|   

National Cheng Kung University International Master of Business Administration (IMBA) Program

3.1. The Conceptual Model

Construct Measurement

In this study, 5 sections are operationalized: (1) Destination Quality, (2) Overall Trip Experience, (3) Positive

Recommendation, (4) Word of Mouth, and (5) Intention to Revisit. A survey questionnaire was designed for this study. The

operational definitions of each section are described as follows:

3.1.1. Destination Quality

Destination Quality is measured by satisfaction with lodging, dining, shopping, and attraction. Firstly, for measuring

satisfaction with lodging, dining, shopping and attraction, the questionnaire developed by Alampay (2003) is used.

PAGE 1

The survey consists of eight items for lodging satisfaction, 5 items for dining satisfaction, 2 items for shopping

satisfaction and six items for attraction satisfaction. Each item will be measured using a seven-point rating scales,

with 1 representing "very dissatisfied" to 7 representing "very satisfied”.

Lodging Satisfaction

1. Hotel Rooms

2. Hotel View

3. Hotel cleanliness

4. Hotel food

5. Hotel staff friendliness

6. Hotel service

7. Hotel value for money

Dining Satisfaction

1. Dining cleanliness

2. Dining food quality

3. Dining staff friendliness

4. Dining service

5. Dining value for money

Shopping Satisfaction

1. Shopping cleanliness

2. Shopping prices

3. Shopping quality

PAGE 2

4. Shopping staff friendliness

5. Customer service

6. I could buy nice souvenirs

Satisfaction with Attraction

1. Historical sites

2. Museums

3. Parks and Garden’s

4. Dinner cruises and shows

5. Cleanliness

6. People’s friendliness

7. Exploring culture

3.1.2. Satisfaction with the Overall Trip Experience

Thirdly, overall travel satisfactions were measured by using the questionnaire developed by Neal, Sirgy and Uysal

(1999). It includes 6 items Each item will be measured using a seven-point rating scales, with 1 representing

"Strongly disagree” no opinion to 7 “Strongly agree”.

Enrich Experience

1. Overall, I feel that this trip has enriched my life and I am really glad I went on this trip.

2. On this trip, I accomplished the purpose of the vacation and this experience has enriched me in some ways.

3. This trip was rewarding to me in many ways, I feel much better about things and myself after the trip.

Right Experience

PAGE 3

4. My choice to purchase this trip was a wise one.

5. I did the right thing when I purchased this trip.

6. This experience is exactly what I needed.

3.1.3. Positive Recommendation

1. I will recommend to someone who seeks my advice.

2. I will say positive things to other people.

3.1.4. Word of Mouth

1. I will recommend my colleague’s

2. I will recommend this trip to friends and family

3.1.5. Intention to Revisit

This section is to understand the intention to revisit Beijing or Shanghai in the future. The following questions are:

1. I will revisit next time

2. In the next 5 years, it is likely that I will take another holiday to _______?

3. Within the next 5 years it is likely that I will be interested in revisiting.

3.1.6. Personal Information

The following personal information is included in the survey instrument to better understand the respondents’

profile.

PAGE 4

1. Gender of the respondent

2. Marriage status of the respondent

3. Age of the respondent

4. Education of the respondent

5. Income monthly of the respondent

6. Occupation of the respondent

PAGE 5

RESULT

Construct 1

Research Constructs

Research ItemsFactor

LoadingEigen-value

Cumulative

Explained (%)

Item-to-total

correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha (α)

Satisfaction with Lodging,

dining, shopping, and

attraction

Lodging Satisfaction   3.886 64.773   0.8906 Hotel Service 0.887 0.8135 Hotel Staff Friendliness 0.851 0.7574 Hotel Food 0.836 0.7471 Hotel Rooms 0.794 0.7057 Hotel Value for Money 0.727 0.6143 Hotel Cleanliness 0.719 0.6122 Hotel View Deleted

Dining Satisfaction   3.675 73.501   0.9094 Dining Service 0.903 0.8373 Dining Staff Friendliness 0.899 0.8292 Dining Food Quality 0.886 0.8135 Dining Value for Monet 0.800 0.6951 Dining Cleanliness 0.792     0.681  

Shopping Satisfaction   3.407 68.139   0.8814 Shopping Staff Friendliness 0.885 0.7985 Customer Service 0.872 0.7776 I could buy Nice Souvenirs 0.807 0.6912 Shopping Prices 0.803 0.6913 Shopping Quality 0.753 0.6291 Shopping Cleanliness         Deleted

PAGE 6

Satisfaction with Attraction   2.484 62.104   0.7963 Parks and Garden's 0.854 0.6992 Museums 0.821 0.6514 Dinner Cruises and Shows 0.752 0.5611 Historical Sites 0.718 0.5267 Exploring Culture Deleted5 Cleanliness Deleted6 People's Friendliness         Deleted

Construct 2

Research Research Items Factor Eigen- Cumulativ Item-to- Cronbach’s

PAGE 7

Constructs Loading valuee

Explained (%)

total correlation

Alpha (α)

Satisfaction with Overall

Trip Experience

Enrich Experience   2.278 75.943   0.8422 On this trip, I

accomplished the purpose of the vacation and this experience has enriched me in some ways.

0.894 0.746

3This trip was rewarding to me in many ways, I feel much better about things and myself after the trip.

0.894 0.746

1 Overall, I feel that this trip has enriched my life and I am really glad I went on this trip.

0.824 0.632

Right Experience   2.401 80.043   0.8752 I did the right thing when I

purchased this trip0.915 0.798

1 My choice to purchase this trip was a wise one.

0.900 0.772

3 This experience is exactly what I needed.

0.868     0.715  

Construct 3

Research Research Items Factor Eigen- Cumulativ Item-to- Cronbach’s

PAGE 8

Constructs Loading valuee

Explained (%)

total correlation

Alpha (α)

Positive Reccomendatio

n

Positive Reccomendation   1.809 90.459   0.8952 I will say positive things to

other people0.951 0.809

1 I will recommend to someone who seeks my advice.

0.951     0.809  

PAGE 9

Construct 4

Research Constructs

Research ItemsFactor

LoadingEigen-value

Cumulative

Explained (%)

Item-to-total

correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha (α)

Word of Mouth

Word of Mouth   1.897 94.855   0.9462 I will recommend this trip

to friends and family0.974 0.897

1 I will recommend my colleague’s

0.974     0.897  

PAGE 10

Construct 5

Research Constructs

Research ItemsFactor

LoadingEigen-value

Cumulative

Explained (%)

Item-to-total

correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha (α)

Intention to Revisit

Intention to Revisit   2.369 78.967   0.8673 Within the next 5 years it

is likely that I will be interested in revisiting.

0.918 0.802

2 In the next 5 years, it is likely that I will take another holiday to _______?

0.882 0.736

1 I will revisit next time 0.865     0.705  

PAGE 11

ANALYSIS

The process of analyzing the data starts from checking for the missing data and the result is there are no missing data or error value.

There are five research constructs that were analyzed using factor analysis.

I. CONSTRUCT 1 : SATISFACTION WITH LODGING, DININING, SHOPPING, AND ATTRACTION

The research construct was divided into four factors and each of the factor is extracted into 1 factor

A. Lodging Satisfaction

In Lodging Satisfaction’s factors there are seven items to be analyzed. In the result table, the factor loading of all items are

greater than 0.6. For the item Lodging Satisfaction 2 (LS 2) was deleted first because the communality number for this

factor was 0.382 which is far from 0.5. After the second run, the other six items of Lodging Satisfaction was matched with

the rule of thumb. It means that the other six items of Lodging Satisfaction are valid to measure Lodging Satisfaction

Factor. All items are kept. Moreover, the hotel service (LS 6) is an item that affects Lodging Satisfaction the most because

its loading factor has the greatest number among the other items (0.887). This conclusion can be inferred by checking item-

to-total correlation of LS 6 correlates more to the overall perception of Lodging Satisfaction than the other items. I can

conclude that LS 6, LS 5, LS 4, LS 7, LS 1, LS 3’s factor loading are greater than 0.6, eigen-value greater than 1, and the

cumulative explained are more than 60%. It shows that these items are valid to represent Lodging Satisfaction factor.

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 6 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.890 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 6 items

are reliable to measure Lodging Satisfaction factor because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

B. Dining Satisfaction

PAGE 12

In Dining Satisfaction’s factors there are 5 items to be analyzed. In the result table, there are no items deleted since the

factor loading’s number of all items is greater than 0.6. It means that every item is valid to measure Dining Satisfaction

factor. All of the items are kept. In advance, the dining service (DS 4) is an item that affects Dining Satisfaction the most

because its loading factor has the greatest number among the other items (0.903). This conclusion can be inferred by

checking item-to-total correlation of DS 4 correlates more to the overall perception of Dining Satisfaction than the other

items. I can conclude that DS 4, DS 3, DS 2, DS 5, DS 1’s factor loading are greater than 0.6, eigen-value greater than 1,

and the cumulative explained are more than 60%. It shows that these items are valid to represent Dining Satisfaction factor.

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 5 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.909 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 5 items

are reliable to measure Dining Satisfaction factor because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

C. Shopping Satisfaction

In Shopping Satisfaction, there are 6 items to be analyzed. In the first run, I need to eliminate Shopping Satisfaction (SHS

1) since the communality was 0.410 which was below the rule of thumb. After eliminate Shopping Satisfaction (SHS 1),

the remaining items matched with the rule of thumb. It states that every item is valid to measure Shopping Satisfaction

factor. The remaining items are kept. In Shopping Satisfaction factor, the item that affects Shopping Satisfaction factor the

most was the shopping staff’s friendliness or SHS 4 since its loading factor has the greatest number among the rest of the

items (0.885). This conclusion can be inferred by checking item-to-total correlation of SHS 4 correlates more to overall

perception of Shopping Satisfaction than the other items. I can conclude that SHS 4, SHS 5, SHS 6, SHS 2, and SHS 3’s

factor loading are greater than 0.6, eigen-value greater than 1, and the cumulative explained are more than 60%. It shows

that these items are valid to represent Shopping Satisfaction factor.

PAGE 13

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 5 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.881 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 6 items

are reliable to measure Shopping Satisfaction factor because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

D. Satisfaction with Attraction

In Satisfaction with Attraction factor, there are 7 items to be analyzed. When run the data for the first time, Shopping with

Attraction 1’s (SWA 1) factor loading was 0.320 showing lower than 0.5 and the communality was the lowest among the

other items that was 0.102. After I deleted SWA 1, the result showed that Shopping with Attraction 5 (SWA 5)’s

communality was 0.293 lower than 0.5 so I need to eliminate SWA 5. After I eliminated SWA 5, I have to delete once again

SWA 1 because the communality for this item was 0.490. In the fourth run, the result was satisfying me since the four

remaining items are matched with the rule of thumb. It means that every item is valid to measure Satisfaction with

Attraction factor. The four remaining items are kept. Moreover, the Parks and Garden (SWA 3) was the item that affects

perception about Satisfaction with Attraction the most because its factor loading is the greatest (0.854) compared to other

items. This conclusion can be inferred by checking item-to-total correlation of SWA 3 correlates more to overall perception

of Satisfaction with Attraction than the other item. I can conclude that SWA 3, SWA 2, SWA 1, and SWA 4’s factor

loading are greater than 0.6, eigen-value greater than 1, and the cumulative explained are more than 60%. It shows that

these items are valid to represent Shopping Satisfaction factor.

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 5 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.796 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 6 items

are reliable to measure Dining Satisfaction factor because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

II. CONSTRUCT 2 : SATISFACTION WITH OVERALL TRIP EXPERIENCE

In the second construct there are 2 main factor and each of them is extracted to one factor

PAGE 14

A. Enrich Experience

There are 3 items in Enrich Experience. There are no items deleted since the factor loading’s number of all items is greater

than 0.6. It means that every item is valid to measure Enrich Experience factor. All of the items are kept. In advance, the

Enrich Experience 2 (ES 2) and Enrich Experience 3 (ES 3) are item that affects Enrich Experience the most because its

loading factor has the greatest number among the other items (both of them have the same value 0.746). This conclusion

can be inferred by checking item-to-total correlation of ES 2 and ES 3 correlates more to the overall perception of Enrich

Experience than the other items. I can conclude that ES 2, ES 3, and ES 1’s factor loading are greater than 0.6, eigen-value

greater than 1, and the cumulative explained are more than 60%. It shows that these items are valid to represent Enrich

Experience factor.

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 3 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.842 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 5 items

are reliable to measure Enrich Experience factor because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

B. Right Experience

There are also 3 items in Right Experience. In this factor there are no items eliminated since the factor loading’s number of

all items is greater than 0.6. It means that every item is valid to measure Right Experience factor. All of the items are kept.

In advance, the Right Experience 2 (RTS 2) is an item that affects Right Experience the most because its loading factor has

the greatest number among the other items (0.798). This conclusion can be inferred by checking item-to-total correlation of

RTS 2 correlates more to the overall perception of Right Experience than the other items. I can conclude that RTS 2, RTS 1,

and RTS 3’s factor loading are greater than 0.6, eigen-value greater than 1, and the cumulative explained are more than

60%. It shows that these items are valid to represent Right Experience factor.

PAGE 15

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 3 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.875 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 3 items

are reliable to measure Right Experience factor because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

III.CONSTRUCT 3 : POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION

There are two items in the construct 3. No items in construct 3 were deleted. After running the factor analysis process, it can

be seen that the factor loading for all the items are greater than 0.6. This means that every item is valid to measure the

Positive Recommendation construct. Then, all items are kept. In Positive Recommendation construct, both item have the

same value for the loading factor that are 0.951. Both item have the same correlation with perception of Positive

Recommendation. It can be seen by the number of item-to-total correlation. Each item factor loading is greater than 0.6,

eigen-value greater than 1, and the cumulative explained are more than 60%. It shows that these items are valid to represent

Positive Recommendation construct.

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 2 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.895 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 2 items

are reliable to measure Positive Recommendation construct because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability

test.

IV. CONSTRUCT 4 : WORD OF MOUTH

There are two items in the construct 4. No items in construct 4 were deleted. After running the factor analysis process, it can

be seen that the factor loading for all the items are greater than 0.6. This means that every item is valid to measure the Word

of Mouth construct. Then, all items are kept. In Word of Mouth construct, both item have the same value for the loading

factor that are 0.974. Both item have the same correlation with perception of Word of Mouth. It can be seen by the number

PAGE 16

of item-to-total correlation. Each item factor loading is greater than 0.6, eigen-value greater than 1, and the cumulative

explained are more than 60%. It shows that these items are valid to represent Word of Mouth construct.

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 2 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.946 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 2 items

are reliable to measure Word of Mouth construct because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

V. CONSTRUCT 5 :INTENTION TO REVISIT

There are three items in the construct 5. No items in construct 5 were deleted. After running the factor analysis process, it

can be seen that the factor loading for all the items are greater than 0.6. This means that every item is valid to measure the

Intention to Revisit construct. Then, all items are kept. In Intention to Revisit construct, Intention to Revisit (IRV 3) is an

item that affects Intention to Revisit the most because its loading factor has the greatest number among the other items

(0.918). This conclusion can be inferred by checking item-to-total correlation of IRV 3 correlates more to the overall

perception of Intention to Revisit than the other items. I can conclude that IRV 3, IRV 2, IRV 1’s factor loading are greater

than 0.6, eigen-value greater than 1, and the cumulative explained are more than 60%. It shows that these items are valid to

represent Intention to Revisit construct.

For the reliability test, SPSS program was used to conduct the test. All 3 items are processed and resulting the Cronbach

Alpha’s valued was 0.867 and all of the item-to-total correlation value was greater than 0.5. I can conclude, these 3 items

are reliable to measure Intention to Revisit construct because it is matched with the rule of thumb for the reliability test.

PAGE 17