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/