sustainability
Article
An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Structural
Equation Modeling Application for the Attributes Influencing
the Customer’s Satisfaction and Trust in
E-Commerce Applications
Yung-Tsan Jou 1 , Charmine Sheena Saflor 1,2,3, * , Klint Allen Mariñas 1,2,4 , Hannah Maureen Manzano 2 ,
John Mark Uminga 2 , Nicole Angela Verde 2 and Ginber Dela Fuente 2
Citation: Jou, Y.-T.; Saflor, C.S.;
Mariñas, K.A.; Manzano, H.M.;
Uminga, J.M.; Verde, N.A.; Dela
Fuente, G. An Integrated
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and
Structural Equation Modeling
Application for the Attributes
Influencing the Customer’s
Satisfaction and Trust in E-Commerce
Applications. Sustainability 2024, 16,
1727. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su16051727
Academic Editor: Darjan
Karabašević
Received: 17 January 2024
Revised: 16 February 2024
Accepted: 19 February 2024
Published: 20 February 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051727
1 Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan;
ytjou@cycu.edu.tw (Y.-T.J.); kaamarinas@mapua.edu.ph (K.A.M.)
2 Department of Industrial Engineering, Occidental Mindoro State College, San Jose 5100, Philippines;
manzanohannahmaureen@gmail.com (H.M.M.); johnmarkuminga7@gmail.com (J.M.U.);
nicoleverde45@gmail.com (N.A.V.); ginberdelafuente@gmail.com (G.D.F.)
3 Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, De La Salle University, Manila 1004, Philippines
4 School of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapua University, Manila 1002, Philippines
* Correspondence: charmine.saflor@dlsu.edu.ph
Abstract: Since the COVID-19 pandemic has forced most industries to embrace an online platform
utilizing technological breakthroughs, it has significantly impacted our daily lives. Businesses
that use marketplaces to sell and trade products to customers while increasing their participation
through online shopping or e-commerce are among the sectors that take advantage of these situations.
The current study set out to evaluate the level of customer satisfaction, trust, and service quality
of the e-commerce application to enhance the system and provide a better shopping experience.
Facebook, Shopee, Lazada, Shein, and TikTok were the five e-commerce platforms evaluated. The
Philippines was the location of this study, and at least 200 people answered the survey, which
was conducted in-person and online and consisted of 72 questionnaires. The researchers assessed
twelve latent variables: perceived security, customer satisfaction, application interface, brand equity,
tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and information credibility. Structural
equation modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis were used to analyze the data. The findings
demonstrated that assurance, application interface, information credibility, and brand equity directly
impacted service quality. Moreover, a direct and significant correlation exists between customer
satisfaction and service quality. Customers’ trust is significantly impacted by their level of satisfaction
and perception of security. The e-commerce apps were ranked using a multi-criteria decision analysis
technique, which is the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
based on tangibility, responsiveness, assurance, reliability, and empathy. Facebook received a low
rating, whereas Shopee was ranked highest. To further enhance the services offered, the lowest rated
application may use the results from the combination of the TOPSIS and SEM results. Additionally,
application providers, managers, and researchers examining the user–software interaction of relevant
e-commerce applications might utilize the study’s results to enhance their services regarding the
purchasing experience and provide a sustainable service. Finally, this study is among the first to
use the structural modeling approach to evaluate customer trust and satisfaction while integrating
service quality and TOPSIS.
Keywords: e-commerce app; customer’s trust; SEM; SERVQUAL; TOPSIS
1. Introduction
The continuous growth of technology and the evolution of the Internet have led
to the emergence of various significant revolutions in platforms to improve daily life
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 2 of 21

activities, including shopping [1]. Hence, marketplace businesses take advantage of these
instances to sell and trade products to customers while expanding their engagement
through online shopping, also known as e-commerce. Through e-commerce, customers
attain convenience in buying and conducting payments, access to a wide range of products,
and the capacity to compare prices and products from multiple retailers using various online
channels and mediums [2]. These result in an increase in competition in the marketplace,
so new opportunities like the use of mobile apps to provide direct services for better
relationship management and communication with consumers through smartphones have
been adopted [3].
E-commerce mobile apps are applications that can be installed on smartphones and
are ubiquitous tools that people can carry with them [4]. Users can conveniently shop
online, browse for a variety of products that are not available in local markets, create
wish lists, add items to their cart, and complete purchases [5] at any time and location as
they have access to the Internet by registering for an account and providing their e-mail,
contact number, and home address [6] to deliver the ordered product in their preferred
delivery options [7], and just wait for their order to be delivered to their homes [8]. In
addition, it also has multiple payment options for consumers, such as cash-on-delivery,
credit/debit card, e-wallet, and other methods that facilitate and streamline the checkout
process efficiently [9]. Furthermore, the e-commerce mobile app sends direct messages
to clients via push notifications, informing them of new items, reminding them of their
browser activities and items in their shopping cart, and providing updates on the location
and status of the purchased goods. Moreover, it has additional features, including games
and rewards programs that give discounts and vouchers to customers [10], a live chat
feature that helps retailers and customers better communicate about prices and product
conditions [11], and open comment boxes within product pages where customers leave
their issues and ratings [12] that other customers can assess to evaluate whether they will
be satisfied with their purchase, as well as provide feedback about what retailers should
improve in their business.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in 2020 became a push factor for people to
explore online shopping [13]. The established health protocols and lockdown restrictions
have led to an increase in e-commerce demands from customers and opened an innovation
opportunity for businesses to engage in e-commerce-structured business in the marketplace.
In the Philippines, as of January 2021, the International Trade Administration reported
that the country had about 73 million active online users, with online shopping activities
increasing to 23%, and most are accessed on mobile devices [10]. However, despite the
growing popularity among the general public and the application of new methods, such
as the development of e-commerce mobile apps to reach and engage more consumers in
online shopping, e-commerce still faces many challenges in online shopping, affecting both
online retailers and online buyers [4].
A study by [14] shows a four-dimensional construct of e-service quality: website
design, customer service, security and privacy, and fulfillment. Customer satisfaction
reflects how well the goods fulfill the buyer’s needs and preferences [13]. It also indicates
the effectiveness of the business [13] and influences the willingness of customers to perform
online purchases of goods in repeat [15].
According to [16], the decreased presence of human and social elements in the online
environment impairs a trustworthy and sociable online transaction environment [16]. As
the usage of e-commerce platforms grows, they also become more complex and diverse in
their online interactions and vulnerable to fraud, hacking, and digital theft [17]. Many users
hesitate to provide personal data online because of doubts about e-commerce security [17]
concerning privacy data abuse and illegal accessibility of transaction records [18]. As stated
by [17], trust has a crucial impact on the customer’s behavior and e-commerce success.
Moreover, Cheng et al. distinguished trust into two types: trust towards social commerce
members and trust towards social commerce apps. The former discusses the provision of
reliable information provided by retailers and customers’ reviews, and the latter reviews
 Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 3 of 21

the design layout, ease of use, and interface system [18]. This study integrated a Service
Quality Model (SERVQUAL), which is a tool used to compare the various organization’s
service quality performance to customer service quality needs [19]. It aims to explore and
analyze the trustworthiness of e-commerce mobile apps based on customer preferences.
In addition, the model constructs in this study can be used to scrutinize the key variables
identified as having a considerable impact on the behavior of the customer to use the
e-commerce apps as a means of platform for online shopping and figure out how to make
it more convenient and utilized for the end-users (customers and retailers). The objective
of the study is to analyze the significant factors impacting consumer preferences for e-
commerce applications in the context of trust, to create a structural equation model to
assess the correlations between consumer trust and latent variables, and to apply multi-
criteria decision analysis Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) techniques to determine the highest and lowest level of trustworthy e-commerce
application among the alternatives through multiple criteria.
This current study has demonstrated substantial advancements in the field of e-
commerce, particularly concerning enhancing service quality, minimizing operational
expenses, and evaluating customer preferences and satisfaction. This particular research
aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the primary aspects that influence customers’
trust in e-commerce applications. This information is crucial for e-commerce businesses
to address trust-related concerns faced by their clients and implement strategies to boost
trustworthiness. Moreover, the application of the combined Multi-Criteria Dimension Anal-
ysis (MCDA) method, namely TOPSIS and Service Quality (SERVQUAL) model, to assess
the service quality of e-commerce mobile apps in the Philippines in terms of tangibility,
responsiveness, reliability, assurance, and empathy that influences customer satisfaction
bridging to the built of customer’s trust, that has not been applied in other studies.

Hypothesis Development and Related Literature

The conceptual framework in Figure 1 of the study integrates Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA) to evaluate customer preferences in e-commerce applications. The frame-
work has 12 latent variables: responsiveness, reliability, assurance, empathy, brand equity,
application interface, information credibility, service quality, customer satisfaction, security,
and trust. The study aims to assess the relationship between these variables and their im-
pact on customer behavior and e-commerce success. The framework also incorporates the
Service Quality Model (SERVQUAL) is a multidisciplinary research instrument that aims
to gather consumer expectations and perceptions about the services across five dimensions,
which are thought to constitute service quality and the Technique for Order Preference
by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to compare the service quality performance of
e-commerce applications and determine the highest and lowest levels of trustworthiness
among the alternatives [20]. This framework provides a clear approach to understanding
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22
and analyzing the factors affecting consumer preferences for e-commerce applications and
their trust in digital marketplaces.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). There is a significant relationship between tangibility and service quality.

In terms of tangibility as a factor in reducing feelings of anxiety, developers must

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 4 of 21

Hypothesis 1 (H1). There is a significant relationship between tangibility and service quality.

In terms of tangibility as a factor in reducing feelings of anxiety, developers must

consider customers’ wants and desires in terms of design, as usability is the starting point
for gaining users’ trust and support for the site. The tangibility of the online presence aids
in reducing heterogeneity in the execution of services and, as a result, improves quality
control [21].

Hypothesis 2 (H2). There is a significant relationship between responsiveness and service quality.

Responsiveness refers to the e-commerce application shop’s readiness for prompt

service. It is important to respond to all user’s or customers’ needs and inquiries in a
courteous way; otherwise, it will become a complaint about the e-commerce application’s
service quality, which can result in low customer satisfaction [22]. According to the study
conducted by [23], this dimension is positively associated with the user’s intention to
repurchase, which increases customer trust.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). There is a significant relationship between reliability and service quality.

Reliability reflects the honesty and accuracy of the information provided by the
e-commerce application [24]. The consistency and integrity of the service provider in
executing the delivery over time without any interruptions or errors can measure the
precision and reliability of the information. This dimension is one of the significant factors
that affect service quality, as it depicts the credibility of the description, pricing policy, and
service delivery of the products purchased in an e-commerce application [25].

Hypothesis 4 (H4). There is a significant relationship between assurance and service quality.

Assurance indicates the ability of the e-commerce application to inspire trust and
confidence through the accuracy of the information provided by the retail online shops
and the knowledge and courtesy of its employees [24]. The users should feel safe and
secure during and after the transaction in terms of the privacy and security of their personal
information and the assurance of their payment [26]. Seven dimensions were originally
developed for assurance and empathy, which are credibility, courtesy, security, privacy,
competence, and understanding or knowing users’ or customer’s needs [22].

Hypothesis 5 (H5). There is a significant relationship between empathy and service quality.

Empathy is an expression of the right communication skills and job knowledge while
offering related services. The ability of a staff member to communicate well, understand
customers, and offer individual attention to guests is essential, as it promotes customer
satisfaction and customer trust [27]. It is important for e-commerce shop employees to
meet their customers’ needs and understand their requests and inquiries so that this builds
up a good relationship between the customer and the employee.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). There is a significant relationship between brand equity and service quality.

The brand plays a crucial role in achieving business continuity. The perception of
a brand that reflects the consumer’s recall of its association with the brand is referred
to as a brand image. According to the findings of this study, the store brand image and
service quality have a significant impact on customer satisfaction, trust, and commitment
to becoming loyal customers [28].

Hypothesis 7 (H7). There is a significant relationship between application interface and service quality.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 5 of 21

Numerous studies have established a significant and influential relationship between

the quality of an application interface and overall service quality perception [29,30]. The
design and presentation of an application play a role in shaping users’ perception of the
service quality. It also has an impact on their satisfaction with the experience they have
while using the service.

Hypothesis 8 (H8). There is a significant relationship between information credibility and ser-
vice quality.

In some empirical studies, credibility as a source of information appears to be the

biggest factor affecting e-commerce quality. In the virtual environment, it is vital to gain
customer satisfaction and trust by performing what it promises to do, which includes the
accuracy of delivery service, complete order service, being truthful about the offerings, and
having the website always ready and available. Moreover, credibility can be shown through
the consistency, reliability, and accuracy of the information presented by the e-commerce
application and its shop [31].

Hypothesis 9 (H9). There is a significant relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction.

Extensive research has consistently demonstrated a significant and positive relation-

ship between service quality and customer satisfaction [20]. Companies that place impor-
tance on and improve the caliber of their offerings are more likely to see increased levels of
customer contentment as the perceived excellence of services has an impact on customer
satisfaction. In the study of [32], it is emphasized that service quality has a direct influence
on customer satisfaction.

Hypothesis 10 (H10). There is a significant relationship between customer satisfaction and

customer trust.

The customer’s selection has a substantial impact on their satisfaction with the product
or service and the customer’s trust [33]. The customer’s repurchase intention is considerably
affected if they are satisfied with the product/service they acquired online [34]. This
indicates customers are satisfied with a company’s products or services, and they are more
likely to trust the business and its intentions. This trust can be further strengthened by
consistently meeting or exceeding customer expectations, resulting in a positive cycle of
trust and satisfaction.

Hypothesis 11 (H11). There is a significant relationship between security and customer trust.

Trust is the key to success for successful online businesses in a thriving e-commerce
environment. Consumers are more sensitive to the safety of their Internet now that tech-
nology has advanced so rapidly. Therefore, e-shopping companies that are striving to
maintain customer loyalty and increase their sales must first address safety concerns and
build trust [35].

2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
A mixed-mode survey was used in this study, in which researchers used both face-
to-face interaction and an online survey to gather data. Researchers disseminated printed
survey questionnaires for face-to-face interaction, and online questionnaires via link survey
were sent using Messenger and other social media platforms. A total of 235 respondents
answered the survey. They were individuals who had experience ordering goods from
online shops using different e-commerce applications. The study of [36] states that a study
with 10 to 15 indicators should fall between 200 and 400 sample sizes for structural equation
models. Thus, the gathered statistics have been considered acceptable.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 6 of 21

2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed by the researchers to investigate and assess the
customer’s preference in choosing and using a trustworthy e-commerce application. The
questionnaire is divided into twelve (12) latent variables. The survey questionnaire consists
of 72 questions with twelve sections (Table 1): tangibility (1), responsiveness (2), reliability
(3), assurance (4), empathy (5), brand equity (6), application interface (7), information
credibility (8), service quality (9), customer satisfaction (10), security (11), and customer’s
trust (12). All the questions have been carefully formulated to help researchers understand
the customer’s preference for the quality of services of an e-commerce application and
how this will affect user trust. This study used Likert-type scales with numerical values
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) to
measure the responses.

Table 1. The constructs and measurement items.

Supporting
Construct Items Measures
Reference
The e-commerce application provides a clear product presentation, making the
T1 [37]
product easy to comprehend.
The e-commerce application presents products in a tangible manner (images,
T2 [38]
descriptions, etc.)

Tangibility I believe that I could successfully conduct any financial transactions using
T3 [39]
(T) the E-wallet.
T4 The layout of the e-commerce application is clutter-free and professionally designed. [40]
T5 The navigation system of the application is easy to learn. [21]
The e-commerce application gives the perception of how real the interaction with
T6 [41]
products feels.
The e-commerce application provides complete and detailed information before the
RP1 [42]
user’s need for the products.
RP2 The e-commerce application indicates the estimated date and time of delivery. [43]
RP3 The e-commerce application gives clear, understandable information. [44]
Responsiveness The e-commerce application is willing to accept criticism from customers using a star
RP4 [45]
(RP) rating in the Play Store.
The e-commerce application is willing to accept advice from customers through a
RP5 [45]
comment box in the Play Store.
The e-commerce application informs customers about the condition and location of
RP6 [46]
goods and products that they order.
RL1 The e-commerce application provides accurate information. [42]
The logistics company met the estimated date and time indicated by the
RL2 [43]
e-commerce application.
RL3 The service of the e-commerce applications is delivered with accuracy. [47]
Reliability
RL4 The security of the mode of payment on the e-commerce application can be trusted. [48]
(RL)
The e-commerce application, in general, understands customers who need services,
RL5 [49]
especially when an immediate response should be taken.
The privacy of the customer’s personal information on the e-commerce application
RL6 [48]
can be trusted.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 7 of 21

Table 1. Cont.

Supporting
Construct Items Measures
Reference
The e-commerce application (Shopee, Lazada, TikTok, etc.) provides a secure
A1 [42]
transaction in purchasing goods online.
A2 Retail shops with e-commerce applications know how to answer your questions. [43]
A3 Retail shops are trustworthy in e-commerce applications. [50]
Assurance A4 E-commerce retail shops are consistently courteous in interacting with their customer. [51]
(A)
I feel secure and confident using any method of payment (e-wallet, COD, credit card,
A5 [52]
etc.) when purchasing goods online using an e-commerce application.
I feel safe doing my transactions in purchasing goods online using an
A6 [52]
e-commerce application.
EM1 E-commerce shops communicate with the customer sincerely. [53]
EM2 E-commerce shops respond to the customer’s complaints properly. [53]
EM3 E-commerce shops are helpful, careful, and friendly. [44]
Empathy EM4 E-commerce shops have convenient business hours. [54]
(EM)
The e-commerce shop listens to and actively addresses customers’ needs
EM5 [55]
and concerns.
Overall, e-commerce shops are respectful and optimistic when
EM6 [44]
approaching customers.
BE1 The e-commerce application provides convenience during online shopping. [56]
BE2 I am aware of various e-commerce applications that can be used for online shopping. [57]

Brand Equity BE3 The E-commerce application provides a positive environment for my online shopping. [57]
(BE) An e-commerce application has a Live Chat feature that can help me to negotiate
BE4 [11]
prices directly.
I can recognize an e-commerce application just by looking at the design and
BE5 [11]
appearance of the application.
AI1 The e-commerce application is user-friendly (intuitive, easy to use, and simple). [58]
The e-commerce application provides a utilized navigation search bar that helps me
AI2 [58]
find my top products with ease.
AI3 The application interface is visually appealing. [59]
Application
Interface The existing product reviews and ratings are displayed and organized on the
AI4 [12]
(AI) product pages.
AI5 The e-commerce application loads information quickly. [60]
I can easily find the information that I am looking for using the
AI6 [61]
e-commerce application.
AI7 The online shopping application is easy to navigate using the e-commerce application. [62]
IC1 I believe the product descriptions on the e-commerce app are accurate and reliable. [63]
I trust an e-commerce app’s reliability in delivering accurate and up-to-date
IC2 [63]
product information.

Information IC3 I trust the customer reviews on the e-commerce application. [63]
Credibility I consider evaluating the credibility of information by taking into account the
IC4 [64]
(IC) e-commerce app’s privacy and security policies.
I regularly check out the information in an e-commerce app before purchasing
IC5 [64]
a product.
I believe the trustworthiness of the e-commerce application is enhanced by the
IC6 [64]
accuracy and transparency of the product information.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 8 of 21

Table 1. Cont.

Supporting
Construct Items Measures
Reference
SQ1 It is easy to find the products you are looking for on the app. [65]
SQ2 The product descriptions on the app were accurate and helpful. [66]

Service Quality SQ3 The customer service team was responsive and helpful to my inquiries [67]
(SQ) SQ4 It was easy to add items to my cart and checkout on the e-commerce app. [68]
SQ5 The checkout process was fast and secure. [68]
SQ6 The e-commerce app has a secure payment process. [68]
CS1 Overall, I am satisfied with using e-commerce applications to make online purchases. [69]
The application system knows its users well enough to offer them products and
CS2 services adapted to the consumer’s needs based on their preferences and [70]
market conditions.
Customer
Satisfaction CS3 I feel satisfied with the product I usually buy through an e-commerce application. [71]
(CS) I am satisfied with my experience whenever I buy a product through an
CS4 [71]
e-commerce application.
CS5 I am confident in purchasing products through the use of e-commerce applications. [72]
CS6 I am satisfied with the information and services provided. [72]
I feel safe providing sensitive information about myself over the
PS1 [73]
e-commerce applications.
I am confident that my personal information is kept confidential and safe when using
PS2 [13]
e-commerce applications.

Perceived PS3 I believe that my financial-related information is protected from unauthorized access. [18]
Security (PS) PS4 I perceive that e-commerce applications are secured systems to conduct a transaction. [73]
I feel secure using various payment channels (cash on delivery, credit/debit card,
PS5 [73]
online banking, etc.) through e-commerce applications.
It has sufficient technical capacity to ensure that the data I send cannot be modified
PS6 [70]
by hackers.
TR1 I trust the e-commerce application as a safe system for doing online shopping. [74]
It is safe to pay money and perform a financial transaction using an
TR2 [75]
e-commerce application.
I trust that the e-commerce sellers will not display my personal information (e-mail,
Customer’s TR3 [75]
phone number, name...) to others for commercial use.
Trust (TR)
I am confident that the application system will resolve any issues or disputes related
TR4 [76]
to my transactions.
TR5 I trust the system characteristics of the e-commerce application. [77]
The e-commerce sellers provide reliable information for my online purchasing and
TR6 [78]
payment transactions.

2.3. Structural Equation Modeling

SEM is a method used for investigating and analyzing multimodal relationships be-
tween latent variables and is suitable for examining a set of hypotheses from an entire
model, combining regression and factor analysis [79]. Moreover, it is a multivariate tech-
nique that is commonly used for testing and simulating model hypotheses in the areas
of social and behavioral science [80]. In this study, SEM tests twelve (12) latent variables:
Tangibility, Responsiveness, Reliability, Assurance, Empathy, Brand Equity, Application
Interface, Information Credibility, Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Security, and
Customer Trust.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727
model, combining regression and factor analysis [79]. Moreover, it is a multivariate tech-
nique that is commonly used for testing and simulating model hypotheses in the areas of
social and behavioral science [80]. In this study, SEM tests twelve (12) latent variables:
Tangibility, Responsiveness, Reliability, Assurance, Empathy, Brand Equity, Application
Interface, Information Credibility, Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Security,9 of
and21
Customer Trust.

3.
3. Results
Results
3.1.
3.1. Structural
Structural Equation
Equation Modeling
Modeling Results
Results
Figure
Figure 22 demonstrates
demonstrates thethe initial
initial SEM
SEM for
for the
the factors
factors influencing
influencing the
the service
service quality
quality
and
and trustworthiness of the e-commerce applications. According to the figure below,
trustworthiness of the e-commerce applications. According to the figure below, three
three
hypotheses
hypotheseswerewerenot
notsignificant:
significant:responsiveness
responsivenesstotoservice
servicequality
quality(Hypothesis
(Hypothesis 2),2),
reliability
reliabil-
to
ityservice quality
to service (Hypothesis
quality (Hypothesis3), and empathy
3), and to service
empathy quality
to service (Hypothesis
quality 5). Therefore,
(Hypothesis 5). There-
afore,
revised SEMSEM
a revised was was
derived by removing
derived by removingthese
thesehypotheses.
hypotheses.The Theresearchers
researchersmodified
modified
some indices to enhance the model fit based on previous studies using the SEM approach.
some indices to enhance the model fit based on previous studies using the SEM approach.
Figure 3 shows the final SEM for investigating the variables influencing the service quality
Figure 3 shows the final SEM for investigating the variables influencing the service quality
and trustworthiness of e-commerce applications.
and trustworthiness of e-commerce applications.

Figure2.
Figure 2. Initial
Initial SEM.
SEM.
Sustainability 2024, 16,
Sustainability 2024, 16,1727
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11
10 of 22
of 21

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Final
Final SEM.
SEM.

Table 22presents
Table presentsthat
thattangibility
tangibilityhashas a significant
a significant relationship
relationship withwith service
service quality,
quality, with
with a p-value of 0.033; responsiveness has no significant relationship with service
a p-value of 0.033; responsiveness has no significant relationship with service quality, with quality,
awith a p-value
p-value of 0.324;
of 0.324; reliability
reliability has has no significant
no significant relationship
relationship with
with service
service quality,
quality, with
with a
a p-value of 0.074; assurance has a significant relationship with service quality,
p-value of 0.074; assurance has a significant relationship with service quality, with a p-value with a p-
value
of of 0.017;
0.017; and empathy
and empathy has nohas no significant
significant relationship
relationship with service
with service quality,
quality, with awith a p-
p-value
value
of of On
0.234. 0.234.
theOn thehand,
other other the
hand, the remaining
remaining latent variables
latent variables show a show a significant
significant rela-
relationship
tionship
to servicetoquality
service quality
with with less
a p-value a p-value less than
than 0.05. 0.05. Moreover,
Moreover, service
service quality hasquality has a
a significant
significant relationship
relationship with customer withsatisfaction,
customer satisfaction,
with a p-valuewithof a0.001,
p-value
andofcustomer
0.001, and customer
satisfaction
satisfaction has a significant relationship with customer trust, with a p-value of 0.002. With
a p-value of 0.001, perceived security has a significant relationship with customers’ trust.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 11 of 21

has a significant relationship with customer trust, with a p-value of 0.002. With a p-value of
0.001, perceived security has a significant relationship with customers’ trust.

Table 2. Summary of hypotheses.

Hypothesis p-Value Interpretation

H1 There is a significant relationship between tangibility and service quality. 0.033 Significant
H2 There is a significant relationship between responsiveness and service quality. 0.324 Not Significant
H3 There is a significant relationship between reliability and service quality. 0.074 Not Significant
H4 There is a significant relationship between assurance and service quality. 0.017 Significant
H5 There is a significant relationship between empathy and service quality. 0.234 Not Significant
H6 There is a significant relationship between brand equity and service quality. 0.013 Significant
H7 There is a significant relationship between application interface and service quality. 0.002 Significant
H8 There is a significant relationship between information credibility and service quality. 0.001 Significant
H9 There is a significant relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction. 0.001 Significant
H10 There is a significant relationship between consumer satisfaction and customer trust. 0.002 Significant
H11 There is a significant relationship between security and customer trust. 0.001 Significant

Table 3 displays and explains the statistical outcomes of the evaluated variables. Every
factor loading in the Initial Structural Equation Model (SEM) that is equal to or greater
than 0.50 denotes reliability and supports the validity of the model [81]. Thus, the factors
loading that are less than 0.50 were removed, and the loadings under the insignificant
indicators were also not included in the evaluation of the Final SEM.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics result.

Factor Loading
Factor Item Mean SD Initial Model Final Model
T1 3.8596 0.77263 0.717 0.728
T2 3.9254 0.76179 0.735 0.723
T3 3.8377 0.77686 0.743 0.73
Tangibility
T4 3.7412 0.75874 0.69 0.711
T5 3.9561 0.75874 0.723 0.743
T6 3.7325 0.75874 0.721 0.741
RP1 3.7982 0.77607 0.729 -
RP2 3.9518 0.75813 0.709 -
RP3 3.9123 0.78039 0.81 -
Responsiveness
RP4 3.7939 0.85852 0.651 -
RP5 3.8553 0.79154 0.661 -
RP6 3.9912 0.76251 0.622 -
RL1 3.7588 0.70783 0.811 -
RL2 3.7456 0.71252 0.671 -
RL3 3.7588 0.78458 0.74 -
Reliability
RL4 3.8289 0.71586 0.591 -
RL5 3.7632 0.76028 0.686 -
RL6 3.8026 0.8346 0.686 -
A1 3.7544 0.75748 0.715 0.747
A2 3.7807 0.72414 0.671 0.619
A3 3.7325 0.75291 0.711 0.692
Assurance
A4 3.7763 0.73787 0.71 0.678
A5 3.7675 0.81473 0.692 0.703
A6 3.8246 0.69289 0.749 0.755
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 12 of 21

Table 3. Cont.

Factor Loading
Factor Item Mean SD Initial Model Final Model
EM1 3.7588 0.66283 0.73 -
EM2 3.7325 0.75874 0.704 -
EM3 3.7588 0.79017 0.736 -
Empathy
EM4 3.8377 0.75383 0.666 -
EM5 3.7895 0.73878 0.718 -
EM6 3.8377 0.65368 0.731 -
BE1 3.9386 0.71836 0.686 0.699
BE2 3.886 0.75977 0.729 0.741
Brand Equity BE3 3.8333 0.67578 0.709 0.68
BE4 3.8421 0.80832 0.617 0.566
BE5 3.9298 0.77652 0.672 0.682
AI1 3.9868 0.72392 0.732 0.702
AI2 4.0175 0.72077 0.688 0.691
AI3 3.9693 0.6986 0.716 0.712
Application Interface AI4 3.9342 0.68339 0.719 0.705
AI5 3.7149 0.74049 0.578 0.577
AI6 3.8553 0.67106 0.614 0.626
AI7 3.8904 0.69059 0.799 0.78
IC1 3.6886 0.77086 0.568 0.527
IC2 3.807 0.68819 0.614 0.585
Information IC3 3.8246 0.75379 0.725 0.683
Credibility IC4 3.9211 0.73484 0.745 0.765
IC5 4.0395 0.80375 0.671 0.714
IC6 3.9825 0.7022 0.731 0.723
SQ1 3.8947 0.73152 0.495 0.528
SQ2 3.8684 0.69629 0.541 0.572
SQ3 3.7675 0.74703 0.436 -
Service Quality
SQ4 4.0175 0.70844 0.515 0.576
SQ5 3.9737 0.72659 0.546 0.595
SQ6 3.8202 0.74392 0.486 0.5
CS1 3.9035 0.71447 0.491 0.472
CS2 3.9167 0.6879 0.456 -
Customer CS3 3.9386 0.6474 0.528 0.45
Satisfaction CS4 3.9035 0.70203 0.462 -
CS5 3.8377 0.68655 0.471 -
CS6 3.8947 0.6686 0.562 0.485
PS1 3.6096 0.80816 0.726 0.692
PS2 3.7237 0.73188 0.803 0.773
PS3 3.6711 0.80288 0.695 0.698
Perceived Security
PS4 3.7851 0.71012 0.758 0.739
PS5 3.7632 0.7062 0.738 0.767
PS6 3.7851 0.76966 0.786 0.818
TR1 3.8114 0.6926 0.705 0.687
TR2 3.7281 0.69339 0.621 0.617
TR3 3.7763 0.77855 0.597 0.615
Customer’s Trust
TR4 3.7675 0.74111 0.593 0.612
TR5 3.7939 0.68112 0.587 0.598
TR6 3.8202 0.7075 0.644 0.636

Table 4 shows that Cronbach’s alpha of twelve latent variables is more significant than
0.7. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) from tangibility to other latent variables, such
as Responsiveness, Reliability, Assurance, Empathy, Brand Equity, Application Interface,
Information Credibility, and Perceived Security, are all greater than 0.4, and the composite
reliability of all nine latent variables is more significant than 0.8. However, Service Quality,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 13 of 21

Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Trust are less than 0.5. The value of AVE for every
construct should be higher than 0.5; however, if the value of AVE is less than 0.5 but
the composite reliability is greater than 0.6, the convergent validity of the construct is
acceptable [82].

Table 4. Model validity.

Average Variance Composite

Factor Cronbach’s α
Extracted (AVE) Reliability
Tangibility 0.866 0.5208 0.9747
Responsiveness 0.851 0.4896 0.9739
Reliability 0.849 0.491 0.9808
Assurance 0.856 0.5018 0.9736
Empathy 0.86 0.5016 0.9752
Brand Equity 0.811 0.4674 0.9565
Application Interface 0.865 0.4608 0.9604
Information Credibility 0.832 0.484 0.9806
Service Quality 0.86 0.2853 0.9839
Customer Satisfaction 0.863 0.2973 0.8754
Perceived Security 0.884 0.5653 0.9772
Customer’s Trust 0.892 0.3917 0.9654

According to [83], for structural equation models, at a minimum, the following indices
should be shown: the model RMSEA, the CFI, and the SRMR. The RMSEA value was
0.088, which is less than the recommended value, depicting the marginal value, according
to [84], as shown in Table 5. According to [85], the CFI value was 0.729, which is more
significant than the suggested reduction of 0.70. The SRMR value was 0.3417, higher than
the minimum threshold, as defined by [86].

Table 5. Model fit.

Goodness-of-Fit Measures
Parameter Estimates Minimum Cutoff Reference
of SEM
Root Mean Square (RMSEA) 0.088 ≤0.10 [84]
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.729 >0.70 [85]
Standardized RMR 0.3417 <0.08 [86]

Table 6 indicates the correlations among the variables. This table shows that all vari-
ables have a significant direct effect and total effect with a p-value of less than 0.05, except
the tangibility to service quality with a p-value of 0.057. Moreover, all the relationships
have significant indirect effects with also a p-value less than 0.05, except the tangibility to
customer satisfaction with a p-value of 0.054.

Table 6. Direct, indirect, and total effects.

No Variables Direct Effects p-Value Indirect Effects p-Value Total Effects p-Value
1 AI -> SQ 0.513 0.002 - - 0.513 0.002
2 IC -> SQ 0.577 0.001 - - 0.577 0.001
3 BE -> SQ 0.246 0.023 - - 0.246 0.023
4 A -> SQ 0.428 0.001 - - 0.428 0.001
5 T -> SQ 0.129 0.057 - - 0.129 0.057
6 AI -> CS - - 0.607 0.002 0.607 0.002
7 IC -> CS - - 0.684 0.001 0.684 0.001
8 BE -> CS - - 0.292 0.022 0.292 0.022
9 A -> CS - - 0.507 0.001 0.507 0.001
10 T -> CS - - 0.153 0.054 0.153 0.054
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 14 of 21

Table 6. Cont.

No Variables Direct Effects p-Value Indirect Effects p-Value Total Effects p-Value
11 SQ -> CS 1.184 0.001 - - 1.184 0.001
12 PS -> CS - - - - - -
13 TR -> CS - - - - - -
14 AI -> TR - - 0.223 0.002 0.223 0.002
15 IC -> TR - 0.251 0.001 0.251 0.001
16 BE -> TR - - 0.107 0.016 0.107 0.016
17 A -> TR - - 0.186 0.001 0.186 0.001
18 T -> TR - - 0.056 0.049 0.056 0.049
19 SQ -> TR - - 0.436 0.002 0.436 0.002
20 PS -> TR 0.851 0.001 - - 0.851 0.001
21 CS -> TR 0.368 0.002 - - 0.368 0.002

3.2. Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution Result

The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution is one of the
well-known multiple criteria decision analyses proposed by [87]. Its function is to identify
the best alternative that is nearest to the positive ideal solution and farthest from the nega-
tive ideal solution [88]. In the current study, the TOPSIS is integrated with the SERVQUAL
factors, including responsiveness, tangibility, reliability, assurance, and empathy, to investi-
gate the trustworthiness of the five e-commerce applications based on customer preferences.
Moreover, the five e-commerce applications that were observed are Shopee, Lazada, TikTok,
Shein, and Facebook.
Table 7 shows that in Generation Z, the most trustworthy e-commerce application was
Shopee, while the least was Facebook.

Table 7. Generation Z (aged 8–23 years old).

Alternatives Dev from S+ Rank

Shopee 0.979007553 1
Lazada 0.173620998 4
Shein 0.471998483 3
TikTok 0.875068194 2
Facebook 0.117214239 5

According to Table 8, Shopee is the most trusted e-commerce app among Millennials,
whereas Facebook is the least trusted.

Table 8. Millennials (aged 24–39 years old).

Alternatives Dev from S+ Rank

Shopee 1 1
Lazada 0.901311428 2
Shein 0.584624786 4
TikTok 0.752030666 3
Facebook 0 5

In Generation X, Shopee is the most trusted e-commerce app, while Shein is the least
trusted, as Table 9 indicates.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 15 of 21

Table 9. Generation X (aged 40–55 years old).

Alternatives Dev from S+ Rank

Shopee 1 1
Lazada 0.383498590 4
Shein 0 5
TikTok 0.655838931 2
Facebook 0.515382493 3

Table 10 demonstrates that Shopee is the most trusted e-commerce app among 235 respon-
dents, whereas Facebook is the least trusted.

Table 10. Generation Z, Millennials, and Generation X.

Alternatives Dev from S+ Rank

Shopee 1 1
Lazada 0.738966553 3
Shein 0.493349717 4
TikTok 0.744053916 2
Facebook 0 5

According to the investigation, the most trustworthy e-commerce application over-

all was Shopee, followed by TikTok, Lazada, and Shein, while the least trustworthy e-
commerce application was Facebook.

4. Discussion
The study focused on assessing the trustworthiness of e-commerce applications based
on customer preferences. TOPSIS was used to rank the five e-commerce applications,
namely Shopee (E1), Lazada (E2), Shein (E3), TikTok (E4), and Facebook (E5), with the
use of the five dimensions: tangibility, responsiveness, reliability, assurance, and empathy.
A total of 235 responses were acquired through an online questionnaire and face-to-face
survey. The population is categorized into five (5) generations, including Gen Z, Millennials,
Gen X, Pre-Boomers, and Boomers. However, only Gen Z, Millennials, and Gen X are the
main respondents of the study. The e-commerce application ranking also demonstrates
that E5 has the lowest ranking; to cope with E1, the provider must focus on improving the
dimensions mentioned.
An SEM was utilized to analyze the correlations among responsiveness (RP), tangi-
bility (T), reliability (RL), assurance (A), empathy (EM), and service quality (SQ), together
with application interface (AI), brand equity (BE), information credibility (IC), customer
satisfaction (CS), perceived security (PS), and trust (TR).
The findings of the current study indicated that service quality is directly affected by
the following: assurance (β = 0.428, p = 0.001), application interface (β = 0.513, p = 0.002),
information credibility (β = 0.577, p = 0.001), and brand equity (β = 0.246, p = 0.023). How-
ever, tangibility was shown to have a close direct effect on service quality (β = 0.129,
p = 0.057). Thus, the providers must focus on improving the application interface, informa-
tion credibility, brand equity, and assurance because these factors directly affect the service
quality that bridged the growth of customer trust and intention in using the e-commerce
application.
The security and comfort in using the service delivery that provides trust and confi-
dence to the customer is referred to as assurance [89]. With the strength of this dimension,
the customer can be assured that the service and products they purchased will be carried
out safely and will meet the quality standards. In addition, according to [90], interface char-
acteristics such as layout quality, navigation appearance, and visual appeal quality affected
the overall trust of the customer. This factor meets the satisfaction of the customer to easily
manage how to use and navigate the functions and services that they want to acquire in
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 16 of 21

online shopping. Credibility defines the accuracy and provision of high-quality services,
prices, safe providers, and well-presented instructions. The result of this research regarding
the significance of credibility to service quality for customer satisfaction is affirmed by the
study of [91]. Moreover, brand equity is one of the important factors that could define
the service quality of a company business [92] as it takes a grasp of the customer’s aware-
ness. The improvement in service quality establishes a positive appeal to the consumers
to patronize the services provided by the company [93]. It is a competitive advantage to
establish a unique design and service performance that will provide familiarity with a
particular application and a positive environment to attain customer satisfaction and trust.
Ref. [94] obtained a result in their study that customer satisfaction directly affected
the customer’s trust in e-commerce settings, which is also emphasized in the current study
(β = 0.368, p = 0.002). Lastly, the results show that perceived security directly affected the
customer’s trust in using the e-commerce application (β = 0.851, p = 0.001). It is indicated in
the study of [95] that the perception of security focuses on the provision of online privacy,
protection of personal information, and prevention of unauthorized access to transactions,
which have a significant and huge impact on trust.

5. Conclusions
During the COVID-19 pandemic, e-commerce experienced a sharp increase in pop-
ularity, leading to the creation of numerous e-commerce marketplaces and millions of
downloads from various application stores. Consequently, cybercrime is a growing threat
that may have a negative impact on customer satisfaction and trust. Thus, to examine
the factors that directly and significantly impact service quality as it relates to pleasure
and trust, which are also influenced by perceived security, the current study included a
SERVQUAL model. Information credibility has the greatest beneficial impact on the service
quality of e-commerce mobile applications (0.577), followed by application interface (0.513),
assurance (0.428), and brand equity (0.246), according to the SEM result. Additionally,
customer satisfaction is significantly correlated with service quality (1.184). This indicates
that the level of performance of the services is directly correlated to the satisfaction of the
customer. Moreover, customer satisfaction (0.368) and perceived security (0.851) have a
strong and direct impact on trust.
To improve service quality, e-commerce mobile app providers ought to prioritize
enhancing the aspects of assurance, brand equity, application interface, and information
credibility, according to the study’s findings. Additionally, it enhances consumer satisfac-
tion and security, which helps to build the consumer’s trust in the e-commerce application
for their intended purchases.
The present study’s findings could potentially benefit users, developers, and scholars
who are interested in studying unique applications of technology, like digitization. This
research can be used as a basis for designing the most appropriate application features for
their people, which could result in better service and reliable applications for our daily lives
since digitalization and automation are some of the developments that most developing
countries are currently adopting.

6. Limitations and Future Research

According to the 2020 Census of Population and Housing: Age and Sex Distribution
in the Philippine Population, the Philippines has a total population of 109,035,343. The
total population is divided into age brackets, signifying different generations. Based on
the census, ages 5–24 (Generation Z) had a total population of 9,362,325 persons; ages
15–30 (Millennials) had a total population of 11,374,597 persons; ages 15–64 had a total
population of 12,433,053 persons; and the total population of Occidental Mindoro was
525,354 persons [96]. Thus, this study has only a sample size of 235 respondents, composed
of 174 respondents from Generation Z, 45 respondents from Millennials, and 16 respondents
from Generation X. This sample size can limit the reliability of the study. Hence, the result
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 17 of 21

could be more accurate if the number of respondents was increased and equally distributed
among the different generations.
In addition, the paper only assesses five e-commerce applications, which can limit the
range and generalizability of the study. According to [97], there are more than 50 e-commerce
applications used here in the Philippines. Therefore, having more alternatives can enhance
the findings and results of the study. Moreover, other capacity factors, such as social media
integration, loyalty programs, or advanced security features for online transactions, could
contribute to the success of an e-trade website.
Furthermore, the researchers used service quality (SERVQUAL) and multi-criteria
data analysis (MCDA) through the use of TOPSIS to investigate and evaluate customer
preferences in choosing a trustworthy e-commerce application; however, the researchers
had only eleven latent variables to be observed and 72 survey questionnaires, which limit
the standardization of the model used. Therefore, future researchers are suggested to
include other possible latent variables that have a significant correlation and increase the
number of survey questionnaires to attain the standard required by the model and robust
generalizability of the study, which will enable future researchers to generate more accurate
and reliable results.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.M.M., J.M.U., N.A.V. and G.D.F.; Methodology, H.M.M.,
J.M.U. and N.A.V.; Software, C.S.S. and K.A.M.; Validation, C.S.S. and G.D.F.; Formal analysis, C.S.S.,
K.A.M. and H.M.M.; Resources, Y.-T.J. and N.A.V.; Data curation, J.M.U. and N.A.V.; Writing—original
draft, H.M.M., J.M.U., N.A.V. and G.D.F.; Writing—review & editing, C.S.S. and K.A.M.; Supervision,
Y.-T.J. and C.S.S.; Project administration, Y.-T.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Suswita, R.; Octavia, A.; Sriayudha, Y. E-Commerce Purchase Intention Model with Consumer Reviews, Trust, and Risk as
Predictors of Msmes Culinary Products. 2022. Available online: https://dinastipub.org/DIJDBM/article/view/1606 (accessed
on 10 January 2024).
2. Lutkevich, B. What Is E-Commerce? Definition and Meaning. TechTarget. December 2020. Available online: https://www.
techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/e-commerce (accessed on 22 December 2023.).
3. Ahuja, V.; Khazanchi, D. Creation of a Conceptual Model for Adoption of Mobile Apps for Shopping from E-Commerce Sites–An
Indian Context. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 91, 609–616. [CrossRef]
4. Pregoner, J.D.M.; Opalla, I.L.; Uy, J.D.; Palacio, M. Customers’ Perception on the Trustworthiness of Electronic Commerce: A Qualitative
Study; University of Immaculate Conception: Davao City, Philippines, 2020. [CrossRef]
5. Shopify. How Ecommerce Apps Can Boost Sales. 2024. Available online: https://www.shopify.com/blog/ecommerce-app?
fbclid=IwAR2TOE_yaEsr-cx1e0oAbmnlwQ6lINhlrcyqwrd0yrw0kLLXj5LU46lyI4M#:~:text=An%20ecommerce%20app%20
allows%20users (accessed on 18 December 2023).
6. Frontzack, A. Top 20 Features to Include in Your E-Commerce App. FiveDotTwelve—App Development Company. Available
online: https://fivedottwelve.com/blog/top-20-features-to-include-in-your-e-commerce-app/ (accessed on 8 June 2022).
7. Understanding Shoppers in the Philippines|Locad. Available online: https://golocad.com/blog/phillippine-shoppers/ (ac-
cessed on 24 May 2023).
8. Rita, P.; Oliveira, T.; Farisa, A. The impact of e-service quality and customer satisfaction on customer behavior in online shopping.
Heliyon 2019, 5, e02690. [CrossRef]
9. Chan, N. Filipino Online Shopping Behavior: Statistics & Trends You Need to Know. Spiralytics. Available online: https:
//www.spiralytics.com/blog/filipino-online-shopping-behavior-statistics-trends/ (accessed on 8 March 2023).
10. International Trade Administration. Philippines—eCommerce. Available online: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-
guides/philippines-ecommerce (accessed on 25 July 2022).
11. Supiyandi, A.; Hastjarjo, S.; Slamet, Y. Influence of Brand Awareness, Brand Association, Perceived Quality, and Brand Loyalty of
Shopee on Consumers’ Purchasing Decisions. CommIT (Commun. Inf. Technol.) J. 2022, 16, 9–18. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 18 of 21

12. Editor. Product Reviews: Why They Matter for Your e-Commerce Website. Zoho Commerce. Available online: https:
//www.zoho.com/commerce/insights/importance-of-product-reviews.html?fbclid=IwAR0T1eL3p1vF-xswbqqXxPn2
kRRue_os6yTfl46DF1a81l1Oo9kJPPhxsjQ (accessed on 20 October 2022).
13. Ilieva, G.; Yankova, T.; Klisarova, S.; Dzhabarova, Y. Customer Satisfaction in e-Commerce during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Systems 2022, 10, 213. [CrossRef]
14. Blut, M.; Chowdhry, N.; Mittal, V.; Brock, C. E-Service Quality: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Retail. 2015, 91, 679–700. [CrossRef]
15. Lidan, M.Y. A Study of Customer Satisfaction and E-commerce Online Purchasing Service in China-Using Taobao and JD as the
Examples to Compare and Analyse. 2020. Available online: https://e-research.siam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/IMBA-
2019-IS-A-Study-of-Customer-Satisfaction-and-E-commerce-Online-Purchasing-Service-opt.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2024).
16. Lu, B.; Fan, W.; Zhou, M. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2016, 56, 225–237. [CrossRef]
17. Al-Debei, M.M.; Akroush, M.N.; Ashouri, M.I. Consumer attitudes towards online shopping. Internet Res. 2015, 25, 707–733.
[CrossRef]
18. Cheng, X.; Gu, Y.; Shen, J. An integrated view of particularized trust in social commerce: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 2019, 45, 1–12. [CrossRef]
19. Nde, C.; Lukong, D.; Berinyuy, P.; Student, S. Using the SERVQUAL Model to Assess Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction.
An Empirical Study of Grocery Stores in Umea. 2010. Available online: https://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:
327600/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2023.).
20. Parasuraman, A.P.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. (PDF) SERVQUAL: A Multiple—Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions
of Service Quality. ResearchGate. 1988. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225083802_SERVQUAL_
A_multiple-_Item_Scale_for_measuring_consumer_perceptions_of_service_quality (accessed on 15 November 2023.).
21. Melián-Alzola, L.; Padrón-Robaina, V. Tangibility as a quality factor in electronic commerce b2c. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2006,
16, 320–338. [CrossRef]
22. Anwar, K. Analyzing the conceptual model of service quality and its relationship with guests’ satisfaction: A study of hotels in
Erbil. Int. J. Account. Bus. Soc. 2017, 25, 1–16. [CrossRef]
23. Theodorakis, N.D.; Koustelios, A.; Robinson, L.; Barlas, A. Moderating the role of team identification on the relationship between
service quality and repurchase intentions among spectators of professional sports. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2009, 19, 456–473.
[CrossRef]
24. Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. The service-quality puzzle. Bus. Horiz. 1988, 31, 35–43. [CrossRef]
25. Kim, D.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, U. Relationship between Quality Management Practices and Innovation. J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30,
295–315. [CrossRef]
26. AbuKhalifeh, A.N.; Mat, S.A. Service Quality Management in Hospital Industry: A Conceptual Framework for Food and Beverage
Departments. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 7, 135–141. [CrossRef]
27. Oh, H.; Kim, K. Customer satisfaction, service quality, and customer value: Years 2000–2015. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017,
29, 2–29. [CrossRef]
28. Handayani, D.F.R.; PA, R.W.; Nuryakin, N. The influence of e-service quality, trust, and brand image on Shopee customer
satisfaction and loyalty. J. Siasat Bisnis 2021, 25, 119–130. [CrossRef]
29. Aladwani, A.M. An empirical test of the link between website quality and forward enterprise integration with web consumers.
Bus. Process Manag. J. 2006, 12, 178–190. [CrossRef]
30. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Malhotra, A. E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality. J. Serv.
Res. 2005, 7, 213–233. [CrossRef]
31. Omar, H.F.H.; Saadan, K.B.; Seman, K.B. Determining the influence of the reliability of service quality on customer satisfaction:
The case of libyan e-commerce customers. Int. J. Learn. Dev. 2015, 5, 86. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, J.; Wu, J.; Sun, S.; Wang, S. The relationship between attribute performance and customer satisfaction: An interpretable
machine learning approach. Data Sci. Manag. 2024. [CrossRef]
33. (PDF) Measuring Service Quality—A Reexamination and Extension. ResearchGate. Available online: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/225083621_Measuring_Service_Quality_-_A_Reexamination_And_Extension (accessed on 3 October 2023).
34. Rao, Y.; Saleem, A.; Saeed, W.; Haq, J.U. Online Consumer Satisfaction During COVID-19: Perspective of a Developing Country.
Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 751854. [CrossRef]
35. Kossecki, P. Building Trust in ecommerce—Quantitative analysis. SSRN Electron. J. 2004. [CrossRef]
36. Siddiqui, K. Heuristics for sample size determination in multivariate statistical techniques. ResearchGate 2013, 27, 285–287.
37. Verhagen, T.; Vonkeman, C.; van Dolen, W. Making Online Products More Tangible: The Effect of Product Presentation Formats
on Product Evaluations. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2016, 19, 460–464. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Michalski, R. The influence of product digital visual presentation on purchase willingness: Effects of roundedness axes and
degree. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2023, 83, 2173–2202. [CrossRef]
39. Lau, K.W.; Lee, P.Y. Shopping in virtual reality: A study on consumers’ shopping experience in a stereoscopic virtual reality.
Virtual Real. 2018, 23, 255–268. [CrossRef]
40. Nath, A.; Zheng, L. Perception of Service Quality in E-Commerce an Analytical Study of Internet Auction Sites. Available online:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1018947/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2023).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 19 of 21

41. Orús, C.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S.; Flavián, C. Enhancing the customer experience with virtual and augmented reality: The impact of
content and device type. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 98, 103019. [CrossRef]
42. Sumi, R.S.; Kabir, G. Satisfaction of E-learners with electronic learning service quality using the SERVQUAL model. J. Open Innov.
Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 227. [CrossRef]
43. Knop, K. Evaluation of quality of services provided by Transport & Logistics Operator from the pharmaceutical industry for
improvement purposes. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 40, 1080–1087. [CrossRef]
44. Ko, C.-H.; Chou, C.-M. Apply the SERVQUAL instrument to measure service quality for the adaptation of ICT Technologies: A
case study of nursing homes in Taiwan. Healthcare 2020, 8, 108. [CrossRef]
45. Jou, Y.-T.; Saflor, C.S.; Mariñas, K.A.; Young, M.N.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Persada, S.F. Assessing service quality and customer satisfaction
of electric utility provider’s online payment system during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural modeling approach. Electronics
2022, 11, 3646. [CrossRef]
46. Limbourg, S.; Giang, H.T.; Cools, M. Logistics service quality: The case of da nang city. Procedia Eng. 2016, 142, 124–130. [CrossRef]
47. Fida, B.A.; Ahmed, U.; Al-Balushi, Y.; Singh, D. Impact of service quality on customer loyalty and customer satisfaction in Islamic
banks in the Sultanate of Oman. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 215824402091951. [CrossRef]
48. Kim, J. Platform quality factors influencing content providers’ loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 60, 102510. [CrossRef]
49. Ocampo, L.; Alinsub, J.; Casul, R.A.; Enquig, G.; Luar, M.; Panuncillon, N.; Bongo, M.; Ocampo, C.O. Public Service Quality
Evaluation with SERVQUAL and AHP-Topsis: A case of Philippine government agencies. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2019, 68, 100604.
[CrossRef]
50. Libo-on, J.T. Consumers’ Satisfaction on Service Quality of Electric Cooperative. 2021. Available online: https://www.aijbm.
com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/S48162177.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2024).
51. Ahmed, A. Importance of Courtesy in Business Communication. 15 September 2020. Available online: https://smallbusiness.
chron.com/importance-courtesy-business-communication-177.html (accessed on 8 November 2023).
52. Zhou, Q.; Lim, F.J.; Yu, H.; Xu, G.; Ren, X.; Liu, D.; Wang, X.; Mai, X.; Xu, H. A study on factors affecting service quality and
loyalty intention in Mobile banking. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 60, 102424. [CrossRef]
53. Liu, R.; Cui, L.; Zeng, G.; Wu, H.; Wang, C.; Yan, S.; Yan, B. Applying the fuzzy servqual method to measure the service quality in
Certification & Inspection Industry. Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 26, 508–512. [CrossRef]
54. Suciptawati, N.L.; Paramita, N.L.; Aristayasa, I.P. Customer satisfaction analysis based on service quality: Case of local credit
provider in Bali. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1321, 022055. [CrossRef]
55. Tumsekcali, E.; Ayyildiz, E.; Taskin, A. Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP-WASPAS based public 569 transportation
service quality evaluation by a new extension of SERVQUAL model: P-SERVQUAL 4.0. Expert Syst. 570 Appl. 2021, 186, 115757.
[CrossRef]
56. Aaker, D. What Is Brand Equity?|Aaker on Brands. Business Transformation Consultants|Prophet. Available online: https:
//prophet.com/2013/09/156-what-is-brand-equity-and-why-is-it-valuable/ (accessed on 4 September 2013).
57. Mendenhall, J. The Value of Brand Equity & Consistency on Ecommerce. Pattern.com. Available online: https://pattern.com/
blog/the-value-of-brand-equity-and-consistency-on-ecommerce/ (accessed on 20 September 2020).
58. Hines, K. 15 Must-Have Features for Ecommerce Sites. Search Engine Journal. Available online: https://www.searchenginejournal.
com/ecommerce-guide/must-have-website-features/#close (accessed on 9 June 2022).
59. Md Sabri, S.; Annuar, N.; Abdull Rahman, N.L.; Syed Abdul Mutalib, S.K.M.; Abd Mutalib, H.; Subagja, I.K. The E-Service
Quality of E-Commerce Websites: What Do Customers Look For? J. Intelek 2022, 17, 257. [CrossRef]
60. Salehi, F.; Abdollahbeigi, B.; Langroudi, A.C.; Salehi, F. The Impact of Website Information Convenience on E-commerce Success
of Companies. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 57, 381–387. [CrossRef]
61. Fernandus, F. The Effect of Website Design, Website Security, Information Quality, and Perceived Ease of Use on Customer. Int. J.
Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng. 2020, 9, 1696–1703. [CrossRef]
62. Saoula, O.; Shamim, A.; Suki, N.M.; Ahmad, M.J.; Abid, M.F.; Patwary, A.K.; Abbasi, A.Z. Building e-trust and e-retention in
online shopping: The role of website design, reliability and perceived ease of use. Span. J. Mark.-ESIC 2023, 27, 178–201. [CrossRef]
63. Cheng, X.; Gu, Y.; Hua, Y.; Luo, X. The Paradox of Word-of-Mouth in Social Commerce: Exploring the Juxtaposed Impacts of
Source Credibility and Information Quality on SWOM Spreading. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103505. [CrossRef]
64. Yin, C.; Zhang, X. Incorporating message format into user evaluation of microblog information credibility: A nonlinear perspective.
Inf. Process. Manag. 2020, 57, 102345. [CrossRef]
65. Díaz-Arancibia, J.; Rusu, C.; Collazos, C.A. E-Commerce under a User eXperience Perspective. 2016. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310818914_e-Commerce_under_a_User_eXperience_Perspective (accessed on 10
September 2023).
66. Mou, J.; Zhu, W.; Benyoucef, M. Impact of product description and involvement on purchase intention in cross-border e-commerce.
Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019. ahead-of-print. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338605076_Impact_of_
product_description_and_involvement_on_purchase_intention_in_cross-border_e-commerce (accessed on 20 September 2023).
[CrossRef]
67. Sundaram, V.; Ramkumar, D.; Shankar, P. Impact of E-service quality on customer satisfaction and Loyalty Empirical Study in
india online business. KINERJA 2017, 21, 48–69. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 20 of 21

68. Paris, D.; Bahari, M.; Iahad, N.; Ismail, W. Systematic literature review of e-Commerce implementation studies. J. Theor. Appl.
Inf. Technol. 2016, 89, 422–438. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306167259_Systematic_literature_
review_of_e-Commerce_implementation_studies (accessed on 18 September 2023).
69. Falahat, M.; Lee, Y.-Y.; Foo, Y.-C.; Chia, C.-E. A model for consumer trust in e-commerce. Asian Acad. Manag. J. 2019, 24 (Suppl.
S2), 93–109. [CrossRef]
70. Eid, M.I. Eid: Determinants of E-Commerce Customer Satisfaction, Trust, and Loyalty in Saudi Arabia. Available online:
http://www.jecr.org/sites/default/files/12_1_p05.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2023).
71. Djaelani, M.; Darmawan, D. Pengukuran Tingkat Kepuasan Pengguna Jasa Parkir di Pusat Pembelanjaan Royal Plaza Surabaya.
Ekon. Keuang. Investasi Dan Syariah (EKUITAS) 2021, 3, 307–311. [CrossRef]
72. Kurniawan, D.; Maulan, P.; Zusrony, E. Analysis of e-Commerce Consumer Satisfaction Level with the Technology Acceptance
model (TAM) Approach. Business and Accounting Research (IJEBAR) Peer Reviewed—International Journal, 5. Retrieved
12 November 2023. Available online: https://jurnal.stie-aas.ac.id/index.php/IJEBAR/article/download/3706/1733 (accessed
on 30 November 2023).
73. Zhang, J.; Luximon, Y.; Song, Y. The Role of Consumers’ Perceived Security, Perceived Control, Interface Design Features, and
Conscientiousness in Continuous Use of Mobile Payment Services. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6843. [CrossRef]
74. Teo, T.S.H.; Pok, S.H. Adoption of WAP-enabled mobile phones among Internet users. Omega 2003, 31, 483–498. [CrossRef]
75. Yenisey, M.; Ozok, A.; Salvendy, G. Perceived security determinants in e-commerce among Turkish university students. Behav. Inf.
Technol. 2005, 24, 259–274. [CrossRef]
76. Pavlou, P.A.; Fygenson, M. Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned
Behavior. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 115–143. [CrossRef]
77. Oliveira, T.; Alhinho, M.; Rita, P.; Dhillon, G. Modelling and testing consumer trust dimensions in e-commerce. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2017, 71, 153–164. [CrossRef]
78. Mofokeng, T.E. Antecedents of trust and customer loyalty in online shopping: The moderating effects of online shopping
experience and e-shopping spending. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Navandar, Y.V.; Patel, D.A.; Dhamaniya, A.; Velmurugan, S.; Bari, C. Users perception based service quality analysis at toll plazas
using structural equation modeling. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2023, 13, 101053. [CrossRef]
80. Hai, D.N.; Minh, C.C.; Huynh, N. Meta-analysis of driving behavior studies and assessment of factors using structural equation
modeling. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2023. [CrossRef]
81. Cheung, G.W.; Cooper-Thomas, H.D.; Lau, R.S.; Wang, L.C. Reporting Reliability, Convergent and Discriminant Validity with
Structural Equation Modeling: A Review and Best-Practice Recommendations. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2023. Available online:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y (accessed on 25 March 2023).
82. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
83. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
84. MacCallum, R.C.; Browne, M.W.; Sugawara, H.M. Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure
Modeling. Psychol. Methods 1996, 1, 130–149. [CrossRef]
85. Chen, H.; Tseng, H. Factors That Influence Acceptance of Web-Based e-Learning Systems for the In-Service Education of Junior
High School Teachers in Taiwan. Eval. Program Plan. 2012, 35, 398–406. [CrossRef]
86. Maydeu-Olivares, A.; Shi, D.; Rosseel, Y. Assessing fit in structural equation models: A Monte-Carlo evaluation of RMSEA versus
SRMR confidence intervals and tests of close fit. Struct. Equ. Model. 2018, 25, 389–402. [CrossRef]
87. Hwang, C.-L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981. [CrossRef]
88. Yoon, K.P.; Kim, W.K. The behavioral TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 89, 266–272. [CrossRef]
89. Wu, Y.-C.; Tsai, C.-S.; Hsiung, H.-W.; Chen, K.-Y. Linkage between frontline employee service competence scale and customer
perceptions of service quality. J. Serv. Mark. 2015, 29, 224–234. [CrossRef]
90. Bart, Y.; Shankar, V.; Sultan, F.; Urban, G.L. Are the Drivers and Role of Online Trust the Same for All Web Sites and Consumers?
A Large-Scale Exploratory Empirical Study. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 133–152. [CrossRef]
91. Vong, O.F. A Study of Customer Satisfaction Levels among Corporate Clients of Institute of Bankers, Malaysia. Unpublished
MBA Thesis, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2007.
92. Beig, F.A.; Nika, F.A. Impact of Brand Experience on Brand Equity of Online Shopping Portals: A Study of Select E-Commerce
Sites in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2019, 23, 097215091983604. [CrossRef]
93. Zhu, Q.; Ruan, Y.; Liu, S.; Yang, S.-B.; Wang, L.; Che, J. Cross boarder electronic commerce’s new path: From literature review to
AI text generation. Data Sci. Manag. 2022, 6, 21–33. [CrossRef]
94. Kassim, N.; Asiah Abdullah, N. The Effect of Perceived Service Quality Dimensions on Customer Satisfaction, Trust, and Loyalty
in E-Commerce Settings: A Cross Cultural Analysis. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2010, 22, 351–371. [CrossRef]
95. Aggarwal, A.; Rahul, M. The effect of perceived security on consumer purchase intensions in electronic com-merce. Int. J. Public
Sect. Perform. Manag. 2018, 4, 1. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1727 21 of 21

96. Age and Sex Distribution in the Philippine Population (2020 Census of Population and Housing)|Philippine Statistics Author-
ity|Republic of the Philippines. Available online: https://psa.gov.ph/content/age-and-sex-distribution-philippine-population-
2020-census-population-and-housing (accessed on 3 January 2024).
97. Top Shopping Apps Ranking—Most Popular Apps in Philippines—Similarweb. Available online: https://www.similarweb.com/
apps/top/google/store-rank/ph/shopping/top-free/ (accessed on 8 December 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.