Determinants of Student Satisfaction with Service Delivery in Ethiopian Private Higher Education: A Case Study of GAMBY Medical and Business College

Determinants of Student Satisfaction with Service Delivery in Ethiopian Private Higher Education: A Case Study of GAMBY Medical and Business College | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Determinants of Student Satisfaction with Service Delivery in Ethiopian Private Higher Education: A Case Study of GAMBY Medical and Business College Seid, Adugna, Yihenew Misrak, Girma Ayalew (PhD), Azmeraw Abebaw This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9339870/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In higher education, student satisfaction is a primary measure of quality and a key driver of institutional development. This study examines student perceptions of service delivery at GAMBY Medical and Business College in Ethiopia, filling a critical knowledge gap regarding satisfaction determinants in private health-science institutions. Using a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire (1 = Very Satisfied, 5 = Very Dissatisfied), a cross-sectional survey was conducted among 319 students. The study evaluated satisfaction across six dimensions: Administrative Service, Educational Infrastructure, Instructional Quality, Support & IT Services, Personal Growth Outcomes, and Overall Satisfaction. Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 26.0 employing Descriptive Statistics, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for validation, and Multiple Linear Regression. The findings revealed high levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.947) and robust construct validity. Descriptive results indicated generally positive satisfaction levels, with mean scores ranging from 2.11 to 2.43. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the service dimensions collectively accounted for 39 % of the variance in the overall student experience. Educational Philosophy and Theory Student Satisfaction Service Delivery Higher Education GAMBY College Medical Education Ethiopia Service Quality Psychometric Validation. Figures Figure 1 1. INTRODUCTION Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have experienced a dramatic paradigm shift in the twenty-first century, moving from conventional "ivory towers" of knowledge to service providers focused on the market. According to Altbach and de Wit (2023) and Tight (2022), the "marketization" of education has repositioned students as major customers whose happiness is a crucial factor in determining institutional sustainability and global ranking (1, 2). Globally, academic quality, administrative effectiveness, and physical infrastructure are all considered components of the complex, multifaceted construct of student happiness (3). Standardized assessment regimes, like the National Student Survey (NSS) in the UK, have compelled HEIs in developed countries to make service delivery a key strategic goal in order to maintain student retention and gain a competitive edge (4). Rapid student enrollment growth has been a defining feature of African higher education, frequently surpassing the advancement of human and physical resources (5). Studies in regional centers like Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa show that service delivery is still uneven, especially when it comes to IT infrastructure and administrative response, even while access to education has increased throughout Sub-Saharan Africa (6). Localized satisfaction studies are essential to the survival of African HEIs because they must navigate substantial socioeconomic constraints while also satisfying international quality requirements (7). Ethiopia has evolved from a constrictive public-only system to a varied environment with a growing Private Higher Education Institution (PHEI) sector. PHEIs now make for a sizable share of student enrollment, especially in professional subjects like business sciences and medicine (8). Under the latest Education Sector Development Program (ESDP VI), the Ethiopian Ministry of Education has shifted its attention from "expansion" to "quality assurance." As a result, PHEIs are under tremendous pressure to demonstrate superior service delivery in order to justify their tuition costs. The "marketization" of higher education has created a "Student-as-Customer" (SAC) paradigm in Ethiopian education today, especially in Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs). Students at private universities like GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) operate as active customers whose happiness is based on a perceived return on investment (ROI), in contrast to the state-subsidized public sector (8, 9). A clear "psychological contract" is formed between the institution and the student as a result of this consumerist mindset. Compared to their peers in public universities, students frequently have higher expectations regarding tangible service dimensions, such as IT infrastructure (e.g. high-speed Wi-Fi), administrative responsiveness, and laboratory facilities, because they bear substantial out-of-pocket expenses (10, 47). In this situation, service delivery is an essential part of the "educational product" that students are paying a premium for rather than just a supporting role. As a result, any perceived shortfall in infrastructure quality or administrative effectiveness is seen as a violation of this agreement, which raises dissatisfaction rates (11, 12). Thus, an analysis that takes these high standards of accountability and "value-for-money" into consideration is necessary to comprehend satisfaction in a PHEI such as GMBC (1, 25). 2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The special dynamics of student satisfaction within Ethiopia's private medical school industry have not received enough attention, despite the global expansion of service quality research. This work fills in a number of important research gaps. The conventional SERVQUAL model, which was first created for the commercial service sector (13), is still used in the majority of studies conducted in Ethiopia (14). Whether the SERVQUAL dimensions—tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy—are adequate to convey the "personal Growth" aspect of higher education is a theoretical gap. By using the HE-SSS (Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale) and incorporating contemporary elements like learning outcomes and emotional stability—which are crucial for college students but lacking in commercial service models—this study closes this gap (11, 15). In terms of methodology, a large portion of Ethiopian research is descriptive in character and makes use of "home-grown" instruments that lack thorough psychometric validation. Few studies use sophisticated statistical methods to confirm the internal structure of satisfaction ratings, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This study offers a methodologically sound instrument that guarantees the validity and reliability of data by validating the HE-SSS instrument in the Ethiopian context—a prerequisite that is sometimes disregarded in local pilot studies (16 Habtamu, 2023). College students' discontent has been reported in numerous studies (17, 18). Nevertheless, these studies frequently give a general summary without pinpointing the precise elements that most strongly predict overall pleasure. Numerous studies have documented dissatisfaction among college students (17, 18). Nevertheless, these studies frequently give a general summary without pinpointing the precise elements that most strongly predict overall pleasure. There is a significant gap in the literature about the particular factors that influence satisfaction in the setting of private higher education. For instance, research by Davis et al. (2021) did not explore program-specific variations, but it did find that factors impacting satisfaction differed significantly dependent on institutional type (19). Moreover, the possibility of varying satisfaction levels according to academic specialty is often ignored in current studies. Research that distinguishes between the experiences of students in different fields—like business and medical programs within the same institution—is particularly necessary because their expectations and priorities may differ greatly (20, 21). Geographically, research on higher education in Ethiopia is strongly biased toward Addis Ababa's state universities. Private colleges in regional academic centers like Bahir Dar are severely neglected. Additionally, students in the high-stakes field of private medical education pay substantial out-of-pocket expenses; as a result, their "psychological contract" with the institution differs from that of state-sponsored students (25). Results from public universities cannot be applied to GMBC and other specialized private colleges. GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) competes in an increasingly crowded market in Northwest Ethiopia. However, there is a lack of documented, scientifically analyzed data on student satisfaction in the areas of infrastructure, instruction, and administration. The college administration was unable to go from "anecdotal management" to "evidence-based decision-making" because of the lack of empirical data. By identifying the main causes of satisfaction and discontent, this study aims to close this gap by offering a strategic road map for improving service quality and institutional accreditation. 1. 3. Objective of the Research 1.3.1. Main Objective The primary objective of this research is to evaluate multidimensional student satisfaction with service delivery at GAMBY Medical and Business College using a psychometrically validated assessment framework. 1.3.2. Specific Objectives To achieve the main objective, the study pursues the following specific goals: To validate the psychometric properties (reliability and construct validity) of the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS) within the context of a specialized Ethiopian private college. To assess the prevailing levels of student satisfaction across five key dimensions: Administrative Quality, Infrastructure/Resources, Instructional Quality, Support Services and Personal Growth Outcomes. To identify the primary determinants (predictors) of overall institutional satisfaction, specifically comparing the influence of academic (instructional) versus non-academic (administrative and infrastructural) service factors To analyze the statistical relationship between institutional service quality dimensions and the overall student experience at GAMBY Medical and Business College. 1.4. Research Questions Aligned with the objectives, this study seeks to answer the following research questions: RQ1: What are the psychometric properties (internal consistency and factor structure) of the HE-SSS instrument when applied to a private Medical and Business College setting in Ethiopia? RQ2: What is the current level of student satisfaction regarding administrative, infrastructural, and instructional service delivery at GAMBY Medical and Business College? RQ3: Which specific service dimensions—academic or non-teaching support—exert the greatest significant influence on overall student satisfaction? RQ4: What is the nature and strength of the relationship between the college’s multidimensional service delivery factors and overall student satisfaction? 1.4. The Significance of the research This study provides an empirical baseline for quality assurance within the Ethiopian private higher education sector. The significance is categorized across three primary domains: Institutional and Strategic Impact: By shifting from anecdotal oversight to evidence-based decision-making, the findings facilitate optimized resource allocation and strategic positioning. The research establishes a framework for participatory quality assurance, enhancing institutional sustainability and market differentiation. Methodological and Scientific Contribution: A primary academic contribution is the psychometric validation of the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS) using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This provides a culturally adapted, reliable instrument for future research in specialized medical and business education contexts. Policy and Regulatory Alignment: The study aligns with the Ethiopian Education Sector Development Program (ESDP VI) and national quality audit standards set by the Education and Training Authority (ETA). It serves as a benchmark for accountability and transparency among Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs). 1.4. Scope of the research The research parameters are delimited as follows: Geographical Scope: The study is restricted to the main campus of GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Conceptual Scope: Evaluation is focused on five multidimensional constructs of the HE-SSS i.e., Administrative Quality, Infrastructure and Resources, Instructional Quality, Support Services and IT, and Personal Growth Outcomes. The focus remains on perceived service quality rather than clinical or academic learning outcomes. Participant Scope: The study population encompasses all enrolled students (Years I–V) within the Medical Science (Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health, MLS) and Business Science (Accounting, Management) faculties, including both Regular and Extension modes of delivery. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Theoretical Framework The study of student satisfaction is grounded in three primary theoretical pillars that explain how students perceive and evaluate their educational experience. 2.1.1. Expectancy--Disconfirmation Theory (EDT) The Expectancy-Disconfirmation framework (EDT), first put forth by Oliver (2006) and subsequently modified for use in higher education by Kotler and Keller (2016), serves as the fundamental framework for this investigation (22, 23). According to EDT, contentment is a post-consumption assessment that comes from contrasting perceived performance with previous expectations. When GAMBY College's service delivery surpasses students' expectations, "positive disconfirmation" takes place, resulting in contentment. On the other hand, "negative disconfirmation" leads to discontent if the perceived performance is subpar (12). 2.1.2. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory (38) is especially relevant to institutional service delivery. It makes a distinction between "Motivators" (intrinsic components like teaching quality, personal development, and critical thinking development) and "Hygiene Factors" (extrinsic elements like campus infrastructure, administrative procedures, and IT facilities). This idea holds that while inadequate infrastructure causes discontent, genuine satisfaction and academic engagement require high-quality instruction (2, 24). 2.1.3. The Student-as-Customer Paradigm The Marketization Theory, which sees students as active customers of a service, is increasingly used to frame contemporary research in higher education (4). According to this theory, HEIs should go beyond traditional academic standards and concentrate on ‘Total Quality Management’ (TQM), where each touch point—from the lab to the registrar's office—contributes to the students' subjective assessment of the "education commodity" (1, 15). 2.2. Empirical Framework Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the multifaceted character of student satisfaction in diverse institutional and geographic situations. Technology integration and LMS effectiveness are now the best indicators of happiness in a post-pandemic environment, according to recent research in industrialized economies (3). According to studies conducted in Ghana and Kenya, library resources and administrative response are important barriers in the African environment (7). For example, "Institutional Image" and "Administrative Transparency" were determined to be more important for student loyalty than teaching quality alone in a 2023 study on South African private institutions (6). A substantial "service-delivery gap" exists in both the public and private sectors, according to empirical data from Ethiopia. Due to out-of-pocket tuition expenses, Tamrat (2023) notes that students in Ethiopian private universities have a stronger "psychological contract" regarding infrastructure (25). Wakjira, Mesele, and Gedif (2022) discovered that the main causes of discontent in specialized medical colleges are clinical attachment quality and laboratory adequacy (14). The effects of administrative complexity on students' emotional stability and long-term retention in Ethiopian PHEIs, however, are still largely unstudied (10). 2.3. Conceptual Framework This study suggests a conceptual model that connects five independent service components to the dependent variable of overall student satisfaction based on the synthesized literature and the gaps found. Independent Variables (Service Dimensions): Administrative Quality: Transparency, staff politeness, and procedural efficiency. Instructional Quality: Faculty competency, feedback mechanisms, and curriculum relevance. Infrastructural Quality: Classroom comfort, library resources, and campus safety. Support & IT Services: Wi-Fi reliability, SIMS efficiency, and cafeteria quality. Personal Growth Outcomes: Perceived growth in critical thinking, self-confidence, and professional skills. Dependent Variable: Overall Student Satisfaction: The holistic evaluative judgment of the student's experience at GMBC. Moderating Variables: Demographic factors (Age, Gender, Department, and Year of Study). The Logic of the Model According to the paradigm, student happiness is a product of the interaction between "Hygiene Factors" (Admin/Infrastructure) and "Motivators" (Instruction/Personal Growth), rather than only academic quality. Through the use of the HE-SSS instrument to measure various characteristics, the study is able to identify the particular aspect that has the biggest impact on students' motivation to continue and recommend the institution. Conceptual Framework of the research (Figure 1, Own Field survey, 2025) constructed by synthesizing established service quality models (11, 13, 15 & 22) 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1. Research Design This study employed a quantitative research methodology utilizing a cross-sectional survey design that is both descriptive and inferential in nature. This approach was selected to systematically investigate the multifaceted relationship between institutional service delivery and student satisfaction at a specific point in time. The study design measures satisfaction across five primary service dimensions: administrative quality, educational infrastructure, instructional quality, support services, and personal growth learning outcomes. 