This dissertation's functional significance derives from understanding how
reputations grow and evolve. The study has displayed that in the particular context
of higher education, reputation structure is a complex procedure categorized by
pressures and conflict between dissimilar compassions of the roles of student trust,
student identity, and student commitment in mediating the connection among
university reputation and student behavioral intention. The dissertation debates that
reputation could not be fully measured by any particular stakeholder group and that
different participants have unlike understandings about the universities. These ideas
may be different from currently common properties, but they are important to
consider in refining the reputation-building efforts complicated in higher education.
201 trang |
Chia sẻ: tueminh09 | Ngày: 28/01/2022 | Lượt xem: 414 | Lượt tải: 0
Bạn đang xem trước 20 trang tài liệu The roles of student trust, identity and commitment in the relationship between university reputation and behavioral intention, để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics: SAGE Publications
Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
Frenken, K., Heimeriks, G. J., & Hoekman, J. (2017). What drives university
research performance? An analysis using the CWTS Leiden Ranking data.
Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 859-872.
Gee, R., Coates, G., & Nicholson, M. (2008). Understanding and profitably
managing customer loyalty. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(4), 359-
374.
Goodwin, N. (1996). Economic meanings of trust and responsibility. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Greenwood, R., Li, S. X., Prakash, R., & Deephouse, D. L. (2005). Reputation,
diversification, and organizational explanations of performance in
professional service firms. Organization Science, 16(6), 661-673.
Hagiwara, G., Akiyama, D., Kuroda, J., Hagiwara, Y., & Shimozono, H. (2018).
Relationships between the elite athlete identification and sport commitment
for Japanese collegiate athletes.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017).
Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based
structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 1-17.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications.
Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic
management journal, 13(2), 135-144.
146
Hamdan, H., Yusof, F., Omar, D., Abdullah, F., Nasrudin, N., & Abullah, I. C.
(2011). University industrial linkages: relationship towards economic growth
and development in Malaysia. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 5(10), 27-34.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in
predicting switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a
moderator variable. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(3), 303-
329.
Han, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, E.-K. (2011). Cognitive, affective, conative, and action
loyalty: Testing the impact of inertia. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 30(4), 1008-1019.
Han, H., & Woods, D. P. (2014). Attitudinal and behavioral aspects of loyalty in the
screen-golf industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism,
15(2), 175-189.
Harahap, D., Hurriyati, R., Gaffar, V., & Amanah, D. (2018). The impact of word
of mouth and university reputation on student decision to study at university.
Management Science Letters, 8(6), 649-658.
Harrington, J., & Hess, G. (1996). A spatial theory of positive and negative
campaigning. Games and Economic behavior, 17(2), 209-229.
Heffernan, T., Wilkins, S., & Butt, M. M. (2018). Transnational higher education:
The importance of institutional reputation, trust and student-university.
International Journal of Educational Management,, 32(2), 227-240.
Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). ‘The best education in the world’: reality, repetition or
cliché? International students' reasons for choosing an English university.
Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 1005-1022.
Hemsley-Brown, J. M., TC;Nguyen, Bang;Wilson, Elizabeth J. (2016). Exploring
brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education:
A special section. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.
147
Helm, S. (2005). Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation.
Corporate Reputation Review, 8(2), 95-109.
Helm, S. (2007). The role of corporate reputation in determining investor
satisfaction and loyalty. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(1), 22-37.
Hengky Latan, & Richard Noonan. (2017). Partial Least Squares Path Modeling:
Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and Applications: Springer.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new
technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial management & data
systems, 116(1), 2-20.
Highhouse, S., Broadfoot, A., Yugo, J. E., & Devendorf, S. A. (2009). Examining
corporate reputation judgments with generalizability theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(3), 782.
Hong, Y. J., Shin, D., & Kim, J. H. (2016). High/low reputation companies' dialogic
communication activities and semantic networks on Facebook: A
comparative study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 78-
92.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
methods, 3(4), 424.
Hughes, D., & Dumont, K. (1993). Focus groups as culturally anchored
methodology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 775-806.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management
research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal,
20(2), 195-204.
Hunt, P. F., Boyd, V. S., Gast, L. K., Mitchell, A., & Wilson, W. (2012). Why some
students leave college during their senior year. Journal of College Student
Development, 53(5), 737-742.
148
Husman, J., & Hilpert, J. (2007). The intersection of students' perceptions of
instrumentality, self-efficacy, and goal orientations in an online mathematics
course. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21(3/4), 229-239.
Jani, D., & Han, H. (2014). Personality, satisfaction, image, ambience, and loyalty:
Testing their relationships in the hotel industry. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 37, 11-20.
Jani, D., & Han, H. (2015). Influence of environmental stimuli on hotel customer
emotional loyalty response: Testing the moderating effect of the big five
personality factors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 44,
48-57.
Kanto, D. S., de Run, E. C., & bin Md Isa, A. H. (2016). The Reputation Quotient
as a corporate reputation measurement in the Malaysian banking industry: A
confirmatory factor analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219,
409-415.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal
orientation theory. Educational psychology review, 19(2), 141-184.
Kaur, H., & Soch, H. (2012). Validating antecedents of customer loyalty for Indian
cell phone users. Vikalpa, 37(4), 47-62.
Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of corporate success Oxford University Press. Utilizada
versión traducida (1994): Fundamentos del éxito empresarial, Ariel
Sociedad Económica.
Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral
intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial
marketing management, 38(7), 732-742.
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer
decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk,
and their antecedents. Decision support systems, 44(2), 544-564.
Kitchen, P. J., & Laurence, A. (2003). Corporate reputation: An eight-country
analysis. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(2), 103-117.
149
Khanna, M., Jacob, I., & Yadav, N. (2014). Identifying and analyzing touchpoints
for building a higher education brand. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 24(1), 122-143.
