It is hard to imagine how this dissertation could have been completed without the
encouragement and support from my academic supervisor, family and friends.
Firstly, I wish to thank my academic supervisor, Dr. Reynaldo Dusaran. It is my
honor to receive his guide, suggestions and feedbacks on each chapter with great patience.
Although we live in two different countries, the academic discussion has not been
influenced. Both direct and indirect meetings between us have been really effective. These
have helped me improve my expertise and insights, which finally has improved the quality
of this study.
I am also deeply grateful to my family, who has provided me with unconditional
support throughout the whole process. Over the last four years, I have two sons. My wife
has taken the responsibility of taking care of our sons. She has never complained about it
so that I can fully focus on studying. Furthermore, she has read and given valuable
opinions about this dissertation so that the content is expressed more precisely and
professionally. Next, I would like to send my gratitude to my parents. They have helped
much in looking after our sons. I am deeply indebted to my parents as they provided such
help while they were in worse health than before. My parents have only heard about the
university from us, but they have been always ready to try their best to ensure my sisters'
educational quality as well as mine.

163 trang |

Chia sẻ: tueminh09 | Ngày: 09/02/2022 | Lượt xem: 259 | Lượt tải: 0
Bạn đang xem trước 20 trang tài liệu **Citizens' satisfaction with public administrative services at the ward people’s committees of tay ho district**, để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên

rganization.
Jabnoun & Al-Tamimi (2003). Measuring perceived service quality at UAE commercial
banks. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, (20), 4.
Jacobs, Randy (1999). Evaluating Satisfaction with Media Products and Services: An
Attribute Based Approach. European Media Management Review.
James, O. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring
approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 19, 107-123.
Jianchuan Zhang (2013). Towards a Citizen-Centered E-Government: Exploring Citiens’
Satisfaction with E-Government in China. Dissertation at Northern Illinois
University.
Jones, M. A., and Suh, J. (2000). Transaction-Specific Satisfaction and Overall Satisfaction:
An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(2), 147–159.
Kumar, M., Kee, F. T. & Manshor, A. T. (2009). Determining the relative importance of
critical factors in delivering service quality of banks; An application of dominance
analysis in SERVQUAL model, Managing Service Quality, 19(2): 211-228.
110
Lassar, W.M, Manolis, C. & Winsor, R.D. (2000). Service Quality Perspectives and
Satisfaction In Private Banking, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 14(3):
244-271.
Laura P.Hartman, Joseph DesJardins, Chris MacDonald (2014). Business Ethics: Decision
Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility. Mcgraw-Hill Irwin.
Le Chi Mai (2003). Reforming public service in Vietnam. The National Political Publishing
House.
Le Chi Mai (2006). Public administrative service. Political Theory Publishing House.
Le Dinh Ly (2010). Motivation policies for communal public civil servants - A study in
Nghe An province. PhD thesis, National Economics University.
Lehtinen, U & J. R. Lehtinen (1982). Service Quality: A Study of Quality Dimensions,
Working Paper, Service Management Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
Martinez, J. A. G. and Martinez, L. C. (2010). Rethinking perceived service quality: An
alternative to hierarchical and multidimensional models. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 21(1): 93-118.
Ministry of Home Affairs (2012). Decision No. 1383/2012/QD‐BNV dated December 28th
2012 approving the Theme “Building the method of measuring the satisfaction of
citizens and organizations with the service of public administrative agencies”.
Ministry of Science and Technology (2008). National Standard TCVN ISO 9001:2008.
Morgeson, F. V. (2011). Comparing determinants of website satisfaction and loyalty across
the e-government and e-business domains. Electronic Government, an
International Journal, 8(2/3), 164-184.
National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2008). Law on Public Civil
Servants.
Nguyen Huy Phong & Pham Ngoc Thuy (2007). Servqual or Servperf - a comparative
study in Vietnamese supermarkets, Science & Technology Development, 10(08 –
2007): 24-30.
111
Nguyen Phuong Mai & Hoang Van Hao (2015). Job motivation of Communal Public
Servants: An Empirical Study in Hanoi, VNU Journal of Science, Vol.31, No.5E:
42-54.
Nguyen Toan Thang (2010). Improving the quality of public service about Business
Registration in One - stop shop in the Department of Planning and Investment of
Dak Lak province. Thesis at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.
Nunnally, J.C.,& Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edition). New York:
McGraw-Hill, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York:
Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49:41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing,
64 (1):12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. & Zeithaml, V.A., (1991). Refinement and Reassessment of
the SERVQUAL Scale, Journal of Retailing, 67(4): 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. & Zeithaml, V.A. (1993). More on Improving Service
Quality Measurement, Journal of Retailing, 69(1): 140-147.
Phan Thi Dinh (2013). Research people's satisfaction with the public administrative
services at the People’s Committee of Ngu Hanh Son District. Thesis at Da Nang
University.
Philip Kotler, Kevin Lane Keller (2006). Marketing management. Pearson Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
People’s Committee of Hanoi City (2016). Decision No. 07/2016/QD‐UBND dated March
08
th
2016 promulgating Regulation to emplement OSS and Inter-agency OSS
mechanism at public administration agencies of Hanoi City.
Roch, C H., & Poister, T. H. (2006). Citizens, accountability, and service satisfaction: The
influence of expectations. Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), 292-308.
112
Spreng, R.A. & Mackoy, R.D. (1996). An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived
Service Quality and Satisfaction, Journal of Retailing, 72(2): 201-214.
UNDP (2009). Reforming Public Administration in Viet Nam: Current Situation and
Recommendations (Reference book). The National Political Publishing House.
The Prime Minister (2001). Decision No. 136/2001/QD‐TTg dated September 17th 2001
about approving the Master Programme on Public Administration Reform for the
period of 2001‐2010.
