The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Measuring the up-to-date quality Quality of

online food
of online food delivery: formative delivery

index construction
Janelle Chan and Yixing Lisa Gao
School of Hotel and Tourism Management,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, China Received 9 June 2021
Revised 16 August 2021
30 September 2021
5 October 2021
Accepted 6 October 2021
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to fill this paucity of knowledge by exploring and formulating a formative index
to measure the up-to-date quality of online food delivery (DEQUAL). The quality measurements for online
food delivery have not been well recognized and even little is known after the COVID-19 outbreak. This study
fills this paucity of knowledge by exploring and formulating a formative index to measure the up-to-date
quality of online food delivery (DEQUAL).
Design/methodology/approach – Owing to the explorative nature and the lack of developed quality
theory under the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, DEQUAL is conceptualized as a formative construct.
This study adopts a mixed-method approach including expert interviews and online surveys to ascertain the
underlying structure of DEQUAL.
Findings – Using partial least squares structural equation modeling as the analytical method, the results
support that DEQUAL is a formative construct with 32 indicators. This study provides a measurement index
with robust psychometric properties to assist practitioners in evaluating DEQUAL.
Research limitations/implications – This study contributes a theoretical and empirical-based
conceptualization of DEQUAL as a multi-dimensional construct. Supplementing the past studies which
commonly applied the reflective approach, this study evinces that the formative approach is also appropriate
and thence furnishes the relevance of the formative index in the service management theories.
Practical implications – Practitioners are suggested to apply the validated indicators for service audit
and customer relationship management. By systematically monitoring and measuring the online food
delivery service quality, restaurants can improve customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Originality/value – This study offers various insights to the service quality literature in the food delivery
service context.
Keywords Service quality, Online food delivery, Formative index, COVID-19
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The rapid growth of e-commerce has brought newfound popularity of online food delivery
services (Gunden et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2021). The progress of online food delivery has
been underpinned by the development of integrated online food delivery platforms. For
instance, Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Swiggy and Meituan are some of the examples of popular
online food ordering and delivery applications (Li et al., 2020). Particularly, since the
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, amid social distancing and sweeping
lockdowns measures worldwide, online food delivery has become a preferred option for International Journal of
those who were used to dine out (Gursoy and Chi, 2020; Tuzovic et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021; Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Yost and Cheng, 2021). To cope with consumers’ safety concerns and operation policies, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
many restaurants expanded delivery systems beyond the traditional way of food delivery. DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2021-0739
IJCHM For example, Haidilao, a Chinese chain hot pot restaurant famous for its attentive dine-in
experience, launched its hot pot delivery service in New York (EaterNewYork, 2020).
The Waldorf Hilton, a west-end hotel in London, provided a new afternoon tea home
delivery service (TheResident, 2020).
From on-premise to off-premise dining, smartphone apps have changed the way of
dining and ordering (Kaur et al., 2021). Smartphone users are the main online consumers in
the food and beverages (F&B) industry. An increase in the number of smartphone users
signifies a substantial growth in online food delivery business. The world F&B e-commerce
users reached 1.5 billion in 2019 and are expected to increase up to 800 million by 2024, with
an average of 25% year-over-year growth (Businesswire, 2020). In particular, the worldwide
online food delivery revenue is expected to show an annual growth rate (CAGR 2020–2024)
of 7.5%, resulting in a projected market volume of US$182,327m by 2024 (Statista, 2020).
The extant literature indicated the relationship between service quality and customer
loyalty in the F&B industry (Chin and Tsai, 2013; Dani, 2014). In the context of food
delivery, many previous studies examined the mobile food delivery service; however, its
academic interest is still in the early stages (Alalwan, 2020). Based on the extended unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology, Alalwan (2020) explored factors affecting
customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse mobile food delivery apps. Built
upon on the theory of planned behavior, Belanche et al. (2020) revealed that some of
the variables (i.e. attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms) influence customer use
intentions and word-of-mouth (WOM). Apart from using the behavioral models as the
theoretical underpin, other researchers focused on the information system aspect to
examine customer loyalty. For instance, Wang et al. (2019) adopted the DeLone and McLean
information system success model. They found that information quality, system quality,
service quality, product quality, perceived price and promotions influence consumers’
electronic WOM and reuse intention of catering apps. These studies shared a common
feature of model accentuation in lieu of measurements of construct. Thus, empirical
explorations of online food delivery quality are deficient, and little is recognized about what
it represents and how it should be assessed. Existing academic research lacks a clear
conceptualization and rigorous service quality measurement of the online food delivery
construct, resulting in unclear specific factors of online food delivery.
Online food delivery service is a complex process that involves multiple phases of
interactions. From searching and order placement to payment and delivery, service
providers need to ensure a smooth delivery of every phase to maintain customer satisfaction
(Suhartanto et al., 2019). Nevertheless, extant scales accessing online food delivery quality
are not inclusive enough, especially under the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. For
instance, Kapoor and Vij (2018) created the measurement scale with four mobile app
attributes (i.e. visual, information, navigational and collaboration design) focuses on the
customer’s usage moment while the subsequent variables, such as privacy and system
overall efficiency of online food delivery, are not thoroughly covered. Alternatively, despite
Wang et al. (2019) extended the e-service quality measuring the success of mobile catering
apps to a broader scope, the three main constructs of information, system and service
qualities are still not extensive enough for assessing today’s online food delivery quality. In
particular, since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, not just more food delivery demand
has increased but also more options of take-away and sanitation protocols are used (Baum
et al., 2020; Chan et al., 2021). Hence, the current e-service quality scales without including all
essential variables of the comprehensive online food delivery process and the alterations of
COVID-19 pandemic are the research gaps calling for an updated e-service quality scale.
 With the increasing demand and competition of the online food delivery market during Quality of
the COVID-19 outbreak, customers’ service quality perception toward food delivery online food
becomes critical. In addition, as the pandemic has changed the landscape of food service
delivery
delivery (Hwang and Choe, 2019; Cai and Leung, 2020; Choe et al., 2021), a systematic scale is
needed for food service providers to gauge the service performance and for customers to
evaluate their satisfaction. Hence, this study aims to fill the aforementioned knowledge
gaps. Specifically, the objectives of this study are as follows:
! explore and develop a service quality index to effectively evaluate a customer’s
experience with online food deliveries;
! understand the latest consumer’s perception of online food delivery service quality;
and
! predict customer satisfaction and loyalty toward the restaurant and delivery
platform.

