Luận án Chất lượng tín hiệu và mối quan hệ thương hiệu - Khách hàng trong thị trường hàng tiêu dùng ở Việt Nam

ty: implications for further research. Journal of Marketing, 58 (1): 111-125. 228. Park, C.S., and Srinivasan, V., 1994. A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2): 271- 288. 229. Park, J. G., Lee, S. and Lee, J., 2014. Communication effectiveness on IT service relationship quality. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(2): 321-336. 230. Pars, Sahbaz R. and Gulsel Ciftci., 2011. The Effects of Brand Image on Consumers’ Choice. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(20): 227-238. 231. Peng, Mike W. and Yadong Luo, 2000. Managerial Ties and Firm Performance in a Transition Economy: The Nature of a Micro-Macro Link. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 486-501. 232. Peterson R. A., 1994. A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(2): 381-391. 233. Pires, C. P., and Catalão–Lopes, M., 2011. Signaling advertising by multiproduct firms. International Journal of Game Theory, 40 (2), 403-425. 234. Pitta, D. A., and Katsanis, L. P., 1995. Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), 51-64. 235. Philip Kotler and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Managemen, 12th ed., Prentice-Hall, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 154 236. Quin, S., Zhao, L., and Yi, X., 2009. Impacts of customer service on relationship quality : an empirical study in China. Managing Service Quality, 19(4): 391-409. 237. Raghubir, Priya and Kim P. Corfman, 1995. When Do Price Promotions Signal Product Quality? The Effect of Dealing on Perceived Service Quality. Advances in Consumer Research, 22 (1): 58-61. 238. Ramaswami, A., Dreher, G. F., Bretz, R., and Wiethoff, C., 2010. Gender, mentoring, and career success: The importance of organizational context. Personnel Psychology, 63: 385-405. 239. Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe, 1989. The Effect of Price, Brand Name and Store Name on Buyer’s Perception of Product Qulaity: An Integrative Review. Journal of Markering Research, 16 (August): 351-357. 240. Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe, 1996. Causes and Consequences of Price Premiums. Journal of Business, 69 (4): 511-536. 241. Rao, Akshay R., Lu Qu and Robert Ruekert, 1999. Signaling Unobservable Product Quality Through a Brand Ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2): 258-269. 242. Rao, Akshay R. and Robert W. Ruekert, 1994. Brand Alliances as Signals of Product Quaity. Sloan Management Review, 36 (1): 87-98. 243. Raykov, T., and Widaman, K. F., 1995. Issues in Applied Structural Equation Modeling Research. Structural Equation Modeling, 2: 289-318. 244. Raza and Rehman, Z., 2012. Impact of relationship marketing tatics on relationship quality and customer loyalty: A case study of telecom sector of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 16(14): 5085-5092. 245. Reichheld, F., 1996. Learning from customer defections. Havard Business Review, 74: 56-69. 246. Reichheld, F., and W. E. Sasser Jr., 1990. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68(5): 105-11. 155 247. Richardson, P., Dick, A., and Jain, A., 1994. Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. The Journal of Marketing, 58(4): 28-36. 248. Rio, A. B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V., 2001. The effects of brand associations on consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18 (5), 410-25. 249. Rios, R. E., and Riquelme, H. E., 2008. Brand equity for online companies. Marketing Intellegence & Planning, 26(7): 719-742. 250. Roberts, J H, and Urban, G., 1988. Modeling multiattribute utility, risk and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice. Management Science, 34: 167-185. 251. Roberts, K., Varki, S., Brodie, R., 2003. Measuring the quality of relationship in consumer services: an empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (1/2): 160-196. 252. Rogerson, William., 1983. Reputation and Product Quality. The Bell Journal of Economics, 14 (2), 508-517. 253. Rothschild, M. and Stiglitz, J., 1976. Equilibrium in Competitive Insurance Markets: An essay on the Economics of Imperfect Information. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(4): 629-649. 254. Rosenberg, L. J. and Czepiel, J. A., 1983. A Marketing Approach to Customer Retention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2: 45-51. 255. Roy, D., and Banerjee, S., 2007. Caring strategy for integration of brand identity with brand image. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 17(1/2): 140-148. 256. Ruchan K. and Huseyin A., 2007. Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(1): 92-109. 156 257. Saleem, S., Rahman, S. U., and Umar, R. M., 2015. Measuring Customer Based Beverage Brand Equity: Investigating the Relationship between Perceived Quality, Brand Awareness, Brand Image, and Brand Loyalty. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 7(1): 66-77. 258. Sanders, W. G., and Boivie, S., 2004. Sorting things out : Valuation of New Firms in Uncertain Markets. Strategic Management Journal, 25(2): 167- 186. 259. Saydan, R., 2013. Relationship between Country of Origin Image and Brand Equity: An Empirical Evidence in England Market, International Journal of Business & Social Science, 4(3): 78. 260. Schmalensee, Richard, 1978. A Model of Advertising and Product Quality. Journal of Political Economy, 86 (3): 485-503. 261. Shafranskaya, S., and Potapov, D., 2014. An empirical study of consumer- based city brand equity from signalling theory perspective. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 10(2): 117-131. 262. Shapiro, Carl, 1982. Consumer Information, Product Quality and Seller Reputation. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13 (1): 20-35. 263. Shocker, A.D. and Chay R., 1992. How marketing Researchers Can Harness the Power of Brand Equity. Presentation to New Zealand Marketing Research Society, August. 