Modelling Daily Mobility Satisfaction Using a Structural Equation Model

  • Tomás Eiró
  • Luis M. Martínez
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 262)


Recent research has started to focus on understanding the elements that influence the perception of users with the existent mobility options and their impact over the stated performance or satisfaction evaluation. The main methodology that has been applied to extract this information has been confirmatory factor analysis under a Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) framework. With this work, we intend to develop a new modelling approach using structural equation models, under a path analysis approach that not only allows understanding which attributes influence satisfaction but also allows predicting its values based on the exogenous measurable variables. The model obtained, presents an acceptable fit and was able to provide some insightful conclusions on the relation between satisfaction and accessibility, mobility, land use and socio-demographic characteristics.


Structural equation mode Path analysis Mobility satisfaction 


  1. 1.
    Babakus, E., et al.: The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum-likelihood factor-analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. J. Mark. Res. 24(2), 222–228 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cronin Jr, J.J., Taylor, S.A.: SERVPERF Versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. J. Mark. 58(1), 125–131 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Abreu e Silva, J., Goulias, K.G.: Structural equations model of land use patterns, location choice, and travel behavior, transportation research record. J. Transp. Res. Board, no. 2135, 106–113 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Del Castillo, J.M., Benitez, F.G.: A methodology for modeling and identifying users satisfaction issues in public transport systems based on users surveys. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 54, 1104–1114 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dolan, C.V.: Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and 7 response categories: a comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 47(2), 309–326 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G.: Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit. Public Transp. 10(3), 14 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G.: A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public transport. Transp. Plann. Tech. 31(5), 509–523 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G.: Willingness-to-pay of public transport users for improvement in service quality. Eur. Transp.\Trasporti Europei 38, 107–118 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G.: A new customer satisfaction index for evaluating transit service quality. J. Public Transp. 12(3), 21–37 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fadelmula, F.K.: Assessing power of structural equation modeling studies: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. J. 1(3), 37–42 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gatta, V., Marcucci, E.: Quality and public transport service contracts. Eur. Transp.\Trasporti Europei 36, 92–106 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Githui, J.N., et al.: The structure of users’ satisfaction on urban public transport service in developing country: the case of Nairobi. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 8, 1288–1300 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hensher, D.A.: Service quality as a package: what does it mean to heterogeneous consumers. Paper presented to 9th world conference on transport research, Seoul, Korea, 22–27 July 2001Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hensher, D.A., Prioni, P.: A service quality index for area-wide contract performance assessment. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 36(1), 93–113 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hensher, D.A., et al.: Service quality—developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 37(6), 499–517 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hill, N., et al.: How to Measure Customer Satisfaction. Gower Publishing Limited, Hampshire (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hutchinson, S.R., Olmos, A.: Behavior of descriptive fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis using ordered categorical data. Struct. Equ. Model.: Multidisc. J. 5(4), 344–364 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, D.R., Creech, J.C.: Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models: a simulation study of categorization error. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 398–407 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaplan, D.: Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lai, W.-T., Chen, C.-F.: Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers—the roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transp. Policy 18(2), 318–325 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mokhtarian, P.L., Cao, X.Y.: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 42(3), 204–228 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olsen, S.O.: Repurchase loyalty: the role of involvement and satisfaction. Psychol. Mark. 24(4), 315–341 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parasuraman, A., et al.: A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Mark. 49(4), 41–50 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Santos, G.D., Martínez, L.M., Viegas, J.M., Alves, D.: Design and deployment of an innovative mobility survey for the Lisbon metropolitan area oriented to assess the market potential and obtain the best configuration of new alternative transport modes. In: European Transport Conference, Glasgow, (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steg, L.: Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transp. Res. Part a-Policy Pract. 39, 147--162 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teas, R.K.: Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers’ perceptions of quality. J. Mark. 57(4), 18 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CESUR, Department of Civil EngineeringInstituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon Technical UniversityLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations