Printer Friendly

Students' loyalty in higher education: the roles of affective commitment, service co-creation and engagement/Lealtad de los estudiantes en educacion superior: los roles del compromiso afectivo, la co-creacion del servicio y el engagement/Loyaute des etudiants dans I' enseignement superieur: les roles de l'engagement affectif, la co-creation du service et l'engagement.

1. Introduction

Facing an increase in both supply and demand for postgraduate and continuous education, many universities are making efforts to improve their competitive position in the education market. To achieve this, they focus their strategies on aspects which they consider to be value-adding differentiators such as academic quality, reputation, improvement in ranking and increasing the brand's value (Hazelkorn, 2013). However, other aspects related to the emotional dimension are beginning to be considered relevant to generate loyalty to a university regarding the provision of educational services, since this contributes to the establishment of a dynamic long-term relationship with the organization. Recent research emphasizes the need to deepen the knowledge about the effect of poorly studied variables of the market (Kumar, 2015) and educational services (Cavazos and Encinas, 2016, Ribes and Peralt, 2016), such as affective commitment, service co-creation, engagement (Maskell and Collins, 2017) and the loyalty of university students. Therefore, this research aims to analyze the impact of affective commitment to the university, participation in the co-creation of the service and customer engagement to the loyalty of postgraduate students.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Affective Commitment and Participation in the co-creation of the service

Organizational commitment is a product of individual-organization transactions and is linked to the deployment of positive attitudes that derive from the person-organization psychological relationship (Allen and Meyer, 1996). According to the component model, there are three types of commitment: normative, affective and continuity; which are present with different intensity in each person linked to an organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991).

The normative commitment represents the loyalty derived from a sense of obligation towards the company; the continuity commitment is based on a perceived need to remain in it (Panaccio and Vandenberghe, 2012), and the affective commitment refers to emotional attachment related to participation and identification with the organization (Carmeli and Freund, 2009).

Recently, research on this topic began to focus on how affective engagement affects different constructs that impact consumers (Liu and Mattila, 2015). Emotional engagement represents the emotional bond of an individual with an organization, valuing their involvement or membership with the firm (Allen and Meyer, 1990b). In this commitment, the person perceives that their needs - essentially the psychological ones - are satisfied, which stimulates the emotional attachment and the social identification with the organization (Meyer and Allen 1984, Rayton 2006, Chiang, Nunez, Martin and Salazar, 2010; Lam and Liu, 2014). Therefore, when the affective commitment works, voluntary continuity is fostered in the relationship and participation with the organization (Anvari and Seliman, 2010).

Commonly, the affective commitment is studied within work environments. However, it has also been applied in the understanding of consumers (Evanschitzky, Brock, and Blut, 2011), analyzing its effect on aspects such as trust (Morgan and Hunt 1994) (Harrison-Walker, 2001) and even loyalty (Evanchitzky et al., 2006; Mattila, 2004); as an opportunity to analyze their relationship with other variables, which leads to new possible sources of competitive advantage for an organization (Omar and Urteaga, 2008).

Some researchers consider that co-creation of value conforms to two dimensions, participation and consumer citizenship (Bove, Pervan, Beatty and Shiu, 2009). Customer participation in services is understood as a required, explicit, expected and necessary behavior for the successful production and delivery of the service (Groth, 2005). Therefore, customer participation and involvement are indispensable to achieve the co-creation of the service, becoming a critical organizational issue (Mustak, Jaakkola, Halinen, and Kaartemo, 2016). Clients with greater affective commitment to the organization are more actively involved in co-creating value-for-service behaviors, even in tose offered by higher education institutions (Lengnick-Hall, Claycomb and Inks, 2000; Yi and Gong, 2013), so the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: The affective commitment has a positive impact directly on the participation in the co-creation of the service.

2.2. Affective Commitment and Customer Engagement

The affective commitment has been considered as a substantive force of the identification and the involvement of an individual with a specific organization (Riketta, 2002). On the other hand, engagement has been defined as an individual's positive mental state and achievement characterized by their vigor, dedication and concentration in the tasks to be performed (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker, 2002; Van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal, Nass, Pirner, Verhoef, 2010).

The concept of customer-focused engagement emerges from the new theories of marketing regarding services, which emphasize its role and experiences in value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). In the application of such construct to educational management, students are expected to be actively involved in the services offered by the institution (Blasco, 2014), becoming institutional satisfied allies, and thus improving their persistence, learning and performance (Bryson, 2016). Others suggest that engagement on students involves taking a more active role in assessing, assuring, and improving the quality of the educational experience (Crawford and Derricott, 2017). Given that the affective commitment implies a positive attitudinal link with the university, it will be expected to have a direct effect on student engagement with the institution; therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The affective commitment affects positive and directly the engagement of postgraduate students with the university.

2.3. Commitment and loyalty

Commitment demonstrates the client's desire to maintain a relationship with the organization, thereby giving them a greater margin of confidence to respond to the actions of the competition (Suarez, Vazquez and Diaz, 2007). From it emerges a relational stability and a feeling of loyalty, making it unlikely to abandon the relationship and granting it longevity by resolving the problems that arise (Gillian and Bello, 2002).

Loyalty commitment is expected to have a positive effect on loyalty, as loyal consumers will repeat future purchases or acquisitions at the same organization despite the efforts of other organizations to attract them (Zhang, Dixit, and Friedman, 2010). Previous research on the service sector has found that affective engagement affects loyalty (Mattila, 2004, Evanschitzky et al., 2006, Yang, Chem, and Chien, 2014). In the scope of educational services, the following hypothesis is established:

H3: Affective commitment affects positive and directly the loyalty of graduate students

2.4. Participation in the co-creation of service and loyalty

The co-creation experience entails a personal interaction with the organization (Boswijk, Thijssen and Peelen, 2005) that facilitates value creation through the client's motivation and willingness to engage in the service (Payne, Storbacka, and Frow, 2008). Previous research has confirmed that there is a significant relationship between co-creation and attitudinal loyalty, which has a conative or intentional character toward repeating a purchase (Cossio-silva, Revilla-Camacho, Vega-Vazquez, and Palacios-Florencio, 2016).

Student loyalty has become a strategic aspect for institutions offering higher education; there is a positive relationship between their satisfaction and the performance of an educational institution in a long-term relationship (Helgesen and Nesset, 2007). Loyalty in higher education does not end at the level of studies degree (Landazuri and Leon, 2013) since the demand of permanent formation by the labor market generates a change of vision that has impacted the strategy of educational institutions. Both the undergraduate and graduate students are potential candidates who'd enroll in other programs (postgraduate, courses, and seminars). This extended view of training requirements operates in broader cycles within the framework of the ongoing training process (Petrella, 2008).

In this regard, a deep bond with students facilitates loyalty, a sense of belonging and pride towards the institution (Landazuri and Leon, 2012). This loyalty can be achieved by turning them into participants of the educational center's life so they collaborate, feel useful and needed, as well as involved in the different activities and projects in addition to contributing to their own satisfaction by improving the quality of the service provided to them. Some students may simply enjoy participating in the service delivery process; that is to say, they find the fact of participating as intrinsically attractive (Bitner, Faranda, Hubbert and Zeithaml, 1997), and this can have repercussions on loyalty. Therefore, the following hypothesis is established:

H4: Participation of students in the co-creation of private university services positively affects their loyalty to the institution.

2.5. Customer Engagement and Loyalty

The concept of engagement has shifted from the field of psychology and organizational behavior to marketing (Islam and Rahman, 2016a). In this area, a client voluntarily and disinterestedly develops behaviors such as commitment, loyalty and a positive word-of-mouth that, among other aspects, makes customer engagement essential for the long-term performance of the client's organization (Cambra et al., 2012) and customer relationship management (Vivek, Beatty, Dalela, and Morgan, 2014).

Several theories have been used to explain customer engagement (Islam and Rahman, 2016a). However, there are three theories consolidated in the literature. Firstly, in Marketing Relationships due to the importance of establishing stable and lasting relationships beneficial for both parties (Gronroos, 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Gummesson, 1987). These relationships add value to the product or service, allowing consumers to become indifferent and loyal. Secondly, it emphasizes the Theory of Reciprocity which states that when the organization invests in the client, the client will feel indebted and will want to correspond to the organization by showing non-transactional behaviors such as loyalty, commitment, or recommendations to their circle of friends (Palmatier, Jarvis, Bechkoff and Kardes, 2009); and the dominant logic of services theory which maintains that products include elements of service in relation to their use value, and the consumer creates the real value for the user (Gronroos, 2011).

Previous research in different industries has found that customer engagement positively impacts their loyalty (Hollebeek, 2011, Gummerus et al., 2012, Islam and Rahman, 2016b, So et al., 2016). But to our knowledge, it has not been investigated if customer engagement positively affects loyalty, so testing the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5: Engagement of graduate students positive and directly affects university loyalty.

It is possible that there is an indirect relationship between two variables when a third mediates the effect between them (Ruiz, Pardo, and San Martin, 2010). Therefore, considering the structure of the conceptual model, it is necessary to verify if there is an indirect relation between commitment and loyalty, mediated as much by participation in the co-creation of the service as by the engagement of the client. Thus, it is proposed that:

H6a: There is an indirect relationship between affective commitment and loyalty mediated by student participation in the co-creation of services at private universities.

H6b: There is an indirect relationship between affective commitment and loyalty mediated by student engagement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study design and sample

An empirical, explanatory and transversal investigation was developed (Hernandez Fernandez and Baptista, 2010). For the collection of the data, a personal survey technique was applied. The unit of analysis was formed by students enrolled in postgraduate degrees, both master's and doctorate, from a private university in Mexico. A non-probabilistic sampling technique was used for convenience, resulting in 484 subjects surveyed.

3.2. Scale

The survey was developed based on different scales (Table 1), among which one corresponded to the latent dependent variable Loyalty (LE) in the Covariance Structure Model, and three assigned as independent latent variables: creation of service (PCS), affective commitment (AC) and customer engagement (CE).

3.3. Hypothetical model

To analyze the influence of predictor variables on the outcome variable, a conceptual model that poses the hypotheses to be examined was developed (Figure 1.)

