




































BANGLADESH JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 10(6) (2025), 56-72 

56 

        MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 
          BJMSR VOL 10 NO 6 (2025) P-ISSN 2687-850X E-ISSN 2687-8518 

         Available online at https://www.cribfb.com 

     Journal homepage: https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/BJMSR 

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Published by CRIBFB, USA 
                                                                                                                              

LINKING RESTAURANT QUALITY AND PERCEIVED 

COMPETITIVENESS: EVIDENCE FROM INDONESIA’S 

TRADITIONAL AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS                      
 

 Regia Indah Kemala Sari (a)1   Nuhfil Hanani (b)  Rosihan Asmara (c)   Agustina Shinta Hartati 

Wahyuningtyas (d)               
 

(a) Doctoral Candidate, Agricultural Science Department, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia; and Lecturer, Department of Agricultural 

Business, Politeknik Pertanian Negeri Payakumbuh, Limapuluh Kota, West Sumatera, Indonesia; E-mail: regiaindah7@gmail.com 
(b) Professor & Chair of the University Senate, Agriculture Socio-Economic Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, 

Indonesia; E-mail: nuhfil.fp@ub.ac.id 
(c) Associate Professor & Director of Academic Administration and Services, Agriculture Socio-Economic Department, Faculty of Agriculture, 

Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia; E-mail: rosihan@ub.ac.id 
(d)Associate Professor & Head of Agribusiness Study Program, Agriculture Socio-Economic Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya 

University, Malang, Indonesia; E-mail: agustina.fp@ub.ac.id 

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 

 
 

Article History: 

 

Received: 17th June 2025 

Reviewed & Revised: 17th June 2025 

to 10th September 2025 

Accepted: 10th September 2025 

Published: 15th September 2025 

 
Keywords: 

 

Perceived Competitiveness, Customer 

Satisfaction, Restaurant Quality, Digital 

Presence, PLS-SEM 

 
JEL Classification Codes: 

 

      O32, M31, L83 
 

      Peer-Review Model:  

 

      External peer review was done through  

      double-blind method.        

 
A B S T R A C T      

 

The Indonesian restaurant industry faces increased competition between traditional and fast food 

outlets, making it essential to understand quality attributes influencing customer satisfaction and 

competitiveness. While studies focused on service quality, price, and digital presence, few compared 

these factors across restaurant types. This study examines the effects of food quality, employee service, 

physical environment, price, and digital presence on satisfaction and perceived competitiveness, with 

satisfaction as a mediator. Survey data from 239 respondents in Padang City, including 127 traditional 

and 112 fast food customers, were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling 

(PLS-SEM) with Multigroup Analysis (MGA). Results show food quality and price significantly enhance 
satisfaction in both traditional (β = 0.379, p = 0.001; β = 0.227, p = 0.015) and fast food restaurants (β 

= 0.347, p = 0.001; β = 0.476, p < 0.001). Employee service quality (β = 0.304, p = 0.002) and physical 

environment (β = 0.220, p = 0.009) enhance competitiveness in traditional restaurants, whereas 

satisfaction (β = 0.575, p < 0.001) and digital presence (β = 0.628, p < 0.001) prevail in fast food 

outlets. Satisfaction mediates the relationship between food quality, price, and physical environment 

with competitiveness, especially in fast food. MGA confirms that competitiveness in traditional 

restaurants is driven by employee service, whereas in fast food, it is shaped by digital presence and 
satisfaction. This study offers insights by comparing restaurant formats in a developing market; however, 

its cross-sectional, single-city design limits generalizability, suggesting future studies expand regions 

and adopt longitudinal approaches. 

 
 

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the 
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).  

            

       

INTRODUCTION 

The global restaurant industry is rapidly changing due to shifts in consumer lifestyles and technology. In Indonesia, reliance 

on ready-to-eat meals and digital ordering grew from 15% in 2022 to 32.3% in 2024 (BPS Indonesia, 2024). In 2023, 

Indonesia had 1.20 million restaurants generating USD 30.2 billion in sales, with fast food chains like McDonald's, KFC, 

Pizza Hut, and Starbucks accounting for 95% of revenue (Yuningsih, 2024). However, traditional Padang restaurants remain 

significant, offering Minangkabau cuisine (Arsil et al., 2022; Mardatillah, 2020). 

Padang City, the culinary hub of Minangkabau cuisine, has expanded alongside a 7% national growth in fast food 

outlets in 2023, including brands such as Hokben, Richeese Factory, and CFC. While fast food chains excel in service and 

digital presence, traditional restaurants face competition from younger, tech-savvy consumers. Shifting consumer behavior, 

driven by digitalization and convenience, challenges Padang restaurants to adapt while preserving cultural authenticity, as 

fast food chains leverage operational efficiency and online engagement. 

Customer satisfaction, which reflects the overall dining experience in terms of food quality, service, environment, 

and price, is central to the competitive landscape. These attributes influence satisfaction and loyalty (Ong et al., 2022; Slack 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5657-4087 
© 2025 by the authors. Hosting by CRIBFB. Peer review under responsibility of CRIBFB, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v10i6.2573 

 
To cite this article: Sari, R. I. K., Hanani, N., Asmara, R., & Wahyuningtyas, A. S. H. (2025). LINKING RESTAURANT QUALITY TO PERCEIVED 

COMPETITIVENESS: EVIDENCE FROM TRADITIONAL AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS IN INDONESIA. Bangladesh Journal of 

Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 10(6), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v10i6.2573 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://www.openaccess.nl/en
https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v10i6.2573
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5657-4087
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8520-6854
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8531-5444
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3491-3620


Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

57 

et al., 2021). Perceived competitiveness, or a business’s value relative to alternatives, is a key indicator of sustainability 

(Cavalcante et al., 2021). Additionally, digital presence, including online reviews, social media, and app-based services, 

increasingly shapes consumer expectations and decisions (Anas et al., 2023; Li et al., 2021; Ng et al., 2023). 

While service quality is recognized as a key driver of customer satisfaction, most research focuses on its direct 

impact on satisfaction or loyalty (El-Said et al., 2021). The role of perceived competitiveness, particularly in developing 

markets with different consumer expectations, has received limited attention (Prayag et al., 2019). Additionally, the 

mediating role of customer satisfaction in linking restaurant quality to competitiveness is underexplored, and comparative 

studies between traditional and fast food restaurants are scarce. These gaps limit the development of targeted strategies to 

enhance satisfaction and competitiveness across market segments. 

This study compares traditional Padang restaurants and modern fast food chains, highlighting differences in 

customer perceptions of quality and competitiveness. Perceived competitiveness, which shapes return and recommendation 

intentions, is crucial for retention and loyalty. The study also recognizes the growing influence of digitalization, as 

consumers increasingly seek convenience-oriented services. 

This study examines how restaurant quality attributes food quality, employee service, physical environment, price, 

and digital presence affect customer satisfaction and perceived competitiveness. It extends the Service Quality model with 

food quality and price (Rahman et al., 2022; Sari et al., 2024), and incorporates digital presence based on the e-service 

quality (Fan et al., 2022). Through a multigroup analysis of traditional Padang restaurants and modern fast food chains in 

Indonesia, the study aims to: (1) analyze the effect of restaurant quality attributes on satisfaction and competitiveness; (2) 

examine customer satisfaction's mediating role; and (3) identify differences between traditional and modern formats. 

By providing empirical evidence from a developing market, this study offers practical insights for restaurant 

managers to tailor service strategies and enhance competitiveness in a digital, consumer-driven environment. 

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature, Section 3 describes the 

materials and methods, Section 4 presents the results, Section 5 discusses the findings, and Section 6 concludes. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Customer satisfaction and perceived competitiveness are key themes in restaurant research, reflecting both dining 

experiences and strategic positioning (Otto et al., 2020; Rodríguez-López et al., 2020). While service attributes like food 

quality, employee service, price, and facilities have been extensively studied, recent research highlights the increasing 

impact of digital presence on customer expectations and evaluations. 

 

Factors Influencing Customer Satisfaction in Restaurants 

Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry is a multidimensional construct, including food quality, service, ambiance, 

price fairness, and facilities (Ong et al., 2022; Zanetta et al., 2024; Sah & Shah, 2025). According to Oliver’s Expectation-

Confirmation Theory, satisfaction arises from comparing customers’ expectations with their perceptions of service 

performance (Oliver, 2014). This theory is widely used in restaurant research, where customer expectations about food, 

service, ambiance, and price are central to evaluation. 

These attributes are measured using Service Quality (Ponnaiyan et al., 2021; Slack et al., 2021), DineServ (Nuyken 

et al., 2022), and QuickServ (Mendocilla et al., 2021). Food quality, a key determinant of satisfaction, influences customers 

through taste, freshness, and presentation (Adesina et al., 2022; Kala, 2020). Employee service quality, encompassing 

responsiveness and empathy, has a significant influence on emotional and relational experiences (Tuncer et al., 2020). 

Ambiance, encompassing both atmosphere and comfort, influences sensory and emotional aspects (Mubarok et al., 2023). 
Price fairness and physical facilities, such as cleanliness and seating comfort, also affect satisfaction (Konuk, 2023; Mubarok 

et al., 2023).  

Few studies have explored the interaction between restaurant qualities and digital touchpoints. Digital presence, 

including social media, online reviews, and digital ordering, is a key determinant of satisfaction, shaping expectations and 

enhancing experiences through convenience, responsiveness, and interaction (Lányi et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021).  

 

Customer Perception of Restaurant Competitiveness 

Customer perception of competitiveness is vital in today’s customer-driven market. Consistent with Wangmo et al. (2025), 

brand competitiveness—defined as a brand's ability to outperform others has gained increasing attention. The Customer-

Based Competitive Advantage (CBCA) framework (Bowman & Faulkner, 1994) shifts focus to the customer’s perspective, 

emphasizing perceived value and price. When customers perceive high value relative to price, their competitiveness 

assessment improves (Woodruff, 1997).  

In the restaurant context, attributes like food quality, employee service, atmosphere, price fairness, and facilities 

form the basis of perceived value, balancing benefits and costs (Kim & So, 2022; Zanetta et al., 2024). Superior experiences 

in these areas strengthen a restaurant’s competitive position through favorable comparative evaluations. 

Digital presence is a key determinant of perceived competitiveness in today’s tech-driven dining landscape, 

enhancing information search, decision-making, and accessibility across digital platforms (Lányi et al., 2021; Öksüz et al., 

2025). It links to satisfaction, revisit intention, and competitive advantage (Hanaysha, 2022; Singh et al., 2024). Integrating 

traditional and digital quality dimensions offers a comprehensive framework for understanding customer value and 

competitiveness. 

Satisfaction, which aligns customer expectations with actual performance, signals perceived competitiveness and 

restaurant superiority. It reflects competitive positioning and is linked to recommendation, repurchase, and loyalty (Chun & 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

58 

Nyam-Ochir, 2020; Souki et al., 2023). Restaurant quality attributes enhance perceived competitiveness when they drive 

satisfaction, acting as a key mediator. Empirical studies confirm this, linking service quality to loyalty (Satti et al., 2023), 

repurchase (Kamil et al., 2023), revisit intentions (Rahman et al., 2022), and firm performance (Otto et al., 2020). 

 

Contextual Differences in Restaurant Formats 

Customer expectations differ between traditional Padang restaurants and fast food outlets: the former emphasize authentic 

taste, ambiance, and cultural hospitality, while the latter prioritize speed and consistency. Prior studies confirm that dining 

goals, restaurant choice, and perceptions of authenticity vary across formats (Ahn, 2025; Chua et al., 2020), with Indonesian 

consumers being particularly influenced by tradition and cultural familiarity (Arsil et al., 2022; Mardatillah, 2020). These 

distinctions highlight the importance of type-based analysis of quality attributes, satisfaction, and competitiveness. 

 

Hypotheses Development 

While research has focused on traditional determinants like food quality, employee service, and price, few studies include 

digital presence as a driver of satisfaction and competitiveness. Additionally, limited comparisons between traditional and 

modern restaurant formats exist. These gaps highlight the need to examine how traditional and digital attributes influence 

satisfaction and competitiveness in Indonesia, where cultural dining traditions coexist with rapid digital adoption. Based on 

these gaps, the following hypotheses are proposed. 

 

H1: Food quality positively influences customer satisfaction 

H2: Employee service quality positively influences customer satisfaction 

H3: The physical environment positively influences customer satisfaction 

H4: Price positively influences customer satisfaction 

H5: Digital presence positively influences customer satisfaction 

H6: Food quality positively influences perceived competitiveness 

H7: Employee service quality positively influences perceived competitiveness 

H8: The physical environment positively influences perceived competitiveness 

H9: Price positively influences perceived competitiveness 

H10: Digital presence positively influences perceived competitiveness 

H11: Customer satisfaction positively influences perceived competitiveness 

H12: Customer satisfaction mediates the relationship between restaurant quality attributes and perceived competitiveness 

H13: The effects of restaurant quality attributes on customer satisfaction and perceived competitiveness differ between 

traditional Padang and fast food restaurants 

 

 
 

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study 

 

Building on theoretical foundations and prior empirical insights, this study proposes a conceptual framework that 

examines both the direct effects of restaurant quality attributes and the mediating role of customer satisfaction in shaping 

perceived competitiveness. The framework is presented in Figure 1. 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

59 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Participant Characteristics 

Eligible respondents were at least 18 years old, had dined at restaurants in Padang City within the past three months, and 

used digital platforms to search for restaurant information. Participation was voluntary, and responses were confidential and 

anonymous, with the option to withdraw if the criteria were not met. 

 

Sampling Procedure  

The survey used convenience sampling via social media and WhatsApp groups, with 239 respondents participating 127 

from traditional Padang restaurants and 112 from modern fast food outlets, exceeding the minimum required for MGA.  

 

Sample Size  

Sample size was determined using power analysis with G*Power software, applying a significance level (α) of 0.05, 

statistical power (1–β) of 0.80, and a medium effect size estimate (f² = 0.15). G*Power suggested a minimum of 98 

respondents, and with 239 respondents, the sample size is sufficient for valid PLS-SEM and MGA estimation. 

 

Instruments  

The questionnaire had two sections: (1) demographics (gender, age, education, occupation, income, visit frequency, and 

restaurant type), and (2) constructs measuring food quality, employee service quality, physical environment, price, digital 

presence, customer satisfaction, and perceived competitiveness, adapted from previous studies (see Table 1). 

 

Table 1. Research Question Instrument 

 
Section Question Items References 

1 Demographic: Gender, age, education level, occupation, monthly income, frequency of 
restaurant visits per month, types of restaurants visited (7 items). 

Española et al. (2024) 

2 Food quality: Food taste, presentation, freshness, variety, and healthy menu options (5 items). Sari et al. (2024) 

Employee service quality: Speed of service, accuracy, and willingness to assist (3 items). Zanetta et al. (2024) 

Physical environment: Room temperature, interior design, restroom facilities, prayer room, 

and Wi-Fi availability (5 items). 

Zanetta et al. (2024) 

Price: Reasonable price, price worth the dining experience, and the availability of 

promotions/discounts (3 items). 

Zanetta et al. (2024) 

Digital presence: Accessibility, online interaction, content, and trustworthiness (4 items). Anas et al. (2023); Fan et al. (2022) 

Customer satisfaction: Satisfaction with the food served, satisfaction with the service 
provided, satisfaction with the value for money, and intention to return (4 items). 

Rathnasiri et al. (2025); Española et al. 
(2024) 

Perceived competitiveness: Superior taste, competitive pricing, superior service, and better 

reputation (4 items). 

Maráková et al. (2023) 

Total 38 items  

 

Respondents rated their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = 

strongly agree) to examine the relationships between restaurant quality, customer satisfaction, and perceived 

competitiveness. 

 

Data Analysis 

The data were analyzed using PLS-SEM with SmartPLS 3.0. PLS-SEM consists of two components: the measurement 

model, which links latent constructs to their indicators, and the structural model, which tests the relationships between 

constructs. Both are assessed using convergent and discriminant validity, as well as path coefficients with bootstrapping. 

Convergent validity assesses how well related indicators correlate, evaluated through indicator reliability and 

construct reliability. Indicator reliability (factor loadings > 0.60) and construct reliability (Composite Reliability (CR) and 

Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) > 0.60) were assessed, with Average Variance Extracted (AVE > 0.50) supporting convergent 

validity (Hair et al., 2022).  

Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-loadings, ensuring constructs were 

distinct (Hair et al., 2022). Cross-loading analysis confirmed each indicator loaded higher on its associated construct. The 

Fornell-Larcker criterion confirmed discriminant validity when the square root of the AVE exceeded the highest correlation 

with any other construct. 

The structural model assesses the predictive power of exogenous variables on endogenous constructs using the 

coefficient of determination (R²). Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was used to test the significance of path coefficients 

and hypothesized relationships through p-values. The mediation hypothesis (H12) encompasses H12a-e, which represent the 

effects of food quality, employee service, physical environment, price, and digital presence on competitiveness. 

MGA was conducted using SmartPLS 3.0 to examine differences between traditional Padang restaurants and 

modern fast food outlets, following Cheah et al. (2020). The moderation hypothesis (H13) includes H13a-c for direct, indirect, 

and total effects. All analyses were performed at a 0.05 significance level, with results interpreted according to the research 

objectives. 

 

Research Design 

This study used a quantitative, cross-sectional design with data collected via an online survey (Google Forms) from January 

1 to February 2, 2025. It investigates the relationships between restaurant quality attributes, customer satisfaction, and 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

60 

perceived competitiveness, comparing traditional Padang restaurants and modern fast food outlets in Padang, Indonesia. A 

non-experimental, between-subjects design was employed, with participants self-selecting restaurant types based on their 

prior experiences, and no random assignment was used. The design examines the direct and indirect relationships between 

quality attributes and satisfaction, comparing the results across different restaurant types. 

 

RESULTS 

Validity and Reliability of the Instrument  

Instrument validity was assessed in SPSS 24 using 239 respondents at a 5% significance level (α = 0.05) and a critical r 

value of 0.127. Item-total correlations, calculated using the corrected method, were considered valid if ≥ 0.127. Reliability 

was assessed with CA, where values ≥ 0.70 indicated acceptable internal consistency. As shown in Table 2, all items were 

valid and reliable, with item-total correlations above the threshold and CA values exceeding 0.70 for each construct. 

 

Table 2. Item Total Correlation and Cronbach’s Alpha 

 
Item Item-total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha 

X1.1 0.710 0.844 

X1.2 0.701 
 

X1.3 0.664 
 

X1.4 0.661 
 

X1.5 0.742 
 

X2.1  0.731 0.836 

X2.2 0.693 
 

X2.3 0.735 
 

X3.1 0.740 0.880 

X3.2 0.738 
 

X3.3 0.731 
 

X3.4 0.743 
 

X3.5 0.705 
 

X4.1 0.671 0.795 

X4.2 0.707 
 

X4.3 0.701 
 

X5.1 0.654 0.904 

X5.2 0.748 
 

X5.3 0.785 
 

X5.4 0.743 
 

Y1.1 0.687 0.865 

Y1.2 0.579 
 

Y1.3 0.711 
 

Y1.4 0.675 
 

Y2.1 0.773 0.905 

Y2.2 0.691 
 

Y2.3 0.740 
 

Y2.4 0.713 
 

 

Demographic Profile 

Most respondents were female (51.46%) and aged 18–27 years (50.63%), with 42.68% holding a bachelor’s degree. The 

majority were private employees (26.78%) or university students (26.36%). Monthly income varied, with 28.87% earning 

IDR 1–3 million and 23.43% earning below IDR 1 million. In terms of consumption, 45.61% visited restaurants 1–2 times 

per month, and 33.47% visited 3–5 times. Regarding restaurant type, 53.14% visited traditional Padang restaurants, while 

46.86% preferred fast food outlets (see Table 3). 

For traditional Padang restaurant visitors, 55.12% were male, aged 38–48 years (53.54%), with 40.16% holding a 

bachelor's degree. Most worked in the private sector (29.91%) and earned between IDR 1 and 3 million per month (31%). 

In contrast, 58.93% of modern fast food restaurant visitors were female, aged 18–27 years (55.36%), with 45.54% holding 

a bachelor's degree or higher. Most were students (30.36%), earned below IDR 1 million (38.39%), and visited restaurants 

1–2 times per month. 

 

Table 3. Characteristics of Respondents 

 
Description of Demographic Variables   Overall Traditional Padang 

Restaurant 

Modern Fast Food 

Restaurant 

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 

Gender Female 123 51.46 57 44.88 66 58.93 

Male 116 48.54 70 55.12 46 41.07 

Age 18-27 121 50.63 0 0.00 62 55.36 

28-37 81 33.89 51 40.16 40 35.71 

38-48 31 12.97 68 53.54 10 8.93 

49-59 6 2.51 8 6.29 0 0.00 

Education Level  Junior High School 3 1.26 1 0.79 2 1.79 

Senior High School 97 40.59 50 39.37 47 41.96 

Diploma (associate degree) 25 10.46 17 13.39 8 7.14 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

61 

Bachelor's degree 102 42.68 51 40.16 51 45.54 

Graduate degree (master's/doctorate) 12 5.02 8 6.30 4 3.57 

Occupation Student 63 26.36 29 22.83 34 30.36 

Government employee 36 15.06 19 14.96 17 15.18 

Private employee 64 26.78 38 29.92 26 23.21 

Entrepreneur/self-employed 44 18.41 22 17.32 22 19.64 

Housewife 8 3.35 3 2.36 5 4.46 

Other  24 10.04 16 12.60 8 7.14 

Monthly Income < 1 million IDR 56 23.43 27 21.26 29 25.89 

≥ 1–3 million IDR 69 28.87 40 31.50 29 25.89 

> 3–5 million IDR 52 21.76 28 22.05 24 21.43 

≥ 5–10 million IDR 28 11.72 20 15.75 8 7.14 

> 10 million IDR 34 14.23 12 9.45 22 19.64 

Monthly Restaurant 
Visit Frequency 

1–2 times 109 45.61 66 51.97 43 38.39 

3–5 times 80 33.47 44 34.65 36 32.14 

6–10 times 24 10.04 10 7.87 14 12.50 

Over 10 times 26 10.88 7 5.51 19 16.96 

Types of 

Restaurants Visited 

Traditional Padang restaurant 127 53.14 127 100 0 0.00 

Modern fast food restaurant 112 46.86 0 0.00 112 100 

 

Descriptive Statistics: Mean and Standard Deviation 

Descriptive statistics show consumers' evaluations of restaurant quality attributes. The Mean (M) represents the central value 

of assessments on food quality, employee service, environment, price, and digital presence, while the Standard Deviation 

(SD) indicates the variation in these evaluations. 

 

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics: Mean and Standard Deviation 

 
Items Overall Traditional Padang 

Restaurant 

Modern Fast Food 

Restaurant 

Mean Standard 

Deviation 

Mean Standard 

Deviation 

Mean Standard 

Deviation 

X1.1 The taste of the food is delicious 4.490 0.599 4.491 0.627 4.488 0.573 

X1.2 The food presentation is appealing 4.381 0.680 4.420 0.703 4.346 0.657 

X1.3 The food served is fresh 4.531 0.539 4.616 0.486 4.457 0.572 

X1.4 A variety of food 4.276 0.770 4.241 0.735 4.307 0.799 

X1.5 Healthy menu options 3.787 1.094 3.723 1.189 3.843 0.999 

X2.1 Speed of service 4.360 0.644 4.348 0.678 4.370 0.612 

X2.2 Accuracy 4.494 0.540 4.545 0.533 4.449 0.543 

X2.3 Willingness to assist 4.213 0.760 4.241 0.771 4.189 0.750 

X3.1 Pleasant room temperature 4.259 0.754 4.304 0.833 4.220 0.675 

X3.2 The interior design makes me comfortable 4.197 0.720 4.286 0.749 4.118 0.683 

X3.3 The restroom facilities are clean and well-maintained 4.213 0.920 4.295 0.988 4.142 0.849 

X3.4 Providing an adequate prayer room 4.017 1.067 3.839 1.214 4.173 0.888 

X3.5 Wi-Fi availability 3.711 1.084 3.857 1.164 3.583 0.992 

X4.1 Reasonable price 4.377 0.685 4.384 0.698 4.370 0.673 

X4.2 The price is worth the dining experience 4.389 0.699 4.455 0.718 4.331 0.676 

X4.3 The availability of promotions/discounts 4.130 0.908 4.330 0.849 3.953 0.921 

X5.1 Accessibility of information 4.310 0.694 4.482 0.627 4.157 0.715 

X5.2 Online interaction 4.046 0.888 4.179 0.899 3.929 0.862 

X5.3 The online content is appealing 4.071 0.858 4.313 0.835 3.858 0.820 

X5.4 Trustworthy information 4.222 0.769 4.393 0.736 4.071 0.765 

Y1.1 Satisfaction with the food served 4.414 0.647 4.464 0.693 4.370 0.599 

Y1.2 Satisfaction with the service provided 4.477 0.696 4.482 0.767 4.472 0.625 

Y1.3 Satisfaction with the value for money 4.372 0.702 4.393 0.760 4.354 0.646 

Y1.4 Intention to return 4.393 0.729 4.393 0.748 4.394 0.712 

Y2.1 Superior taste compared to competitors 4.272 0.736 4.348 0.728 4.205 0.735 

Y2.2 Competitive pricing 4.184 0.823 4.214 0.881 4.157 0.768 

Y2.3 Superior service compared to competitors 4.201 0.755 4.232 0.767 4.173 0.743 

Y2.4 Has a better reputation than competitors 4.272 0.790 4.304 0.789 4.244 0.791 

 

Based on Table 4, overall, restaurants received high average scores on almost all measured attributes, ranging from 

3.711 to 4.531, which falls within the high category (3.5–4.5) (Solimun et al., 2017). For restaurant categories, the mean 

score for traditional Padang restaurants ranged from 3.723 to 4.616, while modern fast food restaurants ranged from 3.583 

to 4.488. 

In terms of food quality, traditional Padang restaurants achieved the highest score on “The food served is fresh” 

(M = 4.616), while modern fast food restaurants scored highest on “The taste of the food is delicious” (M = 4.488). For 

employee service, “Accuracy” received the highest score for both types of restaurants, with means of 4.545 (traditional 

Padang) and 4.449 (modern fast food), respectively.  

Regarding the physical environment, "Pleasant room temperature" scored highest in both, with 4.304 (traditional 

Padang) and 4.220 (modern fast food). In terms of price, traditional Padang restaurants rated highest on "The price is worth 

the dining experience" (M = 4.455), while modern fast food rated "Reasonable price" (M = 4.370). For digital presence, 

"Accessibility of information" was highest for both, with means of 4.482 (traditional Padang) and 4.157 (modern fast food). 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

62 

For customer satisfaction, the highest-scoring indicator was “Satisfaction with the service provided” (M = 4.482 

for traditional Padang and M = 4.472 for modern fast food). In perceived competitiveness, traditional Padang restaurants 

scored highest on “Superior taste compared to competitors” (M = 4.348), while modern fast food restaurants scored highest 

on “Has a better reputation than competitors” (M = 4.244).  

Based on the standard deviation, the most significant variation in ratings for traditional Padang restaurants was in 

"Providing an adequate prayer room" (SD = 1.214), and for modern fast food restaurants, it was in "Healthy menu options" 

(SD = 0.999), indicating greater differences in perceptions. 

 

Measurement Model 

Results are presented for three groups: the overall sample (overall), traditional Padang restaurants, and modern fast food 

restaurants.  

As shown in Tables 5 and 6, all constructs exceeded the thresholds for indicator reliability (factor loadings > 0.60), 

construct reliability (CR and CA > 0.60), and convergent validity (AVE > 0.50), indicating adequate internal consistency 

and convergent validity in both the overall sample and subgroups. Therefore, the measurement model demonstrates 

satisfactory reliability and convergent validity. 