264. Shocker, A. D. and Weitz, B., 1988. A perspective on brand equity principles and isses, in Leuthesser, L. (Ed.), Defining, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity Report: A Conference Summary, No. 88-104, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 2-4. 265. Simester, D., 1995. Signaling Price Image Using Advertised Prices. Marketing Science, 14 (Spring): 166-89. 266. Simon, C. J., and Sullivan, M. V., 1993. The measurement of determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science, 12, 28-52. 157 267. Slater, S. F., 1995. Issues in conducting marketing strategy research. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3: 257-270. 268. Smit E, Bronner F, and Tolboom M, 2007. Brand relationship quality and its value for personal contact. Journal of Business Research, 60: 627-33. 269. Smit, J. B., 1998. Buyer-Seller Relationships: Similarity, Relationship Management, and Quality. Psychology & Marketing, 15(1): 3-21. 270. Solalinde, G. and Pizzutti, C., 2014. The Effect of Signaling Quality in a Service Context. RAC, Rio de Janerio, 18(3): 261-284. 271. Sophonsiri, S. and Polyorat, K., 2009. The impact of brand personality dimensions on brand association and brand attractiveness: the case study of KFC in Thailand. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 5(2). 272. Spence, Michael, 1973. Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87 (3), 355-374. 273. Spence, Michael, 1974. Market Signaling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 274. Spielmann, N., 2014. Brand equity for origin-bounded brands. Journal of Brand Management, 21 (3), 189-201. 275. Srivastava, R. K., and Shocker, A. D., 1991. Brand Equity: A perspective on its meaning and measurement, Working paper series, report no. 91-124. Marketing Science Institute, Cambirdge, MA. 276. Steenkamp J-BEM and van Trijp HCM, 1991. The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4): 283-299. 277. Stern, B.B., 1997. Advertising intimacy: relationship marketing and the services consumer. Journal of Advertising, 4: 7-19. 278. Sternthal, Brian, Lynn W. Phillips and Dholakia Ruby, 1978. The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situation Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(3): 285-314. 158 279. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002), “Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics”. The American Economic Review, 92(3): 460-502. 280. Stock, Axel and Subramanian Balachander, 2005. The Making of a “Hot Product”: A Signaling Explanation of Marketers’ Scarcity Strategy. Management Science, 51 (8): 1181-1192. 281. Stock, R.M., 2011. How does product program innovativeness affect customer satisfaction? A comparison of goods and services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13 (6), 813-827. 282. Sun, H., 2010. Transferring Attributes of E-commerce Systems into Business Benefits: A Relationship Quality Perspective. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 11(2): 92-109. 283. Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education. 284. Tan, Soo J., Khai S. Lee and Guan H. Lim, 2001. Warranty and Warrantor Reputations as Signals of Hybrid Product Quality. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (1/2): 110-132. 285. Ted Roselius, 1971. “Consumer Ranking of Risk Reduction Methods”, Journal of Marketing, 35 (January): 56-61. 286. Tirole, J., 1988. The Theory of Industrial Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, CA. 287. Tohidinia, Z. and Haghighi, M., 2011. Predictors and outcomes of relationship quality: a guide for customer-oriented strategies. Business Strategy Series, 12(5): 242-256. 288. Tong, X., and Hawley, J. M., 2009. Measuring customer-based brand equity: Empirical evidence from sportswear market in China. Journal of Product and Management, 18(4): 262-271. 289. Trifts, Valerie and Geral Haubl, 2003. Information Availability and Consumer Preference: Can Online Retailers Benefit From Providing Access 159 to Competitor Price Information?. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(2): 149-159. 290. Tseng, Y. M., 2005. How can marketing tactics build behavioural loyalty?. The Business Review, 3(2): 298. 291. Tseng, Y. M., 2007. The Impacts of Relationship Marketing Tatics on Relationship Quality in Service Industry. Bus. Rev. Cambridge, 7(2): 310- 314. 292. Tsao, Hsiu-Yuan, Pitt, L. F., and Berthon, P., 2005. An Experimental Study of Brand Signal Quality of Products in an Asymmetric Information Environment. Omega, In Press, Corrected Proof. 293. Vazquez, R., Del Rio, A.B. and Iglesias, V., 2002. Consumer-based brand equity: development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management, 18 (½): 27-49. 294. Veloutsou, C., and Moutinho, L., 2009. Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism. Journal of Business Research, 62: 314-322. 295. Venetis, KA., and Ghauri, PN., 2004. Service quality and customer retention: building long-term relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11/12): 1577-1598. 296. Vesel, P. and Zabkar, V., 2010. Comprehension of relationship quality in the retail environment, Managing Service Quality, 20(3): 213-235. 297. Walter, A., Muller, T. A., Helfert, G. and Ritter, T., 2003. Functions of Industrial Supplier Relationships and Their Impact on Relationship Quality. Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (2): 159-169. 298. Wang, H., Wei, Y., and Yu, C., 2008. Global brand equity model: combining customer – based with product – market outcome approaches. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17/5: 305 – 316. 299. Wang, S.D.D., Beatty, S.E. and Foxx, W., 2004. Signaling the trustworthiness of small online retailers. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 53-69. 160 300. Wang, X., Chow, W. C., Yang, Z., and Lai, J. Y. M., 2014. Market signals: web site investment and physical store existence. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(1): 94-113. 301. Warner, A. G., Fairbank, J. F., and Steensma, H. K., 2006. Managing uncertainty in a formal standards-based industry: A real options perspective on acquisition timing. Journal of Management, 32: 279-298. 302. Washburn. J. H., and Plank, R. E., 2002. Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(1): 46. 303. Webster, F.E. and Wind, Y., 1972. A general model for understanding buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36: 12-19. 304. Weigold, Michael F., Flusser, Suzie and Ferguson, Mary Ann, 1992. Direct Response Advertising: The Contributions of Price, Information, Artwork, and Individual Differences to Purchase Consideration. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6(2): 32-39. 305. Welch, M., 2014. Factors of Food Security and Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Charoen Pokphand Foods PCL (C.P. Foods), Thailan. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, 4(2): 304-317. 306. Wells, J.D., Valacich, J.S. and Hess, T.J., 2011. What signal are you sending? How website quality influences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 373-396. 307. Wilson, Robert, 1983. Auditing: Perspectives from Multi-Person Decision Theory. Accounting Review, 58(2): 305-319. 308. Wong, A. and Sohal, A., 2002a. An examination of the relationship between trust, commitment and relationship quality. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(1): 34-50. 309. Wong, A. and Sohal, A., 2002b. Customers’ perspectives on service quality and relationship quality in retail encounters. Managing Service Quality, 12(6): 424-433. 161 310. Wong, Y. H., Hung, H. and Chow, W., 2007. Mediating effects of relationship quality on customer relationships: an empirical study in Hong Kong. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(6): 581- 96. 311. Woo, K. S. and Ennew, C. T., 2004. Business-to-Business Relationship Quality: An IMP Interaction-Based Conceptualization and Measurement. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/ 10): 1252-1271. 312. Wood, L., 2000. Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9): 622-629. 313. Wray, B., Palmer, A. and Bejou, D., 1994. Using neural network analysis to evaluate buyer-seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 28(10): 32-48. 314. Wulf, Kristof De, Gaby Odekerken-Schroder and Patrick Van Kenhove, 2003. Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Critical Reassessment and Model Extension. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 13(3): 245-261. 315. Yoo, B., and Donthu, N., 1997. Developing and Validating a Consumer- Based Overall Brand Equity Scale for Americans and Korean: An Extension of Aaker’s and Keller’s Conceptualizations. Proceedings, AMA Summer Educator’s Conference, Chicago. 316. Yoo, B.H, Donthu, N and Lee S.H., 2000. An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2): 195-211. 317. Zhang, Y., and Wiersema, M. F., 2009. Stock market reaction to CEO certification: The signaling role of CEO background. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 693-710. 162 PHỤ LỤC 1: DÀN BÀI THẢO LUẬN KHÁM PHÁ CÁC KHÁI NIỆM NGHIÊN CỨU PHẦN 1: GIỚI THIỆU PHẦN 2: NỘI DUNG: (nội dung tƣơng tự cho đối tƣợng ngƣời tiêu dùng dịch vụ cung cấp mạng điện thoại di động) 1. Anh/ chị vui lòng cho biết anh/ chị đang sở hữu và sử dụng thƣơng hiệu ô tô nào? - Anh/ chị là ngƣời quyết định chọn mạng này hay ai khác? - Vì sao anh/ chị chọn thƣơng hiệu ô tô đang sử dụng này? 2. Điều gì của thƣơng hiệu thu hút anh/ chị (làm anh chị quan tâm đến)? Khi nhắc đến thƣơng hiệu này, anh/ chị nghĩ ngay đến điều gì? Vì sao? 3. Anh/ chị có tìm hiểu thông tin về các thƣơng hiệu ô tô trƣớc khi mua không? - Thƣờng thì anh/ chị tìm những thông tin này ở đâu? - Anh/ chị có dễ dàng hiểu những thông tin này không? - Anh/ chị đánh giá thông tin này nhƣ thế nào? - Theo anh/ chị những thông tin này có ảnh hƣởng đến thƣơng hiệu/ công ty không? Nếu có thì chúng ảnh hƣởng đến điều gì, tại sao? 4. Khi đã sở hữu thƣơng hiệu ô tô này, anh/ chị có thƣờng nhận những thông tin liên quan đến thƣơng hiệu ô tô này không? - Anh/ chị đánh giá nhƣ thế nào về thông tin của thƣơng hiệu ô tô này trƣớc và sau khi mua? 5. Khi sở hữu ô tô này anh/ chị cảm thấy thế nào, vì sao? - Anh/ chị thấy thƣơng hiệu ô tô này thân quen không, vì sao? - Anh/ chị có thấy mình có những điểm chung nào đó với thƣơng hiệu này không, vì sao? 163 - Khi nghe ai đó nói về thƣơng hiệu ô tô, anh/ chị cảm thấy thế nào không, vì sao? - Nếu nghe ai đó nói tốt/ xấu về thƣơng hiệu này anh/ chị cảm thấy thế nào, vì sao? - Anh/ chị có tin dùng thƣơng hiệu này không, vì sao? - Anh/ chị có nghĩ mình sẽ thay đổi sang thƣơng hiệu ô tô khác không, vì sao? - Nếu ai đó hỏi ý kiến anh/ chị nói về ô tô; anh/ chị sẽ nói về khía cạnh nào, nói nhƣ thế nào, và vì sao? 6. Nhìn chung, anh chị có đánh giá nhƣ thế nào về thƣơng hiệu ô tô này? Với sự đánh giá này, anh/ chị nghĩ mình sẽ làm gì? PHẦN 3: CẢM ƠN 164 PHỤ LỤC 2: DANH SÁCH ĐỐI TƢỢNG THAM GIA NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỊNH TÍNH 1. Danh sách đối tƣợng tham gia nghiên cứu khám phá STT HỌ VÀ TÊN SỐ ĐIỆN THOẠI ĐỊA CHỈ/ ĐƠN VỊ CÔNG TÁC 1 Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Phụng 091 5767 886 Ngân hàng Á Châu 2 Nguyễn Thị Bích Duyên 093 4454 077 Công ty đƣờng Biên Hòa 3 Hoàng Hữu Minh 094 9039 621 Công ty Điện máy Chợ Lớn 4 Phạm Thành 01695138517 10/53 đƣờng 379, phƣờng Tăng Nhơn Phú A, quận 9, HCM 5 Phan Huỳnh Nhƣ 0165 2260 998 18/6 Hẻm 210 Man Thiện, Tăng Nhơn Phú A, quận 9, HCM 6 Trần Thị Minh Châu 0122 8762 731 23/36/49 Nguyễn Hữu Tiến, Tây Thạnh, Tân Phú, HCM. 7 Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Hà 0919 837 968 268/3 xã Bình Qƣới, Châu Thành, Long An. 8 Hoàng Quang Luy 0918 468 273 25 Nhân Thân Trung, phƣờng 13, quận Tân Bình, HCM 9 Nguyễn Duy Minh 0909 178 466 Trƣờng Cao đẳng Tài chính – Hải quan. 10 Vũ Thị Thu Dung 0902 026 568 Trƣờng Cao đẳng Tài chính – Hải quan. 11 Ngụy Thị Sao Chi 0908 361 180 Trƣờng Cao đẳng Tài chính – Hải quan. 12 Nguyễn Thị Thanh Nhàn 0937 322 780 Công ty SAMCO 13 Nguyễn Thị Chúc Anh 0908 382 611 03 Ba Vân, phƣờng 13, quận Tân Bình, HCM 14 Đỗ Quốc Vỹ 0908 404 116 Công ty địa ốc Phú Thịnh 165 2. Danh sách đối tƣợng nghiên cứu tham gia nghiên cứu điều chỉnh thang đo STT HỌ VÀ TÊN SỐ ĐIỆN THOẠI ĐỊA CHỈ/ ĐƠN VỊ CÔNG TÁC 1 Hoàng Ngọc Tƣ 0168 8599 474 57a Nguyễn Kiệm, phƣờng 3, Gò Vấp, HCM 2 Nguyễn Thị Kim Giang 0902 600 240 17 đƣờng 28, Hiệp Bình Chánh, Thủ Đức, HCM 3 Nguyễn Ngọc Thành 0982 681 622 Công ty TNHH Điện máy Thiên Hòa 4 Trần Thị Ngọc Hƣơng 0983 735 062 46/6 Tân Lập 1, KP 4, Hiệp Phú, quận 9, HCM 5 Phan Huỳnh Nhƣ 0165 2260 998 18/6 Hẻm 210 Man Thiện, Tăng Nhơn Phú A, quận 9, HCM 6 Nguyễn Thị Thơm 0163 9471338 D6/2 đƣờng 385 Lê Văn Việt, Tăng Nhơn Phú A, quận 9. 