Service quaility, perceived price and customer satisfaction in higher education

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business Diep Quoc Bao SERVICE QUALITY, PERCEIVED PRICE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION A comparison between Public Universities and Non-public Universities in Vietnam MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours) Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2012 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business Diep Quoc Bao SERVICE QUALITY, PERCEIVED PRICE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION A comparison between Public Universities and Non-public Universities in Vietnam ID: 60340102 MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours) SUPERVISOR: PROF NGUYEN DONG PHONG Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2012 -1- ABSTRACT This study empirically examines the effects of Perceived Tuition on University Service Quality and Student Satisfaction as well as the impact of University Service Quality on Student Satisfaction toward higher education service The research also explores the moderating role of University Type variable on these relationships Structural equation modeling was used to test these impacts, utilizing a sample of 612 students in two Public universities and two Non-public universities The results indicate that both University Service Quality and Perceived Tuition play significant role in predicting Student Satisfaction In addition, Perceived Tuition not only has a direct impact on Student Satisfaction, but also an indirect influence through University Service Quality The findings of this research also provide evidence of the differences between Public sector and Non-public sector in the influence of Perceived Tuition on University Service Quality, Student Satisfaction, and University Service Quality on Student Satisfaction Particularly, the effect of Perceived Tuition and University Service Quality on Student Satisfaction is much greater in Non-public universities compared to that in Public universities Hence, an increase in University service quality or Perceived tuition leads to a higher increase in Student satisfaction extent in Non-public universities compared to Public sector It implies that university managers have to pay attention to improve their service quality and consider the approach in pricing the service in other to satisfy their students The students are persuaded by the fitness between service quality they receive and the tuition they have to pay for university compared to other similar tertiary institutions The research findings also engage with some limitations in the strength of measurement scale, the sampling method as well as the fitness between the research model and data It results in the valuable directions for further researches in future - iii - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation of the advice, guidance and support that I have received from my academic supervisors, my colleagues, and staff at ISB In particular, I wish to extend special thank you for the support and guidance from Professor Nguyen Dong Phong and Assoc Prof Nguyen Dinh Tho They have patiently instructed and shared with me their experiences to help me forward on right decisions I wish to express my gratitude to the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh city who have supported me during two years for the Masters degree Finally, I would like to thank many of my colleagues and friends from the academic and business environment who have offered valuable advice and assistance for me to accomplish my study - iv - STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION (Candidate Certificate) I certify that the work in the thesis entitled “Service quality, Perceived price and Customer satisfaction in higher education – A