Assessment Analysis
Noel-Levitz
Student Satisfaction Inventory
Institutional Priorities Survey
June 2010
THE OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, RESEARCH, & ASSESSMENT
Introduction
At the request of the Chancellor, the Office Institutional Effectiveness, Research, and
Assessment (OIERA) was charged with administering the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction
Survey (SSI) and the Institutional Priorities Survey (IPS). The purpose of the survey
administration was to inform planning activities in both the student support services and
educational support services areas. By collecting satisfaction data from campus constituencies,
administrators at Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) are able to determine where they are
best serving students and where there are areas for improvement.
This report will focus on the gap analysis between the SSI and the IPS survey results. The
gap analysis will help to identify strengths and challenges for both students and employees based
on the perceptions of the students’ experiences and the employees’ perceptions about the
students’ experiences on this campus. This analysis may serve as a guide for directing the focus
of planning improvements on campus.
Instrument
The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) asked students to indicate both the level of
importance they place on specific attributes of the institution, as well as their level of satisfaction
with the institution. The Institutional Priorities Survey (IPS) asked faculty, administrators, and
staff to indicate the level of importance and their level of agreement that the institution is
meeting its students’ expectations. Both surveys contained the same items; the only difference in
the survey was the directions. The students were asked to rate the importance and their
expectations and the employees were asked to rate the importance and their expectations about
the students’ experiences on campus. Some of the topics included in both surveys are the
effectiveness of academic advising, campus climate, concern for the individual, instructional
effectiveness, and safety and security. The responses for the surveys range from 1 (not important
at all) to 7 (very important) and 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7 (very satisfied). The combination of
importance/satisfaction or agreement data is extremely useful (Noel-Levitz General Interpretive
Guide, 2009) allowing institutions to review satisfaction levels within the context of what is most
important. The results provide a guide for action steps that the institution can take to respond to
the issues that students/campus employees have identified.
Methodology
Both the SSI and the IPS were administered during the fall semester of 2009. The NoelLevitz Company sponsored the survey and email invitations were sent out by Noel-Levitz;
however, the Chancellor personalized the email invitations. Seven hundred fifty students were
randomly selected to complete the SSI. Three hundred and forty six (346) students completed
the SSI; a response rate of 46% was achieved. Six hundred full-time employees were selected to
complete the IPS. Two hundred and fifty (250) employees completed the IPS; a response rate of
41% was achieved. The respondents were representative of the overall campus demographics.
2
Results
Results are presented in four sections: Strengths for students, Strengths for employees,
Challenges for students, and Challenges for employees.
Strengths
Individual items on the SSI and the IPS were analyzed to determine institutional strengths
(high importance and high satisfaction). The Noel-Levitz Company suggests that institutions
often incorporate their strengths into their marketing activities, recruiting materials, internal and
external public relations opportunities, as well as provide positive feedback for the campus
students and personnel. Strengths are defined as those items above the midpoint in importance
and in the top quartile of satisfaction.
Strengths for Students and Employees
These items are areas students suggest are some of the stronger aspect of the institution.
They have the support of students and provide strong opportunities for positive feedback and for
marketing activities (Noel-Levitz General Interpretive Guide, 2009). See Tables 1 and 2 for an
overview of the strengths (students and employees).
Table 1. Strengths for Students
Item Number
Questions
33
My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.
8
The content of the courses within my major is valuable.
16
The instruction in my major field is excellent.
55
Major requirements are clear and reasonable.
39
I am able to experience intellectual growth here.
6
My academic advisor is approachable.
66
Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
68
Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
65
Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.
50
Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable.
18
Library resources and services are adequate.
35
The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable.
61
Adjunct faculty are competent as classroom instructors.
3
Table 2. Strengths for Employees
Item Number
Questions
30
Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.
46
Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
45
Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
7
The content of the courses within each major is valuable.
27
Students are able to experience intellectual growth here.
37
Major requirements are clear and reasonable.
20
The personnel involved in registration are helpful.
3
Admissions staff are knowledgeable.
40
This institution shows concern for students as individuals.
Challenges
Individual items on the SSI and the IPS were analyzed to determine key challenges (high
importance and low satisfaction). The Noel-Levitz Company suggests that campuses that have
surveyed themselves look at these crucial areas to address and improve retention. Challenges are
defined as being above the midpoint in importance and in the bottom quartile of satisfaction
and/or the top quartile of performance gaps. The institution can move forward with initiatives in
the areas that qualify as challenges for both students and staff because the entire campus is on
board with identifying them as areas that require improvement (Noel-Levitz General Interpretive
Guide, 2009). See tables 3, 4, and 5 for an overview of the challenges (students, employees, and
challenges for both).
Table 3. Challenges for Students
Item Number
Questions
36
Security staff respond quickly in emergencies.
47
Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course.
5
Financial aid counselors are helpful.
7
The campus is safe and secure for all students.
19
My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward.
27
The personnel involved in registration are helpful.
59
This institution shows concern for students as individuals.
28
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.
12
Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college
planning.
2
The campus staff are caring and helpful.
29
It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus.
57
I seldom get the "run-around" when seeking information on this campus.
43
Admissions counselors respond to prospective students' unique needs and
requests.
4
Admissions staff are knowledgeable.
53
Faculty take into consideration student differences as they teach a course.
10
Administrators are approachable to students.
4
Table 4. Challenges for Faculty
Item Number
Questions
6
The campus is safe and secure for all students.
25
Security staff respond quickly in emergencies.
18
Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.
4
Financial aid counselors are helpful.
21
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.
35
This institution has a good reputation within the community.
Table 5. Challenges for Both Students and Employees
Item Number
Questions
6/7
The campus is safe and secure for all students.
4/5
Financial aid counselors are helpful.
21/28
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.
The Scales
The long forms of the Noel-Levitz surveys administered are organized into nine scales.
The items on the SSI and IPS have been analyzed statistically and conceptually to form the
scales. Some items do appear on more than one scale.
 Academic Advising (and Counseling) Effectiveness: Academic Advisors are evaluated
on the basis of their knowledge, competence, and personal concern for student success, as
well as on their approachability.
 Campus Climate: Assess the extent to which the campus provides experiences that
promote a sense of campus pride and feelings of belonging. This scale also assesses the
effectiveness of the university’s channel of communication for students.
 Campus Life: Assesses the effectiveness of your student life programs offered by the
university, covering issues ranging from athletics to residence life. This scale also
assesses campus policies and procedures to determine students’ perception of their rights
and responsibilities.
 Campus Services: Assesses services students utilize to achieve their academic goals.
These services include the library, computer labs, tutoring, and study areas.
 Instructional Effectiveness: Assesses your students’ academic experience, the
curriculum, and the campus’s overriding commitment to academic excellence. This
comprehensive scale covers areas such as the effectiveness of the faculty in and out of the
classroom, content of the courses, and sufficient course offerings.
 Recruitment (or Admissions) and Financial Aid Effectiveness: Assesses the university’s
ability to enroll students in an effective manner. This scale covers issues such as
competence and knowledge of admissions counselors, as well as the effectiveness and
availability of financial aid programs.
 Registration Effectiveness: Assesses issues associated with registration and billing. This
scale also measures the university’s commitment to making this process as smooth and
effective as possible.
5
 Safety and Security: Assesses the university’s responsiveness to students’ personal safety
and security on your campus. This scale measures effectiveness of both security
personnel and campus facilities.
 Student Centeredness: Assesses the university’s efforts to convey to students that they
are important to the university. This scale measures the extent to which students feel
welcomed and valued.
To better understand the rank ordering of the scales, please consult the SSI and IPS
reports located on the ECSU website at:
http://www.ecsu.edu/academics/offices/iera/docs/SSI.html# and
http://www.ecsu.edu/academics/offices/iera/docs/IPS.html.
The items in the scales (ex. Academic Advising scale includes items 6, 14, 19, 33 and 55)
are averaged for the importance score and satisfaction score and then the performance gap is
calculated. Therefore, the rank ordering is based on the mean for each specific scale. The critical
aspect of tables 6 and 7 is the performance gap. The larger the performance gap the greater the
discrepancy between students’ expectations and employees’ perceptions of their expectations and
their level of satisfaction with the current situation. The smaller the performance gap, the better
the university is doing at meeting the students’/employees’ expectations.
Table 6. Scales: In Rank Order of Importance Based on Student Satisfaction Inventory
Student Satisfaction Survey
Satisfaction /
Scale
Importance
SD
Safety and Security
6.52
4.45 / 1.41
Recruitment and Financial Aid
6.52
5.05 / 1.43
Service Excellence
6.40
4.99 / 1.37
Campus Climate
6.43
5.09 / 1.33
Student Centeredness
6.41
5.08 / 1.40
Concern for the Individual
6.45
5.12 / 1.42
Registration Effectiveness
6.46
5.23 / 1.24
Instructional Effectiveness
6.56
5.34 / 1.21
Academic Advising
6.60
5.43 / 1.46
Campus Life
6.21
5.14 / 1.24
Campus Support Services
6.43
5.47 / 1.18
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations
5.06
5.28 / 1.60
6
Performance
Gap
2.07
1.47
1.41
1.34
1.33
1.33
1.23
1.22
1.17
1.07
0.96
-0.22
Table 7. Scales: In Rank Order of Importance Based on Institutional Priority Survey
Institutional Priority Survey
Scale
Safety and Security
Service Excellence
Campus Life
Recruitment and Financial Aid
Campus Support Services
Campus Climate
Concern for the Individual
Academic Advising
Instructional Effectiveness
Registration Effectiveness
Student Centeredness
Responsiveness to Diverse Populations
Importance
6.61
6.63
6.57
6.68
6.62
6.68
6.71
6.69
6.71
6.57
6.66
6.17
Satisfaction /
SD
5.06 / 1.30
5.36 / 1.15
5.36 / 1.38
5.50 / 1.15
5.45 / 1.21
5.57 / 0.99
5.66 / 1.05
5.65 / 1.04
5.68 / 0.90
5.58 / 1.13
5.78 / 1.05
5.81 / 1.16
Performance
Gap
1.55
1.27
1.21
1.18
1.17
1.11
1.05
1.04
1.03
0.99
0.88
0.36
Both students and employees perceive Responsiveness to Diverse Populations as most closely
meeting their level of importance with their satisfaction. Similarly, both groups perceive Safety
and Security as least closely meeting their level of importance with their satisfaction.
7