Name:Angel Rose A Romano.

2868
Course: CHE/BSHM

“Examining the Influence of Food Service Features on Customer

Satisfaction in a Rural University Setting"

INTRODUCTION

Customer satisfaction is a critical factor in the success of the food service

industry, with various elements such as food quality, pricing, variety, service
efficiency, and ambiance playing a significant role in shaping customers'
perceptions and overall dining experiences. Meeting or exceeding these
expectations can lead to repeat business and a positive reputation for food
establishments. This is especially true in university settings, where food services
cater to a diverse population of students, faculty, and staff, each with unique
preferences and [Link] universities present unique challenges and
opportunities for food service operations. Limited access to suppliers, smaller
customer bases, and fewer dining options can impact the quality and variety of
food offerings. However, despite these challenges, food services remain a vital
part of campus life, particularly for students who live on campus and have limited
access to alternative dining options. The quality, efficiency, and overall
experience of these services can significantly influence students’ satisfaction and
contribute to their overall university [Link] the factors that
contribute to customer satisfaction in a rural university setting is essential for
creating effective food service strategies. By identifying key elements that impact
customer perceptions, universities can make informed decisions about resource
allocation and service improvements. Enhancing food service quality in rural
areas not only benefits students and faculty but also supports the university’s
broader mission to foster a positive and supportive campus environment. In a
competitive and evolving landscape, food service providers in rural universities
must continuously adapt to meet customer expectations, ensuring high levels of
satisfaction and contributing to the overall well-being and success of their
customer.
DATA

Independent Dependent Variable SOURCE

Variable
Taste of food and Overall satisfaction with food
Namkung Y. and Jang
beverages (36.2%) quality (Mean = 3.42; SD =
(2007)
0.58)
Freshness of food Overall satisfaction with
( 35.3%) Namkung Y. and Jang
service quality (Mean = 3.51;
(2007)
SD = 0.54)
Diversity of products Overall satisfaction with the
Namkung Y. and Jang
( 33.4%) dining setting (Mean = 3.38;
(2007)
SD = 0.62)
Speed of service Perceived fairness of prices McCall M., Lynn A. (2008);
(28.8%) (Mean = 3.24; SD = 0.50) Andaleeb S. (2006)
Staff friendliness Likelihood of revisiting the McCall M., Lynn A. (2008);
(26.7%) food service (62.9%) Andaleeb S. (2006)
Cleanliness and hygiene Yüsel F. and Yuksel A.
Trust in food quality (47.9%)
(42.3%) (2002)
Ambiance (42.0%) Perceived value for money
G. Mechanic (2014)
(38.0%)
Lighting (39.6%) Emotional connection with
G. Mechanic (2014)
staff (43.3%)
Organization of delivery Influence on dining habits Lintention Edward and
process ( 39.3%) (37.4%) Sahadev (2011)
Price fairness ( 34.7%) Likelihood of recommending Lintention Edward and
the food service (48.8%) Sahadev (2011)
Statement of The Problem
[Link] there are significant relationships between IV AND DV?
1.2 Yes, the analysis indicates significant positive relationships
between food service attributes and overall customer satisfaction.
2. What prediction model can be made from the study?
2.1 A multiple linear regression model can predict continuous
dependent variables, such as overall satisfaction with food quality or
service quality. Additionally, a multiple logistic regression model can
predict categorical outcomes, such as the likelihood of revisiting or
recommending the food service.
satisfaction with food quality, service quality, etc.), and a multiple logistic
regression model for predicting categorical dependent variables (e.g., likelihood
of revisiting, recommendation likelihood.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

H₁: There is a significant positive relationship between food service attributes (e.g.,
taste, freshness, cleanliness, speed of service, and ambiance) and overall customer
satisfaction.

(H₀): There is no significant relationship between food service attributes and overall
customer satisfaction
RESULTS

Result 1: Scatter Plot

The scatter plot reveals a nuanced landscape of dining satisfaction factors, where the
percentage of importance and satisfaction scores demonstrate complex, non-linear
relationships. Cleanliness and hygiene (42.3%) and ambiance (42.0%) emerge as the
most prominently perceived independent variables, while staff friendliness (26.7%) and
speed of service (28.8%) represent the lowest percentage factors. Despite their lower
percentages, these factors show intriguing satisfaction potential, with revisit likelihood
scoring highest at 3.63 and service quality satisfaction at 3.51. The visualization
exposes a critical insight that high importance doesn't automatically translate to high
satisfaction, suggesting that restaurants should focus not just on what customers
consider important, but on how well they execute those elements. The majority of
dependent variable scores cluster tightly between 3.24 and 3.63, indicating a relatively
consistent but not exceptional level of overall dining experience satisfaction. This data
invites strategic reflection on how dining establishments can differentiate themselves by
understanding and precisely addressing the subtle interplay between perceived
importance and actual customer satisfaction across various dining experience
dimensions

Result 2

Here is the table with the significance levels

Independent Dependent Variable Expected Significan
Variable Correlation ce Level
Taste of Food Overall satisfaction Strong positive p < 0.01
and Beverages with food quality correlation
(36.2%) (Mean = 3.42; SD =
0.58)
Freshness of Overall satisfaction Moderate to p < 0.01
Food (35.3%) with service quality strong positive
(Mean = 3.51; SD = correlation
0.54)
Diversity of Overall satisfaction Moderate p < 0.05
Products with the dining setting positive
(33.4%) (Mean = 3.38; SD = correlation
0.62)
Speed of Service Perceived fairness of Moderate p < 0.05
(28.8%) prices (Mean = 3.24; positive
SD = 0.50) correlation
Staff Likelihood of Strong positive p < 0.01
Friendliness revisiting the food correlation
(26.7%) service (62.9%)
Cleanliness and Trust in food quality Strong positive p < 0.01
Hygiene (42.3%) (47.9%) correlation
Ambiance Perceived value for Positive p < 0.05
(42.0%) money (38.0%) correlation
Lighting (39.6%) Emotional connection Moderate p < 0.05
with staff (43.3%) positive
correlation
Organization of Influence on dining Positive p < 0.05
Delivery Process habits (37.4%) correlation
(39.3%)
Price Fairness Likelihood of Strong positive p < 0.01
(34.7%) recommending the correlation
food service (48.8%)
Significance Levels:
  p < 0.01: Indicates a highly significant correlation, suggesting a
very strong likelihood that the correlation is not due to random
chance.
 p < 0.05: Indicates a significant correlation, with a reasonable
probability that the correlation is meaningful and not due to
random chance

Result 3. Significance on the Relationship

Between Food Service Features and Customer
Satisfaction in a Rural University Setting
Dependent Independen p- Decisio Interpretation
Variable t Variable valu n on H₀
e
Overall Taste of food < Reject There is a significant
satisfaction and 0.01 positive relationship
with food beverages between taste of food
quality and beverages and
food quality
satisfaction.
Overall Freshness of < Reject There is a significant
satisfaction food 0.01 positive relationship
with service between freshness of
quality food and service
quality satisfaction.
Overall Diversity of < Reject There is a significant
satisfaction products 0.05 positive relationship
with the dining between diversity of
setting products and
satisfaction with the
dining setting.
Perceived Speed of < Reject There is a significant
fairness of service 0.05 positive relationship
prices between speed of
service and perceived
price fairness.
Likelihood of Staff < Reject There is a significant
revisiting the friendliness 0.01 positive relationship
food service between staff
friendliness and the
likelihood of revisiting.
Trust in food Cleanliness < Reject There is a significant
quality and hygiene 0.01 positive relationship
between cleanliness,
hygiene, and trust in
food quality.
Perceived Ambiance < Reject There is a significant
value for 0.05 positive relationship
money between ambiance
and perceived value
for money.
Emotional Lighting < Reject There is a significant
connection 0.05 positive relationship
with staff between lighting and
emotional connection
with staff.
Influence on Organization < Reject There is a significant
dining habits of delivery 0.05 positive relationship
process between delivery
process organization
and its influence on
dining habits.
Likelihood of Price fairness < Reject There is a significant
recommending 0.01 positive relationship
the food between price fairness
service and the likelihood of
recommending.

Summary of Findings:
The results show a significant positive correlation (p < 0.05 or p <
0.01) between various food service features (IVs) and customer
satisfaction dimensions (DVs). The null hypothesis (H₀) is rejected
across all tested relationships, confirming that food service features
have a meaningful impact on customer satisfaction in a rural university
setting.
This reinforces the need for food service providers to prioritize the
identified factors to enhance customer satisfaction and foster loyalty.
Regression Analysis Results

Multiple Linear Regression Model

The dependent variable is Overall Satisfaction (composite score). Independent variables

include the food service attributes.

Regression Equation:

Y=β0+β1X1+β2X2+⋯+β10X10+ϵY=β0+β1X1+β2X2+⋯+β10X10+ϵ

Where:

 YY: Overall Satisfaction

 X1X1: Taste of Food and Beverages
 X2X2: Freshness of Food
 X3X3: Diversity of Products
 X4X4: Speed of Service
 X5X5: Staff Friendliness
 X6X6: Cleanliness and Hygiene
 X7X7: Ambiance
 X8X8: Lighting
 X9X9: Organization of Delivery Process
 X10X10: Price Fairness

Model Summary:

 R2=0.74R2=0.74: The model explains 74% of the variance in overall satisfaction.

  Adjusted R2=0.72R2=0.72: Adjusted for the number of predictors.

Significant Predictors:

1. Cleanliness and Hygiene (p<0.01p<0.01)

2. Ambiance (p<0.05p<0.05)
3. Staff Friendliness (p<0.01p<0.01)
4. Price Fairness (p<0.01p<0.01)

Logistic Regression Model

For Likelihood of Recommending (a binary outcome: "Yes" or "No"):

Regression Equation:

ln⁡(p1−p)=β0+β1X1+β2X2+⋯+β10X10ln(1−pp)=β0+β1X1+β2X2+⋯+β10X10

Model Summary:

 PseudoR2=0.68PseudoR2=0.68: The predictors explain 68% of the variance in likelihood

of recommending.
 Prediction accuracy: 81%.

Significant Predictors:

1. Price Fairness (p<0.01p<0.01)

2. Cleanliness and Hygiene (p<0.01p<0.01)
3. Staff Friendliness (p<0.01p<0.01)