Structural Equation Modelling

The second stage of analysis is to test the proposed hypotheses of the research through advanced analysis of SEM using AMOS 24 software. SEM combines elements of multivariate models such as regression analysis, factor analysis and simultaneous equation modelling (Arbuckle, and Wothke, 2010). Hypothesis will be rejected at the 5% significance level if the p-value of the tests is less than 0.05.

Direct Hypothesis Results/ Structural Model.

A. Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a significant positive influence of campus facilities on student satisfaction.

100

A standardized path coefficient of -0.03 and P-value = 0.35 > 0.05 are reported. This indicates a negative non- significant relation. Therefore, H1 is not supported.

B. Hypothesis 2 (H2): There is a significant positive influence of student interaction with the

faculty on student satisfaction.

A standardized path coefficient of 0.15 and P-value less than 0.01 < 0.05 are reported. The results indicate a positive significant relation. Therefore, the results support H2.

C. Hypothesis 3 (H3): There is a significant positive influence of student interaction with

administration on student satisfaction.

A standardized path coefficient of 0.08 and P-value = 0.02 < 0.05 are reported in this case. This indicates a positive significant relation. Therefore, H3 is supported by the attained results.

D. Hypothesis 4 (H4): There is a significant positive influence of student social life on campus on

student satisfaction.

A standardized path coefficient of 0.12 and P-value less than 0.01 < 0.05 are calculated. These results indicate a positive significant relation. Therefore, the results support H4.

E. Hypothesis 5 (H5): There is a significant positive influence of university reputation and image

on student satisfaction.

In this case, the reported standardized path coefficient of 0.50 and P-value less than 0.01 < 0.05 indicate a positive significant relation. Thus, H5 is supported by the results obtained.

F. Hypothesis 6 (H6): There is a significant positive influence of Quality of education on student

A standardized path coefficient of 0.13 and P-value less than 0.01 < 0.05 are estimated for this case. These numbers indicate a positive significant relation. Therefore, the results support H6.

G. Hypothesis 7 (H7): There is a significant positive influence of Quality of Students Services Support on student satisfaction.

In this case, a standardized path coefficient of 0.10 and P-value = 0.01 < 0.05 are reported. The results clearly indicate a positive significant relation. Therefore, H7 is very well supported by the results obtained.

In overall, the results attained in this study support and are in line with all the hypothesis made at the start of the investigation. Thus, it was found that Students Satisfaction, being the dependent variable in this study, is significantly and positively influenced to a large extent by the following independent

101

variables University Image and Reputation, Interaction with Faculty, Quality of Education, Students Social Life on Campus, Quality of Students Services Support and Interaction with Administrative Staff. On the other hand, it was found that the independent variable Campus Physical Facilities has a negative non- significant relationship with students’ satisfaction. This is also in line with the

expectations of the experts’ panel during the piloting phase, as they expected that the ‘Campus

Facilities’ dimension would have an insignificant relationship with the students’ satisfaction. This can be directly linked with the results attained in regarding the performance and importance of the Campus Physical Facilities. For example, although a relatively low percentage of students confirmed

accommodation security and affordability, also very low percentage of students believe that a secure and comfortable accommodation and dorm is of a high importance.

Some studies conducted in developing countries have reported an insignificant relationship between the Campus Physical Facilities factor and students’ satisfaction (Douglas et al., 2006; Farahmandian et al., 2013; Kundi et al., 2014; Ibrahim et al., 2014). In a study and aiming to develop a model to

understand the dynamics student satisfaction in private universities in Karachi, Pakistan, Baig et al. (2016) have investigated seven dimensions of service quality against students’ satisfaction. Based on their analysis, it was reported that six dimensions have significant impact on students’ satisfaction, being the quality of campus life, quality of academic service, quality of teaching, quality of

management, quality of leadership and assessment and feedback. On the other hand, the quality of university infrastructure was found to have an insignificant impact. The results of this study align well with the findings of our investigation, noting that both studies are targeting private universities in developing countries in Asia. In addition, concerning the negative weighting associated with the campus physical facilities dimension, similar conclusion was also reported by Marzo-Navarro et al. (2005).

Moreover, the multiple regression model showed that the effect of physical facilities on satisfaction was indeed confounded by all the other six independent variables included in the model (image and reputation, quality of student service support, student interaction with administration staff, student social life on campus, student interaction with faculty, quality of teaching). The sign of the effect of campus physical facilities on satisfaction changed in the complex model relative to the bivariate model, meaning that the positive significant effect of campus physical facilities on satisfaction was not attributed to the physical facilities by itself but by the confounding effects of the other variables that were included in the model which were also related to campus physical facilities. It appeared that upon the introduction of confounding variables, the sign of physical facilities on satisfaction changed.

102

However, although the resulting weighting coefficient of the campus physical facilities is negative, it shall be noted that this coefficient is very small and almost zero, -0.03. As the current study targeted LIU private university in Lebanon, the reasons behind attaining a non-significant relation between campus physical facilities and student satisfaction could be devoted to the following reasons:

A. Economic Situation: The economic crisis in Lebanon and the harsh economic situation of the majority of the Lebanese people is a major factor. This economic situation has a direct

influence on every single detail in the Lebanese citizen life. While life expenses are booming, and everything is getting more and more expensive, salaries are almost the same or slightly increasing in some industries. The annual increment rate in salaries in 2019 was 1% for Travel industry, 2% for Banking sectors, 3% for Construction sectors, 4% for Energy sectors, and 5% for Education sectors. However, the cost of living in Lebanon has been increasing since 2012 and reach the highest rate %10.04 in January 2020 which is the highest since 2012 (Trading Economics, 2020). The high cost of living in Lebanon is caused by the poor infrastructure and the lack of proper public services (Yan, 2019). According to Lebanon Trading Economist (2020), Lebanon is facing the worst economic crisis since the end of the civil war in 1990. The cost of living is rising for almost all categories for example, housing and utilities (4.25 percent in January 2020 vs 1.29 percent in December 2012), food and non-alcoholic beverages (14.45 percent in January 2020 vs 9.77 percent in December 2012). Therefore, university students are also affected, as well as their families, by these economic challenges. So, it is becoming more and more uncommon to have students having their own private cars or are part of sports clubs or taking part in leisure activities. Thus, campus facilities as parking lots, modern sports facilities and others fall behind in the priority list of a Lebanese university student. In this regard, some students are even afraid of having modern facilities, considering that this may incur certain additions and increase in the tuition fees, which they are facing hard time in paying.

B. Past Experience: The majority of the students at the Lebanese International University are coming from high schools and academic institutions which in its turn don’t have modern student onsite facilities. So, students are raised with this mentality and under those cultural and social constraints, feeling that such facilities are not crucial. So, having such facilities or not at the university will not be the major deciding factor to characterise the student satisfaction. C. LIU Facilities Status: Compared to other Lebanese universities and considering that it has a

very well-planned and modern campuses, the on campus physical facilities at LIU are one of the best on the level of the country. With modern sports facilities, open spaces and gardens,

103

green areas, modern cafeteria, libraries and well-organized parking lots, LIU provide an excellent level of facility services for Lebanese university students. Thus, a student who is registered at LIU, and although it is not common to have such facilities in the Lebanese universities, takes it for granted that LIU is already providing a very good level and multitude of on campus facilities. So, the student is more concerned with other factors as academic services, administrative help and career services rather than being driven with the availability and level of facilities.