7 Hồng Ngọc Thi 0168 4976 445 K2/ 1B, Bửu Hòa, Biên Hòa, Đồng Nai. 8 Lƣu Vinh Quang 0903 812 790 Công ty CP địa ốc An Phú 9 Trần Văn Tâm 0903 752 992 UBND quận Tân Bình 10 Lê Trọng Trung 0908 457 764 Công TNHH GE 11 Hồ Hoàng Giang 0918 501 981 Công ty thuốc lá Sài Gòn 12 Nguyễn Thị Thanh Nhàn 0937 322 780 Công ty SAMCO 13 Bùi Anh Kiệt 0976 871 981 UBND quận Tân Bình 14 Nguyễn Trung Sơn 0903 835 200 Kinh doanh tự do 166 PHỤ LỤC 3: BẢNG CÂU HỎI NGHIÊN CỨU CHÍNH THỨC PHẦN 1: MỘT SỐ CÂU HỎI GẠN LỌC (TÙY THEO LĨNH VỰC NGHIÊN CỨU) VÀ THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN: - Thƣơng hiệu đang sử dụng, thời gian đã sử dụng thƣơng hiệu này. - Giới tính, nhóm tuổi, thu nhập và công việc đang làm. PHẦN 2: NỘI DUNG CHÍNH Xin anh/chị vui lòng cho biết mức độ đồng ý của các anh/chị trong các phát biểu dưới đây bằng cách khoanh tròn vào MỘT con số theo quy ước sau cho mỗi dòng phát biểu? 1: Hoàn toàn không đồng ý; 2: Không đồng ý; 3: Hơi không đồng ý; 4: Bình thƣờng; 5: Hơi đồng ý; 6: Đồng ý; 7: Hoàn toàn đồng ý X: tên thương hiệu mạng điện thoại di động đang sử dụng Phát biểu Ký hiệu Mức độ đồng ý Tôi biết về X RR1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi biết X thể hiện cái gì RR2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mọi thứ của X đƣợc nhất quán (về sự phù hợp thƣơng hiệu, chất lƣợng, giá, quảng cáo, sự đa dạng, các đặc điểm độc đáo riêng biệt,) NQ1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mọi nguồn thông tin cung cấp có liên quan đến X đều đảm bảo tính nhất quán NQ2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X thực hiện những gì đã cam kết TC1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X chỉ thông tin đúng với những gì mà nó có TC2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi đánh giá cao mức độ chân thực của X TC3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X truyền tải hình ảnh thƣơng hiệu rất tốt đến khách hàng HA1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Khi nói đến X tôi hình dung ra đƣợc hình ảnh của nó HA2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X có hình ảnh khác biệt so với các thƣơng hiệu khác HA3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X thực sự rất hấp dẫn HD1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X luôn cuốn hút tôi HD2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nếu X là ngƣời, tôi thích đƣợc cùng ngƣời này xuất hiện trong đám đông HD3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi có cảm giác rất yêu thƣơng khi nói đến X ĐM1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 167 Phát biểu Ký hiệu Mức độ đồng ý Tôi có cảm giác rất tự hào khi nói đến X ĐM2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi cảm thấy thích thú khi nói đến X ĐM3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X giúp tôi thể hiện mình GK1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X là một phần trong tôi GK2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi luôn đồng hành cùng với X CK1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Theo tôi, X là thƣơng hiệu không thể thay thế CK2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X thể hiện sự thành đạt của tôi PT1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi cảm thấy không vui khi một ai đó phê bình X PT2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi rất hiểu X TM1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi luôn cảm thông với X TM2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi hiểu rõ về X TM3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X cho tôi cảm giác tin tƣởng TN1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X thì xứng đáng để tín nhiệm TN2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi luôn tin tƣởng X TN3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi sẽ tìm mua đƣợc X chứ không mua các loại khác TT1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi sẽ tiếp tục sử dụng thƣơng hiệu này bởi vì tôi hài lòng và quen thuộc với nó TT2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tôi sẽ tiếp tục sử dụng thƣơng hiệu này mặc cho sự lôi kéo của các thƣơng hiệu cạnh tranh khác TT3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PHẦN 3. CẢM ƠN 168 PHỤ LỤC 4: KẾT QUẢ CFA MÔ HÌNH ĐO LƢỜNG TỚI HẠN CLMQH .40 t e15 .63 .53 tm e14 .73 .48 pt e13 .69 .51 ck e12 .71 .59 gk e11 .77 .71 dm e10 .84 HD .62 hd1 e7 .69 hd2 e8 .50 hd3 e9 .79 CLTH .82 tce1 .73 nqe2 .47 rre3 .90 .68 .86 .83 .70 HA .71 h1 e4 .63 h2 e5 .57 h3 e6 .85.79 .76 TT .59 tt1 e16 .62 tt2 e17 .68 tt3 e18 .77 .82 .79 Chi-square=583.487; df=123; P=.000; Chi-square/df=4.744; GFI=.897; TLI=.906; CFI=.925; RMSEA=.079 .67 .28 .29 .59 .80 .64 .80 .52 .45 .64 -.26 -.35 Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label T <--- CLMQH 1.000 tm <--- CLMQH 1.245 .083 15.072 *** pt <--- CLMQH .832 .057 14.491 *** ck <--- CLMQH .837 .057 14.568 *** gk <--- CLMQH .928 .059 15.655 *** dm <--- CLMQH 1.750 .106 16.585 *** hd1 <--- HD 1.000 tc <--- CLTH 1.000 rr <--- CLTH .589 .031 19.101 *** nq <--- CLTH .664 .025 26.781 *** hd2 <--- HD 1.090 .054 20.105 *** hd3 <--- HD .987 .058 17.073 *** 169 Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label h1 <--- HA 1.000 h2 <--- HA 1.064 .053 20.138 *** h3 <--- HA .913 .050 18.096 *** tt1 <--- TT 1.000 tt3 <--- TT 1.220 .066 18.470 *** tt2 <--- TT 1.025 .057 18.062 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate t<--- CLMQH .631 hd1<--- HD .786 tm<--- CLMQH .729 hd2<--- HD .828 pt<--- CLMQH .693 hd3<--- HD .704 ck<--- CLMQH .714 h1<--- HA .846 gk<--- CLMQH .766 h2<--- HA .794 dm<--- CLMQH .843 h3<--- HA .758 tc<--- CLTH .903 tt1<--- TT .767 rr<--- CLTH .682 tt3<--- TT .824 nq<--- CLTH .856 tt2<--- TT .789 Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label CLMQH HA 1.570 .154 10.207 *** HA TT .342 .062 5.514 *** CLTH TT 1.033 .179 5.782 *** HD CLTH 2.137 .206 10.374 *** CLMQH HD 1.921 .179 10.733 *** CLMQH CLTH 4.416 .431 10.254 *** CLTH HA 2.824 .216 13.078 *** CLMQH TT 1.235 .144 8.558 *** HD TT .568 .071 8.033 *** HD HA .797 .075 10.689 *** e4 e6 -.158 .043 -3.690 *** e12 e10 -1.450 .222 -6.546 *** 170 Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate CLMQH HA .667 CLTH HA .798 HA TT .278 CLMQH TT .519 CLTH TT .289 HD TT .453 HD CLTH .592 HD HA .642 CLMQH HD .800 e4 e6 -.261 CLMQH CLTH .645 e12 e10 -.348 Variances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label CLMQH 4.561 .548 8.330 *** HD 1.265 .117 10.805 *** CLTH 10.284 .754 13.647 *** HA 1.216 .104 11.697 *** TT 1.241 .121 10.250 *** e15 6.883 .423 16.274 *** e14 6.228 .402 15.505 *** e13 3.410 .215 15.849 *** e12 3.064 .208 14.737 *** e11 2.756 .183 15.022 *** e10 5.671 .466 12.178 *** e7 .783 .062 12.710 *** e8 .687 .062 11.082 *** e9 1.254 .086 14.574 *** e1 2.326 .270 8.606 *** e2 1.657 .143 11.583 *** e3 4.095 .261 15.670 *** e4 .485 .052 9.304 *** e5 .805 .062 12.896 *** e6 .750 .062 12.027 *** e16 .868 .070 12.481 *** e17 .790 .068 11.673 *** e18 .873 .086 10.147 *** 171 Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate tt3 .679 hd3 .496 tt2 .623 hd2 .686 tt1 .588 hd1 .618 h3 .575 Dm .711 h2 .631 Gk .587 h1 .715 Ck .510 rr .465 Pt .481 nq .732 Tm .532 tc .816 T .399 CMIN Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model 48 583.487 123 .000 4.744 Saturated model 171 .000 0 Independence model 18 6259.025 153 .000 40.909 RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI Default model .326 .897 .857 .645 Saturated model .000 1.000 Independence model 2.622 .253 .165 .226 Baseline Comparisons Model NFI Delta1 RFI rho1 IFI Delta2 TLI rho2 CFI Default model .907 .884 .925 .906 .925 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI Default model .804 .729 .743 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 1.000 .000 .000 172 NCP Model NCP LO 90 HI 90 Default model 460.487 389.053 539.451 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 6106.025 5850.535 6367.846 FMIN Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90 Default model .974 .769 .650 .901 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000 Independence model 10.449 10.194 9.767 10.631 RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model .079 .073 .086 .000 Independence model .258 .253 .264 .000 AIC Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC Default model 679.487 682.632 890.539 938.539 Saturated model 342.000 353.203 1093.875 1264.875 Independence model 6295.025 6296.204 6374.170 6392.170 ECVI Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI Default model 1.134 1.015 1.266 1.140 Saturated model .571 .571 .571 .590 Independence model 10.509 10.083 10.946 10.511 HOELTER Model HOELTER .05 HOELTER .01 Default model 154 167 Independence model 18 19 173 PHỤ LỤC 5: KẾT QUẢ SEM MÔ HÌNH LÝ THUYẾT .68 CLMQH .40 t e15 .63 .53 tm e14 .73 .48 pt e13 .69 .51 ck e12 .71 .59 gk e11 .77 .72 dm e10 .85 .66 HA .52 h3e1 .65 h2e2 .66 h1e3 .72 .81 .81 CLTH .46 rr e4 .73 nq e5 .82 tc e6 .68. 6 .90 .32 HD .71 hd1 e7 .64 hd2 e8 .59 hd3 e9 .84 .77 .80 Chi-square=562.720; df=126; P=.000; Chi-square/df=4.466; GFI=.902; TLI=.913; CFI=.928; RMSEA=.076 .27 TT .59 tt1 e16 .64 tt2 e17 .66 tt3 e18 .77 .82 .80 .19 .15 .52 .58 .57 d1 d2 d3 d4 -.48 -.35 .37 .81 Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label HD <--- CLTH .362 .031 11.582 *** HA <--- CLTH .414 .030 13.886 *** CLMQH <--- CLTH .217 .074 2.937 .003 CLMQH <--- HA .332 .163 2.032 .042 CLMQH <--- HD 1.022 .103 9.968 *** TT <--- CLMQH .271 .027 9.878 *** t <--- CLMQH 1.000 tm <--- CLMQH 1.248 .083 15.046 *** pt <--- CLMQH .834 .058 14.470 *** ck <--- CLMQH .834 .058 14.488 *** gk <--- CLMQH .928 .059 15.606 *** 174 Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label dm <--- CLMQH 1.763 .106 16.614 *** h3 <--- HA 1.000 h1 <--- HA 1.107 .060 18.359 *** h2 <--- HA 1.243 .068 18.232 *** rr <--- CLTH 1.000 nq <--- CLTH 1.128 .061 18.482 *** tc <--- CLTH 1.701 .089 19.088 *** hd1 <--- HD 1.000 hd3 <--- HD 1.007 .060 16.754 *** hd2 <--- HD .980 .050 19.537 *** tt1 <--- TT 1.000 tt3 <--- TT 1.209 .066 18.310 *** tt2 <--- TT 1.039 .057 18.122 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD <--- CLTH .568 h3 <--- HA .723 HA <--- CLTH .815 h1 <--- HA .815 CLMQH <--- CLTH .192 h2 <--- HA .808 CLMQH <--- HA .149 rr <--- CLTH .682 CLMQH <--- HD .577 nq <--- CLTH .855 TT <--- CLMQH .519 tc <--- CLTH .904 t <--- CLMQH .630 hd1 <--- HD .841 tm <--- CLMQH .729 hd3 <--- HD .769 pt <--- CLMQH .693 hd2 <--- HD .797 ck <--- CLMQH .711 tt1 <--- TT .766 gk <--- CLMQH .765 tt3 <--- TT .815 dm <--- CLMQH .848 tt2 <--- TT .799 Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label d1 d2 .204 .037 5.498 *** e7 e9 -.377 .058 -6.521 *** e12 e10 -1.449 .220 -6.585 *** 175 Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD .323 Nq .731 HA .664 Rr .465 CLMQH .676 h1 .663 TT .270 h2 .652 tt3 .664 h3 .522 tt2 .638 Dm .718 tt1 .586 Gk .585 hd3 .591 Ck .505 hd2 .636 Pt .481 hd1 .707 Tm .532 tc .817 T .397 CMIN Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model 45 562.720 126 .000 4.466 Saturated model 171 .000 0 Independence model 18 6259.025 153 .000 40.909 RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI Default model .327 .902 .867 .664 Saturated model .000 1.000 Independence model 2.622 .253 .165 .226 Baseline Comparisons Model NFI Delta1 RFI rho1 IFI Delta2 TLI rho2 CFI Default model .910 .891 .929 .913 .928 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI Default model .824 .749 .765 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 1.000 .000 .000 176 NCP Model NCP LO 90 HI 90 Default model 436.720 366.912 514.070 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 6106.025 5850.535 6367.846 FMIN Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90 Default model .939 .729 .613 .858 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000 Independence model 10.449 10.194 9.767 10.631 RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model .076 .070 .083 .000 Independence model .258 .253 .264 .000 AIC Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC Default model 652.720 655.669 850.582 895.582 Saturated model 342.000 353.203 1093.875 1264.875 Independence model 6295.025 6296.204 6374.170 6392.170 ECVI Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI Default model 1.090 .973 1.219 1.095 Saturated model .571 .571 .571 .590 Independence model 10.509 10.083 10.946 10.511 HOELTER Model HOELTER .05 HOELTER .01 Default model 164 177 Independence model 18 19 177 PHỤ LỤC 6: KẾT QUẢ KIỂM ĐỊNH MÔ HÌNH CẠNH TRANH Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label HD <--- CLTH .366 .031 11.625 *** HA <--- CLTH .413 .030 13.857 *** CLMQH <--- CLTH .250 .077 3.224 .001 CLMQH <--- HA .368 .171 2.151 .031 CLMQH <--- HD .998 .103 9.729 *** TT <--- CLMQH .332 .039 8.480 *** TT <--- HA -.200 .079 -2.542 .011 T <--- CLMQH 1.000 tm <--- CLMQH 1.236 .080 15.467 *** pt <--- CLMQH .813 .055 14.664 *** ck <--- CLMQH .770 .054 14.303 *** gk <--- CLMQH .905 .057 15.873 *** 178 Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label dm <--- CLMQH 1.663 .099 16.728 *** h1 <--- HA 1.110 .061 18.330 *** Rr <--- CLTH 1.000 nq <--- CLTH 1.128 .061 18.471 *** Tc <--- CLTH 1.702 .089 19.085 *** hd1 <--- HD 1.000 hd3 <--- HD .997 .060 16.698 *** hd2 <--- HD .968 .050 19.348 *** tt1 <--- TT 1.000 tt3 <--- TT 1.219 .066 18.431 *** tt2 <--- TT 1.029 .057 18.070 *** h3 <--- HA 1.000 h2 <--- HA 1.248 .069 18.225 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD <--- CLTH .568 h1 <---HA .815 HA <---CLTH .814 Rr <---CLTH .681 CLMQH <---CLTH .215 nq <---CLTH .855 CLMQH <---HA .161 tc <---CLTH .904 CLMQH <---HD .554 hd1 <---HD .848 TT <---CLMQH .652 hd3 <---HD .767 TT <---HA -.172 hd2 <---HD .794 TT <---CLMQH .647 tt1 <---TT .766 tm <---CLMQH .741 tt3 <---TT .822 pt <---CLMQH .694 tt2 <---TT .791 ck <---CLMQH .673 h3 <---HA .721 gk <---CLMQH .766 h2 <---HA .809 dm <---CLMQH .821 Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label d1 d2 .203 .037 5.489 *** e7 e9 -.386 .059 -6.532 *** 179 Variances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label CLTH 3.556 .390 9.124 *** d1 .309 .041 7.508 *** d2 .997 .095 10.459 *** d3 1.510 .203 7.435 *** d4 .866 .091 9.529 *** e15 6.660 .417 15.979 *** e14 5.994 .399 15.041 *** e13 3.407 .219 15.587 *** e12 3.421 .217 15.773 *** e11 2.762 .188 14.664 *** e10 6.415 .477 13.451 *** e1 .846 .058 14.537 *** e2 .752 .061 12.341 *** e3 .571 .047 12.129 *** e4 4.102 .262 15.680 *** e5 1.665 .143 11.624 *** e6 2.303 .270 8.531 *** e7 .576 .068 8.514 *** e8 .809 .064 12.599 *** e9 1.023 .091 11.180 *** e16 .871 .070 12.508 *** e17 .783 .068 11.578 *** e18 .880 .086 10.209 *** Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD .323 h1 .664 HA .663 h2 .655 CLMQH .684 h3 .520 TT .300 Dm .673 tt3 .676 Gk .587 tt2 .626 Ck .453 tt1 .587 Pt .481 hd3 .589 Tm .549 hd2 .630 T .418 hd1 .719 Nq .731 Tc .817 Rr .464 Model Fit Summary 180 CMIN Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model 45 596.468 126 .000 4.734 Saturated model 171 .000 0 Independence model 18 6259.025 153 .000 40.909 RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI Default model .322 .897 .861 .661 Saturated model .000 1.000 Independence model 2.622 .253 .165 .226 Baseline Comparisons Model NFI Delta1 RFI rho1 IFI Delta2 TLI rho2 CFI Default model .905 .884 .923 .906 .923 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI Default model .824 .745 .760 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 1.000 .000 .000 NCP Model NCP LO 90 HI 90 Default model 470.468 398.212 550.255 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 6106.025 5850.535 6367.846 FMIN Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90 Default model .996 .785 .665 .919 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000 Independence model 10.449 10.194 9.767 10.631 181 RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model .079 .073 .085 .000 Independence model .258 .253 .264 .000 AIC Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC Default model 686.468 689.416 884.330 929.330 Saturated model 342.000 353.203 1093.875 1264.875 Independence model 6295.025 6296.204 6374.170 6392.170 ECVI Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI Default model 1.146 1.025 1.279 1.151 Saturated model .571 .571 .571 .590 Independence model 10.509 10.083 10.946 10.511 HOELTER Model HOELTER .05 HOELTER .01 Default model 154 167 Independence model 18 19 182 PHỤ LỤC 7: KẾT QUẢ KIỂM ĐỊNH MÔ HÌNH LÝ THUYẾT BẰNG BOOTRAP .68 CLMQH .40 t e15 .63 .53 tm e14 .73 .48 pt e13 .69 .51 ck e12 .71 .59 gk e11 .77 .72 dm e10 .85 .66 HA .52 h3e1 .65 h2e2 .66 h1e3 .72 .81 .81 CLTH .46 rr e4 .73 nq e5 .82 tc e6 .68. 