See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335523676

The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty mediated by

satisfaction

Article  in  International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing · December 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s12208-019-00228-0

CITATIONS READS

8 391

3 authors:

Dina Amaro Alzira Marques

University of Coimbra Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
3 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Helena Alves
Universidade da Beira Interior
188 PUBLICATIONS   4,956 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

U-VALUE Project 2022 Seminar 'The Impact of Higher Education Institutions on the Quality of Life in their Regions' View project

Springer Volume: Call for Chapters (CfC) Best Practices in Territorial Branding and Quality of Life: Multidimensional Analyses and Applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dina Amaro on 12 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-019-00228-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The impact of choice factors on international

students’ loyalty mediated by satisfaction

Dina Maria Amaro 1 & Alzira Maria Ascensão Marques 2 & Helena Alves 3

Received: 25 March 2019 / Accepted: 20 August 2019/

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
The presence of international students is a valuable input for Higher Education Institutions
(HEI) at all levels. Thus, it is critical to understand not only how students make their
decisions and what factors and sources of information provided by the HEI most influence
them, but also to evaluate students’ satisfaction and loyalty with the choice made, in order
to define the most suitable and competitive marketing strategies to attract and retain
international students. Based on the information gathered through a questionnaire with a
sample of 190 international students studying at a Portuguese HEI, a quantitative, cross-
sectional and causal study was conducted using the estimation of a structural equation
model calculated through PLS, in order to investigate the impact of choice factors and
information sources on international students’ loyalty, mediated by satisfaction with the
choice made. The findings indicate that the choice factors with the greatest impact on
satisfaction of the international students were: the perception of the country, the environ-
ment and location of the HEI, and the sources of information provided by the HEI. It was
also concluded that a positive global perception of the HEI influences the recommenda-
tion from significant others, and increases the satisfaction and loyalty of all the interna-
tional students. Thus, HEI managers should account for these factors when making
strategic marketing decisions to increase the number of international students.

Keywords Choice factors and information sources . Satisfaction . Loyalty . International

students . PLS

* Dina Maria Amaro

dina.amaro@ipleiria.pt

Alzira Maria Ascensão Marques

alzira.marques@ipleiria.pt

Helena Alves
halves@ubi.pt

1
Politécnico de Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
2
ESTG, CARME, Politécnico de Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
3
Management and Business Department, NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
 D. M. Amaro et al.

1 Introduction

Over the past 25 years, internationalization has evolved from a marginal and minor
component to a global, strategic, and mainstream factor in higher education (Knight
and De Wit 2018), influenced by the globalization of our economies and societies and
the increased importance of knowledge (De Wit and Hunter 2015).
In this context, for surviving and competing in this globalized economies,
attracting international students is becoming one of the priorities for Higher Educa-
tion Institutions (HEI). Thus, it is critical that HEIs are able to understand how
students make their decisions and what factors and sources of information most
influence them, in order to define competitive marketing strategies (Briggs and
Wilson 2007; Raposo and Alves 2007).
However, this process is not easily understood. It is a complex decision for students,
not only for financial reasons but also because it involves a long-term decision that will
affect their lives (Raposo and Alves 2007). That choice can influence their future
professional careers, their friendships, their future residence and their personal satis-
faction (Kotler and Fox 1994). Once the choice is made and after the experience of
studying abroad, it is important to assess student degree of satisfaction with that choice
and their further loyalty to the chosen institution, represented by their intention to
recommend (word-of-mouth) the HEI to other potential students.
Numerous studies have been made in recent years to deepen not only the factors and
information sources that influence the choice of a specific education destination country
and a HEI (Mazzarol and Soutar 2002; Soutar and Turner 2002; Chen 2007; Bodycott
2009; Petruzzellis and Romanazzi 2010; Eder et al. 2010; Wilkins and Huisman 2011;
Henriques et al. 2018; Nicholls 2018, among others), but also the loyalty and satisfac-
tion of international students in different fields, such as university services, infrastruc-
tures, academic reputation, course content (Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe 2008; Brown
and Mazzarol 2009; Paswan and Ganesh 2009; Asare-Nuamah 2017). However, no
studies are found assessing the students’ loyalty and satisfaction with the choice made
of a specific education destination country and a host HEI”.
Therefore, this study aims to determine the impact of factors of choice and infor-
mation sources on international students’ loyalty, mediated by the satisfaction with the
choice of a foreign country and HEI, in view of the identification of a set of marketing
and communication strategies more suitable to attracting international students and,
thus, contributing to the institution internationalization.
For this purpose, a quantitative, cross-sectional and conclusive-causal study, col-
lected by surveying 190 international students, was conducted using the estimation of a
structural equation model. The originality of the research lies in the assessing the
international students’ degree of satisfaction and loyalty concerning the choice factors
and sources of information of the chosen host HEI.
This study is divided into six parts. After the Introduction and the identifi-
cation of research gap, that this study intends to respond to, Part 2 presents a
review of the factors of choice and sources of information used by international
students as well as the theoretical research framework. Research methodology is
described in Part 3 and the results are analysed and discussed in Part 4. Part 5
concludes the study and Part 6 describes its limitations and directions for
further research.
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

2 Literature review

Attracting and involving international students in HEIs, directly or indirectly, has

become strategic for the latter’s internationalization, above all at a time marked by
globalization where it is essential to produce citizens who feel at home anywhere in the
world (Haigh 2008: 427). HEIs must therefore understand how students make their
decisions and what factors and sources of information influence them most, in order to
define their marketing strategies more competitively, with greater segmentation and
oriented towards the profile of each student, aiming to attract the right students, obtain
alternative sources of funding and differentiate themselves from others.

2.1 Factors of choice and sources of information used by international students

It is recognized internationally that the choice of an HEI is a complex process

influenced by multiple factors (Moogan and Baron 2003; Kinzie et al. 2004; Briggs
and Wilson 2007; Maringe and Carter 2007), and depends on several and multiple
influences (Mazzarol and Soutar 2002; Soutar and Turner 2002; Chen 2007; Bodycott
2009; Petruzzellis and Romanazzi 2010; Eder et al. 2010; Wilkins and Huisman 2011;
Henriques et al. 2018; Nicholls 2018). The importance attributed to each of them differs
according to the student’s stage of life (Kallio 1995), i.e., this changes through
academic life and later according to career aspirations, socio-economic status, acquired
competences, family encouragement, the institution’s characteristics and students’
financial limitations (Nora and Cabrera 1992).
Several authors have been analysing those factors. Mazzarol and Soutar (2002)
states that the student chooses initially to study abroad rather than in the home country,
followed by selection of the country and the educational institution; Chen (2007)
concludes that the decision to study abroad is greatly influenced by personal motiva-
tions and external push-pull factors. Raposo and Alves (2007) identify five groups of
factor choice: personal characteristics, previous knowledge of the institution, influence
of significant others, HEI reputation and educational offer. Maringe and Carter (2007)
group the factors in Push Factors (Economical, political and home country HEI
capacity) and Pull Factors (at country level and Institutional and course level), indicat-
ing the key influencers (friends and family, private agencies, direct contact, media).
Ming (2010) points out the location, academic programs, HEI reputation, infrastructure,
costs, financial aid and employment opportunities. Wilkins and Huisman (2011) choose
to group the factors into three categories: i) factors that influence the desire to study
abroad; ii) factors that attract students to a particular country and; iii) factors that attract
students to a specific HEI. Wilkins et al. (2012a, b) identify 6 variables: i) financial
issues; ii) entertainment and environment; iii) institution quality and reputation; iv)
career and work issues; v) the country’s reputation in higher education; vi) international
experiences.
In the light of those studies, it was decided to group these choice factors in 5 groups:
i) personal motivations; ii) destination country; iii) host institution; iv) host institution’s
environment and location; v) recommendation from others.
Sources of information were added, since they also play an important role in
international students’ process of choosing an HEI. Indeed, it is known that in this
decision-making process, the student will look for as much information as possible
 D. M. Amaro et al.

about HEIs and their respective programmes (Oliveira and Soares 2015), and numerous
authors have studied the information sources used by international students in this
respect (Briggs and Wilson 2007; Eder et al. 2010; Maringe 2006; Simões and Soares
2010; Queijo et al. 2013, Le et al. 2019). It is therefore of interest to find out the factors
and information sources most valued by international students and those with the
capacity to explain their choice of HEI.

2.2 Satisfaction and loyalty

Having made the choice and experienced studying abroad, it is relevant to assess that
experience through students’ degree of satisfaction and loyalty, represented by their
intention to recommend (word-of-mouth) the HEI to other potential students, relatives
and friends. Various studies have confirmed the benefits satisfaction and loyalty bring
to the institution, which can mean spreading a positive image of it to other students,
their collaboration during or even after the period of study (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2001),
or even returning to the institution as a student (Marzo-Navarro et al. 2005).
Satisfaction is understood as a global assessment based on total purchases and the
consumption experience of goods or a service over time, corresponding to the degree to
which the consumer feels fulfilled by judging how well the characteristics of a supply
(goods or a service) provided or are providing pleasure through its consumption or use
(Marques 2014: 80).
Loyalty, in turn, can be defined as the intention to perform a number of behaviours
indicating the motivation to maintain the relationship with an organisation, which
includes actions such as further purchases, recommending the organisation by positive
word-of-mouth (WOM) or the intention to return (Sirdesmukh et al. 2002).
Helgesen and Nesset (2007) state that student satisfaction is directly associated with
their loyalty. Indeed, student satisfaction is a fundamental strategic variable in main-
taining a competitive position with long-term benefits arising from students’ loyalty,
positive WOM, and HEIs’ communication and image. (Arambewela et al. 2006).
Aiming to complement studies on students’ satisfaction and loyalty, it is also
considered essential to determine students’ levels of satisfaction and loyalty consider-
ing the choices made based on identification of the factors motivating students’ wish to
study abroad and the factors motivating them to choose a given country and institution,
in order to increase its attractiveness for current and future students and maintain a
competitive advantage in the international market (Petruzzellis and Romanazzi 2010).

2.3 Theoretical research framework: Formulation of research hypotheses

The literature review infers that in perceiving a certain country and HEI in particular,
international students are influenced by “push / pull” factors (Mazzarol and Soutar
2002; Maringe and Carter 2007; Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe 2008; Eder et al. 2010;
Lam et al. 2011; Wilkins et al. 2012a, b). “Push” factors relate to economic and
political questions occurring in the student’s home country and initiate a student’s
decision to study abroad. “Pull” factors directly influence the choice of a given
institution and are related to factors of attraction in the destination country, the
reputation and quality of the HEI, and questions related to its location (Mazzarol and
Soutar 2002; Maringe and Carter 2007; Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe 2008; Wilkins
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

and Huisman 2011). So based on the above-mentioned studies, Personal Motivations

are considered as “push” factors. “Pull” factors are those related to the destination
country and the institution’s environment and location.
According to Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008), destination and HEI choices are
assessed based on their attributes or on “pull” factors. These lead a student to choose
one destination or HEI rather than another. Therefore, and also according to Baker and
Crompton (2000), assessment of individual satisfaction (measured by assessing the
attributes of a product or service) can provide an image of global satisfaction with the
product or service. Consequently, the research carried out in this study aimed to explore
the “push” factors motivating students to study abroad and the “pull” factors of the
destination country and institution influencing the choice of programme, as well as the
relative importance of those factors in levels of student satisfaction.
It is therefore forecast that the “push” and “pull” factors identified in the literature
affect directly and positively students’ satisfaction with the choices made.
With regard to the push factors, Chen (2007), Maringe and Carter (2007),
Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008), Eder et al. (2010), Wilkins and Huisman
(2011), Amani & Kim (2017) identified personal motivations that influence the student’
decision to study abroad. Some of those personal motivations are related with the
possibility to improve their job and financial prospects, establish international contacts,
meet new people and make friends or even the desire to travel and live new experiences
or improve their language skills. They are also associated with the conditions of the
country origin, such as home country lacks of research facilities, lack of access to
higher education in their country or uncertain political or economic situation.
Consequently, a first hypothesis was formulated:

H1: Personal Motivations have a positive influence on Satisfaction with the choice
made by international students.

Related with the pull factors, several authors also identified the perception of the
destination country as influencing the student’ decision. Shanka et al. (2005), Cubillo
et al. (2006), Maringe and Carter (2007), Chen (2007), Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe
(2008), Eder et al. (2010), Wilkins and Huisman (2011), Anderson, R. & Bhati, A.
(2012), Yang et al. (2017) are some of them. Thus, the safety of the country, the
diversity and multicultural environment, the quality of life, the uniqueness of the
culture are factors that influence the choice of the students as well as the affinity
between the country of origin and the country of destination (strong economic and
political ties between both countries or the similarity of the educational system) and the
facilities in the destination country such as the ease and speed of the visa process, the
lower tuition costs, the possibility of applying for immigrant status, the lower living
expenses and the job opportunities during the course.
The second hypothesis was, thus, formulated:

H2: Perception of the destination country has a positive influence on Satisfaction

with the choice made by international students.

Under the pull factors, the perception of the Higher Education Institution is also
referred to by various authors such as Kallio (1995), Soutar and Turner (2002), Briggs
 D. M. Amaro et al.

(2006), Raposo and Alves (2007), Chen (2007), Petruzzellis and Romanazzi (2010),
Eder et al. (2010), Wilkins and Huisman (2011), Anderson, R. and Bhati, A. (2012),
Cebolla-Boado et al. (2018), among others. The reputation and the quality of the HEI,
the quality of the program, the ranking of the HEI, the availability of financial aid/
scholarships, affordable tuition fees, international recognition of academic degree
achieved at the HEI, a wider program and course offering, a positive relationship
between faculty and students, the speed of the application process, high employment
rate of courses are some of those factors.
This perception leads to the third hypothesis:

H3: Perception of the Higher Education Institution has a positive influence on

Satisfaction with the choice made by international students.

