Out 20 PDF

UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY
THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICE QUALITY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION,

ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY, AND BEHAVIORAL FUTURE INTENTIONS FOR
PARTICIPATION OF FITNESS CENTERS IN SOUTH KOREA:
A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING APPROACH
An applied dissertation project submitted to the faculty of the
United States Sports Academy in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Sport Management
by:
Sei-Jun Lim
Chair: Dr. Cynthia E. Ryder
Daphne, Alabama
November, 2006
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3 2 4 8 9 1 1
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3248911
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY
Approval
of an applied dissertation project submitted by
Sei Jun Lim
*<L. r2~~l K3 o'^cvJLua^ 2 .0 0 (q
Cynthia E. Ryder, Ed.D. Date
Chair, Dissertation Committee
Lawrence P. Bestmann, Ph.D. Date
Dissertation Committee Member
. lyCromartie, Ed. Fred |/Cromartie, Ed.D. Date

Dissertation Committee Member
\&&XLo
romas J. Rosandich, Ed.D.
Vice President and Chief Academic Officer
Date
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation represents not only my efforts, but also the efforts of many
other people, without whom this work would never have been completed. I have been
fortunate to have highly inspiring committee and mentors through this process.
I am indebted to my dissertation committee members. My initial and sincere
thanks go to my chairperson, Dr. Cynthia E. Ryder. Without her insightful guidance
and wonderful mentorship, I would have been at a lost. I would like to thank Dr.
Lawrence Bestmann and Dr. Fred Cromartie for their support and clinical throughout
the creation of this dissertation. My committee members were always ready to discuss
anything and everything together through this process. Also, thanks go to Dr. Albert G.
Applin for his encouragement and educational expertise while I studied at United
States Sports Academy.
I would also like to thank Dr. Byung-Kwan, Cheon and Kyung-Rock, Oh for
their emotional support during my doctoral study.
My special thanks go to my wife, Hyun-Ah, Kim, for her never-ending
supports and encouragement. Without her help, I could not concentrate on my
doctoral project. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my parents
acknowledge the contribution of my parents who have always supported my in every
way possible. Had it not been for these family supports, I would not have
accomplished my educational goal and mission.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE......................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem................................................................... 4
Research Model.................................................................................... 4
Research Hypotheses........................................................................... 5
Research Questions.............................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms.......................................................................... 6
Scope of the Study.............................................................................. 8
Delimitations........................................................................................9
Limitations........................................................................................... 9
Assumptions.......................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study.....................................................................10
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................... 12
Service Quality......................................................................................12
The Gaps between Service Planning and Delivery Process.... 14
The Benefits of Providing High quality services....................... 17
Customer Satisfaction.......................................................................... 18
Dimensions of Satisfaction............................................................ 20
Theoretical Framework o f Customer Satisfaction..................... 21
Satisfaction in Social Exchange Relationships........................... 25
Customer Loyalty.................................................................................26
Conceptual Framework................................................................. 28
A Multidimensional Model of Loyalty....................................... 29
Future Behavioral Intention............................................................... 36
Customer satisfaction and Repurchase Intent............................ 36
Customer Value and Repurchase Intent.................................... 37
Summary.............................................................................................. 40
m. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................. 43
Selection of Subjects......................................................................... 43
Instrumentation.................................................................................. 44
Demographic Survey....................................................................44
iii
Quality of Service Scale (QSS)................................................... 44
AttitudinalLoyalty Scale (AIN)................................................ 45
CHAPTER
III. METHODOLOGY (Continued) ............................................................46
Customer Satisfaction Scale (CSS) ........................................ 46
Behavioral Future Intention Scale (BFIS)................................ 48
Procedures................................................................ ........................49
Statistical Design and Analysis......................................................... 50
Data Cleaning and Screening.....................................................51
Measurement Assessment............................................................ 52
Reliability................................................................................... 52
Content validity......................................................................... 53
Construct validity...................................................................... 53
Critetion-related validity..........................................................54
Overall Fit Measures...................................................................... 54
Absolute f i t measures................................................................ 54
Incremental f i t measures.......................................................... 55
IV. RESULTS.................................................................................................. 57
Description of the Demographic Information................................ 57
Data assessment.....................................................................................59
Reliability and Validity........................................................................ 60
Measurement Model Testing............................................................ 63
Evaluation of the Measurement Model for
Quality of service......................................................................... 64
Evaluation of the Measurement model for
Affective Loyalty......................................................................... 68
Normative Loyalty........................................................................ 72
Investment Loyalty....................................................................... 76
Overall Customer Satisfaction................................................... 80
Behavioral Future Intention....................................................... 84
Structural Equation Modeling Approach........................................... 87
The evaluation of full model...................................................... 89
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 98
Summary................................................................................................ 98
The Findings of the Measurement Models............................. 99
The findings for the full model................................................. 102
iv
Discussion............................................................................................ 105
Recommendations for Future Research............................................. 106
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 108
APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT
(ENGLISH VERSION)....................................................................... 114
APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT
(KOREAN VERSION).......................................................................... 122
APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT FORM....................................................... 131
APPENDIX D EXPERT PANEL................................................................................... 134
APPENDIX E AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF
QUALITY OF SERVICE...................................................................... 136
APPENDIX F AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF
AFFECTIVE LOYALTY...................................................................... 138
APPENDIX G AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF
NORMATIVE LOAYLTY................................................................. 140
APPENDIX H AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF
INVESTMENT LOYALTY..................................................................142
APPENDIX Y AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION........................................................... 144
APPENDIX J AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF
BEHAVIORAL FUTURE INTENTION.......................................... 146
APPENDIX K AMOS PROGRAM FOR FULL STRUCTURAL
EQUATION MODELING................................................................. 148
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Items of Each Subscale of Quality of Services................................................... 45
3.2 Items of Each Subscale of Attitudinal Loyalty....................................................46
3.3 Items of each Subscale of Customer Satisfaction............................................... 47
3 .4 Items of Each Subscale of Behavioral Future Intention.....................................49
4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables............................................. 58
4.2 Scale Reliability and Factorial Validity............................................................... 61
4.3 Criterion-related Validity.......................................................................................62
4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Quality of Service Using AMOS............... 66
4.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Affective Loyalty Using AMOS................ 70
4.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Normative Loyalty Using AMOS.............. 74
4.7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Investment Loyalty Using AMOS............. 78
4.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Customer Satisfaction Using AMOS.........82
4.9 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Behavioral
Future Intention Using AMOS............................................................................. 86
4.10 Summary of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Full Model Testing......................... 92
4.11 Regression Coefficient Estimates of the Full SEM Model............................... 95
4.12 Estimates and Squared Multiple Correlations.................................................... 96
4.13 Summary of Hypothesis Testing...........................................................................97
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Proposed Research Model............................................. ....................................... 5
2.1 Concept Model of Service Quality........................................................................ 16
2.2 Conventionally Recognized Relationships Between Service-
Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Repeat Purchase...................... 21
2.3 Theoretical Model: Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction,
and Behavior Intentions.........................................................................................23
2.4 Basic Framework of Consumers Loyalty Intention.......................................... 28
2.5 A Conceptual Model of the Relationships among Involvement,
Psychological Commitment, and Behavioral Loyalty...................................... 35
4.1 Path diagram of the measurement model for quality of service........................65
4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Quality of Service........................................ 68
4 .3 Path diagram of the measurement model for Affective loyalty........................69
4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Affective Loyalty......................................... 71
4 .5 Path diagram of the measurement model for Normative loyalty.................... 73
4.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Normative Loyalty....................................... 75
4.7 Path diagram of the measurement model for Investment loyalty..................... 77
4.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Investment Loyalty...................................... 79
4.9 Path diagram of the measurement model for
Overall Customer Satisfaction............................................................................. 81
vii
Figure Page
4.10 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Overall Customer Satisfaction.................... 83
4.11 Path diagram of the measurement model for Behavioral Future Intention...... 85
4.12 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Behavioral Future Intention........................ 87
4.13 Path diagram of the full model.............................................................................. 88
4.14 Standardized parameter of the full model: Default model...................................90
4.15 Standardized parameter of the full model: Revised model.......................... 93
viii
ABSTRACT
Sei-Jun Lim, for the Doctor of Sports Management degree at the United States
Sports Academy, presented in November, 2006. Title: The Influence of Service Quality
on Customer Satisfaction, Attitudinal Loyalty, and Behavioral Future Intention for
Participation of Fitness Center in South Korea: A Structural Equation Modeling
Approach. The faculty project director is Dr. Cynthia E. Ryder.
From the view of the researcher regarding the sports business of fitness centers
in South Korea has increased and many fitness centers have been launched into sports
business in order to supply the demand for the increase in the number of sports
participants in recent years. This phenomenon in South Korea has resulted in competition
for sports fitness organizations in order to meet the needs of prospective customers. For
these reasons, this study will serve to advance the understanding of causal relationships
among quality service, customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future
intentions in order to contribute professional literature for sports business in South Korea.
Customers who participated in a sports program at a fitness center in Seoul,
South Korea were the target population of this study. The sample size included four
hundred and ninety six (N=496) individuals, who were members of seven private and one
public fitness center in the capital city of South Korea. The sample was obtained by
randomly selecting sixty two fitness participants (N=62) from each fitness center. The
researcher divided the city of Seoul into four geographic areas; South, North, East, and
West in order to obtain a random sample of fitness centers in each area.
The instruments selected to obtain data were as follows: (a) Quality of services
scale was developed originally (QSS) by Alexandris and Palialia (1999), and further
improved by Alexandris et al (1999). (b) Attitudinal loyalty survey (ALS) was modified
ix
version of Allen and Meyers (1990). (c) Overall customer satisfaction (OCS) was
adapted by Childress and Crompton (1997), John, Victor and Shu (2002) from Crosby an
d Stephens (1987), and (d) Behavioral future intention scale (BFIS) was developed by Zei
thaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996).
Procedures from SPSS version of 14.0 for windows were utilized to analyze the
demographic data, the descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations,
frequencies, and percentages. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the Structural
Equation modeling (SEM) methods were conducted by use of AMOS (version 5 .0) with
full information maximum Likelihood estimation in order to test the validity of the
constructs of quality of service, overall customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and
future behavior intention.
The results of the study demonstrated that most of fit measures indicated an
acceptance of the measurement model of quality of service, overall customer, attitudinal
loyalty, and future behavioral intentions meaning that the fit indices demonstrated good
fit of the measurement models. Regression coefficients showed that all o f the observed
indicator variables validly reflected all constructs. Also, the results of the regression
analysis supported that both the constructs and there observed indicators variables were
reliable.
The full model in this study was a combination o f six measurement models and a
structural model. The most important part of the frill model was its structural model. The
structural model was constructed by the eight hypotheses. The results provided empirical
support for the conceptualization of quality of service, customer satisfaction, attitudinal
x
loyalty, and behavioral future intention. This study found that quality of service directly
influence customer satisfaction positively or negatively. This study also found that the
level of customer satisfaction directly influences normative loyalty, affective loyalty, and
investment loyalty. The last finding of this study was the high level of customer loyalty
such as, affective loyalty, normative loyalty, and investment loyalty directly influences
customers behavioral future intention.
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In order to improve profitability for any business organization, it is important to
provide a high quality of service that will increase the number of satisfied customers and
transform them into loyal supporters in the consumer market. Customer satisfaction is
associated with numerous positive business outcomes and is recognized as an important
field of study (Duncan & Gary, 2002). This is based upon the assumption that loyal
customers will be more likely to repurchase or re-use the services and products. Much
research has been conducted in an attempt to understand important factors of customer
satisfaction. Various studies have examined theories regarding quality service, loyalty,
and consumer behavior in order to determine customer satisfaction. In spite o f that, it is
still difficult to understand customer satisfaction. In order to predict future behavior, it is
necessary to recognize the different preferences of targeted customers regarding services
and products and how they will reach a level of loyalty. That is the key to develop the
quality of service needed to improve organizational competitive power in the sports
industry.
It is essential for sports practitioners to identify those types of factors that
influence targeted customers in order to meet their expectations. Research in the services
marketing literature has shown that customer satisfaction is closely related to positive
behavioral intentions and customer loyalty (Baker & Crompton, 2002; Backman &
Veldkamp, 1995; Bloemer, & Wetzels, 1999; Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1996). It
is an important task for managers to meet the demand for customer satisfaction in the
growing competitive environment of the sports industry. Satisfaction is a major factor for
1
2
marketing processes, culminating in purchase, and contributes to post-purchasing
phenomena such as attitude change, repeat purchase, and brand loyalty (Park, 2000;
Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000).
It has been identified that customer perception is the link to understanding
customer satisfaction as a measure of the quality of services and products. According to
Mcdougall & Lvesque (2000), the already extensive research on service quality and its
relationship to customer satisfaction and argues for a more comprehensive model to assist
managers in better understanding the key factor of satisfaction. As previously stated,
research on customer satisfaction can reveal problems in service delivery, and it is
important for marketers and mangers in their effort to meet the demands and expectations
of their customers (Theodorakis, Alexandris, Rodurquez, & Sarmento, 2004). Marketing
practitioners have debated about customers perception as an important criterion to
recognize the tendency of the customers decisions making process that are associated
with cognitive evaluation and past experience to purchase products and services.
Providing a service result in satisfied customers will generally improve
profitability for any organization that operates in a consumer market (Mary & Brett,
2004; Howat 2002; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). This is based on the premise
that satisfied customers will be more likely to re-use or repurchase the service (Murray &
Howat 2002; Bernhardt, Donthu, & Kennett, 2000; Howat, Murray, & Crilley, 1999;
Anderson & Sullivan, 1990; Fonell & Wemefelt, 1987; Gale, 1997; Philip & Hazlett,
1997).
There are several aspects of customer satisfaction that sport organizations should
be concerning. For instance, while it is critical to determine how satisfied customers are,
3
it is of equal importance to understand why customers are satisfied. Sport organizations
are better positioned to reap those positive outcomes associated with having a largely
satisfied customer base because they have an understanding of those factors that
contribute to their customers satisfaction (Murray & Howat, 2002: p. 101).
It is also essential for sports practitioners to recognize the relationship between
customer satisfaction and loyalty and to identify how customer satisfaction can be
transferred to attitudinal loyalty in order to anticipate their future behavior. Several
studies have found that customer satisfaction is an important factor in determining loyalty.
It has been suggested that customer satisfaction is strongly related with customer
retention and loyalty (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000). Research revealed that one of the
important variables in determining of sports consumption is loyalty and loyal customers
would translate to greater profits for sports organization (Park & Kim 2002; Levine,
1993; Bowen & Shoemaker, 1998). It is obvious that loyal customers staying with a
company is a great benefit.
The term well-being has been a popular trend and concern of people in South
Korea since the late 1990s and can be traced back to the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games,
which was the high point in increasing the number of sports customers as well as raise the
number of sports participants in fitness centers which is well-known to publics as the first
stage of experiencing sports life. This phenomenon in South Korea has resulted in
competition for sports business organizations in order to meet the needs of prospective
customers. For these reasons, it is important to understand the customers perceptions of
the quality of service that is accompanied by customer satisfaction as well as attitudinal
loyalty and behavioral future intentions.
4
Statement of the Problem
The general problem was to investigate the influence of service quality on
customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future intentions for
participation in selected fitness centers in Seoul, South Korea.
The three sub-problems were to:
1. Select survey instruments.
2. Obtain permission to conduct the surveys.
3. Select the sample population.
Research Model
Figure 1.1 shows the research model that was tested in this study to identify
factors affecting customer future intention for participation. The research model was
developed based on the research problem in order to exam a causal relationship among
quality of service, customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future
intention. In order to test causal relationship among constructs, tow-step approach was
utilized based on the suggestion by James and Colleagues (1982). The measurement
model testing first, followed by the full structural model testing. At the first stage, quality
of service was examined by five indicators; facility, staff attitude, relaxation, health
fitness, and social & intellectual. At the second stage, the causal relationship between
quality of service and overall customer satisfaction was tested. At the third stage, the
causal relationship among customer satisfaction and affective loyalty, normative loyalty,
and investment loyalty was examined. At the final stage, the structural models were used
to capture the causal influences of exogenous latent variables on endogenous latent
variables and endogenous latent variables upon one another.
5
Facilities
Social &
Intellectual
Relaxation
Health
Fitness
Staff Attitude
Behavioral
Future
Customer
Satisfaction
Quality of
Services
1. Affective loyahy.
2. Normative loyalty.
3. Investment loyalty.
Attitudinal
Loyalty
Figure 1 . 1 : Proposed Research Model
Research Hypotheses
This study explored the following research hypotheses based on the proposed
research model:
Hypotheses I: Quality of service directly influences overall customer satisfaction.
Hypotheses II: Overall customer satisfaction directly influences normative
loyalty.
Hypotheses III: Overall customer satisfaction directly influences investment
loyalty.
Hypotheses IV: Overall customer satisfaction directly influences affective loyalty.
Hypotheses V: Overall customer satisfaction does not influence behavioral future
intention directly.
Hypotheses VI: Affective loyalty directly influences behavioral future intention.
6
Hypotheses VII: Normative loyalty directly influences behavioral future
intention.
Hypotheses VIII: Investment loyalty directly influences behavioral future
intention.
Research Questions
Six important directional hypotheses for this study were derived from the
questions presented below:
1. Which factors in the influence of service quality were derived from customer
expectations?
2. To what degree of service quality effectively measure perception of overall
customer satisfaction?
3. To what degree of five-dimensional factor (Facilities, Staff Attitude,
Relaxation, Health-fitness, and Social and Intellectual) effectively measure the
perception of customer satisfaction?
4. To what degree of three-dimensional factor (Affective loyalty, Normative
loyalty, and Investment loyalty) effectively measure the perception of
attitudinal loyalty?
5. To what degree of service quality reflect customer satisfaction?
6. To what degree of customer satisfaction reflect attitudinal loyalty and
behavioral future intentions?
Definition of Terms
Affective lovaltv: is defined as permanency of allegiance to particular products
or services based on their affective attachment.
7
Attitudinal Loyalty: is defined as a multifaceted construct rather than as
unidimensional, composed of three separable subcomponents: investment loyalty,
normative loyalty, and affective loyalty (Allen and Meyer, 1990).
Behavioral Future Intention: is defined as a customers future intentions
regarding services and products based upon the assumption of level o f customer
satisfaction.
Consumer Behavior: is defined as a persons behavior in purchasing and using
particular products and services based on their mental and social processes that follow
these behaviors. This definition indicates that consumer behavior not only involves the
specific actions taken by individuals in buying and using products and services, but also
the social and psychological factors that affect these actions (Paul, Merenski, 1999).
Customer Satisfaction: is defined as the extent to which a product / services
perceived performance meets or exceeds customer expectations (Oliver, 1980; Spreng,
Mackenzie and Olshavsky, 1996). And also, an affective state that is the emotional
reaction to a product or service experience (Spreng et al., 1996).
Expectation: The desires or wants of customers, i.e., what they feel a service
provider should offer rather than he or she would offer (Choi, 2002; Tears, 1993)
Fitness Center: The fitness center is the place of taking excises that include both
for-profit organizations or for non-profit organizations in South Korea in order to provide
a variety of services and products in good health to individuals who are members of the
fitness center.
Investment Lovaltv: is defined as permanency of allegiance to particular products
or services based on accumulation of investments.
8
Normative loyalty: is defined as permanency of allegiance to particular products
or services based on social expectation or normal pressure.
Purchase intention: is a behavioral component that shows willingness to purchase
a product or service (Mittal, Ross & Baldasare, 1998).
Quality of Service: A composition of a number of factors that are divided by five
dimensions, including Facilities, Staff attitude, Relaxation, Health-fitness, and Social &
Intellectual in order to provide for members of a fitness center. And also, the difference
between the expectations a consumer had prior to a service encountered and the
perception of the service received (Choi, 2002; Cow, Kurts, Ozment, & Ong, 1997).
Well-Being: is defined as quality of life for human beings based on physical and
psychological health.
Scope of the Study
Customers who participated in a sports program at a fitness center in Seoul,
South Korea were the target population of this study. The sample size included four
hundred and ninety six (N=496) individuals, who were members of seven private and one
public fitness center in the capital city of South Korea. The sample was obtained by
randomly selecting sixty two fitness participants (N=62) from each fitness center. The
researcher divided the city of Seoul into four geographic areas; South, North, East, and
West in order to obtain a random sample of fitness centers in each area.
The members were asked to complete a survey questionnaire regarding the
influence of service quality, overall customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and
behavioral future intentions. The survey questionnaires were distributed to each person
who recently participated in a fitness program. The instruments selected to obtain data
9
were as follows: (a) Quality of services scale was developed originally (QSS) by
Alexandris and Palialia (1999), and further improved by Alexandris et al (1999).
(b) Attitudinal loyalty survey (ALS) was modified version of Allen and Meyers (1990).
(c) Overall customer satisfaction (OCS) was adapted by Childress and Crompton (1997),
John, Victor and Shu (2002) from Crosby and Stephens (1987), and (d) Behavioral fixture
intention scale (BFIS) was developed by Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996).
Delimitations
The research was delimited in two ways.
1. This study was delimited to fitness centers in Seoul, South Korea.
2. This study focused on the causal relationship among influences of service
quality, customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral fixture intentions
in Seoul, South Korean fitness centers.
Limitations
Four limitations were identified for the study:
1. The findings of this study may not be generalized to other countries or
cultures.
2. The sample drawn from the particular fitness centers may limit the ability of
the researcher to generalize the results of the study.
3. The lack of control over the environment in which the participants completed
the survey may have affected the findings of this study.
4. The participants may overstate their responses to the questionnaire.
10
Assumptions
Three assumptions were formulated for the research.
1. The instruments applied in this study adequately measured influence of
quality service, overall customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and
behavioral future intentions.
2. The distributions of the systematically selected customers were assumed to be
normal and provide a valid representation of the population of the study.
3. The participants answered the questions honestly.
Significance of the Study
The importance of this study may be relevant to its contributions both to sports
management literature and to fitness centers in Seoul, South Korea. The influence of
quality service, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future intentions have been important
constructs in the understanding of customer satisfaction. McDougall and Levesque
(2000) stated that along with perceived service quality, perceived value was an
antecedent to customer satisfaction, which in turn was directly related to future purchase
intentions of customers. In order to meet important factors of customer expectation,
research in the area of quality o f service on customer satisfaction and loyalty has been
attempted through various studies in determining theories based on their past experiences
and perceptions in sports business. In spite of these efforts, it has not been enough to
understand complicated elements of customer satisfaction because of different situation,
time, and individual. Moreover, Dishman (2001) reported that about half of the
individuals who start taking part in sports drop out within a short period of time, with
reference to the fitness industry.
11
From the view of the researcher regarding the sports business of fitness centers in
South Korea has increased and many fitness centers have been launched into sports
business in order to supply the demand for the increase in the number of sports
participants since the late 1990s. This phenomenon in South Korea has resulted in
competition for sports fitness organizations in order to meet the needs of prospective
customers. For these reasons, this study will serve to advance the understanding o f causal
relationships among quality service, customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and
behavioral future intentions in order to contribute professional literature for sports
business in South Korea.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature review is divided into four sections. The first section provides
an overview of customers perceptions based on the quality of service performance.
The second section provides the relationship between service quality and customer
satisfaction in service industries with a specific emphasis on sports. The third
section focuses on the concepts of multidimensional loyalty in order to understand
as a result of social expectation. The final section provides the notion of customers
behavioral future intention towards the service quality.
Service Quality
Customers perceptions regarding the quality of service performance may
extend to which service is performance exceeds their expectation or a combination
of the two may influence an individuals satisfaction with a service encounter
(Oliver, 1993). The relative influence of these determinants varies by individual and
situation.
The market situation becomes more complex and unpredictable with
consumers willing to try different brands and companies, seeding variety with
changing tastes and preferences (Rungting, 2005). For these reasons, many
companies concentrate on improving product and service quality in order to supply
the demand for the increase in number of customers and the hope of gaining
customer satisfaction and, in turn, their loyalty.
Researchers and marketers begin to question the returns of extra spending
on quality improvement to satisfy customers (Taylor, 1997; Zethhaml, Berry, &
12
13
Parasuraman, 1996), even though the market demonstrates that no matter how much
a customer pays, he or she always asks for quality (Gitomer, 1998). In this light,
some researchers argue that improving service quality (necessary but not sufficient)
does not achieve the desired customer loyalty alone. Rather, the improvement of
overall customer satisfaction is what will lead to greater loyalty and repeat
customers.
Some researchers, however, argue that increasing customer satisfaction to
improve profitability is a worrying trend (Kirby & Nelson, 2003). By raising
satisfaction or quality standards, firms gradually raise customers expectation levels
which make it more difficult and costly for firms to please their consumers (Stewart,
1995; Iacobucci, Grayson, & Ostrom, 1994).
Considerable research has focused on the nature of service quality, and there
is general acceptance that service quality is composed of a number of underlying
dimensions (Murray & Howat, 2002). However, there is a lack of agreement on the
exact nature of these dimensions.
Zeithhaml & Bitner (1996) offered the following definition for services:
Services are deeds, processes and performances. Service business is one in which
the perceived value of the offering to the buyer is determined more by the service
rendered than the product offered (p. 55). Some experiential research views service
consumptions as highly hedonic, hedonic consumption being defined as those
aspects of consumer behavior that are associated with the multi-sensory, fantasy,
and emotive elements of product usage experience (Hirschman & Hobrook, 1982).
14
The concept of quality used by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1985) and
others is that overall quality is an attitude, a multidimensional construct composed
of differences between perceptions and expectation. Unlike goods quality which can
be measured objectively by such indicators as durability and number of defects
(Crosby, 1979; Gavin, 1983).
Among the most popular service quality assessment tools is SERVQUL, a
conceptual model designed by a marketing team of Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,
from their work in the area of retail marketing (Bennington & Cummane, 1998;
Williams, 1998). They asserted that these five dimensions were consistent across a
number of independent samples in different service contexts. Consequently, they
proposed that the SERVQUAL scale could be used directly in different service
industries and contexts. However, subsequent research consistently confirmed that
service quality measurement should be tailored to the context being examined
(Murray & Howat 2002; Asubonteng, Mccleary, & Swan, 1996; Badakus & Boiler,
1991; Carman 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Crompton, MacKay, & Fesenmaire,
1991; Johnson, Tsiros, & Lancioni, 1995).
It should be noted that, subsequently, Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml
(1993) also acknowledged the need for context-specific tailoring of the SERVQUAL
instrument based on the service industry context.
The Gaps between Service Planning and Delivery Process
The model shown in figure 2.1 identifies and determines the important
interactions are the service planning and delivery process in five key areas known as
gaps (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990).
15
The authors stated that consumers quality perceptions are influenced by
discrepancies between expectations and performances that occur in organizations.
On the provider side of the model there are four gaps that will affect the perceived
service quality, while on the customer side of the model there is one gap known as
the service quality gap (Haile, 2001).
Customers expectations are based on past experiences, word of mouth, and
personal needs, while customer perceptions are based on the actual services
delivered (Williams, 1998). Pitt, Watson, & Kavan (1995) stated users expressions
of what they want are revealed by their expectations and their perceptions of what
they think they are getting (p, 175).
According to Zeithaml et al, (1987, 1990) gap 1 or the understanding gap
(figure 2.1) occurs when managers do not know or understand their customers
needs. This gap occurs when there is a difference between what consumers expect
from a provider and what management of the company perceives the consumers to
expect. Therefore, managers cannot design or specify the service to meet their
customers requirements, which will create gap 2 known as the design gap (Figure
2.1). This gap occurs when there is a difference between managements perception
of consumer expectations and actual service quality specification. Zeithaml et al.
further explained that if the service specification were incorrect, the operational staff
would deliver an inappropriate service that creates gap 3 known as the delivery gap
(figure 2.1). Gap 3 occurs when there is a difference between service quality
specifications and the service actually delivered.
16
When the service provider makes promises about its services through its
communication tools (gap 4), it raises the consumers expectations thus creating gap
4 known as the communication gap (Figure 2.1). The communication gap is the
difference between what is delivered and what is communicated to customers as
being delivered (Williams, 1998).
A discrepancy between services promised and delivered creates an adverse
effect (gap 5) on the customers perceptions of service quality (Figure 2.1). Gap 5 or
the service quality gap is the difference between consumers expectations and their
perceptions of service quality on the customer side of the model (McAtarsney, 1999).
CUSTOMERS
Word of Mouth
Communications
| Gap 5
Personal
Expected Services
Perceived Services
Past
Experiences
PROVIDERS
Gap 3
Gap2
Gap 1
Service Delivery U------
-$ --------------------
Service Quality
Specifications
External
Communications to
------------------------------- -1
consumers
1 1
j Gap 4 |
------------1i
Management Perceptions of
Consumer Expectations
Figure 2.F. Concept Model of Service Quality
17
The Benefits of Providing High Quality Services
The delivery of high quality service is an important strategy for increasing
business competitiveness. The major benefits of providing high quality services are:
(1) Earn the loyalty of the satisfied customer
In a study on quality of service and complaint management, Desouza (1989)
found that nine out of ten buyers never repurchased from sellers who disappointed them.
Based on a survey of 2,374 customers, Sonnenber (1989) noted that: (1) 40% of the
sample listed poor service as the primary reason for switching to a competitor; and (2)
only 8% listed the price as the reason for switching to a competitor. The provision of
poor service resulted in a loss of existing customers and the need to attract new customers.
However, satisfying existing customers resulted in greater loyalty and increased the
number of repeat users.
(2) Win back dissatisfied customers
Improvements in the quality of services ensured satisfaction of consumers. This
included addressing problem areas and dissatisfaction cited by the consumers. Bertrand
(1989) found that if the complaint was resolved, 54% of dissatisfied customers bought
again from the service provider. The importance of promoting positive experiences was
far more than just rectifying negative ones. Liswood (1980) found that it took 12 positive
experiences to overcome just one negative experience. Thus, a commitment to service
quality was imperative.
(3) Positive word-of-mouth
Most consumers relied on opinions of significant others in making choices.
Sonnenber (1989) found that, on the average, a person told nine to ten other people about
18
negative service experiences, while 13% of dissatisfied consumers related their negative
experience to more than 20 people. The provision of quality service is important to avoid
the spreading of poor quality service by word-of-mouth information.
(4) Differentiate the product / service
Services offered by organizations are easily reproducible. Very little advantage
can be gained from innovative and new services. The market edge is gained by
concentrating on the quality of service offered as a point of distinction, as opposed to the
presentation of innovations.
Furthermore, the intangibility and heterogeneity of the service industry require a
different approach to increasing the sale of the service. Won and Lee (1993) found that
the possibility of the product or service being bought increased significantly by setting
high reference or service being bought increased significantly by setting high reference
prices. In this situation, the marketer had to have a good grasp on the variables that affect
the reference prices.
Customer Satisfaction
According to Backman & Veldkamp (1995), customer satisfaction is the
important task for sports organization to meet the customers expectation in the growing
competitive environment of sports industry today. Berry & Parasuraman (1991) found
that these expectations are generally created from (1) price information, (2) external
communication like advertising and word of mouth, and (3) previous personal experience.
Customer satisfaction has been described as a post-choice, cognitive judgment
connected with a particular purchase decision (Day, 1984). Customer satisfaction has
been identified as the link between quality and post-purchase evaluations (Churchill &
19
Surprenant, 1982; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Madrigal, 1995), and firms quite often use
customer satisfaction as measure of product or service performance (Anderson & Sulivan,
1993).
Barder (1992) indicated that as customers satisfaction is related to the
perception and expectation of the customer, level of satisfaction increases when the
quality of service exceeds the wants, needs, and expectations of the customer. For these
reasons, it is necessary to examine theories regarding expectation of the customer in order
to increase the level of quality service.
The term satisfaction has had a variety of meanings and applications in the
literature. In the general marketing literature satisfaction has been defined as a cognitive
and affective reaction to a service incident (Oliver, 1980, p. 164). In the leisure literature,
Beard and Ragheb (1980) defined leisure satisfaction as: the positive perceptions or
feeling which an individual forms, elicits, or gains as a result of engaging in leisure
activities and choices this positive feeling of contentment results from the satisfaction of
felt or unfelt need of the individual (p. 22). Mannell (1999) conceptualized satisfaction
as need-satisfaction and appraisal satisfaction. Need-satisfaction is closely tied to the idea
of motivation and results when people meet or satisfy corresponding needs or motives
through their participation. This conceptualization suggests that satisfaction is evaluated
against the expected outcome, and should be treated as a multi-dimensional construct. In
contrast, appraisal satisfaction is seen to be unconnected to needs, and it is closer to the
construct of service quality (Alexandris & Sarmento 2004; Mannell, 1999). Further
conceptualization of satisfaction can be made according to the level of specificity
(Mannell, 1989).
2 0
Dimensions of Satisfaction
Parasuraman, et al. (1985, 1988) determined from focus groups that attributes of
customer service should be grouped into ten categories or dimensions: assess,
communication, competence, courtesy, credibility, reliability, responsiveness, security,
tangibles, and understanding the customer. They later consolidated the ten dimensions
into five domains of service quality: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy.
Other researchers have identified different dimensions of satisfaction. Garvin
(1983) reported eight quality dimensions in a goods manufacturing setting (performance,
features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived
quality). Norman (1988) found that there were seven dimensions of satisfaction across
the service delivery system (visibility, mapping, constraints, customer control, knowledge,
and feedback).
Crompton & MacKay (1989) examined customer satisfaction in recreation
settings using Parasuraman et al.s (1985, 1988) five dimensions (Assurance, reliability,
responsiveness, empathy, and tangibles). Later, Crompton et al. (1991) found that, in the
context of recreation service delivery, only four of the five attributes originally suggested
by Parasuaman et al. were applicable (assurance, reliability, responsiveness, and
tangibles).
More recently, Absher et al. (1996) and Howat et al. (1996) developed a model
of recreational service performance that included four domains (facilities sufficiency,
facilities operations, services, and information). Their approach, descended from the
work of Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), reduced the customer satisfaction model to a
21
level that incorporates four relatively tangible components. These domains represent
elements of recreation areas that can be manipulated by management to provide a quality
recreation experience (Bums, Graefe, & Absher, 2003).
There has been considerable debate about whether satisfaction is an antecedent to,
or a consequence of service quality, or indeed if they are distinct constructs (Buttle, 1996;
Crompton & ManKay, 1989; De Ruyter, Bloomer, & Peeters, 1997; Lijander & Strandvik,
1997; Oliver, 1993; Murray & Howat 2002). Although there is conflicting evidence (e.g.,
Rosen & Suprenant, 1998), the bulk of the literature tends to support satisfaction as an
outcome of service quality (Brady & Robertso, 2001; Cronin & Taylor, 1994;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1994; Taylor & Baker, 1994; Teas, 1994). The
dominant assumption therefore is that the evaluation of the quality of the service
provided determines, along with other factors, the customers level o f satisfaction with
the organization or service provider (Hurley & Estelami, 1998; Murray & Howat, 2002).
Theoretical Framework o f Customer Satisfaction
Figure 2.2 shows the widely accepted theory indicates that (1) good service
quality leads to customer satisfaction, (2) Customer satisfaction leads to customer loyalty,
and (3) Loyalty leads to repeat purchases (Rungting, 2004).
Repeat
Purchase
Customer
Satisfaction
Customer
Loyalty
Service
Quality
Figure 2.2: Conventionally Recognized Relationships between Service Quality,
Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Repeat Purchase
Source: Rungting.(2004), p. 20.
2 2
Against conventional wisdom, recent research reveals that (relatively) satisfied
customers dont necessarily repeat their brand choices (Jones & Sasser, 1995; Sant, 1997).
Insight from more recent literature showed that focusing on customer delight and outrage
may lead to a better understanding of the dynamics of customer emotions and their effect
on customer behavior, satisfaction, and loyalty (Schneider & Bowen, 1999). In other
words, the conventional model presented (service quality* customer satisfaction-*
customer loyalty*repeat purchase) is not complex enough to describe actual consumer
behavior.
The effects of positive disconfirmation were introduced by Olson and Dover
(1975) investigated the effect of positive and/ or negative disconfirmation as compared to
evaluation under conditions of accurate expectations (Figure 2.3).
Olson and Dover (1975) research suggested that subjects appeared to distort
performances to coincide with their expectation. Oliver (1977) continued the research of
disconfirmation as Parasuraman, Zethaml, & Berry (1985) recognized quality in services
as being undefined and unresearched. They developed a Conceptual Model of Service
quality and its implications for future research (Ham 2003).
Oliver (1980, 1981; Tse & Wilton, 1988; Yi, 1990) suggested that consumers are
inclined to form pre-consumption expectancies, observe product (attribute) performance,
compare preserve product (attribute) performance, compare performance with
expectations, form disconfirmation perceptions, combine these perceptions with
expectation levels, and form satisfaction judgments. According to this view,
disconfirmation is the immediate influence on satisfaction (Oliver, 1993).
23
Perceived Service
Perceived
Value
Customer
Satisfaction
Positive Customer
Loyalty Intention
1. Expectation Exceeded
PS>ES (Quality Surprise)
2. Expectation Not Met
PS < ES (Unacceptable
Quality)
Customer
Dissatisfaction
Customer
Complaints
Past Experience
Marital
Status
Gender Age Education Income
Figure 2.3: Theoretical Model: Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Behavior
Intentions by Ham, Johnson, Weinstein, & Plank
Source: Ham (2003), p. 16.
Several relationships in Madrigals (1995), Laverie & Arnetts (2000), and Trail
et al.s (2000; 2003) models are based on satisfaction theory, as discussed by Oliver 1977,
1993, 1997). Oliver (1997) suggested that performance outcome of product interacts with
2 4
prior expectancies to either confirm or disconfirm the expectancies to either confirm or
disconfirm the expectancies of the performance. The confirmation or disconfirmation of
the expectations leads to either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the product. He noted
that the disconfirmation effect implicit in the expectation theories of consumer
satisfaction can be a significant predictor of post-exposure affect and intention to buy
(p. 485).
More recently, Oliver (1997) suggested that profit for a company (purchase /
repurchase behavior by the consumer) was contingent on a sequence of three factors:
quality, satisfaction, and loyalty, quality, the initial construct in the sequence, is defined
by Oliver as a compilation of the performance of the product (outcome of the event) and
the disconfirmation or confirmation of expectancies. These aspects are primarily
cognitive dimensions. Quality has a direct influence on consumer satisfaction, which can
be both a cognitive and affective dimension according to Oliver. Satisfaction, in turn, has
a direct influence upon the loyalty o f the consumer (Trail, Anderson, & Fink 2005).
Oliver, Rust, & Varki (1997) showed support for some of these predicted
relationships as disconfirmation influenced satisfaction and positive affect. In this study,
positive affect and satisfaction were examined separately, but Oliver et al. noted that they
were highly correlated. Satisfaction, in turn, predicted future intentions of attendance.
These results also supported various findings discovered in prior studies (Oliver, 1977;
Oliver, 1993; Mano & Oliver, 1993). Thus, the model of (dis) confirmation to satisfaction
(affect) to cognitive loyalty (behavioral intentions) has been supported by Olivers
research.
2 5
Mardrigal (1995) used some aspects of Olivers (1993) consumer satisfaction
theory to examine the relationship between disconfirmation of expectancies and
enjoyment, and enjoyment to satisfactions. He found that expectancy disconfirmation
explained about 16% of the variance in enjoyment and enjoyment explained a little over
12%of the variance in satisfaction.
Trail et al. (2003) tested the dame sequence of variables that Oliver (1977)
originally suggested: (dis) confirmation of expectancies to affective state (mood) to
behavioral intentions (cognitive stage of loyalty). They found that (dis) confirmation
explained a fair amount of the variance in affective state and affective state explained
11% of the variance in behavioral intentions.
Satisfaction in Social Exchange Relationships
Similar phenomenon has been observed in the social psychology literature
concerning satisfaction and intention to continue a relationship. Research (e.g., Baksdale,
Johnson & Suh 1997; Suh, 1994) pertaining to social exchange theory (Thisbaur & Kelly
1959) and the investment model (Rusbult, 1980a; 1980b) also find indeterminate effects
of satisfaction on relationship maintenance and commitment.
(1) Social Exchange Theory
In social exchange theory, Thisbaur & Kelly (1959) propose that an individuals
tendency to continue a relationship depends on this or her level of satisfaction with the
relationship and the comparison level of alternatives. According to Thibaut & Kelley, the
comparison level of alternatives determines the minimum level of relationship outcomes
a person will accept in order to continue the relationship. It represents the attractiveness
of the best alternative available outside the current relationship. In other words, if the
2 6
outcomes of the alternatives are less attractive than the outcomes of the current
relationship, an individual tends to continue the relationship. Conversely, if the outcomes
of the alternatives are more attractive than the outcomes of the current relationship, an
individual tends to exit the current relationship. As such, the comparison level of
alternatives provides an external comparison standard to determine the intention to
remain in a relationship.
(2) The Investment Model
In agreement with social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), Rusbult
(1980) developed the investment model and maintained that neither satisfaction nor the
attractiveness of the alternatives alone is adequate to determine the continuation or the
termination of a relationship. In addition to these two factors. Rusbult argued that the size
of the investment will influence the leave or stay decision as well. Thus, according to
Rusbult (1980), the intent to continue a relationship should be enhanced as the current
relationship becomes more valuable (i.e., high relationship benefits and tow
relationship costs), as alternatives decrease in attractiveness and as the amount of
investment in the relationship increases (p. 175). Later, Rusbult & Farrell (1993) found
support for these propositions in various interpersonal relationship contexts. Recently,
Barksdale, Johnson, & Suh (1997), & Suh (1994) adopted Rusbults investment model in
the profession services context and found support for the importance of alternatives,
satisfaction, and relationship investment in the continuation of a patient-physician
relationship.
2 7
Customer Loyalty
The effectiveness of recreational sport organizations largely depends on how
well manager work on maintaining loyal participants (Nackman & Crompton, 1991). For
the past decade, customer retention has been a main goal of marketing efforts.
Management of loyal customers brings better benefits to a firm in terms of costs and
profitability than acquiring new customers (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). That
is, loyal customers spend more than no-loyal customers (Knox & Denision, 2000),
contributing to the firms revenue more significantly than non-loyal customers. It should
be noted that a highly loyal customer is more likely to continue to participate in a
particular program than to with patronage to another agency offering a less costly or more
convenient substitute opportunity (Park, 2000).
Customers loyalty may be a key objective of any recreational sport agency
because loyal customers offer a base of economic support for a particular program as well
as broad support for the organizations goals. Rosenberg & Czepiel (1983) reported that it
costs six times more to attract a new consumer than to retain an existing consumer in the
average company. Also the firm can expect a word-of mouth effect from loyal customers.
In addition, it is a common claim that it costs four to five times more to recruit a new
customer than to retain an existing one (Holder & Fairlie, 2004). Collectively, customer
loyalty is a key factor for business profitability and sustainability (Riel, Liljander, &
Jurriens, 2001).
In sport and leisure studies, the term loyalty has been viewed as a
multidimensional construct by several researchers (Backman & Crompton, 1991;
Buchanan, 1985; Park, 1996, 2000; Pritchard, 1992). Day (1969) noted that the predictive
28
power of indices using both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions was almost twice as
good as a model using behavioral dimension alone. Supporting the two dimensional
model of loyalty, Gahwiler and Havitz (1998) and Park (1996) proposed that both
behavioral and attitudinal dimensions should be considered in assessing sport consumers
loyalty.
Conceptual Framework
In developing a model of consumer loyalty, the mean-end approach provides a
basic framework for the study. Previously, quality, value, and satisfaction have been
recognized as important antecedents of consumers loyalty intention (Lim, 2005; Cronin
et al. 2000).
Nevertheless as important antecedents of consumers simultaneous effects on
quality, value, and satisfaction on loyalty intention, Figure 5 show an extended model of
a quality-value chain, including satisfaction as a mediator between perceived value and
loyalty intention (figure 2.4).
Satisfaction
Service
Quality
Perceived
Value
Loyalty
Intention
Figure 2.4: Basic Framework of Consumers Loyalty Intention
Source: Lim (2005), p. 40.
Traditionally, quality and value have been assessed by consumers cognitive
responses to products and service-performance/attribute evaluations and perceived
monetary value. In turn, satisfaction is the consumers fulfillment response (Rust &
Oliver, 1994), which is positively related to behavioral intention (Cardozo, 1965;
2 9
Ennew & Binks, 1999; Fomell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha, & Bryant, 1996; Oliver,
1980).
A Multidimensional Model of Loyalty
It has been suggested that lack o f alternative activities and accumulation of
investment in a particular activity lead to a consistent line of activity (Barro &
Manffedo, 1996; Becker, 1960; Buchanan, 1985; Farrell & Rusbutt, 1981; Hrebiniak
& Allutto, 1972; Park, 1996). Csikszentmihalyi (1975) conducted a study using 53
adult chess players, and found that avid chess players tend to make side bets such as
spending time in playing chess, studying chess, and subscribing to chess magazine.
In a study of recreational tennis players, Siegenthaler and Lam (1992) also found
that individuals become more loyal as they make more side bets in a chosen activity.
In a similar line of research, Yair (1990) found that a runner who has substantially
invested in long distance running demonstrates a higher training level and a greater
number of participation in races. Thus, it can be hypothesized that the greater the
side bets or investment, the more difficult disengagement becomes. Accumulation of
side bets or investments in a particular program reflects investment loyalty.
Loyalty is comprised of four stages. The first stage is a cognitive stage where
information about the product or service is evaluated and may be primarily cost-based.
Typically this is a low-loyalty as an affective stage, a combination of liking the service
and experiencing satisfaction. As loyalty continues to increase, the individual progresses
to the third stage that is termed connective loyalty. Oliver suggested that this is a
behavioral intention stage. Individuals indicate an intention to purchase the product in the
future. The final and highest stage of loyalty is the action stage. This is where the
3 0
individuals behavior toward the product is a routinized response or habit. This sequence
of quality to satisfaction to loyalty elicits consumption behavior by the individual (Trail,
Anderson, & Fink, 2005).
It has been argued that loyalty develops as a result of social expectation or
normative pressure, which creates a sense of obligation for an individual to be
consistent in behaviors (Park, 1996, 2000). Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) proposed the
theory of reasoned action, suggesting that individuals intention to perform a
particular behavior is determined by attitude toward performing the behavior and
perception of social pressure to perform the behavior. Ajen & Driver (1991, 1992)
and Yong and Kent (1985) added support to the theory of reasoned action, indicating
that greater intention to participate in a recreational activity is related to greater
normative expectation, pressure, or both from significant others, Yordy & Lent
(1993) found that intention to perform a certain behavior is moderately related to
subjective norms among a sample of undergraduate students. Yair (1990) noted that
social pressures or normative standards are predictive of runners level of training
and competitive participation. Those results indicate that the higher the social
pressures of others, the higher the loyalty. Thus, it can be postulated that pressure to
continue participation in exercise is determined by the perception of negative
sanctions from significant or relevant others.
Affective loyalty is based on the notion that participants are loyal to and
remain with a particular recreational activity as they affectively attach and identify
themselves with the activity. Restated, participants with a strong affective
attachment to and identification with a particular activity continue participation
31
because they want to do so. Haggard & Williams (1992) found that weight trainers
and volleyball players, for instance, are clustered closely together on the basis of
leisure identify images such as competitive, athletic, physically fit, health conscious,
and ego motivated. Murrell & Dietz (1992) noted that a highly salient group identity
is positively related to fans attendance and attitude toward a sport team. Yair (1990)
found that identification with running is an important predictor of a long distance
runners level of commitment, indicating that as runners increase their identification
with running higher levels of training result.
Research on leisure involvement and loyalty has important implications
(Iwasaki & Havits, 2004). Recreation service agencies can benefit from having
involved and loyal participants / clients since these participants or clients appear to
play an essential role in achieving important organizational goals, including revenue
generation, developing a positive reputation, networking, community development,
and promoting the quality of life (Backman & Crompton, 1991; Bullaro & Edginton,
1986; Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998; Howard, Edginton, & Selin, 1988). Thus,
developing and maintaining customer loyalty brings A sustainable competitive
advantage (Dick & Basu, 1994, p. 99) and has become a strategic mandate in
todays service markets (Ganesh, Arnold, & Reynolds, 2000, p. 65).
Involvement loyalty and commitment are distinct constructs (Pritchard,
1992; Shamir, 1988; Siegenthaler & Lam, 1992; Traylor, 1983). Further, it has been
suggested that high involvement is a precondition to some types of loyalty (Assael,
1984; Backman & Crompton, 1991; Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1988; Crosby &
Taylor, 1983; Selin, 1987). Pritchard (1992) explained the distinction between the
3 2
two constructs by stating involvement is seen to result when important values of
the persons self image are engaged or made salient by a decision situation, whereas,
commitment results when these values, self-images, or important attitudes become
cognitively linked to a particular stand or choice alternative (p. 38). Similarly,
Shamir (1988) argued that an individual maybe highly involved in an activity
without being committed to it.
Leisure involvement and loyalty have implications for ongoing participation
and client retention. For example, Gahwiler (1995) pointed out that annual retention
of membership-based fitness facilities are, on average, only 50%. Howard (1992)
found that only 2% of American adults accounted for 75% of annual participation in
six leisure activities examined, including golf and running. More recently, Barber &
Havitz (2001) examined adult Canadians participation rates in ten sport and fitness
activities. Similar to Howard (1992), Barber & Havitz split activity individuals into
occasional, regular, and avid participants. They reported that avid participants
accounted for a low of 70% of all bicycling to a high of 84% of all running / jogging
and ice hockey participation. Furthermore, research evidence suggests that it is more
efficient (i.e., up to six times) for practitioners to focus on retaining current clients
than on seeking new ones (OBoyle, 1983).
It has been shown that leisure involvement and loyalty are related but
distinct constructs (e.g., Backman & Crompton, 1991; Park, 1996), while
psychological commitment has been conceptualized as a key linking variable
between these two constructs (Iwasaky & Havitz, 1998). Briefly, leisure
involvement reflects peoples beliefs about their leisure participation including the
33
importance of and interest in such participation, and symbolic values derived from it
(Havitz & Dimanche, 1997).
In contemporary leisure research, leisure involvement and loyalty have been
two of the widely studied topics. The dimensions of leisure involvement have been
extensively examined, along with their consequences (e.g., purchase decision,
participation patterns, and recreation service promotion). Other issues examined
include the temporal stability of leisure involvement and its associations with user
characteristics (Iwasky & Havits, 2004).
Loyalty in leisure settings has been discussed in both activity and service
provider contexts, with researchers defining the phenomenon using both behavioral
and attitudinal indicators. Participants and clients have been segmented based on
their types and levels of loyalty, and antecedents of loyalty have been examined (e.g.,
Backman & Crompton, 1991; Howard et al., 1988; Pritchard et al., 1999; Pritchard,
Howard, & Havitz, 1992; Selin, Howard, Udd, & Cable, 1988). Also, Jacoby and
Kyner (1973) defined loyalty is biased behavior expressed over time by an
individual with respect to one or more alternatives and is a function of psychological
process. In addition, according to the previous research, there are three broad
categories to classify the definitions of loyalty: behavioral, attitudinal, composite
(Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978).
Generally, researchers have independently examined the concepts of leisure
involvement and loyalty. Very little attention has been given to systematically
conceptualize and / or directly examine the potential relationships between the two
concepts. Although Backman & Crompton (1991) & Park (1996) reported
3 4
correlations that suggest these two concepts are distinct, the detailed process by
which leisure involvement influences client loyalty is largely unexplained. In an
attempt to overcome this limitation, Iwasaki and Havitz (1998) developed a
conceptual model to explain the complexity of leisure involvements relationships
with participant and client loyalty.
Iwasaki and Havitzs (1998) theoretical model proposed relationships
between individuals involvement in a leisure activity and their behavioral loyalty to
a recreation agency. Figure 6 represents their revised model to more appropriately
reflect current conceptualizations. The revised model argues that becoming a loyal
client is entailed by becoming highly involved in a leisure activity and developing
psychological commitment to a recreation agency. Iwasaki and Havitzs (1998)
found the following:
Psychological commitment is comprised of formative factors (e.g.,
informational complexity, cognitive consistency) and attitudes toward
resistance to change agency preferences. The model also posits that
processes leading to loyal differ according to personal characteristics (e.g.,
motivation, skills) and social-situational factors (e.g., social support, social
norms). In figure 2.5, dotted lines represent interaction effects (i.e.,
moderating effects) between different constructs (e.g., skills X involvement,
social support X resistance to change) for illustration purposes. Thus, the
model consists of two major components: (a) the mediating role of
psychological commitment in the relationships between leisure involvement
and behavioral loyalty (mediating component), and (b) the moderating
effects of personal and social situational factors on such relationships
(moderating component), (p. 48).
35
Personal Personal Moderators
Antecedents
(e.g., value, (e.g., attitude accessibility, emotions, personal benefits,
attitudes,
motivation, needs. side bets, switching costs, skills)
skills,
intrapersonal
constraints)
1 1 1
Involvement
Attraction
Sign
Centrality
Risk Probability
Risk
Consequence
Psychological
I
I t
Commitments
Formative Factors
Informational-
Complexity
Cognitive -
Consistency
Position -
Involvement
Volitional Choice
Commitment
*
Resistance
to Change
Behavioral
Loyalty
Duration
Frequency
Intensity
Sequence
Proportion
Probability
Social
....................... - ----------------------------- ...................................
Social-Situational Moderators
Situational
Antecedents
(e.g., social- (e.g., social support, situational incentives, social-cultural norms,
support, social- interpersonal or structural constraints)
norms,
structural -
Constraints)
Figure 2.5: A Conceptual Model of the Relationships among Involvement,
Psychological Commitment, and Behavioral Loyalty
Source: Iwasaki and Havitz (2004), p. 47.
3 6
Behavioral Future Intentions
There is also evidence to suggest that is the satisfaction of the customer that
ultimately determines their future intentions and behavior towards the service
(DeBuyter, Wetzels, & Bloemer, 1997; Mcdougall & Levesque, 2000; Taylor &
Baker, 1994). Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault (1990) and Jones & Suh (2000) found that
overall satisfaction had a direct influence on how likely customers were to re-use the
service.
According to Cronin and Taylor (1992) the relationships among service
quality, customer satisfaction, and purchase intention, customer satisfaction had a
significant impact on repurchase intentions. In their study, consumer satisfaction had
a stronger and more consistent effect on purchase intentions than service quality
when using a single-item purchase intention scale (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Similarly,
McKougall and Levesque (2000) proposed a causal path with perceptions of service
quality influenced future purchase behavior of customers. In a sports and leisure
context, Howat et al. (1999) found that satisfaction of customers was positively
related to their willingness to recommend the service. Indicators of customer
retention that are invariably used to denote customers intended loyalty include: the
level of customer repurchase (such as renewed memberships), how willing
customers are to recommend the service to other prospective customers, and
customers intentions to increase their frequency of visitation (Howat et al.).
Customer Satisfaction and Repurchase Intent
Traditionally, customer satisfaction has been viewed as the most important factor
that leads to purchase / repurchase intent (Oliver, 1980; Bearden & Teel, 1983). Research
37
in the area of customer satisfaction has shown that post-purchase satisfaction has a
positive effect on repurchase intent (e.g., Paterson, Johnson, & Spreng, 1997; Bearden &
Teel, 1983; Oliver, 1980; Liu, 1998). As such, it is understandable why so much
emphasis has been placed on the measuring of customer satisfaction. Many firms have
invested in systems and placed on the measuring o f customer satisfaction. However,
many of these firms have started to question the efficacy of such programs as they find
weak or non-existent links between satisfaction and customer retention (Reicheld, 1996;
Jones & Sasser, 1995).
Customer satisfaction measures, assessing customers overall post-purchase
evaluations (Oliver, 1980), are often insufficient in identifying the critical elements that
give rise to customer retention (Reichheld, 1996). Customer satisfaction is a necessary,
but not sufficient condition to produce log-term customers. Jones & Sasser (1995)
provide empirical evidence to show that there are three levels of customer satisfaction:
completely satisfied, merely satisfied and dissatisfied customers. While 80% of the
completely satisfied customers tend to be very loyal, only 40% of the merely satisfied
customers will remain with the company. The merely satisfied customers tend to switch
to and from competitors easily when these competitors are considered close alternatives.
This phenomenon is observed across many industries, where companies find themselves
with high customer satisfaction measures, but low customer retention outcomes.
Customer Value and Repurchase Intent
Customer value, or the perception of value, is a concept central to marketing.
Customer value has been described as the fundamental basis for all marketing exchange
(Holbrook, 1994). Recent studies indicate that customers buy on value (i.e., tradeoffs
38
between quality and price), rather than quality alone (Gale, 1994), and that superior
customer values is the driving force for strong customer loyalty. More repeat business
and growth in market share (Buzzell & Gale, 1987; Naumann, 1995).
Although many researchers have espoused the importance of value perceptions to
purchase intent (e.g., Chang & Wildt (1994), and Monroe & Chapman (1987) find that
perceived value leads to purchase intent. Relatively little effort has been devoted to
identifying the dimensions of value, or to examining the interrelationships among value,
satisfaction, and repurchase behavior. In addition, there is not an accepted measure of
customer value, and although providing customer value is the goal for long-term success,
companies are generally unclear about what leads to customer value and how to provide
the value that customers seek. Simply, there are gaps in marketers understanding of the
importance of value. What value means to customers, and how to measure and track
value (Liu, 1998).
Customer value has been suggested to be an important factor predicting the intent
to repurchase (Reichheld, 1996; Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). Reichheld stated that it is
the value that customers feel they have received, rather than their level of satisfaction that
will keep them returning. He suggested that companies should combine customer
satisfaction measures with repurchase loyalty to determine the perceived value of their
offerings relative to competitors. Similarly, Woodruff and Gardial (1996) maintain that
customer satisfaction represents the customers reaction to the value received, and should
be assessed simultaneously with customer value to better understand customers needs
and wants.
3 9
Past literature in marketing indicates that value is a relative judgment of give
and get components (Zeithaml, 1988). And that value is a cognitive tradeoff among
benefits, costs, and competitors offerings (Anderson & Thomson, 1997; Gale, 1994).
Customer value is, thereby, referred to as a business customers evaluation of the costs
and benefits of a certain supplier relative to the best alternative available. Research from
social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959) and the investor model (e.g., Rusbult,
1980; Suh, 1994; Barksdale, Johnson, & Suh, 1997) also suggested that two types of
comparison standards (Molm, 1991) or comparison levels (Anderson & Narus, 1984;
1990) are relevant to exchange relations. One is the internal comparison contrasting net
outcomes (i.e., costs and benefits comparisons) of the current relationship with
established standards and the other is the external comparison contrasting net outcome of
the current relationship with that of alternatives. Integrating both internal and external
comparison levels from social exchange theory and the investment model, customer value
can be viewed as an overall evaluation which encompasses both internal comparisons
related to a cost-benefit tradeoff, and external comparisons of the alternatives available.
Prior research in marketing suggests that customer value influences customers
overall satisfaction (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996) and repurchase intent (Thibaut & Kelley,
1959) and the investment model (Rusbult, 1980) suggested that the value revived (costs
and benefits comparisons) from the current relationship influences the overall satisfaction
with the current relationship and the intention to continue the relationship. As such,
customer value is posited to have positive effects on both customer satisfaction and
repurchase intention.
4 0
Summary
There has been limited attention given to the management of service industries
by management experts (Bitner & Zeithaml, 1987). However, increased awareness of the
need to focus on the marketing of services has been identified in recent years. Due to the
increase in the demand for services in the consumer market, this problem has been
addressed by both academicians and practitioners through symposia, seminars and
courses in service management.
The investment model (Rusbult, 1980) and social exchange theory (Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959) propose that relationship between costs and attractiveness of the best
alternatives have separate effects on the intention to continue a relationship. Although it
is conceptually possible to separate the effects of benefits, costs and alternatives on
intention, it is proposed that, in business-to business markets. An industrial buyer often
simultaneously evaluates the benefits and costs of a certain supplier relative to the best
available alternatives. In other words, in the customers mind, the value of a suppliers
offer, or customer value is a joint representation of the benefits, costs, and attractiveness
of the best alternatives. Accordingly, customer value is posited to have positive effect on
repurchase intent.
In the business-to business market, a customers repurchase intention is referred
to as the likelihood a business customer will increase or maintain the share-of business
given to a current supplier. The concepts of relationship outcome value (i.e., relationship
benefits and costs), satisfaction and investment can be adopted from the investment
model by a model of business-to business customer repurchase intent (Liw, 1998).
41
There has been a rapid increase in the growth of sport, sport centers and
recreation since the beginning of the 1980 in both the South Korea and United states
(Kim, 1993). This growth coincided with the explosion of the recreation and wellness
movement. Patton, Grantham, Gerson & Gettman (1989) noted that the demand was still
growing as more people joined and became involved in the recreation and wellness
movement.
Bitner and Zeithaml (1987) purported that for the next ten years, the greatest
growth, in terms of the absolute numbers and rate would be in the service industries.
Similar trends could be expected to occur in the South Korea. This increase in the service
sector resulted in addressing effective service marketing. One of the major factors
determining the decision to buy the service is directly related to the purchasing situation
and the organizational characteristics of the factors that affected purchasing decisions.
A major component of marketing and the provision of service quality is knowing
the consumer. Thus, the development of an adequate and extensive database on the
consumer provides the marketer with a profile o f the users. This provides the starting
point for marketing strategies to be employed. Also, there is a need to address the
expectation of customers and decrease the gap between the expected and perceived
service quality.
Kim (1993) found that the characteristics of the product, complexity,
differentiation and the importance of the product, the price, and the reputation of the
product were important determinants of the transaction, the number of purchasing criteria
that were used at the point of purchase were influenced by the usage of information
sources, such as past purchase experiences and / or the knowledge of the product and
4 2
service, the importance of the purchase and the variety offered by the organization. Thus,
the provision of the product and service information at the point sale was an important
strategy for the sale of the product and service.
Finally, in order to develop customers satisfaction successfully, there is a need
to have customer satisfied with the good products and high quality service. It has to be
concern about the relationship between the status of the individual as a customer and the
intention to return and the relationship between the wants, expectations, and perceptions
of the quality of service offered at sports program to maintain sports activity.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter was to describe the methodological procedures
utilized to test the research hypotheses and the research model. It explains the research
design used to examine the relationship among quality of service, attitudinal loyalty,
customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention at selected fitness centers in Seoul, South
Korea. The first section of this chapter provides a description of the selection of subjects.
The second section introduces the instruments used in this study. The third section
describes the procedures used to distribute questionnaires and collect data. The final
section provides a description of the research design and data analysis.
Selection of Subjects
The researcher divided the city of Seoul into four geographic areas; South, North,
East, and West in order to obtain a random sample of fitness centers in each area. The
fitness centers offer both court sport activities, fitness and health programs, and are
considered an appropriate area for collection as it mirrored the range of activities
available in other similar types of facilities.
The target population in this study included four hundred and ninety six (N=496)
individuals, who were members of seven private and one public fitness centers in Seoul,
South Korea. Five hundred seventy six (N=576) questionnaires were distributed to the
customers within the seven private and one public fitness centers selected. The sample
was obtained by randomly selecting sixty two (N=62) fitness participants from each
fitness center.
43
44
The researcher hoped to collect data with a respondent rate of more than 80% in
order to maintain the accuracy of estimates and to ensure representativeness. The survey
was conducted in the summer of 2006 in Seoul, South Korea.
Kelloway (1998) suggested that the acceptable level of sample size should be
least 200 completed responses to be required in order to meet the statistical requirements
of structural equation modeling for data analysis. Thus, a large sample size was needed in
this study. This study has multiple observed variables to define the latent variables.
Instrumentation
Four instruments were used in this study to gather information. The Quality of
Services Scale (QSS), Attitudinal Loyalty Scale (ALS), Customer Satisfaction Scale
(CSS), and Behavioral Future Intentions Scale (BFIS), as well as a demographic survey
were completed by the subjects.
Demographic Survey
A demographic survey developed by the researcher was used in this study. This
survey was used to gather personal data regarding each customer including: gender, age,
marital status, level of educational status, income status, and continuation of participation
within a fitness center.
Quality o f Service Scale (QSS)
The Quality of Service Scale (QSS) was developed originally in 1999 by
Alexandris and Palialia as a customer satisfaction scale, and further improved by
Alexandris et al. (1999). The original questionnaire was designed to measure customer
satisfaction for health and fitness clubs. There were five-dimensional factors (Facilities,
Staff attitude, Relaxation, Health-fitness, and Social & Intellectual) in the Quality of
Service Scale (QSS).
The QSS consisted of 24-item scale, which was scored using a 7-point Likert-
type scales ranging from 1 to 7. The respondents choices were associated with these
scales were: 1= Strongly disagree; 2= Moderately disagree; 3= Slightly disagree;
4= Neither disagree nor agree; 5= Slightly agree; 6= Moderately agree; and 7=
Strongly agree. The questionnaire was modified by the researcher for this study and
translated from English to Korean. It was renamed the Quality o f Service Scale (LPS).
Table 3.1 indicates the items regarding each subscale.
Table 3.1
Items of Each Suhscale of Quality o f Services
Subscale Items
Facilities Item: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Staff Attitude Item: 8,9,10,11
Relaxation Item: 12, 13, 14
Health-Fitness Item: 15, 16, 17
Social & Intellectual Item: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Attitudinal Loyalty Scale (ALS)
The attitudinal loyalty was measured by the Attitudinal Loyalty Scale (ALS),
which was a modified version of Allen and Meyers (1990) organizational commitment
scales. Park (1996) revised the version of Allen and Meyers twenty four items (24) of
organizational commitment scales to reflect the loyalty to an adult fitness program.
The questionnaire was re-modified by the researcher for this study and translated
from English to Korean. After revising, it contained eighteen (18) questions and renamed
the Attitudinal Loyalty Scale (ALS). There was six items for each of the three subscales:
affective loyalty, normative loyalty, and investment loyalty. Each item represented a
statement to which the subject responds on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7.
The respondents choices were associated with these scales were: 1= Strongly disagree;
2= Moderately disagree; 3= Slightly disagree; 4= Neither disagree nor agree; 5=
Slightly agree; 6= Moderately agree; and 7= Strongly agree.
The wording of several questions was revised in an attempt to apply the loyalty
into a fitness center setting. Table 3.2 indicates the items regarding each subscale.
Table 3.2
Items o f Each Subscale o f Attitudinal Loyalty
Subscale Items
Affective Loyalty Item: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5,6
Normative Loyalty Item: 7, 8,9,10,11,12,13
Investment Loyalty Item: 14, 15,16,17,18
Customer Satisfaction Scale (CSS)
The Customer Satisfaction Scale was utilized in the questionnaire with a four (4)
item requesting the respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with the fitness center on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging. This scale was consistent with Childress and Crompton
4 7
(1997) and Shu, John, and Victor (2002) from Crosby and Stephens (1987) who
measured overall satisfaction on a 4-item, 7-point scale. There were the four-dimensional
factor (Favorable-Unfavorable, Satisfied-Dissatisfied, Pleased-Displeased, and Positive-
Negative) in the Customer Satisfaction Scale (CSS). The respondents choices were
associated with these scales were: 1= Strongly disagree; 2= Moderately disagree; 3=
Slightly disagree; 4= Neither disagree nor agree; 5= Slightly agree; 6=
Moderately agree; and 7= Strongly agree.
According to Rosen and Suprenant (1998), each service encounter assists
customers in forming overall perceptions of satisfaction with a service. Thus, the use of
an overall satisfaction item was considered appropriately in this study. Table 3.3 indicates
the items regarding each subscale.
The wording of several questions was revised in an attempt to apply the customer
satisfaction into a fitness center setting. Each of four dimensional factors had single item
in order to representative an overall customer satisfaction.
Table 3.3
Item of Each Subscale of Customer Satisfaction
Subscale Items
Favorable-Unfavorable Item: 1
Satisfied-Dissatisfied Item: 2
Pleased-Displeased Item: 3
Positive-Negative Item: 4
48
Behavioral Future Intentions Scale (BFIS)
The Behavioral Future Intentions Scale was derived from Zeithaml, Barry and
Parasuraman (1996), Shu, John, and Victor (2002) in the questionnaire with a seven (7)
item, seven (7) point scale requesting the respondents to indicate how likely they were to
take each of the seven actions. The instrument was designed to measure customers
behavioral intentions to visit wildlife refuge settings. Moreover, McDougall and
Levesque (2000), Duncan and Gary (2002) used a single item of recommendation scale to
measure behavioral intention in their study on repurchase behaviors in sports and leisure
center setting.
The questionnaire was modified by the researcher based on seven items, seven
point of Likert-type scales ranging for this study and translated from English to Korean.
It was renamed the Behavioral Future Intentions Scale (BFIS).
The respondents choices were associated with these scales were: 1= Strongly
unlikely; 2= Moderately unlikely; 3= Slightly unlikely; 4= Neither unlikely nor
likely; 5= Slightly likely; 6= Moderately likely; and 7= Strongly likely.
The wording of several questions was revised in an attempt to apply the loyalty
into a fitness center setting. Each of five dimensional factors had single item in order to
representative an overall customer satisfaction. After revising, there were five
dimensional factor (Encouragement, Involvement, Recommendation, Continuance, and
Payment) in the Behavioral Intention Scale (BIS). Table 3.4 indicates the items regarding
each subscale. Each encounter of the behavioral future intentions assists customers in
forming perceptions of their intention level based on service quality. Thus, the use of
behavioral future intentions item was considered appropriately in this study.
4 9
Table 3.4
Item of Each Suh scale of Behavioral Future Intention
Subscale Items
Encouragement Item: 1
Involvement Item: 2
Recommendation Item: 3
Continuance Item: 4
Payment Item: 5
Procedures
In order to target the customers of fitness center, the researcher utilized the most
recent and appropriate theories related to each latent variable. Then, a questionnaire
developed from each of the theories was modified to best represent the data needed for
this study. The researcher then translated the surveys from English to Korean. For this
study, two graduate school students and one English language professor in South Korea
examined the wording and the content validity of the questions. After that, two bilingual
experts fluent in both English and Korean translated the questionnaire into Korean
(Carlson, 2000; Jones, & Kay, 1992). The verbal equivalence between the Korean and
English versions was checked through back-translation with the help of two other
bilingual experts in Korea. This process was repeated until the Korean questionnaire was
adequately translated compatible meaning (Jones, Lee, Phillips, Zhang, & Jaceldo, 2001).
Once translation procedure was completed, researcher conducted the pilot study with fifty
(N=50) subjects on spring of 2006 in South Korea before formal delivery to fitness
50
centers. The questionnaire was validated by a panel of experts and researcher. The
reliability of each construct was computed by Cronbachs alpha test in order to develop
and test adequacy of research instruments.
Seven private and one public fitness centers in the capital city o f South Korea
were randomly selected based on four geographic areas such as, South, North, East, and
West. The researcher made a phone call to each fitness center to make sure that they were
still in operation. Then, each recruited fitness club was contacted by telephone one month
in advance to get consent for distribution of the questionnaires. The subjects were
solicited to complete a survey regarding the influence of service quality, customer
satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and behavioral future intention. These questionnaires were
distributed to each person who recently participated in a fitness program. Subjects were
selected and approached randomly on the programs grounds during its hours of
operation from summer o f 2006. The researcher explained the objective of the study and
also the specific instructions of the questionnaires to the participants. Once they agreed to
participate in the study, they were given an envelope with questionnaires in it.
Statistical Design and Analysis
This research was conducted for the purpose of studying relationships among
quality of service, attitudinal loyalty, overall customer satisfaction, and behavioral future
intention to further the understanding of these constructs, especially in the field of sports
and recreation. Procedures from SPSS version of 14.0 for windows were utilized to
analyze the demographic data, the descriptive statistics including means, standard
deviations, frequencies, and percentages. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the
Structural Equation modeling (SEM) methods were conducted by use of AMOS (version
51
5.0) with full information maximum Likelihood estimation. In order to test causal
relationship among constructs, tow-step approach was utilized based on the suggestion by
James and Colleagues (1982). The measurement model testing first, followed by the full
structural model testing. Statistical significance for all analyses was defined as p<05.
The measurement models were used to specify latent variables as linear functions of the
observed variables in the model. It allowed the researcher to assess the contribution of
each indicator as well as to determine the validity coefficients of the constructs. The
structural models were used to capture the causal influences of exogenous latent variables
on endogenous latent variables and endogenous latent variables upon one another.
Data Cleaning and Screening
The percentage missing data entry was examined. Prior to validating the
constructs and the structural model testing using AMOS, missing data were replaced with
a mean of each variable because the percentage of missing cases for each variable was
small (Donner, 1982). Multivariate outliers were examined while running SEM using
AMOS, according to the value of Mahalanobis D2 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001).
The assumptions of SEM as well as multivariate statistical methods were
considered: normality, multicollinearity, and linearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). For
normality, the data were examined for skewness and kurtosis. The cut-off value for
extreme skewness is 3 and kurtosis is 10 (Kline, 1998). To make composite measures of
the constructs, summated mean scales were used. Normality of each variable as well as
the summated mean scales was assessed by normal plots and detrended normal plots
using SPSS.
5 2
Bivariate multicollinearity was examined by inspection of the correlation matrix
for the association among the individual variables. If a correlation coefficient was 0.85
and above, the variable was considered as redundant (Kline, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). Multivariate multicollinearity was also examined through very high squared
multiple correlations or very low tolerances (1-SMC) and variance inflation factors (VIF)
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Linearity among observed variables was examined by scatter plots (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001) and Spearman (rho) coefficients using the summated mean scales of
constructs.
Measurement Assessment
Reliability
When reliability is examined, a common fist step is to run a factor analysis to
assess unidimensionality (Armor, 1974). For this study, as conventional factor analysis
using SPSS, PCA with varimax rotation employing Kaiser normalization was conducted.
Any item with a factor loading less than 0.30 was removed from the constructs scales as
suggested by Armor (1974). Finally, the items with factor loadings greater than 0.50 were
retained for the study as Hair and Colleagues (1995) suggested.
The internal consistency of the instrument was assessed by Cronbachs a. All
constructs were expected to have a higher reliability than the benchmark of 0.70, the
cutoff level of reliability recommended for theory testing research (Nunally & Bemstenin,
1994).
53
Content validity
Content validity deals with how representative and comprehensive the items
were in creating the scale (Bohmstedt, 1970, p. 91). It is assessed by examining the
process by which scale items are generated (Straub, 1989). In this study, definitions of
the constructs were proposed based on the literature. All of the items in the instrument
were derived from the existing literature. Also, the contents of each item were reviewed
by expert panel while translating some of the items among the questionnaire for the study.
Construct validity and reliability
Construct validity is viewed as hypothesis testing in which specific relations are
posited and tested in the SEM methods (Hoyle & Smith, 1994). Many different aspects of
construct validity have been proposed in the psychometric literature (Bagozzi, Yi, &
Philips, 1991). For the measurement model, the test of parameter estimates observed
variables should be significant. If they are significant, this means that they can effectively
reflect latent variable.
Construct reliability was used to test the reliability of latent variable. Its value
should be greater than 0.70 for the factor loadings. Average variances extracted were
used to understand how much variance will be not contributed to by the measurement
error. The formula of construct reliability is calculated by the formula presented below.
Reliability = [(SUM(sli))2]/[(SUM(sli))2 + SUMfe))].
The average variances extracted coefficient should be greater than 0.50 replaced
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for validity testing (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
54
1995). The formula of average variance extracted was the following:
Variance extracted = [(SUM(sli2)]/[(SUM(sli2) + SUM(eO)].
Criterion-related validity
To make composite measures of the constructs, the summated mean scales were
calculated (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Criterion-related validity was
assessed by correlation analysis with the summated mean scales o f the constructs.
Overall Fit Measures
Jaccard and Wan (1996) recommend use of at least three fit tests, one from each
of the first three categories below, so as to reflect diverse criteria. Kline (1998, p. 130)
recommends at least four tests, such as chi-square; The Goodness-of-Fit (GFI), Normal
Fit Index (NFI), or Comparative Fit Index (CFI); Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI); and
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Another list of which-to-publish lists
chi-square, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA).
(1) Absolute f i t measures
For absolute fit measures, researchers have suggested that The Goodness-of Fit
(GFI) test statistic and the Adjusted Goodness-of Fit (AGFI) test statistic were
recommended to be greater than the .80 benchmark (Bentler, 1992; Bollen, 1989;
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). According to Browne & Cudeck, 1993; MacCallum, Browne,
& Sugaware (1996), the acceptable range of the standardized Root Mean Square Error of
55
Approximation (RMSEA) (< 0 5-08) and the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR)
(<05) (Byrne, 1998) were recommended.
For absolute fit measures, researchers have suggested a relative Chi-square
(xz/df) because the x 2 statistic is sensitive to sample size (Byrne, 1989; Carmines &
Mclver, 1981; Marsh & Hocevar, 1985; Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, & Summers, 1977). A
relative Chi-square of approximately 5 or less is suggested (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, &
Summers, 1977), of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 (Carmines & Mclver, 1981), as low as 2 or as high as
5 (Marsh, & Hocevar, 1985), or Kline (1998) suggested 3 or less is acceptable. For this
study, the benchmark of 3 was indicative of a good fit between the hypothetical model
and the sample data. AMOS lists relative chi-square as CMIN/DF.
(1) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI): The values of GFI should be greater than 0.90.
(2) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI): The values of AGFI should be
greater than 0.90
(3) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): RMSEA values less
than 0.05 indicates good fit. RMSEA values ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 indicates fair fit.
The values ranging from 0.08 to 0.10 are indicative of mediocre fit. The values larger
than 0.10 are indicative of a poor fit.
(2) Incremental fi t measures
For incremental fit measures, according to Hu and Bentler (1999), comparative
fit be examined by the Comparative Fit index (CFI) (closer to 1) rather than the Normal
fit Index (NFI) (closer to 1) because NFI underestimates fit in small samples. The CFI is
identical to the Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI) (McDonald & Marsh, 1990).
56
(1) Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI): The values of NNFI should be greater than
0.9.
(2) Normed Fit Index (NFI): The values of NFI should be greater than 0.9.
(3) Comparative Fit Index (CFI): The values of CFI should be greater than 0.9.
(4) Incremental Fit index (IFI): The values of IFI should be greater than 0.9.
(5) Relative Fit Index (RFI): The values of RFI should be greater than 0.9.
The test of the structural model included direction, magnitude, and R-squared of
parameters. There is one R-squared or squared multiple correlation (SMC) for each
endogenous variable in the model. It is the percent variance explained in that variable.
Parameter estimates should be significant. The direction must be corrective, and R-
squared must have enough magnitude of explanation.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the study. It is divided into five sections; (a)
the evaluation of data assessment; (b) a description of the demographics information; (c)
the evaluation of the measurement assessment; (d) the evaluation of the sub-models for
quality of service, overall customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future
intention; (e) the evaluation of the Ml model that was used to test the hypotheses of this
study.
Description of the Demographic Information
The questionnaire used for this study included five items concerning the
respondents characteristics. Table 4.1 presents the demographics of the respondents. The
sample of this included 484 fitness centers customers in Seoul, South Korea. There were
256 (51.6%) female subjects and 228 (46.0%) male subjects. The mode for age of
respondents was 25 to 34 years (44.8%), with a total range from 8 to 65 years. The
majority of customers (38.2%) had graduated from a university. The second largest group
(24.6%) had finished junior college. 22.7% of the respondents have senior high school
diploma and 7.2% of the respondents had completed junior high school. Approximately
6.6% of the respondents completed from graduate school and only 0.6% of the
respondents had only completed elementary school. Most of the subjects (54.3%) were
married. It also indicated that (36.4%) of the respondents were single, 6.3% were
divorced, 3.0% were widowed. The subjects were also grouped according to major: (a)
science and engineering (31.4%), (b) liberal arts or criminal justices (20.3%), (c) business
57
58
(11.2%), (d) social sciences (8.5%), (e) physical education and recreational sports (8.7%),
(f) agriculture (3.1%), (g) allied health professions (4.0%), (f) others (12.8%). Because
some of the respondents had reported that they graduated from elementary or junior high
school, they did not have a major and were classified as other.
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables
Variable Frequencies Percentages
Gender
Male
228
47.1%
Female
256
52.9%
Age
18-24 years
127
26.6%
25-34 years
216
44.8%
35-44 years
84
17.1%
45-54 years
48
9.7%
55-67 years
9
1.8%
Education level
Elementary school
7 1.5%
Junior high school
14
3.0%
Senior high school
118
25.2%
Junior college
147
31.3%
University
159
33.9%
Graduate school
24
5.1%
Marital status
Single
176
54.3%
Married
263
36.4%
Divorced
30
6.3%
Widowed
15
3.0%
59
Table 4.1
Continued
Variables Frequencies Percentages
Major
Science and engineering 152 31.4%
Business 54 11.2%
Allied health professions 19 4.0%
Liberal arts or criminal justice 98 20.3%
Social sciences 41 8.5%
Agriculture 15 3.0%
P.E and recreational sports 43 8.8%
Other 62 12.8%
Total 484 100.0%
Data assessment
The questionnaires were distributed to each person who recently participated in a
fitness program. Out o f 496 responses, 12 (2.41%) were excluded due to extreme
responses strongly positive or strongly negative. The percentage of missing data
entry ranged from 0.6% (n=l) to 44% (n=8) at 18 items out of 52. The total number of
missing data entry was 64 (0.25%) from all responses (n=l 1,200).
Multivariate outliers were examined using AMOS by the value of Mahalanobis
D2. The measurement models were run with and without multivariate outliers. However,
the results showed that the multivariate outliers had no effect on model fit indices.
Therefore, any adjustment of the data for the multivariate outliers was not necessary.
6 0
To examine normality of the distribution of the data, skewness and kurtosis of
each variable were examined. The cut-off score was 3 for skewness and 10 for kurtosis,
as suggested by Kline (1998). No variable had an extreme value; skewness (-2.22-1.26
for demographic variables; -0.46-1.39 for measurements scales) and kurtosis (-1.53-3.83
for demographic variables; -0.76~0.79 for measurements scales). The distribution of each
variable was within the normal range. Therefore, data transformation procedures were not
necessary.
Correlation coefficients between the variables were examined for bivariate
collinearity; no correlations were greater than 0.85 (Kline, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001), and all were less than 0.70. Multicollinearity was also examined in the SEM
approach. None of the tolerances (1-SMC) approached zero; therefore, no redundancy as
defined by Tabachnick and Fedell (2001) was observed. Linearity was assessed through
scatter plots and detrended scatter plots.
Reliability and Validity
Table 4.2 presents the results of the internal consistency (Cronbachs a). The
internal consistency (Cronbachs a) of quality of service construct ranged from 0.72 for
Health fitness to 0.93 for Pleased-Displeased.
The internal consistency for quality of service constructs extracted form 0.72 to
0.92. The internal consistency for attitudinal loyalty constructs extracted from 0.71 for
investment loyalty to 0.82 for normative loyalty. The internal consistency for customer
satisfaction was from 0.93 to 0.89 and behavioral future intention was from 0.80 to 0.86.
Table 4.2 showed all constructs were larger than 0.70 and reliable constructs.
61
Table 4.2
Scale Reliability and Factorial Validity
Theoretical constructs
Original
Items
Remained
Items
Cronbach
s a
Facilities 7 7 7 .921
Staff attitude 4 4 4 .903
Quality of
Relaxation 3 3 3 .901
Service
Health-Fitness 3 3 3 .727
Social & Intellectual 6 5 5 .919
Favorable-Unfavorable 1 1 .914
Satisfied-Dissatisfied 1 1 4 .890
Customer
Satisfaction Pleased-Displeased 1 1 .932
Positive-Negative 1 1 .920
Affective Loyalty 6 5 5 .817
Attitudinal
Normative Loyalty 7 6 6 .825
Loyalty
Investment Loyalty 5 5 5 .715
Encouragement 1 1 .812
Involvement 2 1 .810
Behavioral
Recommendation 1 1 5 .860
Future Intention
Continuance 2 1 .801
Payment 1 1 .827
factor loadings for the items loaded on a distinct factor and were greater than
0.50, except for five items: A21 for social & intellectual (I use a variety of skills when
exercising in the center), C6 for affective loyalty (Do not feel that it would be right for
me to leave this fitness center now, even if it were to my advantage to do so), C9 for
6 2
Normative Loyalty (Moving from this fitness center to another fitness center does not
seem at all unethical to me), D6 for Involvement (You would come back to this fitness
center), and D7 for continuance (If this fitness center was not available, you would just
go to another fitness center). The five items were deleted from the analysis.
The results confirm the existence of the 10 constructs with Eigen values greater
than 1.0, showing good discriminant validity. All of the observed factors accounted for
73.37% of the total variance. The factors emerged with no cross-construct loadings above
0.50 for each construct, indicating good convergent validity. These results, therefore,
confirm that each of these constructs is uni-dimensional and factorially distinct. In other
words, all items used to operationalize a particular construct are loaded on a single factor.
In order to validate appropriateness of the factor analysis, some measured were
examined. Bartletts test of sphericity (Chi-square=l 8576.026, d.f=1326, p=.000)
indicates that the statistics probability of the analysis was stable. The value of Kaisers
MSA(0.94) showed that the sample size is adequate for the analysis.
Table 4.3 presents the correlation matrix, which was examined for criterion
related validity. The matrix indicates significant inter-correlations among the constructs.
Table 4.3
Criterion-related validity
Theoretic
al
construct
n
Mean
(S.D)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Facilities (1.32)
63
Table 4.3
Continued
Theoretical
Construct
n
Mean
(S.D)
[1] 12] [3] 14] 15] 16] [7] 18]
[9] [10]
[2] Staff-
Attitude
484
5.24
(1.36)
.528
.000
1
[3] Relaxation
484
5.30
(1.25)
.456
.000
.564
.000
1
[4] Health-Fitness 484
5.41
(1.27)
.520
.000
.502
.000
.678
.000
1
[5] Social &
Intellectual
484
4.75
(1.40)
.266
.000
.467
.000
.406
.000
.361
.000
1
[6] Customer
Satisfaction
484
5.27
(1.25)
.560
.000
.478
.000
.493
.000
.498
.000
.270
.000
1
[7] Affective
Loyalty
484
5.14
(1.30)
.507
.000
.346
.000
.468
.000
.470
.000
.223
.000
.640
.000
1
[8] Normative
Loyalty
484
4.41
(1.46)
.350
000
.380
000
.590
.000
.440
.000
.253
.000
.510
.000
.097
.034
1
[9] Investment
Loyalty
484
4.78
(1.39)
.267
.000
.223
.000
.291
.000
.240
.000
.235
.000
.322
.000
.345
.000
.308
.000
1
[10] Future
Intention
484
4.94
(1.38)
.394
.000
.383
.000
.349
.000
.335
.000
.182
.000
.570
.000
.553
.000
.107
.020
.440
.000
Measurement Model Testing
There would be six measurement sub-models that need to be tested for the first
stage based on the theoretical model proposed: (a) a first -order confirmatory factor
measurement model of quality of service, (b) a first-order confirmatory factor
measurement model of customer satisfaction, (c) a first-order confirmatory factor
measurement model of affective loyalty, (d) a first-order confirmatory factor
measurement model of normative loyalty, (e) a first-order confirmatory factor
64
measurement model of investment loyalty, (f) a first-order confirmatory factor
measurement model of behavioral future intention.
Evaluation of the Measurement Model for Quality of service
Figure 4.1 shows a path diagram o f the hypothetical first-order measurement
model for quality of service. The formal specification of the model can be represented by
the following set of equations:
1. Measurement equations
Facilities (Vi) =/(Quality of Service, Si)
Vi = + 5i
Staff Attitude (V2) = / (Quality of Service, 82)
V2 = >,2^1+ 52
Relaxation (V3) = / (Quality of Service, 83)
V3 = + 83
Health-Fitness (V4) - f (Quality o f Service, 84)
V4 = X/4^1 + 84
Social & Intellectual (Vs) = / (Quality of Service, 8s)
Vs = Xsî + 85
2. Regulations.
E (5) = 0. 8 and are uncorrelated.
Model Hypotheses for Quality of Service
It was hypothesized a priori that the measurement model of service quality:
65
1. Quality of Service is a latent exogenous variable, which is represented by five
observed exogenous variables, facilities, staff attitude, relaxation, health-fitness, and
social & intellectual.
2. Errors associated with each observed exogenous variable are uncorrelated.
\ t
Facilities
) * Vl
\ h
Staff Attitude
/ * V2
Relaxation
*
Health-Fitness
*
V4
Social & Intellectual
Quality of
Service
Figure 4.1. Path diagram of the measurement model for quality of service.
The Evaluation of Overall Model Fit for Quality of Service
The initial test of the measurement models employing CFA indicated that some
constructed revisions were needed. According to Choi (2003), the revised measurement
models were obtained.
For quality of service, the fit indices from the default measurement model
(Figure 4.2) were: Chi-square (x2) / df = 3.525 (x2= 17.625, df =5); Goodness of fit index
66
(GFI) = .763; Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = .877; Root mean square effort of
approximation (RMSEA) = .061; Comparative fit index (CFI) = .748; Normed fit index
(NFI) = .749; Incremental fit index (IFI) = 889.
Table 4.4
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Quality of Service Using AMOS
Fit indices
Default
Statistic
Revised
Chi-square (x2) 17.627 4.377
degree of freedom (d.f.) 5 3
x2/d.f. 3.5254 1.459
Goodness of fit index (GFI) .763 .989
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) .877 .951
Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) .061 .049
Comparative fit index (CFI) .748 .989
Normed fit index (NFI) .749 .986
Expected cross-validation index (ECVI) .455 .098
ECVI for saturated model .344 .083
ECVI for independence Model .098 .087
Incremental fit index (IFI) .889 .989
Relative fit index (RFI) .899 .932
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) 38.456 27.132
Independence (AIC) 269.238 176,343
Saturated model (AIC) 29.258 20.000
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .946 .988
67
For the incremental fit measures, Comparative fit index (CFI), Normed fit index
(NFI), and Incremental fit index (IFI) were not performed well. The values of these were
lower than the recommended level of 0.90. And also, for the absolute fit measures, the
likelihood-ratio x 2, Goodness of fit index (GFI), Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI),
and Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) were not adequate value.
Therefore, in order to improve the model fits, modification indices were examined.
Modification indices for the covariance of measurement errors were: 138.700 between
Staff Attitude and Relaxation and 16.433 between Staff Attitude and Health-Fitness.
These two sets of measurement errors are logically conceivable to be correlated (Figure
4.2). Therefore, these correlated relations were allowed in the model. Each pair was
added to the measurement model one at a time. After adding these two parameters, the
revised results from the CFA for quality of service using AMOS were summarized in
Table 4.4: Chi-square (x2) / df = 1.459 (x2=4.377, df =3); Goodness of fit index (GFI)
= .989; Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) =951; Root mean square effort of
(NFI) = .986. The fit indices demonstrated good fit of the measurement models to the
data.
The path diagram displays the standardized regression weights for the latent
variable and each of the indicators (Figure 4.2). The squared multiple correlation
coefficients, describing the amount of variance are also displayed. Health-Fitness and
Relaxation variables appear to be the best indicators of Quality of service. Their
standardized regression weights are .97 and .88. Facility is the poorest among the
indicators of quality of service.
68
.36
.47
.93
.87
.77
Quality of
Service
.88 .61
.97
.76
.55
.22
Social & Intellectual
V5
Relaxation
V3
Facilities
Health-Fitness
V4
Staff Attitude
V2
Figure 7.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Quality of Service
Evaluation of the Measurement model for Affective Loyally
Figure 4 .3 shows a path diagram of the hypothetical first-order measurement
model for Affective loyalty. The formal specification of the model can be represented by
V6 = / (Affective Loyalty, 56)
V6 = ?ul + 56
Wi = / (Affective Loyalty, 67)
V7 = X-2^1+ 57
Vs = / (Affective Loyalty, 5s)
V8 = ta^l + 58
6 9
V9= f (Affective Loyalty, 5s>)
V9 = Xufy + 89
V10 - f (Affective Loyalty, 810)
V i o = Xsî + 810
2. Regulations.
Model hypotheses for Affective Loyalty
It was hypothesized a priori that the measurement model of affective loyalty:
1. Affective loyalty is a latent endogenous variable, which is represented by five
observed endogenous variables.
2. Errors associated with each observed endogenous variables are uncorrelated.
Affective
Loyalty 1
810
Ve
V9
V10
V?
Figure 4.3 : Path diagram of the measurement model for Affective loyalty
7 0
The Evaluation of Overall Model Fit for Affective loyalty
For Affective loyalty, all indices represent an adequate fit of the model. The fit
indices from the default measurement model (Figure 4.4) were: Chi-square (x2) / f f -
1.525 (x2=4.577, df= 3); Goodness ofFit Index (GFI) = .977; Adjusted Goodness of Fit
Index (AGFI) =911; Root Mean Square Effort of Approximation (RMSEA) = .045;
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .957; Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .952; Incremental Fit
Index (IFI) = 958.
Table 4.5
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Affective Loyally using AMOS
Fit indices Statistic
Chi-square (xa) 4.577
degree of freedom (d.f.) 3
x2/d.f. 1.525
Goodness of fit index (GFI) .977
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) .911
Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) .045
Comparative fit index (CFI) .957
Normed fit index (NFI) .952
Expected cross-validation index (ECVI) .135
ECVI for saturated model .083
ECVI for independence Model 1.45
Incremental fit index (IFI) .958
Relative fit index (RFI) .820
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) 35.179
Independence AIC 301,585
Saturated model AIC 20.000
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .913
71
For the incremental fit measures. Comparative fit index (CFI), Normed fit index
(NFI), and Incremental fit index (IFI) were performed well. The values of default
measurement model were greater than the recommended level of 0.90.
For the absolute fit measures, the likelihood-ratio Jt2, Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), and Root mean square effort of
approximation (RMSEA) were adequate value. The Goodness of fit index (GFI) and
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were greater than the recommended level of 0.90
and Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) was lower than the
recommended level of (<05). Therefore, there was no need to examine the modification
indices. The results from the CFA for quality o f service using AMOS were summarized
in Table 4.5. The fit indices demonstrated good fit of the measurement models to the data.
8 6
8 10
11

V6
.65
15
V?
Vs
4R
------------
V9
51
)-----------
Vio
Affective
Loyalty
Figure 4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Affective Loyalty
7 2
Evaluation of the Measurement model for Normative Loyalty
Figure 4 .5 shows a path diagram of the hypothetical
model for normative loyalty. The formal specification of the
Vn = / (Normative Loyalty, 811)
Vn = Xiî + 5 n
V12 =/(Normative Loyalty, 512)
V12 = X,2^1+ S12
V13 = / (Normative Loyalty, 5b)
V13 = taî + 5 13
Vi4= f (Normative Loyalty, 5m)
V14 = 'bfy + 5 14
Vis = f (Normative Loyalty, 615)
V l 5 = ta^l + 5 15
2. Regulations.
Model hypotheses for Normative Loyalty
It was hypothesized a priori that the measurement model of normative loyalty:
1. Normative loyalty is a latent endogenous variable, which is represented by
five observed endogenous variables.
2. Errors associated with each observed endogenous variables are uncorrelated
first-order measurement
model can be represented by
73
6 12
Normative
Loyalty fy
V 14
Vl2
Vl5
Yu
V 13
Figure 4.5: Path diagram of the measurement model for normative loyalty
The Evaluation of Overall Model Fit for Normative loyalty
For Normative Loyalty, The fit indices from the default measurement model
(Figure 7.6) were: Chi-square (.X2) / df= 2.898 (JC2=14.491, d f - 5); Goodness of fit index
(NFI) = .930; Incremental fit index (IFI) =913.
(NFI), and Incremental fit index (IFI) were greater than the recommended level o f 0.90.
For the absolute fit measures, the likelihood-ratio Jt2, Goodness of fit index (GFI),
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were adequate value. The Goodness o f fit index
74
Index (GFI) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) were greater than the
recommended level of 0.90.
Table 4.6
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Normative Using AMOS
Fit indices
Statistic
Default Revised
Chi-square (x2) 14.491 5.083
x2/ d.f. 2.898 1.271
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .961 .988
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) .918 .953
Root Mean Square Effort of Approximation (RMSEA) .0.98 .037
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .972 .990
Normed Fit Index (NFI) .930 .986
Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) .259 .088
ECVI for independence Model 1.402 1.203
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .913 .988
Relative Fit Index (RFI) .734 .933
Independence AIC 476.248 376,343
Saturated model AIC 40.238 39.000
The model fit indices of normative loyalty were adequate; only RMSEA,
however, was larger than expected value of (<.05). Therefore, in order to improve the
75
model fits, modification indices were examined. The examination of the modification
indices revealed that the measurement error between VI2 (I do not feel as if I belong to
the family in this fitness center) and VI4 (Moving from this fitness center to another
fitness center does not seem at all unethical to me) and between V14 and VI5 (I do not
feel attached to this fitness center emotionally) were correlated. The logical possibility
for the correlation was allowed; these measurement errors were allowed to be related
(Figure 4.6). After adding this parameter, the measurement model fit indices of normative
loyalty showed an adequate fit: Chi-square (x2) / df= 1.271 (x2=5.083, df =4); Goodness
of fit index (GFI) = .988; Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = .953; Root mean
square effort of approximation (RMSEA) = 037; Comparative fit index (CFI) = .990;
Normed fit index (NFI) = .986; Incremental fit index (IFI) = 988. The fit indices
demonstrated good fit of the measurement model to the data.
.56
.68
.66
.86
8 12
.55 .50
Normative
Loyalty ^l
-.24
.81
.70
-.37 .51
.46
8 15
Vl2
Vn
Vl3
Vl5
V 14
Figure 4.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Normative Loyalty
7 6
Evaluation of the Measurement model for Investment Loyalty
Figure 4.7 shows a path diagram of the hypothetical first-order measurement
model for investment loyalty. The formal specification of the model can be represented
by the following set of equations:
Vi6 = / (Investment Loyalty, 816)
V16= Xl^l + 8 16
V17 = / (Investment Loyalty, 817)
V17= ^2^1+ 817
Vis = / (Investment Loyalty, Sis)
Vl8 = X3^1+8l8
V19 = f (Investment Loyalty, 819)
V19= X^l + 8 19
V20 = f (Investment Loyalty, 820)
V20 = tai + 8 20
V21 =f (Investment Loyalty, 821)
V21= Xî + 8 21
2. Regulations.
Model hypotheses for Investment Loyalty
It was hypothesized a priori that the measurement model of investment loyalty:
1. Investment loyalty is a latent endogenous variable, which is represented by
five observed endogenous variables.
77
Figure 7.7: Path diagram of the measurement model for Investment loyalty
8 17
Investment
Loyalty
8 18
8 19
8 20
Vl9
V20
V 17
Vi s
V16
Figure 4.7: Path diagram of the measurement model for Investment loyalty
The Evaluation of Overall Model Fit for Investment Loyalty
For investment loyalty, the fit indices from the default measurement model
(Figure 4.8) were: Chi-square (Jt2) / df= 4.554 (jc2=40.988, df=9); Goodness of fit index
(GFI) = 932; Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 918; Root mean square effort of
(NFI) = .882; Incremental fit index (IFI) =890.
(NFI), and Incremental fit index (IFI) were not performed well and a little lower than the
recommended level of 0.90.
78
Table 4.7
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Investment Loyalty using AMOS
Fit indices
Statistic
Default Revised
Chi-square (x2) 40.988 8.297
x2/ d.f. 4.554 1.382
Independence AIC 554.943 455.667
For the absolute fit measures, Goodness of fit index (GFI), Adjusted goodness of
fit index (AGFI) were adequate value and greater than the recommended level of
0.90,only RMSEA, however, was larger than expected value of (< 05). Therefore, in
order to improve the model fits, modification indices were examined.
79
The examination of the modification indices revealed that the covariances of the
following three pairs of measurement errors were large: VI6 (The lack of available
alternatives would be one of the few negative consequences of leaving) and VI9 (The
fact that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice is one of the reasons I
continue to be involved with this fitness center); VI7 (I have a sense of obligation to
the people of this fitness center that prevents me from leaving) and V19; and V20 (I
feel that I owe a great deal to this fitness center) and VI9. After adding this parameter,
the measurement model fit indices of investment loyalty showed an adequate fit: Chi-
square ( x 2) / df= 1.382 (jc2=8.297, df=6), Goodness of fit index (GFI) = .973; Adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI) = .972; Root mean square effort of approximation
(RMSEA) = .045; Comparative fit index (CFI) = .960; Normed fit index (NFI) = .986;
Incremental fit index (IFI) = 976. The fit indices demonstrated good fit of the
measurement model to the data.
.39
6 16
.70
.40
.57
5 17
.82
-.23
.45 .50
Investment
Loyalty i
5 18
.64
.53
5 19
.62
-.33 .50
5 20
Vl6
Vl9
Vl7
Vl8
V20
Figure 4.8: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Investment Loyalty
8 0
Evaluation of the Measurement model for Overall Customer Satisfaction
Figure 4 .9 shows a path diagram o f the hypothetical first-order measurement
model for overall customer satisfaction. The formal specification of the model can be
represented by the following set of equations:
V21 =/(Overall Customer Satisfaction, 821)
V21 = X-1^1 + 5 21
V22 - / (Overall Customer Satisfaction, 822)
V22 = X,2^1+ 822
V23 = / (Overall Customer Satisfaction, 823)
V 23 = + 823
V 24 = f (Overall Customer Satisfaction, 824)
V 24 = X4^1 + 8 24
2. Regulations.
Model hypotheses for overall customer satisfaction
It was hypothesized a priori that the measurement model of overall customer
satisfaction:
1. Overall customer satisfaction is a latent endogenous variable, which is
represented by five observed endogenous variables.
81
8 21
8 22
Customer
Satisfaction
8 23
8 24
V24
V22
V21
V23
Figure 4.9 Path diagram o f the measurement model for overall customer satisfaction
The Evaluation of Overall Model Fit for Overall Customer Satisfaction
For overall customer satisfaction, The fit indices from the default measurement
model (Figure 4.10) were: Chi-square (x2) / df = 11.282 (x2=22.563, df =2); Goodness of
fit index (GFI) = .945; Adjusted goodness o f fit index (AGFI) = .727; Root mean square
effort of approximation (RMSEA) = .241; Comparative fit index (CFI) = .966; Normed
fit index (NFI) = .965; Incremental fit index (IFI) =966.
For the absolute fit measures, the likelihood-ratio x 2, adjusted goodness of fit
index (AGFI), and Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) were not
adequate value, only The Goodness of fit index (GFI), however, was greater than the
82
expected value of 0.90. Therefore, in order to improve the model fits, modification
indices were examined.
Table 4.8
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Overall Customer Satisfaction using AMOS
Fit indices
Statistic
Default Revised
Chi-square (x2) 22.563 4.093
x2/d.f. 11.281 4.093
Independence AIC 654.943 457.867
For overall customer satisfaction, the modification indices for the covariance
between the measurement errors of V21 (You have a favorable opinion of this fitness
center) and V22 (You are satisfied with fitness center) was 17.640. The correlation of
83
these errors was logically possible; therefore, the model was revised to incorporate this
path (Figure 4.10).
After adding this parameter to the model, the fit indices of overall customer
satisfaction were: Chi-square (X2) / df= 4.093 (x2=4.093, d f = 1); Goodness of fit index
(NFI) = .995; Incremental fit index (IFI) =976. Although Goodness of fit index(GFI),
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), Comparative fit index(CFI), and Normed fit
index(NFI) were improved and were greater than the expected value of 0.90, the valued
of the relative x 2 statistics (x2 / df) and Root mean square effort of approximation
(RMSEA) were still rather high and Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) was just a
little lower than the expected value of 0.90; however, other indices were within an
acceptable range.
