Evaluating service performance of public bus transit service: a case study of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Criteria for customer satisfaction index.

CSI score ranges	Interpretation
0.81–1.00	Very Satisfied
0.66–0.80	Satisfied
0.51–0.65	Quite satisfied
0.35–0.50	Less Satisfied
0.00–0.34	Not satisfied

(Supranto 1977; Windyani et al., 2013)

Figure 1. The IPA Map.

(Source: adapted from Bacon, 2003; John & John, 1977)

Table 2. Socio-demographic profile of the sample.

Variables	Response	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	297	59.4
	Female	203	40.6
Age category	Under 18 years	11	2.2
	18–25 years	107	21.4
	26–35 years	175	35.0
	36–50 years	153	30.6
	51–60 years	52	10.4
	Above 61	2	0.4
Average Monthly Income	Less than and equal to 600 birr	57	11.4
	601–1650 birr	70	14.0
	1651–3200birr	106	21.2
	3201–5250 birr	131	26.2
	5251–7800birr	94	18.8
	7801–10,900 birr	34	6.8
	10,901 and above	8	1.6
Travel Frequency	Daily	134	26.8
	4–5 times a week	182	36.4
	2–3 times a week	126	25.2
	sometimes, not always	58	11.6
Journey Purpose	Work	192	38.4
	Education	134	26.8
	Market/shopping	67	13.4
	Social activities	89	17.8
	Other	18	3.6

Source: Field survey, 2020

Table 3. EFA results for Importance of Service Quality Attributes.

Factor		code	Loadings	Eigenvalue	Variance Explained (%)	Cronbach’s alpha
1	Customer Care			11.216	17.99%	0.889
	Easiness to buy the ticket	V27	0.811
	Accessibility of bus for people with disability	V30	0.807
	Ease of service use	V29	0.801
	Administration of complaints	V28	0.795
	Personnel helpfulness and friendliness	V26	0.659
	Security against crime at bus stops and station	V24	0.587
	Staff behavior (driver and conductors)	V25	0.562
	Security against crime on a bus	V23	0.547
2	Facilities			1.530	12.27%	0.826
	Cleanliness of bus exterior	V18	0.713
	Availability of shelter and benches at the bus stop	V15	0.692
	Cleanliness of bus interior	V17	0.588
	AC – Availability on bus	V14	0.514
	Safety and competence of drivers	V22	0.509
	Ticket cost/fare	V19	0.474
	bus stop comfort	V13	0.434
3	Availability			1.333	7.37%	0.579
	Service coverage/network/	V1	0.704
	Availability of bus stops and their proximity	V2	0.725
	Waiting time at the bus stop	V9	0.436
4	Comfort			1.076	7.23%	0.622
	Journey time (operating speed)	V10	0.537
	Bus crowding level	V11	0.762
	Comfort while riding the service	V12	0.486
	level of noise on buses	V16	0.511
5	Timeliness			1.001	7.26%	0.773
	Service frequency	V3	0.402
	Total hour of service	V4	0.619
	Availability of service on weekends/holidays	V5	0.555
	Availability of services at night	V6	0.600

Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Expectation.

Table 4. The goodness of fit statistics.

Modal Fit Parameters	Fit Standard	Results
CMIN/DF	< 3.00	1.918
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	≥0.90	0.945
Root Mean Square Error of Approx. (RMSEA)	≤ 0.08	0.043
Tucker Lewis Index(TLI)	≥0.90	0.939

Table 5. EFA results for the performance of service quality attributes.

Factor	Attributes	Code	Loadings	Eigenvalue	Variance Explained (%)	Cronbach’s alpha
1	Timeliness			5.400	7.72%	0.570
	Availability of services at night	V6	0.714
	Availability of service on weekends/holidays	V5	0.634
	Punctuality of bus/ runs on schedule	V8	0.521
	Journey time (operating speed)	V10	0.475
2	Customer care			1.691	7.65%	0.591
	driver and conductors behavior	V25	0.699
	Easiness to buy the ticket	V27	0.623
	Personnel helpfulness and friendliness	V26	0.563
	Ease of service use	V29	0.422
3	Comfort			1.434	7.27%	0.613
	Cleanliness of bus exterior	V18	0.694
	Cleanliness of bus interior	V17	0.607
	level of noise on buses	V16	0.430
	Bus crowding level	V11	0.415
4	Facilities			1.306	6.93%	0.614
	AC – Availability on bus	V14	0.703
	Availability of shelter and benches at a bus stop	V15	0.696
	bus stop comfort	V13	0.475
	Convenient of the bus for all people	V7	0.434
5	Image			1.212	6.79%	0.585
	Accessibility of bus for disabled people	V30	0.829
	Image of the company	V31	0.608
	Administration of complaints	V28	0.480
6	Availability			1.123	6.33%	0.520
	Ticket cost/fare	V19	0.717
	Availability of bus stops and their proximity	V2	0.565
	Safety and competence of drivers	V22	0.495
7	Security			1.075	6.77%	0.566
	Security against crime on a bus	V23	0.758
	Security against crime at bus stops and station	V24	0.730

Figure 3. Confirmatory factor analysis for satisfaction.

Table 6. The goodness of fit statistics.

Modal Fit Parameters	Fit Standard	Results
CMIN/DF	< 3.00	1.709
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)	≥0.90	0.920
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation(RMSEA)	≤ 0.08	0.038
Tucker Lewis Index(TLI)	≥0.90	0.901

Table 7. CSI of the public transport system in the city.

Code	Attributes	Performance (X)	Importance (Y)	Weight Factor	Weight Score	CSI
		MSS	MIS	MIS/Av.MIS	MSS*WF
V2	Availability of bus stops and their proximity	4.33	5	1.02	4.42	0.63
V5	Availability of service on weekends/holidays	3.6	5.18	1.06	3.81	0.54
V6	Availability of services at night	3.1	5.34	1.09	3.38	0.48
V10	Journey time (operating speed)	4	4.47	0.91	3.65	0.52
V11	Bus crowding level	3.39	5.15	1.05	3.56	0.51
V13	bus stop comfort	3.41	4.67	0.95	3.25	0.46
V14	AC – Availability on bus	3.84	4.55	0.93	3.57	0.51
V15	Availability of shelter and benches at the bus stop	4.02	4.65	0.95	3.81	0.54
V16	level of noise on buses	3.32	3.94	0.80	2.67	0.38
V17	Cleanliness of bus interior, seats, and windows	4.34	5.37	1.10	4.76	0.68
V18	Cleanliness of bus exterior	4.66	4.55	0.93	4.33	0.62
V19	Ticket cost/fare	4.75	5.08	1.04	4.92	0.70
V22	Safety and competence of drivers	4.37	5.21	1.06	4.65	0.66
V23	Security against crime on a bus	3.6	5.09	1.04	3.74	0.53
V24	Security against crime at bus stops and station	3.16	5.12	1.04	3.30	0.47
V25	Staff behavior (driver and conductors)	3.58	5.15	1.05	3.76	0.54
V26	Personnel helpfulness and friendliness	3.85	4.96	1.01	3.90	0.56
V27	Easiness to buy the ticket	3.19	5.14	1.05	3.35	0.48
V28	Administration of complaints	3.42	4.96	1.01	3.46	0.49
V29	Ease of service use	4.14	5.07	1.03	4.28	0.61
V30	Accessibility of bus for people with disability	3.64	5.1	1.04	3.79	0.54
	Total	79.7	103.7	21.17		11.48
	Average	3.8	4.9			0.55
			Total CSI			0.55%

Source: Field survey, 2019/20

Figure 4. IPA Mapping.

Windyani, A. R., Hubeis, A. V. S., & Fahmi, I. (2013). Customer satisfaction analysis on birth certificate registration in depok, west java. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, 17(1), 80–89.

 Google Scholar

Bacon, D. R. (2003). A comparison of approaches to importance-performance analysis. International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530304500101

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

John, A. M., & John, C. J. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar