Skip to main content

Structural Equation Model of Occupant Satisfaction for Evaluating the Performance of Office Buildings


Measuring occupant satisfaction and collecting feedback is critical for evaluating building performance, shaping comfort, effective decision-making in building improvements, and consequently enhancing the well-being of occupants. Numerous post-occupancy evaluation tools have been developed for examining occupant satisfaction in different building types; however, they are criticized in the recent studies for failing to (1) empirically examine the interrelated influence of a broad range of factors on occupant satisfaction, (2) include expert opinion from the industry in the indicator determination process, (3) collect contextual information along with the feedback in real-time and in a continuous manner and (4) provide effective mechanisms to integrate occupant feedback in the building models to enable visualization and performing queries on feedback items. The purpose of this paper is to develop an occupant satisfaction measurement model for monitoring the perceived performance of office buildings. A hierarchical structural model was developed based on the literature review, analysis of occupant feedback records in office buildings, and focus group meetings with facility managers to determine the constructs of occupant satisfaction. This model was empirically validated via structural equation modeling (SEM) using the survey data collected from 300 office occupants. The proposed SEM model, which adopts a total of 27 indicators across six dimensions, is found to be highly satisfactory indicating a strong association between dimensions and occupant satisfaction. The findings emphasize that building design and facility service dimensions need to be considered along with physical comfort dimensions when determining occupant satisfaction. The main contribution of the paper is the empirically validated, holistic, SEM model of occupant satisfaction, which is developed based on current practice and industry practitioners’ feedback and integrates building design and facility services with physical comfort dimensions. In the following phase of the research, the developed occupant satisfaction measurement model was used as the basis for designing a prototype, which enables decision-makers to collect occupant feedback continuously and integrate it with building information modeling to visualize and perform queries on feedback items. Eventually, this measurement model is expected to contribute to making more effective decisions based on the actual performance of the facility in the post-occupancy phase and enhance building performance as well as occupant well-being and productivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Availability of Data and Materials

Some data generated or used during the study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be provided with restrictions (i.e., anonymized survey data).


  1. 1.

    Höppe, P.: Different aspects of assessing indoor and outdoor thermal comfort. Energy Build. 34(6), 661–665 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Newsham, G.R.; Veitch, J.A.; Hu, Y.: Effect of green building certification on organizational productivity metrics. Build. Re. Inf. 46(7), 755–766 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lee, S.: Expectations of employees toward the workplace and environmental satisfaction. Facilities 24, 343–353 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jazizadeh, F.; Ghahramani, A.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Kichkaylo, T.; Orosz, M.: User-led decentralized thermal comfort driven HVAC operations for improved efficiency in office buildings. Energy Build. 70, 398–410 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kosonen, R.; Ahola, M.; Villberg, K.; Takki, T.: Perceived IEQ conditions: why the actual percentage of dissatisfied persons is higher than standards indicate? In: Abdul-Wahab, S. (ed.) Sick Building Syndrome, pp. 75–88. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Kaushik, A.; Mazroei, A.; Katafygiotou, M.; Elsarrag, E.: Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: a review of the literature. Build. Environ. 105, 369–389 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wargocki, P.; Wyon, D.P.; Baik, Y.K.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P.O.: Perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two different pollution loads. Indoor Air 9(3), 165–179 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Frontczak, M.; Schiavon, S.; Goins, J.; Arens, E.; Zhang, H.; Wargocki, P.: Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air 22(2), 119–131 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Korkmaz, S.; Messner, J.I.; Riley, D.R.; Magent, C.: High-performance green building design process modeling and integrated use of visualization tools. J. Architect. Eng. 16(1), 37–45 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Preiser, W.F.: Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better. Facilities 13(11), 19–28 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Preiser, W.F.: The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: toward building performance and universal design evaluation. In: Learning from Our Buildings A State-of-the Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 145, pp. 9–12. The National Academies Press, Washington (2001)

  12. 12.

    Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.; Choi, J.; Kampschroer, K.; Powell, K.; Atkinson, M.; Heerwagen, J.: The value of post-occupancy evaluation for building occupants and facility managers. Intell. Build. Int. 1(4), 249–268 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Choi, J.; Lee, K.: Investigation of the feasibility of POE methodology for a modern commercial office building. Build. Environ. 143, 591–604 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Azar, E.; Menassa, C.: Optimizing the performance of energy-intensive commercial buildings: Occupancy-focused data collection and analysis approach. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 30(5), C4015002 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mallory-Hill, S.; Preiser, W.F.; Watson, C.G.: Enhancing Building Performance. Wiley, New York (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bluyssen, P.M.; Aries, M.; van Dommelen, P.: Comfort of workers in office buildings: the European HOPE project. Build. Environ. 46(1), 280–288 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hanc, M.; McAndrew, C.; Ucci, M.: Conceptual approaches to wellbeing in buildings: a scoping review. Build. Res. Inf. 476(6), 767–783 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Khoshbakht, M.; Gou, Z.; Xie, X.; He, B.; Darko, A.: Green building occupant satisfaction: Evidence from the Australian higher education sector. Sustainability 10(8), 2890 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ilter, D.; Tekce, I.; Ergen, E.; Seyis, S.: Toward an occupant satisfaction measure for office building retrofits. In: CIB World International Congress, Volume V—Advancing Products and Services. Tampere University of Technology, Finland (2016)

  20. 20.

    Li, P.; Froese, T.M.; Brager, G.: Post-occupancy evaluation: state-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Build. Environ. 133, 187–202 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bordass, B.; Cohen, R.; Standeven, M.; Leaman, A.: Assessing building performance in use 3: energy performance of the Probe buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 29(2), 114–128 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Carlopio, J.R.: Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction questionnaire. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1(3), 330 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Choi, S.; Guerin, D.A.; Kim, H.Y.; Brigham, J.K.; Bauer, T.: Indoor environmental quality of classrooms and student outcomes: a path analysis approach. J. Learn. Spaces 2(2), 2013–2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Jazizadeh, F.; Kavulya, G.; Klein, L.; Becerik-Gerber, B.: Continuous sensing of occupant perception of indoor ambient factors. In: Proceedings of Computing in Civil Engineering, pp. 161–168 (2011)

  25. 25.

    Coates, P.; Arayici, Y.; Ozturk, Z.: New concepts of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) utilizing BIM benchmarking techniques and sensing devices. In: Proceedings of Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, pp. 319-–329 (2012)

  26. 26.

    Gocer, O.; Hua, Y.; Gocer, K.: Completing the missing link in building design process: enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback for building performance. Build. Environ. 89, 14–27 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ergen, E.; Kula, B.; Guven, G.; Artan, D.: Formalization of occupant feedback and integration with BIM. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. (accepted for publication).

  28. 28.

    CBE: Center for the Built Environment homepage (2020). Accessed 15 May 2020

  29. 29.

    Bordass, W.; Leaman, A.: Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: a portfolio of feedback techniques. Build. Res. Inf. 33(4), 347–352 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Veitch, J.A.; Charles, K.E.; Farley, K.M.J.; Newsham, G.R.: A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 177–189 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kim, J.; de Dear, R.: Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and overall workspace satisfaction. Build. Environ. 49, 33–40 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Candido, C.; Jungsoo Kim, J.; Richard de Dear, R.; Thomas, L.: BOSSA: a multidimensional post-occupancy evaluation tool. Build. Res. Inf. 44(2), 214–228 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Charles, K. E.; Veitch, J. A.; Farley, K. M. J.; Newsham, G. R.: Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 3. Further scale validation (IRC-RR-152). Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction. (2003), Cited February 16 2019. from Accessed 16 Feb 2019

  34. 34.

    Hua, Y.: Understanding POE for future building practices. Intell. Build. Int. 5(3), 133–134 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Egbu, C.O.; Zawawi, E.M.A.; Karim, S.B.A.; Woon, C.J.: Occupants’ satisfaction toward building environmental quality: structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187(5), 242 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Parkinson, A.T.; Reid, R.; McKerrow, H.; Wright, D.: Evaluating positivist theories of occupant satisfaction: a statistical analysis. Build. Res. Inf. 46(4), 430–443 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kojima, T.; Sakuma, T.; Nishihara, N.; Hayashi, T.; Munakata, J.: Causal modeling between workplace productivity and workers’ satisfaction with various spaces in office buildings. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 16(2), 409–415 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zhang, Z.: The effect of library indoor environments on occupant satisfaction and performance in Chinese universities using SEMs. Build. Environ. 150, 322–329 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Sakellaris, I.; Saraga, D.; Mandin, C.; Roda, C.; Fossati, S.; De Kluizenaar, Y.; Szigeti, T.: Perceived indoor environment and occupants’ comfort in European modern office buildings: The OFFICAIR study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13(5), 444 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Usable Buildings Trust.: Retrieved from Usable Buildings: (2011). Accessed 16 Dec 2019

  41. 41.

    Carlopio, J.: The development of a human factors satisfaction questionnaire. In: Brown Jr., O., Hendrick, H.W. (eds.) Human Factors in Organisational Design and Management, pp. 559–566. Elsevier, New York (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Stokols, D.; Scharf, F.: Developing standardized tools for assessing employees’ ratings of facility performance. In: Davis, G., Ventre, F.T. (eds.) Performance of Buildings and Serviceability of Facilities, pp. 55–68. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1990)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Marans, R.W.; Yan, X.: Lighting quality and environmental satisfaction in open and enclosed offices. J. Arch. Plan. Res. 6, 118–131 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Alexi Marmot Associates.: AMA workware toolkit: case study department of health office. Retrieved from Usable Buildings.: (2004). Accessed 16 Dec 2019

  45. 45.

    Levermore, G.: Occupants’ assessments of indoor environments: questionnaire and rating scale methods. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 15(2), 113–118 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    EPA: Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation Study Home Page (2020), Accessed Mar 2019

  47. 47.

    Cohen, R.; Standeven, M.; Bordass, B.; Leaman, A.: Assessing building performance in use 1: the PROBE process. Build. Res. Inf. 29(2), 85–102 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Bischof, W.; Bullinger, M.: Indoor conditions and well-being: interim results from the ProKlima study. Indoor Built Environ. 7, 232–233 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    de Dear, R.; Brager, G.: Cooper, D.: Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. Sydne: Final Report, ASHRAE RP-884. ASHRAE (1997)

  50. 50.

    McCartney, K.; Nicol, F.: Developing an adaptive control algorithm for Europe. Energy Build. 34(6), 623–635 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Gann, D.; Salter, A.; Jennifer, Whyte J.: Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Build. Res. Inf. 31(5), 318–333 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Bluyssen, P.; Cox, C.: indoor environment quality and upgrading of european office buildings. Energy Build. 34, 155–162 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Swanke Hayden Connell Architects.: OPN Workplace Evaluation Survey. Retrieved from Office Productivity Network: (2005). Accessed 16 Dec 2019

  54. 54.

    Toftum, J.; Wyon, D.; Svanekjar, H.; Lantner, A.: Remote Performance Measurement (RPM): A new, internet-based method for the measurement of occupant performance in office buildings. Proceedings of Indoor Air, (357-61). Beijing, China (2005)

  55. 55.

    Preiser, W.; Vischer, J.: Assessing Building Performance. Routledge, London (2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Aye L.; Charters W. W. S.; Chiazor M.; Robinson J. R. W.: Evaluation of occupant perception and satisfaction in two new office buildings. In: ANZSES 2005, The 43rd Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society Annual Conference, pp. 28–30 (2005)

  57. 57.

    Humphreys, M.A.: Quantifying occupant comfort: are combined indices of the indoor environment practicable? Build. Res. Inf. 33, 317–325 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    ASTM Standards.: ASTM International. Retrieved from (2017). Accessed 16 Dec 2019

  59. 59.

    Hassanain, M.A.: Post-occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation of student housing facilities. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 3(4), 249–256 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Wong, L.T.; Mui, K.W.; Hui, P.S.: A multivariate-logistic model for acceptance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in offices. Build. Environ. 43, 1–6 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Choi, J.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.: Analyses of IEQ and user satisfaction in 20 office buildings. In: Proceedings of PLEA—26th Conference on Passive and Low energy Architecture, Quebec, Canada, paper#: 2.3.14, (2009)

  62. 62.

    NABERS: Australian National Rating System for Environmental Performance of Australian Buildings homepage (2020). Accessed 1 June 2020

  63. 63.

    Maarleveld, M.; Volker, L.; Van Der Voordt, T.: Measuring employee satisfaction in new offices–the WODI toolkit. J. Fac. Manag. 7(3), 181–197 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Lai, A.C.K.; Mui, K.W.; Wong, L.T.; Law, L.Y.: An evaluation model for indoor environmental Quality (IEQ) acceptance in residential buildings. Energy Build. 41, 930–936 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Schakib-Ekbatan, K.; Wagner, A.;Lussac, C.: Occupant satisfaction as an indicator for the socio-cultural dimension of sustainable office buildings—development of an overall building index. In: Proceedings of Conference: Adapting to Change: New Thinking on Comfort (2010)

  66. 66.

    Cao, B.; Ouyang, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Huang, L.; Hu, H.; Deng, G.: Development of a multivariate regression model for overall satisfaction in public buildings based on field studies in Beijing and Shanghai. Build. Environ. 47, 394–399 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Newsham, G.; Birt, B.J.; Arsenault, C.; Thompson, A.J.L.; Veitch, J.; Mancini, S.; Galasiu, A.D.; Gover, B.N.; Macdonald, I.; Burns, G.J.: Do green buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Build. Res. Inf. 41, 415–434 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Joseph, A.; Quan, X.; Keller, A.; Taylor, E.; Nanda, U.; Hua, Y.: Building a knowledge base for evidence-based. Intell. Build. Int. 6(3), 155–169 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Palmer, J.; Armitage, P.: Innovate UK, building performance evaluation programme: Early findings from nondomestic projects. Innovate UK, London (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Soccio, P.: A new post occupancy evaluation tool for assessing the indoor environment quality of learnıng environments. In: Evaluating Learning Environments Snapshots of Emerging, Issues, Methods and Knowledge, vol. 8, pp. 195–210. (2016)

  71. 71.

