2016
DOI: 10.21776/ub.apmba.2016.005.02.3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Examining Relationships of Destination Image, Service Quality, e-WOM, and Revisit Intention to Sabang Island, Indonesia

Abstract: The purpose of this research is to study the relationship among destination image, service quality, e-WOM, and revisit intentions in the tourism industry. A questionnaire was given to tourists who visit one of the farthest islands in the western part of Indonesia, Sabang Island and using sampling through the convenience sampling. A structural equation model (SEM) test with Warp PLS 3.0 was used to test the relationship between research variables. This research gathered from 150 respondents. The empirical resul… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
11
0
9

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
7
11
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…This paper addresses the need expressed by many authors to examine in greater depth the forces influencing the formation of an image of a destination, the quality of service, and the perceived value, and to help fill the gap that exists between Bangladeshi domestic tourist and the theoretical development of tourist satisfaction, and revisitation and word-of-mouth intentions. The findings of this research support the use of a conceptual framework and the assessment of popular tourism quality experience of a multilayered and structured methodology such as the models established by several researchers (Wang et al, 2009;Ramseook-Munhurrun et al, 2015;Prayogo and Kusumawardhani, 2016;Adinegara, 2018;Khuong and Nguyen, 2017;Kim, 2010). Measurement model results demonstrate that all measurement methods for calculating experiential efficiency and proportions have a strong match model.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…This paper addresses the need expressed by many authors to examine in greater depth the forces influencing the formation of an image of a destination, the quality of service, and the perceived value, and to help fill the gap that exists between Bangladeshi domestic tourist and the theoretical development of tourist satisfaction, and revisitation and word-of-mouth intentions. The findings of this research support the use of a conceptual framework and the assessment of popular tourism quality experience of a multilayered and structured methodology such as the models established by several researchers (Wang et al, 2009;Ramseook-Munhurrun et al, 2015;Prayogo and Kusumawardhani, 2016;Adinegara, 2018;Khuong and Nguyen, 2017;Kim, 2010). Measurement model results demonstrate that all measurement methods for calculating experiential efficiency and proportions have a strong match model.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Furthermore, E-Wom can increase tourist trust in tourist destinations when they see positive comments when booking tickets online (Ladhari & Michaud, 2015). Furthermore, E-Wom has a direct effect on information obtained by a person to revisit to tourist destinations (Prayogo and Kusumawardhani, 2016;Abubakar and Ilkan. 2016).…”
Section: The Influence Of E-wom On Destination Trustmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, destinations service quality was judged by modern hotels, comfortable facilities, employees willing to help customers (Prayogo and Kusumawardhani, 2016) accommodation service quality, travel services such as transportation, food and lodging services, shopping services, cleanness of destination, restful and scenery atmosphere (Murphy et al, 2000;Chen and Tsai, 2007;Latiff and Imm, 2015;Jani and Nguni, 2016;Tsaur et al, 2016).…”
Section:  Destination Service Quality Dimensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The present study was based on a questionnaire developed by reference to previous studies (Murphy et al, 2000;Parasuraman et al, 2002;Gustafsson et al, 2005;Kouthouris and Alexandris, 2005;Chen and Tsai, 2007;Esu et al, 2010;Thitthongkam and Walsh, 2011;Al-Ababneh, 2013;Ngugi, 2014;Latiff and Imm, 2015;Ramseook-Munhurrun et al, 2015;Adams et al, 2016;Jani and Nguni, 2016;Prayogo and Kusumawardhani, 2016;Tsaur et al, 2016;Mohammed and Hamdi, 2017;Pawaskar and Goel, 2017) to collect data from the study sample. The questionnaire was designed to collect data according to the five-point Likert scale, which includes the following points: "strongly agree", "agree", "neutral", "disagree", and "strongly disagree".…”
Section: Study Tool: the Questionnairementioning
confidence: 99%