Decision comfort and student engagement in higher education

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 1. Measurement items and factor loadings.

Constructs and Sources	Items	Factor Loadings
Attitude (Brahm & Jenert, 2015)	AT1: I find it attractive to study at this university	0.93
	AT2: I can identify with this university	0.87
	AT3: I like to be a student of this university	0.93
Subjective Norm (Brahm & Jenert, 2015)	SN1: Most people important to me support that I study at this university	0.9
	SN2: Friends approve that I study at this university	0.9
	SN3: My family approves that I study at this university	0.89
Perceive Personal Control (Fishman, 2014)	PC1: I have a great deal of control over my academic performance in my courses	0.73
	PC2: The more effort I put into my courses, the better I do in them	0.81
	PC3: No matter what I do, I can't seem to do well in my courses	0.76
Goal Intention	GI1: I am planning to achieve the goal (e.g. good grades, successfully complete the course)	0.94
Tang et al. (2016)	GI2: I will make an effort to achieve the goal (e.g. good grades, successfully complete the course)	0.94
	GI3: I intend to achieve the goal (e.g. good grades, successfully complete the course)	0.93
Co-production Behavior (Higher Order) (Guo et al., 2013)	Compliance	0.72
	Individual Initiative	0.93
	Civic Virtue	0.87
Compliance	COM1: I try to do what lecturers/tutors ask me to do	0.84
	COM2: I follow the recommended unit outlines/guidelines	0.85
	COM3: I respond to any inquiries from the university	0.82
Individual Initiative	II1: I put the educational guidance and suggestions to good use in my student life	0.77
	II2:I actively seek advice from the university on educational decisions	0.81
	II3: I consider myself a highly participating student of this university	0.82
	II4: I provide feedback about this university and its programmes	0.77
Civic Virtue	CV1: I communicate with the university about the potential teaching and service related issues	0.91
	CV2: I make suggestions to the university about how to improve its services	0.95
	CV3: I let the university know of ways that can better serve the my needs	0.94
Decision Comfort (Parker et al., 2016)	DC1: I am comfortable with choosing this university over others	0.91
	DC2: I feel good about choosing this university over others	0.89
	DC3: Whether or not it is ‘the best choice’, I am okay with choosing UWA over others	0.75
	DC4: Although I don't know if this university is the best, I feel perfectly comfortable choice I made.	0.83
Student Engagement (Higher Order) (Grillo & Damacena, 2015)	Enthusiasm	0.9
	Attention	0.95
	Social Interaction	0.81
Enthusiasm	ENH1: I feel excited about the course at the university	0.84
	ENH2: I am heavily into this course at the university	0.89
	ENH3: I spend a lot of my discretionary time thinking about the topics of this course at this university	0.81
	ENH4: I am passionate about this course at this university	0.88
Attention	ATN1: Anything related to the subject of the course grabs my attention	0.82
	ATN2: I pay a lot of attention to anything about this course	0.87
	ATN3: I like to learn more about this course	0.76
	ATN4: I focus a great deal of attention on classes of this course	0.82
	ATN5: I spend a lot of time thinking about this course	0.83
	ATN6: I concentrate a lot of things related to this course	0.83
Social Interaction	SIN1: In general I like to get involved in discussions with classmates in this course	0.88
	SIN2: I enjoy interacting with like-minded others in the class of this course	0.89
	SIN3: I like to actively participate in the discussions of this course	0.90
	SIN4: In general, I really like to exchange ideas with other people about this course	0.91

Table 2. Reliabilities, correlations and validities.

	CA	CR	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Attitude	0.90	0.94	0.83
2. Subjective Norm	0.88	0.93	0.56	0.81
3. Personal Control	0.65	0.81	0.40	0.36	0.59
4. Goal Intention	0.93	0.87	0.34	0.43	0.54	0.87
5. Co-production	0.90	0.92	0.33	0.15	0.30	0.34	0.52
6. Decision Comfort	0.87	0.91	0.69	0.49	0.38	0.31	0.22	0.72
7. Engagement	0.94	0.95	0.32	0.14	0.19	0.30	0.51	0.27	0.57

Note: CA: Cronbach’s Alpha; CR: Composite Reliability; The diagonal values in bold indicate the average variances extracted (AVE).

The scores in the lower diagonal indicate inter-construct correlations (IC)

Table 3. Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Attitude
2. Subjective Norm	0.62
3. Personal Control	0.51	0.48
4. Goal Intention	0.35	0.47	0.69
5. Co-production	0.39	0.22	0.41	0.39
6. Decision Comfort	0.76	0.56	0.51	0.34	0.28
7. Engagement	0.34	0.16	0.24	0.33	0.55	0.29

Table 4. Result of structural equation analyses.

Hypothesis	Relationship	PC	t-value
H1	Attitude → Goal Intention	0.03	0.44^ns
H2	Subjective Norm → Goal Intention	0.25	3.69***
H3	Personal Control → Goal Intention	0.44	7.32***
H4	Goal Intention → Co-production	0.34	5.91***
H5	Goal Intention → Decision Comfort	0.31	4.22***
H6	Co-production → Engagement	0.47	8.63***
H7	Decision Comfort → Engagement	0.17	3.01**
Variance explained (R^2)
Goal Intention		0.35
Co-production		0.12
Decision Comfort		0.10
Engagement		0.29

Note: PC: Path Coefficient; ** p < .001; ***p < .001

Brahm, T., & Jenert, T. (2015). On the assessment of attitudes towards studying development and validation of a questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fishman, E. J. (2014). With great control comes great responsibility: The relationship between perceived academic control, student responsibility, and self-regulation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12057

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tang, C., Guo, L., & Gopinath, M. (2016). A social-cognitive model of consumer well-being: A longitudinal exploration of the role of the service organization. Journal of Service Research, 19(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516637675

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guo, L., Arnould, E. J., Gruen, T. W., & Tang, C. (2013). Socializing to co-produce: Pathways to consumers’ financial well-being. Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670513483904

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parker, J. R., Lehmann, D. R., & Xie, Y. (2016). Decision comfort. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grillo, T. L., & Damacena, C. (2015). Student engagement: The role of social influence and locus of control. International Journal of Management in Education, 9(4), 466–485. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2015.072098

 Google Scholar