Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students: Developing and Validating a Measure of Well-Being

Sirgy, M. Joseph; Grzeskowiak, Stephan; Rahtz, Don R.

doi:10.1007/s11205-005-5921-9

Cited by 118 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Goodboy and Myers (2008) found that a variety of student factors are associated with student satisfaction as a learning outcome. Common measures of satisfaction among students Psychosocial Factors 5 assess positive emotions in the student's life as a whole, including personal satisfaction and satisfaction with university life (e.g., the College Descriptive Index, Reed, Lahey, & Downey, 1984; the Quality of College Life, Sirgy, Grezeskowiak, & Rahtz, 2007). The current study focused on students' satisfaction in a global sense, considering their levels of satisfaction with life as a whole during their time spent at college.…”

Section: Measuring College Student Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychosocial Factors Predicting First-Year College Student Success

Krumrei-Mancuso

Newton

Kim

et al. 2013

csd

197

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student success is at the heart of the educational enterprise. College success helps students to meet long-term personal and career goals and provides a range of monetary, psychosocial, and physical benefits (Baum & Ma, 2007). For years, concern has been expressed about graduation rates (Swail, 2004). Only slightly more than half (57%) of full-time students first going to a 4-year institution seeking a bachelor's degree end up achieving that goal within 6 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010, Indicator 21). Furthermore, given the high rate of students who discontinue their education at their original institution, retention is a popular topic within provides a reference list of over 1,400 publications on student retention. In addition, the entrepreneurial market has developed numerous consulting organizations that aid universities in increasing retention.Retaining students until graduation is often a direct fulfillment of the mission of institutions of higher learning. Colleges and universities are concerned with preparing students for productive roles in society. Students who terminate their education prior to graduation lose the time and finances that they have invested in the educational process without gaining the benefits of a degree. Admitting a student into the institution carries with it a certain level of commitment on the part of the institution to support the success of the student. Secondarily, retention is of concern to institutions for financial reasons. When students discontinue, a university is faced with the loss of campus resources that have been invested in the student as well as the loss of future revenue in the form of tuition.Students discontinuing their education may reflect a failure on the part of the institution to support students' progress or respond to students' needs. Colleges and universities have invested a great amount of money in retention services (e.g., preparation courses, first-year seminars, academic success centers, advising interventions, tutorial programs, and counseling) in the hopes of retaining students through graduation. These represent substantial investments to improve student opportunities for success. Seidman (2005) indicated that promoting student success involves early identification of individual needs followed by a prescription for action.Psychosocial learning factors are useful points of intervention for professionals to actively promote student success (Krumrei & Newton, 2009). Institutions of higher education are in need of assessments of psychosocial learning factors that can be used to customize interventions to students' characteristics . Given institutional cost Psychosocial Factors 4 restraints, it would benefit colleges and universities to make use of tools in house rather than allocating substantial funding toward private consulting organizations promising retention results. Measuring College Student SuccessTinto (1987, 2005) observed that efforts to promote student success are hampered when research focuses on student attrition ra...

show abstract

Section: Measuring College Student Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychosocial Factors Predicting First-Year College Student Success

Krumrei-Mancuso

Newton

Kim

et al. 2013

csd

197

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The review has covered various domains including social inclusion and exclusion (Levitas et al, 2007;Scutella et al, 2010), student satisfaction (e.g. Price et al, 2003;Jiewanto et al, 2012); student engagement (Astin, 1984;Tinto 1993, Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; quality of college life (Sirgy et al, 2007) and campus design and planning (Strange & Banning, 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Joseph and Joseph, 1997;Price et al, 2003;Douglas et al, 2006;Petruzzellis et al, 2006;Gruber et al, 2010). The second approach indicates previous studies, which address student quality of life in universities (Sirgy et al, 2007;Arsalan & Akkas, 2013). The third approach is the one that measure student engagement by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Student Social Inclusion in Malaysian Universities

Sedaghatnia

Ghahramanpouri

Lamit

2018

AjBeS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to identify main factors affecting students' social inclusion in universities. A selfadministered questionnaire has been administered to a stratified sample of 360 students from three research universities of Malaysia. Through conducting factor analysis, ten constructs including legibility, social relation, hostel quality, facilities, extracurricular activities, accessibility, safety, comfort, academic services, and transportation were identified. The findings of the study can be used by university administrators as a guide for better understanding of students' needs and allocate resources effectively in the campus environment.Keywords: Social inclusion, Campus, Student, Exploratory factor analysis eISSN 2398-4295 © 2018 Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21834/ajbes.v3i12.123 Sepideh Sedaghatnia, S., et.al. / Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies (AjBeS), 3(12) Jul / Aug 2018 (p.53-62) 54 . The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for EnvironmentBehaviour Studies), Faculty of IntroductionHigher education is becoming increasingly globalized and internationalized (Robson, 2011). Due to a large and diverse population of students, universities have played a vital role in providing a conducive learning environment that not only attracts students, but also engages them effectively within the universities (Crosling et al., 2008). One of the ways institutions reaches this goal is meeting students' needs by measuring their satisfaction (Zhai, 2012). Student satisfaction includes the students' subjective experiences during the college years and perceptions of the educational experiences value (Astin, 1993). Moreover, it has a positive relationship to the desired outcome such as academic performance, positive word of mouth (WOM), retention and loyalty (Arambewela & Hall, 2009).Accordingly, numerous empirical studies have investigated different factors influencing student satisfaction from three perspectives. The first approach is highlighted by studies that examine service quality models in higher education institutions. Scholars argued that university facilities and services have an impact on student satisfaction (e.g. Joseph and Joseph, 1997;Price et al., 2003;Douglas et al., 2006;Petruzzellis et al., 2006;Gruber et al., 2010). The second approach indicates previous studies, which address student quality of life in universities (Sirgy et al., 2007; Arsalan & Akkas, 2013). The third approach is the one that measure student engagement by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). This instrument measures student involvement in meaningful educational activities (Astin, 1984;Pascarella & Ter...

show abstract

“…Studies concerning college students and quality of life can be divided into three categories such as studies investigating associations between students' quality of life and potential factors; studies developing students' measures of quality of life and studies developing measures of students' college life (Sirgy et al, 2007). In this section, the present study deals with past research that determines factors affecting students' quality of life.…”

Section: Review Of Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Student Satisfaction with an Emphasis on Campus Recreational Sports and Cultural Facilities in a Turkish University

Çelik¹,

Akyol²

2015

IES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of this paper was to determine the predictors of student satisfaction focusing on campus recreational sports and cultural facilities. The present study utilized data from a written-questionnaire administered to one thousand adult undergraduate students. The dependent variable used in predicting student satisfaction was satisfaction levels of the respondents. Due to the ordinal nature of the dependent variable, an ordered logit model was performed to determine demographic and socio-economic determinants of campus sports and cultural facility satisfaction. Ordered logit estimation results revealed that younger aged, higher income, tuition loan holder, classical or folk music listener students studying in social sciences were less likely to have higher satisfaction than their counterparts. In addition, for many selected services, most of the students declared their dissatisfaction. Although there is an increasing number of studies conducted on student satisfaction in the existing literature, studies focusing on campus sports and cultural facility satisfaction are limited. This study is probably the first attempt to examine the predictors of campus sports and cultural facility satisfaction in northeastern Turkey using one of the categorical data estimation method.

show abstract

Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students: Developing and Validating a Measure of Well-Being

Abstract: college student quality of life, college student well-being, quality of college life of students, university student quality of life, university student well-being,

Cited by 118 publications

References 19 publications

Psychosocial Factors Predicting First-Year College Student Success

Psychosocial Factors Predicting First-Year College Student Success

Determinants of Student Social Inclusion in Malaysian Universities

Predicting Student Satisfaction with an Emphasis on Campus Recreational Sports and Cultural Facilities in a Turkish University

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About