Students’ perceived value in higher education institutions: investigating the role of antecedents and context

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Age	18.81	1.36	–
2. Gender	.14	.34	.07	–
3. Semester	2.27	2.00	.71***	−.07	–
4. GPA	1.40	1.74	.54***	−.10*	.73***	–
5. Income	1.41	.77	.06	.11*	.15***	.04	–
6. UOJ	79.07	10.89	−.03	−.08	−.06	.02	−.09*	(.66)
7. AoC	50.50	14.97	.12**	−.11*	.08	.09*	.09*	−.01	(.82)
8. SQ	75.91	16.60	−.02	−.16***	−.01	.03	−.02	.25***	.37***	(.78)
9. SPV	101.71	13.94	−.11*	−.01	−.12**	−.04	−.09*	.53***	.05	.34***	(.71)

Note: N = 517, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Gender (0 = female, 1 = male), income (category 1 = 1.4 or less, 2 = 2.8 or less, 3 = 5.6 or less, 4 = 7 or less, 5 = 10 or less, and 6 = above 10 [in million rupiah]), GPA (0 to 4), semester (maximum 14), M = mean, SD = standard deviation, UOJ = university organisational justice, AoC = awareness of Covid-19, SQ = service quality, SPV = students’ perceived value, discriminant validity (DV) is presented in the diagonal.

Source: Authors (2023).

Table 2. Factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and Cronbach’s alpha for each measure in the proposed measurement model.

Dimension	Item number	Loading	AVE	CR	Cronbach α
University Organizational Justice
Distributive Justice	OJ_DIS_8	.51	.45	.86	.93
	OJ_DIS_9	.51
	OJ_DIS_10	.54
	OJ_DIS_11	.50
Informational Justice	OJ_INF_16	.73
	OJ_INF_17	.79
	OJ_INF_18	.80
	OJ_INF_19	.76
	OJ_INF_20	.78
Interpersonal Justice	OJ_INT_12	.77
	OJ_INT_13	.76
	OJ_INT_14	.78
	OJ_INT_15	.61
Procedural Justice	OJ_PRO_1	.15 (Dropped)
	OJ_PRO_2	−.05 (Dropped)
	OJ_PRO_3	.57
	OJ_PRO_4	.49
	OJ_PRO_5	.61
	OJ_PRO_6	.17 (Dropped)
	OJ_PRO_7	.59
Service Quality
N/A	SQI_1	.84	.61	.95	.97
	SQI_2	.84
	SQI_3	.89
	SQI_4	.88
	SQI_5	.80
	SQI_6	.73
	SQI_7	.91
	SQI_8	.87
	SQI_9	.89
	SQI_10	.23 (Dropped)
	SQI_11R	.50
	SQI_12R	.72
	SQI_13	.30 (Dropped)
	SQI_14	.82
	SQI_15	.82
	SQI_16	.89
	SQI_17	.89
	SQI_18R	.47
	SQI_19R	.52
	SQI_20R	.35 (Dropped)
	SQI_21	.30 (Dropped)
	SQI_22R	.57
Students’ Perceived Value
Quality	CPV_Q_1	.67	.50	.89	.94
	CPV_Q_2	.70
	CPV_Q_3	.71
	CPV_Q_4R	.35 (Dropped)
	CPV_Q_5R	.33 (Dropped)
Price	CPV_Q_6	.68
	CPV_P_13	.63
	CPV_P_14	.70
	CPV_P_15	.74
Emotional	CPV_E_7	.59
	CPV_E_8	.36 (Dropped)
	CPV_E_9	.73
	CPV_E_10	.82
	CPV_E_11	.78
Social	CPV_S_16	.78
	CPV_S_17	.65
	CPV_S_18	.76
	CPV_S_19	.76
Awareness of Covid
N/A	AOC_1	.83	.67	.95	.97
	AOC_2	.85
	AOC_3	.86
	AOC_4	.78
	AOC_5	.89
	AOC_6	.85
	AOC_7	.70
	AOC_8	.71
	AOC_9	.55
	AOC_10	.86
	AOC_11	.91
	AOC_12	.90
	AOC_13	.91
	AOC_14	.80
	AOC_15	−.40 (Dropped)

Source: Authors (2023).

Figure 1. Measurement model.

Table 3. Moderated-mediation model 58 using PROCESS by Hayes.

Model 1	Coefficient	SE	LLCI	ULCI	R	R^2
UOJ	.36***	.06	.25	.47	.48	.23***
AoC	−.35***	.04	.27	12.84
UOJ*AoC	.01***	.00	.01	.02
Outcome: Service Quality
Model 2
UOJ	.48***	.05	.39	.57	.57	.32***
SQ	.24*	.04	.17	.31
AoC	−.03	.03	−.09	.03
SQ*AoC	.01***	.00	.00	.01
Outcome: Students’ Perceived Value

Note: N = 517, *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

UOJ = university organisational justice, AoC = awareness of Covid-19, SQ = service quality, SE = Standard Error, LLCI = 95% Lower-level confidence interval, and ULCI = 95% Upper-level confidence interval.

Source: Authors (2023).

Figure 2. The moderating effect of awareness of Covid-19 on university organisational justice and service quality relationship.

Figure 3. The moderating effect of awareness of COVID-19 on service quality and perceived value relationship.

Figure 4. Empirical model.

Table 4. Conditional effects at different levels of awareness of COVID-19 (AoC).

B	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
1) Conditional direct effect of university organisational justice on service quality at different levels of AoC
Low	.15	.08	−.01	.31
Medium	.36	.06	.25	.47
High	.57	.08	.41	.74
2) Conditional direct effect of service quality on students’ perceived value at different levels of AoC
Low	.11	.04	.04	.18
Medium	.24	.04	.17	.31
High	.37	.05	.26	.47
3) Conditional indirect effect of university organisational justice on students’ perceived value at different levels of AoC
Low	.02	.01	.00	.05
Medium	.09	.02	.05	.14
High	.21	.05	.12	.32

Note: N = 517, *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

SE = Standard Error, LLCI = 95% Lower-level confidence interval, ULCI = 95% Upper-level confidence interval.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to some restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.