Global Journal of Management and Business Research, E: Marketing, Volume 23 Issue 1

Table 5: Discriminant Validity: HTMT Ratio CL FMC EXP PSQ CL FMC 0.145 EXP 0.104 0.58 PSQ 0.452 0.449 0.346 CS 0.561 0.06 0.145 0.405 b) Assessment of Structural Model The structural model determines and evaluates the hypothesized underlying links between variables (Hair et al., 2017). The validity of the model was assessed using the path coefficients ( β ), the explanatory power (R2), the predictive relevance (Q2), and the effect size (f2). A bootstrapping method was utilized with a random sample of 5000 to determine whether or not the hypotheses were significant (Hair et al., 2012). First, direct relationships were tested. Figure 2 and Table 6 describe the significant direct relationships of all hypotheses, except for EXP  PSQ ( β = 0.126, t= 1.28, p=0.201), FMC  CS ( β = 0. 017, t= 0.193, p=0.847), AND FMC  CL ( β = 0.092, t= 1.294, p=0.196). Accordingly, H2 ( β = -0.325, t= 4.391), H3 ( β = 0.513, t= 7.154), H4 ( β = 0.58, t= 11.075), H5 ( β = 0.375, t= 4.231), H8 ( β = -0.204, t= 2.634), H9 ( β = 0.319, t= 3.871), and H10 ( β = 0.40, t= 5.129) are supported, and H1, H6 and H7 are not supported. H4 and H5 show a positive link between firm-level marketing communi- cation (FMC) and customer expectation (EXP), and perceived service quality (PSQ). H2 and H8 indicate that EXP has a significant negative relationship with customer satisfaction (CS) and loyalty (CL) in the context of the fitness club industry in China. Additionally, H3 and H9 show that PSQ positively influences CS and CL. Furthermore, H10 establishes significant positive associations between CS and CL. The suggested model explained 25.6% of the variance in CS and 40.3% of the variance in CL. Moreover, the value of Q2 for CS is 0.12 and 0.23 for CL. These outcomes demonstrate that the present research model has high predictive power (Hair Jr et al., 2014; Sarstedt et al., 2019). In addition, f2 is employed to evaluate the effect size of predictors. The f2 value of FMC is 0.106 for CL, 0.061 for CS, 0.507 for EXP, and 0.318 for PSQ. EXP has 0.221 and 0.288 values for CL and CS, respectively. PSQ has CL and CS scores of 0.278 and 0.387, respectively. CL has a CS of 0.295. The f2 value was ranked as small (0.02), moderate (0.15), and large (0.35) (Cohen, 1988). Overall, the yielded values are between moderate and substantial. None of the control variables was significant. With an SRMR of less than 0.08, it can be concluded that the proposed model provides a good fit (Hair et al., 2017). Additionally, the current study evaluated the role of EXP, PSQ, and CS as mediators between FMC and CL (Nitzl et al., 2016; Zafar et al., 2021). Initially, the indirect effect of EXP on CL is evaluated. The yielded value is significant and partially mediated when β = - 0.13, t= 3.441. Second, we evaluate the indirect impact of PSQ on CL. As β = 0.205, t= 4.108, the yielded value is statistically significant and partially mediated. Finally, the indirect effects of FMC on CL are evaluated. A significant relationship exists between FMC -> EXP -> CS -> CL ( β = -0.075, t= 3.209) and FMC -> PSQ -> CS -> CL ( β = 0.077, t= 2.837). The study also reveals that FMC has an insignificant direct effect on CL ( β = 0.092, t= 1.294). Thus, FMC -> EXP -> CS -> CL and FMC -> PSQ -> CS -> CL are accepted with complementary partial mediation, as detailed in Table 6. Customer Loyalty in the Fitness Club Industry: The Role of Club Communication, Customer Expectation and Perceived Service Quality 52 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue I Version I Year 2023 ( )E © 2023 Global Journals Note: EXP = Customer expectation; PSQ = Perceived service quality; FMC = Firm marketing communication; CS = Customer satisfaction; CL = Customer loyalty. ”