Finally, in connection with the pull factors, the perception of the Environment and
Location of the Higher Education Institution was identified by Chen (2007) and Eder
et al. (2010). The safety of city where the HEI is located, if there is no discrimination at
the HEI, the possibility to stay and work in the city where the HEI is located are some
of the examples.
A fourth hypothesis was therefore formulated:

H4: Perception of the Environment and Location of the Higher Education Institu-
tion has a positive influence on Satisfaction with the choice made by international
students.

According to Simões and Soares (2010), in terms of educational services, the

usage and relevance of various sources of information (e.g. media reports;
parents and teachers; brochures, leaflets and university websites; university
open days) have been investigated. Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008) also
mention the importance of the information provided by the destination institu-
tion to its students, which should be accessible and available according to the
latter’s needs, and as such, can have an impact on satisfaction with the choice
made.
Therefore, another hypothesis is suggested:

H5: Sources of Information have a positive influence on Satisfaction with the

choice made by international students.

An institution’s corporate image, namely its quality and reputation may have a signif-
icant influence on recommendation by significant others (Ladhari et al. 2011). In the
case of HEIs, that recommendation can come from relations, friends, teachers and
alumni, with a determinant influence on the choice of the HEI (Soutar and Turner 2002;
Mazzarol and Soutar 2002; Shanka et al. 2005; Raposo and Alves 2007; Maringe and
Carter 2007; Chen 2007; Simões and Soares 2010; Eder et al. 2010; Ming 2011).
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6: Positive global perception of the Higher Education Institution has a positive
influence on Significant others’ recommendation.
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

Perception of the country has a positive effect on the image of the city, considering its
environment and location, and also affects perception of the HEI. (Cubillo et al. 2006;
Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe 2008).
Consequently, other research hypotheses are presented:

H7: Perception of the destination country has a positive influence on Perception of

the Higher Education Institution’s Environment and Location.
H8: Perception of the destination country has a positive influence on Perception of
the Higher Education Institution.

The host city represents the physical environment where the student’s experience will
occur and so perceptions of the city, namely its safety, the existence of good infrastruc-
ture and services, and other aspects, have a great influence on perception of the
institution (Price et al. 2003 and Cubillo et al. 2006,). In fact, students choose their
host university also taking into consideration the characteristics of the host city (Van
Mol and Ekamper 2016).
So the ninth hypothesis is identified:

H9: Perception of the Environment and Location of the Higher Education Institu-
tion has a positive influence on Perception of the Higher Education Institution.

Satisfaction has a positive impact on students’ loyalty (Helgesen and Nesset 2007;
Wilkins and Huisman 2011; Kumar and Yang 2014; Kunanusorn and Puttawong
2015). Indeed, various studies confirm that highly satisfied students undertake
positive WOM, recommending the institution or course to friends and relatives, or
from a broader perspective, returning to continue their studies, recruiting future
students or becoming pro-active alumni (Guolla 1999; Reichheld 2003 and
Petruzzellis and Romanazzi 2010).
This leads us to the tenth hypothesis:

H10: Satisfaction has a positive influence on student Loyalty.

Still in the sphere of loyalty, other studies indicate that the student’s perception of the
institution, in particular its corporate image (reputation, quality of courses, and position
in rankings), has a positive impact on their loyalty (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2001), and so
the last research hypothesis is presented:

H11: Students’ Perception of the Higher Education Institution has a positive

influence on their Loyalty.

In summary, this study will test the relationships present in the following research
model (Fig. 1):

3 Research methodology

This study aimed to respond to the following research question:

 D. M. Amaro et al.

Fig. 1 Conceptual research model. Source: Own elaboration based on the conceptual research framework

What is the impact of factors of choice and information sources on international

students’ loyalty, mediated by satisfaction with the choice of a foreign Higher
Education Institution?

The study focus on a leading public HEI in Portugal where international students from
70 countries are studying. Moreover, this is one of the few Portuguese HEI that offers
English and Portuguese programs in various areas of knowledge. The HEI’s location
stands out also since is located in the littoral centre of Portugal.
Furthermore, Portugal is an empirically appropriate country to study because it faces
the same trends as other countries, such as competition, funding cuts, and a decrease in
applications due to low birth rates and high dropout rates, particularly at the second
school level (Henriques et al. 2018).
The unit of analysis was international students and mobility students enrolled in the
Polytechnic of Leiria in the academic year 2015/2016, in the undergraduate and master
programmes, totalling 429. To clarify, international students are those who moved from
their home country to study in another country (OECD 2015) and mobility students are
those who will study in an international environment for a period of 6 to 12 months,
returning home after their international experience (OECD 2015; Marginson 2004). Of
the universe of this study, 51% are mobility students and 49% international, with the
majority (56%) being female. 60% of students attend undergraduate programs and 40%
master programs. The most represented countries of origin are Brazil, Ecuador and
Cape Verde (regarding international students) and China, Spain and Poland (regarding
mobility students).
A non-probabilistic sample of convenience was chosen, the data being collected via
a questionnaire, assuming transversal characteristics. Primary data collection was
through a questionnaire, constructed from the literature review, and whenever possible,
based on scales already tested by various authors in different study contexts. The
method of collecting primary data through questionnaires ensures the comparability
of data, increases the speed and accuracy of recording and facilitates data processing
(Malhotra 2010).
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

Considering the aims of the research and the target population studied, it was
decided to draw up a questionnaire in two languages: Portuguese and English, since
these are the languages of teaching at the Polytechnic of Leiria. The questionnaire was
pretested with a group of ten volunteer students and six collaborators from the
Polytechnic of Leiria, who deal with international students, to check the adequacy of
the instrument. The suggestions and criticisms resulted in the questionnaires becoming
more understandable and adapted to the target population.
To operationalize the study constructs, and considering the target population, the use
of 5-point Likert scales was decided (see Table 1), since these have numerous advan-
tages such as the ease of construction, administration and understanding. The most
significant disadvantage is the need for more attentive reading of each question
(Malhotra 2010). To characterise the sample, nominal scales were used.
The questionnaire was distributed online by e-mail and face-to-face in various
places, such as the classroom, at events and in the Mobility and International Cooper-
ation Office at the Polytechnic of Leiria. For the online questionnaires, the LimeSurvey
tool was used.
Data were collected between 16 December 2015 and 10 February 2016. In total,
considering the paper and online questionnaires, of a universe of 429 international and
mobility students enrolled at the Polytechnic of Leiria, 225 responses were received,
with 35 being eliminated due to being considered invalid or unsuitable for analysis. The
exclusion criteria concerned not only the high invariability of answers but also the
considerable number of non-responses. The final sample is formed of 190 students,
42% being identified as international students and 58% as students in the institution
following a mobility programme. These students are above all from the European
Union, China, Ecuador, India and Brazil, with 68% of them stating that the Polytechnic
of Leiria was their first choice.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22 software. A database was created
leading to descriptive analysis to define the profile of the students participating in this
study. Exploratory factor analysis followed to perform the single factor test and check
whether the data suffered from the presence of Common Method Bias (Podsakoff et al.
2003). The exploratory factor analysis did not reveal the presence of a single factor that
would explain most of the data variance. However, in the exploratory factor analysis, it
was found that four of the constructs were multidimensional: Personal motivations;
Perception of the destination country; Perception of the HEI; Sources of information.
Thus, from the 4 constructs, fourteen dimension were extracted (Table 2). The new
designation of the dimensions was taken in accordance with the literature review made
for this study.
Finally, through estimation of the partial least squares model, using Smart PLS 2.0.
software, the consistency and validity of the measurement model was studied and the
structural model estimated through structural equations, in order to test the research
hypotheses.