3.2. Sampling Procedure 3.2.1. Target Population and Eligibility The target population consisted of 1,530 students currently enrolled at GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC). To ensure data quality and informed feedback, an exclusion criterion was applied to first-year students. This was based on the rationale that limited exposure to the college’s long-term service delivery might lead to uninformed evaluations. Consequently, participation was restricted to students in their second year of study or higher. 3.2.2. Sample Size Determination The sample size was determined using the Yamane 1967 formula for finite populations (26): n = (N) / (1 + N (e^2)) Where: n = required sample size N = Total population (1,530) e = Level of precision (Margin of error set at 0.05) Based on this calculation, a minimum sample size of 319 students was established to ensure statistical representation. 3.2.3. Sampling Technique and Allocation A multi-stage stratified proportional sampling procedure was used to ensure that all academic years and departments were fairly represented. The population was stratified by academic department and year of study. To preserve the integrity of the initial population distribution, each stratum received a proportionate allocation as detailed in Table 1 (Own Field survey, 2025). Table 1: Proportional Distribution of Sample by Year of Study and Department Stratum Population (N) Sample (n) Percentage (%) Year of Study 2 nd year 456 95 20.8% 3 rd Year 492 103 20.9% 4 th Year 460 96 20.8% 5 th Year 112 23 20.5% 6 th Year (internship) 10 2 20% Total 1530 319 20.8% Department Pharmacy 427 89 20.8% Nursing 260 54 20.7% MLS 213 44 20.6% Public Health 94 20 21.2% Medicine 75 16 21.3% Midwifery 51 11 21.5 % Management 122 25 20.5% Accounting 164 34 20.7% MPH 63 13 20.6% MBA 37 8 21.6% Accounting MSc 24 5 20.8% Total 1530 319 20.8% Source: own Field survey, 2025 3.3. Data Collection Instrument The primary instrument for data collection was the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS), a self-administered questionnaire modified from validated instruments (27, 28, 29). The instrument was divided into two sections: Section I deals with demographic profiles (age, gender, program level, department, and academic status). Section II includes 68 items measuring various aspects of satisfaction across six dimensions. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very Satisfied to 5 = Very Dissatisfied). In this study, lower mean scores indicate higher levels of student satisfaction. 3.4. Reliability and Validity 3.4.1. Reliability A reliability analysis was conducted to ensure internal consistency. Pilot testing demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with an overall Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.947 for the 68-item scale (Table 2, own Field survey, 2025). Dimensional reliability coefficients for the six sub-indicators ranged from 0.853 to 0.941, well exceeding the standard threshold of 0.70 (30). Table 2: Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Results Construct Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Overall HE-SSS Scale 0.947 68 Service Dimensions (Range) 0.853- 0.941 6 Source: own Field survey, 2025 3.4.2. Validity Content Validity was established through a review of the modified instrument by senior academic staff and administrators at GAMBY College to ensure the items adequately covered all relevant service dimensions. Construct Validity was empirically verified using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The results showed that all six sub-dimensions converged into a single, robust, and unidimensional factor, accounting for 66.247% of the total variance, thereby confirming the instrument's structural validity (Table 3 & 4, Own Field survey, 2025). The detailed factor loadings and variance results are presented in Chapter 4. Table 3. Factor Loadings and Communalities of the Student Satisfaction Scale (n = 319) Indicators Factor Loadings Communalities (h^2) Education Infrastructure 0.881 0.777 Instructional Quality 0.881 0.777 Support & IT 0.881 0.776 Personal Growth Outcome 0.881 0.776 Overall Satisfaction 0.710 0.504 Administrative Service 0.604 0.364 Eigenvalue 3.975 Total Variance explained 66.247% Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Source: Own Field survey, 2025 Table 4. Inter-item Correlation Matrix for Satisfaction Dimensions. *Note: Matrix is not positive definite due to high internal collinearity between indicators (2/3) and (4/5). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) Administrative Service 1.000 (2) Education Infrastructure* 0.631 1.000 (3) Instructional Quality* 0.631 1.000 (4) Support & IT Service 0.573 0.631 1.000 (5)Personal Growth Outcome 0.573 0.631 1.000 1.000 1.000 (6) Overall Satisfaction 0.478 0.478 0.573 0.573 0.573 1.000 Source: Own Field Survey (2025). 3.5. Data Analysis Methods Data were cleaned, coded, and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26.0). The following statistical techniques were applied to meet the research objectives: Descriptive Statistics: Frequency distributions, percentages, means, and standard deviations were used to summarize demographic characteristics and assess general satisfaction levels across dimensions. Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Conducted to assess the construct validity, internal structure, and dimensionality of the HE-SSS. Pearson Correlation: Employed to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between specific service dimensions and overall student satisfaction. Multiple Linear Regression: Conducted to identify which service dimensions significantly predict overall student satisfaction and to measure the magnitude of their influence. 3.6. Ethical Considerations This study was conducted in strict accordance with established ethical research standards. Formal permission to collect data was obtained from the GAMBY Medical and Business College Research Ethics Committee. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, no personally identifiable information (such as names or ID numbers) was collected. Participants were explicitly assured that their responses would be handled with the utmost privacy and used exclusively for academic purposes. 4. RESULTS 4.1. Socio- Demographic Result The demographic profile of the participants reveals a predominantly young, female-dominated, undergraduate student body (Table 5). Nearly three-quarters (71.5%) of the respondents are between the ages of 18 and 24, and the majority (57.1%) are female, representing a typical entry-level higher education demographic. The sample is heavily concentrated on undergraduate programs (92.5%), with the majority of respondents (63%) currently in their third or fourth year of study. This distribution ensures that the participants have had substantial longitudinal exposure to the college's service delivery. Furthermore, the sample reflects GAMBY College’s institutional focus on health sciences, with the Faculty of Medical Sciences representing the largest portion of the sample compared to Business and Postgraduate programs. Specifically, the departments of Pharmacy (27.6%) and Nursing (16.9%) constitute the largest individual cohorts (Table 6, Own Field survey, 2025). Table 5. General Demographic Profile of Respondents (N=319) Variables category Frequency (N) Valid Percent (%) Gender Female 182 57.1 Male 137 42.9 Age group 18-21 80 25.1 22-24 148 46.4 25-27 57 17.9 +27 34 10.7 Year of study 1 st year 7 2.2 2 nd year 86 27.0 3 rd year 103 32.3 4 th year 98 30.7 5 th -6 th year 25 7.8 Current program Undergraduate (degree) 295 92.5 Postgraduate (MA/MSc) 24 7.5 Source: Own Field survey, 2025 Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Academic Department (N=319) Faculty Type Department Frequency (N) Valid Percent (%) Medical Sciences Pharmacy 88 27.6 Nursing 54 16.9 MLS 45 14.1 Public Health 21 6.6 Medicine 16 5.0 Midwifery 11 3.4 Business/ Others Accounting 34 10.7 Management 26 8.2 MPH/MBA/MSC in Acc. 24 7.5 Source: Own Field survey, 2025 4.2. Descriptive result The descriptive analysis provides an overview of student perceptions regarding the six service dimensions at GAMBY College. Mean scores for all dimensions ranged between 2.11 and 2.43. Given that the survey utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very Satisfied, 5 = Very Dissatisfied), all scores fall below the neutral midpoint of 3.0, indicating that students are generally satisfied with the college’s service delivery. As shown in Table 7, students reported the highest levels of satisfaction with Administrative Services (M = 2.20) and Overall Satisfaction (M = 2.11). This suggests that institutional responsiveness and the general campus atmosphere are viewed favorably. Conversely, the dimensions of Support/IT Infrastructure and Personal Growth Outcomes yielded the highest mean ratings (both M = 2.43), indicating a relatively lower level of satisfaction compared to other areas. While these scores still fall within the "satisfied" range, they represent the primary areas for institutional improvement. Notably, the identical mean scores and standard deviations for Educational Infrastructure and Instructional Quality (M = 2.30, SD = 0.78) suggest a significant conceptual overlap in how students perceive the academic environment and the physical facilities that support it (Table 7, Own Field survey, 2025). Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of Student Satisfaction Dimensions (N=319) Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean (M) Std. Deviation (SD) Overall satisfaction 319 1.00 5.00 2.1105 0.80910 Admin Service 319 1.00 5.00 2.2025 0.90256 Education infrastructure 319 1.00 5.00 2.3017 0.78201 Instructional 319 1.00 5.00 2.3017 0.78201 Support & IT 319 1.00 5.00 2.4326 0.99539 Personal Growth outcome 319 1.00 5.00 2.4326 0.99539 Valid N (listwise) 319 Source: own Field survey, 2025 4.3. Regression Result of Independent Variables The degree to which particular service variables contribute to the variance in overall student satisfaction was assessed using a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) approach. F (3, 314) = 66.915, p < 0.001, indicated that the regression model was statistically significant. The independent variables included in the model account for 39% of the total variance in overall student satisfaction, according to the coefficient of determination (R^2 = 0.390). Personal Growth Outcomes was found to be the most significant and powerful predictor of satisfaction among the variables that were entered (β = 0.428, p < 0.001). This implies that the main factors influencing students' institutional satisfaction are their views of their own personal development and skill enhancement. Additionally, Administrative Service was found to be a significant positive predictor (β = 0.226, p < 0.001). Important "hygiene factors" that directly improve the student experience include supportive staff behavior and effective administrative procedures. It's interesting to note that, despite being positive, instructional quality was not a statistically significant predictor in this particular model (p = 0.100). This is probably because the strong correlation with "Personal Growth Outcomes," which represent the "result" of excellent instruction, quantitatively suppressed its influence (Table 8, Own Field survey, 2025). Due to multicollinearity, the variables "Education Infrastructure" and "Support/IT Services" were eliminated from the final model computation since (tolerance reached 0.000). This indicates that these services are so closely linked to the learning environment that their predictive influence is inherently reflected within the academic and personal growth scores. Table 8. Multiple Regression Analysis for Predictors of Overall Satisfaction Predictors B SE beta t Sig. (p) (Constant) 0.580 0.121 - 4.798 < 0.001 Personal Growth 0.348 0.046 0.428 7.495 < 0.001* Admin service 0.202 0.045 0.226 4.473 < 0.001* Instructional 0.104 0.063 0.100 1.652 0.100 Model statistics Value R 0.624 R-square (R^2) 0.390 F-statistics 66.915 < 0.001* Source: own Field survey, 2025 4.4. Cross tabulation of demographic variables The impact of demographic factors (age, gender, year of study, and department) on students' overall satisfaction was assessed using multiple linear regression analysis. The statistical significance of the regression model (F (4, 313) = 5.577, p < 0.001) (model fit) suggests that the demographic factors have an overall impact on satisfaction levels. However, the R^2 value of 0.067 indicates that just 6.7% of the variance in total student satisfaction can be attributed to these demographic parameters, suggesting that the great majority of factors impacting student views are not related to demographic traits. The only statistically significant predictor of satisfaction among the four demographic variables was age (β = - 0.247, t = - 4.386, p < 0.001). The negative beta coefficient shows that satisfaction levels considerably improve with age (seen by a decline in the mean Likert score towards 1.0). Overall satisfaction was not statistically significantly impacted by gender (p = 0.536), year of study (p = 0.504), or department (p = 0.973). This implies that diverse genders, academic levels, and departments view the college's service delivery in a consistent manner. In summary, although the overall demographic model is important, student age—rather than gender or academic affiliation—is the main factor influencing happiness (Table 9, Own Field survey, 2025). Table 9. Reconstructed cross tabulation of Demographic and Academic Characteristics by Overall Student Satisfaction Levels (N=319) Note: Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction. R^2 = 0.067; F = 5.577, p < 0.001 Variable Unstandardized B Std. Error Beta (beta) t-value Sig. (p) (constant) 2.337 0.284 _ 8.219 0.000 Age -0.192 0.044 -0.247 -4.386 0.000 Gender 0.057 0.092 0.035 0.619 0.536 Year of Study 0.032 0.048 0.039 0.669 0.504 Department 0.001 0.018 0.002 0.033 0.973 Source: own Field survey, 2025 4.4. Satisfaction level The analysis of overall satisfaction across various demographic segments at GAMBY College reveals a high level of institutional approval, with distinct patterns appearing as students mature and progress through their studies. Satisfaction levels are remarkably consistent across genders. 81.3% of female students and 78.7% of male students reported being satisfied with the college's overall services. The marginal 2.6% difference suggests that the college provides an equitable environment where service delivery is perceived similarly by both genders. There is a distinct "Maturity-Satisfaction" correlation. Satisfaction increases as the age of the student increases. The youngest cohort (18–21) reported the lowest satisfaction at 77.5%. This rises to 83% for the 22–24 groups. By age 28 and above, satisfaction reaches a peak of 94.1%, with 0% of these students reporting dissatisfaction. There is a distinct "Maturity-Satisfaction" correlation. Satisfaction increases as the age of the student increases. The youngest cohort (18–21) reported the lowest satisfaction at 77.5%. This rises to 83% for the 22–24 groups. By age 28 and above, satisfaction reaches a peak of 94.1%, with 0% of these students reporting dissatisfaction. This suggests that ‘older students' demands and professional expectations are especially well-aligned with the college's atmosphere and administrative structure. The data confirms that the vast majority of GAMBY College students are satisfied with their educational experience. The most content student profile is a mature (28+), senior-level student in a Business or Postgraduate program, while the segment with the most significant opportunity for administrative engagement is the younger (18–21) junior medical student (Table 10, Own Field survey, 2025). Table 10. Unified Cross tabulation of Demographic Profiles and Satisfaction Levels (N=318) Demographic Variables Category Satisfied (%) Neutral (%) Dissatisfied %) Total (N) Gender Female 81.3 11.0 7.7 182 Male 78.7 12.5 8.8 136 Age group 18-21 77.5 12.5 10.0 80 22-24 83.0 8.8 8.2 147 25-27 82.5 8.7 8.8 57 >27 94.1 5.9 0.0 34 Year of Study 2 nd & 3 rd Year 78.2 12.8 9.0 189 4 th Year & Above 85.3 9.3 5.4 129 Department Health Sciences 77.4 13.2 9.4 235 Business & PG 87.9 7.3 4.8 83 Source: own Field survey, 2025 5. DISCUSSION This study assessed student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College, identified key determinants of overall satisfaction, and analyzed the relationship between service quality dimensions and the student experience. The findings from a survey of 319 students offer valuable insights for institutional improvement. This discussion addresses each research question by integrating respondent demographics with the descriptive and analytical results. 5.1 Psychometric Properties of the HE-SSS Instrument (RQ1) Prior to the primary analysis, the psychometric properties of the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS) were rigorously evaluated to ensure its suitability for the GAMBY College context. HE-SSS, adapted from established instruments (24, 29, 31), demonstrated excellent internal consistency. Overall Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.947 significantly exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70 (30 Hair et al., 1998), indicating a highly reliable scale. Dimensional reliability coefficients (ranging from 0.853 to 0.941) further support the instrument’s capacity to consistently measure the underlying constructs of student satisfaction. These results align with previous studies that successfully utilized the HE-SSS in diverse global educational settings (32). The construct validity was confirmed via Principal Component Analysis (PCA). While the high correlation between academic and infrastructural dimensions resulted in a "non-positive definite matrix," this is interpreted here as evidence of a high degree of internal convergence. This suggests that students at GAMBY College perceive their physical environment and their intellectual instruction as a single, integrated experience rather than as separate, disconnected services. This finding echoes the work of Marsh and Bailey (1999) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), who argued that students view university life holistically (33, 34). By recognizing that instrument performance varies across institutions (35), the observed collinearity likely reflects GAMBY’s integrated learning environment, where academic and infrastructural elements are mutually reinforcing. 