Student Satisfaction Inventory

Report for the Period 1997-2003

By

The Office of Student Affairs

September 2003

1. About this Report

The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is an instrument produced by Noel-Levitz, a nationally recognized leader in data collection and analysis of enrollment and retention issues in higher education.

SSI was first administered on the Eastern Oregon University campus in 1997, followed at two-year intervals in 1999, 2001, and the current assessment of 2003. Norms have been developed to compare EOU student responses to 1) prior inventory years at Eastern, and 2) national means from students at other four-year public institutions.

According to Noel-Levitz, the information presented will permit us as faculty to better understand the following issues, and to plan for the future accordingly:

· Which aspects of campus life do our students consider most important?

· Of these, which aspects do our students consider most and least satisfying?

· How do Eastern student’s responses compare with those of other similar institutions?

· What are ways that we as faculty can better meet student expectations?

· Comparing responses gathered over the past seven years, are there significant trends or directions that merit our attention?

This inventory has provided a structured opportunity for students to communicate directly with the leadership of their university. From the data and trends presented, we can develop and share insights to improve student recruitment and retention, to improve accreditation self-studies, and to make better budget decisions in light of student priorities.

II. About the Student Satisfaction Inventory

Respondents are provided statements that relate to all aspects of a campus experience. First, students are asked to rate each item in its importance (expectation). Next, students rate each item as to how satisfied they are (performance). The treatment of these data then permits a third assessment tool called the “Performance Gap.” This is the rating determined by subtracting Performance from Expectation. The result indicates the difference between what students consider important and how we measure up. All scoring is on a seven-point scale with zero lowest, seven highest.

Of the total number of items, 79 are analyzed “statistically and conceptually” and make up the following twelve scales:

· Academic Advising Effectiveness

· Campus Climate

· Campus Life

· Campus Support Services

· Concern for the Individual

· Instructional Effectiveness

· Recruitment/Financial Aid Effectiveness

· Registration Effectiveness

· Responsiveness to Diversity

· Safety and Security

· Service Excellence

· Student Centeredness

Each of these scales will be examined in detail with regard to Importance and Satisfaction.

III. Methodology, Instrumentation, Demographics

The inventory was administered Spring Term 2003, in classrooms during class time with the cooperation of faculty. Eastern Student Ambassadors conducted the administration, which consisted of a brief scripted introduction, distribution, and collection of the inventory. Scoring was done by Noel-Levitz, as was statistical analysis and comparisons.

Five hundred forty-two (542) students completed the inventory, representing approximately one/fourth (1/4) of students enrolled for on-campus classes (N=25%). No administration was attempted for off-campus students. The respondents were surveyed in all classes held at 10:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday of the fifth week of Spring Term 2003.

A demographic sketch of the responding population reveals the following:

	N	%	On Campus Population	On Campus Population %
Male	284	52.40	836	48.0%
Female	258	47.60	904	52.0%
Age 18/under	36	6.64	63	3.6%
Age 19-24	421	77.70	1312	75.4%
Age 25-34	60	11.07	244	14.0%
African-American	4	0.74	24	1.38%
American Indian/Alaskan Native	10	1.86	44	2.53%
Asian/Pacific Islander	31	5.76	105	6.03%
Caucasian	433	80.48	1395	80.17%
Hispanic	18	3.35	51	2.93%
Full-time	525	96.86	1255	72.13%
Part-time	17	3.14	481	27.64%
Freshman	142	26.20	383	22.0%
Sophomore	132	24.35	356	20.46%
Junior	132	24.35	394	22.64%
Senior	127	23.43	547	31.44%
2.5 - 2.99 GPA	149	27.64	na	na
3.0 - 3.49 GPA	172	31.91	na	na
3.5 – above GPA	128	23.75	na	na

IV. Interpretation of the Findings

Data analysis will examine item groups (scales) as well as individual items with relation to 1) Importance, 2) Satisfaction, and 3) Performance Gap. Comparisons will be drawn with other similar institutions as well as with earlier SSI results at Eastern Oregon University.

Items that have a statistical significance at varying levels of confidence will be highlighted. Similarly, trends which appear to be developing will be discussed.

Finally, suggestions for enhancing performance and students’ satisfaction will conclude this report.

V. Findings

A. Those areas of greatest importance to Eastern students are curricular, instructional, advising, and financial.

TABLE I

ITEM	IMPORTANCE
· The content of the courses within my major is valuable	6.51
· My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major	6.50
· I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts	6.46
· The quality of instruction in most of my classes is excellent	6.45
· Cost as factor in decision to enroll	6.45
· Instruction in my major field is excellent	6.41
· Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field	6.41
· My academic advisor is approachable	6.40
· There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus	6.40
· I am concerned about my ability to fund my education	6.40
· Major requirements are clear and reasonable	6.36
· Adequate financial aid is available for most students	6.35
· Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours	6.34
· Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of students	6.31

B. There has been a statistically significant* shift (reduction) in the importance of some aspects of university life among Eastern students since 1997.

TABLE II

ITEM	1997	2003
· Residence hall regulations are reasonable	5.60	5.38
· I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts	6.66	6.46
· Tutoring services are readily available	6.30	6.04
· Intercollegiate athletics programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit	5.51	5.20
· Library staff are helpful and approachable	6.01	5.78
· A variety of intramural activities are offered	5.43	5.19
· Geographic setting as a factor in decision to enroll	5.63	5.43

* significant at or above the .01 level of confidence

C. Students at EOU are very similar to other students at four-year public institutions across the nation with regard to the importance of campus issues.

TABLE III

No differences which are statistically significant occur in any of the scales above.

D. Students at EOU are somewhat dissatisfied on each of the descriptive scales compared to their expectations. In certain cases the gaps are large and statistically significant. The largest dissatisfaction is in the scale “Safety and Security.”

TABLE IV

Gap Advising 1.15 Campus Climate 1.04 Campus Life 1.03 Campus Support Services 0.88 Concern for the Individual 1.16 Instructional Effectiveness 1.22 Recruitment and Financial Aid 1.18 Registration Effectiveness 1.20 Safety and Security 1.96 Service Excellence 1.09 Student Centeredness 0.88

E. The satisfaction of EOU students on a variety of campus issues generally mirrors that satisfaction among their peers at four-year public institutions across the nation in most areas of inquiry, although statistically significant differences between EOU students and their peers at or above the .001 level of confidence occur in Safety and Security, Recruitment and Financial Aid, Student Centeredness, and Service Excellence.

TABLE V

Scale	Our Institution			National Group Mean			Mean Difference
	Imp	Sat/SD	Gap	Imp	Sat/SD	Gap	Our Inst – Nat Grp
Academic Advising	6.30	5.15/1.34	1.15	6.30	5.11/1.35	1.19	0.04
Instructional Effectiveness	6.23	5.01/0.99	1.22	6.29	5.09/1.00	1.20	-0.08
Registration Effectiveness	6.12	4.92/1.04	1.20	6.16	4.82/1.13	1.34	0.10*
Safety and Security	6.10	4.14/1.10	1.96	6.27	4.33/1.19	1.94	-0.19***
Recruitment and Financial Aid	6.07	4.89/1.06	1.18	6.01	4.65/1.16	1.36	0.24***
Campus Climate	6.02	4.98/0.97	1.04	6.04	4.90/1.04	1.14	0.08
Campus Support Services	6.02	5.14/0.96	0.88	6.01	5.06/1.00	0.95	0.08
Student Centeredness	6.02	5.14/1.03	0.88	6.02	4.92/1.14	1.10	0.22***
Concern for the Individual	6.01	4.85/1.02	1.16	6.05	4.79/1.12	1.26	0.06
Service Excellence	5.98	4.89/0.94	1.09	5.97	4.72/1.04	1.25	0.17***
Campus Life	5.64	4.61/0.97	1.03	5.57	4.70/1.00	0.87	-0.09*
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations		4.91/1.21			4.92/1.28		-0.01
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level

F. The following are items in which Eastern students are least satisfied in relation to their expectations (in descending order, largest Performance Gaps).

TABLE VI

	Gap
· The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate	3.19
· Student activities fees are put to good use	2.10
· There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria	1.97
· Adequate financial aid is available for most students	1.93
· There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus	1.82
· Parking lots are well-lighted and secure	1.70
· Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students	1.66
· I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts	1.63
· Billing policies are reasonable	1.63
· There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students	1.62
· Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment	1.61
· Living conditions in residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, light, heat, air, etc.)	1.59
· I seldom get the “run-around” when seeking information on this campus	1.59
· Security staff respond quickly in emergencies	1.54
· Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available	1.50

G. The following are items in which Eastern students are most satisfied in relation to their expectations (in ascending order, smallest Performance Gaps).

TABLE VII

	Gap
· A variety of intramural activities are offered	0.23
· Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics	0.36
· Most students feel a sense of belonging here	0.45
· Bookstore staff are helpful	0.50
· On the whole, the campus is well-maintained	0.56
· The student handbook provides helpful information about campus life	0.58
· New student orientation services help students adjust to college	0.62
· I can easily get involved in campus organizations	0.68
· Library staff are helpful and available	0.69
· Tutoring services are readily available	0.71
· Computer labs are adequate and accessible	0.76
· Residence hall regulations are reasonable	0.78
· Students are made to feel welcome on this campus	0.82
· I feel a sense of pride about my campus	0.83
· Personnel involved in registration are helpful	0.83
· The business office is open during hours which are convenient for most students	0.83

H. With regard to the 12 item groupings (scales), there has been a statistically significant shift in four categories since 2001 which appears to indicate a growing dissatisfaction among Eastern students. Those categories are “Safety and Security,” “Registration Effectiveness,” “Campus Life,” and “Campus Climate.”

TABLE VIII

Items	Spring 2003			Spring 2001			Mean Difference (Satisfaction)
	Imp	Sat/SD	Gap	Imp	Sat/SD	Gap	Group 1 – Group 2
Academic Advising	6.30	5.15/1.34	1.15	6.30	5.15/1.39	1.15	0.00
Instructional Effectiveness	6.23	5.01/0.99	1.22	6.25	5.03/1.01	1.22	-0.02
Registration Effectiveness	6.12	4.92/1.04	1.20	6.16	5.05/1.04	1.11	-0.13*
Safety and Security	6.10	4.14/1.10	1.96	6.06	4.48/1.07	1.58	-0.34***
Recruitment and Financial Aid	6.07	4.89/1.06	1.18	6.07	4.90/1.09	1.17	-0.01
Student Centeredness	6.02	5.14/1.03	0.88	6.08	5.19/1.06	0.89	-0.05
Campus Support Services	6.02	5.14/0.96	0.88	6.06	5.12/0.97	0.94	0.02
Campus Climate	6.02	4.98/0.97	1.04	6.05	5.10/0.99	0.95	-0.12*
Concern for the Individual	6.01	4.85/1.02	1.16	6.04	4.90/1.07	1.14	-0.05
Service Excellence	5.98	4.89/0.94	1.09	5.98	4.93/0.98	1.05	-0.04
Campus Life	5.64	4.61/0.97	1.03	5.68	4.74/0.97	0.94	-0.13*
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations		4.91/1.21			4.94/1.17		-0.03
* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level

VI. Discussion

A. Items Constructed By Eastern Staff

In addition to the 90 published assessment items in the SSI, ten “institution-specific” questions were added at the request of Eastern Oregon University. These customized items vary from one test year to another so no statistical comparison is easily or accurately made.

A review of these ten statements and Eastern students’ ratings (see Table IX) makes clear a high level of importance and lower level of satisfaction related to paying for college.

Three diversity items of the ten were ranked relatively low in importance, but ranked considerably high in the satisfaction level. Discussion of this topic must take into account the demographic profile of the responding population of students, which appears on page four.

TABLE IX

Institutional Items

Item	Imp	Satis	Gap
· I am concerned about my ability to fund my educational cost	6.40	4.68	1.72
· I can openly express my opinion in class if it differs from the instructor	6.19	4.97	1.22
· The general education course requirements are sensible at this university	6.14	4.79	1.35
· The hours I work to earn college funds dramatically impacts my ability to perform well in the classroom	6.08	4.46	1.62
· Recreational facilities are satisfactory at this University	6.01	5.04	0.97
· Cultural diversity is supported at this university	5.97	5.41	0.56
· There are consequences for cheating on this campus	5.89	5.27	0.62
· Classes help me understand people of different backgrounds than my own	5.75	4.94	0.81
· There are opportunities to interact out of class with students of diverse backgrounds	5.70	4.87	0.83
· I know members of the student government organization and feel comfortable expressing my views on them	5.48	4.12	1.36

B. Long Range Trends

In an examination of the data resulting from four assessments over a six year period, one value of this longer comparative period is to notice trends which may be apparent or developing.

In general terms, the clearest of these trends is that Eastern’s performance and overall campus climate has made steady progress and improvement (with respect to this assessment instrument) over the period beginning with spring term 1997. Differences between students’ expectations and their satisfaction (Performance Gaps) have reduced in the vast majority of assessment areas over this time.

Of the 73 questions, which are common to the four administrations of the SSI at Eastern, Performance Gaps have diminished or remained stable for 60 of them. Of the remaining 13, there is statistically significant difference in only five (see Table X).

Significant improvement occurred in a variety of areas. Large increases in student satisfaction were noted in at least 13 of the assessment items (see Table XI).

C. Variables Relating to Student Dissatisfaction

TABLE X

Areas of Growing Student Dissatisfaction 1997 – 2003

Item	1997	2003	Change
· The campus is safe and secure for all students	0.68	1.34	+0.66
· Staff in the health services area are competent	0.67	1.07	+0.40
· The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate	2.88	3.19	+0.31
· A variety of intramural activities are offered	0.09	0.23	+0.14
· The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time	0.92	1.03	+0.11

In discussion of these particular areas of growing student dissatisfaction, several possible intervening variables should be noted:

o This inventory was administered one week following articles in both the La Grande Observer and the EOU Voice concerning sexual assault and acquaintance rape.

o Construction of the University’s Science Center had temporarily reduced student parking by a large number of spaces for the 2002-2003 school year.

o The leadership of the Student Health Center was in transition during spring term 2003.

These situations do not necessarily explain, but may have affected some students’ responses.

D. Variables Relating to Increased Student Satisfaction

TABLE XI

Areas of Growing Student Satisfaction 1997 – 2003

Item	1997	2003	Change
· Financial aid counselors are helpful	2.26	1.0	-1.26
· I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts	2.69	1.63	-1.03
· Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning	2.17	1.24	-0.93
· Living conditions in residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air)	2.22	1.59	-0.63
· Personnel involved in registration are helpful	1.43	0.83	-0.60
· Library resources are adequate	1.63	1.10	-0.53
· Computer labs are adequate and accessible	1.24	0.76	-0.48
· Freedom of expression is protected on our campus	1.32	0.86	-0.46
· Residence hall regulations are reasonable	1.20	0.78	-0.42
· There is a good variety of courses offered on this campus	2.21	1.82	-0.39
· Administrators are approachable to students	1.24	0.87	-0.37
· Campus staff are caring and helpful	1.30	0.93	-0.37

Several events, decisions, and other possible variables occurring during 1997-2003 should be noted.

o A leadership change in the Student Financial Aid Office occurred in 1998.

o An organizational change in the Office of Student Affairs which greatly affected financial aid occurred in 2000.

o The announcement date for financial aid awards was advanced by 30 days beginning fall 2000.

o On-line registration began fall 1999.

o Additional computer lab stations were opened in Ackerman Hall in 1999.

VII. Concluding Comments

The principal value in a report of this kind, and for that matter the entire SSI assessment effort, is to stimulate discussion among all components of the University. University leadership from the President to the department level now have information that can provide a focus for planning, budgeting, and enrollment management. Student leadership from across the campus can use these findings in the planning of student initiatives.

To draw conclusions and make recommendations for strategic changes in policy without benefit of campus wide dialogue would be presumptuous. All parties armed with common assessment results should now be better able to collaborate together for an improved campus environment and ultimately a better and more successful university for all.