| Literature DB >> 32916936 |
Jerónimo García-Fernández1, Jesús Fernández-Gavira1, Antonio Jesús Sánchez-Oliver2, Pablo Gálvez-Ruíz3, Moisés Grimaldi-Puyana1, Gabriel Cepeda-Carrión4.
Abstract
The fitness sector has always been linked to the analysis of the loyalty of its consumers. Different studies have shown the importance of sports service and human resources for greater customer loyalty. However, few works have studied how the physical environment or servicescape influences the behavior of consumers in fitness centers based on gender and age. Therefore, the objective of the study was to analyze the relationship between servicescape and the loyalty of fitness center consumers, analyzing through the Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) what the aspects to improve according to gender and age are. The sample was 10,368 fitness center customers (5864 women and 4504 men). After the IPMA, it was concluded that the main improvement margins in general in fitness centers were the equipment and the facility condition, and the facility layout. In turn, in relation to gender and age, the aspects with room for improvement were to a greater extent for equipment and facility condition in women over 21 years of age, and in facility layout for women between 21 and 40 years old and 51-60 years old. Regarding men, the aspects with the highest performance margins were the equipment and facility condition in all the age groups, the facility layout in men up to 50 years old, and the signage in men up to 40 years old and from 51 to 60 years old.Entities:
Keywords: age; fitness industry; gender; importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA); servicescape; sport consumer
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32916936 PMCID: PMC7557594 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17186562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) studies.
| Authors | Sector/Context | Principal Findings Related | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tailab [ | Bank | The study indicates that managers who use the IPMA to prioritize their financial decisions will obtain useful conceptual insights and are unlikely to be misled. | 140 banks |
| Ting, Yahya & Tan [ | Education | The IPMA shows that the importance and performance of domain knowledge are high in contributing to sustainability entrepreneurship. | 121 students |
| Ebrahimi, Hajmohammadi & Tan [ | Tourism | The IPMA indicates that place image had the highest importance, but the lowest performance. | 135 users |
| Wook, Ismail & Yusop [ | Education | The findings revealed through the IPMA that perceived usefulness is the most important antecedent, followed by perceived ease of use, and optimism. | 211 students |
| Groß [ | Mobile | Thanks to the IPMA, this study provides new insights into the acceptance and profile of m-shoppers. | 734 customers |
| Palos-Sánchez, Martin-Velicia & Saura [ | Internet users | The IPMA showed the most important attributes for Internet search engine developers. | 445 users |
| Carranza, Díaz & Martín-Consuegra [ | Restaurants | The IPMA indicate that service quality is one of the three most-valued attributes among those examined in fast-food restaurants studies. | 456 customers |
| Reyes-Menéndez, Palos-Sánchez, Saura & Martín-Velicia [ | Restaurants companies | The IPMA indicated that Wi-Fi has the highest valuation, although it is the one that obtains the least performance. It is in this construct that improvements in performance must be made. | 117 customers |
| Ramayah, Chiun, Rouibah & May [ | Online banking | The IPMA identified that the two most important variables in the use of Internet banking are perceived ease of use and perceived ease of use. | 239 customers |
| Rigdon, Ringle, Sarstedt & Gudergan [ | Utilities and hotels | The IPMA illustrates differences between three segments of customers and provides the basis for managerial implications. | 5398 customers |
Figure 1Theoretical framework of the study. IMPA: Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis; PLS-SEM: Partial Least Squares Structural Equations.
Sample characteristics.
