Contents

I. Major Findings............................................................................................................. 3

1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents................................................................3

2. Reliability..................................................................................................................... 5

3. Validity Test (EFA)......................................................................................................8

4. Regression results.......................................................................................................11

II. Discussion.................................................................................................................... 3

1. Research Discussion......................................................................................................3

1.1. Independent variables...................................................................................................3

1.2. Moderator variable Price..............................................................................................6

2. Research Question........................................................................................................7

3. Implications................................................................................................................. 7

4. Limitations................................................................................................................... 8

5. Future Research Recommendations..............................................................................8

III. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 9

Reference list........................................................................................................................ 10

Appendix.............................................................................................................................. 13
 I. Major Findings

1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Characteristics Frequency Percent of total

Age group Under 20 7 6.6

From 20 to 35 69 65.1

From 36 to 50 22 20.8

Above 50 8 7.5

Gender Male 37 34.9

Female 69 65.1

Academic level Undergraduate 37 34.9

Bachelor degree 43 40.6

Master degree and 26 24.5

above

Income Under 15 million 52 49.1

VND

From 15 to 30 21 19.8
million VND

From 31 to 50 18 17
million VND

Above 50 million 15 14.2

VND

Table 1: Demographic profile

Looking at the demographic data table, it is easy to see that the majority of
respondents are from the age group of 20 to 35, with 69 out of 106 people. Second is
the age group from 36 to 50, accounting for 20.8% with 22 people. The last group is
over 50 years old and under 20 years old, accounting for 7.5% and 6.6% of the
respondents, respectively. Out of 106 respondents to the survey, 69 are female,
accounting for 65.1%, the remaining 37 are male with the rate of 34.9%. As regards
Education Level, the group of university graduates is 43 people, followed by the
group of people who have not graduated from university and the group of people with
master's degrees or higher with 37 and 26 people, accounting for 40.6% and 34.9%
respectively. and 24.5%. Regarding Income items, 49.1% of respondents said that they
have an income of less than 15 million VND in a month, accounting for a total of 52
people. 21 people have income from 15 to 30 million, accounting for 19.85. The rest
are those in the income group from 31 to 50 million and over 50 million a month,
accounting for 17% and 14.2% respectively.

With the theory of Oliver and Linda (1981), we have the following formula
Independent variables which affect Customer Saticsfaction = Customer
Perception – Customer Expectation
The raw data will be gathered and subtracted to get the gap, also called the difference
between perception and expectation of items in the SERVQUAL model.
The findings section below will perform multiple regression analysis steps to test the
research hypotheses proposed in the article of the SERVQUAL model with 5
independent variables and one dependent variable. Model 1 will analyze the
regression of 5 independent variables on the dependent variable. In the next 5 models,
in addition to the independent variables of the SERVQUAL model (ie Tangibility,
Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy), the moderator Price variable is
added in turn to test the correlation between the independent variables, and the
dependent variable (ie Customer Satisfaction). To test the research hypothesis and the
relationship between the variables, the steps of testing reliability and validity were
performed. More specifically, Cronbach's alpha is calculated to check whether the
observed variables of the independent variables are reliable. This was followed by the
next step, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is performed to check the convergent
and discriminant validity of the scale for all items of the independent variables,
moderators, and dependent variables.

2. Reliability

Corrected Cronbach’s
Constructs and the scale items Item-total Alpha if
(Expectation - Perception) Correlation Item
Deleted

Tangibles (alphas = 0.803)

.720 .656
DifT1 Neat appearance staffs

.688 .700
DifT2 Neat designed uniform

.561 .838
DifT3 Staffs provide service with a smile.

Reliability (alphas = 0.765)

.477 .741
DifREL1 Perform service accurately

.578 .710
DifREL2 Provide service on time

.667 .676
DifREL3 Solve problem sincerely

.501 .736
DifREL4 Well-trained and knowledgeable staffs

.475 .746
DifREL5 Staffs with good communication skills

Responsiveness (alphas = 0.719)

 .369 .711
DifRES1 Willingness to serve guests

.600 .630
DifRES2 Availability to respond to guests’ requests

.568 .633
DifRES3 Flexibility according to guests’ demands

.509 .660
DifRES4 Quick check-in and check-out

.387 .720
DifRES5 Prompt breakfast service

Assurance (alphas = 0.668)

.318 .700
DifA1 Staff with knowledge to provide guests
information about surrounding areas
(shopping, museum, place of interest…)

.403 .631
DifA2 Staff with occupational skills

.544 .546
DifA3 Courteous and polite staffs

.569 .514
DifA4 Ability of staff to instill confidence in
customers

Empathy (alphas = 0.791)

.636 .731
DifE1 Provides guests individual attention

.677 .714
DifE2 Understands guest specific needs

.535 .767
DifE3 Positive attitude when receive feedback
 from guests

.570 .751
DifE4 Staffs are reassuring if something goes wrong

.464 .783
DifE5 Problem-solving abilities of staff

Price (alphas = 0.803)

.611 .758
DifP1 The service of the staff is up to the
expectations for the price

.592 .775
DifP2 The price is very reasonable compared to the
service of other 5 stars hotel

.600 .763
DifP3 The hotel offers a good service that is worth
its price

DifP4 Overall, the staff performance is .690 .717

commensurate with the price.

Customer Satisfaction (alpha = 0.939)

.839 .936
S1 Considering all of my experiences with the
staff,I am satisfied with the QUALITY of
hotel services that I booked.