The Prime Minister (2015). Decision No. 09/2015/QD‐TTg dated March 25th 2015
promulgating Regulation to emplement OSS and Inter-agency OSS mechanism at
local public administration agencies.
The Prime Minister (2016). Decision No. 225/QD‐TTg dated February 04th 2016 about the
plan on Public Administration Reform in the 2016- 2020 period.
Tony Bovaird & Elike Loffler (1996). Public management and governance. London and
Newyork: Taylor & Francis Group, 138-144.
Tse, David K. & Peter, C. Wilton. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction: An
Extension, Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 204-212.
Ullman, David G. (1997). The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill, Inc., U.S.A., pp.
105-108 ISBN 0-07-065756-4.
Valarie A.Zeithaml & M.J.Britner (2000). Service marketing. Boston: Mcgraw-Hill.
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2004). The measurement of overall citizen satisfaction. Public
Performance and Management Review, 27(3), 9-28.
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2006). Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizen
satisfaction with local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 16, 599-611.
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Pieces of a puzzle: Linking government performance, citizen
satisfaction and trust. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), 521-535.
Van Ryzin, G. G., Immerwahr, S., & Altman, S. (2008). Measuring street cleanliness: A
Comparison of New York City’s scorecard and results from a citizen survey. Public
Administration Review, 68(2), 295-303.
113
Vietnamese Government (1994). Resolution No. 38/CP dated May 4
th
1994 on reforming
administrative procedures in the settlement of affairs of citizens and organizations.
Vietnamese Government (2009). Decree No. 92/2009/ND-CP dated on October 22nd
2009 on titles, number and some policies for communal public civil servants and
unofficial communal staff.
Vietnamese Government (2011). Decree No. 112/2011/ND-CP dated December 5th
2011on communal public civil servants.
Vietnamese Government (2011). Resolution No 30C/2011/NQ-CP dated November 08
th
2011 on the master program of Public Administration Reform in the 2011- 2020
period.
Vietnamese Government (2013). Resolution No 76/NQ-CP dated June 13
th
2013 on
adjusting some article of Resolution No 30C/2011/NQ-CP dated November 08
th
2011 on the master program of Public Administration Reform in the 2011- 2020
period.
Vietnamese Government (2015). Resolution No 14a/NQ-CP dated October 14
th
2015 on
e-Government.
Vo Nguyen Khanh (2011). Measuring the satisfaction of the people for public
administrative services when applying ISO in District No. 1 - Ho Chi Minh City.
Thesis at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.
Winsmiewski, M & Donnelly (2001). Using SERVQUAL to access customer satisfaction
with public sector service, Managing Service Quality, 11(6): 380-388.
X.X. Shen, K.C. Tan, M. Xie, (2000). An integrated approach to innovative product
development using Kano’s model and QFD. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 3(2):91 - 99.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction, in Zeithaml, V.(Eds). Review of
Marketing, American Marekting Association, Chicago, IL, p.68-123.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioral consequences of
service quality, Journal of Marketing, 60(2): 31-46.
Zeithaml, V.A & Bitner (2000). M.J Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus
Across the Firm, Irwin McGraw-Hill.
114
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1: Survey Questionnaire
This is an independent survey questionnaire. The questions were designed to conduct a
Doctoral dissertation: Citizens' Satisfaction with Public Administrative Services at the
Ward People’s Committees of Tay Ho District. This questionnaire will be carried out to:
Evaluate the citizens' satisfaction with public administrative services at the Ward
People’s Committees of Tay Ho District
Determine the relationship between the citizens’ perceptions of components of
public administrative services at the Ward People’s Committees and the citizens’
satisfaction.
Your participation plays an extremely important role in this study. The answer will never
be sent to Government agency or any other third party. Personal information and opinions
will be confidential and only used for scientific research.
The questionnaire consists of two parts:
Part 1: Personal information
Part 2: Public administrative services and citizens’ satisfaction
PART 1: PERSONAL INFORMATION
Gender: Male Female
Age:
30 and below 31 - 45
46- 60 More than 60
Marital status:
Single Married Divorced
Educational attainment:
Under high school High school
Intermediate education & College
115
University Post - Graduate
Occupation
Student
Civil Servant, Official
Employee (all kinds of enterprises)
Freelance
Pensioner
Others
Monthly income
3,000,000 VND and below
3,000, 001 VND - 5,000, 000 VND
5,000, 001 VND - 8,000, 000 VND
8,000, 001 VND - 10,000, 000 VND
10,000, 001VND and above
The frequency of your using public administrative services at the Ward People’s
Committee:
Rarely
Occasionally
Always
Do you have any acquaintances working at the Ward People’s Committee?
No
Yes
Do you pay any extra fees to use such those services?
No
Yes
Do you live at this Ward where you are using public administrative services?
No
Yes
PART 2: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND CITIZENS’
SATISFACTION
116
2.1. Public administrative services at the Ward People’s Committee
Read each statement carefully and then you decide if you: (1) = Strongly Disagree, (2) =
Disagree, (3) = Neutral, (4) = Agree, (5) = Strongly Agree. Please respond to the
statements by circling one of the responses (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) to indicate what you actually
think about the statement.
