Path estimates and hypothesis testing
| Hypothesis | Relationship | Path EST. & STAT. SIGN. & CRIT. RAT. | Lower | Upper | Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | HOSP → EXPE | 0.414*** (5.823) | 0.307 | 0.578 | Supported |
| H2a | HOSP → IDEN | 0.298*** (5.248) | 0.174 | 0.411 | Supported |
| H2b | HOSP → DEPE | 0.203*** (3.256) | 0.033 | 0.343 | Supported |
| H3 | IDEN → EXPE | 0.097* (1.621) | −0.082 | 0.248 | Not supported |
| H4 | DEPE → EXPE | 0.186** (2.863) | 0.000 | 0.314 | Supported |
| H5 | EXPE → INTE | 0.305*** (4.299) | 0.186 | 0.434 | Supported |
| Hypothesis | Relationship | Path EST. & STAT. SIGN. & CRIT. RAT. | Lower | Upper | Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOSP → EXPE | 0.414*** (5.823) | 0.307 | 0.578 | Supported | |
| HOSP → IDEN | 0.298*** (5.248) | 0.174 | 0.411 | Supported | |
| HOSP → DEPE | 0.203*** (3.256) | 0.033 | 0.343 | Supported | |
| IDEN → EXPE | 0.097* (1.621) | −0.082 | 0.248 | Not supported | |
| DEPE → EXPE | 0.186** (2.863) | 0.000 | 0.314 | Supported | |
| EXPE → INTE | 0.305*** (4.299) | 0.186 | 0.434 | Supported |
Note(s): DEPE = place dependence; INTE = behavioural intention; EXPE = memorable tourism experience; IDEN = place identity; HOSP = hospitality. *** (p < 0.001); ** (p < 0.05); * (p < 0.10). Prior to the SEM, the model’s goodness of fit was examined. In terms of absolute fit indices: χ2/df = 2.807 < 5.0; GFI = 0.851 > 0.85 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003); SRMR = 0.098 < 1.0 (Arbuckle, 2007); and RMSEA = 0.070 < 0.08. Regarding incremental fit indices: AGFI = 0.815 > 0.8 (Subhash, 1996); TLI = 0.866 > 0.8 and NFI = 0.827 > 0.8, CFI = 0.881 > 0.8 and IFI = 0.882 > 0.8 (Bajoulvand et al., 2019). Lastly, for parsimonious fit indices: PGFI = 0.701 > 0.5, PNFI = 0.737 > 0.5, and PCFI = 0.785 > 0.5 (Mulaik et al., 1989)
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.