Problem Definition

Defining service quality and its components in a form that is actionable in the workplace is an important endeavor that an organization should not take lightly. Without a clear and unambiguous definition, employees will be left with vague instructions on improving service quality within the workplace. The result will be that each employee will be left to form and act upon his or her own definition of quality which, more often than not, may be incomplete or inaccurate. Fortunately, there are researchers such as Grnroos (1983), Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982), and Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (hereafter referred to as PZB) (1985) who are working to uncover the factors that determine service quality and to provide a number of actionable tools that a marketer can use to gauge his or her firms performance. Companies should increase their performance and implication of the marketing practices that should be based on the variables that best contribute to each of the dimensions or constructs variables.

Problem Statements Developing and analyzing a confirmatory factor analysis model in case of the service quality issue and making related measurement and structural model with proper evaluation of reliability and validity.

Objective of the study

The main purpose of the study is to develop and analyze a confirmatory factor analysis of Structural Equation Modeling to find the significance of the various constructs of Servqual for the proper decision making of each marketing program.

Theoretical Framework (literature review)

This paper will review and analyze the literature on service quality, particularly those that delineate its components as well as those that provide links to behavioral intentions. It will also critically analyze SERVQUAL, a survey tool put forth by PZB based on their 1

findings, and show that it is an inadequate tool for measuring service quality. The paper is organized to present the dimensions of service quality and possible future directions of the service quality literature. Many scholars agree that service quality can be decomposed into two major dimensions (Grnroos, 1983; Lehtinen and Lehtinen, 1982). The first dimension is concerned with what the service delivers and is referred to by PZB (1985) as outcome quality and by Grnroos (1984) as technical quality. The second dimension is concerned with how the service is delivered: the process that the customer went through to get to the outcome of the service. PZB (1985) refer to this as process quality while Grnroos (1984) calls it functional quality. However, while PZB (1985) and PZ (2006) confirmed these distinctions, they often confusingly use service quality when they mean service process quality. Thus to avoid any 2 of 16further confusion a distinction will be made between service process and service outcome. Whenever the word service is used, it should be taken as the total service which is a combination of process and outcome. Likewise, service quality shall be used to refer to the totality of process quality and outcome quality. PZ define service quality as the degree and direction of discrepancy between customers service perceptions and expectations (2006). Thus if the perception is higher than expectation, then the service is said to be of high quality. Likewise, when expectation is higher than perception, the service is said to be of low quality. Realising that there was not enough literature to produce a rigorous understanding of service quality and its determinants, PZB (1985) conducted an exploratory investigation to formally delineate service quality. One of the results of this investigation was the identification of ten determinants of service process quality. PZB (1985) listed them as follows: RELIABILITY involves consistency of performance and dependability. RESPONSIVENESS concerns the willingness or readiness of employees to provide service. COMPETENCE means possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service. 2

 ACCESS involves approachability and ease of contact. COURTESY involves politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel (including receptionists, telephone operators, etc.). COMMUNICATION means keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them. It may mean that the company has to adjust its language for different consumersincreasing the level of sophistication with a well-educated customer and speaking simply and plainly with a novice. CREDIBILITY involves trustworthiness, believability, honesty. It involves having the customers best interests at heart. SECURITY is the freedom from danger, risk, or doubt. UNDERSTANDING/KNOWING THE CUSTOMER involves making the effort to understand the customers needs. TANGIBLES include the physical evidence of the service.

In a later paper, PZB (1988) found certain overlaps among the dimensions and shortened the list into five dimensions. This new list retained tangibles, reliability, and responsiveness while competence, courtesy, credibility, and security were combined into a new dimension called assurance. Access, communication, and understanding the customer, on the other hand, were placed under a common dimension called empathy. Thus the dimensions are now known as follows: Assurance - Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence Empathy - Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers. Reliability - Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately. Responsiveness - Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. Tangibles - Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials.

