Investigating university students' satisfaction with on-campus cafeteria services: an empirical study in perspective of private university

Abu Rashed Osman^a* , Tazkia Hossain^b , James Bakul Sarkar^a

^a*Associate Professor; School of Business & Economics, United International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Corresponding author's email address: rash_osman@yahoo.com

^bStudent; United International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Keywords:Food quality, Food variety, Price fairness, Ambience, Staff and student satisfaction

ARTICLE HISTORY: Received:10-Feb-2018, Accepted:02-Jun-2018, Online available:18-Jun-2018

Contribution/ Originality

This study contributes to existing literature by assessing student satisfaction based on five dimensions of cafeteria food services which is a rare effort in Bangladesh private university perspective.

1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, the number of students registered in universities is increasing constantly, causing the enormous growth of this market (Garg, 2014). This contributes to increasing demand and constant rivalry between food service providers inside and outside of the university. Therefore, the assessment of university foodservices became essential (Knutson, 2000), for the reason that, students will move to an off-campus if the on-campus foodservices do not satisfy their needs (Eckel, 1985). Saglik et al. (2014) also assured that all food service operations ought to give priority to the quality of foodservices in order to withstand in the competitive market, because foodservice quality is reflected as an effective aspect in satisfying students (Raman and Chinniah, 2011). Another recent empirical study also emphasized that students' satisfaction with the university cafeteria is very much influenced by food quality, followed by staff and ambiance, respectively (Dimitrios and Katerina, 2014).

According to Andaleeb and Caskey (2007), students' expectations and perceptions concerning the quality of service fluctuate from one student to another and from one semester to the next semester. Hence, this deviation leads to a more complex, diverse, and dynamic business environment, a difficulty in measuring service quality, and a difficulty in identifying the determinants of service quality. Students are not only confined to on-campus foodservice quality, as they are well aware of nearby foodservice quality. So, it wise to enhance the quality of service delivered in on-campus outlets to retain students from alternative search.

However, no earlier obtainable researches investigated the quality of university foodservice in Bangladesh private university standpoint and its influence on student satisfaction, indicating a gap in the body of knowledge of student sentiments and behaviors of the on-campus foodservice in Bangladesh. Recently, Eunkyung et al. (2013) emphasized that foodservice improvement according to continuous evaluations and surveys are necessary in order to increase students' satisfaction.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Drivers of student satisfaction in university foodservice

The enrollment of students is unceasingly increasing in tertiary education institutions thus the demand of foodservice is also increasing, particularly in universities. As a result, these increased demands are putting an increased pressure on foodservice operators to satisfy students' needs and expectations due to intense competition (Li, 2008). Reviewing the existing literature, there are several aspects found to influence students' satisfaction while choosing a foodservice such as: the food quality, variety, price fairness, ambiance, and staffs (Chang et al., 2014; Kim and Kim, 2004)). Additionally, Ng (2005) proposed a few more factors those are influencing student satisfaction such as: food quality and beverages, the quality of service, value, price, hygiene and cleanliness, location, and product variety. In a fine dining environment, superior level of service quality is one of the aspects that can produce customer satisfaction (Hanefors and Massberg, 2003). Customer satisfaction is one of the vital purposes of business that must be critically monitored for creating repeat customer (Sulek and Hensley, 2004). In a recent study, the relationship of food quality attributes and customer satisfaction is found statistically significant (Nor et al., 2016). To satisfy the purpose of the current study, four factors will be investigated in relation to their impact on student satisfaction: food quality, price fairness, ambiance and staffs.

