The determinants of recommendation intention and student satisfaction in private higher institutions: Empirical evidence from Kazakhstan

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics.

	Frequency	Percentage
Age
Under 18	18	14.2
19	39	30.7
20	32	25.2
21	19	15.0
Above 22	19	15.0
Missing	2	1.6
Total	129	100.0
Academic Year
1st year	11	8.5
2nd year	42	32.6
3rd year	42	32.6
4th year	30	23.3
Missing	4	3.1
Total	129	100.0
Gender
Male	56	43.4
Female	72	56.8
Missing	1	0.8
Total	129	100.0

Figure 1. Research Model.

Note: Solid (dotted) lines represent the (not) supported hypotheses.

Table 2. Standardized Confirmatory Factor Loadings, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE).

Variable	Factor Loadings	AVE	CR
Recommendation Intention (WOM) (Cronbach α = .943)
I intend to talk about K University with other people.	0.927	0.895	0.945
I intend to recommend K University to others.	0.965
Satisfaction toward the University (SAT) (Cronbach α = .884)
I am satisfied to be studying at K University.	0.846	0.728	0.889
K University meets the expectations that I had before enrolling.	0.882
In general, I like K University.	0.831
Academic Performance (AP) (Cronbach α = .824)
My level of academic achievement is good.	0.811	0.796	0.796
I am satisfied with the results I have achieved.	0.892
University’s Soft Power (USP) (Cronbach α = .924)
I enjoy the academic programs.	0.841	0.756	0.925
I appreciate my professors’ expertise.	0.825
I appreciate the quality of the undergraduate programs.	0.907
I appreciate the quality of the education.	0.901
University’s Hard Power (UHP) (Cronbach α = .783)
I like the location of the campus.	0.658	0.495	0.797
I like the size of the campus.	0.766
I like the facilities on campus.	0.707
I like the landscaping on campus.	0.680
Student’s Perception about University’s Philosophy (SPUP) (Cronbach α = .888)
I believe that we manifest individualized care in the care we show for each member of the K University community.	0.818	0.669	0.890
I believe that K University is inclusive.	0.794
I believe that K University is pragmatic, grounding the education it provides in the realities of everyday life.	0.798
Through its curricula, programs and services, the university offers students practical solutions for their higher education, career advancement, and personal growth needs.	0.859
Students’ Social Environment (SSE) (Cronbach α = .922)
My classmates are friendly.	0.810	0.668	0.923
My classmates are smart and clever.	0.743
My classmates are considerate.	0.780
Time spent with classmates is pleasant.	0.827
My classmates are creative; they inspire me.	0.890
My classmates are interesting.	0.845

Note: Answers were based on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

Table 3. Convergent and Discriminant Validities: Fornell-Larcker Criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio

	WOM	SAT	AP	USP	UHP	SPUP	SSE
WOM	0.946	0.802	0.475	0.695	0.537	0.769	0.593
SAT	0.823**	0.853	0.607	0.852	0.440	0.799	0.576
AP	0.499**	0.618**	0.892	0.626	0.481	0.530	0.422
USP	0.702**	0.843**	0.621**	0.869	0.446	0.821	0.542
UHP	0.518**	0.442**	0.479**	0.424**	0.704	0.610	0.389
SPUP	0.785**	0.794**	0.527**	0.816**	0.603**	0.818	0.695
SSE	0.587**	0.556**	0.399**	0.517**	0.375*	0.675**	0.817

Note: Numbers on the diagonal (in italics) denote the square roots of the AVE. The Fornell-Larcker criteria (inter-scale correlations) are below the diagonal (*p < 0.5; **p < 0.01) and the HTMT ratios are above the diagonal. All abbreviations are as noted in Table 2.

Table 4. Results of the structural model: hypothesis testing.

	Path	Path coefficient	C.R.	Results
H1a	USP → SAT	.342	2.511*	Supported
H1b	USP → AP	.699	3.619**	Supported
H2a	UHP → SAT	−.001	−.004	Not supported
H2b	UHP → AP	.533	2.440*	Supported
H3a	SPUP → SAT	.370	2.493*	Supported
H3b	SPUP → AP	−.257	−1.136	Not supported
H4a	SSE → SAT	.071	.883	Not supported
H4b	SSE → AP	.129	1.014	Not supported
H5	AP → SAT	.214	2.460*	Supported
H6a	AP → WOM	−.192	−1.503	Not supported
H6b	SAT → WOM	1.335	8.388**	Supported

Note: * p < 0.5; ** p < 0.01.

All abbreviations are as noted in Table 2.