The model proposed in Figure 1 presents 4 reflective constructs, including participation in the co-creation of the service (PCS) as a second-order reflective-reflective order consisting of the constructs: information search (IS), sharing Information (SI), responsible behavior (RB) and personal interaction (PI). For the treatment of the data, the analysis of the multicollinearity between the items was performed in order to estimate the existence of redundant variables (bivariate correlations greater than 0.80, cutoff point suggested by Albashrawi, 2015).

A two-step modeling procedure was used to examine the MEC (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1998) of Figure 1. Models were evaluated with respect to convergent and discriminant validity to measure the extent to which the set of indicators exactly represents the construct. The criterion used is related to the size of the load to evaluate the reliability of the indicator with the construct that it intends to measure (Seidel and Back, 2009). In the seven reflective models of measurement, including those of second order, only those indicators that had a standardized factor load [greater than or equal to] 0.5 were retained (Johnson and Stevens, 2001). The convergent validity was measured by factor load (cut-off point of 0.5 or more) (Johnson and Stevens, 2001) and reliability index (cut-off point between 0.50 and 0.60) (Cheah, Wan Abdul Manan, and Zabidi-Hussin, 2010; Sridharan, Deng, Kirk and Corbitt, 2010). In a satisfactory discriminant validity, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) should be greater than the square of the correlation between the pair of constructs (Bhattacherjee and Premkumar, 2004, Wixom and Todd, 2005). In addition, the correlation coefficients between constructs must be less than the corresponding reliability coefficient (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).

The items used to measure the seven reflective constructs did not present a normal multivariate distribution (Mardia test of bias and kurtosis, p value of bias = 0.000 and p value of kurtosis = 0.000). However, since the scales used correspond to Likert scales of 7 categories, and by making use of the assumption that procedures for interval scales can be applied to the Likert scale with 5 to 7 categories (Garson, 2012), model estimates have been performed using the Spearman correlation matrix shown in Table 2. The analysis of the multicollinearity between the items allowed to note that the bivariate correlations between x14 and x15, x18 with x20 and x27 with x28 were greater than 0.80, so it was not necessary to eliminate x15, x20 and x28.

The fit of the model was determined by the Satorra-Bentler scaled x2 test of goodness of fit (a non-significant p-value is desirable), given the conditions of non-normality of the data (Allan, 2010; Bentler, 1993; Randall, Martin, Johnson and Poon, 2012); (Bentler, 1992, Crowley and Fan, 1997, Musil, Jones, and Warner, 1998), as well as the Bentler-Bonet comparative index (CFI). And the square root of the mean square of the approximation error (RMSEA), being less than 0.08 indicates a good fit of the model, Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The most parsimonious model was chosen with the Lagrange multiplier (Bosompra, 2001). The conceptual model in Figure 1 was adjusted using the SEM package through statistical software R 3.0.1.

4. Results

4.1 Characteristics of the subjects of study

The characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 3 where it is shown that the majority of the respondents (93.0%) attended a master's degree. More than half were women (66.6%) and almost 70% reported having some type of scholarship. In addition, the average age of the sample was 30.05 years of age.

4.2 Structural Equation Modelling of Student Loyalty to the University

Table 4 shows the factor loads and the other estimators. The model shows a good fit with Bentler CFI = 0.91 and RMSEA = 0.06 even though Chi square is significant (p value <0.05). The measurement models for the 7 latent variables are represented either by the indicators considered which are significant (figure 2 and table 4 in the annex). Therefore, in the proposed model the measurement structure is satisfactory in all latent variables. The criteria of convergent and discriminant validity were met for each sub-scale (Table 5). Between the AC and LE constructs only the second criterion of discriminant validity is met, which provides sufficient evidence of the validity of the construct.

It was found that the affective commitment (AC) has a positive and significant effect ([31 = 0.632) on the participation in the co-creation of the service (PCS), proving hypothesis 1. Also, PCS directly and positively affects loyalty (LE) ([34 = 0.142) and hypothesis 4 was verified (figure 2). The results indicate that the mediation of the total effect of AC on LE through PCS (AC, PCS, LE) is significant ([beta]1 * [beta]4 = .632 * .142 = .090), boosting the effect of AC on LE with a Positive effect ([beta]3 = 0.990), and a significant effect of total LE in 1,080 (0.990 + 0.090). The overall effect greater than 1 is valid due to the absence of multicollinearity in the data (Joreskog, 1999), so H6a is checked.

As for the second order dimensionality of the Participation in Service Co-creation (PCS), the model indicates that the strength of the relationship lays between factors of first order and second order with loads above 0.50, except for Information Search (IS) with load of 0.428; although Responsible Behavior (RB) is the strongest PCS measurement (0.853). It can be said that when considering the weights of the four dimensions, PCS is a predominantly responsible behavior (RB) with other complementary characteristics.

A direct and positive effect of the Affective Commitment (CA) on Customer Engagement ([32 = 0.750) was verified, but the relationship of EC with LE was not significant ([35 = 0.001) and H5 was rejected; and therefore, it was found that EC did not average the relation between AC and LE, rejecting H6b.

