Content uploaded by Nurakmal Ramli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nurakmal Ramli on Sep 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
520
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/publication-ethics
The Influence of Event Performance Quality on Attendees’
Satisfaction
Nurakmal Ramli, Nor Farhana Ahmad Januri, Wan Soraya Wan Abdul Ghani
To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i7/4394 DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i7/4394
Received: 07 June 2018, Revised: 25 June 2018, Accepted: 29 June 2018
Published Online: 18 July 2018
In-Text Citation: (Ramli, Januri, & Ghani, 2018)
To Cite this Article: Ramli, N., Januri, N. F. A., & Ghani, W. S. W. A. (2018). The Influence of Event Performance
Quality on Attendees’ Satisfaction. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 8(7), 520–530.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute,
translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen
at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Vol. 8, No. 7, July 2018, Pg. 520 - 530
http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/IJARBSS
JOURNAL HOMEPAGE
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
521
The Influence of Event Performance Quality on
Attendees’ Satisfaction
Nurakmal Ramli*, Nor Farhana Ahmad Januri, Wan Soraya Wan
Abdul Ghani
Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract: This paper attempts to study relationship between quality of event performance and
attendees’ satisfaction. A total of 250 attendees served as a sample of this study using the
convenience sampling method. Pearson correlation was used to analyze the simple relationships
between the dimensions of event performance and satisfaction. The results show that there is a
significant relationship between event performance and attendees satisfaction. Regression analysis
was used to identify which dimension influence the satisfaction. Based on the findings, it was found
that all three dimensions of event performance significantly influence the satisfaction. This finding
therefore will help event organizers in improving the quality and performance in event industry.
Keywords: Event Performance, Event Design, Event Quality, Attendees’ Satisfaction
Introduction
Event industry has significant impact in term of economic, social and cultural towards host
organization and community (Chen, Dipendra, Ozturk, & Makki, 2014; Deery & Jago, 2010; Jago &
Shaw, 1998). The industry has been regarded as important contributors to host community economic
development through commercial activities and job opportunities provided to local community (Chen
et al., 2014). In addition, events can generate media interest and develop beneficial outcome to
community residents (Ko, Kim, Kim, & Lee, 2010). In special events industry, the success of event
organization, design and program implementation are judged from attendees perception and
evaluation of service quality and event performance (Chen et al., 2014). This view also supported by
Crompton and Love (1995), that contends performance is the most convincing predictor of event
success. Events are service based industry whereby customer satisfaction is the key to success (Ko et
al., 2010). Event organizer needs to grasp the implication and importance of quality as according to
their type of event and its goal (Getz, 2005). The improvement of service quality has been recognized
as the main approach to enhance levels of customer satisfaction. Increased customer satisfaction
provide many advantages as satisfied customer are less price sensitive, willing to add purchase and
sustain customer loyalty (Hansemark & Albinson, 2004). Baker and Crompton (2000), has been
emphasizing on the fundamental relationship between suppliers, performance, customer satisfaction
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
522
and organization success. They found that loyalty and repeat visitation, considerable tolerance on
high price, and greater reputation are emerged from increased quality of performance and high level
of satisfaction.
Numerous studies have found that service quality positively influence customer satisfaction
(Baker & Crompton, 2000; Cole & Illum, 2006; Kim, LaVetter, & Lee, 2006; Yoshida & James, 2011;
Zhang, Lee, Judge, & Johnson, 2014). However, despite many existing studies on service quality and
satisfaction, there is a lack of study on relationship between event performance and satisfaction.
Hence, there is a need to assess the quality of event performance and how it influences attendees'
satisfaction. Therefore, this study aims to identify the relationship between event performance
quality and satisfaction and to determine which event performance significantly influences the
attendees’ satisfaction.
Service quality is described as the result of the gap between customer expectation and
perception (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). The SERVQUAL model developed by
Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (1988), to measure the scale of service quality identified five
dimensions of service quality: Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Customer Assurance and
Empathy. This scale is extensively used in numerous service industries. In event and festival context,
service quality has been frequently explored with various factors and dimensions according to the
types of events including wine and music festival (Tkaczynski & Stokes, 2010), cultural festival (Yan,
Zhang & Li, 2012), and sports events (Theodorokis, Kambitsis & Laios, 2001). Crompton and Love
(1995), measured five types of relationships operationalized in evaluating quality, including: attribute
expectations; attribute expectations and importance; attribute performance and importance;
attribute performance and expectations; and attribute performance, expectations and importance.
They found that performance-based operationalizations were the best predictors of quality, while
the least accurate predictors were the disconfirmation-based operationalizations. Tkaczynski and
Stokes (2010), proposed a FESTPERF model to assess the quality of music festival through three
dimensions: professionalism, environment and core service. A previous study by Baker and Crompton
(2000), suggested that the quality of performance also identified as quality of opportunity, refers to
the attributes of a service provided by the suppliers. It is the output of tourism or event provider.
Thus, the evaluations of the quality of performance are assessed from visitors’ perceptions of the
performance of the provider. They measured the four factors of quality performance; generic
features, specific entertainment, information sources and comfort amenities with satisfaction and
behavioral intentions.
Quality of performance describes the quality of tourism opportunities or resources supplied
by service provider (Baker & Crompton, 2000). Specifically, performance quality refers to event
features (activities, programs, facilities, etc.) provided by the event organizer for the visitors.
Meanwhile the quality and performance are evaluated from attendees’ perception (Baker &
Crompton, 2000). Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the festival visitors’ perception of the
performance of the service provider (Ayob & Said, 2010). Event planners should design and market
their events that relates with value equity and service marketing mix to influence attendees’
perception (Moscardo, 2007; Rosenbaum & Wong, 2010). Event performance can be categorized as
the process of performing an event, whether it succeeds to reach the event objective, mission and
satisfy the unique characteristic of the event itself (Chen et al., 2014). The quality of the performance
or service experience will determine the success of an event (Chen et al., 2014). The implication of
assessing and enhancing the quality of events is demonstrated through increased visitation and
income, plus positive word-of-mouth promotion of the event (Baker & Crompton, 2000). Good event
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
523
performance depends on the attendees’ satisfaction. The event organizer must deliver a good event
performance as it can lead to memorable and positive experience or satisfaction to the event
attendees as well as achieving the event goals. Event performance can be determined by many
different factors as every event hold different identity that needs to be achieved. The level of
performance in event is according to the objective of the event itself, whether it is achievable to the
organization or not (Brown, & Hutton, 2013). Any event has unique and creative characteristics as
the uniqueness of appeal of an event can be influenced by the performance of participants,
authenticity of the experience or the location’s natural or cultural heritage and community pride
(Bowen, & Danials, 2005).
One of the important aspects of event performance is hedonic dimensions (Chen et al., 2014).
Hedonic dimensions measure the good feelings, fun and pleasant experiences, joy, excitement and
interesting (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Ryu, Heesup, & Jang, 2010). Hedonic values are non-
instrumental, experiential and sentimental and more related to non-tangible service features and can
be stimulated by certain behaviors such as play, leisure activities, sports, aesthetic appreciation,
games, creativity and hobbies (Ryu, Heesup, & Jang, 2010). The other compulsory basis of event
performance is including maintenance factors such as infrastructure, parking and information
services (Baker & Crompton, 2000). However, it requires more than these factors to create attendees’
satisfaction. Instead, visitors seek social-psychological benefits such as entertainment, activities and
shows to grasp the visitors’ interest and enticing the satisfaction (Baker & Crompton, 2000). Effectual
event design has been regarded as one of the important elements of event success. Beside planning
and organization, event design has appeared as a main aspect of overall event management (Silvers,
2012). Event design can be defined as the creation, conceptual development and staging of an event
using event design principles and techniques to capture and engage the audience with a positive and
meaningful experience (Brown, 2012). The event design experience capitalizes on the efficiency of
interaction with the visitors and hence enlarges the possibility of the event to achieve its aims and
objectives (Brown, & Hutton, 2013). Besides, event design articulates on artistic interpretations and
expression of the aims and objectives of the overall event (Morgan, 2009). The design must play an
imperative role in stimulating the sensory experience of visitors to enhance the attraction to the
visitors (Chen et al., 2014). It is important to comprehend the motivations, the behaviors and the
tendency of audiences and how event design principles and techniques can be employed to influence
the audience, event organizer is able to execute a successful event that meets the goals and
objectives (Brown, & Hutton, 2013). The information sources and comfort amenities domains are
also determining the base level of quality, and if these domains are not attained, then participants
are likely to become dissatisfied with the event itself (Baker & Crompton, 2000). Andereck and
Caldwell (1993), specify that the process of obtaining various sources is including scrutinizing, seeking
and obtaining of information in advance.
Satisfaction is a response to an evaluation process or evaluation of the experience value
derived from the experiences at various service providers (Prebensen & Rosengren, 2016). Study by
Baker and Crompton (2000), found that satisfaction is subjective to the social-psychological state of
attendees outcome, such as mood, disposition and needs as well as unrelated occurrence such as
climate and group interaction that are beyond organizers’ control. Thus, they conclude that
performance quality is assessed from provider or organizer’s output, while the satisfaction is
determined from attendees’ outcome. The higher level of attendees’ satisfaction is likely to be
influenced by the higher quality performance in facility provision, programming, and service (Baker
& Crompton, 2000). The satisfaction of the event attendees is also one of the aspects in measuring
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
524
the event performance. The factors that provide satisfaction and needs of event attendees must be
taken into consideration by event organizers for an event to be successful (Lade & Jackson, 2004).
When the event can achieve the satisfaction of the attendees, it creates joy and motivation for
attendees to come to future event. It is important to determine what leads a good event performance
and, thus, the aim of this study is to examine the relationship between event performance and
attendees satisfaction. By performing this research, it indicates how far the event performances
affect the attendees’ satisfaction level.
Methodology
The study was conducted at a festival event which attracts over 1000 attendees at one day it
operates. The event took place in Shah Alam, Selangor and the highlights of the event include
community run, bike gatherings, demonstrations, local performances and local food vendors. A total
set of 250 questionnaires were distributed using convenience sampling to the event attendees. All
250 questionnaires were returned which constituted a response rate of 100%. All questionnaires
were valid and used for analysis. The questionnaire items were adapted from Chen et al. (2014), that
measures three dimensions of event performances as hedonic dimension (quality of food and
beverages, location, etc), design dimension (layouts, event objectives, adequate number of tables,
number of vendors, etc.) and informative dimension (availability of event information, staff and
volunteers knowledge, entertainments etc.). Satisfaction was measured by 5- item scale which was
adapted from Rosenbaum and Wong (2010). All items for event performance and attendees’
satisfaction were assessed with 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree (1) to “strongly
agree (5).
Descriptive analysis, reliability analysis, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis were
conducted to analyze the data. Reliability analysis was performed to measure the consistency of the
item by using Cronbach’s Alpha. According to Gliem and Gliem (2003), the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability
coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is to 1.0 the
greater the internal consistency of the items in the Likert-type scale. The Cronbach’s alpha value of
attendee’s satisfaction items is 0.929 indicating that the items consistency is excellent. Meanwhile,
the Cronbach’s alpha for all three independent variables show the values of 0.822 (hedonic), 0.827
(design) and 0.859 (informative). The findings indicate that all the variables obtained the good
internal consistency.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
525
Results
Profile of Respondents
Table 1: Profile of respondents
Items
Freque
ncy
Percent
age
Gender
Male
150
60
Female
100
40
Age
Below 18
9
3.6
18-30
years
201
80.4
31-50
years
40
16
51 and
above
0
0
Educati
on
Level
SPM/STP
M/
Certificate
45
18
Diploma
67
26.8
Bachelor
Degree
108
43.2
Master
12
4.8
Others
18
7.2
Marital
Status
Single
194
77.6
Married
56
22.4
As shown in Table 1, out of the 250 of respondents, man represented 60% of the attendees and
women 40%. Most of the respondents aged between 18-30 years old representing 201 (80.4%) of
respondents. With regards to education level, 45 (18%) have SPM, 67 (26.8%) have diploma, 108
(43.2%) have bachelor degree, 12 (4.8%) obtained master level of education and 18 (7.2%) others.
The marital status stated by respondents indicates that 77.6 % of the attendees were single.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
526
Table 2: Correlation Analysis
M
SD
1
2
3
Hedonic
3.6
6
.66
9
Design
3.7
2
.70
3
.699
**
Informati
ve
3.7
9
.71
3
.704
**
.776
**
Satisfacti
on
3.9
1
.73
1
.704
**
.775
**
.832
**
Table 2 indicates that attendees of the festival perceived informative dimension as the most
dominant of event performance (mean = 3.79), followed by design (mean = 3.72) and hedonic (mean
= 3.66). The results imply that the performance of the festival is moderately rated.
Correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis were performed to examine the
relationship between event performance and attendees’ satisfaction. The Pearson correlation was
performed to assess the association between the dimensions of event performance and attendees’
satisfaction. Results on table 2 show that all three dimensions of event performance are significantly
correlated with attendees’ satisfaction. Results show that there is a significant relationship between
hedonic event performances with attendees’ satisfaction (p<0.01, r= 0.704) in which r value indicate
strong relationship. Event design performance also significantly influences attendees’ satisfaction
(p<0.01, r=0.775) which r value also show strong relationship. Next, informative event performance
also has a positively and strong relationship with attendees’ satisfaction (p<0.01, r=0.832).
To further examine the impact of event performance on attendees’ satisfaction, a multiple
regression was conducted. The standardized coefficients can be seen as correlation coefficients to
measure the degree of correlations between variables and attendees’ satisfaction. Based on Table 3,
the results show that the standardized coefficients (β) are all positive, indicating that event
performance has significant positive impact on the attendees’ satisfaction. The adjusted R² of this
study is 0.741 with the R² =0.744 indicates that the linear regression explains 74.1 percent of the
variance in the attendee' satisfaction explained by hedonic event performance, event design
performance and informative event performance. Results shown the dimension of informative
exerted the strongest influence on attendees’ satisfaction (β =.0516, p<0.01), followed by design
(β=.0269, p<0.01) and hedonic (β=.0153, p<0.01).
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
527
Table 3: Multiple Regression Analysis
Variables
Beta
Value
Sig
(p<0.01)
Hedonic
0.153
0.002
Design
0.269
0.000
Informative
0.516
0.000
R
0.863
R2
0.744
Adjusted R2
0.741
F
238.918
Sig F Value
0.000
Discussion
Based on correlation analysis, all the event performance dimensions have positive and significant
relationship with attendees’ satisfaction. The results indicate that increase in each event
performance quality will lead to increase in attendees’ satisfaction. Multiple regression analysis
revealed that all the dimensions have significant impact on attendees’ satisfaction with informative
event performance is found to be the major influence on the satisfaction, followed by design event
performance and hedonic event performance. These findings support a study by Baker and Crompton
(2000), that identify information sources and comfort amenities domains are determining the base
level of quality, and if these domains are not attained, then participants are likely to become
dissatisfied with the event itself. The event has provided sufficient information that encourages
attendees to understand more about the objectives of the event and this lead to their satisfaction.
However, a study by Chen et al. (2014), found that hedonic event performance was solely determines
the event quality. The results of this study point out that event performance significantly predicted
74.1 percent of attendees’ satisfaction. This implies that all aspects of hedonic event performance,
event design performance and informative event performance have great impact on attendees’
satisfaction. This finding consistent with previous studies (Naehyun, Lee, & Lee, 2012; Yoshida &
James, 2011), that found positive relationship between event performance quality and customer
satisfaction.
Conclusion
The study aim was to examine the impact of quality of event performance towards attendees’
satisfaction at a festival event. This study examined three dimensions of event performance, which
are hedonic event performance, event design performance and informative event performance.
Informative event performance was found to be the strongest influence on the attendees’
satisfaction. The results revealed strong, positive and significant relationship between event
performance and attendees satisfaction. All three dimensions of event performance quality were
found to have positive impact on the satisfaction. This finding provides useful insights of impact of
event performance towards attendees’ satisfaction. The findings can be applied by event organizer
to improve the quality of event performance thus lead to the success of an event. The result of this
study should be interpreted with prudence. The research sample of the study is limited to the
attendees at the festival event. The use of event attendees from one particular event limits the
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
528
generalization. Future studies may consider replicating the study at different setting with different
types of events. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the findings provide useful information for
event organizers in continuing providing and improving service quality in event industry.
References
Andereck, K.L., & Caldwell, L. L. (1993). The influence of tourists' characteristics on ratings of
information sources for an attraction. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2(2-3), 171–189.
Ayob, N., & Said, A. (2010). Service quality and customer satisfaction within festival and special
event. Proceeding of the Knowledge Management International Conference, (pp.25-27).
Terengganu, Malaysia.
Baker, D.A., & Crompton, J.L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804.
Bowen, H., & Danials, M.J. (2005). Does the music matter? Motivations for attending a music
festival. Event Management, 9(3), 155-164.
Brown, S. (2012). Event design. In D. Getz, (Ed.), Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for
Planned Events, (2nd ed., pp. 222) Oxford: Routledge.
Brown, S., & Hutton, A. (2013). Developments in the real-time evaluation of audience behaviour at
planned events. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 4(1), 43-55.
Chen, P., Dipendra, S., Ozturk, A.B., & Makki, A. (2014). Can fundraising be fun? An event
management study of unique experiences, performance and quality. Tourism Review, 69(4),
310-328.
Cole, S.T., & Illum, S.F. (2006). Examining the mediating role of festival visitors’ satisfaction in the
relationship between service quality and behavioral intention. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
12(2), 160-173.
Crompton, J., & Love, L. (1995). The predictive validity of alternative approaches to evaluating
quality of a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 11-25.
Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2010). Social impacts of events and the role of anti-social behavior.
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1(1), 8-28.
Getz, D. (2005). Event Management and Event Tourism, (2nd ed.). New York: Cognizant
Communication Corporation.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing and Community Education. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
529
Hansemark, O.C., & Albinson, M. (2004). Customer satisfaction and retention: the
experiences of individual employees. Management Service Quality, 14(1), 40‐57.
Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-142.
Jago, L., & Shaw, R. (1998). Special events: a conceptual and definitional framework. Festival
Management and Event Tourism, 5(1-2), 21-32.
Kim, H.D., LaVetter, D., & Lee, J.H. (2006). The influence of service quality factors on customer
satisfaction and repurchase intention in the Korean professional basketball league.
International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 18(1), 39-58.
Ko, Y.J., Kim, Y.K., Kim, M.K., & Lee, J. H. (2010). The role of involvement and identification on event
quality perceptions and satisfaction: A case of US Taekwondo Open. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, 22(1), 25-39.
Lade, C., & Jackson, J. (2004). Key success factors in regional festivals. Event Management, 9(1-2), 1-
11.
Morgan, M. (2009). What makes a good festival? Understanding the event experience. Event
Management, 12(2), 81-93.
Moscardo, G. (2007). Analyzing the role of festivals and events in regional development. Event
Management, 11(1), 23-32.
Naehyun, P. J., Lee, H., & Lee, S. (2012). Event Quality, Perceived Value, Destination Image, and
Behavioral Intention of Sports Events: The Case of the IAAF World Championship, Daegu, 2011.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(8), 849-864.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications of future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(4) 12-40.
Prebensen, N.K, & Rosengren, S. (2016). Experience value as a function of hedonic and utilitarian
dominant services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(1), 113-
135.
Rosenbaum, M.S., & Wong, I.N. (2010). Value equity in event planning: a case study of Macau.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(4), 403-417.
Ryu, K., Heesup, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416-432.
Silvers, J. (2012). Professional Event Coordination. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 8 , No. 7, July 2018, E-ISSN: 2 22 2-6990 © 2018 HRMARS
530
Theodorokis, N., Kambitsis, C., & Laios, A. (2001). Relationship between measures of service quality
and satisfaction of spectators in professional sports. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, 11(6), 431-438.
Tkaczynski, A., & Stokes, R. (2010). FESTPERF: a service quality measurement scale for festivals.
Event Management, 14(1), 69-82.
Yan, Q., Zhang, H., & Li, M. (2012). Programming quality of festivals: conceptualization,
measurement, and relation to consequences. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 24(4), 653-673.
Yoshida, M., & James, J. (2011). Service quality at sporting events: Is aesthetic quality a missing
dimension? Sport Management Review, 14, 13–24.
Zhang, Y., Lee, D., Judge, L.W., & Johnson, J.E. (2014). The Relationship among Service Quality,
Satisfaction, and Future Attendance Intention: The Case of Shanghai ATP Masters 1000.
International Journal of Sports Science, 4(2), 50-59.