5.2 Current Level of Student Satisfaction (RQ2) The overall level of student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College was found to be relatively high (M = 2.11). Since the scale utilized a 1–5 range where lower scores indicate higher satisfaction, this result suggests a generally positive perception of the college's service delivery. The highest satisfaction levels were reported for Administrative Services (M = 2.20). This aligns with research by Douglas et al. (2006), which emphasizes that responsive and efficient administrative support is a cornerstone of student happiness (36). At GAMBY, the efficiency of the registrar and administrative staff appears to be a major institutional strength. Conversely, the lowest (though still positive) satisfaction scores were recorded for Personal Growth Outcomes (M = 2.43) and Support & IT Services (M = 2.43). These findings can be interpreted through Herzberg’s (1968) Two-Factor Theory (37). GAMBY College is successfully meeting "hygiene factors"—the fundamental expectations of administrative efficiency—which prevents widespread dissatisfaction. However, it appears to be lagging slightly in "motivators," such as advanced IT support and personal development opportunities. Specifically, the lower satisfaction with Support & IT Services (which also showed a high standard deviation of 0.99) points to inconsistent experiences with campus Wi-Fi reliability and the Student Information Management System (SIMS). In the modern educational landscape, consistent and reliable technological support is no longer a luxury but a necessity for student success (39, 40). The inconsistency in these scores suggests that while some students are well-served, others may be experiencing significant technological barriers that the college must address to maintain its competitive edge. 5.3. Determinants of Overall Student Satisfaction (RQ3) The multiple regression analysis revealed that Personal Growth Outcomes (β = 0.428, p < 0.001) and Administrative Services (β = 0.226, p < 0.001) are the primary drivers of student satisfaction at GAMBY College. Together with other service dimensions, these factors account for 39 percent of the total variance in overall student satisfaction (R^2 = 0.390). The dominance of Personal Growth Outcomes as a predictor suggests that students at GAMBY—many of whom are in rigorous medical and business programs—evaluate their college experience based on "end-state" results. They are most satisfied when they feel they are acquiring the specific skills and professional competencies required for their future careers. This finding aligns with the Student-Centered Learning Theory, which posits that modern learners prioritize the value-added to their personal and professional lives over the mere process of sitting in a classroom (24). Interestingly, Instructional Quality was not a significant independent predictor in the final model (p = 0.100). This does not imply that teaching is unimportant; rather, it suggests a mediation effect. Students likely perceive high-quality instruction as a prerequisite for their personal growth. Therefore, the impact of "good teaching" is statistically "absorbed" by the "Personal Growth" variable. When students feel they are growing, they implicitly credit the instruction they received, but they prioritize the ‘outcome’ of that growth when reporting their overall satisfaction. The significance of Administrative Services further confirms that the "non-academic" side of the college experience is crucial. Efficient registration, helpful staff, and clear communication act as the "service infrastructure" that allows students to focus on their studies without unnecessary frustration. This supports the Service-Dominant Logic in higher education, where the institution is viewed as a service provider and the student as a co-creator of value (41). An interesting finding was that Instructional Quality was not a statistically significant independent predictor in the final model (p = 0.100), despite having a high descriptive mean. This likely indicates a mediation effect; students perceive high-quality instruction as a necessary prerequisite for their personal growth. Statistically, the impact of "good teaching" is absorbed by the "Personal Growth" variable, as students report satisfaction based on the ‘result’ (their development) rather than the ‘processes (the teaching method). 5.4. Relationship between Service Dimensions and Overall Student Satisfaction (RQ4) To determine the relationship between service dimensions and overall student satisfaction, a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis was conducted. This model utilized instructional quality, administrative service, and personal growth outcomes as predictors. Demographic variables (Age, Gender, Department, and Year of Study) were initially considered as potential moderators; however, they did not significantly interact with the service dimensions in predicting overall satisfaction (p > 0.05) and were therefore excluded from the final service-dimension model to maintain parsimony. The regression model explained a significant 39% variance in overall student satisfaction (R^2 = 0.390, p < 0.001). Contrary to some traditional studies, Personal Growth Outcomes emerged as the strongest and most significant predictor of overall satisfaction (β = 0.428, p < 0.001). This finding underscores the importance of holistic student development, curricula that foster professional identity, and the acquisition of life skills. This aligns with Chickering and Reisser’s 1993 theory of "Developing Competence," which suggests that a student's sense of mastery over their field is the ultimate measure of their educational success (42). Administrative Quality also demonstrated a strong positive influence on overall satisfaction (β = 0.226, p < 0.001), reinforcing the critical role of efficient and timely institutional support. This finding is consistent with Douglas et al. 2006 and Bravo et al. 2021, who highlighted that responsive administrative services function as vital hygiene factors’ (36, 43). At GAMBY, these services ensure that the student experience remains positive by removing bureaucratic barriers, thereby allowing students to focus on their primary academic goals. Together, these results support the notion that both “motivator” (Growth) and “hygiene” (Admin) factors contribute uniquely to the student experience. Interestingly, Instructional Quality did not emerge as a statistically significant independent predictor in this specific model (β = 0.100, p = 0.100). While this seems to contradict Tinto’s 1993 (cited by Braxton, 2018) emphasis on academic engagement and Pascarella and Terenzini’s 2005 link between teaching effectiveness and satisfaction, it likely reflects a mediation effect (34, 45, 46,48). In the GAMBY context, students may perceive instructional quality not as an end in itself, but as the ‘means’ to achieve Personal Growth. Consequently, the predictive power of teaching is statistically "absorbed" by the Growth variable. As Kuh and Lingenfelter 2017 suggest, the impact of high-quality instruction is often most visible through the resulting student outcomes rather than the instructional process itself (44). Furthermore, the variables of Infrastructure Quality and Support/IT Services were excluded from the final regression due to high internal collinearity. This suggests that students do not view the campus environment or IT support as isolated services; rather, they see them as deeply embedded within the academic and growth-oriented climate of the college. In conclusion, the regression analysis provides compelling evidence that Personal Growth Outcomes and ‘Administrative Quality’ are the primary drivers of satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College. Strategic investments in these areas—specifically in professional skill-building and the digitalization of administrative workflows—are likely to yield the greatest returns in enhancing the student experience. Continued efforts to integrate IT support and modern infrastructure into the core learning process will further contribute to a holistic and satisfying educational journey for all students. 6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. Summary of Findings The primary objective of this study was to examine student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) using the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS). The study first sought to validate the HE-SSS for the specific institutional context of GAMBY. Based on a survey of 319 students—the majority of whom were young, female, and enrolled in undergraduate Health Science programs—the following findings emerged: Psychometric Validity: HE-SSS demonstrated high statistical rigor. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) verified a strong internal structure, while reliability analysis yielded an overall Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.947, with dimensional coefficients ranging from 0.853 to 0.941. The observed collinearity between academic and infrastructure dimensions was interpreted as evidence of an integrated student experience rather than a statistical error. Satisfaction Levels: Descriptive analysis indicated that students are generally satisfied with GAMBY’s service delivery. On a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 = Very Satisfied and 5 = Very Dissatisfied), all mean scores fell below the neutral midpoint of 3.0. The highest levels of satisfaction were reported for Overall Satisfaction (M = 2.11) and Administrative Services (M = 2.20). Areas for Improvement: The dimensions of Support/IT Infrastructure and Personal Growth Outcomes recorded the highest mean ratings (M = 2.43), indicating relatively lower levels of satisfaction compared to other domains. Predictors of Satisfaction: Regression analysis revealed that Personal Growth Outcomes and Administrative Services are the most significant predictors of satisfaction, collectively explaining 39% of the variance in the overall student experience. 6.2. Conclusion This study successfully verified the HE-SSS as a robust, valid, and reliable instrument for gauging student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College. The high reliability coefficients and confirmed construct validity suggest that the instrument accurately captures the multifaceted nature of the student experience. A key conclusion of this research is that students at GAMBY perceive their education holistically; they do not separate the quality of instruction from the physical and technological infrastructure that supports it. While the overall satisfaction levels are encouraging (with means consistently closer to "1" than "5"), the areas of Support/IT Infrastructure and Personal Growth Outcomes represent critical opportunities for intervention. Ultimately, satisfaction at the college is driven more by the "outcomes" of education—specifically how much a student feels they are growing professionally—and the "efficiency" of administration, rather than by demographic traits or department affiliation. Therefore, institutional quality improvement initiatives should be systemic rather than departmental. 6.3. Recommendations Based on the empirical evidence gathered in this study, the following recommendations are proposed to the GAMBY College administration: 1. Prioritize IT Infrastructure Investment: Given that Support and IT Services yielded the lowest satisfaction scores, the college should prioritize investments in high-speed, reliable Wi-Fi, and a more user-friendly Student Information Management System (SIMS). Technical support should be made more accessible to reduce student frustration. 2. Enhance Professional Development Programs: Since Personal Growth is the strongest predictor of satisfaction the college should expand initiatives that foster career preparation, critical thinking, and leadership skills. This could include strengthened clinical/practicum attachments, career counseling, and soft-skill workshops. 3. Adopt an Integrated Quality Approach: Institutional planners should recognize the interconnectedness between academic and infrastructural elements. For instance, upgrading classroom technology should be paired with pedagogical training for instructors to ensure that infrastructure improvements directly enhance instructional quality. 4. Institutionalize Regular Satisfaction Audits: The College should continue to utilize the validated HE-SSS as a longitudinal monitoring tool. Conducting this survey annually will allow administration to track satisfaction trends over time and measure the effectiveness of the interventions implemented in the IT and Personal Growth domains. 5. Focus on Younger Student Engagement: While older students reported higher satisfaction, the college should investigate the specific needs of its younger cohort (ages 18–21) to ensure the campus environment meets their expectations for modern, technology-driven, and socially engaging education. 7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Limitations Despite providing significant insights into institutional service delivery, this study is subject to several limitations that should be acknowledged: Study Design: The cross-sectional nature of the data provides a "snapshot" of student perceptions at a single point in time, which precludes the establishment of definitive causal relationships between service dimensions and satisfaction. Self-Reported Data: The reliance on self-administered questionnaires introduces the potential for social desirability bias, where students may provide responses they perceive as more acceptable. Additionally, the length of the instrument (68 items) may have introduced respondent fatigue, potentially impacting the depth of responses. Generalizability: As the sample was drawn exclusively from a single private institution (GAMBY Medical and Business College), the findings may not be fully generalizable to public universities or different geographical and cultural contexts within Ethiopia. Statistical Constraints: Although empirically justified by the presence of multicollinearity, the exclusion of "Educational Infrastructure" and "Support/IT Services" from the final regression model means that their independent, non-integrated contributions to satisfaction were not fully isolated. Future Research Directions To build upon the findings of this research and address its limitations, the following directions for future study are proposed: Longitudinal Research: Future studies should employ a longitudinal design to track changes in student satisfaction throughout their academic journey (from entry to graduation). This would allow for a deeper understanding of how institutional perceptions evolve over time. Mixed-Methods Approach: Combining quantitative surveys with qualitative methods—such as focus groups or semi-structured interviews—would provide a more nuanced "thick description" of the student experience, helping to explain why behind the statistical trends. Comparative Analysis: Expanding research to include multiple private and public higher education institutions across Ethiopia would help assess the generalizability of these findings and identify broader national trends in student satisfaction. Exploration of Unmeasured Variables: Given that the regression model explained 39% of the variance, future research should explore the remaining 61% of unexplained variance. Potential factors to investigate include students’ prior academic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, extracurricular engagement, and the influence of financial aid. Intervention Evaluation: Finally, future research should evaluate the effectiveness of specific institutional reforms (e.g., faculty development programs or digital infrastructure upgrades) to determine their direct impact on satisfaction levels through pre- and post-intervention testing. Abbreviations MLR: Multiple Linear Regression PHEIs: Private Higher Education Institutions NSS: National Student Survey HE-SSS: Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences ESDP: Education Sector Development Program SAC: Student as Customer GMBC: GAMBY Medical & Business College ROI: Return on Investment SERVQUAL: Service Quality PCA: Principal Component Analysis ETA: Education and Training Authority EDT: Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory TQM: Total Quality Management LMS: Learning Management System SIMS: Student Information Management System Declarations Ethical Approval The study received formal ethical clearance from the College Research Ethics Committee with Ref. No Ref. No G/C-02/760/2025 . Participants were fully briefed on the study’s objectives, and participation was entirely voluntary. To protect student privacy, no personal identifiers (names or ID numbers) were collected. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this work. Authors Contribution SM conceptualized and designed the study, collected the data, and interpreted the results. AT analyzed the data, synthesized the findings, developed the theoretical and practical implications, and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. SM revised and proofread the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors express their sincere gratitude to the administration and support staff of the College and the participating students and department instructors for their logistical cooperation. We also extend our appreciation to the mentors and faculty supervisors whose guidance was instrumental in the completion of this research. Funding Sources This research was supported by internal institutional resources provided by the College. No external funding or financial support from outside agencies was received for the conduct of the study or the preparation of this manuscript. References Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2023). Global Higher Education: Emerging Trends and Critical Challenges. Springer. Tight, M. (2022). Research into Higher Education: An Introduction to a Developing Field. Routledge. (2022). World Higher Education Report: The Future of Learning. Brooks, R. (2022). Students as consumers? The perspectives of students' union leaders across Europe. Higher Education Quarterly, × 76 ×(3), 626-637. Mohamedbhai, G. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education in Africa. International Higher Education. Teferra, D. (2023). Higher Education in Africa: Challenges for the Next Decade. African Minds Publishing. Ogunnaike, O., et al. (2022). Service quality and student satisfaction in African HEIs: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of African Business. Tamrat, W. (2021). Private Higher Education in Ethiopia: Risks, Realities, and Readying for the Future. Journal of Higher Education in Africa. Woodall, T., Hiller, A., & Resnick, S. (2014). Making sense of higher education: Students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 48–67. Woldetensae, Y. (2022). Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Ethiopia: Procedures and Practices. Quality in Higher Education. Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T. J., & Tiangsoongnern, L. (2019). Service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical study of higher education in Mauritius. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(4), 424–448. Elsharnouby, T. H., et al. (2021). Expectancy-disconfirmation and student satisfaction in higher education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. Wakjira, T., Mesele, K., & Ayenew, W. (2022). Journal of Community Medicine and Health Education. Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, × 24 ×(1), 31-47. Habtamu, A. (2023). Methodological Trends in Ethiopian Educational Research: A Review. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences Johnson, L., & Smith, T. (2020). Trends in student satisfaction across global higher education systems. Journal of Student Affairs, 15(1), 22–38. Lai, H., Wang, J., & Zhang, L. (2021). Mental health and satisfaction among university students: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1021–1045. Davis, R., Miller, K., & Thompson, S. (2021). Institutional type and student satisfaction: A multi-level analysis of private vs. public higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(3), 432–448. Chen, Y. (2019). Student satisfaction in higher education: A comparative study of business and medical majors. Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 112–125. Garcia, M., & Rodriguez, P. (2022). Disciplinary differences in student engagement and academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 78-95. Oliver, R. L. (2006). Customer satisfaction research. The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances , 1 , 569-587. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing Management (15th ed.). Pearson. (Seminal). DeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two‐factor theory. International journal of educational management , 19 (2), 128-139. Tamrat, W. (2023). Private Higher Education in Ethiopia: Navigating Quality and Regulation. Higher Education Policy. Yamane, T. 1967. Elementary sampling theory. Prentice-Hall. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079112331377444 Schreiner, L. A., & Juillerat, S. (1994). The Student Satisfaction Inventory. Noel-Levitz. Aldemir, C., & Gulcan, Y. (2004). Students' satisfaction in higher education: A Turkish case. Higher Education Management and Policy, × 16 ×(2), 109-122. Hair, J.F.,Anderson, R.E.,Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.(1998), “ Multivariate Data Analysis , 5thed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mai,L.(2005),“A Comparative Study between UK and US: The Student Satisfaction in Higher Education and its Influential Factors, Journal of Marketing Management ,21,859-878. Elliott & Healy, (2001), Key Factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment & retention, Journal of marketing for higher education, Vol 10:1. Marsh, H. W., & Bailey, J. E. (1999). Multidimensionality of student satisfaction: A comprehensive analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 675–691. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass. Geisinger, K. F., Hawley, L. R., & McCormick, C. (2017). The validation of tests in higher education. In Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education (pp. 147-160). Routledge. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality assurance in education , 14 (3), 251-267. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? *Harvard Business Review, 46*(1), 53-62. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. World Publishing. Cooper, T. M. (2018). Veteran students transitions into higher education using chickering's seven vector development theory . Rowan University. Frydenberg, M. (2017). Effective use of information and communication technologies in informal learning spaces. In Exploring Informal Learning Space in the University (pp. 91-104). Routledge. Firdaus, A. (2006). The development and objective measurement of service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601 Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, W. S. (1987). Seven vectors of effective student development. Jossey-Bass. Bravo, L. G., Nistor, N., & Ramírez, B. C. (2021). Narrating in grey: An application to educational management information systems and accountability. Information Development, × 37 ×(1), 58-71. Kuh, G., & Lingenfelter, P. (2017). THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN ADVANCING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT. Engaging Students: Using Evidence to Promote Student Success , 165. Braxton, J. M. (2019). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition by Vincent Tinto. Journal of College Student Development , 60 (1), 129-134. Daniel, D., Liben, G., & Adugna, A. (2017). Assessment of Students' Satisfaction: A Case Study of Dire Dawa University, Ethiopia. Journal of Education and Practice , 8 (4), 111-120. Mulu, N. K. (2012). Quality and quality assurance in Ethiopian higher education: Critical issues and practical implications. University of Twente. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Jossey-Bass. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9339870","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":618736164,"identity":"fd630af2-84a5-4e91-b758-3110f2d80e1f","order_by":0,"name":"Seid","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"GAMBY Medical \u0026 Business College","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"","middleName":"","lastName":"Seid","suffix":""},{"id":618736165,"identity":"f1619d33-dbb6-4713-a963-89b743f68861","order_by":1,"name":"Adugna","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"GAMBY Medical \u0026 Business College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"","middleName":"","lastName":"Adugna","suffix":""},{"id":618736166,"identity":"f2eabe71-6c21-4b29-8a62-754d1c3aebdd","order_by":2,"name":"Yihenew Misrak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bahir Dar Univeristy","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yihenew","middleName":"","lastName":"Misrak","suffix":""},{"id":618736167,"identity":"65aeab42-8a1f-42c2-b53b-aeda8e85cc69","order_by":3,"name":"Girma Ayalew (PhD)","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Amhara Region State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Girma","middleName":"","lastName":"Ayalew","suffix":"PhD"},{"id":618736168,"identity":"9889c744-9104-4029-a4ca-51f2ec90a397","order_by":4,"name":"Azmeraw Abebaw","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"GAMBY Medical \u0026 Business College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Azmeraw","middleName":"","lastName":"Abebaw","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-07 05:34:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9339870/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9339870/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106399854,"identity":"257cf3f9-c4e2-441b-98e4-2644d4264b54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 08:32:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":21616,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 2.1: Conceptual Framework of the HE-SSS Model\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9339870/v1/22230ef95cee3ef5d5b79fbd.png"},{"id":106399856,"identity":"38aada6e-6a1e-4f77-8c60-c11c3346c711","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 08:32:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1569815,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9339870/v1/282a4036-b049-4a30-9c0f-e382dc52ab09.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eDeterminants of Student Satisfaction with Service Delivery in Ethiopian Private Higher Education: A Case Study of GAMBY Medical and Business College\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eHigher Education Institutions (HEIs) have experienced a dramatic paradigm shift in the twenty-first century, moving from conventional \"ivory towers\" of knowledge to service providers focused on the market. According to Altbach and de Wit (2023) and Tight (2022), the \"marketization\" of education has repositioned students as major customers whose happiness is a crucial factor in determining institutional sustainability and global ranking (1, 2). Globally, academic quality, administrative effectiveness, and physical infrastructure are all considered components of the complex, multifaceted construct of student happiness (3). Standardized assessment regimes, like the National Student Survey (NSS) in the UK, have compelled HEIs in developed countries to make service delivery a key strategic goal in order to maintain student retention and gain a competitive edge (4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRapid student enrollment growth has been a defining feature of African higher education, frequently surpassing the advancement of human and physical resources (5). Studies in regional centers like Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa show that service delivery is still uneven, especially when it comes to IT infrastructure and administrative response, even while access to education has increased throughout Sub-Saharan Africa (6). Localized satisfaction studies are essential to the survival of African HEIs because they must navigate substantial socioeconomic constraints while also satisfying international quality requirements (7).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthiopia has evolved from a constrictive public-only system to a varied environment with a growing Private Higher Education Institution (PHEI) sector. PHEIs now make for a sizable share of student enrollment, especially in professional subjects like business sciences and medicine (8). Under the latest Education Sector Development Program (ESDP VI), the Ethiopian Ministry of Education has shifted its attention from \"expansion\" to \"quality assurance.\" As a result, PHEIs are under tremendous pressure to demonstrate superior service delivery in order to justify their tuition costs. The \"marketization\" of higher education has created a \"Student-as-Customer\" (SAC) paradigm in Ethiopian education today, especially in Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs). Students at private universities like GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) operate as active customers whose happiness is based on a perceived return on investment (ROI), in contrast to the state-subsidized public sector (8, 9).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA clear \"psychological contract\" is formed between the institution and the student as a result of this consumerist mindset. Compared to their peers in public universities, students frequently have higher expectations regarding tangible service dimensions, such as IT infrastructure (e.g. high-speed Wi-Fi), administrative responsiveness, and laboratory facilities, because they bear substantial out-of-pocket expenses (10, 47). In this situation, service delivery is an essential part of the \"educational product\" that students are paying a premium for rather than just a supporting role.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a result, any perceived shortfall in infrastructure quality or administrative effectiveness is seen as a violation of this agreement, which raises dissatisfaction rates (11, 12). Thus, an analysis that takes these high standards of accountability and \"value-for-money\" into consideration is necessary to comprehend satisfaction in a PHEI such as GMBC (1, 25).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe special dynamics of student satisfaction within Ethiopia\u0026apos;s private medical school industry have not received enough attention, despite the global expansion of service quality research. This work fills in a number of important research gaps.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conventional SERVQUAL model, which was first created for the commercial service sector (13), is still used in the majority of studies conducted in Ethiopia (14). Whether the SERVQUAL dimensions\u0026mdash;tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy\u0026mdash;are adequate to convey the \u0026quot;personal Growth\u0026quot; aspect of higher education is a theoretical gap. By using the HE-SSS (Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale) and incorporating contemporary elements like learning outcomes and emotional stability\u0026mdash;which are crucial for college students but lacking in commercial service models\u0026mdash;this study closes this gap (11, 15).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of methodology, a large portion of Ethiopian research is descriptive in character and makes use of \u0026quot;home-grown\u0026quot; instruments that lack thorough psychometric validation. Few studies use sophisticated statistical methods to confirm the internal structure of satisfaction ratings, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This study offers a methodologically sound instrument that guarantees the validity and reliability of data by validating the HE-SSS instrument in the Ethiopian context\u0026mdash;a prerequisite that is sometimes disregarded in local pilot studies (16 Habtamu, 2023). College students\u0026apos; discontent has been reported in numerous studies (17, 18). Nevertheless, these studies frequently give a general summary without pinpointing the precise elements that most strongly predict overall pleasure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumerous studies have documented dissatisfaction among college students (17, 18).\u0026nbsp;Nevertheless, these studies frequently give a general summary without pinpointing the precise elements that most strongly predict overall pleasure. There is a significant gap in the literature about the particular factors that influence satisfaction in the setting of private higher education. For instance, research by Davis et al. (2021) did not explore program-specific variations, but it did find that factors impacting satisfaction differed significantly dependent on institutional type (19). Moreover, the possibility of varying satisfaction levels according to academic specialty is often ignored in current studies. Research that distinguishes between the experiences of students in different fields\u0026mdash;like business and medical programs within the same institution\u0026mdash;is particularly necessary because their expectations and priorities may differ greatly (20, 21).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeographically, research on higher education in Ethiopia is strongly biased toward Addis Ababa\u0026apos;s state universities. Private colleges in regional academic centers like Bahir Dar are severely neglected. Additionally, students in the high-stakes field of private medical education pay substantial out-of-pocket expenses; as a result, their \u0026quot;psychological contract\u0026quot; with the institution differs from that of state-sponsored students (25). Results from public universities cannot be applied to GMBC and other specialized private colleges.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) competes in an increasingly crowded market in Northwest Ethiopia. However, there is a lack of documented, scientifically analyzed data on student satisfaction in the areas of infrastructure, instruction, and administration. The college administration was unable to go from \u0026quot;anecdotal management\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;evidence-based decision-making\u0026quot; because of the lack of empirical data. By identifying the main causes of satisfaction and discontent, this study aims to close this gap by offering a strategic road map for improving service quality and institutional accreditation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003e1. 3. Objective of the Research\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc182472990\"\u003e1.3.1. Main Objective\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of this research is to evaluate multidimensional student satisfaction with service delivery at GAMBY Medical and Business College using a psychometrically validated assessment framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e1.3.2. Specific Objectives\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo achieve the main objective, the study pursues the following specific goals:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo validate the psychometric properties (reliability and construct validity) of the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS) within the context of a specialized Ethiopian private college.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo assess the prevailing levels of student satisfaction across five key dimensions: Administrative Quality, Infrastructure/Resources, Instructional Quality, Support Services and Personal Growth Outcomes.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo identify the primary determinants (predictors) of overall institutional satisfaction, specifically comparing the influence of academic (instructional) versus non-academic (administrative and infrastructural) service factors\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo analyze the statistical relationship between institutional service quality dimensions and the overall student experience at GAMBY Medical and Business College.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u0026nbsp;1.4. Research Questions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAligned with the objectives, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRQ1: What are the psychometric properties (internal consistency and factor structure) of the HE-SSS instrument when applied to a private Medical and Business College setting in Ethiopia?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRQ2: What is the current level of student satisfaction regarding administrative, infrastructural, and instructional service delivery at GAMBY Medical and Business College?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRQ3: Which specific service dimensions\u0026mdash;academic or non-teaching support\u0026mdash;exert the greatest significant influence on overall student satisfaction?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRQ4: What is the nature and strength of the relationship between the college\u0026rsquo;s multidimensional service delivery factors and overall student satisfaction?