2. Literature review
2.1 Conceptualization of online food delivery service
Online food delivery services refer to the Internet-based services through which customers
order food and have it delivered to their doorsteps (Ray et al., 2019). Online food delivery has
two divisions: restaurant-to-consumer delivery, which includes direct delivery of orders by
the concerned restaurant and platform-to-consumer delivery, which involves online delivery
services provided by partner restaurants (Li et al., 2020). The restaurants themselves can
take care of the delivery process in the restaurant-to-consumer delivery, whereas the
platforms (e.g. Deliveroo, Uber Eats) handle the delivery process in the platform-to-
consumer delivery. In either case, the online food delivery service provides convenience in
food ordering and delivery.
Customers’ experience with online food delivery is influenced by the food quality and
e-service quality (Yeo et al., 2017; Annaraud and Berezina, 2020). Food quality refers to the
overall fulfillment of customer needs for food (Ha and Jang, 2010). Customer satisfaction
with the restaurant is influenced mostly by food quality (Sulek and Hensley, 2004), which is
a major determinant of customer loyalty in casual dining (Mattila, 2001). Scholars
empirically examined the food quality variables such as the presentation, taste and
freshness of the food (Namkung and Jang, 2007; Ha and Jang, 2010; Hanaysha, 2016).
However, in the online food delivery context, a consensus on food delivery service quality
and its constituent aspects is uncommon. E-service quality refers to the overall assessment
of the excellence and quality that e-service provides on the internet (Zeithaml et al., 2002).
When ordering online food delivery, the customers’ experience with e-service will affect their
feelings toward the food purchased and loyalty (Suhartanto et al., 2019). Several researchers
have examined the factors influencing the e-service quality of online food delivery in the
mobile settings (Kapoor and Vij, 2018; Wang et al., 2019). Commonly, most of these existing
e-service scales were developed based on the technology acceptance model that posits
“attitude,” “perceived usefulness” and “perceived ease of use” as the key elements in
anticipating users’ intention to use a new technology (Song et al., 2021). Considering the
e-service quality for online food delivery is dependent on IT platform or third party
primarily, the process of online food delivery has become more challenging owing to the
outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic (Chan et al., 2021), an up-to-date e-service quality scale with
empirical validation is needed for today’s online food delivery.
IJCHM Based on the above-mentioned premise, the current study proposes that the online food
delivery service quality comprises the customer’s online food ordering experience with
mobile apps, service quality and food quality. The evaluation of such experience will
determine customer’s satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

2.2 Dimensions of online food delivery quality

2.2.1 Food quality. To determine food quality, Namkung and Jang (2007) proposed that the
factors of the variety of the menu, food presentation, healthiness, taste, freshness and food
temperature are related. When assessing the influence of customers’ food satisfaction and
their intention to return, Ha and Jang (2010) suggested that food attributes of taste, nutrition
and variety are apposite. Similarly, Liu et al. (2017) used the menu, presentation, size and
variety as indicators of the quality of restaurant food. Evidently, past literature commonly
examined food quality based on the restaurant proposition. However, different from the food
delivery, the restaurant’s physical setting has significantly affected customer satisfaction
toward food quality and their repeat-patronage intentions (Sulek and Hensley, 2004). Recent
studies discovered that consumer expectations and perceptions of food quality and service
quality were found to be significantly different in robot delivery, human delivery and carry-
out modes of off-premise restaurants (Cha, 2020; Christou et al., 2020; Byrd et al., 2021;
Ivanov and Webster, 2021). With the characteristics of food delivery service compared to the
food served in a restaurant (He et al., 2019), the variables of food presentation, temperature
and freshness are considered as the components of food quality.
2.2.2 Service quality. Service quality is described as the discrepancy between expected
and perceived services (Zeithaml et al., 2002). Based on the expectation-(dis)confirmation
theory, Parasuraman et al. (1988) developed SERVQUAL to measure customer perception of
service quality. The 22-item instrument categorizes service quality into five components,
namely, tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Adapting
SERVQUAL, Stevens et al. (1995) created the 40-item instrument DINESERV to assess
customers’ perceptions of restaurant service quality. Accordingly, tangibles refer to a
restaurant’s interior design and appearance of staff. Then, reliability involves freshness and
temperature of the food, correct billing and receiving ordered food. Responsiveness relates to
staff assistance with the menu and prompt response to customers’ needs and requests.
Moreover, assurance pertains to customers’ confidence that the food is not contaminated
without fear of safety. Finally, empathy refers to providing personalized attention to
customers or by being sympathetic toward customers’ problems (Markovi!c et al., 2010).
However, DINESERV, which is used for restaurant service quality analysis, is not
applicable for food delivery services. For instance, the physical environment, staff
interaction with employees and individual attention are not evident for online food delivery.
Hence, we base our measurement scale on the fundamental SERVQUAL and DINESERV
to capture the preliminary dimensions of service quality in the food delivery context
(See Table 1).
2.2.3 E-service quality. As aforementioned the e-service quality of online food delivery is
a thorough process involving IT applications, employees and cash flow payment variables
(Suhartanto et al., 2019). With the extensive nature, Huang et al. (2015) created a scale named
M-S-QUAL with five dimensions, that is, efficiency, fulfillment, privacy, contact and
responsiveness to assess mobile commerce service quality in the retail context. Although all
developed measurements are still applicable for the contemporary online food delivery, it is
noteworthy that the e-service quality of today’s online food delivery has become more
exacting owing to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. Several recent studies have
confirmed that more take-away options and sanitation protocols are available after the
 Quality of
Food quality
1) FOOD1 Food presentation is visually attractive online food
2) FOOD2 The restaurant offers a variety of menu items delivery
3) FOOD3* The restaurant offers healthy options
4) FOOD4** The restaurant serves tasty food
5) FOOD5 The restaurant offers fresh food
6) FOOD6 Food is served at the appropriate temperature
Service quality – tangibility
7) TANG1* The food delivery service provider has visually attractive packages
8) TANG2 The food delivery service provider has staff members (e.g. riders) who are clean,
neat and appropriately dressed
9) TANG3 The appearances of the delivery equipment are in keeping with the type of service
provided
10) TANG4 The food delivery service provider has a menu online that is easily readable
11) TANG5 The food delivery service provider provides high-quality cutlery if needed
Service quality – reliability
12) RELIAB1 The food delivery service provider serves you in the time promised
13) RELIAB2 The food delivery service provider quickly corrects anything that is wrong
14) RELIAB3* The food delivery service provider is dependable and consistent
15) RELIAB4 The food delivery service provider provides an accurate guest check
16) RELIAB5 The food delivery service provider serves your food exactly as you ordered it
Service quality – responsiveness
17) RESPON1 The food delivery service provider provides prompt and quick service
18) RESPON2 You receive prompt service from the delivery people
19) RESPON3 The food delivery service provider gives extra effort to handle special requests
Service quality – assurance
20) ASSUR1 The food delivery service provider has employees who can answer your questions
completely
21) ASSUR2 The food delivery service provider makes you feel comfortable and confident in
your dealings with them
22) ASSUR3* The food delivery service provider has personnel who are both able and willing to
give you information about menu items, their ingredients and methods of
preparation
23) ASSUR4 The food delivery service provider makes you feel personally safe
24) ASSUR5** The food delivery service provider has personnel who seem well-trained, competent
and experienced
Service quality – empathy
25) EMP1 The food delivery service provider has employees who are sensitive to your
individual needs and wants, rather than always relying on policies and procedures
26) EMP2* The food delivery service provider makes you feel special
27) EMP3* The food delivery service provider anticipates your individual needs
and wants.
28) EMP4 The food delivery service provider has employees who are sympathetic and
reassuring if something is wrong
29) EMP5 The food delivery service provider seems to have the customers’ best interests at
heart.
E-quality – efficiency
30) EFF1 The app/site enables me to access it quickly
31) EFF2 The app/site enables me to complete a transaction quickly
32) EFF3 The app/site loads its pages quickly Table 1.
(continued) Full list of initial
indicators
IJCHM E-quality – fulfillment
33) FULLF1 The app/site quickly delivers what I ordered
34) FULLF2 The app/site delivers orders when promised
35) FULLF3 The app/site makes items available for delivery within a suitable timeframe
E-quality – privacy
36) PRIV1 This app/site protects my credit card information
37) PRIV2 This app/site protects information about my web-shopping behavior
38) PRIV3** This app/site does not share my personal information with other sites
E-quality – contact
39) CONT1 The app/site is user-friendly when reporting a complaint
40) CONT2 Service agents (e.g. delivery person, customer service representative) provide
consistent advice
41) CONT3* The app/site offers the ability to speak to a live person if there is a problem
42) CONT4 The app/site provides a telephone number to reach the company
Reflective measure of satisfactory
43) SAT1 It was the right thing to purchase on the app/site
44) SAT2 I have truly enjoyed purchasing from app/site
45) SAT3 My choice to purchase from app/site is a wise one
46) SAT4 I am satisfied with my purchase from the app/site
Reflective measure of repurchase intention
47) REPUR1 I will order food delivery from the restaurant again
48) REPUR2 I will use the food delivery company again.