comparison between Public universities and Nonpublic universities in Vietnam” is the result of my own research and has not been submitted for a higher degree to any university or institution other than International School of Business (ISB) I also certify that the thesis has been written by me Any help and assistance that I have received in my thesis have been appropriately acknowledged Signed Date: December, 2012 -v- TABLE OF CONTENTS Title i Acknowledgement iii Statement of authentication iv Table of contents v Appendix vii List of Tables viii List of Figures viii ABSTRACT Chapter – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Higher education in Vietnam 1.2 Research problem statement 1.3 Research objectives 1.4 Scope of the research 1.5 Significance of the research 1.6 Organization of the thesis Chapter – LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 11 2.1 Literatures review 12 2.1.1 Customer satisfaction 12 2.1.2 Service quality concept and measurement 12 2.1.3 Service quality in higher education 14 2.1.4 Perceived service price in higher education 16 2.1.5 Customer satisfaction 17 2.1.6 Customer satisfaction in higher education 19 2.1.7 Service quality and customer satisfaction in higher education 19 2.1.8 Perceived price and customer satisfaction in higher education 20 2.1.9 Perceived price and service quality in higher education 21 2.1.10 Moderating effect of University type (Public and Non-public universities) 22 2.2 Research model & hypotheses 24 - vi - Chapter – RESEARCH METHODS 26 3.1 Research procedure 27 3.2 Qualitative research design 28 3.3 Quantitative research design 29 3.3.1 Measurement scale 29 3.3.2 Sampling 32 3.3.3 Sample size 33 3.3.4 Data analysis 34 Chapter – DATA ANALYSIS AND REASEARCH RESULTS 35 4.1 Data statistical analysis 36 4.2 Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability test 36 4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) result 39 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) result 42 4.4.1 CFA for University Service Quality scale 42 4.4.2 CFA for Perceived Tuition scale and Student Satisfaction scale 43 4.4.3 Saturated Model 44 4.4.3.1 Discriminant validity test 45 4.4.3.2 Composite reliability and variance extracted 45 4.5 Research model test 46 4.5.1 Theoretical model test by using SEM approach 46 4.5.2 Theoretical model estimation by BOOTSTRAP 49 4.5.3 Results of Multi-group analysis 49 Chapter - DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 55 5.1 Discussion and implications of the research 56 5.2 Limitations and directions for further research 58 CONCLUSION 61 REFERENCES 62 - vii - APPENDIX 68 Appendix 3.1 - Script for focus group interview 68 Appendix 3.2 - The qualitative research findings 70 Appendix 3.3 – Questionnaire 73 Appendix 4.1 - The result of EFA analysis 79 Appendix 4.2 - The result of CFA for University service quality (Sequa) scale 83 Appendix 4.3 - The result of CFA for Sequa scale (Nacadm5 excluded) 84 Appendix 4.4 - Correlations (CFA result for Sequa scale) 85 Appendix 4.5 - Saturated model 85 Appendix 4.6 - Saturated model (Tuiti5, Undst1, Undst2 excluded) 86 Appendix 4.7 - Correlations (SEM result for Saturated model) 86 Appendix 4.8 - The result for multi-group analysis of variance model and partial invariance model (University type variable) 87 - viii - LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 : Measurement scales Table 4.1 : Descriptive statistics of the data Table 4.2 : Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each measurement scale Table 4.3 : EFA analysis result Table 4.4 : Cronbach’ Alpha results after excluding unsatisfactory items Table 4.5 : The results for reliability and variance extracted test Table 4.6 : The relations among concepts in research model (standardized) Table 4.7 : The results for Bootstrap estimation Table 4.10 : The difference between fitness indices of variance model and partial Invariance model in term of university type (unstandardized) Table 4.11 : Relations among concepts in variant model in term of university type (unstandardized estimates) Table 4.12 : The impacts of Perceived tuition on Student satisfaction description (unstandardized estimates) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 : The model of customer satisfaction Figure 2.2 : Research model Figure 3.1 : Research procedure Figure 4.1 : CFA result for University Service Quality scale (Standardized) Figure 4.2 : SEM analysis result for saturated model (Standardized estimates) Figure 4.3 : The result for theoretical model test (standardized) Figure 4.4 : The SEM results of variance and partial invariance model (According to University type) -2- Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 Higher education in Vietnam According to the Vietnamese Education Law in 2012, higher education covers undergraduate and postgraduate studies Undergraduate studies can lead to diploma or bachelor degrees while postgraduate studies can lead to master degrees and doctorate degrees In Vietnam higher education system, higher education institutions are structured including: Colleges can offer college programs and other lower level programs; Universities can offer college, undergraduate, master and doctorate programs as assigned by the Prime Minister; Research institutes can offer doctorate programs and in cooperating with universities can offer master programs subject to permission from the Prime Minister In the tertiary education institutes system, Vietnam has two forms: public universities and colleges which are funded by the Government and non-public institutes which including semi-State, self-funded or private universities and colleges, regarding to Decision 9/2001/QD-BGD&DT of the Ministry of Education and Training dated 28 August, year 2001 There is a fundamental difference in managerial perspective of the Government between these two sectors The public sector has to follow strictly the regulations of the Government in tuition policies and financial aspects, according to Decree 49/2010/ND-CP of the Government dated 14 May, year 2010, while the nonpublic sector has more self-control Over the past 10 years, higher education in Vietnam has experienced many changes, consisting of expansion as well as establishment of new educational institutions with diversified types and improvement in quality (Nguyen, Oliver, Priddy, 2009) - 77 - Yếu tố 3: Các yếu tố liên quan đến danh tiếng nhà trường Nhà trường tạo dựng hình ảnh có tính chuyên nghiệp Cơ sở vật chất nhà trường khang trang, đại Thiết bị hỗ trợ giảng dạy học tập nhà trường đầy đủ tiện dụng Sĩ số lớp học hạn chế để cá nhân sinh viên quan tâm tốt Nhà trường có vị trí thuận tiện với thiết kế khuôn viên phù hợp Sinh viên trường có nhiều hội tuyển dụng sau tốt nghiệp 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 Yếu tố 4: Các yếu tố liên quan đến khả tiếp cận dịch vụ Anh (chị) đối xử công tôn trọng Anh (chị) bảo mật thông tin cá nhân cung cấp cho nhà trường Anh (chị) liên lạc với nhân viên nhà trường dễ dàng qua điện thoại Anh (chị) khuyến khích tham gia vào hoạt động đoàn, hội sinh viên Nhà trường khuyến khích ý kiến phản hồi từ sinh viên để cải tiến dịch vụ Các quy trình hoạt động nhà trường đơn giản dễ tiếp cận 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 Yếu tố 6: Các yếu tố liên quan đến quan tâm, thấu hiểu Các dịch vụ chăm sóc sức khỏe, bảo hiểm y tế đầy đủ hữu ích Nhà trường tư vấn hiệu cho anh (chị) việc lựa chọn chuyên ngành học Nhà trường giúp anh (chị) định hướng nghề nghiệp phù hợp tốt nghiệp Nhà trường hỗ trợ anh (chị) hiệu việc lập kế hoạch học tập cá nhân 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Yếu tố 5: Các yếu tố liên quan đến chương trình đào tạo Chương trình đào tạo trường đa dạng với nhiều chuyên ngành khác Cấu trúc chương trình đào tạo trường cho phép anh (chị) học tiếp nối lên bậc học cao chuyển đổi ngành học dễ dàng Nhà trường cung cấp chương trình đào tạo có chất lượng cao Nội dung chương trình đào tạo đáp ứng yêu cầu thực tiễn nghề nghiệp Chương trình đào tạo trường kết hợp kiến thức kỹ chuyên môn Yếu tố 7: Các yếu tố liên quan đến vấn đề học phí nhà trường Mức học phí tương xứng với chất lượng dịch vụ nhà trường cung cấp Mức học phí trường hợp lý đơn vị tương đồng khác Mức học phí dễ chấp nhận so với trường khác có chất lượng tương đồng Nhà trường cung cấp dịch vụ đào tạo chất lượng cao với mức chi phí hợp lý đơn vị tương đồng khác Anh (chị) không quan tâm đến mức học phí, anh (chị) quan tâm đến chất lượng dịch vụ đào tạo nhận từ nhà trường Yếu tố 8: Các yếu tố liên quan đến thỏa mãn sinh viên Nhìn chung, dịch vụ đào tạo trường đáp ứng kỳ vọng anh (chị) Theo anh (chị), dịch vụ đào tạo trường tốt trường khác Theo học trường lựa chọn đắn anh (chị) Anh (chị) cảm thấy thỏa mãn với dịch vụ đào tạo nhà trường Anh (chị) thỏa mãn với dịch vụ đào tạo trường thời gian tới - 78 - THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN Cuối cùng, anh (chị) vui lòng cung cấp số thông tin cá nhân anh (chị) cách khoanh tròn lựa chọn phù hợp: Xin vui lòng cho biết anh (chị) sinh viên năm thứ mấy? Năm 1 Năm 2 Năm 3 Năm 4 Xin vui lòng cho biết giới tính anh (chị): Nữ Nam Xin vui lòng cho biết chuyên ngành anh (chị) theo học trường: Quản trị kinh doanh Kế toán tài Chuyên ngành khác…………………………………………………………………………… Xin vui lòng cho biết hộ thường trú anh (chị) khu vực nào? Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh Các tỉnh khác Họ tên anh (chị): .………………………….… Số điện thoại: .…………………………… Email: …………………………… Xin chân thành cảm ơn hợp tác nhiệt tình anh (chị)! Bảng khảo sát số:………………………………Người vấn:…………………………… Thời gian:………………………………………Ngày vấn: …… / …… / 2012 - 79 - APPENDIX 4.1 The result of EFA analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Approx Chi-Square Sphericity Df Sig .934 15871.539 1081.000 000 Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Factor 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Total 13.341 5.258 2.891 1.991 1.767 1.348 1.204 1.039 927 889 846 793 755 699 683 648 642 612 593 % of Variance 28.385 11.188 6.152 4.237 3.759 2.868 2.562 2.211 1.973 1.890 1.801 1.687 1.606 1.488 1.453 1.378 1.366 1.303 1.262 Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Cumulative % 28.385 39.573 45.725 49.962 53.721 56.589 59.151 61.362 63.336 65.226 67.027 68.714 70.319 71.807 73.260 74.638 76.004 77.308 78.569 Total 12.901 4.871 2.403 1.530 1.328 890 733 582 % of Variance 27.448 10.364 5.113 3.256 2.827 1.894 1.559 1.238 Cumulative % 27.448 37.812 42.925 46.181 49.008 50.902 52.460 53.698 Rotation Sums of Squared Loadingsa Total 8.480 7.293 9.283 5.086 9.924 8.521 5.274 2.159 - 80 - 20 586 1.248 79.817 21 558 1.187 81.004 22 527 1.122 82.126 23 509 1.083 83.209 24 501 1.065 84.274 25 466 991 85.265 26 456 971 86.236 27 442 941 87.177 28 424 902 88.079 29 418 889 88.968 30 411 876 89.844 31 394 839 90.683 32 373 793 91.476 33 355 755 92.231 34 343 729 92.960 35 334 710 93.670 36 330 702 94.372 37 317 675 95.047 38 301 640 95.687 39 289 615 96.301 40 280 596 96.898 41 269 571 97.469 42 244 519 97.988 43 217 463 98.451 44 200 426 98.877 45 191 406 99.282 46 184 392 99.674 47 153 326 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring a When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance - 81 - Pattern Matrixa Factor Nacdm1 Nacdm2 Nacdm3 Nacdm4 Nacdm5 Nacdm6 Nacdm7 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 Acadm3 Acadm4 Acadm5 Acadm6 Acadm7 Acadm8 Reptt1 Reptt2 Reptt3 Reptt4 Reptt5 Reptt6 Acces1 Acces2 Acces3 Acces4 Acces5 Acces6 Undst1 Undst2 Undst3 Undst4 685 824 750 754 559 694 589 806 121 110 -.214 125 -.223 -.192 125 414 122 -.144 162 -.117 -.118 101 170 163 127 -.124 140 105 132 333 182 -.161 169 -.272 237 299 -.101 579 833 781 754 708 603 475 499 213 113 373 312 -.202 118 199 242 948 861 697 448 170 286 325 358 233 269 -.344 -.158 191 241 -.108 136 -.151 -.105 103 115 -.141 -.115 -.222 246 126 144 100 135 136 308 252 684 528 137 703 670 275 260 -.227 -.339 100 104 -.172 210 323 591 354 101 162 - 82 - Progr1 -.110 -.119 Progr2 Progr3 Progr4 177 Progr5 -.147 102 316 Tuiti1 766 Tuiti2 748 Tuiti3 114 756 -.104 Tuiti4 152 683 103 Tuiti5 -.104 569 Satif1 157 535 182 Satif2 568 194 Satif3 709 -.120 Satif4 870 Satif5 839 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization a Rotation converged in 11 iterations .823 875 762 494 335 -.124 -.165 193 241 -.133 -.109 -.137 -.125 108 -.141 - 83 - APPENDIX 4.2 The result of CFA for University service quality scale Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Nacdm7 Nacdm6 Acadm5 Acadm4 Acadm7 Acadm3 Reptt4 Reptt2 Progr4 Undst2 Undst1 Acadm6 Progr3 Acadm8 Reptt5 Reptt3 Progr2 Progr1 Nacdm3 Nacdm2 Nacdm1 Nacdm4 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 Nacdm5 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Acadm Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Undst Undst Acadm Progr Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Progr Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Nacdm Estimate ,754 ,818 ,720 ,697 ,581 ,689 ,727 ,842 ,695 ,791 ,608 ,667 ,780 ,594 ,497 ,874 ,779 ,774 ,623 ,843 ,791 ,750 ,674 ,666 ,786 ,417 - 84 - APPENDIX 4.3 The result of CFA for University service quality scale (Nacadm5 excluded) Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Nacdm7 Nacdm6 Acadm5 Acadm4 Acadm7 Acadm3 Reptt4 Reptt2 Progr4 Undst2 Undst1 Acadm6 Progr3 Acadm8 Reptt5 Reptt3 Progr2 Progr1 Nacdm3 Nacdm2 Nacdm1 Nacdm4 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Acadm Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Undst Undst Acadm Progr Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Progr Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Estimate ,757 ,821 ,720 ,696 ,581 ,689 ,728 ,842 ,695 ,785 ,613 ,668 ,780 ,594 ,497 ,873 ,779 ,775 ,614 ,845 ,795 ,747 ,663 ,666 ,786 - 85 - APPENDIX 4.4 Correlations (CFA result for University service quality scale) Correlations: (Group number - Default model) Nacdm Acadm Reptt Progr Nacdm Acadm Reptt Nacdm Acadm Nacdm < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > Acadm Reptt Undst Undst Reptt Undst Progr Undst Progr Progr Estimate ,504 ,493 ,021 ,247 ,586 ,348 ,563 ,004 ,430 ,515 APPENDIX 4.5 - Saturated model - Standardized Regression Weights Estimate Estimate Progr < - Sequa ,737 Reptt3 < - Reptt ,880 Undst < - Sequa ,130 Progr2 < - Progr ,778 Reptt < - Sequa ,808 Progr1 < - Progr ,770 Acadm < - Sequa ,630 Nacdm3 < - Nacdm ,620 Nacdm < - Sequa ,680 Nacdm2 < - Nacdm ,845 Nacdm7 < - Nacdm ,757 Nacdm1 < - Nacdm ,792 Nacdm6 < - Nacdm ,819 Nacdm4 < - Nacdm ,746 Acadm5 < - Acadm ,724 Nacdm8 < - Nacdm ,668 Acadm4 < - Acadm ,697 Acadm1 < - Acadm ,664 Acadm7 < - Acadm ,578 Acadm2 < - Acadm ,789 Acadm3 < - Acadm ,692 Tuiti3 < - Tuiti ,790 Reptt4 < - Reptt ,716 Tuiti4 < - Tuiti ,748 Reptt2 < - Reptt ,846 Tuiti1 < - Tuiti ,847 Progr4 < - Progr ,700 Tuiti2 < - Tuiti ,866 Satif3 < - Satif ,736 Undst2 < - Undst 1,693 Satif4 < - Satif ,845 Undst1 < - Undst ,284 Acadm6 < - Acadm ,663 Satif1 < - Satif ,729 Progr3 < - Progr ,780 Satif5 < - Satif ,823 Acadm8 < - Acadm ,592 Satif2 < - Satif ,743 Reptt5 < - Reptt ,497 Tuiti5 < - Tuiti ,388 - 86 - APPENDIX 4.6 Saturated model (Tuiti5, Undst1, Undst2 excluded) Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Progr Reptt Acadm Nacdm Nacdm7 Nacdm6 Acadm5 Acadm4 Acadm7 Acadm3 Reptt4 Reptt2 Progr4 Acadm6 Progr3 Acadm8 Reptt5 Reptt3 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Acadm Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Acadm Progr Acadm Reptt Reptt Estimate ,735 ,818 ,618 ,688 ,757 ,820 ,724 ,698 ,577 ,692 ,718 ,845 ,703 ,662 ,782 ,591 ,496 ,878 Progr2 Progr1 Nacdm3 Nacdm2 Nacdm1 Nacdm4 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 Tuiti3 Tuiti4 Tuiti1 Tuiti2 Satif3 Satif4 Satif1 Satif5 Satif2 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Progr Progr Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Satif Satif Satif Satif Satif Estimate ,777 ,768 ,620 ,845 ,792 ,746 ,668 ,663 ,789 ,780 ,739 ,853 ,874 ,737 ,846 ,729 ,823 ,743 APPENDIX 4.7 Correlations (SEM result for Saturated model) (Tuiti5, Undst1, Undst2 excluded) Correlations: (Group number - Default model) Satif < > Sequa Tuiti < > Sequa Tuiti < > Satif Estimate ,661 ,233 ,658 - 87 - APPENDIX 4.8 The result for multi-group analysis (Public Universities and Non-public Universities) Variance model Regression Weights: (Public Universities - Default model) Sequa Progr Reptt Acadm Nacdm Satif Satif Nacdm7 Nacdm6 Acadm5 Acadm4 Acadm7 Acadm3 Reptt4 Reptt2 Progr4 Acadm6 Progr3 Acadm8 Reptt5 Reptt3 Progr2 Progr1 Nacdm3 Nacdm2 Nacdm1 Nacdm4 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Tuiti Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Tuiti Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Acadm Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Acadm Progr Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Progr Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Estimate S.E C.R P Label ,129 ,026 4,972 *** 1,913 ,346 5,524 *** 2,150 ,389 5,524 *** 1,000 1,493 ,297 5,024 *** 1,582 ,304 5,211 *** ,184 ,043 4,297 *** 1,000 ,990 ,088 11,268 *** 1,348 ,179 7,548 *** 1,259 ,173 7,289 *** 1,000 1,565 ,211 7,419 *** ,720 ,080 8,949 *** 1,054 ,088 11,992 *** ,875 ,086 10,153 *** 1,304 ,181 7,219 *** 1,000 1,011 ,155 6,521 *** ,777 ,087 8,919 *** 1,000 1,045 ,090 11,660 *** 1,107 ,095 11,649 *** ,790 ,079 10,017 *** 1,075 ,087 12,348 *** 1,065 ,096 11,100 *** ,883 ,083 10,608 *** ,897 ,085 10,491 *** 1,007 ,147 6,856 *** 1,557 ,201 7,738 *** - 88 - Tuiti3 Tuiti4 Tuiti1 Tuiti2 Satif3 Satif4 Satif1 Satif5 Satif2 < < < < < < < < < - Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Satif Satif Satif Satif Satif Estimate S.E C.R P Label ,746 ,054 13,730 *** ,735 ,060 12,297 *** 1,000 ,950 ,054 17,537 *** 1,039 ,100 10,361 *** 1,314 ,105 12,509 *** 1,000 1,253 ,105 11,873 *** 1,088 ,102 10,684 *** Regression Weights: (Non-public universities - Default model) Sequa Progr Reptt Acadm Nacdm Satif Satif Nacdm7 Nacdm6 Acadm5 Acadm4 Acadm7 Acadm3 Reptt4 Reptt2 Progr4 Acadm6 Progr3 Acadm8 Reptt5 Reptt3 Progr2 Progr1 Nacdm3 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Tuiti Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Tuiti Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Acadm Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Acadm Progr Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Progr Nacdm Estimate S.E C.R P Label ,249 ,042 5,899 *** 1,918 ,295 6,506 *** 3,383 ,477 7,088 *** 1,000 1,658 ,258 6,421 *** 1,748 ,278 6,277 *** ,175 ,053 3,306 *** 1,000 1,218 ,083 14,678 *** ,906 ,086 10,513 *** ,980 ,093 10,589 *** 1,000 1,008 ,097 10,403 *** ,880 ,046 19,180 *** ,960 ,038 24,959 *** ,922 ,071 12,914 *** ,829 ,081 10,198 *** 1,000 ,922 ,093 9,903 *** ,399 ,052 7,732 *** 1,000 1,221 ,073 16,739 *** 1,177 ,076 15,532 *** ,802 ,079 10,148 *** - 89 - Nacdm2 Nacdm1 Nacdm4 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 Tuiti3 Tuiti4 Tuiti1 Tuiti2 Satif3 Satif4 Satif1 Satif5 Satif2 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Satif Satif Satif Satif Satif Estimate S.E C.R P Label 1,108 ,081 13,705 *** 1,148 ,085 13,497 *** 1,076 ,085 12,728 *** ,977 ,074 13,237 *** 1,102 ,102 10,758 *** 1,116 ,095 11,799 *** ,917 ,074 12,379 *** ,892 ,069 12,975 *** 1,000 1,056 ,070 15,127 *** 1,177 ,080 14,740 *** 1,206 ,075 15,991 *** 1,000 1,285 ,079 16,336 *** 1,257 ,088 14,283 *** Invariance model Regression Weights: (Public Universities - Default model) Sequa Progr Reptt Acadm Nacdm Satif Satif Nacdm7 Nacdm6 Acadm5 Acadm4 Acadm7 Acadm3 Reptt4 Reptt2 Progr4 Acadm6 Progr3 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Tuiti Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Tuiti Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Acadm Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Acadm Progr Estimate S.E C.R P ,181 ,023 7,792 *** 1,705 ,252 6,779 *** 1,940 ,285 6,811 *** 1,000 1,312 ,223 5,877 *** 1,709 ,210 8,142 *** ,169 ,033 5,062 *** 1,000 ,990 ,087 11,343 *** 1,282 ,146 8,802 *** 1,196 ,142 8,404 *** 1,000 1,490 ,173 8,607 *** ,711 ,079 9,048 *** 1,053 ,085 12,326 *** ,872 ,085 10,244 *** 1,247 ,150 8,331 *** 1,000 Label Beta Beta Beta - 90 - Acadm8 Reptt5 Reptt3 Progr2 Progr1 Nacdm3 Nacdm2 Nacdm1 Nacdm4 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 Tuiti3 Tuiti4 Tuiti1 Tuiti2 Satif3 Satif4 Satif1 Satif5 Satif2 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Progr Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Satif Satif Satif Satif Satif Estimate S.E C.R P Label ,967 ,132 7,353 *** ,768 ,085 9,030 *** 1,000 1,054 ,089 11,896 *** 1,115 ,094 11,870 *** ,792 ,078 10,104 *** 1,077 ,087 12,451 *** 1,067 ,095 11,198 *** ,883 ,083 10,686 *** ,898 ,085 10,574 *** ,963 ,123 7,815 *** 1,480 ,163 9,094 *** ,775 ,056 13,762 *** ,767 ,062 12,366 *** 1,000 ,984 ,056 17,554 *** ,970 ,083 11,698 *** 1,218 ,083 14,686 *** 1,000 1,165 ,085 13,747 *** 1,016 ,084 12,140 *** Regression Weights: (Non-public universities - Default model) Sequa Progr Reptt Acadm Nacdm Satif Satif Nacdm7 Nacdm6 Acadm5 Acadm4 Acadm7 Acadm3 < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Tuiti Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Sequa Tuiti Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Acadm Acadm Estimate S.E C.R P ,181 ,023 7,792 *** 2,035 ,277 7,339 *** 3,600 ,433 8,311 *** 1,000 1,764 ,244 7,218 *** 1,709 ,210 8,142 *** ,169 ,033 5,062 *** 1,000 1,218 ,086 14,200 *** ,927 ,088 10,477 *** 1,002 ,095 10,560 *** 1,000 1,031 ,099 10,372 *** Label Beta Beta Beta - 91 - Reptt4 Reptt2 Progr4 Acadm6 Progr3 Acadm8 Reptt5 Reptt3 Progr2 Progr1 Nacdm3 Nacdm2 Nacdm1 Nacdm4 Nacdm8 Acadm1 Acadm2 Tuiti3 Tuiti4 Tuiti1 Tuiti2 Satif3 Satif4 Satif1 Satif5 Satif2 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Reptt Reptt Progr Acadm Progr Acadm Reptt Reptt Progr Progr Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Nacdm Acadm Acadm Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Tuiti Satif Satif Satif Satif Satif Estimate S.E C.R P Label ,881 ,048 18,356 *** ,960 ,040 23,759 *** ,923 ,074 12,491 *** ,848 ,084 10,147 *** 1,000 ,942 ,096 9,832 *** ,399 ,054 7,413 *** 1,000 1,222 ,076 16,152 *** 1,176 ,078 14,998 *** ,802 ,082 9,828 *** 1,109 ,084 13,284 *** 1,149 ,088 13,079 *** 1,076 ,087 12,323 *** ,977 ,076 12,807 *** 1,126 ,105 10,735 *** 1,142 ,096 11,850 *** ,867 ,067 12,905 *** ,843 ,062 13,568 *** 1,000 1,006 ,062 16,282 *** 1,237 ,087 14,147 *** 1,271 ,082 15,445 *** 1,000 1,352 ,086 15,789 *** 1,318 ,097 13,645 *** ... quality and customer satisfaction in higher education 19 2.1.8 Perceived price and customer satisfaction in higher education 20 2.1.9 Perceived price and service quality in higher education. .. situation of higher education in Vietnam and existing findings about service quality, price and customer satisfaction in tertiary education area, in an attempt to explore the relationships among service. .. Ministry of Education and Training to control all the higher education institutions in whole country Especially, in non-public sector, the managerial role of Ministry of Education and Training