The influence of service value and service quality in higher education on student satisfaction in industrial university ho chi minh city

  UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business - Le Duc Tho The Influence of Service Value and Service Quality in Higher Education on Student Satisfaction in Industrial University Ho Chi Minh City MASTER OF BUSINESS Ho Chi Minh city – Year 2014   UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business - Le Duc Tho The Influence of Service Value and Service Quality in Higher Education on Student Satisfaction in Industrial University Ho Chi Minh City ID: 22021172 MASTER OF BUSINESS SUPERVISOR: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR NGUYEN HAU LE Ho Chi Minh city – Year 2014 Table of contents List of acronyms I List of figure II List of table III Chapter Introduction 1.1 Higher education in Vietnam 1.2 Research objectives 1.3 Scope of the research 1.4 Significance of the research 1.5 Organization of the thesis Chapter Literature review 2.1 Literature review 2.1.1 The concept of student satisfaction 2.1.2 Factors influencing student satisfaction toward the perceived education service value and education service quality 2.1.2.1 Service Value 2.1.2.2 Service quality 2.2 Research model & hypotheses 11 Chapter Research method 3.1 Research procedure 12 3.2 Measurement of variables 14 3.2.1 Education service value scale 15 3.2.2 Education service quality scale 15 3.2.3 Student satisfaction scale 15 3.4 Sampling Method 17 3.5 Data Analysis 18 Chapter Research results 4.1 Data statistical analysis 19 4.2 Scale Analysis 20 4.2.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of education service value 21 4.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of education service quality 22 4.2.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of student satisfaction 25 4.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) result 25 4.6 Research hypotheses test 26 4.6.1 Theoretical model test by using SEM approach 26 4.7 Regression Analysis 29 4.8 Results of Multi-group analysis 31 4.8.1 Testing the moderating effects of gender variable (Male and female) 32 4.8.2 Testing the moderating effects of major favourite level (Like and Dislike) 35 Chapter Discussion, Implication and Limitations 5.1 The main results 40 5.1.1 Result contributions to theory 40 5.1.2 Result contributions to management practices 41 5.2 Limitations of the study and directions for further research ………… ……45 LIST OF ACRONYMS - UIH: University of Industry Ho Chi Minh city - HCM: Ho Chi Minh - EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis - CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis I LIST OF FIGURE Figure 2.1 - The research model of factors influence on satisfaction Figure 3.1 – Research procedure Figure 4.1 - CFA for suggestion model Figure 4.2 - CFA for adjusted model Figure 4.3 - AMOS results in both variance and partial invariance models of genders Figure 4.4 - AMOS results in both variance and partial invariance models of major favourite level II LIST OF TABLE Table 2.1 - Comparing topics in student satisfaction surveys Table 3.1 – Measurement scales Table 4.1 - A descriptive statistics of the sample Table 4.2 - Illustrated the EFA result for Education Service Value Table 4.3 - Illustrated the EFA result for Education Service Quality Table 4.4 - Illustrated the EFA result for Student Satisfaction Table 4.5 - The relations among concepts in suggestion model and adjusted model Table 4.6 - Regression analysis result of service value Table 4.7 - Regression analysis result of service quality III ABSTRACT This study empirically examines the effects of Perceived Education Service Value and Education Service Quality on University Student Satisfaction This article examines the concept of service value in business edu- cation with data collected from 495 students The research also explores the moderating role of University Type variable on these relationships The results indicate that both University Service Quality and Education Service Value play significant role in predicting Student Satisfaction Through previous researches, perceived value of services is recognized as a major form of assessment of customer service, this study helps to understand the exact structure of the value and quality of undergraduate training in economics and business The study identified factors affecting the perception of value and service quality, and satisfaction Since then, researchers have a suggestion