Notes: *The deleted item of Step 2: Indicator specification, **the deleted item of Step 3: Indicator
Table 1. collinearity

outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic (Jiang and Wen, 2020; Chan et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021).
For example, during COVID-19 pandemic, the third party food delivery apps provided more
options for groceries delivery service and strengthened strict adherence to hygiene
standards and contactless delivery process to ensure minimal exposure during delivery
(Yang et al., 2020; Kumar and Shah, 2021). All of these new initiatives are associated with
the e-service quality from what and when consumers ordered online to the exact delivery
and time. Owing to the increasing demand and more complicated procedures involved in the
online food delivery transactions, indicators including delivery time under the construct of
fulfillment, the overall online food delivery system efficiency and the more specific
indicators about personal and instant communication with provider should be considered
for e-service quality.

2.3 Conceptualization of formative DEQUAL

Based on the above-mentioned premises, the index of food delivery quality has emerged as
an important topic for F&B marketing scholars. In response to this call, this research aims to
develop a measurement scale for food delivery quality, namely, up-to-date quality of online
food delivery (DEQUAL). The study delineates that food delivery includes two segments:
restaurant-to-consumer and platform-to-consumer. Food delivery comprises the customer’s
online ordering experience from either the website or mobile apps and food quality. The
chronological stance is that the perception of DEQUAL is the antecedent, prior to
satisfactory perception and behavioral intentions of repurchase.
Founded on the explorative nature and conceptualization, the present study puts
forward formative indicators as the assessment structure of DEQUAL. In any case,
formative and reflective indicators are two distinguished concepts. The reflective indicators Quality of
are caused by the construct, which is represented as single-headed arrows pointing from online food
the latent construct outward to the indicator variables (Hair et al., 2011). For any alteration
of construct, the values of indicators change concurrently; thus, all the reflective indicators
delivery
are highly correlated with one another (Hair et al., 2011). On the contrary, the formative
indicators flow from the indicators to the construct, which means that the indicators cause
an underlying construct (Hair et al., 2011). In the formative measurement, alterations in
formative indicators are suggested to induce changes in their corresponding latent
construct (Hair et al., 2011). In consequence, formative and reflective approaches are
hypothetically and statistically different in interpreting the relationship between
underlying indicators and constructs (Hair et al., 2011). Therefore, the confirmatory factor
analysis used for measuring the reflective model with all reflective indicators is not
applicable for the formative model (Hair et al., 2020).
Hypothesizing the formative indicators of DEQUAL, this study is justified in that all
proposed indicators could potentially cause the latent constructs event if they are not
necessarily correlated. This case is a logical consideration specifically that this study is
exploring the latest DEQUAL during the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, the perceived
quality of the delivered food is considerably different from the food served in a restaurant.
For instance, a restaurant provides various food delivery menu options, but using a disposal
box would degrade the perceived quality of food presentation. Hence, two indicators of food
quality represent food presentation, that is, visually attractive (FOOD1) and the restaurant
offering a variety of menu items (FOOD2). These indicators are disconnected, establishing
the formative approach for DEQUAL. Although the DEQUAL is defined in the formative
basic, the reflective measures of satisfactory and repurchase intention are used for the
assessment. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the DEQUAL index model.