.883 .903
S2 I will come back to use the service of the staff
at the hotel

.897 .891
S3 I am happy to recommend the service of the
staff at the hotel to my friends and relatives
Table 2: Reliability Test

According to Peterson (1994), a good scale should have Cronbach's Alpha reliability
of 0.7 or higher. Looking at the data table above, it is easy to see that Cronbach's
alpha of all variables is greater than 0.7, except for Cronbach's alpha of Assurance
variable with a value of 0.668. Although this value is considered acceptable given the
nature of the preliminary study, it is still necessary to consider the Corrected Item -
Total Correlation indicators. According to Cristobal, Flavián and Guinalíu (2007), a
good scale is when the observed variables have the Corrected Item - Total Correlation
value of 0.3 or more. Considering that item DifA1 has a value of Corrected Item -
Total Correlation greater than 0.3, however, if item type DifA1, the value of
Cronbach's Alpha will increase to 0.7. Therefore, item DifA1 will be rejected.

3. Validity Test (EFA)

Variables (KMO = 0.694) Mean S.D. Factor

Loadings

DifT1 -0.01 0.58 0.833

Neat appearance staffs

DifT2 0.03 0.42 0.855

Neat designed uniform

DifT3 0.12 0.64 0.625

Staff provide service with a
smile.

DifREL -0.14 0.56 0.518

Perform service accurately
1

DifREL -0.12 0.55 0.757

Provide service on time
2

DifREL -0.13 0.59 0.808

Solve problem sincerely
3
DifREL -0.26 0.67 0.687
Well-trained and
4
knowledgeable staffs

DifREL -0.22 0.66 0.649

Staffs with good
5
communication skills

DifRES1 -0.10 0.52 0.626

Willingness to serve guests

DifRES2 0.01 0.54 0.705

Availability to respond to
guests’ requests

DifRES3 -0.19 0.65 0.517

Flexibility according to guests’
demands

DifRES4 0.20 0.60 0.859

Quick check-in and check-out

DifRES5 0.15 0.73 0.818

Prompt breakfast service

DifA2 -0.08 0.62 0.803

Staff with occupational skills

DifA3 0.00 0.62 0.545

Courteous and polite staffs

DifA4 -0.09 0.72 0.445

Ability of staff to instill
confidence in customers

DifE1 0.16 0.84 0.732

Provides guests individual
attention

DifE2 0.06 0.74 0.845

Understands guest specific
 needs

DifE3 -0.08 0.53 0.591

Positive attitude when receive
feedback from guests

DifE4 -0.02 0.72 0.468

Staffs are reassuring if
something goes wrong

DifE5 -0.25 0.65 .521

Problem-solving abilities of
staff

DifP1 0.00 0.63 0.775

The service of the staff is up to
the expectations for the price

DifP2 0.22 0.80 0.769

The price is very reasonable
compared to the service of
other 5 stars hotel

DifP3 -0.24 0.61 0.787

The hotel offers a good service
that is worth its price

DifP4 Overall, the staff performance -0.24 0.68 0.853

is commensurate with the
price.

S1 4.42 0.58 0.927

Considering all of my
experiences with the staff,I am
satisfied with the QUALITY of
hotel services that I booked.
 S2 4.48 0.60 0.949
I will come back to use the
service of the staff at the hotel

S3 4.39 0.59 0.956

I am happy to recommend the
service of the staff at the hotel
to my friends and relatives

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings

The link between measurement variables is the foundation for EFA analysis. Before
selecting to utilize EFA, the correlation matrix is used to examine the link between the
measured variables and to determine the strength of the relationship between the
variables. The correlation coefficient has to be greater than 0.30. (Hair et al., 2010).
After eliminating the DifA1 item, which failed the preceding reliability tests, the
KMO value is 0.694, which is just above 0.5. According to Kaiser (1974), the level of
the coefficient 0.6<=KMO<0.7 is transient. The KMO is therefore acceptable. The
significance is 0.000, which is below 0.05. The Exploratory Factor Analysis is
therefore suitable for studying the data. However, the results of the EFA test occur in
the case that the observed variable of one factor converges on another factor, also
known as the shuffled EFA Rotation Matrix. According to Nguyen (2013), it is quite
normal for one group of observations to be strongly transferred to another group. In
this case, matrix rotation occurs because the sample is small (with 106 answers).
Moreover, the variables measuring staff performance often have a lot of similarities.
Nevertheless, the scale items of Tangibility and Empathy variables are highly loaded
on the specified element during low load in other components.

4. Regression results
The study ran a total of 7 models for regression testing
- M1: Model 1 tests the correlation of the dependent variable Customer Satisfaction
and the control variables (Age Group, Gender, Education Level, and Income)
- M2: Model 2 tests the correlation of the dependent variable Customer Satisfaction
with 5 independent variables in the SERVQUAL model
The remaining models in turn test the correlation of the moderators on each
independent variable to the dependent variable. The table below is a summary of the
analyzed data from 7 models.

Table 4: Regression Results

+sig < 0.1, *sig < 0.05, **sig < 0.01, ***sig < 0.001
 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
β β β β β β β

Adjusted R square .035 .422 .541 .526 .504 .561 .571

Significant of model .107 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Age Group -.258 .060 -.029 .022 -.023 -.005 .009
Gender .233* .256* .218* .249** .223** .197* .205**
Education Level .166 -.070 .016+ -.036 .006 .094 .066
Income .147 .150 .120 .165 .236 .093 .150
Tangibility .215* .188+ .186* .138 .210* .154+
Reliability .255* .177 .223* .222* .220* .263**
Responsiveness .046 -.006 -.005 .071 .045 .036
Assuarance .075 .140 .142 .080 .051 .007
Empathy .287+ .041 .118 .125 .167 .094
Price x Strudentized Tangibility .388**
Price x Strudentized Reliability .317***
Price x Strudentized Responsiveness .371***
Price x Strudentized Assurance .349***
Price x Strudentized Empathy .450***
Look at the results of the Model 2 data summarized in the above table when
examining the relationship between the 5 independent variables and the dependent
variable. Adjusted R Square, or R Square reflects the degree of influence of the
independent variables on the dependent variable. The results of running data show that
Adjusted R Square is 0.422. This shows that 5 independent variables explain 42.2% of
Customder Satisfaction's dependence on independent variables. The F-test sig value in
Model 2 has a result of 0.000 < 0.05. As a result, the regression model is valid.
a. Tangibility
The value Sig is used to evaluate each independent variable. If Sig is less than or
equal to 0.05, the variable is relevant to the model; if Sig is larger than 0.05, the
variable must be eliminated.
The results show that for the Tangibility variable, the sig value (also known as the p
value) is less than 0.05 and has a positive Beta value (reaching 0.215). This result
proves that the variable Tangibility has a positive impact on Customer Satisfaction.
Therefore, H1 is supported.
H1: Differences between perception and expectation of staff tangibles positively
affect satisfaction -> supported
b. Reliability
The sig coefficient for the variable Reliability is also less than 0.05. Moreover, the
Beta value is 0.225 greater than 0. Consequently, the H2 theory is supported.
Customer Satisfaction is influenced favorably by Reliability.
H2: Differences between perception and expectation of staffs reliability positively
affect satisfaction -> supported
c. Responsiveness
Although the Beta coefficient of the Responsiveness variable is greater than 0, the p
value of this variable is 0.660. 0.05. This means that the Responsiveness variable has
no impact on the Customer Satisfaction dependent variable. Therefore, hypothesis H3
is rejected.
H3: Differences between perception and expectation of staffs responsiveness
positively affect satisfaction -> rejected
 d. Assuarance
Similarly, the beta coefficient of the variable Assurance is positive, but the p value of
this variable is greater than 0.05. Therefore, the Assuarnce variable has no effect on
the Customer Satisfaction dependent variable. As a result, hypothesis H4 is rejected.
H4: Differences between perception and expectation of staffs assurance positively
affect satisfaction -> rejected
e. Empathy
For the independent variable Empathy, the sig coefficient of the variable is smaller
than 0.05, so the Empathy variable has an impact on the dependent variable Customer
Satisfaction. The Beta value of the Empathy variable is .287, the biggest of all
variables. Assurance has the greatest effect on Customer Satisfaction among the five
independent factors. The result is that hypothesis H5 is supported.
H5: Differences between perception and expectation of staff’s empathy positively
affect satisfaction -> supported
f. Moderator Price
In Table 4, which summarizes the findings of the seven aforementioned models, all
sig of F test values are 0.000 < 0.05. Consequently, this model can accurately
anticipate the link between variables. Moreover, it is evident that the values of
Adjusted R Square for M3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all greater than 0.1. Under the effect of
the moderator variable Price, all regression models account for more than 50 percent
of the dependency of the dependent variable on the independent variables.
Taking into account the p value of the intermediate variable's influence on five
independent variables, the statistics indicate that all moderator variables have p values
less than 0.05. This demonstrates that Price moderates the relationship between the
independent factors and the dependent variable Customer Satisfaction. Specifically,
the moderator variable Price x Studentized Tangibility is 0.388 at the Beta value. This
indicates that Price has a favorable influence on the link between Tangibility and
Customer Satisfaction. Therefore, the H6 hypothesis cannot be substantiated. Similar
to Price x Studentized Reliability, the beta measure for Price x Studentized Reliability
is 0.317. Since the moderator variable Price has a positive effect on the correlation
between the Reliability and Customer Satisfaction variables, H7 is not supported. For
hypothesis H8, the beta value of the Price x Studentized Responsiveness variable,
which is.317, does not support this hypothesis. Contrary to hypothesis H8, this
demonstrates that Price has a positive effect on the link between Responsiveness and
Customer Satisfaction. The Beta Standardized Coefficients at M6 and M7 are 0.349
and 0.450, respectively. Price x Studentized Assurance and Price x Studentized
Empathy have favorable effects on the correlation between the independent variables
and Customer Satisfaction, respectively. This contradicts H9 and H10. Therefore,
neither of the hypotheses H9 vs. H10 is supported.
H6: Price has a negative impact on the relationship between tangibles and
customers’ satisfaction -> not supported
H7: Price has a negative impact on the relationship between reliability and
customers satisfaction -> not supported
H8: Price has a negative impact on the relationship between responsiveness and
customers satisfaction -> not supported
H9: Price has a negative impact on the relationship between assurance and
customers’ satisfaction -> not supported
H10: Price has a negative impact on the relationship between empathy and
customers satisfaction -> not supported

II. Discussion
1. Research Discussion
1.1. Independent variables
a. Tangibility
H1: Differences between perception and expectation of staff tangibles positively affect
satisfaction
The SERVQUAL model's Tangibles components pertain to the physical look of the
hotel service, which contributes to the total service quality (Dabholkar et al., 1996).
This includes the physical look of hotel employees, such as their uniforms. Customers
of five star luxury hotels will notice the details of the hotel's appearance, especially
the workers. Customers will anticipate hotel workers to be neatly attired in uniforms
that reflect the hotel's distinctive style, architecture, and, most importantly, the ability
to demonstrate their competence through their attire. Although Hue Minh et al. (2015)
concluded that Tangibility is not an important factor affecting Customer Satisfaction,
Alin Sriyam's study in 2010, most customers perceived tangibility as the most
important dimension. Agreeing with that view, Hossain (2019), pointed out that
Tangibility has a significant relationship with customer satisfaction. These results are
completely consistent with the results of the above study.
b. Reliability
H2: Differences between perception and expectation of staffs reliability positively
affect satisfaction
In the context of the hotel industry, "reliability" refers to the ability of front-desk
employees to consistently and accurately provide services to customers (Nde Daniel
and Paul Berinyuy, 2010). There are several aspects of staff performances that are
intimately connected to reliability. These aspects include executing services in a
timely and accurate manner, handling problems in an honest manner, and preserving
records in a confidential manner. Reliability is equally as important as making a
strong first impression since every consumer wants to know whether or not their
provider is dependable and does a good job of meeting the criteria that have been
established. The performance of a reliable service must live up to the standards set by
the clients. It is imperative that service be performed promptly, consistently, in the
same way, and error-freely at all times. According to the findings of a survey
conducted by Hue Minh and colleagues (2015) on the impact of five independent
variables of the SERVQUAL model on customer satisfaction in the hotel industry in
Vietnam, reliability has a substantial influence on customer satisfaction. Another
study, this one conducted by Devi Juwaheer (2004), demonstrates that the reliability
factor, employee outlook, and accuracy are all essential service aspects that determine
hotel customers' pleasure. Similarly, Knutson and colleagues (2010) came to the
conclusion that the findings of reliability testing have a favorable influence on
customer satisfaction.
c. Responsiveness
H3: Differences between perception and expectation of staffs responsiveness
positively affect satisfaction
Previous studies have claimed that responsiveness has a detrimental effect on
customer satisfaction; this study contradicts those findings. According to research
conducted by Karunaratne and Jayawardene (2011), Responsiveness, Reliability, and
Assurance have the greatest influence on Hotel Customer Satisfaction. In a similar
spirit, Nde Daniel and Paul Berinyuy (2010) demonstrate that customers are extremely
satisfied with the responsiveness performance of personnel based on their
expectations. Outstanding responsiveness will result in a positive client experience,
which will boost customer retention (Antony, Jiju Antony and Ghosh, 2004). This
study's findings contradict those of earlier research, potentially due to context effects.
Previous research were undertaken in Western nations, however this study was
conducted in Hanoi with a limited sample size. Consequently, the data may be skewed
or diverge from reality.
d. Assurance
H4: Differences between perception and expectation of staffs assurance positively
affect satisfaction
According to Sriyam (2010), assurance has a significant effect on customer
satisfaction in the hospitality industry. Even further, Rao and Sahu (2013) discovered
that Assurance had the greatest impact on Customer Satisfaction. In contrast,
Gunarathne (2014)'s research indicates that Assurance has a negative correlation with
Customer Satisfaction. However, the findings of this study indicate that Staff
Performance Assurance has no correlation with Customer Satisfaction in the hotel
industry. This can also be explained by the altered environment compared to earlier
investigations, as well as the small denominator (106 samples). In addition, the quality
of the samples gathered contributes to variances from the real results.
e. Empathy
H5: Differences between perception and expectation of staff’s empathy positively
affect satisfaction
Empathy is the practice of treating customers individually and attending to their
specific requirements. There is a greater probability of retaining clients if a hotel
understands individual needs and caters to them properly, given that individuals differ
in their nature, preferences, and preferences. When personnel recognize and remember
a customer's special demands, provide guests with individual attention, and have a
pleasant attitude when getting comments from guests, the customer is always
delighted. If personnel are unable to comprehend the customer's wants or offer them
their full attention, it will negatively impact customer satisfaction and the hotel as a
whole. Delgado‐Ballester, (2004) also endorsed this outcome. (Hue Minh et al., 2015)
employed the SERVQUAL scale to assess service quality and examine the impact of
these service quality aspects on customer satisfaction in Vietnam hospitality industry.
This study's findings also reveal that empathy has a substantial impact on customer
satisfaction.

1.2. Moderator variable Price

Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000) discovered that pricing has a substantial effect on
consumer behavior. Significant relationships existed between perceived pricing and
customer satisfaction, the likelihood of repeat business, and the likelihood of referring
the service provider to others. In a second study focused on the hotel business,
customer perceptions of price fairness or unfairness greatly influenced customer
satisfaction and behavioral intentions (El-Adly, 2018). The findings of this study also
indicate that price influences Customer Satisfaction. However, contrary to the idea
that high costs will increase customer expectations and consequently impact customer
satisfaction, the opposite is true. The results of this study do not support the notion
since price has a beneficial effect on customer satisfaction and alternative
explanations has been existed. According to UKEssays (2018), the validity of the
SERVQUAL model as a generic tool for measuring service quality in numerous
service industries has been called into question. According to a prior study conducted
by Nde Daniel and Paul Berinyuy (2010), a number of SERVQUAL model variables
lacked considerable dependability, indicating that they were inconsistent with regard
to the measuring of service quality. According to Nde Daniel and Paul Berinyuy of the
same study, the validity of the SERVQUAL model was examined using factor
analysis, and the conclusion was that it is not a trustworthy indicator of service
quality. This discovery was made in the same investigation. Another dubious practice
is the use of quality and distance models as a basis for judging the quality of services
supplied (Carman, 1990; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Tamanna, 2020). Brady, Cronin, and Brand (2002); and Lee, Lee, and Yoo (2000)
reached the same conclusion as the previously stated researchers. Parasuraman et al.
argue that SERVQUAL is a reliable and accurate method for measuring service
quality, despite the fact that the SERVQUAL model is surrounded by many disputes
(Parasuraman et al., 1988; 1991; 1993). Numerous researchers have acknowledged the
usefulness and precision of this scale (Buttle, 1996; Robinson, 1999). Consequently,
the aforementioned outcomes may be affected by various research situations. This
study was conducted at a five-star hotel in Hanoi (specifically the Sheraton Hanoi
Hotel), so there may be sampling restrictions and flaws that lead to a standard
deviation. In addition, the study's sample size was just 106, which affected the
outcomes of the data analysis.

2. Research Question
The study addressed the posed research questions. For the first question regarding the
relationship between independent variables and dependent variables, the preceding
study supplied data and indicated the beneficial effect of Tangibility, Reliability, and
Empathy on Customer Satisfaction. However, the association between the other two
factors, Responsiveness and Assurance, and Customer Satisfaction is absent. In the
second research question, despite the article's demonstration that Price has a
considerable impact on the link between the independent and dependent variables, this
impact is inconsistent with the initial premise.

3. Implications
Tangibility is the most significant of the five independent factors that make up the
difference between people's perceptions and their expectations, according to the
findings that were derived from the data that was presented earlier. This indicates that
management of five-star hotels should keep their focus on tangible aspects of their
personnel, such as the employees' immaculate appearance and their warmth toward
customers. These are the initial aspects that will attract customers' sympathies for the
quality of the hotel's service, and they will play a significant role. The next factor is
dependability; the level of customer satisfaction will increase according to the degree
to which clients have faith in the standard of the hotel's services. Hotel managers are
responsible for ensuring that their service staff receives ongoing training in order to
fulfill their obligations to clients, offer service at the time they commit, and remain
ready to serve customers whenever they have a requirement. According to the findings
of the study, (P-E) Empathy also has a beneficial impact on Customer Satisfaction.
This is an important finding. The staff members of 5-star hotels are expected to pay
attention, to always treat guests with respect and consideration, and to provide
excellent customer service.

4. Limitations

As was indicated before, the SERVQUAL model is still the subject of debate, and the
results of tests don't always turn out as predicted. This is one of the model's
drawbacks. In addition, the various questions that make up the Staff Performance
section of the SERVQUAL scale are, for the most part, relatively comparable, which
can easily confuse the responders. The next drawback of this study is that there were
only 106 people who participated in the survey, which means that the results of this
survey may not be accurate or highly representative. The fact that survey respondents
can only come from five-star hotels in Hanoi, specifically the Sheraton Hanoi Hotel
and the Marriott Hotel Hanoi, is another limitation connected to the sampling process.

5. Future Research Recommendations

In order to make the findings of future studies more trustworthy, the number of people
who participated in the research should be increased. In addition to this, researchers
should broaden the scope of their study to include larger cities and other popular
tourist locations that have a large number of hotels rated five stars or above, such as
Ho Chi Minh City, Da Nang, and Nha Trang. In addition, the control variable of the
demographic should be included to assess the effect that the demographic variable has
on customer satisfaction and to boost the study's inherent value.
 III. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study examines the relationship between five independent variables
and the dependent variable, as well as the influence of moderator variables according
to the SERVQUAL model in the service industry, specifically in the context of staff
performance in five-star hotel sections in Hanoi. Interior. Using both primary and
secondary data to develop a theoretical framework, the study investigates Reliability,
Validity, and Regression in order to reach conclusions regarding the proposed
hypotheses. From there, provide an appropriate commentary, practical consequences,
and recommendations for future research.
Reference list

Antony, J., Jiju Antony, F. and Ghosh, S. (2004). Evaluating service quality in a UK
hotel chain: a case study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 16(6), pp.380–384. doi:10.1108/09596110410550833.

Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL

scale. Journal of Business Research, 24(3), pp.253–268. doi:10.1016/0148-
2963(92)90022-4.

Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.Joseph. and Brand, R.R. (2002). Performance-only

measurement of service quality: a replication and extension. Journal of Business
Research, 55(1), pp.17–31. doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(00)00171-5.

Cristobal, E., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2007). Perceived e‐service quality (PeSQ).
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(3), pp.317–340.
doi:10.1108/09604520710744326.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination
and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), p.55. doi:10.2307/1252296.

Delgado‐Ballester, E. (2004). Applicability of a brand trust scale across product

categories. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), pp.573–592.
doi:10.1108/03090560410529222.

Devi Juwaheer, T. (2004). Exploring international tourists’ perceptions of hotel

operations by using a modified SERVQUAL approach – a case study of Mauritius.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(5), pp.350–364.
doi:10.1108/09604520410557967.

El-Adly, M.I. (2018). Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value,
customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 50, pp.322–332. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.007.
Gunarathne, U. (2014). (PDF) Relationship between Service Quality and Customer
Satisfaction in Sri Lankan Hotel Industry. [online] ResearchGate. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279189359_Relationship_between_Service_
Quality_and_Customer_Satisfaction_in_Sri_Lankan_Hotel_Industry [Accessed 10
Jan. 2023].

Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis : a global perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Cop.

Hossain, S. (2019). Impact of Perceived Service Quality dimensions on Customer

Satisfaction in Hospitality Industry. Global Review of Research in Tourism,
Hospitality and Leisure Management, 5(1).

Hue Minh, N., Thu Ha, N., Chi Anh, P. and Matsui, Y. (2015). Service Quality and
Customer Satisfaction: A Case Study of Hotel Industry in Vietnam. Asian Social
Science, 11(10). doi:10.5539/ass.v11n10p73.

Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, [online] 39(1),

pp.31–36. doi:10.1007/bf02291575.

Kandampully, J. and Suhartanto, D. (2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the
role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 12(6), pp.346–351. doi:10.1108/09596110010342559.

Karunaratne, W. and Jayawardena, L. (2011). Assessment of Customer Satisfaction in

a Five Star Hotel - A Case Study. Tropical Agricultural Research, 21(3), p.258.
doi:10.4038/tar.v21i3.3299.

Knutson, B.J., Beck, J.A., Kim, S. and Cha, J. (2010). Service Quality as a
Component of the Hospitality Experience: Proposal of a Conceptual Model and
Framework for Research. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 13(1), pp.15–23.
doi:10.1080/15378021003595889.
Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000). The determinants of perceived service quality
and its relationship with satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3), pp.217–
231. doi:10.1108/08876040010327220.

Madar, A. (2014). HOTEL SERVICES QUALITY ASSESSMENT USING

SERVQUAL METHOD. CASE STUDY: ATHÉNÉE PALACE HOTEL. Bulletin of
the Transilvania University of Braşov Series V: Economic Sciences •, [online] 7(56).
Available at: http://webbut2.unitbv.ro/BU2013/2014/Series_V/BULETIN%20V/II-
02_MADAR.pdf [Accessed 6 Oct. 2022].

Nde Daniel, C. and Paul Berinyuy, L. (2010). Using the SERVQUAL Model to assess
Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction. Economic Sciences, 7(56).

Nguyễn, Đ.T. (2013). Giáo trình phương pháp nghiên cứu khoa học trong kinh doanh.
NXB Tài Chính.

Pedraja Iglesias, M. and Jesus Yagüe Guillén, M. (2004). Perceived quality and price:
their impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), pp.373–379.
doi:10.1108/09596110410550824.

Peterson, R.A. (1994). A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha. Journal of

Consumer Research, 21(2), p.381. doi:10.1086/209405.

Rao, P.S. and Sahu, P.C., 2013. Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in
hotel industry. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 18(5), pp.39-44.

Sriyam, A. (2010). CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS SERVICE QUALITY

OF FRONT OFFICE STAFF AT THE HOTEL A MASTERS PROJECT. [online]
Available at: http://thesis.swu.ac.th/swuthesis/bus_eng_int_com/alin_s.pdf.

Tamanna, T. (2020). Consumer Perceptions and Expectations of Service Quality:

Assessment through SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Economics and Business,
3(2). doi:10.31014/aior.1992.03.02.213.
Appendix

a. Reliability Test
i. DifTangibility items

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.803 .811 3

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Item Deleted
DifT .1509 1.025 .720 .568 .656
1
DifT .1132 1.149 .688 .540 .700
2
DifT .0189 1.047 .561 .317 .838
3

ii. DifReliability items

Reliability Statistics
 Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.765 .770 5

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Cronbach's
Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Squared Alpha if
if Item Item Item-Total Multiple Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
DifREL -.7358 3.434 .477 .322 .741
1
DifREL -.7547 3.292 .578 .443 .710
2
DifREL -.7453 3.030 .667 .503 .676
3
DifREL -.6132 3.116 .501 .313 .736
4
DifREL -.6604 3.179 .475 .303 .746
5

iii. DifResponsiveness items

Reliability Statistics
 Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.719 .728 5

Item-Total Statistics
Scale
Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Item Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Item Deleted
DifRES .1698 3.419 .369 .563 .711
1
DifRES .0566 2.968 .600 .494 .630
2
DifRES .2547 2.744 .568 .488 .633
3
DifRES -.1321 2.992 .509 .580 .660
4
DifRES -.0849 2.897 .387 .580 .720
5

iv. DifAssurance

Reliability Statistics
 Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.668 .677 4

Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Alpha if
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
DifRA -.1792 2.415 .318 .158 .700
1
DifRA -.2170 2.572 .403 .254 .631
2
DifRA -.3019 2.346 .544 .412 .546
3
DifRA -.2075 2.052 .569 .374 .514
4

v. DifEmpathy

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.791 .793 5
 Item-Total Statistics
Scale Cronbach's
Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Squared Alpha if
if Item Item Item-Total Multiple Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
DifE -.2925 3.904 .636 .632 .731
1
DifE -.1887 4.135 .677 .607 .714
2
DifE -.0566 5.159 .535 .303 .767
3
DifE -.1132 4.482 .570 .379 .751
4
DifE .1226 4.966 .464 .380 .783
5

vi. DifPrice

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.803 .808 4

Item-Total Statistics
 Scale Cronbach's
Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Squared Alpha if
if Item Item Item-Total Multiple Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
DifP1 -.2642 2.977 .611 .411 .758
DifP2 -.4811 2.576 .592 .397 .775
DifP3 -.0189 3.047 .600 .496 .763
DifP4 -.0283 2.694 .690 .564 .717

vii. Customer Satisfaction items

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.939 .939 3

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Item Deleted
S1 8.87 1.354 .839 .706 .936
S2 8.80 1.265 .883 .795 .903
S3 8.90 1.275 .897 .812 .891

b. Validity test
i. KMO
 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .694
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 1492.394
Sphericity df 210
Sig. .000

ii. Rotated Component Matrix

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5
DifT1 .833
DifT2 .855
DifT3 .625
DifREL .518
1
DifREL .757
2
DifREL .808
3
DifREL .687
4
DifREL .649
5
DifRES .626 .506
1
DifRES .705
2
DifRES .517 .533
3
DifRES .859
4
DifRES .818
5
DifRA2 .803
DifRA3 .420 .545
DifRA4 .445 .425 .414
DifE1 .732 .483
DifE2 .845
DifE3 .428 .591
DifE4 .513 .468
DifE5 .424 .521
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

c. Regession
i. Model 1

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .268 a
.072 .035 .55115
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.377 4 .594 1.956 .107b
 Residual 30.680 101 .304
Total 33.057 105
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.074 .329 12.402 .000
Age Group -.206 .135 -.258 -1.531 .129
Gender .273 .121 .233 2.260 .026
Education Level .122 .133 .166 .914 .363
Income .074 .099 .147 .747 .457
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

ii. Model 2

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .268a .072 .035 .55115
2 .687b .471 .422 .42667
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.377 4 .594 1.956 .107b
Residual 30.680 101 .304
Total 33.057 105
2 Regression 15.580 9 1.731 9.509 .000c
Residual 17.477 96 .182
 Total 33.057 105
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.074 .329 12.402 .000
Age Group -.206 .135 -.258 -1.531 .129
Gender .273 .121 .233 2.260 .026
Education Level .122 .133 .166 .914 .363
Income .074 .099 .147 .747 .457
2 (Constant) 3.829 .256 14.930 .000
Age Group .048 .112 .060 .429 .669
Gender .300 .096 .256 3.135 .002
Education Level -.051 .107 -.070 -.477 .635
Income .076 .083 .150 .916 .362
Tangibility .244 .103 .215 2.362 .020
Reliability .329 .133 .255 2.474 .015
Responsiveness .061 .139 .046 .441 .660
Assurance .081 .131 .075 .622 .535
Empathy .311 .114 .287 2.723 .008
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

iii. Model 3

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .405a .164 .116 .51933
2 .735b .541 .477 .39955
3 .777 c
.603 .541 .37417
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance,
StudentizedTangibilityXPrice

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3.707 4 .927 3.436 .013b
Residual 18.880 70 .270
Total 22.587 74
2 Regression 12.210 9 1.357 8.498 .000c
Residual 10.377 65 .160
Total 22.587 74
3 Regression 13.627 10 1.363 9.733 .000d
Residual 8.960 64 .140
Total 22.587 74
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance
d. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance, StudentizedTangibilityXPrice

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.293 .370 11.592 .000
Age Group -.367 .146 -.489 -2.511 .014
Gender .337 .134 .302 2.519 .014
Education Level .177 .153 .246 1.159 .250
Income .107 .103 .225 1.034 .305
2 (Constant) 3.975 .292 13.621 .000
Age Group .036 .137 .048 .265 .792
Gender .351 .107 .315 3.297 .002
Education Level -.101 .133 -.140 -.758 .451
Income .074 .085 .156 .864 .391
Tangibility .223 .101 .237 2.204 .031
Reliability .247 .138 .210 1.793 .078
Responsiveness -.027 .178 -.020 -.150 .881
Assurance .246 .165 .234 1.495 .140
Empathy .240 .120 .230 2.008 .049
3 (Constant) 4.121 .277 14.871 .000
 Age Group -.022 .129 -.029 -.167 .868
Gender .243 .106 .218 2.298 .025
Education Level .011 .129 .016 .087 .931
Income .057 .080 .120 .708 .482
Tangibility .176 .096 .188 1.844 .070
Reliability .208 .130 .177 1.607 .113
Responsiveness -.008 .167 -.006 -.045 .964
Assurance .147 .157 .140 .938 .352
Empathy .043 .128 .041 .336 .738
StudentizedTangibilityXPrice .468 .147 .388 3.181 .002
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

iv. Model 4
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .297 a
.088 .047 .56504
2 .721b .520 .468 .42206
3 .760c .578 .526 .39843
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance,
StudentizedReliabilityXPrice

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.717 4 .679 2.128 .084b
Residual 28.095 88 .319
Total 30.812 92
2 Regression 16.027 9 1.781 9.997 .000c
Residual 14.785 83 .178
Total 30.812 92
3 Regression 17.795 10 1.780 11.210 .000d
Residual 13.017 82 .159
Total 30.812 92
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance
d. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance, StudentizedReliabilityXPrice

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.096 .340 12.043 .000
Age Group -.268 .145 -.338 -1.845 .068
Gender .265 .126 .225 2.101 .039
Education Level .183 .145 .240 1.268 .208
Income .077 .104 .150 .739 .462
2 (Constant) 3.852 .256 15.049 .000
Age Group .078 .124 .098 .627 .532
Gender .329 .097 .279 3.375 .001
Education Level -.082 .120 -.108 -.688 .494
Income .054 .084 .106 .644 .522
Tangibility .249 .105 .222 2.365 .020
Reliability .328 .133 .261 2.467 .016
Responsiveness -.021 .161 -.016 -.132 .895
Assurance .227 .151 .205 1.500 .137
Empathy .261 .116 .243 2.251 .027
3 (Constant) 3.874 .242 16.025 .000
Age Group .017 .119 .022 .146 .885
Gender .293 .093 .249 3.171 .002
Education Level -.027 .114 -.036 -.240 .811
Income .084 .080 .165 1.054 .295
Tangibility .208 .100 .186 2.082 .040
Reliability .280 .127 .223 2.215 .030
Responsiveness -.007 .152 -.005 -.043 .966
Assurance .156 .144 .142 1.083 .282
Empathy .127 .117 .118 1.088 .280
StudentizedReliabilityXPrice .430 .129 .317 3.337 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

v. Model 5
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .258a .067 .025 .51321
2 .685 b
.469 .412 .39855
3 .747c .557 .504 .36602
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Reliability, Empathy, Assurance
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Reliability, Empathy, Assurance,
StudentizedResponsivenessXPrice

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.676 4 .419 1.591 .184b
Residual 23.441 89 .263
Total 25.117 93
2 Regression 11.775 9 1.308 8.237 .000c
Residual 13.342 84 .159
Total 25.117 93
3 Regression 13.998 10 1.400 10.448 .000d
Residual 11.119 83 .134
Total 25.117 93
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Reliability, Empathy, Assurance
d. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Reliability, Empathy, Assurance, StudentizedResponsivenessXPrice

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.367 .331 13.197 .000
Age Group -.280 .133 -.381 -2.113 .037
Gender .134 .121 .123 1.105 .272
Education Level .163 .131 .238 1.240 .218
Income .087 .096 .188 .916 .362
2 (Constant) 4.003 .264 15.160 .000
Age Group -.032 .113 -.043 -.282 .778
Gender .212 .099 .194 2.135 .036
Education Level .004 .107 .006 .036 .971
Income .090 .080 .194 1.136 .259
Tangibility .219 .101 .218 2.166 .033
Reliability .239 .135 .208 1.773 .080
 Responsiveness .147 .139 .126 1.061 .292
Assurance .031 .132 .032 .235 .815
Empathy .319 .125 .303 2.560 .012
3 (Constant) 3.914 .243 16.073 .000
Age Group -.017 .104 -.023 -.160 .873
Gender .244 .091 .223 2.668 .009
Education Level .004 .098 .006 .041 .968
Income .110 .073 .236 1.501 .137
Tangibility .139 .095 .138 1.461 .148
Reliability .255 .124 .222 2.060 .043
Responsiveness .083 .129 .071 .647 .519
Assurance .079 .122 .080 .647 .520
Empathy .132 .123 .125 1.068 .289
StudentizedResponsiveness .403 .099 .371 4.074 .000
XPrice
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

vi. Model 6
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .276 a
.076 .033 .54147
2 .731 b
.535 .483 .39600
3 .781 c
.610 .561 .36500
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance,
StudentizedAssuranceXPrice

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.083 4 .521 1.776 .141b
Residual 25.214 86 .293
Total 27.297 90
2 Regression 14.595 9 1.622 10.341 .000c
Residual 12.702 81 .157
 Total 27.297 90
3 Regression 16.639 10 1.664 12.489 .000d
Residual 10.658 80 .133
Total 27.297 90
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance
d. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Responsiveness,
Tangibility, Empathy, Reliability, Assurance, StudentizedAssuranceXPrice

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.178 .331 12.603 .000
Age Group -.254 .141 -.332 -1.808 .074
Gender .184 .123 .163 1.498 .138
Education Level .240 .139 .331 1.732 .087
Income .034 .102 .069 .332 .741
2 (Constant) 3.932 .246 16.001 .000
Age Group .035 .114 .046 .310 .758
Gender .214 .094 .189 2.277 .025
Education Level .036 .108 .050 .335 .738
Income .023 .080 .047 .286 .776
Tangibility .305 .101 .285 3.028 .003
Reliability .212 .135 .175 1.568 .121
Responsiveness .064 .147 .050 .437 .663
Assurance .047 .129 .048 .368 .714
Empathy .404 .119 .381 3.402 .001
3 (Constant) 3.938 .226 17.385 .000
Age Group -.004 .106 -.005 -.034 .973
Gender .223 .087 .197 2.577 .012
Education Level .068 .100 .094 .681 .498
Income .045 .074 .093 .611 .543
Tangibility .225 .095 .210 2.363 .021
Reliability .268 .126 .220 2.131 .036
Responsiveness .058 .135 .045 .428 .670
Assurance .050 .119 .051 .424 .673
Empathy .177 .124 .167 1.432 .156
 StudentizedAssuranceXPric .409 .104 .349 3.917 .000
e
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

vii. Model 7
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .262a .069 .026 .56416
2 .700b .490 .435 .42990
3 .786 c
.617 .571 .37461
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Reliability, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Assurance
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education
Level, Reliability, Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Assurance,
StudentizedEmpathyXPrice

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.066 4 .516 1.623 .176b
Residual 28.008 88 .318
Total 30.074 92
2 Regression 14.735 9 1.637 8.859 .000c
Residual 15.340 83 .185
Total 30.074 92
3 Regression 18.567 10 1.857 13.230 .000d
Residual 11.507 82 .140
Total 30.074 92
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level
c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Assurance
d. Predictors: (Constant), Income, Gender, Age Group, Education Level, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Tangibility, Empathy, Assurance, StudentizedEmpathyXPrice

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.999 .358 11.181 .000
Age Group -.146 .147 -.181 -.996 .322
 Gender .290 .130 .244 2.233 .028
Education Level .084 .145 .110 .574 .567
Income .071 .104 .141 .687 .494
2 (Constant) 3.850 .275 14.009 .000
Age Group .079 .119 .097 .657 .513
Gender .253 .104 .213 2.436 .017
Education Level -.021 .119 -.028 -.178 .859
Income .051 .088 .101 .579 .564
Tangibility .300 .115 .237 2.609 .011
Reliability .425 .147 .307 2.886 .005
Responsiveness .050 .167 .034 .301 .764
Assurance .007 .151 .006 .048 .962
Empathy .310 .131 .300 2.361 .021
3 (Constant) 3.874 .239 16.176 .000
Age Group .007 .105 .009 .066 .948
Gender .244 .090 .205 2.697 .008
Education Level .050 .105 .066 .480 .633
Income .076 .077 .150 .992 .324
Tangibility .196 .102 .154 1.912 .059
Reliability .364 .129 .263 2.826 .006
Responsiveness .053 .146 .036 .361 .719
Assurance .009 .132 .007 .065 .949
Empathy .097 .122 .094 .794 .429
StudentizedEmpathyXPrice .461 .088 .450 5.226 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

d. Model Framework