4 Analysis and discussion of the results

Although PLS estimates the parameters of the measurement and structural models as a
whole, the results should be analysed and interpreted in three phases (Hair et al. 2006).
 D. M. Amaro et al.

Table 1 Measurement scale used

Constructs Items

Choice factors Personal motivations Possibility to improve my job and financial prospects.
Possibility to improve my status.
Possibility to establish international contacts.
Desire to meet new people and make friends.
Desire to travel and live new experiences.
Foreign language skills are desirable.
The opportunity to experience a new culture.
International education is valued by my home country.
Financial support from home government or agency.
Limited career prospects at home.
Home country lacks research facilities.
Lack of access to higher education in my country.
Uncertain political or economic situation.
Source: Adapted from Chen (2007), Maringe and Carter (2007), Llewellyn-Smith and
McCabe (2008), Eder et al. (2010), Wilkins and Huisman (2011)
Perception of the Perceived as a safe place to study.
destination country Diverse and multicultural environment.
Portugal’s quality of life.
Perceived as friendly and hospitable country to live.
The uniqueness of the culture.
The country has strong economic ties with my home country.
The country has strong political ties with my home country.
The educational system from the country is similar to the one in
my country.
The ease and speed of the visa process.
Lower tuition costs.
The possibility of applying for immigrant status.
Lower living expenses.
The degrees are prestigious and valued by my country.
Education from the country is perceived as high quality in my
country.
Job opportunities during the course.
The tourism and cultural attractions.
It is easy to obtain information about the country in my home
country.
Source: Adapted from Shanka et al. (2005), Cubillo et al. (2006), Maringe and Carter
(2007), Chen (2007), Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008), Eder et al. (2010), Wilkins
and Huisman (2011), Anderson, R. & Bhati, A. (2012), Wilkins, Shams, Huisman (2013)
Perception of the HEI The reputation of the HEI.
The quality of the HEI.
The quality of the program.
The ranking of the HEI.
The availability of financial aid/ scholarships.
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

Table 1 (continued)

Constructs Items

Affordable tuition fees.

International recognition of academic degree achieved at the
HEI.
A wider program and course offering.
Positive relationship between faculty and students.
The speed of the application process.
Facilitated entry requirements.
High employment rate of courses.
Recognition of my previous credentials.
Existence of accommodation for students.
Equipment and modern infrastructure.
Availability of laboratories and libraries
Source: Adapted from Kallio (1995), Soutar and Turner (2002), Briggs (2006), Raposo and
Alves (2007), Chen (2007), Petruzzellis and Romanazzi (2010), Eder et al. (2010),
Wilkins and Huisman (2011), Anderson, R. and Bhati, A. (2012), Wilkins, Shams,
Huisman (2013),
Environment and The city where the HEI is located is safe.
location of the HEI There is no discrimination against me at the HEI.
The city where the HEI is located has good Infrastructures /
services.
Possibility to stay and work in the city where the HEI is located
after completing my studies.
The HEI is located in a business area with a strong connection.
Source: Adapted from Chen (2007) and Eder et al. (2010)
Significant others’ Recommendation from my friends/alumni.
recommendation Recommendation from my teachers.
Recommendation from relatives.
Recommendation from a Students Agency.
Source: Adapted from Soutar and Turner 2002; Mazzarol and Soutar 2002; Shanka et al.
2005; Raposo and Alves 2007; Maringe and Carter 2007; Chen 2007; Simões and Soares
2010; Eder et al. 2010; Ming 2011
Sources of Sources of information Website of the HEI.
Information Educational websites with the promotion of HEI
Brochures, leaflets and official guides of the HEI.
Information obtained from student recruitment agent.
Presence in education fairs.
Social networks (Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Linkedin, etc).
Communication emails.
Family/ Friends.
Teachers
Alumni/ Current students
Educational blogs.
Scientific publications of the HEI.
Source: Adapted from Simões and Soares (2010)
 D. M. Amaro et al.

Table 1 (continued)

Constructs Items

Satisfation Satisfation Country

Host city
HEI
Academic Environment - Relationship with teachers, colleagues
and staff
Global satisfaction
Source: Adapted from Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008)
Loyalty Word of Mouth Probability of attending the HEI if starting a new.
Probability to recommend the HEI to friends and relatives.
Probability to speak positive things about the HEI.
Probability to share information about the HEI at the Facebook
or other social network.
Source: Adapted from Helgesen and Nesset (2007)

Source: Own elaboration based on the conceptual research framework

The first phase analyses the reliability and validity of the measurement model, the second
phase assess the structural model. The third phase concerns interpretation of the results.

4.1 Study of the consistency and validity of the measurement model

The test of the scalesbegan by analysing the individual consistency of the indicators
through observing the loadings or simple correlations. In this study, all the items have

Table 2 Constructs after factor analysis

Constructs Dimensions of the constructs after factor analysis

Personal motivations Personal value

Experiences
Conditions of the Country of Origin
Perception of the destination country Perception of the destination country
Affinity between country of origin and destination
Facilities in the destination country
Perception of the HEI Corporate image
Facilities and infrastructure
Environment and location of the HEI Environment and location of the HEI
Significant others’ recommendations Significant others’ recommendations
Sources of information Online sources
Offline sources
Satisfaction Satisfaction
Loyalty Loyalty

Source: Own elaboration based on the results obtained from SPSS

The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

loadings above 0,70, showing individual reliability (Chin 1998; Keil et al. 2000).
Confirmation of the individual reliability of the indicators was followed by analysis
of Convergent Validity (AVE) and Internal Consistency (Composite Reliability and
Cronbach alpha).
To assess convergent validity, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) method was
used to determine to what extent the values of the latent variable can be explained by
the items in the proposed scale, and should therefore present values above 0,50
according to Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair et al. (2011). This means that the
sets of quantified constructs are very representative of the respective latent constructs
they are associated with in the model. Table 3 shows that for all the constructs there is
convergent validity since all the values are above 0,5.
Internal consistency was also measured through the Cronbach alpha, which can
determine to what extent each statement on the scale measures a given concept (latent
variable) in the same way as the others, as this coefficient should be re-assessed each
time a scale is used (Fortin et al. 2009, p. 350). The Cronbach alpha value varies
between 0 and 1, considering a value above 0,7 as satisfactory (Hill and Hill 2000 and
Hair et al. 2006). For the fourteen new constructs analysed, Table 3 reveals that twelve
are considered “good” (> 0,8) and one considered “reasonable” (> 0,7). Only one
(personal valuation) recorded a value of 0,67. According to Hair et al. (2006) and
Malhotra (2010), values above 0,60 can also be considered acceptable (despite
representing weak consistency).
As the one-dimensionality of each scale is assured, i.e., measurement of a single
concept of the latent variable, the consistency of the scales was also determined using
the composite reliability (CR) indicator to determine the factors’ capacity to measure
the same factor, and this indicator should have a value between 0,7 and 1 (Bagozzi
1980; Fornell and Larcker 1981). Table 3 shows that all the concepts present composite

Table 3 Results of internal consistency and convergent validity

AVE Composite Reliability Cronbach Alpha

Affinity between Home Country and Destination Country 0,6135 0,8876 0,8424
Environment and Location 0,6269 0,8701 0,8008
Home Country Conditions 0,6557 0,8838 0,8281
Experiences 0,5867 0,8763 0,8254
Facilities Destination Country 0,6363 0,8745 0,8112
Facilities Infrastructure 0,5768 0,9051 0,8786
Offline Sources 0,5836 0,9180 0,8979
Online Sources 0,6289 0,8350 0,7019
Institution’s Corporate Image 0,6950 0,9189 0,8887
Loyalty 0,7745 0,9321 0,9025
Perception of Destination Country 0,6084 0,8857 0,8388
Significant Others’ Recommendations 0,6966 0,9018 0,8555
Satisfaction 0,7361 0,9329 0,9095
Personal Value 0,7365 0,8468 0,6726

Source: Own elaboration based on the results obtained from PLS

 D. M. Amaro et al.

reliability values above 0,7, confirming that the indicators belonging to a given
concept, apparently, measure that concept.
After checking the values of convergent validity, it was necessary to confirm
discriminant validity, since convergent validity and discriminant validity are comple-
mentary. Discriminant validity compares how the items/indicators used to measure a
concept are distinguished from the items used to measure other concepts of the same
model.
Therefore, to assess discriminant validity, the procedure used by Fornell and Larcker
(1981) was adopted, where the correlation matrix shows the correlations between the
various concepts and includes in the main diagonal the square roots of the AVE of each
concept. For there to be discriminant validity, the elements of the diagonal must be
greater than the elements outside the diagonal in the corresponding lines and columns
(Fornell and Larcker 1981 and Shook et al. 2004)., The results of discriminant validity
presented in Table 4 demonstrate that the criterion was met for all the concepts. As
such, discriminant validity is confirmed for the fourteen concepts analysed, all of them
being distinct.
Generally speaking, the items measuring the 14 dimensions (Table 2) present
acceptable levels of composite reliability (0, 7 ≤ fc ≤ 1) (Bagozzi 1980), extracted
variance (0, 5 ≤ AVE ≤ 1) (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 2011) and good internal
reliability (α ≥ 0, 8), (Cronbach, 1951; Pestana and Gageiro 2008), except for the alpha
value of the personal value concept (α ≥ 0, 67). This shows the internal consistency
between the multiple indicators of a variable, highlighting that these are indeed
measuring the same concept and explaining its respective latent concepts (Hair et al.
2011). The results of the structural model are presented below.

4.2 Results of the structural model

Having tested the reliability and perfected the scales in question, through
convergent and discriminant validity, the next step was to estimate the
structural equation model. Analysis of structural models aims to observe the
values of the various coefficients, identifying the size and direction of the
relationships between the constructs and seeking confirmation or rejection of
the hypotheses presented. Chin (1998) suggests that relationships between con-
structs presenting structural coefficients above 0,2 can be considered robust. Falk
and Miller (1992) indicate that R2 should be above 0,1 as lower figures provide
very little information. In this study, the coefficients between the dimensions of
the model and the R2 values of the five dependent constructs are all above 0,2:
environment and location (R 2 = 0,429), corporate image (R 2 = 0,519),
recommendation (R2 = 0,230), satisfaction (R2 = 0,443) and loyalty (R2 = 0,674).
The β values indicate path coefficients giving the direction and intensity of the
relation and together with the t values, allow the research hypotheses to be tested. To
corroborate (or not) the hypotheses proposed, the t-student value associated with the R2
was analysed, which indicates the p value and indicates, in turn, the statistical
probability of the hypothesis formed being confirmed or not. For Hair et al. (2006),
t-values above 1,96 define a level of significance of at least 0,05 (p < 0,05, 2-tailed). So
a reliability level of 95% is adopted. Above this level, statistical significance is obtained
and the hypotheses proposed can be accepted.
Table 4 Results of discriminant validity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 Affinity between Home Country and Country Destination 0,783

2 Environment and Location 0,564 0,792
3 Home Country Conditions 0,457 0,309 0,810
4 Experiences 0,133 0,339 0,087 0,766
5 Facilities of Destination Country 0,691 0,542 0,429 0,154 0,798
6 Facilities Infrastructures 0,540 0,744 0,351 0,284 0,520 0,759
7 Offline Sources 0,511 0,582 0,356 0,240 0,496 0,586 0,764
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

8 Online Sources 0,484 0,589 0,272 0,277 0,510 0,539 0,735 0,793
9 Institution’s Corporate Image 0,583 0,633 0,271 0,164 0,521 0,753 0,580 0,547 0,834
10 Loyalty 0,399 0,532 0,222 0,109 0,293 0,586 0,473 0,491 0,608 0,880
11 Perception of Destination Country 0,532 0,549 0,332 0,376 0,488 0,600 0,536 0,502 0,581 0,475 0,780
12 Significant Others’ Recommendations 0,481 0,522 0,395 0,192 0,428 0,519 0,671 0,517 0,480 0,378 0,489 0,835
13 Satisfaction 0,327 0,525 0,197 0,255 0,257 0,521 0,475 0,489 0,506 0,783 0,557 0,384 0,858
14 Personal Value 0,236 0,323 0,232 0,237 0,179 0,380 0,256 0,307 0,350 0,342 0,250 0,182 0,237 0,858

Source: Own elaboration based on the results obtained with PLS

 D. M. Amaro et al.

Table 5 presents the results of estimating the structural model with the indication of
corroboration or otherwise of the research hypotheses. Of the 11 hypotheses formulated
and tested, 6 were corroborated, 3 were partially corroborated and 2 were not corroborated.

4.3 Discussion of the results

The results of this study indicate that not all choice factors were able to explain
students’ loyalty, mediated by satisfaction with the choice made. Indeed, the hypothesis
referring to personal motivations (Hypothesis 1) and perception of the HEI (Hypothesis
3) were not corroborated since they were not able to influence students’ satisfaction,
contradicting the studies made by Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008), who conclud-
ed that personal motivations are among the factors contributing most to the choice of
HEI, and therefore to students’ satisfaction with their choice, or by Wiers-Jenssen et al.
(2002), whose results indicated a positive influence of perception of the HEI on
students’ satisfaction, especially in the area of scientific and pedagogical quality of
teaching and the institution’s reputation. The fact that the unit of analysis is made up of
international students and mobility students, presumably with different personal moti-
vations, may explain these results. Eventually, if the unit of analysis was made up only
with international students, the results could have been different.
Corroborating the study by Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008), all the other
factors were able to explain students’ satisfaction, namely regarding perception of the
destination country (Hypothesis 2), the environment and location of the HEI (Hypoth-
esis 4) and the sources of information provided by the HEI (Hypothesis 5). Thus, the
choice of Portugal as a destination country and Leiria as a host region were the factors
that have explained the students’ satisfaction with the choice of the international HEI to
study. Furthermore, the online sources of information, provided by the HEI, were also
decisive in those students’ satisfaction. In fact, these factors have explained positively
44.3% of the satisfaction with the choice made. That bodes well for the future, since
Portugal has been awarded as one of the best tourist destination and the region of Leiria
as one of the most dynamic and innovative region of Portugal, with a safe environment,
affordable living expenses, and a very good quality of life. Thus, the HEI managers
should ensure a good communication service with the prospect students, providing not
only relevant information about the profile and programmes of the HEI but also about
Portugal and Leiria region.
The results of this research are consistent with the study made by Ladhari et al.
(2011), which tested the role of a HEI’s perception, particularly concerning its quality
and reputation, in Significant others’ recommendations. (Hypothesis 6). Thus, it is
important to consider the HEI’s perception (taking practical measures to improve its
quality and reputation), since it has a positive influence on the significant others’
recommendation, explaining 23% of its variation.
Similarly to studies carried out by Cubillo et al. (2006) or by Llewellyn-Smith and
McCabe (2008), perception of the country, namely in terms of safety, hospitality,
quality of life and a lower cost of living, has a positive effect on the city’s image,
considering its environment and location (Hypothesis 7), explaining about 43% of
students’ perception of the HEI’s environment and location.
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

Table 5 Results of testing the hypotheses

Hypotheses (β) t-value* Signif. Test of hypotheses

H1 | Personal Motivations > Satisfaction with choice Not corroborated

Personal Value > Satisfaction with the choice −0,010 0,140 p > 0,05
Experiences > Satisfaction with the choice −0,007 0,098 p > 0,05
Conditions of the Country of Origin > Satisfaction with the 0,011 0,149 p > 0,05
choice
H2 | Perception of the destination country > Satisfaction with Partially
the choice corroborated
Perception of the destination country > Satisfaction with the 0,332 3739 p > 0,001
choice
Affinity between country of origin and destination > −0,063 0,632 p > 0,05
Satisfaction with the choice
Facilities in the destination country > Satisfaction with the −0,209 2582 p > 0,01
choice
H3 | Perception of the HEI > Satisfaction with the choice Not corroborated
Corporate image > Satisfaction with the choice 0,142 1264 p > 0,05
Facilities and infrastructure > Satisfaction with the choice 0,076 0,588 p > 0,05
H4 | Environment and location of the HEI > Satisfaction with 0,211 2045 p > 0,05 Corroborated
the choice
H5 | Sources of information > Satisfaction with the choice Partially
corroborated
Online sources > Satisfaction with the choice 0,182 2053 p > 0,05
Offline sources > Satisfaction with the choice 0,051 0,499 p > 0,05
H6 | Perception of the HEI > Significant others’ 0,479 8122 p > 0,001 Corroborated
recommendation.
H7 | Perception of the destination country > Environment and Corroborated
location of the HEI
Perception of the destination country > Environment and 0,311 4053 p > 0,001
location of the Higher Education Institution
Affinity between the country of origin and destination > 0,247 2702 p > 0,01
Environment and location of the Higher Education
Institution
Facilities in the destination country > Environment and 0,219 2450 p > 0,05
location of the Higher Education Institution
H8 | Perception of the destination country > Perception of the Partially
HEI corroborated
Perception of the destination country > Perception of the 0,247 2812 p < 0,005
HEI
Affinity between the country of origin and destination > 0,211 2430 p < 0,05
Perception of the HEI
Facilities in the destination country > Perception of the HEI 0,070 0,790 p > 0,05
H9 | Environment and location of the HEI > Perception of the 0,340 3347 p > 0,001 Corroborated
HEI
H10 | Satisfaction > Loyalty 0,639 14,420 p > 0,001 Corroborated
H11 | Perception of the HEI > Loyalty 0,284 5969 p > 0,001 Corroborated

Source: Own elaboration based on results from PLS

 D. M. Amaro et al.

Despite this variable cannot be controlled by the HEI, it is possible, nevertheless, to

promote the country among the prospect students as well as the celebration of partner-
ships with the national and local government to improve the perception of the
destination.
The results obtained in this study also corroborate those of Cubillo et al. (2006) and
Llewellyn-Smith and McCabe (2008), who indicated a positive influence of perception
of the destination country on the perception of the HEI (Hypothesis 8).
The institution’s environment and location and students’ perception of this were also
shown to have a positive effect on the perception of the HEI (Hypothesis 9). This result
corresponds to the those found by Price et al. (2003) and Cubillo et al. (2006), who
state that the destination city represents the physical environment where the student’s
experience will occur, and so perceptions of the city, particularly its safety, the existence
of good infrastructure and services, among others, have a great influence on perception
of the institution.
It should be noted that the perception of Portugal as a destination country, the
affinity between the countries of origin and destination and the HEI’s environment
and location explain 52% of the image international students have of the HEI.
The results of this study revealed that both international students’ satisfaction with
the choice made and the corporate image of the HEI have a positive influence on these
students’ loyalty, explaining 67,4% of students’ loyalty measured in terms of the
willingness to return to that HEI, and above all, the intention to recommend it to
family and friends.
In fact, various studies (Athiyaman 2000; Alves 2003; Marzo-Navarro et al. 2005;
Helgesen and Nesset 2007; Yu and Kim 2008; Wilkins and Huisman 2011; Kumar and
Yang 2014; Kunanusorn and Puttawong 2015) have shown that satisfaction has a
positive impact on student loyalty (Hypothesis 10), strengthening even the idea that
the greater that satisfaction, the greater the loyalty. In addition, other studies conclude
that highly satisfied students promote positive WOM, recommending the institution or
course to friends or family, or from a wider perspective, returning to continue their
studies, recruiting future students or becoming pro-active alumni (Guolla 1999;
Reichheld 2003 and Petruzzellis and Romanazzi 2010).
It was also possible to confirm that the student’s perception of the institution,
particularly of its corporate image (reputation, quality of courses, position in rankings)
has a positive impact on loyalty, in line with the studies made by Hennig-Thurau et al.
(2001), Alves (2003) and Brown and Mazzarol (2009), who concluded that the
institution’s image, the value of the course, expectations and perceived quality are
antecedents of satisfaction and that the main direct consequence of this is students’
loyalty.
To sum up, the present findings show that the factors with the greatest impact on the
satisfaction with the choice made were: the perception of the country, the environment
and location of the HEI, and sources of information provided by the HEI. Thus, it can
be pointed out that international students’ satisfaction with the choice made depends
mainly on exogenous factors. Sources of information (in particular online sources of
information) was the only factor directly dependent on the HEI.
Hence, HEIs should pay careful attention to the quality of information when
promoting their institution, but also highlight positive characteristics of the country
and city such as safety, hospitality, quality of life and a lower cost of living, These
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

constitute important factors for the satisfaction with the choice made that in turn will
influence recommendation and possible return in other occasions.
It was also concluded that the perception of HEI, in particular its corporate image
influences the significant others’ recommendation (family, friends and current stu-
dents). In order to increase the satisfaction and loyalty of all the international students,
the reputation, quality of the programs, and the HEI ranking should be improved.

5 Conclusion

This study contributes to a deeper knowledge of the impact of the choice factors and
information sources behind international students’ loyalty of an HEI in the specific
context of the Portuguese public higher education system, mediated by satisfaction
with the choice made. It also represents the first known analysis of the international
students’ satisfaction and loyalty based on the students’ choice factors and sources of
information provided by the HEI, valued in their decision making process by a
foreign HEI.
As a whole, the findings indicate the importance for HEI managers to consider
criteria such the students’ perception of the destination country, the HEI’s environment
and location, and sources of information provided by the HEI (particularly online
sources) when making strategic decisions to enhance their institution’ profile. The
HEI’s corporate image should also be considered, since it has a positive influence on
the significant others’ recommendation (such as friends, teachers and current students
or alumni).
Further, managers should also consider some strategic recommendations in order to
increase the number of international students.
The quality of the communication (on the HEI website, social networks, educational
blogs and websites), should be strongly considered when marketing strategies are being
settle down. Further, relevant information about the institution/programs and mainly
about the country characteristics (in terms of safety, hospitality, quality of life and a
lower cost of living) and the location of the HEI should also be regarded.
To improve the corporate image of the HEI should be one of the priorities since it is
decisive not only in the loyalty of the students as in the significant others’ recommen-
dations. For this, it is important to: i) focus on the quality of teaching and research, in
order to ensure the institution’s presence in international rankings; ii) formulate and
implement a marketing communication strategy in order to improve brand awareness
and promote greater academic and institutional recognition through regular organiza-
tional communication; iii) make available information about their lecturers (e.g. papers,
published books) that can give credibility to the courses / areas of study / scientific
areas).
Special attention should be given to the whole network of influence (e.g. pages on
the institutional website directed to family and friends), as well as e-mail communica-
tion, which emerge as decisive sources for students when making their decisions.
Finally, to nominate current students and alumni as ambassadors of the HEI, is a
potential strategy of success since the word-of-mouth is one of the most powerful
marketing tools. Thus, current students and alumni can contribute to the promotion of
the institution and may be invited to provide their contacts for personal
 D. M. Amaro et al.

recommendations to future students, while also collaborating in the reception and

integration of new students upon their arrival.

6 Limitations and directions for further research

Some limitations of this study warrant attention and future research.

Further insight and research into this thematic should be addressed, which could
benefit from considering the improvement of the measuring scales, with particular
attention to all items showing an alpha under 0,7. Also the introduction of other
constructs is suggested, as in present study it was impossible to study all the factors
that could be relevant in the choice. These could probably have an impact on students’
satisfaction and should be adapted according to the differences found between nation-
alities, such as “culture”, “cost influence” and others.
To extend the research to a vaster array of HEIs within a country may give extra
insight as focusing in only one HEI and one country may limit generalization of the
results obtained to other HEIs or countries and the understanding not only the factors
most valued by international students who choose Portugal and Portuguese HEIs, but
also the degree of satisfaction with the choice made and loyalty to the chosen
institution.
Future work could also address a longitudinal framework throughout a larger period
that would thus contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of the factors and
sources of information that students use when they apply to an international HEI.
The field would also greatly benefit from this approach application to HEIs from
other countries in order to define more wide-ranging and assertive marketing strategies
in behalf of the internationalization of all HEIs.

References

Altbach, P. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary
Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.
Altbach, P., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305.
Alves, H. M. (2003). Uma abordagem de marketing à satisfação do aluno no ensino universitário público:
índice, antecedentes e conseqüências. Tese de doutoramento em Gestão. Covilhã: Universidade da Beira
Interior.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 18(5), 571–588.
Amani, M., & Kim, M. M. (2017). Study Abroad Participation at Community Colleges: Students’ Decision
and Influential Factors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(10), 678–692
Arambewela, R., Hall, J., & Zuhair, S. (2006). Postgraduate international students from Asia: Factors
influencing satisfaction. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15(2), 105–127.
Asare-Nuamah, P. (2017). International students’ satisfaction. Higher Education for the Future, 4(1), 44–59.
Athiyaman, A. (2000). Perceived service quality in the higher education sector: An empirical analysis.
Proceedings of Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC 2000), (pp. 50–
55). Gold Coast, Australia.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: Wiley.
Baker, D., & Crompton, J. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intention. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27(3), 785–804.
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

Bhati, A., & Anderson, R. (2012). Factors Influencing Indian Student’s Choice of Overseas Study Destination.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1706–1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-019-00228-0
Bodycott, P. (2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination - what mainland Chinese parents
and students rate as important. Journal of Research in International Education, 8, 349–373.
Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: The case of
higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 705–722.
Briggs, S., & Wilson, A. (2007). Which university? A study of the influence of cost and information factors on
Scottish undergraduate choice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 57–72.
Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and
loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 59, 81–95.
Cebolla-Boado, H., Hu, Y., & Soysal, Y. N. (2018). Why study abroad? Sorting of Chinese students across
British universities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(3), 365–380.
Chen, L.-H. (2007). East-Asian Students' choice of Canadian graduate schools. International Journal of
Educational Advancement, 7, 271–306.
Chin, Wynne & Marcoulides, G. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern Methods for Business Research. 8.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, Vol. 22 (N.º 3), pp.
297–334
Cubillo, J. M., Sánchez, J., & Cervino, J. (2005). Modelling International students' intention of destination.
Available at http://anzmac.info/conference/2005/
Cubillo, J. M., Sánchez, J., & Cervino, J. (2006). International students' decision-making process.
International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101–115.
Cubillo-Pinilla, J. M., Zuñiga, J., & Soret, I. (2009). Factors influencing international students evaluations of
higher education programs. Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge, 15(1), 270–278.
Das, S., & Kochaniewicz, A. (2015). International students´ decision making process and potential challenges
in Poland. The first International Conference for PHD students and young researches in Economics,
Management and Finance.Poland.
De Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). The future of internationalization of higher education in Europe.
International Higher Education, 83, 2.
Eder, J., Smith, W. W., & Pitts, R. E. (2010). Exploring factors influencing student study abroad destination
choice. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(3), 232–250.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39–50.
Fortin, M.-F., Côté, J., & Filion, F. (2009). Fundamentos e etapas do processo de investigação. Loures:
Lusodidacta.
Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer
satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 7(3), 87–96.
Haigh, M. (2008). Internationalization, planetary citizenship an higher education. A Journal of Comparative
and International Education, 38(4), 427–440.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6ª
ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.
Helgesen, Ø., & Nesset, E. (2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case
study of a Norwegian University College. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(1), 38–59.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: An
approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331–344.
Henriques, P. L., Matos, P. V., Jerónimo, H. M., Mosquera, P., da Silva, F. P., & Bacalhau, J. (2018). University
or Polytecnhic? A fuzzy-set approach of prospective students' choice and its implications for higher
education institutions' managers. Journal of Business Research, 89, 435–441.
Hill, F., & Hill, A. (2000). Investigação por questionário. Lisboa: Síbalo, Lda.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, D. C: Nafsa -
Association of International Educators.
Kallio, R. E. (1995). Factors influencing the college choice decisions of graduate students. Research in Higher
Education, 36(1), 109–124.
Keil, M., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A cross-cultural study on
escalation of commitment behavior in Software projects. Mis Quarterly, 24(2), 299–325.
 D. M. Amaro et al.

Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J. C., Hossler, D., Jacob, S. A., & Cummings, H. (2004). Fifty years of college
choice: Social, political and institutional influences on the decision-making process. Indianapolis:
Lumina Foundation for Education.
Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher
Education, 95, 2.
Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. (1994). Marketing Estratégico para as Instituições Educacionais. São Paulo: Atlas.
Kumar, J., & Yang, C. L. (2014). Service quality and loyalty of international students studying in the field of
hospitality and tourism. Malaysian Online Journal of Education Management, 2(3), 97–118.
Kunanusorn, A., & Puttawong, D. (2015). The mediating effect os satisfation on student loyalty to higher
education institution. European Scientific Journal /SPECIAL/ edition, 1(1857–7881), 449–463.
Ladhari, R., Souiden, N., & Ladhari, I. (2011). Determinants of loyalty and recommendation: The role of
perceived service quality, emotional satisfaction and image. Journal of Finantial Services Marketing,
16(2), 111–124.
Lam, J. M., Ariffin, A. A., & Ahmad, A. H. (2011). Edutourism: exploring the push-pull factors in selecting
university. International Journal of Business and Society, 12(1), 63–78.
Le, T. D., Dobele, A. R., & Robinson, L. J. (2019). Information sought by prospective students from social
media electronic word-of-mouth during the university choice process. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 41(1), 18–34.
Llewellyn-Smith, C., & McCabe, V. S. (2008). What is the attraction for exchange students: The host
destination or the host university? Empirical evidence from a study of an Australian University.
Internacional Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 593–607.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Pearson Education.
Marginson, S. (2004). National and global competition in higher education. Australian Educational
Researcher, 31(2), 1–28.
Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing.
International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466–479.
Maringe, F., & Carter, S. (2007). International students' motivations for studying in UK HE: Insights into the
choice and decision making of African students'. International Journal of Educational Management,
21(6), 459–475.
Marques, A. (2014). Marketing Relacional: Como transformar a fidelização de clientes numa vantagem
competitiva (2nd edi. ed.). Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Rivera-Torres, M. P. (2005). Measuring customer satisfaction in
summer courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 53–65.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). Push-pull factors influencing international student destination choice.
International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90.
Middlehurst, R. (2003). Quality assurance and borderless higher education: Finding pathways through the
maze. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Ming, J. S. (2010). A model of higher education institutions choice in Malaysia - a conceptual approach. The
Third International Conference on International Studies, (pp. 1-21). Malaysia.
Ming, J. S. (2011). Institutional factors influencing students' college choice decision in Malaysia: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3), 53–58.
Moogan, Y., & Baron, S. (2003). An analysis of student characteristics within the student decision making
process. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), 271–287.
Nicholls, S. (2018). Influences on international student choice of study destination: Evidence from the United
States. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 597–622.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. (1992). Measuring program outcomes: What impacts are important to assess and
what impacts are possible to measure? Washington DC: Office of Policy and Planning, US Department of
Education.
OECD (2015). Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en.
Oliveira, D., & Soares, A. (2015). Choosing a university abroad: Motivations, information sources and
decision factors, proceedings of the 14th International Marketing Trends Conference 2015. Proceedings
of the 14th International Marketing Trends Conference.
Paswan, A. K., & Ganesh, G. (2009). Higher education institutions: Satisfaction and loyalty among interna-
tional students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 65–84.
Pestana, M. H., & Gageiro, J. N. (2008). Análise de dados para Ciências Sociais - A complementaridade do
SPSS (5th ed.). Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
Petruzzellis, L., & Romanazzi, S. (2010). Educational value: How students choose university. International
Journal of Educational Management, 24(2), 139–158.
The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty...

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university.
Facilities, 21(10), 212–222.
Queijo, E. d., Silva, R. V., & Laureano, R. (2013). Choosing a University in Portugal: A conceptual model.
International Journal of Engineering and Industrial Management, 5, 175–186.
Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2007). A model of university choice: An exploratory approach. Munich Personal
RePEc Archive (MPRA Paper N.°. 5523).
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 46–54.
Shanka, T., Quintal, V., & Taylor, R. (2005). Factors influencing international students' choice of an education
destination - a correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15(2), 31–46.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T., & Kacmar, M. K. (2004). An assessement of the use os structural
equation modeling in strategy management research. Strategy Managment Journal, 25(4), 397–404.
Simões, C., & Soares, A. M. (2010). Applying to higher education: Information sources and choice factors.
Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 371–389.
Sirdesmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value and loyalty in relational exchanges.
Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.
Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students' preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International
Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40–45.
Van Mol, C., & Ekamper, P. (2016). Destination cities of European exchange students. Geografisk Tidsskrift-
Danish Journal of Geography, 116(1), 85–91.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grogaard, J. B. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical
deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 183–195.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). International student destination choice: the influence of home campus
experience on the decision to consider branch campuses. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
21(1), 61–83.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2015). Factors affecting university image formation among prospective higher
education students: The case of international branch campuses. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1256–
1272.
Wilkins, S., Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2013). The decision-making and changing behavioural dynamics of
potential higher education students: the impacts of increasing tuition fees in England. Educational
Studies, 39(2), 125–141
Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M. S., & Huisman, J. (2012a). Student satisfaction and student perceptions of
quality at international branch campuses in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 34(5), 543–556.
Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M., & Huisman, J. (2012b). Student choice in higher education: Motivations for
choosing to study at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5),
413–433.
Yang, Y., Volet, S., & Mansfield, C. (2017). Motivations and influences in Chinese international doctoral
students’ decision for STEM study abroad. Educational Studies, 1–15.
Yu, G. B., & Kim, J.-H. (2008). Testing the mediating effect of the quality of college life in the student
satisfaction and student loyalty relationship. Applied Research Quality Life, 3(1), 1–21.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

View publication stats