University of Central Missouri
NOEL-LEVITZ STUDENT SATISFACTION INVENTORY (SSI)
SPRING 2009 STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY
RESULTS
Prepared by:
The Office of Institutional Research
University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
May 2009
Spring 2009 Student Satisfaction Survey
Introduction
The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey was administered to a sample of UCM undergraduate
students during the spring semester of 2009. The survey measures students’ satisfaction with a broad
spectrum of college experiences. The major tenet of the survey is that satisfaction with college
occurs when an expectation is met or exceeded by an institution. With this caveat in mind, students
rate each item in the inventory by the importance of the specific expectation as well as their
satisfaction with how well that expectation is being met. A performance gap is then determined by
the difference in the importance rating and the satisfaction rating.
The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is a very reliable instrument. According to Noel-Levitz,
both the two-year and four-year versions of the SSI show exceptionally high internal reliability.
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is .97 for the set of importance scores and .98 for the set of satisfaction
scores. This report presents the results of the spring 2009 Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory
survey at UCM.
Survey Methodology
During the spring 2009 semester, a sample of UCM students completed the Noel-Levitz
Student Satisfaction Inventory Survey. The survey was administered to students in randomly
selected on-campus credit course sections. Class instructors assisted by distributing and
collecting the questionnaires. Extended-campus students were not included in the survey
because the survey mostly evaluates on-campus services. A total of 1,700 surveys were
returned.
The results of the survey were tabulated by Noel-Levitz and benchmarked against responses
from a national sample of four-year public university students. Cross-tabulation analyses
were carried out by the Office of Institutional Research.
Characteristics of Respondents
More than half (57%) of the respondents were female. An overwhelming majority were fulltime students (93%). Eighty-two percent of the sample reported that they were Caucasian,
7% were African American and the remaining 11% belonged to other ethnic groups. The
vast majority of respondents (84%) were less than 25 years of age. Just about all sample
students were enrolled primarily in day courses (94%). Sixty-six percent of respondents were
employed at the time of the survey.
1
Respondents varied by class level: Freshman (23%), sophomore (20%), junior (26%), senior
(27%), and others (4%). About 38% of respondents resided in residence hall, 4% resided in
fraternity/sorority houses, 8% resided with their parents,14% resided in own home, 34%
rented a room or apartment off campus and other form of accommodation (2%).
About 66% of the respondents reported a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher at the time of the
study. With respect to respondents’ educational goal, about seven out of 10 respondents
(72%) intended to obtain a bachelor’s degree. Sixty-seven percent of the sample members
reported that UCM was their “first” choice of institution. Another 25% reported that UCM
was their “second” choice, and 8% indicated it was their “third” choice or lower. Overall, the
demographic characteristics of the survey samples were representative of the student body.
Measurement
The Noel-Levitz instrument provides a dual rating system for measuring student expectations.
Students rate each item in the inventory on a 1-7 scale by its importance of the specific
expectation as well as their satisfaction with how well that expectation is being met.
Important score ratings depict how strongly students feel about the expectation (the higher
the score, the more important it is to a student, hence the stronger the expectation).
Satisfaction ratings show how satisfied students are that UCM has met the expectation (the
higher the mean score, the more satisfied the students).
Importance Scale
Satisfaction Scale
7 = very important
6 = important
5 = somewhat important
4 = neutral
3 = somewhat unimportant
2 = not very important
1 = not important at all
7 = very satisfied
6 = satisfied
5 = somewhat satisfied
4 = neutral
3 = somewhat dissatisfied
2 = not very satisfied
1 = not satisfied at all
A mean score is obtained by dividing the total of all the scores on each item by the number
of individual cases involved. Means for importance and satisfaction are calculated by
summing respondents’ rating and dividing by the number of respondents.
Standard deviations are computed to show variability in the responses. The larger the
standard deviation, the greater the variability (with some students being very satisfied and
some students being very dissatisfied). The smaller the standard deviation the less variability
in the responses. Cross-tabulation analyses across target groups (e.g., class level, gender, race,
employment status, residence status, etc.) are performed on items with high variability.
2
A performance gap is determined by measuring the difference between importance ratings
and satisfaction ratings. Items with a large performance gap score (e.g., 1.50 or higher)
indicate that UCM is not meeting students’ expectations in those areas, whereas a small or
zero gap score (e.g., .50) indicates that UCM is meeting students’ expectations.
In addition to the three areas of measurement for each scale and item – importance,
satisfaction and performance gap – Noel-Levitz compared UCM data with the responses of
students from other four-year public institutions who took the SSI between fall 2008 and
spring 2009. Standard deviations are presented for the satisfaction means for both UCM and
the national group.
Matrix for Prioritizing Action
The matrix showed on page 5 helps us to identify areas where resources can be redirected from
areas of low expectation to areas of high expectation. The matrix can be used to align
university and student priorities and guide university strategic planning initiatives. For example,
items on the SSI that fall into quadrant 1 need immediate attention in terms of human and
financial resources, whereas items that fall into quadrant 2 pinpoint areas of strength that
should be used to market the university to prospective students and parents, alumni and donors.
Quadrant 3 signifies areas where it could be beneficial to direct human or financial resources
to quadrant 1. Lastly, quadrant 4 identifies areas that are least important to students.

Quadrant 1 – High Importance/low satisfaction pinpoints areas in need of
immediate attention.

Quadrant 2 – High Importance/high satisfaction showcases areas of strength that
should be highlighted.

Quadrant 3 – Low importance/high satisfaction suggests areas where it could be
beneficial to redirect resources to areas of higher importance.

Quadrant 4 – Low importance/low satisfaction presents an opportunity to examine
those areas that have low status with students.
3
The illustration below attempts to display this conceptual framework geographically.
Very
Important
1
2
Very
Dissatisfied
Very
Satisfied
4
3
Very
Unimportant
Inventory Composite Scales
The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) measured student satisfaction with a
wide range of college experiences. All items on the SSI are grouped into 12 composite
“scales” or general topics that offered a global perspective of strengths and areas in need of
improvement. Some items on the inventory contribute to more than one scale. The following
is a list of these scales and a description:
1. Academic Advising assesses the comprehensiveness of the academic advising
program. Academic advisors are evaluated on the basis of their knowledge,
competence and personal concern for student success, as well as on their
approachability.
2. Campus Climate assesses the extent to which we provide experiences that promote a
sense of campus pride and feelings of belonging. This scale also assesses the
effectiveness of our channels of communication for students.
3. Campus Life assesses the effectiveness of student life programs offered, covering
issues ranging from athletics to residence life. This scale also assesses campus
4
policies and procedures to determine students’ perceptions of their rights and
responsibilities.
4. Campus Support Services assesses the quality of support programs and services that
students utilize in order to make their educational experiences more meaningful and
productive. This scale covers areas such as tutoring, the adequacy of the library and
computer labs, and the availability of academic and career services.
5. Concern for the Individual assesses commitment to treating each student as an
individual. Those groups who frequently deal with students on a personal level (e.g.
faculty, advisors, counselors, and residence hall staff) are included in this assessment.
6. Instructional Effectiveness assesses students’ academic experience, curriculum, and
overriding commitment to academic excellence. This comprehensive scale covers
areas such as the variety of courses offered, the effectiveness of the faculty in and out
of the classroom, and the effectiveness of adjunct faculty and graduate teaching
assistants.
7. Recruitment and Financial Aid Effectiveness assesses the ability to enroll students
in an effective manner. This scale scores issues such as competence and knowledge
of admissions counselors, as well as the effectiveness and availability of financial aid
programs.
8. Registration Effectiveness assesses issues associated with registration and billing.
This scale also measures commitment to making the registration process as smooth
and effective as possible.
9. Responsiveness to Diverse Populations assesses our commitment to specific groups
of students enrolled at the University of Central Missouri, e.g., under-represented
populations, students with disabilities, commuters, part-time students, and older,
returning learners.
10. Safety and Security assesses responsiveness to students’ personal safety and security
on campus. This scale measures the effectiveness of both security personnel and
campus facilities.
11. Service Excellence assesses the perceived attitude of the staff towards students,
especially front-line staff. This scale pinpoints the areas where quality service and
personal concern for students are rated most favorably and least favorably.
12. Student Centeredness assesses efforts to convey to students that they are important
to us. This scale measures the extent to which students feel welcome and valued.
5
Summary of Key Findings
 According to the survey results, the top five most important composite scales to UCM
students (in order) are: instructional effectiveness (6.27), academic advising (6.24), safety
and security (6.23), registration effectiveness (6.13), and recruitment and financial aid (6.08).
Albeit not in the same order, the five most important composite scales to UCM students are
generally identical to those identified as important by students in the national comparison
group.
 Which of the 12 composite scales are most satisfying to UCM undergraduates? According to
the survey results, the top five most satisfying composite scales are: campus support services
(5.48), instructional effectiveness (5.39), student centeredness (5.30), campus climate (5.24),
and responsiveness to diverse populations (5.18).
 It is interesting to note that UCM students’ satisfaction ratings are higher than those of
students in the national comparison group in eleven out of the 12 composite scales. UCM
students were less satisfied with academic advising than students in the national comparison
group (5.17 vs. 5.25). The difference is statistically significant at the .05 level.
 Respondents are least satisfied with the following five composite scales: safety and security
(4.88), recruitment and financial aid (5.01), campus life (5.02), concern for the individual,
and service excellence (5.10).
 Of the 12 composite scales, safety and security received the highest performance gap
(1.35). It is important to point out that one particular item on the safety and security
composite scale-“the amount of student parking space on campus is adequate” had a
performance gap of (2.98). Hence, the overall mean rating for safety and security
scale was significantly skewed by this particular item. Parking space is not a safety
and security issue per se, but the item is embedded in the safety and security
composite scale.
 Cross-tabulation analyses reveal that the availability of student parking is more
important to commuters than residence hall students. Not surprisingly, commuters are
also less satisfied with the amount of parking space on campus than residence hall
students (2.90 vs. 3.52).
6
 Which of the 73 expectations on the survey are most important to UCM undergraduate
students? Results of the survey indicate that the top five expectations that are most important
to UCM students relate to instructional effectiveness: the content of the courses within my
major is valuable, (6.54), the instruction in major field is excellent (6.53), nearly all of the
faculty members are knowledgeable in their field (6.43), the campus is safe and secure for all
students (6.43), and I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts (6.42).
 Most notably, UCM students’ rating of campus safety and security was higher than ratings of
students in the national comparison group (5.66 vs. 5.29; statistically significant at the .001
level). Since campus safety and security is becoming one of the top five issues of importance
to UCM students and to college students across the United States and abroad, this positive
assessment by UCM students should be communicated to those who are unfamiliar with the
campus-prospective students and their parents, international and out-of-state students.
 Which expectations received the highest satisfaction rating from UCM undergraduates?
The top five expectations that received the highest satisfaction among UCM students are:
library resources and services are adequate, nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in
their field, computer labs are adequate and accessible, on the whole, the campus is well –
maintained, there is a good variety of courses provided on this campus and faculty are
usually available after class and during office hours.
 It is noteworthy that four of the expectations rated as greatest importance by UCM students
are also rated as highest satisfaction. These items fall in quadrant 2 of the matrix for
prioritizing action (see page 4) and are considered to be the university’s areas of strength
that should be included in promotional materials: Nearly all of the faculty are
knowledgeable in their field, the campus is safe and secure for all students, the instruction
in my major field is excellent, the content of the courses within my major is valuable.
 Sample respondents are least satisfied in the following areas: student parking (3.61), living
conditions in the residence halls (4.26), weekend activities for students (4.34), my
academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward (4.76), and financial aid counselors
are helpful (4.77).
 Five items of high importance and low satisfaction ratings are: I am able to register for
classes I need with few conflicts, adequate financial aid is available for most students,
faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course, billing policies are
reasonable, my academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward. Performance gap
score (importance rating minus satisfaction rating) for each expectation is 1.00 or higher.
These are areas in need of immediate attention, i.e., retention agenda/priorities.
7
 Nine items on the survey asked respondents to rate their enrollment decision factors. The
“cost” of attending UCM was the most important factor in students’ decision to enroll at the
university. UCM students rated cost as factor in decision to enroll higher than students at the
national comparison group (6.27 vs. 6.18).
 While cost remains the major attractive force in students’ decision to enroll at UCM, the
importance of personalized attention, campus appearances and opportunity to play sports
increased between 2007 and 2009. The size of the university was more of a factor for out-ofstate students and international students than for resident students in their decision to enroll at
UCM.
 Availability of financial aid was the second most important factor in students’
decision to enroll at UCM (5.87), followed by academic reputation of the university
(5.83). African-American students rated opportunity to play sports, availability of
financial aid and academic reputation as factors in decision to enroll at UCM than
any other group.
 Overall, how satisfied are UCM students with their educational experience at UCM?
Three items on the inventory assessed students’ overall satisfaction with UCM by
revealing the extent to which they perceive their expectations have been met. When
asked, “So far, has your college experience met your expectations?” 83% indicated
that the university has met their expectations.
 Respondents who indicated that UCM was their “first” choice of college reported
greater satisfaction with the university than those who indicated that UCM was their
“second” or “third” choice. It is also noteworthy that respondents with higher
cumulative GPAs were more likely to be satisfied with UCM than students with
lower GPAs.
 Students were further asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their experience here
thus far. A sizable majority (76%) were satisfied, compared with 73% of students at
the national comparison group.
 Finally, respondents were asked, “All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll
here again?” About 7 in 10 respondents (72%) answered in the affirmative. This
response compares very favorably to students at the national comparison group.
8
Table 1.
Institutional Summary
Rating of Twelve Composite Scales
Four-Year Public
Institutions
UCM
Composite Scale
1. Student Centeredness
2. Campus Life
3. Instructional Effectiveness
4. Recruitment and Financial Aid
5. Campus Support Services
6. Academic Advising
7. Registration Effectiveness
8. Safety and Security
9. Concern for the Individual
10. Service Excellence
11. Responsiveness to Diverse
Populations
12. Campus Climate
Import
6.06
5.68
6.27
6.08
6.00
6.24
6.13
6.23
6.01
5.93
6.04
Satis/SD Gap
5.30/1.04 0.76
5.02/1.02 0.66
5.39/0.96 0.88
5.01/1.11 1.07
5.48/0.93 0.52
5.17/1.30 1.07
5.17/1.05 0.96
4.88/1.12 1.35
5.06/1.05 0.95
5.10/0.98 0.83
5.18/1.25
5.24/0.98
0.80
Import
6.08
5.70
6.32
6.13
6.04
6.33
6.20
6.30
6.11
6.01
6.10
Satis/SD Gap
5.12/1.16 0.96
4.89/1.07 0.81
5.26/1.04 1.06
4.83/1.23 1.30
5.30/1.01 0.74
5.25/1.35 1.08
4.98/1.16 1.22
4.53/1.26 1.77
4.99/1.15 1.12
4.95/1.08 1.06
5.10/1.34
5.08/1.08
1.02
Mean
Difference
0.18***
0.13***
0.13***
0.18***
0.18***
-0.08*
0.19***
0.35***
0.07*
0.15***
0.08*
0.16***
Note: The last column (mean difference) shows the difference between our satisfaction means and the
national group satisfaction means. If the mean difference in theses scores is a positive number, then
UCM students are more satisfied than the students in the national comparison group. If the mean
difference is a negative number, UCM students are less satisfied than the students in the national
comparison group.
The greater the number of asterisks, the greater the confidence in the significance of this difference,
and the greater the likelihood that this difference did not occur by chance.
*Difference statistically significant at the .05 level
**Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
*** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level
9
Table 2.
Ten Expectations That Are Most Important
to UCM Respondents
2009
UCM
Mean
Item
1. The content of the courses within my major is valuable.
2. The instruction in my major field is excellent.
3. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
4. The campus is safe and secure for all students.
5. I am able to register for classes I need with few
conflicts.
6. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about
requirements in my major.
7. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes
is excellent.
8. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
9. Major requirements are clear and reasonable.
10. My academic advisor is approachable.
Score
6.54
6.53
6.43
6.43
National
Mean
Score
6.54
6.52
6.48
6.44
6.42
6.42
6.52
6.50
6.38
6.46
6.34
6.34
6.34
6.42
6.40
6.42
Table 3.
Rating of Ten Expectations That Are Most Satisfying
to UCM Students
UCM
Mean
Expectation
1. Library resources and services are adequate.
2. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
3. Computer labs are adequate and accessible.
4. On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.
5. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.
6. Faculty are usually available after class and during
office hours.
7. The campus is safe and secure for all students.
8. Library staff are helpful and approachable.
9. The content of the courses within my major is valuable.
10. The instruction in my major field is excellent.
10
Score
5.74
5.73
5.71
5.69
5.67
5.66
National
Mean
Score
5.46
5.62
5.40
5.53
5.33
5.52
5.66
5.64
5.61
5.57
5.29
5.46
5.43
5.41
Table 4.
Rating of Eleven Expectations of Greatest Importance and Highest Satisfaction
Expectation
1. The campus is safe and secure
for all students.
2. The instruction in my major field
is excellent.
3. Library resources and services
are adequate.
4. Computer labs are adequate and
accessible.
5. I am able to experience intellectual
growth here.
6. There is a commitment to academic
excellence on this campus.
7. Students are made to feel welcome
on this campus.
8. Class change (drop/add) policies
are reasonable.
9. There is a good variety of courses
provided on this campus.
10. Nearly all of the faculty are
knowledgeable in their field.
11. Faculty are usually available after
class and during office hours.
Mean
Mean
Importance Satisfaction Performance
Rating
Rating
Gap
6.43
5.66
0.77
6.53
5.57
0.96
6.10
5.74
0.36
6.24
5.71
0.53
6.26
5.53
0.73
6.18
5.38
0.8
6.16
5.48
0.68
6.15
5.51
0.64
6.32
5.67
0.65
6.43
5.73
0.7
6.29
5.66
0.63
11
Table 5.
Items of High Importance and Low Satisfaction Rating
Item
1. I am able to register for classes I need
with few conflicts.
2. Adequate financial aid is available for
most students.
3. Faculty provide timely feedback about
student progress in a course.
4. Billing policies are reasonable.
5. My academic advisor helps me set
goals to work toward.
Mean
Mean
Importance Satisfaction Performance
Rating
Rating
Gap
6.42
5.08
1.34
6.29
4.88
1.41
6.25
5.08
1.17
6.13
4.79
1.34
5.94
4.76
1.18
Table 6.
Rating of Factors in Decision to Enroll at UCM
2009
Enrollment Factor
1. Cost as factor in decision to enroll.
2. Financial Aid as factor in decision to enroll.
3. Academic reputation as factor in decision
to enroll.
4. Size of institution as a factor in decision
to enroll.
5. Opportunity to play sports as a factor
in decision to enroll.
6. Recommendations from family/friends as
factor in decision to enroll.
7. Geographic setting as factor in decision
to enroll.
8. Campus appearance as factor in decision.
to enroll.
9. Personalized attention prior to enrollment
as factor in decision to enroll.
12
UCM
Important
6.27
5.87
5.83
National
Group
Important
6.18
5.92
5.91
5.41
5.28
3.58
3.51
4.75
4.8
5.33
5.49
5.29
5.25
5.23
5.23
Table 7.
Respondents' Rating of UCM's Commitment to Students' Needs
Item
1. Institution's commitment to
part-time students.
2. Institution's commitment to
evening students.
3. Institution's commitment to
older/returning learners.
4. Institution's commitment to
underrepresented populations.
5. Institution's commitment to
commuters.
6. Institution's commitment to
students with disabilities.
UCM
Means
5.19
National
Group Means
5.10
Mean Difference
(Satisfaction)
0.09*
5.13
5.08
0.05
5.28
5.18
0.10*
5.16
5.10
0.06
5.01
4.92
0.09*
5.33
5.25
0.08
Table 8.
Respondents’ Overall Measure of Satisfaction
UCM
%
National
%
Difference
National - UCM
83
81
0.09**
Rate your overall satisfaction with
your experience here thus far
93
91
0.09**
All in all, if you had it to do over again,
would you enroll here?
71
71
0.05**
Measure
So far, how has your college experience
met your expectations?
13