Latin American Business Review, 10:2139, 2009 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1097-8526 print=1528-6932

online DOI: 10.1080/10978520903022089

Determinants of Student Loyalty in Higher Education: A Tested Relationship Approach in Latin America
JOSE I. ROJAS-MENDEZ
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 graduation and then attracting them back. This study examines the relative importance of relationship pathways among key factors affecting student loyalty in the following order: perceived service quality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. The findings reveal that perceived service 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 crtico para xito de las instituciones de educacin superior que desean medir el e o conservar a los alumnos hasta su graduacin, y atraerlos nuevamente o ms tarde. Este estudio examina la importancia relativa que tiene el a desarrollo de esta relacin cuanto a los principales factores que afeco tan a la lealtad estudiantil, en el siguiente orden: calidad percibida del servicio; satisfaccin, confianza y compromiso. Las conclusiones o
Received April 25, 2008; revised August 4, 2008; accepted April 13, 2009. Address correspondence to Jose I. Rojas-Mendez, 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: jose_rojas@carleton.ca 21

22

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

demuestran que la calidad percibida del servicio y la satisfaccin del o estudiante no se traducen directamente en su lealtad, sino que la s afectan indirectamente, a trave de la mediacin de la confianza y o el compromiso. Presentamos una discusin de sus consecuencias. o RESUMO. A lealdade do aluno e um indicador decisivo para o sucesso das instituico de ensino superior que visam reter os es alunos ate a graduaca e atra-los de volta posteriormente. Este o ncia relativa dos caminhos de relacioestudo examina a importa namento entre os principais fatores que afetam a lealdade do aluno, nessa ordem: qualidade do servico percebida, satisfaca o, confianca e compromisso. As descobertas revelam que a qualidade do servico percebida e a satisfaca do aluno na sa diretamente o o o traduzidas em lealdade do aluno mas, sim, de forma indireta s atrave da mediaca entre a confianca e o compromisso. Sa o o discutidas as implicaco das descobertas. es 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 (HenningThurau, 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 19971998 (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

Student Loyalty in Higher Education

23

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 institutions 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 universitys 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 program, image of the University College and student satisfaction as antecedents 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, discussed, and used to derive some hypothesized relationships. The methodology used to generate and analyze the empirical data is spelled out. Finally, the results obtained are described and discussed to arrive at research conclusions and practical recommendations.

LITERATURE REVIEW College-Student Long-Term Relationships

Although student performance may not be studied as a fundamental product of consumption, student behavior can certainly be studied from the perspective of consumer behavior. A student is also a consumerdespite the peculiarity 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 consumer 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 satisfactiona significant factor in other studies of long-term relationships.

24

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

Loyalty
Loyalty involves a process in which customers 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 providing a financial or non-financial support to ones 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) seeking 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 educational settings. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) define perceived service quality as a global judgment, or attitude, relating to the superiority of the service. Perceived service quality is what the consumer feels a firm should provide, whereas satisfaction is the result of comparing expected performance 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.

Student Loyalty in Higher Education

25

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 satisfaction, 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 understanding 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 employees. 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 fundamental 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 predict future intentions (Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman, 1993; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In the educational field, students trust may be understood as the students confidence in the universitys integrity and reliability. Students trust is developed through personal experiences with the institutions 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). Previous research has shown that commitment in a highly dependent partnership, 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 construct of commitment has received attention only recently as a mediator between consumer satisfaction and consumer behavior (Dwyer, Schurr,

26

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

and Oh, 1987; Gundlach, Achhrol, and Mentzer, 1995; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). According to Tinto (1975, 1993), students 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 students abilities, skills, and value system and the universitys 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 students. 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 satisfaction by suggesting that perceived service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction. 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, differences 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 satisfaction 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 (r 0.767) and commitment (r 0.524) and that there is a pattern of causality from satisfaction to commitment. Satisfaction has a positive effect on trust (b 0.646, p < 0.001), which, in turn, has a positive effect on commitment (b 0.524, 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 commitment are the key determinants of student loyalty.

Student Loyalty in Higher Education

27

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 practice, 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 relationship 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 1 Proposed model.

28

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

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 provide 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 literature. 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 intention 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 understanding 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.

Student Loyalty in Higher Education TABLE 1 Sample Profile (in %) Observed variables Gender Males Females Missing Career Accounting Business Administration Psychology Missing Student Seniority Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Missing Age Groups <20 years old 2024 2529 30 Missing Total Sample Initial sample 2002 43.5 54.8 1.7 26.4 55.6 15.7 2.2 37.5 14.9 16.5 28.6 2.5 27.8 64.7 4.7 1.1 1.7 100 (363) Replication sample 2004 43.4 55.8 0.8 40.1 59.1 0.8 14.4 20.1 24.4 39.3 1.8 16.5 75.1 7.4 0.2 0.8 100 (389)

29

Combined sample 43.5 55.3 1.2 33.5 57.4 7.6 1.5 25.5 17.6 20.6 34.2 2.1 21.9 70.1 6.1 0.7 1.2 100 (752)

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 literature; (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, satisfaction, 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 confidential. 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 (1 lowest; 9 highest).

30

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

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 component 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 dimensions 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 relationships: (1) satisfaction, (2) trust, (3) commitment, and (4) loyalty. The reliability of the scales for all the constructs was established utilizing Cronbachs 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 recommended level of 0.40 for an analytic investigation (Ford et al., 1986) were dropped in further analyses. Second, all variables showing standardized residuals 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, all t-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 competencies development (3); and 12 items for the L-TR process: satisfaction (3), trust

Student Loyalty in Higher Education

31

(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 examine 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 recommended thresholds. The Hoelters (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 correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level. The regression results show that all components of PSQ, except secretaries, significantly affect satisfaction, 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 predictors, 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 alternative 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 2 Correlation Matrix for the Theoretical Constructs Construct Instructors Program Director Secretaries Service Attitude Competencies Development Satisfaction Trust Commitment Loyalty (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 1 0.73 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.60 0.42 0.44 0.35 0.31 2 0.83 0.56 0.52 0.44 0.38 0.46 0.26 0.26 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0.79 0.52 0.42 0.28 0.34 0.17 0.13

0.71 0.53 0.40 0.43 0.29 0.29

0.72 0.41 0.43 0.30 0.34

0.82 0.68 0.70 0.65 0.53 0.84 0.60 0.52 0.72 0.77

Note. Diagonal entries are Cronbachs alpha coefficients; all others are correlation coefficients. All correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level.

32

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

TABLE 3 Regression Results for the Basic Models Dependent variable (model) Perceived Service Quality Components Satisfaction Intercept Instructors Program Director Secretaries Service Attitude Competences Development Students Long-Term Relationships Student Loyalty Intercept Commitment Trust Satisfaction Predictor variable Parameter (unstandardized) t p-value R2

1.720 0.194 0.134 0.052 0.154 0.127 1.163 0.534 0.128 0.163

7.560 4.694 4.159 1.463 4.082 3.601 7.817 17.175 3.456 4.204

.000 .000 .000 .144 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

.262

.554

non-significant relationships are not discussed here for the benefit of focusing 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 constructs, 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 Cronbachs alpha coefficients are above the minimum threshold of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally (1978): service quality of instructors (0.77); service 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 education. 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 covering more than 60% of the total number of scale items. Table 4 displays the hypothesized path coefficients. The highest coefficients are commitment ! loyalty (0.93 for the replication sample) and satisfaction ! trust (0.99 for the initial sample). Trust ! commitment (0.78 for the

Student Loyalty in Higher Education TABLE 4 Path Coefficients (Standardized Regression Weights) by Sample and Model

33

Paths Full Initial Model PSQ ! Commitment PSQ ! Loyalty PSQ ! Trust PSQ ! Satisfaction Satisfaction ! Loyalty Satisfaction ! Commitment Satisfaction ! Trust Trust ! Commitment Trust ! Loyalty Commitment ! Loyalty Parsimonious Tested Model Commitment ! Student Loyalty Trust ! Commitment Satisfaction ! Trust Perceived Service Quality ! Satisfaction

Relationship Initial Replication Combined is sample Critical sample sample significant (beta) ratio (beta) (beta) 0.081 0.048 0.289 0.594 0.010 0.651 0.729 0.158 0.239 0.755 0.87 0.75 0.99 0.56 0.93 0.78 0.95 0.69 0.910 0.768 0.972 0.636 1.172 0.740 6.089 13.942 0.070 4.306 11.754 0.847 1.381 12.376 20.278 13.296 14.227 15.103 No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

FIGURE 2 Structural model of students perceived service quality and long-term relationships.