2.2. Hypothesis Development

2.2.1. Food quality

Food service quality is an essential factor that virtually affects the quality of student life at universities (Klassen et al., 2005). In this connection, Ng (2005) stated that overall food quality attributes (taste, freshness, and appearance) play a higher vital role in attaining or exceeding customer satisfaction and intent to come back than other factors such as price, value, convenience and cleanliness. Another research conducted by Andaleeb and Caskey (2007) which expressed that most of the students prefer to deal with on-campus foodservices more frequently in case of the improvement of food and beverage quality. Thus, the hypothesis is developed in the following manner:

H1: There is a significant positive relationship between food quality and student satisfaction

2.2.2. Food variety

Xi and Shuai (2009) found that food variety (β = 0.222, < p = 0.05) has a significant positive influence on student satisfaction. Furthermore, they added that the food variety ought to be highlighted so for instance not to produce students' dissatisfaction on monotonous food. Few more researchers postulated that food variety is the predictor of customer satisfaction (Ryu et al., 2008). In recent times, Ahmed et al. (2017) stated that menu variety is the predictor of customer satisfaction. Thus, the hypothesis is developed in the following manner:

H2: There is a significant positive relationship between food variety and student satisfaction

2.2.3. Price fairness

It is known to all that students have budget constraint that affect their decisions of selecting foodservice, as they obviously seek reasonable prices (Li, 2008). In this respect, Nadzirah et al. (2013) suggest that price is the foremost concern of students in a university foodservice, because they buy food on limited budgets. They also highlight that the price should be reasonable for the food quantity served, so the customer would feel that the food and service received were worth their price, resulting in student satisfaction. Xi and Shuai (2009) establish that price fairness has significant influence on students' satisfaction with the cafeteria foodservice. Mui et al. (2014) also suggested that the university cafeteria should take serious measurement in improving the food quality and price for long term sustainability. Thus, the hypothesis is formulated in the following manner:

H3: There is a significant positive relationship between price fairness and student satisfaction.

2.2.4. Ambience

Troye et al. (1995) defined ambiance as a structural elements. Instead of being finished product, the elements contained in ambiance involve long-term investments and cannot be changed easily. Preceding studies have agreed on the significance of the environment factors or even indicate them as one of the fundamental indications to customers judging restaurant quality (Baker et al., 1994; Rys et al., 1987). Andaleeb and Caskey (2007) stated that atmosphere and cleanliness are major variables that have impact on student satisfaction. In this respect, Norhati and Hafisah (2013) stated that the physical setting influences customers' perceptions of service quality. Thus, the hypothesis is formulated in the following manner:

H4: There is a significant positive relationship between ambiance and student satisfaction.

2.2.5. Staffs

The interaction between the cafeteria staff and students, such as friendly gestures (e.g. smiles and greeting and high levels of responsiveness, cleanliness and quick service) is important as it influences student satisfaction with the service quality (Barlett and Han, 2007).The staff performance at each food outlet is extremely important in increasing the degree of customer satisfaction (Mui et al., 2014). Thus, the following hypothesis is presented in this manner:

H5: There is a significant positive relationship between staffs and student satisfaction.

2.3. Theoretical underpinnings

The Cue Utilization Theory was developed by (Jerry, 1972) and it argues that products or services consist of numerous arrangements of cues that serve as substitute indicators of product or service quality. There are both intrinsic and extrinsic cues help customers to determine quality towards a specific product or service those are responsible for customer satisfaction. Intrinsic cues are those cues that are inherent to a product. Literature has given the evidence that consumers incline to use an amalgamation of both extrinsic and intrinsic cues while appraising the quality of a product (Richardson et al., 1994). Extrinsic attributes are those attributes that relate to the focal thing but are not an inherent part of the object. Fundamentally, extrinsic cues are product related to provide information such as brand and price (Reimer and Kuehn, 2005).

This model is reflected to be a general framework which is not restricted to merely two measures of quality because there is no universal agreement as to the nature or content of service quality dimensions (Brady and Cronin, 2001). Nevertheless, there is a general agreement that service quality is a multidimensional or multi-attribute construct (Kang and James, 2004; Gronroos, 1990 and Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1988). In this study, food quality, food variety, ambience, and staffs are reflected as intrinsic cues and price fairness is reflected as an extrinsic cue for determining student satisfaction.

