International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS)

Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2021, pp. 55~60

ISSN: 2252-8806, DOI: 10.11591/ijphs.v10i1.20618  55

Student satisfaction level among allied health sciences students

at King Edward Medical University

Afisa Bashir1, Shahzaib Ahmad2, Muhammad Zeeshan Sarwar3, Syed Asghar Naqi4
1
Allied Health Sciences, King Edward Medical University Lahore, Pakistan
2
King Edward Medical University Lahore, Pakistan
3,4
East Surgical Ward, Mayo Hospital Lahore, Pakistan

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The purpose of this study was to evaluate student satisfaction with their
program, academic environment and administrative services in terms of its
Received Aug 13, 2020 effectiveness on their professional attitudes, lives and career. A total of 261
Revised Dec 3, 2020 students of allied health sciences program at King Edward Medical
Accepted Jan 2, 2021 University, were examined in terms of personal satisfaction by means of a
specifically designed student satisfaction survey. A qualitative analysis
approach was used to interpret the data generated by a three‐part survey form
Keywords: circulated to the four proceeding sessions of allied health sciences program
and satisfaction of students in 12 major disciplines was evaluated. The data
Academic environment was entered in statistical product and service solutions (SPSS) version 22
Administrative services using quantitative variables and descriptive statistics including frequency
Allied health sciences distribution tables and diagrams. The study revealed a student satisfaction of
Student satisfaction only 22.1% with their program with different levels of recommendation in
different sub-disciplines. A total of 20.9% students agreed to the library
facilities, 53.9% with computer lab, 35% with administrative support, 29.6%
with sports facilities and 49% with teaching methodologies. The present
study concludes that most of the students had little satisfaction concerning
their field of study. So, it is necessary to make an attempt for continuous
development of quality services.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Shahzaib Ahmad
King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Student satisfaction is the subjective perceptions, on students’ part, of how well a learning
environment supports academic success [1]. This is one of the factors that effects the quality and
effectiveness of any university program as well as student’s outcome and graduation rate. It has been widely
recognized as an important quality indicator of the students learning and teaching experience [2].
Since the students' satisfaction has been associated with their later professional attitudes, career
commitment and retention, professional education faculties should be concerned with student’s satisfaction
as an outcome of the educational process. It has been recognized as the major factor of competition among
universities [3, 4] as it can help an institute to improve its programs and services, remain accountable to
student, and continue to be competitive [5]. Much focus has been laid on student satisfaction surveys
revealing a student satisfaction of 62% with their program whereas satisfaction with teaching methods and
styles was 67%. However, local data is quite scarce. A student satisfaction level of 60.8% was observed in
different physiotherapy institutes of Pakistan, with higher student-teacher relationship satisfaction (71.2%)
and lower curriculum satisfaction (21.7%). A total of 40.4% students joined this course on their personal

Journal homepage: http://ijphs.iaescore.com

56  ISSN: 2252-8806

choice [4]. King Edward Medical University (KEMU) is one of the oldest medical institute in Pakistan.
Institute of Allied health sciences started in 2008, offering 4-year bachelor’s degree in 12 disciplines. Quite a
few batches have graduated from this institute, but no survey has been conducted so far regarding student
satisfaction with their program, academic environment, administration and co-curricular activities. This study
is being conducted to evaluate Allied health sciences programme of KEMU.

2. RESEARCH METHOD
This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted at Institute of Allied Health Sciences, KEMU,
Lahore from December 2015 to February 2016. Sample size of 370 students was calculated by using 95%
confidence level, 5% margin of error with expected student satisfaction percentage of 40.4% with quality of
teaching [4]. List of students was obtained from registrar office of the KEMU. A total of 400 students
currently enrolled with the Institute of Allied Health Sciences, KEMU were included in the study. Students
who were absent due to educational leaves were excluded. All the researchers obliged themselves to practice
in accordance to Helsinki Declaration 1964 and its later amendments. The study was approved by the
institutional review board of KEMU.
The questionnaire was prepared after extensive literature search. Later on, it was validated by
distributing it to the academic members and subject specialist for its content validity. Students’ satisfaction
was evaluated in terms of six parameters including facilities provided in library, computer lab, classroom,
sports along with administrative support and teaching methodology. Response was categorized as strongly
agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree and not sure.
A written informed consent was taken from the participants. Participants filled the pre-designed
questionnaire and handed over to the researcher. Participants who didn’t send back the filled questionnaire
were given two reminders and then excluded from the study. All collected data entered into SPSS version 20.
Tabulation of the demographic variables along with frequencies of the responses were done. Cross tabulation
of academic activities with different disciplines of allied health sciences and difference of program me
recommendation among different disciplines were also tabulated.

