CITIZENS' SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AT THE WARD PEOPLE’S COMMITTEES OF TAY HO DISTRICT A Dissertation Submitted to Thai Nguyen University of Economics and Business Administration and Central Philippine University Joint Program In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION By HOANG VAN HAO December 2016 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is hard to imagine how this dissertation could have been completed without the encouragement and support from my academic supervisor, family and friends Firstly, I wish to thank my academic supervisor, Dr Reynaldo Dusaran It is my honor to receive his guide, suggestions and feedbacks on each chapter with great patience Although we live in two different countries, the academic discussion has not been influenced Both direct and indirect meetings between us have been really effective These have helped me improve my expertise and insights, which finally has improved the quality of this study I am also deeply grateful to my family, who has provided me with unconditional support throughout the whole process Over the last four years, I have two sons My wife has taken the responsibility of taking care of our sons She has never complained about it so that I can fully focus on studying Furthermore, she has read and given valuable opinions about this dissertation so that the content is expressed more precisely and professionally Next, I would like to send my gratitude to my parents They have helped much in looking after our sons I am deeply indebted to my parents as they provided such help while they were in worse health than before My parents have only heard about the university from us, but they have been always ready to try their best to ensure my sisters' educational quality as well as mine Finally, I would like to thank my friends who have shared their research experience, especially in collecting and analyzing the data I also send my loyal thanks to my peers in this PhD course who have brought to me many more experiences in study, work and life as well I really look forward to working with them in the future ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background and Rationale of the Study Objectives of the Study Hypotheses Theoretical Framework Conceptual Framework 15 Operational Definitions 19 Significance of the Study 24 Scope and Limitations 25 II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 27 Service Quality 27 Customers Satisfaction 35 Public Administrative Service and Citizens’ Satisfaction 37 Related Studies 41 iii III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 46 Research Design 46 Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique 48 Research Instruments 50 Data Gathering Procedure 59 Data Processing and Analysis 60 IV DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Respondents’ Characteristics 62 62 Respondents’ Perception of the Components of the Public Administrative Services 67 Respondents’ Perception of Satisfaction with Public Administrative Services 71 Differences in Citizens’ Perception of Public Administrative Services and Satisfaction according to their Personal Characteristics 72 Relationship between Citizens’ Perception of Public Administrative Services and their Satisfaction V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83 90 Summary of the Key Findings 91 Conclusions 93 Recommendations 96 REFERENCES 108 APPENDIXES 114 iv LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Measuring Service Quality using SERVQUAL Model 12 Performance Only Model (SERVPERF) 14 Conceptual Framework of the Study 18 Conceptual Framework of the Study (Adjusted after EFA) 19 The Nordic Model by Gronroos 30 The Kano Model 33 Research Process 47 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE List of Variables and Initial Items in the Survey Instrument 51 Results of Reliability Test of Scales 54 Result of the Seventh EFA with Scales of Independent Variables 56 Result of EFA for Citizens’ Satisfaction 57 Names and Abbreviations of Variables after EFA 58 Distribution of Respondents as to their Characteristics 64 Distribution of Respondents as to Information Related to the Use of 66 Public Administrative Services Descriptive Statistics of the Different Items and Components of Public 70 Administrative Services Descriptive Statistics for Different Items of Citizens’ Satisfaction 72 10 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 73 Services and Satisfaction by Gender 11 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 74 Services and Satisfaction by Age 12 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 75 Services and Satisfaction by Marital Status 13 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 76 Services and Satisfaction by Educational Attainment 14 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 77 Services and Satisfaction by Occupation 15 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Income 79 vi 16 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 80 Services and Satisfaction by Frequency of Use Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 17 Services and Satisfaction by Acquaintances in Ward People’s 81 Committees 18 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 82 Services and Satisfaction by Paying Extra Fee 19 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative 83 Services and Satisfaction by Residence 20 Regression Results for Citizens’ Satisfaction 86 vii ABSTRACT CITIZENS' SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AT THE WARD PEOPLE’S COMMITTEES OF TAY HO DISTRICT HOANG VAN HAO This study was conducted to evaluate the citizens' satisfaction with public administrative services at the Ward People’s Committees of Tay Ho District The one-shot survey design or the post-test only design was used to gather data from 440 randomly selected respondents allocated proportionately to the eight wards of Tay Ho District The survey instrument was tested for its reliability using the Cronbach’s Alpha Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to reduce the number of items and factors from the initial seven factors with 33 items to five factors with 27 items after the EFA The instrument was translated to Vietnamese to allow easy understanding of the respondents and distributed to the randomly selected respondents All the data collected were processed using SPSS 20 Analysis made use of descriptive statistics and Multiple Regression Analysis, t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test the hypotheses of the study The study revealed that most if not the majority of the respondents were females, not more than 45 years old, married, university educated , working as employee, civil servant or freelancer; and with a monthly income of to 5M VND The majority of the respondents were occasional users of public administrative services, without acquaintances in the Ward People’s Committee, have not paid extra fee to avail of the services and residents of the ward where they avail the public administrative services The respondents generally have “Good” perception of viii the different components of the public administrative services and have “high” perceived satisfaction of the public administrative services There were no significant differences in the perception of the respondents of the different components of public administrative services and their satisfaction according to their gender, age, marital status, income, acquaintances in the Ward People’s Committee, payment of extra fee and residence However, significant differences were observed according to educational attainment, occupation and frequency of use of public administrative services All the five components of public administrative services were found to be significant determinants of satisfaction Civil servants’ capacity and public-duty ethics appeared to be the major determinant followed by time and cost and facilities while transaction and process of delivery showed to be the least CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Public administrative reform is an urgent as well as a lasting duty in order to step by step build a clear and strong public administration which serves efficiently and promotes greatly the process of reforming and developing the country Administrative procedures are an indispensable part in our social life It is also a tool of the state in administering the society and serving both organizations and individuals After fifteen years since the application of the comprehensive public administrative reform program, the carrying out of administrative reform has had many positive changes, which have been supported by most of the public Basing on this, Hanoi People’s Committee in general and Tay Ho District People’s Committee in particular, always set the requirement that they should complete and improve the quality of serving citizens and operate the administrative activities stably, quickly, effectively and legally Administrative procedure reform is not only one of the administrative reform sectors but also the main program of the country The carrying out of administrative procedure simplification scheme on the fields of state management from 2007 to 2010 (Scheme 30) has importantly contributed to enhance the business environment, socioeconomic life and the process of global integration Vietnam is continuing to promote the program of reforming the administrative procedure in the period of 2010 - 2020 according to the Governmental resolution, in which the duty of administrative procedure reform is focused Between 2011 and 2015, the administrative procedure reform has been 140 APPENDIX 7: Descriptive Statistics for independent and dependent variables Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation CAE 440 2.14 5.00 3.4620 64923 REL_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.5273 83717 CAP_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4386 81044 CAP_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.4773 83184 CAP_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.5159 78117 CAP_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4250 87163 ATT_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.3750 85261 ATT_4 440 2.00 5.00 3.4750 84805 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation TRA 440 1.40 5.00 3.4591 66856 REL_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4455 82486 REL_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.5932 77867 CAP_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4045 85109 ATT_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4591 80043 ATT_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.3932 84165 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation PRO 440 1.83 5.00 3.5000 62523 EMP_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.4636 79207 EMP_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4523 78569 PRO_1 440 2.00 5.00 3.5000 73320 PRO_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.5614 77891 PRO_3 440 2.00 5.00 3.5295 77785 PRO_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4932 79575 Valid N (listwise) 440 141 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation FAC 440 1.00 5.00 3.5041 70286 FAC_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.6250 83914 FAC_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.5750 87943 FAC_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4250 84509 FAC_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4682 86115 FAC_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4273 98701 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation TAC 440 1.25 5.00 3.4591 73613 TAC_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.3932 90428 TAC_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4636 88188 TAC_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.5091 88516 TAC_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4705 91260 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation SAT 440 2.00 5.00 3.4856 64764 SAT_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4136 77359 SAT_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.6045 77429 SAT_3 440 2.00 5.00 3.4386 74910 Valid N (listwise) 440 142 APPENDIX 8: Results of Tests Result of Independent Samples T-Test according to gender Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 056 814 Upper -.173 438 863 -.01079 06244 -.13351 11194 -.173 410.834 863 -.01079 06251 -.13367 11210 430 438 667 02765 06429 -.09871 15400 432 418.716 666 02765 06403 -.09821 15350 717 438 474 04307 06010 -.07505 16119 716 411.693 474 04307 06014 -.07514 16129 507 438 613 03425 06758 -.09858 16707 504 404.181 614 03425 06793 -.09930 16779 378 438 706 02672 07079 -.11241 16586 377 408.877 707 02672 07096 -.11276 16621 436 438 663 02718 06228 -.09522 14958 437 414.004 662 02718 06222 -.09513 14949 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 067 796 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 009 925 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 443 506 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 186 666 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 000 991 SAT Equal variances not assumed 143 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Age Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 1.394 436 244 TRA 2.450 436 063 PRO 434 436 729 FAC 1.444 436 229 TAC 821 436 483 SAT 322 436 809 ANOVA CAE TRA PRO FAC TAC SAT Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Between Groups 2.648 883 2.110 098 Within Groups 182.390 436 418 Total 185.039 439 Between Groups 850 283 632 595 Within Groups 195.374 436 448 Total 196.224 439 Between Groups 1.278 426 1.091 353 Within Groups 170.333 436 391 Total 171.611 439 Between Groups 1.630 543 1.101 348 Within Groups 215.242 436 494 Total 216.873 439 Between Groups 1.670 557 1.028 380 Within Groups 236.218 436 542 Total 237.889 439 Between Groups 2.675 892 2.143 094 Within Groups 181.456 436 416 Total 184.131 439 144 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Marital status Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 372 437 689 TRA 1.290 437 276 PRO 798 437 451 FAC 1.276 437 280 TAC 756 437 470 SAT 544 437 581 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.214 Within Groups 182.611 437 418 Total 185.039 439 811 406 Within Groups 195.412 437 447 Total 196.224 439 2.085 1.043 Within Groups 169.526 437 388 Total 171.611 439 1.610 805 Within Groups 215.263 437 493 Total 216.873 439 2.514 1.257 Within Groups 235.375 437 539 Total 237.889 439 2.691 1.345 Within Groups 181.440 437 415 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 2.427 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 2.904 056 907 404 2.688 069 1.634 196 2.333 098 3.240 090 145 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Education attainment Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 710 435 585 TRA 1.922 435 106 PRO 722 435 577 FAC 4.201 435 102 TAC 2.134 435 076 SAT 4.640 435 101 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.623 Within Groups 178.546 435 410 Total 185.039 439 4.650 1.162 Within Groups 191.574 435 440 Total 196.224 439 6.546 1.637 Within Groups 165.065 435 379 Total 171.611 439 6.447 1.612 Within Groups 210.426 435 484 Total 216.873 439 10.054 2.513 Within Groups 227.835 435 524 Total 237.889 439 6.774 1.694 Within Groups 177.357 435 408 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 6.493 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 3.955 004 2.639 033 4.313 002 3.332 011 4.799 001 4.154 003 146 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Occupation Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 1.467 434 199 TRA 1.507 434 186 PRO 1.053 434 386 FAC 2.008 434 176 TAC 1.448 434 206 SAT 1.799 434 112 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.030 Within Groups 179.888 434 414 Total 185.039 439 8.435 1.687 Within Groups 187.789 434 433 Total 196.224 439 4.586 917 Within Groups 167.025 434 385 Total 171.611 439 11.728 2.346 Within Groups 205.145 434 473 Total 216.873 439 21.300 4.260 Within Groups 216.589 434 499 Total 237.889 439 9.957 1.991 Within Groups 174.174 434 401 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 5.151 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 2.485 031 3.899 002 2.383 038 4.962 000 8.536 000 4.962 000 147 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Monthly income Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 1.107 435 353 TRA 1.436 435 221 PRO 1.499 435 201 FAC 1.254 435 287 TAC 901 435 463 SAT 1.535 435 191 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 311 Within Groups 183.796 435 423 Total 185.039 439 1.418 355 Within Groups 194.805 435 448 Total 196.224 439 561 140 Within Groups 171.050 435 393 Total 171.611 439 1.382 345 Within Groups 215.491 435 495 Total 216.873 439 1.029 257 Within Groups 236.860 435 545 Total 237.889 439 1.515 379 Within Groups 182.616 435 420 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 1.242 Between Groups TRA df F Sig .735 568 792 531 357 839 697 594 472 756 902 463 148 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Frequency of use Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 705 437 495 TRA 5.563 437 104 PRO 1.508 437 222 FAC 355 437 701 TAC 13.875 437 200 SAT 5.216 437 106 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.529 Within Groups 181.981 437 416 Total 185.039 439 1.446 723 Within Groups 194.777 437 446 Total 196.224 439 2.145 1.073 Within Groups 169.466 437 388 Total 171.611 439 1.407 704 Within Groups 215.466 437 493 Total 216.873 439 1.536 768 Within Groups 236.352 437 541 Total 237.889 439 2.228 1.114 Within Groups 181.903 437 416 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 3.058 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 3.671 026 1.623 019 2.766 004 1.427 041 1.420 043 2.676 040 149 Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to the relationship Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 8.573 004 Upper -.921 438 357 -.08763 09511 -.27455 09929 -1.121 78.146 266 -.08763 07820 -.24331 06806 -.146 438 884 -.01433 09803 -.20700 17833 -.166 73.628 868 -.01433 08610 -.18591 15724 -.468 438 640 -.04290 09166 -.22304 13724 -.576 79.020 566 -.04290 07452 -.19123 10543 191 438 849 01967 10306 -.18288 22222 192 67.408 848 01967 10218 -.18427 22360 -.680 438 497 -.07333 10788 -.28536 13871 -.760 72.563 450 -.07333 09646 -.26559 11894 091 438 927 00866 09496 -.17798 19530 098 70.271 922 00866 08855 -.16794 18527 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 2.041 154 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 4.039 045 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 003 959 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 434 510 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 622 431 SAT Equal variances not assumed 150 Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to Extra fee payment Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 888 346 Upper -.008 438 994 -.00080 10127 -.19985 19824 -.008 54.543 994 -.00080 10701 -.21530 21369 -1.278 438 202 -.13308 10409 -.33767 07150 -1.292 56.340 202 -.13308 10302 -.33943 07326 -.955 438 340 -.09306 09743 -.28455 09842 -.967 56.408 337 -.09306 09620 -.28575 09963 -.667 438 505 -.07312 10958 -.28849 14226 -.614 53.873 542 -.07312 11905 -.31180 16557 078 438 938 00894 11483 -.21674 23462 075 55.003 940 00894 11918 -.22990 24778 322 438 748 03248 10101 -.16605 23101 309 54.902 759 03248 10525 -.17845 24341 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 100 752 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 114 735 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 019 892 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 001 971 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 201 654 SAT Equal variances not assumed 151 Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to Residence Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 766 382 Upper 1.653 438 099 11618 07030 -.02200 25435 1.620 193.055 107 11618 07173 -.02530 25765 974 438 330 07069 07254 -.07189 21327 939 187.582 349 07069 07526 -.07778 21916 1.739 438 083 11773 06768 -.01530 25075 1.687 189.570 093 11773 06978 -.01993 25538 962 438 337 07334 07627 -.07656 22323 917 184.261 360 07334 07997 -.08445 23112 1.025 438 306 08187 07987 -.07510 23884 1.006 193.334 316 08187 08142 -.07871 24246 1.536 438 125 10778 07016 -.03011 24568 1.501 192.045 135 10778 07180 -.03383 24940 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 2.738 099 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 1.034 310 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 3.590 059 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 164 686 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 492 483 SAT Equal variances not assumed 152 APPENDIX 9: Results of Regression Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, Enter RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB b TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO, CAE Enter b a Dependent Variable: SAT b All requested variables entered Model Summaryc Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std Error of the Durbin-Watson Estimate 258a 067 045 63298 851b 725 715 34586 2.172 a Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB b Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB, TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO, CAE c Dependent Variable: SAT ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Regression df Mean Square 12.249 10 1.225 Residual 171.882 429 401 Total 184.131 439 Regression 133.413 15 8.894 50.719 424 120 184.131 439 Residual Total F Sig 3.057 001b 74.354 000c a Dependent Variable: SAT b Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB c Predictors: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB, TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO, CAE 153 a Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std t Sig 3.363 204 GEN -.006 062 AGE -.007 MAR Correlations Collinearity Interval for B Beta Error (Constant) 95.0% Confidence Statistics Lower Upper Zero- Bound Bound order Partial Part Tolerance VIF 16.461 000 -.004 -.090 928 -.021 -.004 -.004 970 1.031 970 1.031 034 -.012 -.214 831 -.099 -.010 -.010 737 1.356 737 1.356 -.024 051 -.022 -.466 642 -.047 -.022 -.022 952 1.051 952 1.051 EDU 084 033 127 2.567 011 157 123 120 888 1.126 888 1.126 JOB -.064 025 -.140 -2.517 012 -.172 -.121 -.117 705 1.418 705 1.418 SAL -.003 034 -.004 -.093 926 009 -.005 -.004 949 1.054 949 1.054 FREQ 130 050 122 2.602 010 110 125 121 994 1.006 994 1.006 RELA -.022 095 -.011 -.237 813 -.004 -.011 -.011 960 1.041 960 1.041 EX_C -.019 100 -.009 -.189 850 -.015 -.009 -.009 972 1.028 972 1.028 LOCA -.133 069 -.090 -1.924 055 -.073 -.093 -.090 987 1.013 987 1.013 280 149 1.882 061 GEN -.008 034 -.006 -.246 806 -.021 -.012 -.006 966 1.036 966 1.036 AGE -.015 019 -.023 -.782 435 -.099 -.038 -.020 724 1.382 724 1.382 MAR -.006 028 -.006 -.218 828 -.047 -.011 -.006 947 1.055 947 1.055 EDU -.007 018 -.010 -.376 707 157 -.018 -.010 853 1.173 853 1.173 JOB -.009 014 -.020 -.654 514 -.172 -.032 -.017 665 1.503 665 1.503 SAL 024 019 034 1.292 197 009 063 033 934 1.071 934 1.071 FREQ 040 028 037 1.441 150 110 070 037 969 1.031 969 1.031 RELA -.048 052 -.024 -.930 353 -.004 -.045 -.024 954 1.048 954 1.048 EX_C -.063 055 -.030 -1.142 254 -.015 -.055 -.029 958 1.043 958 1.043 LOCA -.022 038 -.015 -.575 565 -.073 -.028 -.015 972 1.029 972 1.029 CAE 324 046 325 7.057 000 776 324 180 306 3.266 306 3.266 TRA 137 043 141 3.165 002 721 152 081 326 3.070 326 3.070 PRO 096 045 093 2.150 032 709 104 055 346 2.889 346 2.889 FAC 150 034 163 4.420 000 680 210 113 479 2.087 479 2.087 TAC 218 036 248 6.015 000 738 280 153 382 2.616 382 2.616 (Constant) a Dependent Variable: SAT 154 Excluded Variables Model Beta In t Sig a Partial Collinearity Statistics Correlation Tolerance VIF Minimum Tolerance CAE 767 b 24.529 000 764 927 1.078 702 TRA 708b 21.713 000 724 975 1.026 704 PRO 696 b 20.189 000 698 940 1.064 703 FAC 658 b 18.303 000 663 947 1.056 694 729 b 21.766 000 725 924 1.083 678 TAC a Dependent Variable: SAT b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), LOCA, EX_C, FREQ, SAL, AGE, GEN, RELA, MAR, EDU, JOB Residuals Statisticsa Minimum Predicted Value Maximum Mean Std Deviation N 2.0856 4.9501 3.4856 55127 440 -1.24376 1.33673 00000 33990 440 Std Predicted Value -2.540 2.657 000 1.000 440 Std Residual -3.596 3.865 000 983 440 Residual a Dependent Variable: SAT Correlations ABSRES1 Correlation Coefficient CAE TRA PRO FAC TAC 1.000 -.111 -.160 -.123 -.079 -.100 089 101 410 097 236 440 440 440 440 440 440 ABSRES Spearman's rho Sig (2-tailed) N * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) ... have been still slow and not very distinctive in functions, duties and the organization in the urban government with the rural one The civil service records of public servants are slowly compiled