Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Memnuniyet Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2022, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 446 - 461, 15.08.2022

Halil İbrahim Özok , Murat Kayri , Fuat Tanhan

https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1108292

Abstract

Nitelikli bir eğitim hem kendisinden beklenen amaçları gerçekleştirmesine hem de bu hizmetten yararlananların memnuniyet düzeyine bağlıdır. Yükseköğretim kurumları açısından sunulan hizmetin niteliğinin belirlenmesinde öğrenci memnuniyetinin belirlenmesi önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, üniversite öğrencilerinin memnuniyet düzeylerini ölçülmesinde kullanılabilecek bir ölçme aracının geliştirilmesi bu çalışmanın amacını oluşturmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda “Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Memnuniyet Ölçeği”nin (Ü-ÖMÖ) 1569 kişi üzerinden Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA), 1337 kişi üzerinden ise Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Yapılan AFA sonucunda, varyansın %58,219 açıklandığı 40 maddeden oluşan dört faktörlü (i. Üniversitenin Sosyal, Kültürel ve Fiziki İmkânları, ii. Eğitim Görülen Programın Olanakları, iii. Üniversite Hizmet Alanı ve iv. Üniversite Algısı) bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Nihai ölçek formunda bulunan 40 maddeye ilişkin Cronbach alfa (α) iç tutarlık katsayısı .94 olarak bulunmuştur. DFA sonucunda elde edilen yapı doğrulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, “Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Memnuniyet Ölçeği”nin (Ü-ÖMÖ) üniversite öğrencilerinin memnuniyetlerini geçerli ve güvenilir şekilde ölçebilen bir ölçme aracı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Üniversite öğrencileri, memnuniyet ölçeği, geçerlik-güvenirlik çalışması

University Student Satisfaction Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

A qualified education depends on both the realization of the objectives expected from it and the level of satisfaction of those who benefit from this service. Determination of student satisfaction has an important place in determining the quality of the service offered in terms of higher education institutions. In this context, the aim of this study is to develop a measurement tool that can be used to measure the satisfaction levels of university students. For this purpose, “University Students Satisfaction Scale” (U-SSS) was developed. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on 1569 university students, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on 1337 university students. As a result of the EFA, a structure consisting of 40 items with four factors (i. Social, Cultural and Physical Facilities of the University, ii. Facilities of the Educational Program, iii. University Service Area and iv. University Perception) was obtained. The variance was explained 58.219%. The Cronbach's alpha (α) internal consistency coefficient for 40 items in the final scale form was found to be .94. The structure obtained as a result of DFA was confirmed. As a result of the study, it has been determined that “University Students Satisfaction Scale” (U-SSS) is a measurement tool that can measure university students' satisfaction in a valid and reliable way.