.68
8 21
.84
.48,
.77
.96
5 22
Customer
Satisfaction fy
.93
.82
8 23
.89
.76
8 24
V21
V22
V23
V24
Figure 4.10 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Customer Satisfaction
84
Evaluation of the Measurement model for Behavioral Future Intention
Figure 4 .11 shows a path diagram o f the hypothetical first-order measurement
model for Behavioral Future Intention. The formal specification of the model can be
represented by the following set of equations:
V 25 =/(Behavioral Future Intention, 825)
V 25 = Xl^l + 8 25
V 26 = / (Behavioral Future Intention, 826)
V26 = X,2^1+ 826
V 27 - / (Behavioral Future Intention, 827)
V 27 = + 8 27
V 29 = f (Behavioral Future Intention, 829)
V 29 = + 8 29
V 30 = f (Behavioral Future Intention, 830)
3 0 = 830
2. Regulations.
Model hypotheses for behavioralfuture intention
It was hypothesized a priori that the measurement model of behavioral future
intention:
1. Behavioral future intention is a latent endogenous variable, which is
represented by five observed endogenous variables.
85
8 25
8 26
Behavioral
Future
Intention 8 27
8 28
8 29
V27
V28
V29
V25
V26
Figure 4.11: Path diagram of the measurement model for behavioral future intention
The Evaluation of Overall Model Fit for Behavioral Future Intention
For behavioral future intention, all indices represent an adequate fit of the model.
The fit indices from the default measurement model (Figure 4.12) were: Chi-square (x2) /
df= 2.047 (x2=6.143, # = 3 ) ; Goodness of fit index (GFI) = .986; Adjusted goodness of
fit index (AGFI) = .932; Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) = .030;
Comparative fit index (CFI) = .996; Normed fit index (NFI) = .993; Incremental fit index
(IFI) = 955.
For the absolute fit measures, the likelihood-ratio x 2, Goodness of fit index (GFI),
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and Root mean square effort of approximation
86
(RMSEA) were adequate value. The Goodness of fit index (GFI) and Adjusted goodness
of fit index (AGFI) were greater than the recommended level of 0.90 and Root mean
square effort of approximation (RMSEA) was lower than the recommended level of
(<05). Therefore, there was no need to examine the modification indices. The results
from the CFA for quality of service using AMOS were summarized in Table 4.9. The fit
indices demonstrated good fit of the measurement models to the data.
Table 4.9
Confirmatory Factor A nalysis for Behavioral Future Intention Using AMOS
Fit indices Statistic
Chi-square (x2)
6.143
degree of freedom (d.f.)
3
x2/ d . f
2.047
Goodness of fit index (GFI)
.986
Adjusted goodness o f fit index (AGFI)
.932
Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA)
.030
Comparative fit index (CFI)
.996
Normed fit index (NFI)
.993
Expected cross-validation index (ECVI)
.086
ECVI for saturated model
.068
ECVI for independence Model
2.251
Incremental fit index (IFI)
.955
Relative fit index (RFI)
.960
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
25.155
Independence AIC
257.867
Saturated model AIC
18.000
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
.921
87
The path diagram displays the standardized regression weights for the latent
variable and each of the indicators (Figure 4.12). The squared multiple correlation
coefficients, describing the amount of variance are also displayed. Variable 28 and
variable 27 appear to be the best indicators of behavioral future intention. Their
standardized regression weights are .89 and .89. Variable 25 is the poorest among the
indicators of behavioral future intention.
.43
8 25
.67
.81
.84
826
Behavioral
Future
Intention 1
.89
.80
6 27
.89
.71
.66
5 28
.46
8 29
V28
V26
V25
V29
V27
Figure 4.12: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Behavioral Future Intention
Structural Equation Modeling Approach
The initial foil model is shown in Figure 4.13. VI through V5 represent the five
scales that measured the quality of service construct. Each of these variables was
calculated as the grand mean score of respondents ratings of each item in the individual
scale.
88
B2 B3 B4 B5 B1
V2 V3 V4 V5
L6 L2 L3 L4 L5
L7
L8
AL
L9
L10
B1
B3
B21
LI 1 L21 V2I
B4
e 21
L12
L22 B22
V22 L13 e 22
B5
CS NL
L14 L23
B23
V23
e 23
L15 L24
B24
B7
V24
B6
e24
V16 L16
B2
,L17
L18
V18
L19
B8
V19
L20
V20
L25 L26 L27 L28 L29
V25 V26 V27 V29 V28
B25 B26 B27 B28 B29
e25 e 26 e 27 e 29
Figure 4.13: Path diagram of the full model.
89
For example, in the first scale Facilities VI there were five items. VI is the
average score of respondents ratings on these five items. The same method was applied
to V2 through V5. However, the affective loyalty, the normative loyalty, the investment
loyalty, the overall customer satisfaction, and the behavioral future intention (V6 through
V 29) were the respondents actual responses to each individual item. The affective
loyalty (AL) was measured by the five manifest variables V6 through VI1 which are
shown Figure 4.13. The normative loyalty was measured by the five manifest variables
V12 through V17 which are shown Figure 4.13. The investment loyalty was measured by
the five manifest variables V18 through V22 which are shown Figure 4.13. The customer
satisfaction was measured by the four manifest variables V21 through V24. The
behavioral future intention was measured by the five manifest variables V25 through V29.
Figure 4.13 depicts the causal relationship among exogenous and endogenous
variables. An exogenous variable is an independent variable whose causes lie outside the
model (Crompton & Willson, 2002). In the current model, customer satisfaction (CS),
affective loyalty (AL), normative loyalty (NL), investment loyalty (IL), and behavioral
future intention (BFI) were all endogenous variables. In Figure 4.13, letter B is used to
represent coefficients of paths among latent factors.
The evaluation o f full model
The full model was tested based on the measurement models previously
validated from CFA in the study (Figure 4.14). The latent variable of quality of service,
attitudinal loyalty, customer satisfaction, and behavioral future intentions were validated
in measurement models test. The full model was estimated using the maximum likelihood
method and the goodness of fit indices were displayed in Table 4.10.
9 0
V7 Tx\
_.35 , .37 \
O H
O H
O H
O H
Figure 4.14 Standardized parameter of the full model: Default model
91
For the full model, the fit indices from the default measurement model (Figure
4.14) were: Chi-square (x2) / df ~ 4.774 (x2=1570.812, df =329); Goodness of fit index
(NFI) = .740; Incremental fit index (EFI) =767.
(NFI), and Incremental fit index (IFI) were not performed well. The values of default
measurement model were lower than the recommended level of 0.90.
For the absolute fit measures, the likelihood-ratio x 2, Adjusted goodness of fit
index (AGFI), The Goodness of fit index (GFI) were not performed as well. However,
Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) was adequate value (<0.5).
Therefore, in order to improve the model fits, modification indices were examined.
The modification indices for the covariance between the measurement errors of
V21 (You have a favorable opinion of this fitness center) and V23 (You are pleased
with this fitness center) was 9.640; the modification indices for the covariances of
measurement errors: 15.322 between V6 (I would be happy to spend most of my leisure
time at this fitness center), V7 (if I got another offer for a better program elsewhere, I
would feel it was wrong to leave this fitness center).
The modification indices for the covariances of measurement errors between V6
and V8 (I feel no obligation to remain at this fitness center) were 8.485. The correlation
of these errors was logically possible; therefore, the correlated relations were allowed in
the model (Figure 4.15).
9 2
Table 4.10
Summary of Goodness-of-Fit indices for Full model Testing
Fit indices
Statistic
Default Revised
Chi-square (x2)
1570.812 1470.854
Degree of freedom (d.f) 329 328
x2/ d.f.
4.774 4.484
Goodness of fit index (GFI)
.745 .899
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)
.827 .912
Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA)
.045 .043
Comparative fit index (CFI)
.767 .913
Normed fit index (NFI)
.740 .879
Expected cross-validation index (ECVI)
5.136 3.145
ECVT for saturated model
1.797 1.545
ECVI for independence Model
18.226 17.234
Incremental fit index (EFI)
.767 .899
Relative fit index (RFI)
.880 .890
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
15.154 13.234
Independence AIC
599.000 487.789
Saturated model AIC
.998 .997
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
.854 .897
After adding the three parameter to the model, the fit indices of full model were:
Chi-square (JC2) / df= 4.484 (x2= 1470.854, #=328); Goodness of fit index (GFI) = .899;
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) =912; Root mean square effort of approximation
(RMSEA) = .043; Comparative fit index (CFI) = .913; Normed fit index (NFI) = .879;
Incremental fit index (EFI) =.899.
93
.35 .37 \
< H > * [
\E > * \
Figure 4.15: Standardized parameter of the full model: Revised model
94
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Normed Fit Index (NFI) were slightly improved and
demonstrated reasonable fit between the data and the proposed structural model, the
valued of the relative x 2 statistics (x2 / df) and Root Mean Square Effort of
Approximation (RMSEA) were still acceptable and Adjusted goodness of fit index
(AGFI) was adequate and greater than expected value of 0.90.
In order to determine the validity of the hypothesized paths, the statistical
significance of all structural parameter estimates was examined. Table 4.11 presents the
standardized regression coefficients, standard errors, t-value, and p-value with
significance levels was noted. The significance level of t-value was 1.960 and p-value
was 0.5. The path flowing from quality of service to customer satisfaction was significant
amount of the variance (S.C=.650, C.R.=9.853, p=.000). The predictors of customer
satisfaction explained significant amount of the variance in the model: the path flowing
from customer satisfaction to affective loyalty (S.C=.831, C.R.=14.653, p=.000); the path
flowing from customer satisfaction to normative loyalty (S.C=.570, C.R.=8.607, p=.000);
the path flowing from customer satisfaction to investment loyalty (S.C= .720,
C.R.=10.285, p=.000); the path flowing from customer satisfaction to behavioral future
intention (S.C=.209, C.R.=2.034, p=.042). The path flowing from affective loyalty to
behavioral future intention was significant amount of the variance (S.C=171, C.R=2.050,
P=.40). The path flowing from normative loyalty to behavioral future intention was
significant amount of the variance (S.C=.150, C.R-3.245, P=.001). The path flowing
from investment loyalty to behavioral future intention was also significant amount of the
variance (S.C=.448, C.R=5.350, P=.000).
95
Table 4.11
Regression Coefficient Estimates of the Full SEM model
Parameter
Non-standardized
Coefficient
S.E.
C.R.
(t-value)
p-value
Standardized
Coefficient
QS CS .986 .100 9.853 .000 .650
CS >NL .400 .049 8.607 .000 .570
CS IL .541 .046 10.285 .000 .712
CS AL .725 .053 14.653 .000 .831
CS -*> BFI .132 .065 2.034 .042 .210
AL *BFI .125 .060 2.050 .040 .171
NL * BFI .135 .042 3.245 .001 .150
IL >BFI .374 .070 5.350 .000 .448
Note: p<0.05, t-value >1.960
Estimates and Squared Multiple Correlations
Table 4.12 presents the estimates and squared multiple correlations (SMC),
which is similar to R2in regression analysis. In this case, the values of squared multiple
correlations (SMC) are indicator reliabilities which indicate the percent of variance in the
indicator that is explained by the common factor that it is supposed to measure (Hatcher,
1994). Also, the direct and indirect effects of all endogenous and exogenous variables
in the final model were reported in Table 4.12.
From the structural model tested, the customer satisfaction had stronger direct
effect (.83) on affective loyalty and positive direct effect on investment loyalty (.71) and
normative loyalty (.57). Furthermore, investment loyalty (.45), normative loyalty (.15),
and affective loyalty (.17) had positive direct effect on behavioral future intention.
96
Table 4.12
Estimates and Squared Multiple Correlations
Constructs
Effect
Direct Indirect
SMC
Investment loyalty .712
Customer satisfaction
Normative loyalty
Affective loyalty
Behavioral future intention
.570
.834
.209
.420
Customer satisfaction -
Investment loyalty
Normative loyalty
Affective loyalty
Behavioral future intention .450
.570
Normative loyalty
Investment loyalty
Affective loyalty
.324
Affective loyalty
Investment loyalty
Normative loyalty
.690
Behavioral future
intention
Investment loyalty
Normative loyalty
Affective loyalty
-
.693
The results of hypothesis testing are summarized in Table 4.13 based on the
findings from the structural equation modeling with AMOS. As shown in Table 4.13, 5
out of the 6 hypotheses were supported (or not rejected), and one hypotheses (H6) was
rejected by the empirical data.
97
Table 4.13
Summary o f Hypothesis Testing
H Structural path relationship
Standardized
Regression
coefficient
P
Structural Equation
Model
(Hypothesis test)
HI QS *CS .650*** .000 Supported
H2 CS >NL .570*** .000 Supported
H3 CS -* IL .712*** .000 Supported
H4 CS AL .831*** .000 Supported
H5 CS -* BFI .2 10* .042 Rejected (a)
H6 AL BFI .171* .040 Supported
H7 NL BFI .150*** .001 Supported
H8 IL BFI .448*** .000 Supported
Note: (*) p<0.05 (***) p<0.001
(a) H5: Overall customer satisfaction does not influence behavioral future intention directly.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The general problem of this study was to investigate the causal relationship
among quality of service, customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future
intention within South Korean fitness centers. This chapter is divided into three sections:
summary, discussion, and recommendations. The summary section provides the summary
of statistic procedure, the findings of the measurement models, the full model, and the
results of hypothesis test. The discussion section provides an explanation of results
regarding the major findings. The final section includes limitations of the study and
suggestions for future research.
Summary
Prior to the analyses for this study, data from 484 respondents were initially
examined for outliers, normality, multicollinearity, and linearity. Multivariate outliers
were examined using AMOS by the value of Mahalanobis D2. The measurement models
were run with and without multivariate outliers. However, the results showed that the
multivariate outliers had no effect on model fit indices. To examine normality of the
distribution of the data, skewness and kurtosis of each variable were examined. The cut
off score was 3 for skewness and 10 for kurtosis, as suggested by Kline (1998). No
variable had an extreme value; skewness (-2.22-1.26 for demographic variables; -
0.46-1.39 for measurements scales) and kurtosis (-1.53-3.83 for demographic variables;
-0.76-0.79 for measurements scales). The distribution of each variable was within the
normal range. Correlation coefficients between the variables were examined for bivariate
98
9 9
collinearity; no correlations were greater than 0.85 (Kline, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001), and all were less than 0.70. Multicollinearity was also examined in the SEM
approach. None of the tolerances (1-SMC) approached zero; therefore, no redundancy as
defined by Tabachnick and Fedell (2001) was observed. Linearity was assessed through
scatter plots and detrended scatter plots. Therefore, Data transformation procedures were
not necessary. Also, the missing data was examined. Out of 496 responses, 12 (2.41%)
were excluded due to extreme responses strongly positive or strongly negative. The
percentage of missing data entry ranged from 0.6% (n=l) to 44% (n=8) at 18 items out of
52. The total number of missing data entries was 64 (0.25%) from all responses
(n=l 1,200).
The Findings of the Measurement Models
In this study, six measurement models were tested. These models included a
measurement model of quality of service, affective loyalty, normative loyalty, investment
loyalty, and behavioral future intention.
For the quality of service, the initial test of the measurement models employing
CFA indicated that some constructed revisions were needed. Therefore, to improve the
model fits, modification indices were examined. Modification indices for the covariance
of measurement errors were between Staff Attitude and Relaxation and between staff
attitude and health-fitness. These two sets of measurement errors were logically
correlated and allowed in the model. After adding these two parameters, the results of the
study demonstrated that most of fit measures indicated an acceptance of the measurement
model of quality of service, meaning that the fit indices demonstrated good fit of the
measurement models. Regression coefficients showed that all of the observed indicator
100
variables validly reflected the construct of quality of service. Also, the results of the
regression analysis supported that both the construct and the observed indicators
variables were reliable.
The results of the research indicated an acceptance of the measurement model of
affective loyalty. Therefore, there was no need to examine the modification indices.
Regression coefficients showed that all of the observed indicator variables validly
reflected the construct of quality of service.
For the normative loyalty, the examination of the modification indices examined
in order to improve the model fits because, the Root mean square effort of approximation
(RMSEA) was not adequate value (<05). The examination of the modification indices
revealed that the measurement error between V12 (I do not feel as if I belong to the
family in this fitness center) and VI4 (Moving from this fitness center to another
fitness center does not seem at all unethical to me) and between V14 and VI5 (I do not
feel attached to this fitness center emotionally) were correlated. The logical possibility
for the correlation was allowed; these measurement errors were allowed to be related.
After adding this parameter, the measurement model fit indices of normative loyalty
showed an adequate fit.
The default measurement model of investment loyalty was not performed well
based on the results of Goodness of fit tests. For the incremental fit measures,
comparative fit index (CFI), Normed fit index (NFI), and Incremental fit index (IFI) were
not adequate values. For the absolute fit measures, Root mean square effort of
approximation (RMSEA) was not adequate value (< 05). Therefore, the modification
indices were examined. The examination of the modification indices revealed that the
101
covariances of the following three pairs of measurement errors were large: V16 (The
lack of available alternatives would be one of the few negative consequences of leaving)
and VI9 (The fact that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice is one of
the reasons I continue to be involved with this fitness center); VI7 (I have a sense of
obligation to the people of this fitness center that prevents me from leaving) and VI9;
and V20 (I feel that I owe a great deal to this fitness center) and VI9. After adding this
parameter, the measurement model fit indices o f investment loyalty showed an adequate
fit. Regression coefficients showed that all o f the observed indicator variables validly
reflected the construct of quality o f service. Also, the results of the regression analysis
supported that both the construct and the observed indicators variables were reliable.
The initial test of the measurement models for customer satisfaction employing
CFA indicated that some constructed revisions were needed. Although the incremental fit
measures were performed well, the absolute fit measures were not adequate value, only
the goodness of fit index (GFI), however, was expected value of (>0.90). Therefore, in
order to improve the model fits, modification indices were examined.
For overall customer satisfaction, the modification indices for the covariance
between the measurement errors of V21 (You have a favorable opinion o f this fitness
center) and V22 (You are satisfied with fitness center) was 17.640. The correlation of
these errors was logically possible; therefore, the model was revised to incorporate this
path. After adding this parameter to the model, the fit indices of overall customer
satisfaction were improved. Although, the valued of the relative x 2 statistics (x2 / df) and
Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) were still rather high and Adjusted
102
goodness of fit index (AGFI) was just a little lower than the expected value of 0.90;
however, other indices were within an acceptable range.
The default measurement model of behavioral future intention performed well
and adequate fit of the model based on the results of Goodness of fit tests. For the
incremental fit measures, Comparative fit index (CFI), Normed fit index (NFI), and
Incremental fit index (IFI) were performed well. For the absolute fit measures, the
likelihood-ratio x 2, Goodness of fit index (GFI), Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI),
and Root mean square effort of approximation (RMSEA) were adequate value. Therefore,
there was no need to examine the modification indices and the fit indices demonstrated
good fit of the measurement models to the data.
The findings for the full model
The full model was tested based on the measurement models previously
validated from CFA in the study. The full model was estimated using the maximum
likelihood method and the goodness of fit indices. The results of goodness o f fit indices
from default model showed comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and
incremental fit index (IFI) were not performed well. Also, for the absolute fit measures,
the likelihood-ratio x 2, Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), the Goodness of fit index
(GFI) were not performed well. Therefore, in order to improve the model fits,
modification indices were examined.
The modification indices for the covariance between the measurement errors of
V21 (You have a favorable opinion of this fitness center) and V23 (You are pleased
with this fitness center) was incorporated in the full model; the modification indices for
the covariances of measurement errors between V6 (I would be happy to spend most of
103
my leisure time at this fitness center) and V7 (if I got another offer for a better program
elsewhere, I would feel it was wrong to leave this fitness center) were added in the full
model. The modification indices for the covariances of measurement errors between V6
and V8 (I feel no obligation to remain at this fitness center) were also incorporated in
the full model.
The full model in this study was a combination of six measurement models and a
structural model. The most important part of the full model was its structural model. The
structural model was constructed by the eight hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 stated that quality of service directly influence overall customer
satisfaction because perception of service attributes can contribute to the benefits
customer receive from their quality of service experience. This hypothesis was shown as
the path from QS to CS in figure 7.15. The standardized coefficient of this path was .65.
The t-value was 9.85, which was significant at a = .001. The significant coefficient
provided evidence of support for hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 explored the relationship between customer satisfaction and
normative loyalty was shown as the path from CS to NL. Hypothesis 2 was supported
since the t-test for the path coefficient was significant (t value of 8.60) indicating that
customer satisfaction positively influenced perceptions of the normative loyalty.
It was hypothesized that overall customer satisfaction directly influences
investment loyalty. This relationship, indicated by the path from CS to IL, was found to
be significant at an alpha level o f a = .001, with a t-value of 10.28, so hypothesis 3 was
supported.
104
Hypothesis 4 stated that customer satisfaction directly influence affective loyalty
because customers level of satisfaction can be transferred into their affective loyalty.
This hypothesis was shown as the path from QS to AL. The standardized coefficient of
this path was .83. The t-value was 14.65, which was significant at a = .001. The
significant coefficient provided evidence of support for hypothesis 4.
It was hypothesized that overall customer satisfaction would not influence
behavioral future intention directly. This relationship, indicated by the path from CS to
BFI, was found to be significant at an alpha level of a = .05, with a t-value of 2.03, so
hypothesis 5 was rejected, meaning that the perception of customer satisfaction could be
transferred into behavioral future intention directly.
Hypothesis 6 proposed that affective loyalty directly influence behavioral future
intention. This relationship, indicated by the path from AL to BFI, was found to be
significant at an alpha level of a = .005, with a t-value of 2.05, so hypothesis 6 was
supported.
Hypothesis 7 stated that normative loyalty directly influence on overall
behavioral future intention because perception of customers loyalty could contribute to
the future behavior positively based on their level of normative loyalty. This hypothesis
was shown as the path from NL to BFI. The standardized coefficient of this path was .15.
The t-value was 3.24, which was significant at a = .05. The significant coefficient
provided evidence of support for hypothesis 7.
The last hypothesis was that investment loyalty would influence behavioral
future intention positively. This relationship, indicated by the path from IL to BFI, was
found to be significant at an alpha level of a = .001, with a t-value of 5 .35, so hypothesis
105
8 was supported, meaning that the perception of investment loyalty could be transferred
into behavioral future intention positively.
Discussion
The results provided empirical support for the conceptualization of quality of
service, customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future intention. This
study found that quality of service directly influence customer satisfaction positively or
negatively. This suggests that the customers perception of quality of service could be
reflected into their level o f customer satisfaction based on the quality of service
experience. The relative influence of these determinants may vary by individual and
situation. This finding in this study was similar with Oliver (1993). In this study, the
customers perceptions regarding the quality of service performance may extend to which
service is performance exceeds their expectation or a combination of the two may
influence an individuals satisfaction with a service encounter.
This study also found that the level of customer satisfaction directly influences
normative loyalty, affective loyalty, and investment loyalty. This finding also coincide
with Cardozo, 1965; Ennew & Binks, 1999; Fomell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha, & Bryant,
1996). In these studies, traditionally, quality and value have been assessed by consumers
cognitive responses to products and service-performance/attribute evaluations and
perceived monetary value. In turn, satisfaction is the consumers fulfillment response,
which is positively related to consumer loyalty.
The last finding of this study was the high level of customer loyalty such as,
affective loyalty, normative loyalty, and investment loyalty directly influences
customers behavioral future intention. Support for hypotheses 6 , 7, and 8 suggests that
106
high level of customer loyalty were likely to reinforce customers behavioral future
intention of using the service again in the future to reinforce customers positive word of
mouth communication with their family and friends (Shu, John, and victor, 2002).
Furthermore, according to Train, Anderson, & Fink (2005), the first stage is a cognitive
stage where information about the product or service is evaluated and may be primarily
cost-based. Typically this is a low-loyalty as an affective stage, a combination of liking
the service and experiencing satisfaction. As loyalty continues to increase, the individual
progresses to the third stage that is termed connective loyalty. This is last stage in which
individuals indicate an intention to purchase the product in the future.
Recommendations for Future Research
Using structural equation modeling (SEM), the results of this study indicate that
the single tested model is not better than any other models. In other words, the good
model fit does not mean that the model is a true model (Bollen, 1989; Klein, 1998).
Furthermore, although structural equation modeling procedures deal with causal models,
they do not establish causal relationships. Bollen (1989) asserts that At best they show
whether the causal assumptions embedded in a model match a sample of data. Thus,
results of the study only verify that the proposed relationships among constructs in the
conceptual model for the most part were supported by the sample data collected for this
study. An important next step is to fit the proposed model to other samples of data so that
its validity can be examined.
Longitudinal study designs will be needed to examine the relationships among
quality of service, customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral future
107
intention across time. In order to deal with this aspect could enhance nomological validity
for the theory proposed in the full model.
Findings of the study supported the influence of overall customer satisfaction on
quality of service which suggested that quality of service was a higher level construct.
However, this is not conclusive because structural equation modeling shows only whether
the relationship conceptualized in the model has support from the sample data. Although
the impact o f overall customer satisfaction on quality o f service was conceptualized base
on previous studies, there is also evidence in the literature that there may be a reciprocal
effect between quality of service and overall customer satisfaction (Dabholkar, 1995).
Thus, research could usefully examine this possible effect in order to determine which
construct is higher level at the global level. And more, it would be interesting to
investigate what service attributes contribute most to customers quality of experience,
and what benefits should be promoted to current and potential customers.
108
REFERENCES
Anderson, G.W., & Sullivan, M.W. (1990). Customer satisfaction and retention across
firms. Presentation at TIMS College of Marketing Special Interest Conference on
Services Marketing, Nashville, TN
Armor, K.J., (1974). Theta reliability and factor scaling. In H.L.Costner (Ed.),
Sociological methodology (pp, 17-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational psychology, 63,1-8.
Anderson, J. G., & Gerbing, D. W (1998). Structural equation modeling practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103,411-423.
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K., & Swan, J. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: A critival
review of service Quality. Jornal o f Services Marketing, 10(6), 62-81.
Athanasios, K (2003). Identifying important management competencies in fitness centres
in Greece. Managing Leisure, 8, 145-153.
Avivi, S., & Gregory, M. R (2000). Predicting future sport consumption: The impact of
perceived benefits. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 8-14.
Babakus, E., & Boiler, G. (1991). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale.
Journal o f Business Research, 24,253-268.
Babin, B.J., & Griffin, M. (1998). The nature of satisfaction: An updated examination
and analysis. Journal o f Business Research, 41(2), 127-136
Backman, S.J., & Cromption,, J.L. (1991). Differentiating between high, spurious, latent,
and low loyalty participants in two leisure activities. Journal o f park and
Recreation Administration, 9(2), 1-17
Backman, S.J, & Veldkamp, C. (1995). Examining the relationship between service
quality and user loyalty. Jornal o f Park and Recreation Administration, 13, 29-41.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Y; Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal
of Academy o f Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Baksdale, Johnson, & Suh (1997). An empirical investigation of the relationships
between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a
wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 1,1-24.
109
Baker, D., & Crompto, J. (2002). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annas o f
Torism Research, 27, 758-804.
Barro, S. C., & Manfredo, M. J. (1996). Constraints, psychological investment, and
bunting participation: Development and testing of a model. Human Dimension o f
wildlife, 1(3), 42-61.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological
Bulletin, 107,238-246.
Bernhardt, K.J., Donthu, N., & Kennett, P.A. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of
satisfaction and profitability. Journal o f Business Research, 4, 332-344.
Byrne, B.M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for
confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer verlag.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B., & Tetreault, M. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing
favourable and unfavourable incidents. Journal o f Marketing, 54(1), 71-84.
Bohmstedt, G.W.(1970). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS quarterly, 13(2),
pp, 147-170.
Bollen, K. A (1989). Structural equation with latent variable. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1993). A dynamic process model
of service quality: From expectation to behavioral intentions. Journal o f Marketing
Research, 30, 7-27.
Browne, M. W & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen,
K.A. & Long, J.S. (Eds) Testing structural equation models. Newbury park, CA:
Sage, 136-162.
Carmines, E.G.& Mclver, J.P.(1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In
Bohmstedt, G.W. & Borgatta, E.F. (Eds.) Social measurement: Current issures.
Beverly Hills: Sage
Cho, H.C.(2003). Structural Equation Modeling with SIMPL1S & AMOS. Seoul: Seock
Jung press.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring services quality: A reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1995). The convergence of customer satisfaction and service quality
evaluations with increasing customer patronage. Journal o f consumer satisfaction.
Dissatisfaction and complaining behavior, 8, 32-43.
110
Duncan, M., & Gary, H (2002). The relationships among service quality, value,
satisfaction, and future intentions of customers at an Australian sports and leisure
centre. Sport Management Review, 5, 25-43.
Dimitra, A. P., & Kostantinos, K (2000). The service quality expectations in private sport
and fitness centers: A reexamination of the factor structure. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 9,157-163.
Domer, A. (1982). The relative effectiveness of procedures commonly used in multiple
regression analysis for cleaning with missing values. The American statistician, 36.
378-381.
Ellen, C. B., Melanie, T., & Ingrid, E. S (2001). Dyadic exploration of the relationship of
leisure satisfaction, leisure time, and gender to relationship satisfaction. Leisure
Sciences, 23,35-46.
Greenwell, T. C., Janet, S. F., & Donna, L. P (2002). Assessing the influence of the
physical sports facility of customer satisfaction within the context of the service
experience. Sport Management Review, 5,129-148.
Greenwell, T. C., Janet, S. F., & Donna, L. P (2002). Perceptions of the service
experience: Using demographic and psychographic variables to identify customer
segments. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4,233-241.
Green, B. C (2001). Leveraging subculture and identity to promote sport events. Sport
Management Review, 4 , 1-19.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.E.& Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate Data
Analysis with Reading. Prentice Hall
Hallowell, B (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and
profitability: An empirical study. International Journal o f Service Industry
Management, 7(4), 27-42.
Howat, G., Murray, D., & Crilley, G. (1999). The relationships between service
problems and perceptions of service quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intention
of Australian public sports and leisure cnetre customers. Journal o f Park and
Recreation Administration, 17(2), 42-64.
Hoyle, R., & Smith, G.T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural
eqution models: a conceptual overview, Journal o f consulting and clinical
psychology, 62,429-440.
I l l
Hu, L. T.& Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structural
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6 .1-55.
Jacoby, J., & Chestut, R. (1978). Brand loyalty measurement and management. New
York: Wiley.
Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal o f
marketing research, 10, 1-9.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J.M (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models,
and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Janet, B. P., & Carla, A. C (1999). Using statistical power analysis in sport management
research. Journal o f Sport Management, 13, 139-147.
Jocelyn, M. F., Margaret, E. J., & Twynam, G. D (1998). Volunteer motivation,
Satisfaction, and management at an elite sporting competition. Journal of
management, 12, 288-300.
Joreskog, K.G. (1993). Testing structural equations with latent variables. New York:
Wiley-Interscience.
Jones, M. A., & suh, J. (2000). Transaction-specific satisfaction and overall satisfaction:
An empirical analysis. Journal o f service Marketing, 9(5), 6-19.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice o f Structural Equation Modeling. New
York: The Guilford Press
Kim, C. W., & Kim, S. Y (1998). Segmentation of sport center members in Seoul based
on attitudes toward service quality. Journal o f Sport Management, 12,273-287.
Linda, V. L., Shayne, Q., & Kerry, D (2002). The sport spectator satisfaction model: A
conceptual framework for understanding the satisfaction of spectators. Sport
Management Review, 5, 99-128.
LeBlanc, G. (1992). Factors affecting customer evaluation of service quality in travel
agencies: an investigation of customer perceptions. Journal o f Travel Research,
30,10-16.
Nanally, J.C. (1968). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Nicholas, T., Alexandris, K., Rodriguez, P., & Sarmento, P. J (2004). Measuring
customer satisfaction in the context of health clubs in Portugal. International Sport
Journal, 6 , 45-53.
112
Maccallum, R.C., Brown, M.W., & Sugawara, H.W. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
methods, 1,130-149.
Marsh, H. W. & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the
study of self-concept: First and higher-order factor models and their invariance
across groups, Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562-582.
Mary, G. P., & Brett, D. L (2004). What is leisure? The perceptions of recreation
practitioners and others. Leisure Sciences, 26,1-17.
Mcdougall, G.H., & Berry, L.L., & Yadav, M.S. (2000). Customer satisfaction with
service: Putting perveived value into the equation. Journal o f Services Marketing,
14(5), 392-410.
McDonald, R.P.& Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality
and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulleting. 107,247-255.
Oliver R. L., & Swan J.E. (1989). Consumer perception of interpersonal equity and
satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach. Journal o f Marketing, 53(2),
21-35.
Oiver, R. L. (1993). A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction:
Comparible goals, different concepts. Advances in services Marketing and
Management, 2,65-85.
Park, S. H (1996). Relationships between involvement and attitudinal loyalty constructs
in adult fitness programs. Journal o f Leisure Research, 4 , 233-251.
Paul, D. K., Jo, V. H., & Veerle, K. B (2004). Quality Management in Sports Clubs.
Sport Management Review, 7, 57-77.
Park, S. H., Kim, Y. M (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring the attitudinal loyalty
construct in recreational sport contexts. Journal o f Leisure Research, 14,197-207.
Patrick, J. F., Backman, S. J., & Bixler, R. D (1999). An investigation of selected
factors impact on golfer satisfaction and perceived value. Journal o f Park and
Recreation Administration, 17(1), 40-59.
Park, S. H (2001). A further exploration of the involvement profiles in selected
recreational sport activities: Results from a study in Korea. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 2, 77-82.
Peterson, R. A., & Wilson, W. R (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and
artifact. Journal o f the Academy ofMarketing Journal, 20, 61 -71.
113
Pritchard, M. P. (1992). Development of the psychological commitment instrument (PCI)
for measuring travel service loyalty (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon,
1991). Dissertation Abstract International, 52,4408A-4409A.
Poznaski, P. J., & Bline, D. M. (1997). Using structural equation modeling to investigate
the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among staff
accountants. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 9,154-171.
Robert, C. B., Alan, R. G., & James, D. A (2003). Alternate measurement approaches to
recreational customer satisfaction: Satisfaction-only versus gap scores. Leisure
Sciences, 25,363-380.
Robert, L (2000). Untangling the tangibles: Physical evidence and customer satisfaction
in local authority leisure centres. Managing Leisure, 5,1-16.
Robert, L (2001). Customers views of the results of managing quality through ISO 9002
investor in people in leisure services. Managing Leisure, 6,15-34.
Robert, M. W., & Morgan, P (2000). An evaluation of client satisfaction with training
programs and technical assistance provided by Floridas coordinated school health
program office. Journal o f School Health, 9, 361-367.
Shu, T. C., John, L. C., & Victor, L. W (2002). An empirical investigation of the
relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among
visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 1,1-24.
Stacy, R. T., David, S., & John, L. C (2002). An investigation of the relationships
between quality of service performance, benefits sought, satisfaction and fixture
intention to visit among visitors to a zoo. Managing leisure, 7,239-250.
Stephen, D. R., William, C. N., & Michael, J. D (2003). The use of conjoint analysis in
the development of a new recreation facility. Managing leisure, 8,227-244.
Straub, D.W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research, MIS quarterly, 13(2) pp.
147-170.
Tabachnick, A.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistic (4thed.). MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Teas, R. K (1993). Consumer expectations and the measurement of perceived service
quality. Journal o f Professional Service Marketing, 8(2), 33-54.
Theodorakis, N., Alexandris., Rodriguez., & Sarmento (2004). Measuring customer
satisfaction in the context of health clubs in Portugal. International Sports Journal,
8,47-55.
114
Thisbaur & Kelly (1959). The convergence of customer satisfaction and service quality
evaluations with increasing customer patronage. Journal o f consumer satisfaction.
Dissatisfaction and complaining behavior, 8, 32-43.
Triado, X. M., Aparicio, P., & Rimbau, E. (1999). Identification o f factors of customers
satisfaction in municipal sport centres in Barcelona: Some suggestion for
satisfaction improvement. Cyber Journal of Sport Marketing, (on-line serial) 13.
115
APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT (ENGLISH VERSION)
United States Sports Academy
" America's Sports University"
APPENDIX A
Survey Questionnaire Instrument (English Version)
Dear Sport / Fitness Center customer
This is a purely academic questionnaire, which will be used to investigate the
relationships between the quality of service, overall customer satisfaction, attitudinal
loyalty, and future behavioral intention within sports / fitness centers in Seoul, South
Korea. Please take a little time to fill out this questionnaire. Your answers will provide
great contribution to the operation and development of sports / fitness centers in Korea
well as to academic studies.
There are no specific right or wrong answers to these questions. Please answer
each question truthfully and with careful consideration. This questionnaire is voluntary
and will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.
The information collected from this questionnaire will be kept anonymous and
will be applied for dissertation analysis and research only. Your response will be kept
confidential and will not be revealed to any one inside or outside your organization.
Please feel secure in filling out this questionnaire and return it to the researcher.
Thank you for your cooperation and participation in this study
Sincerely,
LIM, SEI-JUN, Doctoral candidate
UNITED STATES SPROTS ACADEMY
Tel: 1-404-933-0338
e-mail: sjlim'r/qissa.edu
117
*SECTION ONE: Demographic and Other Basic Information
This section contains statements concerning general information about the
participant. Please fill in the blank or check the appropriate box that best describes your
situation.
1. Gender: ( ) Female ( )Male
2. Age: ( ) years
3. Education: ( ) Elementary school ( ) Junior high school ( ) Senior high
school ( ) Junior college ( ) University ( ) Graduate school
4. Marital Status: ( ) Never married ( ) Married ( ) Divorced
( ) Separated ( ) Widowed
5. Major Studied: ( ) Business ( ) Science and engineering ( ) Liberal arts or
criminal justice ( ) Social science ( ) Allied health professions
( ) Agriculture ( ) Physical education or recreational sports ( ) Other
6 . How many hours in a typical day do you spend at this fitness center? ( ) hours
7. How many days a week did you participate at this fitness center? ( ) days
8. How long have you participated at this fitness center? ( ) week, month, years
9. How many hours in total do you participate in recreational and social activities outside
your home in a typical week? ( ) hours
SECTION TWO: Quality of Service Questionnaire
The purpose of this section, totaling 23 questions, is to assess the general feelings
of your perceptions regarding quality of service of this fitness center. Please answer the
questions according to your feelings about the fitness center for which you indicate the
degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling one of the
seven alternatives beside each statement:
118
1= Strongly Disagree 2= Moderately Disagree
4= Neither Disagree Nor Agree 5= Slightly Agree
7= Strongly Agree
3= Slightly disagree
6= Moderately Agree
1. The facilities are attractive................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. The facilities are modem.................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. The facilities are well designed......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. The exercise areas are clean............................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. The changing rooms are clean........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 . There is a wide range of program..................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. The programs are interesting to me................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 . The staff is helpful............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Instruction in the session is good...................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. The fitness instructors are friendly................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. The instructors are well educated................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. The programs helps me reduce my stress...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. The program help me relax............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. The programs contribute to my
psychological well-being.......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. The programs help me keep healthy............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. The programs help keep me fit....................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. The program helps my physical restoration
exercising in the center gives me the
chance to meet new people....................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Exercising in the center gives me
the chance to meet people and socialize. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Exercising in the center gives me the
chance to learn new things....................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
119
20. Exercising in the center gives me the
chance to increase my knowledge............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. 1 use a variety of skills when exercising
in the center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. The participants in the program are
friendly to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Exercising in the center gives me
a sense of accomplishment.......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
*SECTION THREE: Overall Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire
The purpose of this section, totaling four questions, is to assess the general
feelings of your level of satisfaction regarding this fitness center. Please answer the
1= Strongly Disagree 2= Moderately Disagree 3= Slightly disagree
4= Neither Disagree Nor Agree 5= Slightly Agree 6= Moderately Agree
7= Strongly Agree
1. You have a favorable opinion of this
fitness center......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. You are satisfied with fitness center............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. You are pleased with this fitness center...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. You have positive feelings about this
fitness center.................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
120
SECTION FOUR: Attitudinal Loyalty Questionnaire
The purpose of this section, totaling eighteen questions, is to assess the general
feelings of your level of attitudinal loyalty regarding this fitness center. Please answer the
1= Strongly Disagree 2= Moderately Disagree 3= Slightly disagree 4=
Neither Disagree Nor Agree 5= Slightly Agree 6= Moderately Agree 7=
Strongly Agree
1 . 1 would be happy to spend most of my leisure
time at this fitness center.............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. If I got another offer for a better program
elsewhere, I would feel it was wrong to
leave this fitness center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 . 1 feel no obligation to remain at this
5. If I decided to leave this fitness center right
now, it would be too disruptive for me.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 . do not feel that it would be right for me to
leave this fitness center now, even
fitness center.............................
4 . 1 really feel as if this fitness centers
problems are my own..............
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
if it were to my advantage to do so.
7 . 1 do not feel as if I belong to the family
in this fitness center..........................
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 . It is as much necessity as desire that keeps
me involved with this fitness center 1 2
9. Moving from this fitness center to another
fitness center does not seem at all
unethical to me...............................................1 2
1 0 . 1 do not feel attached to this fitness center
emotionally 1 2
11. 1feel that I have too few options to consider
discontinuing this program 1 2
1 2 . 1 feel my loyalty to this fitness
center is deserved 1 2
13. It means a great deal to me personally to
belong to this fitness center......................... 1 2
14. The lack of available alternatives would
be one of the few negative
consequences of leaving...............................1 2
15. 1 have a sense of obligation to the people
of this fitness center that prevents me
from leaving................................................... 1 2
16. Being involved at this fitness center does
give me a strong sense of belonging 1 2
17. The fact that leaving would require
considerable personal sacrifice is
one of the reasons I continue to be
involved with this fitness center 1 2
18.1 feel that I owe a great deal to this
fitness center.................................................. 1 2
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
3 4 5 6 7
122
. SECTION FIVE: Behavioral Future Intention Questionnaire
The purpose of this section, totaling seven questions, is to assess the general
feelings of your behavioral future intention regarding this fitness center. Please answer
the questions according to your feelings about the fitness center for which you indicate
the degree of your likelihood with each statement by circling one of the seven alternatives
beside each statement:
1= Strongly unlikely, 2= Moderately unlikely; 3= Slightly unlikely;
4= Neither unlikely nor likely; 5= Slightly likely; 6= Moderately likely; and
7= Strongly likely.
1. You would encourage friends and relatives
to go the this fitness center.................................................. 1
2. You would rejoin this fitness center in the future 1
3. You would say positive things about this fitness-
center to other people...................................................... 1
4. You would continue to be a member of this fitness center
if the registration price was increased............................. 1
5. You would pay a higher price than
another fitness center....................................................... 1
6 . You would come back to this fitness center......................1
7. If this fitness center was not available, you would just go
to another fitness center................................................... 1
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
123
APPENDIX B
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT (KOREAN VERSION)
124
Americas Spoils University"
' 5 AC
^ 0.5. # A } t. ^ U | 4 .
# 4 # 4 # 4 4 W ^ o l l # 4 # ^ 4 tJ-a^ a^ a] ogqx}
4 #4# #41 # ^ aV# 4 #4 4 4 Â]fl 4 #44# 4ilA]-t-
4 # 44"I:0114 4 # 4 4 4 # 4 4 ^ 4 Ajô]] cflfV
44. # JL44#, 4,1a>AlS), H ^ J L 4 4#7> ^ <3 ^-ofl
44 4-444# 4444 4 *fl ^ s ) ^ 4 . 4444 444 #A]^ 4-&#
4# 4-4*ll#4 #44 47> 4 #s] 4-44 aôi^ ^ . 4 a>^.s. *:4 44
444.
4 4 #4 ## 4 4 <4^ #4 4 # #4 4 - > 4
4 *H14 4^44# ##4#*11# >44 44 ##4 &4 ##4 444
4# 4 4 # 15 # 4 4- 444. ##4 #4 44 444 444 44#
444 #4# 444^444. 4 444 ##4# # 44aH1 44 444
4 444 44 4#4| #4 # 4 #4 444-4ll 4 4-#44 441 4#
^ e ^ 4 . ##4 44 4 4# 44 #4 4 #4-4 4 44# ##4
44444 4## 4 4#4. >444 4 44# *11441444
# 444 ## 44# 44#4 44 4 4 4# 44# ^44.
4 4 # (Doctoral Candidate of Sports Management, 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 )
UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY America's Sports University"
Tel: 1-404-933-0338
e-mail: sjliirUOissa.edu
125
Part l: 4 # -IM144 ^ 7 7]| 4 4 j
4 4 4 ^ 1 4 4 4 # 7]-i-o]
# 4 4 4 4 # -f-71144 421- <371 4*11 4 4 4 4 4 # 4 4 . -]^^s.
4 - 4 # 4 4 4 51-2-4 4 4 4 4 4 # n ^ 4 3 # 4 4 a # 4 4 .
1. 4 # : 4 ( ) 4 ( )
2. 4 4 : ( )
3. h ###: ^ # 4 ^ 4 4 ( ), #451 4 4 ( ), i ^ 4 H 4 4
( ), 4#44 44 ( ), 44^ 44 ( ), 44 44
( )
4. 1 ###: 4 4 ( ), 4 4 ( ), 4 4 ( )
5. 444#: 444 44 ( ), 44 44( ), #4 44( ),
4# 44( ), <*< 44( ), a> 4 4 4 4 ( >, 4 ^
( ), # 4 4 4 ( ), 4 4 ( )
6. 4 4 4 1 4 # 4 ^-ofl 4 7] 4 4 I N 4 4 4 4 ? ( )
4 4
7. 4 4 4 7 1 # 4^4ll 4 4 4 t - 4 21^ 4 4 fl I N 4 4 4 4 ? ( )
4 4
8. # 7 l 2 | e l t 4 4 4 4 4 # # 4 4 4 4 # 4 4 ? ( ) # , 4 , 4
9. 4 4 4 4 # #^#<11 # 4 4 4 4 5 L-1 - efla.eWH'S 4 ^ 4447}-?
( ) 4 4 4 # # # 4 4 1 4 4 ^ - 4 H 5 H 1 4 # # 4 4 4 4
# 4 )
Part 2 : 41^ #411 4 4 4-5L
# 4 4 4 # 4 4 - # # # 23 7}7l 4 - 4 4 # # 0.3. 4 4 s] o] o|o_T^ -M.
44 -5-3]# ^ Sjol^l# ^4^01 XjHli (7] 4,
126
3 4 4 4 4 ^ 4 1 1*8 1) 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4*1 o) f %s.
1 1 4 4 1 4 4 .
l =Dj| - 2 = 1 1 1 4 4 3=44*2. l l l s } 4
4= 3144 5=44^. 1 1 3 4 6=n>isl-nf 7=41 1 1 3 4
1. 3 3 ^ 1 4 4 1 Ajôl I
2. 3 3 3 1 4 4 ! - 3 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 ........................................ 1
3. 3 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 3 4 4 3 4 4 ...................... 1
4. 113-5r 1 4 4 3 1 4 1 1 3 4 4 3 5*4........................ 1
5. 1 4 1 4 7$%} g 1 3 4 4 3 1 4 ....................................1
6. 4 4 1 1 1 5 S ul| oS ? ^ 4 4 3 514.............................. 1
7. 1 1 H3.ii*g4 ^ I f ^ l 1 3 4 4 3 514........................ l
8. 3 H 4 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 ...........................................l
9. 1 1 3 3 3 *84 ^ 4 4 ^ 4 4 3 514...............................l
10. 1 1 3 3 3 ^ 4 3 3 3 1 4 4 1 3 1 4 4 ............................ l
11. 1 1 3 3 3 ^ 4 3 3 3 1 4 1 3 1 4 4 3 514............... l
12. 1 1 3 3 3 * 8 4 ^ 3 3 1 ^ 4 3 4 3 1 1 4 ............ l
13. 1 1 3 3 3 * 8 4 4 4 4 &1 3 4 1 : 4 ......................... l
14. 4 4 3 3 3 * 8 4 4 4 4 5144 &1 3 1 1 4 ............. 1
15. 1 1 =321*84 4 4 4 4 4 4 &1 3 1 1 1 4 ............. l
16. 1 1 E 3 2 | 4 3 4 1 3 4 &1 3 1 1 $ 4 .................. 1
17. 4 3 1 : 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 - 1 4 ..................................1
18. 3 3 2 : 4 1 4 4 4 1 1 4 1 3 1 4 4 1 - 4 4
Al-5 7 % ^ 4 3 1 1 ^ 4 - .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. 4 3 1 : 4 4 4 4 4-5-4 4 4 1 - 4 1 - 4 4 ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. 4 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 &1 3 1 1 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
C
M
3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7
1 27
22. | 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 4- 4 4 1 : 4 4 1 4 1 4 S 4 4
- 5 - 1 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. l l 5 . n ^ 4 4 4 1 - 1 4 S I 4 4 4 1
l 1 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part 3: 1 4 4 ^ 4 4 4 !
4 4 4 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 7>44 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 5U-P-4
1 1 4 1 4 1 i i a 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 yH 4 4 1 1 4 4 4
^ oim- ^ 4 4 4 4 ^ 4 4 - .
1=41 1 4 1 4 S I 2=1414 S I 3=44^ 1 4 1 4 S I
4=iL144- 5=4 4 5. 1 4 1 6=141 7=41 1 4 1
1. 4 4441 iz^441 44 444 14 44
3|7>1- 4- 4141?.................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 4 4441 111144 44 44 i n 111
4-jl 4141? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 4 4441 H444- 144 4441- H l n
S4 44-1 H 4141?........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 4 4441 H 1 4 4 4 44 144 441- t } j i
4141?.................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
128
Ml 4*1| 4# #3 -&## # 18 7>34 3-S. 3 #333 5l#3
a. %>\ 42.3 0 . $I=W3 )3 3 ^ 4443 34#3l M14#33-4
Part 4: #43 Al5]
Ml 4*1| 3# #3 -S.## # 18 7^21 4#4 3-j#sL#3^
44 #4# i l 2 4433 )33^ 4444 34#3l Mil
3 3 # ofl 4 ^ 013)1- 331 4 3 3 4 3 # 4 4 .
1=3# # 4 4 4 4 # 2=#443 &# 3=rfl^5- # 4 4 3 &#
4=J#34 5=435. # 4 4 6=#44 7=31# ^-3#
1. 4-# ###34313 4#4# 43 33 4# 34#
#4 3 1 3 4 4 # 514 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 44 3 7 } 4# ###44 4 # 4 # 3 . : z #
4# 4-#4# 4# ###4#4 33# #443
& # 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 3 ^ ##43 51# ###4313 31# ##4#
331 34 3#4# 33# 513 44 ................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 3# ##43 51####44 ###3 431
31 4 4 # # # # 3 3 # 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. 44 34 ##33 51# ###41: ti4#44
ifl i i s # #4 4 3 3 4 # 34 4 3 4 4 - .............. l 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 4313 34 ### 431- #44# 331 44 44
333 51#34# 34 ###4113# #4 ## 3#
3 4 # 4 4 # 513 4 4 ..............................................................l 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. 4# 34 ##33 3 # # # # 4 3 3 1 3 ^ 3#4
#43 4# 444 #4# 33# 513 44.....................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. 4# 34 ##33 51####433133 4#3
43131 4 .3.43# 344# 514....................................1 2 3 4 5 67
1 2 9
9. 4 # 4 # 4 4 4 # 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 # 4 4 - 4 4 4 # 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. 4 # 4 1 ^ 4 4 4 # # # s # 4 i H # 414-,
4 4 4 4r# ^ 4 # 4 4 # 4 4 - .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. 4 # 4 1 ^ i # 4 4 # 3l 4 # 4 4 4 4
]#7l &4..............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. 44 4 4 3L4# ##2^44 44 44 44;#
4 4 4 44^- 4 4 4 4 - .....................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. 71144 o.s. 4 4 4 4 # 2 i i s 4 4 4 # # 4 4
4 # 4 # 4 4 4 44^- ^ 4 4 4 ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 # 4 4 1# 4 4 471 2 1 2
4 4 # #714 &# 447]- 1 # 4 4 ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. 4 4 # # 4 4 4 4 # # 2 ^ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 - 4
4447117]- 471 # # 2 ^ 4 1 - # 4 4 ^ 4471
4 .................................................................................. ..1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. 4 1 # # 4 4 4 4 4 # # 2^ 4 4 4 # 4 4 4 4 4 4 #
# 1 #71 14 l 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. 4 4 # # 4 4 4 4 # ##2^5144 4 4 1 - 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 # 4 4 4 471 4 4 # 31444 &#
1# # 4 4 4 4 4 - .............................................................. l 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. 41- # # 4 4 4 4 # # # # 4 4 4 4 4 # Hl3L
44-31 754^-4 - ...........................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7
130
Part 5- 4iy14 4 't1
4 ^ -- ^ SL$ # 7 7 \ t\ ^ tg-Sf-sJ & & 2 . S . ^ 4 4 9XA4
^-5] i 2 431444 4 ^ 4 4 4 ^ <H1 4 <?1 4 4 ^ 4 tfl^
4 4 ^ 4 441- iflSfl ^ 4 4 $w44-.
l=Dfl-f ^ 4 4 4 &-- 2 = ^ 4 ^ &-g- 3=4 4 ^ 1 4 *W
4 = ^ 0 1 4 5=44^- 1 4 1 6=141 7=4-?- 1 4 1
1. 4 1 4 4 ^ 1 4 4 4 1 4 4 ^ ^ . s . o ) l 7fl î-g- 4 MJ1
511 ^ 1 1 4 4 H S a | 7Vg-i- 1 4 HJ 4 1 o ]
51-P-141?................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 4 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 ^ ^ 1 4 1 ^ . 1 1 1 4 - 1 !
4 1 1 1 - 4 4 4 5 l l Z l l 4 l 4 4 4 1 JIS]
1 4 $ 1 4 1 ? ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 4 1 4 4 1 *| = H 4 4 4 o j -
= s n n t\\n 1 4 4 5 1 4 4 -1 - 4-- 4 - 1 4 4 i i
4 1 4 5 l $ 4 1 ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 l l ^ 1 4 7>44
4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 l s 4 f l
c f q i 4 1 o ] 5 l l 4 4 - ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 ^ 4 4 1 1 1 1 1
^ l l t 1 1 1 nn-i 1&5L5I4JL 4 1 1 1 4 4 ? ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 4 4 511 ^ 4 1 4 4
l 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 J L 4 1 4 $ ^ 4 4 - ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
131
7. *l-- ^
l-7>^ tj.^. 37^
^ * 1 3 ^ 4 ? ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
t l M * l W 4
132
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
133
" America's Sports University"
One Academy Drive, Daphne, AL 36526
(251)626-3303
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Project Summary Statement
You have been invited to take part in a study to investigate the relationship
between the quality of service, overall customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and
future behavioral intention with sports / Fitness centers. This study will attempt to
provide both theoretical and empirical analysis to provide a great contribution to the
operation and development of sports / fitness centers in Korea as well as to academic
studies.
This study will be conducted by Sei-Jun, Lim, a doctoral student of the Sports
Management, the United States Sports Academy, as his dissertation research. His faculty
sponsor is Dr. Cynthia E. Ryder, who can be contacted at (251) 626-3303.
If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to do the following:
1. Read instructions which explain the objectives of the research.
2. Complete a questionnaire about your background (age, gender, etc).
3. Answer all questions based on your experience.
134
Participation in this study will involve about 15-minutes to complete the
questionnaire and there are no known risks associated with your participation in this
research beyond those of everyday life.
Although you will receive no direct benefits, this research may help us understand
about customers perception regarding customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and
behavioral future intention within Sports / Fitness Centers in Seoul, South Korea.
The investigator will explain about the purpose of the study through the flyer and
this consent form. If you have a question regarding the study, the investigator will answer
your questions. If you have additional questions or wish to report a research-related
problem, you may contact the researcher at (404) 933-0338, or e-mail address:
sjlim@ussa.edu.
Participation in this study is voluntary, you may refuse to participate or withdraw
at any time without penalty. Also you can decide to stop answering the questionnaire at
anytime, or refuse to answer any question.
Thank you, in advance, for your participation
Sei-Jun, Lim, Doctoral candidate
UNITED STATES SPROTS ACADEMY
Tel: 1-404-933-0338
e-mail: silim@ussa.edu
APPENDIX D
EXPERT PANEL
APPENDIX D
Questionnaire Review
Expert Panel
Dr. Byung-Kwan, Cheon.
Sports Psychology Professor, Kyung Hee University
Dr. Hong-Seack, Kim
Sports Sociology Professor, Kyung Joo University
Dr. Kyung-Rock, Oh
Sports Psychology Assistant Professor, Kyung Hee University
Dr. Jin-Ho, Chun
Sports Management Assistant Professor, Kyung Gee University
1 37
APPENDIX E
AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF QUALITY OF SERVICE
138
Analysis Summary
Date and Time
Date: 2006 tf! 10 S 24 11J
Time: 9.W 4:13:50
Title
Quality of Service: 2006 if! 10 S 24 s H f i s QW- 04:13
Notes for Group (Group number 11
The model is recursive.
Sample size = 484
Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
A18 < quality ofService 1.000
A15 < quality of Service 1.699 .156 10.859
***
***
***
***
Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate
A18 < quality of Service .466
139
APPENDIX F
AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF AFFECTIVE LOYALTY
140
Analysis Summary
Date and Time
Date: 2006 \f! 10 S 2 4 ^ 5 i S S i
Time: 2.W- 10:02:32
Title
Affective loyalty: 2006 tf! 10 S 24 s 10:02
Notes for Group (Group number 1)
Sample size = 484
C6 <----- At f ective_Loyalty
C5 <----- AffectiveJ-oyalty
C3 <----- Affective_Loyalty
C2 <----- At f ective_Loyalty
C1 <----- AffectiveJ-oyalty
1.000
.940 .06913.676 ***
.451 .062 7.230 ***
.936 .06913.488 ***
.533 .063 8.394 ***
Estimate
C6 < AffectiveLoyalty .773
C5 < Affective Loyalty .754
C3 < Affective Loyalty .372
C2 < AffectiveLoyalty .730
Cl < Affective Loyalty .449
141
APPENDIX G
AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF NORMATIVE LOYALTY
142
Analysis Summary
Date and Time
Date: 2006 1 0 1 25 1
Time: 2:11:47
Title
Normative Loyalty: 2006 if! 10 S 25 1 2 3 02:11
Notes for Group (Group number 11
Sample size = 484
Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Revised model)
C11< Normative_Loyalty
C10 <----- Normative_Loyalty
1.000
1.395 .154 9.074 ***
.708 .073 9.665 ***
1.135 .10610.750 ***
.795 .081 9.760 ***
Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Revised model)
Estimate
C11<----- Normative_Loyalty .676
C10< Normative_Loyalty .855
C9 <----- Normative_Loyalty .503
C8 <----- Normative_Loyalty .815
C 7 <----- Normative_Loyalty .510
143
APPENDIX H
AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF INVESTMENT LOYALTY
144
Analysis Summary
Date and Time
Date: 2006 ^ 10 S 26 H
Time: 2 3 3:01:41
Title
Investment loyalty: 2006 tf! 10 S 26 a 2 5 ! 03:01
Sample size = 484
C18 < InvestmentLoyalty 1.000
C17 < InvestmentLoyalty 2.661 .619 4.296
***
C16 < InvestmentLoyalty .304 .086 3.514
***
C15 < InvestmentLoyalty 1.024 .117 8.744
***
C14 < InvestmentLoyalty .898 .103 8.731
***
Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Revised model)
Estimate
C18< InvestmentLoyalty .704
APPENDIX Y
AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION
146
Analysis Summary
Date and Time
Date: 2006 Vi 10 1 26
Time: SL$- 1:22:17
Title
Customer Satisfaction: 2006 Vi 10 IS 26 ^ 01:22
Sample size = 484
B4 < customersatisfaction
B3 < customer satisfaction
B2 < customersatisfaction
B1 <customersatisfaction
1.000
1.008 .042 24.002 ***
1.148 .042 27.336 ***
1.103 .044 25.239 ***
Standardized Regression Weights; (Group number 1 - Revised model)
Estimate
B4 < customer satisfaction .840
B1 < customersatisfaction .889
147
APPENDIX J
AMOS PROGRAM FOR MEASUREMENT MODEL OF BEHAVIORAL FUTURE
INTENTION
148
Analysis Summary
Date and Time
Date: 2006 1d 10 28 ^
Time: SL& 3:11:10
Title
Behavioral Future Intention: 2006 10 ^ 28 ^ Je.JI'II 03:11
Sample size = 484
D5 < future intention
D4 <future intention
D2 < future intention
1.000
1.428 .110 12.938 *** par_l
1.376 .075 18.248 *** par_2
1.340 .074 18.109 *** par_3
1.031 .072 14.235 *** par_4
Estimate
D5 < future intention .675
149
APPENDIX K
AMOS PROGRAM FOR THE FULL STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING
150
Analysis Summary
Date and Time
Date: 2006 ^ 1 1 ^ 4 ^
Time: SL$- 2:54:13
Title
Full model: 2006 \4 11 4 i 02:54
Sample size = 484
cs <----- QS .986 .100 9.853 par_36
al <----- cs .725 .049 14.653
***
par_37
nl <----- cs .400 .046 8.607
***
par_38
il < cs .541 .053 10.285 par_39
fi <----- al .125 .061 2.050 .040 par_40
fi <----- nl .135 .042 3.245 .001 par_41
fi <----- il .374 .070 5.350
***
par_42
fi <----- cs .132 .065 2.034 .042 par_43
151
Standardized Regression Weights: (Groun number 1 - Revised model!
Estimate
c s <----- QS .648
al <----- cs .831
nl <----- cs .569
il < cs .712
fi < al .171
fi < nl .150
fi < il .448
fi < cs .209

Out 20 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out 20 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY

THE INFLUENCE OF SERVICE QUALITY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION,

. lyCromartie, Ed. Fred |/Cromartie, Ed.D. Date

You might also like