The roles of student trust, identity and commitment in the relationship between university reputation and behavioral intention

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: [email protected] 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: [email protected]. 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