3. Methodology
To produce and verify an up-to-date instrument, the current study used a sequential-
exploratory approach of mixed method (Creswell, 2009). Qualitative and quantitative
methods of in-depth interviews and online questionnaires were used. Given that the research
goals are in explorative essence with predicting key target constructs, partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used (Hair et al., 2011). To do so, this study
followed the methods provided by Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer (2001) and Hair et al.
(2019). Figure 2 presents the four-step development.

3.1 Step 1: content specification

First, we specified the scope of the construct to delineate the content domain in a formative
index (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). Through an extensive review of hospitality,
food and beverage and service marketing literature, the domain of DEQUAL was defined in
three constructs: service quality, e-service quality and food quality. With the explicit
definitions of three domains, we then generated a set of preliminary indicators from the
literature review for each construct. The construct of service quality had 23 items (Stevens

Figure 1.
Conceptual
framework of
DEQUAL index
model
IJCHM et al., 1995), e-service quality had 13 items (Huang et al., 2015) and food quality had six items
(Namkung and Jang, 2007). A total of 42 items were captured, pending further indicator
specification. Table 1 presents all initial indicators.

3.2 Step 2: indicator specification

Step 2 was to stipulate a census of indicators (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).
Aiming to use the specific items as indicators to cover the entire scope of the construct, we
conducted eight in-depth expert interviews. The interviewees were chosen based on their
expertise in F&B which included having at least five-year managerial experience in
restaurants, teaching and practical experience in the disciplines of hospitality and tourism
management and experiences in either ordering or providing food deliveries in the past
six months. The designated six months was with reference to the enduring memory retrieval
from the study of Borovsky and Rovee-Collier (1990). Such timeframe was also adopted by
Hwang and Kim (2021) for their recent study about online delivery system. A semi-
structured interview was used. Interviewees initially screened out the appropriate items
describing DEQUAL from the 42 items in Step 1 of content specification. Then, they were
asked for any other item that they could come up with for DEQUAL examination. The
average interview length was approximately 20 min. The audio interview recordings
were transcribed for content analysis. The findings showed that seven items were
inappropriate in this study and no new item was suggested by the experts. Table 1 shows
the deleted items marked with asterisk.

3.3 Step 3: indicator collinearity

Given the formative measurement model, ensuring no multicollinearity is needed in Step 3
(Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). To accomplish this, an online pilot study was
administered through Qualtrics, with a convenient sample of 150 students from a university
in Hong Kong in November 2020. To start with, screening questions were applied to make
certain participants’ appropriateness to join. Participants must be older than 18 years old
and have used food delivery apps for food delivery within six months. Among all the
participants, 26.7% have used food delivery service within the past three days and 62.2%
have used within the past one month. In addition, 44.4% of the participants indicated that
they used the food delivery service over one time a week. We then asked the participants to
indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the 35 items with respect to the service
dimensions they have experienced on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and
7 = strongly agree).
For collinearity examination, the variance inflation factor (VIF) and outer weights were
inspected using the SmartPLS (Hair et al., 2019). Bootstrapping of 5,000 replications was
operated (Hair et al., 2011). Following Hair et al. (2019), three insignificant outer weights in
Table 1 remarked with ** were removed. The remaining 32 indicators were then confirmed
as the valid formative indicators with significant outer weights (p < 0.05) and VIF < 3 under

Figure 2.
Index construction
process
the specific construct. The results of Step 3 corroborated all question items used for the main Quality of
study and general data collection completed hereafter. Results showed that all 32 indicators online food
met the requirements, pending for the final examination of external validity. delivery

3.4 Step 4: external validity

The final step was to examine the external validity (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).
For this purpose, a formative measurement and structural model were sequentially
assessed, following Hair et al. (2019). The formative measurement model can conjecture how
much each indicator contributes to the formative construct, whereas the formative structural
model assessment can test if the overall measurement model is satisfactory in its predictive
power (Hair et al., 2019). Hence, combining two assessments fulfills the objectives of external
validity. In addition, this study randomly grouped the overall sample into two samples for
the assessments with the intention to enhance the generalization quality allied to the same
function of prediction (Calder et al., 1982). With reference to the cross-validation method
used by Woodside et al. (1989), the results of two split samples can test for predictive
validity for a new scale development. Such method has also been used formative index
construction for developing a new scale for memorable dining experience (Cao et al., 2019).

3.5 Main study data collection

Data were collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for two days in November
2020 using a web-based questionnaire. A qualifying criterion was the same as the pilot
study aforementioned in Step 3. The target population was US adults. The survey consisted
of three parts. After consenting, participants answered preliminary questions regarding
their online food delivery ordering experience (i.e. the most recent experience of ordering
food delivery service online, the frequency of ordering food delivery service online and the
platforms used). Next, participants answered questions on a seven-point Likert scale
regarding the service quality, the platform quality, food quality, their satisfaction and
behavioral intentions. Last, participants answered demographic questions.
Following the minimum sample size of ten times empirical rule for each indicator (Hair
et al., 2012), we purposively increased the sample size ratio to 15 times, striving for the
additional precise index validation of the measurement model and higher predictive power
of the structural model. Therefore, with the 32 indicators defined from Step 3, at least 480
samples were needed. After the data screening of 500 participants, 485 valid questionnaires
were received. In the step with four external validities, the overall sample (N = 485) was split
into two halves at random: Sample 1 (N = 243) and Sample 2 (N = 242) for further data
analysis.

4. Result
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 2 displays the distribution of the participants’ demographic characteristics generated
by SPSS 26.0. The demographic data for participants (N = 485) demonstrated that 41.6% of
the participants were female and 58.4% were male. Moreover, 93.8% were aged between 21
and 60, 83.1% had a college degree or above and 88.2% earned a yearly income between US
$20,000 and US$99,999. This study found that all demographics from the two sub-samples
showed a similar distribution as the original sample.
IJCHM Frequency (%)

Gender
Male 283 58.4
Female 202 41.6
Age
Below 21 0 0
21–30 139 28.7
31–40 161 33.2
41–50 91 18.8
51–60 64 13.2
Above 60 30 6.2
Ethnicity
Caucasian 358 73.8
African-American 55 11.3
Hispanic 29 6.0
Asian 25 5.2
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0.2
Others 17 3.5
Education level
High school or less 15 3.1
Some college 67 13.8
College 313 64.5
Graduate school 90 18.6
Household income
Below $20,000 41 8.5
$20,000–$39,999 94 19.4
$40,000–$59,999 141 29.1
$60,000–$79,999 125 25.8
Table 2. $80,000–$99,999 68 14.0
Demographics Above $100,000 16 3.3

4.2 Formative measurement model assessment

Hair et al. (2019) noted that the formative measurement model includes four assessments,
namely, convergent validity, indicator collinearity, statistical relevance and significance of
the indicator weights. The relationships of the indicators and their relevant inherent
construct in measurement model were assessed using Smart PLS 3 in Sample 1 (N = 243)
and Sample 2 (N = 242).
4.2.1 Convergent validity. The convergent validity of the formative measurement model
was assessed using the redundancy test (Chin, 1998), wherein the formative–formative form
of hierarchical factor model was proven. Considering this study focused on the relationships
of the DEQUAL constructs, the convergent validity was appraised on the second-order level.
The path coefficient between DEQUAL and the four-indicator reflective measurement of
satisfactory were 0.827 and 0.803 of Samples 1 and 2 respectively. Both path coefficients of
the two samples exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.8 in the redundancy analysis (Chin,
1998). Hence, the convergent validity was assured.
4.2.2 Indicators collinearity. After ensuring the convergent validity, the collinearity was
checked for both split samples. Hair et al. (2019) indicated that VIF values of five or above
indicate critical collinearity issues among the indicators of formatively measured constructs
and those close to three and lower are considered ideal. As presented in Table 3, the VIF
 Sample 1 Sample 2
Quality of
Indicator VIF Outer loading Outer weights VIF Outer loading Outer weights online food
delivery
Tangible
Tang_2 2.073 0.645 0.047 1.991 0.639 0.05
Tang_3 1.82 0.61 0.045 1.623 0.534 0.043
Tang_4 1.747 0.553 0.043 1.678 0.553 0.044
Tang_5 2.761 0.481 0.034 2.085 0.486 0.037
Reliability
Relia_1 3.032 0.687 0.051 2.395 0.666 0.053
Relia_2 2.543 0.658 0.048 2.079 0.603 0.047
Relia_4 2.156 0.629 0.046 2.098 0.621 0.049
Relia_5 1.948 0.614 0.046 1.887 0.583 0.047
Responsiveness
Respon_1 3.093 0.745 0.055 2.322 0.67 0.055
Respon_2 2.603 0.703 0.051 2.007 0.618 0.049
Respon_3 2.509 0.636 0.047 2.214 0.611 0.049
Assurance
Assur_1 2.8 0.703 0.053 2.355 0.673 0.053
Assur_2 2.663 0.721 0.054 2.082 0.646 0.052
Assur_4 2.065 0.65 0.048 2.341 0.675 0.053
Empathy
Empathy_1 2.88 0.635 0.046 2.506 0.616 0.049
Empathy_4 1.923 0.612 0.045 2.178 0.61 0.048
Empathy_5 2.205 0.719 0.053 2.026 0.596 0.047
Efficiency
Effi_1 3.016 0.587 0.048 2.752 0.594 0.05
Effi_2 2.162 0.51 0.04 1.951 0.515 0.044
Effi_3 2.502 0.6 0.048 1.88 0.568 0.048
Fulfilment
Fulfill_1 3.352 0.749 0.057 2.648 0.722 0.058
Fulfillt_2 2.292 0.634 0.047 1.953 0.613 0.049
Fulfill_3 2.74 0.668 0.051 2.061 0.617 0.05
Privacy
Privacy_1 2.754 0.71 0.054 2.354 0.679 0.057
Privacy_2 2.448 0.615 0.046 2.295 0.644 0.051
Contact
Contact_1 2.195 0.682 0.051 1.923 0.621 0.05
Contact_2 2.089 0.632 0.047 2.154 0.635 0.05
Contact_4 1.816 0.587 0.046 2.03 0.618 0.05
Food quality
Food_1 2.463 0.645 0.052 1.933 0.626 0.054
Food _2 2.252 0.61 0.049 2.083 0.629 0.054
Food _5 1.845 0.571 0.045 2.124 0.646 0.056
Food _6 2.22 0.707 0.056 2.036 0.685 0.059
Reflective measure of satisfaction
Sat_1 1.67 0.804 0.338 1.575 0.807 0.36
Sat_2 1.473 0.746 0.295 1.44 0.741 0.301
Sat_3 1.811 0.822 0.317 1.69 0.803 0.309
Sat_4 1.561 0.782 0.316 1.521 0.766 0.311 Table 3.
Descriptive statistics
Reflective measure of repurchase intention
Repurchase_1 1.485 0.894 0.583 1.494 0.896 0.584
of DEQUAL
Repurchase_2 1.485 0.878 0.545 1.494 0.879 0.543 indicators for sample
1 (N = 243) and
Note: All indicators are significant at p < 0.05 sample 2 (N = 242)
IJCHM values of all the indicators in Sample 1 (N = 243) and Sample 2 (N = 242) were close to and
below three, indicating no collinearity problem for the formative measurement model.
4.2.3 Significance and relevance of indicator weights. Given the nonparametric method
used in PLS-SEM, bootstrapping of 5,000 was used to assess the weights’ statistical
significance and relevance of the indicators (Chin, 1998). Results showed that the outer
weights of all 32 indicators (Table 3) were positive and significant at p < 0.05. Given that the
larger the significant weights, the more relevant the indicator, the positive outer weights
prove its relevance, resulting in no item removal (Hair et al., 2019). Furthermore, for the
indicator relevance, outer loadings of "0.50 are considered statistically significant and
pertinent (Hair et al., 2019). Table 3 shows that all indicators met this standard, except for
Tang_5 that received 0.481 and 0.486 of two split samples, which were slightly lower than
0.5. However, Hair et al. (2019) stated that only when the outer weight and outer loading
were insignificant, then the indicator should be considered to eliminate. Thus, the overall
results support that no indicator should be removed for the DEQUAL index construction.
In this context, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) used for discovering the factor
structure of a measure and examining its internal reliability is not applicable for formative
DEQUAL model (Jarvis et al., 2003). This is because the EFA has an assumption that all
reflective items are correlated with reflective latent factors, while formative factors do not
require items to be correlated (Jarvis et al., 2003).