Figure 1: The cue utilization theory of customer satisfaction

Source: Jerry (1972)

2.4. Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework of the study is illustrated in the figure below based on literature review.

2.5. Dimensions of foodservices

Figure 2: Conceptual research framework

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research approach and sampling method

The sole objective of this research is to determine university students' satisfaction with different dimensions of cafeteria foodservice. Thus, a quantitative research approach was applied to test the hypotheses in this study. The total population of this study included all students enrolled in first, second, third, and fourth years of undergraduate programs at the United International University, North South University, Independent University, East West University, and Ahasanullah University of Science & Technology. There were more than 40,000 students enrolled in undergraduate programs at these universities (UGC, 2015). Due to the large number of students, it was difficult to use random sampling techniques. Therefore, a convenience sampling approach was used for data collection in this study. Before applying the convenience sampling, sample size was determined proportionately from each university (see Table 1). Data were collected from above mentioned institutions because they have their own organized full-fledged cafeteria service for students and others don't have.

Table 1: Proportional sampling

No.	Name of the Institution	Number of Total Students	Proportionate Sample
1.	North South University	13990	93
2.	Independent University, Bangladesh	5500	36
3.	United International University	5000	33
4.	East West University	11000	73
5.	Ahasanullah University of Science & Technology	6843	45
	Total	42,333	280

Source: Web site of each university

Questionnaire development and data collection

The questionnaire used in this study comprised of three components. The component A contains 18 questions related to foodservice dimensions and the component B contains 5 questions related to students' satisfaction and the component C contains 5 questions associated to demographic information. Statements in these components were adapted from the DINESERV questionnaire. DINESERV is adapted from the SERVQUAL instrument and was created by Stevens et al. (1995). A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate statements in component A and B, where 5 = strongly agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree.

In order to determine the internal consistency of the instrument, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient reliability analysis was conducted. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the questionnaire was calculated and found an average value of 0.64. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient is above of the 0.70 value suggested by Nunnally (1967) but according to Hair et al. (2010), the lower limit value of Cronbach's alpha is 0.60 for exploratory research thus this study demonstrated the value in Table 3 and ensured reliability according to Hair et al. (2010).

Ensuring a high response rate, two students were given information about the research topic and the content of the survey instrument. Additionally, they were educated on how to deal with respondents and how to collect required data size. In this study, the target sample size was 280 because Kline (2011) suggested that the collection of data size should be 10 times or more as big as the number of items (indicators) in the multivariate research. The survey took between 5 to 7 minutes to complete the items. Students were invited to participate in the study during the period of October 01- October 20, 2017, and a total of 280 questionnaires were collected. The total number of valid questionnaires was 267 after detecting and discarding 13 invalid questionnaires.

4. RESULTS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Respondents' demographic characteristics

In terms of gender, 48.7 percent of the respondents were male and 51.3 percent were female. In terms of frequency of visit, the study found that the daily frequency was 133(49.8 percent), 2-3 times per week frequency were 105 (39.3 percent), few times in a month frequency were 21 (7.9 percent), and few times in a semester frequency were 8 (3.0 percent). The study claimed that 27.6 percent students lodged claim about food services but on the other hand 72.4 percent did not lodge any claim at all. This implies that students are not encouraged to complain because they may think this is a fruitless effort to perform. In terms of complains handling, 22.1 percent students was satisfied but 77.9 percent students was not satisfied. Again, this infers that the management of the cafeteria services is not serious about complaint handling. This is simply indicating their attitude problem which is related with service culture. The study also revealed that there is no mean difference between male (mean = 2.74) and female (mean = 2.88) on student satisfaction and it is confirmed by t-test.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics

Variables	N	Min	Max	Mean	Standard Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
FV	267	1.00	4.75	2.84	0.6578	- 0.133	0.204
FQ	267	1.00	4.60	2.80	0.6113	- 0.027	0.609
PF	267	1.00	5.00	3.14	0.7183	- 0.436	0.418
AMB	267	1.00	4.83	2.56	0.6819	0.146	0.313
STAF	267	1.00	5.00	3.07	0.7254	- 0.509	0.559
SAT	267	1.00	5.00	2.81	0.7115	0.019	0.533

Table 3: Reliability, validity, and uni-dimensionality assessment

Construct	Factor Loading	Cronbach's Alpha	AVE
Food Variety		0.61	0.45
FV1	0.693
FV2	0.672
FV3	0.648
FV4	0.501
Food Quality		0.65	0.49
FQ1	0.644
FQ2	0.672
FQ3	0.732
FQ4	0.685
FQ5	0.745
Price Fairness		0.61	0.53
PF1	0.744
PF2	0.715
PF3	0.557
Ambiance		0.69	0.49
AMB1	0.760
AMB2	0.700
AMB3	0.674
AMB4	0.705
AMB5	0.649
AMB6	0.508
Staff		0.76	0.65
STAF1	0.504
STAF2	0.786
STAF3	0.826
STAF4	0.500
STAF5	0.507
Satisfaction		0.79	0.55
SAT1	0.739
SAT2	0.793
SAT3	0.700
SAT4	0.734
SAT5	0.501

Note: Factor loadings less than 0.60 are deleted according to Awang (2012) and not considered for AVE calculation

Table 4: KMO and Bartlett's test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.788
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx: Chi-Square	2.216
	df	378
	Sig	0.000

Table 5: Pearson correlations matrix

Variables	FV	FQ	PF	AMB	STAF	SAT
FV	1.00	0.192**	0.125*	0.144*	0.050 ns	0.123*
FQ	0.192**	1.00	0.233**	0.280**	0.369**	0.370**
PF	0.125*	0.233**	1.00	0.041ns	0.280**	0.194**
AMB	0.144*	0.280**	0.041ns	1.00	0.116ns	0.346**
STAF	0.050 ns	0.369**	0.280**	0.116 ns	1.00	0.271**
SAT	0.123*	0.370**	0.194**	0.346**	0.271**	1.00

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) and ns = not significant

The descriptive study Table 2 shows that the highest mean (3.14) associated with price fairness and followed by staff and food variety, respectively. The assessment of normality has been performed. According to George and Mellery (2010), the value of skewness must remain within the range of - 1 to + 1 to indicate normal distribution and the value of kurtosis - 2 to + 2 are reflected satisfactory in order to demonstrate normal univariate distribution. The Table 2 confirms the assessment of normality.

Reliability is measured through Cronbach's alpha. According to Hair et al. (2010), the lower limit value of Cronbach's alpha is 0.60 for exploratory research thus this study demonstrated the value in Table 3 and ensured reliability. In this study, the validity is ensured through convergent validity. The convergent validity can be assessed through average variance extracted (AVE). Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended that reliable variables can have less than 50 percent explained variance (AVE). Thus, the study achieved the convergent validity (see Table 3) on the suggestion of Fornell and Larcker (1981). The uni-dimensionality was measured through factor loadings. It is necessary to have acceptable factor loadings prior assessing validity and reliability. The item loading for an item must be 0.60 or higher for previously proven scales to obtain the uni-dimensionality (Awang, 2012). Table 3 shows the factor loadings higher than 0.60 thus uni-dimensionality is achieved. The results of the Pearson correlation test revealed a significant and positive correlation between food quality, staff, ambiance, price fairness, food variety, and student satisfaction in Table 5. Table 8 shows there is no multicollinearity among five dimensions of cafeteria food services and it is verified through VIF. If VIF value is less than 5.0, then there is no multicollinearity between two constructs (Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore, the sample adequacy has been performed and the Table 4 demonstrated the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy statistic value close to 1 and generally close to 1 value indicates the suitability of factor analysis. Table 4 also shows the Barlett's Test of Sphericity with small value (less than 0.05) of the significance level indicates that a factor analysis is useful with this data (George and Mellery, 2010).

4.2. Regression analysis

Regression analysis is performed after confirmatory factor analysis CFA). The main objective in confirmatory factor analysis is determining if the relationship between the variables in the hypothesized model be similar to the relationship between the variables in the observed data set (Lawrence et al., 2013).

Table 6: Model Summary^b

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R2	Standard Error of the Estimate
1	0.478	0.229	0.214	0.66102

a. Predictors: (constant), FV, FQ, PF, AMB, STAF
b. Dependent Variable: SAT

Table 7: ANOVA^b

Model	Sum of Square	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	33.843	5	6.769	15.491	0.000a
Residual	114.042	261	0.437
Total	147.885	266

a. Predictors: (constant), FV, FQ, PF, AMB, STAF
b. Dependent Variable: SAT

Table 6 shows that independent variables (food variety, food quality, price fairness, ambiance, and staffs) explain 21.4 percent variance in student satisfaction (SAT) because adjusted R2 is 0.214. The correlation of coefficient (R) is 0.478 that means there is a moderate relationship exists between independent variables and dependent variable (student satisfaction). The ANOVA Table 7 shows that F = 15.491 and it is significant at 0.000 level that means all predictors predict significantly dependent variable (student satisfaction).

Table 8:

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients β	Std. Error	Standardized Coefficient Beta	T	Sig	Collinearity Statistics VIF
1 (constant)	0.644	0.277		2.324	0.142
FV	0.025	0.058	0.025	0.439	0.535ns	1.116
FQ	0.271	0.075	0.222	3.595	0.000**	1.361
PF	0.089	0.053	0.091	1.589	0.113ns	1.203
AMB	0.282	0.062	0.261	4.582	0.000**	1.116
STAF	0.106	0.048	0.132	2.199	0.029*	1.403

a. Dependent Variable: SAT, Significant at * = p < 0.05 level, ** = p < 0.001, ns = not significant

p class="imgtitle">Table 9: Summary of Hypothesis Testing

Number	Hypothesis	Remarks
H1	There is a significant positive relationship between food quality and student satisfaction.	Accepted
H2	There is a significant positive relationship between food variety and student satisfaction.	Not accepted
H3	There is a significant positive relationship between price fairness and student satisfaction.	Not accepted
H4	There is a significant positive relationship between ambiance and student satisfaction.	Accepted
H5	There is a significant positive relationship between staffs and student satisfaction.	Accepted

The results are interpreted as follows based on Table 8 and Table 9

Food quality: The hypothesis H1 is supported as the result shows that the food quality has a standardized coefficient value of 0.222 and significant at p < 0.001 level. This leads to the acceptance of the hypothesis as there exist a positive relationship between food quality and student satisfaction about cafeteria services. This finding is consistent with several previous researchers (Ng, 2008; Andaleeb and Caskey, 2007). The stressing point is that the cafeteria management must ensure food quality endlessly to enhance student satisfaction.

Food variety: The hypothesis H2 is not supported as the result shows that the food variety has a standardized coefficient value of 0.025 and not significant at p < 0.05 level. This implies that student satisfaction is not depends on food variety at all. This result is inconsistent with Xi and Shuai (2009). At this moment, students are giving more priority on food quality instead of variety.

Price fairness: The hypothesis H3 is not supported as the finding shows that the price fairness has a standardized beta coefficient value of 0.091 and not significant at p < 0.05 level. This inconsistency implies that students are not concern about price fairness or probably they have satisfactory perceptions about this factor. This result is varying with several scholars (Nadzirah et al., 2013; Mui et al., 2014).

Ambience: The hypothesis H4 is supported by the study as the finding shows that the ambiance has a standardized beta coefficient value of 0.261 and significant at p < 0.001 level. This result suggests that ambiance has a statistically significant positive impact on student satisfaction. Thus, the authority of the cafeteria services should keep a pleasant decorative environment as much as possible for ensuring student satisfaction.

Staffs: The hypothesis H5 is supported by the study as the finding reveals that the staffs have a standardized beta coefficient value of 0.132 and significant at p < 0.05 level. This outcome is consistent with Barlett and Han (2007) and Mui et al. (2014). This result denotes that overall staffs' performance and attitude have a significant influence on student satisfaction. Thus, the authority should hire people with right attitude or they can create a part-time job opportunity for students.

5. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the research highlights the influence of five dimensions of cafeteria food services on student satisfaction. It appears that three dimensions of cafeteria services such as food quality, ambience and staffs have a significant positive impact on student satisfaction. Thus, the study reveals hypotheses H1, H4 and H5 are statistically significant and they are supported by the study. In order to ensure student satisfaction and competitive advantage, the authority should nurture food quality, ambience, and staffs properly. It is therefore important for university cafeteria operators to keep on improving the quality of food services to the customers to maximize their satisfaction level. Furthermore, to increase the number of visit per student, cafeteria operators should serve their customers in a proper ambience that can excite their interest in dining at the cafeteria.

5.1. Implications

Management in student foodservice can utilize the results to improve students' satisfaction efficiently. Moreover, ensuring continuous improvement these results could be benefited towards formulation of strategic decisions. Building student centric vibrant culture is another implication for these findings which is essential for sustainability.

5.2. Limitations and future directions

There are few inherent limitations are detected that need to be addressed. Firstly, the study has conducted merely private university perspective. Secondly, the study focuses on undergraduate students' perceptions; thus the findings of the study were still in doubt to generalize. Future studies can increase the sample and include post graduate students, in order to provide more representative results and to improve sample generalizability. Other studies may compare these findings with other findings in other hospitality sectors such as restaurants and hotels.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declared that they have no conflict of interests.

Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors participated equally in designing and estimation of current research..

Views and opinions expressed in this study are the views and opinions of the authors, Asian Journal of Empirical Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.

References

Ahmed, E. B., Eleri, J., & Mark, M. H. G. (2017). The influence of menu design, menu item descriptions and menu variety on customer satisfaction: A case study on Egypt. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11, 300-314. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Andaleeb, S., & Caskey, A. (2007). Satisfaction with food services: Insight from a college cafeteria. Foodservice Business Research Journal, 10(2), 51-65. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using Amos graphic. PENERBIT PRESS, Universiti Teknologi Mara. view at Google scholar

Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4), 328-339. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Barlett, J. E., & Han, F. (2007). Analysis of service quality in restaurants in China: An Eastern perspective. ABR & TLC Conference Proceedings. view at Google scholar

Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34-49. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Chang, M. L., Norazah, M. D., & Tam, Y. L. (2014). Student satisfaction with the service quality: A structural approach. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 4(1), 105-111.

Dimitrios, P., & Katrina, D. G. (2014). Critical factors, food quality management and organizational performance. Journal Food Control, 40(2014), 1-11. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Eckel, P. J. (1985). College & university foodservice management standards. 6, AVI Publishing Company. view at Google scholar

Eunkyung, J., Youngah, C., Nami, J., & Ji-Young, Y. (2013). Comparison of students' foodservice satisfaction between Korea and US. Nutrition Research and Practice, 7(1), 66-71. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 156-170. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Garg, A. (2014). Machanic clues vs. humanic clues: Students' perception towards service quality of fast food restaurants in Taylor's University campus. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144(1), 164-175. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 18.0 update (11th ed.). Prentice Hall Press. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. view at Google scholar

Gronroos, C. (1990). Service management: A management focus for service competition. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 1(1), 6-14. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Hanefors, M., & Mossberg, L. (2003). Searching for the extraordinary meal experience. Journal of Business and Management, 9, 249-270. view at Google scholar

Jerry, C. O. (1972). Product quality perception: A model of quality cue utilization and an empirical test. An unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. view at Google scholar

Kang, G. D., & James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: an examination of Gronroos's service quality model. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(4), 266-277. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Kim, W. G., & Kim, H. B. (2004). Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 115-131. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Klassen, K., Trybus, E., & Kumar, A. (2005). Planning food services for a campus setting. Hospitality Management, 24(1), 579-609. view at Google scholar

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd edition). The Guilford Press. New York. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Knutson, B. J. (2000). College students and fast food - How students perceive restaurant brands? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 68-74. view at Google scholar

Lawrence, S. M., Glenn, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied Multivariate Research (2nd ed.). SAGE, USA. view at Google scholar

Li, G. (2008). Difficulties facing university catering service work and responses. Service and Technology Information, 14, 72-73. view at Google scholar

Mui, L. D. C., Norazah, M. S., & Nalini, A. (2014). A structural approach on students' satisfaction level with university cafeteria. Asian Social Science, 10(18), 202-209. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Nadzirah, S., Ab-Karim, S., Ghazali, H., & Othman, M. (2013). University foodservice: An overview of factors influencing the customers' dining choice. International Food Research Journal, 20(3), 1459-1468. view at Google scholar

Ng, Y. (2005). Study of the impact of customer satisfaction on intention to return and return intention, and word-of-mouth endorsement in university dining operations. (Published master thesis) Oklahama, USA: Graduate College of Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. view at Google scholar

Nor, A. R., Shahril, H., Ashraf, S. K. A. R. S., Putri, D. A. R., Noor, S. S. (2016). The influence of food quality on customer satisfaction in fine dining restaurant: Case in Penang. International Academic Research Journal of Business and Technology, 2(2), 45-50. view at Google scholar

Norhati, I., & Hafisah, F. N. (2013). Informal setting for learning on campus: Usage and preference. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105(2013), 344-351. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. view at Google scholar

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(April), 41-50. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. view at Google scholar

Raman, S., & Chinniah, S. (2011). An investigation on higher learning students satisfaction on foodservices at university cafeteria. Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management, 1(2), 12-16. view at Google scholar

Reimer, A., & Kuehn, R. (2005). The impact of services cape on quality perception. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 785-808. view at Google scholar

Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perception of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 28-36. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Rys, M. E., Fredericks, J. O., & Lucry, D. A. (1987). Value - quality? Are service value and service quality synonymous: a decompositional approach, in Surprenant, C. (Ed.). Add value to Your Service, pp 25-28. view at Google scholar

Ryu, K., Han, & Kim, T. H. (2008). The relationship among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 457-469. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Saglik, E., Gulluce, A., Kaya, U., & Ozhan, C. (2014). Service quality and customer satisfaction relationship: A research in Erzurum Ataturk University refectory. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(1), 100-117. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurants Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Sulek, J.M., & Hensley, R.L., (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness of wait. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45 (3), 235-247. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

Troye, S. V., Skalpe, O., Ogaard, T., Larsen, K. F., Henjesand, I. J., Kvitastein, O. A., & Risholm, N. (1995). Investigation of customer satisfaction in student food service: An example of student cafeteria in NHH. The Economies of Service Quality, NHH, Bergen. view at Google scholar

UGC (2015). Annual report 2015. University Grants Commission, Bangladesh.

Xi, L., & Shuai, Z. (2009). Investigation of customer satisfaction in student food service. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1), 113-124. view at Google scholar / view at publisher

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Please fill in the answer sheet using the following scale by using (v) tick mark. 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither disagree nor agree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree. Your opinion is extremely important for our research and your participation with this project is voluntary and is greatly appreciated. All answers given will be anonymous and treated with full confidentially.