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e1.4. The Significance of the research\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study provides an empirical baseline for quality assurance within the Ethiopian private higher education sector. The significance is categorized across three primary domains:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional and Strategic Impact: By shifting from anecdotal oversight to evidence-based decision-making, the findings facilitate optimized resource allocation and strategic positioning. The research establishes a framework for participatory quality assurance, enhancing institutional sustainability and market differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodological and Scientific Contribution: A primary academic contribution is the psychometric validation of the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS) using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This provides a culturally adapted, reliable instrument for future research in specialized medical and business education contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolicy and Regulatory Alignment: The study aligns with the Ethiopian Education Sector Development Program (ESDP VI) and national quality audit standards set by the Education and Training Authority (ETA). It serves as a benchmark for accountability and transparency among Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e1.4. Scope of the research\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research parameters are delimited as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeographical Scope: The study is restricted to the main campus of GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptual Scope: Evaluation is focused on five multidimensional constructs of the HE-SSS i.e., Administrative Quality, Infrastructure and Resources, Instructional Quality, Support Services and IT, and Personal Growth Outcomes. The focus remains on perceived service quality rather than clinical or academic learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipant Scope: The study population encompasses all enrolled students (Years I\u0026ndash;V) within the Medical Science (Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health, MLS) and Business Science (Accounting, Management) faculties, including both Regular and Extension modes of delivery.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1. Theoretical Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study of student satisfaction is grounded in three primary theoretical pillars that explain how students perceive and evaluate their educational experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.1. Expectancy--Disconfirmation Theory (EDT)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Expectancy-Disconfirmation framework (EDT), first put forth by Oliver (2006) and subsequently modified for use in higher education by Kotler and Keller (2016), serves as the fundamental framework for this investigation (22, 23). According to EDT, contentment is a post-consumption assessment that comes from contrasting perceived performance with previous expectations. When GAMBY College's service delivery surpasses students' expectations, \"positive disconfirmation\" takes place, resulting in contentment. On the other hand, \"negative disconfirmation\" leads to discontent if the perceived performance is subpar (12).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.2. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHerzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory (38) is especially relevant to institutional service delivery. It makes a distinction between \"Motivators\" (intrinsic components like teaching quality, personal development, and critical thinking development) and \"Hygiene Factors\" (extrinsic elements like campus infrastructure, administrative procedures, and IT facilities). This idea holds that while inadequate infrastructure causes discontent, genuine satisfaction and academic engagement require high-quality instruction (2, 24).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;2.1.3. The Student-as-Customer Paradigm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Marketization Theory, which sees students as active customers of a service, is increasingly used to frame contemporary research in higher education (4). According to this theory, HEIs should go beyond traditional academic standards and concentrate on ‘Total Quality Management’ (TQM), where each touch point—from the lab to the registrar's office—contributes to the students' subjective assessment of the \"education commodity\" (1, 15).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;2.2. Empirical Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumerous empirical studies have demonstrated the multifaceted character of student satisfaction in diverse institutional and geographic situations. Technology integration and LMS effectiveness are now the best indicators of happiness in a post-pandemic environment, according to recent research in industrialized economies (3). According to studies conducted in Ghana and Kenya, library resources and administrative response are important barriers in the African environment (7). For example, \"Institutional Image\" and \"Administrative Transparency\" were determined to be more important for student loyalty than teaching quality alone in a 2023 study on South African private institutions (6).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA substantial \"service-delivery gap\" exists in both the public and private sectors, according to empirical data from Ethiopia. Due to out-of-pocket tuition expenses, Tamrat (2023) notes that students in Ethiopian private universities have a stronger \"psychological contract\" regarding infrastructure (25). Wakjira, Mesele, and Gedif (2022) discovered that the main causes of discontent in specialized medical colleges are clinical attachment quality and laboratory adequacy (14). The effects of administrative complexity on students' emotional stability and long-term retention in Ethiopian PHEIs, however, are still largely unstudied (10).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3. Conceptual Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study suggests a conceptual model that connects five independent service components to the dependent variable of overall student satisfaction based on the synthesized literature and the gaps found.\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndependent Variables (Service Dimensions):\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdministrative Quality: Transparency, staff politeness, and procedural efficiency.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInstructional Quality: Faculty competency, feedback mechanisms, and curriculum relevance.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInfrastructural Quality: Classroom comfort, library resources, and campus safety.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSupport \u0026amp; IT Services: Wi-Fi reliability, SIMS efficiency, and cafeteria quality.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePersonal Growth Outcomes: Perceived growth in critical thinking, self-confidence, and professional skills.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDependent Variable:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall Student Satisfaction: The holistic evaluative judgment of the student's experience at GMBC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModerating Variables:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemographic factors (Age, Gender, Department, and Year of Study).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Logic of the Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;According to the paradigm, student happiness is a product of the interaction between \"Hygiene Factors\" (Admin/Infrastructure) and \"Motivators\" (Instruction/Personal Growth), rather than only academic quality. Through the use of the HE-SSS instrument to measure various characteristics, the study is able to identify the particular aspect that has the biggest impact on students' motivation to continue and recommend the institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptual Framework of the research (Figure 1, Own Field survey, 2025) constructed by synthesizing established service quality models (11, 13, 15 \u0026amp; 22)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. MATERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1. Research Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a quantitative research methodology utilizing a cross-sectional survey design that is both descriptive and inferential in nature. This approach was selected to systematically investigate the multifaceted relationship between institutional service delivery and student satisfaction at a specific point in time. The study design measures satisfaction across five primary service dimensions: administrative quality, educational infrastructure, instructional quality, support services, and personal growth learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;3.2. Sampling Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;3.2.1. Target Population and Eligibility\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe target population consisted of 1,530 students currently enrolled at GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC). To ensure data quality and informed feedback, an exclusion criterion was applied to first-year students. This was based on the rationale that limited exposure to the college\u0026rsquo;s long-term service delivery might lead to uninformed evaluations. Consequently, participation was restricted to students in their second year of study or higher.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.2. Sample Size Determination\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample size was determined using the Yamane 1967 formula for finite populations (26):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en = (N) / (1 + N (e^2))\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en = required sample size\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN = Total population (1,530)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ee = Level of precision (Margin of error set at 0.05)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on this calculation, a minimum sample size of 319 students was established to ensure statistical representation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;3.2.3. Sampling Technique and Allocation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA multi-stage stratified proportional sampling procedure was used to ensure that all academic years and departments were fairly represented. The population was stratified by academic department and year of study. To preserve the integrity of the initial population distribution, each stratum received a proportionate allocation as detailed in Table 1 (Own Field survey, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Proportional Distribution of Sample by Year of Study and Department\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStratum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePopulation (N)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample (n)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYear of Study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e456\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e492\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e Year\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e460\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e Year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003eYear (internship)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1530\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e319\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e20.8%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDepartment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePharmacy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e427\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNursing\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMLS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e213\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic Health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedicine\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMidwifery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.5 %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e122\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccounting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMPH\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMBA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccounting \u0026nbsp;MSc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1530\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e319\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e20.8%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.3. Data Collection Instrument\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary instrument for data collection was the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS), a self-administered questionnaire modified from validated instruments (27, 28, 29). The instrument was divided into two sections:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection I deals with demographic profiles (age, gender, program level, department, and academic status). Section II includes 68 items measuring various aspects of satisfaction across six dimensions. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very Satisfied to 5 = Very Dissatisfied). In this study, lower mean scores indicate higher levels of student satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;3.4. Reliability and Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.4.1. Reliability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA reliability analysis was conducted to ensure internal consistency. Pilot testing demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with an overall Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha of 0.947 for the 68-item scale (Table 2, own Field survey, 2025). Dimensional reliability coefficients for the six sub-indicators ranged from 0.853 to 0.941, well exceeding the standard threshold of 0.70 (30).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2: Cronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha Reliability Results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"508\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN of Items\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall HE-SSS Scale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.947\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eService Dimensions (Range)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.853- 0.941 \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.4.2. Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContent Validity was established through a review of the modified instrument by senior academic staff and administrators at GAMBY College to ensure the items adequately covered all relevant service dimensions. Construct Validity was empirically verified using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The results showed that all six sub-dimensions converged into a single, robust, and unidimensional factor, accounting for 66.247% of the total variance, thereby confirming the instrument\u0026apos;s structural validity (Table 3 \u0026amp; 4, Own Field survey, 2025). The detailed factor loadings and variance results are presented in Chapter 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Factor Loadings and Communalities of the Student Satisfaction Scale (n = 319)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndicators\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor Loadings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunalities (h^2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation Infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstructional Quality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport \u0026amp; IT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.776\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal Growth Outcome\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.776\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.710\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdministrative Service\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.604\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.364\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEigenvalue\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.975\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Variance explained\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e66.247%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExtraction Method: Principal Component Analysis (PCA)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4. Inter-item Correlation Matrix for Satisfaction Dimensions. *Note: Matrix is not positive definite due to high internal collinearity between indicators (2/3) and (4/5).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;(1)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; (2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;(3)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(4)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(5)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(6)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1) Administrative Service\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2) Education Infrastructure*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.631\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(3) Instructional Quality*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.631\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(4) Support \u0026amp; IT Service\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.573\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.631\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(5)Personal Growth Outcome\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.573\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.631\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6) Overall Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.478\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.478\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.573\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.573\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.573\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Own Field Survey (2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.5. Data Analysis Methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were cleaned, coded, and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26.0). The following statistical techniques were applied to meet the research objectives:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics: Frequency distributions, percentages, means, and standard deviations were used to summarize demographic characteristics and assess general satisfaction levels across dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrincipal Component Analysis (PCA): Conducted to assess the construct validity, internal structure, and dimensionality of the HE-SSS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation: Employed to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between specific service dimensions and overall student satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultiple Linear Regression: Conducted to identify which service dimensions significantly predict overall student satisfaction and to measure the magnitude of their influence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.6. Ethical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in strict accordance with established ethical research standards. Formal permission to collect data was obtained from the GAMBY Medical and Business College Research Ethics Committee.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipation in the study was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, no personally identifiable information (such as names or ID numbers) was collected. Participants were explicitly assured that their responses would be handled with the utmost privacy and used exclusively for academic purposes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. RESULTS","content":"\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Socio- Demographic Result\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe demographic profile of the participants reveals a predominantly young, female-dominated, undergraduate student body (Table 5). Nearly three-quarters (71.5%) of the respondents are between the ages of 18 and 24, and the majority (57.1%) are female, representing a typical entry-level higher education demographic.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample is heavily concentrated on undergraduate programs (92.5%), with the majority of respondents (63%) currently in their third or fourth year of study. This distribution ensures that the participants have had substantial longitudinal exposure to the college\u0026apos;s service delivery. Furthermore, the sample reflects GAMBY College\u0026rsquo;s institutional focus on health sciences, with the Faculty of Medical Sciences representing the largest portion of the sample compared to Business and Postgraduate programs. Specifically, the departments of Pharmacy (27.6%) and Nursing (16.9%) constitute the largest individual cohorts (Table 6, Own Field survey, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 5. General Demographic Profile of Respondents (N=319)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency (N)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValid Percent (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge group\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18-21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22-24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e148\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25-27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYear of study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e-6\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurrent program\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndergraduate (degree)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e295\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePostgraduate (MA/MSc)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSource: Own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6: Distribution of Respondents by Academic Department (N=319)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFaculty Type\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDepartment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency (N)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValid Percent (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedical Sciences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePharmacy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNursing\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMLS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic Health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedicine\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMidwifery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness/ Others\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccounting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.4658%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMPH/MBA/MSC in Acc.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.118%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8447%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2. Descriptive result\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe descriptive analysis provides an overview of student perceptions regarding the six service dimensions at GAMBY College. Mean scores for all dimensions ranged between 2.11 and 2.43. Given that the survey utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very Satisfied, 5 = Very Dissatisfied), all scores fall below the neutral midpoint of 3.0, indicating that students are generally satisfied with the college\u0026rsquo;s service delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 7, students reported the highest levels of satisfaction with Administrative Services (M = 2.20) and Overall Satisfaction (M = 2.11). This suggests that institutional responsiveness and the general campus atmosphere are viewed favorably. Conversely, the dimensions of Support/IT Infrastructure and Personal Growth Outcomes yielded the highest mean ratings (both M = 2.43), indicating a relatively lower level of satisfaction compared to other areas. While these scores still fall within the \u0026quot;satisfied\u0026quot; range, they represent the primary areas for institutional improvement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotably, the identical mean scores and standard deviations for Educational Infrastructure and Instructional Quality (M = 2.30, SD = 0.78) suggest a significant conceptual overlap in how students perceive the academic environment and the physical facilities that support it (Table 7, Own Field survey, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7. Descriptive Statistics of Student Satisfaction Dimensions (N=319)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"593\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndicators\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMinimum\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaximum\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean (M)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStd. Deviation (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.1105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80910\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdmin Service\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90256\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78201\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstructional\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78201\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport \u0026amp; IT\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4326\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99539\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal Growth outcome\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e319\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4326\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99539\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.0287%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValid N (listwise)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.40809%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e319\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13.1535%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.1653%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12.1417%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23.1029%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Regression Result of Independent Variables\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe degree to which particular service variables contribute to the variance in overall student satisfaction was assessed using a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) approach. F (3, 314) = 66.915, p \u0026lt; 0.001, indicated that the regression model was statistically significant. The independent variables included in the model account for 39% of the total variance in overall student satisfaction, according to the coefficient of determination (R^2 = 0.390). Personal Growth Outcomes was found to be the most significant and powerful predictor of satisfaction among the variables that were entered (\u0026beta; = 0.428, p \u0026lt; 0.001). This implies that the main factors influencing students\u0026apos; institutional satisfaction are their views of their own personal development and skill enhancement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Administrative Service was found to be a significant positive predictor (\u0026beta; = 0.226, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Important \u0026quot;hygiene factors\u0026quot; that directly improve the student experience include supportive staff behavior and effective administrative procedures. It\u0026apos;s interesting to note that, despite being positive, instructional quality was not a statistically significant predictor in this particular model (p = 0.100). This is probably because the strong correlation with \u0026quot;Personal Growth Outcomes,\u0026quot; which represent the \u0026quot;result\u0026quot; of excellent instruction, quantitatively suppressed its influence (Table 8, Own Field survey, 2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to multicollinearity, the variables \u0026quot;Education Infrastructure\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;Support/IT Services\u0026quot; were eliminated from the final model computation since (tolerance reached 0.000). This indicates that these services are so closely linked to the learning environment that their predictive influence is inherently reflected within the academic and personal growth scores.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8. Multiple Regression Analysis for Predictors of Overall Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ebeta\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (p)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Constant)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.580\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.121\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.798\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal Growth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.348\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.428\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.495\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdmin service\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.202\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.226\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.473\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstructional\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.652\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.624\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR-square (R^2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.390\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4357%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF-statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.906%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.915\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.5392%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.8527%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4. Cross tabulation of demographic variables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe impact of demographic factors (age, gender, year of study, and department) on students\u0026apos; overall satisfaction was assessed using multiple linear regression analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The statistical significance of the regression model (F (4, 313) = 5.577, p \u0026lt; 0.001) (model fit) suggests that the demographic factors have an overall impact on satisfaction levels. However, the R^2 value of 0.067 indicates that just 6.7% of the variance in total student satisfaction can be attributed to these demographic parameters, suggesting that the great majority of factors impacting student views are not related to demographic traits. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe only statistically significant predictor of satisfaction among the four demographic variables was age (\u0026beta; = - 0.247, t = - 4.386, p \u0026lt; 0.001). The negative beta coefficient shows that satisfaction levels considerably improve with age (seen by a decline in the mean Likert score towards 1.0). Overall satisfaction was not statistically significantly impacted by gender (p = 0.536), year of study (p = 0.504), or department (p = 0.973). This implies that diverse genders, academic levels, and departments view the college\u0026apos;s service delivery in a consistent manner. In summary, although the overall demographic model is important, student age\u0026mdash;rather than gender or academic affiliation\u0026mdash;is the main factor influencing happiness (Table 9, Own Field survey, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9. Reconstructed cross tabulation of Demographic and Academic Characteristics by Overall Student Satisfaction Levels (N=319) Note: Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction. R^2 = 0.067; F = 5.577, p \u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.2276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.7802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnstandardized B\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.0706%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStd. Error\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBeta (beta)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSig. (p)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.2276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(constant)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.7802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.337\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.0706%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.284\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;_\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.219\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.2276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.7802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.192\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.0706%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.247\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.386\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.2276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.7802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.057\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.0706%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.619\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.536\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.2276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear of Study\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.7802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.0706%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.669\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.2276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepartment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.7802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.0706%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.6405%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.973\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4. Satisfaction level\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of overall satisfaction across various demographic segments at GAMBY College reveals a high level of institutional approval, with distinct patterns appearing as students mature and progress through their studies. Satisfaction levels are remarkably consistent across genders. 81.3% of female students and 78.7% of male students reported being satisfied with the college\u0026apos;s overall services. The marginal 2.6% difference suggests that the college provides an equitable environment where service delivery is perceived similarly by both genders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a distinct \u0026quot;Maturity-Satisfaction\u0026quot; correlation. Satisfaction increases as the age of the student increases. The youngest cohort (18\u0026ndash;21) reported the lowest satisfaction at 77.5%. This rises to 83% for the 22\u0026ndash;24 groups. By age 28 and above, satisfaction reaches a peak of 94.1%, with 0% of these students reporting dissatisfaction.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThere is a distinct \u0026quot;Maturity-Satisfaction\u0026quot; correlation. Satisfaction increases as the age of the student increases. The youngest cohort (18\u0026ndash;21) reported the lowest satisfaction at 77.5%. This rises to 83% for the 22\u0026ndash;24 groups. By age 28 and above, satisfaction reaches a peak of 94.1%, with 0% of these students reporting dissatisfaction. This suggests that \u0026lsquo;older students\u0026apos; demands and professional expectations are especially well-aligned with the college\u0026apos;s atmosphere and administrative structure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data confirms that the vast majority of GAMBY College students are satisfied with their educational experience. The most content student profile is a mature (28+), senior-level student in a Business or Postgraduate program, while the segment with the most significant opportunity for administrative engagement is the younger (18\u0026ndash;21) junior medical student (Table 10, Own Field survey, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 10. Unified Cross tabulation of Demographic Profiles and Satisfaction Levels (N=318)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemographic Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSatisfied (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeutral (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDissatisfied %)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal (N)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge group\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18-21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22-24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25-27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear of Study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026amp; 3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e189\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003eYear \u0026amp; Above\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepartment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e235\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 23.6677%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBusiness \u0026amp; PG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.9875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9279%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3824%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: own Field survey, 2025\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study assessed student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College, identified key determinants of overall satisfaction, and analyzed the relationship between service quality dimensions and the student experience. The findings from a survey of 319 students offer valuable insights for institutional improvement. This discussion addresses each research question by integrating respondent demographics with the descriptive and analytical results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Psychometric Properties of the HE-SSS Instrument (RQ1)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the primary analysis, the psychometric properties of the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS) were rigorously evaluated to ensure its suitability for the GAMBY College context. HE-SSS, adapted from established instruments (24, 29, 31), demonstrated excellent internal consistency.