5. Discussion and conclusions

This empirical research evidences that the loyalty of postgraduate students to the university is explained by both affective commitment and participation in the co-creation of the service. Emotional commitment is a powerful emotional force that stimulates ties and identification (Allen and Meyer, 1990a) with the university institution, directly influencing three constructs: participation, student engagement (client) and loyalty. Nonetheless, commitment indirectly affects loyalty when mediated by participation, but not through student engagement.

These results coincide, on one hand, with what has been found in the educational sector when studying the relationship between the attitudinal link and the active involvement of the student with engagement (Blasco, 2014), through works that validate the relationship between affective commitment and Co-creation of services (Yi and Gong, 2013) and studies on the impact of commitment on loyalty (Castaheda and Luque, 2008).

However, despite previous research in other sectors showing the relationship between customer engagement and loyalty (Palmatier et al., 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010), the results of this research when applied in the education sector did not show any significance regarding this relationship. One possible explanation may be due to the complexity of the interaction of services in the education sector, since the student, in addition to being the primary consumer, is the co-producer of his education (Duque, 2003), which increases his autonomy in relation to the institution (Nuno, 2003). On the other hand, since the student assumes different roles in the academic field, such as academic, civic or client / service user (Fitzgerald et al., 2016), it is possible that the latter is the least associated with loyalty.

Engagement is relevant to value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), which applied to the field of marketing of educational services actively involves the participant during service interaction (Gupta et al., 2015). Therefore, it is advisable to develop strategies that strengthen this relationship in the field of educational marketing.

These findings also highlight the importance of including in the postgraduate marketing strategy the construction of a relationship based on the generation of an emotional commitment. Higher education institutions should focus their marketing efforts on gaining the goodwill of students to engage emotionally with the institution and on generating higher active participation oriented towards building a long-term relationship with their graduate students. Among the limitations of the study it is mentioned that the collected sample was non-probabilistic. Since a hypothesis testing assumption consists of collecting a random sample (Garson, 2012), the results of the tests and their generalization must be interpreted with caution (Taylor-Powell, 1998). Among future studies, the relevance of exploring in greater depth the co-creation of the service applied in the educational field is identified.

6. References

Albashrawi, M. (2015). The Impact of Governance on Corporate Charter. IOS Journal of Business and Management, 17(8), 31-38.

Allan, N.P. (2010). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Effortful Control: Comparing a Two Factor Model Consisting of Hot and Cool Latent Variables and a General Domain Model. (Thesis). Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA. Format from: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/170

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990a). Organizational Socialization Tactics: A Longitudinal Analysis of Links to Newcomers' Commitment and Role Orientation. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 847-858.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P (1990b). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: An Examination of Construct Validity. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 49(3), 252-276.

Anvari, R., & Seliman, S. (2010). Personal Needs Assessment Approach in Strategic Training and Affective Commitment. International Journal of Business and Management 5(7), 144-157.

Bentler, P. M. (1992). EQS Structural Equation Program Manual. Los Angeles, USA: BMDP Statistical Software.

Bentler, P. M. (1993). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles, USA: BMDP Statistical Software.

Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitudes towards information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS quarterly, 28(2), 229-254.

Bitner, M. J., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1997). Customer contributions and roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), 193-205.

Blasco, L. (2014). Los procesos de co-creacion y el engagement del cliente: Un analisis empirico en medios interactivos. (Tesis). Universidad de Zaragoza. Zaragoza, Espana. Recuperado 02/03/2017 de: http://zaguan.unizar.es/re-cord/13508/files/TESIS-2014-019.pdf

Bosompra, K. (2001). Determinants of condom use intentions of university students in Ghana: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1057-1069.

Boswijk, A., Thijssen, J. P. T., & Peelen, E. (2005). A new perspective on the experience economy: meaningful experiences. The European Centre for the Experience Economy. Articles on experiences, 3, 76-99.

Bove, L. L., Pervan, S. J., Beatty, S. E., & Shiu, E. (2009). Service worker role in encouraging customer organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 698-705.

Bryson, C. (2016). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. International Journal for Academic development, 21(1), 15-20.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In K. Bollen, J. Long, (Eds.). Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, USA: SAGE Publishing.

Cambra, J., Melero I., Sese, F. (2012) Aproximacion al concepto de engagement: Un estudio exploratorio en el sector de la telefonia movil. Universia Business Review, 33-(84), 84-103.

Carmeli, A., & Freund, A. (2009). Linking Perceived External Prestige and Intentions to Leave the Organization: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment. Journal of Social Service Research, 35(3), 236-250.

Castaneda, J., Lugue, T. (2008). Estudio de la lealtad del cliente a sitios web de contenido gratuito. Universidad de Granada. Revista Europea de Direccion y Economia de la Empresa, 17(4), 115-138.

Cavazos, J., & Encinas, F. C. (2016). Influence of academic engagement in graduate students' loyalty: A Structural Eguation Modelling approach. Estudios Gerenciales, 32(140), 228-238.

Cheah, W. L., Wan Abdul Manan, W. M., & Zabidi-Hussin, Z. A. M. H. (2010). A structural eguation model of the determinants of malnutrition among children in rural Kelantan, Malaysia. Rural and Remote Health, 10, 1248.

Chiang, M., Nunez, A., Martin, M. J., y Salazar, M. (2010). Compromiso del Trabajador hacia su Organizacion y la relacion con el Clima Organizacional: Un Analisis de Genero y Edad. Panorama Socioeconomic, 28(40), 92-103.

Cossio-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M. A., Vega-Vazguez, M., & Palacios-Florencio, B. (2016). Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1621-1625.

Crawford, K., & Derricott, D. (2017). Developing student engagement in higher education. Lincoln, UK: SAGE Publishing.

Crowley, S. L., & Fan, X. (1997). Structural Eguation Modeling: Basic Concepts and Applications in Personality Assessment Research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 508-531.

Dugue, L. (2003, septiembre). La satisfaccion del usuario del servicio 'formacion educativa universitaria (pp. 88-99). Economia de la educacion AEDE XII. Asociacion de Economia de la Educacion (AEDE), Zaragoza, Espana.

Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G. R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., & Meffert, H. (2006). The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(12), 1207-1213.

Evanschitzky, H., Brock, C., & Blut, M. (2011). Will you tolerate this? The impact of affective commitment on complaint intention and postrecovery behavior. Journal of Service Research, 14(4), 410-425.

Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2016). The Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education: Reflections and Future Directions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 245-253.

Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing Statistical Assumptions. Asheboro, USA: Statistical Associates Publishing, Blue Book Series.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of marketing research, XXV, 186-192.

Gillian, D., & Bello, D. (2002). Two sides to attitudinal commitment: The effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 24-43.

Gronroos, C. (1994). Quo vadis, Marketing? Toward a relationship marketing paradigm, Journal of Marketing Management, 10(5), 347-360.

Gronroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279-301.

Groth, M. (2005). Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. Journal of management, 31(1), 7-27.

Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlstrom, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857-877.

Gummesson, E. (1987). The new marketing-developing long-term interactive relationships. Long Range Planning, 20(A), 10-20.

Gupta, A., Calfs, K. J., Marshall, S. J., Robinson, T. N., Rock, C. L., Huang, J. S., ... Epstein-Corbin, M. (2015). Clinical trial management of participant recruitment enrollment, engagement, and retention in the SMART study using a Marketing and Information Technology (MARKIT) model. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 42, 185-195.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). London, UK: Prentice Hall International.

Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service guality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60-75.

Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are reshaping higher education. In V Climent, F Michavila, y M. Ripolles, (Eds.), Los rankings universitarios. Mitos y Realidades. Castellon, Espana: Tecnos.

Helgesen, O., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126-143.

Hernandez, R., Fernandez, C., Baptista, M. (2010). Metodologia de la Investigacion (5a ed.). Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico: McGraw Hill.

Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573.

Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2016a). The transpiring journey of customer engagement research in marketing: A systematic review of the past decade. Management Decision, 54(8), 2008-2034.

Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2016b). Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on customer engagement: An empirical study of fashion apparel brands. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 7(1), 45-59.

Johnson, B., Stevens, J. J. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the school level environment questionnaire (SLEQ). International Journal of Learning Envrionments Research, 4(3), 325-344.

Joreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be. Chicago, USA: Scientific Software International. Retrieved 22/08/2015 from: http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/tech-docs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficient-be.pdf

Kumar, V. (2015). Evolution of marketing as a discipline: what has happened and what to look out for, Journal of Marketing, 79(19), 1-9.

Lam, L. W., & Liu, Y. (2014). The identity-based explanation of affective commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(3), 321-340.

Landazuri, A., Leon, V. (2013). Marketing relacional, vision centrada en el cliente. Caso de estudio: colegios particulares. (Tesis Doctoral). Universidad Catolica de Santiago de Guayaquil, Ecuador. http://repositorio.ucsg.edu.ec/bits-tream/123456789/383/l/T-UCSG-POS-COM-2.pdf

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Claycomb, V., & Inks, L. W. (2000). From recipient to contributor: Examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 359-383.

Liu, S. Q., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). "I Want to Help" versus "I Am Just Mad" How Affective Commitment Influences Customer Feedback Decisions. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56(2), 213-222.

Maskell, E. C., Maskell, E. C., Collins, L., & Collins, L. (2017). Measuring student engagement in UK higher education: do surveys deliver? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9(2), 226-241.

Mattila, A. S. (2004). The impact of service failures on customer loyalty: The moderating role of affective commitment. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(2), 134-149.

Meyer, J. R., & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the "Side-Bet Theory" of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372-378.

Meyer, J. R., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management, 1(1), 61-89.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of marketing, 58, 20-38.

Musil, C., Jones, S. y Warner, C. (1998). Structural equation modeling and its relationship to multiple regression and factor analysis. Research in Nursing and Health, 21, 271-281.

Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E., Halinen, A., & Kaartemo, V. (2016). Customer participation management: developing a comprehensive framework and a research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 27(3), 250-275.

Nuno, G. (2003). Marketing en los Servicios de Education: Modelos de Perception de Calidad. (Tesis Doctoral), Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Espana.

