The Impact of Tourist Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty among European Tourists Visiting Malaysia

© 2014Research Academy of Social Sciences

http://www.rassweb.com 362

International Journal of Management Sciences

Vol. 2, No. 8, 2014, 362-371

The Impact of Tourist Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty among

European Tourists Visiting Malaysia

Mahadzirah Mohamad1, Nur Izzati Ab Ghani

2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of tourist satisfaction toward destination loyalty. A

survey was carried out at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA). A sample of 261 European tourists

was obtained at the departure hall using a systematic sampling approach. A Structural Equation Model

(SEM) was applied to analyse the data collected. The finding of the study found that tourist satisfaction has a

direct positive influence on destination loyalty. The study also found that tourists with a high level of

satisfaction are willing to recommend the destination and spread positive word-of-mouth to other people.

Keywords: Tourist Satisfaction, Destination Loyalty

1. Introduction

According to Tourism Malaysia (2011), one of the most vibrant economic generators and a popular

global activity in most parts of the world is tourism. Similarly, in Malaysia, the tourism industry has also

become one of the important sectors that contributes to the nation’s economy (Tourism Malaysia, 2009). This

is shown by the direct contribution of travel and tourism in Malaysia to Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

during 2011 and 2012 which were RM 57.0 billion and RM 65.3 billion respectively (World Travel and

Tourism Council, 2012 and 2013). According to Abdul Kadir (2010), the growth of Malaysian tourism has

grown rapidly compared to its neighbours in the ASEAN region. This was due to the promotional activities

such as PATA conference 1972, Visit Malaysia Year 1990, Visit Malaysia Year 2007 and world events such

as Formula 1, LIMA, SUKOM, Monsoon Cup and the Rainforest Festival that Malaysia hosted in order to

help increase demand (Abdul Kadir, 2010). In relation to that, the study of tourist satisfaction is important to

the destination management authority as it is the primary source to gain revenue in the future and win the

market share (Wang, Zhang, Gu and Zhen 2009). According to Dmitrovic, Cvelbar, Kolar and Brencic

(2009), it is important to measure and explain tourist satisfaction in order to understand the needs of visitors.

Besides that, as reported by Chi and Qu (2008), tourist satisfaction is considered a necessary goal for a

business because satisfied tourists can lead to destination loyalty.

According to McKercher and Guillet (2011), Chi and Qu (2008), Yoon and Uysal (2005) and Chen and

Gursoy (2001), most researchers use willingness to recommend, repeat visitation or repeat visitation

intention to define loyal tourists as this data can be gathered relatively easily in standard departing visitors

surveys conducted by destination-management organisations. In addition, the study on destination loyalty is

important as it can help save marketing costs through dissemination of positive word-of-mouth by tourists

about their experience with the destination they visited (Mao, 2008; Kozak, 2001). Therefore, the purpose of

this study is: 1) to identify the items that measure tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty and 2) to

identify the impact of tourist satisfaction on destination loyalty among European tourists.

1Faculty of Business Management and AccountancyUniversiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, K. Terengganu, Malaysia

2Faculty of Business Management and AccountancyUniversiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, K. Terengganu, Malaysia


363

2. Literature Review

Tourist Satisfaction

The study of customer satisfaction in tourism began in the 1960’s (Wang et al., 2009) and it has

received much attention in consumer-behaviour research and tourism research because it can bring positive

behavioural outcomes and provides managerial guidance to the industry, especially the tourism industry

(Kozak, 2001; Zhu, 2011). Tourist satisfaction is defined as the whole evaluation about the experience of the

tourist toward a certain product or service (Yang and Zhu, 2006) and one of the challenges to management is

in providing and maintaining customer satisfaction (Allan, 2004).

Tourist satisfaction usually can be evaluated through the characteristics of tourism offers (Dmitrovic et

al., 2009). According to Andriotis, Agiomirgianakis and Mihiotis (2008), tourism offers usually comprise

economic, socio-cultural and environmental activities that consist of sub-products such as accommodation,

food and beverage purchase, excursions, shopping, participation in recreational and sport activities and

entertainment. It is important to identify and measure tourist satisfaction of each destination’s attributes

because, if any of the destination’s attributes has a poor performance, dissatisfaction can occur (Andriotis et

al., 2008).

According to Chi and Qu (2008), a satisfied customer will buy more. Alegra and Garau (2010) believe

that a person’s assessment of the destination’s different attributes is important to determine the overall

satisfaction and tourist’s intention to return. This has been agreed by the academics and practitioners where

the relationship between customer satisfaction and destination are an important part of doing a business

(Yuksel, Yuksel and Bilim, 2010). Oom do Valle, Correia and Rebelo (2006) and Faullant, Matzler and

Fuller (2008) also defined that tourist satisfaction is the main factor that contributes to destination loyalty.

Vetinev, Romanova, Matushenko and Kvetenadze (2013), Yuksel et al. (2010) and Lee, Lee and Lee (2005)

identified that there is a strong relationship between tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty. This is

because a customer who is satisfied with the destination will choose that destination again compared to a

competitors’ destination. Oom do Valle et al. (2008) claimed that the study of tourist satisfaction is one of

the most important in the tourism industry compared to motivation and perceptions because it contributes for

better understanding of repeat choice behaviour. Based on the previous studies discussed above, it is shown

that tourist satisfaction has a positive influence on destination loyalty.

Destination Loyalty

According to Serenko and Stach (2009), the study of destination loyalty has been studied for decades in

business literatures and is highlighted as one of the most vital subjects in tourism researches (Ahmad Puad,

Sayedeh Fatemeh, Azizan and Jamil, 2011) because it is important to destination marketers and managers

(Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Destination loyalty is defined as the whole of the feelings and attitudes that

encourage tourists to revisit a particular destination (Hsu, Killion, Brown, Gross and Huang, 2008). The

concept of destination loyalty has been used by academics and practitioners for a long time as a significant

benchmark for developing valuable business strategies (Oppermann, 2000). In that sense, it is believed that a

5% enhancement in customer retention can increase the profitability in the range of 25 to 85%, depending on

the industry sector (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Schiffman and Kanuk (2007) also claimed that it is more

expensive to win new customers compared to keeping existing customers. Studies have shown that small

reductions in customer defection can generate significant increase in profits as (1) loyal tourists pay less

attention to competitors’ destinations and are less price sensitive; (2) loyal tourists repeat visit; (3) servicing

existing customers who are familiar with the destination is cheaper; and (4) loyal tourists spread positive

word-of-mouth.

According to Chen and Gursoy (2001), in their study of investigation of tourists’ destination and

preference, the willingness to recommend the destination to other tourists may be a suitable indicator to

measure destination loyalty. Indeed, Chi and Qu (2008) also found that tourist willingness to recommend the

destination and a tourist’s intention to revisit the destination are appropriate indicators for destination loyalty

(Ahmad Puad et al., 2011). In addition, recommendation to other people (word-of-mouth) can be taken as the

M. Mohammad &.N. I. A. Ghani

364

most reliable information source for tourists and one of the most effective types of information that can

attract people in travelling (Chi, 2005).

The reason for studying destination loyalty is to understand customers’ needs and wants in order to

maintain repeat purchase of particular brands or products targeted by marketers (Chen and Gursoy, 2001).

Besides that, destination loyalty also can bring useful benefits by saving marketing costs through spreading

word-of-mouth (Mao, 2008). As claimed by Kozak (2001), when a destination is visited, tourists have first-

hand experiences which they can use in making decisions by making comparison with other personal

experiences and information sought from media or friends.

3. Methodology of the Study

The collection of data of the study was conducted in Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) among

the European tourists. The data was collected through self-administered questionnaire where the respondents

complete the survey on his or her own. The collection of data was conducted in November and December

2009. The questionnaire of tourist satisfaction consists of 9 items and it was adapted from the work of Chi

and Qu (2008) using a 7-point Likert scale from 1 as “strongly disagree” to 7 as “strongly agree”. For

destination loyalty, the data was adapted from the work of Zeithmal et al. (1996) with 5 items using a 7-point

Likert scale from 1 as “not at all likely” to 7 as “extremely likely”. Last, questions were asked on their

demographic details including include residence, gender, age, marital status, frequency of visit and purpose

of their visit. Since accurate data pertaining to the size of this population were not available, a sampling

frame was created as suggested by Burn and Bush (2010). A total of 1000 questionnaires were distributed at

the international departure hall. A systematic sampling method was used where, after a random starting

point, every 5th intercepted respondent was included in the study. 820 respondents answered the

questionnaire completely. A sampling frame was created based on the 820 returned questionnaires. After

conducting a systematic random-sampling method, Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software

was used to select the respondents by “Random Sample of Cases”. From the created sampling frame, a total

of 420 cases (representing approximately 50 % of the population in the sampling frame) were selected for the

study. After operating a data-cleaning process through deleting missing items and outliers, only 261

respondents were used which was sufficient to provide statistical power for data analysis.

Demographic profile of the respondents was analysed using descriptive analysis such as mean and

frequencies. Exploratory factor analysis was use to identify the underlying dimensions that measure tourist

satisfaction and destination loyalty. Data was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate

measurement model initially to ensure the measured variables accurately reflected the desired factors

(Jackson, Gillaspy and Purc-Stephenson, 2009).Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using AMOS was

conducted to test the goodness-of-fit of the proposed structural model and test the postulated hypothesis. The

reliability and validity of the study were assessed using unidimensionality, internal reliability and convergent

validity to evaluate the quality of the measurement items.

4. Results and Discussion

Respondents’ Profiles

Majority of the respondents who answered the questions were from Northern Europe (48.7%)

originating from countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

Other regions involved were Western Europe with 44.4% coming from countries such as Netherland,

Germany, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and Holland. Under Eastern Europe (Czech Republic,

Poland, Russsia and Slovakia), the percentage of tourists that travelled to Malaysia was 2.4% and the

percentage of tourists from Southern Europe (Spain and Italy) was 4.6%. About 62.5% were male tourists

and female tourists were 37.5%. Most of their ages ranged between 20 – 29 years old (40.9%). Most of the

tourists were single (38.9%) or married (32.8%). Majority of the tourists indicated that this was their first

time visiting Malaysia (54.8%). The reason of their visiting Malaysia was mostly for holiday (80.5%).


365

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The collected data were subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the underlying

dimensions or variables of the constructs in this study. Table 1 shows the items that were retained in tourist

satisfaction. There were 9 items of tourist satisfaction with 3 factors namely: 1) natural and destination

attraction; 2) accessibilities and facilities and; 3) events and heritage. The scale loading with eigenvalues 1

and above was used. The total variance explained for the variable of tourist satisfaction was 61.4%, which

exceeded the point suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Thus, the items were retained for the actual survey.

Table 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Tourist Satisfaction

Factors Factor

Loading

Eigen

Value

% of

Variance

F1: Natural and Destination Attraction 4.081 24.420

Sight-seeing in Malaysia (S7) 0.732

Natural beauty in Malaysia (S10) 0.690

Tourist destinations attractions in Malaysia (S14) 0.715

Scenes in Malaysia (S16) 0.659

F2: Accessibilities and Facilities 1.517 21.303

Transportation in Malaysia (S4) 0.792

Moving around in Malaysia (S5) 0.841

Service and facilities in Malaysia (S13) 0.616

Factor 3: Events and Heritage 1.050 15.674

Festive events in Malaysia (S8) 0.807

Culture heritage in Malaysia (S9) 0.711

Total Variance Explained 61.397 Note: Those factors with a loading of ≥ 0.5 were retained

Table 2 shows the items for destination loyalty. After conducting EFA, there were no items discarded

and two factors, namely positive word-of-mouth and revisit intention, were retained in destination loyalty.

The scale loading with eigenvalues 1 and above was used. The total variance explained for the variables of

destination loyalty was 74.8%, which exceeded the point suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Thus, the items

were retained for the actual survey.

Table 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Destination Loyalty

Factors Factor

Loading

Eigen

Value

% of

Variance

F1: Positive Word-of-Mouth 2.995 51.126

Will you say positive things about Malaysia to other people? (L1) 0.800

Will you suggest Malaysia to your friends and relatives as a

vacation destination to visit? (L2) 0.962

Will you encourage friends and relatives to visit Malaysia? (L3) 0.931

F2: Revisit Intention 1.294 23.668

Will you consider Malaysia as your choice to visit in the future?

(L4) 0.734

Will you plan to visit Malaysia again in the next 3 years? (L5) 0.761

Total Variance Explained 74.794

Note: Those factors with a loading of ≥ 0.5 were retained


366

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the results of the EFA. After the result from

EFA was derived, CFA was carried out for further testing. In this study, item purification was conducted to

search for model specification (Hair et al., 2010). After conducting item purification, there were four items

remaining in tourist satisfaction. The items were sight-seeing in Malaysia (S3), natural beauty in Malaysia

(S6), tourist destination attractions in Malaysia (S8) and scenes in Malaysia (S9). Based on Table 3, the value

for RMSEA was 0.000 which indicated a good fit. The value for CFI, GFI and TLI were 1.000, 0.998 and

1.007 respectively. In addition, insignificant p-value (0.563) suggests that the model fails to reject the null

hypothesis. Thus there was no significant difference between the observed and predicted metrics (Ho, 2006).

Table 3: Fit results for measurement model of tourist satisfaction after item purification

Variable

Total

Number of

Items (New

Dropped)

Number of

Items

Remaining

RMSEA

(≤ 0.08)

CFI

(≥

0.90)

GFI

(≥

0.90)

TLI

(≥

0.90)

p-value

(p > 0.05)

(p >

0.001)

Tourist

Satisfaction 5 4 0.000 1.000 0.998 1.007 0.563

Note: RMSEA = Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; TLI

= Tucker Lewis Index

After conducting CFA, one item has been reduced in destination loyalty construct (Table 4). The items

remaining were: will you say positive things about Malaysia to other people? (L1); will you suggest

Malaysia to your friends and relatives as a vacation destination to visit? (L2); will you encourage friends and

relatives to visit Malaysia? (L3); and will you consider Malaysia as your choice to visit in the future? (L4).

Table 4 presents the fitness indices for the destination loyalty model. The Table shows that the value for

RMSEA was 0.000, which indicated better fit. Other indices, namely GFI, CFI and TLI also have fulfilled

the required levels which were 0.997, 0.992 and 0.991 respectively.

Table 4: Fit results for measurement model of destination loyalty after items purification

Variable Total

Number of

Items (New

Dropped)

Number of

Items

Remaining

RMSEA

(≤ 0.08)

CFI

(≥

0.90)

GFI

(≥ 0.90)

TLI

(≥ 0.90)

p-value

(p > 0.05)

(p >

0.001)

Destination

Loyalty

1 4 0.069 0.997 0.992 0.991 0.107

Note: RMSEA = Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index;

TLI = Tucker Lewis Index

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity were applied in this study through unidimensionality, internal reliability and

convergent validity to evaluate the quality of the measurement items (Hair et al., 2010; O’Leary-Kelly and

Vokurka, 1998). Zainudin (2012) claimed that unidimensionality can be achieved when the measuring items

have acceptable factor loadings for the respective latent construct which were 0.5 and above. According to

Hair et al. (2010), internal reliability can be achieved when the Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.7 or higher. In

this study, the values of Cronbach Alpha for each construct, namely tourist satisfaction and destination

loyalty, were greater than 0.7 and it revealed that the items used for measurement were technically free from

error. Convergent validity is accessed through composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted

(AVE). Table 5 shows that the unidimensionality of the measurement items are achieved since the factor

loadings exceeded the required level 0.5 above. The value for CR and AVE for tourist satisfaction and

destination loyalty also have exceeded the required value which is 0.7 above for CR and 0.5 above for AVE

as suggested by Hair et al. (2010).


367

Table 5: Reliability of the items measuring tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty

Construct Items Factor

Loading

Cronbach’s

Alpha CR AVE

Tourist

Satisfaction

Sight-seeing in Malaysia (S3) 0.71 0.83 0.83 0.56

Natural beauty in Malaysia (6) 0.71

Tourist destinations attractions in

Malaysia (S8) 0.81

Scenes in Malaysia (S9) 0.75

Destination

Loyalty

Will you say positive things about

Malaysia to other people? (L1) 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.71

Will you suggest Malaysia to your

friends and relatives as a vacation

destination to visit? (L2)

0.98

Will you encourage friends and

relatives to visit Malaysia? (L3) 0.94

Will you consider Malaysia as your

choice to visit in the future? (L4) 0.60

The Model Goodness-of-fit

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to the data set to test the relationship between tourist

satisfaction and destination loyalty. Figure 1 depicts the structural model of tourist satisfaction and

destination loyalty. The items’ description that measured tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty can been

referred to in Table 3. There were several indicators used to assess the overall model fit namely absolute fit

index, incremental fit index and parsimony fit index (Hair et al., 2010). Absolute fit index is assessed through

Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) and normed Chi-square. The

value of GFI that is closer to 1 indicated good fit (Byrne, 2001). The acceptable cut off point for RMSEA

should be less than 0.08 and norm Chi square should be less than 3 as suggested by Hair et al. (2010).

Incremental fit index is assessed through Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the

values closer to 1 being indicative of good fit (Byrne, 2001). Parsimony fit index can be determined through

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) and the value of this index should be more than 0.80 as suggested by

Chau and Hu (2001). From Figure 1, it can be concluded that the goodness-of-fit for the model fits the

sample data adequately well and further analysis can be done. The variation in destination loyalty is

explained 33 percent by tourist satisfaction.

Figure 1: Structural model of tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty

TS

.51

S3

e1

.71

.50

S6

e2

.71

.65

S8

e3

.81

.56 S9

e4

.75 .33

DL

.36

L4

e5

.60

.88

L3

e6

.94

.96

L2

e7

..98

.64

L1

e8

.80

.57

e9 Chisquare=23.097

df=19 p-value = 0.233

Ratio =1.216 AGFI=0.958 GFI=0.978

NFI=0.983 RMR=0.016 CFI=0.997 TLI=0.995

RMSEA=0.029


368

Relationships among Constructs

The path coefficients for the full model as shown in Table 6 are significant (p-value < 0.05). The finding

suggest that there is a positive significant relationship between tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty (β

= 0.589, p < 0.05), supporting the hypothesis that proposed tourist satisfaction significantly and directly

affects destination loyalty. Further analysis was conducted to ascertain whether tourists with different levels

of satisfactions differ in term of destination loyalty. The result of the independent t-test revealed that the two

groups of the respondents differ significantly (t = -7.79, p < 0.001) in destination loyalty. The null hypothesis

that there is no difference of means between the two groups is rejected. The result indicated that tourists with

a higher level of satisfaction (mean = 6.41) are more willing to recommend Malaysia and disseminate

positive word-of-mouth to their friends and relatives compared to those with a low level of satisfaction

(mean = 5.20).

Table 6: Unstandardised Regression Weight

Construct Path Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. P

Destination Loyalty (DL) <--- Tourist Satisfaction (TS) .589 0.087 6.752 ***

Sight-seeing in Malaysia (S3) <--- Tourist Satisfaction (TS) 1.000

Natural beauty in Malaysia (6) <--- Tourist Satisfaction (TS) .950 0.093 10.189 ***

Tourist destinations attractions

in Malaysia (S8)

<--- Tourist Satisfaction (TS) 1.080 0.095 11.326 ***

Scenes in Malaysia (S9) <--- Tourist Satisfaction (TS) 1.123 0.105 10.682 ***

Will you consider Malaysia as

your choice to visit in the

future? (L4)

<--- Destination Loyalty (DL) 1.000

Will you encourage friends

and relatives to visit Malaysia?

(L3)

<--- Destination Loyalty (DL) 1.207 0.106 11.400 ***

Will you suggest Malaysia to

your friends and relatives as a

vacation destination to visit?

(L2)


Will you say positive things

about Malaysia to other

people? (L1)


5. Conclusion and Recommendation

This study investigated the relationship between tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty among

European tourists that visited Malaysia. The results of the study found that European tourists who were

satisfied with Malaysia as a destination are more willing to spread positive word-of-mouth. With regard to

that, Tourism Malaysia management must consider the role of tourist satisfaction as most of the European

tourists who visited Malaysia were satisfied with the destination attraction included natural attraction, sight-

seeing and scenes in Malaysia. Tourism Malaysia management should take action by taking care and

maintaining the beautiful scenery that Malaysia possesses as tourists were more willing to revisit a

destination as well as spread positive word-of-mouth if they were satisfied with their destination experience.

Given the important role of tourist satisfaction, it is important to deliver tourism experience as promised

through carefully-designed marketing communications such as advertising, direct marketing and sales

promotions. Majority (54.8%) of the respondents indicated that this trip was their first trip to Malaysia. In the

competitive marketplace of tourism, destination-management organisations should put more effort on tourist

retention whilst attracting new visitors through an effective marketing strategy.


369

Like any other studies, this study was conducted with limitations. Firstly, the research adopted a cross-

sectional research design and the major limitation of using this approach is regarding the causal relationship,

thus the direction of causality in the model should be interpreted with caution. Secondly, data was collected

during November and December. Therefore, findings reported in this study may not reflect the types of

tourists coming to Malaysia other than during the study period. Secondly, the study was conducted during a

short period and was unable to reflect the seasonal variations. Future study should take into account these

limitations by collecting data throughout the whole year to include the wide categories of tourists that travel

to Malaysia and overcome the issue of seasonal variations. In addition, the study only includes tourist

satisfaction as the antecedent to destination loyalty and it only explained 33% variation in destination loyalty.

Future studies are encouraged to explore other antecedents, such as perceived value and service quality, to

improve the model.

References

Abdul Kadir Lebai Din. (2010). Malaysia as an imagined destination, the selling points. Sintok: Universiti

Utara Malaysia Press.

Ahmad Puad Mat Som, Sayedeh Fatemeh Mostafavi Shirazi, Azizan Marzuki & Jamil Jusoh (2011). A

critical analysis of tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty. Journal of Global Management, 2(1),

178-183.

Alegra, J & Garau, J. (2010). Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 52-

73.

Allan, Y. L. S. (2004). Customer satisfaction measurement practice in Taiwan hotels. Hospitality

Management, 23, 397-408.

Andriotis, K. Agiomirgianakis, G. & Mihiotis, A. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction: A factor - cluster

segmentation approach. Journal of vacation Marketing, 14(3), 221-235.

Burn, A. C. & Bush, R. F. (2010). Marketing research: online research applications (6th ed.). New Jersey:

Upper Saddle River..

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications. Mahwah, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlburm Associates Publishers.

Chau, P. Y. & Hu, P. J.-H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model

comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699-719.

Chen, J. S. & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preference.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(2), 79-85.

Chi, G. (2005). A study developing destination loyalty model. PhD Dissertation. Oklahoma State

University.

Chi, C. G. & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction

and destination loyalty: An integrated approach, Tourism Management, 29, 624-636.

Dmitrovic, T., Cvelbar, L. K., Kolar, T. and Brencic, M. M. (2009). Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at

the destination level. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 116-

126.

Faullant, R., Matzler, K. & Füller. J. (2008). The impact of satisfaction and image on loyalty: the case of

Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality, 18(2), 163-178.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis

(7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.


370

Hsu, C., Killion, L., Brown, G., Gross, M. J., & Huang, S. (2008). Tourism marketing: an Asia - Pacific

perspective. Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A. & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor

analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two district destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 784-

807.

Lee, C., Lee, Y., & Lee, B. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 world cup. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32(4), 839-858.

Mao, Y. (2008). Destination image building & its influence on destination preference & loyalty of Chinese

tourists to Australia. PhD Dissertation. Polytechnic University Hong Kong.

O’Leary-Kelly, S. W. & Vokurka, R. J. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of

Operations and Management, 16, 387-405.

Oom do Valle, P., Silva, J. O., Mendes, J. & Guerreiro, M. (2006),Tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty

intention: A structural and categorical analysis. International Journal of Business Science and

Applied Management, 1(1), 25-43.

Oom do Valle, P., Correia, A. & Rebelo, E. (2008). Determinants of tourism return behavior. Tourism and

Hospitality Research, 8(3), 205-219.

Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 78-84

Reichheld, F. & Sasser, W. (1990). Zero defects: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 105-

111.

Schiffman, L. G. & Kanuk, L. L. (2007). Consumer behavior (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Serenko, A. & Stach, A. (2009). The impact of expectation disconfirmation on customer loyalty and

recommendation behavior: Investigating online travel and tourism services. Journal of Information

Technology Management, 3, 26-41.

Tourism Malaysia (2009). Malaysia tourists profile 2009 by selected markets. Malaysia: Tourism Malaysia,

Ministry of Tourism.

Tourism Malaysia (2011). Tourism today. Malaysia: Tourism Malaysia, Ministry of Tourism.

Vetinev, A., Romanova, G., Matushenko, N. & Kvetenadze, E. (2013). Factors affecting domestic tourists’

destination satisfaction: the case of Russia resorts. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(8), 1162-

1173.

Wang, X., Zhang, J., Gu, C. & Zhen, F. (2009). Examining antecedents and consequences of tourist

satisfaction: A structural modeling approach. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 14(3), 397-406.

World Travel and Tourism Council (2012). Travel and tourism economic impact Malaysia. Retrieved 17

February 2014 from http://clairebrownrealty.com/reports/new/april/malaysia2012.pdf

World Travel and Tourism Council (2013). Travel and tourism economic impact Malaysia. Retrieved 17

February 2014 from http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/malaysia2013_2.pdf

Yoon, Y. & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination

loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26, 45-56.

Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F. & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and

cognitive, affective and conative loyalty, Tourism Management, 31, 274-284.

Zainudin Awang (2012). A handbook on structural equation modeling using AMOS (4th ed.). Malaysia:

University Teknologi MARA Press.


371

Zeithaml, V.A, Berry, L. & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal

of Marketing, 2, 31-46.

Zhu, M. (2011). Examining the structural relationships of tourist characteristics and destination satisfaction.

2010 International Conference on E- Business, Management and Economics, 3, 187-191, Hong

Kong.

The Impact of Tourist Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty among European Tourists Visiting Malaysia

Documents