University public transportation logistics service quality and student satisfaction: empirical evidence from Thailand

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Note. UPT-LSQ: university public transportation logistics service quality.

Table 1. Details of variables and their indicators.

Variables	Indicators	Source
Empathy		(Akdere et al., 2020; Dewi et al., 2011; Kilibarda et al., 2012)
EMP1	You feel safe when you use the shuttle bus.
EMP2	The shuttle bus service is attentive to customers at all times.
EMP3	The air conditioning on the shuttle bus makes you feel relaxed.
EMP4	The shuttle bus is large, so those using the service will not feel uncomfortable.
Perceived value		(Chatathicoon & Tanwanichkul, 2021; Le et al., 2020)
PV1	You feel satisfied when you can use the shuttle bus for free.
PV2	You are amenable if the shuttle bus starts collecting money for the service.
PV3	Using a shuttle bus can help reduce your daily travel expenses.
PV4	Using a shuttle bus can greatly reduce air pollution.
Reliability		(Chatathicoon & Tanwanichkul, 2021; Franceschini & Rafele, 2000)
RL1	When a problem arises in using the shuttle bus service, the transport company demonstrates its commitment to resolving the issue.
RL2	The shuttle bus driver has good driving ability.
RL3	The shuttle bus service is stable and reliable.
RL4	The exterior of the shuttle bus is strong and compact.
RL5	The shuttle service application will notify you of lost or incidental items during the service.
Timeliness		(Bouzaabia et al., 2013; Uvet, 2020)
TL1	The shuttle bus service time is appropriate.
TL2	The waiting time for each shuttle bus doesn’t take long.
TL3	You are satisfied with the frequency of the shuttle bus service.
Student satisfaction		(Fernandes et al., 2018; Gil Saura et al., 2008; Sorkun et al., 2020)
SS1	You are satisfied with the shuttle bus service quality.
SS2	You are satisfied with the cleanliness of the shuttle bus.
SS3	The shuttle bus service is very convenient for you.
SS4	The interior elements of the shuttle bus are appropriate (seat position or seat cushion).
SS5	The technology in the shuttle bus is modern and looks high-quality.
SS6	The bus stop displays the location of the shuttle bus at that time.
SS7	We can see an application on the map that shows the location of every shuttle bus.

Note: EMP, Empathy; PV, Perceived value; RL, Reliability; TL, Timeliness; SS, Student satisfaction.

Table 2. Demographic information.

Items	Describe	Frequency	Percent (%)
Gender	Female	131	64.9
	LGBTQ	1	0.5
	Male	61	30.2
	Prefer not to say	9	4.5
Age	19 or below	52	25.7
	20	73	36.1
	21	36	17.8
	22	27	13.4
	23 or more	14	6.9
Degree	Currently studying for a bachelor’s degree	190	94.1
	Currently studying for a master’s degree	8	4.0
	Currently studying for a Ph.D.	4	2.0
Income (baht)	less than 10,000 baht	133	65.8
	10,001 – 15,000 baht	48	23.8
	15,001 – 20,000 baht	8	4.0
	more than 20,001 baht	13	6.4
Frequency of shuttle bus use	1–3 day(s) per week	47	23.3
	4–5 days per week	70	34.7
	6 days per week or more	53	26.2
	Once a month	32	15.8
Total		202	100

Figure 2. Measurement model of the study.

Note. Inner model: path coefficient and t-value; outer model: outer weights/loadings and t-value.

Table 3. Construct reliability and validity.

Constructs	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability (rho_a)	Composite reliability (rho_c)	Average variance extracted (AVE)
SS	0.885	0.891	0.914	0.639
EMP	0.701	0.765	0.814	0.529
PV	0.262	0.267	0.728	0.574
RL	0.752	0.790	0.833	0.505
TL	0.895	0.895	0.934	0.826

Note: EMP: Empathy; PV: Perceived value; RL: Reliability; TL: Timeliness; and SS: Student satisfaction.

Table 4. Latent variable correlations, square roots of average variance extracted, and AVE.

Construct	Mean	Std	EMP	PV	RL	TL	SS	AVE
EMP	4.283	0.565	0.727					0.529
PV	4.678	0.460	.561**	0.757				0.574
RL	4.186	0.576	.702**	.571**	0.711			0.505
TL	3.865	1.011	.652**	.572**	.721**	0.908		0.826
SS	4.257	0.739	.710**	.571**	.801**	.755**	0.799	0.639

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note: Bold italic diagonal is the square root of AVE.

Note: EMP, Empathy; PV, Perceived Value; RL, Reliability; TL, Timeliness; SS, Student Satisfaction.

Table 5. Results of the structure model.

Construct	β value	SD	t-Values	P-values	Supported
EMP → SS	0.219	0.060	3.649	0.000	Yes
PV → SS	0.039	0.057	0.677	0.499	No
RL → SS	0.424	0.075	5.692	0.000	Yes
TL → SS	0.284	0.078	3.648	0.000	Yes

Akdere, M., Top, M., & Tekingündüz, S. (2020). Examining patient perceptions of service quality in Turkish hospitals: The SERVPERF model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 31(3-4), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1427501

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dewi, F. D., Sudjana, G., & Oesman, Y. M. (2011). Patient satisfaction analysis on service quality of dental health care based on empathy and responsiveness. Dental Research Journal, 8(4), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.86032

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Kilibarda, M., Zečević, S., & Vidović, M. (2012). Measuring the quality of logistic service as an element of the logistics provider offering. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(11-12), 1345–1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.704279

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chatathicoon, H., & Tanwanichkul, L. (2021). A study of travel behavior and accessibility of shuttle bus in Khon Kaen University. Journal of Science and Technology Mahasarakham University, 40(2), 192–202.

 Google Scholar

Le, D. N., Nguyen, H. T., Truong, P. H., Jeong, Y., & Kim, S. (2020). A study of event quality, destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction, and destination loyalty among sport tourists. Asia-Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 36(2), 89–103.

 Google Scholar

Franceschini, F., & Rafele, C. (2000). Quality evaluation in logistic services. International Journal of Agile Management Systems, 2(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/14654650010312589

 Google Scholar

Bouzaabia, R., Bouzaabia, O., & Capatina, A. (2013). Retail logistics service quality: A cross‐cultural survey on customer perceptions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41(8), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-02-2012-0012

 Google Scholar

Uvet, H. (2020). Importance of logistics service quality in customer satisfaction: An empirical study. Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0400248

 Google Scholar

Fernandes, D. W., Moori, R. G., & Filho, V. A. V. (2018). Logistic service quality as a mediator between logistics capabilities and customer satisfaction. Revista de Gestão, 25(4), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-01-2018-0015

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gil Saura, I., Ruiz Molina, M. E., & Servera Francés, D. (2008). Logistic service quality and technology: A comparison between supplier–retailer and retailer–consumer relationships. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(5), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960802573385

 Google Scholar

Sorkun, M. F., Hüseyinoğlu, I. Ö. Y., & Börühan, G. (2020). Omni-channel capability and customer satisfaction: Mediating roles of flexibility and operational logistics service quality. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 48(6), 629–648. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-07-2019-0235

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data are available on SANN, RAKSMEY (2024), ‘Replication Data for: University Public Transportation Logistics Service Quality and Student Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence on from Thailand’, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/4ryppc5jbr.1.