Relationship between perceived value, student experience, and university reputation: structural equation modeling

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Ibero-America operate in a competitive environment with growth in private sector participation, evolving accreditation systems, internationalization, and persistent challenges such as dropout, demographic decline, and inequality. Rankings and accreditations are used as differentiation strategies, influencing stakeholder decisions, especially prospective students. This study focuses on three constructs central to HEI competitiveness—student experience, perceived value, and university reputation—and examines their interrelationships and whether high-quality national accreditation in Colombia alters these relationships. The research question is whether student experience and perceived value influence university reputation, and whether student experience influences perceived value, with a comparative analysis between accredited and non-accredited universities. The study proposes and tests three hypotheses: H1: Student experience positively influences perceived value; H2: Student experience positively influences university reputation; H3: Perceived value positively influences university reputation. The purpose is to provide empirical evidence to guide HEI management on factors shaping reputation and to assess the role of accreditation in these relationships.

The literature review defines and contextualizes the focal constructs. University reputation, adapted from corporate reputation, is a multidimensional, stakeholder-based, time-dependent perceptual assessment of performance and outcomes across teaching, research, and extension. It influences trust, student satisfaction and loyalty, graduate employability, enrollments, and funding. Reputation is distinct from but related to identity and image. Student experience, adapted from customer experience, encompasses the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensory, and social responses across the student journey from application through graduation. It is multidimensional (e.g., application, academic, campus, postgraduate; social, educational, personal; student-centered services; co-production; well-being), difficult to measure, and linked to service quality, satisfaction, retention, and employability. Perceived value is most commonly defined as the trade-off between what is received and what is given (benefits vs costs), including tangible (facilities) and intangible (teaching, research) elements. It is multidimensional (functional, epistemic, social, emotional, conditional, image; monetary and non-monetary sacrifices) and relates to quality, satisfaction, loyalty, and word-of-mouth. Prior research has linked pairs of constructs: experience with perceived value; perceived value with reputation; and experience with reputation (often via experiential marketing, service encounters, and emotions). The authors propose a conceptual model interrelating all three constructs with three hypotheses: H1 (experience → perceived value), H2 (experience → reputation), H3 (perceived value → reputation), and examine whether accreditation status alters these relationships.

Design: Quantitative, cross-sectional study testing relationships among student experience, perceived value, and university reputation in two Colombian universities—one with high-quality national accreditation and one without. Ethical approval: Universidad del Rosario Research Ethics Committee (Sep 22, 2021). Sample and data collection: Undergraduate students of legal age were surveyed via faculty invitations; 484 valid responses (216 accredited; 268 non-accredited). Demographics: 285 female, 199 male; ages 18–21 (n=328), 22–25 (n=88), >25 (n=68). Year of study: 1st (90), 2nd (170), 3rd (125), 4th (63), 5th (36). Measures: - Student experience: Xu et al. (2018) instrument (previously validated in Colombia), 24 items, six dimensions (student-centered service, diversity/global citizenship, co-production of learning experience, teacher dependence, accountability, whole-person development), 5-point Likert. - Perceived value: Ledden et al. (2007) instrument (validated in Colombia), 26 items, eight factors within two dimensions: what is received (functional, epistemic, social, emotional, conditional, image) and what is given (monetary and non-monetary sacrifices), 7-point Likert. - University reputation: Del-Castillo-Feito et al. (2019) scale (validated in Colombia), 17 items, six factors (performance, innovation, citizenship, services, governance, work environment), 10-point Likert. Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using AMOS. Measurement models evaluated with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using asymptotically distribution-free estimation due to non-normality; bootstrapping with 2,000 samples and 95% CI. Fit indices and thresholds: χ²/df<5; CFI, NFI, TLI, IFI, GFI, AGFI>0.8; RMSEA<0.08. Items with standardized loadings <0.6 considered for removal; theoretically justified error covariances applied when needed. Convergent validity assessed via AVE (>0.5), CR (>0.7), and Cronbach’s α (>0.8); discriminant validity via MSV and ASV (< AVE). Structural model: second-order factors for each construct; hypotheses tested with path coefficients (p<0.05). Group comparisons performed for accredited vs non-accredited students using the same procedures.

Measurement models: - Student experience scale showed good fit: χ²/df=3.99, CFI=0.93, NFI=0.91, TLI=0.92, IFI=0.93, GFI=0.87, AGFI=0.82, RMSEA=0.07; strong convergent and discriminant validity (e.g., AVE≥0.62; CR≥0.86; α≥0.87). - Perceived value scale fit: χ²/df=3.81, CFI=0.94, NFI=0.92, TLI=0.93, IFI=0.93, GFI=0.85, AGFI=0.81, RMSEA=0.07; convergent validity acceptable; some high inter-factor correlations for social value and image (MSV>AVE) but ASV<AVE. - Reputation scale acceptable fit: χ²/df≈0.27, CFI=0.80, NFI=0.73, TLI=0.73, IFI=0.81, GFI=0.87, AGFI=0.81, RMSEA=0.06; convergent and discriminant validity supported. Structural model (overall): Acceptable fit (χ²/df=2.90, CFI=0.85, NFI=0.78, TLI=0.84, IFI=0.85, GFI=0.58, AGFI=0.56, RMSEA=0.04). Hypothesis tests (Table 5): - H1 (Experience → Perceived Value): Estimate=1.23, S.E.=0.06, C.R.=19.87, p<0.001 (Accepted). - H2 (Experience → Reputation): Estimate=1.59, S.E.=0.13, C.R.=11.67, p<0.001 (Accepted). - H3 (Perceived Value → Reputation): Estimate=0.85, S.E.=0.08, C.R.=10.48, p<0.001 (Accepted). Group comparisons: - Non-accredited university (Table 6): H1=0.88 (p<0.001), H2=1.48 (p<0.001), H3=0.96 (p<0.001) — all accepted. - Accredited university (Table 7): H1=1.72 (p<0.001), H2=2.21 (p<0.001), H3=0.48 (p=0.01) — all accepted; H3 shows smaller magnitude but remains significant. Overall, both student experience and perceived value significantly influence reputation; student experience also significantly influences perceived value. No substantive differences in the structural relationships were attributable to accreditation status.

Findings confirm that the student experience is a key driver of perceived value and reputation, aligning with service-dominant logic and prior research demonstrating that experiences shape value judgments and institutional perceptions. Perceived value also contributes to building university reputation, reflecting the cumulative appraisal of benefits versus sacrifices across the educational journey. Despite accreditation’s role as a quality signal in student choice, it did not alter the fundamental relationships among student experience, perceived value, and reputation; students may prioritize experiential and value-related elements over accreditation when forming reputational judgments. These results underscore the managerial importance of intentionally designing, delivering, and continuously improving the student journey to strengthen perceived value and, consequently, institutional reputation.

This study contributes empirical evidence, via SEM with second-order constructs, that student experience positively influences perceived value and reputation, and that perceived value positively influences reputation in higher education. The relationships hold for both accredited and non-accredited universities, indicating accreditation does not moderate these links. Theoretical contributions include integrating three multidimensional constructs within a single model and reinforcing service-dominant logic perspectives on value co-creation in higher education. Practically, HEIs should prioritize student-centric service design and delivery across the entire journey, ensuring coherence between promises and actual practices to enhance value perceptions and reputation. Future research should: (a) adopt longitudinal designs to capture changes in experience and value across study stages; (b) expand samples to postgraduate students and include additional stakeholders (faculty, administrative staff); and (c) incorporate related constructs such as satisfaction, loyalty, and legitimacy to enrich the explanatory model.

Some global fit indices (e.g., GFI, AGFI; for the structural model also NFI/TLI) fell below preferred thresholds, suggesting the need for further model refinement and replication. The cross-sectional design limits causal inference and does not capture temporal dynamics of student experience and perceived value. The sample focused on undergraduate students from two universities in Colombia, limiting generalizability; other student populations and institutional contexts were not examined. Future studies should use longitudinal approaches, include broader and more diverse samples and stakeholders, and test additional variables (e.g., satisfaction, loyalty, legitimacy).