| Question | Answer | Women | Men | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % | ||
| Weekly frequency | Less than 1 time/week | 149 | 2.54% | 100 | 2.22% | 249 | 2.40% |
| Once/week | 242 | 4.13% | 143 | 3.17% | 385 | 3.71% | |
| Twice/week | 1369 | 23.35% | 646 | 14.34% | 2015 | 19.43% | |
| Three times/week | 2423 | 41.32% | 1813 | 40.25% | 4236 | 40.86% | |
| Four more times/week | 1681 | 28.67% | 1802 | 40.01% | 3483 | 33.59% | |
| Total | 5864 | 100.00% | 4504 | 100.00% | 10,368 | 100.00% | |
| Previous fitness experience | No previous experience | 1558 | 26.57% | 899 | 19.96% | 2457 | 23.70% |
| Yes, in the current fitness center | 259 | 4.42% | 187 | 4.15% | 446 | 4.30% | |
| Yes, in another fitness center | 4047 | 69.01% | 3418 | 75.89% | 7465 | 72.00% | |
| Total | 5864 | 100.00% | 4504 | 100.00% | 10,368 | 100.00% | |
| Training prescription | Fitness staff | 758 | 12.93% | 434 | 9.64% | 1192 | 11.50% |
| Friend | 296 | 5.05% | 203 | 4.51% | 499 | 4.81% | |
| Personal trainer | 247 | 4.21% | 220 | 4.88% | 467 | 4.50% | |
| Fitness App | 202 | 3.44% | 130 | 2.89% | 332 | 3.20% | |
| Myself | 3840 | 65.48% | 3303 | 73.33% | 7143 | 68.89% | |
| Others | 521 | 8.88% | 214 | 4.75% | 735 | 7.09% | |
| Total | 5864 | 100.00% | 4504 | 100.00% | 10,368 | 100.00% | |
Indicator loadings.
| Construct | Indicator | Loadings |
|---|---|---|
| Loyalty | I would sign up for this fitness center if I unsubscribed (FI1) | 0.895 |
| I will make positive comments to a friend about the programs and services of this fitness center (FI2) | 0.954 | |
| If you ask me, I will recommend this fitness center (FI3) | 0.967 | |
| Signage | The signs used are helpful (SC1) | 1 |
| Equipment/Facility condition | The equipment used is always in good working condition (SC10) | 0.894 |
| Fitness center is well equipped with surrounding facilities (lounge, concession) (SC11) | 0.587 | |
| The facilities and equipment are safe (SC12) | 0.877 | |
| Physical facilities are well maintained (SC13) | 0.903 | |
| The equipment used is of high quality (SC9) | 0.879 | |
| Ambient Condition | The background noise level at fitness center is acceptable (SC14) | 0.854 |
| Fitness center is kept clean (SC15) | 0.800 | |
| Fitness center’s atmosphere is comfortable (SC16) | 0.885 | |
| The music used in fitness center makes workout environment a more enjoyable place (SC17) | 0.812 | |
| Facility System | Lighting levels are comfortable (SC18) | 0.789 |
| Temperature and humidity are comfortable (SC19) | 0.913 | |
| Air quality is acceptable (SC20) | 0.917 | |
| Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning (HVAC) system are well maintained (SC21) | 0.898 | |
| Facility Layout | Fitness center is expansive and large in scale (SC2) | 0.869 |
| Fitness center is designed for all levels of ability (SC3) | 0.838 | |
| Fitness center have more than enough space for me to be comfortable (SC4) | 0.909 | |
| Fitness center is designed to minimize my waiting time (SC5) | 0.860 | |
| Facility Design | The buildings’ exterior layout is pleasing (SC6) | 0.862 |
| The buildings’ interior layout is pleasing (SC7) | 0.944 | |
| The buildings in fitness center are decorated in an attractive fashion (SC8) | 0.934 |
FI: Future Intentions; SC: Servicescape.
Reliability and validity of construct measurement.
| Composites | Cronbach’s | Dijkstra- | Composite | Average | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambient Condition | 0.859 | 0.870 | 0.904 | 0.703 | 0.838 |
| Facility Design | 0.901 | 0.914 | 0.938 | 0.836 | 0.741 |
| Facility Layout | 0.892 | 0.894 | 0.925 | 0.756 | 0.869 |
| Equipment/Facility Condition | 0.887 | 0.912 | 0.919 | 0.700 | 0.778 |
| Signage | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Facility System | 0.902 | 0.902 | 0.932 | 0.776 | 0.881 |
| Loyalty | 0.933 | 0.938 | 0.957 | 0.882 | 0.839 |
a HeteroTrait-MonoTrait ratio of correlations for discriminant validity.
