Influential factors on word of mouth in service industries (The case of higher education in Ho Chi Minh City , Vietnam ) : Luận văn thạc sĩ

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRANNING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, HO CHI MINH CITY  TRƢƠNG THỊ TUYẾT DUNG INFLUENTIAL FACTORS ON WORD OF MOUTH IN SERVICE INDUSTRIES (THE CASE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM) MASTER THESIS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION HO CHI MINH CITY – 2014 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRANNING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY  TRƢƠNG THỊ TUYẾT DUNG INFLUENTIAL FACTORS ON WORD OF MOUTH IN SERVICE INDUSTRIES (THE CASE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM) Subject: Master of Business Administrator Code: 60.34.05 MASTER THESIS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISOR: Dr TRẦN HÀ MINH QUÂN HO CHI MINH CITY – 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my great gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Trần Hà Minh Quân, for his wonderful knowledge, patient and kind guidance throughout this research I would like to thank all of my respected lecturers of the eMBA19 course for their efforts and dedication in training us I am appreciative my classmates for their kind support and encouragement Finally, I would like to dedicate this study to my mom, my husband, and my sister, who always love and encourage me to pursue with my study Ho Chi Minh City, January, 2014, Trương Thị Tuyết Dung COMMITMENT I would like to commit that this thesis, “Influential factors on word of mouth in service industries (the case of higher education in Hochiminh city, Vietnam)”, was accomplished based on my independent and serious study and scientific research The data was collected in reality and it has clear origins In addition to that, the data would be trust-worthily handled and it has never been released in any menu Trương Thị Tuyết Dung TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Research Objectives 10 1.3 Research methodology and research scope 11 1.4 Significances of the research 11 1.5 Structure of the research 12 CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 12 2.1 Introduction 12 2.2 Higher education as a service 13 2.3 Word-of-Mouth (WOM) 13 2.3.1 Definition & characteristics 13 2.3.2 Role of WOM in decision of consumers 15 2.3.3 Effectiveness of WOM 17 2.4 Development of research model and hypothesis 18 2.4.1 Satisfaction 18 2.4.2 Loyalty 19 2.4.3 Service quality 20 2.4.4 The perceived value 21 2.4.5 Trust 22 2.4.6 Reference intention to enroll 23 2.4.7 Proposed conceptual model and hypotheses 23 2.5 Summary 24 CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25 3.1 Introduction 25 3.2 Research design 25 3.2.1 Research methodology 25 3.2.2 Research process 26 3.3 Measurement scales and questionnaire development 27 3.3.1 Measurement scales 27 3.3 Questionnaire development 29 3.3.3 Questionnaire design 29 3.4 Pilot study 30 3.4.1 Qualitative pilot study 30 3.4.2 Quantitative pilot study 30 3.5 Quantitative main study 31 3.5.1 Research sampling 31 3.5.2 Collecting data 31 3.5.3 Methods of data analysis 31 3.5.4 Data cleaning 32 3.5.5 Reliability assessment of measurement scales (Cronbach's alpha) 32 3.5.6 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 32 3.5.7 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM: 34 3.5.8 Bootstrap Method 36 3.6 Summary 36 CHAPTER DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 37 4.1 Introduction 37 4.2 Descriptions of sample 37 4.3 Reliability and validity of the measurement scale 38 4.3.1 Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) 39 4.3.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 41 4.3.2.1 EFA implementation for independent variables 41 4.3.2.2 EFA implementation for dependent variable 45 4.3.2.2.1 EFA for Word of Mouth (WOM): 45 4.3.2.2.2 EFA for Reference Intention (INT): 46 4.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: 47 4.4 Adjust the research model and the hypotheses 50 4.4.1 The adjusted research model 50 4.4.2 The adjusted research hypothesis 51 4.5 Testing the adjusted research model and the hypotheses 51 4.5.1 Testing the adjusted research model 51 4.5.2 Results of testing hypotheses 54 4.5.3 Boostrap test 56 4.6 Summary 57 CHAPTER CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION 58 5.1 Introduction 58 5.2 Findings 58 5.3 Recommendations 58 5.4 Limitation and future research 59 LIST OF REFERENCES 60 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE 71 APPENDIX CRONBACH’S ALPHA ANALYSIS 79 APPENDIX EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) 82 APPENDIX CFA , SEM RESULTS 87 LIST OF TABLE Table 1.1: Definitions of Word-of-Mouth 13 Table 3.1 Measurement scales of variables .28 Table 4.