6 .90 .32 HD .71 hd1 e7 .64 hd2 e8 .59 hd3 e9 .84 .77 .80 Chi-square=562.720; df=126; P=.000; Chi-square/df=4.466; GFI=.902; TLI=.913; CFI=.928; RMSEA=.076 .27 TT .59 tt1 e16 .64 tt2 e17 .66 tt3 e18 .77 .82 .80 .19 .15 .52 .58 .57 d1 d2 d3 d4 -.48 -.35 .37 .81 Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label HD <--- CLTH .362 .031 11.582 *** HA <--- CLTH .414 .030 13.886 *** CLMQH <--- CLTH .217 .074 2.937 .003 CLMQH <--- HA .332 .163 2.032 .042 CLMQH <--- HD 1.022 .103 9.968 *** TT <--- CLMQH .271 .027 9.878 *** t <--- CLMQH 1.000 tm <--- CLMQH 1.248 .083 15.046 *** pt <--- CLMQH .834 .058 14.470 *** ck <--- CLMQH .834 .058 14.488 *** 183 Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label gk <--- CLMQH .928 .059 15.606 *** dm <--- CLMQH 1.763 .106 16.614 *** h3 <--- HA 1.000 h1 <--- HA 1.107 .060 18.359 *** h2 <--- HA 1.243 .068 18.232 *** rr <--- CLTH 1.000 nq <--- CLTH 1.128 .061 18.482 *** tc <--- CLTH 1.701 .089 19.088 *** hd1 <--- HD 1.000 hd3 <--- HD 1.007 .060 16.754 *** hd2 <--- HD .980 .050 19.537 *** tt1 <--- TT 1.000 tt3 <--- TT 1.209 .066 18.310 *** tt2 <--- TT 1.039 .057 18.122 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD<--- CLTH .568 h3<--- HA .723 HA<--- CLTH .815 h1<--- HA .815 CLMQH<--- CLTH .192 h2<--- HA .808 CLMQH<--- HA .149 rr<--- CLTH .682 CLMQH<--- HD .577 nq<--- CLTH .855 TT<--- CLMQH .519 tc<--- CLTH .904 t<--- CLMQH .630 hd1<--- HD .841 tm<--- CLMQH .729 hd3<--- HD .769 pt<--- CLMQH .693 hd2<--- HD .797 ck<--- CLMQH .711 tt1<--- TT .766 gk<--- CLMQH .765 tt3<--- TT .815 dm<--- CLMQH .848 tt2<--- TT .799 Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label d1 d2 .204 .037 5.498 *** e7 e9 -.377 .058 -6.521 *** e12 e10 -1.449 .220 -6.585 *** 184 Variances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label CLTH 3.560 .390 9.130 *** d1 .310 .041 7.500 *** d2 .981 .094 10.431 *** d3 1.471 .197 7.455 *** d4 .903 .092 9.775 *** e15 6.903 .424 16.294 *** e14 6.230 .401 15.529 *** e13 3.410 .215 15.867 *** e12 3.097 .209 14.806 *** e11 2.770 .184 15.070 *** e10 5.534 .457 12.101 *** e1 .842 .058 14.493 *** e2 .758 .061 12.374 *** e3 .572 .047 12.121 *** e4 4.098 .262 15.671 *** e5 1.663 .143 11.592 *** e6 2.311 .271 8.534 *** e7 .600 .067 9.009 *** e8 .798 .063 12.650 *** e9 1.017 .090 11.343 *** e16 .872 .070 12.493 *** e17 .758 .067 11.249 *** e18 .912 .087 10.516 *** Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD .323 Nq .731 HA .664 Rr .465 CLMQH .676 h1 .663 TT .270 h2 .652 tt3 .664 h3 .522 tt2 .638 Dm .718 tt1 .586 Gk .585 hd3 .591 Ck .505 hd2 .636 Pt .481 hd1 .707 Tm .532 tc .817 T .397 185 CMIN Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model 45 562.720 126 .000 4.466 Saturated model 171 .000 0 Independence model 18 6259.025 153 .000 40.909 RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI Default model .327 .902 .867 .664 Saturated model .000 1.000 Independence model 2.622 .253 .165 .226 Baseline Comparisons Model NFI Delta1 RFI rho1 IFI Delta2 TLI rho2 CFI Default model .910 .891 .929 .913 .928 Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000 Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI Default model .824 .749 .765 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 1.000 .000 .000 NCP Model NCP LO 90 HI 90 Default model 436.720 366.912 514.070 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 Independence model 6106.025 5850.535 6367.846 FMIN Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90 Default model .939 .729 .613 .858 Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000 Independence model 10.449 10.194 9.767 10.631 186 RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model .076 .070 .083 .000 Independence model .258 .253 .264 .000 AIC Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC Default model 652.720 655.669 850.582 895.582 Saturated model 342.000 353.203 1093.875 1264.875 Independence model 6295.025 6296.204 6374.170 6392.170 ECVI Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI Default model 1.090 .973 1.219 1.095 Saturated model .571 .571 .571 .590 Independence model 10.509 10.083 10.946 10.511 HOELTER Model HOELTER .05 HOELTER .01 Default model 164 177 Independence model 18 19 187 PHỤ LỤC 8: KẾT QUẢ KIỂM ĐỊNH MÔ HÌNH KHẢ BIẾN Regression Weights: (O TO - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label HD <--- CLTH .521 .052 10.081 *** par_17 HA <--- CLTH .496 .049 10.071 *** par_21 CLMQH <--- CLTH .528 .221 2.393 .017 par_13 CLMQH <--- HA .195 .330 .590 .555 par_14 CLMQH <--- HD 1.245 .187 6.646 *** par_16 TT <--- CLMQH .340 .031 10.972 *** par_15 t <--- CLMQH 1.000 tm <--- CLMQH .995 .062 16.133 *** par_1 pt <--- CLMQH .691 .048 14.545 *** par_2 ck <--- CLMQH .814 .049 16.502 *** par_3 gk <--- CLMQH .778 .048 16.132 *** par_4 dm <--- CLMQH 1.251 .074 16.797 *** par_5 188 Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label h1 <--- HA 1.167 .082 14.144 *** par_6 rr <--- CLTH 1.000 nq <--- CLTH 1.146 .094 12.174 *** par_7 tc <--- CLTH 1.879 .142 13.203 *** par_8 hd1 <--- HD 1.000 hd3 <--- HD 1.174 .090 13.025 *** par_9 hd2 <--- HD .927 .068 13.530 *** par_10 tt1 <--- TT 1.000 tt3 <--- TT 1.226 .064 19.079 *** par_11 tt2 <--- TT 1.010 .060 16.915 *** par_12 h3 <--- HA 1.000 h2 <--- HA 1.190 .088 13.464 *** par_20 Standardized Regression Weights: (O TO - Default model) Estimate HD <--- CLTH .719 HA <--- CLTH .868 CLMQH <--- CLTH .304 CLMQH <--- HA .064 CLMQH <--- HD .521 TT <--- CLMQH .681 t <--- CLMQH .801 tm <--- CLMQH .815 pt <--- CLMQH .755 ck <--- CLMQH .836 gk <--- CLMQH .815 dm <--- CLMQH .846 h1 <--- HA .863 rr <--- CLTH .651 nq <--- CLTH .823 tc <--- CLTH .931 hd1 <--- HD .883 hd3 <--- HD .804 hd2 <--- HD .751 tt1 <--- TT .836 tt3 <--- TT .918 tt2 <--- TT .825 h3 <--- HA .729 h2 <--- HA .815 189 Covariances: (O TO - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label e7 e9 -.321 .068 -4.730 *** par_18 e12 e10 -.714 .197 -3.617 *** par_19 Correlations: (O TO - Default model) Estimate e7 e9 -.620 e12 e10 -.264 Variances: (O TO - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label CLTH 2.128 .347 6.141 *** par_43 d1 .172 .034 5.036 *** par_44 d2 .542 .078 6.931 *** par_45 d3 2.108 .293 7.196 *** par_46 d4 .854 .107 7.997 *** par_47 e15 3.581 .331 10.834 *** par_48 e14 3.202 .300 10.679 *** par_49 e13 2.311 .206 11.204 *** par_50 e12 1.833 .187 9.814 *** par_51 e11 1.960 .184 10.680 *** par_52 e10 3.983 .413 9.645 *** par_53 e1 .615 .059 10.504 *** par_54 e2 .496 .054 9.123 *** par_55 e3 .323 .042 7.634 *** par_56 e4 2.890 .252 11.477 *** par_57 e5 1.336 .135 9.921 *** par_58 e6 1.150 .211 5.463 *** par_59 e7 .318 .065 4.882 *** par_60 e8 .742 .074 10.075 *** par_61 e9 .843 .120 7.041 *** par_62 e16 .687 .075 9.146 *** par_63 e17 .761 .081 9.430 *** par_64 e18 .446 .080 5.577 *** par_65 190 Squared Multiple Correlations: (O TO - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD .517 Nq .677 HA .753 Rr .424 CLMQH .671 h1 .745 TT .464 h2 .665 tt3 .843 h3 .531 tt2 .681 Dm .716 tt1 .699 Gk .665 hd3 .647 Ck .698 hd2 .564 Pt .570 hd1 .779 Tm .665 tc .867 T .642 Regression Weights: (DI DONG - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label HD <--- CLTH .138 .041 3.340 *** par_38 HA <--- CLTH .274 .046 5.987 *** par_42 CLMQH <--- CLTH .034 .044 .764 .445 par_34 CLMQH <--- HA .204 .104 1.970 .049 par_35 CLMQH <--- HD .660 .154 4.297 *** par_37 TT <--- CLMQH .498 .124 4.016 *** par_36 t <--- CLMQH 1.000 tm <--- CLMQH 2.177 .486 4.478 *** par_22 pt <--- CLMQH 1.492 .334 4.471 *** par_23 ck <--- CLMQH 1.428 .325 4.399 *** par_24 gk <--- CLMQH 1.725 .373 4.630 *** par_25 dm <--- CLMQH 3.291 .696 4.730 *** par_26 h1 <--- HA 1.058 .132 7.997 *** par_27 rr <--- CLTH 1.000 nq <--- CLTH 1.093 .115 9.503 *** par_28 tc <--- CLTH 1.388 .147 9.414 *** par_29 hd1 <--- HD 1.000 hd3 <--- HD 1.281 .130 9.824 *** par_30 hd2 <--- HD 1.193 .122 9.770 *** par_31 tt1 <--- TT 1.000 tt3 <--- TT 1.223 .130 9.375 *** par_32 tt2 <--- TT 1.055 .112 9.392 *** par_33 h3 <--- HA 1.000 h2 <--- HA 1.198 .149 8.029 *** par_41 191 Standardized Regression Weights: (DI DONG - Default model) Estimate HD <--- CLTH .242 HA <--- CLTH .579 CLMQH <--- CLTH .061 CLMQH <--- HA .174 CLMQH <--- HD .675 TT <--- CLMQH .509 t <--- CLMQH .295 tm <--- CLMQH .562 pt <--- CLMQH .559 ck <--- CLMQH .560 gk <--- CLMQH .655 dm <--- CLMQH .781 h1 <--- HA .693 rr <--- CLTH .608 nq <--- CLTH .820 tc <--- CLTH .763 hd1 <--- HD .703 hd3 <--- HD .796 hd2 <--- HD .784 tt1 <--- TT .679 tt3 <--- TT .733 tt2 <--- TT .738 h3 <--- HA .613 h2 <--- HA .705 Covariances: (DI DONG - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label e7 e9 -.350 .100 -3.499 *** par_39 e12 e10 -1.729 .396 -4.362 *** par_40 Correlations: (DI DONG - Default model) Estimate e7 e9 -.373 e12 e10 -.341 192 Variances: (DI DONG - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label CLTH 2.955 .563 5.246 *** par_66 d1 .440 .096 4.586 *** par_67 d2 .897 .155 5.789 *** par_68 d3 .407 .173 2.350 .019 par_69 d4 .649 .118 5.481 *** par_70 e15 9.545 .794 12.026 *** par_71 e14 9.343 .833 11.221 *** par_72 e13 4.471 .398 11.241 *** par_73 e12 4.076 .386 10.549 *** par_74 e11 3.612 .343 10.544 *** par_75 e10 6.303 .806 7.822 *** par_76 e1 1.102 .115 9.593 *** par_77 e2 .963 .123 7.822 *** par_78 e3 .801 .099 8.084 *** par_79 e4 5.033 .479 10.508 *** par_80 e5 1.719 .289 5.952 *** par_81 e6 4.091 .532 7.685 *** par_82 e7 .974 .120 8.128 *** par_83 e8 .852 .113 7.528 *** par_84 e9 .902 .144 6.254 *** par_85 e16 1.025 .113 9.035 *** par_86 e17 .813 .106 7.685 *** par_87 e18 1.129 .144 7.825 *** par_88 Squared Multiple Correlations: (DI DONG - Default model) Estimate Estimate HD .059 Nq .673 HA .335 Rr .370 CLMQH .554 h1 .481 TT .259 h2 .497 tt3 .537 h3 .375 tt2 .545 Dm .610 tt1 .461 Gk .429 hd3 .634 Ck .313 hd2 .614 Pt .312 hd1 .495 Tm .316 tc .582 T .087 193 PHỤ LỤC 9: KẾT QUẢ KIỂM ĐỊNH MÔ HÌNH BẤT BIẾN Regression Weights: (O TO - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label HD <--- CLTH .438 .040 11.064 *** Beta 3 HA <--- CLTH .461 .039 11.672 *** Beta 1 CLMQH <--- CLTH .363 .107 3.381 *** Beta 2 CLMQH <--- HA .242 .155 1.561 .119 Beta 5 CLMQH <--- HD 1.101 .115 9.566 *** Beta 4 TT <--- CLMQH .347 .029 11.808 *** Beta 6 T <--- CLMQH 1.000 tm <--- CLMQH 1.056 .070 15.059 *** pt <--- CLMQH .736 .054 13.651 *** ck <--- CLMQH .870 .056 15.508 *** gk <--- CLMQH .831 .055 15.183 *** dm <--- CLMQH 1.334 .085 15.733 *** 194 Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label h1 <--- HA 1.139 .077 14.892 *** rr <--- CLTH 1.000 nq <--- CLTH 1.035 .076 13.584 *** tc <--- CLTH 1.692 .113 15.009 *** hd1 <--- HD 1.000 hd3 <--- HD 1.174 .092 12.780 *** hd2 <--- HD .911 .069 13.260 *** tt1 <--- TT 1.000 tt3 <--- TT 1.240 .067 18.604 *** tt2 <--- TT 1.018 .062 16.408 *** h3 <--- HA 1.000 h2 <--- HA 1.164 .083 14.096 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (O TO - Default model) Estimate HD <--- CLTH .685 HA <--- CLTH .872 CLMQH <--- CLTH .260 CLMQH <--- HA .092 CLMQH <--- HD .506 TT <--- CLMQH .647 t <--- CLMQH .761 tm <--- CLMQH .798 pt <--- CLMQH .737 ck <--- CLMQH .825 gk <--- CLMQH .803 dm <--- CLMQH .834 h1 <--- HA .862 rr <--- CLTH .690 nq <--- CLTH .824 tc <--- CLTH .930 hd1 <--- HD .884 hd3 <--- HD .803 hd2 <--- HD .735 tt1 <--- TT .824 tt3 <--- TT .915 tt2 <--- TT .815 h3 <--- HA .738 h2 <--- HA .816 195 Covariances: (O TO - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label e7 e9 -.345 .067 -5.164 *** e12 e10 -.758 .197 -3.838 *** Variances: (O TO - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label CLTH 2.616 .382 6.858 *** d1 .175 .035 5.049 *** d2 .569 .078 7.279 *** d3 1.980 .279 7.104 *** d4 .850 .107 7.926 *** e15 3.691 .335 11.030 *** e14 3.232 .303 10.675 *** e13 2.306 .206 11.186 *** e12 1.795 .186 9.646 *** e11 1.931 .182 10.616 *** e10 3.937 .415 9.499 *** e1 .611 .059 10.442 *** e2 .498 .054 9.169 *** e3 .327 .042 7.741 *** e4 2.872 .254 11.286 *** e5 1.327 .134 9.870 *** e6 1.177 .211 5.591 *** e7 .299 .064 4.678 *** e8 .756 .074 10.221 *** e9 .813 .121 6.731 *** e16 .689 .075 9.195 *** e17 .767 .081 9.419 *** e18 .435 .081 5.384 *** 196 Squared Multiple Correlations: (O TO - Default model) Estimate HD .469 HA .761 CLMQH .610 TT .418 tt3 .838 tt2 .664 tt1 .679 hd3 .645 hd2 .541 hd1 .782 tc .864 nq .679 rr .477 h1 .744 h2 .665 h3 .545 dm .696 gk .645 ck .681 pt .544 tm .637 t .579