Components of Public Administrative Services
Delivery
Degree of Agreement
Reliability
The information of public administrative services is
publicized openly, fully and precisely
1 2 3 4 5
The documents are not faulty and lost 1 2 3 4 5
You do not have to go many times to using the public
administrative services
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants perform the standard rules well when
implementing the public duties
1 2 3 4 5
Capacity of civil servants 1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants receiving and solving the documents
have good communication skill
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants have knowledge and skills in doing the
work
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants are skilled at their professional
knowledge and relevant profession
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants counsel and solve satisfactorily the
citizens’ queries
1 2 3 4 5
The citizens’ complaints are solved quickly and
reasonably
1 2 3 4 5
Civil servants’ serving attitude 1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants are polite and appropriate when
receiving and returning the documents
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants have a friendly and enthusiastic attitude 1 2 3 4 5
117
when answering the citizens’ complaints
The civil servants do not cause troubles and nuisances
to the citizens when delivering public administrative
services
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants have a fair behavior to all citizens 1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants have a high responsibility for the
citizens’ documents
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants do not take use of their positions for
their own sake when doing the work
1 2 3 4 5
Empathy 1 2 3 4 5
You can contact easily with the civil servants receiving
the documents
1 2 3 4 5
Public administrative services are delivered flexibly and
urgently
1 2 3 4 5
The citizens’ reasonable requirements and proposals are
solved enthusiastically
1 2 3 4 5
The civil servants easily understand your requirements 1 2 3 4 5
Facilities 1 2 3 4 5
The rooms receiving and returning the documents are
large, clean, open and fully lit
1 2 3 4 5
The rooms receiving and returning the documents are
fully furnished (air-conditioner, desks, chairs, pens and
so on)
1 2 3 4 5
The rooms receiving and returning the documents are
relatively modern (automatic number machines,
computers, photocopiers, document looking up machines
and so on)
1 2 3 4 5
The order and arrangement of the places receiving and
returning documents are reasonable and scientific; the
signs are clear and easy to follow
1 2 3 4 5
The extra infrastructure to serve the citizens is
convenient (parking stations, toilets and so on)
1 2 3 4 5
Process of delivery 1 2 3 4 5
118
The administrative documents at the Ward People’s
Committee are reasonable (the documents handed in when
taking part in the process of settlement)
1 2 3 4 5
The delivery procedure is reasonable 1 2 3 4 5
The legal requirements of process are easy to
understand
1 2 3 4 5
The forms are easy to fill in 1 2 3 4 5
Time and Cost 1 2 3 4 5
The working timetable on weekdays in the Ward People’s
Committee is proper to the citizens’ demands
1 2 3 4 5
You do not have to wait for your turn 1 2 3 4 5
The time for settling the documents according to the
posting is reasonable
1 2 3 4 5
The results are returned as promised 1 2 3 4 5
The fees is regulated are proper 1 2 3 4 5
2.2. Citizens’ satisfaction with public administrative service
Read each statement carefully and then you decide if you: (1) = Highly
Dissatisfied, (2) = Dissatisfied, (3) = Neutral, (4) = Satisfied, (5) = Highly Satisfied.
Please respond to the statements by circling one of the responses (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) to
indicate what you actually think about collectivism.
No Citizens’ satisfaction Degree of Satisfied
1
The results of solving the administrative procedures meet
the citizens’ demands
1 2 3 4 5
2
The delivery of public administrative services of the Ward
People’s Committee is appropriate according to the legal
requirements
1 2 3 4 5
3
You are satisfied with the working method of the Ward
People’s Committee
1 2 3 4 5
Thank you so much!
119
APPENDIX 2: Descriptive statistics of the sample
Frequency Table
GEN
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male 193 43.9 43.9 43.9
Female 247 56.1 56.1 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
AGE
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
30 and below 125 28.4 28.4 28.4
31-45 148 33.6 33.6 62.0
46-60 101 23.0 23.0 85.0
More than 60 66 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
MAR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Single 169 38.4 38.4 38.4
Married 237 53.9 53.9 92.3
Divorced 34 7.7 7.7 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
EDU
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Under high school 18 4.1 4.1 4.1
High school 101 23.0 23.0 27.0
Intermediate education & College 108 24.5 24.5 51.6
University 193 43.9 43.9 95.5
Post - Graduate 20 4.5 4.5 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
120
JOB
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Student 51 11.6 11.6 11.6
Civil Servant, Official 82 18.6 18.6 30.2
Employee (all kinds of enterprises) 115 26.1 26.1 56.4
Freelance 93 21.1 21.1 77.5
Pensioner 69 15.7 15.7 93.2
Others 30 6.8 6.8 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
SAL
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
3,000,000 VND and below 124 28.2 28.2 28.2
3,000, 001 VND - 5,000, 000 VND 216 49.1 49.1 77.3
5,000, 001 VND - 8,000, 000 VND 68 15.5 15.5 92.7
8,000, 001 VND - 10,000, 000 VND 22 5.0 5.0 97.7
10,000, 001VND and above 10 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
FREQ
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Rarely 134 30.5 30.5 30.5
Occasionally 261 59.3 59.3 89.8
Always 45 10.2 10.2 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
RELA
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 387 88.0 88.0 88.0
Yes 53 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
121
EX_C
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 394 89.5 89.5 89.5
Yes 46 10.5 10.5 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
LOCA
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 115 26.1 26.1 26.1
Yes 325 73.9 73.9 100.0
Total 440 100.0 100.0
122
APPENDIX 3: Reliability Test of Scales
Scale: The Reliability
