e-loyalty

No.

References

N

Adapted Loyalty

No. of items

Reliability

Fit indices

Other dimensions measured

IR

Instrument

(Likert points)

(if CFA performed)

(items)

1

Gefen and

202

Davis et al. [49, 50]

3(7)

Cronbach’s α: 0.79

CFA not done

Perceived Ease of Use,

56.7

Straub [69]

Perceived Usefulness,

Intended Inquiry

2

Lee et al. [111]

289

Anderson [5]

2(NR)

Cronbach’s α: 0.729

CFA not done

Comprehensive information,

10.9

Shared Value, Communication,

Uncertainty, Number of

competitors, Specificity, Trust,

Transaction Cost

3

Limayem et al.

705

Parker et al. [155];

3(5)

NR

CFA not done

Subjective Norms, Attitude,

17.6

[117]

Taylor and Todd

Perceived Consequences,

[196]

Behavioral Control, Personal

Innovativeness, Internet

Shopping

4

Bhattacherjee

172

Mathieson [127]

3(7)

Cronbach’s α: 0.887

CFA was done

Confirmation (Sales, Service,

30

[19]

Marketing), Satisfaction,

Perceived usefulness, Loyalty

incentives

5

Gefen and

176

Zeithaml et al. [233]

3(5)

Cronbach’s α: >0.80

CFA not done. EFA

Service Quality (Tangibles,

2.7

Devine [68]

was executed. Good

Empathy, Reliability,

factorial validity

Responsiveness, Assurance),

Perceived risk with vendor,

Perceived switching costs,

Perceived relative price of

No.

References

N

Adapted Loyalty

No. of items

Reliability

Fit indices

Other dimensions measured

IR

Instrument

(Likert points)

(if CFA performed)

(items)

6

Gefen [67]

160

Zeithaml et al. [233]

4(7)

Composite reliability:

CFA done.

Service Quality (Tangibles,

33.4

0.922

Acceptable model fit

Empathy, Reliability,

Responsiveness, Assurance),

Customer Trust, Perceived risk

with vendor, Cost to switch

vendor

7

Srinivasan

1211

Zeithaml et al. [233];

7(7)

Cronbach’s α: 0.920

CFA done

Customization, Contact

59.8

et al. [189]

Gremler [74]

interactivity, Care, community,

Note: This

Convenience, Cultivation,

study is similar

Choice, Character, Search,

with Anderson

Word-of-mouth, Willingness to

and Srinivasan

pay more

[7], but the

potential

dimensions

that affect

e-loyalty differ

8

Luarn and Lin

180

Chaudhuri and

2(7)

Cronbach’s α: 0.89

CFA not done

Trust, Customer Satisfaction,

10.3

[122]

Holbrook [33]

Perceived Value, Commitment

9

Taylor and

244

Oliver [143, 145];

4(9)

Reliability

Acceptable model fit:

Trust, Affect, Resistance to

3.5

Hunter [198]

Pritchard et al. [160]

coefficient: 0.834

χ 2 = 182.83,

Change, Value Brand Attitude,

df = 105,

Satisfaction

GFI = 0.92,

No.

References

N

Adapted Loyalty

No. of items

Reliability

Fit indices

Other dimensions measured

IR

Instrument

(Likert points)

(if CFA performed)

(items)

10

Bauer and

492

Cronin and Taylor

3(7)

Cronbach’s α: 0.81

Acceptable model fit:

Service Quality (content,

1.6

Hammer-

[44, 45]

χ 2/df = 3.5,

communication, commerce,

schmidt

GFI = 0.97,

challenge, configuration,

[16]

AGFI = 0.96,

customer care), Switching

RMSEA = 0.07,

Barriers, Customer

RMR = 0.07

Satisfaction

11

Chiou [40]

209

Muncy [135]; Selin

3(5)

Cronbach’s α: 0.890

Acceptable model fit:

Future Internet Service

14

et al. [179]

χ 2 = 389.6,

Provider expectancy,

df = 194,

Attributive Service

p < 0.0001,

Satisfaction, Perceived Trust,

CFI = 0.93,

Perceived Value, Overall

NNFI = 0.92,

Satisfaction

RMSEA = 0.07

12

Gummerus et

421

Zeithaml et al. [233]

6(7)

NR

Acceptable model fit:

Service Quality (User

10.9

al. [75]

Endogenous

Interface, Responsiveness,

variables:

Need fulfilment, Security),

χ 2 = 15.96, df = 6,

Trust, Satisfaction

GFI = 0.99,

AGFI = 0.96,

RMSEA = 0.063

No.

References

N

Adapted Loyalty

No. of items

Reliability

Fit indices

Other dimensions measured

IR

Instrument

(Likert points)

(if CFA performed)

(items)

13

Ha [76]

243

Anderson and Weitz

3(5)

Cronbach’s α: 0.88

CFA was done

Perceived benefits,

1.14

[6]

Relationship length, Perceived

risk, Complaint, Customized

information, Web interactivity,

High involvement, Brand trust

14

Harris and

498

Oliver [143, 145]

16 (7)

Cronbach’s α:

Each indicator loaded

Service Quality, Satisfaction,

38

Goode [79]

0.69–0.88 (4 scales

significantly on its

Perceived Value, trust

of loyalty)

designated factor

(p < 0.01). Overall,

CFA produced χ 2/df

well below the

criterion of Marsh

and Hocevar with

AGFI significantly

better than a one

factor model

15

Hsieh et al.

332

Morgan and Hunt

4(7)

NR

Acceptable model fit:

Financial – Social – Structural

10.3

[87]

[134]; Garbarino and

χ 2 = 516, df = 186,

Bonds

Johnson [66]

p < 0.05,

GFI = 0.90,

CFI = 0.93,

SRMR = 0.04

No.

References

N

Adapted Loyalty

No. of items

Reliability

Fit indices

Other dimensions measured

IR

Instrument

(Likert points)

(if CFA performed)

(items)

16

Parasuraman et

549 Internet

Zeithaml et al. [233]

5(5)

Cronbach’s α: 0.93

Acceptable model fit

E-S-QUAL (efficiency,

80.2

al. [152]

users; 653

(Amazon), 0.96

for E-S-QUAL:

fulfillment, system availability,

Amazon.com

(Walmart)

Amazon.com:

privacy), E-RecS-QUAL

costumers;

χ 2 = 1278.21,

(Responsiveness,

205

df = 203,

Compensation, Contact),

Walmart.com

CFI = 0.98,

Perceived Value

customers

NFI = 0.98,

RFI = 0.97,

TLI = 0.98,

RMSEA = 0.09

Walmart.com:

χ 2 = 739.86,

df = 203,

CFI = 0.97,

NFI = 0.96,

RFI = 0.95,

TLI = 0.96,

RMSEA = 0.11

17

Rodgers et al.

836

DeLone and McLean

4(5)

Cronbach’s α: 0.84

Acceptable model fit:

Informativeness,

9.8

[172]

[52]; Pitt et al. [156]

χ 2 = 1246, df = 365,

Entertainment, Interactivity,

GFI = 0.90,

Access, Tangibility, Reliability,

AGFI = 0.88,

Responsiveness, Assurance,

NFI = 0.91,

Empathy, Information Quality,

RMR = 0.04

System Quality, Service

Quality, On-Line Satisfaction

No.

References

N

Adapted Loyalty

No. of items

Reliability

Fit indices

Other dimensions measured

IR

Instrument

(Likert points)

(if CFA performed)

(items)

22

Koo [106]

353

Bloemer [21];

4(7): Re-patronize

Cronbach’s α: 0.955

Acceptable model fit:

End States of Existence,

4

Macintosh and

intention

(re-patronize

χ 2 = 21.91, df = 4,

Personal Values (Matured

Lockshin [126]

2(7): Store

intention), 0.842

p < 0.001,

Society, Safe World,

commitment

(store commitment)

GFI = 0.98,

Happiness, Esteem Life),

consisted

AGFI = 0.91,

Online Store Associations

NFI = 0.99,

(Web Site Design, Visual

NNFI = 0.97,

Appeal, Hyperlinks, Product

CFI = 0.99,

Assortment, Information,

RMR = 0.025,

Security Feature, After-sale

SRMR = 0.012

Services), Behavior

23

Overby and

817

Unger and Kernan

5(7)

Reliability

Acceptable model fit:

Utilitarian Value, Hedonic

10.2

Lee [149]

[205]

coefficient: 0.90

χ 2 = 634.313,

Value, Preference

df = 100,

p < 0.0001,

GFI = 0.909,

CFI = 0.934

24

Tsai et al.

526

Burnham et al. [23];

3(7)

Composite reliability:

CFA was done

Expected Value Sharing,

7.6

[202]

Bansal et al. [12–14]

0.95

Perceived Switching Costs,

Note: Similar

Community Building,

with the paper

Perceived Service Quality,

written by Tsai

Perceived Trust, Switching

and Huang

Barriers, Overall Satisfaction,

[201]

Relational Orientation