Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

RESEARCH STUDY

Linking Student

Satisfaction

and Retention

By Laurie A. Schreiner, Ph.D., Azusa Paciﬁ c University

Student satisfaction is of compelling interest to colleges and universities

as they seek to continually improve the learning environment for students,

meet the expectations of their constituent groups and legislative bodies,

and demonstrate their institutional effectiveness. Unlike service industries,

which hold satisfaction as a goal in and of itself, colleges and universities

typically perceive satisfaction as a means to an end. Higher education

tends to care about student satisfaction because of its potential impact on

student motivation, retention, recruitment efforts, and fundraising. But as

Astin (1977) asserted more than three decades ago, “it is difﬁ cult to argue

that student satisfaction can be legitimately subordinated to any other

educational outcome” (p. 164).

There is surprisingly little research empirically linking student satisfaction

to retention, despite the widespread belief that there is indeed a positive

relationship between the two. In an effort to determine whether student

satisfaction is predictive of retention the following year (beyond what

can be predicted about retention based on student and institutional

characteristics), we conducted a study of 27,816 students at 65 four-year

institutions. What follows is a description of the study, its major ﬁ ndings,

and the implications for four-year colleges and universities. Practical

recommendations are included so that institutions can use these results

immediately to impact their policies and practices.

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

The Participating Students and Institutions

A total of 65 four-year institutions participated in this study. Institutions were invited to participate

in this study if they had administered the online version of the

Student Satisfaction Inventory

(SSI)

(Schreiner & Juillerat, 1994) to a sample of students during the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and/or

2007-2008 academic years. Participating institutions provided us with the current enrollment

status of each responding student for the following fall term after the SSI had been administered.

Once the data were collected and screened for missing values, a total of 27,816 students had

complete records for analysis.

The 65 institutions represented the spectrum of Carnegie classiﬁ cations, size, and selectivity, as

can be seen in Table 1. Almost three-fourths of the institutions were private; 40.0 percent were

Baccalaureate only, 38.5 percent were Master’s level, and 15.4 percent were Doctoral institutions.

The institutions were from all areas of the United States, but a disproportionate number (43

percent) were from the Midwest. Data were collected about each institution’s selectivity (measured

as percent of applicants admitted), its gender balance on campus, total enrollment, cost of tuition,

percent of students receiving ﬁ nancial aid, percent of students of color on campus, percent of

students living on campus, and ﬁ rst-time, full-time student retention rate. The institutions admitted

an average of 72 percent of their applicants, had an average gender balance of 60 percent women

and 40 percent men, and averaged about 20.9 percent students of color on campus. Retention

rates at these institutions ranged from 59 percent to 91 percent, with an average of 74.8 percent—

slightly higher than the national average of 72.9 percent for four-year institutions (ACT, 2008).

The 27,816 student participants were evenly distributed across the four class levels (see Table 2). In

addition to 65.9 percent of students being female and 74.4 percent Caucasian, 66.5 percent of the

students were attending their ﬁ rst-choice institution. Most intended to achieve a bachelor’s degree

and 70 percent of the sample were employed while attending classes. Commuters and students

living on campus were equally represented in the sample.

The Instrument

The

Student Satisfaction Inventory

is a 79-item instrument published by Noel-Levitz that assesses

satisfaction on two continua. Items are phrased as positive expectations that the institution may or

may not meet (for example, “Most students feel a sense of belonging here”). Students are asked

ﬁ rst to assess how important it is to them that the institution meets each expectation, using a

seven-point response scale from

not at all important

(1) to

very important

(7). Then they are asked

to rate their level of satisfaction that the institution has met this expectation, using a seven-point

response scale from

very dissatisﬁ ed

(1) to

very satisﬁ ed

(7). Reliability of the SSI is high, with

internal consistency of = .98 and three-week test-retest

= .87. Construct validity has been

adequately established and this current study adds to the predictive validity of the instrument.

The means and standard deviations of the 20 items with the highest important scores on the SSI

are summarized in Table 3.

Logistic regression

enabled us to

measure the

extent to which

student satisfaction

predicted actual

retention four-to-

twelve months later,

after accounting

for students’

demographic

characteristics as

well as features of

the institution.