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.836 4
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
REL_1 3.45 .825 440
REL_2 3.59 .779 440
REL_3 3.43 .826 440
REL_4 3.53 .837 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
REL_1 10.55 4.084 .720 .769
REL_2 10.40 4.213 .733 .765
REL_3 10.57 4.410 .597 .824
REL_4 10.47 4.290 .626 .811
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
13.99 7.164 2.677 4
123
Scale: The working capacity of civil servants
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.856 5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
CAP_1 3.44 .810 440
CAP_2 3.48 .832 440
CAP_3 3.52 .781 440
CAP_4 3.43 .872 440
CAP_5 3.40 .851 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
CAP_1 13.82 7.372 .661 .829
CAP_2 13.78 7.145 .697 .820
CAP_3 13.75 7.347 .703 .819
CAP_4 13.84 7.053 .675 .826
CAP_5 13.86 7.335 .624 .839
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
17.26 10.936 3.307 5
124
Scale: The civil servants’ serving attitude
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.871 6
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
ATT_1 3.46 .800 440
ATT_2 3.39 .842 440
ATT_3 3.38 .853 440
ATT_4 3.48 .848 440
ATT_5 3.45 .842 440
ATT_6 3.48 .829 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
ATT_1 17.18 11.185 .643 .853
ATT_2 17.24 10.845 .671 .849
ATT_3 17.26 10.613 .708 .842
ATT_4 17.16 10.878 .657 .851
ATT_5 17.18 10.743 .692 .845
ATT_6 17.15 11.010 .649 .852
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
20.64 15.271 3.908 6
125
Scale: The empathy
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.853 4
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
EMP_1 3.50 .749 440
EMP_2 3.46 .792 440
EMP_3 3.45 .786 440
EMP_4 3.45 .828 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
EMP_1 10.37 4.366 .638 .837
EMP_2 10.41 3.947 .746 .792
EMP_3 10.42 3.944 .756 .787
EMP_4 10.42 4.076 .646 .836
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
13.88 6.921 2.631 4
126
Scale: The facilities
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.855 5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
FAC_1 3.63 .839 440
FAC_2 3.58 .879 440
FAC_3 3.43 .845 440
FAC_4 3.47 .861 440
FAC_5 3.43 .987 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
FAC_1 13.90 8.408 .665 .825
FAC_2 13.95 8.029 .712 .813
FAC_3 14.10 8.674 .595 .842
FAC_4 14.05 8.031 .733 .808
FAC_5 14.09 7.816 .645 .833
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
17.52 12.350 3.514 5
127
Scale: The process of delivery
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.864 4
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
PRO_1 3.50 .733 440
PRO_2 3.56 .779 440
PRO_3 3.53 .778 440
PRO_4 3.49 .796 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
PRO_1 10.58 4.189 .682 .839
PRO_2 10.52 3.945 .718 .825
PRO_3 10.55 3.856 .757 .809
PRO_4 10.59 3.942 .696 .834
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
14.08 6.774 2.603 4
128
Scale: Time and Cost
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.852 5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
TAC_1 3.64 .800 440
TAC_2 3.39 .904 440
TAC_3 3.46 .882 440
TAC_4 3.51 .885 440
TAC_5 3.47 .913 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
TAC_1 13.84 8.670 .589 .839
TAC_2 14.09 8.179 .597 .839
TAC_3 14.02 7.961 .673 .818
TAC_4 13.97 7.673 .740 .800
TAC_5 14.01 7.626 .720 .806
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
17.48 12.086 3.477 5
129
Scale: Citizens’ Satisfaction
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.801 3
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
SAT_1 3.41 .774 440
SAT_2 3.60 .774 440
SAT_3 3.44 .749 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
SAT_1 7.04 1.868 .619 .758
SAT_2 6.85 1.689 .739 .627
SAT_3 7.02 1.977 .587 .788
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
10.46 3.775 1.943 3
130
APPENDIX 4: Result of the seventh factor analysis with independent variables
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .935
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 8303.125
Df 351
Sig. .000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
REL_1 1.000 .741
REL_2 1.000 .692
REL_4 1.000 .571
CAP_1 1.000 .618
CAP_2 1.000 .756
CAP_3 1.000 .712
CAP_4 1.000 .607
CAP_5 1.000 .623
ATT_1 1.000 .720
ATT_2 1.000 .642
ATT_3 1.000 .619
ATT_4 1.000 .579
EMP_2 1.000 .707
EMP_3 1.000 .629
FAC_1 1.000 .635
FAC_2 1.000 .670
FAC_3 1.000 .578
FAC_4 1.000 .694
FAC_5 1.000 .676
PRO_1 1.000 .678
PRO_2 1.000 .689
PRO_3 1.000 .748
PRO_4 1.000 .677
TAC_2 1.000 .631
TAC_3 1.000 .648
TAC_4 1.000 .747
TAC_5 1.000 .687
131
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Compon
ent
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 13.015 48.202 48.202 13.015 48.202 48.202 4.084 15.125 15.125
2 1.680 6.224 54.426 1.680 6.224 54.426 3.996 14.799 29.924
3 1.212 4.489 58.915 1.212 4.489 58.915 3.790 14.037 43.961
4 1.094 4.053 62.968 1.094 4.053 62.968 3.459 12.810 56.771
5 .975 3.613 66.581 .975 3.613 66.581 2.649 9.810 66.581
6 .906 3.354 69.935
7 .813 3.012 72.948
8 .723 2.680 75.627
9 .637 2.361 77.988
10 .596 2.206 80.194
11 .532 1.972 82.166
12 .503 1.865 84.031
13 .490 1.816 85.847
14 .445 1.649 87.496
15 .426 1.579 89.075
16 .393 1.456 90.530
17 .359 1.329 91.860
18 .313 1.160 93.019
19 .282 1.046 94.065
20 .273 1.010 95.074
21 .247 .916 95.990
22 .211 .783 96.773
23 .196 .725 97.498
24 .191 .707 98.205
25 .175 .649 98.853
26 .165 .611 99.464
27 .145 .536 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
132
Component Matrix
a
Component
1 2 3 4 5
REL_1 .738 -.142 .105 -.406 -.013
REL_2 .746 -.055 .073 -.354 -.035
REL_4 .721 -.178 .128 .021 -.061
CAP_1 .682 -.133 .274 .195 -.149
CAP_2 .704 -.148 .338 .300 -.186
CAP_3 .673 -.093 .415 .273 -.056
CAP_4 .724 -.261 .100 -.043 -.047
CAP_5 .695 -.341 .021 -.103 .111
ATT_1 .691 -.110 .009 -.475 .065
ATT_2 .717 -.066 .070 -.259 .227
ATT_3 .701 -.294 .199 .005 .052
ATT_4 .709 -.180 .094 .179 .056
EMP_2 .702 -.316 -.242 .225 -.069
EMP_3 .720 -.238 -.212 .091 .012
FAC_1 .708 .319 -.019 -.175 .022
FAC_2 .706 .373 .111 -.086 -.117
FAC_3 .477 .567 .142 .053 .073
FAC_4 .653 .446 .157 -.031 -.206
FAC_5 .620 .442 .138 .020 -.275
PRO_1 .754 -.102 -.260 -.051 -.172
PRO_2 .694 -.054 -.422 .054 -.150
PRO_3 .717 .095 -.391 .101 -.250
PRO_4 .691 .146 -.363 .029 -.215
TAC_2 .577 .125 -.087 .339 .401
TAC_3 .731 .131 -.171 .138 .219
TAC_4 .708 .205 -.046 .107 .437
TAC_5 .726 .157 -.066 -.018 .362
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a
a. 5 components extracted.
133
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
1 2 3 4 5
REL_1 .291 .734 .225 .243 .086
REL_2 .269 .665 .259 .313 .109
REL_4 .522 .387 .290 .193 .166
CAP_1 .665 .215 .216 .262 .120
CAP_2 .775 .145 .209 .276 .118
CAP_3 .743 .166 .074 .290 .206
CAP_4 .510 .463 .310 .120 .146
CAP_5 .427 .540 .298 -.020 .245
ATT_1 .153 .762 .232 .210 .132
ATT_2 .253 .624 .165 .206 .346
ATT_3 .572 .450 .197 .073 .213
ATT_4 .551 .273 .292 .131 .315
EMP_2 .461 .216 .621 -.030 .248
EMP_3 .375 .329 .543 .035 .291
FAC_1 .112 .400 .269 .554 .289
FAC_2 .230 .300 .227 .663 .190
FAC_3 .083 .059 .020 .670 .343
FAC_4 .242 .198 .200 .736 .121
FAC_5 .254 .129 .234 .731 .070
PRO_1 .274 .383 .626 .216 .137
PRO_2 .179 .245 .724 .178 .202
PRO_3 .185 .163 .736 .344 .167
PRO_4 .126 .201 .671 .378 .169
TAC_2 .264 .038 .223 .171 .694
TAC_3 .228 .233 .396 .289 .549
TAC_4 .200 .276 .191 .307 .707
TAC_5 .173 .383 .230 .302 .605
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
134
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5
1 .489 .490 .470 .406 .368
2 -.427 -.280 -.133 .826 .197
3 .565 .095 -.769 .237 -.156
4 .473 -.801 .159 -.078 .321
5 -.191 .176 -.380 -.300 .836
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
135
APPENDIX 5: Result of factor analysis with dependent variable
Factor Analysis
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .666
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 448.033
df 3
Sig. .000
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance
1 2.148 71.613 71.613 2.148 71.613
2 .545 18.177 89.790
3 .306 10.210 100.000
Total Variance Explained
Component Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Cumulative %
1 71.613
2
3
Component Matrix
a
Component
1
SAT_1 .830
SAT_2 .899
SAT_3 .807
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a
a. 1 components extracted.
136
APPENDIX 6: Reliability Test of Scales after EFA
Scale: The first independent variable
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.892 7
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
REL_4 3.53 .837 440
CAP_1 3.44 .810 440
CAP_2 3.48 .832 440
CAP_3 3.52 .781 440
CAP_4 3.43 .872 440
ATT_3 3.38 .853 440
ATT_4 3.48 .848 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
REL_4 20.71 15.543 .668 .878
CAP_1 20.80 15.694 .670 .878
CAP_2 20.76 15.191 .736 .870
CAP_3 20.72 15.661 .709 .874
CAP_4 20.81 15.303 .673 .878
ATT_3 20.86 15.283 .697 .875
ATT_4 20.76 15.459 .671 .878
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
24.23 20.654 4.545 7
137
Scale: The second independent variable
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.874 5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
REL_1 3.45 .825 440
REL_2 3.59 .779 440
CAP_5 3.40 .851 440
ATT_1 3.46 .800 440
ATT_2 3.39 .842 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
REL_1 13.85 7.144 .760 .833
REL_2 13.70 7.458 .731 .841
CAP_5 13.89 7.546 .621 .868
ATT_1 13.84 7.299 .748 .837
ATT_2 13.90 7.437 .660 .858
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
17.30 11.174 3.343 5
138
Scale: The third independent variable
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.891 6
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
EMP_2 3.46 .792 440
EMP_3 3.45 .786 440
PRO_1 3.50 .733 440
PRO_2 3.56 .779 440
PRO_3 3.53 .778 440
PRO_4 3.49 .796 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
EMP_2 17.54 9.930 .704 .872
EMP_3 17.55 10.061 .681 .876
PRO_1 17.50 10.096 .738 .867
PRO_2 17.44 9.905 .726 .869
PRO_3 17.47 9.858 .739 .867
PRO_4 17.51 10.068 .668 .878
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
21.00 14.073 3.751 6
139
Scale: The fifth independent variable
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 440 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 440 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.839 4
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
TAC_2 3.39 .904 440
TAC_3 3.46 .882 440
TAC_4 3.51 .885 440
TAC_5 3.47 .913 440
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
TAC_2 10.44 5.505 .553 .848
TAC_3 10.37 5.186 .674 .796
TAC_4 10.33 4.904 .761 .757
TAC_5 10.37 4.957 .709 .780
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
13.84 8.670 2.945 4
140
APPENDIX 7: Descriptive Statistics for independent and dependent variables
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
CAE 440 2.14 5.00 3.4620 .64923
REL_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.5273 .83717
CAP_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4386 .81044
CAP_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.4773 .83184
CAP_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.5159 .78117
CAP_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4250 .87163
ATT_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.3750 .85261
ATT_4 440 2.00 5.00 3.4750 .84805
Valid N (listwise) 440
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
TRA 440 1.40 5.00 3.4591 .66856
REL_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4455 .82486
REL_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.5932 .77867
CAP_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4045 .85109
ATT_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4591 .80043
ATT_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.3932 .84165
Valid N (listwise) 440
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
PRO 440 1.83 5.00 3.5000 .62523
EMP_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.4636 .79207
EMP_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4523 .78569
PRO_1 440 2.00 5.00 3.5000 .73320
PRO_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.5614 .77891
PRO_3 440 2.00 5.00 3.5295 .77785
PRO_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4932 .79575
Valid N (listwise) 440
141
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
FAC 440 1.00 5.00 3.5041 .70286
FAC_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.6250 .83914
FAC_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.5750 .87943
FAC_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4250 .84509
FAC_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4682 .86115
FAC_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4273 .98701
Valid N (listwise) 440
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
TAC 440 1.25 5.00 3.4591 .73613
TAC_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.3932 .90428
TAC_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4636 .88188
TAC_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.5091 .88516
TAC_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4705 .91260
Valid N (listwise) 440
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
SAT 440 2.00 5.00 3.4856 .64764
SAT_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4136 .77359
SAT_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.6045 .77429
SAT_3 440 2.00 5.00 3.4386 .74910
Valid N (listwise) 440
142
APPENDIX 8: Results of Tests
Result of Independent Samples T-Test according to gender
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
CAE
Equal variances assumed .056 .814 -.173 438 .863 -.01079 .06244 -.13351 .11194
Equal variances not assumed
-.173 410.834 .863 -.01079 .06251 -.13367 .11210
TRA
Equal variances assumed .067 .796 .430 438 .667 .02765 .06429 -.09871 .15400
Equal variances not assumed
.432 418.716 .666 .02765 .06403 -.09821 .15350
PRO
Equal variances assumed .009 .925 .717 438 .474 .04307 .06010 -.07505 .16119
Equal variances not assumed
.716 411.693 .474 .04307 .06014 -.07514 .16129
FAC
Equal variances assumed .443 .506 .507 438 .613 .03425 .06758 -.09858 .16707
Equal variances not assumed
.504 404.181 .614 .03425 .06793 -.09930 .16779
TAC
Equal variances assumed .186 .666 .378 438 .706 .02672 .07079 -.11241 .16586
Equal variances not assumed
.377 408.877 .707 .02672 .07096 -.11276 .16621
SAT
Equal variances assumed .000 .991 .436 438 .663 .02718 .06228 -.09522 .14958
Equal variances not assumed
.437 414.004 .662 .02718 .06222 -.09513 .14949
143
Result of One-way ANOVA according to Age
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
CAE 1.394 3 436 .244
TRA 2.450 3 436 .063
PRO .434 3 436 .729
FAC 1.444 3 436 .229
TAC .821 3 436 .483
SAT .322 3 436 .809
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CAE
Between Groups 2.648 3 .883 2.110 .098
Within Groups 182.390 436 .418
Total 185.039 439
TRA
Between Groups .850 3 .283 .632 .595
Within Groups 195.374 436 .448
Total 196.224 439
PRO
Between Groups 1.278 3 .426 1.091 .353
Within Groups 170.333 436 .391
Total 171.611 439
FAC
Between Groups 1.630 3 .543 1.101 .348
Within Groups 215.242 436 .494
Total 216.873 439
TAC
Between Groups 1.670 3 .557 1.028 .380
Within Groups 236.218 436 .542
Total 237.889 439
SAT
Between Groups 2.675 3 .892 2.143 .094
Within Groups 181.456 436 .416
Total 184.131 439
144
Result of One-way ANOVA according to Marital status
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
CAE .372 2 437 .689
TRA 1.290 2 437 .276
PRO .798 2 437 .451
FAC 1.276 2 437 .280
TAC .756 2 437 .470
SAT .544 2 437 .581
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CAE
Between Groups 2.427 2 1.214 2.904 .056
Within Groups 182.611 437 .418
Total 185.039 439
TRA
Between Groups .811 2 .406 .907 .404
Within Groups 195.412 437 .447
Total 196.224 439
PRO
Between Groups 2.085 2 1.043 2.688 .069
Within Groups 169.526 437 .388
Total 171.611 439
FAC
Between Groups 1.610 2 .805 1.634 .196
Within Groups 215.263 437 .493
Total 216.873 439
TAC
Between Groups 2.514 2 1.257 2.333 .098
Within Groups 235.375 437 .539
Total 237.889 439
SAT
Between Groups 2.691 2 1.345 3.240 .090
Within Groups 181.440 437 .415
Total 184.131 439
145
Result of One-way ANOVA according to Education attainment
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
CAE .710 4 435 .585
TRA 1.922 4 435 .106
PRO .722 4 435 .577
FAC 4.201 4 435 .102
TAC 2.134 4 435 .076
SAT 4.640 4 435 .101
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CAE
Between Groups 6.493 4 1.623 3.955 .004
Within Groups 178.546 435 .410
Total 185.039 439
TRA
Between Groups 4.650 4 1.162 2.639 .033
Within Groups 191.574 435 .440
Total 196.224 439
PRO
Between Groups 6.546 4 1.637 4.313 .002
Within Groups 165.065 435 .379
Total 171.611 439
FAC
Between Groups 6.447 4 1.612 3.332 .011
Within Groups 210.426 435 .484
Total 216.873 439
TAC
Between Groups 10.054 4 2.513 4.799 .001
Within Groups 227.835 435 .524
Total 237.889 439
SAT
Between Groups 6.774 4 1.694 4.154 .003
Within Groups 177.357 435 .408
Total 184.131 439
146
Result of One-way ANOVA according to Occupation
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
CAE 1.467 5 434 .199
TRA 1.507 5 434 .186
PRO 1.053 5 434 .386
FAC 2.008 5 434 .176
TAC 1.448 5 434 .206
SAT 1.799 5 434 .112
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CAE
Between Groups 5.151 5 1.030 2.485 .031
Within Groups 179.888 434 .414
Total 185.039 439
TRA
Between Groups 8.435 5 1.687 3.899 .002
Within Groups 187.789 434 .433
Total 196.224 439
PRO
Between Groups 4.586 5 .917 2.383 .038
Within Groups 167.025 434 .385
Total 171.611 439
FAC
Between Groups 11.728 5 2.346 4.962 .000
Within Groups 205.145 434 .473
Total 216.873 439
TAC
Between Groups 21.300 5 4.260 8.536 .000
Within Groups 216.589 434 .499
Total 237.889 439
SAT
Between Groups 9.957 5 1.991 4.962 .000
Within Groups 174.174 434 .401
Total 184.131 439
147
Result of One-way ANOVA according to Monthly income
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
CAE 1.107 4 435 .353
TRA 1.436 4 435 .221
PRO 1.499 4 435 .201
FAC 1.254 4 435 .287
TAC .901 4 435 .463
SAT 1.535 4 435 .191
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CAE
Between Groups 1.242 4 .311 .735 .568
Within Groups 183.796 435 .423
Total 185.039 439
TRA
Between Groups 1.418 4 .355 .792 .531
Within Groups 194.805 435 .448
Total 196.224 439
PRO
Between Groups .561 4 .140 .357 .839
Within Groups 171.050 435 .393
Total 171.611 439
FAC
Between Groups 1.382 4 .345 .697 .594
Within Groups 215.491 435 .495
Total 216.873 439
TAC
Between Groups 1.029 4 .257 .472 .756
Within Groups 236.860 435 .545
Total 237.889 439
SAT
Between Groups 1.515 4 .379 .902 .463
Within Groups 182.616 435 .420
Total 184.131 439
148
Result of One-way ANOVA according to Frequency of use
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
CAE .705 2 437 .495
TRA 5.563 2 437 .104
PRO 1.508 2 437 .222
FAC .355 2 437 .701
TAC 13.875 2 437 .200
SAT 5.216 2 437 .106
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
CAE
Between Groups 3.058 2 1.529 3.671 .026
Within Groups 181.981 437 .416
Total 185.039 439
TRA
Between Groups 1.446 2 .723 1.623 .019
Within Groups 194.777 437 .446
Total 196.224 439
PRO
Between Groups 2.145 2 1.073 2.766 .004
Within Groups 169.466 437 .388
Total 171.611 439
FAC
Between Groups 1.407 2 .704 1.427 .041
Within Groups 215.466 437 .493
Total 216.873 439
TAC
Between Groups 1.536 2 .768 1.420 .043
Within Groups 236.352 437 .541
Total 237.889 439
SAT
Between Groups 2.228 2 1.114 2.676 .040
Within Groups 181.903 437 .416
Total 184.131 439
149
Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to the relationship
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
CAE
Equal variances assumed 8.573 .004 -.921 438 .357 -.08763 .09511 -.27455 .09929
Equal variances not assumed
-1.121 78.146 .266 -.08763 .07820 -.24331 .06806
TRA
Equal variances assumed 2.041 .154 -.146 438 .884 -.01433 .09803 -.20700 .17833
Equal variances not assumed
-.166 73.628 .868 -.01433 .08610 -.18591 .15724
PRO
Equal variances assumed 4.039 .045 -.468 438 .640 -.04290 .09166 -.22304 .13724
Equal variances not assumed
-.576 79.020 .566 -.04290 .07452 -.19123 .10543
FAC
Equal variances assumed .003 .959 .191 438 .849 .01967 .10306 -.18288 .22222
Equal variances not assumed
.192 67.408 .848 .01967 .10218 -.18427 .22360
TAC
Equal variances assumed .434 .510 -.680 438 .497 -.07333 .10788 -.28536 .13871
Equal variances not assumed
-.760 72.563 .450 -.07333 .09646 -.26559 .11894
SAT
Equal variances assumed .622 .431 .091 438 .927 .00866 .09496 -.17798 .19530
Equal variances not assumed
.098 70.271 .922 .00866 .08855 -.16794 .18527
150
Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to Extra fee payment
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
CAE
Equal variances assumed .888 .346 -.008 438 .994 -.00080 .10127 -.19985 .19824
Equal variances not assumed
-.008 54.543 .994 -.00080 .10701 -.21530 .21369
TRA
Equal variances assumed .100 .752 -1.278 438 .202 -.13308 .10409 -.33767 .07150
Equal variances not assumed
-1.292 56.340 .202 -.13308 .10302 -.33943 .07326
PRO
Equal variances assumed .114 .735 -.955 438 .340 -.09306 .09743 -.28455 .09842
Equal variances not assumed
-.967 56.408 .337 -.09306 .09620 -.28575 .09963
FAC
Equal variances assumed .019 .892 -.667 438 .505 -.07312 .10958 -.28849 .14226
Equal variances not assumed
-.614 53.873 .542 -.07312 .11905 -.31180 .16557
TAC
Equal variances assumed .001 .971 .078 438 .938 .00894 .11483 -.21674 .23462
Equal variances not assumed
.075 55.003 .940 .00894 .11918 -.22990 .24778
SAT
Equal variances assumed .201 .654 .322 438 .748 .03248 .10101 -.16605 .23101
Equal variances not assumed
.309 54.902 .759 .03248 .10525 -.17845 .24341
151
Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to Residence
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
CAE
Equal variances assumed .766 .382 1.653 438 .099 .11618 .07030 -.02200 .25435
Equal variances not assumed
1.620 193.055 .107 .11618 .07173 -.02530 .25765
TRA
Equal variances assumed 2.738 .099 .974 438 .330 .07069 .07254 -.07189 .21327
Equal variances not assumed
.939 187.582 .349 .07069 .07526 -.07778 .21916
PRO
Equal variances assumed 1.034 .310 1.739 438 .083 .11773 .06768 -.01530 .25075
Equal variances not assumed
1.687 189.570 .093 .11773 .06978 -.01993 .25538
FAC
Equal variances assumed 3.590 .059 .962 438 .337 .07334 .07627 -.07656 .22323
Equal variances not assumed
.917 184.261 .360 .07334 .07997 -.08445 .23112
TAC
Equal variances assumed .164 .686 1.025 438 .306 .08187 .07987 -.07510 .23884
Equal variances not assumed
1.006 193.334 .316 .08187 .08142 -.07871 .24246
SAT
Equal variances assumed .492 .483 1.536 438 .125 .10778 .07016 -.03011 .24568
Equal variances not assumed
1.501 192.045 .135 .10778 .07180 -.03383 .24940
152
APPENDIX 9: Results of Regression
Variables Entered/Removed
a
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
1
LOCA, EX_C, FREQ,
SAL, AGE, GEN,
RELA, MAR, EDU,
JOB
b
. Enter
2
TRA, FAC, TAC,
PRO, CAE
b
. Enter
a. Dependent Variable: SAT
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
c
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
Durbin-Watson
1 .258
a
.067 .045 .63298
2 .851
b
.725 .715 .34586 2.172
a. Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB
b. Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB, TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO,
CAE
c. Dependent Variable: SAT
ANOVA
a
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 12.249 10 1.225 3.057 .001
b
Residual 171.882 429 .401
Total 184.131 439
2
Regression 133.413 15 8.894 74.354 .000
c
Residual 50.719 424 .120
Total 184.131 439
a. Dependent Variable: SAT
b. Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB
c. Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB, TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO, CAE
153
Coefficients
a
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
Correlations Collinearity
Statistics
B Std.
Error
Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Zero-
order
Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1
(Constant) 3.363 .204
16.461 .000
GEN -.006 .062 -.004 -.090 .928 -.021 -.004 -.004 .970 1.031 .970 1.031
AGE -.007 .034 -.012 -.214 .831 -.099 -.010 -.010 .737 1.356 .737 1.356
MAR -.024 .051 -.022 -.466 .642 -.047 -.022 -.022 .952 1.051 .952 1.051
EDU .084 .033 .127 2.567 .011 .157 .123 .120 .888 1.126 .888 1.126
JOB -.064 .025 -.140 -2.517 .012 -.172 -.121 -.117 .705 1.418 .705 1.418
SAL -.003 .034 -.004 -.093 .926 .009 -.005 -.004 .949 1.054 .949 1.054
FREQ .130 .050 .122 2.602 .010 .110 .125 .121 .994 1.006 .994 1.006
RELA -.022 .095 -.011 -.237 .813 -.004 -.011 -.011 .960 1.041 .960 1.041
EX_C -.019 .100 -.009 -.189 .850 -.015 -.009 -.009 .972 1.028 .972 1.028
LOCA -.133 .069 -.090 -1.924 .055 -.073 -.093 -.090 .987 1.013 .987 1.013
2
(Constant) .280 .149
1.882 .061
GEN -.008 .034 -.006 -.246 .806 -.021 -.012 -.006 .966 1.036 .966 1.036
AGE -.015 .019 -.023 -.782 .435 -.099 -.038 -.020 .724 1.382 .724 1.382
MAR -.006 .028 -.006 -.218 .828 -.047 -.011 -.006 .947 1.055 .947 1.055
EDU -.007 .018 -.010 -.376 .707 .157 -.018 -.010 .853 1.173 .853 1.173
JOB -.009 .014 -.020 -.654 .514 -.172 -.032 -.017 .665 1.503 .665 1.503
SAL .024 .019 .034 1.292 .197 .009 .063 .033 .934 1.071 .934 1.071
FREQ .040 .028 .037 1.441 .150 .110 .070 .037 .969 1.031 .969 1.031
RELA -.048 .052 -.024 -.930 .353 -.004 -.045 -.024 .954 1.048 .954 1.048
EX_C -.063 .055 -.030 -1.142 .254 -.015 -.055 -.029 .958 1.043 .958 1.043
LOCA -.022 .038 -.015 -.575 .565 -.073 -.028 -.015 .972 1.029 .972 1.029
CAE .324 .046 .325 7.057 .000 .776 .324 .180 .306 3.266 .306 3.266
TRA .137 .043 .141 3.165 .002 .721 .152 .081 .326 3.070 .326 3.070
PRO .096 .045 .093 2.150 .032 .709 .104 .055 .346 2.889 .346 2.889
FAC .150 .034 .163 4.420 .000 .680 .210 .113 .479 2.087 .479 2.087
TAC .218 .036 .248 6.015 .000 .738 .280 .153 .382 2.616 .382 2.616
a. Dependent Variable: SAT
154
Excluded Variables
a
Model Beta In t Sig. Partial
Correlation
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF Minimum
Tolerance
1
CAE .767
b
24.529 .000 .764 .927 1.078 .702
TRA .708
b
21.713 .000 .724 .975 1.026 .704
PRO .696
b
20.189 .000 .698 .940 1.064 .703
FAC .658
b
18.303 .000 .663 .947 1.056 .694
TAC .729
b
21.766 .000 .725 .924 1.083 .678
a. Dependent Variable: SAT
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB
Residuals Statistics
a
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 2.0856 4.9501 3.4856 .55127 440
Residual -1.24376 1.33673 .00000 .33990 440
Std. Predicted Value -2.540 2.657 .000 1.000 440
Std. Residual -3.596 3.865 .000 .983 440
a. Dependent Variable: SAT
Correlations
ABSRES1 CAE TRA PRO FAC TAC
Spearman's rho
ABSRES
1
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.111 -.160 -.123 -.079 -.100
Sig. (2-tailed) . .089 .101 .410 .097 .236
N 440 440 440 440 440 440
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).