Table 3.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (ML) of Items and Measurement Properties of the Scales
| Scales | Standardized Loading | t-value |
|---|---|---|
| Transaction Conveniencea(α = 0.90, AVE = 0.82, Φ2 = 0.08 − 0.48) | ||
| 1. Amount of time spent in parts counter lines | 0.91 | 124.60 |
| 2. Amount of time spent in checkout lines | 0.90 | 121.47 |
| Access Conveniencea(α = 0.90, AVE = 0.54, Φ2 = 0.13 − 0.36) | ||
| 1. Convenience of store location | 0.73 | 75.83 |
| 2. Convenience of store hours | 0.74 | 76.44 |
| Decision Conveniencea(α = 0.86, AVE = 0.69, Φ2 = 0.18 − 0.61) | ||
| 1. Providing accurate information to you | 0.80 | 105.94 |
| 2. Ability to diagnose what is wrong with your vehicle | 0.80 | 105.37 |
| 3. Employees listening carefully to you | 0.85 | 115.89 |
| 4. Employees’ knowledge about types of parts | 0.87 | 120.17 |
| Benefit Conveniencea(α = 0.89, AVE = 0.73, Φ2 = 0.18 − 0.61) | ||
| 1. Variety of parts to choose from | 0.81 | 106.58 |
| 2. Being able to get what you need | 0.90 | 125.40 |
| 3. Having the parts in stock | 0.86 | 117.05 |
| Perceived Product Qualitya(AVE = 0.90, Φ2 = 0.12 − 0.38) | ||
| 1. Quality of the parts sold | 0.95 | 142.80 |
| Perceived Service Qualitya(AVE = 0.89, Φ2 = 0.15 − 0.61) | ||
| 1. Quality of the service provided | 0.94 | 141.89 |
| Perceived Value(α = 0.71, AVE = 0.55, Φ2 = 0.18–50) | ||
| 1. Overall quality for the prices you pay a | 0.75 | 84.45 |
| 2. Satisfied with the prices you have paid b | 0.72 | 87.95 |
| Customer Loyaltyc(α = 0.92, AVE = 0.86, Φ2 = 0.18 − 0.50) | ||
| 1. Recommend XYZ to others | 0.96 | 137.24 |
| 2. Continue to shop with XYZ | 0.90 | 123.26 |
| Share of wallet(AVE = 0.90, Φ2 = 0.08 − 0.23) | ||
| 1. In the past year, what percent of all your auto parts were purchased at this retailer | 0.95 | 155.10 |
Model fit statistics: χ2 = 2295.01, df = 102, (p = 0.00), RMSEA = 0.041, NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, AGVFI = 0.97. Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Φ2 – shared variance
a Items were scored on a five-point scale relative to competitors (i.e., Much Better - Much Worse)
b Items were not cast relative to competitors (i.e., Very Satisfied - Very Dissatisfied)
c Items were scored on a five-point likelihood scale (i.e., Very Likely - Very Unlikely)