Table 7

Path estimates and hypothesis testing

HypothesisRelationshipPath EST. & STAT. SIGN. & CRIT. RAT.LowerUpperTesting
H1HOSP → EXPE0.414*** (5.823)0.3070.578Supported
H2aHOSP → IDEN0.298*** (5.248)0.1740.411Supported
H2bHOSP → DEPE0.203*** (3.256)0.0330.343Supported
H3IDEN → EXPE0.097* (1.621)−0.0820.248Not supported
H4DEPE → EXPE0.186** (2.863)0.0000.314Supported
H5EXPE → INTE0.305*** (4.299)0.1860.434Supported

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

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options