Keywords

University students, satisfaction scale, validity-reliability study

References

• Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133-148.
• Arbaugh, J. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1234–1244. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2010.05.020
• Archambault, L. Z. (2008). Measuring student satisfaction and its impact on student retention: Developing a combined model for use in private, post-secondary institutions. Nova Southeastern University.
• Asosega, K. A., Iddrisu, W. A., Tawiah, K., Opoku, A. A., & Okyere, E. (2022). Comparing Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood Methods in Structural Equation Modelling of University Student Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis. Education Research International, 2022.
• Atici, B., & Türel, Y. K. (2011). Students’ perceptions, interaction and satisfaction in the interactive blended courses: A case study. In Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in e-learning: An introduction to empirical research (pp. 375-391). IGI Global.
• Blackmon, S. J., & Major, C. (2012). Student experiences in online courses: A qualitative research synthesis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2), 77–85.
• Browne, B. A., Kaldenberg, D. O., Browne, W. G., & Brown, D. J. (1998). Student as customer: Factors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of marketing for higher education, 8(3), 1-14.
• Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi‐models of quality in education. Quality assurance in Education. 5(1), 22-31.
• Chuah, C. W., & Sri Ramalu, S. (2011). Students satisfaction towards the university: Does service quality matters?. International Journal of Education, 3(2), 1-15.
• Cochran, J. D., Baker, H. M., Benson, D., & Rhea, W. (2016). Business student perceptions of online learning: Using focus groups for richer understanding of student perspectives. Organization Management Journal, 13(3), 149–166. doi:10.1080/15416518.2016.1218195
• Çakmak, E. K., Çebi, A., & Kan, A. (2014). E-öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik “sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeği” geliştirme çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(2), 755-768.
• Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of marketing for higher education, 10(4), 1-11.
• Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education policy and management, 24(2), 197-209.
• Endres, M. L., Chowdhury, S., Frye, C., & Hurtubis, C. A. (2009). The multifaceted nature of online MBA student satisfaction and impacts on behavioral intentions. Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 304–312. doi:10.3200/ JOEB.84.5.304-312 Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, 493-541.
• Fu, M., Zhang, L. F., & Li, B. (2019). Revisiting the congruence–satisfaction relationship: the role of external forces. Journal of Career Development, 46(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317737379
• Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Folgado-Fernández, J. A., Hipólito-Ojalvo, F., & Valdez-Juárez, L. E. (2020). Social responsibility attitudes and behaviors’ influence on university students’ satisfaction. Social Sciences, 9(2), 8.
• Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Bond Jr, N. A., & Sutton, M. A. (1954). A factor analysis study of human interests. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 68(4), 1.
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Herwin, H., Fathurrohman, F., Wuryandani, W., Dahalan, S. C., Suparlan, S., Firmansyah, F., & Kurniawati, K. (2022). Evaluation of structural and measurement models of student satisfaction in online learning. Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN, 2252(8822), 8822.
• Kaya, S. (2021). Predictors of online learning satisfaction of pre-service teachers in Turkey. Istraživanja u pedagogiji, 11(2), 586-607.
• Kerlin, C. A. (2000). Measuring student satisfaction with the service processes of selected student educational support services at Everett Community College. Oregon State University.
• Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing management. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Kuo, Y.C., (2010). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in distance education courses. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 741. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/741
• Landrum, B., Bannister, J., Garza, G., & Rhame, S. (2021). A class of one: Students’ satisfaction with online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 96(2), 82-88. Doi: 10.1080/08832323.2020.1757592
• Li, N., Marsh, V., & Rienties, B. (2016). Modelling and managing learner satisfaction: Use of learner feedback to enhance blended and online learning experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 216–242. doi:10.1111/dsji.12096
• Marcoulides GA.(2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
• Memduhoğlu, H. B., Çiftçi, S. ve Özok, H. İ. (2014). İşbirlikli öğrenmenin yabancı dil öğretimindeki önemine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 1-14.
• Molina Roa, N. A. (2012). El modelo de pedagogía social como herramienta de acercamiento entre la sociedad y la Universidad. Revista de la Universidad de La Salle, 2012(57), 219-229.
• Navarro, M. M., Iglesias, M. P., & Torres, P. R. (2005). A new management element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of educational management. 19(6), 505-526.
• Nunually, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Olıver, R. L., & Desarbo, W. S. (1989). Processing of the satisfaction response in consumption: a suggested framework and research proposition. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2, 1-16.
• Parahoo, S., Santally, M., Rajabalee, Y., & Harvey, H. (2016). Designing a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/08841241.2015.1083511
• Pesch, K. M., Larson, L. M., & Seipel, M. T. (2018). Career certainty and major satisfaction: The roles of information-seeking and occupational knowledge. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(4), 583-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717723093
• Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Tierney, P. (1995). Going to extremes: managing service encounters and assessing provider performance. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 83 - 97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252075
• Price, R. A., Arthur, T. Y., & Pauli, K. P. (2016). A comparison of factors affecting student performance and satisfaction in online, hybrid and traditional courses. Business Education Innovation Journal, 8(2), 32–40.
• Saif, N. I. (2014). The effect of service quality on student satisfaction: a field study for health services administration students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(8), 172-181.
• Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2015). Factors affecting perceived learning, satisfaction, and quality in the online MBA: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Education for Business, 90(6), 296–305. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1038979
• Secchi, D. (2006). The Italian experience in social reporting: an empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(3), 135-149.
• Sharma, A., & Sharma, R. (2018). Internet addiction and psychological well-being among college students: A cross-sectional study from Central India. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 7(1), 147–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ 2Fjfm pc. jfmpc_ 189_ 17
• Stukalina, Y. (2014). Identifying Predictors of Student Satisfaction and Student Motivation in the Framework of Assuring Quality in the Delivery of Higher Education. Business, management and education, 12(1), 127-137.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn Boston. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tavşancil, E., & Keser, H. (2002). Development of a Likert Type Attitude Scale towards Internet Usage. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 1(1).
• Toufaily, E., Zalan, T., & Lee, D. (2018). What do learners value in online education? An emerging market perspective. E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 12(2), 24–39.
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (2019). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023). https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Onbirinci KalkinmaPlani.pdf
• Zu, L., & Song, L. (2009). Determinants of managerial values on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 105-117.