 

Table 5. Convergent Validity Measurement: Indicator Reliability Results 

 
Items Overall Traditional Padang 

Restaurant 

Modern Fast Food 

Restaurant 

Factor 

Loading 

P Values Factor 

Loading 

P Values Factor 

Loading 

P Values 

The taste of the food is delicious X1.1 0.847 0.000 0.849 0.000 0.846 0.000 

The food presentation is appealing X1.2 0.855 0.000 0.828 0.000 0.884 0.000 

The food served is fresh X1.3 0.785 0.000 0,790 0.000 0,799 0.000 

A variety of food X1.4 0.786 0.000 0.799 0.000 0.776 0.000 

Healthy menu options X1.5 0.784 0.000 0.786 0.000 0.789 0.000 

Speed of service X2.1 0.886 0.000 0.876 0.000 0.900 0.000 

Accuracy X2.2 0.854 0.000 0.815 0.000 0.895 0.000 

Willingness to assist X2.3 0.882 0.000 0.859 0.000 0.906 0.000 

Pleasant room temperature X3.1 0.811 0.000 0.808 0.000 0.814 0.000 

The interior design makes me comfortable X3.2 0.795 0.000 0.779 0.000 0.812 0.000 

The restroom facilities are clean and well-maintained X3.3 0.845 0.000 0.823 0.000 0.858 0.000 

Providing an adequate prayer room X3.4 0.867 0.000 0.905 0.000 0.881 0.000 

Wi-Fi availability X3.5 0.821 0.000 0.757 0.000 0.870 0.000 

Reasonable price X4.1 0,854 0.000 0.826 0.000 0.890 0.000 

The price is worth the dining experience X4.2 0.893 0.000 0.853 0.000 0.926 0.000 

The availability of promotions/discounts X4.3 0.804 0.000 0.773 0.000 0.852 0.000 

Accessibility of information X5.1 0.856 0.000 0.892 0.000 0.795 0.000 

Online interaction X5.2 0.884 0.000 0.873 0.000 0.892 0.000 

The online content is appealing X5.3 0.901 0.000 0.910 0.000 0.878 0.000 

Trustworthy information X5.4 0.895 0.000 0.866 0.000 0.922 0.000 

Satisfaction with the food served Y1.1 0.864 0.000 0.865 0.000 0.864 0.000 

Satisfaction with the service provided Y1.2 0.836 0.000 0.842 0.000 0.837 0.000 

Satisfaction with the value for money Y1.3 0.898 0.000 0.830 0.000 0.861 0.000 

Intention to return Y1.4 0.858 0.000 0.774 0.000 0.815 0.000 

Superior taste compared to competitors Y2.1 0.850 0.000 0.883 0.000 0.866 0.000 

Competitive pricing Y2.2 0.853 0.000 0.905 0.000 0.879 0.000 

Superior service compared to competitors Y2.3 0.895 0.000 0.880 0.000 0.887 0.000 

Has a better reputation than competitors Y2.4 0.863 0.000 0.929 0.000 0.896 0.000 

 

Table 6. Construct Reliability and Convergent Validity Results 

 
Items Overall Traditional Padang 

Restaurant 

Modern Fast Food 

Restaurant 

CA CR AVE CA CR AVE CA CR AVE 

Food quality X1 0.871 0.906 0.659 0.870 0.906 0.657 0.877 0.911 0.672 

Employee service quality X2 0.846 0.906 0.764 0.809 0.887 0.723 0.883 0.928 0.810 

Physical environment X3 0.885 0.916 0.686 0.874 0.909 0.666 0.902 0.927 0.718 

Price X4 0.809 0,887 0,724 0.751 0.858 0.669 0.868 0.919 0.792 

Digital presence X5 0.907 0.935 0.782 0.908 0.935 0.784 0.895 0.927 0.762 

Customer satisfaction Y1 0.866 0.909 0.714 0.887 0.922 0.747 0.847 0.897 0.686 

Perceived competitiveness Y2 0.905 0.933 0.778 0.888 0.923 0.749 0.921 0.944 0.810 

 

Discriminant validity was assessed using cross-loading analysis and the Fornell-Larcker criterion. All indicators 

load highest on the intended construct, confirming discriminant validity across the overall sample and subgroups (see 

Appendix A, B, and C). The Fornell-Larcker criterion confirmed discriminant validity when the square root of the AVE 

exceeded the highest correlation with any other construct, which held across all groups (see Appendix D, E, and F). Both 

methods confirm that the constructs are distinct. 

 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

63 

Examination of the Structural Model 

As shown in Table 7, the model demonstrates strong explanatory power for customer satisfaction and perceived 

competitiveness. In the overall sample, the R² for satisfaction is 0.635 (63.5% variance) and for competitiveness is 0.664 

(66.4% variance). 

 

Table 7. Coefficient of Determination (R2) 

 

 Overall Traditional Padang Restaurant Modern Fast Food Restaurant 
Customer 

Satisfaction 
Perceived 

Competitiveness 
Customer 

Satisfaction 
Perceived 

Competitiveness 
Customer 

Satisfaction 
Perceived 

Competitiveness 
R Square 0.635 0.664 0.568 0.642 0.723 0.769 
R Square 

Adjusted 
0.628 0.655 0.550 0.642 0.710 0.756 

 

For traditional Padang restaurants, R² values are 0.568 for satisfaction and 0.642 for competitiveness, indicating 

moderate explanatory power. In contrast, modern fast food restaurants have higher predictive accuracy, with R² values of 

0.723 for satisfaction and 0.769 for competitiveness, suggesting the model better explains customer perceptions in this 

context. 

 

Hypothesis Testing  

Hypothesis testing used path analysis within the SEM-PLS framework for the overall sample and subsamples of Padang 

and fast food restaurants. Path coefficients and their significance, assessed via bootstrapping, are reported in Table 8 and 

Figures 2–4. 

 

Table 8. Direct Effect 

 
Hypotheses Path Overall Traditional Padang Restaurant Modern Fast Food Restaurant 

β P Values Result β P 

Values 

Result β P 

Values 

Result 

H1 X1  Y1 0.328 0.000 Supported 0.379 0.001 Supported 0.347 0.001 Supported 

H2 X2  Y1 0.084 0.295 Not Supported 0.146 0.272 Not Supported -0.013 0.898 Not Supported 

H3 X3  Y1 0.184 0.015 Supported 0.045 0.614 Not Supported 0.278 0.029 Supported 

H4 X4  Y1 0.334 0.000 Supported 0.227 0.015 Supported 0.476 0.000 Supported 

H5 X5  Y1 -0.058 0.325 Not Supported 0.045 0.564 Not Supported -0.186 0.076 Not Supported 

H6 X1  Y2 0.012 0.863 Not Supported 0.027 0.795 Not Supported -0.185 0.034 Supported 

H7 X2  Y2 0.119 0.101 Not Supported 0.304 0.002 Supported -0.084 0.347 Not Supported 

H8 X3  Y2 0.102 0.131 Not Supported 0.220 0.009 Supported 0.097 0.317 Not Supported 

H9 X4  Y2 0.058 0.397 Not Supported 0.034 0.703 Not Supported -0.094 0.304 Not Supported 

H10 X5  Y2 0.240 0.001 Supported 0.065 0.411 Not Supported 0.575 0.000 Supported 

H11 Y1 Y2 0.408 0.000 Supported 0.284 0.008 Supported 0.628 0.000 Supported 

 

As shown in Table 8 and Figure 2, for the overall sample, H1 (food quality) has a positive influence on satisfaction 

(β = 0.328, p < 0.001), with high ratings for "The food served is fresh" (M = 4.53, SD = 0.54). H3 (physical environment) 

also enhances satisfaction (β = 0.184, p = 0.015), with "Pleasant room temperature" rated M = 4.26 (SD = 0.75). H4 (price) 

positively affects satisfaction (β = 0.334, p < 0.001), with strong ratings for "Price is worth the dining experience" (M = 

4.39, SD = 0.70). However, H2 (employee service quality) and H5 (digital presence) were not supported, despite high scores 

for "Accuracy" (M = 4.49, SD = 0.54) and "Accessibility of information" (M = 4.31, SD = 0.69). 

Regarding perceived competitiveness, H10, suggesting digital presence enhances competitiveness, was supported 

(β = 0.240, p = 0.001), while H6, H7, H8, and H9 were not significant. H11, proposing customer satisfaction positively 

affects competitiveness, was strongly supported (β = 0.408, p < 0.001), with high satisfaction ratings (M > 4.30). 

For traditional Padang restaurants (Table 8, Figure 3), the hypothesis that food quality affects customer satisfaction 

(H1) was supported (β = 0.379, p = 0.001), with high ratings for “The food served is fresh” (M = 4.62, SD = 0.49). The 

effect of price on satisfaction (H4) was also confirmed (β = 0.227, p = 0.015), supported by favorable evaluations of “Price 

is worth the dining experience” (M = 4.46, SD = 0.72). However, the effects of employee service quality (H2), physical 

environment (H3), and digital presence (H5) on satisfaction were not significant.  

For competitiveness, employee service quality was a significant determinant (H7; β = 0.304, p = 0.002), supported 

by high ratings for “Accuracy” (M = 4.55, SD = 0.53). The physical environment also had a positive effect (H8; β = 0.220, 

p = 0.009), with “Pleasant room temperature” rated M = 4.30 (SD = 0.83). In contrast, food quality (H6), price (H9), and 

digital presence (H10) were not significant predictors of competitiveness. Finally, customer satisfaction enhanced 

competitiveness (H11; β = 0.284, p = 0.008), confirming its mediating role. 

 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

64 

 
 

Figure 2. Path structure and coefficients (overall) 

 

 
 

Figure 3. Path Structure and Coefficients (Traditional Padang Restaurant) 

 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

65 

 
 

Figure 4. Path Structure and Coefficients (Modern Fast Food Restaurant) 

 

For modern fast food restaurants (Table 8, Figure 4), food quality significantly affected customer satisfaction (H1; 

β = 0.347, p = 0.001), with high ratings for “The taste of the food is delicious” (M = 4.49, SD = 0.57). The physical 

environment also contributed positively (H3; β = 0.278, p = 0.029), supported by ratings for “Pleasant room temperature” 

(M = 4.22, SD = 0.68). Price strongly influenced satisfaction (H4; β = 0.476, p < 0.001), with favorable evaluations of 

“Reasonable price” (M = 4.37, SD = 0.67). However, employee service quality (H2) and digital presence (H5) were not 

significant predictors of satisfaction. 

Regarding competitiveness, food quality hurt perceived competitiveness (H6; β = –0.185, p = 0.034), indicating an 

inverse relationship. Digital presence strongly enhanced competitiveness (H10; β = 0.575, p < 0.001), with "Accessibility 

of information" rated M = 4.16 (SD = 0.72). Employee service quality (H7), physical environment (H8), and price (H9) 

were not significant in shaping competitiveness. Customer satisfaction had the most potent effect on competitiveness (H11; 

β = 0.628, p < 0.001), representing the most influential path. 

An indirect effect analysis (Table 9) shows that price (β = 0.136; p = 0.000), food quality (β = 0.134; p = 0.002), 

and physical environment (β = 0.075; p = 0.027) have significant indirect effects on perceived competitiveness through 

customer satisfaction, supporting H12a, H12c, and H12d. H12b and H12e were not supported (p > 0.05). Since these attributes 

had no significant direct effect on competitiveness (Table 8), the findings suggest complete mediation, with influence 

occurring only through satisfaction. 

 

Table 9. Indirect Effect 

 
Hypo-

theses 

Path Overall Traditional Padang Restaurant Modern Fast Food Restaurant 

β P Values Result β P Values Result β P Values Result 

H12a X1 Y1 Y2 0.134 0.002 Supported 0.108 0.071 Not Supported 0.218 0.001 Supported 

H12b X2  Y1 Y2 0.034 0.309 Not Supported 0.042 0.315 Not Supported -0.008 0.896 Not Supported 

H12c X3  Y1 Y2 0.075 0.027 Supported 0.013 0.631 Not Supported 0.175 0.045 Supported 

H12d X4  Y1 Y2 0.136 0.000 Supported 0.064 0.057 Not Supported 0.299 0.000 Supported 

H12e X5  Y1 Y2 -0.024 0.333 Not Supported 0.013 0.600 Not Supported -0.117 0.093 Not Supported 

 

When analyzed by restaurant segment, distinct mediation patterns emerged. In traditional Padang restaurants, no 

significant mediation paths were found (p > 0.05), indicating that satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between 

restaurant quality attributes and perceived competitiveness. Therefore, H12 was not supported. 

In modern fast food restaurants, customer satisfaction mediates the effects of price (β = 0.299; p = 0.000), food 

quality (β = 0.218; p = 0.001), and physical environment (β = 0.175; p = 0.045) on perceived competitiveness, supporting 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

66 

H12a, H12c, and H12d. H12b and H12e were not supported (p > 0.05). Price and physical environment show complete 

mediation, while food quality shows partial mediation with both direct and indirect effects on competitiveness. 

These results suggest that in modern fast food restaurants, perceived competitiveness is shaped by two pathways. 

The first is direct, where customer satisfaction, digital presence, and food quality significantly influence competitiveness, 

with food quality's direct effect being adverse. The second is indirect, where price, physical environment, and food quality 

enhance competitiveness through customer satisfaction. 

The total effect analysis, integrating both direct and indirect effects of food quality, employee service, physical 

environment, price, digital presence, and customer satisfaction on perceived competitiveness, offers a comprehensive view 

of each construct's contribution to the research model. The results are presented in Table 10. 

 

Table 10. Total Effect 

 
Hypotheses Path Overall Traditional Padang Restaurant Modern Fast Food Restaurant 

β P Values Result β P 

Values 

Result β P 

Values 

Result 

H1 X1 Y1 0.328 0.000 Supported 0.379 0.001 Supported 0.347 0.001 Supported 

H2 X2 Y1 0.084 0.295 Not Supported 0.146 0.272 Not 

Supported 

-

0.013 

0.898 Not 

Supported 

H3 X3 Y1 0.184 0.015 Supported 0.045 0.614 Not 

Supported 

0.278 0.029 Supported 

H4 X4 Y1 0.334 0.000 Supported 0.227 0.015 Supported 0.476 0.000 Supported 

H5 X5 Y1 -0.058 0.325 Not Supported 0.045 0.564 Not 

Supported 

-

0.186 

0.076 Not 

Supported 

H6 X1 Y2 0.146 0.065 Not Supported 0.135 0.239 Not 

Supported 

0.033 0.759 Not 

Supported 

H7 X2 Y2 0.153 0.064 Not Supported 0.346 0.001 Supported -

0.093 

0.429 Not 

Supported 

H8 X3 Y2 0.177 0.020 Supported 0.233 0.007 Supported 0.272 0.049 Supported 

H9 X4 Y2 0.194 0.003 Supported 0.098 0.249 Not 

Supported 

0.205 0.088 Not 

Supported 

H10 X5 Y2 0.216 0.004 Supported 0.078 0.295 Not 

Supported 

0.459 0.001 Supported 

H11 Y1 Y2 0.408 0.000 Supported 0.284 0.008 Supported 0.628 0.000 Supported 

 

As shown in Table 10, three constructs significantly influence customer satisfaction: food quality (β = 0.328, p < 

0.001), price (β = 0.334, p < 0.001), and physical environment (β = 0.184, p = 0.014), supporting H1, H3, and H4. However, 

employee service quality and digital presence did not significantly affect satisfaction, so H2 and H5 were not supported.  

For perceived competitiveness, significant effects were found for customer satisfaction (β = 0.408; p = 0.000), 

digital presence (β = 0.216; p = 0.004), price (β = 0.194; p = 0.003), and physical environment (β = 0.117; p = 0.020), 

supporting H8, H9, H10, and H11. Food quality and employee service quality did not significantly affect competitiveness, 

so H6 and H7 were not supported. 

In the traditional Padang restaurant segment, only food quality (β = 0.379; p = 0.001) and price (β = 0.227; p = 

0.015) significantly influenced customer satisfaction, supporting H1 and H4. However, H2, H3, and H5 were not supported.  

For perceived competitiveness, significant effects were found for employee service quality (β = 0.346; p = 0.001), 

customer satisfaction (β = 0.284; p = 0.008), and physical environment (β = 0.233; p = 0.007). Food quality, price, and 

digital presence did not significantly affect competitiveness, so H7, H8, and H11 were supported, while H6, H9, and H10 

were not. These findings suggest that competitiveness in traditional Padang restaurants is driven by employee service, 

physical environment, and customer satisfaction, with no significant impact from digital presence. 

In modern fast food restaurants, food quality (β = 0.347; p = 0.001), price (β = 0.476; p < 0.001), and physical 

environment (β = 0.278; p = 0.029) significantly influenced customer satisfaction, supporting H1, H3, and H4, while H2 

and H5 were not supported. 

Customer satisfaction (β = 0.628; p = 0.000), digital presence (β = 0.459; p = 0.001), and physical environment (β 

= 0.272; p = 0.499) significantly affected perceived competitiveness, supporting H8, H10, and H11, while food quality, 

price, and employee service quality had no direct impact on competitiveness (p > 0.05), so H6, H7, and H9 were not 

supported. 

 

Multigroup Analysis 

The results in Table 11 show significant differences in several structural paths. First, digital presence has a stronger effect 

on perceived competitiveness in modern fast food restaurants (β = –0.510; p < 0.001). Second, employee service quality 

significantly differs (β = 0.389; p = 0.004), with a greater impact in traditional Padang restaurants. Third, the effect of 

customer satisfaction on perceived competitiveness varies (β = –0.344, p = 0.017), suggesting a stronger role in the fast food 

industry. Therefore, H13a7, H13a10, and H13a11 were supported.  

 

 

 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

67 

Table 11. MGA- Direct Effect 

 
Hypotheses Path Path Coefficients-diff 

(Padang - Fast Food) 
p-Value original 1-tailed 

(Padang vs Fast Food) 
p-Value new (Padang vs 

Fast Food) 
Result 

H13a1 X1 Y1 0.033 0.415 0.830 Not Supported 
H13a2 X2 Y1 0.159 0.172 0.344 Not Supported 
H13a3 X3 Y1 -0.234 0.938 0.125 Not Supported 
H13a4 X4 Y1 -0.249 0.951 0.099 Not Supported 
H13a5 X5 Y1 0.231 0.039 0.077 Not Supported 
H13a6 X1 Y2 0.212 0.062 0.124 Not Supported 
H13a7 X2 Y2 0.389 0.002 0.004 Supported 
H13a8 X3 Y2 0.123 0.171 0.342 Not Supported 
H13a9 X4 Y2 0.128 0.154 0.307 Not Supported 
H13a10 X5 Y2 -0.510 1.000 0.000 Supported 
H13a11 Y1 Y2 -0.344 0.992 0.017 Supported 

 

Table 11 shows no significant differences in the relationships between food quality, employee service, physical 

environment, price, digital presence, and customer satisfaction across segments (p > 0.05), indicating that restaurant type 

does not moderate these links. Therefore, H13a1-a5 were not supported. Similarly, no significant differences were found in 

the relationships between physical environment, price, food quality, and perceived competitiveness (p > 0.05), so H13a6, 

H13a8, and H13a9 were not supported. 

 

Table 12. MGA- Indirect Effect  

 
Hypotheses Path Specific Indirect Effects-

diff (Padang - Fast Food) 
p-Value Original 1-tailed 

(Padang vs Fast Food) 
p-Value New (Padang vs 

Fast Food) 
Result 

H13b1 X1 Y1 Y2 -0.110 0.893 0.214 Not Supported 
H13b2 X2  Y1 Y2 0.050 0.255 0.509 Not Supported 
H13b3 X3  Y1 Y2 -0.162 0.977 0.047 Supported 
H13b4 X4  Y1 Y2 -0.234 0.995 0.009 Supported 
H13b5 X5  Y1 Y2 0.129 0.032 0.063 Not Supported 

 

Table 12 presents the MGA results for indirect effect paths through customer satisfaction. Two paths show 

significant differences: the indirect effect of price (β = −0.234; p = 0.009) and physical environment (β = −0.162; p = 0.047) 

on perceived competitiveness, both stronger in modern fast food restaurants. Thus, H13b3 and H13b4 were supported. 

However, the indirect effects of food quality, employee service quality, and digital presence did not differ significantly (p > 

0.05), indicating consistency across segments, so H13b1, H13b2, and H13b5 were not supported. 

The total effect analysis in Table 13 shows significant differences in three pathways. Employee service quality has 

a stronger effect on perceived competitiveness in traditional Padang restaurants (β = 0.439; p = 0.008), while digital presence 

and customer satisfaction have greater effects in modern fast food restaurants (β = –0.381; p = 0.016; β = –0.344; p = 0.016). 

Thus, H13c7, H13c10, and H13c11 were supported. However, food quality, price, and physical environment did not differ 

significantly between segments (p > 0.05), so H13c1-c6, H13c8, and H13c9 were not supported. 

 

Table 13. MGA-Total Effect 

 
Hypotheses Path Total Effects-diff 

(Padang - Fast Food) 

p-Value Original 1-tailed 

(Padang vs Fast Food) 

p-Value New (Padang vs 

Fast Food) 

Result 

H13c1 X1 Y1 0.033 0.415 0.829 Not Supported 

H13c2 X2 Y1 0.159 0.173  0.345 Not Supported 

H13c3 X3 Y1 -0.234 0.940  0.120 Not Supported 

H13c4 X4 Y1 -0.249 0.952  0.096 Not Supported 

H13c5 X5 Y1 0.231 0.036 0.071 Not Supported 

H13c6 X1 Y2 0.102 0.258  0.517 Not Supported 

H13c7 X2 Y2 0.439 0.004 0.008 Supported 

H13c8 X3 Y2 -0.039 0.592 0.815 Not Supported 

H13c9 X4 Y2 -0.107 0.774 0.451 Not Supported 

H13c10 X5 Y2 -0.381 0.992 0.016 Supported 

H13c11 Y1 Y2 -0.344 0.992 0.016 Supported 

 

DISCUSSIONS 

This study examined the effects of restaurant quality attributes—food quality, employee service, physical environment, 

price, and digital presence—on customer satisfaction and perceived competitiveness, as well as the mediating role of 

satisfaction and differences across restaurant formats. 

In traditional Padang restaurants, food quality enhances satisfaction (H1 accepted) but does not affect 

competitiveness (H6 rejected). This aligns with prior studies linking sensory quality to satisfaction (Kala, 2020; Sari et al., 

2024), but in Padang, food quality is considered inherent to the cuisine (Arsil et al., 2022; Mardatillah, 2020), with locals 

prioritizing employee service and the physical environment for competitiveness.  

Employee service quality does not affect satisfaction (H2 rejected) despite high ratings for “Accuracy,” but 

significantly enhances competitiveness (H7 accepted), aligning with Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory on 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

68 

interpersonal interactions in collectivist cultures. Price boosts satisfaction (H4 accepted), with high scores for “Price is worth 

the dining experience,” supporting fairness and value in satisfaction (Zanetta et al., 2024). However, price did not predict 

competitiveness (H9 rejected), indicating it drives satisfaction but not competitiveness. 

The physical environment does not affect satisfaction (H3 rejected) but positively influences competitiveness (H8 

accepted), suggesting customers prioritize food and price for satisfaction, while ambiance shapes competitiveness. Digital 

presence has no impact on either satisfaction or competitiveness (H5 & H10 rejected), indicating Padang restaurant 

customers value direct interactions and physical comfort. Lastly, customer satisfaction positively influences competitiveness 

(H11 accepted), though the effect is weaker than in fast food restaurants. 

Moreover, the mediating role of satisfaction in transmitting the effects of restaurant quality attributes to 

competitiveness is not significant in traditional Padang restaurants (H12 rejected). This differs from the findings of El-Said 

et al. (2021), who reported a stronger mediating role of servicescape and atmosphere in shaping behavioral outcomes; 

however, their study focused on tourists and expatriates, whereas the present research emphasizes local consumers, 

underscoring the importance of cultural and contextual differences. 

In modern fast food restaurants, a different pattern emerges. Food quality enhances satisfaction (H1 accepted), with 

“The taste of the food is delicious” as the strongest indicator, but negatively impacts competitiveness (H6 accepted, 

negative). This supports the idea that in quick-service formats, product quality is a baseline expectation, not a differentiator 

(Kala, 2020). Employee service quality does not significantly affect satisfaction or competitiveness (H2 & H7 rejected), 

suggesting fast food consumers prioritize other factors for competitiveness. 

Price strongly influences satisfaction (H4 accepted), with “Reasonable price” as a key indicator, but does not 

predict competitiveness (H9 rejected), supporting the link between pricing fairness and satisfaction (Zanetta et al., 2024). 

The physical environment contributes to satisfaction (H3 accepted), primarily through comfort factors like room 

temperature, but does not affect competitiveness (H8 rejected). 

Digital presence, while not affecting satisfaction (H5 rejected), is the strongest determinant of competitiveness 

(H10 accepted), with "Accessibility of information" as the highest-rated item. This aligns with recent literature highlighting 

the strategic role of digital channels in standardized service environments (Hanaysha, 2022; Öksüz et al., 2025; Singh et al., 

2024).  

Customer satisfaction strongly influences competitiveness (H11 accepted), with a greater impact in fast food 

restaurants, confirming its role as a strategic mediator, especially in standardized settings where satisfaction shapes loyalty 

and competitiveness (Chun & Nyam-Ochir, 2020). Satisfaction also mediates the effects of food quality, price, and physical 

environment on competitiveness in fast food contexts (H12a, H12c, H12d accepted), supporting prior research on 

satisfaction as a key mediator of loyalty and competitive advantage (Cheraghalizadeh & Dědková, 2022; Chun & Nyam-

Ochir, 2020). 

MGA confirmed that employee service quality drives competitiveness in Padang restaurants, while digital presence 

dominates in fast food. Satisfaction's effect on competitiveness was more substantial in fast food, highlighting its key role 

in standardized, digitally integrated formats. 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

This study highlights that different types of restaurants require distinct strategies to influence customer perceptions of 

competitiveness. Traditional restaurants rely on employee service and the physical environment, while modern fast food 

benefits from digital presence and customer satisfaction. MGA results confirm significant segment differences, particularly 

in how digital presence, employee service, and satisfaction impact competitiveness, emphasizing the role of consumer 

characteristics and restaurant type in shaping strategies.  

For traditional restaurants, competitiveness is primarily influenced by interpersonal service and the physical 

comfort of the restaurant. To enhance competitiveness, strategies should focus on improving staff-customer interactions, 

ensuring service accuracy, and maintaining a pleasant dining atmosphere, with adequate supporting facilities. In contrast, 

modern fast food restaurants rely more on customer satisfaction, driven by consistent food quality, fair pricing, and physical 

comfort, reinforced by a strong digital presence. Differentiation in this segment should emphasize engaging digital content 

and responsive online interactions to strengthen market positioning. 

Limitations of the study include its cross-sectional design, which limits causal conclusions, and reliance on self-

reported data. Future research could explore causal relationships through longitudinal or experimental designs and extend 

to other regions or types of restaurants. 

 

 
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.I.K.S., N.H., R.A. and A.S.H.W.; Methodology, R.I.K.S.; Software, R.I.K.S.; Validation, R.I.K.S.; Formal 

Analysis, R.I.K.S.; Investigation, R.I.K.S., N.H., R.A. and A.S.H.W.; Resources, R.I.K.S., N.H., R.A. and A.S.H.W.; Data Curation, R.I.K.S.; Writing – 

Original Draft Preparation, R.I.K.S., N.H., R.A. and A.S.H.W.; Writing – Review & Editing, R.I.K.S., N.H., R.A. and A.S.H.W.; Visualization, R.I.K.S.; 
Supervision, R.I.K.S.; Project Administration, N.H., R.A. and A.S.H.W.;  Funding Acquisition, N.H., R.A. and A.S.H.W. Authors have read and agreed 

to the published version of the manuscript. 

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to that the research does not deal with vulnerable 
groups or sensitive issues. 

Funding: Authors received no funding for this research.  

Acknowledgments: Not applicable. 
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 

due to restrictions. 
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.              



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

69 

REFERENCES 

Adesina, K. I., Pelumi, O. O., & Blessing, A. O. (2022). Influence of Dining Experiences on Customers’ Satisfaction and 

Loyalty in Fine Dining Restaurants in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Hospitality and 

Tourism Studies, 3(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.31559/IJHTS2022.3.1.3 

Ahn, J. (2025). The effects of multidimensional perceived heritage on customer behavior across independent and franchise 

restaurant contexts. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 28(2), 433–448. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2023.2242922 

Anas, A. M., Abdou, A. H., Hassan, T. H., Alrefae, W. M. M., Daradkeh, F. M., El-Amin, M. A.-M. M., Kegour, A. B. A., 

& Alboray, H. M. M. (2023). Satisfaction on the Driving Seat: Exploring the Influence of Social Media Marketing 

Activities on Followers’ Purchase Intention in the Restaurant Industry Context. Sustainability, 15(9), 7207. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097207 

Arsil, P., Dang, H. L., Wicaksono, R., & Hardanto, A. (2022). Determinants of consumers' motivation towards ethnic food: 

evidence from Indonesia. British Food Journal, 124(10), 3183-3200. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0605 

Bowman, C., & Faulkner, D. (1994). Measuring product advantage using competitive benchmarking and customer 

perceptions. Long Range Planning, 27(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(94)90012-4 

BPS Indonesia. (2024). Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2024. Retrieved from 

https://www.bps.go.id/id/publication/2024/02/28/c1bacde03256343b2bf769b0/statistik-indonesia-2024.html 

Cavalcante, W. Q. de F., Coelho, A., & Bairrada, C. M. (2021). Sustainability and tourism marketing: A bibliometric 

analysis of publications between 1997 and 2020 using VOSviewer software. Sustainability, 13(9), 4987. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094987 

Cheah, J.-H., Thurasamy, R., Memon, M. A., Chuah, F., & Ting, H. (2020). Multigroup Analysis using SmartPLS: Step-

by-Step Guidelines for Business Research. Asian Journal of Business Research, 10(3), I-XIX.. 

https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.200087 

Cheraghalizadeh, R., & Dědková, J. (2022). Do service quality and social media marketing improve customer retention in 

hotels? Testing the mediation effect. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 25(2), 118–133. 

https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2022-2-008 

Chua, B.-L., Karim, S., Lee, S., & Han, H. (2020). Customer restaurant choice: An empirical analysis of restaurant types 

and eating-out occasions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6276. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176276 

Chun, S.-H., & Nyam-Ochir, A. (2020). The Effects of Fast Food Restaurant Attributes on Customer Satisfaction, Revisit 

Intention, and Recommendation Using DINESERV Scale. Sustainability, 12(18), 7435. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187435 

El-Said, O. A., Smith, M., & Al Ghafri, W. (2021). Antecedents and outcomes of dining experience satisfaction in ethnic 

restaurants: The moderating role of food neophobia. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(7), 

799–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2021.1888368 

Española, A. Y., Janaban, A. A., & Ma, E. M. (2024). Restaurants’ Attributes Customers’ Satisfaction and Loyalty. 

International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS), 241–285. 

https://doi.org/10.51386/25815946/ijsms-v7i2p123 

Fan, W., Shao, B., & Dong, X. (2022). Effect of e-service quality on customer engagement behavior in community e-

commerce. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.965998 

Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling 

(PLS-SEM). 

Hanaysha, J. R. (2022). Impact of social media marketing features on consumer’s purchase decision in the fast-food 

industry: Brand trust as a mediator. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2), 100102. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100102 

Kala, D. (2020). Examining the Impact of Food Attributes and Restaurant Services on Tourist Satisfaction: Evidence from 

Mountainous State of India. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 21(4), 430–453. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2019.1672235 

Kamil, H., Sari, A., & Ambarwati, D. (2023). The effect of sensoric marketing on McDonald’s consumer repurchase 

intention in Bandar Lampung city with customer satisfaction as mediation variable. International Journal of 

Scientific Multidisciplinary Research, 1(6), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.55927/ijsmr.v1i6.5259 

Kim, H., & So, K. K. F. (2022). Two decades of customer experience research in hospitality and tourism: A bibliometric 

analysis and thematic content analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 100, 103082. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103082 

Konuk, F. A. (2023). Trustworthy brand signals, price fairness and organic food restaurant brand loyalty. Management 

Decision, 61(10), 3035–3052. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2022-0889 

Lányi, B., Hornyák, M., & Kruzslicz, F. (2021). The effect of online activity on SMEs’ competitiveness. Competitiveness 

Review: An International Business Journal, 31(3), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2020-0022 

Li, J., Kim, W. G., & Choi, H. M. (2021). Effectiveness of social media marketing on enhancing performance: Evidence 

from a casual-dining restaurant setting. Tourism Economics, 27(1), 3–22. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619867807 

Maráková, V., Wolak-Tuzimek, A., Lament, M., & Dzúriková, L. (2023). The competitive advantage of enterprises from 

the customer perspective. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 26(3), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2023-

3-010 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

70 

Mardatillah, A. (2020). The enterprise culture heritage of Minangkabau cuisine, west Sumatra of Indonesia as a source of 

sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Ethnic Foods, 7, 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-020-00059-z 

Mendocilla, M., Miravitlles Matamoros, P., & Matute, J. (2021). QUICKSERV: A service quality assessment tool for the 

quick-service restaurant industry. British Food Journal, 123(13), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2020-

1108 

Mubarok, E. S., Subarjo, B., Raihan, R., Wiwin, W., & Bandawaty, E. (2023). Determinants of customer satisfaction and 

loyalty Waroeng Steak Restaurant in DKI Jakarta. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2282739. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2282739 

Ng, W. C., Ong, Y. W., Oan, K. B., Ooi, C. T., Ooi, J., Habibie, M. F., Choudhory, T., Raghav, U., & Kee, D. M. H. (2023). 

The impact of social media and key opinion leader on the purchasing behaviour in the food and beverage industry 

in Malaysia. Journal of the Community Development in Asia, 6(3), 299-313. 

https://doi.org/10.32535/jcda.v6i3.2499 

Nuyken, M., Zilbershtein, D., & Rauf, A. (2022). Generation Z’s perspective on restaurant service quality. Research in 

Hospitality Management, 12(3), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2023.2202495 

Öksüz, M., Bulut, Ç., Candemir, A., & Bozkurt, İ. (2025). Digital or physical satisfaction? The effects of consumers’ digital 

intentions and physical experiences on revisiting the restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality 

Management, 125, 104011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104011 

Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315700892 

Ong, A. K. S., Prasetyo, Y. T., Mariñas, K. A., Perez, J. P. A., Persada, S. F., Nadlifatin, R., Chuenyindee, T., & Buaphiban, 

T. (2022). Factors affecting customer satisfaction in fast food restaurant “Jollibee” during the COVID-19 

pandemic. Sustainability, 14(22), 15477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215477 

Otto, A. S., Szymanski, D. M., & Varadarajan, R. (2020). Customer satisfaction and firm performance: Insights from over 

a quarter century of empirical research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 543–564. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00657-7 

Ponnaiyan, S., Ababneh, K. I., & Prybutok, V. (2021). Determinants of fast-food restaurant service quality in the United 

Arab Emirates. Quality Management Journal, 28(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2021.1886024 

Prayag, G., Hassibi, S., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). A systematic review of consumer satisfaction studies in hospitality journals: 

Conceptual development, research approaches and future prospects. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & 

Management, 28(1), 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1504367 

Rahman, M. A., Sulaiman, Y., Mat, N. K. N., & Hassan, Z. (2022). What influences customers to revisit full-service 

restaurants in Malaysia? WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 20, 1971–1983. 

https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2023.20.172 

Rathnasiri, M. S. H., Kumar, P., Aggarwal, B., Nair, K., & Dewasiri, N. J. (2025). Influences of atmospherics on customer 

satisfaction and behavioural intentions in the restaurant industry: Evidence from an emerging economy. PLOS 

ONE, 20(4), e0319948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319948 

Rodríguez-López, M. E., Alcántara-Pilar, J. M., Del Barrio-García, S., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2020). A review of restaurant 

research in the last two decades: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 

102387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102387 

Sari, N. T. P., Yulianto, E., & Sunarti. (2024). A Literature Review: Unraveling the Dimensions of Food Quality and Its 

Influence on Consumer Satisfaction. KnE Social Sciences, 9(13), 453–467. 

https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i11.15835 

Satti, Z. W., Babar, S. F., & Parveen, S. (2023). Role of customer satisfaction as a mediator between sensory marketing and 

customer loyalty: A case of Pakistani restaurant industry. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness 

Marketing, 35(5), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2022.2049415 

Singh, S., Singh, G., & Dhir, S. (2024). Impact of digital marketing on the competitiveness of the restaurant industry. 

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 27(2), 109–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2022.2077088 

Slack, N. J., Singh, G., Ali, J., Lata, R., Mudaliar, K., & Swamy, Y. (2021). Influence of fast-food restaurant service quality 

and its dimensions on customer perceived value, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. British Food Journal, 

123(4), 1324–1344. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2020-0771 

Solimun, Fernandes, A. A. R., & Nurjannah. (2017). Metode Statistika Multivariat Pemodelan Persamaan Struktural 

(SEM) Pendekatan WarpPLS. Universitas Brawijaya Press. 

Souki, G. Q., Oliveira, A. S. D., Guerreiro, M. M. M., Mendes, J. D. C., & Moura, L. R. C. (2023). Do memorable restaurant 

experiences affect eWOM? The moderating effect of consumers' behavioural engagement on social networking 

sites. The TQM Journal, 35(8), 2255–2281. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2022-0200 

Sah, G. K., & Shah , G. P. . (2025). EFFECT OF GREEN MARKETING MIX ON GREEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 

AND LOYALTY IN KATHMANDU VALLEY. Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 

10(4), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.46281/fjj5e816 

Tuncer, I., Unusan, C., & Cobanoglu, C. (2020). Service Quality, Perceived Value and Customer Satisfaction on Behavioral 

Intention in Restaurants: An Integrated Structural Model. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 

22(4), 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2020.1802390 

Wangmo, G., Piehler, R., & Baumann, C. (2025). Customer-based brand competitiveness (CBBC) scale: advancing the 

relative perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 34(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-

04-2024-5076 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

71 

Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing 

Science, 25, 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894350 

Yuningsih, N. (2024). Hotel restaurant institutional annual. Food Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/indonesia-food-service-hotel-restaurant-institutional-annual 

Zanetta, L. D., Xavier, M. C., Hakim, M. P., Stedefeldt, E., Zanin, L. M., Medeiros, C. O., & da Cunha, D. T. (2024). How 

does the consumer choose a restaurant? An overview of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Food Research 

International, 186, 114369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114369 

 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Discriminant Validity Test Results (Cross-loading) for Overall Sample 

 
Items X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Y1 Y2 

X1.1 0.847 0.666 0.623 0.654 0.572 0.654 0.599 

X1.2 0.855 0.725 0.653 0.622 0.531 0.631 0.589 

X1.3 0.785 0.618 0.546 0.567 0.516 0.510 0.490 

X1.4 0.786 0.588 0.599 0.502 0.448 0.559 0.476 

X1.5 0.784 0.594 0.701 0.613 0.565 0.642 0.610 

X2.1 0.708 0.886 0.635 0.578 0.563 0.609 0.610 

X2.2 0.648 0.854 0.613 0.580 0.578 0.526 0.535 

X2.3 0.705 0.882 0.689 0.644 0.572 0.617 0.615 

X3.1 0.715 0.683 0.811 0.605 0.583 0.595 0.552 

X3.2 0.687 0.679 0.795 0.627 0.630 0.603 0.595 

X3.3 0.555 0.553 0.845 0.527 0.570 0.502 0.504 

X3.4 0.639 0.614 0.867 0.568 0.552 0.579 0.622 

X3.5 0.590 0.525 0.821 0.573 0.594 0.581 0.581 

X4.1 0.574 0.632 0.569 0.854 0.550 0.587 0.610 

X4.2 0.705 0.620 0.621 0.893 0.589 0.689 0.594 

X4.3 0.585 0.499 0.607 0.804 0.647 0.558 0.533 

X5.1 0.508 0.536 0.527 0.543 0.856 0.424 0.537 

X5.2 0.622 0.542 0.694 0.612 0.884 0.506 0.593 

X5.3 0.608 0.621 0.692 0.692 0.901 0.556 0.587 

X5.4 0.561 0.603 0.584 0.607 0.895 0.531 0.651 

Y1.1 0.619 0.577 0.659 0.596 0.512 0.864 0.593 

Y1.2 0.560 0.561 0.520 0.548 0.362 0.837 0.551 

Y1.3 0.684 0.589 0.612 0.656 0.514 0.861 0.624 

Y1.4 0.637 0.539 0.547 0.625 0.531 0.815 0.735 

Y2.1 0.690 0.642 0.691 0.610 0.649 0.674 0.866 

Y2.2 0.547 0.557 0.480 0.606 0.537 0.625 0.879 

Y2.3 0.583 0.613 0.653 0.619 0.585 0.670 0.887 

Y2.4 0.591 0.558 0.604 0.566 0.591 0.661 0.896 

 

Appendix B: Discriminant Validity Test Results (Cross-loading) for Traditional Padang Restaurant 
 

Items X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Y1 Y2 

X1.1 0.849 0.651 0.633 0.689 0.547 0.658 0.567 

X1.2 0.828 0.734 0.598 0.556 0.430 0.587 0.620 

X1.3 0.790 0.621 0.526 0.562 0.418 0.473 0.501 

X1.4 0.799 0.544 0.562 0.465 0.404 0.525 0.491 

X1.5 0.786 0.584 0.654 0.704 0.551 0.644 0.609 

X2.1 0.660 0.876 0.526 0.601 0.532 0.565 0.662 

X2.2 0.671 0.815 0.553 0.489 0.480 0.497 0.514 

X2.3 0.654 0.859 0.606 0.589 0.520 0.582 0.637 

X3.1 0.738 0.630 0.808 0.649 0.583 0.566 0.582 

X3.2 0.616 0.540 0.779 0.515 0.554 0.531 0.553 

X3.3 0.447 0.487 0.823 0.400 0.601 0.353 0.516 

X3.4 0.653 0.554 0.905 0.558 0.640 0.504 0.582 

X3.5 0.509 0.455 0.757 0.510 0.588 0.466 0.530 

X4.1 0.509 0.561 0.414 0.826 0.429 0.489 0.582 

X4.2 0.694 0.600 0.548 0.853 0.469 0.613 0.479 

X4.3 0.616 0.458 0.652 0.773 0.568 0.516 0.474 

X5.1 0.482 0.534 0.639 0.485 0.892 0.444 0.457 

X5.2 0.528 0.443 0.718 0.513 0.873 0.421 0.496 

X5.3 0.577 0.572 0.689 0.608 0.910 0.491 0.553 

X5.4 0.483 0.571 0.540 0.495 0.866 0.485 0.578 

Y1.1 0.617 0.553 0.599 0.602 0.506 0.864 0.548 

Y1.2 0.537 0.554 0.377 0.453 0.300 0.836 0.557 

Y1.3 0.650 0.557 0.553 0.591 0.478 0.898 0.569 

Y1.4 0.672 0.570 0.537 0.621 0.502 0.858 0.694 

Y2.1 0.720 0.628 0.737 0.539 0.592 0.598 0.850 

Y2.2 0.535 0.643 0.438 0.575 0.445 0.574 0.853 

Y2.3 0.531 0.660 0.555 0.550 0.508 0.570 0.895 

Y2.4 0.599 0.547 0.604 0.504 0.494 0.642 0.863 

 



Sari et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 10(6) (2025), 56-72

 

72 

Appendix C: Discriminant Validity Test Result (Cross-loading) for Modern Fast Food Restaurant 

 
Items X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Y1 Y2 

X1.1 0.846 0.679 0.623 0.626 0.638 0.651 0.631 

X1.2 0.884 0.709 0.708 0.681 0.652 0.672 0.558 

X1.3 0.799 0.625 0.584 0.565 0.619 0.568 0.479 

X1.4 0.776 0.644 0.662 0.566 0.556 0.606 0.467 

X1.5 0.789 0.610 0.751 0.556 0.645 0.647 0.622 

X2.1 0.760 0.900 0.727 0.566 0.645 0.651 0.569 

X2.2 0.623 0.895 0.676 0.667 0.690 0.557 0.554 

X2.3 0.762 0.906 0.771 0.699 0.651 0.653 0.592 

X3.1 0.709 0.727 0.814 0.567 0.599 0.619 0.527 

X3.2 0.765 0.805 0.812 0.717 0.703 0.671 0.630 

X3.3 0.655 0.610 0.858 0.631 0.537 0.632 0.490 

X3.4 0.656 0.685 0.881 0.631 0.606 0.664 0.693 

X3.5 0.668 0.589 0.870 0.617 0.585 0.683 0.625 

X4.1 0.648 0.707 0.711 0.890 0.718 0.685 0.644 

X4.2 0.717 0.639 0.689 0.926 0.722 0.765 0.705 

X4.3 0.580 0.560 0.592 0.852 0.703 0.621 0.602 

X5.1 0.569 0.559 0.435 0.599 0.795 0.416 0.640 

X5.2 0.726 0.640 0.684 0.698 0.892 0.591 0.685 

X5.3 0.680 0.702 0.722 0.777 0.878 0.645 0.637 

X5.4 0.672 0.656 0.638 0.716 0.922 0.595 0.740 

Y1.1 0.627 0.594 0.707 0.582 0.516 0.865 0.631 

Y1.2 0.583 0.567 0.629 0.633 0.444 0.842 0.552 

Y1.3 0.722 0.615 0.655 0.716 0.573 0.830 0.675 

Y1.4 0.603 0.510 0.567 0.637 0.600 0.774 0.778 

Y2.1 0.661 0.658 0.657 0.676 0.714 0.756 0.883 

Y2.2 0.555 0.484 0.514 0.635 0.653 0.671 0.905 

Y2.3 0.636 0.566 0.743 0.691 0.690 0.769 0.880 

Y2.4 0.583 0.571 0.609 0.632 0.725 0.683 0.929 

 

Appendix D: Discriminant Validity Test Results (Fornell-Larcker Criterion) for Overall Sample 

 
Items X5 X4 X1 Y2 X3 X4 Y1 

X5 0.884 
      

X4 0.653 0.874 
     

X1 0.652 0.787 0.812 
    

Y2 0.672 0.674 0.686 0.882 
   

X3 0.708 0.740 0.773 0.693 0.828 
  

X4 0.696 0.688 0.732 0.681 0.703 0.851 
 

Y1 0.573 0.671 0.743 0.746 0.693 0.721 0.845 

 

Appendix E: Discriminant Validity Test Results (Fornell-Larcker Criterion) for Traditional Padang Restaurant 
 

Items X5 X4 X1 Y2 X3 X4 Y1 

X5 0.885       

X4 0.602 0.850      

X1 0.586 0.776 0.811     

Y2 0.592 0.716 0.693 0.866    

X3 0.727 0.660 0.738 0.681 0.816   

X4 0.595 0.662 0.742 0.626 0.654 0.818  

Y1 0.522 0.647 0.720 0.689 0.602 0.661 0.864 

 

Appendix F: Discriminant Validity Test Results (Fornell-Larcker Criterion) for Modern Fast Food Restaurant 

 
Items X5 X4 X1 Y2 X3 X4 Y1 

X5 0.873       

X4 0.734 0.900      

X1 0.761 0.798 0.820     

Y2 0.774 0.636 0.679 0.900    

X3 0.717 0.807 0.815 0.706 0.847   

X4 0.802 0.715 0.732 0.733 0.748 0.890  

Y1 0.649 0.691 0.770 0.802 0.773 0.779 0.828 

 

 
Publisher’s Note: CRIBFB stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 

Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research (P-ISSN 2687-850X   E-ISSN 2687-8518) by CRIBFB is licensed under a Creative 

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

