Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

Exploring the Major Determinants of Student Satisfaction on University

Cafeteria Food Services: A Malaysian Case
Siti Noraishah Dollah@ Abdullah
Faculty of Hotel Management & Tourism, UiTM Terengganu
e-mail: Sitin665@tganu.uitm.edu.my
Norudin Mansor (correspondence author)
Faculty of Business Management, UiTM Terengganu
e-mail: norudinm@tganu.uitm.edu.my
Mohaini Mohamed @ Naba
Faculty of Hotel Management & Tourism, UiTM Terengganu
e-mail: hanee@tganu.uitm.edu.my

ABSTRACT
The diversity nature of service business is very much related to the service quality and customer satisfaction.
These two concepts are most important key marketing strategies for sustaining competitive advantage in the
industry. Due to the competition in the service business, measuring customer satisfaction has become common
practice in the food serving at the college cafeterias. This paper explores three research questions how do
students perceive price and value of food offered at the cafeterias?; Is the food served in good quality and in
line with the food appearance, taste and freshness?; and how strong is the relationship between price and value
and food quality towards students satisfaction? Based on a survey of 254 students studying at the university, a
model based on two major factors is developed. In the model, among conceptually related variables were
included in this research were, overall service quality and overall satisfaction. The results of the study indicated
that the relationship between service quality and students satisfaction are positively correlated. More
specifically, the findings suggest that the application of Independent t-test and One-way ANOVA able to
illustrate further about the significance difference on perception of service quality to the different
segment/group. The outcome of this research provides a direction towards improving the services and facilities
which continuously increase the competitive power in the market place.
Keyword: Service Quality, Students satisfaction,

1.

INTRODUCTION

Foodservice sector is one of the service sectors that procure high rates of growth. It is highly fragmented with a
large number of small to medium size players in the markets from restaurants, hotels and resort and institutional
foodservice (Stanton et.al., 2000). Institutional foodservice is a service provided by an institution to supply food
for its own relevant customer groups (Grossbauer, 2002). It can be found in schools, nursing homes, hospital
facilities, prisons, child and senior care centers and also catering services (Spears, 2000; Chong et. al., 2001).
This institutional foodservice is often called as on-site foodservice or on-site feeding and non-commercial
foodservice in which food is provided on the premises of an organization (Palacio & Theis, 2005; Hyun, 2009).
According to National Restaurant Association (2003) in the United States, foodservice industry is large and
growing. Annually, restaurants foodservice in United States account for about 62% of sale, while institutional
foodservice and non-restaurant foodservice account for the remainder. This figure shows that there is a demand
for institutional foodservice. Similarly as in the Malaysian context, institutional foodservice sector is expanding
and as reported by Global Agriculture Information Network (2000), this sector contributes $US 131, 970, 000 in
1993 or seven percent of the total Malaysian market size. Stanton et al., (2000) agreed that institutional food
service will continuously grow from 10% to 15%. This proves that foodservice institution is highly demanded
by consumers and influencing the expansion of university foodservices (Xi & Shuai, 2009; Woo et. al., 2009;
Ng, 2005). Malaysia particularly, is facing the same phenomenon as statistics shows that the number of
university students including Public Institutions of Higher Learning and Private Institutions of Higher Learning
is increasing, from 197,736 students in 2002 to 221,048 students in 2007 (Malaysian Ministry of Higher

62

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

Education, 2007). The increasing number of students enrolment has forced the universities administrators to
build more residential halls and to provide abundant selections to cater on-campus living. With all these
facilities, student life will be more comfortable.
Studies have been conducted at several private and public universities foodservice premises in Norway by Xi
and Shuai (2009). They discovered that a university foodservice operator needs to provide a variety of food
options, fresh products, healthy food consumptions and tasty food (Ng, 2005; Xi & Shuai, 2009). Similarly,
studies done by Meyer and Conklin (1998); Woo et al., (2008) and Deshpande et.al., (2009) revealed that, taste
of food, cost, nutrition and convenience are some of the factors predicted for food selection among adults.
As ascertained from the previous discussions, students satisfaction is of utmost importance in university dining.
This is aligned with a study done by Syed and Conway (2006) which revealed that, it is very important as
customers satisfaction is the heart of marketing. It is often used to predict the likelihood of customers returning
to a restaurant. As mentioned by Ng (2005), a customers satisfaction is often used as an indicator of whether
any customers will return to a restaurant. While there is no guarantee of a satisfied customers repeat visit, it is
almost certain that an unsatisfied customer will not return. Numerous studies have been conducted to show that
customers satisfaction is an important element to foodservice managers because it leads to repeat patronage,
brand loyalty and invent new customers (Yuksel & Yuksel 2002; Oh, 2000) which, in turn, leads to an
organizations future revenue and profits (Qin & Prybutok, 2009). Other than food quality, price and value are
also important factors in influencing a students satisfaction in a universitys dining services. In shaping
students satisfaction, Ng (2005) discovered that price and value did highlight positive outcome. It occurs
especially when price functions as an indicator of quality (Soriano, 2003).
1.2 Problem Statement
Hundred of researchers have been conducted on satisfaction, and contended that satisfaction influences a
customers evaluation on purchase intention and also behavior. It will secure a customers loyalty towards
service brands (Paswan et. al., 2007). The importance of a customers satisfaction is also stressed by Syed and
Conway (2006) where they claimed that it further provides an important indicator of return intention. Meyer and
Conklin (1998) revealed that, food quality such as flavour of food which consists of taste, smell and visual
appeal of food influenced students satisfaction. Other than food quality, Ng (2005) contended that price and
value also have positive effects in determining students satisfaction. This statement is also supported by
Shoemaker (1998) as he claimed that students considered reasonable price as an important variable when
deciding where to eat. They also elaborated that price, value and food quality are the important factors which
determine students satisfaction or dissatisfaction that will lead them to purchase or repurchase.
In the Malaysian context, the university foodservice management is facing problems as students are dissatisfied
with the food quality, price and value offered by the cafeteria operators. This is similar to a study by Xi and
Shuai (2009) who have found that price and value and food quality are the main factors that lead to students
dissatisfaction while patronizing the university foodservice dining. In relation to this, Universiti Teknokogi
MARA Terengganu (UiTMT) has discovered the same phenomenon of unsatisfied situation on price and value
and food quality in its cafeterias since 2007. The analysis shows that, there is respondents are either dissatisfied
or less satisfied with the price, value and quality of food offered by the cafeterias operators. Furthermore, the
numbers of unsatisfied or less satisfied panels continuously grow to 45 panels for Jan May 2009. These
determinants obviously show that the panels are dissatisfied or less satisfied in the quality of food as well as its
price and values offered by the cafeteria operators.
1.3
Research Objectives
The objective of this study is to seek the degree of students satisfactions towards the food quality, price and
value offered at the cafeterias of UiTMT. The aim of this study is supported by the following specific
objectives:
* To determine students perceptions on price and value and food quality offered at the cafeteria.
* To investigate acceptance level of food quality in terms of the appearance, taste and freshness of the food at
universitys cafeteria.
* To identify the relationships between price and value and food quality towards students satisfaction.
1.4 Conceptual Study Framework
The framework of the investigation (refer Figure 1) will provide the basis for understanding students
satisfaction on the service provide by the universitys cafeteria.

63

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Development of University Foodservice in Malaysia
Institutional foodservice in Malaysia can be found in schools, nursing homes, hospital facilities, prisons, child
and senior care centers and university dining halls (Stanton et al., 2000). In general, it could be stated that there
is little information or lack of journals which mentioned about university foodservice in Malaysia. Currently, the
demand for institutional foodservice particularly in university foodservices in Malaysia has grown constantly as
there is an increased number of students. Currently, institutional foodservice particularly in university
foodservice is mushrooming in line with the increasing number of student population at public and private
universities in Malaysia (Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education, 2007). The demands basically take place
when there is a transformation of students preferences. Spears, (2000) stated that the trend or style in delivering
the foods to students is also changing depending on the suitability of the current situation, for example cafeteria
service is the most popular type of service because it alleviates the traffic line during the operation. He also
revealed that, the straight- line cafeteria service has changed to outdoor dining areas where this type of service
has given new and fresh concepts in experiencing university meals. With such development, the government of
Malaysia has been introducing the need to cater clean and healthy food procedures. In line with the continuous
development in the industry and economic trend in early 1990s, together with the global food safety issues, the
quality control had been improved in year 1993 (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2009). Moreover, in 2004, this
department faced its rebranding for monitoring the foodservice operators and the university foodservice outlet
operators in IPTA and IPTS. By that, an outsourced foodservice system was fully implemented in UiTM dining
halls in the year 2005. This system known as e- cafe system was initiated replacing the previous system (UKK,
2005). Therefore, from that, this university foodservice is known as cafeteria and no longer as dining hall. Under
this system, students are granted RM120.00 monthly as their food allowance. Students may have their food as
they prefer and the food price will be deducted from their allowance by keying the individual students metric
number with a password as the method of payment. The cafeteria is operated based on the cafeteria system
concept in which students can choose their food according to their preferences.
2.2 Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction had been studied since long time ago by hundreds of researchers. Andaleeb and Conway
(2006) in their study determined that, customer satisfaction is the heart of business marketing. Customer
satisfaction often becomes the center of attention because it is an attribute to determine customers repeat
purchase intention that is in-line with profit projection of any businesses. The ability to satisfy customers is vital
in any businesses, therefore Oliver (1997) stated that customer judgment of a product or service attributes, or the
product or service itself that will provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment. Although
satisfaction is important in any businesses, previous studies do argue that customer satisfaction is not the only
attribute to the success of a business, brand familiarity (Tam, 2008), service quality (Hong & Prybutok, 2009)
and brand loyalty (Paswan et. al., 2007). These attributes are related to customer satisfaction because when
customers are satisfied with all these attributes, there is definitely a repeat purchase or revisit situation (Tam,
2008; Hong & Prybutok 2009; Paswan et al., 2007).
While customer satisfactions in foodservice are still being studied today, student satisfaction in university dining
also is becoming more popular among scholars as students are among the big population in institutional
foodservices especially in university dining (Ng, 2005; Xi & Shuai, 2009). Even though this field of study has
been studied for quite some time, however from year 2000 onwards numbers of researches published in this area
kept on increasing. This suggested that customer satisfaction is becoming more important and it has influenced
institutional foodservice sectors and this matter should not be neglected. Students satisfaction in institutional
foodservice solely depends on food quality, food variety and price fairness (Xi & Shuai, 2009). Another study
by Ng (2005) also revealed that food quality and price and value are significant in measuring the students
satisfaction.
2.3 Food Quality
Quality plays a significant role in determining and influencing customer satisfaction. Food quality and
acceptability is complex and interdisciplinary, encompassing scientific disciplines including food science and
technology, nutrition, psychology, physiology, marketing and hospitality (Imram, 1999). McWilliams (2000)
revealed that food quality is the quality characteristics of food that is acceptable to customer. This includes
external factors such as appearance, taste, smell and texture of the food (Imram, 1999). The same researcher
added, appearance, flavor and texture are important quality attributes which differentiate raw food materials and
processed products.
Imram (1999) concluded that appearance encompasses several basic sensory attributes such as colour, opacity,
gloss, visual structure, visual texture and perceived flavor. Colours of the food often trigger the mind to expect