In their 1988 revision, PZB claim that these five dimensions are generic and consistent across different types of services by stating that there was consistent factor structureacross five independent samples. However, basing this conclusion on a small 3

sample raises doubts on its validity. Buttle (1996) found serious concerns with the number of dimensions as well as their consistency in different contexts. Carman (1990), after conducting a research which involved testing the five dimensions in services other than those that were used by PZB, warns that while the PZB items provide a start for item development, all items need to have validity and reliability checks before commercial application. Carman (1990) further states that the 4 of 16dimensions may have been over-generalized and suggests that some items of the ten dimensions that were no longer explicitly stated in the five dimensions be retained until further factor analysis shows that they really are not unique. Peter et al. (1993) also suggest that the overlap between responsiveness, assurance, and empathy was understated by PZB in their original study. Woo and Ennew (2005), meanwhile, found that in business services markets, the dimensions were completely different. Thus, at its best, the five dimensions should only be considered as a starting point rather than a tool that can be immediately used in the field. In their papers, PZB (1985, 1988) and PZ (2006) consistently refer to the list as determinants or dimensions of service quality. However, it appears, from their definition of each dimension that they are only referring to process quality rather than total service quality. Woo and Ennew (2005) confirm this finding when they stated that PZBs work on service quality dimensions and the subsequent SERVQUAL tool (discussed in a later section) seemed to neglect technical quality altogether and focus mostly on the functional side. Furthermore, Richard and Allaway (1993) clearly state that the dimensions of service quality as it is described by PZB totally neglects technical quality. Parasuraman, in a later work specified that service and services mean different things (1998). Services (plural), according to him, refer to the intangible core product that a business provides to the firm. In contrast, service (singular) refers to the supplement that accompanies the core offering. Essentially, he uses services to refer to outcome quality, while service to refer to process quality. Because of this poor choice of words, Parasuraman only added further confusion.

Assuming that a better set of words has been selected by PZB, the fact that their model is focused only on process quality still remains. Asubonteng, McCleary, and Swan (1996), on the other hand, defend PZBs model by stating that because outcome quality is 4

difficult to evaluate for any service, customers will often rely on other characteristics of the service to determine its quality. That is, they will rely on the process quality to determine or make an approximation of the total service quality. Unfortunately, Asubonteng, McCleary, and Swan did not provide any empirical data to confirm this. Their claim that outcome quality is difficult to evaluate for any service is flawed and some examples that disprove their statement easily come to mind. Consider the case of a machine shop that is involved in providing machine 5 of 16 repair services to business and individual customers. After the service has been provided, the customer is able to measure outcome quality by comparing the outcome against the specifications it provided to the machine shop before the start of the service. In another case, this time a plumbing service where a homeowner has requested the plumber to repair a leaking faucet, the homeowner is able to measure the quality of the outcome by checking if the faucet is still dripping. Apart from this, Richard and Allaway (1993) found that PZBs model measuring only process qualitywas less reliable than another model that measured both process and outcome quality. Thus, PZBs five dimensions of service quality, while useful as a starting point, is an inadequate tool for measuring a firms total service quality.

Conceptual Framework

Problem Identification

Secondary data analysis

Literature review

Survey

Primary Data Analysis Information on consumers and banking services along with the Judgment for observed and unobserved issues

Confirmaratoy Factor Analysis measuring unobserved concepts by testing measurement reliability and validity

Conclusion, Recommendations and Opportunities for further study

Hypothesis H0: The developed models are not fit with reliability and validity H1: The developed models are fit with reliability and validity

Variables in the Problem: The latent constructs and their observed variables are

Constructs Tangibility

Variables Up to date Equipment Physical facility Dress and grooming of the service provider

Reliability

Promise of the service Interest of the service provider Dependability Right at the first time Exact time of performance Prompt service Ready to respond Knowledgeable employee Safety Trust with the service Billing system accuracy Polite behavior Individualized attention Understanding specific needs

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

Methodology
The data of this project has been collected both from primary and secondary sources of information. Primary data have been collected from the respondents of through questionnaire. And the secondary data collected from various published materials and internet resources. 7

Type of Research It is a quantitative research including survey data as well as secondary data for confirmatory factor analysis under Structural Equation Modeling. Data Collection Method Data collected through survey questionnaire.

Sources of Data Primary source Survey Secondary sources Websites Articles Various banking journals Other published materials

Target population We have targeted clients of call center, franchise, bank and financial service providers within Dhaka in march2012.

Sampling Technique A probability simple random sampling technique has followed in which the sample elements were randomly selected.

Sampling size Data collected from 150 respondents from call center, franchise, bank and financial service providers.

Measurement and Scaling 9-point Likert scale questions have been constructed in the questionnaire.

Questionnaire Development A structured questionnaire has used to collect data. The questionnaire has been developed in a way that divulges the respondents response related to each of the construct. The questionnaire has been formed on 9-point likert Scale to measure the degree of perception of respondents on each variable. The respondents were asked to rate statements based on their perception and opinion from 1 to 9 points.

Data collection/Field Work We have conduct field work in terms of the guidelines presented in the chapter 13 of the textbook. We, the member of the group, equally conducted field work. We divided the total respondent and then we have carried out the field work.

Data Analysis and Result

The data is analyzed by the models of Structural Equation Modeling of confirmatory factor analysis by AMOS 18 software.
Goodness of fit measure for the measurement model

Minimum was achieved means Amos reached a local minimum Chi-square = 225.884(value is high and have positive effect) Degrees of freedom = 109 (higher value is good fit measure) Probability level = .000 (significant at .05 level because it is .05) RMSEA (Root Means Square Error of Approximation) is .085 for the default model and .12d for independent model both are .08 highlighting badness of fit measures

NFI (Normed Fit Index) is .549 for the default model, 1.00 for the saturated model and .000 for independent model. The average NFI is .90 that means the model is not in good ness of fit situation. 9

CFI (Comparative Fit Index) is .664 for the default model, 1.00 for the saturated model and .000 for independent model. The average CFI is .90 that means the model is not in good ness of fit situation.

The model is recursive

The model is recursive that means if the structural model would it contained no dual dependencies or feedback loop.
Model contains the following variables

All variables in the model are listed here, classified as observed or unobserved, and as either endogenous or exogenous. A summary table shows the number of variables in each category, as well as the total number of variables in the model. Spelling or typing errors in the input file can usually be detected by inspecting this display, since variant spellings of a variable name are interpreted as names for distinct variables.

Observed, endogenous variables

Unobserved, exogenous variables

tan3 tan2 tan1 rel5 rel4 rel3 rel2 rel1

Tan e3 e2 e1 Rel e8 e7 e6

10

res3 res2 res1 ass3 ass2 ass1 emp3 emp2 emp1

e5 e4 Res e11 e10 e9 Ass e14 e13 e12 Emp e17 e16 e15

Number of variables in model: Number of observed variables: Number of unobserved variables: Number of exogenous variables: Number of endogenous variables:

39 17 22 22 17

Limitation of the Analysis and the study

The findings of this study can be generalized after taking into consideration following limitations:

We found problem with analysis of the structural model The badness of fit measure SRMR is not found The all goodness and badness of fit measure for structural model is not calculated Sample size: A small number of respondents (150) from Dhaka city have been used in this study. The respondents were selected only from the educational 11

institutions. So, the samples may not represent the population of the country. Time & Finance: We have got only two week to collect data, input data, analysis data, and to prepare final report. This is relative small time to conduct research on this big topic. We had to collect data only from Dhaka city due to financial constraint. Errors: We know there are mainly two types of errors random sampling error, and non-response error. We selected simple random sampling technique to select respondents. But, few respondents were interviewed based on the convenience. Besides, there is some questioning error involved in this project due to inexperience and lack of comprehension of the interviewers. Some respondents were unwilling to give certain information. Therefore, we had to probe to get the information. But it seemed the information was not exact.

Conclusion and Opportunities for Further Study

Service quality dimensions are not defined properly and the structural equation modeling identified the undefined variables and their effect on the service level and ultimate customer satisfaction. There is ample of opportunity for using structural model to identify the significance of the each dimension with their attributes contribution to each of the service industry. These can be prioritizing by their factor loading. Each of the attributes for the constructs can be helpful for the marketing implication in all of the mix and other marketing decisions.

12

Reference
Malhotra N. K. and Dash S. 2010. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, published by Pearson Education. Inc.,Prentice Hall Cop.2010 Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml and L. Berry 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. 49(4). 4150. Asubonten, P., K. J. McCleary and J. E. Swan 1996. SERVQUAL revisited: A Critical Review of Service Quality. The Journal of Services Marketing. 10(6). 62. Boulding, W., A. Kalra, R. Staelin and V. Zeithaml 1993. A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Marketing Research. 30(1): 727. Brady, M. K. and J. Cronin Jr. 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing. 65(3): 3449. Brady, M. K., G. A. Knight, J. J. Cronin Jr., G. Tomas, M. Hult and B. D. Keillor 2005.Removing the contextual lens: A multinational, multi-setting comparison of service evaluation models. Journal of Retailing. 81(3): 215230. Buttle, F. 1996. SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing. 30(1): 832. Carman, J. M. 1990. Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing. 66(1): 3355. Cronin, J. J. and S. A. Taylor 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing. 56(3): 5568. Fornell, C., M. D. Johnson, E. W. Anderson, J. Cha and B. E. Bryant 1996. The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose and Findings. Journal of Marketing. 60(4): 718. Grnroos, C. 1983. Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector. Marketing Science Institute. Boston, MA. Grnroos, C. 1984. A Service Quality Model and Its Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing. 18(4): 3644. Lehtinen, U. and J.R. Lehtinen 1982. Service quality: a study of quality dimensions. Working Paper. Service Management Institute. Helsinki.

13

OConnor, S. J., R. M. Shewchuk and L. W. Carney 1994. The Great Gap. Journal of Health Care Marketing 14(2): 3239. Oliver, R. L. 1980. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research. 17(4): 460490. Parasuraman, A. 1998. Customer service in business-to-business markets: an agenda for research. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 13(4): 309. Parasuraman, A. and V. Zeithaml 2006. Understanding and Improving Service Quality: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. In B. Weitz and R. Wensley (Ed.), Handbook of Marketing. London: Sage Publications. Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml and L. Berry 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. 49(4). 4150. Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml and L. Berry 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64(Spring). 1237. Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml and L. Berry 1991. Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing. 67(4). 420450. Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml and L. Berry 1994. Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. 58(1). 111124. Peter, P. J., G. A. Churchill and T. J. Brown 1993. Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research. 19(March): 655662. Richard M. D. and A. W. Allaway 1993. Service Quality Attributes and Choice Behavior.The Journal of Services Marketing. 7(1): 5968. Woo, K. and C. T. Ennew 2005. Measuring business-to-business professional servicequality and its consequences. Journal of Business Research. 58: 11781185.

14

Questionnaire 1. Up to date equipment is essential1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

2. Physical facility covers much attraction and activity

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

3. Service Provider must be well groomed

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

4. Service provider promises to do is must

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

5. Service provider shows sincere interest

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

6. Service provider is dependable

15

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree

6.Somewh at Agree

7.Agree

8.Strongly Agree

9.Extre mely Agree

7. Service provider performs the service right at the first time

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

8. Service provider tells me exactly when service will be performed

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

9. Customer service staffs give me prompt services

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

10.Customer service staffs are ready to respond to customer requests

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

11.Customer service staffs have knowledge to answer customer question

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

16

12.I feel safe in the transaction with the service provider

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

13.I can trust the service provider's customer service staffs

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

14.The billing system is trustworthy

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

15.Customer service staffs are polite

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

16.Service provider gives customer individual attention

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

17.Customer service staffs understand customer specific needs

1.Extremely 2.Strongly 3.Disagree 4.Somewhat 5.Neither Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree nor Disagree 6.Somewh at Agree 7.Agree 8.Strongly Agree 9.Extre mely Agree

17

Appendices

Probability level = xxxxx

If the appropriate distributional assumptions are met and if the specified model is correct, then the value xxxxx is the approximate probability of getting a chi-square statistic as large as the chi-square statistic obtained from the current set of data. For example, if xxxxx is .05 or less, the departure of the data from the model is significant at the .05 level. The appropriateness of hypothesis testing in model fitting, even when the necessary distributional assumptions are met, is routinely questioned (e.g., Bollen & Long, 1993).

Notes for Group (Group number 1) Notes that refer to a single group Messages that relate to a single group appear here. For example, a group's sample size is reported here.

Sample size = 150

The model is recursive In everyday usage, a recursive model is one in which no variable in the model has an effect on itself. That is, in the path diagram of the model, it is not possible to start at any variable and, by following a path of single-headed arrows, return to the same variable. Variable counts (Group number 1)

Weights Fixed Labeled Unlabeled Total 22 0 12 34

Covariances 0 0 10 10

Variances 0 0 22 22

Means 0 0 0 0

Intercepts 0 0 17 17

Total 22 0 61 83

18

Notes for Model (Group number 1 - Default model)

Notes that refer to a single model Messages that relate to a single model appear here. For example, the message "Minimum was achieved" is displayed here when a model was fitted successfully.

The following covariance matrix is not positive definite (Group number 1 - Default model)
Amos can produce estimates of variances and covariances that yield covariance matrices that are not positive definite (Wothke, 1993). Such a solution is said to be inadmissible. Amos does not attempt to distinguish between a solution that is outside the admissible region and one that is on or near its boundary. Testing structural equation models we conclude the decision is: "This solution is not admissible".

Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate tan3 <--- Tan tan2 <--- Tan tan1 <--- Tan rel5 rel4 rel3 rel2 rel1 res3 res2 res1 <--- Rel <--- Rel <--- Rel <--- Rel <--- Rel <--- Res <--- Res <--- Res .676 .874 .761 .702 .458 .428 .575 .679 .807 .682 .217 .562

ass3 <--- Ass

19

Estimate ass2 <--- Ass ass1 <--- Ass emp3 <--- Emp emp2 <--- Emp emp1 <--- Emp .844 .820 .541 .763 .182

When Tan goes up by 1 standard deviation, tan3 goes up by 0.676 standard deviations.

Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate Tan <--> Rel Tan <--> Res Tan <--> Ass Emp <--> Tan Rel <--> Res Rel <--> Ass Emp <--> Rel Res <--> Ass Emp <--> Res Emp <--> Ass .413 .120 -.181 .031 .932 .727 .784 .874 .404 .629

All Implied Correlations - Estimates The correlation matrix displayed here is an estimate of the population correlation matrix of all the variables in the model (observed and unobserved) under the hypothesis that the model is correct.

20

A ss 1. 00 0 .8 74

R es

R el

Ta n

E m p

e m p1

e m p2

e m p3

as s1

as s2

as s3

re s1

re s2

re s3

rel 1

rel 2

rel 3

rel 4

rel 5

ta n1

ta n2

ta n3

A ss

R es

1. 00 0 .9 32 1. 00 0 .4 13 1. 00 0 .0 31 1. 00 0 .1 82 1. 00 0 .1 39 1. 00 0 .4 13 1. 00 0 .2 79 1. 00 0 .6 92 1. 00 0 .4 75 1. 00 0 .1 07 1. 00 0 .1 48 1. 00 0 .5 50 1. 00 0 .5 11 1. 00 0 .3 91 1. 00 0 .2 46 1. 00 0 .1 96 1. 00 0 .3 21 1. 00 0 .2 21 1. 00 0 .6 64 1. 00 0 .5 90 1. 00 0

R el

.7 27 .1 81 .6 29

Ta n E m p e m p1 e m p2 e m p3 as s1

.1 20

.4 04

.7 84

.1 15

.0 74

.1 43

.0 06

.4 80

.3 09

.5 98

.0 24

.7 63

.3 40

.2 19

.4 24

.0 17 .1 49 .1 53 .1 02 .0 26

.5 41

.0 99

.8 20

.7 16

.5 96

.5 16

.0 94

.3 93

as s2

.8 44

.7 37

.6 14

.5 31

.0 97

.4 05

.2 87

as s3

.5 62

.4 91

.4 09

.3 54

.0 64

.2 70

.1 91

.4 61

re s1

.1 89

.2 17

.2 02

.0 88

.0 16

.0 67

.0 47

.1 55

.1 60

re s2

.5 96

.6 82

.6 35

.0 82

.2 76

.0 50

.2 10

.1 49

.4 88

.5 03

.3 35

re s3

.7 05

.8 07

.7 52

.0 96

.3 26

.0 59

.2 49

.1 77

.5 78

.5 95

.3 96

.1 75

rel 1

.4 94

.6 33

.6 79

.2 80

.5 32

.0 97

.4 06

.2 88

.4 05

.4 17

.2 78

.1 37

.4 32

rel 2

.4 18

.5 36

.5 75

.2 37

.4 51

.0 82

.3 44

.2 44

.3 43

.3 53

.2 35

.1 16

.3 65

.4 32

rel 3

.3 11

.3 99

.4 28

.1 77

.3 36

.0 61

.2 56

.1 82

.2 55

.2 63

.1 75

.0 87

.2 72

.3 22

.2 91

rel 4

.3 33

.4 26

.4 58

.1 89

.3 59

.0 65

.2 74

.1 94

.2 73

.2 81

.1 87

.0 92

.2 91

.3 44

.3 11

.2 63

rel 5

.5 11 .1 38 .1 59 .1 23

.6 55

.7 02

.2 90

.5 51

.1 00

.4 20

.2 98

.4 19 .1 13 .1 30 .1 01

.4 31 .1 17 .1 34 .1 03

.2 87 .0 78 .0 89 .0 69

.1 42

.4 46

.5 28

.4 77

.4 04

.3 01

ta n1

.0 91

.3 14

.7 61

.0 24

.0 04

.0 18

.0 13

.0 20

.0 62

.0 73

.2 13

.1 81

.1 34

.1 44

ta n2

.1 04

.3 61

.8 74

.0 27

.0 05

.0 21

.0 15

.0 23

.0 71

.0 84

.2 45

.2 07

.1 54

.1 65

.2 53

ta n3

.0 81

.2 79

.6 76

.0 21

.0 04

.0 16

.0 11

.0 18

.0 55

.0 65

.1 89

.1 60

.1 19

.1 28

.1 96

.5 14

21

Standardized Total Effects - Estimates The total effect of each column variable on each row variable after standardizing all variables.

Ass emp1 emp2 emp3 ass1 ass2 ass3 res1 res2 res3 rel1 rel2 rel3 rel4 rel5 tan1 tan2 tan3 .000 .000 .000 .820 .844 .562 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Res .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .217 .682 .807 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Rel .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .679 .575 .428 .458 .702 .000 .000 .000

Tan .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .761 .874 .676

Emp .182 .763 .541 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Among the variables of each construct one is important to another. In case of tangibility, tan2 meaning physical facility contributes much variation.

22

Measuring model fit through Reliability and Validity CMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 61 170 17 CMIN 225.884 .000 501.155 DF 109 0 153 .000 3.276 P .000 CMIN/DF 2.072

Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NFI Delta1 .549 1.000 .000 .000 RFI rho1 .367 IFI Delta2 .702 1.000 .000 .000 TLI rho2 .529 CFI .664 1.000 .000

Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO .712 .000 1.000 PNFI .391 .000 .000 PCFI .473 .000 .000

RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSEA .085 .124 LO 90 .069 .112 HI 90 .100 .136 PCLOSE .000 .000

23