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondents .38 Table 4.2 Cronbach‟s alpha of variables 39 Table 4.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test 41 Table 4.4 Total Variance Explained .42 Table 4.5 Rotated Component Matrix 43 Table 4.6 EFA results of independent variables 44 Table 4.7 EFA results of WOM variable 46 Table 4.8 EFA results of Reference Intention Variable 47 Table 4.9 Decriptive statistics, factor loads and Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients .48 Table 4.10 Pearson Correlation 49 Table 4.11 Results of testing hypothesis 55 Table 4.12 Square multiple Correlations (R2) 56 Table 4.13 Boostrap results with N = 500 56 LIST OF FIGURE Figure 2.1 Proposed conceptual model of the research 24 Figure 3.1 Research process .26 Figure 4.1 Standardized measurement model of variables 50 Figure 4.2 The adjusted research model 51 Figure 4.3 Initial Structure Model 52 Figure 4.4 Nonstandard regression of the modified structural model .53 Figure 4.5 Standard regression of modified structural model 54 ABSTRACT This study aims to exam the factors effective in the formation of word-ofmouth about the services of higher education and their results among students in Ho Chi Minh City A structural model with dimensions of factors affecting word-of-mouth, word-of-mouth and their results was tested with a sample of 223 students of higher educational institutions in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam The results of the study indicate that to Vietnamese consumers, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty are factors effective in the formation of Word of mouth about higher educational institutions and Word of Mouth can affect on students‟ intention to refer to enroll at the institutions These findings suggest that educational managers should make efforts to improve their mental image in students and to make students more satisfied in order to encourage them producing positive word-of-mouth about the organization KEYWORDS: word of mouth, Hochiminh City, higher education, consumer‟s behavior CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction From marketer perspective, Word-of-mouth (WOM) is an important area and a key player for marketing research as this form of communication is regarded to have greater influences on other people‟s choices compared to other forms of communication (Murray, 1991; Day, 1971) and thus, more effective than other marketing tools and conventional advertising media (Engel et al., 1969; Katz and Lazarfeld, 1955) Although a WOM communication can be very influential in any purchase decision, previous researches suggest that its influence seems to be greater in services contexts (Ettenson and Turner, 1997; Murray, 1991) Even within the service sector, WOM seems to have different influences in different service contexts because risk is regarded higher in some service purchase situations than it is in others (Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Still et al., 1984) Education is a special service situation in which WOM seems to be significant (Cook and Zallocco, 1983; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002) In Vietnam, education always plays a central role in culture and society With a densely-populated country with a population of 86 million people and with more than 60% under the age of 35 (Source: General Department of Statistics of Vietnam, 2009), Vietnam‟s education emerges huge needs for this young population Moreover, as a developing country with strong industrial growth, expanding foreign investment and a booming private sector, Vietnam need a variety of workplaces skills, including technology and management knowledge; therefore, high demand for good quality training is generated for education in Vietnam (Maine International Trade Center, 2010 ) The Higher Education Reform Agenda 2006-2020 has built to aim on changing education environment, resulting in a growth in the number of public, 88 per1 sat3 sat2 