64

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

particular flavors such as pink is related with strawberry flavor (McWilliams, 2000). It has been well established
that color and appearance can have a halo effect which modifies subsequent flavor perception and food
acceptability (Hutchings, 1994). Of all these visual aspects, the effect of color is the most obvious and wellstudied (Imram, 1999). Extensive research has confirmed the importance of color in taste recognition and
intensity in flavor detection and recognition (Johnson & Clydesdale, 1982), in food preference (DuBose et al.,
1980; Christensen, 1983) and food acceptability (Johnson & Clydesdale, 1982). Consumer perception of an
acceptable color has been shown to be associated with other quality attributes: flavor, nutrition and level of
satisfaction (Christensen, 1983). Rolls et al. (1982) showed that manipulation of color in some products can be
used to enhance intake and apparently to enhance sales. The effect can be achieved by manipulation of one or
more variables: color within a formulation, incident light, packaging color and even color and appearance
arrangement and brand name (Martin, 1990). In a foodservice situation, the food products chosen for display
and sale by caterers are selected for their color and appearance attributes. It is these attributes which serve
initially to attract consumer attention and later influence the decision on whether to buy or not. In food choice
situations, color and other appearance attributes create the first impression encountered by consumers. Color has
been shown to be of primary importance in the initial judgment of food, ultimately influencing the acceptance or
rejection of the food (Gifford & Clydesdale, 1986). This is most evident in products such as desserts whose
acceptability is mainly defined by their visual appeal. Additionally, color and other appearance attributes
contribute along with flavor and texture in consumer product assessment after purchase, thus influencing
repurchase intention.
Next is the texture evaluation in the mouth relies on the feel such as grittiness, slickness, stickiness, hardness,
crispness, toughness, brittleness, pastiness, lightness, crunchiness, smoothness, viscosity, moistness, burning,
cooling, astringency, spiciness and tingling of the food (McWilliams, 2000). The same author also concludes
that textural characteristics are of great importance in the enjoyment of fruit and vegetables. The above study
has proven that customer satisfaction with restaurant food quality is a powerful predictor of customers intent to
return to a particular restaurant (Pettijohn et.al., 1997; Qu, 1997; Oh, 2000). Based on these scholars, food
quality was ranked as one of the most important determinants of customer satisfaction that will lead to decision
on return to a particular restaurant (Pettijohn et. al., 1997).
Although many studies have been conducted by many researchers that revealed food quality are the most
important towards customer satisfaction but there are also some studies that argued or disagreed with that point.
As mentioned by several studies, customers waiting time is also one of the attributes that needs to be considered
in measuring customers satisfaction (Taylor & Baker, 1994). Although there are many researchers who
measured customers satisfaction based on the service quality (Parasuraman et.al., 1988) but they did not
concentrate on food quality. A common definition of service quality is that the service should correspond to
customers expectations and satisfy their needs and requirements. In determining customers satisfaction it is
important to the foodservice operators to deeply understand their needs and demands, especially in institutional
foodservice industry such as in university dining (Ng, 2005; Xi & Shuai, 2009). Overall quality of the food,
taste of food, freshness of the food and eye appeal of the food are classified under food quality dimension (Ng,
2005).
2.4 Price and Value
Other than price and value, some researchers determined price and values as price fairness: fairness is the
judgment of whether an outcome and the process to reach an outcome are reasonable or acceptable (Bolton &
Shankar, 2003). Meanwhile, Bolton and Lemon (1999) defined price fairness as the perceived fairness of the
price or usage trade- off. Usually the lower the perceived price, the lower the perceived sacrifice and the
customer will view the price is fair (Xi and Shuai, 2009).
Several studies have been conducted by many researchers who argued about price and value that will lead to
customer satisfaction. Soriano (2003) posited that the price to be paid for a service determines the level of
quality to be demanded. It shows that, customers have raised their expectations with regard to quality and good
service, while seeking a better value for their money. Zeithaml et. al., (1990) argues that price is irrelevant to
service quality and therefore not a quality attribute. However, according to Johns and Howard (1998), customers
absolutely view price and value consideration as part of the service quality. Even though there are researchers
that agreed with both researchers, but there are also several studies that determine there are other attributes
which need to be included in regard of price and value such as waiting time, cleanliness of the premises and
service attitudes (Pizam & Ellis, 1999). Furthermore, recent researches by Ng (2005) and Xi and Shuai (2009)
did consider price and value in their study in assessing student satisfaction of dining hall services.

65

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

To ensure customers satisfaction with regard to the price and value, the foodservice operator needs to
emphasize more on value for the price, the portion size, reasonable price and overall value of the dining
experience for their customers. In institutional foodservice industry such as in university dining that had been
studied by Ng (2005) and Xi and Shuai (2009), good value for the price, portion size, reasonable price and
overall value of the dining are classified under price. In Klassen et. al., (2005) study about planning foodservices
for a campus setting, their result did show that price is the most important criterion for the students when
making a purchase decision. However, Soriano (2003) had argued that the price to be paid for a service will
determine the level of quality to be demanded. On the other hand, Soriano (2003) did agree that service and
value of meal are equally important when compared with all the factors.
2.5
The Concepts of Customer Satisfaction in Foodservice
The underlying concept of customer satisfaction was initially viewed as a good predictor of future purchase
behavior. Obviously, the researcher would like to study the tangible part of this service quality such as quality of
food and price and value since a study completed by Sulek and Hensley (2004) noted that food quality is one of
the major factors apart from waiting time, fairness of the order, comfortable waiting area, crowding in the
waiting area, politeness of host area staff, server attentiveness, atmosphere of dining area, and seating comfort
that had significant effects on the customers intention to return to the restaurant.
Using the disconfirmation paradigm as a theoretical basis, Parasuraman et al. (1988) devised the SERVQUAL
scale. Calculating the difference between the 22 items each of five dimension forms the SERVQUAL measure.
Those five dimensions that are proposed to be generalising to virtually any service provider are: (1) the
reliability of the service provider, (2) the responsiveness of the service provider, (3) the tangible aspects of the
service, (4) the assurance provide by the service staff, and (5) the empathy shown to consumers. Even though
some researchers have had some objections to SERVQUAL indicated before as the development of
SERVPERF, many researchers have used and are still using and modifying SERVQUAL in a number of
industries. The representative example is DINESERV, which is a tool to assess customers perceptions of a
restaurants quality (Stevens et al., 1995). DINESERV was adapted and refined from SERVQUAL and
LODGSERV (a measuring scale for hotel service quality) containing 29 statements on a 7-point response scale.
Thus for this study, the researcher preferred to use the DINESERV model for the concepts of customer
satisfaction because this concept is more applicable and relevant to this study.
3. RESEARCH METHODLOGY
3.1 Conceptual Framework of the Research
In the context of this study, two basic aspects are investigated. First, to investigate students perception on food
quality and price and value that could satisfy them when dining at the university cafeterias in UiTMT. Other
dimensions that have been identified, include portion size, taste, eye appeal and freshness of the food elements
are investigated.
3.2 Research Proposition
To support the previous conjectures, four fundamental propositions are formulated:
1) There is a positive perception on price and value and food quality offered at the cafeterias.
2) There is a low or high acceptance level on food quality attributes at university cafeteria:
- The appearance of the food is accepted by students in university cafeteria.
- The taste of the food is accepted by students in university cafeteria.
- The freshness of the food is accepted by students in university cafeteria.
3) There is a significant relationship between the food quality and price and value dimension and
students satisfaction
3.3 The Sample of Population and Plan
The total population of students in UiTMT for 2010 is 3,799 students from semester one until semester three
who resided at four colleges in the campus. In addition, another 6,543 students is from semester four until
semester six who resided at the colleges and nonresident students (Unit Rekod dan Peperiksaan HEA UiTM
Terengganu, 2010). With the given population, 368 370 respondents are an appropriate sample size to
represent the total population in this study (Krejie & Morgan, 1970). However, other scholars suggested a
minimum numbers of 254 respondents as an ample sample size in social sciences research to signify the
population of 3500 to 4000 population (Bartlett et.al., 2001). For that reason, the sample size for this study is
set to be 254 respondents and approximately 300 questionnaires were distributed. Another important subject
which needs to be raised in this section is the sampling method used. Due to the huge number of students
residing at UiTMTs hostels the researcher will not be able to collect data for the entire population because of

66

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

time and budget constraints. Thus to minimize the difficulty, the researcher decided to use a simple random
sampling method for the data collection method.
3.4 Instrument Development
Close ended questions using a numerical Likert type of scale was chosen in this study. The questionnaire was
developed into five sections (section A, B, C, and D). Most of the questions in the instrument were directly
replicated from previous studies undertaken by Ng, (2005); Xi & Shuai, (2009); and Kim, Ng & Kim, (2009).
Section A measures the degree of agreement on overall perception towards food quality and price and value
offered by the cafeteria operator. A total of nine (9) statements were used for respondents to report their
perceptions. Out of nine items (9), four (4) items were modified, while nother three (3) items are replicated
without alteration of questionnaire from Ng (2005). Another two (2) were created by the researcher in which the
aim is to look in depth into the food quality in terms of the superiority and consistency. Section B of this
questionnaire was constructed on the food quality elements. Seven (7) items were replicated from Xi and Shuai
(2009) and another six (6) questions was formulated by the researcher concerning food quality to fit this study.
Section C of this questionnaire focuses on the overall levels of satisfaction on food quality, price and value
elements rendered. Three (3) items asked were replicated directly from Xi and Shuai (2009). The last section
was designed using a nominal scale focuses on the respondents demographic profile. To check the clarity of
formed questionnaires, pre-testing of the questionnaires was conducted. All commentary and recommendation
were measured and integrated into the final draft of the research instruments.
3.5
Procedure of Data Collection
A self reported experience through a questionnaire survey was conducted within a week as the best approach for
data collection. This approach was selected to ensure that the result would be based upon students actual
experiences of dining at particular student cafeterias.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Assessment of Internal Reliability.
Referring to Table 4.1, Section A measuring the overall perception on food quality, price and value has achieved
reliability scores of 0.91, Section B with the reliability of 0.98 while in Section C is highlighting on overall
satisfaction towards university cafeteria and overall satisfaction on food quality, price and value showed the
reliability of 0.51. Based on the above result, Sekaran and Bogie (2010) suggested that an adequate and
appropriate score value to proceed with further analysis as all the values were above 0.70.
4.2 Demographic Profile of Respondents
The information of the demographic profile of respondents is shown in Table 4.3.
As tabulated in Table 4.2 it shows that out of 254 respondents, there are 61 percent (n=155) of respondents are
female and 39 percent (n=99) are male. This result is not surprising as the female students population over
figure the male population residing at all the UiTM hostels and this is consistent with the students enrollment in
any universities in Malaysia. The semester status observation displayed that 21.3 percent (n= 54) semester one
students, 67.7 percent (n=172) semester two students and 11 percent (n=28) semester three students. Students
from semester two are the highest number of respondents who contributed towards this study as it is reliable
with the students population residing at the UiTMT hostels.
Faculty: 2.4 percent of students from the Faculty of Computer Science & Mathematics, 14.2 percent from
Electrical Engineering and only 1.2 percent from Chemical Engineering. Faculty of Science Administration &
Policy Study contributed as 24.4 percent from total respondents, 15 percent from Faculty of Accountancy and
28 percent respondents from Faculty of Business Management. Faculty of Hotel & Tourism Management and
Faculty of Office Technology Management contributed with 12.6 percent and 2.4 percent respectively. This
figures exposed that the respondents is from various faculty that represent students for the whole UiTMT. 42.5
percent of respondents are frequently dine at the Perhentian Cafeteria, and 28.7 percent dine at the Tenggol and
Redang Cafeteria respectively.
Cafeteria frequently dined and Average spending on food daily at the cafeteria: Majority of students
claimed that they had patronized the cafeteria around 2 3 times per week (37.8 percent) compared to 17.7
percent who patronized 4 5 times, 35 percent more than 5 times and 9.4 percent patronized the cafeteria once a
week. These might proved that students are not well like with the cafeterias. By that, it is significant in this
study. With regards to the average spending on food daily at the cafeteria, 63.4 percent had declared spending
below RM 10.00 on food daily, followed by 28 percent spent between RM 11-RM 15. 6.7 percent spent
between RM 16-RM 20 daily and the remaining students who spent more than RM 21 are only at 0.2 percent.

67

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

Age: Meanwhile for the age variables, the result shows that, the mean is at 19.1 and 19.0 for the median of age.
The standard deviation is 0.706 and 18 is a minimum and 23 is the maximum age of respondents. This is aligned
with the age range of diploma and first year undergraduate students who is compulsory to reside at the
residential hostels. They are also the majority of students who dine in at the residents cafeterias.
4.3 Overall Perception on Food Quality, Price and Value.
In addressing the first objective of this study, a descriptive statistic as in table 4.3 is undertaken looking at the
mean scores on level of agreement of the overall students perception on food quality, price and value.
By looking at the table, majority of the students agreed that the quality of food is important when dining at the
universitys cafeteria (M= 4.02, S.D= 1.04, Q1). However, they slightly agreed with the food presentation (M=
3.11, S.D= 0.95, Q2), food taste and flavor (M= 2.88, S.D= 0.91, Q3), freshness of the ingredients used (M=
2.87, S.D= 2.16, Q4), food quality (M= 2.81, S.D= 0.91, Q5) and consistent quality (M= 2.86, S.D= 0.92, Q6).
Similar feelings were given to the items related to price and value. As such, students slightly agreed that the
food price are acceptable (M= 2.89, S.D= 0.94, Q7), reasonable price for portion served (M= 2.85, S.D= 0.85,
Q8) and price value for the food quality (M= 2.87, S.D= 0.91, Q9).
From this mean score indication, despite the importance of food quality, students feel that food quality, price
and value provided by the cafeteria operators in the universitys cafeterias were not really meeting the student
expectations. In other words, students agreement towards these attributes probably as they do not have other
alternatives owing to the distance of the campus with other eating places.
4.4 Students Satisfaction
Looking at the rating score, majority of the students explicitly were dissatisfied with the overall performance of
the university cafeterias (M= 2.17, S.D= 0.88, Q1). They were also dissatisfied with the foods offered (M= 2.17,
S.D= 0.86, Q2). The dissatisfaction feelings were further expressed to the value price of food offered (M= 2.11,
S.D= 0.86, Q3). These students expression is consistent with the Food Monitoring Analysis at Cafeterias
UiTMT for Jan May 2009, where most of the panels were unsatisfied or less satisfied for overall quality, taste
of foods, portion size and food price offered by the operators at the university cafeterias. Table 4.4 reported the
results from the analyses.
Analysis of the Relationship between Food Quality, Price & Value with Satisfaction.
To support the objectives and research questions of this study, the standard multiple regression analysis as in
table 4.5 was applied for confirming the result of the students levels of satisfaction with the predictor variables.
The predictors comprised the three food quality elements (taste, eye appeal and freshness of food ingredients).
The criterion variable relates to levels of students satisfaction.
As can be seen from the table, the three food quality elements (taste, eye appeal and freshness) were able to
explain 0.2 percent (p<.001) of the observed variations in the students levels of satisfaction. The results
showed that, the three food quality element; taste, eye appeal and freshness significantly contributed to students
satisfaction. Taste (p < .001) had the most impact on levels of satisfaction followed by eye appeal (p < .001) and
the freshness (p < .001) respectively. As all three food quality elements were found to be significant and
positively influenced students levels of satisfaction, it can be said that the assumption levels of students
satisfaction on food quality elements was strongly supported.
5. IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
Findings of the study revealed that female over numbered the male students within the age range of between 1823 years old. This is not something odd as females in fact commonly represent the higher students population in
all UiTM hostels and in almost all universities in Malaysia. An average of expenses of below RM10 was spent
daily by students and they visited university cafeterias 2-3 times per week.
Analysis on students overall perception on food quality, price and value was undertaken in Section 4.5. The
result shows that they just slightly agreed with the food quality, price and value of the food provided by the
cafeteria operators. In other words, students expressions towards this attributes were probably because they
have no alternatives to dine. Moreover, the distance limits them from going outside the residential hostels.
Nevertheless, students had agreed on the importance of food quality and slightly agreed with the food
presentation. Additional analysis examined their views on the level of acceptance towards the quality of foods.
The result obtained directly supports the previous section analysis whereby students felt the food quality

68

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

provided by the cafeteria operators were just slightly acceptable. As such, they feel that the quality of food
provided by the cafeteria operators did not meet their needs and expectations.
The next analysis of Section 4.7 scrutinized the students level of satisfaction on overall performance of
university cafeteria and also the food quality, price and value of food provided by the operators. Again, the
result supported the analysis whereby students were dissatisfied with the overall performance of the university
cafeterias, food quality, price and value of food provided by the cafeteria operators. Students have no other
alternatives yet they have to dine at these cafeteria. The results also revealed that, there are other elements which
contributed towards their satisfaction on these cafeterias services such as the grocery shop services, cable
television services, flexible cafeteria operation hours and local snack food products that offer light snacks to
them.
The overall summary clearly revealed that food quality, price and value are the major determinants to the
customers when dining at any types of food service establishments. Students as customers of the university
cafeteria are having the same anxieties as other restaurant customers. They expect high quality of food, price
and value. Students were not satisfied with most of the attributes related to the food quality, price and value of
food provided by the cafeteria operators. This dissatisfaction expressed by the students on these attributes has
given significant impact not only to the students but also to the cafeteria operators as well as the UiTMT
management as a whole.
The students as the major users probably will not dine frequently at the cafeteria and somehow will find the
alternatives to fulfill their needs and wants by getting it from outside food outlets from their campus either by
dining out with friends or asking friends to buy food for them. Besides, students will have other food
alternatives that they feel more worth in their room such as convenience or instants food products which are
cheaper, easier to prepare and have longer shelf life. For the cafeteria operators, they might probably experience
difficulty to sustain because they continuously lose students as customers and in turn will affect the
sustainability of their business if those attributes are ignored by them. Those are the reasons why some of the
cafeterias kept reducing the menu items. In fact some are found to close their operation or even failed to renew
their services. For the UiTMT management, the decreasing number of students patronizing these cafeterias
indicates the intention of UiTMT in providing better foodservices for the students as an alternative to the old
system of foodservices (dining hall) does not meet the objectives if some proactive actions are not being taken
in combating the issues.
In relation to that, one of the vital solutions could be taken by UiTMT management or those who are responsible
are to have suggestion boxes to enable students to express their feelings on the overall performance given by the
cafeteria operators. With those suggestions, management should inform the operators about students
dissatisfaction on food quality, price and value of food provided by them. All the deficiencies need to be
promptly solved by the operators. The management should be more sensitive or aware of the students welfare
and give a firm warning to the cafeteria operators on the importance of providing an acceptable quality food,
price and value. Failure to meet the requirements may result to termination of their contract. The performance
appraisal and monitoring processes on the performance of the operators should not only be done occasionally
but should be carried out by a professional evaluator to enhance the services. In addition, a stringent screening
test must be applied by the management not only by looking at the ability, experience of the operators alone but
should go beyond that such as visiting the site office and reviewing past history on their achievement. This can
be done through cross referencing with their other clients.
In conclusion, UiTMT management as an educational provider should have more systematic procedures in
combating the above mentioned issues for the benefit of students as stakeholders. Most importantly, the students
are not only getting the best education in this university but also provided with good quality food.
REFERENCES
1. Andaleeb, S. S. and Conway, C. (2006). customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an
examination of the transaction-specific model. Journal of Services Marketing, 20 (1), 3-11.
2. Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J. W.., & Higgins, C.C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining
appropriate sample size in survey research.
3. Bolton, R.N. and Lemon, K.N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers usage of services: usage as an
antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2), 171-86.
4. Bolton, R.N. and Shankar, V. (2003). An empirically derived taxonomy of retailer pricing and
promotion strategies. Journal of Retailing, 79 (4), 213-24.