Construct effects on endogenous variables (incl. lower and upper limits of 95% confidence interval).
| Relationships | Original | Average of the | 5.0% | 95.0% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambient Condition -> Loyalty | 0.258 | 0.258 | 0.233 | 0.282 |
| Facility Design -> Loyalty | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.010 | 0.061 |
| Facility Layout -> Loyalty | 0.198 | 0.198 | 0.176 | 0.220 |
| Equipment/Facility Condition -> Loyalty | 0.233 | 0.233 | 0.208 | 0.257 |
| Signage -> Loyalty | 0.096 | 0.096 | 0.076 | 0.115 |
| Facility System -> Loyalty | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
Figure 2Relationship between constructs.
Figure 3IPMA full data set. Note: Red: ambient condition; Strong blue: facility design; Green: facility layout; Yellow: equipment/facility condition; Pink: signage; Light blue: facility system.
IPMA results full data set.
| Latent Variable | Loyalty | |
|---|---|---|
| Total Effect (Importance) | Index Value (Performance) | |
| Ambient Condition | 0.333 | 76.082 |
| Facility Design | 0.045 | 75.254 |
| Facility Layout | 0.228 | 71.483 |
| Equipment/Facility Condition | 0.283 | 71.073 |
| Signage | 0.108 | 74.762 |
| Facility System | 0.039 | 74.108 |
| Mean | 0.173 | 73.794 |
IPMA results by sex and age group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| I | P | I | P | I | P | I | P | I | P | I | P | |
| Ambient Condition | 0.379 | 79.875 | 0.406 | 75.722 | 0.295 | 73.321 | 0.465 | 72.869 | 0.278 | 72.187 | 0.053 | 74.724 |
| Facility Design | −0.066 | 77.337 | −0.042 | 73.486 | 0.047 | 72.150 | 0.061 | 73.042 | 0.098 | 73.391 | 0.191 | 75.637 |
| Facility Layout | 0.201 | 71.866 | 0.251 | 65.816 | 0.183 | 68.654 | 0.200 | 71.454 | 0.098 | 72.403 | 0.248 | 78.008 |
| Equipment/Facility Condition | 0.253 | 76.334 | 0.271 | 69.552 | 0.299 | 68.443 | 0.220 | 68.395 | 0.333 | 67.405 | 0.435 | 71.066 |
| Signage | 0.121 | 72.717 | 0.104 | 72.171 | 0.149 | 70.668 | 0.079 | 72.335 | 0.189 | 70.057 | 0.084 | 75.342 |
| Facility System | 0.199 | 80.836 | 0.064 | 74.808 | 0.057 | 73.011 | 0.034 | 72.337 | 0.061 | 71.994 | −0.018 | 75.556 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| I | P | I | P | I | P | I | P | I | P | I | P | |
| Ambient Condition | 0.309 | 83.519 | 0.361 | 79.562 | 0.286 | 77.434 | 0.304 | 76.699 | 0.277 | 74.542 | 0.365 | 78.295 |
| Facility Design | 0.124 | 79.865 | −0.020 | 77.393 | 0.072 | 76.187 | 0.139 | 76.520 | 0.040 | 76.632 | −0.149 | 79.046 |
| Facility Layout | 0.054 | 76.542 | 0.231 | 71.142 | 0.307 | 72.220 | 0.142 | 74.070 | 0.203 | 72.865 | 0.038 | 79.310 |
| Equipment/Facility Condition | 0.227 | 80.538 | 0.336 | 74.149 | 0.219 | 72.156 | 0.323 | 71.195 | 0.317 | 70.522 | 0.403 | 75.622 |
| Signage | 0.208 | 79.821 | 0.095 | 77.759 | 0.087 | 76.945 | 0.064 | 76.340 | 0.066 | 75.964 | 0.017 | 80.978 |
| Facility System | 0.098 | 80.969 | −0.021 | 76.536 | 0.082 | 73.634 | 0.030 | 73.468 | 0.132 | 71.903 | 0.200 | 78.412 |
I: Importance; P: Performance.
Figure 4Importance-performance map by female and age group. Note: Red: ambient condition; Strong blue: facility design; Green: facility layout; Yellow: equipment/facility condition; Pink: signage; Light blue: facility system.
Figure 5Importance-performance map by male and age group. Note: Red: ambient condition; Strong blue: facility design; Green: facility layout; Yellow: equipment/facility condition; Pink: signage; Light blue: facility system.