Orientasi Dan Perkembangan

Mahmutović, K.
: Development and validation of the scale for measuring digital marketing orientation in the hotel industry
Kenan Mahmutović
JEL: M310
University of Bihać
Original scientific article
Faculty of Economics in Bihać
https://doi.org/10.51680/ev.34.1.9
77000 Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina
kenan.mahmutovic@efbi.unbi.ba
Received: November 25, 2020
Revision Received: February 11, 2021
Accepted for publishing: February 18, 2021
This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License
DEVELOPMENT AND
VALIDATION OF THE SCALE
FOR MEASURING DIGITAL
MARKETING ORIENTATION
IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY
ABstrACT
Purpose: This paper aims to develop and validate the scale for measuring digital marketing orientation
(DMO) in the hotel industry.
Methodology: The robust exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis procedure is applied to a data set
collected through an online survey of 164 hotels in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and
Monte- negro.
Results: Digital marketing orientation has been conceptualized, and a scale has been developed to measure
this construct. The scale consists of 15 items in three defined dimensions (subscales): Strategic
emphasis, Digital intelligence generation, and Planning and resource provisioning.
Conclusion: Using the developed digital marketing orientation (DMO) scale, hotel managers can
conduct a DMO audit similar to conducting a market orientation audit to determine in which areas it is
necessary to improve market orientation in the online environment. Academics may use the DMO scale to
investigate its antecedents and the influence of other factors on DMO and/or the influence of DMO on
other factors. This is the first study, to the author’s knowledge, that developed and validated a
measurement scale for digital marketing orientation in the hotel industry.
Keywords: Digital marketing orientation, e-marketing orientation, market orientation, hotel industry,
scale development, tourism
1. Introduction Kohli et al., 1993; Deshpandé et al., 1993; Deng

Over the past four decades, significant research & Dart, 1994; Deshpandé & Farley, 1998;
progress has been made in the field of market ori- Harrison- Walker, 2001; Gray et al., 2010;
entation. Previous research has focused on defin- Sampaio et al., 2019) and examining the impact of
market orientation (Narver & Slater, 1990;
ing (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990;
Pulendran et al., 2003; Bazazo et al., 2017), as
Ruekert, 1992), measuring (Narver & Slater, 1990;
well as investigating the organizational drivers
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 1
Mahmutović, K.: Development and validation of the scale for measuring digital marketing orientation in the hotel industry
of market orientation
2 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

and its enhancement (Jaworski & Kohli, 1996; “market orientation” to describe its
Van Egeren & O’Connor, 1998). Digital implementation. Hence, a market-oriented
technology has led to significant business organization is one whose actions are consistent
changes, enabling companies to improve their with the marketing concept, in which
business processes and build better relationships
with their target markets. The emergence of
digital marketing has created a need for research
in this area, especially in terms of defining and
measuring digital marketing orientation. In
contrast to market orientation, which has attracted
significant attention from researchers, a
surprisingly small number of studies in the last 20
years have dealt with the conceptualization of
digital marketing orientation and the
development of reliable and valid measurement
instruments. This paper aims to contribute to the
conceptualization and measurement of digital
marketing orientation in the hotel industry, in
particular by filling the gap observed in previous
research cited in this paper. The purpose is to
develop and validate the scale for measuring
digital marketing orientation (DMO) in the hotel
industry. The article begins with a theoretical
framework, which helps in specifying the domain
of the construct. It is followed by an expla- nation
of the research design, analysis of the sample profile,
and the results of exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis. Finally, after the discussion and
conclusions, some of the research limitations and
recommendations for future research are given.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Marketing and market orientation
The marketing concept has been described as a “cor-
porate state of mind that insists on the integration
and coordination of all of the marketing functions,
which, in turn, are melded with other corporate
functions, for the primary objective of producing
maximum long-range corporate profits” (Felton,
1959). It means maximizing the focus on
customer satisfaction while making a profit
(McCarthy & Per- reault, 1984) by directing the
most effort to discover the wants of a target
audience and then create the goods and services to
satisfy them (Kotler & Zalt- man, 1971). The
marketing concept rests on four pillars: (1) target
marketing; (2) satisfying explicit and latent
customer needs; (3) integrated organizational focus
on the customers; and (4) long-term profitability
(Bell & Emory, 1971; Kotler, 2000).
While the marketing concept is considered a phi-
losophy that can be a core part of corporate
culture, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) use the term
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 3

the pillars of the marketing concept are disseminated. In practice, responsiveness includes
operation- ally manifest. Previous studies report activities like selecting target markets, designing
that “market orientation contributes to firms’ and offering products/services that will fulfill cus-
performance sub- stantially more than alternative tomers’ current and anticipated needs, and produc-
strategic orientations such as innovation and
entrepreneurial orientations” (Grinstein, 2008).
It positively impacts organizational performance,
customer loyalty and satisfaction, the firm’s
innovativeness, and em- ployee organizational
commitment (Masa’deh et al., 2018). Most
authors whose studies were dedi- cated to
explaining the construct of market orientation
and its measurement, like Kohli and Jaworski
(1990), Narver and Slater (1990), and Day
(1994), have primarily focused on ongoing
behaviors and activities in an organization, in
contrast to cultural perspective that emphasizes
the market-oriented shared values and beliefs
that provide the cultural infrastructure of an
organization (Gebhardt et al., 2006). From the
cultural perspective, the market orientation is an
organizational culture whose values and norms
emphasize creating and delivering superior value
to customers (Hurley & Hult, 1998).
Kohli and Jaworski (1990) define three elements
of market orientation: (1) intelligence
generation, (2) intelligence dissemination, and
(3) responsiveness, which comply with previously
defined pillars of the marketing concept. To be
customer-focused, organizations need to obtain
information from their customers about their
current and future needs and preferences and
information about exogenous marketing factors
(e.g. competition, regulation) that affect those
needs and preferences. These en- vironmental
scanning activities are subsumed under market
intelligence generation. Coordinated marketing
implies that all departments within the
organization operate in a marketing manner,
which means that they need to be cognizant of
customer needs (aware of market intelligence)
and respond to those needs. Intelligence
dissemination is the element of market
orientation which involves com- municating and
disseminating market intelligence to all
departments and individuals in the organiza-
tion. In this context, the term “market
orientation” is preferred over “marketing
orientation”, suggesting that the construct is not
exclusively a concern of the marketing function
but a variety of departments who generate
market intelligence, dissemi- nate it and respond
to it. Responsiveness is the third element of
market orientation, and it implies taking actions
in response to intelligence generated and
4 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129
ing, distributing, and promoting the products in a study of 138 Japanese executives.
way that elicits a favorable end-customer Deshpandé and Farley’s (1998) study of 82 manag-
response, which will lead to profit. Hence, ers in 27 European and U.S. companies shows that
profitability can be seen as a consequence of all three scales, as mentioned above, are reliable
market orientation.
Similar to the authors Kohli and Jaworski, Narver
and Slater (1990) state that market orientation
consists of three behavioral components -
customer orientation, competitor orientation, and
inter- functional coordination, and two decision
criteria - long term focus and profitability. The
Narver and Slater model is consistent with the
findings of Kohli and Jaworski (1990). Customer
orientation and competitor orientation include
activities involved in acquiring information
about customers and competitors and
disseminating it throughout the business(es),
while the third component, inter- functional
coordination, is consistent with “respon-
siveness”, as it comprises the business’s coordinated
efforts, typically involving more than the marketing
department, to create superior value for the
buyers.
2.2 Market orientation measurement

The measurement of market orientation and its
impact on business performance has received
consid- erable attention in previous research.
Narver and Slater (1990) developed a 15-item
factor-weighted scale (MKTOR) to measure
market orientation, which consists of three
behavioral components: customer orientation
(α=.8547), competitor orientation (α=.7164), and
inter-functional coordination (α=.7112). The scale
was tested on split samples from 371 self-
administered questionnaires from top managers of
113 strategic business units (SBUs) of a single
corporation. Responses were recorded on a 7-
point Likert scale.
Kohli et al. (1993) developed a 20-item scale (MAR-
KOR) that measures three components of market
orientation: intelligence generation (6 items),
intelligence dissemination (5 items), and
responsiveness (9 items). They used the nonlinear
factor analysis of matched samples of senior
marketing and non- marketing executives from
230 SBUs. Responses were recorded on a 5-point
Likert scale.
Deshpandé et al.’s (1993) study was designed to
evaluate the relationships between corporate cul-
ture, customer orientation, innovativeness, and
business performance. They developed a 9-item
Customer Orientation scale using results from a
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 5

and valid. Additionally, they combined and factor 1 Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/
analyzed all items from the MKTOR, MARKOR, 2 Google Trends. https://trends.google.com/trends/ explore?
and Customer Orientation scales and developed date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=digital%20 marketing,internet
%20marketing,e-marketing,web%20marketing
the MORTN scale that consists of 10 items. This
synthesized 10-item scale is based on a more par-
simonious definition of market orientation, which
defines it as “the set of cross-functional processes
and activities directed at creating and satisfying
customers through continuous needs-assessment”
(Deshpandé & Farley, 1998).
2.3 Digital marketing & e-marketing orientation

In today’s connected world, the Internet and
other digital technologies are widely used to
support, improve, and optimize different
business processes, including marketing. Both
academics and profes- sionals have coined a
bewildering range of alternative terms to
describe the use of digital technologies in
marketing. Google Scholar1 reveals that some of
the most often mentioned in scientific papers are
Internet marketing, web marketing, e-marketing,
and, more recently, digital marketing.
The term digital marketing describes a broader
scope of activities than Internet marketing and
web marketing. It refers to a range of digital
platforms to interact with audiences,
management of digital customer data and
electronic customer relationship management.
Since the term “digital marketing” has been used
the most lately among academics and practitioners,
and since in the last five years, it has been most
frequently searched via Google search2
compared to the other terms (internet marketing,
web marketing and e-marketing), it will be used
in the present paper to describe the “application
of digital media, data, and technology integrated
with traditional communications to achieve
marketing objectives” (Chaffey & Ellis-
Chadwick, 2019).
Regardless of the application level, digital
marketing represents the application of new
digital technologies, new devices, and systems,
which bring changes in many marketing
functions. Digital marketing is business
innovation. Innovation is one of the main
components for the success of small and
medium-sized enterprises (Hoq & Che Ha, 2009)
and one of the key factors influencing business
performance (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Hurley &
Hult, 1998; Porter, 1990).
Peattie and Peters (1997) were investigating how
development in the field of information
technolo-
6 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129
gies could impact activities in firms and which Vlachopoulou (2009) have tried to conceptualize
business orientations may result from such im-
pact. They advocate that information impacts the
marketing activities by enabling the new forms of
marketing implementation and new marketing
management opportunities, resulting in electronic
marketing orientation.
Similar to the marketing concept and market
orientation, digital marketing orientation (DMO)
could be defined as “the level of an organization’s
orientation toward the use of the Internet and
other digital technologies in the implementation
of the marketing concept” (Mahmutović, 2018).
It can be conceptualized as a synthesis of the
behaviors toward adopting digital marketing and
the concurrent organizational business philosophy
(Shaltoni & West, 2010; Shaltoni, 2006). Hence,
digital marketing orientation is the extent to
which an organization is oriented, i.e.,
strategically committed to using the Internet and
other digital technologies to determine the target
markets’ needs and requirements and deliver
customer satisfaction more effectively and
efficiently than competitors (Mahmutović, 2018).
Shaltoni (2006) has made a pioneering effort in
investigating the organizational orientation
toward digital marketing. His results indicated
that digital marketing orientation is made up of
philosophical and behavioral components. The
philosophical component is identified by the
degree to which decision-makers emphasize
digital marketing, while the behavioral component
is viewed as all the activities that led to high levels
of involvement in digital marketing. If we draw a
parallel with market orientation, we notice that the
philosophical component is similar to the
attitudinal perspective of market orientation
(Narver & Slater, 1990), while the behavioral
component is similar to market orientation
identified by Kohli and Jaworski (1990).
Furthermore, Shaltoni (2006) divides the behav-
ioral component into two phases: initiation and
implementation phase, where the initiation phase
corresponds to the intelligence generation and intel-
ligence dissemination (informing and formal plan-
ning), while the implementation phase
corresponds to the responsiveness (all activities
involved in put- ting digital marketing into
practice).
Based on the grounds that digital marketing ori-
entation combines two aspects, philosophical di-
mension (emphasis on digital marketing) and be-
havioral dimension (activities leading to high levels
of involvement in digital marketing), Tsiotsou and
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 7
and operationalize digital marketing orientation analysis did not confirm the behavioral com-
through the development of a scale for DMO. ponent of e-marketing orientation as suggested by
They conceptualize DMO as the business Shaltoni (2006), only philosophical, and the
culture, a construct that describes an author
organizational philosophical commitment to
digital marketing, as a basis for the development
and maintenance of competitive advantage. A
survey was conducted of 261 companies from
the tourism industry. A three-dimen- sional scale
(transaction orientation, promotion orientation,
database orientation) with a total of 8 items for
measuring DMO was constructed. How- ever, the
scale items’ analysis suggests that the scale
measures the firm’s behavior (digital marketing
implementation) and not its culture, as the
authors have defined the construct. It is also
evident that the scale does not measure market
intelligence generation and intelligence
dissemination.
Shaltoni’s (2006) exploratory research served
Shal- toni and West (2011) as a theoretical basis
for developing a 12-item scale for measuring e-
marketing orientation in b2b markets. Each of the
three components of e-marketing orientation
was measured with a four-item subscale.
Similar to Shaltoni and West, Chen and Huang
(2016) conducted a cross-sectional study on a
sample of 157 top-ranked companies in the
manufac- turing (75.4%) and service industries
in Taiwan, intending to develop and validate the
measurement scale of e-marketing orientation.
Through confirmatory factor analysis, they
developed a scale of 14 items, which measure
three components of e-marketing orientation:
(1) cultural philosophy, (2) initiation, and (3)
system development and integration. Compared
to the scale developed by Shaltoni and West
(2010), Chen and Huang (2016) have partially
renamed the first and third scale dimensions and
added two new items to the implementation
component, relating to “the integration and
processing of data obtained from suppliers,
customers and employees” and “continuous
monitoring of order sta- tus and various stages of
the process”.
Mahmutović (2018) has explored how e-
marketing orientation (EMO) in European real
estate agencies affects their marketing
performance. Empirical research for this work
was carried out on a sample of 311 real estate
agencies from eight countries. To measure EMO,
the author used the 12-item scale developed by
Shaltoni and West (2010). However, factor
8 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129
named this factor strategic e-marketing orientation If we consider some of the planning models, such as
– SEMO. The path analysis has confirmed that the the SOSTAC (Smith, 2020), we can see that market
level of strategic e-marketing orientation has a
positive and significant impact on the level of e-
marketing budget and the level of e-marketing
adoption and implementation in real estate
agencies, and a strong direct impact on enhanced
marketing efficiency and effectiveness.
2.4 Marketing planning, digital analytics, and business

performance
Marketing planning could be defined as a
technology, a set of activities and techniques that
are intended to assist an organization in
achieving its marketing objectives by aligning its
internal capabilities with the external
environment. “It is the principle mechanism firms
possess for aligning their efforts with the
expectations of their customers” (McKee et al.,
1990). “Formal planning yields benefits for all types
of companies, large and small, new and ma- ture.
It encourages systematic thinking, and forces the
company to sharpen its objectives and policies,
leads to better coordination of company efforts,
and provides more explicit performance standards
for control” (Kotler et al., 2005).
Pulendran et al. (2003) investigated relationships
between marketing planning, marketing orienta-
tion, and business performance. They treat
marketing planning as a purely behavioral
phenomenon (set of activities) and market
orientation as a part of the belief system
(organizational culture). The research findings
reveal that both marketing planning quality and
marketing orientation positively and significantly
impact business performance, and that there is a
positive and significant relationship between
marketing planning and market orientation.
Authors suggest that “planning processes may
provide communication about organizational
values and objectives” and that “managers should
be con- sidering the nature of their planning
processes as part of the process of developing and
maintaining a market orientation”. Peštek (2009)
and Mahmutović (2018) confirmed the positive
and significant impact of digital marketing
planning, marketing planning, and strategic
planning on tourist companies and real estate
agencies’ business performance. These findings
indicate the need for more serious consideration of
planning as an essential element of market
orientation or its antecedent.
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 9

information (intelligence) and dissemination tactical marketing decisions in the hotel business.
within the company are needed in all phases of His proposed framework presents a solid base for
digital marketing planning, from situational developing a
analysis (scanning the environment, competition,
consumers…), defining objectives, selecting
target markets and online value proposition,
choosing the best marketing mix, online channels
and tactics, and in the control phase. Hence, the
collection of market information and
performance metrics of individual marketing
activities and their dissemination within the com-
pany are an integral part of the planning process,
which fully corresponds to the market orientation
dimensions. Furthermore, adequate responsive-
ness of the company is possible only through the
implementation of a quality plan. Only with a
strategic and planned approach, the allocation
of digital marketing budgets to planned digital
marketing activities, following the set strategy
and goals, with the provision of the required
resources, leads to the enhancement of marketing
activities, which in turn leads to the enhancement
of marketing (cost) efficiency and
consequently, to the enhancement of marketing
effectiveness (Mahmutović, 2018).
An essential advantage of the digital economy, e-
commerce, and digital marketing is the high
degree of measurability and consumer behavior
analysis (Chaffey & Patron, 2012; Chaffey &
Ellis-Chadwick, 2019; Hartman, 2020).
Companies can collect and process large
amounts of data from the digital environment.
These data may come from own business
sources (such as the company website or other
online channels that the company uses), from on-
line marketing intelligence sources (websites and
other online channels used by competitors, social
networks, etc.), or through the online marketing
research. “Digital analytics is a set of business
and technical activities that define, create, collect,
verify or transform digital data into reporting,
research, analysis, recommendations,
optimizations, pre- dictions, and automation”
(Phillips, 2013). Digital analytics can provide
useful insights about customers, their behavior,
and about the effectiveness and efficiency of
specific online channels. This kind of continuous
market intelligence generation helps companies
plan better and refine and optimize their
marketing activities. Hence, this leads to a higher
digital marketing orientation of a company.
Mahmutović (2020) suggests a set of KPIs and
metrics that should facilitate strategic and
10 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129
subscale for assessing the level of adoption of digital

development started with the specification of the
analytics as one of the latent components of
construct domain. (2) After the literature review, a
digital marketing orientation.
list of 16 items was selected based on the
literature discussion, and some of the items were
3. Method developed by the author (see Table 1).
3.1 Research design
The scale development included five steps as sug-
gested by Churchill (1979). (1) The process of scale
Table 1 Digital marketing orientation scale

Code Item Source
In our company, we believe it is strategically necessary to use digital Adapted from Shaltoni and
SE1
marketing in our business. West (2010)
In our company, we tell employees that business success depends on using Adapted from Shaltoni and
SE2
the advanced capabilities provided by digital marketing. West (2010)
We encourage the development of new ideas and initiatives for the use of
SE3 Developed for this study.
the Internet and other digital technologies in marketing activities.
We feel that our company should take advantage of the opportunities
Adapted from Shaltoni and
SE4 provided by digital marketing and maximize the application of the
West (2010)
Internet and other digital technologies in our business.
We cannot imagine the business of our hotel without the use of the Inter-
SE5 Developed for this study.
net and other digital technologies in marketing activities.
We have clearly defined parameters (metrics) for measuring the perfor-
DIG1 Developed for this study.
mance of our website.
DIG2 We know what visitors are doing on our website. Developed for this study.
DIG3 We know how many visitors to our website become our customers. Developed for this study.
We know what percentage of visitors came to our website through
DIG4 Developed for this study.
various online channels (Facebook, Google ads, display ads, search
engines)
Thanks to web analytics, we know which type of guests is looking for
DIG5** Developed for this study.
which type of accommodation, which services and in which periods.
Our company has a digital marketing plan with clearly defined activities,
PRP1 Developed for this study.
responsible executors, and a budget for each activity.
Our digital marketing plan is an integral part of our marketing plan and is
PRP2 Developed for this study.
created following the set goals within the marketing plan.
We hold several meetings throughout the year to prepare a digital Adapted from Kohli, Jawor-
PRP3
marketing plan. ski and Kumar (1993)
Our company has adequate technical support for the implementation of digi- Adapted from Shaltoni and
PRP4
tal marketing activities (employees or services of specialized companies). West 2010
In our company, people with knowledge in the field of digital marketing Adapted from Kohli, Jawor-
PRP5
are responsible for the implementation of digital marketing. ski and Kumar (1993)
Activities of all employees in the company, as well as external collaborators
Adapted from Kohli, Jawor-
PRP6 (IT experts, etc.) who are responsible for the implementation of digital
ski and Kumar (1993)
marketing, are well coordinated.
** Through CFA analysis, this item has been removed due to problems with discriminant validity.
Source: Author
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 11

For each of the research constructs (components

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory
of digital marketing orientation), a subscale with
factor analysis (CFA) were performed using soft-
multiple items was developed. (3) Theoretical
ware IBM SPSS 26 and IBM AMOS 23 to test the
(face) validation has been performed as suggested
reliability and validity of the scale.
by Hair et al. (2019). Three experts, university
pro- fessors with experience in the construct
domain of the scale, have evaluated the pool of 3.2 Research sample
selected items with the task of checking the Data collection took place in the period July - Oc-
wording of items, checking whether some items tober 2020. This research sample consists of hotel
should be removed and whether any items were managers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Re-
missing from the scale. The experts were asked to public of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro. The
evaluate each item (on a measurement scale from list of categorized hotels was taken from the
1 to 5) for its representa- tiveness of the construct official government registers, and the contact
and clarity. Items rated with scores of 4 or higher email ad- dresses were collected from the hotels’
have been selected in the final item pool, which websites. A final population of 1,412 hotels was
finally contained 16 items. Next, a pre-test was defined. Out of 1,412 personalized email
conducted on a sample of 40 hotels, and nine invitations sent, 108 bounced back, and finally,
complete responses were received, revealing no 206 responses were received. As it was
problems or errors. (4) Finally, a personalized determined that 42 responses had missing data
email invitation to an online survey was sent to all related to digital analytics, it was de- cided to
respondents, followed by two reminders sent exclude them from further analysis. Thus, the
every 15 days to those respondents who did not final sample for analysis consisted of 164 re-
open the email. The online survey was con- spondents, which gives the response rate of 12.6%
ducted using the LimeSurvey web application, of the total population. Although the response rate
and a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect data is slightly lower compared to previous studies re-
on digital marketing orientation. (5) Once the data lated to this field (approximately 20%), it should
had been collected, the existence of non-response be noted that it was calculated relative to the total
bias was explored, using Levene’s test of population and that the research was conducted
homogeneity of variance between two groups of during the COVID 19 pandemic when many
respondents, those who responded earlier and hotels were temporarily closed. A rule of thumb
those who responded later. The assumption of the which says that a “minimum of 10 observations per
extrapolation method of successive waves variable is satis- fied to avoid any computational
(Armstrong & Overton, 1977) is that subjects who difficulties”3 is met, and the sample size is slightly
respond less readily are more like non- larger than in similar studies by Shaltoni and West
respondents. For all scale items, Levene’s test was (2010) and Chen and Huang (2016). The sample
non-significant (p > .05), suggesting that profile is presented in Table 2.
variances of early and late respondents are approxi-
mately equal, which means that non-response bias 3 Factor analysis | SPSS annotated output. https://stats.idre.
is not a problem in this study. ucla.edu/spss/output/factor-analysis/
Table 2 Sample profile

COUNTRY Bosnia Croatia Montenegro Serbia Total % Total
number of hotels 44 56 28 36 164 100.0
HOTEL TYPE
part of the hotel group 5 9 3 4 21 12.8
independent 39 47 25 32 143 87.2
HOTEL CATEGORIZATION
2* 0 1 0 2 3 1.8
3* 12 12 13 13 50 30.5
4* 27 39 14 21 101 61.6
12 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

COUNTRY Bosnia Croatia Montenegro Serbia Total % Total

5* 2 4 1 0 7 4.3
Not categorized 3 0 0 0 3 1.8
HOTEL SIZE
No of rooms
0-24 19 14 14 17 64 39.0
25-99 21 26 8 13 68 41.5
100-299 2 12 5 5 24 14.6
> 299 2 4 1 1 8 4.9
No of employees
1- 10 18 14 13 9 54 32.9
11 - 20 14 13 5 11 43 26.2
21 - 30 3 7 3 3 16 9.8
31 - 40 3 5 3 7 18 11.0
41 - 50 3 1 1 1 6 3.7
> 50 3 16 2 5 26 15.9
GENDER OF THE RESPONDENT
male 15 22 10 17 64 39.0
female 25 31 15 18 89 54.3
NN 4 3 3 1 11 6.7
POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT
board member 5 3 6 2 16 9.8
general manager 15 26 9 21 71 43.3
marketing manager 4 7 3 3 17 10.4
sales manager 7 17 3 5 32 19.5
a person in charge of DM 0 2 1 1 4 2.4
reception manager 10 0 3 4 17 10.4
Source: Author
4. Results factor extraction, as suggested by Nunnally and

Bernstein (1994). Exploratory factor analysis, us-
4.1 Exploratory factor analysis ing ML method with Promax rotation, resulted in
Before performing the exploratory factor analysis a total of 3 factors that represent the components
(EFA), the adequacy of the data for factorization of digital marketing orientation: Strategic Empha-
was checked. Bartlett’s test of sphericity is sig- sis (SE), Digital Intelligence Generation (DIG), and
nificant at a probability of .05 or less (.0001), and Planning and Resource Provisioning (PRP). The
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) value is .60 or higher screen test was used to estimate the number of
(.919), which confirms that factor analysis can be factors to retain, as it is considered more
applied to data (Pett et al., 2003). The normality accurate than the eigenvalue rule (Pett et al., 2003).
of the data distribution was checked as a The reliability coefficients of all the subscales
prerequisite for applying the maximum exceeded the rec- ommended threshold of .70
likelihood method for suggested by Nunnally (1978) (see Table 3).
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 13

Table 3 The results of the exploratory factor analysis of digital marketing orientation
Strategic em- Digital intelli- Planning and re- Variance Reliability
Factor Eigenvalue
phasis gence generation source provisioning explained (%) Alpha (α)
Factor 1: Strategic emphasis (SE) 2.131 11.154 0.888

SE1 0.95
SE2 0.74
SE3 0.59
SE4 0.88
SE5 0.62
Avg loading 0.76
Factor 2: Digital intelligence generation (DIG) 1.092 4.789 0.863
DIG1 0.56
DIG2 0.84
DIG3 0.62
DIG4 0.90
**DIG5 0.52
Avg loading 0.69
Factor 3: Planning and resource provisioning (PRP) 8.106 48.476 0.925
PRP1 0.77
PRP2 0.60
PRP3 0.80
PRP4 0.73
PRP5 0.80
PRP6 0.81
Avg loading 0.75
Total variance explained (%) 64.419
Cronbach alpha of the total scale 0.932
Suitability of data for factor analysis
KMO: .919
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity sig.: .000
** Through CFA analysis, this item has been removed due to problems with discriminant validity.
Source: Author
The convergent and discriminant validity of the vergent validity. The obtained factor solution shows
scale was confirmed through the EFA, which adequate discriminatory validity since there are no
showed that model acceptance criteria were satis- problematic cross-loads in the pattern matrix. The
fied: all variables load the associated factors with correlation matrix shown in Table 4 does not
more than 0.5, and each other factor with less than show correlations above 0.7, which confirms the
0.35 (Hair et al., 2010). Additionally, all variables model’s discriminant validity. The extracted three
within each factor load their factor by an average factors explain 64.4% of the total variance, with
of more than 0.7, which confirms the scale’s con- all three factors having an eigenvalue greater than
1.
14 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

Table 4 Correlation matrix of extracted factors

1 2 3
Factor Strategic emphasis Digital intelligence generation Planning and resource provisioning
(SE) (DIG) (PRP)
1 1.000 .682 .575
2 .682 1.000 .414
3 .575 .414 1.000
Source: Author
4.2 Conffrmatory factor analysis

4.3 Reliability and validity
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to
The reliability of the scales in the final model
evaluate the measurement model fit. Hair et al.
obtained through the CFA analysis was estimated by
(2010) suggest that the validity of the
computing the Cronbach alpha coefficient (ά) for
measurement model depends on (1) an acceptable
each factor and by computing additional reliability
level of goodness of fit and (2) concrete
measures accord- ing to the Hair et al.’s (2010)
evidence of construct validity (convergent and
suggestions: Construct Reliability (CR), Average
discriminant).
Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared
As model fit indicators for the initial model were Variance (MSV) and McDonald Construct
not satisfactory, an additional analysis was car- Reliability coefficient omega (MaxR(H)). The
ried out concerning modification indices greater thresholds for these values are as follows: ά > 0.7
than 5. After correlating error terms with high (internal consistency), CR > 0.7 (reliability), AVE >
modification indices related to the same factor, 0.5 (convergent validity), MSV < AVE (discriminant
the model was reevaluated. It was found that the validity) and Square root of AVE > inter-construct
obtained model with three first-order factors correlations (discriminant validity).
and one second-order factor (digital marketing The Cronbach alpha coefficient (ά) for the digital
orientation) adequately corresponds to the em- marketing orientation scale is .932, and for every
pirical data. All indexes of goodness of fit (X2 = construct it is over .86, which confirms
158.110, df = 95, X2/df = 1.664, CFI = .965, TI convergent validity. The Stats Tools Package
= .956, AGFI = .840, SRMR = .0615, RMSEA =
(Gaskin, 2016)4 was used to calculate the
.064, pclose = .099) indicate good model fit. Af-
measures of the scale validity, and results
ter the introduction of the second-order factor,
indicated issues with discriminant validity in factor
standardized regression weight for every item is
DIG. The model was reevaluated, and after
over .6, and the average standardized regression
removing item DIG5, all indices confirmed
weight for factor SE is .77, for factor PRP it is .80
reliability of the scales, and convergent and
and for factor DIG it is .75.
discriminant validity (see Table 5), and all indexes
indicated good model fit (X2 = 143.789, df = 81,
X2/df = 1.775, CFI = .964, TLI = .953, AGFI = .842,
SRMR = .0607, RMSEA = .069, pclose = .05).
Table 5 Indices for the assessment of the convergent and discriminatory validity
↓Factor Indices → CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) SE PRP DIG

SE 0.881 0.599 0.426 0.895 0.774
PRP 0.918 0.651 0.598 0.919 0.653 0.807
DIG 0.868 0.622 0.598 0.876 0.462 0.773 0.789
Notes: CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Variance; MaxR(H)
= McDonald Construct Reliability. The square root of AVE is shown on diagonal in bold faces.
Source: Author
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 15

4 Gaskin, J. (2016). ValidityMaster. Stats Tools Package. http://

statwiki.kolobkreations.com
16 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

The final model shows that the second-order con-

preferences and online behavior. The second con-
struct “digital marketing orientation” consists of
struct, digital intelligence generation (DIG), is in-
three dimensions named: Strategic Emphasis (SE)
tended to assess the extent to which a company
(5 items: SE1, SE2, SE3, SE4, SE5; ά = .888), Digi-
has developed a set of metrics for measuring the
tal Intelligence Generation (DIG) (4 items: DIG1,
DIG2, DIG3, DIG4; ά = .862), and Planning and performance of its website and the extent to which
Resource Provisioning (PRP) (6 items: PRP1, PRP2, it collects digital intelligence necessary to under-
PRP3, PRP4, PRP5, PRP6; ά = .925). The Cronbach stand website visitors and online customers, and
alpha for developed digital marketing orientation to evaluate the effectiveness of individual online
scale (DMO) is 0.933. channels used for visitor acquisition. Just as
digital marketing upgrades marketing through the
application of new technologies, the DIG
5. Discussion and conclusions subscale represents a necessary upgrade of the
The digital marketing orientation in the hotel in- “Intelligence Generation” subscale for measuring
dustry can be explained and measured through market orientation (Kohli et al., 1993), which
three dimensions: strategic emphasis (toward relies exclusively on consumer surveys and is thus
digital marketing), digital intelligence generation, insufficient for companies that are doing business
and planning and resource provisioning. The first in an online environment.
dimension corresponds with the cultural/philo-
Planning and resource provisioning (PRP) is the
sophical component of market orientation (Hurley
third dimension of digital marketing orientation.
& Hult, 1998), while the second and third dimen-
This dimension is consistent with the “respon-
sions correspond to market orientation’s behavio-
siveness” dimension within the market orienta-
ral components (Narver & Slater, 1990; Kohli et
tion. An adequate response to customers’ iden-
al., 1993).
tified needs and requirements in target markets
Every organization is guided by underlying business requires a strategic approach based on the devel-
philosophy, which shapes its culture and opment of a digital marketing strategy and digi-
influences strategic and tactical decisions. The tal marketing plan. Previous studies have shown
digital marketing orientation is a new type of that higher budgets for digital marketing are not
business orientation and business philosophy. Its a guarantee for business success (Mahmutović,
first construct, strategic emphasis toward digital 2018). An adequate digital marketing plan must
marketing, is intended to measure the cultural be accompanied by investment in digital market-
dimension of digital marketing orientation. The ing, and all other necessary resources (primarily
five items of the strategic emphasis subscale
human resources, knowledge) need to be pro-
assess the extent to which the hotel management
vided for digital marketing implementation. The
believes in the strategic neces- sity of digital
planning and resource provisioning (PRP) sub-
marketing application and the de- pendence of
scale is intended to assess the level and quality
business results on the application of digital
of digital marketing planning and resource ad-
marketing as well as the extent to which they
equacy for implementing the plan.
transfer their beliefs to other employees.
“A business is market-oriented when its culture Using the developed digital marketing orientation
is systematically and entirely committed to the (DMO) scale, hotel managers can conduct a DMO
continuous creation of superior customer value. audit similar to conducting a market orientation
Specifically, this entails collecting and coordinat- audit. It can help them to determine which areas
ing information on customers, competitors, and require improvement in market orientation in the
other significant market influencers to build that online environment. That could be especially use-
value” (Narver & Slater, 1994). With the increas- ful for hotel groups with many strategic business
ing transition of consumers from offline to online units (SBUs). In order to gain a comprehensive in-
channels, especially in the hotel industry, digital sight into the level of digital marketing
technology, in the form of digital analytics tools, orientation, the measurement should include, in
has enabled new ways for automated collection of addition to top management, lower levels of
valuable demographic, geographical, and psycho- management within hotel corporations.
graphic data on customers and data about their
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 17
Academics may use the DMO scale to investigate

in other industries or other countries. Trying dif-
its antecedents and the influence of other factors
ferent survey contact methods and data collection
on DMO and/or the influence of DMO on other
is suggested for future research. The development
factors.
of a more objective way of measuring individual
constructs, such as digital analytics, could reduce
ß. Limitations and recommendation for future potential bias due to self-reporting items. The sur-
research vey was conducted during the Covid-19
pandemic, which was the reason for the lower
Although the number of respondents corresponds response rate. It would be desirable to repeat the
to the suggested threshold for conducting fac- survey after the end of the pandemic. Also, it
tor analysis (10 respondents per one scale item), would be useful to investigate the impact of DMO
the sample size can be considered one of the re- on hotels’ marketing performance to determine
search limitations. For that reason, the recom- whether a greater orientation toward DMO can
mendation for future research is to replicate this help hotels overcome fear of online travel
study on larger samples in different contexts, e.g. agencies, and to identify DMO antecedents.
18 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

References
1. Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mailing survey. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14(3), 396-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320
2. Bazazo, I., Alansari, I., Alquraan, H., Alzgaybh, Y. & Masa’deh, R. (2017). The Influence of Total
Quality Management, Market Orientation and E-Marketing on Hotel Performance. International
Journal of Business Administration, 8(4), 79-99. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v8n4p79
3. Bell, M. L. & Emory, C. W. (1971). The Faltering Marketing Concept. Journal of Marketing, 35(4),
37-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297103500407
4. Burns, T. & Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publications.
5. Chaffey, D. & Patron, M. (2012). From web analytics to digital marketing optimization: Increasing the
commercial value of digital analytics. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice,
14(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1057/dddmp.2012.20
6. Chaffey, D. & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2019). Digital Marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practice (7th
ed). Pearson.
7. Chen, Y. Y., Huang, H. L. (2016). Developing and Validating the Measurement Scale of e-Marketing
Orientation. In Petruzzellis, L. & Winer, R. S. (Eds.). Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings
of the Academy of Marketing Science (pp. 215-226). Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29877-1_47
8. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal
of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
9. Day, G. S. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4),
37-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800404
10. Deng, S. & Dart, J. (1994). Measuring market orientation: A multi-factor, multi-item approach.
Journal of Marketing Management, 10(8), 725-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1994.9964318
11. Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. & Webster, F. (1993). Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and
Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23-37.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700102
12. Deshpandé, R. & Farley, J. U. (1998). Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and Synthesis.
Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2(3), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009719615327
13. Felton, A. P. (1959). Making the Marketing Concept Work. Harvard Business Review, 37(July/August),
55-65.
14. Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S. & Sherry, J. F. (2006). Creating a market orientation: A longitudinal,
multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70, 37-55.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.037
15. Gray, B., Matear, S., Boshoff, C. & Matheson, P. (2010). Developing a better measure of market orienta-
tion. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 884-903. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810232327
16. Grinstein, A. (2008). The Relationships between Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic
Orientations. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115-134.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810840934
17. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective (7th ed). Prentice Hall.
18. Hair Jr., J. F., Gabriel, M. L. D. S., da Silva, D. & Braga Junior, S. (2019). Development and validation
of attitudes measurement scales: fundamental and practical aspects. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4),
490-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0098
19. Harrison Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of a market orientation and its impact on business
performance. Journal of Quality Management, 6, 139-172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1084-8568(01)00035-9
20. Hartman, K. (2020). Digital Marketing Analytics In Theory And In Practice (2nd ed). Ostmen
Bennettsbridge Publishing Services.
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 19

21. Hoq, M. Z. & Che Ha, N. (2009). Innovativeness: Its Antecedents and Impact on SME Business
Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(11), 100-110.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1851425
22. Hurley, R. F. & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational
Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303
23. Jaworski, B. J. & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market orientation: Review, refinement, and roadmap. Journal of
Market-Focused Management, 1, 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128686
24. Kohli, A. K. & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and
Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400201
25. Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J. & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A Measure of Market Orientation. Journal
of Marketing Research, 30(4), 467-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000406
26. Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management. Prentice Hall.
27. Kotler, P. & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change. Journal of
Marketing, 35(July), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297103500302
28. Kotler, P., Wong, W., Saunders, J. & Armstrong, G. (2005). Principles of Marketing: European Edition
(4th ed). Pearson Education Limited.
29. Mahmutović, K. (2018). Impact of e-marketing orientation on marketing performance: Case of
European real estate brokerage industry. In Barković, D. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Interdisciplinary Management Research XIV (pp. 1308-1332). Opatija: Josip Juraj Strossmayer
University of Osijek, Faculty of Economics in Osijek Croatia; Postgraduate Doctoral Study Program in
Management; Hochschule Pforzheim University; Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
30. Mahmutović, K. (2020). From Google Analytics to digital marketing optimization in the hotel
industry: proposal of framework and empirical evaluation of hotel industry in Croatia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Serbia. In Šimurina, J. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of FEB Zagreb 11th
International Odyssey Conference on Economics and Business (pp. 828-843). Zagreb: Faculty of
Economics and Business.
31. Masa’deh, R., Al-Henzab, J., Tarhini, A. & Obeidat, B. Y. (2018). The associations among market
orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(8), 3117-3142. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0024
32. McCarthy, E. J. & Perreault Jr., W. D. (1984). Basic Marketing (8th ed). Irwin.
33. McKee, D. O., Varadarajan, R. & Vassar, J. (1990). A taxonomy of marketing planning styles. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 18(2), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726429
34. Narver, J. C. & Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability.
Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400403
35. Narver, J. C. & Slater, S. F. (1994). Market Orientation, Customer Value, and Superior Performance.
Business Horizons, 37(2), 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(94)90029-9
36. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill.
37. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed). McGraw Hill.
38. Peattie, K. & Peters, L. (1997). The marketing mix in the third age of computing. Marketing Intelligence
G Planning, 15(3), 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634509710165948
39. Peštek, A. (2009). E-marketing strategije u industriji turizma u Bosni i Hercegovini [Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Sarajevo]. University of Sarajevo, School of Economics and Business.
40. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R. & Sullivan, J. L. (2003). Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor
Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Sage Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984898
41. Phillips, J. (2013). Building a Digital Analytics Organization. Pearson FT Press.
42. Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73-
93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11336-1
20 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

43. Pulendran, S., Speed, R. & Widing II, R. E. (2003). Marketing planning, market orientation and busi-
ness performance. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 476-497.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310459050
44. Ruekert, R. W. (1992). Developing a market orientation: an organizational strategy perspective.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9(3), 225-245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(92)90019-H
45. Sampaio C. A. F., Hernández-Mogollón J. M. & Rodrigues R. G. (2019). Market Orientation and Hotel
Industry: Developing a Measurement Model. In Machado, J. et al. (Eds). Innovation, Engineering
and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1058-1065). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91334-
6_146
46. Shaltoni, A. M. (2006). e-Marketing Adoption in Organizations. In Zappala, S. & Gray, C. (Eds.),
Impact of e-Commerce on Consumers and Small Firms (pp. 129-138). Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
47. Shaltoni, A. M. & West, D. C. (2010). The measurement of e-marketing orientation (EMO) in busi-
ness-to-business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1097-1102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.06.011
48. Smith, P. (2020). SOSTAC: Guide to your Perfect Digital Marketing Plan. Kindle edition. Amazon.
49. Tsiotsou, R. H. & Vlachopoulou, M. (2009). E-marketing Orientation: Conceptualization and Scale
Development. In Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial International Conference on Services Marketing (pp.
580-590).
50. Van Egeren, M. & O’Connor, S. (1998). Drivers of market orientation and performance in service
firms. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049810202357
Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 21

Orientasi Dan Perkembangan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orientasi Dan Perkembangan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orientasi Dan Perkembangan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahmutović, K.

This work is licensed under a

1. Introduction Kohli et al., 1993; Deshpandé et al., 1993; Deng

2 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 3

2.2 Market orientation measurement

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 5

2.3 Digital marketing & e-marketing orientation

2.4 Marketing planning, digital analytics, and business

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 9

subscale for assessing the level of adoption of digital

Table 1 Digital marketing orientation scale

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 11

For each of the research constructs (components

Table 2 Sample profile

12 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

COUNTRY Bosnia Croatia Montenegro Serbia Total % Total

4. Results factor extraction, as suggested by Nunnally and

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 13

Factor 1: Strategic emphasis (SE) 2.131 11.154 0.888

14 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

Table 4 Correlation matrix of extracted factors

4.2 Conffrmatory factor analysis

↓Factor Indices → CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) SE PRP DIG

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 15

4 Gaskin, J. (2016). ValidityMaster. Stats Tools Package. http://

16 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

The final model shows that the second-order con-

Academics may use the DMO scale to investigate

18 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 19

20 Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129

Vol. 34, No. 1 (2021), pp. 115-129 21

You might also like