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha of 0.947 significantly exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70 (30 Hair et al., 1998), indicating a highly reliable scale. Dimensional reliability coefficients (ranging from 0.853 to 0.941) further support the instrument\u0026rsquo;s capacity to consistently measure the underlying constructs of student satisfaction. These results align with previous studies that successfully utilized the HE-SSS in diverse global educational settings (32).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe construct validity was confirmed via Principal Component Analysis (PCA). While the high correlation between academic and infrastructural dimensions resulted in a \u0026quot;non-positive definite matrix,\u0026quot; this is interpreted here as evidence of a high degree of internal convergence. This suggests that students at GAMBY College perceive their physical environment and their intellectual instruction as a single, integrated experience rather than as separate, disconnected services. This finding echoes the work of Marsh and Bailey (1999) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), who argued that students view university life holistically (33, 34). By recognizing that instrument performance varies across institutions (35), the observed collinearity likely reflects GAMBY\u0026rsquo;s integrated learning environment, where academic and infrastructural elements are mutually reinforcing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2 Current Level of Student Satisfaction (RQ2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe overall level of student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College was found to be relatively high (M = 2.11). Since the scale utilized a 1\u0026ndash;5 range where lower scores indicate higher satisfaction, this result suggests a generally positive perception of the college\u0026apos;s service delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe highest satisfaction levels were reported for Administrative Services (M = 2.20). This aligns with research by Douglas et al. (2006), which emphasizes that responsive and efficient administrative support is a cornerstone of student happiness (36). At GAMBY, the efficiency of the registrar and administrative staff appears to be a major institutional strength.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, the lowest (though still positive) satisfaction scores were recorded for Personal Growth Outcomes (M = 2.43) and Support \u0026amp; IT Services (M = 2.43). These findings can be interpreted through Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s (1968) Two-Factor Theory (37). GAMBY College is successfully meeting \u0026quot;hygiene factors\u0026quot;\u0026mdash;the fundamental expectations of administrative efficiency\u0026mdash;which prevents widespread dissatisfaction. However, it appears to be lagging slightly in \u0026quot;motivators,\u0026quot; such as advanced IT support and personal development opportunities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the lower satisfaction with Support \u0026amp; IT Services (which also showed a high standard deviation of 0.99) points to inconsistent experiences with campus Wi-Fi reliability and the Student Information Management System (SIMS). In the modern educational landscape, consistent and reliable technological support is no longer a luxury but a necessity for student success (39, 40). The inconsistency in these scores suggests that while some students are well-served, others may be experiencing significant technological barriers that the college must address to maintain its competitive edge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3. Determinants of Overall Student Satisfaction (RQ3)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe multiple regression analysis revealed that Personal Growth Outcomes (\u0026beta; = 0.428, p \u0026lt; 0.001) and Administrative Services (\u0026beta; = 0.226, p \u0026lt; 0.001) are the primary drivers of student satisfaction at GAMBY College. Together with other service dimensions, these factors account for 39 percent of the total variance in overall student satisfaction (R^2 = 0.390).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dominance of Personal Growth Outcomes as a predictor suggests that students at GAMBY\u0026mdash;many of whom are in rigorous medical and business programs\u0026mdash;evaluate their college experience based on \u0026quot;end-state\u0026quot; results. They are most satisfied when they feel they are acquiring the specific skills and professional competencies required for their future careers. This finding aligns with the Student-Centered Learning Theory, which posits that modern learners prioritize the value-added to their personal and professional lives over the mere process of sitting in a classroom (24).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, Instructional Quality was not a significant independent predictor in the final model (p = 0.100). This does not imply that teaching is unimportant; rather, it suggests a mediation effect. Students likely perceive high-quality instruction as a prerequisite for their personal growth. Therefore, the impact of \u0026quot;good teaching\u0026quot; is statistically \u0026quot;absorbed\u0026quot; by the \u0026quot;Personal Growth\u0026quot; variable. When students feel they are growing, they implicitly credit the instruction they received, but they prioritize the \u0026lsquo;outcome\u0026rsquo; of that growth when reporting their overall satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe significance of Administrative Services further confirms that the \u0026quot;non-academic\u0026quot; side of the college experience is crucial. Efficient registration, helpful staff, and clear communication act as the \u0026quot;service infrastructure\u0026quot; that allows students to focus on their studies without unnecessary frustration. This supports the Service-Dominant Logic in higher education, where the institution is viewed as a service provider and the student as a co-creator of value (41).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn interesting finding was that Instructional Quality was not a statistically significant independent predictor in the final model (p = 0.100), despite having a high descriptive mean. This likely indicates a mediation effect; students perceive high-quality instruction as a necessary prerequisite for their personal growth. Statistically, the impact of \u0026quot;good teaching\u0026quot; is absorbed by the \u0026quot;Personal Growth\u0026quot; variable, as students report satisfaction based on the \u0026lsquo;result\u0026rsquo; (their development) rather than the \u0026lsquo;processes (the teaching method).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.4. Relationship between Service Dimensions and Overall Student Satisfaction (RQ4)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo determine the relationship between service dimensions and overall student satisfaction, a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis was conducted. This model utilized instructional quality, administrative service, and personal growth outcomes as predictors. Demographic variables (Age, Gender, Department, and Year of Study) were initially considered as potential moderators; however, they did not significantly interact with the service dimensions in predicting overall satisfaction (p \u0026gt; 0.05) and were therefore excluded from the final service-dimension model to maintain parsimony.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe regression model explained a significant 39% variance in overall student satisfaction (R^2 = 0.390, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Contrary to some traditional studies, Personal Growth Outcomes emerged as the strongest and most significant predictor of overall satisfaction (\u0026beta; = 0.428, p \u0026lt; 0.001). This finding underscores the importance of holistic student development, curricula that foster professional identity, and the acquisition of life skills. This aligns with Chickering and Reisser\u0026rsquo;s 1993 theory of \u0026quot;Developing Competence,\u0026quot; which suggests that a student\u0026apos;s sense of mastery over their field is the ultimate measure of their educational success (42).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdministrative Quality also demonstrated a strong positive influence on overall satisfaction (\u0026beta; = 0.226, p \u0026lt; 0.001), reinforcing the critical role of efficient and timely institutional support. This finding is consistent with Douglas et al. 2006 and Bravo et al. 2021, who highlighted that responsive administrative services function as vital hygiene factors\u0026rsquo; (36, 43). At GAMBY, these services ensure that the student experience remains positive by removing bureaucratic barriers, thereby allowing students to focus on their primary academic goals. Together, these results support the notion that both \u0026ldquo;motivator\u0026rdquo; (Growth) and \u0026ldquo;hygiene\u0026rdquo; (Admin) factors contribute uniquely to the student experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, Instructional Quality did not emerge as a statistically significant independent predictor in this specific model (\u0026beta; = 0.100, p = 0.100). While this seems to contradict Tinto\u0026rsquo;s 1993 (cited by Braxton, 2018) emphasis on academic engagement and Pascarella and Terenzini\u0026rsquo;s 2005 link between teaching effectiveness and satisfaction, it likely reflects a mediation effect (34, 45, 46,48). In the GAMBY context, students may perceive instructional quality not as an end in itself, but as the \u0026lsquo;means\u0026rsquo; to achieve Personal Growth. Consequently, the predictive power of teaching is statistically \u0026quot;absorbed\u0026quot; by the Growth variable. As Kuh and Lingenfelter 2017 suggest, the impact of high-quality instruction is often most visible through the resulting student outcomes rather than the instructional process itself (44).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the variables of Infrastructure Quality and Support/IT Services were excluded from the final regression due to high internal collinearity. This suggests that students do not view the campus environment or IT support as isolated services; rather, they see them as deeply embedded within the academic and growth-oriented climate of the college.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the regression analysis provides compelling evidence that Personal Growth Outcomes and \u0026lsquo;Administrative Quality\u0026rsquo; are the primary drivers of satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College. Strategic investments in these areas\u0026mdash;specifically in professional skill-building and the digitalization of administrative workflows\u0026mdash;are likely to yield the greatest returns in enhancing the student experience. Continued efforts to integrate IT support and modern infrastructure into the core learning process will further contribute to a holistic and satisfying educational journey for all students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.1. Summary of Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of this study was to examine student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College (GMBC) using the Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale (HE-SSS). The study first sought to validate the HE-SSS for the specific institutional context of GAMBY. Based on a survey of 319 students—the majority of whom were young, female, and enrolled in undergraduate Health Science programs—the following findings emerged:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePsychometric Validity: HE-SSS demonstrated high statistical rigor. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) verified a strong internal structure, while reliability analysis yielded an overall Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.947, with dimensional coefficients ranging from 0.853 to 0.941. The observed collinearity between academic and infrastructure dimensions was interpreted as evidence of an integrated student experience rather than a statistical error.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSatisfaction Levels: Descriptive analysis indicated that students are generally satisfied with GAMBY’s service delivery. On a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 = Very Satisfied and 5 = Very Dissatisfied), all mean scores fell below the neutral midpoint of 3.0. The highest levels of satisfaction were reported for Overall Satisfaction (M = 2.11) and Administrative Services (M = 2.20).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAreas for Improvement: The dimensions of Support/IT Infrastructure and Personal Growth Outcomes recorded the highest mean ratings (M = 2.43), indicating relatively lower levels of satisfaction compared to other domains.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePredictors of Satisfaction: Regression analysis revealed that Personal Growth Outcomes and Administrative Services are the most significant predictors of satisfaction, collectively explaining 39% of the variance in the overall student experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2. Conclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study successfully verified the HE-SSS as a robust, valid, and reliable instrument for gauging student satisfaction at GAMBY Medical and Business College. The high reliability coefficients and confirmed construct validity suggest that the instrument accurately captures the multifaceted nature of the student experience.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA key conclusion of this research is that students at GAMBY perceive their education holistically; they do not separate the quality of instruction from the physical and technological infrastructure that supports it. While the overall satisfaction levels are encouraging (with means consistently closer to \"1\" than \"5\"), the areas of Support/IT Infrastructure and Personal Growth Outcomes represent critical opportunities for intervention.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, satisfaction at the college is driven more by the \"outcomes\" of education—specifically how much a student feels they are growing professionally—and the \"efficiency\" of administration, rather than by demographic traits or department affiliation. Therefore, institutional quality improvement initiatives should be systemic rather than departmental.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;6.3. Recommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the empirical evidence gathered in this study, the following recommendations are proposed to the GAMBY College administration:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Prioritize IT Infrastructure Investment: Given that Support and IT Services yielded the lowest satisfaction scores, the college should prioritize investments in high-speed, reliable Wi-Fi, and a more user-friendly Student Information Management System (SIMS). Technical support should be made more accessible to reduce student frustration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Enhance Professional Development Programs: Since Personal Growth is the strongest predictor of satisfaction the college should expand initiatives that foster career preparation, critical thinking, and leadership skills. This could include strengthened clinical/practicum attachments, career counseling, and soft-skill workshops.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Adopt an Integrated Quality Approach: Institutional planners should recognize the interconnectedness between academic and infrastructural elements. For instance, upgrading classroom technology should be paired with pedagogical training for instructors to ensure that infrastructure improvements directly enhance instructional quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. Institutionalize Regular Satisfaction Audits: The College should continue to utilize the validated HE-SSS as a longitudinal monitoring tool. Conducting this survey annually will allow administration to track satisfaction trends over time and measure the effectiveness of the interventions implemented in the IT and Personal Growth domains.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5. Focus on Younger Student Engagement: While older students reported higher satisfaction, the college should investigate the specific needs of its younger cohort (ages 18–21) to ensure the campus environment meets their expectations for modern, technology-driven, and socially engaging education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS","content":"\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite providing significant insights into institutional service delivery, this study is subject to several limitations that should be acknowledged:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy Design: The cross-sectional nature of the data provides a \"snapshot\" of student perceptions at a single point in time, which precludes the establishment of definitive causal relationships between service dimensions and satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-Reported Data: The reliance on self-administered questionnaires introduces the potential for social desirability bias, where students may provide responses they perceive as more acceptable. Additionally, the length of the instrument (68 items) may have introduced respondent fatigue, potentially impacting the depth of responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeneralizability: As the sample was drawn exclusively from a single private institution (GAMBY Medical and Business College), the findings may not be fully generalizable to public universities or different geographical and cultural contexts within Ethiopia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistical Constraints: Although empirically justified by the presence of multicollinearity, the exclusion of \"Educational Infrastructure\" and \"Support/IT Services\" from the final regression model means that their independent, non-integrated contributions to satisfaction were not fully isolated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFuture Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo build upon the findings of this research and address its limitations, the following directions for future study are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal Research: Future studies should employ a longitudinal design to track changes in student satisfaction throughout their academic journey (from entry to graduation). This would allow for a deeper understanding of how institutional perceptions evolve over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMixed-Methods Approach: Combining quantitative surveys with qualitative methods—such as focus groups or semi-structured interviews—would provide a more nuanced \"thick description\" of the student experience, helping to explain why behind the statistical trends.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparative Analysis: Expanding research to include multiple private and public higher education institutions across Ethiopia would help assess the generalizability of these findings and identify broader national trends in student satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExploration of Unmeasured Variables: Given that the regression model explained 39% of the variance, future research should explore the remaining 61% of unexplained variance. Potential factors to investigate include students’ prior academic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, extracurricular engagement, and the influence of financial aid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntervention Evaluation: Finally, future research should evaluate the effectiveness of specific institutional reforms (e.g., faculty development programs or digital infrastructure upgrades) to determine their direct impact on satisfaction levels through pre- and post-intervention testing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eMLR: Multiple Linear Regression\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePHEIs: Private Higher Education Institutions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNSS: National Student Survey\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHE-SSS: Higher Education Student Satisfaction Scale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eESDP: Education Sector Development Program\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSAC: Student as Customer\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGMBC: GAMBY Medical \u0026amp; Business College\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eROI: Return on Investment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSERVQUAL: Service Quality\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePCA: Principal Component Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eETA: Education and Training Authority\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEDT: Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTQM: Total Quality Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLMS: Learning Management System\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSIMS: Student Information Management System\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthical Approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study received formal ethical clearance from the College Research Ethics Committee with Ref. No Ref. No \u003cu\u003eG/C-02/760/2025\u003c/u\u003e. Participants were fully briefed on the study’s objectives, and participation was entirely voluntary. \u0026nbsp;To protect student privacy, no personal identifiers (names or ID numbers) were collected. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent\u0026nbsp;for publication\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvailability\u0026nbsp;of data and materials\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;datasets\u0026nbsp;generated\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;analyzed\u0026nbsp;during\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;current\u0026nbsp;study\u0026nbsp;are\u0026nbsp;available\u0026nbsp;from\u0026nbsp;the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthors Contribution\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSM\u0026nbsp;conceptualized\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;designed\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;study,\u0026nbsp;collected\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;data, and\u0026nbsp;interpreted\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026nbsp;analyzed\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;data,\u0026nbsp;synthesized\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;findings,\u0026nbsp;developed\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;theoretical\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;practical\u0026nbsp;implications, and prepared the first draft of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSM\u0026nbsp;revised\u0026nbsp;and proofread\u0026nbsp;the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll\u0026nbsp;authors\u0026nbsp;read\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;approved\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors express their sincere gratitude to the administration and support staff of the College and the participating students and department instructors for their logistical cooperation. We also extend our appreciation to the mentors and faculty supervisors whose guidance was instrumental in the completion of this research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding Sources\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by internal institutional resources provided by the College. No external funding or financial support from outside agencies was received for the conduct of the study or the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAltbach, P. G., \u0026amp; de Wit, H. (2023). Global Higher Education: Emerging Trends and Critical Challenges. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTight, M. (2022). Research into Higher Education: An Introduction to a Developing Field. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e(2022). World Higher Education Report: The Future of Learning.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooks, R. (2022). Students as consumers? The perspectives of students' union leaders across Europe. Higher Education Quarterly, \u0026times; 76 \u0026times;(3), 626-637.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohamedbhai, G. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education in Africa. International Higher Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeferra, D. (2023). Higher Education in Africa: Challenges for the Next Decade. African Minds Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgunnaike, O., et al. (2022). Service quality and student satisfaction in African HEIs: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of African Business.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTamrat, W. (2021). Private Higher Education in Ethiopia: Risks, Realities, and Readying for the Future. Journal of Higher Education in Africa.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodall, T., Hiller, A., \u0026amp; Resnick, S. (2014). Making sense of higher education: Students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 48\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoldetensae, Y. (2022). Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Ethiopia: Procedures and Practices. Quality in Higher Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T. J., \u0026amp; Tiangsoongnern, L. (2019). Service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical study of higher education in Mauritius. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(4), 424\u0026ndash;448.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElsharnouby, T. H., et al. (2021). Expectancy-disconfirmation and student satisfaction in higher education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., \u0026amp; Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWakjira, T., Mesele, K., \u0026amp; Ayenew, W. (2022). Journal of Community Medicine and Health Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence \u0026amp; Planning, \u0026times; 24 \u0026times;(1), 31-47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHabtamu, A. (2023). Methodological Trends in Ethiopian Educational Research: A Review. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson, L., \u0026amp; Smith, T. (2020). Trends in student satisfaction across global higher education systems. Journal of Student Affairs, 15(1), 22\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLai, H., Wang, J., \u0026amp; Zhang, L. (2021). Mental health and satisfaction among university students: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1021\u0026ndash;1045.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, R., Miller, K., \u0026amp; Thompson, S. (2021). Institutional type and student satisfaction: A multi-level analysis of private vs. public higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(3), 432\u0026ndash;448.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, Y. (2019). Student satisfaction in higher education: A comparative study of business and medical majors. Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 112\u0026ndash;125.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarcia, M., \u0026amp; Rodriguez, P. (2022). Disciplinary differences in student engagement and academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 78-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOliver, R. L. (2006). Customer satisfaction research.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 569-587.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKotler, P., \u0026amp; Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing Management (15th ed.). Pearson. (Seminal).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A., \u0026amp; Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two‐factor theory.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational journal of educational management\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 128-139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTamrat, W. (2023). Private Higher Education in Ethiopia: Navigating Quality and Regulation. Higher Education Policy.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYamane, T. 1967. Elementary sampling theory. Prentice-Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129\u0026ndash;150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079112331377444\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchreiner, L. A., \u0026amp; Juillerat, S. (1994). The Student Satisfaction Inventory. Noel-Levitz.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAldemir, C., \u0026amp; Gulcan, Y. (2004). Students' satisfaction in higher education: A Turkish case. Higher Education Management and Policy, \u0026times; 16 \u0026times;(2), 109-122.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J.F.,Anderson, R.E.,Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.(1998), \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eMultivariate Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, 5thed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMai,L.(2005),\u0026ldquo;A Comparative Study between UK and US: The Student Satisfaction in Higher Education and its Influential Factors, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Management\u003c/em\u003e,21,859-878.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElliott \u0026amp; Healy, (2001), Key Factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment \u0026amp; retention, Journal of marketing for higher education, Vol 10:1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarsh, H. W., \u0026amp; Bailey, J. E. (1999). Multidimensionality of student satisfaction: A comprehensive analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 675\u0026ndash;691.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePascarella, E. T., \u0026amp; Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeisinger, K. F., Hawley, L. R., \u0026amp; McCormick, C. (2017). The validation of tests in higher education. In\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHandbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education\u003c/em\u003e(pp. 147-160). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDouglas, J., Douglas, A., \u0026amp; Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eQuality assurance in education\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 251-267.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? *Harvard Business Review, 46*(1), 53-62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. World Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooper, T. M. (2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVeteran students transitions into higher education using chickering's seven vector development theory\u003c/em\u003e. Rowan University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrydenberg, M. (2017). Effective use of information and communication technologies in informal learning spaces. In\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eExploring Informal Learning Space in the University\u003c/em\u003e(pp. 91-104). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirdaus, A. (2006). The development and objective measurement of service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1), 33\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChickering, A. W., \u0026amp; Gamson, W. S. (1987). Seven vectors of effective student development. Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBravo, L. G., Nistor, N., \u0026amp; Ram\u0026iacute;rez, B. C. (2021). Narrating in grey: An application to educational management information systems and accountability. Information Development, \u0026times; 37 \u0026times;(1), 58-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuh, G., \u0026amp; Lingenfelter, P. (2017). THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN ADVANCING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEngaging Students: Using Evidence to Promote Student Success\u003c/em\u003e, 165.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraxton, J. M. (2019). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition by Vincent Tinto.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of College Student Development\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(1), 129-134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaniel, D., Liben, G., \u0026amp; Adugna, A. (2017). Assessment of Students' Satisfaction: A Case Study of Dire Dawa University, Ethiopia.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of Education and Practice\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 111-120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulu, N. K. (2012). Quality and quality assurance in Ethiopian higher education: Critical issues and practical implications. University of Twente.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"GAMBY Medical \u0026 Business College","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Student Satisfaction, Service Delivery, Higher Education, GAMBY College, Medical Education, Ethiopia, Service Quality, Psychometric Validation.","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9339870/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9339870/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn higher education, student satisfaction is a primary measure of quality and a key driver of institutional development. This study examines student perceptions of service delivery at GAMBY Medical and Business College in Ethiopia, filling a critical knowledge gap regarding satisfaction determinants in private health-science institutions. Using a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire (1 = Very Satisfied, 5 = Very Dissatisfied), a cross-sectional survey was conducted among 319 students. The study evaluated satisfaction across six dimensions: Administrative Service, Educational Infrastructure, Instructional Quality, Support \u0026amp; IT Services, Personal Growth Outcomes, and Overall Satisfaction. Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 26.0 employing Descriptive Statistics, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for validation, and Multiple Linear Regression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings revealed high levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.947) and robust construct validity. Descriptive results indicated generally positive satisfaction levels, with mean scores ranging from 2.11 to 2.43. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the service dimensions collectively accounted for 39 % of the variance in the overall student experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Determinants of Student Satisfaction with Service Delivery in Ethiopian Private Higher Education: A Case Study of GAMBY Medical and Business College","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-08 08:32:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9339870/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d797c6aa-1a3e-4369-8811-275c81b85cde","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 8th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":65835596,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-08T08:32:28+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-08 08:32:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9339870","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9339870","identity":"rs-9339870","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}