Table A1

Confirmatory factor analysis of consumer trust (CT)

ConstructMean (±SD)Factor loadings (t-value)CA (α)
Consumer Trust (CT)4.041 (±0.686) 0.955
Street food vendor is reliable4.054 (±0.781)0.857 (fixed) 
Street food vendor is responsible4.002 (±0.812)0.861 (26.669***) 
Street food vendor meet my expectation4.019 (±0.781)0.855 (24.582***) 
I expect good food recommendations from street food vendors4.033 (±0.765)0.896 (25.037***) 
If problems occur, street food vendors will treat them fairly4.047 (±0.786)0.892 (25.212***) 
I am satisfied with the standards of street food vendors that operate4.078 ± (0.741)0.895 (21.908***) 
The street food vendor operates with prudence5.054 (±0.743)0.818 (23.761***) 
Frequency of street food consumption1.604 (±0.885)(Median = 1.000) 
CTWeightedby frequency of street food consumption*6.569 (±3.796)(Median = 4.500) 

Note(s):χ2 = 21.606 (p < 0.156); df = 16; χ2/df = 1.350; Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.987; Normed fit index (NFI) = 0.993; Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.998; Root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.029; Standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.015

*To perform the multiple-group analysis for a moderator variable (consumer trust towards Thai street food safety), two subsamples were created: a low consumer trust (Low CT) group and a high consumer trust (High CT) group. In order to build the subgroups, the summed scores of the latent variable, consumer trust, were calculated. Seven items were added up (Cronbach’s alpha, or, CA = 0.955). Next, consumer trust (CT) was weighted by the frequency of street food consumption (mean = 6.569, SD = 3.796). The subsamples (high and low for the CT construct) were created based on the median (4.500) of CTWeighted by frequency to split the groups. High CT (median > 4.500) = 220 samples and High CT (median ≤ 4.500) = 204 samples

Source(s): Author's own creation/work

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options