Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh

Muchsin .; Agus Wahyudin; Arief Yulianto; Eko Handoyo

doi:10.12688/f1000research.180280.1

Home Browse Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Muchsin .¹, Agus Wahyudin², Arief Yulianto², Eko Handoyo³

PUBLISHED 27 Jul 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Graduate Education Management, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, 50229, Indonesia
² Faculty of Economics and Business,, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, 50229, Indonesia
³ Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, 50229, Indonesia

Muchsin .
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Agus Wahyudin
Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Arief Yulianto
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Visualization

Eko Handoyo
Roles: Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Abstract

Introduction

Global competition in higher education requires institutions not only to deliver quality education but also to create a fulfilling total student experience in order to build student loyalty. This challenge is especially difficult for private universities, which depend on tuition fees as their primary source of income, in contrast to public universities that are supported by state budgets. Such conditions have led to the closure and merger of many private universities across different countries, making student loyalty a critical factor for institutional sustainability, financial stability, and reputation.

Methods

This study employs a quantitative research design using Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) analysis. The population comprised all active students at Universitas Jabal Ghafur (N = 3,031), and a sample of 352 students was selected through stratified random sampling.

Results

The findings reveal that service quality does not directly affect student loyalty (path coefficient = 0.057, p > 0.05). Instead, student satisfaction acts as a full mediator, significantly transforming the effect of service quality into loyalty (indirect effect = 0.177, p < 0.001) and directly driving loyalty (coefficient = 0.581, p < 0.001). Furthermore, work culture significantly moderates the relationship between service quality and student satisfaction (0.121, p < 0.05), while brand image strengthens the satisfaction-loyalty relationship (0.219, p < 0.001). These results confirm that student loyalty is formed through an indirect and complex mechanism rather than a linear one.

Conclusions

This study extends the SERVQUAL model by incorporating work culture and brand image as contingency factors, while confirming the mediating role of student satisfaction. Practically, private universities should adopt a holistic strategy integrating satisfaction, positive work culture, and brand image. Contextually, religiosity and social resilience are key to building loyalty in Aceh. Despite limitations (single institution, cross-sectional design), this study offers strategic insights for the sustainability of private universities facing global competition and demographic pressures.

Keywords

service quality, work culture, satisfaction, brand image, student loyalty

Corresponding author: Muchsin .

Competing interests: The authors declare that this study was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationship that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Grant information: The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research. This work was funded by the Indonesian Education Scholarship, Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment, and Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2026 . M et al. 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 work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions.

How to cite: . M, Wahyudin A, Yulianto A and Handoyo E. Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:1235 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180280.1) First published: 27 Jul 2026, 15:1235 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180280.1) Latest published: 27 Jul 2026, 15:1235 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180280.1)

1. Introduction

The higher education sector faces increasingly fierce global competition. Educational institutions are not only required to provide quality education but also to build a satisfying overall student experience in order to foster student loyalty.^1,2 Student loyalty is a crucial foundation for universities, directly impacting operational sustainability, financial stability through recommendations and continued study, and long-term reputation.^3,4 Recognizing this urgency, various studies have attempted to identify the determining factors. Findings from the literature review indicate that loyalty is not formed instantly, but rather is the result of a complex chain of cause and effect. Key factors that have a significant influence include service quality in all aspects, the level of satisfaction felt by students, a strong institutional image in the eyes of the public, and the value perceived by students for the investment they make in their education.^5–7 A strategic and holistic approach is absolutely necessary to address all of these elements.

The context of this global trend poses a greater challenge for private universities, which are heavily dependent on student tuition fees as their main source of income, unlike public universities that receive state funding. This financial dependence makes student loyalty and retention a matter of life and death for private universities. This phenomenon is not merely a theoretical concept, but a reality that has triggered a wave of global consolidation in the private university sector. Several problems faced by private universities in various countries have led to closures and mergers, such as in Portugal, where demographic stagnation and regulations caused the share of private universities to decline from 36% to 25% (1996–2006), triggering the closure and merger of several institutions.⁸ Japan experienced a drastic decline in private vocational colleges due to a decrease in the number of high school graduates, with many non-university institutions closing or merging.^9,10 In Romania and El Salvador, delayed regulations (such as stricter accreditation) following the uncontrolled growth of private higher education institutions led to many closures or mergers.^11,12 Meanwhile, in Georgia and Kenya, the internal privatization of the public sector (paid Module II programs at public universities) competed directly with PTS and reduced their market share, triggering consolidation.^13,14 Similar phenomena also occurred in Thailand and Indonesia due to the expansion of the public sector and demographic pressures.^15,16

Higher education policies and practices have created structural inequalities between private and public universities, particularly in terms of funding, regulation, and legitimacy. Given PTS’s dependence on tuition fees, retaining students is more cost-effective than recruiting new ones, a strategy that is unsustainable and can actually weaken the institution’s brand.^17,18 Loyalty is reflected in continued studies and positive recommendations, which are the most effective form of marketing.¹⁹ Competitive pressure from other private universities and increasingly aggressive public universities not only demands student loyalty but also requires a strong brand image.²⁰ As a result, many private universities are trapped in an unsustainable cycle that ultimately forces institutions to close or merge.

Student loyalty plays a dual role as a pillar of institutional survival and a driver of achievement. In preventing closure or merger, loyalty reflected in high retention rates, timely tuition payments, and positive recommendations ensures financial stability and reduces new student recruitment costs, thereby strengthening institutional sustainability.²¹ At the same time, loyalty supports the achievement of SDGs, particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) through improving institutional reputation, global competitiveness, and sustainable social impact. Loyal students become natural promotional agents who strengthen the image of the campus at the national and international levels.²² Understanding the mechanisms of student loyalty formation in the context of private universities, such as in Aceh, is not only a strategic necessity for the survival of the institution, but also a tangible contribution to a more resilient and higher quality higher education ecosystem.

Research on loyalty in education has long been dominated by a linear approach that directly links classical variables. Previous studies conducted in India²³ and in Japanese²⁴ consistently examined the direct causal relationship between service quality and student loyalty. A similar linear pattern was also found in different contexts, on international student satisfaction, which still focused on the direct relationship between variables.²⁵ Several previous studies have placed student satisfaction as the main variable that linearly predicts loyalty.^26,27 The most crucial gap is the lack of exploration of the mediating role of student satisfaction, including their perceptions of institutional image.²⁸ In addition, previous models often ignore how students’ experiences and outcomes, such as their intention to drop out, are indirectly influenced by service quality,²⁹ which emphasizes the need for a more complex mediation approach.

Based on the above research gaps in the literature that ignore satisfaction mediation mechanisms³⁰ and the lack of studies on contextual moderating variables, the mediating role of satisfaction in transforming service quality into sustainable loyalty³¹ as well as testing the moderation of institutional work culture³² and brand image^21,33 which are often overlooked in student loyalty models, particularly in the context of global education competition.³⁴ Previous research has limitations in its linear approach, which ignores the mediating role of satisfaction and moderating variables such as brand image and work culture, thus failing to comprehensively explain the formation of student loyalty in global competition.

The novelty of this research lies in its integrative research model approach. Several previous studies in Indonesia and internationally have discussed the relationship between variables, but there has been no integrated research that links student loyalty and service quality moderated by work culture and brand image variables in a complex manner. This research approach is still rarely used in higher education research, especially in the context of Aceh, which has unique socio-cultural and economic characteristics. Thus, this study bridges a significant gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence from a unique setting.

Several studies have discussed student loyalty in Indonesian universities, such as at Bina Darma University in Palembang,³⁵ at Padang State University,³⁶ at Batuta University,³⁷ and at 13 universities in Riau province.³⁸ However, this study specifically places Jabal Ghafur University Sigli, Aceh, not only as a subject of study, but as a historical epicenter that proves that this institution is the pioneer of private higher education in Aceh, where its existence and resilience since its establishment on September 30, 1982, make it a critical case study for analyzing the real contributions and adaptation strategies of the oldest private university in advancing the educational landscape and shaping intellectuals in the unique province of Aceh with its characteristics of implementing Islamic law, strong local wisdom values, and post-conflict and tsunami social dynamics, thus providing a highly relevant and interesting context for examining the phenomenon of student loyalty at Jabal Ghafur University.