sat1 tru3 tru2 < < < < < < - PV OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT Estimate 693 808 825 681 510 719 Covariances: (Group number - Default model) PV LOY LOY WOM LOY LOY WOM INT INT WOM < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > OSAT OSAT WOM INT PV INT PV PV OSAT OSAT Estimate 435 586 775 891 494 1.052 626 560 564 636 S.E .065 085 106 115 080 128 085 087 087 084 C.R 6.648 6.895 7.334 7.758 6.182 8.200 7.357 6.472 6.500 7.530 P *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Correlations: (Group number - Default model) PV LOY LOY WOM LOY LOY WOM INT INT WOM < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > OSAT OSAT WOM INT PV INT PV PV OSAT OSAT Estimate 691 669 677 733 586 844 761 626 606 743 Variances: (Group number - Default model) LOY WOM INT PV OSAT e12 Estimate 1.173 1.117 1.324 605 655 418 S.E .151 132 167 097 094 056 C.R 7.761 8.491 7.936 6.217 6.968 7.406 P *** *** *** *** *** *** Label Label 89 e11 e10 e15 e14 e13 e18 e17 e16 e4 e3 e2 e1 e9 e8 e7 e6 e5 Estimate 522 467 267 240 241 430 493 495 492 317 354 710 350 298 571 821 542 S.E .065 061 037 034 031 059 062 063 055 044 048 076 044 039 061 082 060 C.R 8.042 7.620 7.305 7.121 7.768 7.313 7.999 7.834 9.007 7.164 7.437 9.393 7.918 7.571 9.349 10.057 9.056 P *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number - Default model) tru2 tru3 sat1 sat2 sat3 per1 per2 per3 ser2 int1 int2 int3 wom1 wom2 wom3 loy1 loy2 loy3 Estimate 518 260 464 680 652 480 709 727 551 721 709 755 783 816 807 723 692 737 Model Fit Summary CMIN 90 Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 46 171 18 CMIN 261.526 000 2978.896 DF 125 153 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.092 000 19.470 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 069 000 639 GFI 882 1.000 193 AGFI 839 PGFI 645 098 173 RFI rho1 893 IFI Delta2 952 1.000 000 TLI rho2 941 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NFI Delta1 912 1.000 000 000 000 CFI 952 1.000 000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO 817 000 1.000 PNFI 745 000 000 PCFI 778 000 000 NCP 136.526 000 2825.896 LO 90 93.948 000 2652.274 NCP Model Default model Saturated model Independence model HI 90 186.866 000 3006.854 FMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN 1.178 000 13.418 F0 615 000 12.729 LO 90 423 000 11.947 HI 90 842 000 13.544 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model AIC RMSEA 070 288 LO 90 058 279 HI 90 082 298 PCLOSE 004 000 91 Model Default model Saturated model Independence model AIC 353.526 342.000 3014.896 BCC 362.137 374.010 3018.266 BIC 510.256 924.626 3076.225 CAIC 556.256 1095.626 3094.225 ECVI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model ECVI 1.592 1.541 13.581 LO 90 1.401 1.541 12.799 HI 90 1.819 1.541 14.396 MECVI 1.631 1.685 13.596 HOELTER Model Default model Independence model HOELTER 05 130 14 HOELTER 01 140 15 Appendix 4.2 ML estimates, model fit indexs, and modification indices of initial structure model Maximum Likelihood Estimates Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) WOM WOM WOM INT loy1 loy2 loy3 wom3 wom2 wom1 int3 int2 int1 per3 per2 per1 ser2 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - LOY PV OSAT WOM LOY LOY LOY WOM WOM WOM INT INT INT PV PV PV PV Estimate 282 472 543 829 1.000 1.015 990 1.000 966 871 1.000 981 957 1.000 1.014 885 847 S.E .067 085 170 069 C.R 4.219 5.533 3.188 12.047 P *** *** 001 *** 069 066 14.793 14.907 *** *** 048 046 20.066 18.982 *** *** 061 063 16.193 15.131 *** *** 068 078 068 14.865 11.375 12.454 *** *** *** Label 92 tru3 tru2 sat3 sat2 sat1 < < < < < - OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT Estimate 1.000 1.418 1.503 1.478 1.308 S.E C.R P 198 199 194 188 7.159 7.540 7.607 6.963 *** *** *** *** Label Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) WOM WOM WOM INT loy1 loy2 loy3 wom3 wom2 wom1 int3 int2 int1 per3 per2 per1 ser2 tru3 tru2 sat3 sat2 sat1 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - LOY PV OSAT WOM LOY LOY LOY WOM WOM WOM INT INT INT PV PV PV PV OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT Estimate 290 409 276 762 839 850 856 900 897 874 870 867 827 852 843 694 742 511 720 806 824 682 Covariances: (Group number - Default model) LOY < > PV PV < > OSAT LOY < > OSAT Estimate 586 341 389 S.E .091 061 071 C.R 6.403 5.578 5.474 P *** *** *** Correlations: (Group number - Default model) LOY < > PV PV < > OSAT Estimate 586 691 Label 93 LOY < > OSAT Estimate 664 Variances: (Group number - Default model) LOY PV OSAT z1 z2 e1 e2 e3 e15 e14 e13 e18 e17 e16 e7 e6 e5 e4 e12 e11 e10 e9 e8 Estimate 1.189 841 289 304 555 501 470 426 264 254 261 427 420 562 317 353 709 494 820 541 352 298 570 S.E .160 111 075 046 083 067 065 060 036 034 032 062 061 070 044 048 076 055 082 060 044 039 061 C.R 7.427 7.606 3.857 6.609 6.654 7.514 7.206 7.044 7.388 7.484 8.143 6.842 6.922 8.000 7.167 7.423 9.387 9.013 10.053 9.043 7.926 7.562 9.335 P *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number - Default model) WOM INT sat1 sat2 sat3 tru2 tru3 ser2 per1 per2 per3 Estimate 729 581 465 679 650 518 261 550 481 710 726 94 int1 int2 int3 wom1 wom2 wom3 loy3 loy2 loy1 Estimate 684 752 756 765 805 810 733 723 704 Model Fit Summary CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 43 171 18 CMIN 334.869 000 2978.896 DF 128 153 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.616 000 19.470 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 111 000 639 GFI 858 1.000 193 AGFI 811 PGFI 643 098 173 RFI rho1 866 IFI Delta2 927 1.000 000 TLI rho2 912 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NFI Delta1 888 1.000 000 000 000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO 837 000 1.000 PNFI 743 000 000 PCFI 775 000 000 NCP Model Default model NCP 206.869 LO 90 156.518 HI 90 264.892 CFI 927 1.000 000 95 Model Saturated model Independence model NCP 000 2825.896 LO 90 000 2652.274 HI 90 000 3006.854 FMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN 1.508 000 13.418 F0 932 000 12.729 LO 90 705 000 11.947 HI 90 1.193 000 13.544 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 085 288 LO 90 074 279 HI 90 097 298 PCLOSE 000 000 AIC Model Default model Saturated model Independence model AIC 420.869 342.000 3014.896 BCC 428.918 374.010 3018.266 BIC 567.377 924.626 3076.225 CAIC 610.377 1095.626 3094.225 ECVI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model ECVI 1.896 1.541 13.581 LO 90 1.669 1.541 12.799 HI 90 2.157 1.541 14.396 MECVI 1.932 1.685 13.596 HOELTER Model Default model Independence model HOELTER 05 104 14 HOELTER 01 112 15 Modification Indices (Group number - Default model) Covariances: (Group number - Default model) z2 z2 z2 e8 e8 < > < > < > < > < > OSAT LOY z1 LOY z1 M.I 5.918 42.912 18.371 10.355 5.014 Par Change -.061 351 -.166 156 079 96 e9 e10 e11 e12 e12 e4 e4 e5 e5 e5 e5 e6 e6 e7 e16 e18 e18 e13 e13 e13 e13 e14 e14 e14 e3 e3 e3 e2 e1 e1 e1 < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > z1 e9 PV e9 e11 OSAT e9 OSAT PV e9 e4 LOY e5 LOY LOY OSAT LOY LOY z2 e11 e12 e7 e18 e13 z2 e7 e18 OSAT OSAT z2 e8 M.I 5.732 11.970 12.037 4.298 7.608 7.440 7.102 5.873 5.754 5.877 8.669 4.104 30.578 8.948 12.494 4.647 15.191 10.253 11.855 4.483 7.900 6.227 4.949 4.592 7.741 6.046 5.609 7.497 6.255 11.840 7.478 Par Change -.066 093 137 -.080 134 058 084 -.061 106 -.090 -.131 -.085 222 121 182 -.048 186 -.112 -.115 064 100 -.065 -.068 046 126 084 095 -.062 058 164 119 97 Appendix 4.3: ML Estimates, model fit indexs, and Bootstrap estimate of modified structure model Maximum Likelihood Estimates Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) WOM WOM WOM INT loy1 loy2 loy3 wom3 wom2 wom1 int3 int2 int1 per3 per2 per1 ser2 tru3 tru2 sat3 sat2 sat1 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - LOY PV OSAT WOM LOY LOY LOY WOM WOM WOM INT INT INT PV PV PV PV OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT Estimate 269 474 522 830 1.000 1.016 992 1.000 965 870 1.000 980 956 1.000 926 758 846 1.000 1.421 1.501 1.480 1.307 S.E .068 091 175 069 C.R 3.955 5.220 2.985 12.069 P *** *** 003 *** 069 067 14.779 14.912 *** *** 048 046 20.046 18.983 *** *** 061 063 16.199 15.132 *** *** 068 079 065 13.656 9.535 12.966 *** *** *** 198 199 194 188 7.164 7.536 7.611 6.959 *** *** *** *** Label Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) WOM WOM WOM INT loy1 loy2 loy3 wom3 wom2 wom1 < < < < < < < < < < - LOY PV OSAT WOM LOY LOY LOY WOM WOM WOM Estimate 277 422 265 763 838 850 857 900 896 874 98 int3 int2 int1 per3 per2 per1 ser2 tru3 tru2 sat3 sat2 sat1 < < < < < < < < < < < < - INT INT INT PV PV PV PV OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT Estimate 870 867 827 876 791 611 761 510 721 805 825 681 Covariances: (Group number - Default model) LOY PV LOY e6 < > < > < > < > PV OSAT OSAT e5 Estimate 635 364 389 286 S.E .095 064 071 056 C.R 6.676 5.684 5.472 5.077 P *** *** *** *** Correlations: (Group number - Default model) LOY PV LOY e6 < > < > < > < > PV OSAT OSAT e5 Estimate 619 717 663 458 Variances: (Group number - Default model) LOY PV OSAT z1 z2 e1 e2 e3 e15 e14 e13 e18 Estimate 1.187 889 289 307 554 503 470 423 262 256 262 427 S.E .160 113 075 047 083 067 065 060 036 034 032 062 C.R 7.416 7.848 3.857 6.582 6.649 7.543 7.214 7.026 7.354 7.497 8.140 6.839 P *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label Label 99 e17 e16 e7 e6 e5 e4 e12 e11 e10 e9 e8 Estimate 420 563 269 456 857 462 820 539 353 297 571 S.E .061 070 045 056 089 054 082 060 044 039 061 C.R 6.926 8.004 5.945 8.177 9.596 8.630 10.056 9.042 7.960 7.555 9.346 P *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number - Default model) WOM INT sat1 sat2 sat3 tru2 tru3 ser2 per1 per2 per3 int1 int2 int3 wom1 wom2 wom3 loy3 loy2 loy1 Estimate 726 582 464 681 648 520 261 579 373 625 768 683 752 757 764 803 811 734 723 702 Model Fit Summary CMIN Model Default model Saturated model NPAR 44 171 CMIN 297.391 000 DF 127 P 000 CMIN/DF 2.342 100 Model Independence model NPAR 18 CMIN 2978.896 DF 153 P 000 CMIN/DF 19.470 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 106 000 639 GFI 874 1.000 193 AGFI 831 PGFI 649 098 173 RFI rho1 880 IFI Delta2 940 1.000 000 TLI rho2 927 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NFI Delta1 900 1.000 000 000 000 CFI 940 1.000 000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO 830 000 1.000 PNFI 747 000 000 PCFI 780 000 000 NCP 170.391 000 2825.896 LO 90 123.889 000 2652.274 NCP Model Default model Saturated model Independence model HI 90 224.605 000 3006.854 FMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN 1.340 000 13.418 F0 768 000 12.729 LO 90 558 000 11.947 HI 90 1.012 000 13.544 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA 078 288 LO 90 066 279 HI 90 089 298 PCLOSE 000 000 AIC Model Default model AIC 385.391 BCC 393.627 BIC 535.306 CAIC 579.306 101 Model Saturated model Independence model AIC 342.000 3014.896 BCC 374.010 3018.266 BIC 924.626 3076.225 CAIC 1095.626 3094.225 ECVI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model ECVI 1.736 1.541 13.581 LO 90 1.527 1.541 12.799 HI 90 1.980 1.541 14.396 MECVI 1.773 1.685 13.596 HOELTER Model Default model Independence model HOELTER 05 116 14 HOELTER 01 125 15 Bootstrap Estimates Summary Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) WOM WOM WOM INT loy1 loy2 loy3 wom3 wom2 wom1 int3 int2 int1 per3 per2 per1 ser2 tru3 tru2 sat3 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - LOY PV OSAT WOM LOY LOY LOY WOM WOM WOM INT INT INT PV PV PV PV OSAT OSAT OSAT Estimate 277 422 265 763 838 850 857 900 896 874 870 867 827 876 791 611 761 510 721 805 102 sat2 sat1 < - OSAT < - OSAT Estimate 825 681 Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Parameter WOM < WOM < WOM < INT < loy1 < loy2 < loy3 < wom3 < wom2 < wom1 < int3 < int2 < int1 < per3 < per2 < per1 < ser2 < tru3 < tru2 < sat3 < sat2 < sat1 < - LOY PV OSAT WOM LOY LOY LOY WOM WOM WOM INT INT INT PV PV PV PV OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT OSAT SE 098 093 130 056 032 027 030 017 022 025 027 027 032 025 035 056 036 064 045 034 032 041 SE-SE 003 003 004 002 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 002 001 002 001 001 001 001 Mean 276 425 263 759 838 849 857 900 897 874 868 868 828 878 790 612 761 512 720 802 824 680 Bias 000 003 -.002 -.004 000 -.001 000 -.001 001 000 -.002 001 001 002 -.001 001 000 002 -.001 -.003 -.001 -.001 SE-Bias 004 004 006 003 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 002 003 002 003 002 002 001 002 ...MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRANNING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY  TRƢƠNG THỊ TUYẾT DUNG INFLUENTIAL FACTORS ON WORD OF MOUTH IN SERVICE INDUSTRIES (THE CASE OF HIGHER EDUCATION. .. composed of four main parts: ( 1) literature review of higher education as a service, ( 2) literature of word- ofmouth, ( 3) literature review of factors affecting on word of mouth in services industries. .. HIGHER EDUCATION IN HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM) Subject: Master of Business Administrator Code: 60.34.05 MASTER THESIS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISOR: Dr TRẦN HÀ MINH QUÂN HO CHI MINH CITY – 2014