject (VAR18)
.Instructor’s friendliness towards students
(VAR48)
.I am happy with the service I receive
from the University (SAT12)
.My opinion about the University service
quality is favorable (SAT11)
.I am satisfied with what I receive as a
student (SAT4)
Program Director Trust
.Program Director’s readiness to listen
to student problems (VAR85)
.Extent to which the Director attempts
to solve student problems (VAR60)
.Fulfillment of Director’s commitments
to solve student problems (VAR56)
.Director’s effectiveness in solving
student problems (VAR51)
.I am sure that the university staff were
always acting in my best interest (SAT2)
.Integrity is a word I’d use when describing
the university staff (SAT16)
.University staff always kept their promises to
me (SAT20)
Secretaries Commitment
.Program secretary’s readiness to help
students (VAR16)
.Extent to which the secretary wants to
solve student problems (VAR25)
.Secretary’s readiness to answer student
questions (VAR72)
.Secretary’s courteousness towards
students (VAR93)
.I felt very attached to my university (SAT3)
.I am proud to be able to study at my
university (SAT5)
.I am very happy to belong to this university
(SAT10)
Service Attitude Loyalty
.Congruence between the service provided to and the service required by the students (VAR78) .If I were faced with the same choice again, I would still choose the same university (SAT15)
(Continued)
38 J. I. Rojas-Me´ndez et al.

20. Appendix Continued
Perceived Service Quality Student Relationship Management
.Clear explanation to the students about
the various alternatives to their inquiries
(VAR81)
.Timely notification to students regarding
schedule changes and=or cancellations
(VAR83)
.I’d recommend my university to someone
else to prepare for a career (SAT7)
.I have no qualms about recommending the
careers offered by this university offers to
prospective students (SAT21)
Competence Development
.Instructor’s ability to promote student creativity (VAR42)
.School’s fostering of leadership in students (VAR41)
.Infusion of a winner-mentality into the
students’ minds (VAR39)
Student Loyalty in Higher Education 39