This study will produce comprehensive findings on (1) the analysis of the direct effect of service quality on student loyalty at private university Aceh; (2) the analysis of the direct effect of satisfaction on student loyalty at private university Aceh; (3) the analysis of the direct effect of service quality on student satisfaction; (4) testing the mediation of student satisfaction; and (5) the role of organizational work culture moderation and (6) brand image in this relationship. Theoretically, this study provides a philosophical foundation that emphasizes the importance of building long-term relationships with students as key customers, where loyalty is a key outcome of quality relationships.^39,40 This theory shifts the focus from single transactions to sustainable retention and engagement.¹⁹ In practical terms, the research results provide evidence-based management strategies for private university administrators to allocate resources more effectively.⁴¹ In terms of policy, the research findings can form the basis for recommendations for private higher education stakeholders in Aceh to build loyalty based on service quality and brand image, not only as a marketing strategy, but as a strategic necessity for survival in a competitive and highly regulated ecosystem.⁴²

1.2 Literature study

1.2.1 The role of student loyalty in the sustainability of PTS and contribution to SDGs

Student loyalty in private higher education institutions is a strategic investment that supports institutional sustainability and the achievement of SDGs. From an operational perspective, loyalty ensures financial stability through student retention and the continuity of tuition fee payments. More broadly, loyalty contributes directly to SDG 4 (Quality Education) through the sustainability of educational participation, as well as SDG 16 (Peace and Justice) through the creation of an inclusive campus environment. Student loyalty is not merely a marketing strategy, but a real contributor to the global development agenda.^43,44

1.2.2 Research hypothesis

H1:

Service quality has a direct positive effect on student loyalty.

Service quality through the servqual dimension has a positive effect on student loyalty. This impact is manifested in the intention to continue studying, recommending the institution, and strengthening identity as part of the campus community. Service quality is a consistent foundation for the formation of loyalty.^45,46 Investing in service quality is a fundamental strategy for building a loyal and sustainable student base.

H2:

Satisfaction has a direct positive effect on loyalty.

Student satisfaction has a direct positive effect on student loyalty at Jabal Ghafur University. Student satisfaction is the most consistent direct driver for shaping student loyalty.^47,48 Student satisfaction is not only the ultimate goal but also a fundamental strategy in building a loyal and sustainable student base.

H3:

Service quality has a direct positive effect on satisfaction.

Service quality has a significant effect on student satisfaction. This hypothesis is consistent with previous studies that confirm service quality through teaching, facilities, and administration aspects as the main determinants of satisfaction in the higher education sector.⁴⁹ Thus, holistic improvement in service quality not only builds immediate satisfaction but also lays the foundation for long-term loyalty and institutional competitive advantage.⁵⁰

H4:

Satisfaction Significantly Mediates the Effect of Service Quality on Student Loyalty.

Student satisfaction is a key mediator in the relationship between service quality and loyalty. Satisfaction plays a strategic role as a mediator between service quality and customer loyalty.^51,52 Satisfaction will transform perceptions of quality into loyalty in the form of study retention and recommendations.⁵³

H5:

Work culture significantly moderates the influence of service quality on satisfaction.

Work culture significantly moderates the relationship between service quality and student satisfaction. A strong organizational work culture influences how employees provide services and how recipients respond.⁵⁴ A positive work culture, such as collaboration and commitment to quality, can strengthen the impact of service quality on student satisfaction.⁵⁵ These shared values serve as a foundation that drives service quality improvement, while also guiding organizational behaviour.⁵⁶

H6:

Brand image significantly moderates the influence of satisfaction on student loyalty.

Brand image acts as an important moderator in the relationship between student satisfaction and loyalty. A positive brand image, such as academic reputation, adequate facilities, and a successful alumni network, can strengthen the influence of satisfaction on student loyalty.^57,58 When students are satisfied, a strong brand image will strengthen their emotional attachment, encouraging long-term loyalty and willingness to recommend the university.⁵⁹ Brand image not only reinforces the impact of satisfaction, but also creates a solid foundation for the university’s ongoing relationships.

1.2.3 Development of hypothesized student loyalty

Conceptual relationships form the basis of fundamental understanding and the foundation for researchers. Based on the theories of Parasuraman⁴⁵ and Anderson & Fornell,⁵¹ this study proposes an integrative model that places service quality as the foundation for building student loyalty, both directly and indirectly through the mediation of satisfaction. This model is reinforced by two contingency mechanisms: Work culture⁵⁴ acts as a moderator that strengthens the relationship between service quality and satisfaction, while brand image⁵⁷ functions as a moderator that strengthens the influence of satisfaction on loyalty. A summary of the hypothesized student loyalty is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Summary of hypothesized student loyalty.

Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of the study that examines the influence of service quality, work culture, and brand image on student loyalty, with satisfaction as a mediating variable. There are six hypotheses: H1 tests the direct effect of service quality on student loyalty, H2 tests the effect of satisfaction on student loyalty, H3 tests the direct effect of service quality on satisfaction, H4 tests the effect of satisfaction in mediating service quality on student loyalty, and H5 and H6 test the indirect effect of work culture and brand image on student loyalty through satisfaction.

2. Method

2.1 Study context

The research design used in this study is a quantitative research design. This study uses the Structural Equation Modeling-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) analysis technique. This technique was chosen based on the predictive and exploratory nature of the study in developing a complex theoretical model with mediating and moderating variables, as well as focusing on maximizing the variance of the dependent variable (loyalty) rather than testing model fit. The use of SEM-PLS is also reinforced by a number of previous studies that applied similar techniques in the context of higher education.^60,61 This study uses a survey type of research in which the research provides clear limitations on the data. The survey was conducted by distributing a list of statements in the form of a questionnaire to respondents. The questionnaire was used as the main instrument to measure the variables studied, namely service quality, work culture, satisfaction, brand image, and loyalty.

2.2 Sample and population

The data source in this study was primary data using a questionnaire containing closed-ended questions. The researchers used a questionnaire instrument that was distributed to all students at Jabal Ghafur University. The questionnaire instrument was developed with the prior consent of the informants involved regarding data confidentiality, and the data collection process was carried out in accordance with applicable research ethics principles. This study uses a single case study approach, focusing the analysis on Jabal Ghafur University as the research subject. The university was selected purposively from 2,812 private universities registered in Indonesia.⁶² The researcher does not aim to generalize to all private universities in Indonesia, but rather to understand the phenomenon in depth within a specific context. Universitas Jabal Ghafur was chosen because it possesses unique characteristics not representative of other private universities, namely: (1) as a historical epicenter demonstrating that this institution is the oldest private higher education pioneer in Aceh; (2) unique characteristics with the implementation of Islamic law; (3) strong local wisdom values; (4) post-conflict and post-tsunami social dynamics. By focusing on a single university, the researcher can control external variables and extract richer data. The specific population of this study was all active students enrolled at Universitas Jabal Ghafur, totaling 3,031 students. The sample consisted of 352 students, obtained through stratified random sampling. This method is similar to that used by several previous researchers^21,63–66 This method was used to determine the sample size for each academic year/cohort. The sample characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample characteristics of student loyalty per academic year.

Academic Year	Population	Sample	Percentage
Academic Year 2024/2025	1,099	128	36.65
Academic Year 2023/2024	876	102	28.69
Academic Year 2022/2023	534	62	17.61
Academic Year 2021/2022	522	60	17.05
Total	3,031	352	100

2.3 Research instrument testing

Research instrument testing aims to ensure that the questionnaires used are valid and reliable. Validity testing, namely convergent validity testing (loading factor > 0.7 and AVE > 0.5), ensures that the questionnaire items accurately measure the intended construct. Meanwhile, reliability tests such as Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability (>0.7) ensure the consistency of the instrument’s measurement results.⁶⁷ This testing is crucial because invalid and unreliable instruments will produce biased data, thereby compromising the reliability of the research findings. Operationally, testing was conducted by analyzing factor loading values (>0.7) and AVE (>0.5) for convergent validity, with the test results summarized in Table 2, as well as Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability (>0.7) for reliability, with the test results summarized in Table 3.

Table 2. Convergent validity test results for each indicator.