34

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

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 stronger 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 perform 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.

Student Loyalty in Higher Education

35

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 deeper 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. Similarly, it can be expected that the role of service attitude or competence development 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. Expansionsnot just replicationsare 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. 571588. 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. 367381. Anderson, J. C., and Narus, J. A. (1990). A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 4258. 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. 125140. Bernasconi, A., and Rojas, F. (2002). Informe Sobre la Educacin Superior en Chile: o 19982003, 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. 2528), Chicago: American Marketing Association. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 6982.

36

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

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. 10821106. 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. 727. 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. 811828. 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. 436453. Dwyer, R., Schurr, P., and Oh, S. (1987). Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 1127. 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. 330345. Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., and Tait, M. (1986). The Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology: A Critical Review and Analysis, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 291314. 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. 3859. 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. 223238. Gundlach, G., Achrol, R., and Mentzer, J. (1995). The Structure of Commitment in Exchange, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 7892. Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute. Henning-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., and Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and Managing Student Loyaltyan Approach Based on the Concept of Relationship Quality, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 331344. Hoelter, J. W. (1983). Factorial Invariance and Self-Esteem: Reassessing Race and Sex Differences, Social Forces, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 527537. 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 Retention in The UK Steel Industry: Old Dogs and New Tricks? European Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 276286. Michell, P., Reast, J., and Lynch, J. (1998). Exploring the Foundation of Trust, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, No. 1=3, pp. 159172.

Student Loyalty in Higher Education

37

Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., and Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 81101. Morgan, R. F., and Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 2038. 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. 126134. 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. 6585. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. Special, pp. 3344. 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. 372383. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., and Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). Research Note: More on Improving Service Quality Measurement, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 140147. 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. 1340. Reisberg, L. (1999). Colleges Struggle to Keep Would-Be Dropouts Enrolled, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. A54A56. 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. 226233. Sherman, S. (1992). Are Strategic Alliances Working? Fortune, Vol. 126, No. 6, Sept., pp. 7778. Spekman, R. E. (1988). Strategic Supplier Selection: Understanding Long-Term Buyer Relationships, Business Horizons, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 7581. 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. 246252. 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. 201214. 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. 407421. 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. 539552. 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. 669679. Thomas, D. R. E. (1978). Strategy is Different in Service Businesses, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 158165.

38

ndez et al. J. I. Rojas-Me

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout From Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 45, pp. 89125. 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. 4661.

APPENDIX
Items Retained in the Final Model Perceived Service Quality Instructors
. . . .

Student Relationship Management Satisfaction

. . .

Instructors empathy and attention to the students (VAR9) Degree to which instructors serve as role models to students (VAR14) Instructors grasp of the subject (VAR18) Instructors 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 Directors readiness to listen to student problems (VAR85) Extent to which the Director attempts to solve student problems (VAR60) Fulfillment of Directors commitments to solve student problems (VAR56) Directors 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 Id use when describing the university staff (SAT16) University staff always kept their promises to me (SAT20)

Secretaries
. . . .

Commitment
. . .

Program secretarys readiness to help students (VAR16) Extent to which the secretary wants to solve student problems (VAR25) Secretarys readiness to answer student questions (VAR72) Secretarys 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 )

Student Loyalty in Higher Education Appendix Continued Perceived Service Quality

.

39

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)

Id 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
. . .

Instructors ability to promote student creativity (VAR42) Schools fostering of leadership in students (VAR41) Infusion of a winner-mentality into the students minds (VAR39)