Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018) 84–91
International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Science (ICCIDS 2018) International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Science (ICCIDS 2018)
The Influence of Medical Course Experience on Satisfaction, The Influence Medical CourseinExperience on Satisfaction, Loyalty, and of Word-Of-Mouth Indian Medical Colleges Loyalty, and Word-Of-Mouth in Indian Medical Colleges Sakshi Pandeya,* , Pankaj Deshwalbb a,* Sakshi Pandey , Pankaj Deshwal a,b,* a,b,*
NSIT, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078, India* NSIT, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078, India*
Abstract Abstract The target of this inspection is exploring the influence of Medical Course training on satisfaction, loyalty, and Word-Of-Mouth (WOM) in Indian Colleges context. twenty-five items Questionnaire (CEQ) was distributed in and Medical Colleges in The target of thisMedical inspection is exploring theAinfluence of Medical Course training on satisfaction, loyalty, Word-Of-Mouth Delhi. variables were gender, education level, Source(CEQ) of Study, Inhabitant, Family income, (WOM)Demographic in Indian Medical Colleges context.age, A twenty-five itemspreferred Questionnaire was Hostel distributed in Medical Colleges in Class Personality and the age, distance between College and residence. analysisFamily was performed Delhi. Attendance, Demographic variables Type were gender, education level, preferred Source of Linear Study, regression Hostel Inhabitant, income, for this research. Responses both through online and and offline means.Linear Results suggestanalysis that improving course Class Attendance, Personalitywere Type collected and the distance between College residence. regression was performed experience of education influences outcomes for through the institute. for this research. Responses were its collected both online and offline means. Results suggest that improving course experience of education influences its outcomes for the institute. © 2018 2018 The The Authors. Published by by Elsevier Elsevier B.V. Ltd. © Authors. Published This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. committee of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data (ICCIDS 2018). Peer-review responsibility Data Science Scienceunder (ICCIDS 2018). of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Science (ICCIDS 2018). Keywords: Course experience questionnaire(CEQ); satisfaction; word-of-mouth; loyalty. Keywords: Course experience questionnaire(CEQ); satisfaction; word-of-mouth; loyalty.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction In all countries, higher education performs an essential role in the expansion of its economy [1]. Education is one countries, higher instruments education performs an essential role insocial the expansion its economy [1]. Education one of Intheallmost prominent in contributing towards equality of [20]. Higher education dealsiswith of the most prominent in contributing equality [20]. Higher with imparting knowledge overinstruments students which is practicallytowards put into social use. Hence it becomes essentialeducation to assess deals the quality imparting knowledgeEvery over students which is practically put into use. Hence it becomes essential the quality of higher education. Indian customer has its preferences where the quality of any servicetoisassess concerned [19]. of highersupervision education. isEvery Indian customer has its preferences where the quality any service of is its concerned [19]. Quality a procedure which is destined to assess that a service meetsofthe demands customers or Quality supervision is a procedure which is destined to assess that a service meets the demands of its customers or * Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9971165395. E-mail address:author.
[email protected] * Corresponding Tel.: +91 9971165395. E-mail address:
[email protected] 1877-0509 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review underThe responsibility of theby scientific of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and 1877-0509 © 2018 Authors. Published Elsevier committee B.V.
Data Scienceunder (ICCIDS 2018). of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Peer-review responsibility Data Science (ICCIDS 2018). 1877-0509 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Science (ICCIDS 2018). 10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.165
2
Sakshi Pandey et al. / Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018) 84–91 Sakshi Pandey and Pankaj Deshwal/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
85
achieves a defined set of quality criteria [2].In a competitive world, quality assurance has become one of the primary objectives of institutes[3].Hence, student experience emerges as an integrated form which expands to both course experience as well as to emotional or spiritual components[21][22][23].Another methodology for addressing and determining the quality of education is through quantitative instruments such as questionnaires. Student’s favorable experience is one of the key components in institute’s successful performance [23]. Based on varied learning approaches of student’s learning perspective can be broadly classified into the surface and deep approach [4]. As of 2017, India has 460 medical colleges that hold a capacity of 63,985 seats making it one of the largest creators of doctors in the world. In our institutions and universities, Medical Council of India(MCI) takes care of these quality control procedures. MCI has restructured curriculum for medical students and has emphasized early clinic exposure and integration of basic and clinical sciences. It has been stated that improvement in the quality of education would also help in expanding the domain of university and also bring a change in its marketing domain [5]. Some of the institutes perform some evaluation using feedback form which students are given to fill up [6]. The pressure to maintain top quality of services in institutes makes the study of service quality and satisfaction of utmost importance [7][8]. This all leads to student’s loyalty towards the institute which has proved to be valuable as the strategic theme for the institute [9]. Student’s loyalty is believed to have a positive relation with institutes educational better performance [10] [11]. Oliver (1997) proposed a loyalty model consisting of four stages such as belief, affect, intentions and action [12] [13]. These three co0ncepts of satisfaction, loyalty, and reputation have repeatedly been included in previous frameworks and -models [14] [15]. The Course Experience Questionnaire was made to cover different aspects such as workload of their course, their skill development and quality of education they perceived and study its impact on student’s satisfaction, loyalty, and WOM along with studying the impact of student’s satisfaction over its loyalty and WOM. The purposes of the present research are: 1. To study the outcome of medical course experience on student’s satisfaction, loyalty, and word-ofmouth. 2. To conclude domination of student’s satisfaction over loyalty. 3. To determine the consequence of student’s loyalty over word-of-mouth. 2. Methodology The study was conducted in different medical institutes of Delhi, India. Students were asked to fill out a CEQ with thirty-five items of which nine items were related to demographic details, nine items were related to satisfaction, loyalty and word-of-mouth and rest were related to the medical course experience. The analysis was performed on 207 responses. Responses were collected both through online and offline means. Respondents were inquired to fill out their responses on a system of 1 to 5. Also, respondents were given the option of can’t say if necessary. Only students studying in medical colleges in the undergraduate or postgraduate course were given the form. Respondents took around 10-15 minutes to fill up the questionnaire. Factor analysis and regression are the main two methods used to analyze the student’s responses and evaluate results. 3. Hypothesis Formation Hypotheses are formed by assessing the importance of good quality in higher education through works published earlier on the same. Use of CEQ is one of the quantitative instruments that is used to study student’s approach to learning based on the difference in facilities provided by different institutions. Satisfaction is felt when an individual’s experience meets its expectations [14]. Various facets lead to a student’s satisfaction [1]. These factors can be based on institutional facilities such as teaching staff quality, the interaction of faculties with students and regularity of examinations being conducted. According to previous results, student’s loyalty is seemed to impart a positive impact on its satisfaction and performance of institution [15]. Word-of-mouth is considered to be directly driven by institute’s image and reputation. Reputation can be formed by various factors such as campus reputation, location, and placements [16]. Based on these arguments, following hypothesis has been formed: H1: Course experience influence student’s satisfaction.
Sakshi Pandey et al. / Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018) 84–91 Sakshi Pandey/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
86
3
H2: Course experience influences student’s loyalty. H3: Course experience influences student’s word-of-mouth. H4: Overall student’s satisfaction influences loyalty. H5: Student’s loyalty influences its reputation of the university.
Satisfaction
Quality of Teaching Course Assessment
Loyalty Workload Workload
Word of Mouth
Figure 1: Theoretical Model
4. Data collection and results A total of around of 280 forms were sent out, of which 218 responses were filled. After excluding missing data, a total of 207 responses was left on which analysis was performed. We conducted extensive statistical analysis to assess the psychometric characteristics of the CEQ. SPSS Windows Version 23.0 was used to conduct all statistical analysis of these valid responses, 38.2 percent were male, and 59.4 percent were female. 4.1 Data collection based on demographic variables 200 150 100 50 0
186 83
123
111
115
93
90
79
72 27
20
3
13
12
Figure 2: Demographic Variable-1
150 100 50 0
127 73
71 7
2
45
83
118 61 8
34
24
Figure 3: Demographic Variable-2
19
49 10
88
4
Sakshi Pandey et al. / Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018) 84–91 Sakshi Pandey and Pankaj Deshwal/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
87
4.1 Factor Analysis and Reliability Factor analysis using SPSS has performed that generated factors of CEQ. Two items with very low inter-item correlation below 0.3 were deleted. Retained 16 items generated four factors explaining 57.865 % of the variance. These factors were: Quality of teaching Course assessment Workload Skill development Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test describes the proportion of data that is fit for factors. It measures the sampling competence for each item and the complete model. The world-over accepted value of KMO is above 0.6. In our study, it comes out to be 0.778 which is considered to be good. X2 comes out to be 922.194 with degrees of freedom equal to 120 and p-value(Sig) is equal to .000 which is less than .05 indicating that analysis is valid. Table 1: Analysis Output (Variance) Initial Eigen values
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Var.
Cum.
Total
Var.
Cum.
Total
Var.
Cum.
Component Total 1
4.542
28.389
28.389
4.542
28.389
28.389
3.680
23.003
23.003
2
2.126
13.284
41.674
2.126
13.284
41.674
1.941
12.128
35.131
3
1.390
8.689
50.363
1.390
8.689
50.363
1.860
11.626
46.757
4
1.200
7.503
57.865
1.200
7.503
57.865
1.777
11.108
57.865
Eigen values for each factor are listed in Table 1. These eigen values exemplify variance explained by each factor. Hence, the variance explained is 57.865 percent. Variance illustrated by each factor is listed: Factor 1 -23.003% Factor 2- 12.128% Factor 3 - 11.626% Factor 4 - 11.108% Table 2: Factor Analysis
Items/Dimensions
Factor loading
Quality of Teaching 1. Lecturers spend much time giving feedback on your work.
.683
2. Lecturers understood the problems students had with their studies.
.750
3. The lecturers undertook every effort to make the subject entertaining.
.525
4. The lecturers made it clear of their expectations from students.
.586
Course Assessment 6. An enormous number of questions in examinations was related to facts.
.621
7. To get good grades, a student needs to have a good memory.
.652
8. The staff laid more emphasis on what students had learned by heart than what they understood.
.771
Workload 9. The workload was massive.
.832
11. There was much pressure because of academics during this course.
.823
12. The sheer volume of this course could not be entirely comprehended.
.389
Sakshi Pandey et al. / Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018) 84–91 Sakshi Pandey/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
88
5
Skill Development 13. This course has enhanced my interpretive skills.
.632
14. This course enhanced my skills to perform well in teamwork.
.580
15. This course made me more confident when new problems occurred.
.798
16. The programme resulted in progression of my communication skills.
.793
17. The course refined my examining-solving skills.
.841
18. The program helped me develop my drafting skills.
.774
Rotated component matrix describes factor loadings which represent the interrelationship between variables and component. Each variable seems to be loaded highly towards one factor and less towards the other factors. Loadings with less than 0.3 are suppressed. Reliability of different factors of CEQ was measured employing Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Croncbach's alpha measures the internal consistency which signifies how well items of same factors measure same construct or idea. Alpha Coefficient of all items was found to be 0.701 which is in an acceptable range. 4.2 Regression Outputs Linear regression is conducted which estimates the association amidst a dependent and an independent variable and form an equation between the two. Independent variables are the factors formed in factor analysis which is used up to study the association with student’s satisfaction, loyalty, and word-of-mouth. Further, Regression works out a statement to minimize san between fitted line and data points. R-squared evaluates how data is distributed across the regression line. Regression assumes that observations of data are independent of each other. Beta (standardized regression coefficient) interprets how strongly each independent factor influences the dependent variable. It is the degree of transformation in reliant variable apiece of modification in the independent factor. X1: Quality of teaching X2: Course Assessment X3: Workload X4: Skill development Y1 : Student’s satisfaction Y2: Student’s loyalty Y3 : Student’s word-of-mouth Table 3: Regression outputs Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Durbin-Watson Impact of course experience on satisfaction .640a .410 .398 1.823 Impact of course experience on loyalty .486a .236 .221 1.984 a Impact of course experience on word-of-mouth .525 .276 .262 2.041 Table 4: Coefficients
Model
Coefficients (Uns.) Coefficients (Sta.) B Std. Error Beta Impact of course experience on satisfaction (Constant) 1.048 .471 Teaching Quality .397 .077 .321 Assessment -.005 .063 -.004 Workload -.187 .080 -.138 Skill development .478 .079 .373 Impact of course experience on loyalty (Constant) 2.318 .455 Quality of Teaching .070 .074 .067 Assessment .010 .061 .011 Workload -.109 .078 -.094 Skill development .466 .077 .428 Impact of course experience on word-of-mouth (Constant) 2.618 .525 Quality of Teaching .208 .085 .168
t 2.223 5.189 -.072 -2.331 6.024 5.096 .951 .172 -1.401 6.083 4.991 2.448
Sig. .027 .000 .943 .021 .000 .000 .343 .864 .163 .000 .000 .015
6
Sakshi Pandey et al. / Procedia Computer Science 132 (2018) 84–91 Sakshi Pandey and Pankaj Deshwal/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000 Assessment Workload Skill development
-.050 -.249 .434
.070 .089 .088
-.047 -.182 .337
89 -.716 .475 -2.782 .006 4.913 .000
Durbin-Watson test in table 3 for impact on satisfaction produces a value equal to 1.823 which is close to 2 that states correlation between dimensional factors and student’s satisfaction. Adjusted R2 = .398 which means 40% of satisfaction is explained by dimensions obtained. For impact on loyalty, Durbin-Watson produces a value equal to 1. 984. Adjusted R2 = .221, p