69

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

Chong, P. P., Chen, Y. S. and Chen, J. C. H. (2001). IT Induction in the Food Service Industry.
Industrial Management and Data Systems, 101(1), 13- 20: MCB University Press.
Christensen, C. M. (1983). Effects of aroma, flavor and texture judgments of foods''. Journal of Food
Science, 48, 787-790.
Deshpande, Sameer , Basil, M. D. & Basil, D. Z.(2009). Factors influencing healthy eating habits
among college students: An application of the health belief model. Health Marketing Quarterly, 26(2),
145 164.
DuBose, C. N., Cardello, A.V., and Maller, O. (1980). Effects of colorants and enterprises.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11 (7), 326-339.
Gifford, S. R., and Clydesdale, F. M. (1986). The psychophysical relationship between color and
sodium chloride concentrations in model systems''. Journal of Food Protection, 49, 977-982.
Global Agriculture Information Network. (2000). Malaysian Food Service Sector Study. Foreign
Agriculture Service Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Grossbauer, S. (2002). Managing Foodservice Operations. A system approach for healthcare and
institutions (10th Ed). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt Pub.
Hutchings. (1994). Sensory assessment of appearance methodology. in hutchings (ed), food color
and appearance. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Hyun, S. (2009). Re- examination of Herzbergs Two- Factor Theory of Motivation in the Korean
Army Foodservice Operations. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.implications from the frontier.
service quality: new directions in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Imram, N. (1999). The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food products.
Nutrition and Food Science, 5, 224-228.
Johns, N., and Howard, A. (1998). Customer expectations versus perception of service performance in
the foodservice industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9 (3), 248-265.
Johnson, J. and Clydesdale, F.M. (1982). Perceived sweetness and redness in colored sucrose
solutions. Journal of Food Science, 47, 747-752
Klassen, J. K., Trybus, E., and Kumar, A. (2005). Planning food service for a campus setting.
Hospitality Management, In Press.
Krejie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol.30 pp 607-610.
Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (2007). Enrolmen Pelajar Peringkat Diploma IPTA Mengikut
Bidang, tahun 2002- 2007. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.
Martin, D. (1990). The impact of branding and marketing on perception of sensory qualities'', Food
Science and Technology, 4, 44-49.
McWilliams, M. (2000). Foods: Experimental Perspectives (2nd Ed). New York: measure consumer
satisfaction. Hospitality Research Journal, 17 (2), 63-74.measurement of service quality, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 69, Spring, pp. 127-39.
Meyer, M. K. and Conklin, M. T. (1998). Variables Affecting High School Students Perception of
School Foodservice. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98 (12), 14241431.
Ministry of Health Malaysia, (2009). Peraturan Kebersihan Makanan di bawah Seksyen V Ordinan
Makanan dan Dadah 1952.
National Restaurant Association (2003). Restaurant Industry Forecast: Executive Summary, National
Restaurant Association, Washington, DC.
Ng, Y. N. (2005). A study of Customer Satisfaction, Return Intention and words-of-Mouth
Endorsement in University Dining Facilities. Unpublished masters thesis, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Oh, H. (2000). Diners' perception of quality, value, and satisfaction: A practical viewpoint. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58-66.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the consumer. New York, NY:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Palacio, J. P., Theis, M. (2005). Introduction to Foodservice (10th Ed). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-37
Paswan, A. K., Spears, N., and Ganesh, G. (2007). The Effect of Obtaining Ones Preferred Service
Brand on Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 21 (2), 75-87.
Pettijohn, L. S., Pettijohn, C. E., and Luke, R. H. (1997). An evaluation of fast food restaurant
satisfaction: Determinants, competitive comparisons and impact on future patronage. Journal of
Restaurant and foodservice Marketing, 2 (3), 3-20.

70

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

32. Pizam, A. & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11 (7), 326-339.
33. Qin, H. and Prybutok, V. R. (2009). Service Quality, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in
fast-food restaurant. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1 (1), 78-95.
34. Qu, H. (1997). Determinant factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurant dining: a qualities'',
Food Science and Technology, 4, 44-49.
35. Rolls, B.J., Rolls, E.T., and Rowe, E.A. (1982). The influence of variety on human food selection and
intake, in Barker, L. (ed), The Psychology of Human Food Selection, Chichester, Ellis Horwood Ltd.
36. Sekaran, U., and Bougie, R., (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 5 th
ed. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
37. Shoemaker, S. (1998). Strategic Approach to Segmenting the University Dining Population: It is More
than Class Rank. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing,3(1),1-33.
38. Soriano, D. R. (2003). The Spanish Restaurant Sector: Evaluating the Perception of Quality. The
Service Industries Journal. 23 (2), 183-194.
39. Spears, M. C. (2000). Foodservice Organizations. A managerial and system approach (4 th Ed). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
40. Stanton, Emms and Sia. (2000). Malaysia HRI Food Service Sector Study. USDA and Foreign
Agricultural Service. GAIN Report #MY0017.
41. Stevens, P., Knutson, B. and Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring sucrose solutions.
Journal of Food Science, 47, 747-752
42. Sulek, J. M. and Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere and fairness of
wait. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45 (3), 235-247.
43. Syed, S. A and Conway, C. (2006). Customer Satisfaction in the Restaurant Industry: An Examination
of the Transaction- specific Model. Journal of Service Marketing 20 (1), 3- 11.
44. Tam, J. L. M. (2008). Brand Familiarity: Its effect on satisfaction evaluations. Journal of Services
Marketing, 22 (1), 3-12.
45. Taylor, S. A. and Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70 (2),
163-178.
46. Unit Kemudahan Kolej. (2007). Department of Students Affairs and Alumni Division. Universiti
Teknologi MARA.
47. Unit Rekod Peperiksaan UiTM Terengganu. (2010). Laporan Hal Ehwal Akademik.
48. Woo, G. K., Ng, C. Y. N. and Kim, Y. S. (2009). Influence of Institutional DINESERV on Customer
Satisfaction, Return Intention and Word-of-Mouth. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
28, 10- 17.
49. Xi, L. and Shuai, Z. (2009). Investigation of Customer Satisfaction in Student Food Service. An
example of student cafeteria in NHH. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1), 113124.
50. Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2002). Measurement of Tourist Satisfaction with Restaurant Service: A
segment-based Approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (1), 52-68.
51. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. (1990). Delivering quality service: balancing customer
perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

APPENDIX
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Study Framework
Food Quality
1. Taste of food.
2. Sight appeal of the food.
3. Freshness of the food.
Price and Value
1. Good value for the price.
2. Appropriate portion size.
3. Reasonable price item

Students
Satisfaction

Source: Ng (2005)

71

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

Table 4.1: Alpha Coefficient of internal reliability for each section

Variables
No. of items

Cronbach alpha

Perception on food quality, price and value

0.864

Food quality

13

0.956

Students satisfaction

0.944

Table 4.2: The profile of respondents reported by gender, age, semester, faculty, name of cafeteria,
average money spend and frequency of eating at the cafeteria.
VARIABLES
Frequency Percentage
Gender
Semester

Faculty

Name of cafeteria you

frequently dine in at the
UiTM cafeteria
On average how much do
you spend on food daily at
the cafeteria
Frequency of eating in this
cafeteria per week

Male
Female
One
Two
Three
Computer Science and Mathematics
Electrical Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Science Administration & Policy Study
Accountancy
Business Management
Hotel and Tourism Management
Office Technology Management
Tenggol
Redang
Perhentian
Below RM10
RM11 RM15
RM16 RM20
More than RM21
Once
2 3 times
3 5 time
4 More than 5 times

Table 4.3: The overall perception on food quality, price and value.
No
Variables: perception on food quality, price, and value

99
155
54
172
28
6
36
3
62
38
71
32
6
73
73
108
161
71
17
5
24
96
45
89

39.0
61.0
21.3
67.7
11.0
2.4
14.2
1.2
24.4
15
28
12.6
2.4
28.7
28.7
42.5
63.4
28
6.7
2
9.4
37.8
17.7
35

Mean

S.D

Q1

The quality of food is important when dining in at this cafeteria

254

4.02

1.04

Q2

Most of the food presented are presentable (colorful and eye catching)

254

3.11

0.95

Q3

Most of the food served by this cafeteria has good taste and flavor.

254

2.88

0.91

Q4

The quality of the ingredients used to prepare the food are fresh

254

2.87

2.16

Q5

Most of the food quality served are excellent

254

2.81

0.91

Q6

Most of the food served always in consistent quality

254

2.86

0.92

Q7

Most of the food prices are acceptable

254

2.89

0.94

Q8

Most of the food prices are reasonable for the portions served

254

2.85

0.85

Q9

The price of food is value for the quality of food been served

254

2.87

0.91

72

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business

ISSN: 2046-7141
Vol. 2, Issue. 7, (pp.62- 73) | 2012

Table 4.4: Analysis on Students Level of Satisfaction

No
Variables
Q1
Q2
Q3

Overall satisfaction with the university cafeteria.

Mean

S.D

254

2.17

0.88

2.17

0.86

2.11

0.86

254

Satisfaction with the foods offered.

254

Satisfaction with the value price of the food offered.

Table 4.5: Multiple Regressions of the Food Quality, Price and Value and levels of Satisfaction.
Predictors
Model 1: Std.
Step 1: Model Variables
Total Food Quality
.036*
Taste
Eye appeal

.017*

Freshness

.001**

R2

.002

Adj. R2

.010

R2 Change

.93

F-Change

.147
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

73