TITLE

On the perceived user satisfaction of the Santiago bus system: a MIMIC model indirect effects approach

AUTHORS
Jaime Allen · Juan Carlos Muñoz · Juan de Dios Ortúzar
Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

RESEARCH QUESTION
Develop a structural equation model to determine which factors in user perceptions affect more
significantly their satisfaction with the specific line of bus used and their overall satisfaction with the public
transport system.

Identify operational variables, such as waiting and travel time, which impact the perception factors.

Create a tool to quantify how improving the operational variables can improve the operating system and the
perception of users simultaneously.

Identify which travel conditions, type of user and socioeconomic factors influence the perception of
satisfaction with the specific bus line and the complete transport system.

Model the indirect effects that the travel conditions, type of user and socioeconomic factors cause to the
satisfaction with the specific bus line and with the overall satisfaction with the system.

METHODOLOGY
Retrieve information gathered by the authorities of Transantiago, the public transport system of Santiago,
Chile, through surveys related to users perception of service quality. Eight surveys will be analyzed:
January 2013, May 2013, November 2014, January 2014, May 2014, November 2014, January 2015, May
2015.

Each survey consists of a sample of approximately 5000 individuals, and the questions include
sociodemographic characteristics of the user and the type of traveller and his specific travel conditions.
There are two main questions: satisfaction with the specific bus line and satisfaction with the complete
transport system. Operational variables are also available for each user.
1) Principal component analysis will be performed to find possible perception factors.
2) Latent variable measurement models will be tested for reliability.
3) Structural equation models will be estimated to model both types of satisfaction simultaneously.
4) MIMIC models will be estimated to take into account the different user types, travel patterns, and
socioeconomic and sociodemographic categories.
5) Indirect effects, using the mediation technique, will allow for establishing how the different user,
travel and sociodemographic categories affect the specific bus line satisfaction and the total
satisfaction with the transport system.
6) Latent class analysis will be performed to determine differences in satisfaction perception amongst
specific latent groups/ travel type users.

EXPECTED RESULTS
We expect to find the following results:
1) Waiting time-frequency perception latent variables to have the highest significance for specific
bus line satisfaction.
2) High regression effects between waiting time, variability in waiting time and the waiting time-
frequency perception latent variable.
3) For the total transport system satisfaction, we expect that the specific bus line satisfaction will be a
significant explanatory variable.
4) Total transport satisfaction and several latent constructs to be negatively correlated with the
perceived waiting time and travel time.
5) Using the MIMIC model: we will be able to differentiate amongst the different perceptions in the
latent constructs between different categories of users, and draw conclusions for public policy.
 6) Using latent classes we expect to obtain more significant results amongst the different user types:
not only by specific sociodemographic characteristics, but additionally we expect to find specific
latent groups to have differences due to specific travel conditions. These results will draw on the
conclusions regarding public policy.

EXPECTED DISTINCT CONTRIBUTIONS

1) A complete structural equation model for both Tour Satisfaction (service encounter) and Global
Satisfaction (system) for a Public Transit (PT) integrated system: Transantiago (bus-lines).
2) A three-step-approach for a MIMIC structural model: measurement model, MIMIC structural
model, and mediation analysis for PT satisfaction.
3) The MIMIC model being introduced in the structural equation satisfaction paradigm to take into
account multiple travel and user heterogeneity. A novelty, since current literature has not captured
this component suitably.
4) First (to our knowledge) SEM-satisfaction for PT application reported in the literature for a Latin
American PT system.
5) A latent class model that helps draw conclusions on the main travel conditions (or combination of)
that affect the users satisfaction with the PT system.

REFERENCES

Ashok, K., Dillon, W. R., & Yuan, S. (2002). Extending Discrete Choice Models to Incorporate Attitudinal
and Other Latent Variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 31–46.
http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.31.18937
Beirão, G., & Sarsfield Cabral, J. A. (2007). Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private
car: A qualitative study. Transport Policy, 14(6), 478–489.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.009
Beltrán, P., Gschwender, A., & Palma, C. (2013). The impact of compliance measures on the operation of a
bus system: The case of Transantiago. Research in Transportation Economics, 39(1), 79–89.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.05.026
Bordagaray, M., Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., & Cecin, P. (2014). Modelling user perception of bus transit
quality considering user and service heterogeneity. Transportmetrica A- Transport Science, 10(8),
705–721. http://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2013.823579
Budiono, O., & Karlstad University. Faculty of Economic Sciences, C. and I. T. (2009). Customer
Satisfaction in Public Bus Transport: A Study of Travelers’ Perception in Indonesia. Karlstad
University. Faculty of Economic Sciences, Communication and IT. Retrieved from
https://books.google.cl/books?id=vohiuAAACAAJ
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Cronin, J., Brady, M., Hult, G., & Tomas, M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2),
193–218. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(00)00028-2
Currie, G., & Wallis, I. (2008). Effective ways to grow urban bus markets - a synthesis of evidence.
Journal of Transport Geography, 16(6), 419–429. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.007
De Oña, J., & de Oña, R. (2014). Quality of Service in Public Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction
Surveys: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Approaches. Transportation Science.
http://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2014.0544
De Oña, J., de Oña, R., Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2013). Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A
structural equation approach. Transport Policy, 29, 219–226.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.07.001
Del Castillo, J. M., & Benitez, F. G. (2012). Determining a public transport satisfaction index from user
surveys. Transportmetrica, (November 2014), 1–29. http://doi.org/10.1080/18128602.2011.654139
Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2007). Service Quality Attributes Affecting Customer Satisfaction for Bus
Transit. Journal of Public Transportation, 10(3), 21–34.
Fellesson, M., & Friman, M. (2012). Perceived Satisfaction with Public Transport Service in Nine
European Cities. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 47(3).
http://doi.org/10.5399/osu/jtrf.47.3.2126
Golob, T. F. (2003). Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Research
Part B: Methodological, 37(1), 1–25. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(01)00046-7
Gómez-Lobo, A., & Briones, J. (2013). Incentive Structure in Transit Concession Contracts : the Case of
Santiago, Chile, and London, England. Retrieved from
http://www.cleanairinstitute.org/caifiles/file/Incentive-structure-in-transit-concession-contracts.pdf
Habib, K. M. N., Kattan, L., & Islam, M. T. (2011). Model of personal attitudes towards transit service
quality. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 45(4), 271–285. http://doi.org/10.1002/atr.106
Hauser, R. M., & Goldberger, A. S. (1971). The treatment of unobservable variables in path analysis.
Sociological Methodology, 3, 81–117.
Hensher, D. A., Stopher, P., & Bullock, P. (2003). Service quality - developing a service quality index in
the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
37(6), 499–517. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(02)00075-7
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining
model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Iseki, H., & Taylor, B. D. (2010). Style versus Service? An Analysis of User Perceptions of Transit Stops
and Stations. Journal of Public Transportation, 13(3), 23–48.
Joreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a Model with Multiple Indicators and Multiple
Causes of a Single Latent Variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(351), 631–
639. http://doi.org/10.2307/2285946
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. http://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Laroche, M., Ueltschy, L. C., Abe, S., Cleveland, M., & Yannopoulos, P. P. (2004). Service Quality
Perceptions and Customer Satisfaction: Evaluating the Role of Culture. Journal of International
Marketing, 12(3), 58–85. http://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.12.3.58.38100
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the measurement of Attittudes. Archives of Psychology.
Macário, R. (2010). Competing for level of service in the provision of mobility services: Concepts,
processes and measures. Research in Transportation Economics, 29(1), 261–274.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.033
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior:
Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(1), 131–142. http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.131.18832
Muñoz, J. C, Ortuzar, J. de D., & Gschwender, A. (2008). Transantiago: the fall and rise of a radical public
transport intervention. Travel Demand Management and Road User Pricing: Success, Failure and
Feasibility, 151–172.
Muthén, B. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–
585.
Ofir, C., & Simonson, I. (2001). In Search of Negative Customer Feedback: The Effect of Expecting to
Evaluate on Satisfaction Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 170–182.
http://doi.org/10.2307/1558622
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
http://doi.org/10.2307/1251430
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERQUAL: A Multiple-Item scale for Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(99)00084-3
Raveau, S., Álvarez-Daziano, R., Yáñez, M. F., Bolduc, D., & Ortúzar, J. de D. (2010). Sequential and
Simultaneous Estimation of Hybrid Discrete Choice Models. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2156(-1), 131–139. http://doi.org/10.3141/2156-15
Tyrinopoulos, Y., & Antoniou, C. (2008). Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy
implications. Transport Policy, 15(4), 260–272. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.06.002
Wachs, M. (1976). Consumer Attitudes Toward Transit Service: An Interpretive Review. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 42(1), 96–104. http://doi.org/10.1080/01944367608977708
Yaya, L. H. P., Fortià, M. F., Canals, C. S., & Marimon, F. (2014). Service quality assessment of public
transport and the implication role of demographic characteristics. Public Transport.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-014-0099-7