Stakeholders' Satisfaction with Institutional Services and Support Systems a Three-Year Repeated Cross-Sectional Assessment of St. Paul University Philippines from 2024 to 2026

This study assessed stakeholder satisfaction with the institutional services and support systems of St. Paul University Philippines using 2,401 anonymous survey responses collected between November 27, 2024 and June 10, 2026. The repeated cross-sectional mixed-method assessment covered eight service dimensions and 106 four-point satisfaction items. Not Applicable or Not Observed responses were excluded item by item. Quantitative analysis used valid counts, means, standard deviations, rank-order comparisons, gaps from the maximum scale score, Cronbach alpha coefficients, and Kruskal-Wallis tests with epsilon-squared effect sizes. Of the participants, 86.3% were students, and stakeholder representation became progressively more student-dominant across the three survey periods. Community Engagement and Social Responsibility ranked first overall (M = 3.26, SD = 0.51), followed by Academic and Learning Environment (M = 3.23, SD = 0.52). Physical and Digital Infrastructure ranked last (M = 3.11, SD = 0.57). Year-group differences were statistically significant across all dimensions (p < .001), but effect sizes were small (epsilon-squared = .011-.023), indicating that the numerical differences should not be overstated. The most consequential risks were campus Wi-Fi access (M = 2.70 in the original three-period aggregation), food affordability (M = 2.91), and scholarship accessibility, which declined to M = 2.98 in 2025. Among 147 analyzable narrative comments, the most frequently coded themes concerned stakeholder engagement, communication, and service processes (45.6%); academic services and student support (39.5%); and campus facilities (36.7%). The findings support targeted improvements in connectivity, affordability, facilities, and service responsiveness while recognizing strong community engagement and academic-environment results.

stakeholder satisfaction, higher education, educational organization management system, service quality,

1. Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500610641543 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa'deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P. K., & Ragavan, N. A. (2016). Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2014-0008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The influence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013060 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bowden, J. L.-H. (2011). Engaging the student as a customer: A relationship marketing approach. Marketing Education Review, 21(3), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008210302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Clemes, M. D., Cohen, D. A., & Wang, Y. (2013). Understanding Chinese university students' experiences: An empirical analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(3), 391–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2012-0068 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Douglas, J. A., Douglas, A., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2015). Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: An interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842217 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494673 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2016). The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 223–244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011022474 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer assessment of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Pham, L., Limbu, Y. B., Bui, T. K., Nguyen, H. T., & Pham, H. T. (2019). Does e-learning service quality influence e-learning student satisfaction and loyalty? Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(7), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0136-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770310493580 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical environment on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 34(3), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348009350624 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Saks, A. M. (2022). Caring human resources management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 32(3), 100835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100835 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460802489363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. UNESCO. (2022). Knowledge-driven actions: Transforming higher education for global sustainability. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Wilkins, S., & Balakrishnan, M. S. (2013). Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 143–156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297568 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Effect of Biostimulant FOLERGY on Onion Yield and Quality