| The purpose of the study to attain more insight into the mechanisms through which student satisfaction with university quality is related to accreditation and reputation factors.;The present quality assessment systems under which students feel the need to represent themselves, risk encouraging the assertion of existing higher education institutional virtues at the expense of acknowledging the less successful aspects. Nor do they convincingly suggest how accreditation could be improved so that it would demonstrate clearly to the consumers that institutions of higher education are responsible for assuring the quality of their academic programs and degrees.;To analyze these problems, structural equation modeling (SAS CALIS and AMOS) with Korean university students (ten sampled sub-groups based on MANOVA), this study addresses important issues with respect to students' evaluation of university quality. After reviewing past research and using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis suggests the existence of ten latent variables in student evaluation: (1) facility quality (academic development and resources), (2) faculty and instruction quality, (3) student services (governance and administration), (4) financial resources, (5) university reputation, (6) institutional climate, (7) mission and purpose, (8) students' job expectations, (9) student academic development, and (10) students' overall satisfaction. Next, adding structural paths, these variables are used in a model of the formation of student evaluation. The model developed has convergent validity, discriminant validity, and scale reliability.;In the overall model and sub-group models, "climate" and "mission & purpose" factors were dropped in the model specification process. In the overall and the sub-group models test, every model fit was acceptable except the high-level student model. This study describes the path models assessing the direct and indirect effects on student satisfaction with university quality. First, accreditation indicators should be modified to reflect the future from the students' viewpoints. Second, the faculty and teaching effectiveness factor is important for student satisfaction in the areas of job expectations and educational development. The results suggest that government regulation should be decreased, and the consumers' (e.g., students and parents) and other stakeholders' roles should be increased. However, when a gap between student evaluations and the evaluation of accreditation agency exists, the government should audit the university to address discrepancies. Finally, the weights of accreditation variable should be differently applied to each sub-group, resulting in a new type of specialized accreditation (e.g., by gender, location, type, and reputation level). |
