SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR) / 2018 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Testing Destination Image Scale Invariance Among British, German and Russian Tourists: A Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Beykan ÇİZEL
Demet CEYLAN
Pages
119–146
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The survey is carried in summer 2017 at Antalya Airport with a total of 1495 British, German and Russian respondents visiting Antalya region for holiday purposes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Researchers agree that destination image is a multi-dimensional and complex structure of attitude.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study contributes to literature with (i) scale development integrating 3 explanatory dimensions of destination image; (ii) utilization of item parceling technique enabling extended depth with sub scales and (iii) by providing supporting evidence with multigroup confirmatory factor analysis that this measurement scale is invariant thus applicable for 3 nationalities namely British, German and Russian tourist.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The survey is carried in summer 2017 at Antalya Airport with a total of 1495 British, German and Russian respondents visiting Antalya region for holiday purposes.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Researchers agree that destination image is a multi-dimensional and complex structure of attitude. Social psychology suggests that attitudes are composed of affective, cognitive, and conative components. This study contributes to literature with (i) scale development integrating 3 explanatory dimensions of destination image; (ii) utilization of item parceling technique enabling extended depth with sub scales and (iii) by providing supporting evidence with multigroup confirmatory factor analysis that this measurement scale is invariant thus applicable for 3 nationalities namely British, German and Russian tourist. This empirical study provides clarity to number and definition of dimensions with an integrated scale invariant for three nationalities. The survey is carried in summer 2017 at Antalya Airport with a total of 1495 British, German and Russian respondents visiting Antalya region for holiday purposes.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇİZEL, B., CEYLAN, D. (2022). Testing Destination Image Scale Invariance Among British, German and Russian Tourists: A Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR), Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 119–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/429466

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Agapito, D., Valle, P. O., & Mendes, J. C. (2013). The cognitive-affective-conative model of destination image: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(5), 471-481.
  2. Aksu, G., Eser, M. T., & Güzeller, C. (2017). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulamaları (Structural Equation Model Applications with Exploratory and Confirmatory factor Analysis). Ankara:
  3. Detay Yayıncılık. Aktas, A., Aksu, A. A., & Cizel, B. (2003). Tourist profile research: Antalya region example 2001. Tourism Review, 58(1), 34–40.
  4. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 798–844).
  5. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
  6. Aranson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Sosyal Psikoloji (Social Psychology, translated by O. Gündüz). İstanbul:
  7. Kaktüs publications. Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Kota Baharu. UITM Press.
  8. Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management, 22, 127-133.
  9. Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 11-15.
  10. Baloglu, S., & McClearly, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4): 868-897
  11. Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001).
  12. Tourism Destination Images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as Perceived by US-Based Tour Operators and Travel Agents. Tourism Management, 22, 1-9.
  13. Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004a). Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: A quantitative analysis—a case study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism Management, 25(5), 623-636.
  14. Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004b). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681.
  15. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. NY: Wiley. Bosque, I. R., & Martin, H. S. (2008). Tourist Satisfaction: A cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 551-573.
  16. Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS Graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 272-300.
  17. Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic internet use. Journal of Communication, 55, 721-736.
  18. Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
  19. Chen, J. S.,