3. RESULTS
Out of 400, only 261completed the questionnaires with the response rate of 65%. Mean age of the
respondents was 20.82±1.34 years. Out of 261participants, 25 (9.6%) were male and 236 (90.4%) were
female is shown in Table 1. A total of 164 (62.8%) students were aware of the location though 179 (68.8%)
students never used the library facility. A total of 231 (88.8%) students didn’t even know the university
librarian. However, students were quite eager to use the computer lab as 237 (91.9%) students being aware of
the lab location and 241 (92.5%) students frequently visiting the lab.

Table 1. Demographic profile of students

Age (years) 20.82 ±1.34
Gender
Male 25 (9.6%)
Female 236 (90.4%)
Disciplines
Operation theater technology 48 (18.4%)
Medical lab technology 37 (14.2%)
Medical imaging technology 35 (13.4%)
Orthotics and Prosthetics 23 (8.8%)
Dental technology 22 (8.4%)
Hearing sciences technology 18 (6.9%)
Psychological sciences 16 (6.1%)
Anesthesia technology 15 (5.7%)
Renal dialysis technology 14 (5.4%)
Radiation therapy technology 14 (5.4%)
Speech therapy technology 10 (3.8)
Cardiac perfusion technology 9 (3.4%)
Programme year
1st year 72 (27.6%)
2nd year 76 (29.1%)
3rd year 34 (13%)
4th year 79 (30.3%)
Last degree programme Grade
A+ 182 (69.7%)
A 13 (5%)
B+ 5 (1.9%)
Didn’t mentioned 61 (23.4%)

Int. J. Public Health Sci. Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2021: 55 – 60

Int. J. Public Health Sci. ISSN: 2252-8806  57

Table 2 is regarding academic activities; it is seen that 123 (49.2%) students were satisfied with the
regularity of the classes whereas only 101 (39.7%) students were satisfied with availability of multimedia in
the classroom. Table 2 Only 114 (44.4%) students were satisfied with knowledge of their course coordinator.
Though 113 (43.5%) students were satisfied with extra consultation provided only 102 (39.2%) students were
satisfied with additional material provided by their course coordinator as presented in Table 3.

Table 2. Student satisfaction with library, computerlab, sports, classroom and administrative support
Level of satisfaction
Variables
SA A NS D SD
Library facility
Satisfied with textbooks 8 (3.1%) 44 (16.9%) 139 (53.5%) 38 (14.6%) 31(11.9%)
Satisfied with research journals 5 (1.9%) 31 (11.9%) 169 (65%) 29 (11.2%) 26 (10%)
Library timings 4 (1.6%) 62 (24%) 142 (55%) 33 (12.8%) 17 (6.6%)
Facilities 2 (0.8%) 54 (20.9%) 128 (49.6%) 51 (19.8%) 23 (8.9%)
Staff behavior 4 (1.6%) 59 (23.1%) 137 (53.7%) 35 (13.7%) 20 (7.8%)
Computer lab facility
Satisfied with number of computers 27(10.5%) 152(59.1%) 21(8.2%) 32(12.5%) 25(9.7%)
Satisfied with internet speed 35(13.6%) 139(53.9%) 18(7%) 45(17.4%) 21(8.1%)
Lab attendant behavior 17(6.6%) 172(66.7%) 24(9.3%) 29(11.2%) 16(6.2%)
Computer lab timing 21 (8.1%) 157(60.9%) 21(8.1%) 48(18.6%) 11(4.3%)
E-journals availability 12(4.8%) 80(31.7%) 101(40.1%) 48(19%) 11(4.4%)
Classroom and sports facilities and administrative support
Furniture in classroom 18(7.1%) 133(52.6%) 7(2.8%) 58(22.9%) 37(14.6%)
Air conditioner facility 20(7.8%) 125(49%) 12(4.7%) 56(22%) 42(16.5%)
Clerk staff behavior 13(5.1%) 89(35%) 7(2.8%) 76(29.9%) 69(27.2%)
College web site 11(4.3%) 116(45.7%) 13(5.1%) 72(28.3%) 42(16.5%)
Sports ground 27(10.4%) 157(60.6%) 12(4.6%) 45(17.4%) 18(16.9%)
Coaching Facilities 8(3.1%) 77(29.6%) 52(20%) 81(31.2%) 42(16.2%)
Sports equipment 11(4.3%) 77(29.8%) 15(5.8%) 101(39.1%) 54(20.9%)
Sports opportunities 9(3.6%) 100(39.7%) 34(13.5%) 78(31%) 31(12.3%)

Table 3. Satisfaction with academic activities

OTT MLT MIT OP DT HST PS
Are you satisfied with course
33(68.7%) 21(56.7%) 12(34.2%) 12(52.1%) 8(38%) 8(47%) 6(37.5%)
coordinator?
Are you satisfied with their lecture
29 (63%) 23 (62%) 15(42.8%) 13(56.5%) 9(42.8%) 10(58.8%) 8 (50%)
delivery?
Are you satisfied with research
19(39.6%) 12(32.4%) 8 (22.8%) 7 (30.4%) 6(28.5%) 5 (29.4%) 2(12.5%)
activities?
Are you satisfied with examination
16(33.3%) 13(35.1%) 6 (17.1%) 12(52.2%) 5(23.8%) 5(29.4%) 4(25%)
procedure?
Are you satisfied with teacher’s
42(87.5%) 28(75.7%) 22(62.8%) 14(60.9%) 19(86.3%) 11(61.1%) 10(62.5%)
respect to students
Are you satisfied with teacher’s
36 (75%) 22(59.4%) 16(45.7%) 13(56.5%) 11(50%) 12(66.7%) 7 (43.7%)
attitude towards class
Are you satisfied with course
29(63%) 23(62%) 15 (42.8% 12(52.1%) 8(38%) 8(47%) 6(37.5%)
coordinator?

4. DISCUSSION
Our study showed that only 58 (22.1%) students were satisfied with their program with 116 (77.9%)
students were not willing to recommend this program. The highest level of recommendation observed in
discipline of speech therapy whereas the lowest level of recommendation was observed in students of dental
technology. Figure 1 shows the result of student satisfaction survey conducted in 2012 among physiotherapy
under and postgraduate students enrolled at different institutes of Pakistan showed 60.8% student
satisfaction [4]. Ali et al. studied key factors for determining student satisfaction in distance learning courses
at Allama Iqbal Open University and revealed that student satisfaction is positively and significantly
correlated with student-instructor interaction [6]. Major factor in our study ascribing to high student
dissatisfaction with their program could be unwillingness to take this program as most of the students opt
their discipline only because they couldn’t get admission in medicine. Other factors included weaknesses and
flaws in the program, family influences, social image of allied health professional and discontentment with
teaching methodologies and curriculum. This is in contrast to data published by Barfield et al. in 2011 which
determined personal and social influences, academic preparation, career opportunity, individual aspiration
and self-efficacy as major contributing factors associated with enrolment in allied health sciences [7].