    Leesman.: Leesman: Is your workplace working? Retrieved from Leesman Index: (2016). Accessed 16 Dec 2019

  72. 72.

    Lee, P.; Lee, B.; Jeon, J.; Zhang, M.; Kang, J.: Impact of noise on self-rated job satisfaction and health in open-plan offices: a structural equation modelling approach. Ergonomics 59(2), 222–234 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Frontczak, M.; Wargocki, P.: Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Build. Environ. 46(4), 922–937 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Esfandiari, M.; Zaid, S.M.; Ismail, M.A.; Aflaki, A.: Influence of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in green office buildings: a review. Chem. Eng. Trans. 56, 385–390 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Kline, R.B.: Principles And Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications, NY (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Frontczak, M.; Andersen, R.V.; Wargocki, P.: Questionnaire survey on factors influencing comfort with indoor environmental quality in Danish housing. Build. Environ. 50, 56–64 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Huang, L.; Zhu, Y.; Ouyang, Q.; Cao, B.: A study on the effects of thermal, luminous, and acoustic environments on indoor environmental comfort in offices. Build. Environ. 49, 304–309 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    ASHRAE, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2013)._ Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy_(ANSI/ASHRAE Standard No. 55).

  79. 79.

    de Dear, R.J.; Brager, G.S.: Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings: revisions to ASHRAE Standard 55. Energy Build. 34(6), 549–561 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Lovins, A.: Air-Conditioning Comfort: Behavioral and Cultural Issues. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information, United States (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Zhao, J.; Lam, K. P.; Loftness, V.; Ydstie, B. E.: Occupant individual thermal comfort data analysis in an office. In: First International Symposium on Sustainable Human–Building Ecosystems, pp. 108–116 (2015)

  82. 82.

    de Dear, R.J.; Brager, G.S.: Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Trans. 104(1), 145–167 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Wagner, A.; Gossauer, E.; Moosmann, C.; Gropp, T.; Leonhart, R.: Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction—Results of field studies in German low energy office buildings. Energy Build. 39(7), 758–769 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Atmaca, I.; Kaynakli, O.; Yigit, A.: Effects of radiant temperature on thermal comfort. Build. Environ. 42, 3210–3220 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Jing, S.; Li, B.; Tan, M.; Liu, H.: Impact of relative humidity on thermal comfort in a warm environment. Indoor Built Environ. 22(4), 598–607 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Valančius, R.; Jurelionis, A.: Impact of temperature variation on energy consumption and productivity of the occupants in office buildings. Energetika 58(3), 141–147 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Fountain, M.E.; Arens, E.A.: Air movement and thermal comfort. ASHRAE J. 35(8), 26–30 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Wargocki, P.; Bako-Biro, Z.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P.O.: Air quality in a simulated office environment as a result of reducing pollution sources and increasing ventilation. Energy Build. 34(8), 775–783 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Bluyssen, P.: Towards an integrative approach of improving indoor air quality. Build. Environ. 44(9), 1980–1989 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    ASHRAE, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. _Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality_(ANSI/ASHRAE Standard No. 62.1 User’s Manual) (2016)

  91. 91.

    Wyon, D.P.: The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air 14(7), 92–101 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Szczurek, A.; Maciejewska, M.; Teuerle, M.; Wyłomańska, A.: Method to characterize collective impact of factors on indoor air. Physica A 420, 190–199 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    EPA.: Home Page (2020). An Office Building Occupants Guide to Indoor Air Quality. Accessed 2018

  94. 94.

    Seppänen, O.; Fisk, W.J.; Lei, Q.: Ventilation and performance in office work. Indoor Air 16(1), 28–36 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Papadopoulos, A.M.; Avgelis, A.: Indoor environmental quality in naturally ventilated office buildings and its impact on their energy performance. Int. J. Vent. 2(3), 203–212 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Singh, A.; Syal, M.; Grady, S.C.; Korkmaz, S.: Effects of green buildings on employee health and productivity. Am. J. Public Health 100(9), 1665–1668 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Cohen, S.; Weinstein, N.: Noise and Stress. In: Evans, G.W. (ed.) Environmental Stress. Cambridge University Press, New York (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Sundstrom, E.; Town, J.P.; Rice, R.W.; Osborn, D.P.; Brill, M.: Office noise, satisfaction, and performance. Environ. Behav. 26(2), 195–222 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Jensen, K.; Arens, E.: Acoustical quality in office workstations, as assessed by occupant surveys. In: Indoor Air 2005: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Tsinghua University Press, China, pp. 2401–2405 (2005)

  100. 100.

    Sundstrom, E.; Sundstrom, M. G.; Eric, S.: Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. CUP Archive (1986)

  101. 101.

    Cowan, J.P.: Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Wiley, New York (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Jakubiec, J.A.; Reinhart, C.F.: Predicting visual comfort conditions in a large daylit space based on long-term occupant evaluations: a field study. In: 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, pp. 3408–3415 (2013)

  103. 103.

    Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Katafygiotou, M.; Mazroei, A.; Kaushik, A.; Elsarrag, E.: Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: a review of the literature. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 5(1), 1–11 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Van Den Wymelenberg, K.; Inanici, M.: A critical investigation of common lighting design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. Leukos 10(3), 145–164 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Sakhare, V.V.; Ralegaonkar, R.V.: Indoor environmental quality: review of parameters and assessment models. Arch. Sci. Rev. 57(2), 147–154 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    HarperCollins,: Collins Thesaurus of English Language-Complete and Unbridged, 2nd edn. HarperCollins, NY (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Boubekri, M.: Daylighting Design: Planning Strategies and Best Practice Solutions. Birkhäuser, Germany (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Aries, M.; Veitch, J.; Newsham, G.: Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J. Environ. Psychol. 30(4), 533–541 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Colenberg, S.; Jylhä, T.; Arkesteijn, M.: The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being—a literature review. Build. Res. Inf. (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Lee, Y.S.: Office layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings. Build. Environ. 45(7), 1594–1600 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Candido, C.; Thomas, L.; Haddad, S.; Zhang, F.; Mackey, M.; Ye, W.: Designing activity-based workspaces: satisfaction, productivity and physical activity. Build. Res. Inf. 47(3), 275–289 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Vischer, J.C.: The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers. Calif. Manag. Rev. 49(2), 62–79 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Miles, A. K.: The ergonomics and organizational stress relationship, Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University (2000)

  114. 114.

    Pastore, L.; Andersen, M.: Exploring the influence of contemporary facade design on occupant satisfaction: a preliminary study in office buildings. PLEA 2017 Design to Thrive, Edinburgh (2017)

  115. 115.

    ISO 2631-2. (2003). Mechanical vibration and shock—Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration—Part 2: Vibration in buildings.

  116. 116.

    Griffin, M.J.: Handbook of Human Vibration. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Schiavi, A.; Rossi, L.; Ruatta, A.: The perception of vibration in buildings: a historical literature review and some current progress. Build. Acoust. 23(1), 59–70 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Nawawi, A.H.; Khalil, N.: Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants’ satisfaction: an approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings. J. Build. Apprais. 4(2), 59–69 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Arens, E.; Xu, T.; Miura, K.; Zhang, H.; Fountain, M.; Bauman, F.: A study of occupant cooling by personally controlled air movement. Environ. Build. 27(1), 45–59 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Brager, G.; Paliaga, G.; de Dear, R.: Operable windows, personal control, and occupant comfort. ASHRAE Trans. 110(2), 17–35 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Seshadhri, G.; Topkar, V.: Validation of a questionnaire for objective evaluation of performance of built facilities. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 30(1), 4014191/1–4014191/7 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Brown, Z.; Cole, R.J.: Influence of occupants’ knowledge on comfort expectations and behaviour. Build. Res. Inf. 37(3), 227–245 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Galasiu, A.D.; Veitch, J.A.: Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy Build. 38(7), 728–742 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Kwon, S.H.; Chun, C.; Kwak, R.Y.: Relationship between quality of building maintenance management services for indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction. Build. Environ. 46(11), 2179–2185 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Amaratunga, D.; Baldry, D.; Sarshar, M.: Assessment of facilities management performance—what next? Facilities 18(1/2), 66–75 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Shaw, D.; Haynes, B.: An evaluation of customer perception of FM service delivery. Facilities 22(7/8), 170–177 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Edirisinghe, R.; London, K.A.; Kalutara, P.; Aranda-Mena, G.: Building information modelling for facility management: are we there yet? Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 24(6), 1119–1154 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Lai, A.W.; Lai, W.M.: Users’ satisfaction survey on building maintenance in public housing. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 20(4), 420–440 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Au-Yong, C.; Ali, A.; Ahmad, F.: Improving occupants’ satisfaction with effective maintenance management of HVAC system in office buildings. Autom. Constr. 43, 31–37 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Tenório, Alves; de Morais, G.; Casado Lordsleem Júnior, A.: Building maintenance management activities in a public institution. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 26(1), 85–103 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.C.: Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4(1), 7 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G.: A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Psychology Press, Hove (2004)

    MATH  Book  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Carvalho, J.; Chima, F.O.: Applications of structural equation modeling in social sciences research. Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 4(1), 6–11 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Raykov, T.; Marcoulides, G.A.: A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Struct. Equ. Model. 7(2), 292–308 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Bagozzi, R.; Yi, Y.: Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40(1), 8–34 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Kline, R.B.: Methodology in the Social Sciences. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Brown, T.A.: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. The Guilford Press, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Hoyle, R.H.: The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In: Hoyle, R.H. (ed.) Structural Equation modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Byrne, B.M.; Watkins, D.: The issue of measurement invariance revisited. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 34(2), 155–175 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Jöreskog, K.G.: A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 34(2), 183–202 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Werner, C.; Schermelleh-Engel, K.: Structural equation modeling: Advantages, challenges, and problems. Introduction to SEM with LISREL (2009).

  143. 143.

    Nunnally, J.: Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Tekçe, I.; Artan, D.; Ergen, E.: Ofis Binalarında Bina Yönetim Hizmetleri ve Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti—Facility Management Services and Occupant Satisfaction in Office Buildings, Uluslararası katılımlı 7. İnşaat Yönetimi Kongresi, Samsun (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Artan, D.; Ergen, E.; Tekçe, I.: Acoustical comfort in office buildings. In: 7th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACEU 2019). Singapore, Berlin (2019)

  146. 146.

    Tekçe, I.; Artan, D.; Ergen, E.: An empirical study of visual comfort in office buildings. In: International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings & Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, 9–11 Sept, KES Virtual Conference Centre Platform (2020)

  147. 147.

    Bentler, P.; Yuan, K.: Structural equation modeling with small samples: test statistics. Multivar. Behav. Res. 34(2), 181–197 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Garver, M.S.; Mentzer, J.T.: Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J. Bus. Logist. 20(1), 33 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Dunn, S.C.; Seaker, R.F.; Waller, M.A.: Latent variables in business logistics research: scale development and validation. J. Bus. Logist. 15(2), 145 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Bentler, P.: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107(2), 238–246 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Byrne, B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Erlbaum, New Jersey (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Marsh, H.W.; Balla, J.R.; McDonald, R.P.: Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychol. Bull. 103(3), 391 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R.: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 21(2), 230–258 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Garson, G. D.: Factor Analysis, from Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis. Accessed 24 April 2018. (2009)

  155. 155.

    Byrne, B.M.: A primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming For Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. Springer, New York (1989)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Cooper, R.D.; Schindler, P.S.: Business Research Methods, 8th edn. Tata McGraw-Hill Edition, New Delhi (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C.: Analysis, Multivariate Data. Prentice Hall International. Inc, Upper Saddle River (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Mardia, K.V.: Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 57(3), 519–530 (1970)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Satorra, A.; Bentler, P.M.: Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: von Eye, A., Clogg, C.C. (eds.) Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research, pp. 399–419. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Bollen, K.A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley, New York (1989)

    MATH  Book  Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Ratner, B.: Statistical and Machine-Learning Data Mining: Techniques for Better Predictive Modeling and Analysis of Big Data. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Cambridge (2017)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Yun, G.Y.; Kong, H.J.; Kim, H.; Kim, J.T.: A field survey of visual comfort and lighting energy consumption in open plan offices. Energy Build. 46, 146–151 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Van Duijnhoven, J.; Aarts, M.P.J.; Rosemann, A.L.P.; Kort, H.S.M.: Office lighting characteristics determining occupant’s satisfaction and health. Lighting for Modern Society: Proceedings of The Lux Europa, pp. 384–388 (2017)

  164. 164.

    Ryherd, E.E.; Wang, L.M.: AB-10-018: The effects of noise from building mechanical systems with tonal components on human performance and perception. ASHRAE Trans. 116(2), 540–552 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Evans, G.W.; Johnson, D.: Stress and open-office noise. J. Appl. Psychol. 85(5), 779 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A.; Helenius, R.; Keskinen, E.; Hongisto, V.: Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices–longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics 52(11), 1423–1444 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Danielsson, C.B.: Office Experiences. In: Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P. (eds.) Product Experience. Elsevier, New York, pp. 605–628 (2008)

  168. 168.

    Berleant, A.: The environment as an aesthetic paradigm in art and philosophy: mutual connections and inspirations. Dialectics Humanism 1(2), 95 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Elsbach, K.D.; Bechky, B.A.: It’s more than a desk: working smarter through leveraged office design. Calif. Manag. Rev. 49(2), 80–101 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    Vilnai-Yavetz, I.; Rafaeli, A.; Yaacov, C.S.: Instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism of office design. Environ. Behav. 37(4), 533–551 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Kim, J.; de Dear, R.: Workspace satisfaction: the privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. J. Environ. Psychol. 36, 18–26 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Lee, Y.S.; Guerin, D.A.: Indoor environmental quality differences between office types in LEED-certified buildings in the US. Build. Environ. 45(5), 1104–1112 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Veitch, J.A.; Charles, K.E.; Newsham, G.R.: Workstation design for the open-plan office IRC Ottawa, National Research Council of Canada (2004)

  174. 174.

    Rupp, R.F.; Vásquez, N.G.; Lamberts, R.: A review of human thermal comfort in the built environment. Energy Build. 105, 178–205 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Bluyssen, P.; Oliveira Fernandes, E.; Groes, L.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P.; Valbjorn, O.; Bernhard, C.; Roulet, C.: European indoor air quality audit project in 56 office buildings. Indoor Air 6(4), 221–238 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Humphreys, M.A.; Nicol, J.F.: Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal comfort. ASHRAE Trans. 104(1B), 1162 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Day, J.K.; Gunderson, D.E.: Understanding high performance buildings: the link between occupant knowledge of passive design systems, corresponding behaviors, occupant comfort and environmental satisfaction. Build. Environ. 84, 114–124 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Leaman, A.; Bordass, B.: Assessing building performance in use 4: the Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Build. Res. Inf. 29(2), 129–143 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Korkmaz, S.; Messner, J.; Riley, D.R.; ve Magent, C.: High-performance green building design process modeling and integrated use of visualization tools. J. Arch. Eng. 16(1), 37–45 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Bordass, B.: Learning more from our buildings-or just forgetting less? Build. Res. Inf. 31(5), 406–411 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Woo, J.H.; Menassa, C.: Virtual retrofit model for aging commercial buildings in a smart grid environment. Energ. Build. 80, 424–435 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to thank M. Can Özkan for his contribution to data collection.


This research was funded by a grant from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), under Grant No. 116M177. TUBITAK’s support is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esin Ergen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


Appendix A. Questionnaire form

Section 1: Background

Name, Surname (optional):

Gender (optional):


Number of employees in the office:

Section 2: Occupant Satisfaction

How satisfied are you with the following criteria? Please indicate your satisfaction level.

  Occupant Satisfaction Dimensions & Indicators Questionnaire (1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied 3 = neutral 4 = satisfied 5 = very satisfied)
1  2  3  4  5
(TC) Thermal Comfort  
(TC1) Temperature How satisfied are you with the temperature in your office?
(TC2) Radiant temperature How satisfied are you with the radiant temperature in your office?
(TC3) Relative humidity How satisfied are you with the relative humidity in your office?
(TC4) Temperature variation How satisfied are you with the temperature variation in your office?
(TC5) Air flow How satisfied are you with the air flow in your office?
(IAQ) Indoor Air Quality  
(IAQ1) Fresh air amount How satisfied are you with the fresh air amount/air quality (i.e., stuffy/stale air) in your office?
(IAQ2) Natural ventilation How satisfied are you with the natural ventilation in your office?
(IAQ3) Odor How satisfied are you with the odor (e.g. from air pollution, materials, WC, humidity) in your office?
(AC) Acoustical Comfort  
(AC1) Noise levels How satisfied are you with the noise levels (e.g. outside, people, HVAC, lighting equipment, office equipment, background noise) in your office?
(AC2) Echo How satisfied are you with the echo levels in your office?
(AC3) Acoustic privacy How satisfied are you with the acoustic privacy in your office?
(VC) Visual Comfort  
(VC1) Daylighting How satisfied are you with the amount of daylight in your office?
(VC2) Artificial lighting How satisfied are you with artificial lighting (sufficiency, flickers) in your office?
(VC3) Glare How satisfied are you with the glare levels (i.e., sun, sky, lights) in your office?
(VC4) Reflection How satisfied are you with the reflection levels (e.g. on a computer screen, on reflective surfaces) in your office?
(VC5) Visual privacy How satisfied are you with visual privacy in your office?
(VC6) View from window How satisfied are you with the view from window in your office?
(BD) Building Design  
(BD1) Amount of space How satisfied are you with the amount of space in your office?
(BD2) Layout How satisfied are you with the layout (i.e., supports/barriers interaction, connections/distance between service spaces, degree of enclosure/layout of the workspace) in your building?
(BD3) Interior Design How satisfied are you with the interior design (i.e., aesthetic, durability of materials, functionality, colors, patterns, greenery, customization, availability storage/meeting rooms) of your office?
(BD4) Furniture How satisfied are you with the furniture (i.e., adjustability, ergonomy, comfort) of your office?
(BD5) Exterior design How satisfied are you with the exterior design (i.e., image, accessibility) of the building?
(BD6) Vibration conditions How satisfied are you with the vibration conditions (e.g. mechanical equipment, human activity, wind) of the building?
(BS) Building Services  
(BS1) Personal Control How satisfied are you with the personal control options (i.e., windows, blinds, electronic appliances, heating/cooling/ventilation) of the building?
(BS2) Usability of control devices How satisfied are you with the usability of control devices (e.g. availability and clarity of user manual and availability of fine-tuning options of control devices) of the building?
(BS3) Facility Management/Service Quality How satisfied are you with the facility management/service quality (i.e., availability of amenities/facilities, safety, cleanliness of the building, complaint response rate/speed, waste management services, pest control services) of the building?
(BS4) Maintenance-Repair How satisfied are you with the maintenance-repair services (i.e., maintenance and repair period and repairing leakage and cracks) of the building?
(OS) Overall Satisfaction from Office Building All parameters considered, how do you rate the overall satisfaction of the office building environment?

Appendix B. Intercorrelations


   TK1 TK2 TK3 TK4 TK5  
TK1 Pearson Correlation 1 .631** .503** .698** .615**  
Sig. (2-tailed)   .000 .000 .000 .000  
N 300 300 300 300 300  
TK2 Pearson Correlation .631** 1 .544** .612** .521**  
Sig. (2-tailed) .000   .000 .000 .000  
N 300 300 300 300 300  
TK3 Pearson Correlation .503** .544** 1 .592** .586**  
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000   .000 .000  
N 300 300 300 300 300  
TK4 Pearson Correlation .698** .612** .592** 1 .640**  
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000   .000  
N 300 300 300 300 300  
TK5 Pearson Correlation .615** .521** .586** .640** 1  
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000   
N 300 300 300 300 300  
   IHK1 IHK2 IHK3    
IHK1 Pearson Correlation 1 .664** .540**    
Sig. (2-tailed)   .000 .000    
N 300 300 300    
IHK2 Pearson Correlation .664** 1 .339**    
Sig. (2-tailed) .000   .000    
N 300 300 300    
IHK3 Pearson Correlation .540** .339** 1    
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000     
N 300 300 300    
   AK1 AK2 AK3    
AK1 Pearson Correlation 1 .608** .520**    
Sig. (2-tailed)   .000 .000    
N 300 300 300    
AK2 Pearson Correlation .608** 1 .428**    
Sig. (2-tailed) .000   .000    
N 300 300 300    
AK3 Pearson Correlation .520** .428** 1    
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000     
N 300 300 300    
   GK1 GK2 GK3 GK4 GK5 GK6
GK1 Pearson Correlation 1 .522** .409** .367** .435** .615**
Sig. (2-tailed)   .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
GK2 Pearson Correlation .522** 1 .636** .570** .391** .435**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000   .000 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
GK3 Pearson Correlation .409** .636** 1 .744** .393** .392**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000   .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
GK4 Pearson Correlation .367** .570** .744** 1 .432** .393**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000   .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
GK5 Pearson Correlation .435** .391** .393** .432** 1 .425**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000   .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
GK6 Pearson Correlation .615** .435** .392** .393** .425** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000  
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
   BT1 BT2 BT3 BT4 BT5 BT6
BT1 Pearson Correlation 1 .698** .631** .555** .324** .369**
Sig. (2-tailed)   .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
BT2 Pearson Correlation .698** 1 .760** .622** .445** .494**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000   .000 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
BT3 Pearson Correlation .631** .760** 1 .651** .472** .506**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000   .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
BT4 Pearson Correlation .555** .622** .651** 1 .439** .537**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000   .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
BT5 Pearson Correlation .324** .445** .472** .439** 1 .532**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000   .000
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
BT6 Pearson Correlation .369** .494** .506** .537** .532** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000  
N 300 300 300 300 300 300
   BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4   
BH1 Pearson Correlation 1 .681** .564** .565**   
Sig. (2-tailed)   .000 .000 .000   
N 300 300 300 300   
BH2 Pearson Correlation .681** 1 .635** .616**   
Sig. (2-tailed) .000   .000 .000   
N 300 300 300 300   
BH3 Pearson Correlation .564** .635** 1 .712**   
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000   .000   
N 300 300 300 300   
BH4 Pearson Correlation .565** .616** .712** 1   
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000    
N 300 300 300 300   
  1. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tekce, I., Ergen, E. & Artan, D. Structural Equation Model of Occupant Satisfaction for Evaluating the Performance of Office Buildings. Arab J Sci Eng 45, 8759–8784 (2020).

Download citation


  • Building performance evaluation
  • Occupant satisfaction
  • Office buildings
  • Post-occupancy evaluation (POE)
  • Structural equation modeling (SEM)