Construction	Indicators	Outer loading	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	Description
Brand image	BI1	0.991	0.981	Valid
	BI2	0.986		Valid
	BI3	0.990		Valid
	BI4	0.994		Valid
Work culture	BK1	0.982	0.980	Valid
	BK2	0.994		Valid
	BK3	0.993		Valid
	BK4	0.991		Valid
Service quality	KL1	0.972	0.957	Valid
	KL2	0.986		Valid
	KL3	0.982		Valid
	KL4	0.982		Valid
	KL5	0.972		Valid
Satisfaction	KP1	0.971	0.958	Valid
	KP2	0.979		Valid
	KP3	0.978		Valid
	KP4	0.983		Valid
	KP5	0.979		Valid
Loyalty	LY1	0.944	0.884	Valid
	LY2	0.949		Valid
	LY3	0.927		Valid

Table 3. Reliability test results for each construct.

Construct	Composite Reliability (rho_a)	Composite Reliability (rho_c)	Cronbach’s Alpha
Brand image	0.993	0.995	0.993
Work culture	0.994	0.995	0.993
Satisfaction	0.989	0.991	0.989
Service quality	0.990	0.991	0.989
Loyalty	0.936	0.958	0.934

The external loadings of each indicator in each construct show a loading value greater than 0.7 and an AVE value greater than 0.5. This indicates that convergent validity is well achieved.

All constructs tested met the recommended reliability criteria with Composite Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha values greater than 0.7. Therefore, it can be concluded that the measurement instruments in this study are reliable for measuring the targeted variables with a high level of reliability.

The results of the instrument testing have met the requirements for excellent validity and reliability, where all indicators in each construct have a loading factor value above 0.7 and an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) above 0.5, thus proving the achievement of convergent validity. In addition, the Composite Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha values for all constructs are consistently above the 0.7 threshold, confirming that this instrument has high internal consistency and is reliable for measuring the variables under study. A summary of the validity and reliability tests is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Summary of the validity and reliability tests.

3. Results

3.1 Direct effect test results

Direct Effect Tests were conducted to measure the direct effects between variables in the model, namely the effect of service quality on student loyalty (H1), the effect of satisfaction on student loyalty (H2), and the effect of service quality on satisfaction (H3). These tests aimed to identify the magnitude of the direct effects of each variable. The results of this test were analyzed using the Path Coefficient, T-Statistic, and P-Value to determine the strength and significance of the relationship between variables. The test results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Direct effect hypothesis test results student loyalty.

Relationship	Path coefficient	T-Statistics	P-Value	Interpretation
Service quality → Loyalty	0.057	1.559	0.119	Not significant: The effect of service quality on loyalty is not significant.
Satisfaction → Loyalty	0.581	13.631	0.000	Significantly positive: Satisfaction has a significant effect on Loyalty.
Service Quality → Satisfaction	0.305	5.327	0.000	Significant positive: Service Quality has a significant effect on Satisfaction.

The results of the direct effect hypothesis test conclude that customer satisfaction plays the most vital role in building student loyalty, compared to the direct influence of service quality. This is evidenced by the significant positive relationship between satisfaction and loyalty with a fairly high path coefficient (0.581). Meanwhile, service quality does not have a significant direct effect on loyalty (path coefficient 0.057). However, service quality was found to have a significant and positive effect on satisfaction (path coefficient 0.305). This finding indicates that service quality has an indirect effect on student loyalty, mediated by satisfaction. In other words, improving service quality will increase satisfaction, which in turn will build student loyalty.

3.2 Results of indirect/Mediation effect test

This analysis tests the indirect effect between Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Loyalty (H4). This indirect effect measures how Service Quality affects Loyalty through Satisfaction as a mediator. To test this relationship, Path Coefficients, T-Statistics, and P-Values were used, which provide an overview of how large and significant the effect of Service Quality is on Loyalty through Satisfaction. The test results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Indirect Effect/Mediation Test Results (Indirect Relationship) student loyalty.

Relationship	Path coefficient	T-Statistics	P-Value	Interpretation
Service Quality → Satisfaction → Loyalty	0.177	5,058	0.000	Significantly positive: Service Quality has a significant effect on Loyalty through Satisfaction as a mediator.

The results of the indirect effect test show that the effect of service quality on loyalty through satisfaction has a Path Coefficient of 0.177, with a very high T-Statistic of 5.058, and a very small P-Value (0.000). Based on these results, it is concluded that satisfaction mediates the relationship between service quality and loyalty significantly and positively. This means that service quality increases student satisfaction, which in turn has a positive effect on their loyalty.

3.3 Moderating effect test results

In this section, a test was conducted to measure the moderating effects of two variables, namely work culture and brand image, which moderate the relationship between service quality and satisfaction as well as satisfaction and loyalty. This test aims to determine whether work culture strengthens or weakens the influence of service quality on satisfaction (H5), and whether brand image moderates the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty (H6). The moderating effect was measured using the Path Coefficient, T-Statistic, and P-Value, which provide a general overview of the strength and significance of the interaction between the moderating variables and the relationship between variables in the model. The test results are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Moderating Effect Test Results student loyalty.

Relationship	Path coefficient	T-Statistics	P-Value	Interpretation
Brand image × Satisfaction → Loyalty	0.219	5.178	0.000	Significantly positive: The interaction between Brand Image and Satisfaction has a significant effect on Loyalty.
Work culture × Service quality → Satisfaction	0.121	2.304	0.021	Significantly positive: The interaction between Work Culture and Service Quality has a significant effect on Satisfaction.

Based on the results of the moderation effect test, it can be concluded that both brand image and work culture play a significant role as moderating variables. Specifically, brand image strengthens the influence of satisfaction on student loyalty, as indicated by a significant interaction coefficient of 0.219. Meanwhile, work culture is also proven to significantly strengthen the relationship between service quality and satisfaction, with a path coefficient of 0.121. These findings confirm that the main relationship in building loyalty is not only direct but can be effectively enhanced through the presence of contingency factors, where good brand image and strong work culture act as positive moderators.

3.4 Summary of the results of the direct and indirect effects on student loyalty

The results of the Direct Influence Test (H1; H2; H3), Indirect Influence/Mediation (H4), and Moderating Effects (H5; H6) on student loyalty are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Summary of test results of direct and indirect influences on student loyalty.

The overall test results indicate that the formation of student loyalty is an indirect mechanism reinforced by moderating factors, where satisfaction plays a key role in directly shaping loyalty (0.581) and also acts as a full mediator that transforms the influence of service quality into loyalty (0.177). While service quality has no direct effect, its influence is vital in creating satisfaction (0.305). This mechanism is further reinforced by contingency factors, where brand image acts as a moderator of the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty (0.219), and work culture functions as a moderator of the relationship between service quality and satisfaction (0.121).

4. Discussion

4.1 Key findings

This study aims to examine the relationship between service quality, satisfaction, and student loyalty in higher education institutions, as well as the role of satisfaction as a mediator and the influence of work culture and brand image as moderators. The main findings of this study indicate that service quality, measured based on SERVQUAL Theory, has a significant relationship with student satisfaction and loyalty, thereby confirming the application of this theory in the context of higher education.

Service quality does not significantly affect student loyalty (H1)

The results reveal that service quality, measured through the dimensions in the SERVQUAL theory, does not have a significant direct effect on student loyalty at Jabal Ghafur University. This finding provides a critical perspective by positioning service quality as a hygiene factor or basic prerequisite, the fulfillment of which can prevent dissatisfaction but is not sufficient to create deep loyalty. Instead, loyalty is more effectively shaped by socio-emotional factors, satisfaction, a proposition that finds confirmation and theoretical alignment with Social Integration Theory. This perspective is further reinforced by empirical research which collectively affirm that social integration, emotional attachment, involvement in campus life, and meaningful interpersonal experiences are the main key drivers that build sustainable loyalty.^{4,31,47,68,69} Thus, it can be concluded that in the higher education ecosystem, service quality serves as the foundation, while social-emotional integration and bonding function as the main pillars shaping student loyalty.

