11 Chapter 5

M
au
la
na
A
za
d
Li
br
ar
y,
A
lig
ar
h
Chapter – 5
M
us
lim
Analysis and Interpretation
U
ni
ve
rs
i ty
CHAPTER–5: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
CHAPTER – 5
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
A review of the customer relation management effectiveness and practices, as well as
ty
characteristic and nature of the overall customer relation management at the two
i
rs
colossal public and private sector banks of India, selected for this study, viz.
ve
Allahabad Bank and HDFC Bank belonging to public and private sector respectively,
has been carried out at length in the previous chapter. It has been found that the
ni
U
customer relation management effectiveness and practices obtaining at two entities
lim
meet the standard and ensemble the nature and requirement of their customer to
provide world class banking facilities with minimum service charge. The impact,
us
however, of these customer relation management policies and practices remains to be
examined with the application of statistical tools.
M
h
The present chapter is consequently devoted to finding out the impact of customer
ar
relation management effectiveness and practices in force at the Allahabad Bank and
lig
HDFC Bank on organizational commitment, customer satisfaction, and customer

A
loyalty and cross buying in both the selected banks representing India’s banking
y,
industry for the present study. To this end, data is collected through administration of
ar
well-designed questionnaire from the customers belonging to both public and private
br
sector banks. Also, the data is analyzed with the application of statistical tools and
Li
interpreted to derive logical results which are used to test the hypotheses of this study.
d
za
5.1 Universe
A
The population or universe represents the entire group of units which is the focus of
na
the study. Thus, the population could consist of all the persons in the country, or those
la
in a particular geographical location, or a special ethnic or economic group,

au
depending on the purpose and coverage of the study. The population could also
M
consist of non-human units such as farms, houses or business establishment. Bless and
Higson-Smith(2006) view the universe as “the entire set of objects or group of people,
which is the object of research and about which the researcher wants to determine
some characteristics”. On the other hand, Neuman (2000) refers to a universe as “the
broad class of units that are covered in hypotheses.” Therefore, it can be concluded
143
that universe refers to all the units to which the findings of a specific study might get
generalized directly or indirectly.
The universe for the survey of this study is finite. All the customers of Allahabad
Bank and HDFC Bank in India are considered as the universe. It includes all the
customers of both the banks who reside in different cities of Delhi NCR, and form
ty
part of this study. However, due to time & other resource constraints collection of
i
rs
complete data from all the customers from the universe is not possible. Hence, a select
ve
sample of geographical areas as well as of customers is chosen from the universe for
ni
data collection for this study.
U
5.2 Sample
lim
The sample represents the subset of the population. A sample is a finite part of a
us
statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information about the
M
whole. When dealing with people it can be defined as a set of respondents selected
h
from a large population for the purpose of a survey. For this research, sample has to
ar
be taken since it is not possible to cover such a vast sector as Banking Industry on
lig
account of impediments of time, finance and other resources required for the purpose.
A
Hence, the geographical area for the surveys as well as the customers of the bank
y,
(respondents) to the questionnaire have been selected in such a manner that the whole
ar
country can be represented and the conduct of research work gets handy and possible
br
for completion of present study

Li
As far as geographical coverage for this study is concerned, the researcher tried to
d
za
draw the sample in such a way that it may represent the whole population judiciously.
A
Four cities namely Ghaziabad, Noida, Delhi, and Gurugram, have been chosen as
na
sample for geographical coverage. All select cities have a huge presence of customers
of these two banks. Respondents have been drawn from the four cities to a
la
manageable handling limit of 564 customers spread over the cities. This convenience
au
sampling method has been used for the study. While the sample selection of four
M
cities for geographical coverage is based on proximity and convenience, the selection
of respondents from the four cities is at random.
144
5.3 Questionnaire
The current survey has been conducted with the help of a well-designed prepared
questionnaire, which is placed as Appendix-1 to this study. The questionnaire was
equipped taking into deliberation the requirement of this study to assess the impact of
customer relation management effectiveness and practices on organizational
ty
commitment as well as customer’s satisfaction, Loyalty, and Cross buying in both the
i
rs
banks namely Allahabad Bank and HDFC bank and making a comparative study of
ve
both the select banks. The design, pattern, and structure of the questionnaire have
ni
been simple, study-specific, unambiguous, minimal, and capable of invoking the
U
objective type of answers through marking a tick only on the statement which
lim
customers consider fit as per their agreement and disagreement. In designing the
us
question items, the researcher adapted and modified the items of questionnaires from
previous researchers to suit the need of the present study. The Questionnaire first
M
seeks to elicit perception of customers towards select customer relation management
h
ar
dimensions and their practices. Each question is rated on a five-point Likert scale. It is
lig
followed by eliciting information on customer relation management effectiveness

constructs which further has been divided into four parts i.e. organizational
A
commitment, satisfaction, loyalty and cross buying. Further, the questionnaire seeks
y,
ar
to analyze customer satisfaction level with existing customer relation management

br
effectiveness construct of both the selected banks. Finally,the personal information of

Li
the respondents has been obtained which include age, gender, educational
qualification, income level, profession type, (professional or non professional) work
d
za
experience, marital status etc, so as to get the overall background of the customers for
A
drawing the fruitful conclusion. This questionnaire contains one hundred twelve
na
statements which measure the twenty independent variables and five dependent
variables selected for the present study.
la
au
5.4 Research Instrument

M
The research instrument used is Likert’s 5-point scale. Responses to items were
scored in such a way that a response indicative of most favorable was given the
highest scores and vice versa (strongly agree = 5 and strongly disagree = 1).The
whole questionnaire is divided into five parts, the first part deals with demographics,
second part concerns with organizational commitment, third segment starts with
145
customer satisfaction, fourth part deals with customer loyalty and finally the fifth and
last part is related to cross buying. In order to obtain information on various
parameters relating to customer relation management effectiveness and practices in
the two selected banks, the questionnaire poses issue-wise statements (queries) for
answers from the respondents. Thus, the questionnaire poses to the respondent queries
ty
for assessing the customer perception. with regard to organizational commitment (Six
i
rs
statements),customer experience (Six statements) process driven(five statements),
ve
Reliability (Five items),Technological Orientation(Five statements), Customized
ni
Offer (Six statements), Perceived quality(five items),Competence (5 statements),
U
Trust (5 statements), Communication (5 statements), Strong Relationship(5
lim
statements), Conflict Handling(5 statements), Stronger Relational Bond(5
statements),Customer Influence(5 statements), Promoting Customer Dependency(5
us
statements), Interaction Frequency( 5 statements), Customer Commitment(5 items),
M
Customer Expanding(5 items), Product Patronage( 5 statements), Extremely Loyal
h
Customers(5 statements), Additional Product Purchase( 4 items) . Items were drawn
ar
from the model questionnaire propounded by Singh, K. (2004), Rao and Abraham
lig
(1991). However, some changes in the items of the questionnaire were made to suit
A
the present study. The reliability and validity of the scale in the Indian context has
y,
been tested by authors and it is found to be satisfactory. The study follows the survey
ar
research technique. Each respondent is required to tick the option that represents the
br
perception most truly and faithfully. The questionnaire, at the outset, mentions clear-
Li
cut instructions to the respondents for filling up the questionnaire properly. This
d
helped in providing convenience in marking the answers and ensured completeness

za
and clarity of filling the questionnaire for the study.

A
na
5.5 Response
la
Customers of both, the Allahabad Bank and HDFC Bank gave an encouraging and
au
useful response. About 1500 questionnaires were floated among customers of both the
M
banks at different locations, in order to cover the sample size of 1128. Out of these
300 did not respond while 72 respondents incompletely filled the questionnaire and,
hence, these were rejected. Thus, the received and rejected responses amounted to 372
out of 1500 leaving 1128 purposeful responses with adequate information as per the
required sample of 1128 for this study. This yielded an aggregate response rate of
146
75.2 %, which is said to be satisfactory in a study based on primary data. Data were
analyzed on the basis of responses provided by 1128 respondents completely in all
respects. Therefore, the exact sample was 1128. It has been observed that during the
course of data collection, the respondents took very cooperative and sincere interest
and care in appropriately giving their perceptions on the scale of items provided in the
ty
questionnaire and returned the questionnaire duly and completely filled. Distribution
i
rs
of questionnaire is explained in the following Table 5.1
ve
TABLE 5.1
ni
Questionnaire Distribution and Response Rate
U
lim
S. Name of Distributed Table Usable, Response Methodology
No. District/ Questionnaire Returned and Rate (%) adopted in
us
State completed Distributing
questionnaires Questionnaires
1 Ghaziabad 250 148

M 59.2 Field work
h
ar
2 Noida 350 300 85% Field Work

lig
3 New Delhi 400 300 75% Field Work

A
4 Gurugram 500 380 76% Field Work

y,
ar
Total 1500 1128 - -

br
Li
d
za
A
na
la
au
M
Fig. 5.1: Questionnaire Distribution and Response Rate
147
5.6 Analysis of Collected Data
The responses gathered by means of the questionnaire from the customers of

Allahabad Bank and HDFC Bank have been processed and analyzed for testing the
hypotheses formulated for the present study. The collected data and its analysis are
presented below. The analysis of data has been divided into two parts. Part one
ty
presents the preliminary analysis of data. Under preliminary analysis demographic
i
rs
profile of the respondents, common method variance, reliability analysis of research
ve
instrument, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis have been
ni
discussed. Whereas the Part two deals with the objective-wise analysis of data which
U
examines the impact of customer relation management effectiveness and practices on
lim
organizational commitment, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and cross buying
us
among the customers of selected banks.
5.7 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

M
h
5.7.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Pilot Survey
ar
The adapted questionnaire (Singh, 2004), for the purpose of this research, was utilized
lig
with sample size (n=100). As in adapted questionnaire, the items are changed as per
A
the demographic and cultural basis, so it becomes mandatory to explore the new items
y,
within the existing constructs (Malik, 2016). And that is why the exploratory factor
ar
analysis was used to see the nature and structure of the research instrument. Factor
br
analysis is used to reduce a large set of measured variables in terms of relatively few
Li
categories or factors with a minimum loss of information. Based on the correlation

d
za
among the variables this technique allows the researcher to group the variables into
A
factors and the factors are known as new variables or latent variables (Kothari, 2012).
na
In other words,factor analysis is a statistical approach that can be used to analyze

interrelationships among a large number of variables and to explain these variables in
la
terms of their common underlying dimensions (factors). Table 5.2 below shows the
au
results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

M
148
5.7.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of CRME Indicators of HDFC Bank.
The exploratory factor analysis was conducted by using KMO to find the Sampling
Adequacy of the data, it indicates the variables of the dependent and independent
nature were placed to the respondents and they have responded well. Further the total
variance explained by all the variables was calculated in order to find out the
ty
threshold limit which is indicated by Hair and Black 2006.
i
rs
TABLE 5.2
ve
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .781
ni
Approx. Chi-Square 1962.929
U
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 351
Sig. .000
lim
us
TABLE 5.3
Communalities
OC_1
Initial
1.000
M Extraction
.484
h
OC_2 1.000 .670
ar
OC_3 1.000 .703

lig
OC_4 1.000 .788

OC_5 1.000 .598
A
OC_6 1.000 .544

y,
CE_1 1.000 .667

ar
CE_2 1.000 .748

CE_3 1.000 .748
br
CE_4 1.000 .737

Li
CE_5 1.000 .653

CE_6 1.000 .717
d
PDA_1 1.000 .763

za
PDA_2 1.000 .731

PDA_3 1.000 .688
A
PDA_4 1.000 .548

na
PDA_5 1.000 .537

REL_1 1.000 .732
la
REL_2 1.000 .666

au
REL_3 1.000 .807

REL_4 1.000 .787
M
REL_5 1.000 .735

TOR_1 1.000 .740
TOR_2 1.000 .814
TOR_3 1.000 .809
TOR_4 1.000 .682
TOR_5 1.000 .614
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
149
ty
TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED
i
rs
Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
ve
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 6.410 23.741 23.741 6.410 23.741 23.741 4.217 15.617 15.617
ni
2 5.137 19.027 42.768 5.137 19.027 42.768 4.084 15.127 30.744
U
3 3.239 11.997 54.765 3.239 11.997 54.765 3.690 13.666 44.410
4 2.457 9.099 63.865 2.457 9.099 63.865 3.516 13.022 57.432
lim
5 1.467 5.432 69.297 1.467 5.432 69.297 3.203 11.864 69.297
6 1.167 4.322 73.618
us
7 .856 3.171 76.790
8 .748 2.770 79.560
M
9 .702 2.600 82.159
10 .614 2.275 84.434
h
ar
11 .561 2.077 86.511
12 .472 1.749 88.260
lig
13 .436 1.616 89.876
14 .373 1.383 91.259
A
15 .358 1.325 92.583
y,
16 .319 1.183 93.766
ar
17 .291 1.078 94.844
18 .225 .833 95.676
br
19 .181 .670 96.346
Li
20 .178 .660 97.006

21 .158 .586 97.592
d
22 .155 .575 98.168

za
23 .121 .449 98.617

24 .115 .425 99.041
A
25 .101 .373 99.414

na
26 .085 .315 99.730

27 .073 .270 100.000
la

au
M
150
Exploratory Factor Analysis of CRME Indicators of Allahabad Bank

The exploratory factor analysis was conducted by using KMO to find the Sampling
Adequacy of the data, it indicates the variables of the dependent and independent
nature were placed to the respondents and they have responded well. Further the total
variance explained by all the variables was calculated in order to find out the
ty
threshold limit which is indicated by Hair and Black 2006.
i
rs
ve
TABLE 5.4
ni
KMO and Bartlett's Test
U
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .773
lim
Approx. Chi-Square 627.306
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Df 171
us
Sig. .000
M
h
TABLE 5.5
ar
Communalities
lig
Initial Extraction
A
OC_1 1.000 .644

OC_4 1.000 .517
y,
OC_5 1.000 .496

ar
CE_4 1.000 .718

br
CE_5 1.000 .541

CE_6 1.000 .681
Li
PDA_1 1.000 .638

d
PDA_2 1.000 .593

za
PDA_3 1.000 .584

PDA_4 1.000 .699
A
PDA_5 1.000 .591

na
REL_1 1.000 .608

REL_2 1.000 .626
la
REL_3 1.000 .597

au
TOR_1 1.000 .549

TOR_2 1.000 .723
M
TOR_3 1.000 .559

TOR_4 1.000 .556
TOR_5 1.000 .605
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
151
ty
TABLE 5.6
i
rs
Total Variance Explained
ve
Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
ni
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
U
1 5.497 28.930 28.930 5.497 28.930 28.930 2.764 14.549 14.549
lim
2 1.727 9.088 38.018 1.727 9.088 38.018 2.752 14.482 29.031
3 1.645 8.658 46.676 1.645 8.658 46.676 2.424 12.758 41.789
us
4 1.480 7.787 54.463 1.480 7.787 54.463 1.966 10.349 52.138
M
5 1.177 6.195 60.658 1.177 6.195 60.658 1.619 8.520 60.658
6 .953 5.015 65.673
h
ar
7 .828 4.360 70.033
lig
8 .771 4.057 74.090
9 .762 4.008 78.098
A
10 .655 3.450 81.548
y,
11 .587 3.091 84.639
12 .503 2.649 87.288
ar
br
13 .459 2.417 89.705
Li
14 .433 2.280 91.985

15 .393 2.070 94.055
d
za
16 .354 1.862 95.916

17 .306 1.612 97.528
A
18 .289 1.521 99.049

na
19 .181 .951 100.000

la

au
M
152
5.7.3 A comparison of Exploratory Factor Analysis items of HDFC Bank and

Allahabad Bank
TABLE 5.7
Exploratory Factor Analysis
ty
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS HDFC bank Allahabad bank
i
rs
KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy .781 .773
ve
p-Value 0.000 0.000
ni
Total Variance Explained 69.29 60.65
U
lim
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of
us
sphericity:
M
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is an index used to examine
h
the appropriateness of factor analysis. High values indicate that factor analysis is
ar
appropriate (Malhotra and Dash, 2010). The KMO statistic varies between 0 and 1. A
lig
value of 0 indicates that the sum of partial correlations is large relative to the sum of
A
correlations, indicating diffusion in the pattern of correlations (hence, factor analysis

y,
is likely to be inappropriate). A value close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations

ar
are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors.
br
Kaiser (1974) recommends accepting values greater than 0.5 as acceptable (values
Li
below this should lead to either collect more data or rethink which variables to
d
za
include). Furthermore, values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre, values between 0.7
and 0.8 are good, values between 0.8 and 0.9 are great and values above 0.9 are
A
superb. For the present analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

na
in the case of HDFC Bank is 0.781 and in the case of Allahabad Bank, it is .773
la
which falls into the range of being acceptable and good respectively: there is
au
confidence that that factor analysis is appropriate for the present study.
M
Bartlett’s measure tests the null hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an
identity matrix. For factor analysis to work there is a need for some relationships
between variables and if the R-matrix were an identity matrix then all correlation
coefficients would be zero. Therefore, this test to be significant should have a
153
significance value less than 0.05. A significant test tells us that the R-matrix is not an
identity matrix; therefore, there are some relationships between the variables included
in the analysis. For these data, Bartlett's test is highly significant (p < 0.001), and
therefore factor analysis is appropriate. Therefore the data is found suitable for further
analysis.
ty
5.8 Demographic Profile
i
rs
It is essential to know the demographic profile of the particular respondent. The
ve
profile of the customers includes their gender, marital status, educational qualification
ni
occupation, household income, age, association of bank.
U
5.8.1 Gender of the Respondents
lim
TABLE 5.8
us
Distribution of the customers based on Gender
Number of Customers M
h
Total Number
ar
Gender Allahabad bank HDFC bank

lig
Percentage Percentage Percentage

Number Number Number
A
% % %
y,
Male 400 71 364 64.5 764 68

ar
br
Female 164 29 200 35.5 364 32

Li
Total 564 100 564 100 1128 100.00

d
za
A
The present study analyses the gender among the customers in the two groups (male
na
and female) of public (Allahabad) and private (HDFC) banks. When a profile of
respondents was generated based on gender, it can be seen from the table given above
la
au
that the male respondents’ outnumbered female employees as far as respondents for
this study are concerned. In the present study, there are ‘764’males and ‘364’females.
M
Table 5.8 above also reveals that out of total 1128 respondents, 764 customers are
male while female employees account for 364. In the case of Allahabad Bank out of
total 564 customers, 400 are male while female employees stand at 164 giving a
response rate of 71 % and 29% respectively. However, in the case of HDFC Bank out
154
of total 564 customers, 364 customers are male while females constitute 200
customers yielding a response rate of 64.5% and 35.5% respectively.
Pictorial representation is the best way to present the statistical data to be

comprehensible at a glance. Hence, the diagram below shows the respective sample
sizes, percentage and gender profile of each of the bank under this study, viz.
ty
Allahabad bank of the public sector and HDFC bank of the private sector.
i
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
h
ar
lig
Fig. 5.2: Distribution of the customers based on Gender

A
5.8.2 Age of Respondent

y,
ar
Age of the customers constitutes one of the important profile variables of the
br
customers. It helps management in framing customer relation management

Li
effectiveness dimensions regarding their customers. Customers between the age group
d
of 15-25 are most prone to raiding and poaching by other banks. Hence, it becomes
za
extremely important for the banks to give due attention to the specified age group of
A
customers while formulating customer relation management effectiveness dimensions

na
of the banks. The age group of the customers in the present study includes customers
la
of the age group from15-25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-55, and 55-65 and above 65.
au
M
155
TABLE 5.9
Age- Wise Distribution of Respondents
Number of customers
Age
(in Allahabad bank HDFC bank Total
ty
years) Percentage
Number
Number Percentage Number Percentage
i
rs
15-25 50 8.8 80 14.2 130 11.5
ve
ni
25-35 182 33 200 35 382 33.9
U
35-45 232 41 104 18.8 336 29.8
lim
45-55 50 8.8 80 14.3 130 11.5
us
55-65 30 5 70 12.4 100 8.8
>65 20 3.4 30 5.3 M 50 4.5

h
ar
Total 564 100 564 100 1128 100

lig
A
From Table 5.9 above, it is evident that in the HDFC Bank the age group of 25-35
y,
years constitutes the highest number of customers being 35% of the total respondents
ar
drawn from the bank. In the case of Allahabad Bank, however, the highest number of
br
banks customer respondents fall in the age group of 35-45 years constituting 41% of
Li
the total respondents drawn from the bank. However, when total respondents merged
d
together of both the banks, the statistics indicate that the largest number of customers
za
pertains to the age group of 25-35 years constituting 33.9% of the total sample of
A
respondent drawn from both the banks.

na
The bar diagrams below shows the break-up in percentage terms of each category of
la
age groups of the respondents in both the Allahabad Bank and the HDFC Bank under
au
study.
M
156
Fig. 3. Age Wise Distribution of customers

382
336
232
200
182
130 130
104
ty
100
80 80 70
50 50 50
i
30 20 30
rs
ve
15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 >65
ni
U
Allahabad bank HDFC bank Total Number
lim
Fig. 5.3: Age Wise Distribution of Customers of Allahabad Bank and HDFC Bank
5.8.3 Level of Education of the Respondents
us
M
The level of education among customers is one of the significant criteria which need
to be given utmost attention while formulating customer relation management
h
ar
effectiveness dimensions for the banks. Customer’s level of education decides

lig
whether a particular customer wants to be in their career path. Hence the level of
A
education of the customers is included as one of the profile variables. The highly
y,
educated customers may be more prone to attrition while lower educated are
ar
complacent with what s/he is getting. The education level of the customer in the
br
present study includes Under Graduate, Post Graduate, and Professional.

Li
d
TABLE 5.10
za
Distribution of the customers on the basis of Level of Education

A
Number of customers
na
Total
Education Allahabad bank HDFC bank
la
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

au
Under
180 16 80 7.1 260 23
M
Graduate
Post
164 14 184 16.4 348 31
Graduate
Professionals 220 20 300 26.5 520 46
Total 564 50 564 50 1128 100.00
157
Table 5.10 above reveals that professionals form the highest percentages of customers
in both the banks followed by post graduate and undergraduate which constitute 20 %
in case of Allahabad bank and 26.5% in case of HDFC bank.
The bar diagram below shows the Public Sample size, percentage and educational
Fig. 4. Distribution of the customers on the basis of Level
level of the respondents. of Education
ty
i
rs
520
ve
348
300
ni
260
220
180 164 184
U
80
lim
us
Allahabad bank HDFC bank Total
Under Graduate Post Graduate

M Professionals
h
ar
Fig. 5.4: Distribution of the customers on the basis of level of education

lig
5.8.4 The marital Status of the respondents

A
y,
The marital status of the customer respondents drawn from both the Allahabad Bank
ar
and the HDFC Bank has been computed in two broad heads, viz, ‘Married’ and
br
‘unmarried’ as shown in the following table 5.11

Li
TABLE 5.11
d
Distribution of the Customer on the basis of Marital Status

za
A
Number of Customer
na
Total
Marital
Allahabad bank HDFC bank
la
Status
au

M
Married 400 35 200 18 600 53
Unmarried 164 15 364 32 528 47
Total 564 50 564 50 1128 100.0
158
Table 5.11 above exhibit the distribution of the respondent’s marital status in case of
Allahabad Bank as well as HDFC Bank. Statistic in table clearly shows that 53%
respondent belong to the category of married class while rest are unmarried which
constitute 47% of the total respondents. This outcome is also highlighted with the help
of bar diagram below.
i ty
rs
ve
53
47
ni
35
U
32
lim
18
15
us
M
h
ar
Married Unmarried
lig
A
Fig. 5.5: Distribution of the customer on the basis of marital status (In Percentage)
y,
5.8.5 Occupation of the Respondents

ar
The occupation status of the customer respondents has also been elicited. It has been
br
computed and shown in table 5.12 below.

Li
TABLE 5.12
d
za
Distribution of the customers on the basis of occupation Status

A
Number of Customers
na
Occupation Total
Status Allahabad bank HDFC bank
la

au
Govt jobs 350 31 64 6 414 37

M
Private jobs 80 7 150 13 230 20

Businessmen 34 3 300 27 334 30
Students 100 9 50 4 150 13
Total 564 50 564 50 1128 100
159
Table 5.12 above depicts the occupation status of respondents in both the banks.
Employment status of the respondents has been divided into four group viz, govt jobs,
private jobs, businessman, students. In the case of Allahabad bank 31% customers are
in Government job while in the case of HDFC Bank they are 6%. The 7% customers
of Allahabad bank belong to private sector jobs. On the other hand customer of HDFC
ty
bank doing private jobs is 13%. The business class favoured HDFC bank for their
i
rs
banking services which are clearly indicated from the table which constitute 27%,
ve
while they are 3% in the case of public sector Allahabad banks. Participation of
ni
student community in both the banks is not very much noticeable.
U
The bar diagrams below shows the occupation- wise status of total respondents in the
lim
two Public vs. Private sector banks in terms of sample size, percentage and
us
occupation of the respondent respectively.
414
M
h
ar
334
lig
A
230
y,
Total Number
ar
150 Total Percentage

br
Li
37
d
30
20 13
za
Govt jobs Private jobs Businessmen Students

A
na
la
Fig. 5.6: Distribution of the customers on the basis of occupation status

au
M
160
5.8.6 Household monthly income of Respondents
Customers household monthly income of respondents is one of the important

condition and banks must give due consideration while formulating CRME
Dimensions for the banks.
ty
TABLE 5.13
i
rs
Distribution of the Respondents Income
ve
Number of Customers
ni
Household Total
Monthly Allahabad bank HDFC bank
U
Income
lim
Rs 15000-
us
50 4 34 3 84 7
25000
Rs 25000-
132 12 150
M 13 282 25
h
35000
ar
Rs 35000-
lig
182 16 190 17 372 33

45000
A
Rs 45000-
100 9 90 8 190 17
y,
55000
ar
Rs 55000-
br
80 7 50 4.5 130 12
65000
Li
Rs >65000 20 2 50 4.5 70 6
d
za
Total 564 50 564 50 1128 100

A
na
The table 5.13 above shows the different categories of respondents income-wise. The
la
highest number of respondents in terms of monthly income falls in the category of Rs

au
35000-45000, followed by Rs 25000-35000 in both the banks under study. Minimum

M
number of account holders is in the segment of monthly income of more than Rs

65,000, which accounts for only 6% of the total respondents. This can also be viewed
from the bar diagram below.
161
33
25
16 17 17
ty
12 13 12
i
9 8
rs
7 7
4 3 4.5 4.5 6
2
ve
ni
15000-25000 25000-35000 35000-45000 45000-55000 55000-65000 >65000
U
lim
us
Fig. 5.7: Distribution of customers on the basis of Monthly Income (In Percentage)
5.9. Common Method Variance

M
h
In the studies based on primary data information or the studies based on survey, it is
ar
required for researcher to analyse the common method variance in order to see the
lig
pattern of biases that may exist in the study, as in every primary study there may be
A
some chances of biases of the raters or respondents to the items (independent and
y,
dependent) of research instrument or research questionnaire. This common method

ar
variance can create systematic extent inaccuracy, which further may lead to both
br
Types I and Type II errors”(Podsakoffet., al, 2003). “The magnitude of biases present
Li
in any study, in regard to this Harman’s one-factor test (Harman, 1960) is a technique
d
uses exploratory factor analysis”, where all variables are loaded onto a single factor
za
and fixed invariance of 1 from the total number of variables i.e. there is no rotation
A
(Podsakoffet al, 2003) (as shown in table 5.14 and table 5.15) in case of HDFC bank
na
and Allahabad bank respectively. “This process through which new factor comes is
la
not the researchers model but it is required to be done only for the purpose of analysis
au
to check or see as if the total variables which are fixed into 1 variance (no rotation) is
M
explaining the variance more than 50%, then common method bias may be present”
162
5.9.1 Harman’s Common Method Bias of HDFC bank.
Harman’s Common method bias was tested and it was found that the total variance
explained is on 9.420 %, which means biases exist but within the acceptable range.
Table 5.14
ty
Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
i
rs
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance %
ve
1 10.550 9.420 9.420 10.550 9.420 9.420
2 8.837 7.891 17.310
ni
3 6.784 6.057 23.368
4 6.533 5.833 29.201
U
5 5.946 5.309 34.510
6 5.190 4.634 39.144
lim
7 4.586 4.094 43.238
8 4.163 3.717 46.955
us
9 3.688 3.293 50.248
10 3.579 3.195 53.443
11
12
3.200
3.026
2.857
2.702
56.300
59.002 M
h
13 2.912 2.600 61.603
ar
14 2.707 2.417 64.019

15 2.210 1.973 65.993
lig
16 2.136 1.907 67.900

17 1.871 1.671 69.570
A
18 1.602 1.430 71.001

19 1.562 1.395 72.396
y,
20 1.472 1.315 73.710

ar
21 1.374 1.227 74.938

22 1.329 1.186 76.124
br
23 1.206 1.077 77.201

24 1.127 1.006 78.207
Li
25 1.080 .964 79.172

26 .969 .866 80.037
d
27 .901 .804 80.841

za
28 .872 .779 81.620

29 .811 .724 82.344
A
30 .794 .709 83.053

na
31 .752 .671 83.724

32 .743 .663 84.388
la
33 .700 .625 85.012

34 .676 .603 85.616
au
35 .666 .595 86.211

36 .621 .555 86.765
M
37 .583 .520 87.285

38 .562 .502 87.787
39 .548 .490 88.277
40 .524 .468 88.744
41 .516 .461 89.205
42 .503 .449 89.655
43 .471 .420 90.075
44 .446 .398 90.473
45 .429 .383 90.857
163
46 .408 .364 91.221

47 .400 .357 91.578
48 .375 .335 91.913
49 .372 .332 92.245
50 .360 .322 92.567
51 .341 .305 92.872
52 .327 .292 93.163
53 .321 .286 93.450
ty
54 .316 .282 93.731
55 .295 .263 93.995
i
rs
56 .280 .250 94.245
57 .276 .246 94.491
ve
58 .264 .236 94.726
59 .259 .231 94.958
ni
60 .239 .213 95.171
61 .235 .210 95.381
U
62 .232 .207 95.588
lim
63 .222 .198 95.786
64 .213 .190 95.977
65 .207 .184 96.161
us
66 .197 .176 96.337
67 .194 .173 96.510
68
69
.192
.186
.172
.166
96.681
96.848 M
h
70 .176 .157 97.005
ar
71 .171 .153 97.157

72 .165 .147 97.304
lig
73 .159 .142 97.446

74 .155 .139 97.585
A
75 .150 .134 97.719

y,
76 .139 .124 97.843

77 .134 .120 97.963
ar
78 .131 .117 98.080

79 .125 .111 98.191
br
80 .119 .107 98.298

Li
81 .114 .102 98.400

82 .107 .096 98.496
d
83 .103 .092 98.588

84 .101 .090 98.678
za
85 .100 .089 98.767

A
86 .093 .083 98.850

87 .087 .077 98.927
na
88 .084 .075 99.002

89 .081 .072 99.074
la
90 .077 .068 99.143

91 .075 .067 99.210
au
92 .070 .063 99.272

93 .070 .062 99.334
M
94 .065 .058 99.392

95 .060 .054 99.446
96 .059 .053 99.499
97 .057 .051 99.550
98 .052 .047 99.597
99 .049 .044 99.640
100 .046 .041 99.681
101 .044 .039 99.720
164
102 .041 .036 99.757

103 .039 .035 99.792
104 .037 .033 99.825
105 .034 .030 99.855
106 .029 .026 99.881
107 .029 .026 99.907
108 .025 .022 99.929
109 .023 .020 99.950
ty
110 .022 .020 99.969
111 .018 .016 99.986
i
rs
112 .016 .014 100.000
ve
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
ni
a) Harman common method Bias calculated by using principal component extraction method and
fixing all the independent and dependent variables into one.
U
b) The total variance explained by all the independent and dependent variable should be less than 50
%. Results showing 9.420 %, which is within the acceptable range.
lim
5.9.2 Harman’s Common Method (Allahabad bank.)
us
Haman’s Common method bias was tested and it was found that the totalvariance
M
explained is only 12.797%, which means that biases exist but within the acceptable
h
range.
ar
Table 5.15
lig

A
Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

y,
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative

Variance % Variance %
ar
1 14.333 12.797 12.797 14.333 12.797 12.797

2 5.423 4.842 17.639
br
3 4.976 4.443 22.082

Li
4 4.723 4.217 26.299

5 4.223 3.770 30.069
d
6 3.772 3.368 33.437

za
7 3.503 3.127 36.564

A
8 3.351 2.992 39.557

9 3.019 2.696 42.252
na
10 2.887 2.577 44.830

11 2.502 2.234 47.064
la
12 2.500 2.232 49.296

au
13 2.370 2.116 51.413

14 2.212 1.975 53.387
M
15 2.140 1.911 55.298

16 2.031 1.814 57.111
17 1.927 1.721 58.832
18 1.868 1.668 60.500
19 1.820 1.625 62.125
20 1.699 1.517 63.641
21 1.625 1.450 65.092
165
22 1.582 1.413 66.504

23 1.489 1.329 67.834
24 1.406 1.256 69.089
25 1.317 1.176 70.266
26 1.298 1.159 71.425
27 1.284 1.146 72.571
28 1.187 1.060 73.631
ty
29 1.171 1.045 74.676
i
30 1.114 .995 75.671
rs
31 1.074 .959 76.630
ve
32 1.048 .936 77.567
33 1.013 .904 78.471
ni
34 .982 .877 79.348
U
35 .908 .810 80.158
36 .871 .778 80.936
lim
37 .864 .771 81.708
38 .835 .745 82.453
us
39 .804 .718 83.170
40
41
.793
.732
.708
.653
83.878
84.532 M
h
42 .727 .649 85.180
ar
43 .718 .641 85.821

lig
44 .689 .616 86.437

45 .671 .599 87.036
A
46 .623 .556 87.592

47 .598 .534 88.126
y,
48 .574 .513 88.639

ar
49 .571 .510 89.149

br
50 .556 .497 89.646

51 .549 .490 90.136
Li
52 .510 .455 90.591

d
53 .503 .449 91.040

za
54 .481 .430 91.470

55 .451 .402 91.872
A
56 .430 .384 92.256

na
57 .404 .361 92.617

58 .399 .357 92.973
la
59 .382 .341 93.314

au
60 .360 .321 93.635

61 .354 .316 93.951
M
62 .338 .302 94.253

63 .324 .289 94.542
64 .319 .285 94.828
65 .307 .274 95.102
66 .293 .261 95.363
67 .273 .244 95.607
68 .269 .240 95.847
166
69 .259 .231 96.078

70 .252 .225 96.303
71 .239 .214 96.517
72 .236 .211 96.728
73 .225 .201 96.929
74 .215 .192 97.121
75 .202 .180 97.301
ty
76 .196 .175 97.477
i
77 .191 .171 97.648
rs
78 .172 .153 97.801
ve
79 .165 .148 97.949
80 .159 .142 98.091
ni
81 .155 .139 98.229
U
82 .151 .135 98.364
83 .144 .129 98.493
lim
84 .135 .120 98.613
85 .130 .116 98.729
us
86 .123 .110 98.839
87
88
.121
.112
.108
.100
98.946
99.047 M
h
89 .110 .098 99.145
ar
90 .101 .091 99.235

lig
91 .099 .089 99.324

92 .086 .077 99.400
A
93 .079 .070 99.471

94 .072 .064 99.535
y,
95 .066 .059 99.593

ar
96 .060 .054 99.647

br
97 .051 .046 99.693

98 .050 .045 99.738
Li
99 .047 .042 99.779

d
100 .039 .035 99.814

za
101 .035 .031 99.845

102 .033 .029 99.874
A
103 .028 .025 99.899

na
104 .025 .023 99.922

105 .021 .019 99.940
la
106 .015 .013 99.954

au
107 .013 .012 99.966

108 .012 .011 99.977
M
109 .010 .009 99.986

110 .008 .007 99.993
111 .005 .005 99.997
112 .003 .003 100.000
c) Harman common method Bias was calculated by using principal component extraction
method and fixing all the independent and dependent variables into one.
167
d) The total variance explained by the entire independent and dependent variable should be less
than 50 %. This study sho12.797%, which is within the acceptable range.
5.9.3 Comparison of Harman’s Common Method Bias in HDFC Bank and
Allahabad Bank
The comparative analysis indicated the common method variance of 9.420 %
and 12.797 % in case of HDFC Bank and Allahabad Bank respectively. Taking the
ty
inferences from the analysis shown in Table 5.16, it can be stated that the biases are
i
rs
found to be more in the instrument of Allahabad bank than HDFC bank, but both are
ve
under the prescribed limit, required for the present study.
ni
TABLE 5.16
U
Comparison of Common Method Variance (CMV)
lim
HDFC Bank CMV (in %) Allahabad Bank CMV (in %)
(N=564) (N=564)
us
Total number of
Total number of
Independent and 9.420
Dependent M
Independent and 12.97
h
Dependent variables
variables
ar
lig
5.10 Reliability Analysis

A
Reliability test is inevitable for the study based on a questionnaire or based on survey.
y,
Reliability refers to the extent to which a scale produces consistent results if repeated
ar
measurements are made (Thompson, 2002; Sinha, 2000). It is the ability of an

br
instrument to produce the same result consistently (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).The
Li
reliability analysis through Cronbach’s alpha is required to be done in order to

d
measure the strength of the scale before examining the relationship between the
za
variables under study” (Bhatt etal.,2013).Afterward,“the instrument is subjected to the

A
computation of coefficient alpha” (Cronbach, 1951). The value of Cronbach alpha 0.9
na
is excellent, 0.8 is good, 0.7 is acceptable, 0.6 is questionable, 0.5 is poor and less
la
than0.5 is unacceptable (George and Mallery, 2003). A measure to be acceptable of

au
coefficient alpha should be above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). The reliability of items in
M
different variables was assessed by computing the coefficient alpha (Cronbach,

1951).The instrument is subjected to the computation of coefficient alpha” (Cronbach,
1951). It is mandatory that the researcher should estimate the Cronbach alpha in order
to make accuracy in the interpretation of the data. Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient range between 0 to 1. If the value of Cronbach alpha coefficient is close to
168
1, it means the internal consistency of the item in the scale is greater. The purpose of
reliability analysis is to find out the internal consistency of scale. The coefficient
values of the individual item were under the acceptable range (0.906 – 0.909). The
accumulated Cronbach’s alpha of HDFC bank for the 112 items was found to be
0.909 as shown in Table -5.17.
ty
5.10.1 Reliability Analysis of Research Instrument of HDFC bank
i
rs
TABLE 5.17
ve
Reliability Statistics
ni
Reliability Analysis HDFC Bank
Total No. of Items Combined Cronbach's Alpha Value
U
112 0.909
lim
Observed Variables Cronbach's Alpha
us
OC_1 .908
OC_2 .908
OC_3
OC_4
M .908
.907
h
ar
OC_5 .907
OC_6 .908
lig
CE_1 .907
CE_2 .908
A
CE_3 .908
y,
CE_4 .908
ar
CE_5 .908
CE_6 .908
br
PDA_1 .908
Li
PDA_2 .907
PDA_3 .908
d
PDA_4 .909
za
PDA_5 .909
A
REL_1 .908
REL_2 .909
na
REL_3 .908
REL_4 .908
la
REL_5 .909
au
TOR_1 .908
TOR_2 .908
M
TOR_3 .908
TOR_4 .909
TOR_5 .908
CO_1 .908
CO_2 .909
CO_3 .908
CO_4 .909
169
CO_5 .908
PQ_1 .909
PQ_2 .909
PQ_3 .908
PQ_4 .907
PQ_5 .908
PQ_6 .908
ty
COM_1 .908
i
COM_2 .908
rs
COM_3 .908
ve
COM_4 .908
COM_5 .908
ni
TRU_1 .908
U
TRU_2 .908
TRU_3 .908
lim
TRU_4 .907
TRU_5 .908
us
COMM_1 .908
COMM_2
COMM_3 M .908
.908
h
COMM_4 .908
ar
COMM_5 .908
lig
SR_1 .908
SR_2 .908
A
SR_3 .908
SR_4 .908
y,
SR_5 .908
ar
CH_1 .908
br
CH_2 .908
CH_3 .908
Li
CH_4 .908
d
CH_5 .908
za
SRB_1 .908
SRB_2 .908
A
SRB_3 .908
na
SRB_4 .908
SRB_5 .908
la
CI_1 .908
au
CI_2 .908
CI_3 .908
M
CI_4 .908
CI_5 .907
PCD_1 .907
PCD_2 .907
PCD_3 .908
PCD_4 .908
PCD_5 .908
170
IF_1 .907
IF_2 .907
IF_3 .907
IF_4 .908
IF_5 .908
CC_1 .908
ty
CC_2 .908
CC_3 .908
i
rs
CC_4 .908
ve
CC_5 .908
CEX_1 .908
ni
CEX_2 .908
U
CEX_3 .908
lim
CEX_4 .909
CEX_5 .908
us
PP_1 .909
PP_2 .908
PP_3 M .908
h
PP_4 .908
ar
PP_5 .907
lig
ELC_1 .908
ELC_2 .908
A
ELC_3 .908
y,
ELC_4 .908
ar
ELC_5 .908
APP_1 .908
br
APP_2 .908
Li
APP_3 .909
d
APP_4 .908
za
APP_5 .908
AB_1 .908
A
AB_2 .908
na
AB_3 .909
AB_4 .909
la
au
TABLE 5.18
M
Reliability Statistics of Allahabad Bank

Reliability Analysis Allahabad Bank
Total No. of Items Combined Cronbach's Alpha Value
112 0.906
Observed Variables Cronbach's Alpha
OC_1 .906
171
OC_2 .907
OC_3 .907
OC_4 .905
OC_5 .906
OC_6 .906
CE_1 .905
CE_2 .906
ty
CE_3 .905
i
CE_4 .905
rs
CE_5 .905
ve
CE_6 .905
PDA_1 .905
ni
PDA_2 .905
U
PDA_3 .905
PDA_4 .905
lim
PDA_5 .905
REL_1 .905
us
REL_2 .905
REL_3
REL_4 M .905
.906
h
REL_5 .905
ar
TOR_1 .905
lig
TOR_2 .906
TOR_3 .905
A
TOR_4 .905
TOR_5 .905
y,
CO_1 .904
ar
CO_2 .905
br
CO_3 .906
CO_4 .905
Li
CO_5 .904
d
PQ_1 .905
za
PQ_2 .905
PQ_3 .905
A
PQ_4 .905
na
PQ_5 .905
PQ_6 .906
la
COM_1 .906
au
COM_2 .905
COM_3 .907
M
COM_4 .905
COM_5 .905
TRU_1 .906
TRU_2 .905
TRU_3 .905
TRU_4 .905
TRU_5 .905
172
COMM_1 .905
COMM_2 .904
COMM_3 .905
COMM_4 .905
COMM_5 .905
SR_1 .905
SR_2 .905
ty
SR_3 .905
i
SR_4 .905
rs
SR_5 .905
ve
CH_1 .906
CH_2 .905
ni
CH_3 .906
U
CH_4 .905
CH_5 .904
lim
SRB_1 .905
SRB_2 .905
us
SRB_3 .905
SRB_4
SRB_5 M .905
.905
h
CI_1 .905
ar
CI_2 .905
lig
CI_3 .904
CI_4 .905
A
CI_5 .904
PCD_1 .904
y,
PCD_2 .905
ar
PCD_3 .905
br
PCD_4 .905
Li
PCD_5 .905
IF_1 .906
d
IF_2 .906
za
IF_3 .905
A
IF_4 .906
na
IF_5 .906
CC_1 .907
la
CC_2 .907
au
CC_3 .905
CC_4 .904
M
CC_5 .905
CEX_1 .906
CEX_2 .906
CEX_3 .906
CEX_4 .907
CEX_5 .907
173
PP_1 .918
PP_2 .907
PP_3 .907
PP_4 .907
PP_5 .906
ELC_1 .906
ty
ELC_2 .906
ELC_3 .906
i
rs
ELC_4 .906
ve
ELC_5 .906
APP_1 .907
ni
APP_2 .907
U
APP_3 .906
lim
APP_4 .906
APP_5 .907
us
AB_1 .907
AB_2 .908
AB_3 M .907
h
AB_4 .907
ar
lig
5.10 .3 Comparison of reliability analysis on observed variables of research

questionnaire of HDFC and ALLAHABAD Bank.
A
y,
Table 5.19
ar
Comparison of Reliability Analysis

br
HDFC BANK 0.909

Cronbach's Alpha
Li
ALLAHABAD BANK 0.906

d
In the above table 5.19 reliability analysis through Cronbach’s alpha is required to be
za
done in order to measure the strength of the scale before examining the relationship
A
between the variables under study” (Bhatt etal.,2013).Afterward,“the instrument is

na
subjected to the computation of coefficient alpha” (Cronbach, 1951). The value of

la
Cronbach alpha 0.9 is excellent, 0.8 is good, 0.7 is acceptable, 0.6 is questionable, 0.5
au
is poor and less than0.5 is unacceptable (George and Mallery, 2003). A measure to be
M
acceptable of coefficient alpha should be above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). The reliability
of items in different variables was assessed by computing the coefficient alpha
(Cronbach, 1951).The instrument is subjected to the computation of coefficient alpha”
(Cronbach, 1951). It is mandatory that the researcher should estimate the Cronbach
174
alpha in order to make accuracy in the interpretation of the data. Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficient range between 0 to 1.
5.11 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of HDFC Bank

“Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) measure does not assign variables to factors but
ty
it represents the model, as up to what extent the measurable variables represent the
i
constructs, and when these outcome resultants are combined with constructs validity
rs
test then it signifies the better understanding of the quality of measures” (Hair et. al,
ve
2006)
ni
TABLE 5.20
U
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of HDFC Bank Ltd
lim
Fit Indices Parsimonious Improved Model
us
Indicator Model Indices
CMIN/DF
1
3.43
2
3.20 M 3
3.10
4
2.52
h
2 311.98 310.16 289.71 140.6
ar
DF 144 140 139 138

lig
GFI 0.708 0.715 0.784 0.804

NFI 0.775 0.787 0.789 0.800
A
CFI 0.721 0.741 0.781 0.815

y,
RMSEA 0.123 0.109 0.101 0.082

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ar
Moderate Fit
br
Model Decision
Model
Li
Measurement model of HDFC

d
The measurement model, which is also called confirmatory factor analysis was run on
za
the latent variables and observed variables of the research questionnaire. The purpose
A
for using the CFA was to identify the validity of the questionnaire items in order to
na
have the proper reliability of the study.

la
au
a) CFA CRME
M
To validate the measurement model the fit of model, reliability and validity check was
performed. The back to back model fit indices was improved with the series of
modification indices and some items were deleted on the ground of low factor
loadings. The Parsimonious run results of CFA indicated poor fit model with values
(CMIN/DF= 3.43, χ ² =311.98, DF= 144, GFI= 0.708, NFI = 0.775, CFI = 0.721,
175
RMSEA = 0.123, p =0.000). Subsequently, a series of 3 improved run of CFA was

carried on and the results of statistics for fit indices shown improvement in every
steps and final resultant came to moderate fit as- (CMIN/DF= 3.20, χ ² = 310.16,
DF= 140, GFI= 0.715, NFI = 0.787, CFI = 0.741, RMSEA = 0.109, p =0.000) then
additional run was done and values were (CMIN/DF= 3.10, χ ² = 289.71, DF= 139,
ty
GFI= 0.784, NFI = 0.789, CFI = 0.784, RMSEA = 0.101, p =0.000), in another
i
rs
subsequent the result indicated moderate fit model with values (CMIN/DF= 2.52, χ ²
ve
= 140.6, DF= 138, GFI= 0.804, NFI = 0.800, CFI = 0.815, RMSEA = 0.082,
ni
p=0.000).
U
TABLE 5.21
lim
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of fit of CRME Latent and Observed
us
Variables –HDFC Bank
Fit Indices
Indicator
Parsimonious
Model Indices
M
Improved Model
h
ar
1 2 3 4
CMIN/DF 3.43 3.20 3.10 2.52
lig
2 311.98 310.16 289.71 140.6

A
DF 144 140 139 138

GFI 0.708 0.715 0.784 0.804
y,
NFI 0.775 0.787 0.789 0.800

ar
CFI 0.721 0.741 0.781 0.815

br
RMSEA 0.123 0.109 0.101 0.082

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Li
Moderate Fit
Model Decision
Model
d
za
Convergent Validity of CRME of HDFC Bank Questionnaire Constructs

A
TABLE 5.22
na
CRME of HDFC Bank Questionnaire Constructs

la
au
S. Items CRME HDFC Bank

No.
OC CE PDA REL TOR
M
1. OC_1 DELETED
2. OC_2 0.72
3. OC_3 0.76
4. OC-4 0.97
176
5. OC_5 0.79
6. OC_6 DELETED
7. CE_1 DELETED
8. CE_2 0.67
9. CE_3 0.86
ty
10. CE_4 0.88
i
rs
11. CE_5 0.67
ve
12. CE_6 DELETED
ni
13. PDA_1 0.72
U
14. PDA_2 0.89
lim
15. PDA_3 0.78
us
16. PDA_4 0.82
17. PDA_5
MDELETED
h
18. REL_1 0.95
ar
19. REL_2 0.85

lig
20. REL_2 0.69

A
21. REL_4 DELETED

y,
22. REL_5 DELETED

ar
23. TOR_1 0.78

br
24. TOR_2 0.92

Li
25. TOR_3 0.80

d
26. TOR_4 0.61

za
27. TOR_5 DELETED

A
Average Variance 48.75 60.25 64.25 69.66 61.00

na
Extracted (in %)*

la
Construction 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.74 0.79

au
Reliability**
M
* AVE = Individual loading square sum / Sum of number of items* 100

** CR = (Sum of Items loading)2/(Sum of Items Loading)2 + Std. error variance
5.11.2 Discriminant Validity:

Discriminant validity of the source based factors were applied to judge the magnitude
of a construct with other constructs i.e. how much it is truly distinct from other
177
constructs, because “high Discriminant validity provides that the construct is unique”.
In the current research study, the Discriminant validity was assessed by using the
pattern method of (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), which states that, “Discriminant
validity exists when Squared Inter Construct Correlation (SIC) is less than average
variance extracted (AVE)”. For this purpose, the entire three constructs correlation
ty
matrix was drawn through the Spearman’s correlation method. Therefore, these
i
rs
correlation values were squared and put above the diagonal lines and then compared
ve
with the AVE, which indicated that all the Squared Inter Construct Correlations (SIC)
ni
are less than AVE as shown in the following table. Hence, the constructs are truly
U
distinct from others.
lim
Table 5.23
us
Showing Discriminant Validity of CRME
Constructs AVE M
Squared Inter Construct Correlation (SIC)
h
OC CE PDA REL TOR
ar
OC 0.48 1 0.077* 0.000 0.015** 0.007*

lig
CE 0.60 0.278** 1 0.117** 0.022** 0.435

A
PDA 0.64 0.007 0.343** 1 0.071** 0.017

y,
REL 0.69 -0.125** -0.150** 0.267** 1 0.092

ar
br
TOR 0.61 -0.089* -0.66 -0.132** 0.304** 1

Li
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-taled)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
d
za
A
na
la
au
M
Fig. 5.8: Discriminant Validity of CRME
178
b) CFA CS
ty
i
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
h
= 175.4, DF= 225, GFI= 0.801, NFI = 0.801, CFI = 0.821, RMSEA = 0.090, p
ar
=0.000).
lig
TABLE 5.24
A
Confirmatory Factors Analysis Goodness of fit of Customer Satisfaction Latent

y,
and Observed Variables-HDFC Bank.

ar
br

Li
Indicators Model Indices

d
1 2 3 4
za
CMIN/DF 3.53 3.20 3.15 2.75

A
2 351.98 340.16 280.72 1745.4

na
DF 244 240 239 225

la
GFI 0.714 0.715 0.794 0.801

au
NFI 0.785 0.787 0.799 0.801

M
CFI 0.741 0.780 0.794 0.821

RMSEA 0.115 0.101 0.100 0.090
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Moderate Fit
Model Decision
Model
179
Convergent Validity of Customer Satisfaction of HDFC Bank Questionnaire

Constructs
TABLE 5.25
Customer Satisfaction of HDFC Bank Questionnaire Constructs
S. Customer Satisfaction HDFC Bank
ty
No. Items
CO PQ COM TRU COMM SR CH
i
rs
1 OC_1 0.68
ve
2 OC_2 0.99
ni
3 OC_3 0.71
U
4 OC-4 -
lim
5 OC_5 -
6 PQ_1 0.56
us
7 PQ_2 0.64
8 PQ_3 0.81 M
h
9 PQ_4 0.85
ar
10 PQ_5 -
lig
11 PQ_6 -
A
12 COM_1 0.87
y,
13 COM_2 0.76
ar
14 COM_3 0.58
br
15 COM_4 -
Li
16 COM_5 -
d
17 TRU_1 0.74
za
18 TRU_2 0.95
A
19 TRU_3 0.79
na
20 TRU_4 0.59
la
21 TRU_5 -
au
22 COMM_1 0.59
M
23 COMM_2 0.60
24 COMM_3 0.99
25 COMM_4 0.79
26 COMM_5 -
27 SR_1 0.50
180
28 SR_2 0.73
29 SR_3 0.95
30 SR_4 -
31 SR_5 -
32 CH_1 0.98
ty
33 CH_2 0.82
i
rs
34 CH_3 0.60
ve
35 CH_4 -
ni
36 CH_5 -
U
Average 64.6 52.2 55.6 60.5 57.5 56.6 66.3
Variance
lim
Extracted (in %)
us
Construct 6.74 0.79 0.74 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.74
Reliability**
M
h
** CR = (Sum of Items loading)2/(Sum of Items loading)2 + Std. error variance
ar
lig

A
TABLE 5.26
y,
Showing Discriminant Validity of Customer Satisfaction

ar
Constructs AVE Squared Inter Construct Correlation (SIC)

br

Li
OC 0.64 1 0.015 0.000 0.066 0.007 0.002 0.000

d
CE 0.52 0.126** 1 0.289 0.002 0.003 0.008 0.045

za
COM 0.55 0.011 0.538** 1 0.008 0.001 0.011 0.028

A
TRU 0.60 -0.033 -0.045 0.093* 1 0.032 0.002 0.000

na
COMM 0.57 0.089* -0.058 -0.040 0.179** 1 0.056 0.006

SR 0.58 0.054 0.092 0.106* 0.052 0.225** 1 0.331
la
CH 0.66 0.030 0.213** 0.168** -0.019 -0.080 0.576** 1

au

M
181
ity
rs
ve
ni
Fig. 5.9: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Customer Satisfaction
U
lim
c) CFA CL
us
M
h
ar
lig
A

y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
= 1312.8, DF= 134, GFI= 0.830, NFI = 0.812, CFI = 0.827, RMSEA = 0.08, p
la
=0.000).
au
M
182
TABLE 5.27
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of Fit of Customer Loyalty Latent and
Observed Variables – HDFC Bank
ty
i
rs
1 2 3 4
ve
CMIN/DF 3.43 3.23 3.11 2.79
2 1322.8 1318.8 1316.8 1312.8
ni
U
DF 144 140 139 134
lim
GFI 0.814 0.815 0.824 0.830
NFI 0.797 0.799 0.810 0.812
us
CFI 0.781 0.789 0.824 0.827
RMSEA 0.101 0.100
M 0.09 0.08
h
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ar
Moderate Fit
Model Decision
lig
Model
A
y,
Convergent Validity of Customer Loyalty of HDFC Bank Questionnaire

ar
Constructs
br
TABLE 5.28
Li
Customer Loyalty of HDFC Bank Questionnaire Constructs

d
za
S. Customer Loyalty HDFC Bank

No. Items
SRB CI PCD IF CC
A
1 SRB_1 0.67
na
2 SRB_2 0.76
la
3 SRB_3 0.90
au
4 SRB_4 0.76
M
5 SRB_5 -
6 CL_1 0.60
7 CL_2 0.72
8 CL_3 0.83
9 CL_4 0.77
10 CL_5 -
183
11 PCD_1 -
12 PCD_2 -
13 PCD_3 0.78
14 PCD_4 0.86
15 PCD_5 0.78
ty
16 IF_1 0.56
i
17 IF_2 0.63
rs
18 IF_3 0.84
ve
19 IF_4 0.89
ni
20 IF_5 0.71
U
21 CC_1 0.95
lim
22 CC_2 0.81
23 CC_3 0.53
us
24 CC_4 -
25 CC_5
M -
h
ar
Extracted (in %)
lig
Construct Reliability** 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.82 0.73

A

y,
ar
5.11.2 Discriminant Validity

br
TABLE 5.29
Li
Showing Discriminant Validity of Customer Loyalty

d

za
SRB CI PCD IF CC
A
na
SRB 0.60 1 .032 .032 0.027 0.008

la
CI 0.53 0.180** 1 0.079 0.011 0.000

au
PCD 0.65 -0.180** 0.282** 1 0.346 0.065

M
IF 0.55 -0.167** 0.107* 0.589** 1 0.276
CC 0.61 -0.091* -0.023 0.256** 0.526** 1

184
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
Fig. 5.10: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Customer Loyalty
h
ar
d) CFA CB
lig
A
y,
ar
br
Li

d
za
A
steps and final resultant came to moderate fit as- (CMIN/DF= 3.20, χ ² = 735, DF=
na
86, GFI= 0.815, NFI = 0.799, CFI = 0.789, RMSEA = 0.102, p =0.000) then
la
au
M
= 729.4, DF= 80, GFI= 0.857, NFI = 0.805, CFI = 0.822, RMSEA = 0.09, p =0.000).
185
TABLE 5.30
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of fit of Cross Buying Latent and
Observed Variables –HDFC Bank

ty
1 2 3 4
i
rs
CMIN/DF 3.23 3.20 3.00 2.11
ve
2
ni
749.4 735.0 732.2 729.4
U
DF 90 86 85 80
lim
GFI 0.814 0.815 0.824 0.857
us
NFI 0.797 0.799 0.810 0.805
CFI 0.777 0.789 M 0.824 0.822

h
ar
RMSEA 0.103 0.102 0.101 0.09

lig
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

A
y,
Convergent Validity of Cross Buying of HDFC Bank Questionnaire Constructs

ar
TABLE 5.31
br
Cross Buying of HDFC Bank Questionnaire Constructs

Li
S. Customer Loyalty HDFC Bank

Items
d
No. CEX PP ELC APP AB

za
1 CEX -
A
2 CEX 0.68
na
3 CEX 0.95
la
4 CEX 0.66
au
5 CEX -
M
6 PP -
7 PP -
8 PP 0.77
9 PP 0.87
10 PP 0.73
11 ELC 0.79
186
12 ELC -
13 ELC 0.66
14 ELC 0.68
15 ELC -
16 APP 0.74
ty
17 APP 0.93
i
rs
18 ELC 0.74
19 ELC -
ve
20 ELC -
ni
21 AB 0.65
U
22 AB 0.91
lim
23 AB 0.62
us
24 AB -
Extracted (in %) M
h
Construct 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.74
ar
Reliability**
lig

A
y,
ar

br
TABLE 5.32
Li
Showing Discriminant Validity of Cross Buying

d
za

A
CEX PP ELC APP AB

na
CEX 0.60 1 .007 .001 .006 .005

la
PP 0.58 0.089* 1 .088 .005 .006

au
ELC 0.50 0.033 0.298 1 .015 .004

M
APP 0.65 0.080 -0.074 0.126** 1 .012
AB 0.54 0.073 0.082 0.069 0.114 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
187
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
Fig. 5.11: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Cross Buying
h
ar
Measurement model of Allahabad Bank The measurement model, which is also

lig
called confirmatory factor analysis was run on the latent variables and observed
A
variables of the research questionnaire. The purpose for using the CFA was to identify
y,
the validity of the questionnaire items in order to have the proper reliability of the
ar
study.
br
a) CFA CRME
Li
d
za
performed. The back to back model fit indices were improved with the series of
A
na
la
au

M
188
subsequent the result indicated good fit model with values (CMIN/DF= 2.04, χ ² =
229.70, DF= 138, GFI= 0.932, NFI = 0.875, CFI = 0.892, RMSEA = 0.095, p
=0.000).
TABLE 5.33
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of fit of CRME Latent and Observed
ty
Variables – Allahabad Bank
i
rs
ve
ni
1 2 3 4
U
CMIN/DF 3.01 2.34 2.10 2.04
lim
2 289.71 269.81 234.24 229.70
us
DF 144 140 139 38
M
h
GFI 0.808 0.815 .884 0.932
ar
NFI 0.799 0.827 0.869 0.875

lig
0.821 0.841 0.884

A
CFI 0.892
y,
RMSEA 0.112 0.109 0.100 0.095

ar
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

br
Li
Model Decision Good Fit

Model
d
za
Convergent Validity of CRME of Allahabad Bank Questionnaire Constructs

A
na
TABLE 5.34
CRME of Allahabad Bank Questionnaire Constructs
la
au
S. Items CRME Allahabad Bank

No.
OC CE PDA REL TOR
M
1 OC_1 DELETED
2 OC_2 DELETED
3 OC_3 DELETED
4 OC_4 DELETED
189
5 OC_5 DELETED
6 OC_6 DELETED
7 CE_1 DELETED
8 CE_2 DELETED
9 CE_3 DELETED
ty
10 CE_4 DELETED
i
rs
11 CE_5 DELETED
ve
12 CE_6 DELETED
ni
13 PDA_1 0.67
U
14 PDA_2 0.74
lim
15 PDA_3 0.52
us
16 PDA_4 0.67
17 PDA_5 0.60
M
h
18 REL_1 0.72
ar
19 REL_2 0.54
lig
20 REL_3 0.60
A
21 REL_4 DELETED
y,
22 REL_5 DELETED
ar
23 TOR_1 DELETED
br
24 TOR_2 DELETED
Li
25 TOR_3 0.70
d
26 TOR_4 0.68
za
27 TOR_5 0.49
A
Average
na
Variance DELETED DELETED 41.4 39.0 40.0

la
Extracted (in %)
au
Construct
Reliability**
M
* AVE = Individual loading square sum / Sum of number of items*100

** CR = (Sum of Items loading)2/ (Sum of Items loading)2 + Std. error variance
190
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
Fig 5.12: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of CRME of Allahabad Bank
us
b) CFACS
M
h
TABLE 5.35
ar
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of fit of Customer Satisfaction Latent

lig
and Observed Variables – Allahabad Bank

A

y,

ar
1 2 3 4
br
Li
CMIN/DF 3.33 3.20 3.10 2.60

d
2 352.98 342.16 289.72 1057.2

za
DF 150 149 140 139

A
na
GFI 0.751 0.7620.815 0.801.884 0.842

la
NFI 0.795 0.799 0.802 0.828

au
CFI 0.745 0.789 0.798 0.853

M
RMSEA 0.105 0.102 0.100 0.092
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Model Decision Moderate Fit

Model
191
Convergent Validity of Customer Satisfaction of Allahabad Bank Questionnaire

Constructs
TABLE 5.36
Customer Satisfaction of Allahabad Bank Questionnaire Constructs
ty
S. Customer Satisfaction HDFC Bank
i
No. Items
rs
ve
1 CO_ DELETED
2 CO_ DELETED
ni
3 CO_ DELETED
U
4 CO_ DELETED
lim
5 CO_ DELETED
us
6 CO_ DELETED
7 PQ .74
8 PQ .76 M
h
9 PQ .69
ar
10 PQ .64
lig
11 PQ -
A
12 COM 0.72
y,
13 COM 0.80
ar
14 COM 0.68
br
15 COM -
Li
16 COM -
d
17 TRU -
za
18 TRU 0.63
A
19 TRU 0.72
na
20 TRU -
21 TRU 0.56
la
22 COMM -
au
23 COMM -
M
24 COMM .59
25 COMM .84
26 COMM .66
27 SR -
28 SR -
192
29 SR .74
30 SR .86
31 SR .68
32 CH -
33 CH -
ty
34 CH .69
i
35 CH .73
rs
36 CH .61
ve
Average Variance - 46.75 54.00 41.00 49.00 59.00 46.00
ni
Extracted (in %)
U
Construct 0.81 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75
Reliability**
lim
us
5.11.2 Discriminant Validity of Customer Satisfaction M

h
ar
TABLE 5.37
lig
Squared Inter Construct Correlation (SIC)

A
Constructs AVE CO PQ COM TRU COMM SR CH

y,
CO Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted

ar
br
PQ 0.46 Deleted 1 .009 .058 .025 .024 .081

Li
COM 0.54 Deleted .098* 1 .067 .003 .044 .094

d
TRU 0.41 Deleted .241** 0.260** 1 .032 .086 .037

za
COMM 0.49 Deleted .160** 0.060 0.181** 1 .126 .071

A
SR 0.59 Deleted .158** 0.212** 0.294** 0.355** 1 .007

na
CH 0.46 Deleted .286** 0.308** 0.193** 0.268** 0.086 1

la
au

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
M
193
Showing Discriminant Validity of Customer Satisfaction
ity
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
h
ar
lig
A
Fig. 5.13: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Customer Satisfaction - Allahabad

Bank
y,
ar
c) CFA CL
br
Li
d
za
A
na

la
au
M
194
subsequent the result indicated good fit model with values (CMIN/DF= 221, χ ² =
394.1, DF= 48, GFI= 0.904, NFI = 0.830, CFI = 0.846, RMSEA = 0.093, p =0.000).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of fit of Customer Loyalty Latent and
Observed Variables –Allahabad Bank
TABLE 5.38
i ty
Parsimonious
rs
Fit Indices Model Improved Model
ve
Indicators Indices
ni
1 2 3 4
U
CMIN/DF 3.43 3.13 2.89 2.21
lim
χ² 1329.8 1319.8 1311.8 394.1
DF 58 55 52 48
us
GFI 0.875 0.885 0.898 0.904
NFI 0.775 M
0.798 0.820 0.830
h
CFI 0.789 0.799 0.828 0.846
ar
RMSEA 0.110 0.108 0.106 0.093

lig
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

A
y,
Convergent Validity of Customer Loyalty of Allahabad Bank Questionnaire

ar
Constructs
br
TABLE 5.39
Li
Customer Loyalty of Allahabad Bank Questionnaire Constructs

d
S. Customer Loyalty Constructs

za
No. Items
SRB CI PCD IF CC
A
1 SRB .76
na
2 SRB .93
la
3 SRB .88
au
4 SRB -
5 SRB -
M
6 CI -
7 CI .52
8 CI .83
9 CI .63
10 CI -
195
11 PCD .74
12 PCD .71
13 PCD .60
14 PCD -
15 PCD -
ty
16 IF -
17 IF .34
i
rs
18 IF .96
ve
19 IF .73
ni
20 IF -
U
21 CC DELETED
lim
22 CC DELETED
23 CC DELETED
us
24 CC DELETED
25 CC
Average Variance 73.7 45.0 47.0 M 52.0
DELETED
DELETED
h
Extracted (ix %)
ar
Construct 0.75 0.74 0.75 0.72 DELETED

lig
Reliability**
A

y,
ar

br
TABLE 5.40
Li
Showing Discriminant Validity of Customer Loyalty

d
za

A
SRB CI PCD IF CC
na
SRB 0.73 1 .097 .222 .009 Deleted

la
CI 0.45 0.312** 1 .172 .029 Deleted

au
PCD 0.47 0.472** 0.415** 1 0.034 Deleted

M
IF 0.52 0.098* 0.172** 0.187** 1 Deleted
CC Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*
196
d) CFA CB
performed. The back to back model fit indices were improved with the series of
ty
i
rs
ve
ni
steps and final resultant came to moderate fit as- (CMIN/DF= 3.21, χ ² = 735, DF=
U
86, GFI= 0.815, NFI = 0.801, CFI = 0.802, RMSEA = 0.104, p =0.000) then
lim
us
subsequent the result indicated good fit model with values (CMIN/DF= 2.06, χ ² =
M
654.5, DF= 108, GFI= 0.888, NFI = 0.867, CFI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.095, p =0.000).
h
ar
Table 5.41
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of fit of Cross Buying Latent and
lig
Observed Variables – Allahabad Bank

A

y,

ar
1 2 3 4
br
Li
CMIN/DF 3.23 3.21 3.02 2.06

d
χ² 749.4 735.0 732.2 654.5

za
DF 90 86 85 108
A
GFI 0.814 0.815 0.824 0.888

na
la
NFI 0.799 0.801 0.812 0.867

au
CFI 0.794 0.802 0.834 0.886

M
RMSEA 0.105 0.104 0.102 0.095
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
197
Cross Buying of Alllahabad Bank Questionnaire Construct
S. Cross Buying Allahabad Bank

No. Items
CEX PP ELC APP AB
1 .93
2 .82
ty
3 .78
i
rs
4 .61
ve
5 .48
ni
6 .75
U
7 -
lim
8 .20
us
9 -
10 .72
11 .83 M
h
ar
12 .83
lig
13 .87
14 .60
A
15 .48
y,
16 --
ar
17 --
br
18 --
Li
19 --
d
za
20 --
21 .91
A
22 .61
na
23 .62
la
24 .78
au
Average Variance 55.0 37.3 55.0 Deleted 55.0

M
Extracted (ix %)
Construct 0.82 0.71 0.82 Deleted 0.82
Reliability**
198
TABLE 5.42
Discriminant Validity of cross buying- Allahabad bank
CEX PP ELC APP AB
ty
CEX 0.73 1 .007 0.025 Deleted 0.000
i
rs
PP 0.45 0.088** 1 0.012 Deleted 0.000
ve
ELC 0.47 0.161 ** 0.114 ** 1 Deleted Deleted
ni
U
APP Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted 1 0.036
lim
AB 0.52 0.019 0.022 Deleted -0.190** 1
us
M
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*
h
ar
lig
A
y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
Fig. 5.14: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of fit of Cross Buying Latent
and Observed Variables – Allahabad Bank
la
Comparison of CRME Constructs of CFA of Allahabad and HDFC Banks

au
A comparison on the constructs and indicators of CRME was done on multiple

M
aspects i.e. GOFI, Convergent validity and the Discriminant validity. As indicated in
the data given below in the table -5.43 , the data of the Allahabad and HDFC banks
both shows the moderate fit model , which is common on both the sides, but the data
of Allahabad bank was more refined as compared to HDFC bank. The GOFI of
HDFC bank were found to be better than the Allahabad bank, which mean the
199
applicability of the latent and observed variables of HDFC are having more practical
implication than that of HDFC bank. Further, the convergent validity and
Discriminant validity was measured as a part of CFA to find out the convergence i.e.
their reliability of the constructs in the form of average variance extracted and
constructs reliability and further, the squared inter-construct correlation were
ty
computed in order to know the Discriminant validity of the constructs. If the (AVE >
i
rs
SIC), it means there is existence of Discriminant validity among the constructs.
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
h
ar
lig
A
y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
la
au
M
200
i ty
rs
ve
TABLE 5.43
ni
A Comparison of CFA Goodness of fit of CRME model of Allahabad bank and HDFC Bank
U
lim
Final Indices of Convergent Validity Discriminant Validity
Goodness of Fit
us
FIT INDICES Allahabad HDFC Constructs Allahabad Bank HDFC Bank Allahabad Bank HDFC Bank
M
Bank Bank
CRME
AVE (in CR AVE (in %) CR AVE SIC AVE SIC
h
%)
ar
lig
CMIN/DF 2.52 2.04 OC 48.75 0.80 DEL DEL 0.48 0.000-0.077 DEL DEL
X2 140.6 229.70 60.25 0.79 DEL DEL 0.60 0.22-0.435 DEL DEL
A
CE
y,
DF 138 38 PDA 64.25 0.80 41.4 0.83 0.64 0.017-0.071 0.41 0.200-0.256
GFI 0.804 0.932 REL

ar
69.66 0.74 39.0 0.74 0.69 0.092 0.39 0.256
br
NFI 0.800 0.875 TOR 61.00 0.79 40.0 0.74 0.61 - 0.40 -
Li
CFI 0.815 0.892

d
za
A
na
la
au
M
201
Comparison of Customer satisfaction constructs of measurement model of

Allahabad and HDFC Banks
A comparison on the constructs and indicators of Customer satisfaction was done on

several aspects i.e. Goodness of Fit indices, Convergent validity and the Discriminant
validity. As indicated in the data given below in the table -5.44, the data of the
ty
Allahabad and HDFC banks both shows the moderate fit model , which is common on
i
rs
both the sides, but the data of Allahabad bank was more refined as compared to
ve
HDFC bank. The GOFI of HDFC bank were found to be better than the Allahabad
ni
bank, which mean the applicability of the latent and observed variables of HDFC are
U
having more practical implication than that of HDFC bank. Further, the convergent
lim
validity and Discriminant validity was measured as a part of CFA to find out the
us
convergence i.e. their reliability of the constructs in the form of average variance
extracted and constructs reliability and further, the squared inter-construct correlation
M
were computed in order to know the Discriminant validity of the constructs. If the
h
ar
(AVE > SIC), it means there is existence of Discriminant validity among the
lig
constructs.
A
y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
la
au
M
202
ity
rs
ve
TABLE 5.44
ni
A Comparison of CFA Goodness of fit of Customer Satisfaction model of Allahabad bank and HDFC Bank
U
lim
Goodness of Fit
us
M
Bank Bank
Customer
AVE (In CR AVE (in %) CR AVE SIC AVE SIC
h
Satisfaction
%)
ar
lig
CMIN/DF 2.60 2.75 CO Deleted Deleted 64.6 .74 Deleted Deleted 0.64 .000-.066
X2 46.75 .81 52.2 .79 0.46 .009-.081 0.52 .002-.289
A
1057.2 1745.4 PQ
y,
DF 139 225 COM 54.75 .75 55.6 .74 0.54 .003-.094 0.55 .001-.028
GFI 0.842 0.801 TRU

ar
41.00 .74 60.5 .79 0.41 .032-.086 0.60 .001-.032
br
NFI 0.828 0.801 COMM 49.0 .74 57.5 .79 0.49 .071-.126 0.57 .006-.056
Li
CFI 0.853 0.821 SR 59.00 .74 56.6 .73 0.59 .007 0.56 .331
d
za
RMSEA 0.092 0.090 CH 46.00 .75 66.3 .74 0.46 - 0.66 -

A
P-Value 0.000 0.000

na
la
au
M
203
Comparison of Customer Loyalty constructs of measurement model of

Allahabad and HDFC Banks
A comparison on the constructs and indicators of Customer satisfaction was done on

several aspects i.e. Goodness of Fit indices, Convergent validity and the Discriminant
validity. As indicated in the data given below in the table -5.45 , the data of the
ty
i
rs
both the sides, but the data of Allahabad bank was more refined as compared to
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
h
ar
lig
constructs.
A
y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
la
au
M
204
ity
rs
ve
TABLE 5.45
ni
A Comparison of CFA Goodness of fit of Customer Loyalty model of Allahabad bank and HDFC Bank
U
lim
Goodness of Fit
us
Bank Bank Customer
Loyalty AVE (in %) CR AVE (in %) CR AVE SIC AVE SIC
M
CMIN/DF 2.21 2.79 SRB 73.7 0.75 64.5 0.79 0.73 .009-.222 0.64 .008-.032
h
ar
X2 394.1 1312.8 CI 45.0 0.74 53.7 0.76 0.45 .029-.172 0.53 .002-.079
lig
DF 48 134 PCD 47.0 0.75 65.5 0.74 0.47 .034 0.65 .065-.346
A
GFI 0.904 0.830 IF 52.0 0.72 55.8 0.82 0.52 - 0.55 .276
y,
NFI 0.830 0.812 CC Deleted Deleted 61.6 0.73 Deleted Deleted 0.61 -
ar
br
CFI 0.846 0.827
Li
RMSEA 0.093 0.08

d
P-Value 0.000 0.000

za
A
na
la
au
M
205
Comparison of Cross Buying constructs of measurement model of Allahabad and

HDFC Banks
A comparison on the constructs and indicators of Cross Buying was done on several
aspects i.e. Goodness of Fit indices, Convergent validity and the Discriminant
validity. As indicated in the data given below in the table – 5.44 , the data of the
ty
i
rs
both the sides, but the data of Allahabad bank was more polished as compared to
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
h
ar
lig
constructs.
A
y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
la
au
M
206
i ty
rs
ve
TABLE 5.46
ni
A Comparison of CFA Goodness of fit of Cross buying model of Allahabad bank and HDFC Bank
U
lim
Goodness of Fit
us
FIT Allahabad HDFC Constructs Allahabad Bank HDFC Bank Allahabad Bank HDFC Bank
INDICES Bank Bank
Cross
M
AVE (In CR AVE CR AVE SIC AVE SIC
Buying
%) (in %)
h
ar
CMIN/DF 2.06 2.11 CEX 55.0 0.82 60.0 .73 0.55 0.000-.025 0.60 .001-.007
lig
X2 654.5 729.4 PP 37.3 0.71 58.3 .74 0.37 0.000-.012 0.58 .005-.088
A
DF 108 80 ELC 55.0 0.82 55.6 .74 0.55 deleted 0.55 .004-.015
y,
GFI 0.888 0.857 APP Deleted Deleted 65.3 .71 Deleted .036 0.65 .012
ar
br
NFI 0.867 0.805 AB 55.0 0.82 54.6 .74 0.55 - 0.54 -
Li
CFI 0.886 0.822

d
RMSEA 0.095 0.09

za
P-Value 0.000 0.000

A
na
la
au
M
207
5.12 OBJECTIVE- WISE ANALYSIS
5.12.1Structural Equation Model (SEM) – HDFC Bank
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a series of statistical methods that allow

complex relationships between one or more independent variables and one or more
ty
dependent variables. Though there are many ways to describe SEM, it is most
i
commonly thought of as a hybrid between some form of analysis of variance
rs
(ANOVA)/regression and some form of factor analysis. In general, it can be said that
ve
SEM allows performing some type of multilevel regression/ANOVA on factors.
ni
Structural equation modeling involves the measurement of the structural model and
U
with the structural model, the relationship between latent construct in nature of
lim
independent and dependent variables are measured. SEM provides a better way of
us
empirically examining a theoretical model by involving both measurement model and
M
structural model in one analysis” (Hair et al 2010). Thus, SEM is the accumulation of
h
measurement and structural model in total. The main goal of measurement theory
ar
under SEM is to depict a visual diagram in the form of casual relationship among
lig
independent and dependent variables and the relationship is represented by structural

A
parameters estimates which are also called path estimates, wherein the inferences are
y,
taken from standardized regression weight and p - values.

ar
The Structural modeling was utilized for the measurement of cause and effect
br
relationship between selected customer relation management effectiveness,

Li
organizational commitment, customer experience; process driven approach,

d
reliability, and technological orientation of HDFC Bank with a sample size of 564
za
respondents.
A
na
Structural Model of HDFC Bank Data

la
a) Impact of CRME on Customer Satisfaction

au
Before proceeding to the causal relationship of CRME with customer satisfaction the
M
goodness of fit was measured. In the measurement of structural model of the GOF
indices the model was found to be perfectly good fit. The statistics for structural
model of GOF are as- (CMIN/DF = 1.84, Chi- Square = 27.60, DF = 15, GFI = 0.992,
NFI =0.978, CFI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.039, P-Value =0.000) given in table 5.47.
208
Moreover, there are 5 latent variables under CRME (organizational commitment,

customer experience, process driven approach, reliability, technological orientation)
which are independent variables to the customer satisfaction. On the other hand, the
dependent variable was customer satisfaction having 7 constructs. The multiple
mixtures of significant and insignificant effects were highlighted by the analysis of
ty
proposed hypotheses. Hence, several inferences were drawn from the results. Initially
i
rs
CRME effect on customer satisfaction was found relatively positively significant
ve
explaining the variance with regression weight which is mentioned below in the table
ni
5.47.
U
TABLE 5.47
lim
Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer satisfaction HDFC Bank
us
Data
Fit Indices
M
Statistics for structured model
h
CMIN/DF 1.84
ar
Chi- Square 27.60

lig
DF 15
GFI 0.992
A
NFI 0.978
y,
CFI 0.990
RMSEA 0.039
ar
p-Value 0.000
br
Paths of constructs showing CRME Estimate P Hypothesis Decisions

Li
Impact on Customer Satisfaction

d
CO <--- OC -.017 .666 Not Supported

za
PQ <--- OC .227 *** Supported

A
COM <--- OC .171 *** Supported

na
TRU <--- OC .150 *** Supported

COMM <--- OC .107 .009 Supported
la
SR <--- OC .061 .138 Not Supported

au
CH <--- OC .231 *** Supported

M
CO <--- CE .095 .028 Supported

PQ <--- CE -.118 .012 Not Supported
COM <--- CE .078 .097 Not Supported
TRU <--- CE .132 .005 Supported
COMM <--- CE .089 .047 Supported
209
SR <--- CE .091 .044 Supported

CH <--- CE -.039 .397 Not Supported
CO <--- PDA -.049 .267 Not Supported
PQ <--- PDA .134 .005 Supported
COM <--- PDA .113 .018 Supported
ty
TRU <--- PDA .030 .534 Not Supported
i
COMM <--- PDA .084 .064 Not Supported
rs
SR <--- PDA .131 .004 Supported
ve
CH <--- PDA .165 *** Supported
ni
CO <--- REL -.221 *** Not Supported
U
PQ <--- REL -.113 .016 Not Supported
lim
COM <--- REL -.009 .852 Not Supported
us
TRU <--- REL .121 .010 Supported
COMM <--- REL .079 .076 Not Supported
SR <--- REL .228 *** M Supported
h
CH <--- REL .143 .002 Supported
ar
PQ <--- TOR .040 .370 Not Supported

lig
COM <--- TOR -.054 .223 Not Supported

A
TRU <--- TOR .034 .438 Not Supported

y,
COMM <--- TOR .322 *** Supported

ar
SR <--- TOR .141 *** Supported

br
CH <--- TOR .005 .912 Not Supported

Li
CO <--- TOR .450 *** Supported

d
za
A
na
la
au
M
Fig. 5.15: Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer satisfaction
HDFC Bank Data
210
b) Impact of CRME on Customer Loyalty
model of GOF are as- (CMIN/DF = 2.59, Chi- Square = 10.39, DF = 4, GFI = 0.996, NFI
ty
=0.990, CFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.053, P-Value =0.000) given in table 5.48.
i
rs
ve
ni
which are independent variable to the customer satisfaction. On the other hand, the
U
dependent variable was customer loyalty having 5 constructs. The multiple mixtures
lim
of significant and insignificant effects were highlighted by the analysis of proposed
us
hypotheses. Hence, several inferences were drawn from the results. Initially CRME
M
effect on customer satisfaction was found relatively positively significant explaining
h
the variance with regression weight which is mentioned below in the table 5.48.
ar
TABLE 5.48
lig
Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer Loyalty HDFC Bank
A
Data
y,
Fit Indices Statistics for structured model

ar
CMIN/DF 2.59
br
Chi- Square 10.39

Li
DF 4
d
GFI 0.996
za
NFI 0.990
CFI 0.994
A
RMSEA 0.053
na
p-Value 0.000
la
Paths of constructs showing CRME Estimate P Hypothesis Decisions

au
SRB <--- OC .300 *** Supported

M
CI <--- OC .275 *** Supported

PCD <--- OC .160 *** Supported
IF <--- OC .103 .014 Supported
CC <--- OC .067 .116 Not Supported
SRB <--- CE -.001 .983 Not Supported
211
CI <--- CE -.118 .009 Supported

PCD <--- CE -.015 .746 Not Supported
IF <--- CE .132 .004 Supported
CC <--- CE .089 .057 Not Supported
SRB <--- PDA .047 .321 Not Supported
ty
CI <--- PDA .094 .040 Supported
i
rs
PCD <--- PDA .094 .048 Supported
ve
IF <--- PDA .085 .069 Not Supported
ni
CC <--- PDA .123 .010 Supported
U
SRB <--- REL .064 .163 Not Supported
lim
CI <--- REL .072 .111 Not Supported
PCD <--- REL .100 .034 Supported
us
IF <--- REL .148 .001 Supported
CC <--- REL .109 .020 M Supported
h
CI <--- TOR .230 *** Supported
ar
PCD <--- TOR .110 .013 Supported

lig
IF <--- TOR .158 *** Supported

A
CC <--- TOR .122 .006 Supported

y,
SRB <--- TOR -.014 .748 Not Supported

ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
la
au
M
Fig. 5.16: Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer Loyalty HDFC
Bank Data
212
c) Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty
Before proceeding to the causal relationship of customer satisfaction with customer

loyalty the goodness of fit was measured. In the measurement of structural model of
the GOF indices the model was found to be perfectly good fit. The statistics for
structural model of GOF are as- (CMIN/DF = 2.41, Chi- Square = 14.50, DF = 6, GFI =
ty
0.996, NFI =0.990, CFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.050, P-Value =0.000) given in table 5.49.
i
rs
Moreover, there are 7 latent variables under customer satisfaction (customized offer,
ve
perceived quality, competence, trust, communication, conflict handling) which are
ni
independent variable to the customer satisfaction. On the other hand, the dependent
U
variable was customer loyalty having 5 constructs. The multiple mixtures of
lim
significant and insignificant effects were highlighted by the analysis of proposed
us
hypotheses. Hence, several inferences were drawn from the results. Initially customer
M
satisfaction effect on customer loyalty was found relatively positively significant
h
ar
5.49.
lig
TABLE 5.49
A
Goodness of fit indices and Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty HDFC

Bank Data
y,
ar

br
CMIN/DF 2.41
Li
Chi- Square 14.50

DF 6
d
za
GFI 0.996
NFI 0.990
A
CFI 0.994
na
RMSEA 0.050
p-Value 0.000
la
Paths of constructs showing Customer Estimate P Hypothesis

au
Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty Decision

M
SRB <--- CO .132 .273 Not Supported

CI <--- CO .533 .077 Not Supported
PCD <--- CO .221 .909 Not Supported
IF <--- CO .569 .006 Supported
SRB <--- PQ -.003 *** Not Supported
213
CI <--- PQ .146 .016 Supported

PCD <--- PQ .060 .174 Not Supported
IF <--- PQ -.009 .556 Not Supported
CC <--- PQ .015 .368 Not Supported
SRB <--- COM -.032 .155 Not Supported
ty
CI <--- COM .055 *** Supported
i
rs
PCD <--- COM -.074 .108 Not Supported
ve
IF <--- COM .098 .908 Not Supported
ni
CC <--- COM .180 *** Supported
U
SRB <--- TRU .134 *** Supported
lim
CI <--- TRU -.016 .019 Not Supported
PCD <--- TRU .093 *** Supported
us
IF <--- TRU .553 .001 Supported
CC <--- TRU .525 M
*** Supported
h
SRB <--- COMM .210 .161 Not Supported
ar
CI <--- COMM .278 .007 Supported

lig
PCD <--- COMM .125 *** Supported

A
IF <--- COMM -.223 *** Not Supported

y,
CC <--- COMM -.206 .065 Not Supported

ar
SRB <--- SR -.150 .015 Not Supported

br
CI <--- SR .132 .050 Not Supported

Li
PCD <--- SR .533 .376 Not Supported

d
IF <--- SR .221 .733 Not Supported

za
CC <--- SR .569 .315 Not Supported

A
SRB <--- CH -.003 *** Not Supported

na
CI <--- CH .146 .877 Not Supported

la
PCD <--- CH .060 .005 Supported

au
IF <--- CH -.009 .691 Not Supported

M
CC <--- CH .015 *** Supported

CC <--- CO -.032 *** Not Supported
214
d) Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Cross Buying
Before proceeding to the causal relationship of customer satisfaction with cross

buying the goodness of fit was measured. In the measurement of structural model of
ty
0.986, NFI =0.943, CFI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.057, P-Value =0.000) given in table 5.50.
i
rs
ve
ni
U
variable was cross buying having 4 constructs. The multiple mixtures of significant
lim
and insignificant effects were highlighted by the analysis of proposed hypotheses.
us
Hence, several inferences were drawn from the results. Initially customer satisfaction
M
effect on cross buying was found relatively positively significant explaining the
h
variance with regression weight which is mentioned below in the table 5.50.
ar
TABLE 5.50
lig
Goodness of fit indices and Customer Satisfaction impact on Cross Buying

A
HDFC Bank Data

y,

ar
CMIN/DF 2.81
br
Chi- Square 47.70

Li
DF 17
GFI 0.986
d
za
NFI 0.943
CFI 0.960
A
RMSEA 0.057
na
p-Value 0.000
Paths of constructs showing Customer Estimate P Hypothesis Decision
la
Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty

au
CEX <--- CO .033 .421 Not Supported

M
PP <--- CO .135 .001 Supported

ELC <--- CO .099 .017 Supported
APP <--- CO -.016 .712 Not Supported
CEX <--- PQ .158 .001 Supported
PP <--- PQ .071 .149 Not Supported
215
ELC <--- PQ .112 .024 Supported

APP <--- PQ .115 .023 Supported
AB <--- PQ .113 .024 Supported
CEX <--- COM .038 .432 Not Supported
PP <--- COM .114 .020 Supported
ty
ELC <--- COM .115 .019 Supported
i
rs
APP <--- COM -.037 .465 Not Supported
ve
AB <--- COM .041 .411 Not Supported
ni
CEX <--- TRU .032 .436 Not Supported
U
PP <--- TRU -.024 .565 Not Supported
lim
ELC <--- TRU .092 .027 Supported
us
APP <--- TRU .096 .024 Supported
AB <--- TRU .144
M
*** Supported
h
CEX <--- COMM .163 *** Supported
ar
PP <--- COMM .108 .014 Supported

lig
ELC <--- COMM .069 .117 Not Supported

A
APP <--- COMM -.086 .054 Not Supported

y,
AB <--- COMM .054 .223 Not Supported

ar
CEX <--- SR .109 .036 Supported

br
PP <--- SR -.054 .302 Not Supported

Li
ELC <--- SR -.104 .048 Not Supported

d
APP <--- SR .154 .004 Supported

za
AB <--- SR -.135 .011 Not Supported

A
CEX <--- CH .069 .184 Not Supported

na
PP <--- CH .153 .004 Supported

la
ELC <--- CH .134 .011 Supported

au
APP <--- CH -.129 .016 Not Supported

M
AB <--- CH .068 .201 Not Supported

AB <--- CO .018 .667 Not Supported
216
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
Fig. 5.17: Goodness of fit indices and Customer Satisfaction impact on Cross
h
Buying HDFC Bank Data
ar
lig
e) Impact of Customer Loyalty on Cross Buying

A
Before proceeding to the causal relationship of customer loyalty with cross buying the
y,
ar
br
Li
=0.973, CFI = 0.982, RMSEA = 0.055, P-Value =0.006) given in table 5.51
d
Moreover, there are 5 latent variables under customer loyalty (stronger relational
za
bond, customer influence, promoting customer dependency, interaction frequency,

A
customer commitment) which are independent variable to the cross buying. On the
na
other hand, the dependent variable was cross buying having 4 constructs. The multiple
la

au
M
customer satisfaction effect on cross buying was found relatively positively

significant explaining the variance with regression weight which is mentioned below
in the table 5.51
217
TABLE 5.51
Goodness of fit indices and Impact of Customer Loyalty on Cross Buying HDFC
Bank Data

CMIN/DF 2.68
ty
Chi- Square 21.4
i
DF 8
rs
GFI 0.993
ve
NFI 0.973
ni
CFI 0.982
U
RMSEA 0.055
p-Value 0.006
lim
us
Paths of constructs showing Estimate P Hypothesis Decision
Customer Loyalty impact on Cross
Buying
M
h
CEX <--- SRB .134 .002 Supported
ar
PP <--- SRB .179 *** Supported

lig
ELC <--- SRB .272 *** Supported

A
APP <--- SRB .144 *** Supported

y,
CEX <--- CI -.025 .578 Not Supported

ar
PP <--- CI .079 .070 Not Supported

br
ELC <--- CI .121 .005 Supported

Li
APP <--- CI .047 .283 Not Supported

d
AB <--- CI .036 .425 Not Supported

za
CEX <--- PCD -.068 .202 Not Supported

A
PP <--- PCD .113 .030 Supported

na
ELC <--- PCD .135 .008 Supported

la
APP <--- PCD .071 .175 Not Supported

au
AB <--- PCD -.005 .920 Not Supported

M
CEX <--- IF -.014 .807 Not Supported

PP <--- IF .099 .083 Not Supported
ELC <--- IF .060 .281 Not Supported
APP <--- IF .136 .017 Supported
218
AB <--- IF .150 .010 Supported

CEX <--- CC .150 .002 Supported
PP <--- CC -.184 *** Not Supported
ELC <--- CC -.062 .184 Not Supported
APP <--- CC .095 .045 Supported
ty
AB <--- CC .002 .972 Not Supported
i
rs
AB <--- SRB .098 .025 Supported
ve
ni
Structural Model of Allahabad Bank Data
U
a) Impact of CRME on Customer Satisfaction
lim
us
M
h
model of GOF are as- (CMIN/DF = .501, Chi- Square = 1.03, DF = 2, GFI = 0.991, NFI
ar
lig

A

y,
ar
dependent variable was customer satisfaction having 7 constructs. The multiple

br

Li
d
za
CRME effect on customer satisfaction was found relatively positively significant

A
explaining the variance with regression weight which is mentioned below in the
na
table5.52
la
au
M
219
TABLE 5.52
Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer satisfaction Allahabad
Bank Data
CMIN/DF 0.501
Chi- Square 1.03
ty
DF 2
i
GFI 0.991
rs
NFI 0.999
ve
CFI 0.999
ni
RMSEA 0.000
U
p-Value 0.000
lim
Paths of constructs showing CRME Impact Estimate P Hypothesis Decision
us
on Customer Satisfaction
PQ <--- PDA .060 .185 Not Supported
COM <--- PDA -.084 M .089 Not Supported

h
ar
TRU <--- PDA .110 .024 Supported

lig
COMM <--- PDA .158 .001 Supported
SR <--- PDA .317 *** Supported

A
Not Supported
y,
CH <--- PDA .039 .422

ar
PQ <--- REL .163 *** Supported

br
COM <--- REL -.040 .436 Not Supported

Li
TRU <--- REL .090 .075 Not Supported

d
COMM <--- REL -.037 .472 Not Supported

za
SR <--- REL .019 .698 Not Supported

A
CH <--- REL .153 .002 Supported

na
PQ <--- TOR .321 *** Supported

la
COM <--- TOR .272 *** Supported

au
TRU <--- TOR .148 .002 Supported

M
COMM <--- TOR .141 .004 Supported
SR <--- TOR -.036 .453 Not Supported
CH <--- TOR .178 *** Not Supported
220
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
Fig. 5.18: Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer satisfaction
us
Allahabad Bank Data
b) Impact of CRME on Customer Loyalty
M
h
ar
lig
A
y,
ar
br

Li

d
za
dependent variable was customer loyalty having 5 constructs. The multiple mixtures
A
of significant and insignificant effects were highlighted by the analysis of proposed

na
hypotheses. Hence, several inferences were drawn from the results. Initially CRME
effect on customer satisfaction was found relatively positively significant explaining
la
au
the variance with regression weight which is mentioned below in the table 5.53
M
221
TABLE 5.53
Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer Loyalty Allahabad Bank
Data
CMIN/DF 2.73
ty
Chi- Square 9.39
i
rs
DF 44
ve
GFI 0.991
ni
NFI 0.995
U
CFI 0.990
RMSEA 0.010
lim
p-Value 0.000
us
Paths of constructs showing CRME Estimate P Hypothesis Decision
M
h
SRB <--- PDA -.024 .625 Not Supported
ar
CI <--- PDA .373 *** Supported

lig
PCD <--- PDA -.021 .638 Not Supported

A
y,
IF <--- PDA -.091 .066 Not Supported

ar
SRB <--- REL .280 *** Supported

br
CI <--- REL .034 .463 Not Supported

Li
PCD <--- REL .376 *** Supported

d
za
IF <--- REL .022 .668 Not Supported

A
CI <--- TOR .127 .005 Supported

na
PCD <--- TOR .197 *** Supported

la
au
IF <--- TOR .196 *** Supported

M
SRB <--- TOR .043 .370 Not Supported
222
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
Fig. 5.19: Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer Loyalty
lim
Allahabad Bank Data
us
c) Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty
M
Before proceeding to the causal relationship of customer satisfaction with customer
h
loyalty the goodness of fit was measured. In the measurement of structural model of
ar
lig
A
0.999, NFI =0.997, CFI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.011, P-Value =0.000) given in table 5.54
y,
ar

br
Li
variable was customer loyalty having 5 constructs. The multiple mixtures of

d
significant and insignificant effects were highlighted by the analysis of proposed

za
hypotheses. Hence, several inferences were drawn from the results. Initially customer
A
satisfaction effect on customer loyalty was found relatively positively significant

na
la
5.54
au
M
223
TABLE 5.54
Goodness of fit indices and Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty
Allahabad Bank Data
ty
i
rs
ve
CMIN/DF 1.06
Chi- Square 3.20
ni
DF 3
U
GFI 0.999
lim
NFI 0.997
CFI 0.999
us
RMSEA 0.011
p-Value
M
0.000
h
ar

lig
SRB <--- COM -.114 .006 Supported

A
CI <--- COM -.057 .134 Not Supported

y,
PCD <--- COM -.079 .059 Not Supported

ar
SRB <--- TRU .022 .591 Not Supported

br
CI <--- TRU .117 .002 Supported

Li
PCD <--- TRU .033 .417 Not Supported

d
za
IF <--- TRU .226 *** Supported

A
SRB <--- COMM .087 .038 Supported

na
CI <--- COMM .232 *** Supported

PCD <--- COMM .051 .228 Not Supported
la
au
IF <--- COMM -.050 .253 Not Supported

SRB <--- SR .293 *** Supported
M
CI <--- SR .319 *** Supported

PCD <--- SR .319 *** Supported
IF <--- SR .084 .057 Not Supported
SRB <--- CH .289 *** Supported
224
CI <--- CH .209 *** Supported

PCD <--- CH .228 *** Supported
IF <--- CH .180 *** Supported
IF <--- COM .038 .383 Not Supported
i ty
rs
ve
ni
U
lim
us
M
h
ar
lig
A
y,
Fig. 5.20: Goodness of fit indices and Customer Satisfaction on Customer

ar
Loyalty Allahabad Bank Data

br
d) Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Cross Buying

Li
Before proceeding to the causal relationship of customer satisfaction with cross

d
buying the goodness of fit was measured. In the measurement of structural model of
za
A
na
0.998, NFI =0.988, CFI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.029, P-Value =0.000) given in table 5.55
la
au
M

variable was cross buying having 4 constructs. The multiple mixtures of significant
and insignificant effects were highlighted by the analysis of proposed hypotheses.
Hence, several inferences were drawn from the results. Initially customer satisfaction
225
effect on cross buying was found relatively positively significant explaining the
variance with regression weight which is mentioned below in the table 5.55
TABLE 5.55
Goodness of fit indices and Customer Satisfaction impact on Cross Buying of
Allahabad Bank Data
ity
rs
ve
CMIN/DF 1.46
Chi- Square 4.39
ni
DF 3
U
GFI 0.998
lim
NFI 0.988
us
CFI 0.996
RMSEA 0.029
p-Value M
0.000
h
ar

lig
CEX <--- COM .060 .241 Not Supported

A
y,
PP <--- COM -.197 .015 Not Supported

ar
ELC <--- COM -.047 .535 Not Supported

br
AB <--- COM -.021 .748 Not Supported

Li
CEX <--- TRU .131 .021 Supported

d
za
PP <--- TRU .005 .953 Not Supported

A
ELC <--- TRU .148 .080 Not Supported

na
AB <--- TRU -.095 .182 Not Supported

la
au
CEX <--- COMM -.038 .501 Not Supported

M
PP <--- COMM .046 .601 Not Supported
ELC <--- COMM -.012 .882 Not Supported
AB <--- COMM -.062 .375 Not Supported
CEX <--- SR -.032 .524 Not Supported
226
PP <--- SR .106 .185 Not Supported
ELC <--- SR -.043 .572 Not Supported
AB <--- SR .033 .606 Not Supported
CEX <--- CH .000 .993 Not Supported
ty
PP <--- CH -.031 .703 Not Supported
i
rs
ELC <--- CH .033 .660 Not Supported
ve
ni
AB <--- CH .098 .124 Not Supported
U
lim
us
M
h
ar
lig
A
y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
Fig. 5.21: Goodness of fit indices and Customer Satisfaction impact on Cross
la
Buying of Allahabad Bank Data

au
e) Impact of Customer Loyalty on Cross Buying

M
Before proceeding to the causal relationship of customer loyalty with cross buying the
model of GOF are as- (CMIN/DF = .147, Chi- Square = 1.29, DF = 2, GFI = 0.999, NFI
=0.998, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.000, P-Value =0.006) given in table 5.56.
227
Moreover, there are 5 latent variables under customer loyalty (stronger

relational bond, customer influence, promoting customer dependency, interaction
frequency, customer commitment) which are independent variable to the cross
buying. On the other hand, the dependent variable was cross buying having 4
constructs. The multiple mixtures of significant and insignificant effects were
ty
highlighted by the analysis of proposed hypotheses. Hence, several inferences were
i
rs
drawn from the results. Initially customer satisfaction effect on cross buying was
ve
found relatively positively significant explaining the variance with regression weight
ni
which is mentioned below in the table 5.56.
U
TABLE 5.56
lim
Goodness of fit indices and Impact of Customer Loyalty on Cross Buying
us
Allahabad Bank Data
Fit Indices
M
Statistics for structured model
h
CMIN/DF 0.147
ar
Chi- Square 1.29

lig
DF 2
A
GFI 0.999
y,
NFI 0.998
ar
CFI 0.997
br
RMSEA 0.000
Li
p-Value 0.000
d

za
Loyalty impact on Cross Buying

A
CEX <--- SRB -.032 .505 Not Supported

na
ELC <--- SRB .010 .833 Not Supported

la
PP <--- SRB -.010 .828 Not Supported

au
CEX <--- CI .078 .095 Not Supported

M
ELC <--- CI .043 .356 Not Supported
PP <--- CI -.075 .110 Not Supported
AB <--- CI .071 .133 Not Supported
228
CEX <--- PCD -.006 .908 Not Supported
ELC <--- PCD -.057 .263 Not Supported
PP <--- PCD .134 .008 Supported
AB <--- PCD -.021 .681 Not Supported
ty
CEX <--- IF -.020 .648 Not Supported
i
rs
ELC <--- IF .072 .094 Not Supported
ve
ni
PP <--- IF .000 .995 Not Supported
U
AB <--- IF .002 .960 Not Supported
lim
AB <--- SRB .013 .783 Not Supported
us
M
h
ar
lig
A
y,
ar
br
Li
d
za
A
na
la
au
Fig. 5.22: Goodness of fit indices and Impact of Customer Loyalty on Cross
M
Buying Allahabad Bank Data
229
Impact- wise Comparison of HDFC Bank Constructs with Allahabad Bank

Constructs
a) Impact of CRME on Customer Satisfaction- A Comparison
The structured equation model was run on the two different data of the same
ty
constructs and variables on the equal data set. The structured model was used to find
i
rs
out the complex causal effect of the multiple relationships. As the objective of the
ve
study, the comparison was made after calculation of impact of CRME constructs on
ni
the customer satisfaction constructs.
U
Initially, the goodness of fit model was calculated on the data of HDFC bank and
lim
Allahabad Bank individually. Subsequently, it was compared, It explained that the
us
data represented good fit model. After the GOF Model of the two different data, the
M
effect of CRME on Customer satisfaction was compared, which explained the mixture
of positive and negative relationships, indicating that some of the hypothesised
h
ar
relationships were supported and some were not supported. Further, the separate
lig
analysis of Allahabad bank data was carried out and it was found that most of the
A
items were deleted as those constructs and indicators were failed to attain the standard
y,
threshold limits.
ar
So, in comparison of the cause and effect relationship the data of HDFC Bank was
br
found more suitable than that of the Allahabad Bank on the front of practical
Li
implications. It means the customer relation management effectiveness is appealing in

d
terms of customer retention, customer services, trust maintained by the bank and the
za
commitment they have given to their customers in the case of HDFC Bank than that
A
of Allahabad Bank.
na
la
au
M
230
TABLE 5.57
Comparison of Goodness of fit indices and CRME impact on Customer
satisfaction of HDFC Bank and Allahabad Bank
Fit Indices HDFC Bank Allahabad Bank
i ty
CMIN/DF 1.84 0.501
rs
Chi- Square 27.60 1.03
ve
DF 15 2
ni
GFI 0.992 0.991
U
NFI 0.978 0.999
lim
CFI 0.990 0.999
RMSEA 0.039 0.000
us
p-Value 0.000 0.000
M
h
Estimate
ar
lig
HDFC Bank Allahabad Bank

A
CO <--- OC -.017 Deleted

y,
PQ <--- OC .227 Deleted

ar
COM <--- OC .171 Deleted

br
TRU <--- OC .150 Deleted

Li
COMM <--- OC .107 Deleted

d
za
SR <--- OC .061 Deleted

A
CH <--- OC .231 Deleted

na
CO <--- CE .095 Deleted

la
au
PQ <--- CE -.118 Deleted

M
COM <--- CE .078 Deleted
TRU <--- CE .132 Deleted
COMM <--- CE .089 Deleted
SR <--- CE .091 Deleted
231
CH <--- CE -.039 Deleted
CO <--- PDA -.049 .060
PQ <--- PDA .134 -.084
COM <--- PDA .113 .110
ty
TRU <--- PDA .030 .158
i
rs
COMM <--- PDA .084 .317
ve
ni
SR <--- PDA .131 .039
U
CH <--- PDA .165 .163
lim
CO <--- REL -.221 -.040
us
PQ <--- REL -.113 .090
COM <--- REL M-.009 -.037

h
ar
TRU <--- REL .121 .019

lig
COMM <--- REL .079 .153

A
SR <--- REL .228 .321

y,
CH <--- REL .143 .272

ar
br
PQ <--- TOR .040 .148

Li
COM <--- TOR -.054 .141

d
TRU <--- TOR .034 -.036

za
COMM <--- TOR .322 .178

A
na
SR <--- TOR .141 Deleted

la
CH <--- TOR .005 Deleted

au
CO <--- TOR .450 Deleted

M
b) Impact of CRME on Customer Loyalty- A Comparison
232
the customer loyalty constructs.
Initially, the goodness of fit model was calculated on the data of HDFC Bank and
Allahabad Bank individually. Subsequently, it was compared It explained that the
ty
effect of CRME on Customer loyalty was compared, which explained the mixture of
i
rs
positive and negative relationships, indicating that some of the hypothesized
ve
ni
analysis of Allahabad bank data was carried out and it was found that most of the
U
lim
threshold limits.
us
M
h
implications. It means the Customer relation management effectiveness is appealing
ar
in terms of customer retention, customer services, trust maintained by the bank and
lig
the commitment they have given to their customers in the case of HDFC Bank than
A
that of Allahabad Bank.

y,
TABLE 5.58
ar
Comparison of Goodness of fit indices and CRME on Customer Loyalty of

br
HDFC Bank and Allahabad Bank

Li
d

za
CMIN/DF 2.59 2.73

A

na
DF 4 44
la
GFI 0.996 0.991

au
NFI 0.990 0.995

CFI 0.994 0.990
M
RMSEA 0.053 0.010

p-Value 0.000 0.000
HDFC ALLAHABAD
SRB <--- OC .300 DELETED
233
CI <--- OC .275 DELETED
PCD <--- OC .160 DELETED
IF <--- OC .103 DELETED
CC <--- OC .067 DELETED
ty
SRB <--- CE -.001 DELETED
i
rs
CI <--- CE -.118 DELETED
ve
PCD <--- CE -.015 DELETED
ni
U
IF <--- CE .132 DELETED
lim
CC <--- CE .089 DELETED
SRB <--- PDA .047 -.024
us
CI <--- PDA
M.094 .373
h
PCD <--- PDA .094 -.021
ar
IF <--- PDA .085 -.091

lig
CC <--- PDA .123 .280

A
SRB <--- REL .064 .034

y,
ar
CI <--- REL .072 .376

br
PCD <--- REL .100 .022

Li
IF <--- REL .148 .127

d
za
CC <--- REL .109 .197

A
CI <--- TOR .230 .196

na
PCD <--- TOR .110 .043

la
IF <--- TOR .158 DELETED

au
CC <--- TOR .122 DELETED

M
SRB <--- TOR -.014 DELETED
234
c) Impact of Customer satisfaction on Customer Loyalty- A Comparison
ty
study, the comparison was made after calculation of impact of Customer Satisfaction
i
rs
constructs on the customer loyalty constructs.
ve
ni
Allahabad Bank individually. Subsequently, it was compared It explained that the
U
lim
effect of CRME on customer loyalty was compared, which explained the mixture of
us
M
h
analysis of Allahabad Bank data was carried out and it was found that most of the
ar
lig
threshold limits.
A
y,
ar

br
Li
d
of Allahabad Bank.
za
A
TABLE 5.59
Comparison of Goodness of fit indices and Customer satisfaction on Customer
na
Loyalty of HDFC Bank and Allahabad Bank

la

CMIN/DF 2.41 1.06
au

DF 6 3
M
GFI 0.996 0.999

NFI 0.990 0.997
CFI 0.994 0.999
RMSEA 0.050 0.011
p-Value 0.000 0.000
235
HDFC ALLAHABAD
SRB <--- CO .132 DELETED
CI <--- CO .533 DELETED
ty
PCD <--- CO .221 DELETED
i
rs
IF <--- CO .569 DELETED
ve
SRB <--- PQ -.003 DELETED
ni
CI <--- PQ .146 DELETED
U
lim
PCD <--- PQ .060 DELETED
IF <--- PQ -.009 DELETED
us
CC <--- PQ .015 DELETED
SRB <--- COM

M -.032 -.114
h
ar
CI <--- COM .055 -.057

lig
PCD <--- COM -.074 -.079

A
IF <--- COM .098 .022

y,
ar
CC <--- COM .180 .117

br
SRB <--- TRU .134 .033

Li
CI <--- TRU -.016 .226

d
PCD <--- TRU .093 .087

za
A
IF <--- TRU .553 .232

na
CC <--- TRU .525 .051

la
SRB <--- COMM .210 -.050

au
CI <--- COMM .278 .293

M
PCD <--- COMM .125 .319
IF <--- COMM -.223 .319
CC <--- COMM -.206 .084
SRB <--- SR -.150 .289
236
CI <--- SR .132 .209
PCD <--- SR .533 .228
IF <--- SR .221 .180
CC <--- SR .569 .038
ty
SRB <--- CH -.003 DELETED
i
rs
CI <--- CH .146 DELETED
ve
PCD <--- CH .060 DELETED
ni
U
IF <--- CH -.009 DELETED
lim
CC <--- CH .015 DELETED
CC <--- CO -.032 DELETED
us
M
d) Impact of Customer satisfaction on Cross Buying- A Comparison
h
ar
lig
A
y,
the Cross buying constructs.

ar
br
Li
Allahabad Bank individually. Subsequently, it was compared. It explained that the

d
za
effect of CRME on cross buying was compared, which explained the mixture of
A

na
la
analysis of Allahabad Bank data was carried out and it was found that most of the
au
M
threshold limits.
237
of Allahabad Bank.
TABLE 5.60
Comparison of Goodness of fit indices and Customer satisfaction on Cross
ty
Buying of HDFC Bank and Allahabad Bank
i
rs
ve
CMIN/DF 2.81 0.147
ni
U
DF 17 2
lim
GFI 0.986 0.999
NFI 0.943 0.998
us
CFI 0.960 0.997
RMSEA 0.057
M 0.000
h
p-Value 0.000 0.000
ar
lig
HDFC ALLAHABAD
A
CEX <--- CO .033 DELETED

y,
PP <--- CO .135 DELETED

ar
ELC <--- CO .099 DELETED

br
APP <--- CO -.016 DELETED

Li
CEX <--- PQ .158 DELETED

d
za
PP <--- PQ .071 DELETED

A
ELC <--- PQ .112 DELETED

na
APP <--- PQ .115 DELETED
AB <--- PQ .113 DELETED

la
au
CEX <--- COM .038 .060

M
PP <--- COM .114 -.197
ELC <--- COM .115 -.047
APP <--- COM -.037 -.021
AB <--- COM .041 .131
CEX <--- TRU .032 .005
238
PP <--- TRU -.024 .148
ELC <--- TRU .092 -.095
APP <--- TRU .096 -.038
AB <--- TRU .144 .046

CEX <--- COMM .163 -.012
ty
PP <--- COMM .108 -.062
i
rs
ELC <--- COMM .069 -.032
ve
APP <--- COMM -.086 .106
ni
AB <--- COMM .054 -.043
U
CEX <--- SR .109 .033
lim
PP <--- SR -.054 .000
us
ELC <--- SR -.104 -.031
APP <---
M
SR .154 .033
h
AB <--- SR -.135 .098
ar
CEX <--- CH .069 DELETED

lig
PP <--- CH .153 DELETED

A
ELC <--- CH .134 DELETED

y,
APP <--- CH -.129 DELETED

ar
br
AB <--- CH .068 DELETED

Li
AB <--- CO .018 DELETED

d
za
e) Impact of Customer Loyalty on Cross Buying- A Comparison

A
na
la
au
study, the comparison was made after calculation of impact of Customer Loyalty
M
constructs on the Cross Buying constructs.
Allahabad Bank individually. Subsequently, it was compared. It explained that the
effect of customer loyalty was compared, which explained the mixture of positive and
239
negative relationships, indicating that some of the hypothesized relationships were

supported and some were not supported. Further, the separate analysis of Allahabad
Bank data was carried out and it was found that most of the items were deleted as
those constructs and indicators were failed to attain the standard threshold limits.
ty
i
rs
ve
ni
U
of Allahabad Bank.
lim
TABLE 5.61
us
Comparison of Goodness of fit indices and Customer Loyalty on Cross Buying of
HDFC Bank and Allahabad Bank
M
h
ar
lig

A
CMIN/DF 2.68 0.147

y,
ar
DF 8 2
GFI 0.993 0.999
br
NFI 0.973 0.998

Li
CFI 0.982 0.997

d
RMSEA 0.055 0.000

za
p-Value 0.006 0.000

A
na
HDFC ALLAHABAD
la
au
CEX <--- SRB .134 -.032

M
PP <--- SRB .179 .010
ELC <--- SRB .272 -.010
APP <--- SRB .144 .078
CEX <--- CI -.025 .043
240
PP <--- CI .079 -.075
ELC <--- CI .121 .071
APP <--- CI .047 -.006
AB <--- CI .036 -.057
ty
CEX <--- PCD -.068 .134
i
rs
PP <--- PCD .113 -.021
ve
ELC <--- PCD .135 -.020
ni
U
APP <--- PCD .071 .072
lim
AB <--- PCD -.005 .000
CEX <--- IF -.014 .002
us
PP <---
M
IF .099 .013
h
ELC <--- IF .060 DELETED
ar
APP <--- IF .136 DELETED

lig
AB <--- IF .150 DELETED

A
CEX <--- CC .150 DELETED

y,
ar
PP <--- CC -.184 DELETED

br
ELC <--- CC -.062 DELETED

Li
APP <--- CC .095 DELETED

d
za
AB <--- CC .002 DELETED

A
AB <--- SRB .098 DELETED

na
la
au
M
241
REFERENCES
Abraham S.J., E. and Rao T.V., (1991), ‘Human Resource Development; Practices in
Indian Industries’ – A Trend Report, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., Pvt.
ty
Limited, New Delhi, P.262 – 268.
i
rs
Bless C., Higson-Smith, C., &Kagee, A. (2006). Fundamentals of social research
ve
methods: An African perspective. Juta and Company Ltd.
ni
Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C., &Kagee, A. (2006). Fundamentals of social research
U
methods: An African perspective. Juta and Company Ltd.
lim
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
us
tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
M
Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
h
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.Journal of marketing
ar
research, 382-388.
lig
George, D., &Mallery, P. (2003).SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and
A
reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn& Bacon.

y,
ar
Gliem, R. R., &Gliem, J. A. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting

br
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest

Li
Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community

Education.
d
za
Hair Jr, J. F. (2006). Black, WC/Babin, BJ/Anderson, RE &Tatham, RL (2006):

A
Multivariate Data Analysis. Auflage, Upper Saddle River.

na
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data
la
analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
au
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., &Tatham, R. L. (2006).
M
Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education

International, New Jersey, NJ
Handbook of Household Surveys, Revised Edition, Studies in Methods, Series F, No.

31, United Nations, New York, 1984, para. 4.5
242
Handbook of Household Surveys, Revised Edition, Studies in Methods, Series F, No.

31, United Nations, New York, 1984, para. 4.5
(Harman, 1960).Modern factor analysis.University of Chicago Press, Oxford,

England.
ty
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity.Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
i
rs
Kothari, C. R. (2012). Research methodology methods and techniques.New Delhi:
ve
Malhotra, N. K. &Dash, S. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied
ni
Orientation.Prentice Hall, Delhi.
U
Malik., A (2016), Sports Celebrity Endorsement in Positioning of Brand for
lim
Measuring Purchase Intention of Customers Unpublished Thesis, Submitted to
us
Pondicherry University, 19 September, 2016
M
Neuman, Lawrence W. (2000) Social Research Methods; Qualitative and Quantitative
h
Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. New Age International.
ar
Neuman, Lawrence W. (2000) Social Research Methods; Qualitative and Quantitative

lig
Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

A
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.

y,
ar
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., &Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

br
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and

Li
recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

d
Singh, K. (2004). Impact of HR practices on perceived firm performance in

za
India. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 301-317.

A
na
Sinha, P. (2000). Determination of Reliability of Estimations obtained with survey

Research: A Method of Simulation. International Journal of Marketing
la
Research, 42 (2), 311-318.

au
M
Tavakol, M., &Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International

Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. Doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Thompson, B. (2002). Score Reliability: Contemporary Thinking on Reliability

issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
243

11 Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

11 Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

A review of the customer relation management effectiveness and practices, as well as

HDFC Bank on organizational commitment, customer satisfaction, and customer

in a particular geographical location, or a special ethnic or economic group,

for completion of present study

followed by eliciting information on customer relation management effectiveness

to analyze customer satisfaction level with existing customer relation management

effectiveness construct of both the selected banks. Finally,the personal information of

5.4 Research Instrument

helped in providing convenience in marking the answers and ensured completeness

and clarity of filling the questionnaire for the study.

1 Ghaziabad 250 148

2 Noida 350 300 85% Field Work

3 New Delhi 400 300 75% Field Work

4 Gurugram 500 380 76% Field Work

Total 1500 1128 - -

Fig. 5.1: Questionnaire Distribution and Response Rate

5.6 Analysis of Collected Data

The responses gathered by means of the questionnaire from the customers of

5.7 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

categories or factors with a minimum loss of information. Based on the correlation

In other words,factor analysis is a statistical approach that can be used to analyze

results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

5.7.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of CRME Indicators of HDFC Bank.

OC_3 1.000 .703

OC_4 1.000 .788

OC_6 1.000 .544

CE_1 1.000 .667

CE_2 1.000 .748

CE_4 1.000 .737

CE_5 1.000 .653

PDA_1 1.000 .763

PDA_2 1.000 .731

PDA_4 1.000 .548

PDA_5 1.000 .537

REL_2 1.000 .666

REL_3 1.000 .807

REL_5 1.000 .735

20 .178 .660 97.006

22 .155 .575 98.168

23 .121 .449 98.617

25 .101 .373 99.414

26 .085 .315 99.730

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis of CRME Indicators of Allahabad Bank

OC_1 1.000 .644

OC_5 1.000 .496

CE_4 1.000 .718

CE_5 1.000 .541

PDA_1 1.000 .638

PDA_2 1.000 .593

PDA_3 1.000 .584

PDA_5 1.000 .591

REL_1 1.000 .608

REL_3 1.000 .597

TOR_1 1.000 .549

TOR_3 1.000 .559

14 .433 2.280 91.985

16 .354 1.862 95.916

18 .289 1.521 99.049

19 .181 .951 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis