Citizens' satisfaction with public administrative services at the ward people’s committees of tay ho district

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.

pdf163 trang | Chia sẻ: tueminh09 | Ngày: 09/02/2022 | Lượt xem: 11 | Lượt tải: 0download
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).

Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:

  • pdfcitizens_satisfaction_with_public_administrative_services_at.pdf
  • pdfT￳m tắt LA NCS Ho¢ng Văn Hảo.pdf
  • pdfTrang th￴ng tin LA NCS Ho¢ng Văn Hảo.pdf