Factors influencing students’ intention to enroll in Bachelor of Science in Biology: A structural equation modelling approach

Figures & data

Figure 1. Concept model of the study.

Table 1. Distribution of participants when grouped according to socio-demographic profiles (n = 416)

Socio-demographic profiles	Category	n	%
Sex	Male	165	39.66
	Female	251	60.34
Grade Level	Grade 11	150	36.06
	Grade 12	266	63.94
Type of secondary school where enrolled	Private	142	34.13
	Public	251	60.34
	Science High School	23	5.53
Track enrolled	Academic	326*	78.37
	Technical-Vocational Livelihood	90	21.63
Type of academic strand enrolled (n = 326)	Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM)	237	72.70
	Business, Accountancy, Management (BAM)	20	6.14
	General Academic Strand (GAS)	42	12.88
	Humanities, Education, Social Sciences (HESS)	27	8.28
Area of residence	Northern	109	26.20
in Cebu	Central or within the tri-cities	234	56.25
	Southern	73	17.55

Table 2. Constructs of the scale with the items assigned and their corresponding references

Constructs	Item code and statement	Number of items	References
University Image [UI] The university …	[UI1] has high quality premises (i.e., vision, mission, and goals) [UI2] provides high quality education and training. [UI3] is known for its esteemed research records. [UI4] is committed to community extension activities. [UI5] is known for its internationalization of science curricular programs. [UI6] has reputable rank against other nearby HEIs. [UI7] offers a good quality of student’s life. [UI8] is known for its employable graduates. [UI9] receives international recognition. [UI10] produces graduates who aced licensure examinations.	10	Gaspar & Soares (2021); Gutiérrez-Villar et al. (2022); Krzysztof & Bogdan (2020); Snelling & Boruch (1970)
Perceived Program Quality [PPQ] The undergraduate degree program …	[PPQ1] has academic reputation. [PPQ2] is academically competitive as compared to other programs. [PPQ3] has an opportunity to major in area of interest. [PPQ4] has available tutoring services. [PPQ5] has available academic advisory services. [PPQ6] provides opportunity to travel abroad while pursuing the degree.	6	Abubakar (2017); Aldosary & Assaf (1996)
Perceived Career Opportunities [PCO] If I finish the degree program, I will have	[PCO1] the opportunity to get a job. [PCO2] a decent salary. [PCO3] a prestigious job. [PCO4] an opportunity to work abroad. [PCO5] intellectual development. [PCO6] improve my life situation.	6	Abubakar (2017); Aldosary & Assaf (1996); Gaspar & Soares (2021)
Individual Factor
Student Characteristics [SC] In this degree program,	[SC1] I know its career progression. [SC2] I am interested. [SC3] I have the academic ability to thrive. [SC4] I have the socio-economic status that fits the financial requirements.	4	Abubakar(2017); Aldosary & Assaf(1996); Chapman(1981)
External Factors
Influence of Significant People [ISP] I received advise to pursue this undergraduate degree program from …	[ISP1] faculty lecturers teaching in the same institution. [ISP2] my friends. [ISP3] my parents. [ISP4] my SHS career guidance counselor. [ISP5] my science teacher.	5	Abubakar(2017); Aldosary & Assaf(1996); Chapman(1981); Gaspar & Soares(2021); Snelling & Boruch(1970)
Marketing Factor [MF] The university invites prospect students to pursue the undergraduate degree program by	[MF1] sending mails. [MF2] hosting advertisements in different social media platforms. [MF3] joining university fairs. [MF4] organizing campus visits. [MF5] hosting career fairs.	5	Abubakar(2017); Chapman(1981); Gaspar & Soares(2021)
Fixed University Characteristics [FUC] The university …	[FUC1] offers reasonable tuition fees. [FUC2] has close proximity to our house. [FUC3] has impressive science facilities. [FUC4] has convenient admission process. [FUC5] provides scholarship opportunities. [FUC6] has low faculty to student ratio. [FUC7] maintains a safe and clean learning environment. [FUC8] has a collection of vast learning resources.	8	Abubakar(2017); Gaspar & Soares(2021); Snelling & Boruch(1970)
Intention to Enroll [IE]	[IE1] I am interested to pursuing an undergraduate degree program in Biology. [IE2] I like to know in-depth information about BS Biology. [IE3] I plan to enroll BS Biology in the future.	3	Solikhah et al.(2016)

Table 3. Model data fit indices results

Model fit indices	Proposed threshold value	Source	Resulting value
CFI	>0.80	Garson(2006)	0.880
TLI	>0.85	Sharma et al.(2005)	0.871
RMSEA	<0.08	Kenny et al.(2014)	0.062
SRMR	≤0.08	Hu & Betler(1999)	0.054
Chi-square/df ratio	<3.00	Hair et al.(2009)	2.620