Khoi et al. (2019). The Relationship Among Education Service Quality, University
Reputation and Behavioral Intention in Vietnam. Studies in Computational
Intelligence (Vol. 809, pp. 273-281): Springer.
Khoi, B. H., & Van Tuan, N. (2019). Empirical Study of Purchasing Intention in
Vietnam. Studies in Computational Intelligence (Vol. 809, pp. 751-764).
Springer, Cham.
Kheiry, B., Rad, B. M., & Asgari, O. (2012). University intellectual image impact
on satisfaction and loyalty of students (Tehran selected universities). African
Journal of Business Management, 6(37), 10205-10211.
Klesel, M., Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., & Niehaves, B. (2019). A test for
multigroup comparison using partial least squares path modeling. Internet
research, 29(3), 464-477.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,
enduring questions. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 569-598.
Kromidha, E., & Li, M. C. (2019). Determinants of leadership in online social
trading: A signaling theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 97,
184-197.
Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando, A., Zorrilla, P., & Forcada, J. (2018). A review of
higher education image and reputation literature: Knowledge gaps and a
research agenda. European research on management and business
economics, 24(1), 8-16.
Lai, S. L., Pham, H.-H., & Le, A.-V. (2019). Toward Sustainable Overseas Mobility
of Vietnamese Students: Understanding Determinants of Attitudinal and
Behavioral Loyalty in Students of Higher Education. Sustainability, 11(2),
383.
150
Latan, H., & Noonan, R. (2017). Partial least squares path modeling: basic
concepts, methodological issues and applications: Springer.
Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education-
Indianapolis then Chula Vista-, 124(1), 126-136.
Lerpold, L. (2003). Reputation by association exploring alliance formation and
organizational identity adaptation: Institute of International Business,
Stockholm School of Economics .
Li, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, S., & Zhou, M. (2017). A multilevel analysis of the role of
interactional justice in promoting knowledge-sharing behavior: The mediated
role of organizational commitment. Industrial marketing management, 62,
226-233.
Liu, Y., Esangbedo, M. O., & Bai, S. (2019). Adaptability of Inter-Organizational
Information Systems Based on Organizational Identity: Some Factors of
Partnership for the Goals. Sustainability, 11(5), 1-20.
Lorenzetti, J. (2009). Student satisfaction and retention: Understanding the year-
byyear relationship. Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 23(12),
5-6.
Martínez, P., & del Bosque, I. R. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of
trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 89-99.
McKnight, D., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating
trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information systems
research, 13(3), 334-359.
McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1999). The student aid game: Meeting need
and rewarding talent in American higher education (Vol. 31): Princeton
University Press.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations
and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of educational
psychology, 80(4), 514.
151
Meer, N., & Chapman, A. (2014). Co-creation of marking criteria: students as
partners in the assessment process. Business and Management Education in
HE, 1-15.
Michael, S. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3),
355-374.
Michael, S. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of
markets. The American Economic Review, 92(3), 434-459.
Mitchell, R. M., Kensler, L., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2018). Student trust in
teachers and student perceptions of safety: positive predictors of student
identification with school. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
21(2), 135-154.
MOET (Ministry of Education and Training). (2019). Education and training
Viet Nam 2019. Hanoi: MOET.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between
providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust. Journal of
marketing research, 29(3), 314-328.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16): Sage
publications.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. the Journal of Marketing, 20-38.
Munisamy, S., Jaafar, N. I. M., & Nagaraj, S. (2014). Does reputation matter? Case
study of undergraduate choice at a premier university. The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher, 23(3), 451-462.
Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems.
National innovation systems: A comparative analysis, 322.
Neumann, Y., & Finaly-Neumann, E. (1989). Predicting juniors’ and seniors’
persistence and attrition: A quality of learning experience approach. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 57(2), 129-140.
152
Nguyen, C. H., & McDonald, J. (2019). Quality assurance in Vietnamese higher
education: Springer.
Nguyen, H. N., & Pham, L. X. (2018). The relationship between country-of-origin
image, corporate reputation, corporate social responsibility, trust and
customers' purchase intention: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Applied
Economic Sciences(13 (2)), 498-509.
Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education
institutions in students' retention decisions. The International Journal of
Educational Management, 15(6/7), 303-311.
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating
the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers &
Education, 109, 56-73.
Nitzl, C. (2018). Management accounting and partial least squares-structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM): Some illustrative examples. Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 211-229): Springer.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment
approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (ijec), 11(4), 1-10.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric
theory, 3(1), 248-292.
Nuraryo, I., Sumartias, S., Umar, H., & Rahmat, A. (2018). The Influence of
Corporate (University) Identity on Student Retention with Corporate
Reputation and Student Satisfaction as Mediating Variables. The Social
Sciences, 13(8), 1366-1372.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? the Journal of Marketing, 33-44.
Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer: A
behavioral perspective on the consumer: Routledge.
Pedro, E., Leitão, J., & Alves, H. (2016). Does the quality of academic life matter
for students’ performance, loyalty and university recommendation? Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 11(1), 293-316.
153
Pérez, J. P., & Torres, E. M. (2017). Evaluation of the organizational image of a
university in a higher education institution. Contaduría y administración,
62(1), 123-140.
Peter, J., & Tarpey, L. (1975). A comparative analysis of three consumer decision
strategies. Journal of consumer research, 2(1), 29-37.
Phair, J. T. (1992). 1992 Education Report Card. The Public Relations Journal,
48(2), 22.
Plewa, C., Ho, J., Conduit, J., & Karpen, I. O. (2016). Reputation in higher
education: A fuzzy set analysis of resource configurations. Journal of
Business Research, 69(8), 3087-3095.
Porritt, D. (2005). The reputational failure of financial success: the ‘bottom line
backlash’effect. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol.8(Iss.3), 198-213.
DuongTam. (2020). 11 đại học Việt Nam vào bảng xếp hạng châu Á năm 2021.
Retrieved 29 November, 2020, from https://vnexpress.net/11-dai-hoc-viet-
nam-vao-bang-xep-hang-chau-a-nam-2021-4197135.html
QS. (2020). Retrieved 29 November, 2020, from
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-
rankings/2021.
Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2010). Risk, uncertainty and the theory
of planned behavior: A tourism example. Tourism Management, 31(6), 797-
805.
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the
nutrition society, 63(4), 655-660.
Rather, R. A. (2018). Investigating the impact of customer brand identification on
hospitality brand loyalty: A social identity perspective. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(5), 487-513.
154
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being
good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions,
antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of
management journal, 48(6), 1033-1049.
Roberts, P. W. D., Grahame R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior
financial performance. Strategic management journal, 23(12), 1077-1093.
Ryschka, A. M., Domke-Damonte, D. J., Keels, J. K., & Nagel, R. (2016). The
effect of social media on reputation during a crisis event in the cruise line
industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration,
17(2), 198-221.
Saleem, S. S., Moosa, K., Imam, A., & Khan, R. A. (2017). Service Quality and
Student Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of University Culture, Reputation
and Price in Education Sector of Pakistan. Iranian Journal of Management
Studies, 10(1), 237-258. doi:
Salmi, J. (2019). Academic governance and leadership in Vietnam: Trends and
challenges. Journal of International and Comparative Education (JICE),
103-118.
Sarstedt, M., Wilczynski, P., & Melewar, T. (2013). Measuring reputation in global
markets—A comparison of reputation measures’ convergent and criterion
validities. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 329-339.
Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019).
How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ).
Sarwari, A. Q., & Wahab, N. (2016). The Role of postgraduate international
students in the process of internationalization of higher education. IIUM
Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 28-45. Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L.
L. (2007). Purchasing behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
155
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2007). Purchasing behavior. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation - an
empitical study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46-71.
Shamma, H. M. (2012). Toward a comprehensive understanding of corporate
reputation: Concept, measurement and implications. International Journal of
Business and Management, 7(16), 151.
Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations.
The quarterly journal of economics, 98(4), 659-679.
Schoofs, L., Claeys, A.-S., De Waele, A., & Cauberghe, V. (2019). The role of
empathy in crisis communication: Providing a deeper understanding of how
organizational crises and crisis communication affect reputation. Public
Relations Review, 45(5), 101851.
Sokro, E. (2012). Impact of employer branding on employee attraction and
retention. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(18), 164-173.
Šontaitė, M., & Bakanauskas, A. P. (2011). Measurement model of corporate
reputation at higher education institutions: Customers’ perspective.
Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo
universiteto leidykla, 2011, T. 59.
Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students' academic
engagement and retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673-685.
Smith, K. T., Smith, M., & Wang, K. (2010). Does brand management of corporate
reputation translate into higher market value? Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 18(3), 201-221.
Stipek, D. J. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice: Allyn and
Bacon Boston.
Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements
and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative science
quarterly, 44(2), 315-349.
156
Su, L., Swanson, S. R., Chinchanachokchai, S., Hsu, M. K., & Chen, X. (2016).
Reputation and intentions: The role of satisfaction, identification, and
commitment. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3261-3269.
Suárez, L. M. C., López, J. P., & Saiz, B. C. (2020). The Influence of Heuristic
Judgments in Social Media on Corporate Reputation: A Study in Spanish
Leader Companies. Sustainability, 12(1640), 1-18.
Suomi, K. (2014). Exploring the dimensions of brand reputation in higher
education–a case study of a Finnish master’s degree programme. Journal of
higher education policy and management, 36(6), 646-660.
Suomi, K., & Järvinen, R. (2013). Tracing reputation risks in retailing and higher-
education services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 207-
217.
Sutter, N., & Paulson, S. (2017). Predicting college students' intention to graduate: a
test of the theory of planned behavior. College Student Journal, 50(3), 409-
421.
Syed, R. (2019). Enterprise reputation threats on social media: A case of data
breach framing. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(3), 257-
274.
Szakos, D., Szabó-Bódi, B., & Kasza, G. (2019). Consumer awareness campaign to
reduce household food waste based on PLS-SEM behaviour modelling.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path
modeling. Computational statistics & data analysis, 48(1), 159-205.
Thien, T. H. (2018). Mediating effect of strategic management accounting practices
in the relationship between intellectual capital and corporate performance
Evidence from Vietnam. University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City.
Thomas, J. (2009). “Trust” in customer relationship: addressing the impediments in
research. Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Conference on Advances in Consumer
Research, (pp. 346–349).
157
Tran, C.-D. T., & Villano, R. A. (2017). An empirical analysis of the performance
of Vietnamese higher education institutions. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 41(4), 530-544.
Twaissi, N. M., & Al-Kilani, M. H. (2015). The impact of perceived service quality
on students’ intentions in higher education in a Jordanian governmental
university. International Business Research, 8(5), 81.
Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature:
Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate reputation review, 12(4),
357-387.
Walsh, G. B., Sharon E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service
firm: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 35(1), 127-143.
Wedlin, L. (2008). University Marketization: the Process and Its Limits. IN
Engwall, L. & Weaire, D.(Eds.) The University in the Market. Colchester:
Portland Press.
Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of
recent theory and applications. Strategic management journal, 9(5), 443-454.
West, A., Lewis, J., Roberts, J., & Noden, P. (2017). Young adult graduates living
in the parental home: Expectations, negotiations, and parental financial
support. Journal of Family Issues, 38(17), 2449-2473.
Verčič, A. T., Verčič, D., & Žnidar, K. (2016). Exploring academic reputation–is it
a multidimensional construct? Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 21(2), 160-176.
Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007). Reputation beyond the rankings: A conceptual
framework for business school research. Corporate reputation review, 10(4),
278-304.
Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation
among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher
Education, 47(2), 129-148.
158
Watkins, B. A., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2013). Assessing university brand
personality through logos: An analysis of the use of academics and athletics
in university branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(1),
15-33.
Žnidar, A. T. V. D. V. K. (2016). Exploring academic reputation – is it a
multidimensional construct? Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 21(2), 160-176. doi: doi:10.1108/CCIJ-01-2015-0003
Vietnamese
Duong Tam. (2020). 11 đại học Việt Nam vào bảng xếp hạng châu Á năm 2021.
Retrieved 29 November, 2020, from https://vnexpress.net/11-dai-hoc-viet-
nam-vao-bang-xep-hang-chau-a-nam-2021-4197135.html
Hoang Thi Phuong Thao. (2014). Danh tiếng theo góc nhìn của học viên cao học.
Tạp chí khoa học trường Đại học mở TP.HCM, 5(38), 41-53.
159
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear respondents,
This survey is being conducted under the direction of a Ph.D. student. Bui
Huy Khoi is from the University of Economics HCM City. I am inviting your
participation in our survey. The survey may take you between 8 – 10 minutes to
complete. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate your behavioral intention to
study in higher education in the future. Your feedback is very valuable to us, and it
will help us improve our research. You have the right not to answer any question
and to stop participation at any time.
Your participation in this survey is voluntary. If you choose not to participate
or withdraw from the survey at any time, there will be no foreseeable risks or
discomforts to your participation. Please be assured that your responses will remain
anonymous. The results of the survey may be used in reports, presentations, or
publications but will be only shared in aggregate (summarized) form and your name
will not be mentioned or associated with your responses.
If you have any questions concerning our survey, please contact the Ph.D.
student: khoibui.ncs201413@st.ueh.edu.vn
Please indicate if you will agree to participate in the program evaluation
survey by your selection below.
Section i1: Please select the appropriate answer for each question on this
section
Q1. Please select your gender
Male
Female
160
Q2. Which university did you graduate from?
Section i2: Please identify your rating by filling the number with meanings as
given:
1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree i 3. Disagree
4. iNeutral 5. iSlightly i agree i i i i i i i
6. iAgree i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 7. iStrongly iagree
Items The issues Your ratings
My university strongly supports the
Q1
community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My university has a positive social
Q2 influence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My university will help student
Q3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
graduates get better jobs.
Graduates from this university are
Q4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
well equipped for the workplace.
This university name positively
Q5 influences the value of my degree. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My university has a safe, clean, and
Q6 pleasant environment for students to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
learn in.
161
My university’s learning
Q7
environment has cultural diversity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My university are internationally
Q8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
renowned.
The university’s physical facilities
Q9
are visually appealing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This university provides up-to-date
Q10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
equipment.
This university have excellent
Q11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
leadership.
This university employs prestigious
Q12
professors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This university has a clear vision of
Q13
development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Courses are designed in this
Q14
university to make use of the latest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
technology.
This university recognizes and takes
Q15
advantage of market opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The cost of living is this university
Q16
is reasonable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I sometimes feel pressured by
Q17
financial worries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
162
This university receives funds from
Q18 the government to give scholarships
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to the students.
This university provides grants for
Q19
researches conducted by students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tuition fees are competitive with
Q20
other similar universities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This university follows
Q21
technological trends in conveying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
knowledge.
This university takes part in key
Q22
national projects. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This university is innovative in its
Q23
publications. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Equipment is in good working
Q24
condition and properly maintained. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q25 The library is provided with up-to-
date books and sources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Our guidance counselors understand
Q26
my needs . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My university are available for
Q27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
consultation when students need it.
My university makes interacting
Q28
easily. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
163
My university respects students’
Q29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
freedom and privacy.
My university is available for
Q30
consultation and vocational 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
guidance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q31 I trust this university brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q32 This is an honest university brand.
Q33 This university brand is safe.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q34 I engage this university brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When someone criticizes this
Q35 university brand, it feels like a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
personal insult.
This university brand’s successes
Q36
are my successes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I talk about this university
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q37 brand, I usually say “we” rather than
“they.”
When someone praises this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q38 university brand, it feels like a
personal compliment.
164
Q39 I am committed to this university 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
brand.
I am proud to belong to this
Q40
university brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q41 I am a loyal customer of this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university brand.
I care about the long-term success of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q42
this university brand.
I am committed to the positive
Q43
attitude and behavior of these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university students.
I intend to study most of the
Q44 relevant courses in my master's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
program at this university in the
future.
I consider this university my first
Q45 choice when it comes to where to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
study my master’s program.
I plan to study at this university’s
Q46 master's program in the next few 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
years.
My university has high prestige 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q47
within the community.
My university is a well-respected
Q48
one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
165
My university’s reputation
Q49 positively influences the value of -
my degree.
Do you have additional comments about other factors that affect behavioral
intention in higher education? Please share with us your kind ideas.
Thank you so much for your contribution!
166
Kính gửi các đáp viên,
Khảo sát này được thực hiện bởi nghiên cứu sinh Bùi Huy Khôi đến từ
trường Đại học Kinh tế TP.HCM. Tôi mời bạn tham gia vào khảo sát của chúng tôi.
Cuộc khảo sát có thể mất từ 8 đến 10 phút để hoàn thành. Mục đích của khảo sát
này là để đánh giá ý định hành vi của bạn để nghiên cứu trong lĩnh vực giáo dục sau
đại học trong tương lai. Phản hồi của bạn rất có giá trị đối với chúng tôi và nó sẽ
giúp chúng tôi cải thiện nghiên cứu của mình. Bạn có quyền không trả lời bất kỳ
câu hỏi nào và ngừng tham gia bất cứ lúc nào.
Sự tham gia của bạn trong khảo sát này là hoàn toàn tự nguyện. Nếu bạn
chọn không tham gia hoặc rút khỏi cuộc khảo sát bất cứ lúc nào, sẽ không có sự rủi
ro hoặc khó chịu nào. Hãy yên tâm rằng câu trả lời của bạn sẽ hoàn toàn được ẩn
danh. Kết quả khảo sát sẽ được sử dụng trong các báo cáo, thuyết trình, các ấn
phẩm nhưng sẽ chỉ được chia sẻ dưới dạng tổng hợp (tóm tắt) và tên của bạn sẽ
không được đề cập hoặc liên kết với câu trả lời của bạn.
Nếu bạn có bất kỳ câu hỏi liên quan đến khảo sát của chúng tôi, xin vui lòng
liên hệ với NCS Bùi Huy Khôi theo đia chỉ email sau:
khoibui.ncs201413@st.ueh.edu.vn.
Vui lòng cho biết nếu bạn đồng ý tham gia khảo sát bằng cách lựa chọn của
bạn dưới đây.
Phần 1: Vui lòng chọn câu trả lời thích hợp cho mỗi câu hỏi trong
phần này:
Q1. Vui lòng cho biết giới tính của bạn
Nam
Nữ
Q2. Bạn tốt nghiệp từ trường đại học nào?
167
Phần i 2: Vui lòng xác định đánh giá của bạn bằng cách điền số với ý
nghĩa như được đưa ra
1. iHoàn toàn không đồng ýi i i i i 2. iKhá không đồng ý i i i i i i i i i i i 3. i Không đồng ýi i i i i
i i i i i i
4. iPhân vân 5. iKhá đồng ý i i i i i i i
6. iĐồng ý i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 7. iHoàn toàn đồng ý
Câu hỏi Nội dung Đánh giá
Trường đại học của tôi ủng hộ cộng
Q1
đồng một cách mạnh mẽ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học của tôi có ảnh
1
Q2 hưởng xã hội tích cực. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học của tôi sẽ giúp sinh
Q3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
viên tốt nghiệp có việc làm tốt hơn.
Sinh viên tốt nghiệp từ trường đại
Q4 học này được trang bị tốt cho nơi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
làm việc sau này.
Tên trường đại học này ảnh hưởng
Q5 tích cực đến giá trị bằng cấp của tôi. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học của tôi có môi
Q6 trường an toàn, sạch sẽ và thoải mái 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
cho sinh viên học tập.
168
Môi trường học tập tại trường đại
Q7 học của tôi có sự đa dạng về văn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hóa.
Trường đại học của tôi được quốc tế
Q8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
biết đến.
Cơ sở vật chất của trường đại học
Q9
nhìn hấp dẫn.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học này cung cấp thiết
Q10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bị cập nhật.
Trường đại học này có tinh thần
Q11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
lãnh đạo rất tốt.
Trường đại học này được giảng dạy
Q12
bởi các nhà giáo có uy tín.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học có một tầm nhìn rõ
Q13
ràng về sự phát triển. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Các khóa học được thiết kế trong
Q14
trường đại học có ứng dụng công 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
nghệ mới nhất.
Trường đại học nhận thức và tận
Q15
dụng các cơ hội thị trường. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Chi phí sinh hoạt là trường đại học
Q16
này là hợp lý. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Đôi khi tôi cảm thấy bị áp lực bởi
Q17
những lo lắng tài chính. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
169
Trường đại học nhận được tiền từ
Q18 nhà nước để trao học bổng cho sinh
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
viên .
Trường đại học cung cấp tài trợ cho
Q19
các nghiên cứu được thực hiện bởi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sinh viên .
Học phí vừa phải so với các trường
Q20
đại học khác. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học theo xu hướng công
Q21
nghệ trong việc truyền đạt kiến 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thức.
Trường đại học tham gia vào các dự
Q22
án quốc gia quan trọng. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học này luôn đổi mới
Q23
trong công bố khoa học . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thiết bị trong tình trạng hoạt động
Q24
tốt và được bảo trì đúng cách. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q25 Thư viện được cung cấp sách và
nguồn tài liệu cập nhật . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Giáo viên hướng dẫn của chúng tôi
Q26
hiểu nhu cầu của tôi. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trường đại học của tôi sẵn sàng tư
Q27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
vấn khi sinh viên cần.
Trường đại học của tôi kết nối dễ
Q28
dàng. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
170
Trường đại học của tôi tôn trọng tự
Q29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
do và riêng tư của sinh viên.
Trường đại học của tôi sẵn sàng tư
Q30
vấn và hướng dẫn nghề nghiệp cho 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sinh viên.
Tôi tin tưởng thương hiệu của 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q31
trường đại học này.
Đây là một thương hiệu đại học 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q32
trung thực.
Thương hiệu trường đại học này là
Q33
an toàn.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tôi gắn kết với thương hiệu trường
Q34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
đại học này.
Khi ai đó chỉ trích thương hiệu
trường đại học này, nó cảm thấy
Q35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
như một sự xúc phạm cá nhân đến
tôi.
Sự thành công của thương hiệu
Q36
trường đại học này thành công là sự 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thành công của tôi.
Khi tôi nói về thương hiệu trường
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q37 đại học này, tôi thường nói là chúng
tôi, chứ không phải là họ.
171
Khi ai đó khen ngợi thương hiệu
trường đại học này, nó cảm thấy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q38
như một lời khen cá nhân dành cho
tôi.
Q39 Tôi cam kết với thương hiệu trường 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
đại học này.
Tôi tự hào thuộc về thương hiệu
Q40
trường đại học này. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q41 Tôi là một khách hàng trung thành 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
của thương hiệu đại học này .
Tôi quan tâm đến sự thành công lâu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q42
dài của thương hiệu đại học này .
Tôi cam kết với thái độ và hành vi
Q43
tích cực đến những sinh viên của 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
trường đại học này.
Tôi có dự định học các khóa học có
Q44 liên quan đến chương trình thạc sĩ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
từ trường đại học này trong tương
lai.
Tôi xem xét trường đại học này là
lựa chọn đầu tiên của tôi khi đề cập
Q45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
đến nơi để học chương trình thạc sĩ
của tôi.
Tôi dự định học chương trình thạc sĩ
Q46 của trường đại học này trong vài 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
năm tới.
Trường đại học của tôi có uy tín cao 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q47
trong cộng đồng.
172
Trường đại học của tôi là một
Q48
trường đại học rất được tôn trọng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Danh tiếng của trường đại học có
Q49 ảnh hưởng tích cực đến giá trị bằng
cấp của tôi.
Bạn có nhận xét thêm về các yếu tố khác ảnh hưởng đến ý định hành vi trong
giáo dục đại học không? Hãy chia sẻ với chúng tôi ý tưởng của bạn.
Cảm ơn bạn rất nhiều vì sự đóng góp của bạn!
173
APPENDIX B – DISCUSSION LIST WITH EXPERTS OF VIETNAM
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF EDUCATION MANAGEMENT
Discussion Location: Industrial University of HCM City, 12 Nguyen Van Bao Street,
Ward 4, Govap Dist, Ho Chi Minh City.
Time Discussing content EXPERTS Room
9h-9h30
Univesity reputation and Ph.D. Le Viet Khuyen
Saturday, V9.01
its factors
17/3/2018
Prof. PhD
9h-9h30
Univesity reputation and
Saturday, Pham Quang Trinh V9.02
its factors
31/3/2018
Prof. PhD
9h-9h30
Univesity reputation and
Saturday, Do Thi Thuy Hang V9.02
its factors
07/4/2018
9h-9h30
Univesity reputation and Ph.D. Cao Xuan Lieu
Saturday, V9.02
its factors
14/4/2018
Prof. PhD
9h-9h30
Univesity reputation and
Saturday, Ha The Truyen V9.02
its factors
21/4/2018
174
APPENDIX C – DISCUSSION LIST WITH SPECIALISTS OF
INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HCM CITY
Discussion Location: Industrial University of HCM City, 12 Nguyen Van Bao Street,
Ward 4, Govap Dist, Ho Chi Minh City.
Time Discussing content SPECIALISTS Room
13h-14h30
Univesity reputation and Prof. PhD
Tuesday, Research
behavioral intention
24/12/2018 Pham Xuan Giang
13h-14h30
Univesity reputation and PhD
Tuesday, Research
behavioral intention
24/12/2018 Nguyen Thanh Long
13h-14h30
Univesity reputation and PhD
Tuesday, Research
behavioral intention
24/12/2018 Nguyen Van Hung
13h-14h30
Univesity reputation and Ph.D
Tuesday, Research
behavioral intention
24/12/2018 Nguyen Thi Thu Trang
175
APPENDIX D – SEMINAR WITH LECTURERS AT FACULTY OF
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION IN INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HCM
CITY
Seminar Location: Room D3.01, E3.2, B2.10, Industrial University of HCM
City, 12 Nguyen Van Bao Street, Ward 4, Govap Dist, Ho Chi Minh City.
Unit Name Research Field
1 Ph.D. Dam Tri Cuong Business Administration; Marketing
Business Administration; Marketing;
2 Prof. Ph.D. Nguyen Minh Tuan Human resource management; Strategic
management
Business Administration; Marketing;
3 Ph.D. Huynh Quang Minh Human resource management; Strategic
management
4 Ph.D. Bui Van Quang Marketing; Business Administration
5 Nguyen Van Phu E-commerce; Personnel; Goods and
services
Personnel management; Bán hàng;
6 Ha Trong Quang
Marketing; Business Administration
E-commerce; Marketing online;
7 Nguyen Minh Toan
Management system in business
8 Nguyen Thi Ngan Human resource management; Marketing
9 Nguyen Tan Minh Brand; Personnel; Finance
10 Ngo Cao Hoai Linh Personnel; Import-Export
Sale management ; Marketing
11 Le Duc Lam
management; Personnel management
12 Doan Hung Cuong Business Administration; Marketing
13 Luu Xuan Danh Sale management; Marketing
176
14 Phung Tien Dung E-Marketing; Sale Service; Behavior
15 Huynh Dat Hung Personnel management; Marketing
16 Ho Nhat Hung Marketing; Sales
17 Cao Hoang Huy Sales; Marketing
18 Do Thi Thanh Huyen Marketing; Personnel management
19 Le Hoang Viet Phuong E-commerce; Real estate; Marketing
Personnel management; Customer
20 Dang Minh Thu
satisfaction; Competitiveness
21 Pham Van Quyet Project; Sales; Personnel management;
Marketing
22 Nguyen Anh Tuan Personnel management; Sales; Marketing
177
APPENDIX E – SEMINARS WITH GRADUATED INDIVIDUALS
Seminar Location: Room V9.01, Industrial University of HCM City, 12
Nguyen Van Bao Street, Ward 4, Govap Dist, Ho Chi Minh City.
BITH GRADUATE UNIVERSITY
Unit NAME COMPANY
YEAR YEAR CODE
1 LE PHAM DAN THANH 1992 2014 IUH HD BANK
2 LE NHAT THU 1984 2012 VNU BIDV BANK
VIEN KHOA HOC VA
3 TRAN THI CAM GIANG 1986 2009 TDTU CONG NGHE TINH
TOAN HCM
TONG CTY TM KT
1997 UEH
4 HOANG ANH TUAN 1974 VÀ DAU TU (PETEC)
KHO BAC NN TRI
2009 AGU
5 TRAN VAN BI 1975 TON - AN GIANG
6 1991 2012 IUH SACOMBANK
VO PHUC TRUONG THANH
7 NGUYEN LE QUOC TU 1992 2016 FPTU TNHH TM&NK THIEN
KIM
CTY HOA DAU ME
2014 FPTU
8 LE MINH ANH 1991 CONG
9 PHAM THI MY TIEN 1991 2013 IUH CHI CUC THUE CU
178
CHI
AGRIBANK TAY SAI
2014 IUH
10 PHAM TRUNG PHUOC 1991 GON
11 LE BA LOC 1991 2013 IUH TMCP QUAN DOI
12 NGUYEN TRAM HAI LY 1993 2015 IUH
13 HOAI DUY 1994 2016 IUH
14 BUI THI BICH DUYEN 1991 2013 IUH
NGUYEN THANH KIM
2009 UEH
15 NGAN 1986
16 BUI HOANG NHAN 1994 2015 IUH
17 NGUYEN VAN SANG 1989 2012 IUH
18 NGUYEN HONG DUC 1994 2016 IUH
19 NGUYEN TAN QUANG 1988 2013 HCMUAF
20 DANG THUY DUNG 1992 2015 DNTU
21 NGUYEN MINH NGOC 1993 2015 IUH
22 TRAN MINH DAI 1991 2014 DNTU
23 NGO THI PHUONG THUY 1984 2006 BDU
24 DANG HOANG SAM 1994 2016 IUH
25 LE QUANG DAI 1991 2013 UEH
26 NGUYEN THANH TRUNG 1994 2016 IUH
27 HUYENH NGOC DIEP 1991 2014 SGU
28 TRUONG CONG HAU 1993 2015
29 NGUYEN THI THANH TAM 1994 2016
30 NGUYEN HONG LINH 1991 2014
179
APPENDIX F – DISCUSSION OUTLINE
Part 1: Introduction
Hello everyone, I am a Ph.D. student at University of Economics Ho Chi
Minh City. We are researching the relationship between university reputation and
behavioral intention. First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time to
join us on this topic. We hope for your active participation, and please note that
there is no right or wrong view. All of your ideas contributed to the success of this
study.
For the discussion to proceed, we (introduce the name) and please introduce
your name...
Part 2: Discover the components that create a university reputation
With the question: “According to you, which factors impact university
reputation in higher education?”
Part 3: The roles of student trust, student identification, and student
commitment in the relationship between university reputation and student
behavioral intention.
“What do you think about the relationship between university reputation and
student behavioral intention?
“What do you think about the roles of student trust, student identity, and
student commitment in the relationship between university reputation and student
behavioral intention?
180
APPENDIX G – SAMPLE OF QUANTITATIVE
Unit Name of University Amount
1 An Giang University 107
2 Binh Duong University 143
3 Dong Nai Technology University 104
4 FPT University 162
5 Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Finance 68
6 Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City 355
7 Sai Gon University 166
8 Ton Duc Thang University 159
9 University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City 154
10 Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City 120
Total 1538
APPENDIX H – DATA OUTPUT
SEX
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
0 801 52.1 52.1 52.1
Valid 1 737 47.9 47.9 100.0
Total 1538 100.0 100.0
UNIVERSITY
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
AGU 107 7.0 7.0 7.0
BDU 143 9.3 9.3 16.3
DNTU 104 6.8 6.8 23.0
FPTU 162 10.5 10.5 33.6
Valid
HCMUEF 68 4.4 4.4 38.0
IUH 355 23.1 23.1 61.1
SGU 166 10.8 10.8 71.8
TDTU 159 10.3 10.3 82.2
181
UEH 154 10.0 10.0 92.2
VNU 120 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 1538 100.0 100.0
Outer Loadings
Number of Predefined
Construct Type of measurement model indicators reliability
SCN factor (Mode A) 5 1.0000
EN factor (Mode A) 5 1.0000
LE factor (Mode A) 5 1.0000
FU factor (Mode A) 5 1.0000
RD factor (Mode A) 5 1.0000
SG factor (Mode A) 5 1.0000
ST factor (Mode A) 4 1.0000
SI factor (Mode A) 4 1.0000
SC factor (Mode A) 5 1.0000
BI factor (Mode A) 3 1.0000
UR factor (Mode A) 3 1.0000
Cronbach's
Construct Dijkstra-Henseler's rho (ρA) Jöreskog's rho (ρc) alpha(α)
SCN 0.8291 0.8576 0.8002
EN 0.7939 0.8246 0.7472
LE 0.8151 0.8641 0.8030
FU 0.7618 0.7833 0.6908
RD 0.8389 0.8408 0.7780
SG 0.7676 0.8193 0.7400
ST 0.8899 0.9167 0.8788
SI 0.7205 0.7945 0.6630
SC 0.9299 0.8913 0.8552
BI 0.8183 0.8870 0.8100
UR 0.7239 0.7790 0.5941
Construct Average variance extracted (AVE)
SCN 0.5494
EN 0.4905
LE 0.5615
FU 0.4389
RD 0.5204
SG 0.4789
ST 0.7337
SI 0.4961
SC 0.6270
BI 0.7236
UR 0.5558
182
Construct SCN EN LE FU RD SG ST SI SC BI UR
SCN
EN 0.6160
LE 0.4915 0.5290
FU 0.5451 0.4762 0.6013
RD 0.3512 0.2116 0.4188 0.3900
SG 0.4492 0.4568 0.6095 0.4894 0.4482
ST 0.1424 0.1208 0.2064 0.1774 0.0888 0.1259
SI 0.2105 0.1584 0.2846 0.2402 0.1645 0.2294 1.0455
SC 0.1394 0.1335 0.1505 0.1167 0.1384 0.1540 0.1159 0.1675
BI 0.2287 0.2331 0.2350 0.2338 0.1835 0.2765 0.1835 0.2565 0.6644
UR 0.6946 0.5778 0.7545 0.6709 0.4843 0.6425 0.5432 0.7319 0.1990 0.3337
Indicator SCN EN LE FU RD SG ST SI SC BI UR
Q21 0.8056
Q22 0.6250
Q23 0.5328
Q24 0.8518
Q25 0.7435
Q16 0.7524
Q17 0.8477
Q18 0.3873
Q19 0.4528
Q20 0.7447
Q1 0.8520
Q2 0.7975
Q3 0.6625
Q4 0.6275
Q5 0.7434
Q6 0.7855
Q7 0.8479
Q8 0.5683
Q9 0.6044
Q10 0.6545
Q26 0.5640
Q27 0.6417
Q28 0.6993
Q29 0.7966
Q30 0.7357
Q11 0.6281
Q12 0.7437
Q13 0.7602
Q14 0.7899
Q15 0.8114
Q47 0.8879
Q48 0.8130
Q49 0.4668
Q31 0.8804
Q32 0.8018
183
Q33 0.8918
Q34 0.8494
Q35 0.6444
Q36 0.7101
Q37 0.8444
Q38 0.5930
Q44 0.8364
Q45 0.8393
Q46 0.8756
Q39 0.8850
Q40 0.8248
Q41 0.8559
Q42 0.8067
Q43 0.5369
Hypotheses Beta SE T-value P
EN UR 0.089 0.024 3.700 0.005
FU UR 0.150 0.028 5.361 0.000
LE UR 0.265 0.027 9.830 0.000
RD UR 0.104 0.022 4.714 0.000
SC BI 0.597 0.017 35.135 0.000
SCN UR 0.237 0.025 9.464 0.000
SG UR 0.138 0.024 5.733 0.000
SI BI 0.107 0.021 5.110 0.000
SC SI 0.151 0.026 5.788 0.000
ST SC 0.075 0.015 4.980 0.000
UR SC 0.132 0.021 6.281 0.000
UR ST 0.295 0.025 11.808 0.000
Dependent variable
Independent
variable ST SI SC BI UR
SCN 0.0699 0.0055 0.0364 0.0223 0.2366
EN 0.0262 0.0021 0.0137 0.0084 0.0888
LE 0.0783 0.0061 0.0409 0.0251 0.2654
FU 0.0443 0.0035 0.0231 0.0142 0.1501
RD 0.0306 0.0024 0.0160 0.0098 0.1037
SG 0.0406 0.0032 0.0212 0.0130 0.1376
ST 0.0112 0.0747 0.0458
SI 0.1073
184
SC 0.1505 0.6134
UR 0.2952 0.0232 0.1539 0.0944
Independent Dependent variable
variable ST SI SC BI UR
SCN 0.0699 0.0055 0.0364 0.0223
EN 0.0262 0.0021 0.0137 0.0084
LE 0.0783 0.0061 0.0409 0.0251
FU 0.0443 0.0035 0.0231 0.0142
RD 0.0306 0.0024 0.0160 0.0098
SG 0.0406 0.0032 0.0212 0.0130
ST 0.0112 0.0458
SI
SC 0.0161
UR 0.0232 0.0220 0.0944
Indirect Total Cohen's
Effect Beta effects effect f2
SCN -> ST 0.070 0.070
SCN -> SI 0.005 0.005
SCN ->
SC 0.036 0.036
SCN -> BI 0.022 0.022
SCN ->
UR 0.237 0.237 0.069
EN -> ST 0.026 0.026
EN -> SI 0.002 0.002
EN -> SC 0.014 0.014
EN -> BI 0.008 0.008
EN -> UR 0.089 0.089 0.010
LE -> ST 0.078 0.078
LE -> SI 0.006 0.006
LE -> SC 0.041 0.041
LE -> BI 0.025 0.025
LE -> UR 0.265 0.265 0.085
FU -> ST 0.044 0.044
FU -> SI 0.003 0.003
FU -> SC 0.023 0.023
FU -> BI 0.014 0.014
FU -> UR 0.150 0.150 0.030
RD -> ST 0.031 0.031
RD -> SI 0.002 0.002
RD -> SC 0.016 0.016
RD -> BI 0.010 0.010
RD -> UR 0.104 0.104 0.018
SG -> ST 0.041 0.041
SG -> SI 0.003 0.003
SG -> SC 0.021 0.021
SG -> BI 0.013 0.013
SG -> UR 0.138 0.138 0.026
185
ST -> SI 0.011 0.011
ST -> SC 0.075 0.075 0.005
ST -> BI 0.046 0.046
SI -> BI 0.107 0.107 0.018
SC -> SI 0.151 0.151 0.023
SC -> BI 0.597 0.016 0.613 0.569
UR -> ST 0.295 0.295 0.095
UR -> SI 0.023 0.023
UR -> SC 0.132 0.022 0.154 0.016
UR -> BI 0.094 0.094
Construct SCN EN LE FU RD SG ST SI SC BI UR
SCN 1.0000
EN 0.5443 1.0000
LE 0.4234 0.4471 1.0000
FU 0.4653 0.4163 0.4989 1.0000
RD 0.3217 0.1915 0.3447 0.3264 1.0000
SG 0.3951 0.3801 0.5121 0.3998 0.3651 1.0000
ST 0.1203 0.1082 0.1750 0.1337 0.0753 0.1055 1.0000
SI 0.1627 0.1236 0.2063 0.1683 0.1256 0.1630 0.7814 1.0000
SC 0.1312 0.1247 0.1397 0.1123 0.1056 0.1344 0.1136 0.1505 1.0000
BI 0.1940 0.1957 0.1925 0.1752 0.1388 0.2161 0.1542 0.1972 0.6134 1.0000
UR 0.5549 0.4709 0.5864 0.5185 0.3875 0.4987 0.2952 0.3521 0.1539 0.2301 1.0000
Factor BI EN FU LE RD SC SCN SG SI ST UR
BI
EN 1.598
FU 1.550
LE 1.699
RD 1.258
SC 1.019
SCN 1.663
SG 1.519
SI 1.019 1.000
ST 1.212
UR 1.212 1.000
Value
SRMR 0.0697
d_ULS 6.204
d_G1 2.164
d_G2 1.734
Chi- 14,104
Square .71
186
187