For each of the

class levels,

satisfaction

indicators almost

doubled our

ability to predict

retention beyond

what demographic

characteristics

and institutional

features could

predict.

Findings

Two methods were used in this study to determine the extent to which student satisfaction predicted

subsequent student retention. The ﬁ rst was a logistic regression analysis, using students’ enrollment

status (0=dropped out, 1 = returned) as the dependent variable. No other study to date has utilized

this methodology to determine the relationship between student satisfaction and retention. Logistic

regression enabled us to measure the extent to which student satisfaction predicted actual retention

four to twelve months later, after accounting for students’ demographic characteristics as well

as features of the institution. Such demographic characteristics included the students’ gender,

ethnicity, choice of institution at enrollment, living situation, and employment status. For

upper-level students, it also included their GPA. The institutional features that were controlled

in this study included Carnegie classiﬁ cation, selectivity, gender and racial balance, size, and cost of

tuition.

The second method was a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, with students’ response to the

question, “All in all, if you had it to do over again, would you enroll here?” used as the criterion

variable. This method enabled us to determine the relationship between students’ satisfaction

levels and their immediate sense of whether they made the right choice of institution. By using both

methods, we were able to determine the longitudinal impact of student satisfaction ratings on actual

persistence (through logistic regression) as well as the concurrent relationship between students’

levels of satisfaction and their sense of whether they would “repurchase” —a common method used

in consumer satisfaction research. Each of the methods and their results will be described in greater

detail below.

Predictors of Student Retention

A logistic regression analysis was conducted on each class level separately, using actual enrollment

status as the dependent variable. The predictor variables (independent variables) were entered

directly in three blocks: (1) students’ gender, ethnic group, degree goal, commuter status,

employment status, and whether the institution was their ﬁ rst choice; (2) institutional selectivity,

size, cost, Carnegie classiﬁ cation, location, gender balance, control (public or private), racial

composition, and percent of students living on campus; and (3) indicators of student satisfaction

from the SSI scores. Four different models assessed the predictive ability of student satisfaction:

(1) a model utilizing

global indicators

of student satisfaction (“Rate your overall satisfaction with

your experience here thus far”); (2) a model utilizing eight

scales

that were created via principal

components analysis of the satisfaction items; (3) a model using

gap scores

of the items where

importance levels were at least a six on a seven-point scale and satisfaction scores were three

or below; and (4) a model utilizing all the

satisfaction items

that applied to both residents and

commuter students. Each model was tested for its ability to ﬁ t the data, compared to the predictive

ability of students’ demographic characteristics and features of the institution alone.

Satisfaction Matters.

Across all the models and class levels, the satisfaction indicators added

signiﬁ cantly to our ability to predict student retention. Given the complexity of student retention

decisions and that we were using satisfaction ratings from four to twelve months

before

the

student actually left the institution, the total predictive ability was moderate, as expected

(statistically, the Nagelkerke R

ranged from .09 to .25, and the area under the curve ranged from

.65 to .74, depending on the satisfaction indicator used). For each of the class levels, satisfaction

indicators almost doubled our ability to predict retention beyond what demographic characteristics

and institutional features could predict. Logistic regression provides us with “odds ratios” for each

predictor in the equation. These ratios tell us how much the odds of persisting increase or decrease

with a one-point difference in the predictor (measured on a seven-point scale). For example,

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

students whose satisfaction scores on the Climate scale are only one point higher than their peers

have an 80 percent better chance of persisting. From this statistic, we can conclude that Campus

Climate is not only an important factor in students’ decisions to remain enrolled, it is the most

important factor (which we will explain later in this paper).

The More Speciﬁ c, the Better.

Although global indicators of satisfaction, such as the item “Rate your

overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far,” were signiﬁ cantly predictive of retention, the

best predictive models occurred when all the satisfaction items were used or when the gap scores

from the most important items were used. Although we saw this pattern across all class levels, it was

particularly true for sophomore retention. This ﬁ nding conﬁ rms the importance of utilizing more than

one global item to measure student satisfaction and of having a wealth of information about student

satisfaction at your ﬁ nger tips. Some of these predictive items were collapsed into scales, which

enable an institution to focus on key areas that potentially inﬂ uence retention decisions most. (Note

that these scales are slightly different from the scales in the original development of the survey.)