Table 4. Convergent and internal consistency results of the scale

Constructs	Item	Standardized factor loading	Average variance extracted	Composite reliability
University Image	UI1	0.725	0.565	0.929
	UI2	0.726
	UI3	0.745
	UI4	0.727
	UI5	0.751
	UI6	0.765
	UI7	0.772
	UI8	0.760
	UI9	0.771
	UI10	0.775
Perceived Program Quality	PPQ1	0.748	0.556	0.882
	PPQ2	0.756
	PPQ3	0.757
	PPQ4	0.702
	PPQ5	0.803
	PPQ6	0.701
Perceived Career Opportunities	PCO1	0.782	0.628	0.910
	PCO2	0.806
	PCO3	0.828
	PCO4	0.781
	PCO5	0.775
	PCO6	0.783
Student Characteristics	SC1	0.781	0.582	0.848
	SC2	0.810
	SC3	0.758
	SC4	0.699
Influence of Significant People	ISP1	0.773	0.623	0.892
	ISP2	0.800
	ISP3	0.801
	ISP4	0.838
	ISP5	0.730
Marketing Factor	MF1	0.672	0.634	0.895
	MF2	0.675
	MF3	0.870
	MF4	0.854
	MF5	0.881
Fixed University Characteristics	FUC1	0.657	0.498	0.886
	FUC2	0.553
	FUC3	0.807
	FUC4	0.849
	FUC5	0.689
	FUC6	0.513
	FUC7	0.688
	FUC8	0.816
Intention to Enroll	IE1	0.874	0.720	0.885
	IE2	0.832
	IE3	0.839

Table 5. Discriminant validity results

Variable	UI	PPQ	PCO	SC	ISP	MF	FUC	IE
UI	1.000
PPQ	0.717**	1.000
PCO	0.537**	0.622**	1.000
SC	0.511**	0.617**	.594**	1.000
ISP	0.424**	0.524**	0.474**	0.685**	1.000
MF	0.527**	0.600**	0.470**	0.588**	0.601**	1.000
FUC	0.570**	0.624**	.565**	0.611**	0.585**	0.662**	1.000
IE	0.322**	0.386**	0.375**	0.574**	0.521**	0.405**	0.413**	1.000
AVE	0.565	0.556	0.628	0.582	0.623	0.634	0.498	0.720
√AVE	0.752	0.746	0.793	0.763	0.789	0.796	0.706	0.849
Mean	4.120*	4.030*	4.280**	3.940*	3.790*	3.920*	4.000*	3.670*
SD	0.570	0.580	0.590	0.700	0.770	0.640	0.560	0.870

Note for mean. 1.00–1.80 = Strongly Disagree; 1.81–2.60 = Agree; 2.61–3.40 = Neutral; 3.41–4.20 = Agree*; 4.21–5.00 = Strongly Agree**

Table 6. Structural model estimates

Hypothesized path		Standardized beta	T value	p-value	Decision
H1	Intention to Enroll←Student Characteristics	0.622	5.277	***	Supported
H2	University Image←Influence of Significant People	0. 566	9.534	***	Supported
H3	Perceived Program Quality←Influence of Significant People	0.378	7.587	***	Supported
H4	Perceived Career Opportunities←Influence of Significant People	0.639	10.814	***	Supported
H5	Intention to Enroll←Influence of Significant People	0.181	1.219	0.223	Rejected
H6	Intention to Enroll←Marketing Factor	−0.008	−0.105	0.917	Rejected
H7	Intention to Enroll←Fixed University Characteristics	−0.008	−0.750	0.454	Rejected
H8	Perceived Program Quality←University Image	0.575	10.202	***	Supported
H9	Intention to Enroll←University Image	0.016	0.204	0.838	Rejected
H10	Intention to Enroll←Perceived Program Quality	−0.075	−0.759	0.448	Rejected
H11	Intention to Enroll←Perceived Career Opportunities	−0.024	−0.393	0.694	Rejected

Statistical Significance. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, n.s. non-significant

Figure 2. Distribution of students according to their intention to enroll in BS Biology at CTU (n = 416).

Gaspar, A. M., & Soares, J. M. (2021). Factors influencing the choice of higher education institutions in Angola. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 13(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJEAPS2020.0680

 Google Scholar

Gutiérrez-Villar, B., Alcaide Pulido, P., & Carbonero-Ruz, M. (2022). Measuring a university’s image: Is reputation an influential factor? Education Sciences, 12(1), 19. 12(19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krzysztof, G., & Bogdan, S. (2020). Determinants of building image and reputation of university towards its stakeholders. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 35(1), 29–56. https://doi.org/10.2478/minib-2020-0008

 Google Scholar

Snelling, W. R., & Boruch, R. (1970). Factors influencing student choice of college and course of study. Journal of Chemical Education, 47(5), 326–330. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed047p326

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abubakar, N. I. (2017). Factors affecting students’ choice of programmes in the faculty of renewable natural resources of the university for development studies, nyankpala campus - Ghana. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 5(12), 199–19.

 Google Scholar

Aldosary, A. S., & Assaf, S. A. (1996). Analysis of factors influencing the selection of college majors by newly admitted students. Higher Education Policy, 9(3), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(96)00013-X

 Google Scholar

Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490–505. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981837

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Solikhah, A., Hartoyo Hartoyo, H., & Yuliati, L. N. (2016). The influence of personality, motivation, brand image, and environment on students’ intention in choosing Bogor Agricultural university (IBP). Journal of Consumer Sciences, 1(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.29244/jcs.1.1.14-32

 Google Scholar

Garson, G. D. (2006). Structural equation modeling. G. David Garson and Statistical Associates Publishing.

 Google Scholar

Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods and Research, 44(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hu, L. T., & Betler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.

 Google Scholar