How Loyal Can A Graduate Ever Be? The Influence of Motivation and Employment On Student Loyalty

Studies in Higher Education
ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20
How loyal can a graduate ever be? The influence of

motivation and employment on student loyalty
Luis Doña Toledo & Teodoro Luque Martínez
To cite this article: Luis Doña Toledo & Teodoro Luque Martínez (2020) How loyal can a graduate
ever be? The influence of motivation and employment on student loyalty, Studies in Higher
Education, 45:2, 353-374, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1532987
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1532987
Published online: 16 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 328
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2020, VOL. 45, NO. 2, 353–374
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1532987
How loyal can a graduate ever be? The influence of motivation and
employment on student loyalty
Luis Doña Toledo and Teodoro Luque Martínez
Department of Marketing and Market Research, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The Higher Education Sector is improving its relationship with graduates Motives for choice; labor
due to the economic, social and technological changes that affect results; loyalty; satisfaction;
universities. We present a consolidated model in this study of both the perceived value
consequences and the antecedents of satisfaction that are determinative
of the formation of loyalty in the university sector. In addition to testing
the model, we evaluate the differences found in the relations between
the motives given by the graduates for their choices (vocation and
career paths) and their current employment situation (employed or
unemployed). Grounded on the literature, we propose the conceptual
model and test it with PLS supported by a sample of 805 graduates
qualified in economics/business/management. The results highlight that
perceived value determines image, satisfaction and loyalty, as well as
the causal relation between image and both satisfaction and loyalty.
Vocation determines the influence of value on satisfaction while career
options produce no differences. However, employment status to a great
extent conditions the perspective of the graduate. The influence of
these variables has not been examined earlier in the literature. Given the
competitive world of Higher Education, the conclusions may assist
directors and managers of Higher Education institutions in decision-
making, as well as improving graduate satisfaction and loyalty and the
reputation of the university.
1. Introduction
At present, the Higher Education (HE) sector is redefining the relation that it has with its university
graduates. Mora (1997) affirmed that the relation of the university with its graduates is an important
one, among other reasons, because satisfaction is thereby improved and their loyalty is achieved. In
the words of Breton (2015), if there is a phrase that a student should never say, it is ‘I have finished my
studies’.
Education continues to form part of the professional career of a person. It is a good indicator for
the university that students perceive it as something more than a distant memory of their youth, but
more as a place to which they can return various times during their life to expand their knowledge
without necessarily enrolling on a full-time course. We never cease to learn, stimulated even more
today by the emergence of Lifelong Learning (OCDE 2015). All in all, this is a reference to loyalty
and not only to behavioral, but also to attitudinal loyalty (for example, recommendations and positive
word-of-mouth) (Giner and Rillo 2016; Oliver 1999).
In general, the opinion of graduates, although very important, is not always given the importance
that it deserves. Different factors that affect HE mean that universities are lending more attention to
CONTACT Luis Doña Toledo luisdt@ugr.es Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Marketing and Market
Research, University of Granada, Campus de la Cartuja, s/n, Granada 18071, Spain
© 2018 Society for Research into Higher Education
354 L. DOÑA TOLEDO AND T. LUQUE MARTÍNEZ
their relation with graduates. In particular, the HE sector is immersed in deep change that affects both
its demand and its offer and its processes in a panorama of globalization (Dale 2007; Ludeman 2010).
Financing and economic readjustment (Guzmán-Valenzuela 2016), the incipient influence of uni-
versity rankings (Vernon, Balas, and Momani 2018) and the rupture of educational frontiers thanks to
ICTs (Henderson, Selwyn, and Aston 2017; Vega-Hernández, Patino-Alonso, and Galindo-Villardón
2018) mean that universities focus on attracting new potential students and retaining both their
existing students and their graduates.
The consolidation of stable relations between any type of organization and its principal clients has
been converted into an essential tool to guarantee the survival of those organizations (Zhang et al.
2016). Universities should enter into relations with their different stakeholders to confront this new
panorama (Schlesinger, Cervera, and Pérez-Cabañero 2016). These new relations call for a continuous
search for improvements in both university management and services and have provoked changes in
its routine practices. In this way, greater attention is lent to such aspects as image and reputation, and
satisfaction and perceived value or loyalty that the target public may have (Maringe and Mourad
2012; Ross, Grace, and Shao 2012).
This focus especially occurs in the area of economics/management studies where there is a special
interest in analyzing these variables, in particular satisfaction (Blázquez Resino et al. 2013). There is a
relatively abundant literature on the subject and various authors have analyzed the assessment of
accounting, marketing, economics or business students, in general (Douglas, Douglas, and Barnes
2006; Ledden, Kalafatis, and Samouel 2007; Moosmayer and Siems 2012; Munteanu et al. 2010).
First of all, the reasons for the choice of university course condition satisfaction and loyalty. The
motive for the choice of studies is a fundamental antecedent to understand and to explain the assess-
ment of the university experience. Educational services require students to have appropriate reasons
for choice to achieve their aims (Gruber et al. 2010). Student motivation is vital for successful partici-
pation in the prolonged drawn out process of the university stage and the quality of the educational
result (Sojkin, Bartkowiak, and Skuza 2015).
The literature has shown that career opportunities and vocation are the principal aspects that lead
them to choose a business career, although with greater importance attached to white-collar jobs in
the majority of cases (Auyeung and Sands 1997; Law and Yuen 2012; Luque Martínez et al. 2014, 2015,
2016; Mauldin, Crain, and Mounce 2000; Myburgh 2005; Paulsen and Gentry 1995).
Browne, Kaldenberg, and Browne (1999) concluded that business students attach greater value to
the career opportunities associated with their studies and are more critical of those opportunities
than students from other disciplines. In this context, the objective of the European Strategy 2020
is for at least 40% of people between 30-and-34-years old to have completed their university
studies and be in full employment. One of the expected results in the mind of the student who
decides to attend university is to find and to remain in acceptable employment (Gielnik et al.
2015; Woam 2011) as the quality of the education is closely linked to an evaluation of the educational
outcomes that are achieved (Riggert et al. 2006; Zeithaml and Bitner 2002). However, the impact of
the employment situation on aspects such as loyalty and perceived value has not been previously
analyzed in the literature. The formation of graduate loyalty towards the university has not been
sufficiently well addressed in the literature.
In short, knowledge of the formation of satisfaction towards the university and loyalty towards it
with the different aspects that moderate that loyalty among the graduates, would be of great help for
university management.
The objective of this investigation is to propose a model for the formation of loyalty among uni-
versity graduates, and to analyze and validate it, so as to understand the effect of the post-university
experience and the motives expressed by graduates for their choice. All of these data reflect the per-
spectives of university graduates, specifically from business studies. In the end, as Wardley, Bélanger,
and Leonard (2013) affirmed, university graduates are the only ones who can really value the function
and the satisfaction of their time at university.
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 355
One novelty of this work is its comparison of the students’ evaluation of the university experiences
according to the motives for their choice and their employment situation. In short, to test the stability
of the explanatory model of satisfaction and loyalty towards vocation, employment opportunities
and employment situation.
2. Satisfaction and loyalty in the university context

Satisfaction, the result of experiencing a service and comparing it with the expected performance or
expectation (Oliver 1980), is applied to both intangible and tangible assets, and may be defined at
two different levels: as a simple transaction or as the accumulated global impression of the relation
(Jones and Suh 2000).
There are different definitions of satisfaction within the field of marketing services. Oliver (1980)
defines it as an experience of a finite duration that is directly related with the experience of a
product or service, serving to maintain or to improve the previous attitude that the client had of
that product of service. It is the state of mind of a person, for Kotler (1999, 2000), that arises from
comparing the perceived performance of a product or service with its initial expectations, having
a close relation with perceived value.
If we look at the HE area, Elliott and Shin (2002) defined it as a subjective evaluation by students of
the different results (employment, social, etc.) as well as their experiences of education and campus
life and their initial expectations. These same authors stated that the motives that led the student to
decide on the course to follow and the university played a fundamental role in those expectations.
There are numerous investigations centered on the concept of university satisfaction that study
the components or determinants that form it (Blázquez Resino et al. 2013; DeShields, Kara, and
Kaynak 2005; Marzo, Pedraja, and Rivera 2005; Moosmayer and Siems 2012). Richardson (2005)
reviewed the research evidence of formal instruments to measure student satisfaction and percep-
tions concluding that the comments and opinions of students were not taken into account by tea-
chers and institutions.
In other studies, looking at different components of student satisfaction, Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker,
and Grogaard (2002) distinguished between academic and pedagogic teaching quality, social ambi-
ence, aesthetic aspects of infrastructure and service quality, the first of which had greater influence
on satisfaction. Others studies concerned students’ perceptions (Richardson 2003), and the predictors
of attainment in students after the award of their first degree (Richardson and Woodley 2003), and
intentions to repeat the same studies (Luque-Martínez and Doña-Toledo 2013).
The majority of the works refer to satisfaction among enrolled students, in other words, during
their university experience. This approach differs radically from the recommendations of Westbrook
and Oliver (1991) and Mano and Oliver (1993), who affirmed that satisfaction is a state that should be
assessed following consumption of the service experience. In this way, we define the university satis-
faction of the student as an a posteriori evaluative judgment that confirms the expectations of the set of
factors of the whole university experience from the choice of course up until the employment experience.
Moreover, loyalty covers both attitudes and behaviors, which suggests that loyalty is a sequential
process that manifests consumer preferences for a particular brand or service, which includes the
cognitive, affective and cognitive within the traditional decision scheme of the client (Dick and
Basu 1994; Oliver 1999).
Oliver (1997) affirmed that loyalty to an organization may be achieved when the preference
remains in the long-term regardless of the situational factors or the background setting. In the edu-
cational area, loyalty means a profound emotional commitment and enrollment at a chosen edu-
cational institution in a consistent way in the future, to recommend the service to others and to
encourage them to use it (Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1988).
The loyalty of the graduate is considered an essential aspect for the survival of the higher edu-
cation institutions (Hatch and Garcia 2017; Helgesen and Nesset 2007). The present-day situation,
characterized by the appearance of new learning alternatives, growing internationalization and
difficulties over financing mean that more efforts are made to retain contact with current students in
the future (Athiyaman 1997; Kantanen 2012).
In the services sector, it was demonstrated that satisfaction and loyalty are closely related, the
former acting as an antecedent of the latter (Dick and Basu 1994; Kumar, Dalla Pozza, and Ganesh
2013). This relation has also been established within the field of HE (Ali et al. 2016) and other
public services (Lei and Jolibert 2012), In the case of tourism and hospitality graduates Eurico, da
Silva, and do Valle (2015) proposed a model for graduate satisfaction and loyalty.
As Markelz (2016) made clear, satisfaction is a mood and refers to the past and to what the organ-
ization or the firm does for consumers while loyalty is a behavior, which refers to the future and to
what consumers will do for the organization.
Table 1 shows recent studies in which both loyalty and satisfaction are analyzed in the field of
Higher Education:
3. Conceptual model
The relation between satisfaction and loyalty with other variables such as image and perceived value
have been studied in the literature, but less so their application in the field of Higher Education
(Eurico et al. 2015), and even less so when differentiating between typologies of graduates taking
graduate heterogeneity into account (Jiménez-Castillo, Sánchez-Fernández, and Iniesta-Bonillo 2013).
The image of universities is a concept that is progressively gaining greater interest for HE insti-
tutions. Image is defined by Beerli Palacio, Díaz Meneses, and Pérez Pérez (2002) as a ‘set of interpret-
ations and beliefs spontaneously associated with a particular (physical and social) stimulus that has
previously triggered a series of associations in the individuals’. Maringe and Gibbs (2008) affirmed
that favorable university images had a positive impact on the perception of an educational system
or even a society. As examples, they mentioned the ‘Oxbridge’ compendium of the English university
image or the Harvard-Yale binomial, as examples of a solid image principally based on investigation
and technological innovation.
The image of the university influences perceptions and can affect the choice and the behavior of
students and even staff recruitment within firms. In this sense, Marzo et al. (2005) and Helgesen and
Nesset (2007) found a positive relation between image as an antecedent of satisfaction, while Leblanc
and Nguyen (1997) came to the conclusion that satisfaction will not necessarily lead to a favorable
perception of the image.
Broekemier and Seshadri (2000), Pampaloni (2010) and Matherly (2012) concluded that image is
one of the attributes and the principal motivations that the students take into account when select-
ing a university and that it influences satisfaction. Schlesinger, Cervera, and Pérez-Cabañero (2016)
demonstrated how image is an antecedent of satisfaction with the university sector and Clemes,
Gan, and Kao (2008) confirmed the same findings in the area of business studies. In accordance
with the above literature review, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: The perceived image of the university has a positive influence on the satisfaction of the graduate.
Perceived value has been analyzed less in HE. It is a fundamental aspect in the evaluation process, as
it has an important emotional component and the student dedicates quite a lot of time and effort to
achieving a qualification, so the benefits gained in exchange for the sacrifices are always reviewed.
Perceived value was defined by Bigné Alcañiz, Moliner Tena, and Sánchez García (2003) as ‘the
global evaluation that the consumer makes of the usefulness of a relation of exchange based on
the perceptions of what is given and what is received’. Perceived value is configured within the uni-
versity context as the net result of university life (Stafford 1994).
University students invest effort and expectations in obtaining a university qualification and they
hope that they will be rewarded with a good training, with the acquisition of knowledge, the chance
to find a good job, making friends and having a standard of living in accordance with their expec-
tations in the future. Students therefore accept a concept that groups together a functional value
Table 1. Investigations that focus on the study of university satisfaction and loyalty.
Author Knowledge Area Methodology Population Country Result
Duarte, Raposo, All knowledge areas Path analysis 150 (graduates who Portugal Satisfaction maintained
and Alves (2012) completed the itself at similar levels both
same survey for enrolled students and
during their for graduates. Perceived
studies) value is the most
important aspect to
determine the
satisfaction of the
university graduate,
while image has a
significant impact on
quality.
Kheiry, Rad, and All knowledge areas Path analysis. 989 enrolled Iran Image and satisfaction as
Asgari (2012) students antecedents of loyalty.
Lai et al. (2012) Business and finance, Factor analysis 316 enrolled China Satisfaction is a
humanities and and regression students consequence of
social sciences, perceived value.
engineering and
architecture and
social sciences
Moosmayer and Business students Factor analysis 191 enrolled Germany The positive perception of
Siems (2012) and regression students perceived value increases
satisfaction with the
institution. The value is
linked to values of
universalism and power.
Sultan and Yin All knowledge areas Factor analysis, 528 students Australia Quality is an antecedent of
Wong (2012) SEM* and satisfaction, trust and
(qualitative) image. The importance of
focus groups past experience is
demonstrated.
Blázquez Resino Business students SEM 145 enrolled Spain Sports activities and
et al. (2013) students international programs
are the social impacts
with the greatest impact
on student satisfaction.
Eurico et al. (2015) Tourism SEM 174 graduates Portugal Employability affects the
perceived image of the
university.
Wilkins et al. (2016) Business and SEM 437 enrolled United The identification and the
management students Kingdom commitment towards the
students & United university institution are
Arab the components that
Emirates achieve greater
satisfaction.
Ali et al. (2016) Not specified PLS** 241 enrolled Malaysia There is a positive relation
students between satisfaction and
loyalty as well as image.
Schlesinger, All knowledge areas SEM 1000 graduates Spain Positive image leads to
Cervera, and satisfaction and in turn
Pérez-Cabañero also to loyalty.
(2016)
Giner and Rillo Mathematics and SEM 196 enrolled Spain Satisfaction has a positive
(2016) computer sciences students impact on loyalty,
(postgraduates) moderated by co-
creation.
Subrahmanyam All knowledge areas SEM 1439 enrolled India There is a direct effect of
(2017) students perceived quality on
student satisfaction and
motivation; and an
indirect effect on student
loyalty.
266 graduates Chile
(Continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Author Knowledge Area Methodology Population Country Result
Espinoza et al. Eduacation and Regression and Satisfaction with
(2017) Psychology ANOVA† employment after
graduation is principally
determined by the
perceptions of quality
and satisfaction with the
university.
*Structural Equation Modeling (SEM); **Partial Least Squares (PLS); †Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
(for example, obtaining employment after their studies), epistemic (acquiring knowledge), emotional,
environmental (for example, infrastructures, university location and environment) and social (Lai et al.
2012).
Given this scenario, we define value within the university context as the net result of the graduate’s
evaluation of perceived sacrifice and perceived benefit, taking into account academic, social, quality, and
growth aspects and the ultimate outcomes in terms of employment and confirmation, or otherwise, of
expectations.
In contexts outside the HE sector, some authors have empirically demonstrated that the principal
consequence of value is satisfaction (Hu, Kandampully, and Juwaheer 2009; Ryu, Lee, and Kim 2012), a
relation that has also been confirmed among university students (Alves 2011; Clemes, Cohen, and
Wang 2013; Lai et al. 2012; Sánchez-Fernández et al. 2010; Schlesinger, Cervera, and Pérez-Cabañero
2016). The second hypothesis is therefore proposed on the basis of the above:
H2: The perceived value of the university has a positive influence on the satisfaction of the graduate.
There is a particular controversy in the field of HE over whether image acts as an antecedent or as a
consequent of perceived value (Alves 2011 Beerli Palacio, Díaz Meneses, and Pérez Pérez 2002).
Various authors have established that image is a consequence of perceived value (Andreassen and
Lindestad 1998; Chen and Tsai 2007 Hu, Kandampully, and Juwaheer 2009; Oliver 1996), as the
value of the result that is achieved influences the reputation and the image of the organization.
In the HE sector, the perception of different expected results such as a good salary, holding
employment, having acquired useful knowledge to carry out the work can reinforce the initial idea
of the perceived image of the university that, as commented earlier, is an implicit criterion in the
choice of university.
Ivy (2001) considering image as a consequence of value, found that this increased their perception
having acquired experience in employment. It is therefore proposed that:
H3: The perceived value of the university has a positive influence on the perceived image of the graduate.
Satisfied students are more likely to be loyal to the institution, to continue links during the
postgraduate period and are more predisposed to maintaining contact with the university fol-
lowing their graduation (Gibson 2010). In short, the maintenance of long-term relations with
graduates can generate competitive advantages for universities (Hennig-Thurau, Langer, and
Hansen 2001). After graduation, loyal students can continue to support their academic insti-
tution in different ways (Hennig-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen 2001): (a) contributing finance
(for example, donations); (b) positive communication through different channels; and, (c)
through some form of cooperation (for example, offering the possibility of practices to stu-
dents and participating in their activities).
Few studies have analyzed the loyalty of graduates, although it has been demonstrated in the uni-
versity context that satisfaction has a significant impact on loyalty (Alves and Raposo 2007; Arif and
Ilyas 2013; Athiyaman 1997; Helgesen and Nesset 2007). Recently, Giner and Rillo (2016) confirmed
this positive relation by demonstrating that it depends to a great extent on the capability of the
student to become involved in its formation.
The institutional image is also considered to have a positive influence on client loyalty. An image
of a product or service has an effect on the loyalty of consumers, because it is the first point of
attraction for them (Narteh 2013). Helgesen and Nesset (2007) confirmed this relation in the HE
sector.
Brown and Mazzarol (2009) and Sánchez-Fernández et al. (2010) confirmed that perceived value
has a positive effect on loyalty, which is its principal consequence. The fact that the received benefits
are greater than the sacrifice (time, effort, money, etc.) made to attain the university title reinforces
the loyalty of the graduate.
In accordance with the above, the three following hypotheses are proposed:
H4: Graduate satisfaction positively influences the loyalty of the graduate.
H5: The perceived image of the university positively influences the loyalty of the graduate.
H6: The perceived value of the university experience positively influences the loyalty of the graduate.
3.1. The influence of the motives for choice of institution and the employment situation
Motivation is at the origin of the decision to attend university and conditions the perception of the
university experience. The motive for selecting the university and a particular course, as an invest-
ment in the future employment of the student, without a doubt influences learning, the predisposi-
tion and the final satisfaction of the student (Arquero et al. 2009).
Motivation in the theory of Self-determination (Deci and Ryan 1985, 2008) is classified by three
types: (1) intrinsic, a behavior is chosen or followed because of the satisfaction that is derived
from its practice; (2) extrinsic, when it is done for instrumental motives; (3) demotivation: inability
to predict the consequences of a behavior such that the individual does it in a meaningless way.
Faye and Sharpe (2008) applied these motivational types to a sample of university students. Thus
the intrinsic motivation of students principally consisted of the desire to grow intellectually and to
choose in accordance with their preferences and interests: in a word, their vocation. Holland
(1997) affirmed that the choice of a university course by vocation represents an extension of the per-
sonality of each individual. The extrinsic motivations would correspond to certain pragmatic criteria
such as employment opportunities (Lowe and Simons 1997; Mauldin, Crain, and Mounce 2000;
Myburgh 2005; Wardley et al. 2013), the recommendations of parents and third parties (Byrne and
Flood 2007), the difficulty of the university course (Byrne, Willis, and Burke 2012), and the economic
situation of the student and the family setting.
The studies conducted to date show that the intrinsic type of motive (above all, vocation) is of
greater importance in the choice of the student (Byrne et al. 2012; Law and Yuen 2012; Wardley
et al. 2013).
Throughout the literature there are studies within the discipline of economics and the firm that
analyze the influence of their motivations and the scientific area on the choice of institution.
Ahmed, Alam, and Alam 1997 affirmed that on certain courses of study, all from the business and
finance area, the intrinsic aspects hardly played an important role in the decision-taking of the
student, where the professional opportunities (above all in those professions that can lead to high
salaries) were the main motive. Sojkin et al. (2015) demonstrated that students from this branch of
studies could be more conditioned by economic, social, and demographic changes which is why
they give greater consideration to their professional opportunities.
Along these lines, the recent studies of Byrne et al. (2012) and Stephenson, Heckert, and Yerger
(2016) have confirmed that students from this branch of knowledge have a greater influence over
professional opportunities and even achieve better incomes.
However, the literature has not analyzed the measurement and the influence of the motives in
areas such as image and perceived value. Only some studies have analyzed their importance in con-
nection with satisfaction (Arquero et al. 2009). As Solinas et al. (2012) affirmed, the motive for the
choice of institution can vary the perception of different aspects of the university stage and even the
ensuing results. Normally, it may be thought that vocation should lead to a better assessment than
career opportunities following the precepts of the Theory of Self-confirmation (Deci and Ryan 2000).
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H7a: Statistically significant differences will be found in the scores of the relations of the model of university
loyalty between students who choose their university course on the basis of vocation and those who do not.
H7b: Statistically significant differences in the scores of the relations of the model of university loyalty will be
found between students who select their university course on the basis of career opportunities and those who
do not.
On another note, Clemes et al. (2008) demonstrated that employment quality determined graduate
assessments. Although not controlled by the university institution itself, the result of the post-univer-
sity experience is linked to education. The post-university experience has a marked impact on the
perception and the utility of the studies that have been conducted, leading to greater or lesser sat-
isfaction with the university and the chosen course. In the final years, the relations and connections
that a university has with the employment market have acquired increasing importance among stu-
dents (Woodfield 2011).
On this point, it is important to differentiate between employability and entry into the labor
market. Employability is defined by Cheong, Hill, Leong, and Zhang (2016) as ‘a set of achieve-
ments-skills, comprehensions and personal attributes – which mean that the graduates have
greater probabilities of obtaining successful employment in their chosen occupations, which
benefits them, society and the economy’ while entry into the labor market refers to the graduates
with jobs that are in accordance with their studies (Beerepoot and Kumar 2015). The students
expect that the university will satisfy both questions, thereby increasing their loyalty (Woam 2011).
In our case, we will center on entry into the labor market.
Various authors have suggested that the assessment should be done once the university course
has ended, establishing a proper comparison between expectations-experience-result. This
approach makes particular sense in HE. The assessment of the service should therefore be done
following completion of the full course, so that it is more inclusive (Hunt 1977; Westbrook and
Oliver 1991).
Students judge their experience according to the perception of the service they have received and
its outcome (Zeithaml and Bitner 2002). In the case of university experiences, a ‘successful result’ after
graduation is associated with the studies and/or the university where the graduate studied and
employment is a fundamental criterion (Greene and Miller 1996; Riggert et al. 2006; Warn and
Tranter 2001). Espinoza, González, McGinn, Castillo, and Sandoval (2017) showed that holding a
job and job satisfaction affected the perception of the university.
In accordance with the above, the university experience is strongly related with perceived
value, given that the graduate evaluates and compares the costs, time and sacrifice invested
with respect to the results achieved after the university course. Browne et al. (1999) concluded
that business students, more so than the students of other disciplines, attached higher value
to and were more critical of the results of employment arising from their studies than the stu-
dents of other disciplines.
No previous studies have been found in the literature that have considered the influence of the
situation at work on loyalty and satisfaction as well as image and perceived value. However, as
expressed earlier, those who find themselves at present in a situation of employment might have
a better perception of the university (Belfield and Harris 2002; Woam 2011). So, it is proposed that:
H7c: Statistically significant differences in the scores of the relations of the model may be found between those
who are employed and those who are not.
Thus, the proposed model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model.
4. Method
4.1. Questionnaire and scales of measurement
The three most recent reports on graduate studies from the University of Granada were used to
perform the analysis (Luque Martínez et al. 2014, 2015, 2016). The survey was administered three
years after the students had finished their degrees, so that they would carry only a minimum of
baggage with regard to their working experience and post-graduate studies. The idea was to
measure the impact of the post-university experience on the evaluation, utility and perception of
their studies and of the institution. Contact with the graduates was principally through e-mail and
telephone to provide them with a user name and a password with which to respond to an on-line
questionnaire.
The following measurement scales were used in the section on evaluation and perception of the
university graduate:
- Measurement of the perceived value of the graduates is an adaptation of the Likert-type scale of
three items and 5 points developed by Zeithaml and Bitner (1996) and enlarged by Cronin,
Brady, and Hult (2000). The scale in question has been validated in various studies such as
those of Gallarza and Saura (2006) and Sabiote, Frías, and Castañeda (2012).
- A five point Likert-type scale with three points adapted from Cronin et al. (2000) was used to
measure satisfaction with the university experience. This scale was used in the university edu-
cation sector by Ledden et al. (2007).
- The image of the institution of higher education was measured through a five point Likert-type scale
with 3 items used by Luque-Martínez and Del Barrio-García (2009) in the HE sector.
- Loyalty was measured through an adaption of four items taken from Oliver (1999).
- With regard to the questions referring to motivations and the employment situation, nominal
dichotomic scales were used where the graduate was asked to reply Yes/No according to
whether the course was chosen for vocation or career opportunities as well as whether the
graduate was or was not currently in employment. Annex 1 lists the items of the different
measurement scales in use.
4.2. Sample
Over the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, a total of 3002 students completed their studies at the University
from the area of the business studies/economics disciplines. A total of 805 replies were forthcoming.
Regarding the motives for choice of institution, in accordance with previous investigations, career
opportunities had greater influence on the choice of studies as against the intrinsic motive of voca-
tion. A total of 66% of graduates from the discipline of business studies took into account the employ-
ment possibilities, in contrast 30.8% were guided by a sense of vocation. Besides, 61.4% were in
employment at the time of the interview while 38.6% were unemployed.
4.3. Data analysis

Structural equation modeling with PLS (Partial Least Squares) was employed to perform the data
analysis and to evaluate the relations between the constructs, using Smart PLS-Graph V.3.2. Software
to test their validity and reliability.
In comparison with other tools based on co-variance (CBM) such as Lisrel or Amos, PLS is a method
of analysis with immense scope that has recently been developed as an alternative (Chin, 1998). The
objective of PLS is to estimate dependent variables, maximizing their explained variance. In our case,
bootstrapping was performed on 5000 subsamples, both for the estimation of the global model and
for each one of the different sub-samples of the multigroup analysis. Three multigroup analyses were
performed: comparison between those who chose their institution out of a sense of vocation and
those who did not; and a comparison between those in active employment and those who were not.
5. Results
In the first place, referring to the model of measurement of the proposed model, Table 2 shows the
psychometric properties adjusted to the scales (one item referring to loyalty was removed, as it pre-
sented no appropriate psychometric properties, LOY4). All of the loads were significant in both the
global model and in all the groups (p < .01) and over 0.7 (Hair et al. 2010). The Cronbach’s Alpha
values, composite reliability (CR) and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were over acceptable
cut-off levels (0.7, 0.8 and 0.5, respectively) (Hair et al. 1995; Henseler, Hubona, and Ray 2016). It
may therefore be concluded that the scales in use presented good psychometric properties in all
Table 2. Characteristics of the sample.

Sample
Variable Category N %
Sex Women 505 62.7
Men 300 37.3
Qualification Marketing 49 6.1
Business Administration & Management 264 32.8
Economics 183 22.7
Business 217 26.9
Tourism 92 11.4
Motivation Vocation Yes 248 30.8
No 557 69.2
Career opportunities Yes 531 66.0
No 274 34.0
Employment situation Employed 486 61.4
Unemployed 306 38.6
No Answer/Don’t Know 13 1.6
Table 3. Psychometric properties of the scales for the global model and multigroups.
Latent Variable IMAGE LOYALTY SATISFACTION VALUE
Indicators IMG1 IMG2 IMG3 LOY1 LOY2 LOY3 SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SAT4 VAL1 VAL2 VAL3
Loads* GLOBAL 0.93 0.86 0.93 0.88 0.85 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.86 0.88 0.89
Vocation 0.93 0.83 0.92 0.89 0.82 0.90 0.93 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.85 0.89 0.89
No vocation 0.93 0.87 0.94 0.88 0.87 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.89 0.88 0.89
Career Opps. 0.93 0.87 0.94 0.88 0.87 0.92 0.93 0.90 0.92 0.97 0.87 0.88 0.89
No opps. 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.92 0.87 0.88 0.92 0.85 0.89 0.90
Employed 0.92 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.91 0.94 0.86 0.89 0.91
Unemployed 0.94 0.86 0.93 0.86 0.84 0.90 0.93 0.69 0.91 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.85
Composite reliability (CR) GLOBAL 0.93 0.91 0.95 0.91
Vocation 0.92 0.91 0.95 0.91
No vocation 0.94 0.92 0.95 0.91
Career Opps. 0.94 0.92 0.96 0.91
No opps. 0.93 0.90 0.94 0.91
Employed 0.93 0.92 0.96 0.92
Unemployed 0.93 0.90 0.95 0.89
Average variance extracted (AVE) GLOBAL 0.83 0.78 0.84 0.77
Vocation 0.80 0.76 0.84 0.77
No vocation 0.84 0.78 0.77 0.77
Career Opps. 0.83 0.79 0.85 0.77
No opps. 0.81 0.76 0.81 0.77
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Employed 0.82 0.79 0.84 0.79
Unemployed 0.83 0.75 0.83 0.74
Cronbach’s Alpha GLOBAL 0.89 0.86 0.94 0.86
Vocation 0.87 0.85 0.94 0.86
No vocation 0.90 0.86 0.93 0.85
Career Opps. 0.90 0.87 0.94 0.85
No opps. 0.88 0.84 0.85 0.85
Employed 0.89 0.87 0.94 0.87
Unemployed 0.90 0.84 0.93 0.83
*All loads are significant at a level of 1% (p < .00).
363
Table 4. Discriminant validity.

IMAGE LOYALTY SATISFACTION VALUE
IMAGE 0.91
LOYALTY 0.66 0.88
SATISFACTION 0.84 0.73 0.91
VALUE 0.72 0.61 0.78 0.88
cases. The measurement scales also presented good reliability in such a way that the absence of
measurement errors could also be affirmed (Table 3).
Furthermore, the discriminant validity was tested for each group, through the application of the
procedure proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), in which the square root of the variance extracted
should be greater than the correlations between the constructs. In Table 4, the results of the global
model may be seen. The values are practically similar and valid in all cases in the different groups. The
criteria suggested by Henseler et al. (2016) were also applied through the heterotrait-monotrait ratio
of the correlations (HTMT). The HTMT is an estimation of the correlation of the factors (more precisely,
of an upper limit), with the purpose of clearly discriminating between two factors, such that it should
be significantly lower than 1. In all cases after the application of bootstrapping the results were
acceptable.
Finally, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was 0.08 in the adjusted model pro-
vided by PLS. A value less than or equal to 0.08 is adequate for the PLS path models in a strict
sense (Henseler et al. 2016) and less than 0.10 with a more flexible criterion (Ringle, Sarstedt, and
Straub 2012).
In view of the above, the existence of validity can be concluded, in other words, the instruments in
the form of measurement scales really measure the constructs that they seek to measure (satisfaction,
perceived value, image and loyalty).
The results highlight (see Figure 2) that the perceived image of the university for the total sample
of the students of economics-business studies determined both the satisfaction and the loyalty of
graduates (p < 0.01) in a significant way, providing support both for H1 (β = 0.57) and for H5 (β = 0.13).
Figure 2. Estimated structural model – inner model.

Thus, the fact that the image of the University is an antecedent of both dimensions is confirmed.
Therefore, a good image that is generated of the teaching staff, the installations and the different
services of the University increase the possible retention of graduates.
With regard to the relations between perceived value and satisfaction with the university and
perceived image, the coefficients were significant such that empirical support is forthcoming for
H2 (β = 0.40) and for H3 (β = 0.72). Likewise, the relation between perceived value and loyalty was
also significant and positive which means that H6 (β = 0.08) is not rejected.
Support for those hypotheses is confirmed by the results achieved in the HE sector that begin with
the model of the European Customer Satisfaction Index (known as the ECSI) based on perceived value
(Alves and Raposo 2007; Brown and Mazzarol 2009). It makes it clear that a positive balance is needed
between the positive aspects received and the expenditure and effort that the student makes to gain
a university title, which all promote a better perception of the university stage. In short, it is an aspect
of special relevance, given that the student makes important sacrifices (time and money) with the aim
of obtaining long-term benefits in the employment market.
Finally, in accordance with what was hypothesized in H4 (β = 0.55), satisfaction has a significant
and positive effect on loyalty, supporting that same hypothesis. The positive effect of satisfaction
on loyalty reaffirms the need to orient university courses towards student satisfaction. The literature
presents student loyalty as a long-lasting aspect even after having completed the studies. The sub-
sequent patterns of behavior of loyal students include donations, membership of ex-alumni associ-
ations, and social participation and positive recommendations of the institution thanks to acceptable
levels of satisfaction, all of which is conditioned by the satisfaction level.
Accordingly, these results allow us to test and to validate a model of satisfaction-loyalty of the uni-
versity graduate following economics-business studies, determining the antecedents and the conse-
quences of satisfaction within the area of economics-business studies qualifications. Empirical
evidence was also found for the indirect effects on satisfaction and loyalty (p < 0.00).
The next stop was to conduct the three multigroup analyses (which also support the conceptual
model) with the objective of discovering whether there are differences according to the motives for
the choice of institution and the current employment situation.
With regard to vocation, we may affirm with these results that there are significant differences in
the relation between perceived value and satisfaction. In this case, the ‘vocationally-inclined’ students
presented some higher values (β = 0.450) than the non-vocational students (β = 0.329). So, those
guided by vocation have a higher perception of the perceived value of the university degree that
impacts in a significant manner on their satisfaction. Possibly, the fact of completing a qualification
motivated by the epistemic value of acquiring knowledge as well as the emotional factor of self-
realization can lead to greater satisfaction. However, it is the only relation with differences
between both groups that leads to the rejection of H7a.
Besides, no significant differences were found in any of the proposed relations when comparing
the results in terms of the motive of employment opportunities. Therefore, this motive has no effect
on the relations between satisfaction, image, value, and graduate loyalty. As commented earlier, the
great majority of students choose the knowledge areas of economics-business studies on account of
their employment opportunities. However, no noticeable impact was observed after graduation. This
result implies the rejection of hypothesis 7b. Whether or not the choice is due to employment oppor-
tunities generated no differences in the model of satisfaction-loyalty.
However, the employment situation did provoke significant differences between the graduates.
There was a greater effect among those in active employment in the relations between satisfaction
and loyalty (path dif: 0.168) and perceived value with satisfaction (path dif: 0.084) and with image
(path dif: 0.074). Therefore, in three of the six relations of the proposed model, there was greater per-
ception and strength in the relations when the graduate was in full employment. In a contradictory
way, although it is in principle not relevant to take the career opportunities into account, there was in
fact greater satisfaction once the graduates had found employment in the labor market, such that the
result really conditions the satisfaction and the perceived value felt by the student towards the
Table 5. Structural models and multigroup testing for significant difference between coefficients (PLS-MGA).
Path Path Path
coefficients coefficients coefficients
Career Current
Vocation Path coeff. opportunities Path coeff. employment Path coeff.
Yes No differences Yes No differences Yes No differences
IMG-LOY 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.12 0.11 0.19 0.08
IMG-SAT 0.61 0.50 0.12 0.56 0.57 0.01 0.53 0.62 0.09
SAT-LOY 0.58 0.53 0.05 0.54 0.56 0.02 0.61 0.45 0.17*
VAL-IMG 0.71 0.73 0.02 0.74 0.70 0.03 0.76 0.67 0.08***
VAL-LOY 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.10
VAL-SAT 0.45 0.33 0.12** 0.36 0.38 0.02 0.41 0.33 0.07*
R 2 IMG 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.49 0.57 0.45
R 2 SAT 0.60 0.52 0.56 0.51 0.56 0.53
R 2 LOY 0.76 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10.
university stage. In this way, by finding differences in three of the six proposed relations, H7c was
partially confirmed.
The model proposed a proper explanation for satisfaction-loyalty functions. The perceived value of
the university determined its image in an important and significant way. Perceived value and image
of the university determined satisfaction with the university and this, together with the earlier ones,
explained loyalty towards the university. The relations in the model were confirmed regardless of
whether the graduates chose their studies due to professional expectations (a majority in this type
of studies: management) or vocation-based choices (with one single exception, the relation
between perceived-value and vocation, where it was more positive among those who chose it as
a vocation). However, some of the relations of the model were not confirmed depending on
whether the graduate was in or out of work. Holding a job is a decisive factor as a conditioner of sat-
isfaction and, therefore, of loyalty towards the university.
In short, this study has validated the proposed SEM model, in such a way that an active employ-
ment situation improved the loyalty of graduates. The students expressed greater satisfaction with
the institution, which increased their level of loyalty (possible higher income, lower costs of recruiting
new students, completion of postgraduate studies and a higher probability of recommending the
university) (Table 5).
6. Conclusions, recommendations and limitations

The objective of the present work has been to validate a model of university satisfaction-loyalty for
graduates from the area of economics-business studies, as well as to examine the possible influence
of the motives for the choice of institution (vocation v. career opportunities) and the employment
situation (in employment at the time of the interview). Within this context, empirical support has
been found for the proposed model. Therefore, perceived value determines the image of the univer-
sity in an important way, as does satisfaction and, with less intensity, but at all times in a significant
way, loyalty.
Although the literature is not unanimous with regard to the direction of the direct causal relation
between perceived value and the image of the university, the conclusion reached in the present
study is in line with earlier studies such as those of Oliver (1996), Ivy (2001), Chen and Tsai (2007),
and Hu, Kandampully, and Juwaheer (2009), in particular for this type of graduate. The direct and
positive effect of perceived value on satisfaction has been noted, which was already foreseen in
the literature in other fields (Sánchez-Fernández et al. 2010) and the direct and positive effect on
loyalty may also be found in the literature (Eskildsen et al. 2000).
Perceived value or the balance between the benefits and sacrifices of the university experience
has been decisive in explaining satisfaction with the university and the expression of loyalty
towards it. And that influence has not only been apparent in a direct way, but the influence that it
exercises in an indirect way through the image on satisfaction and through satisfaction on loyalty
is also important. In effect, empirical support has also been found for the strong relation that the
image of the university exercises on satisfaction with the university and, to a lesser extent but
always in a significant way, with loyalty. Equally, the indirect effect through satisfaction has also to
be added to this direct effect of the image on loyalty. Finally, the strong and significant effect of sat-
isfaction with the university on the loyalty expressed towards it by this type of graduate has been
noted.
This model of satisfaction-loyalty is fulfilled for the graduates of economics-business studies
regardless of whether the motive for the choice of studies was vocational. Moreover, when analyzing
the multigroup differences, only in one of the relations of the model have significant differences been
found. Those graduates who chose to follow a vocation presented a greater effect of perceived value
on satisfaction than those who did not choose for this motive. There is an effect of reaffirmation of
their choice that leads to greater satisfaction from having their expectations confirmed. The value has
an epistemic and emotional value that conditions the possibilities of development in the students, if
they do not take into account their own tastes or interests, which conditions the final satisfaction
(Auyeung and Sands 1997; Byrne et al. 2012). Byrne et al. (2012) concluded that as soon as vocation
appears (at school), the reaffirmation of the studies and satisfaction with HE is greater.
The motive of career opportunities is highly valued by these types of graduates (Ahmed, Alam, and
Alam 1997; Arquero et al. 2009; Paulsen and Gentry 1995; Lai et al. 2012), however, it provokes no
significant differences in any of the relations of the satisfaction-loyalty model. The relations estab-
lished in the model are sufficiently stable, so as not see themselves altered in a significant way by
either the principal intrinsic motive that is motivation (apart from the above-mentioned exception),
or by the extrinsic motive that is career opportunities. They therefore influence the choice of insti-
tution, but not what happens afterwards.
Finding a job quickly, the availability of different offers, the opportunity for subsequent promotion
in the future, and finding a job with good working conditions, are aspects that the business students
take into account, but it is demonstrated that they really have no influence once the students have
entered the labor market. An aspect that must be due to the greater importance of vocation, and
because they are taken into account when choosing the university course, but their importance
diminishes as the students advance in the university experience.
On the contrary, the factor that has provoked significant differences is the employment situation
of the graduate. The graduates of economics-business studies who are working (therefore for those
who have turned their principal motive of choice into reality – career opportunities) attached greater
strength to the relations between:
- The perceived value of the university and image.

- The perceived value of the university and satisfaction.
- Satisfaction and loyalty towards the university.
To be in employment is a plus for those causal relations. To have employment means that greater
value is perceived that amounts to a better image of the university, greater satisfaction with it, and
greater loyalty towards it. In short, the condition of employment activates a virtuous circle, while the
condition of unemployment sets up a vicious circle that affects the university, as it amounts to worse
value, image, satisfaction and loyalty. And this is not only for the person in that situation of unemploy-
ment, but also for his surrounding, for the people with whom they have a relation and have some
capability of influencing through recommendation. In this way, satisfaction diminishes once the
expected result of employment is not achieved upon completion of the studies. This point implies
a novelty for the empirical testing, so scarcely studied in the literature, of the consequences of a situ-
ation of employment on image, satisfaction and loyalty towards the university.
These conclusions prove the important consequences that achieving employment can have on
the evaluation of time at university, to the point of conditioning the value, the image, and its relation
with satisfaction towards the university and the intention of recommending the university. Therefore,
accompanying the students as they enter the labor market, in other words, maintaining the relation
with them until they find employment, is an important service that will have consequences on the
evaluation of satisfaction with the university.
Among the implications arising from this work is the importance that has to be given to the per-
ceived value of the university as a determinant of image, satisfaction and loyalty. To that end, their
dimensions in the decisions and in university management have to be taken into consideration very
carefully, both by the university itself and by the public administration that oversees it. This consider-
ation includes the achievement of students who are involved from the start of their studies up until
their graduation and beyond (Oldfield and Baron 2000). Moreover, with the long-term guidance of
the student-university relation after graduation, they can become graduates of high perceived
value, who hold a positive image of the university, who are satisfied with it and recommend it
and behave with loyalty towards it: all the more so, in a context of continuous learning, and with
the need to continue their training after the university qualification.
The image of the university and its reputation should be tended through efficient management
that leads to recognition by the different target groups (potential students, families, employers,
etc.). All the more so in a context of the internationalization of universities and of student recruitment
strategies among the potential students and, depending on their loyalty, among the enrolled stu-
dents. In addition, the importance given to the employment perspectives has been demonstrated
in this study, which implies an improvement in the image of the university in this panorama of
growing emphasis on international competitiveness, technological development, and increased edu-
cational alternatives for the student (Cheong et al. 2016).
As has been noted, having employment is clearly a discriminatory factor in the established
relations that explain satisfaction and loyalty. The situation of employment depends on the economic
scenario and the university is not unaffected by it (Luque-Martínez 2015). Nevertheless, the range of
possible employment for university graduates is less and less limited to the immediate surroundings
of the campus; on the contrary it is increasingly open. The university therefore has an important field
of activity or service during and after the course to facilitate access for its graduates to the labor
market. Some of the actions for improvement are programed practices and a greater emphasis on
practical teaching, the encouragement of entrepreneurism, training for entry into employment for
its students and promotional strategies for the establishment of firms. The possibility exists for all
of these options to resort to innovations in Information and Communications Technology (Doh
2003) and training actions such the Massive Open On-line Courses.
In short, maintaining the link with graduates and caring for the long-term relation with them, and
adopting a relational approach, is important for the projection of the future image of university. The
university should care for the qualifications it offers so that they are linked to employment, provide
better preparation for entry into the employment market and it should accompany the graduate in
these processes.
The difference between entry into the labor market and employability should be stressed: two
closely related but different concepts. The first refers to finding employment that is commensurate
with the educational studies of the applicant, while employability refers to the set of resources and
capabilities, knowledge and skills that a person has to function in a job.
Employability is increasingly important for different university stakeholders (Holmes, 2013). The
more employability is developed and the better its quality, then the greater the entry into the
labor market will be, which also depends on other factors. Although there has been a great increase
in awareness within universities, employability continues to be an immense challenge for universities
in general and even more so, in view of the consequences arising from digitalization (Susskind and
Susskind 2016), cybernetics and in brief, as the World Economic Forum point out, the fourth industrial
revolution.
Universities bear responsibility for their students in the future and can improve the employability
of their graduates. The first thing to do is to measure employability and to develop indicators that
measure its different aspects. The next thing is to develop careers guidance services on the
degree courses (careers services Yan-hua 2014), including the design of actions and specific measures
for employability training. All of the above will increase entry into the labor market the importance of
which is fundamental for graduate loyalty, as has been proven in this study.
One of the notable limitations of this study is the fact that the sample (although quite large) is
from a single university and is therefore in a unique and specific context. Moreover, a one-dimen-
sional measure of perceived value has been chosen, given that the objective of the field work is
wider and it was not recommendable to enlarge the questionnaire with great detail so as not to
extend it unduly.
Among the future lines of research arising from this work, the validation of the model in other uni-
versity contexts may be mentioned as an interesting option, as well as the consideration of other
sociodemographic moderating variables (i.e. education of parents) and related employment (i.e.
remuneration). The validation of the model would also be interesting in other areas of study other
than business.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ahmed, K., K. F. Alam, and M. Alam. 1997. “An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Accounting Students’ Career Choice in
New Zealand.” Accounting Education 6 (4): 325–35.
Ali, F., Y. Zhou, K. Hussain, P. K. Nair, and N. A. Ragavan. 2016. “Does Higher Education Service Quality Effect Student
Satisfaction, Image and Loyalty? A Study of International Students in Malaysian Public Universities.” Quality
Assurance in Education 24 (1): 70–94.
Alves, H. 2011. “The Measurement of Perceived Value in Higher Education: A Unidimensional Approach.” The Service
Industries Journal 31 (12): 1943–60.
Alves, H., and M. Raposo. 2007. “Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education.” Total Quality
Management 18 (5): 571–88.
Andreassen, T. W., and B. Lindestad. 1998. “Customer Loyalty and Complex Services.” International Journal of Service
Industry Management 9 (1): 7–23.
Arif, S., and M. Ilyas. 2013. “Quality of Work-life Model for Teachers of Private Universities in Pakistan.” Quality Assurance in
Education 21 (3): 282–98.
Arquero, J. L., M. Byrne, B. Flood, and J. M. González. 2009. “Motives, Expectations, Preparedness and Academic
Performance: A Study of Students of Accounting at a Spanish University.” Revista de Contabilidad 12 (2): 279–99.
Athiyaman, A. 1997. “Linking Student Satisfaction and Service Quality Perceptions: The Case of University Education.”
European Journal of Marketing 31 (7): 528–40.
Auyeung, P., and J. Sands. 1997. “Factors Influencing Accounting Students’ Career Choice: A Cross-Cultural Validation
Study.” Accounting Education 6 (1): 13–23.
Beerepoot, N., and R. Kumar. 2015. “Upgrading Service Delivery and Employment Conditions Through Indirect Insertion in
Global Value Chains.” Competition & Change 19 (5): 374–89.
Beerli Palacio, A., G. Díaz Meneses, and P. J. Pérez Pérez. 2002. “The Configuration of the University Image and its
Relationship with the Satisfaction of Students.” Journal of Educational Administration 40 (5): 486–505.
Belfield, C. R., and R. D. F. Harris. 2002. “How Well do Theories of Job Matching Explain Variations in Job Satisfaction Across
Education Levels? Evidence for UK Graduates.” Applied Economics 34 (5): 535–48.
Bigné Alcañiz, E., M. Moliner Tena, and J. Sánchez García. 2003. “Perceived Quality and Satisfaction in Multiservice
Organizations: The Case of Spanish Public Services.” Journal of Services Marketing 17 (4): 420–42.
Blázquez Resino, J. J., J. Chamizo González, E. I. Cano Montero, and S. Gutiérrez Broncano. 2013. “Calidad de vida univer-
sitaria: Identificación de los principales indicadores de satisfacción estudiantil [Quality of University Life: Identification
of the Main Indicators of Student Satisfaction].” Revista de Educación 362 (3): 458–84.
Breton, G. 2015. “Toward a New University Model.” In The University of Granada in Light of its V Centenary. “Reflections on
the Future of the University”, edited by Luque-Martínez, T. et al., 88 Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
Broekemier, G. M., and S. Seshadri. 2000. “Differences in College Choice Criteria Between Deciding Students and their
Parents.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 9 (3): 1–13.
Brown, R. M., and T. W. Mazzarol. 2009. “The Importance of Institutional Image to Student Satisfaction and Loyalty within
Higher Education.” Higher Education 58 (1): 81–95.
Browne, B. A., D. Kaldenberg, and W. G. Browne. 1999. “Satisfaction with Business Education: A Comparison of Business
Students and Their Parents.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 9 (1): 39–52.
Byrne, M., and B. Flood. 2007. “Exploring the Antecedents of Learning Approaches: A Study of International Business
Students.” International Journal of Management Education 6 (2): 44–62.
Byrne, M., P. Willis, and J. Burke. 2012. “Influences on School Leavers’ Career Decisions–Implications for the Accounting
Profession.” The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2): 101–11.
Cheong, K. C., C. Hill, Y. C. Leong, and C. Zhang. 2016. “Employment as a Journey or a Destination? Interpreting Graduates’
and Employers’ Perceptions–a Malaysia Case Study.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (4): 1–17.
Chen, C. F., and D. Tsai. 2007. “How Destination Image and Evaluative Factors Affect Behavioral Intentions?” Tourism
Management 28 (4): 1115–22.
Chin, W. W. 1998. “Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modelling.” MIS Quarterly 22 (1): 8–15.
Clemes, M. D., C. E. Gan, and T. H. Kao. 2008. “University Student Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education 17 (2): 292–325.
Clemes, M. D., D. A. Cohen, and Y. Wang. 2013. “Understanding Chinese University Students’ Experiences: An Empirical
Analysis.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25 (3): 391–427.
Cronin Jr., J. J., M. K. Brady, and G. T. M. Hult. 2000. “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value and Customer Satisfaction on
Consumer Behavioural Intentions in Service Environments.” Journal of Retailing 76 (2): 193–218.
Dale, R. 2007. “Specifying Globalization Effects on National Policy.” Journal of Education Policy 14 (1): 1–17.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 1985. “The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality.” Journal of
Research in Personality 19 (2): 109–34.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2000. “The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of
Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry 11 (4): 227–68.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2008. “Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and
Health.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49 (3): 182–85.
DeShields Jr, O. W., A. Kara, and E. Kaynak. 2005. “Determinants of Business Student Satisfaction and Retention in Higher
Education: Applying Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory.” International Journal of Educational Management 19 (2): 128–39.
Dick, A. S., and K. Basu. 1994. “Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science 22 (2): 99–113.
Doh, J. P. 2003. “Can Leadership Be Taught? Perspectives from Management Educators.” Academy Of Management
Learning & Education 2 (1): 54–6.
Douglas, J., A. Douglas, and B. Barnes. 2006. “Measuring Student Satisfaction at a UK University.” Quality Assurance in
Education 14 (3): 251–67.
Duarte, P. O., M. B. Raposo, and H. B. Alves. 2012. “Using a Satisfaction Index to Compare Students’ Satisfaction During and
After Higher Education Service Consumption.” Tertiary Education and Management 18 (1): 17–40.
Elliott, K. M., and D. Shin. 2002. “Student Satisfaction: An Alternative Approach to Assessing this Important Concept.”
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 24 (2): 197–209.
Eskildsen, J. K., A. Martensen, L. Grønholdt, and K. Kristensen. 2000. “Benchmarking Student Satisfaction in Higher
Education Based on the Ecsi Methodology.” Sinergie-Rapporti di ricerca 9 (18): 385–402.
Espinoza, O., L. E. González, N. McGinn, D. Castillo, and L. Sandoval. 2017. “Factors that Affect Post-Graduation Satisfaction
of Chilean University Students.” Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1407306.
Eurico, S. T., J. A. M. da Silva, and P. O. do Valle. 2015. “A Model of Graduates’ Satisfaction and Loyalty in Tourism Higher
Education: The Role of Employability.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 16: 30–42.
Faye, C., and D. Sharpe. 2008. “Academic Motivation in University: The Role of Basic Psychological Needs and Identity
Formation.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 40 (4): 189–99.
Fornell, C., and D. Larcker. 1981. “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.”
Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
Gallarza, M. G., and I. G. Saura. 2006. “Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation of
University Students’ Travel Behaviour.” Tourism Management 27 (3): 437–52.
Gibson, A. 2010. “Measuring Business Student Satisfaction: A Review and Summary of the Major Predictors.” Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management 32 (3): 251–59.
Gielnik, M. M., M. Frese, A. Kahara-Kawuki, I. W. Katono, S. Kyejjusa, M. Ngoma, and J. Oyugi. 2015. “Action and Action-
regulation in Entrepreneurship: Evaluating a Student Training for Promoting Entrepreneurship.” Academy of
Management Learning & Education 14 (1): 69–94.
Giner, G. R., and A. P. Rillo. 2016. “Structural Equation Modeling of Co-creation and its Influence on the Student’s
Satisfaction and Loyalty Towards University.” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 291: 257–63.
Greene, B. A., and R. B. Miller. 1996. “Influences On Achievement: Goals, Perceived Ability, and Cognitive Engagement.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 21 (2): 181–92.
Gruber, T., S. Fuß, R. Voss, and M. Gläser-Zikuda. 2010. “Examining Student Satisfaction with Higher Education Services:
Using a New Measurement Tool.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 23 (2): 105–23.
Guzmán-Valenzuela, C. 2016. “Unfolding the Meaning of Public (s) in Universities: Toward the Transformative University.”
Higher Education 71 (5): 667–79.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River:
Pearson.
Hatch, D. K., and C. E. Garcia. 2017. “Academic Advising and the Persistence Intentions of Community College Students in
their First Weeks in College.” The Review of Higher Education 40 (3): 353–90.
Helgesen, Ø., and E. Nesset. 2007. “Images, Satisfaction and Antecedents: Drivers of Student Loyalty? A Case Study of a
Norwegian University College.” Corporate Reputation Review 10 (1): 38–59.
Helgesen, Ø., and E. Nesset. 2007. “What Accounts for Students’ Loyalty? Some Field Study Evidence.” International
Journal of Educational Management 21 (2): 126–43.
Henderson, M., N. Selwyn, and R. Aston. 2017. “What Works and Why? Student Perceptions of ‘Useful’digital Technology
in University Teaching and Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (8): 1567–79.
Hennig-Thurau, T., M. F. Langer, and U. Hansen. 2001. “Modeling and Managing Student Loyalty: An Approach Based on
the Concept of Relationship Quality.” Journal of Service Research 3 (4): 331–44.
Henseler, J., G. Hubona, and P. A. Ray. 2016. “Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines.”
Industrial Management & Data Systems 116 (1): 2–20.
Holland, J. L. 1997. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. 3rd ed. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holmes, L. 2013. “Competing Perspectives on Graduate Employability: Possession, Position or Process?” Studies in Higher
Education 38 (4): 538–54.
Hu, H. H., J. Kandampully, and T. D. Juwaheer. 2009. “Relationships and Impacts of Service Quality, Perceived Value,
Customer Satisfaction, and Image: An Empirical Study.” The Service Industries Journal 29 (2): 111–25.
Hunt, H. K, ed. 1977. Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction. Cambridge:
Marketing Science Institute.
Ivy, J. 2001. “Higher Education Institution Image: A Correspondence Analysis Approach.” International Journal of
Educational Management 15 (6): 276–82.
Jiménez-Castillo, D., R. Sánchez-Fernández, and M. Á. Iniesta-Bonillo. 2013. “Segmenting University Graduates on the Basis of
Perceived Value, Image and Identification.” International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 10 (3): 235–52.
Jones, M. A., and J. Suh. 2000. “Transaction-specific Satisfaction and Overall Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of
Services Marketing 14 (2): 147–59.
Kantanen, H. 2012. “Identity, Image and Stakeholder Dialogue.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 17
(1): 56–72.
Kheiry, B., B. M. Rad, and O. Asgari. 2012. “University Intellectual Image Impact on Satisfaction and Loyalty of Students
(Tehran Selected Universities).” African Journal of Business Management 6 (37): 10205–11.
Kotler, P. 1999. El marketing según Kotler: cómo crear, ganar y dominar los mercados [Marketing According to Kotler: How
to Create, Win and Dominate Markets]. Barcelona: Paidos Ibérica.
Kotler, P. 2000. Marketing Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kumar, V., I. Dalla Pozza, and J. Ganesh. 2013. “Revisiting the Satisfaction–loyalty Relationship: Empirical Generalizations
and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Retailing 89 (3): 246–62.
Lai, L. S., W. M. To, J. W. Lung, and T. M. Lai. 2012. “The Perceived Value of Higher Education: The Voice of Chinese
Students.” Higher Education 63 (3): 271–87.
Law, P., and D. Yuen. 2012. “A Multilevel Study of Students’ Motivations of Studying Accounting: Implications for
Employers.” Education+ Training 5 (1): 50–64.
Leblanc, G., and N. Nguyen. 1997. “Searching for Excellence in Business Education: An Exploratory Study of Customer
Impressions of Service Quality.” International Journal of Educational Management 11 (2): 72–9.
Ledden, L., S. P. Kalafatis, and P. Samouel. 2007. “The Relationship between Personal Values and Perceived Value of
Education.” Journal of Business Research 60 (9): 965–74.
Lei, P., and A. Jolibert. 2012. “A Three-model Comparison of the Relationship between Quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty:
An Empirical Study of the Chinese Healthcare System.” BMC Health Services Research 12 (1): 436–47.
Lowe, D. R., and K. Simons. 1997. “Factors Influencing Choice of Business Majorssome Additional Evidence: A Research
Note.” Accounting Education 6 (1): 39–45.
Ludeman, R. B. 2010. “International Organizations and Higher Education Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally?” The
Review of Higher Education 33 (4): 604–606.
Luque-Martínez, T. 2015. “Actividad investigadora y contexto económico. El caso de las universidades públicas españolas
[Research Activity and Economic Context. The Case of Spanish Public Universities].” Revista Española de
Documentación Científica 38 (1): e076. doi:10.3989/redc.2015.1.1135.
Luque-Martínez, T., and S. Del Barrio-García. 2009. “Modelling University Image: The Teaching Staff Viewpoint.” Public
Relations Review 35 (3): 325–27.
Luque Martínez, T., S. Del Barrio García, J. Sánchez Fernández, J. A. Ibáñez Zapata, and L. Doña Toledo. 2014. Estudio de
Egresados de la Universidad de Granada. Año 2010 [Report of Graduates in the Year of the University of Granada. Year:
2010]. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
Luque-Martínez, T., and L. Doña-Toledo. 2013. “What do Graduates Think? An Analysis of Intention to Repeat the Same
Studies and University.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 23 (1): 62–89.
Mano, H., and R. L. Oliver. 1993. “Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption Experience: Evaluation,
Feeling, and Satisfaction.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (3): 451–66.
Maringe, F., and M. Mourad. 2012. “Marketing for Higher Education in Developing Countries: Emphases and Omissions.”
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22 (1): 1–9.
Maringe, F., and P. Gibbs. 2008. Marketing Higher Education: Theory and Practice. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Markelz, M. 2016. The Secret to Loyal Customers. American Marketing Association. https://www.ama.org/events-training/
Conferences/Pages/secret-loyal-customers.aspx.
Matherly, L. L. 2012. “A Causal Model Predicting Student Intention to Enrol Moderated by University Image: Using
Strategic Management to Create Competitive Advantage in Higher Education.” International Journal of
Management in Education 6 (1): 38–55.
Marzo, M., M. Pedraja, and P. Rivera. 2005. “Measuring Customer Satisfaction in Summer Courses.” Quality Assurance in
Education 13 (1): 53–65.
Mauldin, S., J. L. Crain, and P. H. Mounce. 2000. “The Accounting Principles Instructor’s Influence on Students’ Decision to
Major in Accounting.” Journal of Education for Business 75 (3): 142–48.
Moosmayer, D. C., and F. U. Siems. 2012. “Values Education and Student Satisfaction: German Business Students’
Perceptions of Universities’ Value Influences.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22 (2): 257–72.
Mora, J. G. 1997. “Market Trends in Spanish Higher Education.” Higher Education Policy 10 (3–4): 3–4.
Munteanu, C., C. Ceobanu, C. Bobâlca, and O. Anton. 2010. “An Analysis of Customer Satisfaction in a Higher Education
Context.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 23 (2): 124–40.
Myburgh, J. E. 2005. “An Empirical Analysis of Career Choice Factors That Influence First-Year Accounting Students at the
University of Pretoria: A Cross-racial Study.” Meditari Accountancy Research 13 (2): 35–48.
Narteh, B. 2013. “Service Quality in Automated Teller Machines: An Empirical Investigation.” Managing Service Quality 23
(1): 62–89.
OCDE. 2015. Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.
Oldfield, B. M., and S. Baron. 2000. “Student Perceptions of Service Quality in a UK University Business and Management
Faculty.” Quality Assurance in Education 8 (2): 85–95.
Oliver, R. 1980. “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.” Journal of Marketing
Research 17 (4): 460–69.
Oliver, R. L. 1996. “Varieties of Value in the Consumption Satisfaction Response.” Advances in Consumer Research 23 (1):
143–47.
Oliver, R. L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. 1999. “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue 199): 33–44.
Pampaloni, A. M. 2010. “The Influence of Organizational Image on College Selection: What Students Seek in Institutions of
Higher Education.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 20 (1): 19–48.
Paulsen, M. B., and J. A. Gentry. 1995. “Motivation, Learning Strategies, and Academic Performance: A Study of the College
Finance Classroom.” Financial Practice and Education 5 (1): 78–90.
Richardson, J. T. 2003. “Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of Academic Quality in a Short Web-based Course.”
British Journal of Educational Technology 34 (4): 433–42.
Richardson, J. T., and A. Woodley. 2003. “Another Look at the Role of Age, Gender and Subject as Predictors of Academic
Attainment in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 28 (4): 475–93.
Richardson, J. T. 2005. “Instruments for Obtaining Student Feedback: A Review of the Literature.” Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education 30 (4): 387–415.
Riggert, S., M. Boyle, J. Petroska, D. Ash, and C. Rude-Parkins. 2006. “Student Employment and Higher Education:
Empiricism and Contradiction.” Review of Educational Research 76 (1): 63–92.
Ringle, C. M., M. Sarstedt, and D. W. Straub. 2012. “A Critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM.” MIS Quarterly 36 (1): 3–14.
Ross, M., D. Grace, and W. Shao. 2013. “Come on Higher ed … Get with the Programme! A Study of Market Orientation in
International Student Recruitment.” Educational Review 65 (2): 219–40.
Ryu, K., H. R. Lee, and W. Kim. 2012. “The Influence of the Quality of the Physical Environment, Food, and Service on
Restaurant Image, Customer Perceived Value, Customer Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions.” International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24 (2): 200–23.
Sabiote, C. M., D. M. Frías, and J. A. Castañeda. 2012. “The Moderating Effect of Uncertainty-Avoidance on Overall
Perceived Value of a Service Purchased Online.” Internet Research 22 (2): 180–98.
Sánchez-Fernández, R., M. Iniesta-Bonillo, W. Schlesinger-Díaz, and P. Rivera-Torres. 2010. “Analysis of the Value Creation
in Higher Institutions: A Relational Perspective.” Theoretical & Applied Economics 17 (10): 25–36.
Schlesinger, W., A. Cervera, and C. Pérez-Cabañero. 2016. “Sticking with Your University: The Importance of Satisfaction,
Trust, Image, and Shared Values.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (12): 1–17.
Sojkin, B., P. Bartkowiak, and A. Skuza. 2015. “Changes in Students’ Choice Determinants in Poland: a Comparative Study
of Tertiary Business Education between 2008 and 2013.” Higher Education 69 (2): 209–24.
Solinas, G., M. D. Masia, G. Maida, and E. Muresu. 2012. “What Really Affects Student Satisfaction? An Assessment of
Quality Through a University-Wide Student Survey.” Creative Education 3 (01): 37–40.
Stafford, T. F. 1994. “Consumption Values and the Choice of Marketing Electives: Treating Students like Customers.”
Journal of Marketing Education 16 (2): 26–33.
Stephenson, A. L., A. Heckert, and D. B. Yerger. 2016. “College Choice and the University Brand: Exploring the Consumer
Decision Framework.” Higher Education 71 (4): 489–503.
Subrahmanyam, A. 2017. “Relationship between Service Quality, Satisfaction, Motivation and Loyalty: A Multi-
Dimensional Perspective.” Quality Assurance in Education 25 (2): 171–88.
Sultan, P., and H. Yin Wong. 2012. “Service Quality in a Higher Education Context: An Integrated Model.” Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 24 (5): 755–84.
Susskind, R., and D. Susskind. 2016. “Technology Will Replace Many Doctors, Lawyers, and Other Professionals.” Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/10/robots-will-replace-doctors-lawyers-and-other-professionals?sf50989575=1.
Vega-Hernández, M. C., M. C. Patino-Alonso, and M. P. Galindo-Villardón. 2018. “Multivariate Characterization of University
Students Using the ICT for Learning.” Computers & Education 121: 124–30.
Vernon, M. M., E. A. Balas, and S. Momani. 2018. “Are University Rankings Useful to Improve Research? A Systematic
Review.” PloS one 13 (3): e0193762.
Wardley, L. J., C. H. Bélanger, and V. M. Leonard. 2013. “Institutional Commitment of Traditional and Non-traditional-aged
Students: A Potential Brand Measurement?” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 23 (1): 90–112.
Warn, J., and P. Tranter. 2001. “Measuring Quality in Higher Education: A Competency Approach.” Quality in Higher
Education 7 (3): 191–98.
Westbrook, R. A., and R. L. Oliver. 1991. “The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer
Satisfaction.” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (1): 84–91.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., B. R. Stensaker, and J. B. Grogaard. 2002. “Student Satisfaction: Towards an Empirical Deconstruction of
the Concept.” Quality in Higher Education 8 (2): 183–95.
Wilkins, S., M. M. Butt, D. Kratochvil, and M. S. Balakrishnan. 2016. “The Effects of Social Identification and Organizational
Identification on Student Commitment, Achievement and Satisfaction in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher
Education 41 (12): 2232–52.
Woam, R. 2011. “A Comparative Study of the Perceptions of Students from US and Australia and Choice of Subject First
College Level Final Accounting Course.” Journal of the American Academy of Business 17 (1): 62–68.
Woodfield, R. 2011. “Age and First Destination Employment from UK Universities: Are Mature Students Disadvantaged?”
Studies in Higher Education 36 (4): 409–25.
Yan-hua, B. 2014. “Development of Career Services in Chinese Higher Education.” US-China Education Review 4 (5):
331–43.
Zhang, J. Z., G. F. Watson IV, R. W. Palmatier, and R. P. Dant. 2016. “Dynamic Relationship Marketing.” Journal of Marketing
80 (5): 53–75.
Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1988. “Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service
Quality.” Journal of Marketing 52 (2): 35–48.
Zeithaml, V. A., and M. J. Bitner. 1996. Services Marketing. Singapore: McGrawHill.
Zeithaml, V. A., and M. J. Bitner. 2002. Marketing de servicios: Un enfoque de integración del cliente a la empresa. 2nd ed.
Mexico: McGraw-Hill.
Annex 1. Items on the scales.

IMAGE
IMG1 I have a good image of the University of Granada (UGR)
IMG2 I have a clear image of the UGR
IMG3 I have an agreeable image of the UGR
SATISFACTION
SAT1 In general terms, I am satisfied with the UGR
SAT2 I am satisfied with the service provided by the UGR
SAT3 I took the correct decision when I chose the UGR
SAT4 The experience with the UGR was satisfactory
PERCEIVED VALUE
VAL1 The value of my time at the UGR was positive
VAL2 The difference between the sacrifice made and what I have received has been positive
VAL3 In comparison with what I have had to sacrifice, my experience at the UGR has allowed me
to satisfy my wishes and needs in an acceptable way
LOYALTY
LOY1 Probability of following a course at the UGR
LOY2 Intention of studying for a qualification at the UGR, if you were to decide to continue your
education
LOY3 Intention to recommend the UGR to family and friends
LOY4 Probability of following the same course
MOTIVE: vocation Yes / No
MOTIVE: employment opportunities Yes / No
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT SITUATION Employee / Unemployed

How Loyal Can A Graduate Ever Be? The Influence of Motivation and Employment On Student Loyalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

How Loyal Can A Graduate Ever Be? The Influence of Motivation and Employment On Student Loyalty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Loyal Can A Graduate Ever Be? The Influence of Motivation and Employment On Student Loyalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

How loyal can a graduate ever be? The influence of

Luis Doña Toledo & Teodoro Luque Martínez

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1532987

Published online: 16 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 328

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

2. Satisfaction and loyalty in the university context

Thus, the proposed model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model.

4.3. Data analysis

Table 2. Characteristics of the sample.

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

Figure 2. Estimated structural model – inner model.

6. Conclusions, recommendations and limitations

- The perceived value of the university and image.

Annex 1. Items on the scales.

You might also like