Student satisfaction influences student loyalty (H2)

The analysis results confirm that student satisfaction has a positive and significant effect on student loyalty. This finding is supported empirically and theoretically by previous studies, which confirm the central role of satisfaction as a major antecedent of loyalty,⁷⁰ in line with the fundamental theories proposed by Anderson⁵¹ and Zeithaml.⁷¹ Conceptually, satisfaction is formed when students’ actual experiences encompassing aspects of teaching quality, facilities, and administrative services meet or exceed their expectations,⁵² which then manifests itself in the form of loyalty in the form of affective attachment, intention to recommend, and commitment to continue studying. Furthermore, the convergence of the results of this study with previous findings shows that the construct of satisfaction is not only represented by the technical-functional dimensions of service based on the SERVQUAL framework,^45,47,48 but is also enriched and strengthened by the social-emotional dimensions formed through integrative experiences on campus. The implication is that strategies to build sustainable loyalty must focus on creating a satisfying holistic experience, by optimizing the quality of technical services and simultaneously strengthening students’ social bonds within the academic community.

Service quality affects student satisfaction (H3)

Based on the results of data analysis, the research findings confirm that service quality has a significant effect on student satisfaction at Jabal Ghafur University. These results obtain empirical validation and theoretical consistency from previous research that confirms the causal relationship between service quality and satisfaction in the context of higher education.^52,71 Operationally, this influence is manifested through the five dimensions of the SERVQUAL framework,⁴⁵ where the dimensions of servqual simultaneously shape the perception of quality that leads to student satisfaction. This convergence with research reveals that superior service quality not only acts as a direct determinant of satisfaction but also serves as a crucial foundation for building long-term loyalty.⁵⁰ This aligns with the assertion that service quality is a key variable in building sustainable relationships between educational institutions and students.⁵³

Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between service quality and student loyalty (H4)

The research findings confirm the significant mediating role of student satisfaction in the relationship between service quality and loyalty. These results not only reinforce the validity of the SERVQUAL theoretical framework,⁴⁵ which positions satisfaction as a central variable that transforms perceptions of service quality into loyalty commitment, but also aligns with the fundamental propositions of Zeithaml⁷¹ and Kotler & Keller⁵² regarding sequential causal mechanisms. This mechanism confirms that service quality, as manifested through the SERVQUAL dimensions, must first create conditions of satisfaction before it can lead to the formation of long-term loyalty. The convergence of findings further strengthens the proposition that service quality excellence will only be effective in building sustainable loyalty if it is successfully recorded as a satisfying experience, which then manifests in the form of retention, active participation, and institutional recommendation behavior, regarding value and loyalty in relational exchanges.^72–74 Thus, the holistic implementation of the SERVQUAL dimensions oriented towards achieving student satisfaction is proven to be an imperative strategy for universities to transmute investments in service quality into sustainable loyalty assets.

Work culture moderates the relationship between service quality and student satisfaction (H5)

The findings of this study confirm that work culture serves as a significant moderating in strengthening the relationship between service quality and student satisfaction. These results are firmly grounded in Schein’s Organizational Culture Theory, which asserts that the value systems and basic assumptions embraced by an organization create a work environment conducive to improving service performance. Empirically, these findings are consistent with recent studies which prove that a positive work culture based on shared values strengthens the impact of service quality on student satisfaction.^55,56 Operationally, a collaborative work culture internalized in staff interactions functions as a social mechanism that facilitates service responsiveness and efficacy.⁷⁵ This mechanism not only acts as an amplifier that intensifies the impact of service quality on student satisfaction, but also creates social capital that enriches students’ emotional experiences.⁷⁶ Thus, the development of a collaborative culture has been proven to be a strategic variable for moderating and optimizing the transformation of service quality into sustainable satisfaction.

Brand image moderates the relationship between student satisfaction and loyalty (H6)

The findings confirm that brand image acts as a key moderator that strengthens the relationship between student satisfaction and loyalty. Based on signaling theory,⁷⁷ a positive university image, including academic reputation, facilities, and integrity,⁴⁹ serves as a credible signal that reduces student uncertainty. This signal not only validates a satisfying experience but also transforms it into long-term affective commitment.⁵³ Thus, when satisfaction is achieved, a strong brand image acts as a catalyst⁵⁹ that deepens emotional attachment and sparks loyalty, as reinforced by findings.^57,58,78

Contextualization of Student Loyalty within the Socio-Cultural Framework of Aceh

The unique socio-cultural context of Aceh, characterized by the implementation of Islamic law, strong local wisdom, and post-conflict and tsunami social dynamics, this study reveals that the expectations and perceptions of Jabal Ghafur University students regarding service quality and satisfaction are not only shaped by the technical dimensions of SERVQUAL, but are also greatly influenced by values of religiosity, togetherness, and post-disaster social resilience. These factors collectively strengthen students’ emotional bonds and loyalty to the institution. These findings show a clear difference from research in other contexts, such as the study at Pokhara University in Nepal, which emphasized systemic challenges such as infrastructure limitations, curriculum gaps, and access to financial aid.⁷⁹ Meanwhile, other studies focus on the performance of higher education through the service quality dimension on student satisfaction, without including cultural and religious factors in depth.⁸⁰ In vocational education settings, the emphasis is more on barriers to transfer and functional satisfaction.⁸¹ Thus, although each region has unique socio-cultural characteristics, this study specifically reveals how religious values and local wisdom play a critical role in shaping student loyalty at Jabal Ghafur University.

4.2 Implications, limitations, and future research

Implications

This study makes a theoretical contribution by confirming and expanding the SERVQUAL model⁴⁵ in the context of higher education. The findings reveal that the relationship between service quality and loyalty is not direct, but rather mediated by student satisfaction. This model is further enriched by the presence of two moderating variables: collaborative work culture, which strengthens the service quality-satisfaction relationship^54,55 and brand image, which strengthens the satisfaction-loyalty relationship.⁷⁸

The theoretical implications recommend the need for a more holistic service quality model that integrates contextual variables, such as work culture and brand image, to reflect the complexity of higher education dynamics.^34,82 These findings pave the way for further research to explore the interaction between operational and perceptual factors, while emphasizing that universities need to develop multidimensional strategies that combine service quality improvement with the strengthening of work culture and brand image to create sustainable loyalty.

Practically, this study offers a strategic framework for administrators at Jabal Ghafur University, particularly by demonstrating that management strategies should shift from focusing on isolated service improvements toward developing holistic student loyalty. This holistic experience is defined as a construct shaped through a causal pathway: where service quality builds student satisfaction, which then serves as a key mediator to achieve sustainable student loyalty.^33,57 From a policy perspective, these findings can serve as a foundation for stakeholders to formulate policies that support the competitiveness and governance of educational institutions.^8,11

Limitations

Despite its contributions, this study has several methodological and contextual limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, the geographical and institutional scope, which is limited to one private university in Aceh, limits the generalizability of the findings. The external validity of the findings requires further verification through replication of the study in more diverse contexts.^3,26 Second, the cross-sectional research design used does not allow for capturing temporal dynamics and causal developments between variables over time.^29,73 Third, although the research instruments met the criteria for validity and reliability, related to the high Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value, which is likely influenced by the homogeneity of samples from a single institution and the highly context-specific instrument design.⁸³ Semantic proximity between indicators also arises due to the measurement approach that seeks to capture perceptions and expectations of the same object. This has the potential to cause redundancy and limit the generalization of findings to a more diverse population. Fourth, although the proposed model includes mediation and moderation variables, there are still a number of potential exogenous factors such as the influence of family support, socio-economic variables, or government macro policies that have not been integrated into this research framework.^12,27

Future research

Based on the findings and limitations identified, several future research agendas can be recommended. First, replication of the study with a broader and more diverse sample covering various private universities in Indonesia and state universities is needed to test the consistency and robustness of the proposed model.^3,19 Second, a longitudinal approach is highly recommended to trace the evolution of student loyalty and its formation mechanisms diachronically.^4,29 Third, future research can enrich the model by integrating additional variables such as social support, student engagement in co-curricular activities, or the influence of digital media on perceptions of institutional brand image.^33,44 Fourth, the application of mixed-methods combining quantitative and qualitative approaches can provide a more comprehensive and contextual explanation of the phenomenon of student loyalty.⁸⁴ Finally, an in-depth exploration of the interaction between work culture, transformational leadership style, and academic service performance could be a potential area for further research.^54,55

5. Conclusion

This study confirms that student loyalty in private universities is shaped through a complex, indirect mechanism driven by mediation and moderation effects. Service quality does not directly influence loyalty but plays a vital foundational role by enhancing student satisfaction, which serves as a full mediator and the strongest direct driver of loyalty. This relationship is further reinforced by contextual factors: work culture strengthens the link between service quality and satisfaction, while a strong brand image amplifies the effect of satisfaction on long-term loyalty. Consequently, strategies to foster sustainable student loyalty must move beyond merely improving service quality toward a holistic approach that integrates satisfaction creation, positive work culture, and brand image. These findings recommend that policies to strengthen Jabal Ghafur University in Aceh should not only focus on national standards, but also provide space for local initiatives that strengthen cultural identity, community resilience, and emotional relationships between institutions and students.

Ethics and consent

To ensure compliance with research ethics and educational regulations, this research received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee (KEP) of the Institute for Research and Community Service (LPPM), Jabal Ghafur University. The ethical approval registration number is 004/LPPM/Unigha-KEP/VI/2025, issued on June 30, 2025 (date of approval). The study commenced on July 7, 2025. Official research permission has also been deposited and is publicly accessible via its DOI link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20154149. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study prior to data collection, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. For participants under the age of 20, consent was also obtained from their parents or legal guardians. The consent was provided in written form, and participants were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses.

Data availability statement

The dataset underlying the research have been deposited in Zenodo and are accessible at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20150032 (CC0 license),⁸⁵ include all supplementary files:

supplementary Figure 1: Summary of hypothesized student loyalty.

supplementary Figure 2: Summary of the validity and reliability tests.

supplementary Figure 3: Summary of test results of direct and indirect influences on student loyalty.

supplementary Table 1: Sample characteristics of student loyalty per academic year.

supplementary Table 2: Convergent validity test results for each indicator.

supplementary Table 3: Reliability test results for each construct.

supplementary Table 4: Direct effect hypothesis test results student loyalty.

supplementary Table 5: Indirect Effect/Mediation Test Results (Indirect Relationship) student loyalty.

supplementary Table 6: Moderating Effect Test Results student loyalty.

Extended data

Extended data including the questionnaire and data processing results are available in Zenodo repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20154149 (CC0 license).⁸⁶

References

1. Rehman MA, Woyo E, Akahome JE, et al.: The influence of course experience, satisfaction, and loyalty on students’ word-of-mouth and re-enrolment intentions. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2020; 32(2): 259–277. Publisher Full Text
2. Uslu Gülşen F: A sense of belonging and loyalty among Turkish undergraduate students: serial mediating role of college outcome expectation and engagement. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2024; 15(3): 363–379. Publisher Full Text
3. Ali F, Zhou Y, Hussain K, et al.: Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public universities. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2016; 24(1): 70–94. Publisher Full Text
4. Hennig-Thurau T, Langer MF, Hansen U: Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. J. Serv. Res. 2001; 3(4): 331–344. Publisher Full Text
5. Alves H, Raposo M: Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Qual. Manag. 2007; 18(5): 571–588. Publisher Full Text
6. Rojas-Méndez JI, Vasquez-Parraga AZ, Kara ALI, et al.: Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Lat. Am. Bus. Rev. 2009; 10(1): 21–39. Publisher Full Text
7. Thomas S: What drives student loyalty in universities: An empirical model from India. Int. Bus. Res. 2011; 4(2): 183. Publisher Full Text
8. Teixeira P, Amaral A: Can private institutions learn from mistakes? Some reflections based on the Portuguese experience. Die Hochschule. 2008; 2: 113–125. Publisher Full Text
9. Kim T, Yonezawa A: The Future of Higher Education in the Context of a Shrinking Student Population.2008; pp. 199–220. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
10. Yonezawa A, Mori R: Learning outcomes and quality assurance: challenge of Japanese Higher Education. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on Quality Assurance and Student Learning Outcome of Higher Education in Asia-Pacific Region. Taipei, Taiwan: 2009.
11. Levy D: The unanticipated explosion: private higher education’s global surge. Comp. Educ. Rev. 2006; 50(2): 217–240. Publisher Full Text
12. Nicolescu L: Institutional Efforts for Legislative Recognition and Market Acceptance: Romanian Private Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan; 2007. Publisher Full Text
13. Pachuashvili M: Changing patterns of private-public growth and decline: the case of Georgian higher education’, Program for Research on Private Higher Education. NY: University at Albany; 2008; 12. . Working Paper 10.
14. Otieno W, Levy D: Public disorder, private boons? Inter-sectoral dynamics illustrated by the Kenyan case Program for Research on Private Higher Education, Working Paper 9. University at Albany, NY; 2007. Reference Source
15. Kanwar P: Intra -sectoral diversity: A political economy of Thai private higher education.2010.
16. Moeliodihardjo BY: Equity and Access in Higher Education: The Case of Indonesia. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2009.
17. Deshields O, Kara A, Kaynak E: Determinants of Business Student Satisfaction and Retention in Higher Education: Applying Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. Int. J. Educ. Manag. Mar. 2005; 19: 128–139. Publisher Full Text
18. Pinar M, Trapp P, Girard T, et al.: University brand equity: An empirical investigation of its dimensions. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2014; 28(6): 616–634. Publisher Full Text
19. Amado M, Guzmán A, Juarez F: Relationship between perceived value, student experience, and university reputation: structural equation modeling. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023; 10(1): 1–13. Publisher Full Text
20. Mourad M, Ennew C, Kortam W: Brand equity in higher education. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2011; 29(4): 403–420. Publisher Full Text
21. Helgesen Ø, Nesset E: What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2007; 21(2): 126–143. Publisher Full Text
22. Trivellas P, Dargenidou D: Organisational culture, job satisfaction and higher education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. TQM J. 2009; 21(4): 382–399. Publisher Full Text
23. Annamdevula S, Bellamkonda RS: The effects of service quality on student loyalty: the mediating role of student satisfaction. J. Model. Manag. 2016; 11(2): 446–462. Publisher Full Text
24. Sultan P, Wong H: Performance-based service quality model: an empirical study on Japanese universities. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2010; 18(2): 126–143. Publisher Full Text
25. Arambewela R, Hall J: An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2009; 21: 555–569. Publisher Full Text
26. Weerasinghe S, Lalitha S, Fernando: Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education Literature Review.Jan. 2017. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
27. Elliott KM, Healy MA: Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2001; 10(4): 1–11. Publisher Full Text
28. Marzo Navarro M, Pedraja Iglesias M, Rivera Torres P: A new management element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2005; 19(6): 505–526. Publisher Full Text
29. Duque LC: A framework for analysing higher education performance: students’ satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2014; 25(1–2): 1–21. Publisher Full Text
30. Kuo YF, Wu CM: Satisfaction and post-purchase intentions with service recovery of online shopping websites: Perspectives on perceived justice and emotions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2012; 32(2): 127–138. Publisher Full Text
31. Gruber T, Fuß S, Voss R, et al.: Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2010; 23(2): 105–123. Publisher Full Text
32. Ihtiyar A, Ahmad FS: The Role of intercultural communication competence on service reliability and customer satisfaction. J. Econ. Soc. Stud. 2015; 5(1). Publisher Full Text
33. Rauschnabel PA, Krey N, Babin BJ, et al.: Brand management in higher education: the university brand personality scale. J. Bus. Res. 2016; 69(8): 3077–3086. Publisher Full Text
34. Wilkins S, Huisman J: Student evaluation of university image attractiveness and its impact on student attachment to international branch campuses. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2013; 17(5): 607–623. Publisher Full Text
35. Setyadi B, Fitriasuri F, Utari K: The Influence of Service Quality and Educational Facilities on Student Satisfaction is Mediated by the University Image. Qalamuna J. Pendidikan, Sos. dan Agama. 2023; 15(1): 361–370. Publisher Full Text
36. Mesta H: The Impact of Satisfaction on Loyalty in Higher Education: The Mediating Role of University’s Brand Image.2019. Publisher Full Text
37. Bukit A, Rini ES, Situmorang SH: Academic culture and institutional image towards student loyalty with the quality of batuta university academic services. Proceeding Int. Manag. Conf. Progress. Pap. Nov. 2023; 1(SE-Articles): 108–113. Reference Source
38. Chandra T, Ng M, Chandra S, et al.: The effect of service quality on student satisfaction and student loyalty: An empirical study. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res. 2018; 9(3): 109–131. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
39. O’Brien E, Cooney T: Enhancing inclusive entrepreneurial activity through community engagement led by higher education institutions. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. Jul. 2024; 19: 177–201. Publisher Full Text
40. Pham T, Le T, Dang KT, et al.: Unveiling the impacts of eWOM on tourist revisit intention from a cognitive perspective: the moderating role of trade-offs. Cogent Bus. Manag. Jan. 2025; 12. Publisher Full Text
41. Polat S: Evaluation of Image Studies in the Field of Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Res. Educ. Adm. Leadersh. Sep. 2023; 8: 676–724. Publisher Full Text
42. Chakrabarty A, Singh A: Strategic Reforms in the Higher Education Research Ecosystem in India. High. Educ. Futur. Apr. 2023; 10: 86–109. Publisher Full Text
43. Manzoor Tania S, Ho JS-Y, Al Mahmud A: Revisiting the ‘university image model’ for higher education institutions’ sustainability. J. Mark. High. Educ. Jun. 2020; 31: 220–239. Publisher Full Text
44. Zhang Y, Wang P: Detecting the historical roots of education for sustainable development (ESD): a bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. Sep. 2021; ahead-of-print, 23: 478–502. Publisher Full Text
45. Parasuraman A, Berry LL, Zeithaml VA: Perceived service quality as a customer-based performance measure: An empirical examination of organizational barriers using an extended service quality model. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1991; 30(3): 335–364. Publisher Full Text
46. Goh YN, Goh JH: Student Satisfaction and Loyalty in Malaysia Private Higher Education Institutions. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res. 2017; 9(2): 315.Reference Source
47. Lomas L: Does the development of mass education necessarily mean the end of quality? Qual. High. Educ. 2002; 8(1): 71–79. Publisher Full Text
48. Masserini L, Bini M, Pratesi M: Do Quality of Services and Institutional Image Impact Students’ Satisfaction and Loyalty in Higher Education? Soc. Indic. Res. 2019; 146(1–2): 91–115. Publisher Full Text
49. Brown RM, Mazzarol TW: The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. High. Educ. 2009; 58(1): 81–95. Publisher Full Text
50. Subrahmanyam A: Relationship between service quality, satisfaction, motivation and loyalty: A multi-dimensional perspective. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2017; 25(2): 171–188. Publisher Full Text
51. Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR: Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. J. Mark. 1994; 58(3): 53–66. Publisher Full Text
52. Kotler, Keller: Marketing Management, 12th ed. International ed. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2006.
53. Tjiptono F: Examining the Challenges of Responsible Consumption in an Emerging Market. Ergon. Hum. Factors a Sustain. Futur. Curr. Res. Futur. Possibilities. 2018; 299–327. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
54. Schein EH: Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed.2010.
55. Hoxha G, Simeli I, Theocharis D, et al.: Sustainable Healthcare Quality and Job Satisfaction through Organizational Culture: Approaches and Outcomes. Sustain. 2024; 16(9): 1–17. Publisher Full Text
56. Aranki DH, Suifan TS, Sweis RJ: The Relationship between Organizational Culture and Organizational Commitment. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2019; 13(4): 137. Publisher Full Text
57. Pinar M, Trapp P, Girard T, et al.: Utilizing the brand ecosystem framework in designing branding strategies for higher education. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2011; 25(7): 724–739. Publisher Full Text
58. Dam SM, Dam TC: Relationships between Service Quality, Brand Image, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021; 8(3): 585–593. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
59. Ogba I, Tan Z: Exploring the impact of brand image on customer loyalty and commitment in China. J. Technol. Manag. China. 2009; 4(2): 132–144. Publisher Full Text
60. Setia LAP, Saufi A, Suryani E, et al.: The Implementation of Structural Equation Modelling Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) to Examine the Mediation of Job Satisfaction in the Effect of Career Development and Work Engagement on Turnover Intention. Am. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Res. 2024; (01): 175–182.
61. Chahal J, Dagar V, Dagher L, et al.: The crisis effect in TPB as a moderator for post-pandemic entrepreneurial intentions among higher education students: PLS-SEM and ANN approach. Int. J. Manag. Educ. Sep. 2023; 21: 100878. Publisher Full Text
62. dan T. Pusat Data dan Informasi, Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset: Statistik Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia (Statistics of Higher Education in Indonesia). PDDikti. 2025. Reference Source
63. Aramburu IA, Pescador IG: The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Loyalty: The Mediating Effect of Reputation in Cooperative Banks Versus Commercial Banks in the Basque Country. J. Bus. Ethics. 2019; 154(3): 701–719. Publisher Full Text
64. Khoo S, Ha H, Mcgregor S: Service quality and student/customer satisfaction in the private tertiary education sector in Singapore. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2017; 31: 430–444. Publisher Full Text
65. Tan PSH, Choong YO, Chen I-C: The effect of service quality on behavioural intention: the mediating role of student satisfaction and switching barriers in private universities. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. Aug. 2021; 14: 1394–1413. Publisher Full Text
66. Yousapronpaiboon K, Kopsidas O: SERVQUAL: Measuring higher education service quality in Thailand. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. Feb. 2014; 116: 1088–1095. Publisher Full Text
67. Hair J, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, et al.: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool for Business Research. Eur. Bus. Rev. Feb. 2014; 26: 106–121. Publisher Full Text
68. Scharager Goldenberg J: Quality in higher education: the view of quality assurance managers in Chile. Qual. High. Educ. 2018; 24(2): 102–116. Publisher Full Text
69. Alejandra R, et al.: Service quality, loyalty building and institutional image at a university in Lima, Peru using structural equations. Front. Educ. 2024; 9(1365219): 1–9. Publisher Full Text
70. Albornoz-toyohama RH, Mendigure-hachircana R, Haro-casildo S, et al.: Factors influencing student retention university students: an analysis of institutional reputation, social responsibility and loyalty. Front. Educ. 2025; 10(1499518): 1–11. Publisher Full Text
71. Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A: The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. J. Mark. 1996; 60(2): 31–46. Publisher Full Text
72. Sharif S, Nawaz R, Saddique F, et al.: Service Quality of Higher Education Digital Library (DL) and Loyalty Behaviors: Testing the Mediating Role of Student Satisfaction.Mar. 2021.
73. Teeroovengadum V, Nunkoo R, Grönroos C, et al.: Higher education service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty: Validating the HESQUAL scale and testing an improved structural model. Qual. Assur. Educ. Sep. 2019; 27: 427–445. Publisher Full Text
74. Carvalho S, Mota M: The role of trust in creating value and student loyalty in relational exchanges between higher education institutions and their students. J. Mark. High. Educ. Jun. 2010; 20: 145–165. Publisher Full Text
75. Robbins TA, Judge SP: Organizational Behavior.2022. Reference Source
76. Chapleo C, Sims C: Stakeholder analysis in higher education. Perspectives (Montclair). Jan. 2010; 14: 12–20. Publisher Full Text
77. Spence M: Job Market Signaling. Q. J. Econ. Oct. 1973; 87(3): 355–374. Publisher Full Text
78. Kaushal V, Ali N: University Reputation, Brand Attachment and Brand Personality as Antecedents of Student Loyalty: A Study in Higher Education Context. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2020; 23(4): 254–266. Publisher Full Text
79. Ojha D, Ranabhat D, Dhungana BR, et al.: Perceived Education Quality and Its Impact on Students’ Satisfaction at Pokhara University of Nepal. Nepal. J. Insur. Soc. Secur. Sep. 2025; 8: 29–37. Publisher Full Text
80. Khatani S, Hamid S: MANAGING SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION OF PAKISTAN: A PRAGMATIC MODEL FOR STUDENTS SATISFACTION (Empirical evidence to inform Public Policy). Glob. J. Manag. Adm. Sci. Jun. 2020; 1: 25–41. Publisher Full Text
81. Xu F, Tan J, Lu L, et al.: How Does Value Co-Creation Behavior Affect Destination Loyalty? A Role Switching Perspective. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. Jun. 2021; 16: 1805–1826. Publisher Full Text
82. Hennig-Thurau T, Langer MF, Hansen U: Modeling and Managing Student Loyalty: An Approach Based on the Concept of Relationship Quality. J. Serv. Res. 2001; 3(4): 331–344. Publisher Full Text
83. Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J-Y, et al.: Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. Oct. 2003; 88: 879–903. Publisher Full Text
84. Guest G, Fleming P: Mixed Methods Research.2015; 581–610. Publisher Full Text
85. Muchsin: Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh.2026. Publisher Full Text
86. Muchsin: RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL - Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh.2026. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 27 Jul 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Graduate Education Management, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, 50229, Indonesia
² Faculty of Economics and Business,, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, 50229, Indonesia
³ Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Central Java, 50229, Indonesia

Muchsin .
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Agus Wahyudin
Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Arief Yulianto
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Visualization

Eko Handoyo
Roles: Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

The authors declare that this study was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationship that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Grant information

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research. This work was funded by the Indonesian Education Scholarship, Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment, and Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 27 Jul 2026, 15:1235

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180280.1

Copyright

© 2026 . M et al. 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 work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

. M, Wahyudin A, Yulianto A and Handoyo E. Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:1235 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.180280.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 27 Jul 2026

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

[1] 1. Rehman MA, Woyo E, Akahome JE, et al.: The influence of course experience, satisfaction, and loyalty on students’ word-of-mouth and re-enrolment intentions. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2020; 32(2): 259–277. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Uslu Gülşen F: A sense of belonging and loyalty among Turkish undergraduate students: serial mediating role of college outcome expectation and engagement. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2024; 15(3): 363–379. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Ali F, Zhou Y, Hussain K, et al.: Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public universities. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2016; 24(1): 70–94. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Hennig-Thurau T, Langer MF, Hansen U: Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. J. Serv. Res. 2001; 3(4): 331–344. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Alves H, Raposo M: Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Qual. Manag. 2007; 18(5): 571–588. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Rojas-Méndez JI, Vasquez-Parraga AZ, Kara ALI, et al.: Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Lat. Am. Bus. Rev. 2009; 10(1): 21–39. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Thomas S: What drives student loyalty in universities: An empirical model from India. Int. Bus. Res. 2011; 4(2): 183. Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Teixeira P, Amaral A: Can private institutions learn from mistakes? Some reflections based on the Portuguese experience. Die Hochschule. 2008; 2: 113–125. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Kim T, Yonezawa A: The Future of Higher Education in the Context of a Shrinking Student Population.2008; pp. 199–220. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[10] 10. Yonezawa A, Mori R: Learning outcomes and quality assurance: challenge of Japanese Higher Education. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on Quality Assurance and Student Learning Outcome of Higher Education in Asia-Pacific Region. Taipei, Taiwan: 2009.

[11] 11. Levy D: The unanticipated explosion: private higher education’s global surge. Comp. Educ. Rev. 2006; 50(2): 217–240. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Nicolescu L: Institutional Efforts for Legislative Recognition and Market Acceptance: Romanian Private Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan; 2007. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Pachuashvili M: Changing patterns of private-public growth and decline: the case of Georgian higher education’, Program for Research on Private Higher Education. NY: University at Albany; 2008; 12. . Working Paper 10.

[14] 14. Otieno W, Levy D: Public disorder, private boons? Inter-sectoral dynamics illustrated by the Kenyan case Program for Research on Private Higher Education, Working Paper 9. University at Albany, NY; 2007. Reference Source

[15] 15. Kanwar P: Intra -sectoral diversity: A political economy of Thai private higher education.2010.

[16] 16. Moeliodihardjo BY: Equity and Access in Higher Education: The Case of Indonesia. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2009.

[17] 17. Deshields O, Kara A, Kaynak E: Determinants of Business Student Satisfaction and Retention in Higher Education: Applying Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. Int. J. Educ. Manag. Mar. 2005; 19: 128–139. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Pinar M, Trapp P, Girard T, et al.: University brand equity: An empirical investigation of its dimensions. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2014; 28(6): 616–634. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Amado M, Guzmán A, Juarez F: Relationship between perceived value, student experience, and university reputation: structural equation modeling. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023; 10(1): 1–13. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Mourad M, Ennew C, Kortam W: Brand equity in higher education. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2011; 29(4): 403–420. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Helgesen Ø, Nesset E: What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2007; 21(2): 126–143. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Trivellas P, Dargenidou D: Organisational culture, job satisfaction and higher education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. TQM J. 2009; 21(4): 382–399. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Annamdevula S, Bellamkonda RS: The effects of service quality on student loyalty: the mediating role of student satisfaction. J. Model. Manag. 2016; 11(2): 446–462. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Sultan P, Wong H: Performance-based service quality model: an empirical study on Japanese universities. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2010; 18(2): 126–143. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Arambewela R, Hall J: An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2009; 21: 555–569. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Weerasinghe S, Lalitha S, Fernando: Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education Literature Review.Jan. 2017. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[27] 27. Elliott KM, Healy MA: Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2001; 10(4): 1–11. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Marzo Navarro M, Pedraja Iglesias M, Rivera Torres P: A new management element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2005; 19(6): 505–526. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Duque LC: A framework for analysing higher education performance: students’ satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2014; 25(1–2): 1–21. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Kuo YF, Wu CM: Satisfaction and post-purchase intentions with service recovery of online shopping websites: Perspectives on perceived justice and emotions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2012; 32(2): 127–138. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Gruber T, Fuß S, Voss R, et al.: Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2010; 23(2): 105–123. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Ihtiyar A, Ahmad FS: The Role of intercultural communication competence on service reliability and customer satisfaction. J. Econ. Soc. Stud. 2015; 5(1). Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Rauschnabel PA, Krey N, Babin BJ, et al.: Brand management in higher education: the university brand personality scale. J. Bus. Res. 2016; 69(8): 3077–3086. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Wilkins S, Huisman J: Student evaluation of university image attractiveness and its impact on student attachment to international branch campuses. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2013; 17(5): 607–623. Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Setyadi B, Fitriasuri F, Utari K: The Influence of Service Quality and Educational Facilities on Student Satisfaction is Mediated by the University Image. Qalamuna J. Pendidikan, Sos. dan Agama. 2023; 15(1): 361–370. Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Mesta H: The Impact of Satisfaction on Loyalty in Higher Education: The Mediating Role of University’s Brand Image.2019. Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Bukit A, Rini ES, Situmorang SH: Academic culture and institutional image towards student loyalty with the quality of batuta university academic services. Proceeding Int. Manag. Conf. Progress. Pap. Nov. 2023; 1(SE-Articles): 108–113. Reference Source

[38] 38. Chandra T, Ng M, Chandra S, et al.: The effect of service quality on student satisfaction and student loyalty: An empirical study. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res. 2018; 9(3): 109–131. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[39] 39. O’Brien E, Cooney T: Enhancing inclusive entrepreneurial activity through community engagement led by higher education institutions. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. Jul. 2024; 19: 177–201. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Pham T, Le T, Dang KT, et al.: Unveiling the impacts of eWOM on tourist revisit intention from a cognitive perspective: the moderating role of trade-offs. Cogent Bus. Manag. Jan. 2025; 12. Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Polat S: Evaluation of Image Studies in the Field of Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Res. Educ. Adm. Leadersh. Sep. 2023; 8: 676–724. Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Chakrabarty A, Singh A: Strategic Reforms in the Higher Education Research Ecosystem in India. High. Educ. Futur. Apr. 2023; 10: 86–109. Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Manzoor Tania S, Ho JS-Y, Al Mahmud A: Revisiting the ‘university image model’ for higher education institutions’ sustainability. J. Mark. High. Educ. Jun. 2020; 31: 220–239. Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Zhang Y, Wang P: Detecting the historical roots of education for sustainable development (ESD): a bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. Sep. 2021; ahead-of-print, 23: 478–502. Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Parasuraman A, Berry LL, Zeithaml VA: Perceived service quality as a customer-based performance measure: An empirical examination of organizational barriers using an extended service quality model. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1991; 30(3): 335–364. Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Goh YN, Goh JH: Student Satisfaction and Loyalty in Malaysia Private Higher Education Institutions. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res. 2017; 9(2): 315.Reference Source

[47] 47. Lomas L: Does the development of mass education necessarily mean the end of quality? Qual. High. Educ. 2002; 8(1): 71–79. Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Masserini L, Bini M, Pratesi M: Do Quality of Services and Institutional Image Impact Students’ Satisfaction and Loyalty in Higher Education? Soc. Indic. Res. 2019; 146(1–2): 91–115. Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Brown RM, Mazzarol TW: The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. High. Educ. 2009; 58(1): 81–95. Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Subrahmanyam A: Relationship between service quality, satisfaction, motivation and loyalty: A multi-dimensional perspective. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2017; 25(2): 171–188. Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR: Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. J. Mark. 1994; 58(3): 53–66. Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Kotler, Keller: Marketing Management, 12th ed. International ed. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2006.

[53] 53. Tjiptono F: Examining the Challenges of Responsible Consumption in an Emerging Market. Ergon. Hum. Factors a Sustain. Futur. Curr. Res. Futur. Possibilities. 2018; 299–327. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[54] 54. Schein EH: Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed.2010.

[55] 55. Hoxha G, Simeli I, Theocharis D, et al.: Sustainable Healthcare Quality and Job Satisfaction through Organizational Culture: Approaches and Outcomes. Sustain. 2024; 16(9): 1–17. Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. Aranki DH, Suifan TS, Sweis RJ: The Relationship between Organizational Culture and Organizational Commitment. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2019; 13(4): 137. Publisher Full Text

[57] 57. Pinar M, Trapp P, Girard T, et al.: Utilizing the brand ecosystem framework in designing branding strategies for higher education. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2011; 25(7): 724–739. Publisher Full Text

[58] 58. Dam SM, Dam TC: Relationships between Service Quality, Brand Image, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021; 8(3): 585–593. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[59] 59. Ogba I, Tan Z: Exploring the impact of brand image on customer loyalty and commitment in China. J. Technol. Manag. China. 2009; 4(2): 132–144. Publisher Full Text

[60] 60. Setia LAP, Saufi A, Suryani E, et al.: The Implementation of Structural Equation Modelling Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) to Examine the Mediation of Job Satisfaction in the Effect of Career Development and Work Engagement on Turnover Intention. Am. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Res. 2024; (01): 175–182.

[61] 61. Chahal J, Dagar V, Dagher L, et al.: The crisis effect in TPB as a moderator for post-pandemic entrepreneurial intentions among higher education students: PLS-SEM and ANN approach. Int. J. Manag. Educ. Sep. 2023; 21: 100878. Publisher Full Text

[62] 62. dan T. Pusat Data dan Informasi, Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset: Statistik Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia (Statistics of Higher Education in Indonesia). PDDikti. 2025. Reference Source

[63] 63. Aramburu IA, Pescador IG: The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Loyalty: The Mediating Effect of Reputation in Cooperative Banks Versus Commercial Banks in the Basque Country. J. Bus. Ethics. 2019; 154(3): 701–719. Publisher Full Text

[64] 64. Khoo S, Ha H, Mcgregor S: Service quality and student/customer satisfaction in the private tertiary education sector in Singapore. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2017; 31: 430–444. Publisher Full Text

[65] 65. Tan PSH, Choong YO, Chen I-C: The effect of service quality on behavioural intention: the mediating role of student satisfaction and switching barriers in private universities. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. Aug. 2021; 14: 1394–1413. Publisher Full Text

[66] 66. Yousapronpaiboon K, Kopsidas O: SERVQUAL: Measuring higher education service quality in Thailand. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. Feb. 2014; 116: 1088–1095. Publisher Full Text

[67] 67. Hair J, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, et al.: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool for Business Research. Eur. Bus. Rev. Feb. 2014; 26: 106–121. Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Scharager Goldenberg J: Quality in higher education: the view of quality assurance managers in Chile. Qual. High. Educ. 2018; 24(2): 102–116. Publisher Full Text

[69] 69. Alejandra R, et al.: Service quality, loyalty building and institutional image at a university in Lima, Peru using structural equations. Front. Educ. 2024; 9(1365219): 1–9. Publisher Full Text

[70] 70. Albornoz-toyohama RH, Mendigure-hachircana R, Haro-casildo S, et al.: Factors influencing student retention university students: an analysis of institutional reputation, social responsibility and loyalty. Front. Educ. 2025; 10(1499518): 1–11. Publisher Full Text

[71] 71. Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A: The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. J. Mark. 1996; 60(2): 31–46. Publisher Full Text

[72] 72. Sharif S, Nawaz R, Saddique F, et al.: Service Quality of Higher Education Digital Library (DL) and Loyalty Behaviors: Testing the Mediating Role of Student Satisfaction.Mar. 2021.

[73] 73. Teeroovengadum V, Nunkoo R, Grönroos C, et al.: Higher education service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty: Validating the HESQUAL scale and testing an improved structural model. Qual. Assur. Educ. Sep. 2019; 27: 427–445. Publisher Full Text

[74] 74. Carvalho S, Mota M: The role of trust in creating value and student loyalty in relational exchanges between higher education institutions and their students. J. Mark. High. Educ. Jun. 2010; 20: 145–165. Publisher Full Text

[75] 75. Robbins TA, Judge SP: Organizational Behavior.2022. Reference Source

[76] 76. Chapleo C, Sims C: Stakeholder analysis in higher education. Perspectives (Montclair). Jan. 2010; 14: 12–20. Publisher Full Text

[77] 77. Spence M: Job Market Signaling. Q. J. Econ. Oct. 1973; 87(3): 355–374. Publisher Full Text

[78] 78. Kaushal V, Ali N: University Reputation, Brand Attachment and Brand Personality as Antecedents of Student Loyalty: A Study in Higher Education Context. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2020; 23(4): 254–266. Publisher Full Text

[79] 79. Ojha D, Ranabhat D, Dhungana BR, et al.: Perceived Education Quality and Its Impact on Students’ Satisfaction at Pokhara University of Nepal. Nepal. J. Insur. Soc. Secur. Sep. 2025; 8: 29–37. Publisher Full Text

[80] 80. Khatani S, Hamid S: MANAGING SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION OF PAKISTAN: A PRAGMATIC MODEL FOR STUDENTS SATISFACTION (Empirical evidence to inform Public Policy). Glob. J. Manag. Adm. Sci. Jun. 2020; 1: 25–41. Publisher Full Text

[81] 81. Xu F, Tan J, Lu L, et al.: How Does Value Co-Creation Behavior Affect Destination Loyalty? A Role Switching Perspective. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. Jun. 2021; 16: 1805–1826. Publisher Full Text

[82] 82. Hennig-Thurau T, Langer MF, Hansen U: Modeling and Managing Student Loyalty: An Approach Based on the Concept of Relationship Quality. J. Serv. Res. 2001; 3(4): 331–344. Publisher Full Text

[83] 83. Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J-Y, et al.: Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. Oct. 2003; 88: 879–903. Publisher Full Text

[84] 84. Guest G, Fleming P: Mixed Methods Research.2015; 581–610. Publisher Full Text

[85] 85. Muchsin: Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh.2026. Publisher Full Text

[86] 86. Muchsin: RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL - Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh.2026. Publisher Full Text

Analysis of Determinant Factors Affecting Student Loyalty in Private Higher Education in Aceh

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

1. Introduction

1.2 Literature study

H1:

H2:

H3:

H4:

H5:

H6:

Figure 1. Summary of hypothesized student loyalty.

2. Method

2.1 Study context

2.2 Sample and population

Table 1. Sample characteristics of student loyalty per academic year.

2.3 Research instrument testing

Table 2. Convergent validity test results for each indicator.

Table 3. Reliability test results for each construct.

Figure 2. Summary of the validity and reliability tests.

3. Results

3.1 Direct effect test results

Table 4. Direct effect hypothesis test results student loyalty.

3.2 Results of indirect/Mediation effect test

Table 5. Indirect Effect/Mediation Test Results (Indirect Relationship) student loyalty.

3.3 Moderating effect test results

Table 6. Moderating Effect Test Results student loyalty.

3.4 Summary of the results of the direct and indirect effects on student loyalty

Figure 3. Summary of test results of direct and indirect influences on student loyalty.

4. Discussion

4.1 Key findings

4.2 Implications, limitations, and future research

5. Conclusion

Ethics and consent

Data availability statement

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated