2011 Research Report
National Student Satisfaction
and Priorities 15-Year Trend
Report: Four-Year Private
Colleges and Universities
Findings and observations from 1994-1995 to 2009-2010
For the past 15 years, higher education has faced signifi cant demographic, technological,
political, and economic changes. While the demand for college education has increased
steadily to record levels, campuses have had to meet the needs of this infl ux of students in
the face of severe budgetary cuts brought on by economic downturns. The cost of attending
a four-year institution has also nearly doubled during this time frame (The College Board,
2010), putting college students under tremendous economic pressure.
Many of these changes have fueled a negative view of the long-term stability and strength
of the American college system. In a recent poll, one out of every three college presidents
in the United States expressed the opinion that higher education is headed in the wrong
direction (Fischer, 2011). Many others, from parents to politicians, have shown concern for
what they feel is a more expensive, less benefi cial educational experience.
But what of the students themselves? Amid this sea of changes and challenges, have
students become less satisfi ed with their college experiences? Have their priorities shifted
dramatically along with these dramatic socioeconomic shifts?
This report examines 15 years of data on student satisfaction and priorities at four-year
private colleges and universities in the United States. It looks at overall student satisfaction,
issues students deemed most important, and the most signifi cant changes between the
1994-1995 and 2009-2010 academic years. Similar reports on trend analyses for four-year
public institutions, community colleges, and
National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year
Trend Report: Four-Year Private Colleges and Universities
Findings and observations from 1994-1995 to 2009-2010
Introduction and Overview
The shifting demographics
Between 1994-1995, when Noel-Levitz fi rst introduced the Student Satisfaction InventoryTM (SSI), and
the 2009-2010 school year, the demographics of students taking the SSI have changed dramatically.
Student Satisfaction Inventory demographic changes at four-year private institutions, 1994-2010
Demographic Variables 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift
African Americans 12% 6% 6% Hispanic 10% 4% 6% Caucasian/White 62% 78% -16% Daytime enrollment 87% 92% -5% Evening enrollment 12% 7% 5% Part-time employment 44% 52% -8% Not employed 38% 33% 5% Residence hall 42% 56% -14% Rent room/apartment 24% 16% 8% Parent’s home 19% 13% 6% In-state 70% 62% 8% Out-of-state 26% 33% -7%
In particular, several signifi cant changes stand out:
• The participation of African Americans and Hispanics doubled in 15 years. These shifts are in keeping with overall changes in ethnic composition, with African Americans comprising nearly 14 percent of college students and Hispanics accounting for 12 percent of all college students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).
• The reduction of part-time employment and the increase of students who are not employed at all. This change comes despite signifi cant increases in college cost. It also seems to contradict a perception that students have to work more than previously in order to support their educations. This could mean that more parents are willing to go into debt to fi nance their children’s educations.
Note that these shifts in employment were also seen among public four-year campuses as well, where there was a 5 percent decline in part-time employment (to 43 percent in 2009-2010) and a 6 percent increase (to 37 percent) of students who were not employed. Perhaps even more surprisingly, community colleges saw a 9 percent increase in students who were not employed, up to 35 percent in 2009-2010. • A signifi cant shift from students at private institutions living in residence halls to private residences or
The study
This study focuses on student responses to the four-year version of the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) administered at four-year private institutions. The results are specifi c to the original Form A, 73-item version of the SSI. (A 45-73-item, Form B version was introduced in 2004.)
The SSI debuted in 1994 and during the following 15 years, the four-year version Form A of the instrument has been administered at more than 740 four-year private institutions and completed by more than 1.2 million students. (See the appendix for the full list of four-year private schools which have administered the SSI at least once.)
This study will share data across the 15 years, with a special comparison of the results from the 1994-1995 academic year as compared with the 2009-2010 academic year.
Separate
reports
are also
available
for
four-year public
institutions,
community
colleges,
and career
and private
schools.
Number of participating institutions and students
Academic Year Institutions Students
1994-1995 97 31,938
2009-2010 230 93,721
The survey instrument
The Student Satisfaction Inventory™ (SSI) measures the satisfaction and
priorities of students on a wide range of issues related to college life and
learning. The results allow campuses to identify areas of strength, where
students report high satisfaction in areas of high priority, and campus challenges,
where students indicate low satisfaction in areas of high priority. The instrument
has high reliability and validity (see the appendix for more information), and
more than 2,400 four-year and two-year, public and private campuses have
administered it since its release in 1994. It has versions specifi c to four-year
colleges and universities, community colleges, and two-year career and
private schools to better capture the experiences of students at these types
of institutions. The SSI is part of the Satisfaction-Priorities Survey Suite, which
includes surveys for campus personnel, adult students, online learners, and
parents of currently enrolled students.
A 2009 study published by Noel-Levitz, Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention
by Dr. Laurie Schreiner, documented the link between student satisfaction
and the likelihood that students will be retained. This study found that while 75
percent of the variation is unknown, student satisfaction accounts for 17 percent
of the variation in retention. Student satisfaction is a contributing factor to
student success.
The data analysis
For the item-level analysis in this study, items were compared for four-year
private institutions between the recent 2009-2010 academic year and the original
1994-1995 academic year.
Two types of analyses were done. 1) The fi rst view is a ranking comparison which
converts the average scores for each data set into a rank order of importance
or satisfaction. The range of 73 items remains consistent across the ranks, but
the shifts in position are interesting to note. Items that tie are refl ected with the
same rank number, and the remaining items shift down. 2) The second view is
with the shifts in the percentage of students indicating that they were satisfi ed or
very satisfi ed with the same item (responses of 6 or 7). This type of analysis is not
currently included in the individual campus SSI report.
The standard analysis of average importance and satisfaction scores, which
is how the SSI results are typically reported to campuses, is included in the
appendix section of the report. The average score for satisfaction allows for a
comparison of statistical signifi cance for satisfaction between the original year
and the recent year.
Observations:
We have made fi ve observations on the trends over the past 15 years:
1.
What is most important to students has stayed important.
2.
Satisfaction levels have risen overall at four-year private institutions.
3.
Financial aid and cost factors have increased in importance in enrollment decisions.
4.
The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in fi nancial items.
5.
The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in campus climate items.
The following items have shifted up in importance by fi ve ranking spots or more (listed in order of 2009-2010 importance): Top 15 most important items to students in 2009-2010 with the corresponding rank in 1994-1995
Item Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 The content of the courses within my major is valuable. 1 1 The instruction in my major fi eld is excellent. 2 2 Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their fi eld. 3 3 The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent. 4 4 I am able to register for classes I need with few confl icts. 5 5 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major. 6 6 (tie)
Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 7 6 (tie)
I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 8 10 It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 9 (tie) 17 There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus. 9 (tie) 9 The campus is safe and secure for all students. 9 (tie) 8 Major requirements are clear and reasonable. 12 14 Adequate fi nancial aid is available for most students. 13 (tie) 13
My academic advisor is approachable. 13 (tie) 12
Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students. 15 10
Observation 1: What is most important to students has stayed important.
The items of highest importance to students have stayed consistent over the past 15 years. The majority of items appear in both the 2009-2010 and 1994-1995 lists of top 15 important items.Item Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010 It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 9 17 8 Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course. 19 25 6
Computer labs are adequate and accessible. 23 29 6
Financial aid counselors are helpful. 26 32 6
There are adequate services to help me decide upon a career. 28 33 5
Admissions staff are knowledgeable. 31 (tie) 38 7
Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 31 (tie) 37 6
The personnel involved in registration are helpful. 31 (tie) 36 5 The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable. 34 40 6
Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable. 39 44 5
Academic support services adequately meet the needs of students. 41 50 9 Admissions counselors accurately portray the campus. 42 47 5 Admissions counselors respond to prospective students. 50 56 6
Administrators are approachable to students. 52 62 10
Library
resources
have shifted
down in
importance.
The following items have shifted down in importance by at least fi ve ranking spots (listed in order of importance for 2009-2010).
Observations on these importance shifts:
• Despite the many changes to the higher education environment and the socioeconomic characteristics of students, the top 15 items have stayed consistent for the past 15 years. • The three largest shifts up in importance are:
— The expectation for the experience being enjoyable: It has become more important for students to enjoy their experience and to feel like they fi t in at the institution.
— Academic support services meeting student needs: This shift could possibly stem from more self- reported learning disabilities and student recognition of needing academic support.
— Administrators being approachable: Societal infl uences on being able to communicate with individuals more readily with e-mail and texting may be extending to the expectation to reach college administrators more easily.
• The three largest shifts down in importance are:
— Library resources and library staff: This could be because schools have invested in making these better over the past 15 years, so the issue is not as critical; or students are able to access more information online, so the library resources on campus are not as critical.
— Living conditions in the residence hall are comfortable: More students in 2009-2010 are living off campus, so this may have an impact in this shift, or again more attention to the facilities issues in recent years have made this less of an issue.
— Faculty care about students as individuals: This may be infl uenced by class sizes getting larger with budget cut backs or students feel that they are able to more easily communicate with faculty on an individual basis through e-mail, so the item has become less important.
Item Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010 Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students. 15 10 -5 Faculty are usually available after class and during offi ce hours. 19 14 -5
Faculty care about me as an individual. 30 20 -10
I seldom get the “run-around” when seeking information on this
campus. 37 29 -8
Library resources and services are adequate. 39 20 -19
Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate
space, lighting, heat, air, etc.). 44 31 -13
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. 46 35 -11
Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available. 47 42 -5 There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus. 51 45 -6 There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria. 52 47 -5
I feel a sense of pride about my campus. 60 52 -8
The staff in the health services area are competent. 61 56 -5
Observation 2: Satisfaction levels have risen overall at four-year private institutions.
In general, students in the 2009-2010 group are more satisfi ed than the 1994-1995 group.• Statistically signifi cant improvements in satisfaction were identifi ed on all 73 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.28. All items were signifi cant at the highest level of confi dence of 0.001.
• For the percentage shifts, 72 items had an average of 7 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and no items declined in satisfaction percentages. The average scores (from 1-7) for each category, for all items were as follows:
Academic Year SatisfactionAverage
Average Satisfaction
Percentage
1994-1995 4.95 45%
2009-2010 5.23 52%
At four-year public institutions, students in the 2009-2010 data set are more satisfi ed than the students in 1994-1995.
• Statistically signifi cant improvements in satisfaction were identifi ed on all 73 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.45. All but one of the items were signifi cant at the highest level of confi dence of 0.001, with the remaining item at the 0.01 level.
• For the percentage shifts, 72 items had an average of 13 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and no items declined in satisfaction percentages.
At community colleges, students in the 2009-2010 data set are more satisfi ed than the students in 1994-1995.
• Statistically signifi cant improvements in satisfaction were identifi ed on 69 out of 70 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.23. All but two of these items were signifi cant at the highest level of confi dence of 0.001.
• For the percentage shifts, 66 items had an average of 6 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and three items declined in satisfaction percentage with an average of one percent in decline.
40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Satisfaction % 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift Satisfaction percentage 58% 53% 5% 53% 58% 47% 57% 58% 60% 4-Year Private Institutions 4-Year Public Institutions Community Colleges 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1994-1995 2009-2010 Satisfaction % Comparing Satisfaction
Summary satisfaction scores:
One of the summary items, which appears at the end of the survey, asks students to indicate their overall level of satisfaction. The following graph refl ects the percentage of students indicating that they were satisfi ed (answer 6) or very satisfi ed (answer 7) to the summary item for each academic year between 1994-1995 and 2009-2010.
Over 15 years, overall satisfaction has improved 5 percent, but as the above line graph indicates, this percentage peaked in 1997-1998 with a decline over the next three years before a more steady increase over the next several years.
(Note that in the 1997-1998 academic year, a large portion of the four-year private institutions that administered the Student Satisfaction Inventory were members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which historically have had high levels of overall satisfaction. This may have contributed to the spike in overall satisfaction at that time.)
This bar graph compares the percent of students indicating that they are satisfi ed or very satisfi ed across the three types of institutions for 1994-1995 and 2009-2010:
It is important to note how many times the participating four-year private institutions have administered the SSI.
The 1994-1995 academic year was the fi rst year that the SSI was available for campuses to administer, so all of these institutions had fi rst-time administrations. The overall percentage of campuses which have administered the SSI only once in 15 years is 23.5 percent, but in the 2009-2010 data set, only 4.3 percent of campuses were fi rst-time administrations. Conversely, the percentage of institutions in 2009-2010 which had administered 10 or more times over 15 years was 26.5 percent.
With 87 percent of campuses in 2009-2010 having administered the SSI at least three times, overall satisfaction may have increased, because campuses that assess student satisfaction on a regular cycle tend to be more active in working to improve satisfaction levels.
We can take a closer look at how satisfaction is improving for the items identifi ed earlier as areas of high importance/high expectation to students. These are listed in descending order of importance to students in 2009-2010:
Number of times campuses have administered the SSI:
Number of Administrations All Institutions Percentage of All Institutions Institutions Administering in 2009-2010 Percentage of 2009-2010 Institutions Once 174 23.5% 10 4.3% Twice 108 14.6% 19 8.3% 3 to 5 215 29.0% 54 23.5% 6 to 9 160 21.6% 86 37.4% 10 or more 84 11.3% 61 26.5% Total 741 100.0% 230 100.0%
Top items of importance
Item Satisfaction Percentage 2009-2010 Satisfaction Percentage 1994-1995 Satisfaction Percentage Shift The content of courses within my major is valuable. 64.6% 60.6% 4.0% Instruction in my major fi eld is excellent. 63.1% 59.2% 3.9% Nearly all faculty are knowledgeable in their fi elds. 70.9% 69.1% 1.8% The quality of instruction in most classes is excellent. 60.0% 58.0% 2.0% I am able to register for classes with few confl icts. 50.7% 47.7% 3.0% My academic advisor knows requirements in my major. 66.5% 62.4% 4.1%
Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 43.8% 37.4% 6.4%
I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 64.7% 59.6% 5.1% It is an enjoyable experience to be student on campus. 59.1% 51.3% 7.8% There is a good variety of courses provided on campus. 56.6% 47.8% 8.8% The campus is safe and secure for all students. 66.7% 57.6% 9.1% Major requirements are clear and reasonable. 62.2% 56.8% 5.4%
Adequate fi nancial aid is available. 42.0% 37.9% 4.1%
My academic advisor is approachable. 66.7% 63.3% 3.4%
Items with greatest satisfaction shifts Item Satisfaction Percentage 2009-2010 Satisfaction Percentage 1994-1995 Satisfaction Percentage Shift Library resources and services are adequate. 58.0% 39.0% 19.0% There is a strong commitment to racial harmony. 59.2% 43.6% 15.6% Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 56.4% 41.9% 14.5% Computer labs are adequate and accessible. 58.0% 43.7% 14.3% Graduate teaching assistants are competent. 47.4% 33.6% 13.8% Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. 47.8% 34.5% 13.3% Academic support services meet the needs of students. 51.5% 38.9% 12.6%
Student disciplinary procedures are fair. 51.7% 39.3% 12.4%
Administrators are approachable to students. 50.3% 38.7% 11.6%
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. 47.4% 36.2% 11.2%
Tutoring services are readily available. 57.4% 46.2% 11.2%
Observations on these satisfaction shifts:
• Regular administrations of satisfaction assessments and efforts to make improvements on campus as a result of the data collected, can have a positive impact on satisfaction levels overall.
• There have been consistent satisfaction improvements in all areas of the campus experience. • There is still room for additional improvement with high importance items with 50 percent or less of
students indicating that they are satisfi ed or very satisfi ed with items, such as: — Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
—Students are able to register for classes with few confl icts. —Adequate fi nancial aid is available for most students.
These are areas that are valued by students where campuses can be doing more to communicate around the issues and can further improve the service delivery of these items.
Interesting observations on the satisfaction scores: Highest satisfaction percentage: 70.9 percent Median percentage: 51.7 percent
Lowest satisfaction percentage: 28.0 percent
Items with top three satisfaction percentages
Faculty are knowledgeable in their fi eld. 70.9%
The campus is well-maintained. 68.3%
The campus is safe and secure for all students. 66.7%
Items with bottom three satisfaction percentages
Intercollegiate athletics contribute to spirit. 32.0%
There is an adequate selection of food in the cafeteria. 30.5%
Observation 3: Financial aid and cost factors have increased in importance in
enrollment decisions.
The SSI assesses factors to enroll—the relative infl uence of different reasons why students chose to attend a college. Compared to students in 1994-1995, the students in 2009-2010 indicated higher importance for fi nancial aid and cost as factors in their decision to enroll at four-year private colleges and universities:
Financial
aid and cost
factors have
increased in
importance
in students’
decisions
to enroll at
four-year
private
institutions.
Shifts in factors to enroll
Factors to enroll Importance Percentage 2009-2010 Importance Percentage 1994-1995 Importance Percentage Shift Financial aid 81.0% 75.9% 5.1% Academic reputation 78.8% 78.9% -0.1% Cost 74.3% 67.5% 6.8%
Personalized attention prior to enrollment 64.6% 60.5% 4.1%
Geographic setting 57.4% 53.3% 4.1%
Campus appearance 57.4% 51.8% 5.6%
Size of institution 56.4% 65.1% -8.7%
Recommendations from family/friends 42.7% 39.9% 2.8%
Opportunity to play sports 26.7% 24.6% 2.1%
Sorted in order of importance for 2009-2010
Observations on the enrollment factors:
• Financial aid is now the driving factor in decisions for students to enroll, ahead of academic reputation in 1994-1995. The cost factor has also increased in importance.
• Campus appearance has increased in importance as a factor, perhaps because of the investment in campus infrastructures over the past 15 years.
• Students at four-year private institutions place less importance on the size of the institution in their considerations for enrolling.
• The increase in the importance of fi nancial aid as a factor in the decision to enroll was even more apparent for four-year public institutions (15.1 percent) and for community colleges (8.7 percent) over the same 15-year period.
Observation 4: The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in fi nancial items.
A hot topic area for four-year private institutions relates to items about fi nancial aid services and how students perceive the value of the tuition they pay. While these items have stayed important to students over the 15 years, there have been some adjustments in satisfaction scores for fi nancially related items at four-year private institutions.Students
are more
satisfi ed
with their
tuition paid
being a
worthwhile
investment
in
2009-2010.
Financial items Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Shift Percentage Satisfaction 2009-2010 Percentage Satisfaction 1994-1995 Percentage Satisfaction Shift Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 7 6 -1 43.8% 37.4% 6.4% Adequate fi nancial aid isavailable. 13 13 0 42.0% 37.9% 4.1%
Financial aid counselors
are helpful. 26 32 6 48.6% 40.7% 7.9%
Financial aid awards are
announced in time. 27 27 0 44.1% 39.2% 4.9% Billing policies are
reasonable. 37 41 4 36.3% 32.0% 4.3%
Observations on the financial items:
• While there has been a lot of discussion in the media regarding the increasing tuition required for higher education, especially for four-year private institutions, satisfaction has increased with this item over the last 15 years.
• Students are also more satisfi ed with their interaction with fi nancial aid services. This may be infl uenced by technology improvements that make it easier to communicate with fi nancial aid counselors, submit paperwork, and track fi nancial aid awards.
• It is interesting to note that while satisfaction has improved on all of these items, student satisfaction levels are still less than 50 percent across the board.
• Institutions have opportunities to continue to improve communication around the worthwhileness of the tuition paid issue and to be sensitive to the critical nature of the fi nancial aid availability and service as a pathway to the educational opportunities. If students are not convinced of the value of the education or are hassled with the fi nancial aid process, it may make the students more vulnerable for not returning to the institution.
• The shifts in importance and satisfaction in this fi nancial area are more evident for four-year public institutions and community colleges. For example, four-year public students indicate a 16.7 percent increase in satisfaction with adequate fi nancial aid being available, and satisfaction with convenient ways of paying school bills increased 9.3 percent for community colleges.
Observation 5: The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in campus climate items.
As noted earlier, Noel-Levitz has documented the link between student satisfaction and retention, and in the2009 study Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention, campus climate was identifi ed as a key predictor of student satisfaction for four-year institutions. The following shifts in importance rankings and satisfaction scores have been observed at four-year private institutions over the past 15 years.
Campus climate items
Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Shift Percentage Satisfaction 2009-2010 Percentage Satisfaction 1994-1995 Percentage Satisfaction Shift Enjoyable experience to be student on campus. 9 17 8 59.1% 51.3% 7.8% Campus is safe and
secure for all students. 9 8 -1 66.7% 57.6% 9.1% Institution shows concern
for students as individuals. 17 17 0 55.9% 50.5% 5.4% Campus staff are caring
and helpful. 18 19 1 61.2% 56.9% 4.3%
Students are made to feel
welcome on campus. 19 20 1 61.9% 54.6% 7.3% Freedom of expression is
protected on campus. 31 37 6 56.4% 41.9% 14.5% Seldom get “run-around”
on campus. 37 29 -8 42.3% 37.4% 4.9%
Channels for expressing student complaints are available. 47 42 -5 39.2% 29.7% 9.5% Strong commitment to racial harmony. 51 45 -6 59.2% 43.6% 15.6% Administrators are approachable to students. 52 62 10 50.3% 38.7% 11.6%
Observations on the campus climate items:
• As indicated earlier, some of these items are among those with the biggest increases in satisfaction overall. Four-year private institutions are making signifi cant improvements in the areas of racial harmony, freedom of expression, and administrators being approachable to students. Many of the multicultural efforts that have been instituted over the last few years may be having an impact here. • Several of these items are also among the biggest shifts in importance, both up and down.
Technology may be having some infl uence on decreasing the relative importance of some items, such as campus run-around or channels for expressing student complaints. It may also be that campuses have addressed many of these issues to the satisfaction of students, so they are less important now.
• Four-year private institutions have continued opportunities to concentrate on campus climate issues to further improve the student experience. Customer service training can have a positive impact on staff interaction with students, leading to increases in satisfaction for several of the campus climate items. Colleges and universities can show their commitment to the student body as a whole through each individual interaction that occurs on campus.
Conclusions: What Do the Data Tell Us?
Perhaps the most surprising conclusion of these results is that the satisfaction and priorities of students have not changed dramatically in 15 years, despite many signifi cant changes to the higher education environment. However, there are a number of signifi cant points that private four-year colleges and universities should keep in mind:
• Instructional issues remain the top focus of students. Throughout the period of this study, the academic experience has remained the paramount concern and priority of students. Academic quality is therefore vital to student satisfaction and the overall success of an institution; if students feel they are receiving a quality education, they are more likely to feel positive about their experiences. Consequently, campuses need to be focused on academic quality and the relationships that are built between students and faculty, inside and outside of the classroom. • Satisfaction regarding the value of tuition can still improve despite increasing over the past 15 years. Although there has been much discussion about the value of higher education and the value of paying tuition, more students now report satisfaction with the item “tuition paid is a worthwhile investment” than they did 15 years ago. However, this item still has room for more improvement with just 43.8 percent of students indicating that they are satisfi ed or very satisfi ed. It is important for campuses to document outcomes of graduates and to show current students that their investment in a private education will have value when they graduate.
• Performance gaps have shrunk in many areas. Campuses have a performance gap when they have low satisfaction on items that are a high priority. However, importance levels have stayed consistent over the last 15 years, while satisfaction levels have improved in core areas such as instruction, advising, campus climate, recruitment/fi nancial aid, registration effectiveness, as well as safety and security. These decreased gaps refl ect improved experiences for students as campuses actively work to make improvements.
• Students appear to feel safer on campus. With high profi le breaches of security on a few campuses, another hot topic has been general safety on campus. According to students’
satisfaction scores, though, students today feel safer than they did in the mid-1990s. It is possible that, after the severe breaches of security at campuses earlier in the 2000s, institutions are being more deliberate and visible about campus security, thereby reassuring students that campuses are safer.
• Students want an “enjoyable” campus experience. Across four-year public and private campuses, as well as two-year public institutions, students have expressed a desire for college to be
enjoyable. This relates to how well they feel that they fi t on campus and how they feel about being a student; they want their campuses to provide a quality college experience, not just a quality education.
• Technology is likely driving some satisfaction improvements. Advances in information and communication technologies in the past 15 years have likely made changes in student satisfaction and priorities. Online access to information may be making issues such as library resources and campus run-around less important, as students can access so much information and perform many administrative tasks online. Likewise, faculty availability may be less of a priority due to e-mail access with faculty.
• Four-year private institutions have seen increases in racial harmony and freedom of expression. Satisfaction results signify that students today see their campuses as more welcoming
• More campuses are taking a systematic approach to assessing student satisfaction. More than 63 percent of the participating institutions in 2009-2010 had administered the Student Satisfaction Inventory six or more times, which is every two or three years, and more than 87 percent had administered the survey more than three times during the 15-year span. In addition, the number of four-year private campuses administering the survey in one academic year has grown from 97 to 230.
• Systematic assessment has likely played a signifi cant role in increasing student satisfaction. Committing to measure student satisfaction signals a commitment to improve student satisfaction. Satisfaction and priorities data provide these campuses with a way to prioritize resources and resolve the most pressing challenges for students. In addition, the emphasis of accrediting bodies on quality and outcomes may also be playing a role here as four-year private institutions commit to improving the quality of the student experience and to being able to document those activities and improvements.
Taking action: How can campuses improve student satisfaction?
The results of campuses in this study illustrate several strategies that can help keep students satisfi ed, use resources more strategically, and take a signifi cant step toward strengthening student success and completion rates.
• Monitor trends on your campus. This can be accomplished by routine, regular satisfaction assessment. By essentially creating your own trend study, you can assess challenges and take the appropriate steps to address the most pressing concerns of students.
• Guide decisions with data. Satisfaction data can be used for strategic planning, satisfying accreditation requirements, identifying and removing roadblocks to student retention, and identifying campus strengths that can be communicated to current and prospective students. • Look back to move forward. Examining past challenges can prepare campuses for future issues.
Use past assessments to identify potential new challenges as well as ways to meet those challenges. • Benchmark your campus against similar institutions. By surveying students, you not only gain
insight into their opinions and priorities, but you also take a valuable step toward staying competitive with other campuses. You can gauge your strengths and challenges in keeping current students satisfi ed and fi nding benefi ts to attract new students. That benchmarking is only possible through regular assessment.
Sources:
The College Board. (2010). Higher education landscape: Current demographic trends in U.S. higher education. New York: The College Board. Retrieved from http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/signature/
Fischer, K. (2011, May 15). Crisis of confi dence threatens colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Higher-Education-in-America-a/127530/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Are there any new back to school statistics for 2010? Fast Facts. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
Schreiner, L. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Coralville, IA: Noel-Levitz.
Appendix II: Four-Year Private Participation
The following table documents the number of institutions and student records for each of the 15 academic years included in this study. The date ranges are September 1 of the fi rst year through August 31 of the second year. These counts are specifi c to four-year private institutions.
Academic Year Institutions Students
1994-1995 97 31,938 1995-1996 105 36,819 1996-1997 138 48,447 1997-1998 206 85,175 1998-1999 221 88,741 1999-2000 235 84,423 2000-2001 179 79,715 2001-2002 225 95,611 2002-2003 198 86,614 2003-2004 250 105,096 2004-2005 200 87,334 2005-2006 239 99,665 2006-2007 212 86,253 2007-2008 239 94,849 2008-2009 189 82,937 2009-2010 230 93,721
Appendix I: SSI Reliability and Validity
The Student Satisfaction Inventory is a very reliable instrument. Both the
two-year and four-two-year versions of the SSI show exceptionally high internal reliability.
Cronbach’s coeffi cient alpha is 0.97 for the set of importance scores and is 0.98
for the set of satisfaction scores. It also demonstrates good score reliability
over time; the three-week, test-retest reliability coeffi cient is 0.85 for importance
scores and 0.84 for satisfaction scores.
There is also evidence to support the validity of the SSI. Convergent validity
was assessed by correlating satisfaction scores from the SSI with satisfaction
scores from the College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ), another
statistically reliable satisfaction instrument. The Pearson correlation between
these two instruments (r = 0.71; p<0.00001) is high enough to indicate that the
SSI’s satisfaction scores measure the same satisfaction construct as the CSSQ’s
scores, and yet the correlation is low enough to indicate that there are distinct
differences between the two instruments.
Abilene Christian University, TX Adrian College, MI
Alaska Pacifi c University, AK Albany College of Pharmacy and
Health Sciences, NY Albany Law School of Union
University, NY
Albany Medical College, NY Albertus Magnus College, CT Albion College, MI
Alderson Broaddus College, WV Alfred Adler Institute of Minnesota, MN Allegheny College, PA
Allegheny Wesleyan College, OH Alverno College, WI
Ambrose University College, AB American Academy of Art, IL American Christian College and
Seminary, OK
American Indian College of the Assemblies of God, AZ
American International College, MA Anderson College, SC Anderson University, IN Andrews University, MI Antioch College, OH Aquinas College, MI Arcadia University, PA Asbury College, KY Ashford University, IA Ashland University, OH Assumption College, MA Augsburg College, MN Aurora University, IL Austin College, TX Averett University, VA Azusa Pacifi c University, CA Baker College of Allen Park, MI Baker College of Auburn Hills, MI Baker College of Cadillac, MI Baker College of Cass City, MI Baker College of Clinton Township, MI Baker College of Flint, MI
Baker College of Jackson, MI Baker College of Muskegon, MI Baker College of Owosso, MI Baker College of Port Huron, MI Baker University, KS
Baldwin-Wallace College, OH Baptist Bible College, MO
Baptist College of Health Sciences, TN Barat College, IL
Barber-Scotia College, NC Barton College, NC Baylor University, TX
Becker College - Worcester, MA Belhaven College, MS
Benedictine College, KS Benedictine University, IL Bennett College for Women, NC Bennington College, VT
Berklee College of Music, MA Berry College, GA Bethany College, KS Bethany College, WV Bethany University, CA Bethel College, KS Bethel College, IN Bethel University, MN Bethune Cookman University, FL Biola University, CA
Blessing-Rieman College of Nursing, IL Bluefi eld College, VA
Bluffton College, OH Booth University College, MB Brandeis University, MA Brenau University, GA Brevard College, NC Brewton-Parker College, GA Briar Cliff University, IA Bridgewater College, VA
Briercrest College and Seminary, SK Brigham Young University Hawaii
Campus, HI Brooks Institute, CA Bryan College, TN
Bryan LGH College of Health Sciences, NE
Bryant University, RI Buena Vista University, IA Caldwell College, NJ
California Baptist University, CA California College of Arts and Crafts, CA California Institute of Technology, CA California Lutheran University, CA Calvary Bible College and Theological
Seminary, MO Calvin College, MI Campbell University, NC Canadian Southern Baptist
Seminary, AB Canisius College, NY Capital University, OH Capitol College, MD Cardinal Stritch University, WI Carlow University, PA Carolina Bible College, NC Carroll College, MT Carroll College, WI Carson-Newman College, TN Cascade College, OR Catawba College, NC Cazenovia College, NY Cedar Crest College, PA Cedarville University, OH Centenary College, NJ
Centenary College of Louisiana, LA Central Bible College, MO Central Christian College of the
Bible, MO Central College, IA
Central Methodist College, MO
Chancellor University, OH Chapman University, CA
Charleston Southern University, SC Chatham College, PA
Chestnut Hill College, PA Chicago School of Professional
Psychology, IL Chowan College, NC
Cincinnati Christian University, OH Clafl in University, SC
Clark Atlanta University, GA Clarkson College, NE Clarkson University, NY Clearwater Christian College, FL Cleveland Institute of Art, OH Coe College, IA
Coker College, SC Colby-Sawyer College, NH College for Creative Studies, MI College of Mount Saint Vincent, NY College of Mount St. Joseph, OH College of Notre Dame of Maryland, MD College of Saint Rose, NY
College of Santa Fe, NM College of the Southwest, NM Colorado Christian University, CO Columbia Bible College, BC Columbia College, SC Columbia College Chicago, IL Columbia International University, SC Columbus College of Art and Design, OH Concordia College, NY Concordia University, IL Concordia University, MI Concordia University, MN Concordia University, NE Concordia University, TX Concordia University, WI Connecticut College, CT Corban University, OR Cornell College, IA Cornerstone University, MI Cornish College of the Arts, WA Cottey College, MO
Covenant College, GA Cox College, MO Crichton College, TN Crossroads Bible College, IN Crossroads College, MN Crown College, MN Cumberland University, TN Curry College, MA
Dakota Wesleyan University, SD Dallas Baptist University, TX Dallas Theological Seminary, TX Dana College, NE
Davis & Elkins College, WV Davis College, NY De Paul University, IL Delaware Valley College, PA Des Moines University - Osteopathic
Appendix III: Four-Year Private List of Schools
The following campuses have administered the SSI at least once in the past 15 years. These schools are specifi c to the original Form A version. This list includes 741 institutions.
Detroit College of Business, MI DeVry College of New York, NY DeVry DVUC - Naperville, IL DeVry Institute of Technology
Calgary, AB
DeVry University - Addison, IL DeVry University - Advantage
Academy, IL
DeVry University - Alpharetta, GA DeVry University - Chicago, IL DeVry University - Chicago, IL DeVry University - Colorado
Springs, CO
DeVry University - Columbus, OH DeVry University - Crystal City, VA DeVry University - Decatur, GA DeVry University - Federal Way, WA DeVry University - Fort Washington, PA DeVry University - Fremont, CA DeVry University - Fresno, CA DeVry University - Houston, TX DeVry University - Irving, TX DeVry University - Kansas City, MO DeVry University - Long Beach, CA DeVry University - Miramar, FL DeVry University - North
Brunswick, NJ
DeVry University - Orlando, FL DeVry University - Phoenix, AZ DeVry University - Pomona, CA DeVry University - Sacramento, CA DeVry University - Scarborough, ON DeVry University - Sherman Oaks, CA DeVry University - Tinley Park, IL DeVry University - Toronto, ON DeVry University - West Hills, CA DeVry University - Westminster, CO Dickinson College, PA
Dillard University, LA Divine Word College, IA Doane College, NE
Dominican College of Blauvelt, NY Dominican University of California, CA Dordt College, IA
Drake University, IA Drexel University, PA Drury College, MO D’Youville College, NY
East Texas Baptist University, TX Eastern Mennonite University, VA Eastern Nazarene College, MA Eastern University, PA East-West University, IL Edgewood College, WI Edward Waters College, FL Elizabethtown College, PA Elmira College, NY Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, FL Emerson College, MA Emmanuel College, MA Emmanuel College, GA Emmaus Bible College, IA Emory & Henry College, VA Erskine College, SC Eureka College, IL Evangel University, MO Everglades University, FL
Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary, IA
Faulkner University, AL Ferrum College, VA Florida College, FL
Florida Hospital College of Health Sciences, FL
Florida Memorial College, FL Florida Southern College, FL Franciscan University of
Steubenville, OH
Franklin College of Indiana, IN Franklin College, Switzerland Franklin Pierce University, NH Freed-Hardeman University, TN Fresno Pacifi c University, CA Friends University, KS Furman University, SC Geneva College, PA George Fox University, OR Georgetown College, KY Georgian Court College, NJ Goddard College, VT Gordon College, MA Goshen College, IN Goucher College, MD Grace Bible College, MI Grace College and Seminary, IN Grace University, NE
Graceland University, IA Grand Canyon University, AZ Grand View University, IA Green Mountain College, VT Greenville College, IL Guilford College, NC Gwynedd-Mercy College, PA Haigazian University, Lebanon Hamline University, MN Hampden-Sydney College, VA Hannibal-La Grange College, MO Hanover College, IN
Hardin-Simmons University, TX Harrington College of Design, IL Hartwick College, NY
Hastings College, NE Hawaii Pacifi c University, HI Heidelberg College, OH Hendrix College, AR Heritage Bible College, NC Heritage Christian University, AL Heritage College and Seminary, ON Hesser College, NH
Hesston College, KS Hillsdale College, MI Hiram College, OH
Hobe Sound Bible College, FL Holy Family College, PA Holy Names College, CA Hood College, MD
Hope International University, CA Houghton College, NY
Houston Baptist University, TX Howard Payne University, TX Howard University, DC Huntington University, IN Illinois College, IL
Illinois College of Optometry, IL Illinois Institute of Technology, IL
Illinois Wesleyan University, IL Immaculata College, PA Indiana Institute of Technology, IN Indiana Wesleyan University, IN Institute of Computer Technology
College, CA Ithaca College, NY Jacksonville University, FL Jamestown College, ND John Brown University, AR John Carroll University, OH Johnson & Wales University, FL Johnson & Wales University, RI Johnson & Wales University, VA Johnson C. Smith University, NC Judson College, AL
Judson University, IL Juniata College, PA Kalamazoo College, MI Kansas City Art Institute, MO Kansas Wesleyan University, KS Kentucky Christian College, KY Kettering College of Medical Arts, OH Kettering University, MI Keuka College, NY Keystone College, PA King College, TN Kuyper College, MI La Roche College, PA Laboratory Institute of Merchandising, NY LaGrange College, GA Lake Erie College, OH Lakeview College of Nursing, IL Lancaster Bible College, PA
Lawrence Technological University, MI Lee University, TN
Lees-McRae College, NC Lenoir-Rhyne University, NC Les Roches Marbella, Spain LeTourneau University, TX Lewis University, IL
Lincoln Christian University, IL Lincoln College - Normal, IL Lincoln Memorial University, TN Lindsey Wilson College, KY Linfi eld College, OR Lipscomb University, TN Livingstone College, NC Long Island University Brooklyn
Campus, NY
Long Island University Southampton Campus, NY
Loras College, IA Lourdes College, OH Loyola University Chicago, IL Loyola University New Orleans, LA Luther Rice Seminary, GA Lynchburg College, VA Lynn University, FL Lyon College, AR Madonna University, MI
Maharishi University of Management, IA Malone University, OH
Manchester College, IN Manhattan Christian College, KS Manhattanville College, NY Maranatha Baptist Bible College, WI
Marian College, IN Marian University, WI Marietta College, OH Marquette University, WI Martin Luther College, MN Martin Methodist College, TN Mary Baldwin College, VA Marygrove College, MI
Maryland Institute College of Art, MD Marylhurst University, OR
Marymount College, CA Marymount College, NY
Marymount Manhattan College, NY Marymount University, VA Maryville College, TN
Maryville University of Saint Louis, MO Marywood University, PA
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, MA McMurry University, TX McPherson College, KS Memphis College of Art, TN Menlo College, CA Mercer University, GA Mercy College, NY Meredith College, NC Merrimack College, MA Messiah College, PA Methodist University, NC
Miami International University of Art & Design, FL
Mid-America Christian University, OK MidAmerica Nazarene University, KS Midland Lutheran College, NE Midwest University, MO Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, MO Milligan College, TN Millikin University, IL Millsaps College, MS Milwaukee Institute of Art &
Design, WI
Milwaukee School of Engineering, WI Mississippi College, MS
Mississippi University for Women, MS Missouri Baptist University, MO Molloy College, NY
Montreat College, NC Moravian College, PA Morris College, SC
Mount Carmel College of Nursing, OH Mount Ida College, MA
Mount Marty College, SD Mount Mercy University, IA Mount Saint Mary College, NY Mount St. Mary’s University, MD Mount Vernon Nazarene University, OH Mountain State University, WV Muhlenberg College, PA Multnomah University, OR Muskingum College, OH Nazarene University College, AB Nazareth College of Rochester, NY Nebraska Christian College, NE Nebraska Methodist College, NE Nebraska Wesleyan University, NE Neumann University, PA
New York Institute of Technology, NY Newman University, KS
Niagara University, NY Nichols College, MA
North Carolina Wesleyan College, NC North Central University, MN North Greenville University, SC North Park University, IL Northeastern University, MA Northern Caribbean University,
Jamaica
Northland College, WI
Northwest Christian University, OR Northwest Nazarene University, ID Northwest University, WA Northwestern College, IA Northwestern College, MN Northwestern College, WI Norwich University, VT Notre Dame College, NH Nova University, FL Nyack College, NY Oakwood University, AL Oglethorpe University, GA Ohio Christian University, OH Ohio Dominican University, OH Ohio Valley College, WV Ohio Wesleyan University, OH Oklahoma Baptist University, OK Oklahoma Christian University, OK Oklahoma Wesleyan University, OK Olivet Nazarene University, IL Oral Roberts University, OK Otis College of Art and Design, CA Ottawa University, KS
Our Lady of the Lake College, LA Our Lady of the Lake University, TX Ozark Christian College, MO Pace University, NY
Pacifi c Lutheran University, WA Pacifi c Northwest College of Art, OR Pacifi c Union College, CA
Pacifi c University, OR Paine College, GA
Palm Beach Atlantic University, FL Palmer College of Chiropractic, FL Palmer College of Chiropractic, IA Palmer College of Chiropractic
West, CA Patten University, CA Paul Smith’s College, NY Peace College, NC Pfeiffer University, NC Philadelphia University, PA Phillips University, OK
Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, MN Pitzer College, CA
Point Loma Nazarene College, CA Point Park University, PA Post University, CT Prairie Bible Institute, AB Pratt Institute, NY Presbyterian College, SC Principia College, IL
Providence Christian College, CA Providence College, RI
Queens University of Charlotte, NC
Randolph-Macon College, VA Redeemer College, CA Regis College, MA Regis University, CO Reinhardt College, GA Rhodes College, TN Rider University, NJ Ripon College, WI Rivier College, NH Roanoke Bible College, NC Robert Morris University, PA Roberts Wesleyan College, NY Rochester College, MI
Rochester Institute of Technology, NY Rockhurst University, MO
Rocky Mountain College, MT Rocky Mountain College of Art &
Design, CO
Roger Williams University, RI
Rollins College - Hamilton Holt School, FL Roosevelt University, IL
Rosemont College, PA
Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing, IL
Saint Joseph College, CT Saint Joseph’s College, IN Saint Joseph’s College, ME Saint Louis College of Pharmacy, MO Saint Martin’s University, WA Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College, IN Saint Mary’s College, MI
Saint Meinrad College, IN Saint Olaf College, MN Saint Peter’s College, NJ Saint Vincent College, PA Salve Regina University, RI Samuel Merritt College, CA San Diego Christian College, CA Savannah College of Art and Design, GA School of the Art Institute of Chicago, IL School of Visual Arts, NY
Schreiner University, TX Seattle Pacifi c University, WA Seton Hall University, NJ Seton Hill University, PA Shaw University, NC Sheldon Jackson College, AK Sherman College of Straight
Chiropractic, SC Shorter College, GA Siena College, NY
Siena Heights University, MI Silver Lake College, WI Simmons College, MA Simpson College, IA Simpson University, CA South Florida Bible College and
Theological Seminary, FL Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, NC
Southeastern Bible College, AL Southeastern University, FL Southern Adventist University, TN Southern Catholic College, GA Southern Nazarene University, OK Southern New Hampshire University, NH Southern Virginia University, VA
Southwest Baptist University, MO Southwest College of Naturopathic
Medicine, AZ
Southwestern Adventist University, TX Southwestern Assemblies of God
University, TX
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, TX
Southwestern Christian University, OK Southwestern College, KS
Southwestern University, TX Spalding University, KY
Spartan College of Aeronautics and Technology, OK
Spelman College, GA Spring Arbor University, MI Spring Hill College, AL Springfi eld College, MA St. Ambrose University, IA St. Augustine’s College, NC St. Catharine College, KY St. Edward’s University, TX St. John Fisher College, NY St. John’s University, NY St. Mary’s University, TX St. Thomas Aquinas College, NY St. Thomas University, FL Steinbach Bible College, MB Sterling College, KS Stevenson University, MD Stonehill College, MA Sullivan University, KY
Syracuse University Main Campus, NY Tabor College, KS
Taylor University, IN
Taylor University, Fort Wayne, IN Tennessee Temple University, TN Tennessee Wesleyan College, TN Texas Chiropractic College, TX Texas Christian University, TX Texas Lutheran University, TX Texas Wesleyan University, TX The American College of Greece, GR The American University of Rome, Italy The Art Institute of Atlanta, GA The Art Institute of Atlanta -
Decatur, GA
The Art Institute of Austin, TX The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley
University, MA
The Art Institute of California - Hollywood, CA
The Art Institute of California - Inland Empire, CA The Art Institute of California -
Los Angeles, CA
The Art Institute of California - Orange County, CA The Art Institute of California -
Sacramento, CA
The Art Institute of California - San Francisco, CA The Art Institute of California -
San Diego, CA
The Art Institute of California - Sunnyvale, CA
The Art Institute of Charleston, SC The Art Institute of Charlotte, NC
The Art Institute of Colorado, CO The Art Institute of Dallas, TX The Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, FL The Art Institute of Houston, TX The Art Institute of Houston - North, TX The Art Institute of Indianapolis, IN The Art Institute of Jacksonville, FL The Art Institute of Las Vegas, NV The Art Institute of Michigan, MI The Art Institute of New York City, NY The Art Institute of Ohio -
Cincinnati, OH
The Art Institute of Philadelphia, PA The Art Institute of Phoenix, AZ The Art Institute of Pittsburgh, PA The Art Institute of Portland, OR The Art Institute of Raleigh
-Durham, NC
The Art Institute of Salt Lake City, UT The Art Institute of Seattle, WA The Art Institute of Tampa, FL The Art Institute of Tennessee -
Nashville, TN
The Art Institute of Tucson, AZ The Art Institute of Washington, VA The Art Institute of York -
Pennsylvania, PA
The Art Institutes International Minnesota, MN
The Art Institutes International -Kansas City, KS
The College of Saint Scholastica, MN The Defi ance College, OH
The Illinois Institute of Art - Chicago, IL The Illinois Institute of Art -
Schaumburg, IL
The King’s University College, AB The Master’s College and
Seminary, CA
The New England Institute of Art, MA The University of Findlay, OH The University of Scranton, PA Thiel College, PA
Thomas More College, KY Tiffi n University, OH Touro College, NY Transylvania University, KY Trevecca Nazarene University, TN Trinity Baptist College, FL Trinity Christian College, IL Trinity College, VT
Trinity International University, IL Trinity Lutheran College, WA Trinity Western University, BC Tusculum College, TN Tuskegee University, AL Tyndale University College &
Seminary, ON Union College, NE Union College, KY Union University, TN
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico Universidad Jose Cecilio del Valle, NY University of Charleston, WV University of Denver, CO University of Detroit Mercy, MI University of Evansville, IN University of Hartford, CT
University of LaVerne, CA University of Mary, ND
University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, TX University of New England, ME University of New Haven, CT University of Portland, OR University of Saint Francis, IN University of Saint Thomas, MN University of San Francisco, CA University of Sioux Falls, SD University of Southern California, CA University of St Francis, IL University of Tampa, FL
University of the Incarnate Word, TX University of the Pacifi c, CA University of the Sciences in
Philadelphia, PA Upper Iowa University, IA Urbana University, OH Ursuline College, OH Utica College, NY
Valley Forge Christian College, PA Vanderbilt University, TN Vanguard University of Southern
California, CA
Virginia Wesleyan College, VA Viterbo University, WI Walla Walla University, WA Walsh University, OH Warner Pacifi c College, OR Warner University, FL Warren Wilson College, NC Washington Adventist University, MD Washington Baptist University, VA Washington Bible College/Capital Bible
Seminary, MD Washington College, MD Waynesburg University, PA
Wentworth Institute of Technology, MA Wesley College, DE
Wesleyan College, GA
West Suburban College of Nursing, IL West Virginia Wesleyan College, WV Western Maryland College, MD Western New England College, MA Westminster College, MO Westminster College of Salt Lake
City, UT
Westmont College, CA Wheaton College, IL Wheaton College, MA Wheeling Jesuit University, WV Whittier College, CA
Whitworth University, WA Widener University, PA Wilkes University, PA William Jessup University, CA William Jewell College, MO William Penn University, IA Williams Baptist College, AR Wilmington College, DE Wilson College, PA
Wisconsin Lutheran College, WI Wittenberg University, OH Woodbury University, CA
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA Xavier University, OH
Appendix IV: Complete Four-Year Private Demographic Comparison
Demographic Variables 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift
Female 58% 59% -1% Male 42% 41% 1% 24 and younger 81% 82% -1% 25 and older 19% 18% 1% African American 12% 6% 6% Caucasian/White 62% 78% -16% Hispanic 10% 4% 6% Asian 6% 4% 2% Day 87% 92% -5% Evening 12% 7% 5% Full-time 91% 91% 0% Part-time 9% 9% 0% Freshman 31% 36% -5% Sophomore 22% 20% 2% Junior 21% 20% 1% Senior 20% 17% 3% Graduate/Professional 3% 6% -3% 3.5 GPA 35% 23% 12% 3.0-3.49 32% 28% 4% 2.5 - 2.99 17% 22% -5% 2.0 - 2.49 8% 11% -3% 1.99 or below 2% 2% 0% No credits 7% 13% -6% Full-time employment 18% 15% 3% Part-time employment 44% 52% -8% Not employed 38% 33% 5% Residence hall 42% 56% -14% Rent room/apartment 24% 16% 8% Parent’s home 19% 13% 6% Own house 11% 11% 0% In-state 70% 62% 8% Out-of-state 26% 33% -7% International 4% 5% -1% Yes–disability 6% 5% 1% No–disability 94% 95% -1% First choice 64% 65% -1% Second choice 26% 25% 1% Third choice 10% 10% 0%
Appendix V: Scale Scores Across All 15 Years
The 73 individual items on the SSI are clustered into 11 scales, or categories, on a statistical and conceptual basis. This section of the study provides a trend analysis on the importance and satisfaction scores for six key scale areas across all 15 years of satisfaction data results. These are typically
important areas to students and ones that campuses should be focused on.
As noted in the charts below, importance scores have held relatively steady across the 15 years with some variances in satisfaction scores. In recent years, satisfaction levels generally are improving in all of these areas as campuses maintain regular assessment activities and work to improve the specifi c priority issues to students.
4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Instructional Effectiveness 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Academic Advising
4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Registration Effectiveness 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Campus Climate
4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction
Recruitment and Financial Aid
4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction
Appendix VI: Performance Gap Review
Another way to review the combination of importance and satisfaction data is with the performance gap. This score is simply the importance score minus the satisfaction score. As the previous charts illustrate, performance gaps exist between the level of importance students place in these categories and their perceived levels of satisfaction. The larger the performance gap, the greater the discrepancy between what students expect and their level of satisfaction. Across 15 years, the average performance gaps in these six categories are as follows:
Average performance gaps
Category Average Performance Gap
Instruction 1.04
Advising 0.99
Registration Effectiveness 1.19
Campus Climate 1.01
Recruitment and Financial Aid 1.26
Safety and Security 1.47
The chart below refl ects the performance gaps for the six categories. The Safety and Security category consistently has the largest performance gaps (this scale also includes parking items). As the chart below illustrates, performance gaps in all six areas have consistently dropped in recent years, which matches the trend of improving satisfaction.
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Instruction Advising Campus Climate
Recruitment and Financial Aid Safety and Security
Registration Effectiveness
Appendix VII: All Item Scores—Averages and Percentages for
Importance and Satisfaction
Item on the Four-Year Private Student Satisfaction Inventory, Form A Percentage Importance 2009-2010 Percentage Importance 1994-1995 Percentage Importance Shift Percentage Satisfaction 2009-2010 Percentage Satisfaction 1994-1995 Percentage Satisfaction Shift Average Importance 2009-2010 Average Importance 1994-1995 Average Importance Shift Average Satisfaction 2009-2010 Average Satisfaction 1994-1995 Average Satisfaction Shift 1. Students feel a sense of belonging. 72.0% 72.0% 0.0% 52.0% 47.6% 4.4% 5.93 5.89 0.04 5.26 5.07 0.19 2. Campus staff are
caring and helpful. 85.1% 86.2% -1.1% 61.2% 56.9% 4.3% 6.33 6.34 -0.01 5.53 5.37 0.16 3. Faculty care about me as an individual. 80.6% 83.5% -2.9% 58.3% 55.5% 2.8% 6.21 6.27 -0.06 5.47 5.37 0.1 4. Admissions staff are knowledgeable. 79.7% 76.4% 3.3% 55.9% 49.1% 6.8% 6.2 6.07 0.13 5.37 5.13 0.24 5. Financial aid counselors are helpful. 82.2% 79.1% 3.1% 48.6% 40.7% 7.9% 6.27 6.13 0.14 5.09 4.78 0.31 6. My academic advisor is approachable. 86.4% 86.9% -0.5% 66.7% 63.3% 3.4% 6.4 6.4 0 5.69 5.53 0.16 7. Campus is safe and secure for all students. 86.2% 87.7% -1.5% 66.7% 57.6% 9.1% 6.42 6.45 -0.03 5.67 5.3 0.37 8. Content of courses within major is valuable. 92.1% 92.6% -0.5% 64.6% 60.6% 4.0% 6.62 6.61 0.01 5.64 5.47 0.17 9. Variety of intramural activities are offered. 42.8% 38.3% 4.5% 41.4% 37.7% 3.7% 5 4.88 0.12 4.93 4.82 0.11 10. Administrators are approachable to students. 71.8% 67.0% 4.8% 50.3% 38.7% 11.6% 5.97 5.81 0.16 5.26 4.87 0.39 11. Billing policies are reasonable. 77.5% 75.1% 2.4% 36.3% 32.0% 4.3% 6.13 6.03 0.1 4.68 4.45 0.23 12. Financial aid awards announced in time. 81.0% 80.2% 0.8% 44.1% 39.2% 4.9% 6.24 6.18 0.06 4.93 4.72 0.21 13. Library staff are helpful and approachable. 62.5% 69.6% -7.1% 60.4% 52.8% 7.6% 5.73 5.9 -0.17 5.57 5.27 0.3 14. My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual. 83.0% 82.8% 0.2% 59.0% 55.6% 3.4% 6.3 6.27 0.03 5.46 5.3 0.16 15. Staff in the health services are competent. 70.1% 70.2% -0.1% 42.8% 38.1% 4.7% 5.9 5.87 0.03 4.93 4.74 0.19 16. Instruction in my major fi eld is excellent. 91.1% 92.0% -0.9% 63.1% 59.2% 3.9% 6.59 6.59 0 5.61 5.46 0.15 17. Adequate fi nancial aid is available. 85.8% 85.6% 0.2% 42.0% 37.9% 4.1% 6.4 6.37 0.03 4.87 4.63 0.24
Item on the Four-Year Private Student Satisfaction Inventory, Form A Percentage Importance 2009-2010 Percentage Importance 1994-1995 Percentage Importance Shift Percentage Satisfaction 2009-2010 Percentage Satisfaction 1994-1995 Percentage Satisfaction Shift Average Importance 2009-2010 Average Importance 1994-1995 Average Importance Shift Average Satisfaction 2009-2010 Average Satisfaction 1994-1995 Average Satisfaction Shift 18. Library resources and services are adequate. 76.9% 84.0% -7.1% 58.0% 39.0% 19.0% 6.11 6.27 -0.16 5.47 4.65 0.82 19. Academic advisor helps set goals to work toward. 73.5% 71.7% 1.8% 46.4% 39.7% 6.7% 6.02 5.95 0.07 5.03 4.77 0.26 20. The business offi ce is open during convenient hours. 71.6% 69.2% 2.4% 50.0% 42.9% 7.1% 5.96 5.87 0.09 5.21 4.91 0.3 21. Amount of student parking space is adequate. 73.0% 71.1% 1.9% 28.0% 20.6% 7.4% 5.95 5.87 0.08 3.92 3.53 0.39 22. Counseling staff care about students as individuals. 73.5% 72.2% 1.3% 47.9% 39.0% 8.9% 6.01 5.92 0.09 5.16 4.89 0.27 23. Living conditions in residence halls are comfortable. 77.4% 80.5% -3.1% 39.5% 29.1% 10.4% 6.05 6.14 -0.09 4.74 4.32 0.42 24. Intercollegiate athletics contribute to school spirit. 51.4% 51.0% 0.4% 32.0% 26.6% 5.4% 5.19 5.24 -0.05 4.45 4.36 0.09
25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of students.
85.6% 87.9% -2.3% 54.6% 46.6% 8.0% 6.37 6.41 -0.04 5.3 5 0.3
26. Computer labs are adequate and accessible. 82.7% 80.3% 2.4% 58.0% 43.7% 14.3% 6.29 6.16 0.13 5.4 4.87 0.53 27. Registration personnel are helpful. 80.4% 77.7% 2.7% 57.0% 49.1% 7.9% 6.2 6.09 0.11 5.41 5.14 0.27
28. Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. 74.3% 77.4% -3.1% 47.4% 36.2% 11.2% 6.03 6.1 -0.07 5.03 4.56 0.47 29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 86.6% 85.8% 0.8% 59.1% 51.3% 7.8% 6.42 6.35 0.07 5.46 5.17 0.29 30. Residence hall staff are concerned about individuals. 65.6% 62.8% 2.8% 44.5% 37.5% 7.0% 5.73 5.61 0.12 5 4.75 0.25 31. Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in athletics. 59.8% 57.0% 2.8% 54.7% 44.0% 10.7% 5.49 5.41 0.08 5.32 5.02 0.3 32. Tutoring services
are readily available. 70.7% 69.5% 1.2% 57.4% 46.2% 11.2% 5.93 5.85 0.08 5.46 5.09 0.37 33. Academic
advisor knows requirements in major.