Omar, A., & Urteaga, A. F. (2008). Personal values and organizational commitment. Ensenanza e Investigation en Psicologia, 13(2), 353-372.

Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkoff, J. R. & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The role of customer gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1-18.

Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2012). Five-factor model of personality and organizational commitment: The mediating role of positive and negative affective states. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 647-658.

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83-96.

Petrella, C. (2008). Gestion de la relacion de las universidades con docentes, estudiantes y egresados. Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion, 47(5), 2-14.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79-87.

Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing Volume, 18(3), 5-14.

Randall, G. K., Martin, P., Johnson, M. A., & Poon, L.W. (2012). Successful Aging: A Psychosocial Resources Model for Very Old Adults. Journal of Aging Research, 1-11. doi:10.1155/2012/934649

Rayton, B. A. (2006). Examining the interconnection of job satisfaction and organizational commitment: an application of the bivariate probit model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 139-154.

Ribes, G., & Peralt, A. (2016). Structural eguation modeling of co-creation and its influence on the student's satisfaction and loyalty towards university. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 291, 257-263.

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266.

Ruiz, M., Pardo, A., & San Martin, R. (2010). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Papeles del Psicologo, 31(1), 34-45.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.

Seidel, G., & Back, A. (2009, June). Success factor validation for global Erp.17th. European Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, Verona, Italy.

So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2016). The role of customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to tourism brands. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 64-78.

Sridharan, B., Deng, H., Kirk, J., & Corbitt, B.J. (2010, June). Structural Equation Modeling for Evaluating the user perceptions of E-learning effectiveness in Higher Education. 18th European Conference in Information Systems, Association for Information Systems: Pretoria, South Africa.

Suarez, L., Vazguez, R., Diaz, A. (2007). La confianza y el compromiso como determinantes de la lealtad: Una aplicacion a las relaciones de las agencias de viaje minoristas con sus clientes. Universidad de Oviedo, 04(1), 68-87.

Taylor-Powell, E. (1998). Questionnaire Design: Asking guestions with a purpose. Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Extension.

Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. (2010) Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research Directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.

Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, V., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(4), 401-420.

Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.

Yang, C. C., Chen, P. S., & Chien, Y H. (2014). Customer expertise, affective commitment, customer participation, and loyalty in B y B Services. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 6(4), 174-180.

Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation, Journal of Business Research, 66, 1279-1284.

Zhang, J. Q., Dixit, A., & Friedmann, R. (2010). Customer loyalty and lifetime value: an empirical investigation of consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(2), 127-140.

Francisca Cecilia Encinas Orozco (1)

Fulltime Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Universidad de Sonora, Nogales Campus, Mexico. e-mail: ceciliaencinas@nogales.uson.mx

Judith Cavazos Arroyo (2)

Researcher Professor, Interdisciplinary Center of Postgraduate courses and Research, Universidad Popular Autonoma del Estado de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico. e-mail: judith.cavazos@upaep.mx

(1) BA. Public Management, Universidad de Sonora, PhD. Management and Marketing, Universidad Popular Autonoma del Estado de Puebla, Mexico.

(2) BA. Management, Universidad de las Americas, PhD. Management and Marketing, Universidad Popular Autonoma del Estado de Puebla, Mexico.

Research article, PUBUNDEX-COLCIENCIAS clasification

Submitted: 8/10/2016

Reviewed: 1/03/2017

Accepted: 3/04/2017

Core topic: Marketing

JEL classification: M31
Table 1. Constructs and indicators

Constructs and indicators          Constructs and indicators
Information search (a)             Client's Engagement (a)
I have requested information  X1   My relationship with this  X17
about the servicesoffered          university has made me
by the university                  feel appreciated
I have searched for           X2   I feel I have a personal   X18
information on the location        bond with this university
of university services
                                   I believe that this university  X19
I have paid attention to      X3   has cared for me as a person
the behavior of other
students in the correct
use of university
services
                                   I believe that I have  X20
Share Information (a)              established a special relationship
                                   with this university
When I use university         X4   Affective commitment (a)
services, I clearly explain
to employees what I need
                                   I believe my personal values  X21
I give appropriate            X5   and the values of this university
information to university          are very similar
employees when I use their
services
                                   I am willing to make all my  X22
                                   effort to help this university
I provide the necessary       X6   achieve its goals
information so that the
employees of the university
can carry out their
work                               I am proud to be a part of this  X23
                                   university
I answer to university        X7   This university inspires me to   X24
employees all the questions        give my best in my studies
related to their services
Responsible behavior (a)           I really worry about the  X25
                                   success of this university
I perform all the tasks that  X8   This university is the  X26
the university establishes         best choice among the available
                                   educational alternatives
I adequately fulfill all      X9   Loyalty (a)
the behaviors expected by
the university
I fulfill all                 X10  I speak positive about this  X27
responsibilities with the          university to other people
university
Personal interaction (a)           I recommend this university to  X28
                                   anyone who asks me for advice
I follow all orders or        X11
instructions from                  I encourage friends and family  X29
university employees               to study at this university
I am friendly towards         X12
university employees               This university was my first  X30
                                   choice for my studies
I'm kind to university        X13
employees                          I would consider returning to  X31
I'm polite to university      X14  study at this university in the
employees                          next few years
I am gracious to
university employees          X15
I do not act rudely
toward university
employees                     X16

a 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients

                   IS             SI                   RB
           x1    x2     x3      x4      x5      x6     x7    x8

IS   x1    1
x2         0.7    1
x3         0.4    0.4     1
SI   x4    0.5    0.5     0.34    1
x5         0.4    0.4     0.38    0.7    1
x6         0.4    0.4     0.35    0.6    0.8    1
x7         0.3    0.3     0.27    0.6    0.6    0.7    1
RB   x8    0.2    0.2     0.11    0.3    0.3    0.4    0.5    1
     x9    0.2    0.2     0.08    0.3    0.4    0.3    0.4    0.6
     x10   0.2    0.2     0.07    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.4    0.6
PI   x11   0.2    0.1     0.04    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.4
     x12   0.1    0.1    -0       0.3    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.3
     x13   0.1    0.1    -0.1     0.3    0.2    0.3    0.3    0.3
     x14   0.1    0.1    -0       0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3
     x15   0.1    0.1    -0       0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3
     x16   0.1    0.1    -0       0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3
AC   x17   0.2    0.2     0.19    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.2
     x18   0.2    0.2     0.26    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2
     x19   0.3    0.3     0.31    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.2
     x20   0.3    0.2     0.29    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2
     x21   0.2    0.2     0.1     0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3
     x22   0.2    0.2     0.08    0.3    0.2    0.3    0.3    0.3
CE   x23   0.3    0.2     0.08    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.3
x24        0.3    0.2     0.11    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3
x25        0.2    0.2     0.18    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3
x26        0.2    0.3     0.22    0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2
LE   x27   0.2    0.2     0.06    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3
     x28   0.2    0.2     0.05    0.2    0.2    0.1    0.2    0.3
     x29   0.2    0.2     0.18    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2
     x30   0.2    0.3     0.19    0.1    0.1    0.1    0.2    0.1
     x31   0.3    0.3     0.15    0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3

             PI               AC               CE               LE
           x9    x10     x11    x12    x13    x14    x15    x16    x17

IS   x1
x2
x3
SI   x4
x5
x6
x7
RB   x8
     x9     1
     x10    0.8    1
PI   x11    0.5    0.4    1
     x12    0.4    0.4    0.6    1
     x13    0.4    0.4    0.6    0.8    1
     x14    0.4    0.4    0.5    0.7    0.8    1
     x15    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.6    0.7    0.8    1
     x16    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.5    0.6    0.7    0.7    1
AC   x17    0.2    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.4    1
     x18    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.7
     x19    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.6
     x20    0.2    0.2    0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.7
     x21    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.2    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.5
     x22    0.3    0.3    0.4    0.3    0.4    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.5
CE   x23    0.3    0.4    0.3    0.3    0.4    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.5
x24         0.3    0.4    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.5
x25         0.4    0.4    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.5
x26         0.2    0.2    0.2    0.1    0.1    0.1    0.2    0.2    0.5
LE   x27    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.2    0.5
     x28    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.5
     x29    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.1    0.5
     x30    0.1    0.1    0.1    0      0      0.1    0      0.1    0.3
     x31    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.4

             x18    x19    x20    x21    x22    x23    x24    x25

IS   x1
x2
x3
SI   x4
x5
x6
x7
RB   x8
     x9
     x10
PI   x11
     x12
     x13
     x14
     x15
     x16
AC   x17
     x18      1
     x19      0.8    1
     x20      0.8    0.8    1
     x21      0.5    0.5    0.5    1
     x22      0.4    0.4    0.5    0.7    1
CE   x23      0.5    0.5    0.5    0.6    0.7    1
x24           0.5    0.5    0.5    0.6    0.6    0.8    1
x25           0.5    0.5    0.5    0.5    0.6    0.7    0.7    1
x26           0.5    0.5    0.5    0.5    0.5    0.5    0.6    0.6
LE   x27      0.4    0.4    0.4    0.5    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.7
     x28      0.4    0.4    0.5    0.5    0.6    0.7    0.6    0.6
     x29      0.5    0.5    0.5    0.5    0.5    0.6    0.5    0.6
     x30      0.4    0.4    0.5    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.5
     x31      0.4    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.5    0.5    0.5

             x26    x27    x28    x29    x30

IS   x1
x2
x3
SI   x4
x5
x6
x7
RB   x8
     x9
     x10
PI   x11
     x12
     x13
     x14
     x15
     x16
AC   x17
     x18
     x19
     x20
     x21
     x22
CE   x23
x24
x25
x26           1
LE   x27      0.6    1
     x28      0.6    0.8    1
     x29      0.6    0.7    0.7    1
     x30      0.6    0.5    0.5    0.6    1
     x31      0.5    0.4    0.5    0.5    0.4

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 3. Main characteristics of the study sample

Characteristic    n  Minimum  Maximum  Mean    D.S.

Age             422       22       69  30.05  6.449
                                       %
                  n           Masters           PHD
Graduate level  468              93.0           7.1
                                Woman           Man
Gender          476              66.6          33.4
                                  Yes            No
Scholarship     474              69.6          30.4

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 4. Standardized estimators of the SEM model with robust,
significant standard errors with alpha = 0.001

Construct                      tem  Parametert       Model
                                                    (Estimator)
                                                     I

PCS                            S    [lambda]11             0.428
                               I    [lambda]21             0.591
                               B    [lambda]31             0.853
                               I    [lambda]41             0.731
                                    [phi]1,1               0.60041873
IS                             1    [lambda]52             0.85249316
                               2    [lambda]62             0.87750534
                               3    [lambda]72             0.48367889
                                    [zeta]1                0.81698705
                                    [delta]1               0.27325542
                                    [delta]2               0.22998438
                                    [delta]3               0.76605474
SI                             4    [lambda]83             0.79156942
                               5    [lambda]93             0.89983636
                               6    [lambda]10,3           0.87310897
                               7    [lambda]11,3           0.77375399
                                    [zeta]3                0.65023407
                                    [delta]4               0.37341786
                                    [delta]5               0.19029453
                                    [delta]6               0.23768073
                                    [delta]7               0.40130477
RB                             8    [lambda]12,4           0.7344357
                               9    [lambda]13,4           0.88478546
                               10   [lambda]14,4           0.9042277
                                    [zeta]3                0.27183177
                                    [delta]8               0.4606042
                                    [delta]9               0.21715469
                                    [delta]10              0.18237226
PI                             11   [lambda]15,5           0.64101068
                               12   [lambda]16,5           0.85493789
                               13   [lambda]17,5           0.92942253
                               14   [lambda]18,5           0.89496963
                               15   [lambda]19,5           0.62749786
                               16   [zeta]4                0.46533952
                                    [delta]11              0.58910531
                                    [delta]12              0.26908121
                                    [delta]13              0.13617376
                                    [delta]14              0.19902936
                                    [delta]15              0.60624643
AC                             21   [lambda]20,6           0.7621286
                               22   [lambda]21,6           0.75322564
                               23   [lambda]22,6           0.88567241
                               24   [lambda]23,6           0.88688792
                               25   [lambda]24,6           0.84263734
                               26   [lambda]25,6           0.77534238
                                    [zeta]5                1
                                    [delta]16              0.41916
                                    [delta]17              0.43265114
                                    [delta]18              0.21558439
                                    [delta]19      021342982
                                    [delta]20              0.28996231
                                    [delta]21              0.39884419
CE                             17   [lambda]26,7           0.80460959
                               18   [lambda]27,7           0.86253429
                               19   [lambda]28,7           0.89043729
                               20   [phi]2,2               0.43746086
                                    [delta]22              0.35260342
                                    [delta]23              0.25603461
                                    [delta]24              0.20712144
LE                             27   [lambda]31,8           0.86374
                               28   [lambda]32,8
                               29   [lambda]33,8           0.86382728
                               30   [lambda]34,8           0.64368733
                               31   [lambda]35,8           0.69867576
                                    [phi]3,3               0.17780514
                                    [delta]27              0.25395321
                                    [delta]28
                                    [delta]29              0.25380243
                                    [delta]30              0.58566662
                                    [delta]31              0.51185219
                                    [beta]1 (H1)           0.632
                                    [beta]2 (H2)           0.750
                                    [beta]3 (H3)           0.990
                                    [beta]4 (H4)          -0.142
                                    [beta]5(H5)           -0.001
Goodness of Fit
Indexes
[chi square] independent
model (a)                                               7764.3
[chi square] de
Satorra-Bentler (b)                                      979.65
Bentler CFI                                                0.914
RMSEA                                                      0.060

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 5. Criteria of convergent and discriminant validity of the
proposed model

Construct  Reliability  Correlation between
           coefficient                       factors ij

IS         0.79         PCS <-->             EC          [phi]12
SI         0.90         PCS <-->             CA          [phi]13
RB         0.88         PCS <-->             LE          [phi]14
PI         0.92         EC <-->              CA          [phi]23
PCS        0.75         EC <-->              LE          [phi]24
CE         0.93         CA <-->              LE          [phi]34
AC         0.92
LE         0.90

Construct        Reliability    Reliability    [phi]ij2  IVE i  IVE j
                 coefficient i  coefficient j

IS         0.48  0.75           0.93           0.23      0.45   0.73
SI         0.63  0.75           0.92           0.40      0.45   0.67
RB         0.48  0.75           0.90           0.23      0.45   0.6
PI         0.75  0.93           0.92           0.56      0.73   0.67
PCS        0.67  0.93           0.90           0.45      0.73   0.6
CE         0.90  0.92           0.90           0.81      0.67   0.6
AC
LE

Source: Author's own elaboration.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Universidad del Valle
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Orozco, Francisca Cecilia Encinas; Arroyo, Judith Cavazos
Publication:Cuadernos de Administracion
Article Type:Ensayo
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Words:7790
Previous Article:The use of interactive and diagnostic control systems in the management of an undergraduate course/El uso de sistemas de control interactivo y...
Next Article:Editorial.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters