Antecedents of parent-based school reputation

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354x.htm Antecedents of parent-based school reputation and loyalty: an international application Masood A. Badri Division of Research and Planning, Abu Dhabi Education Council, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (seconded from UAE University), and Jihad Mohaidat Abu Dhabi Education Council, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 635 Received 18 June 2013 Revised 24 September 2013 Accepted 4 October 2013 Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to validate the direction and strength of the relationships between school reputation, parental satisfaction and parental loyalty. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports the findings of a survey of 806 parents from Schools in Abu Dhabi the United Arab Emirates. The paper builds mainly on previous work of Skallerud (2011) on measurement of school reputations. Structural equation modelling was used to validate the reputation measure and to test the proposed relationships. The model hypothesised and tested relationships linking school reputation to parental satisfaction and loyalty. Findings The results show strong support for a satisfaction-reputation-loyalty model and confirmed the four-dimensional scale (parental orientation, learning quality, safe environment and good teachers) for assessment of parent-based school reputation. Evidence was found that parents satisfaction significantly affects the four reputation dimensions. However, only three constructs of parent orientation affected parental perception of school loyalty. Additional personal or demographic variables should be included to improve the model. Research limitations/implications The study was limited to parents of children attending public and private schools in Abu Dhabi. The model should be validated with other schools and in other Emirates and countries. Practical implications Identifying the antecedents of parent-based school reputation might aid school decision makers to better address parental satisfaction and loyalty. A careful examination of the causal relations between the various constructs could aid in crafting and implementing effective programs for increasing parental satisfaction and attracting future students. Originality/value The study adds to the limited body of research addressing the appropriate conceptualisation and measurement of school reputation. It also sheds light on a better understanding of the potential relationships among the constructs in the model. Keywords Satisfaction, Customer satisfaction, Loyalty, Schools, Satisfaction, Educational administration, Scale development, Abu Dhabi, Parent-based school reputation Paper type Research paper Introduction The Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC) began a rigorous program of school reform in 2008. In a survey conducted in 2009, many parents gave low ratings of parental satisfaction. The ADEC strategic plan calls for an upgrade of school reputation in Abu Dhabi, along with improvement in the image of teachers in the community (Badri et al., 2013). Effective strategic planning calls for a better understanding of school reputation and its antecedents. Skallerud (2011) investigated the direction and strength of the relationships between school reputation, parental satisfaction and parental loyalty. He reported the findings of a survey of 325 parents from three primary schools across Norway. Building on International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 28 No. 6, 2014 pp. 635-654 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/IJEM-06-2013-0098

IJEM 28,6 636 previous work examining corporate reputations, he developed a new measure of school reputation, as viewed by parents. The study employed structural equation modelling to validate the new reputation measure and to test the proposed relationships. The results supported a four-dimensional scale for the assessment of parent-based school reputation: parental orientation, learning quality, safe environment and good teachers. The model showed that parents satisfaction significantly affected all reputation dimensions. In addition, views of schools as having a parental orientation and good teachers affected parents loyalty. Student loyalty is one of the major goals of educational institutions (Thomas, 2011) because a loyal student population is a source of competitive advantage. Helgesen and Nesset (2007) proposed and validated a model linking student satisfaction, school reputation and loyalty, in which the reputation of the institution acted as a mediating variable between student satisfaction and loyalty. As that study was limited to parents from three primary schools in a country-specific context in Norway, the current study tested the validity of the model with other schools and in other contexts namely public and private schools in Abu Dhabi. Skallerud (2011) and others (Bond and King, 2003; Friedman et al., 2006; Friedman et al., 2007; Hausman and Goldring, 2000; Li and Hung, 2009) noted that schools reputations are becoming increasingly important, and that many parents identify schools by their reputation, which influences their attitudes towards the school. Li and Hung (2009) and Skallerud (2011) pointed out that there are very few published empirical studies of schools reputations, and that very few studies address the views of specific groups of stakeholders, such as parents. Others have also noted that if a school has a good reputation, it would have significant positive effects (Safon, 2009; Vidaver-Cohen, 2007). Many previous studies of institutional reputations have focused on higher educational institutions (Brewer and Zhao, 2010; Helgesen and Nesset, 2007; Safon, 2009; Standifird, 2005; Vidaver-Cohen, 2007; Bush et al., 1998) and marketing, management and corporate strategy (Barney, 2002; Chun, 2005; Kay, 1993; Selnes, 1993). The measurement of institutional reputations has attracted considerable attention in the management and marketing literature (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun and Rindova, 1996, 2000). A positive reputation has many advantages, including providing organisations with a competitive advantage, making them likely to attract more customers (Skallerud, 2011; Gardberg and Fombrun, 2002; Groenland, 2002). There have been many calls for empirical examination of the consequences of a school s reputation, as well as its antecedents. Research suggests that parents evaluation of school performance and what is known about a school determine their satisfaction with the school, which is a key antecedent of the school s perceived reputation (Zabala et al., 2005). Based on these arguments from the literature, the present paper describes a validation test of a model suggested in a previous study linking the three dimensions of loyalty, satisfaction and perception of the reputation of the educational unit. The main purpose of the study was to validate and test a measure of parent-based school reputation, as suggested by Skallerud (2011). The model proposed conceptualises links between school reputation and an antecedent variable, parental satisfaction, and a consequent variable, parents loyalty. The four mediating constructs are parental orientation, learning quality, safe environment and good teachers. Some studies in corporate environments have suggested that demographic characteristics explain loyalty behaviour (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Coner and Gungor, 2002). The study therefore also attempted to understand better the effect of

other student-related, parent-related or school-related factors on the three dimensions of satisfaction, reputation and loyalty. Study background and review Walsh and Beatty (2007) noted that a firm s reputation is based on a favourable general estimation of the organisation by the public. As a result, a firm s reputation could impact positively on the public s attitudes and behaviours towards the organisation. Usually, customers are viewed as the most important stakeholders of a firm. Many researchers refer to corporate reputations as intangible assets and resources that can contribute to a firm s competitive advantage (Barney, 2002; Dowling, 1994; van Riel, 1997). Corporate reputation has been conceptualised and measured both as a one-dimensional concept (Anderson and Robertson, 1995; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Safon, 2009) and as a multidimensional construct (Dowling, 2001; Fombrun et al., 2000; Rose and Thomsen, 2004; Walsh et al., 2009a; Walsh and Wiedmann, 2004). Skallerud (2011) viewed parent-based school reputation as a multidimensional construct composed of information content dimensions. He examined a structural equation model that hypothesises and tests the relationships linking school reputation to parent satisfaction and loyalty. Parents school satisfaction and school reputation Several studies have examined the relationship between parental satisfaction and school reputation. Some studies have noted that school reputation influences stakeholder satisfaction (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998b; Helm, 2006; Walsh and Beatty, 2007; Oliver, 1980; Johnson et al., 2001). Other studies provided evidence that satisfaction with the school influences its reputation (Carmeli and Tishler, 2005; Helm et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2009a, b). However, Skallerud (2011) applied the balance theory (Heider, 1958; Helm et al., 2009) and the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), based on the assumption that an individual with positive experience of a firm s services perceives satisfaction. Research by Helgesen and Nesset (2007) and Marzo-Navarro et al. (2005) also found that student satisfaction is an important antecedent to the reputation of higher education institutions. In general, there seems to be a strong indication that parents are likely to attribute a good reputation to a school that fulfils or surpasses their expectations. Parents school loyalty and school reputation Research suggests that corporate reputation among customers can be improved by focusing on customer satisfaction. Customer loyalty and the likelihood of customer recommendation can be enhanced by increasing reputation (Wang et al., 2003). In general, customer loyalty is manifested in different ways, including a commitment to re-buy or patronise a preferred product or service (Oliver, 1997; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Dick and Basu, 1994). It is noted that the reputation of a firm may be interpreted as the overall perception of a company, what it stands for, what it is associated with, and what one may be supposed to gain when buying its products or using its services (Thomas, 2011; MacMillan et al., 2005; Weiss et al., 1999). Helgesen and Nesset (2007) noted that a university or college may be looked upon as being satisfaction-driven, with great importance placed on the university s reputation. Student loyalty has recently become a very important strategic theme for institutions offering higher education (Henning-Thurau et al., 2001; Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005). Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 637

IJEM 28,6 638 Student (customer) loyalty is thought to be positively related to student satisfaction and to the performance of an educational institution (business unit), at least in the long run (Kotler and Fox, 1995; Zeithaml, 2000; Helgesen, 2006). Consequently both the satisfaction experienced and the reputation of the provider are important for customer loyalty, especially for professional providers of services (Sevier, 1994; Bush et al., 1998; Zabala et al., 2005). Thomas (2011) noted that student loyalty has both a short-term and a long-term impact on the educational institution. Loyal students influence teaching quality positively through active participation and committed behaviour (Rodie and Kleine, 2000). They are probably good advocates, recommending the institution to others (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005). Students may have formed a perception about both their school and their specific study program. Reputation management is also looked upon as very important for attracting and retaining students (Bush et al., 1998; Standifird, 2005). Customer loyalty is thought to be positively related to customer satisfaction (Kotler and Fox, 1995; Zeithaml, 2000; Helgesen, 2006). Student satisfaction is thought to be positively related to student loyalty (Athiyaman, 1997; Schertzer and Schertzer, 2004; Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005) and is seen as a potential antecedent of customer loyalty (Fornell, 1992; Oliver, 1999; Rust and Zahorik, 1993). School reputation is seen as important for attracting and retaining students (Bush et al., 1998). Oliver (1997) defines school loyalty as a deeply held commitment of parents to continue to have their children attend the school consistently in the future, regardless of situational influences and other schools efforts or attempts to induce them to change their behaviours. Other researchers relate loyalty to commitment (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998; Söderlund and Öhman, 2005). Many studies in the corporate reputation literature show that a good reputation positively affects a firm s performance and hence customer behaviour (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Fombrun and van Riel, 1997), and customer loyalty (MacMillan et al., 2005; Selnes, 1993; Dick and Basu, 1994). Li and Hung (2009) noted that loyal parents enrol their children at the same primary school and act as good advocates by recommending the school to other parents and thus helping to attract new pupils. Walsh and Wiedmann (2004) related good reputation to good quality and sound behaviour towards the parents. They also added that a good reputation reduces parents risks and encourage parents future loyalty. Studies of students in higher education institutions also show a positive link between reputation and loyalty (Helgesen and Nesset, 2007; Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005). Effects of other factors on school satisfaction, reputation and loyalty Many authors in the corporate research field have investigated the effects of other factors on satisfaction, reputation and loyalty, including age, gender, income, type of school, student grade level, parental education level and amount spent on child s education (Brokaw et al., 2004; Stokes, 2003). The results of such analyses might better reveal the personal and demographic factors that play a significant role in the effect of parents perception of school loyalty. The nature of the educational context in Abu Dhabi imposes another dimension on the importance of school reputation and parental loyalty. Abu Dhabi s education system is undergoing a major reform that began in 2008. The authority responsible for Abu Dhabi public school education is the ADEC. The old school environment did not engage parents in the educational decision-making process, and ultimately limited their engagement in related management issues.

The paucity of research on parental satisfaction and school loyalty, along with the diversity of the parent population, particularly in an era of school reform in a developing country, created an urgent need for the current study. The study utilised the model developed and tested by Skallerud (2011), which proposes that parent-based school reputation is a multidimensional construct, with parents perceptions of school satisfaction hypothesised as antecedent to parent-based school reputation, and parents school loyalty as a consequence. The model is depicted in Figure 1. Methods and design The conceptual model of school reputation and loyalty used in this study is based on the model developed by Skallerud (2011). The model hypothesises that in order to manage their reputations, schools need to be able to assess or measure them and analyse the connection between perceptions of reputation and certain important input and outcome variables. This study attempts to assess the existence, direction and strength of these relationships using a measure of school reputation as perceived by parents. The objective is to create and apply a modified measure of parent-based school reputation. In addition, to propose and test this modified conceptual model that links school reputation to an important antecedent variable, parental satisfaction, and an important consequent variable, parents loyalty. For its instrument, the study uses a modified questionnaire of parents of children in public and private schools in Abu Dhabi. Study sample The study used data from a sample of 806 parents and guardians from public and private schools in Abu Dhabi. Parents were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire posted online on the ADEC site. The survey remained online for two weeks. A total of 971 parents replied, but 169 questionnaires were not completed fully. As a result, a total of 808 parents completed the survey. In total, 364 (45.5 per cent), were UAE nationals and the rest were non-uae nationals, mostly Arabs from other Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 639 Parental orientation 0.79 (15.82) 0.64 (16.70S) 0.85 (22.36) Learning quality or outcomes 0.09 (ns) School satisfaction School loyalty 0.86 (18.45) Safe environment 0.83 (15.33) 0.93 (20.96) Good teachers School reputation 0.67 (17.36) Figure 1. The structural equations model estimates and t-values

IJEM 28,6 640 countries (32.18 per cent); other participants came from other Middle Eastern countries, Asia, Europe and North America. Respondents were 59.1 per cent female, and 41 per cent male. Participants median monthly family income was 20,000-30,000 Dirhams (5,479-8,219 USD). Their highest level of education was mostly college degree (41 per cent), pre-college diploma (37.6 per cent) and master s degree (11.5 per cent). In total, 79.8 per cent of their children attended private schools and 20.1 per cent attended public schools. In total, 54 per cent of the children were in Cycle 1 (KG1, KG2, Grades 1-4), 25.4 per cent in Cycle 2 (Grades 6-9) and 20 per cent in Cycle 3 (Grades 10-12). The parent s average number of children attending schools in Abu Dhabi was 251 (31.3 per cent), 188 (23.3 per cent), 181 (22.4 per cent) and 116 (14.4 per cent). Finally the median amount spent on school education was 20,000-30,000 Dirham (equivalent to 5,479-8,219 USD). Measures The study used a modified set of the measures used by Skallerud (2011), as shown in Table I. Skallerud (2011) synthesised scales from the literature. In the current study, the initial item measures were refined and pre-tested to enhance face validity. Parents school satisfaction reflected their judgment of a pleasurable level of school use-related fulfilment, including level of under or over-fulfilment. Skallerud (2011) Study dimensions and items Mean SD Table I. Categories and items used in the study Parent-based school reputation parental orientation B1 The teachers are always accessible 5.463 1.334 B2 It is easy to contact the teachers 5.564 1.981 B3 I think it is easy to contact the principal if needed 5.461 1.438 B4 The teachers always communicate with me about anything concerning my child 5.340 1.515 B5 I feel welcome in my child s school 5.742 1.169 Parent-based school reputation learning quality C1 My child has a very good learning outcome at the school 5.694 1.063 C2 My child learns a lot at the school 5.693 1.124 C3 The school has an innovative approach towards teaching 5.425 1.234 Parent-based school reputation safe environment D1 I know that my child is safe and sound at the school 5.862 1.229 D2 I am confident that the school takes good care of my child 5.841 1.089 D3 My child enjoys learning at school 5.604 1.333 D4 It is a very good environment in my child s class 5.641 1.125 D5 The school provides a clean and pleasant environment for learning 5.692 1.185 Parent-based school reputation good teachers E1 The teachers and school management work together 5.664 1.099 E2 The teaching staff at the school is very reliable 5.612 1.085 E3 The teachers always speak positively about the school 5.681 1.151 E4 My child likes his/her teachers 5.633 1.211 Parent school satisfaction F1 The school has met all my expectations of an excellent school 5.434 2.169 F2 I am very satisfied having my child/children at this school 5.541 1.209 F3 My child enjoys going to this school 5.603 1.239 F4 My child looks forward to going to this school 5.512 1.261 Parent school loyalty G1 If I had a preschool child, I would want him/her to attend this school 5.354 1.589 G2 I would select this same school even if given other good school choices 5.093 1.626 G3 I would be honoured to represent the school in any meetings if asked to do so 5.181 1.598

measured this construct by using two items adapted from Friedman et al. (2006). In relation to parents school loyalty intentions, until 2010, parents in Abu Dhabi had complete freedom of choice of public and private schools, based on availability. In 2010, students were enroled in the nearest school zone or district, but they still could also apply to be enroled in other schools. Skallerud (2011) measured parents school loyalty in similar manner to Nguyen and Leblanc (2001), Helgesen and Nesset (2007) and Li and Hung (2009), which is appropriate if school choice is restricted. To better reflect the school-choice environment in Abu Dhabi, the initial list was expanded to contain five items instead of just two. To develop an instrument to measure parent-based school reputation, the customerbased corporate reputation scale developed by Walsh and Beatty (2007) was chosen as a starting point. The scale comprises five dimensions: customer orientation; good employer; product and service quality; reliable and financially strong company; and social and environmental responsibility. However, Skallerud (2011) used a systematic process to ensure the validity of the measures. He utilised an open-ended elicitation procedure with parents and the parents committee at the city school to ensure that the five dimensions were consistent with typical parents views of school reputation. After generating an initial set of items by reviewing prior reputation research, in conjunction with a series of exploratory interviews with parents and teachers at the city school, he discussed them with the parents committee at the school using a focus group approach. A total of 44 items were generated on the basis of the results of the experience surveys and the focus group. Then, a group of three academic researchers who were familiar with corporate reputation research and survey scale development reviewed the pool of the school reputation indicators. The current study took this process one step further and presented the list developed by Skallerud (2011) to the Principal Advisory Committee in ADEC, who were asked to assess the face validity and construct validity of the items, with a focus on the Abu Dhabi school environment. They decided to keep the six categories, but changed the wordings of some of the items and added more items to the lists. The set of items that formed the basis of the questionnaire was then pre-tested with a sample of 50 parents. There were many suggestions for changes in the wording of some of the items. The group decided to limit the list of items to a total of 24, as shown in Table I. To be consistent with Skallerud (2011), all items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale where 1 indicated disagree strongly, 4 indicated neither disagree nor agree and 7 indicated agree strongly. Study hypotheses On the basis of the objectives of the research, and the hypotheses suggested by Skallerud (2011), the current study hypothesised that: H1. Parental satisfaction has a positive effect on parent-based school reputation. H2. Parent-based school reputation has a positive effect on parents loyalty intentions. H3. Parent-based school reputation mediates between parental satisfaction and parents loyalty intentions. An additional objective of this study was to investigate the effect of other factors, including age, gender, income, type of school, student grade level, parental level of Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 641

IJEM 28,6 642 education and amount spent on child s education, in relation to the six constructs used in this research. For this purpose, ANOVA was used to test differences between parents on the six constructs shown in Figure 1. Analysis methods Individual factor analysis was run on each construct to verify that it was onedimensional. The four school-based reputation factors were subjected to other statistical procedures to validate the number of items each would contain. For the school-based reputation measurement model, confirmatory factor analysis (as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) was carried out. The analysis was based on a covariance structure approach, using LISREL 8.3 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). Maximum likelihood estimation method was used, as it is robust with regard to possible violations of normality (Chou and Bentler, 1993). For the school loyalty and school satisfaction constructs, in addition to measuring the reliability of each construct, a further fit test was applied. The reliability of each construct is shown in Table II. Structural equation modelling was used to test the hypothesised model (in Figure 1), which included the simultaneous use of several indicators per construct, and took measurement errors explicitly into account. Absolute fit indices determine how well a priori model fits the sample data (McDonald and Ho, 2002). The current study uses root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fitness index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), the root mean square residual (RMR) and the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR). The analyses will also include other traditional fit indices such as w 2 fit test, the normed fit index (NFI), the non-normed fit index (NNFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI) and the Parsimony normed fit index (PNFI). A statistic that minimises the impact of sample size on the model is the w 2. It is recommended that the ratio of (w 2 /df) range from as high as 5.0 (Wheaton et al., 1977) to as low as 2.0 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). A cut-off value for RMSEA close to 0.06 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) or a stringent upper limit of 0.07 (Steiger, 2007) seems to be the general consensus. As with the CFI, GFI, AGFI, NFI, NNFI, it is generally accepted that values of 0.90 or greater indicate well fitting models. For SRMR, values as high as 0.08 are deemed acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). While no threshold levels have been recommended for PNFI and PGFI, some suggest that it is possible to obtain parsimony fit indices within the 0.50 region while other goodness-of-fit indices achieve values over 0.90 (Mulaik et al., 1989). Results First, individual factor analyses were run with respect to each of the six constructs. Each construct yielded only one factor. Table II shows the reliability of each of the Constructs Variance explained Reliability a Table II. Variances explained (%) and Cronbach reliability coefficients Parent-based school reputation parental orientation 75.57 0.824 Parent-based school reputation learning quality 73.57 0.813 Parent-based school reputation safe environment 70.61 0.854 Parent-based school reputation good teachers 71.09 0.805 Parental school satisfaction 74.43 0.882 Parental school loyalty 75.30 0.836

constructs or scales. Reliability coefficients ranged from 0.805 to 0.882, indicating good internal consistencies of each of the constructs. Table II also provides information on the variance explained by each factor. The composite reliabilities were 0.805 or higher, which indicates internal consistency among the measures far above the recommended level of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In addition, the average variance extracted ranged from 70.61 to 75.57, which is well above Bagozzi and Yi s (1988) suggested target level of 0.50. To confirm the validity of the school-based reputation measures, Skallerud (2011) performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The current study tested the measurement model (the four constructs of school reputation) using CFA. CFA tests whether each measure taps facets of the four latent constructs, indicating convergent validity, and whether the constructs are distinct from one another, indicating discriminant validity. The results of the CFA (Table III) show a good fit for the reputation measurement model with w 2 of 325.36, with 109 degrees of freedom, RMSEA of 0.051, NNFI of 0.99, CFI of 0.99 and four correlated error covariance. The highest estimate from the four constructs to the latent school reputation construct corresponds to good teachers, with a highly significant estimate of 0.97. All four constructs provide significant estimates. The convergent validity of the school reputation scales could be ascertained, since all of the items loaded highly on their assigned factors (Dabholkar et al., 1996). Neither the parents school loyalty construct nor the school satisfaction construct were included in the measurement model since each was a single-item measure. The reliability of each construct is shown in Table II. As a measure of internal consistency or reliability, item reliability or squared multiple correlations (R 2 ) of the indicators ranged from 0.35 (for child being safe at school) to 0.64 (for school providing a clean and pleasant environment for learning). In addition, composite reliabilities ranged from Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 643 Standardised estimate t-value R 2 Parental orientation (estimate of 0.81 with t ¼ 15.93, error variance of 0.34 and R 2 of 0.66) The teachers are always accessible 0.63 11.64 0.39 It is easy to contact the teachers 0.61 19.08 0.38 I think it is easy to contact the principal if needed 0.66 14.77 0.42 The teachers always communicate with me concerning my child 0.74 16.33 0.55 I feel welcome in my child s school 0.75 16.46 0.57 Learning quality (estimate of 0.91 with t ¼ 20.08, error variance of 0.18 and R 2 of 0.82) My child has a very good learning outcome at the school 0.72 23.76 0.52 My child learns a lot at the school 0.73 24.26 0.54 The school focuses on professional standing 0.76 18.82 0.57 Safe environment (estimate of 0.89 with t ¼ 16.16, error variance of 0.20 and R 2 of 0.80) I know that my child is safe and sound at the school 0.59 15.66 0.35 I am confident that the school takes good care of my child 0.73 19.80 0.53 My child enjoys learning at school 0.75 17.04 0.57 It is a very good environment in my child s class 0.75 16.12 0.57 The school provides a clean and pleasant environment for learning 0.80 16.49 0.64 Good teachers (estimate of 0.97 with t ¼ 21.30, error variance of 0.051 and R 2 of 0.95) The teachers and school management work together 0.71 19.10 0.50 The teaching staff at the school is very reliable 0.81 21.21 0.66 The teachers always speak positively about the school 0.69 18.21 0.48 My child likes his/her teachers 0.68 18.00 0.46 Table III. The measurement model (school-based reputation) CFA results

IJEM 28,6 644 0.66 (for parental orientation) to 0.95 (for good teachers). These results indicate internal consistency among the measures far above the recommended level of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The average variance extracted ranged from 0.70 to 0.75, which is also well above Bagozzi and Yi s (1988) suggested target level of 0.50. The discriminant validity of the constructs was tested using the approach suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and also used by Skallerud (2011). The diagonals in Table IV show the average variance extracted from each construct. The other entries represent means, standard deviations and the square of correlations among the constructs. We see that no non-diagonal entry exceeds the diagonals of the specific construct. Overall, the results show that the measures of the proposed constructs achieved satisfactory reliability, convergent and discriminant validity. The structural equation model The main effects of the proposed model (as proposed by Skallerud (2011)) are presented in Figure 1, and were tested using LISREL 8.83 ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996) on the item variance-covariance matrix. The structural model suggested a reasonably good fit, at w 2 of 365.45 with 181 degrees of freedom, P ¼ 0.0221, RMSEA of 0.051, NNFI of 0.987 and CFI of 0.99. The standardised estimates for the various model paths and their associated t-values are provided in Table V. As the values in the table shows, all other fit indices (standardised RMR, GFI, PGFI, AGFI, NFI and PNFI) pass the minimum threshold of an acceptable model-fit. The results show that parents school satisfaction has a significant impact on the parent-based school reputation. In addition, three school reputation dimensions were significantly associated with parents school loyalty intentions. It can be seen in Figure 1 that learning quality was the only dimension that was not significantly related to parents loyalty intentions. The results reveal a consistent pattern between parent-based school reputation and parents school satisfaction: the Constructs Mean SD 1 2 3 4 Table IV. Measures of discriminant validity Parent orientation 5.272 1.088 0.7557 Learning quality 5.490 0.952 0.305 0.7357 Safe environment 5.721 0.938 0.335 0.499 0.7061 Good teachers 5.587 0.857 0.384 0.563 0.544 0.7109 Notes: The diagonals are average variance extracted. The entries are the squared correlations Parent school satisfaction Parent school loyalty Dimensions Estimate (g) t-value Estimate (g) t-value Table V. Structural parameter estimates Parental orientation 0.79 15.82 0.64 16.70 Learning quality 0.85 22.36 0.09 ns Safe environment 0.86 18.45 0.63 15.33 Good teachers 0.93 20.96 0.67 17.36 Notes: w 2 ¼ 365.45 with 189 df, p ¼ 0.0221, RMSEA ¼ 0.051, NNFI ¼ 0.987, CFI ¼ 0.99, standardised RMR ¼ 0.032, GFI ¼ 0.96, PGFI ¼ 0.79, AGFI ¼ 0.954, NFI ¼ 0.985 and PNFI ¼ 0.902

more satisfied the parents, the better they perceive the school s reputation. All estimates were high, positive and significant (0.79, 0.85, 0.86 and 0.93). The results provide support for the expected consequences of school reputation. They show that three dimensions are significant predictors of parents loyalty intentions: assessments of the school having a parental orientation, a safe environment and good teachers. This is consistent with the results of Skallerud (2011) with regard to parental orientation and good teachers; however, Skallerud (2011) found that neither learning outcomes nor safe environments were significant estimates of parent loyalty. The result is also consistent with corporate reputation studies (Walsh and Wiedmann, 2004; Walsh et al., 2009b) that find a strong reputation-loyalty link. Effects of other factors Several ANOVAs were run to test the effects of other factors (Table VI) which shows the constructs where significant differences were observed, provides a general view of the trends observed. It also shows some general outcomes and comments with regard to the significant results. Although the focus was on perception of school loyalty, ANOVA was run on all constructs. With regard to parent s perception of school loyalty, only nationality (background), income, highest attained education level, school expenses and number of children attending school provided indications of significant effects. Other factors, such as gender, school type or child s grade level were not significant determinants of school loyalty. The parents background affected four dimensions of parental orientation, safe environment, parental satisfaction and parental loyalty. The highest effect was observed for safe environments, with an F score of 3.265, significant at the 0.004 level. Native and Western parents assigned the highest scores on all four constructs, compared to other parents (other Arabs, Middle Easterners or Asians). The highest mean score (6.265) was observed for safe environment, and assigned by Westerners. The lowest mean score (4.723) was assigned by Middle Eastern Arabs. In general, Westerners took their children to more expensive private schools, while native parents usually took their children to public schools, which were considered to be of relatively good quality. Income had a limited effect as it only affected parent loyalty. As income rose, the loyalty scores also rose. Higher income parents perceived higher school loyalty, with an F score of 2.267, significant at the 0.036 level. The lowest mean score (5.136) was reported by parents with an average monthly family income of $3,000; while the highest mean score (5.399) was reported by parents with an average monthly family income of $14,000 or more. Parents gender also had a limited influence as it affected only the construct of learning quality. Female parents assigned higher mean scores (5.578) than male parents (5.370). Parent s highest attained educational level affected only two constructs, parental orientation and parental loyalty. The more educated the parent, the higher the perceived orientation and the higher the parental loyalty (highest effect with F score of 9.335 and a high significance of 0.000). The highest mean score (5.756) was reported by parents with PhDs on the safe environment construct. The lowest mean score was observed for safe environment, mainly by two groups: parents with bachelor degrees assigned a mean of 4.790, and those with only a high school degree assigned a mean score of 5.001. The type of school the children attended had a limited effect, providing significant scores for only two factors, parental orientation and safe environment. Parents whose Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 645

IJEM 28,6 646 Table VI. ANOVA of the other factors affecting the six constructs (F score and level of significance) Quality teaching Parental satisfaction Parental loyalty Factors Parent s orientation Learning quality Safe environment 2.244 (0.025) Middle Eastern Arabs assign lower scores than natives or Westerners ns 2.957 (0.007) Westerners assign higher scores than other Arabs or natives ns 3.265 (0.004) Middle Eastern Arabs assign lower scores than natives or Westerners Nationality 2.600 (0.017) Westerners assign higher scores than other Arabs or natives Income ns ns ns ns ns 2.267 (0.036) As income increases, the scores increase ns ns ns ns 2.953 (0.012) As parental education increases, scores increase Parent education 9.335 (0.000) As parental education goes up, scores go up ns ns ns ns Parent gender ns 2.640 (0.020) Females give higher scores ns ns ns ns 3.515 (0.015) Private school parents give higher scores School type 3.450 (0.016) Private school parents give higher scores ns ns ns ns 5.168 (0.000) Lower grades receive higher scores Grade level 3.331 (0.010) Lower grades receive higher scores 6.179 (0.000) The more spent, the lower the score 4.130 (0.000) The more spent, the lower the score 4.357 (0.000) The more spent, the lower the score 4.750 (0.000) The more spent, the lower the score 3.334 (0.000) The more spent, the lower the score Money tuition 2.830 (0.003) The more spent, the lower the score 2.804 (0.005) The more children, the lower the scores 2.569 (0.009) The more children, the lower the scores 5.171 (0.000) The more children, the lower the scores 3.378 (0.000) The more children, the lower the scores 5.061 (0.000) The more children, the lower the scores 4.457 (0.000) The more children, the lower the scores Number of children

children attended private schools assigned higher scores to both parental orientation and safe environment. Parents who sent their children to private schools assigned an average score of 5.329 for parental orientation and 5.776 for safe environment. On the other hand, parents who sent their children to public schools assigned an average score of 5.061 for parent orientation and 5.511 for safe environment. The children s grade level also affected only parental orientation (F score of 3.331, significant at the 0.010 level) and safe environment (F score of 5.168, significant at the 0.000 level). Parents whose children attended lower grades, such as kindergarten or grades one to three, assigned the highest scores to both constructs, compared to children in higher-grade levels. The average mean scores for parents whose children attended either KG or Grades 1-5 was 5.375 for parent orientation, and 5.813 for safe environment. The average mean scores for parents whose children attended Cycle 2 (Grades 6-9) were 5.236 for parental orientation and 5.729 for safe environment. Finally, the average mean scores for parents whose children attended Cycle 3 (Grades 10-12) were 5.016 for parental orientation and 5.438 for safe environment. The school expenses (school tuition, cost of books, transportation and school uniforms) appeared to be a significant factor affecting all six constructs. The highest effect was observed for parental perception of school loyalty (with an F score of 6.179, significant at the 0.000 level). Parents who spent more of their income on school expenses assigned relatively lower scores to all six constructs. For parents who paid the highest school charges, the lowest mean score (4.783) was observed for parental orientation. For those parents who paid the minimum school charges, the mean score for parental orientation was (5.228). The average number of children who attended Abu Dhabi schools from the same family provided the most significant effects on all six constructs. The highest effect was observed for quality of teaching (with an F score of 5.171, significant at the 0.000 level). Parents who had more children attending Abu Dhabi schools assigned relatively lower scores to all six constructs. Parents who had only one child attending school in Abu Dhabi assigned the highest score (5.845) to safe environment and the lowest mean score (5.275) to parental orientation. However, parents who had more than two children attending school in Abu Dhabi assigned the highest mean score (5.235) to safe environment and the lowest mean score (5.059) to parental orientation. The ANOVA details suggest that the issue of school satisfaction, school reputation and hence parental perception of loyalty might be better understood if the effect of other personal and demographic variables is taken into account. Discussion Not all specified paths of parent-based school reputation were consistent with expectations as suggested by Skallerud (2011). In particular, only three of the four predictors parental orientation, safe environment and good teachers were found to explain unique variance in the prediction of school loyalty. However, learning outcomes did not significantly influence school loyalty. Although learning outcomes produced significant bivariate relations with school loyalty, the variable did not yield a significant path to school loyalty in the structural equation model. The purpose of the first research question was to construct possible causal relationships between school-related parental satisfaction and parental perception of school reputation. Consistent with Skallerud (2011), the study examined the impact of parents satisfaction on parent-based school reputation so as to determine the direction and strength of the relationship, hypothesising a positive relationship (H1). Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 647

IJEM 28,6 648 Parental satisfaction was positively and significantly related to all four dimensions, providing evidence of support for H1. The strongest effect of satisfaction was on parents views of good teachers (0.93), safe environment (0.86), learning outcomes (0.85) and parental orientation (0.79). All four effects were strong. Anderson and Sullivan s (1993) finding, that higher satisfaction leads to higher reputation, is supported in the current study. Consistent with this finding, Wang et al. (2003) concluded that service quality leads to superior reputation. The present project found evidence that this conclusion also applies to schools in Abu Dhabi. The results concerning the factors affecting school loyalty may provide information to school management relevant to the design of appropriate school management initiatives to encourage the desired pattern of parental behaviour, to maximise students outcomes. The link between parent-based school reputation and parents loyalty intentions was also seen to be positive and strong, thus providing evidence in support of the second hypothesis (H2). Three of the school reputation dimensions were positively and significantly related to parents loyalty intentions, providing strong, but partial, support for H2. Parents perception of a safe school environment had the strongest effect on parents loyalty intentions (0.83), followed by good teachers (0.67), and parental orientation (0.64). Learning quality did not affect parents loyalty intentions. The goal of the third research question (H3) was to test the mediation relationship between satisfaction and school loyalty intentions through parent-based school reputation. The product of the indirect paths from satisfaction to loyalty through reputation were 0.51 through parent orientation, 0.71 through safe environment and 0.62 through good teachers. On the basis of these findings of high indirect effects, it is concluded that reputation serves as a partial mediator of two links: parents satisfaction and their loyalty intentions in relation to education. The results show that personal and demographic variables have a partial influence on school satisfaction, reputation and loyalty. However, few studies of school satisfaction, reputation and loyalty have addressed the issue of personal factors or demographic, such as age and gender (Brokaw et al., 2004; Stokes, 2003). Some corporate studies, however, did address the variables of gender, income, age and education level. For parents gender, the results are consistent with loyalty studies in the corporate environment, as females (mothers) are more loyal their male counterparts (Ndubisi, 2006). With regard to income and education, our results are inconsistent with other corporate-related research, as most studies found that neither education nor income were significantly related to customer loyalty (Baumann et al., 2011). Conclusions The paths representing direct and indirect effects of the predictors of school loyalty provide statistical evidence of the validity of the satisfaction construct and the fourcomponent model of parent-based school reputation as predictors. The validity of the Skallerud (2011) model provides further justification that school loyalty should be investigated from a broad, integrative and system-wide perspective of parental satisfaction and parent-based school reputation. This result suggests that school decision makers should examine school loyalty within an integrative model. The findings suggest that a school s reputation among parents can be improved by focusing on parental satisfaction. Parental loyalty and the likelihood of increased satisfaction can be enhanced by increasing reputation. This study reinforces the belief that school reputation has an important role to play in the school service environment.

The current results provide overall support for the application of the integrative satisfaction-parent-based school reputation-school loyalty model, as recommended by Skallerud (2011). Tests of the hypothesised structural model provided a good overall fit to the data for the sample of parents in Abu Dhabi, generalising the model to an international context. The results extend previous research by showing the differential effects of parentbased school reputation on parental loyalty. Li and Hung (2009) found a similar relationship between school image and parents loyalty, as high levels of parent satisfaction impacted positively on parent-based school reputation, supporting a causal explanation of the satisfaction-reputation relationship in an educational context (Skallerud, 2011). For Abu Dhabi, a major implication for school leadership is that a good reputation influences parents loyalty. From a marketing point of view, an increased parents loyalty is important with regard to retaining existing pupils and attracting new ones. With school inspections and better reporting, a favourable school reputation increases the likelihood that a school will be chosen by parents. The results would encourage many schools to implement focused programs to increase parent satisfaction and hence, to improve school reputation, which appears to be an important tool for schools success. For school leadership in Abu Dhabi, an important insight gained from this study is that parent-based school reputation is important, but most importantly, easily identifiable and measurable. The instrument used in this study could be expanded and modified to help school leaders market a better image and a good school reputation. However, the study also shows the importance of ensuring parental satisfaction to enhance the parent-based school reputation and hence school loyalty. To sustain loyalty, school managers need to enhance and maintain high level of customer satisfaction, by delivering school attributes and reputation that parents value and want. These results may help school leaders to effectively utilise their resources by paying close attention to strategically important antecedents such as parents school satisfaction and consequences such as parents loyalty (Skallerud, 2011). Although this study produced some interesting and meaningful findings, it has some limitations. In common with most marketing research, this study took a sample at a single time point. The comparison of school loyalty behaviour across different cities or communities would allow identification of differences in parents schoolrelated behaviour. Several years of data and a complete census of the schools in Abu Dhabi would provide further information as to how parental attitudes would change and influence the performance of school management teams. Further research should investigate the differences in parent-school loyalty behaviour across more schools. Research is also needed to examine the changes in schooling-trip behaviour over a longer period of time. With data for additional years, it would be possible to test the predictive validity of the Skallerud (2011) model, or a modified model that would include more school attributes. Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 649 References Anderson, E. and Robertson, T.S. (1995), Including multi-line salespeople to adopt house brands, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 16-31. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.

IJEM 28,6 650 Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, pp. 125-143. Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998a), Customer loyalty and complex services: the impact of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23. Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998b), The effect of corporate image in the formation of customer loyalty, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 82-92. Athiyaman, A. (1997), Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 528-540. Badri, M., Mohaidat, J., Ferrandino, V. and El Mourad, T. (2013), The social cognitive model of job satisfaction among teachers: testing and validation, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 57, pp. 12-24. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94. Barney, J.B. (2002), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Baumann, C., Elliott, G. and Hamin, H. (2011), Modeling customer loyalty in financial services: a hybrid of formative and reflective constructs, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 247-267. Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1998), On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 499-513. Bond, T.G. and King, J.A. (2003), Measuring client satisfaction with public education II: comparing schools with state benchmarks, Journal of Applied Measurement, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 258-268. Brewer, A. and Zhao, J. (2010), The impact of a pathway college on reputation and brand awareness for its affiliated university in Sydney, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 34-47. Brokaw, A.J., Kennedy, W.A. and Merz, T.E. (2004), Explaining student satisfaction, Journal of Business Education, Vol. 5, pp. 10-20. Bush, V., Ferrell, O.C. and Thomas, J.L. Jr (1998), Marketing the business school: an exploratory investigation, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 16-23. Carmeli, A. and Tishler, A. (2005), Perceived organizational reputation and organizational performance: an empirical investigation of industrial enterprises, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 13-30. Chou, C.-P. and Bentler, P.M. (1993), Invariant standardized estimated parameter change for model modification in covariance structure analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 97-110. Chun, R. (2005), Corporate reputation: meaning and measurement, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 91-109. Coner, A. and Gungor, M.O. (2002), Factors affecting customer loyalty in the competitive Turkish metropolitan, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 189-195. Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I. and Rentz, J.O. (1996), A measure of service quality for retail stores: scale development and validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-17. Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: towards an integrated conceptual framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113. Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51.

Dowling, G.R. (1994), Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate Brand, Page, London. Dowling, G.R. (2001), Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, Image and Performance, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Festinger, L. (1957), Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Fombrun, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Fombrun, C.J. and Rindova, V.P. (1996), Who s tops and who decides? The social construction of corporate reputation, working paper, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY. Fombrun, C.J. and Rindova, V.P. (2000), The road to transparency: reputation management at Royal Dutch Shell, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, H.A. (Eds), The Expressive Organization: Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 77-96. Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990), What s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-258. Fombrun, C.J. and van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), The reputational landscape, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-13. Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Sever, J.W. (2000), The reputation quotient: a multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 7, pp. 241-255. Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 6-21. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 39-50. Friedman, B.A., Bobrowski, P.E. and Geraci, J. (2006), Parents school satisfaction: ethnic similarities and differences, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 471-486. Friedman, B.A., Bobrowski, P.E. and Markow, D. (2007), Predictors of parents satisfaction with their children s school, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 278-288. Gardberg, N.A. and Fombrun, C.J. (2002), The global reputation quotient project: first steps towards a crossnationally valid measure of corporate reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 303-307. Groenland, E.A.G. (2002), Qualitative research to validate the RQ-dimensions, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-315. Hausman, C. and Goldring, E. (2000), Parent involvement, influence, and satisfaction in magnet schools: do reasons for choice matter?, The Urban Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 105-119. Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY. Helgesen, O. (2006), Are loyal customers profitable? Customer satisfaction, customer (action) loyalty and customer profitability at the individual level, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, pp. 245-266. Helgesen, O. and Nesset, E. (2007), What accounts for students loyalty? Some field study evidence, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 126-143. Helm, S. (2006), Exploring the impact of corporate reputation on consumer satisfaction and loyalty, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 59-80. Helm, S., Garnefeld, I. and Tolsdorf, J. (2009), Perceived corporate reputation and consumer satisfaction an experimental exploration of causal relationships, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 69-74. Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 651

IJEM 28,6 652 Henning-Thurau, T., Lager, M.F. and Hansen, U. (2001), Modelling and managing student loyalty: an approach based on the concept of relationship quality, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 331-344. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty an empirical analysis, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55. Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001), The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 217-245. Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8 User s Reference Guide, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL. Kay, J. (1993), Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Li, C.-K. and Hung, C.-H. (2009), Marketing tactics and parents loyalty: the mediating role of school image, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 477-489. Kotler, P. and Fox, K.F.A. (1995), Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S. and Hillenbrand, C. (2005), Reputation in relationships: measuring experiences, emotions and behaviours, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 214-232. Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, P. (2005), A new management element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 505-526. Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind, S. and Stilwell, C.D. (1989), Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 430-445. Ndubisi, N. (2006), Effect of gender on customer loyalty: a relationship marketing approach, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 48-61. Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (2001), Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students retention decisions, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 303-311. Oliver, R.L. (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469. Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Oliver, R.L. (1999), Whence customer loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44. Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W. (1990), Zero defections: quality comes to services, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 105-111. Rodie, R. and Kleine, S. (2000), Customer participation in services production and delivery, in Swartz, T. and Iacobucci, D. (Eds), Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 111-125. Rose, C. and Thomsen, S. (2004), The impact of corporate reputation on performance: some Danish evidence, European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 201-210. Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A.J. (1993), Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share, Journal of Retail Summer, Vol. 69, pp. 193-215.

Safon, V. (2009), Measuring the reputation of top US business schools: a MIMIC modeling approach, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 204-228. Schertzer, C. and Schertzer, S. (2004), Student satisfaction and retention: a conceptual model, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-91. Selnes, F. (1993), An examination of the effects of product performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 19-35. Sevier, R.A. (1994), Image if everything: strategies for measuring, changing, and maintaining your institution s image, College and University, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 60-75. Skallerud, K. (2011), School reputation and its relation to parents satisfaction and loyalty, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 671-686. Söderlund, M. and Öhman, N. (2005), Assessing behavior before it becomes behavior: an examination of the role of intentions as a link between satisfaction and repatronizing behavior, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 169-185. Standifird, S.S. (2005), Reputation among peer academic institutions: an investigation of the US News and World Report s rankings, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 233-244. Steiger, J.H. (2007), Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling,, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 893-898. Stokes, S.P. (2003), Temperament, learning styles, and demographic predictors of college student satisfaction in a digital learning environment, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, New York, NY. Thomas, S. (2011), What drives student loyalty in universities: an empirical model from India, International Business Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 183-192. van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), Increasing effectiveness of managing strategic issues affecting a firm s reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 135-140. Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007), Reputation beyond the rankings: a conceptual framework for business school research, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 278-304. Walsh, G. and Beatty, S.E. (2007), Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale development and validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 127-143. Walsh, G. and Wiedmann, K.-P. (2004), A conceptualization of corporate reputation in Germany: an evaluation and extension of the RQ, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 304-312. Walsh, G., Beatty, S.E. and Shiu, E.M.K. (2009a), The customer-based corporate reputation scale: replication and short form, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 924-930. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., Jackson, P.R. and Beatty, S.E. (2009b), Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: a customer perspective, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 187-203. Wang, Y., Lo, H.P. and Hui, Y.V. (2003), The antecedents of service quality and product quality and their influences on bank reputation: evidence from the banking industry in China, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 72-83. Weiss, A.M., Anderson, E. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1999), Reputation management as a motivation for sales structure decisions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 74-89. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F. and Summers, G. (1977), Assessing reliability and stability in panel models, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 84-136. Antecedents of parent-based school reputation 653

IJEM 28,6 654 Zabala, I., Panadero, G., Gallardo, L.M., Amate, C.M., Sanchez-Galindo, M., Tena, I. and Villalba, I. (2005), Corporate reputation in professional services firms: reputation management based on intellectual capital management, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 59-71. Zeithaml, V. (2000), Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what we know and what we need to learn, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 67-85. Further reading Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2004), Consumers, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Aydin, S. and Ozer, G. (2005), The analysis of antecedents of consumer loyalty in the Turkish mobile telecommunication market, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8, pp. 910-925. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Philips, L.W. (1991), Assessing construct validity in organizational research, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 421-458. Bontis, N., Booker, L. and Serenko, A. (2007), The mediating effect of organizational reputation on customer loyalty and service recommendation in the banking industry, Management Decision, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1426-1445. Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1992), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-162. Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73. Elliot, K.M. and Shin, D. (2002), Student satisfaction: an alternative approach to assessing this important concept, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 197-209. Howard, G.S. and Conway, C.G. (1986), Can there be an empirical science of volitional action?, American Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 1241-1251. Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1995), Trait aspects of vanity: measurement and relevance to consumer behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 612-626. Sappington, A.A. (1990), Recent psychological approaches to the free will versus determinism issue, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 19-29. Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate brands add value, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-243. Corresponding author Professor Masood A. Badri can be contacted at: Masood.Badri@adec.ac.ae To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints