
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223
PONE-D-23-32796
Research Article
Social Sciences
Economics
Labor Economics
Employment
Careers
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Survey Research
Surveys
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Survey Research
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Regression Analysis
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Regression Analysis
Social Sciences
Economics
Human Capital
Economics of Training and Education
Social Sciences
Sociology
Education
Schools
Universities
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Forecasting
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Forecasting
People and Places
Population Groupings
Religious Faiths
Islam
Predicting students’ satisfaction with academic services at a multicultural engineering university in Bangladesh: A multiple regression analysis
Predicting Students’ Satisfaction
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1117-8464
Umar Mwebesa Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8891-0265
Hasan Mahbub Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing 2 *
1 Office of the Registrar, Islamic University of Technology, Gazipur, Bangladesh
2 Department of Technical and Vocational Education, Islamic University of Technology, Gazipur, Bangladesh
Soares Sandro Vieira Editor
Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina, BRAZIL
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: m.hasan@iut-dhaka.edu
6 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030922313 10 2023
7 8 2024
© 2024 Umar, Hasan
2024
Umar, Hasan
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

This empirical study sought to determine the levels of satisfaction among engineering students enrolled at a multicultural international institution in Bangladesh with a reputation for excellence. An assortment of first- and fourth-year undergraduate students participated in the study by completing an online survey. The study focused on selected determinants namely; support services (SS), campus life (CL), economic factors (EF) and University corporate image (CI). The researchers used a survey research design (SRD) to illuminate students’ opinions and views. A multiple regression analysis (MRA) was used to regress opinions of 326 respondents who participated in the study. The disproportional stratified random sampling was used to determine the samples. The study was guided by two hypotheses. The study analyzed predictors of student satisfaction with academic services by employing standard multiple regression analysis. The findings showed that the four determinants SS, CL, EF and CI were statistically significant to predict students’ satisfaction levels [F(4,321) = 143.786, p < .001]. It was empirically discovered that Support Services had the highest impact to the model [β = .496, p < .05] followed by university Corporate Image [β = .365, p < .05]. The findings showed that Campus Life and Economic Factors were not statistically significant (p>.05) in the model of predictors implying that they do not influence students’ satisfaction levels on their academic career at the university. The researchers recommend that in order to maintain students’ satisfaction levels on their academic experiences, universities should consolidate on support services provided to the students as well as improving their corporate image and world view.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

The trend of students’ mobility and choices of academic career has significantly changed dimensions in institutions of higher learning across the globe. In this case, students are so keen about their levels of satisfaction in regard to academic and social services offered by universities [1–3]. It has therefore become incumbent upon universities to rebrand and strategically profile themselves in order to draw students’ attraction [3–5]. That is why the speedy increase of universities in individual countries has prompted managers of such institutions to ensure continued quality and improvement [6–8]. Generally, there has been visible dynamism in socio-economic, geo-politics, globalization and students’ self-drive in pursuit of the diversity of academic career. More often, and upon making choices, potential students consider benefits of internationalization of education such as joint research projects, student exchange programmes, staff mobility, foreign students-based programmes and financial aid among others. In addition, there are other multiple factors that drive students’ satisfaction in a university such as; prospects of employability, relevant curriculum, quality of teaching & learning, cost of studies & scholarships, superior infrastructure, students’ welfare, conducive learning environment, campus facilities, quality of academic staff, academic advising, value for money, university ranking, social life campus safety among others [9–11]. Further still, multiple studies on students’ continued mobility and satisfaction have revealed that students choose universities cognizant of the benefits of their career opportunities. The studies have shown that students consider different significant forms of situations and study environments that could increase their chances of; improved educational skills, academic and social life, networking relationships, gaining intercultural experiences, and potential employability [10, 12–20].

However, as universities endeavor to serve students assiduously, they face challenges of attracting quality students because of somewhat limited resources, Islamic University of Technology (IUT) inclusive. The need or policy requirement to recruit particular or a section of students into universities also comes with challenges. For example, apart from local students who get subjected to rigorous admission aptitude tests for purposes of screening the best out of the best, IUT admits foreign students based on only their previous academic qualifications without any other exclusive screening, the result of which most often, ends up with not-highly-qualified foreign students. Therefore, levels of satisfaction differ from students to students depending on home background and prior knowledge of university operations and privileges. Johnston explains that universities face challenges of what he calls attracting respectful students due to high competitions with other universities, probably in terms of outlook, corporate reputation and image, brand and prestige [5]. He adds that in most cases, it is hard to reach out to brilliant prospective applicants. It is assumed that the pursuit to quench university students’ satisfaction depends on countless domains including university’s conventional culture, vision, mission, core values, corporate image, accessibility, career prospects, market-driven curriculum, quality of faculty members and solid university management. As a corporate international university, IUT endeavors to satisfy its students given its peculiar nature of existence. This study delimited to four factors as predictors to student satisfaction at the multicultural environment of IUT: student services by the university, campus life, economic factors and university’s corporate image.

2 Significance of the study

The main rationale of this empirical study was to predict students’ levels of satisfaction with academic services offered at the Islamic University of Technology (IUT). The services were manifested as students’ own experiences during their study period at IUT. Specifically, the researchers formed a set of variables that would be able to predict students’ satisfaction of such academic experiences. The first rationale was to assess how support services offered by IUT predict students’ satisfaction of their academic experiences. Secondly, to assess how campus life at IUT predicts students’ satisfaction of their academic experiences. Thirdly, to assess how economic factors predict students’ satisfaction of their academic experiences at IUT. Fourthly, to assess how IUT’s corporate image predicts students’ satisfaction of their academic experiences. These factors were selected and adopted which were perceived to influence students’ satisfaction levels of their academic experiences at IUT in comparison with other research studies in literature [1, 21–25]. The major contribution of the study was proposition towards improvement of university services to students to meet their career satisfaction. The researchers therefore believed that the study findings would provide solutions to improve students’ academic experiences, review policies of support services, revise students’ campus life, support them economically and also promote the university’s corporate image. In addition, the study findings added value to the existing body of literature on students’ satisfaction levels with the university services towards their academic career. Besides, the study findings formed a basis for further research on related areas of students’ satisfaction.

3 Conceptual framework

The study focused on how best IUT students were primarily satisfied with the services rendered by the University in regard to their academic experiences, support services, campus life, economic factors and corporate image. The term satisfaction is, by literature, derived from the Latin word satis denoting ‘enough’ and–faction denoting facere meaning ‘to do’ or ‘to make’ [26]. The concept of satisfaction has been used widely in various disciplines most especially in marketing where the producer or supplier tries to satisfy consumer’s or user’s attitude in view of the consumer’s belief and valuation about the product or services provided.

There are many theories that have been advanced to explain the concept of satisfaction. This study referred to the Expectancy disconfirmation theory (EDT) as its guiding theoretical orientation. The EDT was developed by Oliver, who opined that a user’s satisfaction level is a consequence of the difference “between expected and perceived product performance, and expectations as predictions of future performance” [27]. He observed that satisfaction as a positive disconfirmation is realized when a product or service is quite better than expected. Contrary, when performance of a product or service is worse than expected there will be consumer’s dissatisfaction denoted as negative disconfirmation.

On the basis of EDT theory, expectations of IUT students are based on their beliefs about the quality of engineering education the university provides. On the other hand, and in regard to the fulfilment of customer’s needs, goals or desires, Hansemark and Albinson (2004) posit that satisfaction becomes an overall customer attitude towards a service provider like IUT or an emotional reaction to the difference between what customers anticipate and what they receive [28]. In the satisfaction literature studies, a number of theoretical approaches have been developed to expound the relationship between satisfaction (positive disconfirmation) and dissatisfaction (negative disconfirmation). In the case of this study, the researchers adopted Negativity Theory (NT) approach. Anderson, the proponent of this theory approach proposes that when expectations are strongly held, users will respond negatively to any disconfirmation [29]. Therefore, dissatisfaction will occur if perceived performance is less than expectations or if perceived performance surpasses expectations [30].

The study therefore sought to predict how well the four factors namely; support services, campus life, economic factors and corporate image measure students’ satisfaction levels of their academic experiences at IUT and how such levels relate to Expectancy disconfirmation theory and theoretical approach of Negativity Theory.

4 Context of this study

The Islamic University of Technology (IUT) represents 57 member countries of OIC. By nature, any potential high school student wishing to join IUT from amongst OIC member states would expect excellent and high-tech broad-based engineering education and services at campus. When students are applying to join IUT, they are provided with all the details pertaining to the university. Such particulars include; the history of IUT, faculties and departments, offered programmes, application and nomination procedures, fees and payment schedules and scholarship opportunities. The researchers considered the scope of the study in three perspectives; geographical scope, content scope and time scope. The geographical scope was delimited to IUT because of its nature of establishment as the first international university in the country. Other attractive details include; campus location and climate, ICT facilities, common facilities and services, medical services, library and e-resources, games and sports facilities, accommodation and feeding services, existing physical facilities, academic regulations and students’ welfare associations. In addition to the above, students get acquainted to the university’s vision, mission, core values and objectives of establishment.

The content scope, on the other hand, was delimited to five factors that attract satisfaction of students’ livelihood: the academic experiences, support services, campus life, economic factors and IUT’s corporate image. These factors were considered to be fundamental in the academic life of students in view of their academic studies, welfare, campus environment, economic survival and pride of the corporate image of their institution. In addition, the study considered time scope of the study. This is the period when majority of students expressed their dissatisfaction and cacophony arising out of mass failure of students in the final year examinations. Basing on the aforementioned profile of IUT, students get attracted to join expecting to receive real engineering education and services. However, in recent times, when they join and after spending a week or more often a semester or a year or two, some opt to drop out, change programmes/courses, express significant levels of dissatisfaction in particular academic areas and services though not pronounced amongst the majority.

5 Research questions and hypotheses

The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of several variables, such as campus life, financial position, and corporate image, on students’ satisfaction in higher education. Additionally, the study sought to identify the most significant predictor linked to student satisfaction. The following research question was developed to direct the research process:

How far do university support services, campus life, economic status, corporate image predict student satisfaction in higher education?

In order to assess students’ satisfaction with academic services, the researchers tested two alternative hypotheses;

H1: The following set of determinants; [support services, campus life, economic factors, institutional corporate image] does not predict first years’ and fourth years’ satisfaction of their academic experiences in higher education institutions.

H2: Campus life (CL) is the best predictor of first year and fourth year students’ satisfaction of their academic experiences at higher education institutions among other predictors; [support services, economic factors, institutional corporate image].

6 Methods

6.1 Ethical considerations

This study followed the ethical criteria recommended by the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research of the university. Data from the survey was collected via Google form. Data collection began on September 15, 2022, and ended on January 15, 2023. Each participant gave informed consent before data collection. The consent form stated that participants’ identities would be kept confidential. The Department of Research, Extension, Advisory, Services, and Publications (REASP) of the university issued ethical approval for this study (Ethical Clearance number: 23–001).

6.2 Research design and procedure

A survey research design (SRD) was considered as appropriate and convenient for the study. Creswell describes SRD as a quantitative research procedure in which a researcher administers a survey to either a sample or to entire population [31]. The SRD is designed to describe the attitudes, opinions, behaviors or characteristics of the population [32, 33]. The study also adopted a cross-sectional survey where data was collected in the same specific period of time where students expressed views about their satisfaction of IUT offered services in the academic year, 2018–2019. The study compared a cross-sectional survey of two categories of students; the first years and fourth years in view of their attitudes, beliefs, opinions and practices towards IUT service delivery.

6.3 Participants

The study population has been described in literature as a body of people or objects under consideration for statistical purposes [32]. In the academic year 2018–2019, the population of first years and fourth years was 1018 with 860 males and 158 females respectively. The first-year students included those studying postgraduate and diploma programmes. These two groups of students were taken into account in the study to forecast their levels of satisfaction in light of what they anticipated from IUT’s academic services when they first enrolled and as they continued to attend as fourth-year students.

6.4 Sample

A sample is a representative collection of elements used to determine realities about the population [34]. This study relied on the tested Krejcie and Morgan’s tables to guide in determining a sample size [35]. The Tables illustrate that a population of 1018 people attract a sample of 278, it was therefore noted that the sample collected (326 students) was over and above the expected minimum. This study adopted disproportional stratified random sampling where the population was divided into subgroups or strata and a sample selected from strata as single stratum. A google form survey questionnaire was distributed the participants of in each stratum randomly. The respondents were therefore grouped into first years and fourth years respectively and the data collection instrument was administered online.

6.5 Instrument

The researchers used a self-constructed survey questionnaire to collect data. A 5-likert scale (1- very dissatisfied. 2- dissatisfied. 3- neutral. 4- satisfied. 5- very satisfied) was used to capture respondents’ satisfaction levels. The instrument (see S1 File) was divided into 6 sections; section A contained 5 items on biodata, section B; 9 items on academic experiences, section C; 10 items on support services, section D; 9 items on campus life, section E; 8 items on economic factors and section F contained 10 on IUT corporate image. In order to ensure validity of the survey instrument, it was submitted to three experts in empirical research studies who vetted the items within their constructs by linking them with the study objectives and rationale. The outsourced experts then calculated the validity of the instrument using Content Validity Index (CVI) where items were rated on a four point scale of relevance, clarity, simplicity and ambiguity [36]. Based on the experts’ opinions, some items were accepted as valid whereas others were discarded as either irrelevant, or unclear or ambiguous. After the calculations, the CVI was found above > 0.6 or 60% meeting the minimum requirement of a research tool.

The survey instrument’s reliability was assured through consistency, dependability, and the ability to replicate research findings [37]. In order to ensure reliability of the instrument, the researchers conducted pilot study (pre-test) to ascertain degree of unreliability. The pre-test reliability was piloted online with 100 respondents at the university and tested using Cronbach’s Alpha (α) which has been described as a coefficient appropriate for empirical research [38]. The calculation of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients was determined using SPSS version 25. All the 46 items used in measuring the instrument had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of; academic experience (α = 0.860), support services (α = 0.826), campus life (α = 0.819), economic factors (α = 0.796) and IUT corporate image (α = 0.887) respectively. The coefficients indicated α above >0.7 for individual constructs; showing overall reliability of the entire survey questionnaire as 0.949, which confirmed that the instrument was very reliable. Using a Google form, the survey instrument containing 51 items, including biodata, was released online in expectation of obtaining the minimal sample size of 278 responders. It was distributed to all first- and fourth-year IUT students via the institution’s website. Respondents were given four weeks to submit properly completed surveys. Using a printer, the researchers collected the surveys.

6.6 Data analysis

The study used two forms of data analysis: basic descriptive statistics of frequency and percentage, secondly, by using multiple regression analysis (MRA). The researchers used Students’ Satisfaction in relation to their Academic Experience (AE) as one continuous dependent variable (DV) and four continuous independent variables (IV) i.e. support services (SS), Campus life (CL), Economic factors (EF) and IUT Corporate image (CI). Pallant explains that MRA gives two outcomes; how much of the variance in AE can be explained by SS, CL,EF & CI, secondly, it brings out the relative contribution of each of these IVs [39]. The researchers therefore conducted tests to determine the statistical significance of the results, in terms of the model output and the contribution of each IV. The researchers were also cognizant of the MRA assumptions and ensured they were not violated including sample size, multicollinearity and singularity, outliers, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and independence of residuals.

6.6.1 Demographic factors of the participants

This study took a survey to assess satisfaction levels of first- and fourth-year students of IUT in regard to the academic services the university offered to students. The survey tool was posted online. The response rate was higher than expected with 326 respondents from the expected minimum of 278. The researchers analyzed data using MRA and descriptive statistics with the help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. The results from demographic data indicated that 326 students responded to the study survey with 197 (60.4) first years and 129 (39.6) fourth years. As a whole, 46 (14%) females and 280 (86%) males. This ably explained the fact that there was slim enrolment of female students at the university.

The findings showed that 254 (78%) were between 18–22 years of age, 61 (19%) were between 23–27 years and 11 (3%) were 28 years and above. This meant that IUT welcomes youths and most notably, this is the age group that is naughty with online activities. The responses were characterized by the international students’ outlook. The host country, Bangladesh registered most respondents with 290 (89%), followed by Cameroonians with 13 (4%), the remaining 7% responses came from Somalis, Comorians, Chadians, Ugandans, Nigerians, Gambians, Yemenis, Afghans and Pakistanis. The findings showed that students’ responses cut across academic programmes with BSc. (CSE) as the highest with 99 (30%) respondents followed by BSc. (EEE) 81 (25%), BSc. (ME) 66 (20%), BSc. (CEE) 34 (11%), MSc. (Engg) 24 (7%), BBA 10 (4%) and BSc. TE 7 (3%). When the students were asked how they learnt about IUT, it was discovered that; (40.5%) learnt about IUT through its brochures, (31%) through IUT website, 3.3% through relatives, (13.5%) through Facebook, (7.7%) through friends and (4%) through continuing students.

7 Results

In order to assess students’ satisfaction with academic services, the researchers tested two alternative hypotheses;

H1: The following set of determinants; [support services, campus life, economic factors, institutional corporate image] does not predict first years’ and fourth years’ satisfaction of their academic experiences in higher education institutions.

H2: Campus life (CL) is the best predictor of first year and fourth year students’ satisfaction of their academic experiences at higher education institutions among other predictors; [support services, economic factors, institutional corporate image].

A multiple regression analysis output was used by the researchers to establish the real contribution of each independent variable. The standard regression approach was utilized to concurrently enter all factors into the model. Furthermore, the determination of the best predictor among the four independent variables was done by examination of the standardized coefficients of the model.

Table 1 above explains one model in which CL, EF, CL and SS have been included as predictors and AE as dependent variable. In the column labeled R is the value of the multiple correlation coefficient between the predictors and the outcome. Therefore, .801 (80.1%) is the simple correlation between AE and the predictors. The R2 in the next column is a measure of how much variability in the outcome is accounted for by the predictors. All the predictors together account for .642 (64.2%) and the remaining 35.8% is accounted for by other factors. The regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the dependent variable, TotalAE, and the predictors TotalCI, TotalEF, TotalCL, and TotalSS. The overall model demonstrated statistical significance (F(4, 321) = 143.786, p < .001), indicating that the predictors collectively accounted for a significant amount of variability in TotalAE (see Table 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.t001 Table 1 Model summaryb of predictors.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Durbin-Watson	
1	.801a	.642	.637	3.77463	1.938	
a. Predictors: (Constant), TotalCI, TotalEF, TotalCL, TotalSS

b. Dependent Variable: TotalAE

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.t002 Table 2 Analysis of variance ANOVAa.

Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	
1	Regression	8194.554	4	2048.639	143.786	.000b	
Residual	4573.559	321	14.248			
Total	12768.113	325				
a. Dependent Variable: TotalAE

b. Predictors: (Constant), TotalCI, TotalEF, TotalCL, TotalSS

7.1 Testing hypothesis 1

Table 3 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis used to determine the association between the predictors TotalSS, TotalCL, TotalEF, and TotalCI and the dependent variable TotalAE. The combined predictors of TotalAE considerably influenced the total model, which was shown to be statistically significant (F(4, 321) = 143.786, p < .001). R2 = .64 indicates that the model explained 64% of the variance in TotalAE.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.t003 Table 3 Results of linear regression analysis with simultaneous entry.

			95% CI			
Variables	Beta	Std. Error	LL	UL	β	p	
(Constant)	3.455	1.040	1.409	5.501		.001	
TotalSS	.447	.048	.353	.542	.496	.000	
TotalCL	.047	.052	-.056	.150	.043	.370	
TotalEF	-.025	.053	-.130	.079	-.020	.633	
TotalCI	.303	.039	.226	.381	.365	.000	
Note.

*p < .05

In terms of the individual predictor coefficients, TotalSS demonstrated a favorable and significant unstandardized coefficient (B = 0.447, p < .001), indicating that an increase in TotalSS of one unit is related with an increase in TotalAE of 0.447 units. TotalSS had a standardized coefficient (Beta) of 0.496, which represents a somewhat positive effect. Similar to TotalAE, TotalCI showed a positive and significant unstandardized correlation (B = 0.303, p < .001), showing that an increase in TotalCI of one unit is correlated with an increase in TotalAE of 0.303 units. TotalCI’s standardized coefficient (Beta) of 0.365 indicated a somewhat favorable effect.

TotalCL and TotalEF, on the other hand, exhibited non-significant associations with TotalAE. TotalCL exhibited a non-significant unstandardized coefficient (B = 0.047, p = .370), indicating that it did not influence TotalAE appreciably. Similarly, TotalEF exhibited an unstandardized coefficient that was not statistically significant (B = -0.025, p = .633), indicating that it had no impact on TotalAE. The model’s constant term was 3.455 (B = 3.455, p = .001), indicating the predicted value of TotalAE when all predictors are zero.

The following are the correlations among the variables: TotalSS exhibited a significant positive correlation with TotalAE (r = .744, p < .001), TotalCL exhibited a positive but non-significant correlation with TotalAE (r = .596, p = .050), TotalEF exhibited a non-significant correlation with TotalAE (r = .458, p = .027), and TotalCI exhibited a significant positive correlation with TotalAE (r = .701, p < .001). All Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) were within an acceptable range (VIF < 5), indicating that there were no problematic correlations between the predictor variables, as revealed by the collinearity diagnostics.

In summary, the first hypothesis H1 is partially accepted. University support services (SS) and corporate image (CI) significantly predict first years’ and fourth years’ satisfaction of their academic experiences in higher education institutions. However, campus life (CL) and economic factors (EF) do not predict first years’ and fourth years’ satisfaction of their academic experiences in higher education institutions.

7.2 Testing hypothesis 2

Overall, the findings imply that the significant variables explaining changes in TotalAE are TotalSS and TotalCI. In consideration of the (β) values and the magnitude of the t-statistics, the findings showed Support Services had the highest impact to the model [β = .496, p < .05] higher than IUT Corporate Image [β = .365,p < .05]. These findings can help guide measures to improve students’ overall experiences and offer insightful information about the elements affecting student happiness in the context of higher education.

In summary, hypothesis 2 is rejected. Campus life (CL) is not the best predictor, rather university support service (SS) is the best predictor of first year and fourth year students’ satisfaction of their academic experiences at higher education institutions.

8 Discussion

The study took a research survey to assess first years’ and fourth years’ satisfaction levels of their academic experiences. The services were manifested as students’ own experiences during their course of study period. Specifically, the study focused on for determinants namely, support services, campus life, economic factors and IUT corporate image. The researchers used a survey research design (SRD) to illuminate students’ opinions and views. The study used a multiple regression analysis (MRA) to regress opinions of 326 respondents who participated in the study. The disproportional stratified random sampling was used to determine the samples using Krejcie & Morgan Tables [35].

The study was motivated by the following research question: "To what extent do student support services, campus life, economic status, and corporate image predict satisfaction in higher education?" The findings showed that indeed the four determinants SS, CL, EF and CI were statistically significant to predict students’ satisfaction levels [F(4,321) = 143.786, p < .001]. It was empirically discovered that support services provided by the university (49.6%) and the corporate image (36.5%) of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) influenced first year and fourth year students to join IUT to advance their academic career. The principle of MRA analysis inferred that for each unit increased on support services and improvement on IUT corporate image students’ satisfaction levels of their academic experiences increased by 49.6% and 36.5% respectively [40].

The findings therefore implied that IUT should interest itself in the factors that were tested on students’ academic experiences which appeared in the “survey instrument’ for purposes of improving students’ satisfaction levels. They included lecture rooms, quality of teachers, course content, teaching methods, academic advising, laboratory facilities, library services, university’s automation system and timely feedback from teachers. This finding concurred with the findings of Stoltenberg (2011) who investigated the concept of student’s satisfaction; a case of international students [21]. The study found that were satisfied with library facilities and general academic life. On the other hand, factors that were tested on Support Services included; campus accommodation services, food service in the cafeteria, career counseling & placement, medical services, communication between students and teachers, university administrative policies, friendliness of IUT staff in time of need, Wi-Fi free for students and support for improving English Language skills. In addition, factors that formed IUT Corporate Image in the ‘survey instrument’ included IUT as a subsidiary organ of OIC, IUT image in your country, IUT image in Bangladesh, academic reputation of IUT, Islamic reputation of IUT, size of campus, suitable for career preparation, IUT’s vision & mission, environment for international exposure and reputation for excellent staff.

The findings showed that Campus Life and Economic Factors were not statistically significant (p>.05) in the model of predictors. This was perceived to imply that whether the university focuses on them or not they do not influence students’ satisfaction levels on their academic career at IUT. The factors tested on Campus Life in the ‘survey instrument’ included physical appearance of the campus, sports and recreational facilities, students’ clubs & organizations, students’ own government, campus security, campus social life, IUT physical location, students’ discipline at campus and friendliness of students at campus.

Similarly, the factors tested on Economic Factors that never appeared statistically significant included financial aid, transport services for IUT students, tuition cost (fees), students’ pocket allowance, distance from home, cost of leaving at campus, opportunity for casual jobs at campus, and personal survival at campus. This finding was perceived to mean that the financial aid (pocket allowances & tuition waiver) that students receive from the administration, the fees structure, the perceived cost of living in Bangladesh all such factors do not add to their satisfaction levels on their academic career at IUT. The researchers wondered why students were not satisfied with economic factors prevailing at campus; could it be that there are not casual job opportunities for them at campus unlike in other institutions [21]. Could it be because of high cost of living in the country? The issue would not be fees structure because IUT is one of the cheapest nonpublic universities in the country that charge a consolidated fees structure that includes accommodation, feeding, library fees, ICT fees among other additional fees. However, the understandable barriers could be harsh physical climate and communication barriers most especially for international students. Such factors make students become more disillusioned.

The findings of the study confirm the study’s theoretical orientation. The IUT is an international university with students of diverse cultures, different ethnical backgrounds, habits, attitudes, goals, interests, educational experiences, expectations among other complex diversities. By nature, it is rather practically impossible to meet each student’s academic expectations [41]. In the demographic presentation of findings, it was discovered that use of brochures (40.5%) was the most predominant source of information through which students get to know about IUT as a university compared to IUT website (31%), Facebook (13.5%), friends (7.7%), continuing students (4%) and through relatives (3.3%). This would imply that at the time of application, they refer to brochures/booklets that do not entail adequate information about the university in terms of infrastructure, programme curricular among others. This is quite contrary to other institutions where internet and media are the major formal channels of information [1].

9 Conclusions and recommendations

Basing on the rationale of the study and its findings, the researchers concluded that IUT students take interest to observe key factors that heighten their academic career and inconsequential factors that they can relinquish. Consequently, it can be concluded that IUT students do not take campus life and economic factors as key determinants of their academic career. This could be because of the nature, culture and attitude they encounter a long way. The following recommendations are made:

In order to maintain students’ satisfaction levels on their academic experiences, the university should improve on support services and advance its corporate image. Support services can be improved through advanced academic practices, benchmarking and formal systems of work. On the other hand, IUT corporate image can be improved through rigorous periodical adverts in print and audiovisual media.

The factors that were found insignificant ie campus life and economic factors should be a university priority and focus. Students’ may not regard them as important to their academic career because of unknown reasons. It would be the responsibility of the stakeholders to intervene accordingly.

Further study to include survey on mass failure of students in same courses. Secondly a survey on students’ satisfaction levels on the engineering education curricular in view of their prospective career. Thirdly a tracer survey on IUT Alumni’s satisfaction levels of their training at IUT and their employability upon graduation.

Supporting information

S1 File Survey instrument for assessing predictors of first year students’ levels of satisfaction.

(DOCX)

S1 Data Survey on student satisfaction.

(SAV)

We thank all participants. The authors are also grateful for the insightful comments suggested by the editor and the anonymous reviewers.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r001
Decision Letter 0
Abbas Qaisar Academic Editor
© 2024 Qaisar Abbas
2024
Qaisar Abbas
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
14 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-32796Predicting Students' Satisfaction with Academic Services at a Multicultural Engineering University in Bangladesh: A Multiple Regression AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hasan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please see the reviewers comments and upgrade your manuscript. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Qaisar Abbas, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. For studies involving third-party data, we encourage authors to share any data specific to their analyses that they can legally distribute. PLOS recognizes, however, that authors may be using third-party data they do not have the rights to share. When third-party data cannot be publicly shared, authors must provide all information necessary for interested researchers to apply to gain access to the data. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions)

For any third-party data that the authors cannot legally distribute, they should include the following information in their Data Availability Statement upon submission:

1) A description of the data set and the third-party source

2) If applicable, verification of permission to use the data set

3) Confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have

4) All necessary contact information others would need to apply to gain access to the data

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Research objective and question is too much complex. Author should write in simple manner. Author should write research objectives as per the variables. Research questions should rewrite as per objectives. Each research questions should answer separately in the data analysis and result section. Author stated that Google form have been used for the data collections so how can author claimed that stratified random sampling have been used in the study ? So clarify the sample selection process. Sample size is appropriate. Author should rewrite research finding section and discussion section. Author should use statistical analysis techniques as per reframe questions.

Reviewer #2: A. Please restate and structure your abstract in 200 to 300 words based on the manuscript's important ideas. It must include the following sections: (1) introduction to the problem. (2) aims; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) conclusion; and (6) keywords with three parts: (a) discipline of the study; (b) concepts studied; and (c) methodologies and processes.

B. After the conclusions, incorporate this methodology' recommendations into your study.

Reviewer #3: 1) Please clearly highlight the hypotheses of this research and the methodology used to prove or disprove it.

2) The Abstract section does not highlight the novelty clearly.

3) The introduction section is vaguely written. Introduction section must be written on more qualitative way.

4) English language should be carefully checked and carefully check paper for language typos. There are few typo and grammatical errors in the paper.

5) Organization and formatting of the paper is poor.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: GANPATSINH PATEL

Reviewer #2: Yes: Laurice Tolentino

Reviewer #3: Yes: Prof. Kitmo

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
17 Jan 2024

Response to Reviewer #1 comments

We extend our gratitude to the esteemed reviewer for their valuable input on our manuscript.

Two hypotheses, denoted as H1 and H2, have been incorporated into Section 5, aligning with the research question. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the variables under investigation.

In the analysis section, the results of the hypothesis tests conducted through multiple regression analysis are presented separately. This ensures clarity in demonstrating whether the hypotheses are accepted or rejected.

The study employed a disproportional stratified random sampling approach. This involved dividing the population into distinct subgroups or strata, with a sample selected from each stratum as a single stratum.

A Google Form survey questionnaire was distributed randomly among participants within each stratum, ensuring a representative and diverse sample.

Response to Reviewer #2 comments

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have now restated the abstract in 230 words, following the guidelines provided by the reviewer.

Recommendations are now added after the conclusions.

Response to Reviewer #3 comments

We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments.

1) Two hypotheses, denoted as H1 and H2, have been incorporated into Section 5, aligning with the research question. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the variables under investigation.

2) The abstract is now revised and highlights the novelty.

3) After careful restructuring of the whole article, the introduction now reflects credibility.

4) After a meticulous restructuring of the entire article, we are pleased to inform you that the introduction section reflects its credibility.

5) The organisation and formatting of the paper are now revised.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r003
Decision Letter 1
Abbas Qaisar Academic Editor
© 2024 Qaisar Abbas
2024
Qaisar Abbas
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
18 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-32796R1Predicting Students' Satisfaction with Academic Services at a Multicultural Engineering University in Bangladesh: A Multiple Regression AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hasan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Minor revisions required Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Qaisar Abbas, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r004
Author response to Decision Letter 1
Submission Version2
19 Apr 2024

We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the academic editor and the reviewers on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each reviewer's feedback, ensuring that all concerns were thoroughly considered and appropriately addressed.

Regarding the nature of our study, we wish to clarify that our research article is empirical, utilizing empirical data to support our findings and conclusions. We have ensured the accuracy and reliability of the data presented, adhering to established research methodologies and ethical standards.

Although we have previously addressed all points raised by the reviewers in our revision submission, we have included them again below for your convenience and reference. We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript, rendering it suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r005
Decision Letter 2
Soares Sandro Vieira Academic Editor
© 2024 Sandro Vieira Soares
2024
Sandro Vieira Soares
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version2
14 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-32796R2Predicting Students' Satisfaction with Academic Services at a Multicultural Engineering University in Bangladesh: A Multiple Regression AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hasan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sandro Vieira Soares, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

Please find below the reviewer's comments. In accordance with this review, my decision is Major Revision.

Best regards,

Primarily, I'd like to extend congratulations to the authors for their choice of article topic and the statistical methodology employed for analysis. I wish to highlight certain areas for improvement.

Given that this is a statistical study involving latent and observable variables, it would have been more appropriate to utilise Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), which offers advantages over regression.

It is essential to present all steps of the SEM for validating the hypotheses. Null hypotheses (Ho) should be provided for each alternative hypothesis (H1 and H2).

It's worth noting that the questionnaire employs an interval scale (ranging from 1 to 5). This detail should be included on text.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: Primarily, I'd like to extend congratulations to the authors for their choice of article topic and the statistical methodology employed for analysis. I wish to highlight certain areas for improvement.

Given that this is a statistical study involving latent and observable variables, it would have been more appropriate to utilise Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), which offers advantages over regression.

It is essential to present all steps of the SEM for validating the hypotheses. Null hypotheses (Ho) should be provided for each alternative hypothesis (H1 and H2).

It's worth noting that the questionnaire employs an interval scale (ranging from 1 to 5). This detail should be included on text.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r006
Author response to Decision Letter 2
Submission Version3
14 Jun 2024

We thank the reviewer for their congratulations on our choice of article topic and the statistical methodology employed for our analysis. We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and are grateful for their constructive comments on areas for improvement.

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion regarding Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) as a potentially advantageous approach for statistical analysis. However, in this particular study, our primary focus was to identify the key factors influencing students' satisfaction in an engineering university through regression analysis.

The collected data and study objectives were specifically tailored towards this goal, aiming to pinpoint the most significant predictor variable among the observed factors. While SEM indeed offers valuable insights by simultaneously considering latent and observable variables, its application might not align with the scope and objectives of our research.

Regression analysis provides a straightforward and widely accepted method for determining the relationship between independent and dependent variables, which suited our study's purpose effectively. Moreover, considering the complexity and resource demands associated with SEM, employing it without clear relevance to our research goals could potentially introduce unnecessary complexity and ambiguity to our findings.

Here are a few examples of research studies conducted in the higher education field that utilized multiple regression analysis (MRA) without employing Structural Equation Modelling (SEM):

Koob, C., Schröpfer, K., Coenen, M., Kus, S., & Schmidt, N. (2021). Factors influencing study engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study among health and social professions students. PLoS One, 16(7), e0255191.

Abdolrezapour, P., Jahanbakhsh Ganjeh, S., & Ghanbari, N. (2023). Self-efficacy and resilience as predictors of students’ academic motivation in online education. PLoS One, 18(5), e0285984.

Tarman, B., & Kilinc, E. (2023). Predicting High School Students’ Global Civic Engagement: A Multiple Regression Analysis. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 47(1), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2022.02.001

Julián, M., & Bonavia, T. (2021). Understanding unethical behaviors at the university level: A multiple regression analysis. Ethics & Behavior, 31(4), 257-269.

While SEM is undoubtedly a powerful tool for certain types of analyses, its application is guided by the specific research questions and objectives at hand. In our case, regression analysis emerged as the most suitable approach for achieving our study's aims of identifying the primary predictor of students' satisfaction in an engineering university.

The information regarding the interval scale of the questionnaire (ranging from 1 to 5) has been included in the document. Specifically, this detail can be found on page 8, section 6.5, and further elaborated in Appendix A on page 20.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r007
Decision Letter 3
Soares Sandro Vieira Academic Editor
© 2024 Sandro Vieira Soares
2024
Sandro Vieira Soares
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version3
8 Aug 2024

Predicting Students' Satisfaction with Academic Services at a Multicultural Engineering University in Bangladesh: A Multiple Regression Analysis

PONE-D-23-32796R3

Dear Dr. Mahbub Hasan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sandro Vieira Soares, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

10.1371/journal.pone.0309223.r008
Acceptance letter
Soares Sandro Vieira Academic Editor
© 2024 Sandro Vieira Soares
2024
Sandro Vieira Soares
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
28 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-32796R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hasan,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sandro Vieira Soares

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Monioukas F. , Stavrinoudis T. , and Aggelis V. , "Students’ satisfaction from postgraduate courses offered at the University of Aegean Business School: Ways of measurement and suggestion for its improvement," in Proceedings of the 1st Biannual International Conference “Strategic Developments in Services Marketing, 2007, pp. 27–29.
2 Levatino A. , "Transnational higher education and international student mobility: determinants and linkage: A panel data analysis of enrolment in Australian higher education," Higher Education, vol. 73 , pp. 637–653, 2017.
3 Shago N. E. , "Student satisfaction survey as a quality improvement tool at Tshwane University of Technology," 2005.
4 Wilkins S. and Huisman J. , "Student recruitment at international branch campuses: Can they compete in the global market?," Journal of studies in international education, vol. 15 , no. 3 , pp. 299–316, 2011.
5 Johnston T. C. , "Who and what influences choice of university? Student and university perceptions," American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), vol. 3 , no. 10 , pp. 15–24, 2010.
6 Helgesen Ø. , "Marketing for higher education: A relationship marketing approach," Journal of marketing for higher education, vol. 18 , no. 1 , pp. 50–78, 2008.
7 J. Wiers-Jenssen, B. r. Stensaker, and J. B. Gr⊘ gaard, "Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept," Quality in higher education, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 183–195, 2002.
8 Mavondo F. T. , Tsarenko Y. , and Gabbott M. , "International and local student satisfaction: Resources and capabilities perspective," Journal of marketing for higher education, vol. 14 , no. 1 , pp. 41–60, 2004.
9 Monitor I. , "The state of international student mobility in 2015," 2015.
10 Soutar G. N. and Turner J. P. , "Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis," International journal of educational management, vol. 16 , no. 1 , pp. 40–45, 2002.
11 Altbach P. G. , Reisberg L. , and Rumbley L. E. , Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Brill, 2019.
12 Lee C.-F. , "An investigation of factors determining the study abroad destination choice: A case study of Taiwan," Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 18 , no. 4 , pp. 362–381, 2014.
13 Coates H. and Edwards D. , "The graduate pathways survey: New insights on education and employment outcomes five years after bachelor degree completion," Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 65 , no. 1 , pp. 74–93, 2011.
14 Marcotte C. , Desroches J. , and Poupart I. , "Preparing internationally minded business graduates: The role of international mobility programs," International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 31 , no. 6 , pp. 655–668, 2007.
15 Li M. and Bray M. , "Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push–pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau," Higher education, vol. 53 , pp. 791–818, 2007.
16 Arambewela R. and Hall J. , "A model of student satisfaction: International postgraduate students from Asia," ACR European Advances, 2007.
17 Maringe F. , "University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing," International journal of educational management, vol. 20 , no. 6 , pp. 466–479, 2006.
18 Kehm B. M. , "The Contribution of International Student Mobility to Human Development and Global Understanding," Online Submission, vol. 2 , no. 1 , pp. 18–24, 2005.
19 Berge Z. L. and Huang Y.-P. , "A Model for Sustainable Student Retention: A Holistic Perspective on the Student Dropout Problem with Special Attention to e," Learning, vol. 13 , no. 5 , pp. 97–108, 2004.
20 Elliott K. M. and Healy M. A. , "Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention," Journal of marketing for higher education, vol. 10 , no. 4 , pp. 1–11, 2001.
21 Stoltenberg G. , "Investigating the Concept of Student’Satisfaction.: The Case of International Students at the UiO," 2011.
22 Delaney A. M. , "Quality assessment of professional degree programs," Research in Higher Education, vol. 38 , pp. 241–264, 1997.
23 Conrad C. F. and Eagan D. J. , "Master’s degree programs in American higher education," Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. 6 , pp. 107–160, 1990.
24 Cook R. W. and Zallocco R. L. , "Predicting university preference and attendance: Applied marketing in higher education administration," Research in Higher Education, vol. 19 , pp. 197–211, 1983.
25 Neumann Y. and Neumann L. , "Determinants of students’ satisfaction with course work: An international comparison between two universities," Research in Higher Education, vol. 14 , pp. 321–333, 1981.
26 O. E. Dictionary, "Oxford English Dictionary," Simpson, JA & Weiner, ESC.–1989, 1993.
27 Oliver R. L. , "A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions," Journal of marketing research, vol. 17 , no. 4 , pp. 460–469, 1980.
28 Hansemark O. C. and Albinsson M. , "Customer satisfaction and retention: the experiences of individual employees," Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, vol. 14 , no. 1 , pp. 40–57, 2004.
29 Anderson E. W. and Fornell C. , "A customer satisfaction research prospectus," Service quality: New directions in theory and practice, pp. 241–268, 1994.
30 Aigbavboa C. and Thwala W. , "A theoretical framework of users’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction theories and models," in 2nd International Conference on Arts, Behavioral Sciences and Economics Issues (ICABSEI’2013) Dec, 2013, pp. 17–18.
31 Creswell J. W. , Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Inc, 2012.
32 Kothari C. R. , Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International, 2004.
33 Beins B. C. and McCarthy M. A. , Research methods and statistics in psychology. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
34 Field A. , Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. sage, 2013.
35 Krejcie R. V. and Morgan D. W. , "Determining sample size for research activities," Educational and psychological measurement, vol. 30 , no. 3 , pp. 607–610, 1970.
36 Yaghmaie F. , "Content validity and its estimation," Journal of medical education, vol. 3 , no. 1 , 2003.
37 Zohrabi M. , "Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings," Theory and practice in language studies, vol. 3 , no. 2 , p. 254, 2013.
38 Sekaran U. and Bougie R. , Research methods for business: A skill building approach. john wiley & sons, 2016.
39 J. Pallant, SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. McGraw-hill education (UK), 2020.
40 Francis G. and Field A. P. , Discovering Statistics Using SPSS:(and Sex and Drugs and Rock’n’Roll). Sage, 2011.
41 Elliott K. M. and Shin D. , "Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept," Journal of Higher Education policy and management, vol. 24 , no. 2 , pp. 197–209, 2002.