Creating an Inviting Climate on Campus.

The scale that was signiﬁ cantly predictive across all class

levels was

Campus Climate

, comprised of items such as

Most students feel a sense of belonging

here, I feel a sense of pride about my campus, It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this

campus, Students are made to feel welcome on this campus,

and

I generally know what’s happening

on campus.

Higher scores on this scale increased a student’s odds of persisting by as much as 80

percent. Comparing this factor across the four class levels, its greatest predictive ability was among

ﬁ rst-year students. Clearly an important part of starting students off right is to help them feel at home

on campus. Students who feel welcome, know what’s happening on campus, and feel that they

belong are more likely to return the following year.

Where a Student Goes to School Matters — A Little.

Although the institutions participating in this

study were quite different from one another, with a wide range of retention rates, these differences

were not as predictive of student retention as the satisfaction indicators were, particularly among

ﬁ rst- and second-year students. Typically demographic characteristics accounted for about 1-4

percent of the variation in persistence, and institutional features accounted for another 3-4 percent

of the variation. The satisfaction indicators, by contrast, accounted for up to 17 percent of the

variation. However, institutional features became more predictive the longer a student was enrolled,

so that among juniors and seniors this impact was most pronounced.

Many institutional characteristics were highly correlated with one another. For example, selectivity,

expense, and retention rate were signiﬁ cantly related to one another: the more selective the

institution, the higher the tuition and the higher the retention rate. After accounting for these

relationships, the institutional features that mattered most were Carnegie classiﬁ cation, gender

balance, and institutional selectivity. A ﬁ rst-year student’s odds of persisting more than quadrupled

if he or she attended a university with a Carnegie classiﬁ cation of Research/High or Very High, for

example. As we know from retention research, institutional selectivity is a key predictor of retention,

and that was the case in this study as well. The role that the campus gender balance plays in

predicting retention is also an important consideration: the further the gender ratio deviated from

50/50, the lower the odds of an individual student returning the following year. Thus, while the role

of institutional features explained relatively little about retention patterns as a whole, there are some

characteristics to keep in mind that appear to be related to students’ decisions to remain enrolled.

Institutional features are not always fully under the control of an institution, particularly in the short

term. Thus, for institutions that cannot afford to be highly selective, a conscious decision to provide

better support for the students enrolled is likely to result not only in greater satisfaction, but also

a higher likelihood of such students returning for another year. Likewise, institutions that are not

research-intensive (and thus may not have the same scope of resources or majors) may choose

to focus more intentionally on the advising experience and providing a high level of instructional

The best predictive

models occurred

when all the

satisfaction items

were used or when

the gap scores from

the most important

items were used.

This ﬁ nding conﬁ rms

the importance of

utilizing more than

one global item to

measure student

satisfaction and of

having a wealth of

information about

student satisfaction

at your ﬁ nger tips.

effectiveness to compensate for fewer majors or less resources. Finally, institutions could take a long-

term view of their gender balance and make the decision to admit fewer students in order to keep the

gender ratio in better balance. However, each of these institutional features are not as predictive of

retention as student satisfaction with the campus climate and the learning experience.

Satisfaction Varies by Class.

The predictors of retention differed across each class level. Although

demographic characteristics did not predict much of the variance in retention, they were more

predictive among the upper class levels. GPA became an increasingly powerful predictor of retention

with each rising class level, as one might expect. Institutional features were more predictive than

individual student characteristics and appear to be most inﬂ uential in explaining sophomore retention

in particular.

However, it was the role of the satisfaction indicators that varied most by class level. Global satisfaction

ratings were most predictive of ﬁ rst-year student retention and became less powerful predictors with

each rising class level. The Campus Climate scale was most predictive of retention across all class

levels, but it was more predictive at the lower class levels. The satisfaction scales as a whole were most

effective at predicting sophomore retention, especially with the addition of Instructional Effectiveness

and Advising to the mix of signiﬁ cant predictors. Thus it is important to survey student satisfaction

across all four class levels, rather than focus on only selected class levels, as the student experience is

different at each level and campus programming and communication could be tailored to the needs of

each class.

To summarize the class differences in the ability of satisfaction indicators to predict retention:

•

First-year student retention

is best predicted by Campus Climate, although global satisfaction is also

a strong predictor. Beyond attending a selective research institution with a good gender balance

on campus, the items that were most predictive of students returning for their sophomore year

included: satisfaction with being a student, meeting their expectations for advisor availability,

feeling a sense of belonging, perceiving their future major to have valuable course content,

believing that student fees are used wisely, and feeling that the campus is a safe place.

•

Sophomore retention

is best predicted by a combination of GPA, attending a selective research

institution with a good gender balance on campus, and experiencing strong satisfaction with

the Campus Climate, as well as global student satisfaction. For sophomores, satisfaction with

Instructional Effectiveness and Advising increases their chances of persisting to the junior year, as

does satisfaction with course content in their major, the variety of courses offered, enjoying being

a student, feeling a sense of belonging on campus, feeling that faculty are fair and unbiased in

their treatment of students, meeting their expectations for career services, and being satisﬁ ed with

having a comfortable place to spend time in between their classes.

•

Junior retention

is best predicted by a combination of GPA, attending a selective research institution,

and speciﬁ c items from the SSI. Global satisfaction and Campus Climate are signiﬁ cant predictors,

but not as predictive as individual items or gap scores. Higher levels of satisfaction with advisors

knowing graduation requirements, faculty availability outside of class, ability to experience

intellectual growth on campus, and having a comfortable place to spend time in between classes

increase the odds of juniors returning for their senior year.

•

Senior retention

might appear to be a moot point, but almost 10 percent of the seniors in this study

had not graduated and yet did not return to the same institution the following year after completing

the SSI. Students with higher GPAs were 37 percent more likely to return, but institutional features

explained most of the variation in persistence at this level. Students at private institutions,

Baccalaureate-Diverse, and research institutions were signiﬁ cantly more likely to persist, and a

gender imbalance, high percentage of white students, and low selectivity of a campus combined

to signiﬁ cantly reduce the odds of persistence for these seniors. Their satisfaction mattered little to

their persistence at this stage of their college careers.

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

Actual retention is a

complex phenomenon

that is impacted by so

many features beyond

an institution’s

control—the student’s

ﬁ nancial means,

the family situation,

personal difﬁ culties,

work demands—that

even highly satisﬁ ed

students may end up

leaving an institution.

But if they have

positive feelings about

their experiences and

would make the same

decisions again, then

an institution’s word-

of-mouth reputation

remains strong

and can contribute

to future success

in recruiting and

retaining students.

But Would I Do It Again?

An ultimate indicator of student satisfaction, one that translates into loyalty after students

graduate, is whether those students would choose the institution they graduated from if they could

experience their college careers all over again. Actual retention is a complex phenomenon that is

impacted by so many features beyond an institution’s control—the student’s ﬁ nancial means, the

family situation, personal difﬁ culties, work demands—that even highly satisﬁ ed students may end

up leaving an institution. But if they have positive feelings about their experiences and would make

the same decisions again, then an institution’s word-of-mouth reputation remains strong and can

contribute to future success in recruiting and retaining students.

With this factor in mind, we conducted a separate set of hierarchical multiple regression analyses

by class level, using the item “All in all, if you had it to do over again, would you enroll here?” as

the criterion variable. As with the logistic regression, we controlled for students’ demographic

characteristics and features of the institution by entering them in separate blocks of the analysis

before entering the satisfaction indicators. Because this method was a concurrent one—asking

students to rate their satisfaction with 79 items at the same time that they were asked to rate their

likelihood of going back and re-enrolling—the predictive ability was much stronger than the logistic

regression method that had a longer time span between measurements. Regardless of class level,

we were able to predict an

additional

35 percent of the variation in students’ responses to the re-

enrollment item—above and beyond what demographic characteristics and institutional features

could predict—by knowing how they responded to the eight satisfaction scales we had created.

The models incorporating these scales and the student characteristics and institutional features

explained a total of 45-47 percent of the variation in students’ desire to re-enroll.

Campus Climate remained the most predictive scale, but additional scales were also signiﬁ cantly

predictive of a student stating that he or she would enroll again. These scales included Instructional

Effectiveness and Responsiveness (particularly in admissions, ﬁ nancial aid, and avoiding the

run-around). We also found that some of the scales magniﬁ ed the effects of Campus Climate; for

example, on campuses where students were highly satisﬁ ed with safety and security or the provision

of speciﬁ c services (library, technology, bookstore, health services, tutoring, etc.), the climate of the

institution became an even better predictor of whether students would enroll again.

Our major conclusion from these two types of analyses is that satisfaction indicators from the

Student Satisfaction Inventory

—whether items, gap scores, scales, or global indices of satisfaction—

are signiﬁ cant predictors of students’ desire to enroll again, as well as of their actual enrollment

the following year—even after taking into consideration students’ demographic characteristics and

important features of the institution. Institutions can have the greatest impact on their retention

rate when they (a) utilize targeted marketing strategies to recruit students for whom the institution

is their ﬁ rst choice (when possible), (b) pay attention to gender balance and selectivity, and (c)

focus on creating a welcoming and responsive campus climate that enhances students’ learning

experiences, especially for students who did not have the institution as their ﬁ rst choice. An

important contributor to students’ perceptions of the campus climate is their academic experience;

when students have a positive experience in the classroom and are supported by advisors who are

helping them navigate the system and reach their educational goals, they are much more satisﬁ ed

with the role of being a student.

First-year students

whose signiﬁ cant

gap scores indicate

that they do not

ﬁ nd it enjoyable to

be a student are

60 percent less

likely to return as

sophomores; those

with signiﬁ cant gaps

in sense of belonging

are 39 percent less

likely, and those

who have difﬁ culty

contacting their

advisor are

17 percent less

likely to return.

Implications for Practice

The results of this ﬁ rst-ever empirical study linking student satisfaction and retention offer many

fruitful areas for campuses to explore. The following strategies and recommendations are based

on this research and targeted to each class level separately. To uncover even more ideas and

suggestions for your campus, consider conducting focus groups with students in order to understand

how their campus experiences are affecting their satisfaction and persistence.

First-Year Students: Communicate Care.

Retention among ﬁ rst-year students is more likely to occur

when students feel a sense of community—a feeling that they belong on campus and are welcome.

Campus Climate is especially crucial in this ﬁ rst year. Because ﬁ nancial issues and concerns

about safety and security are also paramount in the ﬁ rst year, it is important to communicate to

students regularly about how their money is being spent, as well as to reassure them about the

responsiveness of the campus to security issues and emergencies. First-year students are also

most likely to persist when they perceive their advisors to be readily available and approachable,

and when they are impressed with the content in the major they have chosen or are considering.

Students whose signiﬁ cant gap scores indicate that they do not ﬁ nd it enjoyable to be a student are

60 percent less likely to return as sophomores; those with signiﬁ cant gaps in sense of belonging are

39 percent less likely, and those who have difﬁ culty contacting their advisor are 17 percent less likely

to return.

Thus an institution wishing to increase ﬁ rst-to-second-year retention may consider a ﬁ rst-year

seminar or learning community where the instructor also serves as the students’ advisor, to

strengthen the likelihood of connecting to an advisor relationally as well as in terms of easy

availability. First-year seminars and learning communities also offer good opportunities for

creating a sense of community in the classroom, providing a “home” for ﬁ rst-year students

struggling to navigate a new environment, which can enhance their satisfaction with the campus

climate. Particularly if your institution was not a student’s ﬁ rst choice at enrollment, the way you

communicate with them throughout the ﬁ rst half of their ﬁ rst semester sends strong signals about

how welcome they are and how likely they will be to perceive a good ﬁ t with your campus.

Sophomores: Connect Them to Their Future.

As national research indicates that we may have postponed student attrition to the sophomore

year with many of our good programs focused on ﬁ rst-year students, it is important to note that

the SSI results become particularly useful in understanding and predicting sophomore retention.

Satisfaction with the campus climate, speciﬁ cally experiencing a sense of belonging and enjoying

being a student, is still the most signiﬁ cant predictor of sophomore retention. But student

characteristics and institutional features are also important elements of sophomore retention.

Sophomores with higher GPAs are almost three times as likely to return their junior year, for instance.

Institutional selectivity and gender balance become more important in the sophomore year as well.

Some suggestions for increasing sophomores’ satisfaction with the campus climate focus on

reducing their sense of “invisibility” on campus, as the institution turns its collective attention to

the incoming ﬁ rst-year students. Creating sophomore programs, designing courses in the general

education curriculum that focus on the sophomore year, and ﬁ nding ways to connect them to

engaging faculty are likely to increase their satisfaction in the sophomore year. Since many

sophomores become commuters, having a place to spend time between classes can become a more

important contributor to their satisfaction with the campus.

Sophomore persistence also poses unique challenges that need to be addressed. Advising, variety

of courses offered, unbiased faculty, valuable content in the major, and meeting their expectations

for career services all signiﬁ cantly predict the likelihood of sophomores returning as juniors. The

common thread that weaves these issues together is connecting sophomores to their futures. When

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

sophomores are connected to faculty who are able to engage them in the learning process and

help them connect what they are learning to the future they desire for themselves, sophomores are

more likely to feel they belong on this campus. Through an advising process that helps them explore

potential careers, settle on a rewarding major, and successfully enroll in the necessary courses at

an appropriate time, sophomores can begin to envision a possible future that energizes them and

positions their institution as the place where that future can become reality.

Juniors: Focus on Faculty.

If the sophomore year is the time for helping students envision a possible

future, the junior year is when they need the support from faculty to translate their vision into reality.

For juniors to be successful in their chosen majors, they must be academically successful—higher

GPAs more than double the odds of persisting to the senior year. But this academic success is

strongly connected to knowledgeable advisors, to students’ ability to grow intellectually, and to

faculty availability outside of class.

Thus one implication of this study for institutional planning in the junior year is to focus on the

faculty who are available to foster students’ intellectual engagement and guide them through their

major requirements. Advising in the major becomes an important strategic priority in the junior

year as students are preparing for internships, studying abroad, planning for graduate school, and

completing their requirements in a timely manner. An effective advisor for juniors not only knows

the major requirements, but can customize the best of what the major has to offer to the individual

needs of the student. And the more faculty are available outside of class to augment the advisor’s

role, the greater the chance of student success and persistence. Research partnerships with

faculty, mentoring relationships, and availability to engage in academic discussions that extend

learning outside of class all can contribute to juniors’ intellectual growth and satisfaction with their

experiences.

Conclusion

Several encouraging results emerged from this large-scale empirical study. First is that student

satisfaction is indeed connected to student persistence, as well as to the word-of-mouth reputation

of an institution. Above and beyond what can be predicted by students’ characteristics or features of

the institution, increasing student satisfaction—particularly with the campus climate—can increase

the odds of persisting, as well as signiﬁ cantly inﬂ uence students’ opinion that if they had the chance

to do it all again, they would choose this same institution. The second piece of good news is that

we can better understand the challenges of sophomore retention by using student satisfaction

indicators—and the more speciﬁ c those indicators are, the better. And ﬁ nally, we learned that

satisfaction levels not only differ across class level, but contribute differently to student persistence

at each level. As a result, the importance of disaggregating SSI data by class level provides your most

detailed road map of how to strategically address the retention challenges your institution faces.

Above and beyond

what can be predicted

by students’

characteristics

or features of the

institution, increasing

student satisfaction—

particularly with the

campus climate—can

increase the odds of

persisting, as well as

signiﬁ cantly inﬂ uence

students’ opinion that

if they had the chance

to do it all again, they

would choose this

same institution.

Characteristic

N Percentage

Carnegie Classiﬁ cation

Baccalaureate—Diverse

20 30.8%

Master’s Colleges and Universities

(medium programs)

12 18.5%

Master’s Colleges and Universities

(larger programs)

7 10.8%

Baccalaureate-Arts and Sciences 6 9.2%

Master’s Colleges and Universities

(smaller programs)

6 9.2%

Research Universities

(high research activity)

6 9.2%

Doctoral/Research Universities 3 4.6%

Research Universities

(very high research activity)

1 1.5%

Special Focus Institutions—Other 1 1.5%

Special Focus Institutions—Schools of

business and management

1 1.5%

Special Focus Institutions—Theological

seminaries, Bible colleges, and other

faith-related institutions

1 1.5%

No information

1 1.5%

Region

East

15 23.1%

South 12 18.5%

Midwest 28 43.1%

West 9 13.8%

International

1 1.5%

Location

City

26 40.0%

Suburb 14 21.5%

Town 21 32.3%

Rural 3 4.6%

No information

1 1.5%

Type

Public

16 24.6%

Private

49 75.4%

Table 1

Summary of Characteristics of Participating Institutions (N = 65)

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

Characteristic

Minimum Maximum Mean

Standard

Deviation

Percent of applicants admitted

29% 98% 71.9% 16.1%

Percent females 34% 95% 59.6% 10.8%

Percent Caucasian 1% 97% 74.4% 18.7%

Percent living on campus 15% 100% 55.6% 22.6%

Percent receiving ﬁ nancial aid 61% 100% 91.3% 9.8%

First-time fall retention rate 59% 91% 74.8% 7.4%

Total cost $8,782 $47,330 $28,410 $9,319

Total enrollment 724 28,327 4,662 5,620

Undergraduate enrollment

349 19,977 3,723 4,280

Characteristic

N Percentage

Gender

Female

18,335 65.9%

Male 9,434 33.9%

No response

47 0.2%

Ethnicity

African American

1,884 6.8%

American Indian or Alaskan Native 245 0.9%

Asian or Paciﬁ c Islander 1,175 4.2%

Caucasian 20,685 74.4%

Hispanic 1,813 6.5%

Other 684 2.5%

Prefer not to respond 1,203 4.3%

No response

127 0.5%

Employment

Full-time off campus

2,395 8.6%

Part-time off campus 8,100 29.1%

Full-time on campus 1,663 6.0%

Part-time on campus 7,184 25.8%

Not employed 8,335 30.0%

No response

139 0.5%

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of the Student Sample (N = 27,816)

Characteristic

N Percentage

Residence

On-campus

14,997 53.9%

Off-campus 12,775 45.9%

No response

44 0.2%

Educational Goal

Associate’s degree

403 1.4%

Bachelor’s degree 19,366 69.6%

Master’s degree 4,551 16.4%

Doctorate or professional degree 3,140 11.3%

Certiﬁ cation 55 0.2%

Self-improvement/pleasure 38 0.1%

Job-related training 48 0.2%

Other 157 0.6%

No response

58 0.2%

Age

18 and under

3,156 11.3%

19 to 24 21,882 78.7%

25 to 34 1,784 6.4%

35 to 44 592 2.1%

45 and over 322 1.2%

No response

80 0.3%

Class Level

Freshman

6,283 22.6%

Sophomore 6,368 22.9%

Junior 7,180 25.8%

Senior

7,985 28.7%

Table 2

continued

Demographic Characteristics of the Student Sample (N = 27,816)

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

Characteristic

N Percentage

GPA

1.99 or below

290 1.0%

2.00 – 2.49 1,820 6.5%

2.50 – 2.99 5,269 18.9%

3.00 – 3.49 9,465 34.0%

3.50 or above 9,645 34.7%

No response

1,327 4.8%

Choice of Institution at Enrollment

1st choice

18,495 66.5%

2nd choice 6,822 24.5%

3rd choice or lower 2,384 8.6%

No response

115 0.4%

Table 2

continued

Demographic Characteristics of the Student Sample (N = 27,816)

Item

Satisfaction

Mean

Standard

Deviation

The content of the courses within my major is

valuable.

5.67 1.24

The instruction in my major ﬁ eld is excellent. 5.66 1.26

My academic advisor is knowledgeable about

requirements in my major.

5.81 1.42

Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in

their ﬁ eld.

5.90 1.12

I am able to register for classes I need with

few conﬂ icts.

5.18 1.63

The quality of instruction I receive in most of

my classes is excellent.

5.62 1.24

Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 5.16 1.56

It is an enjoyable experience to be a student

on this campus.

5.67 1.33

I am able to experience intellectual growth

here.

5.80 1.16

My academic advisor is approachable. 5.79 1.47

The campus is safe and secure for all students. 5.66 1.30

Major requirements are clear and reasonable. 5.65 1.26

There is a good variety of courses provided on

this campus.

5.50 1.38

Adequate ﬁ nancial aid is available for most

students.

4.90 1.61

Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment

of individual students.

5.41 1.35

There is a commitment to academic excellence

on this campus.

5.68 1.24

This institution shows concern for students as

individuals.

5.49 1.39

Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. 5.23 1.49

Students are made to feel welcome on this

campus.

5.72 1.25

Faculty are usually available after class and

during ofﬁ ce hours.

5.81 1.18

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of 20 SSI Items with the Highest Importance Scores

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

Participating Institutions

Arcadia University, PA

Arkansas Tech University, AR

Baylor University, TX

Berea College, KY

Bethel University, MN

Biola University, CA

Bluffton University, OH

Bryan College, TN

California Lutheran University, CA

Carroll University, WI

Cedarville University, OH

Claﬁ n University, SC

Coe College, IA

Columbia College Chicago, IL

Covenant College, GA

Dakota State University, SD

Dominican University of California, CA

Edgewood College, WI

Elizabethtown College, PA

Emmanuel College, MA

Everglades University, FL

Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH

Franklin College, IN

Franklin College, Switzerland

Fresno Paciﬁ c University, CA

Graceland University, IA

Hastings College, NE

Houston Baptist University, TX

Huntington University, IN

Laboratory Institute of Merchandising, NY

Loyola University, New Orleans, LA

Manchester College, IN

Marian University, WI

Martin Luther College, MN

Master’s College and Seminary, The, CA

Mayville State University, ND

Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN

Mississippi College, MS

Montana Tech of the University of Montana, MT

New Mexico State University Main Campus, NM

Northeastern University, MA

Northwest Missouri State University, MO

Philadelphia University, PA

Quincy University, IL

Rocky Mountain College, MT

Salisbury University, MD

Shepherd University, WV

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, TX

Southwestern College, KS

St. Ambrose University, IA

Stonehill College, MA

Texas Woman’s University, TX

Trinity Christian College, IL

University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK

University of Cincinnati, Main Campus, OH

University of Evansville, IN

University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, MD

University of North Dakota Main Campus, ND

Valley City State University, ND

Virginia Wesleyan College, VA

Waynesburg University, PA

Wheaton College, MA

Widener University, PA

Wilson College, PA

Wright State University, OH

Citation:

Astin, A.W. (1977). What matters most in college: Four critical years.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schreiner, L. A., & Juillerat, S. L. (1994). The Student Satisfaction Inventory.

Iowa City, IA: Noel-Levitz.

Special thanks to Noel-Levitz for its support on this study, especially Jeff Easterling,

senior statistician, and Julie Bryant, associate vice president for retention solutions.

About the author

Laurie A. Schreiner is professor and director of the

doctoral programs in higher education at Azusa Paciﬁ c

University. She is co-author of both the Noel-Levitz

Student Satisfaction Inventory and the latest

revision of

StrengthsQuest: Discover and Develop

Your Strengths in Academics, Career, and Beyond

published by The Gallup Organization.

P051

0809

Stay informed

Receive more reports. Visit our Web page:

www.noellevitz.com/subscribe

2350 Oakdale Boulevard

Coralville, Iowa 52241-9702

Phone:

800-876-1117

319-626-8380

E-mail:

[email protected]

Web:

www.noellevitz.com

All material in this

by Noel-Levitz, Inc. Permission

is required, in most cases, to

redistribute information from

Noel-Levitz, Inc., either

in print or electronically.

Please contact us at

[email protected]

about reusing material from

this publication.

Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention

About Noel-Levitz

Noel-Levitz has served the higher education community for more than

35 years. Campus leaders turn to the ﬁ rm for consultation and resources

for student retention, student recruitment, marketing, and strategic

enrollment planning. Noel-Levitz has partnered with more than 2,000

colleges and universities throughout North America. For more information,

visit www.noellevitz.com.

Questions about this paper?

Please contact Julie Bryant, associate vice president of retention solutions,

at Noel-Levitz. E-mail [email protected], or call 1-800-876-1117.