Assessing the determinants of customer-perceived value and customer satisfaction in e-hailing services: An Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) Approach

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical Model.

Table 1. Partial Out a Marker Variable

	Without Marker Variable	With Marker Variable	Changes
Satisfaction (R^2)	0.506	0.509	0.003
Convenience value (VIF)	1.251	1.256	0.004
Emotional value(VIF)	1.344	1.349	0.005
Hedonic value (VIF)	1.732	1.752	0.020
Social value (VIF)	1.427	1.429	0.002
Sustainable value (VIF)	1.410	1.431	0.021

Figure 2. Model compute by SmartPLS.

Table 2. Convergent Validity of the Measurement Model

Construct	Indicators	Indicator Loadings	CR	AVE
Convenience Value (Sigala & Sigala, 2006)	Using GrabCar services helps me to go from one destination to the other destination more quickly.	0.719	0.882	0.652
	Using GrabCar services helps me save time compared to other public transport.	0.820
	Using GrabCar service makes it easier for me.	0.871
	I value the convenience of using GrabCar service.	0.813
Economic Value (Tussyadiah, 2016)	Taking GrabCar lowers my commuting (i.e. getting to a destination) cost.	0.863	0.918	0.736
	Taking GrabCar saves me money.	0.890
	Taking GrabCar make commuting more affordable.	0.806
	Taking GrabCar benefits me financially.	0.872
Hedonic Value (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001)	I enjoy using GrabCar.	0.795	0.914	0.679
	GrabCar make me want to use it more.	0.824
	Using GrabCar makes me feel relaxed.	0.813
	Using GrabCar makes me feel good.	0.850
	GrabCar gives me pleasure.	0.838
Satisfaction (Ruiz et al., 2008)	I am happy with GrabCar services.	0.782	0.911	0.631
	Overall, I am pleased with GrabCar services.	0.825
	Using GrabCar services is a satisfying experience.	0.813
	My choice to use GrabCar services was a wise one.	0.748
	Overall, I am satisfied with GrabCar services.	0.833
	I think I did the right thing in deciding to use GrabCar for my service needs.	0.760
Symbolic Value (Teo & Pok, 2003)	Using GrabCar improves my image.	0.814	0.882	0.604
	People who use GrabCar are IT Savvy.	0.822
	People who use GrabCar are trendy.	0.836
	Young people tend to use GrabCar.	0.545
	People who use GrabCar have more prestige.	0.830
Sustainability Value (Hamari et al., 2016)	GrabCar help save natural resources (e.g. petroleum).	0.852	0.922	0.702
	GrabCar is a sustainable mode of consumption.	0.828
	GrabCar is ecological (relationship between living things and the environment)	0.880
	GrabCar is efficient in terms of using energy.	0.804
	GrabCar is environmentally friendly.	0.824

Table 3. Heterotrait-Monotrait Ration of Correlations (HTMT)

	CV	EV	HV	SAT	SV	SUV
Convenience value
Economic Value	0.213
Hedonic Value	0.512	0.447
Satisfaction	0.522	0.447	0.750
Symbolic Value	0.253	0.437	0.561	0.340
Sustainable Value	0.171	0.469	0.477	0.398	0.473

Note: CV: Convenience Value, EV: Economic Value, HV: Hedonic Value, SAT: Satisfaction SV: Symbolic Value, SUV: Sustainability Value

Table 4. Results of Structural Equation Model

	Std. Beta	Std. Error	t- value	p- value	BCI LL	BCI UL	Decision	VIF	f^2	R^2	SMRM	Q^2 Predict
H1: EV -> SAT	0.146	0.04	3.673	P<.001	0.08	0.211	S	1.344	0.032	0.506	0.055	0.492
H2: CV -> SAT	0.195	0.037	5.3	P<.001	0.135	0.256	S	1.251	0.062
H3: SV -> SAT	−0.092	0.043	2.163	0.015	−0.158	−0.019	NS	1.427	0.012
H4: SUV -> SAT	0.077	0.038	2.019	0.022	0.014	0.143	S	1.41	0.009
H5: HV -> SAT	0.536	0.04	13.337	P<.001	0.469	0.6	S	1.732	0.336

Note: CV: Convenience Value, EV: Economic Value, HV: Hedonic Value, SAT: Satisfaction SV: Symbolic Value, SUV: Sustainability Value

Table 5. PLS Predict

Item	PLS-SEM RMSE	Q^2 _predict	LM RMSE
SAT1	0.532	0.294	0.535
SAT6	0.567	0.29	0.581
SAT2	0.53	0.282	0.534
SAT3	0.506	0.354	0.511
SAT4	0.553	0.317	0.554
SAT5	0.548	0.304	0.55

Figure 3. Importance Performance Map Analysis.

Sigala, M., & Sigala, M. (2006). Mass customisation implementation models and customer value in mobile phones services: Preliminary findings from Greece. Managing Service Quality, 16(4), 395–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675720

 Google Scholar

Tussyadiah, I. P. (2016). Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55(October 2017), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.03.005

 Google Scholar

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77, 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

 Google Scholar

Ruiz, D. M., Gremler, D. D., Washburn, J. H., & Carrión, G. C. (2008). Service value revisited: Specifying a higher-order, formative measure. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1278–1291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.015

 Google Scholar

Teo, T. S. H., & Pok, S. H. (2003). Adoption of WAP-enabled mobile phones among Internet users. Omega, 31(6), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2003.08.005

 Google Scholar

Hamari, J., Sjoklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552

 Google Scholar