for shaping the strategy to add value to students and make them more satisfaction in the learning process The results of model studies have important implications for the management of education in Vietnam in the formulation of policies to enhance service value and quality of service These policies include not only the dissemination of information to form emotional values, values satisfy the desire degrees, functional value (price / quality) but also covers aspects of management to improve service quality, enhance the school's image and elevate the value of prior knowledge of the students feel about the university 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 Key words Student satisfaction, Service, Value, Quality | Page Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 Higher education in Vietnam There is the fact that Viet Nam has 412 universities and colleges so the higher education in Vietnam has been existing as a strong competitive market (www.giaoduc.net.vn) The standard of universities still is not homogeneous and the general fee of high education in Vietnam is not cheap compared to the income of many people, so the choice of learners is difficult and considerable when they decide to engage in the university which supply good condition for them to study Moreover, the competition between public universities and private universities in attracting students requires universities should meet the needs of the learners better Thus, satisfaction of students will contribute to build the image of the business school in the community, enhance the ability to attract good students into their university and thereby contribute to the results of school education In addition, numerous researchers have focused their attention on measuring levels of customer satisfaction (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Myers, 1991), and on identifying the dimensions used by customers in their evaluation of service quality (Carman, 1990; Gronroos, 1990) and service quality (Harvey, 1995; Hill, 1995) So, factors affecting student satisfaction, there are two major elements: "Education service quality" and "education service value" that the universities offer students Many people agree that universities, with the guideline take learner to be core value, should consider students as service customers who need to be concerned and cared (Hoanh, 2003) For the students, many students have considered education services as a commodity, in the sense that they should be concerned and served For those students (customers), they have the right to | Page choose for themselves a university supplying good service quality and providing value of services to their own perception Currently, many educational managers regard university education as a kind of service and they also understand the importance of education services to attract good students to their university (Mazzarol, Geoffrey Normal Soutar, 2001) There have been many opinions, seminars and workshops to discuss the quality of education on the part of work management and teaching However, a official study to find out "education service quality" and especially for "education service value" from the perspective of students, the customers of educational services, has not been paid attention yet Therefore, the university should identify a reliable measurement of the value of education services and education service quality to see the direction to improve and perfect services, meet the increasing education needs of learners However, there has not a official study to measure effects of education service value and education service quality to the levels of student satisfaction in Vietnam 1.2 Research objectives Student satisfaction will contribute to enhance the university's reputation and the ability to attract good students Moreover, it improve the general student standard of input in order to improve to the quality of the students’ output Thus, which important factors will impact on student satisfaction, and how they affects on student satisfaction is what this study discover Basing on these issues above, the purpose of this research aims to develop and demonstrate the effects of two factors (1) the value of education services perceived by students’ experiences, and (2) the quality of education services create the level of student satisfaction with education services at the same time In detail, the objectives of this research are to determine: To identify the relevant components of service quality and service value in the case of university education service in University of Industry in Vietnam To investigate the impact of service quality on customer satisfaction (direct and indirect via service value) | Page 3.3.2 Reliability analysis of student satisfaction Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 853 Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Studying at IUH better than what I expected University of Industry like my perfect university which I hope I satisfy when I study at IUH Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted 6.16 2.189 743 779 6.29 2.061 737 782 5.81 2.157 694 823 if Item 71 | Page Appendix 4: CFA RESULTS AND REGRESSION Suggestion Model The model is recursive Sample size: 709 Model: Default model Chi-square = 854.843 Degrees of freedom = 52 Probability level = 0.000 aximum Likelihood Estimates -Regression Weights: Satisfaction < - Service Value Satisfaction < - Service quality Service value < Service quality IMAGE < Service value WANT < - Service value SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction SOCIAL - Service value EMOTION < Service value FUNCTIONAL < - Service value EPISTEMIC < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION - Service quality Estimate -1.505 0.483 0.586 0.576 1.215 1.000 1.049 1.024 1.000 1.456 1.832 0.304 1.048 1.000 0.659 Standardized Regression Weights: -Satisfaction < - Service value Satisfaction < - Service quality Service value < Service quality IMAGE < Service value WANT < - Service value SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction SOCIAL < - Service value EMOTION < Service value FUNCTIONAL < - Service value EPISTEMIC < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality Estimate -0.666 0.406 0.541 0.207 0.548 0.779 0.777 0.770 0.395 0.574 0.685 0.134 0.720 0.770 0.655 S.E 0.158 0.040 0.143 0.114 0.131 C.R -9.534 12.209 13.220 5.035 9.302 0.046 0.045 22.808 22.637 0.154 0.184 0.089 0.060 9.463 9.938 3.437 17.552 0.039 16.768 Label 72 | Page Factor Score Weights SS3 SS2 -SERVICE QU 0.0421 0.0431 SERVICE VA 0.0399 0.0409 SATISFACTI 0.2227 0.2280 SERVICE QU SERVICE VA SATISFACTI EPISTEMIC 0.0040 0.0160 0.0086 Summary of models Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model SS1 -0.0458 0.0435 0.2425 EDUCATION 0.2492 -0.0164 0.0374 FACILITIES -0.2244 -0.0148 0.0337 SERVICES WANT 0.3177 -0.0234 -0.0209 0.0938 0.0477 0.0507 FUNCTIONAL IMAGE EMOTION SOCIAL 0.0319 -0.0051 -0.0224 -0.0122 0.1276 0.0206 0.0896 0.0489 0.0690 0.0111 0.0484 0.0264 NPAR -38 90 12 CMIN 854.843 0.000 42101.683 DF -52 78 P -0.000 CMIN/DF -16.439 0.000 528.227 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model DELTA1 NFI -0.979 1.000 0.000 RHO1 RFI -0.969 0.000 DELTA2 IFI -0.980 1.000 0.000 RH02 TLI -0.971 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO -0.667 0.000 1.000 PRFI -0.653 0.000 0.000 PCFI -0.654 0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP -802.843 0.000 41123.68 LO 90 -711.808 0.000 40459.39 HI 90 -901.302 0.000 41794.253 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN -0.881 0.000 42.476 F0 -0.828 0.000 42.396 LO 90 -0.734 0.000 41.711 HI 90 -0.929 0.000 43.087 Model SMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE 0.000 CFI 0.980 1.000 0.000   73 | Page Default model Independence model 0.126 0.737 0.119 0.731 0.134 0.743 0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model AIC -930.843 180.000 41225.68 BCC -931.876 182.445 41226.00 BIC CAIC Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model ECVI -0.960 0.186 42.501 LO 90 -0.866 0.186 41.816 HI 90 -1.061 0.186 43.192 MECVI -0.961 0.188 42.501                     Model -Default model Independence model           HOELTER HOELTER 05 01 -80 90 3   74 | Page ADJUSTED MODEL The model is recursive Sample size: 709 Model: Default model Chi-square = 652.666 Degrees of freedom = 25 Probability level = 0.000 aximum Likelihood Estimates -Regression Weights: Satisfaction < - Service Value Satisfaction < - Service quality Service value < Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -1.122 0.439 0.586 1.000 1.055 1.027 1.000 1.038 1.000 0.652 1.237 0.813 Standardized Regression Weights: -Satisfaction < - Service value Satisfaction < - Service quality Service value < Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -0.728 0.422 0.450 0.769 0.779 0.769 0.575 0.718 0.774 0.653 0.673 0.535 S.E 0.089 0.038 0.143 C.R -12.598 11.503 13.220 0.046 0.046 22.784 22.565 0.060 17.355 0.039 0.094 0.069 16.619 13.201 11.733 0.039 0.094 0.069 16.619 13.201 11.733 Label 75 | Page Factor Score Weights SS3 SS2 -SERVICE QU 0.0394 0.0408 SERVICE VA 0.0726 0.0751 SATISFACTI 0.2206 0.2282 SERVICE QU SERVICE VA SATISFACTI SS1 -0.0423 0.0778 0.2365 EDUCATION 0.2498 -0.0268 0.0344 FACILITIES -0.2246 -0.0241 0.0309 SERVICES WANT 0.3291 -0.0255 -0.0354 0.1338 0.0453 0.0601 FUNCTIONAL EMOTION - 0.0348 -0.0256 0.1823 0.1341 0.0819 0.0603 Summary of models Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR -29 54 CMIN 652.566 0.000 30234.763 DF -25 45 P -0.000 CMIN/DF -26.103 0.000 671.884 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model DELTA1 NFI -0.978 1.000 0.000 RHO1 RFI -0.961 0.000 DELTA2 IFI -0.979 1.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO -0.556 0.000 1.000 PRFI -0.544 0.000 0.000 PCFI -0.544 0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP -627.566 0.000 30189.76 LO 90 -548.004 0.000 29621.10 HI 90 -714.541 0.000 30764.70 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN -0.673 0.000 31.170 F0 -0.647 0.000 31.123 LO 90 -0.565 0.000 30.537 RH02 TLI -0.963 0.000 CFI 0.979 1.000 0.000 HI 90 -0.737 0.000 31.716     76 | Page Model -Default model Independence model SMSEA -0.161 0.832 LO 90 -0.150 0.824 HI 90 -0.172 0.840 PCLOSE -0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model AIC -710.566 108.000 30252.76 BCC -711.170 109.125 30252.95 BIC CAIC Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model ECVI -0.733 0.111 31.188 LO 90 -0.651 0.111 30.602 HI 90 -0.822 0.111 31.781 MECVI -0.733 0.113 31.189                     Model -Default model Independence model           HOELTER HOELTER 05 01 -56 66   77 | Page Appendix 5: Muiti – Group Analysis Variance Results for group: Group number 1: Student like major The model is recursive Sample size: 450 Model: Default model Chi-square = 630.528 Degrees of freedom = 50 Probability level = 0.000 Maximum Likelihood Estimates -Regression Weights: Satisfaction < - Service Value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -1.156 0.507 1.000 1.053 0.892 1.000 0.969 1.000 0.589 0.916 0.803 Standardized Regression Weights: -Satisfaction < - Service value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -0.696 0.487 0.790 0.790 0.726 0.556 0.692 0.791 0.633 0.529 0.534 S.E 0.130 0.049 C.R -8.921 10.304 0.056 0.051 18.776 17.533 0.070 13.886 0.045 0.106 0.092 13.223 8.658 8.710 Label 78 | Page Factor Score Weights SS3 SS2 -SERVICE QU 0.0399 0.0503 SERVICE VA 0.0679 0.0855 SATISFACTI 0.2206 0.2518 SERVICE QU SERVICE VA SATISFACTI SS1 -0.0532 0.0905 0.2662 EDUCATION 0.2479 -0.0326 0.0393 FACILITIES -0.2068 -0.0272 0.0328 SERVICES WANT 0.3636 -0.0365 -0.0479 0.1606 0.0577 0.0747 FUNCTIONAL EMOTION - 0.0310 -0.0329 0.1365 0.1447 0.0635 0.0673 Results for group: Group number 1: Student dislike major The model is recursive Sample size: 259 Maximum Likelihood Estimates -Regression Weights: Satisfaction < - Service Value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -1.083 0.272 1.000 1.055 1.194 1.000 1.191 1.000 0.731 1.431 0.764 Standardized Regression Weights: -Satisfaction < - Service value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -0.773 0.267 0.738 0.743 0.811 0.574 0.763 0.737 0.655 0.801 0.471 S.E 0.138 0.060 C.R -7.842 4.531 0.087 0.093 12.073 12.818 0.122 9.767 0.077 0.167 0.116 9.454 8.580 6.568 Label 79 | Page Factor Score Weights SERVICE QU SERVICE VA SATISFACTI SS3 -0.0300 0.0765 0.2551 SS2 -0.0219 0.0559 0.1862 SS1 -0.0224 0.0572 0.1907 EDUCATION 0.2317 -0.0153 0.0199 FUNCTIONAL EMOTION - -SERVICE QU -0.0309 -0.0121 SERVICE VA 0.2720 0.1068 SATISFACTI 0.1171 0.0460 Summary of models Model NPAR CMIN Default model 58 630.528 Saturated model 108 0.000 Independence model 18 30432.890 DF -50 90 FACILITIES -0.2644 -0.0153 0.0227 SERVICES WANT 0.2682 -0.0092 -0.0155 0.0810 0.0230 0.0349 P -0.000 CMIN/DF -12.611 0.000 338.143 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model DELTA1 NFI -0.979 1.000 0.000 RHO1 RFI -0.963 0.000 DELTA2 IFI -0.981 1.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO -0.556 0.000 1.000 PRFI -0.544 0.000 0.000 PCFI -0.545 0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP -580.528 0.000 30342.89 LO 90 -503.258 0.000 29772.56 HI 90 -665.249 0.000 30919.49 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN -0.651 0.000 31.406 F0 -0.599 0.000 31.314 LO 90 -0.519 0.000 30.725 RH02 TLI -0.966 0.000 CFI 0.981 1.000 0.000 HI 90 -0.687 0.000 31.909     80 | Page Model -Default model Independence model SMSEA -0.109 0.590 LO 90 -0.102 0.584 HI 90 -0.117 0.595 PCLOSE -0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model AIC -746.528 216.000 30468.76 BCC -749.324 221.324 30469.95 BIC CAIC Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model ECVI -0.770 0.223 31.444 LO 90 -0.691 0.223 30.855 HI 90 -0.858 0.223 32.039 MECVI -0.733 0.228 31.445                       Model -Default model Independence model       HOELTER HOELTER 05 01 -105 119 5 81 | Page Invariance Results for group: Group number 1: Student like major The model is recursive Sample size: 450 Model: Default model Chi-square = 637.215 Degrees of freedom = 50 Probability level = 0.000 Maximum Likelihood Estimates -Regression Weights: Satisfaction < - Service Value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -1.114 0.434 1.000 1.074 0.909 1.000 0.940 1.000 0.571 0.867 0.761 Standardized Regression Weights: -Satisfaction < - Service value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -0.718 0.437 0.781 0.791 0.726 0.581 0.688 0.805 0.629 0.525 0.531 S.E 0.094 0.039 C.R -11.816 11.232 0.057 0.052 18.868 17.580 0.067 13.933 0.043 0.093 0.081 13.258 9.346 9.418 Label 82 | Page Factor Score Weights SS3 SS2 -SERVICE QU 0.0355 0.0451 SERVICE VA 0.0722 0.0916 SATISFACTI 0.1999 0.2536 SERVICE QU SERVICE VA SATISFACTI FUNCTIONAL -0.0270 0.1373 0.0621 SS1 -0.0455 0.0923 0.2557 EDUCATION 0.2464 -0.0290 0.0328 FACILITIES -0.2055 -0.0242 0.0274 SERVICES WANT 0.3966 -0.0318 -0.0467 0.1617 0.0529 0.0732 EMOTION 0.0313 0.1592 0.0720 Results for group: Group number 1: Student dislike major The model is recursive Sample size: 259 Maximum Likelihood Estimates -Regression Weights: Satisfaction < - Service Value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -1.114 0.434 1.000 1.055 1.016 1.136 1.246 1.000 0.792 1.569 0.813 Standardized Regression Weights: -Satisfaction < - Service value Satisfaction < - Service quality SS1 < - Satisfaction SS2 < - Satisfaction SS3 < - Satisfaction EMOTION < Service value FACILITIES < - Service quality SERVICES < - Service quality EDUCATION < Service quality FUNCITONAL < - Service value WANT < - Service value Estimate -0.712 0.389 0.754 0.744 0.801 0.538 0.754 0.708 0.670 0.814 0.464 S.E 0.094 0.039 C.R -11.816 11.232 0.079 0.083 12.850 13.707 0.124 10.076 0.082 0.179 0.120 9.718 8.744 6.756 Label 83 | Page Factor Score Weights SERVICE QU SERVICE VA SATISFACTI SS3 -0.0410 0.0605 0.2512 SS2 -0.0317 0.0468 0.1946 SS1 -0.0341 0.0503 0.2091 EDUCATION 0.2366 -0.0180 0.0332 FUNCTIONAL EMOTION - -SERVICE QU -0.0432 -0.0140 SERVICE VA 0.2800 0.0908 SATISFACTI 0.1179 0.0382 Summary of models Model NPAR CMIN Default model 56 637.215 Saturated model 108 0.000 Independence model 18 30432.890 DF -52 90 FACILITIES -0.2432 -0.0185 0.0342 SERVICES WANT 0.2309 -0.0116 -0.0176 0.0753 0.0324 0.0317 P -0.000 CMIN/DF -12.254 0.000 338.143 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model DELTA1 NFI -0.979 1.000 0.000 RHO1 RFI -0.964 0.000 DELTA2 IFI -0.981 1.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO -0.578 0.000 1.000 PRFI -0.566 0.000 0.000 PCFI -0.567 0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP -585.215 0.000 30342.89 LO 90 -507.564 0.000 29772.56 HI 90 -670.306 0.000 30919.49 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN -0.658 0.000 31.406 F0 -0.604 0.000 31.314 LO 90 -0.524 0.000 30.725 RH02 TLI -0.967 0.000 CFI 0.981 1.000 0.000 HI 90 -0.692 0.000 31.909     84 | Page Model -Default model Independence model SMSEA -0.109 0.590 LO 90 -0.100 0.584 HI 90 -0.115 0.595 PCLOSE -0.000 0.000 Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model AIC -749.215 216.000 30468.76 BCC -749.324 221.324 30469.95 BIC CAIC Model -Default model Saturated model Independence model ECVI -0.773 0.223 31.444 LO 90 -0.693 0.223 30.855 HI 90 -0.861 0.223 32.039 MECVI -0.776 0.228 31.445                       Model -Default model Independence model       HOELTER HOELTER 05 01 -108 121 5 85 | Page .. .UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business - Le Duc Tho The Influence of Service Value and Service Quality in Higher Education on Student Satisfaction. .. effect on the value of my education The number of students in my classes influences the value of my education Education environment influences the value of my education I received Image value The. .. foundation for exploring the perceived value in the context of education services at the Industrial University Ho Chi Minh City Insight on how customers evaluate their value during actual use of the