Student satisfaction level among allied health sciences students… (Afisa Bashir)
58  ISSN: 2252-8806

Another study revealed that dental public health program me had met the expectation of 92% of the
respondents [8]. Percentage of students recommending their program was 70.7%.
However, results of our study were close to the findings of a study conducted by Hakim et al.
regarding nursing students’ satisfaction about their field of study as she observed that 83.3% of the nursing
students had little satisfaction as to the situation of educational environment [9]. The library of the university
should facilitate the provision of updated textbooks, online specific research journals, magazines and other
electronic resources. Knapp and subsequent investigators proved that course work, class level, gender,
scholastic standing, and level of awareness of library services may affect college library use [10]. Another
study proved that the library facilities mostly used were for essential texts, e-mail, PCs and study facilities
whereas computer Aided Learning packages, journals and video facilities were least used [11]. In our study,
only 20.9% of the students agreed to the provision of library facilities. Satisfaction regarding availability of
textbooks and research journals were 16.9% and 11.9% respectively. Key factor attributing to decreased use
and less frequent visits could be non-availability of latest editions of textbooks and lack of online resources
and journals.

*OTT-Operation theatre technology, MLT-Medical laboratory technologist, MIT-Medical imaging technology, OP-Orthotics and
Prosthetics, DT-Dental technology, HST-Hearing Sciences Technology, PS -Psychological Sciences, RT-Radiation Therapy technology,
AT-Anesthesia Technology, RDT-Renal Dialysis Technology, ST-Speech Therapy Technology, CPT-Cardiac Perfusion Technology

Figure 1. Difference of program recommendation among different disciplines

The results regarding usage of computer lab services were more encouraging with 91.9% of students
being aware of the computer lab location and 59.1% frequently visiting the computer lab. A total of 66.7% of
the student agreed to the cooperative behavior of staff at the computer lab. The main reasons for regular visits
and high satisfaction with computer lab could be surfing the internet to find information for learning/research
and attending courses/workshops/seminars. Sadoon and Liong studied the perception of students on services
at the computer laboratory at a school of mathematical sciences at Malaysia, revealing that 62.9% of the
students were regularly visiting the computer lab [12]. Saleh et al. compared the two different computer
layout and analyzed the perception of students on physical environment in computer lab [13].
According to Okon, classroom is a place where teachers organize their work, carry out educational
plans as well as provides a suitable environment where research findings are tested or tried out [14]. To
promote a proper atmosphere for effective teaching and learning, the physical environment of the classroom
must be harnessed. The physical environment is made up of desks, chairs, tables, space, instructional
materials, lighting and ventilation as well as the latest information communication technology (ICT)
equipment and library. The availability and state of the classroom plays a key role in facilitating or
engendering the teaching-learning process [15]. Our results indicated that 52.6% of the participants satisfied
with the furniture facility and 49% satisfied with the availability of air conditioner. Whereas agreement
regarding regular classes and multimedia availability was 49.2% and 22.4% respectively. Sulaiman and
Hussain studied effects of classroom physical environment on the academic achievement scores of secondary
school students in Kohat division of Pakistan. They showed that students who were provided with a suitable
physical environment in the classroom, performed much better than the control group [16].
The results of a study conducted by Ravenswood, et al. indicated that characteristics of
administrative support significantly correlated with intent to stay in the field, extent of support, opportunities
for growth, appreciation and trust, job satisfaction and positive views of their school [17]. Yet in our study,

Int. J. Public Health Sci. Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2021: 55 – 60

Int. J. Public Health Sci. ISSN: 2252-8806  59

only 35% of the students were satisfied with the behavior of clerical staff regarding student affairs. Hardlein
and Zurner emphasized the need for improved internal communication at the university [18].
Satisfaction of students regarding teaching methodology, level of knowledge of teachers and their
attitude and respect towards students was bit encouraging but they emphasized the need to have outside the
classroom teaching consultation, provision of additional teaching material and collection of feedback
responses from students. Machado, et al. [19] concluded that students would also prefer improved access to
interactions with faculty outside the classroom as well as quality academic advising. They also suggested that
being involved in social aspects as well as the academic realm retains students and an institution must
recognize “that the social dimension in learning activities is critical”.
There was little satisfaction regarding examination process and provision of research facilities in our
study. Ziaee, et al. evaluated student satisfaction with the ways they are tested. They found a positive
association between overall satisfaction and satisfaction with the methods through which their abilities were
assessed [20]. Hakim also indicated in her research that most students had little satisfaction concerning the
method of clinical education by trainers [9].
Simulation training is crucial as far as the student satisfaction and the skills, including confidence,
knowledge, and grooming of the students is concerned [21-23]. Studies show that the learning environment
closely related to the real-life demonstration improves the learning capacity of the students. In turn, students
feel more satisfied with the learning environment [24]. The learning environment has a direct relationship
with the academic performance of the students. Many medical educationists emphasize the practice of
simulation training methods to be employed in educational institutes throughout the world [25, 26]. The
advancements in research medical education have been improved by the practice of modern educational
models. For instance, blended learning models [27]. These models are based on the use of electronic and
online learning resources in addition to orthodox lesson-based classroom learning. Blended models enable
students to access online databases for audio-visual illustrations to clarify their concepts. Cross-sectional
surveys evaluating student satisfaction levels and academic performance reveal that blended learning
enhances students' exam performance and their clinical practice expertise [28]. The flipped classroom is a
strategy utilized in blended models of learning in which the instructor can address students' queries and
difficulties by accessing online lectures and learning exercises in the classroom [29]. The effectiveness of
blended and flipped learning models has been established in several research studies. Simulation training of
the instructors and the use of practical illustrations increases satisfaction among medical students [21, 30].

5. CONCLUSION
Student’s emotional, psychological, accommodation problems, and curriculum satisfaction can be
considered as limitations of this study. Administrative support could have been much more explained but it
was outside the reach of researcher. However, in future, more elaborative studies can be conducted on
provision of research facilities, reasons for dissatisfaction with the program, concerns over program cost and
satisfaction with the existing curriculum according to international standards. Students of other existing
undergraduate programs can also be involved in future studies. As satisfaction of students with their program
and other parameters and level of recommendation was very low, it’s the prime responsibility of institute to
consider student satisfaction as a tool to improve quality education and develop a reasonable environment to
meet higher expectations of students and earn a good reputation.

REFERENCES
[1] Talegeta S, Worku T, Gemechu A., “Service Quality Nexus Students’ Satisfaction at Ambo University Selected
Campuses, Ethiopia,” Journal of Science and Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 71-86, 2018.
[2] Saleem A., Saghir A., Akhtar R. N., et al., “Students’ Satisfaction Regarding Higher Education: A Survey Study in
Azad Kashmir, Pakistan,” Science International (Lahore), vol. 24, pp. 91-94, 2012.
[3] Ijaz A., Irfan S., Shahbaz S., et al., “An empirical model of student satisfaction: Case of Pakistani public sector
business schools,” Journal of Quality and Technology Management, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 91-114, 2011.
[4] Bhatti Z M. J. A., “Evaluation of overall satisfaction level among the students of physiotherapy (undergraduates &
post graduates) enrolled in different physiotherapy institute of the Pakistan,” International Journal of
Rehabilitation Sciences, vol. 01, no. 02, pp. 36-42, 2012.
[5] Anderson M. M., Shelledy D. C., “Predictors of student satisfaction with their allied health sciences program
courses,” Journal of Allied Health, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 92-98, 2013.
[6] Ali A., Ahmed I., “Key factors for determining students' satisfaction in distance learning courses. A study of
Allama Iqbal Open University,” Contemporary Education Technology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 118-134, 2011.
[7] Barfield J. P., Folio M. R., Lem E. T., Zhang J. J., “Factors associated with enrollment in allied health education
programs: development of a predictive scale,” Journal of Allied Health, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 82-89, 2011.

Student satisfaction level among allied health sciences students… (Afisa Bashir)
60  ISSN: 2252-8806

[8] Kahlon J., Delgado-Angolu E. K. and Bernabe E., “Graduates' satisfaction with and attitudes towards a master
programe in dental public health,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 61, no. 15, pp. 2-7, 2015.
[9] Hakim A., “Nursing students' satisfaction about their field of study,” Journal of Advances in Medical Education
and Profession, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 82-87, 2014.
[10] KNAPP P. B., “College teaching and the college library,” Chicago: American Library Association, 1959.
[11] Martin S., “Impact of a graduate entry programme on amedical school library service,” Journal of Health
Information and Libraries, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 42-49, 203.
[12] Sadoon S. and Liong C. Y., “Perception of students on services at the computer library: a case study at the school
of mathmetical sciences, University of Kebangsaan Malaysia,” Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 59,
pp. 117-124, 2012.
[13] Salleh N., Mohd Ayub A. F. and Zainal Abidin N., “Perception of students on physical environment of computer
laboratory: Comparison of two different computer layout,” Journal of Techno-Social, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 59-74, 2010.
[14] Okon J. E. and Sole M. A., “Management of the Nigerian primary school plant: perceptions for effective practice,”
Nigerian Journal of Curriculum and Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 139-146, 2006.
[15] Ahunanya S. I. and Ubabudu M. C. M., “Enrolment, facilities and financial allocation in Lagos state higher
education: implication for quality graduates,” Nigerian Journal of Educational Administration and Planning, vol.
6, no. 1, pp. 153-164, 2006.
[16] Sulaiman Q. and Hussain I., “Effects of classroom physical environment on the academic achievement scores of
secondary school students in Kohat division, Pakistan,” International Journal of Learning and Development, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 71-82, 2014.
[17] Ravenswood K., Douglas J., Haar J., “Physical and verbal abuse, work demands, training and job satisfaction
amongst aged-care employees in the home and community sector,” Labour & Industry: a Journal of The Social and
Economic Relations of Work, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 302-318, 2017.
[18] Herdlein R. and Zurner E., “Student satisfaction, need and learning outcomes: A case study approach at a European
university,” SAGE Open, vol. 2, pp. 1-10, 2015.
[19] Machado M. L., Brites R., Magalhães A. and Sá M. J., “Satisfaction with higher education: Critical data for student
development,” European Journal of Education, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 415-432, 2011.
[20] Ziaee V., Ahmednijad Z. and Morravedji J. R., “An evaluation on medical students' satisfaction with clinical
education and its effective factors,” Medical Education Online, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 4365-4371, 2004.
[21] Alanazi A. A., Nicholson N., Thomas S., “The use of simulation training to improve knowledge, skills, and
confidence among healthcare students: a systematic review,” The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and
Practice, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1-20, 2017.
[22] Liaw S. Y., Scherpbier A., Rethans J. J., Klainin-Yobas P., “Assessment for simulation learning outcomes: a
comparison of knowledge and self-reported confidence with observed clinical performance,” Nurse education
today, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. e35-39, 2012.
[23] Kiernan L. C., “Evaluating competence and confidence using simulation technology,” Nursing, vol. 48, no. 10,
pp. 45-52, 2018.
[24] Kangas M., Siklander P., Randolph J., Ruokamo H., “Teachers' engagement and students' satisfaction with a
playful learning environment,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 63, pp. 274-284, 2017.
[25] Phillips K. F., Mathew L., Aktan N., Catano B., “Clinical education and student satisfaction: an integrative
literature review,” International journal of nursing sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 205-213, 2017.
[26] Martin F., Bolliger D U., “Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in
the online learning environment,” Online Learning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 205-222, 2018.
[27] Mourad A., Jurjus A., Hussein I. H., “The what or the how: a review of teaching tools and methods in medical
education,” Medical Science Educator, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 723-728, 2016.
[28] Shimizu I., Nakazawa H., Sato Y., Wolfhagen I. H., Könings K. D., “Does blended problem-based learning make
Asian medical students active learners?: a prospective comparative study,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 1-9, 2019.
[29] Street S. E., Gilliland K. O., McNeil C., Royal K., “The flipped classroom improved medical student performance
and satisfaction in a pre-clinical physiology course,” Medical Science Educator, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 35-43, 2015.
[30] Dang Y. M., Zhang Y. G., Ravindran S., Osmonbekov T., “Examining student satisfaction and gender differences
in technology-supported, blended learning,” Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 119, 2016.

Int. J. Public Health Sci. Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2021: 55 – 60