4.3 Formative structural model assessment

This assessment aims to verify the overall formative model’s predictive relevance and
accuracy. Three standard assessments, namely, the relevance of the path coefficients and
statistical significance, the blindfolding-based cross-validated redundancy measure (Q2) and
the coefficient of determination (R2), are required (Hair et al., 2019). First, the path
coefficients were tested on the second-order level between DEQUAL and each dimension.
Figure 3 displays all the positive path coefficients of each construct. Service quality has the
most significant contribution to DEQUAL, followed by e-quality and lastly food quality.
The results of Samples 1 and 2 denoted that all path coefficients were significant at the 0.01
level. Hence, supported by the statistics, all three dimensions considerably relate to
DEQUAL, which also contribute to the reflective measures of satisfaction and repurchase
intention. Second, the R2 values from 0.50 to 0.75 can be considered moderate to substantial
and R2 ranging from 0 to 1 with higher values indicating a greater explanatory power and
predictive accuracy (Hair et al., 2019). Figure 3 shows that the R2 value under DEQUAL of
split samples was 1, whereas the reflective measure of satisfactory and repurchase intention
all received more than 0.50. Therefore, all R2 values represented at least moderate to
substantial predictive accuracy and explanatory power of each construct. In particular, the
robust value of R2 for DEQUAL signified its strong prediction power. Third, by applying
the blindfolding procedure, the Q2 value of DEQUAL was 0.408 and 0.381; the reflective

Figure 3.
All path coefficients
measure of satisfactory was 0.421 and 0.385; and the repurchase intention was 0.479 and Quality of
0.445 for Samples 1 and 2, respectively, depicting medium-to-large predictive relevance of online food
the PLS-path model. Lastly, an evaluation for the second-order measurement model results
from the Sample 1 and Sample 2 was carried out, as presented in Table 4. In sum, this
delivery
assessment empirically validated the formative structure of the 32-indicator elucidation. The
DEQUAL formative index was confirmed across sub-samples.

5. Discussion and conclusions

Online food delivery has been proliferating since the global trend toward e-commerce and
notably the changing social behaviors owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic
has subsisted and additional consumers have acclimated to this dining format, we believe
that consumers continue to be more reliant on this service even when the pandemic is over.
Henceforth, the research question pertaining to the up-to-date consumers’ service quality
assessment toward online food delivery has yet been addressed. By constructing the
formative DEQUAL index, this study answers all of these questions and provides
theoretical and practical insights into the hospitality industry.
Online food delivery service quality consists of multiple dimensions, including
characteristics of the traditional service quality, e-service quality and food quality. Given
that the previous literature could not cover these multi-dimensional service attributes, the
current research reviewed key studies and extracted the three dimensions to capture
the online food delivery service quality. The formative DEQUAL index consists of 32
indicators within three key dimensions. Specifically, service quality includes the
traditional items of SERVQUAL (Stevens et al., 1995; Zeithaml et al., 2002; Markovi!c et al.,
2010). E-quality includes efficiency, fulfillment, privacy and contact dimensions
(Zeithaml et al., 2002; Ding et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2015). Food quality includes visual
attractiveness, variety, temperature and healthiness of the food (Namkung and Jang,
2007; Ha and Jang, 2010).
According to the PLS-SEM results, DEQUAL has a significant relationship with
customer satisfaction and repurchase intention. This result reflected that the DEQUAL
model has a robust predictive power for investigating consumer’s satisfaction and
repurchase intention. As a supplement to the past studies showing the similar result of
the correlated relationship of satisfaction and repurchase (Suhartanto et al., 2019; Yeo
et al., 2021), the current results specifically exhibited that the DEQUAL has a stronger
influence on repurchase intention than satisfaction. Although the outer loadings of both
constructs are high, the overall result revealed that consumers have higher inclination to
purchase again with the restaurant and the food delivery company. Comparatively,
among all high satisfaction indicators, consumers have slightly lower satisfaction on
enjoying the purchasing process from apps or site. Combining various results of this
study, the model of DEQUAL can be further decomposed into theoretical and practical
contributions.

Path coefficient SD T-statistic

Split sample 1 2 1 2 1 2

Service quality>DEQUAL 0.540 0.518 0.013 0.013 3.221 3.769

E-quality>DEQUAL 0.367 0.373 0.012 0.012 3.243 3.691
Table 4.
Food quality>DEQUAL 0.153 0.172 0.007 0.008 3.036 3.894 Comparable results
for measurement
Notes: Sample 1 (N = 243), Samples 2 (N = 242). Bootstrapping 5000 model
IJCHM 5.1 Theoretical implications
Theoretically, this study contributes to the hospitality service literature by exploring the
underlying structure of DEQUAL, which is the second-order formative construct.
Supplementing the past literature on SERVQUAL (Zeithaml et al., 2002), DINSERV (Stevens
et al., 1995), e-service quality (Huang et al., 2015) and food quality (Namkung and Jang,
2007), this study provides a theoretical and empirical-based conceptualization of the
multi-dimensional construct of DEQUAL. It identified the key components of online food
delivery service consisting of service quality, e-quality and food quality. In addition, our
findings suggest the downstream consequences of the DEQUAL – satisfaction and
repurchase intention. These findings support the notion that satisfaction derives from the
evaluation of service performance and results in repurchase intention in the online food
delivery service context (Oliver, 1980; Kim et al., 2009).
The majority of the past studies shared the common approach of applying the reflective
measurement. The reflective approach, which accentuates that indicators under a specific
construct must be correlated, has been frequently adopted (Cenfetelli and Bassellier, 2009;
Ahn and Kwon, 2021). Alternatively, the present study argues that the formative approach
is a more appropriate mode for examining DEQUAL that is rested on the explorative basic
since the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the conceptualization of DEQUAL
is still in the incipient stage. This study thence furnishes the relevance of the formative
index in the service management literature, inspiring more academic researchers to
implement the formative approach when appropriate. On this basis, apart from explanatory
power, this study further advocates that the significance of predictive power should be
accentuated although the conflation between these two is common (Shmueli, 2010). Despite
this study offering predictive and explanatory results, the formative approach using the
PLS-SEM is accredited for its strong predictive power (Hair et al., 2011). From the theoretical
standpoint, predictive power is evaluated using metrics computed from a holdout set or
cross-validation, whereas explanatory power is measured through strength-of-fit that refers
to a causal theoretical model, testing the causal hypotheses (Shmueli and Koppius, 2011). In
brief, predictive power focuses on the accuracy of indicators, whereas explanatory power
centers on the strength of association indicated by a statistical model (Kalampokis et al.,
2013). Both indicators and models are intertwined for the entire research development.
Although most of the referred research tends to highlight the overall model fitness, the
present study promotes that the accentuation of indicator quality is also fundamental in
exploration study particularly in its strengthened predictive power (Hair et al., 2011).

5.2 Practical implications

The current study proposes numerous practical suggestions for restaurant service quality
management. Primarily, the 32-indicator index serves as an effective instrument for
restaurant managers who offer online delivery services to evaluate the service quality. The
DEQUAL can be used in customer surveys, mystery shopping or service auditing to assess
the food delivery service quality and improve customer satisfaction. As the indicators in the
DEQUAL revolve around the online food delivery experience, the DEQUAL survey can
provide particular insights on which specific area of the service experience needs
improvement. By learning from the DEQUAL results, restaurant managers can target the
service defects accurately and carry out service improvement plans efficiently.
Customer relationship management is critical to the success of service industry. Using
the DEQUAL survey to regularly assess the service quality can not only monitor and
improve the restaurant’s service but can also signal the company’s competiveness in
maintaining customer satisfaction and customer relationship. Restaurant companies can put
a link or QR code to the DEQUAL survey on a receipt to collect the data. By showing the Quality of
care and efforts to strive for customer satisfaction, companies can differentiate themselves online food
from their competitors. delivery
Unlike the dine-in experience that emphasizes restaurant ambiance, value-added service
and exceptional food quality, food delivery concerns more about safety and efficiency. Thus,
it is crucial for restaurant managers who supervise both dine-in service and delivery service
to be aware of the differences in customer expectations. For instance, this study finds that
although food quality is relatively uninfluential in DEQUAL compared with service quality
and e-quality, consumers consider food temperature as the most vital attribute in addition to
attractive presentation and taste. In addition, to strive for a more satisfactory online food
delivery process, we also recommend food delivery apps or sites designers to spend more
effort on personalization. This is in line with the suggestions from Alalwan (2020)
suggesting that a high level of personalized services when using food ordering apps can
contribute to customer satisfaction. On the whole, the DEQUAL index not only provides a
comprehensive set of indicators to evaluate and improve food delivery service quality but
also inspires managers to take additional measures to impress customers with better food
delivery performance.

6. Limitation and future research

This study had several limitations, proposing avenues for future research. One of the
limitations is that the application of DEQUAL is not everlasting. The study delineated the
DEQUAL and collected data after the COVID-19 outbreak and various uncertainties occur
afterward. For example, when the government continues to ban dine-in meals, online food
delivery is the only option, making it a factor influencing DEQUAL. Besides, given that
different food has varying safe temperature standards, instead of the general question about
delivered food temperature, additional questions of how different types of food and its
temperature should be considered. Therefore, future research can cross-validate the findings
with different types of cuisine. Similarly, as illustrated, this study adopted the formative
approach owing to the undeveloped theory predicated on the unexampled COVID-19
pandemic. Thus, hereafter with this developed DEQUAL index model, researchers are
encouraged to conduct similar research using the reflective approach. The comparative
results of both are potential for additional academic insights. Last, this study mainly relies
on the responses from US consumers. The results might not be generalizable to food
delivery services in different cultures. On this point, future research is advised to extend this
study to other demographics for further exploration of cultural variance in online food
delivery.

Reference
Ahn, J. and Kwon, J. (2021), “Examining the relative influence of multidimensional customer service
relationships in the food delivery application context”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 912-928.
Alalwan, A.A. (2020), “Mobile food ordering apps: an empirical study of the factors affecting customer
e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 50, pp. 28-44.
Annaraud, K. and Berezina, K. (2020), “Predicting satisfaction and intentions to use online food
delivery: what really makes a difference?”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 305-323.
IJCHM Baum, T., Mooney, S.K., Robinson, R.N. and Solnet, D. (2020), “COVID-19’s impact on the hospitality
workforce – new crisis or amplification of the norm?”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 2813-2829.
Belanche, D., Flavi!an, M. and Pérez-Rueda, A. (2020), “Mobile apps use and WOM in the food delivery
sector: the role of planned behavior, perceived security and customer lifestyle compatibility”,
Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 10, p. 4275.
Borovsky, D. and Rovee-Collier, C. (1990), “Contextual constraints on memory retrieval at six months”,
Child Development, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 1569-1583.
Businesswire (2020), “Global online food delivery services market (2020 to 2030) – COVID-19 growth
and change – ResearchAndMarkets.com”, available at: www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20200511005687/en/Global-Online-Food-Delivery-Services-Market-2020
Byrd, K., Fan, A., Her, E., Liu, Y., Almanza, B. and Leitch, S. (2021), “Robot vs human: expectations,
performances and gaps in off-premise restaurant service modes”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. (ahead-of-print).
Cai, R. and Leung, X.Y. (2020), “Mindset matters in purchasing online food deliveries during the
pandemic: the application of construal level and regulatory focus theories”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 91, p. 102677.
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1982), “The concept of external validity”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 240-244.
Cao, Y., Li, X.R., DiPietro, R. and So, K.K.F. (2019), “The creation of memorable dining experiences:
formative index construction”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 82,
pp. 308-317.
Cenfetelli, R.T. and Bassellier, G. (2009), “Interpretation of formative measurement in information
systems research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 689-707.
Cha, S.S. (2020), “Customers’ intention to use robot-serviced restaurants in Korea: relationship of
coolness and MCI factors”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 2947-2968.
Chan, J., Gao, Y. and McGinley, S. (2021), “Updates in service standards in hotels: how COVID-19
changed operations”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 1668-1687.
Cheng, C.C., Chang, Y.Y. and Chen, C.T. (2021), “Construction of a service quality scale for the online
food delivery industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 95, p. 102938.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295 No. 2, pp. 295-336.
Chin, J.B. and Tsai, C.H. (2013), “Developing a service quality evaluation model for luxurious
restaurants in international hotel chains”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 24 Nos 9/10, pp. 1160-1173.
Choe, J.Y.J., Kim, J.J. and Hwang, J. (2021), “Perceived risks from drone food delivery services before and
after COVID-19”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 1276-1296.
Christou, P., Simillidou, A. and Stylianou, M.C. (2020), “Tourists’ perceptions regarding the use of
anthropomorphic robots in tourism and hospitality”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 3665-3683.
Creswell, J.W. (2009), “Editorial: mapping the field of mixed methods research”, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-108.
Dani, V. (2014), “Measuring customer satisfaction for F&B chains in Pune using ACSI model”, Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 133, pp. 465-472.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), “Index construction with formative indicators: an
alternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 269-277.
Ding, D.X., Hu, P.J.-H. and Sheng, O.R.L. (2011), “e-SELFQUAL: a scale for measuring online self- Quality of
service quality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 508-515.
online food
EaterNewYork (2020), “Chinese restaurants scramble to add new delivery services to combat
coronavirus fears”, available at: https://ny.eater.com/2020/3/3/21162073/chinese-restaurant- delivery
delivery-new-coronavirus
Gunden, N., Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2020), “Consumers’ intentions to use online food delivery
systems in the USA”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 1325-1345.
Gursoy, D. and Chi, C.G. (2020), “Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on hospitality industry: review of the
current situations and a research agenda”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 527-529.
Ha, J. and Jang, S.S. (2010), “Effects of service quality and food quality: the moderating role of
atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 520-529.
Hair, J.F., Howard, M.C. and Nitzl, C. (2020), “Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using
confirmatory composite analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109, pp. 101-110.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2012), “The use of partial least squares structural
equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and
recommendations for future applications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 320-340.
Hanaysha, J. (2016), “Testing the effects of food quality, price fairness and physical environment on
customer satisfaction in fast food restaurant industry”, Journal of Asian Business Strategy,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 31-40.
He, Z., Han, G., Cheng, T., Fan, B. and Dong, J. (2019), “Evolutionary food quality and location strategies
for restaurants in competitive online-to-offline food ordering and delivery markets: an agent-
based approach”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 215, pp. 61-72.
Huang, E.Y., Lin, S.-W. and Fan, Y.-C. (2015), “MS-QUAL: mobile service quality measurement”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-142.
Hwang, J. and Choe, J.Y.J. (2019), “Exploring perceived risk in building successful drone food delivery
services”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, pp. 3249-3269.
Hwang, J. and Kim, J.J. (2021), “Expected benefits with using drone food delivery services: its impacts
on attitude and behavioral intentions”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 593-606.
Ivanov, S. and Webster, C. (2021), “Willingness-to-pay for robot-delivered tourism and hospitality
services–an exploratory study”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. ahead-of-print, No. (ahead-of-print).
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Jiang, Y. and Wen, J. (2020), “Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: a perspective
article”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 2563-2573.
Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K. (2013), “Understanding the predictive power of social
media”, Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 544-559.
Kapoor, A.P. and Vij, M. (2018), “Technology at the dinner table: ordering food online through mobile
apps”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 342-351.
IJCHM Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Talwar, S. and Ghuman, K. (2021), “The value proposition of food delivery apps from
the perspective of theory of consumption value”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1129-1159.
Kim, J., Kim, J. and Wang, Y. (2021), “Uncertainty risks and strategic reaction of restaurant firms amid
COVID-19: evidence from China”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 92,
p. 102752.
Kim, W.G., Ng, C.Y.N. and Kim, Y.S. (2009), “Influence of institutional DINESERV on customer
satisfaction, return intention and word-of-mouth”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 10-17.
Kumar, S. and Shah, A. (2021), “Revisiting food delivery apps during COVID-19 pandemic?
Investigating the role of emotions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 62,
p. 102595.
Li, C., Mirosa, M. and Bremer, P. (2020), “Review of online food delivery platforms and their impacts on
sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 14, p. 5528.
Liu, W.-K., Lee, Y.-S. and Hung, L.-M. (2017), “The interrelationships among service quality, customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty: examination of the fast-food industry”, Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 146-162.
Markovi!c, S., Raspor, S. and Šegari!c, K. (2010), “Does restaurant performance meet customers’
expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a modified DINESERV
approach”, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 181-195.
Mattila, A.S. (2001), “Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 73-79.
Namkung, Y. and Jang, S. (2007), “Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 387-409.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, p. 12.
Ray, A., Dhir, A., Bala, P.K. and Kaur, P. (2019), “Why do people use food delivery apps (FDA)? A uses
and gratification theory perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 51,
pp. 221-230.
Shmueli, G. (2010), “To explain or to predict?”, Statistical Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 289-310.
Shmueli, G. and Koppius, O.R. (2011), “Predictive analytics in information systems research”, MIS
Quarterly, pp. 553-572.
Song, H., Ruan, W.J. and Jeon, Y. (2021), “An integrated approach to the purchase decision making
process of food-delivery apps: focusing on the TAM and AIDA models”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 95, p. 102943.
Statista (2020), “Online food delivery”, available at: www.statista.com/outlook/374/100/online-food-
delivery/worldwide
Stevens, P., Knutson, B. and Patton, M. (1995), “DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality in
restaurants”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 5-60.
Suhartanto, D., Helmi Ali, M., Tan, K.H., Sjahroeddin, F. and Kusdibyo, L. (2019), “Loyalty toward
online food delivery service: the role of e-service quality and food quality”, Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 81-97.
Sulek, J.M. and Hensley, R.L. (2004), “The relative importance of food, atmosphere and fairness of wait:
the case of a full-service restaurant”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 235-247.
TheResident (2020), “The Waldorf Hilton launches new afternoon tea delivery service”, Quality of
available at: www.theresident.co.uk/food-drink-london/the-waldorf-hilton-launches-afternoon-
tea-delivery-service/ online food
Tuzovic, S., Kabadayi, S. and Paluch, S. (2021), “To dine or not to dine? Collective wellbeing in delivery
hospitality in the COVID-19 era”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 95,
p. 102892.
Wang, Y.S., Tseng, T.H., Wang, W.T., Shih, Y.W. and Chan, P.Y. (2019), “Developing and validating a
mobile catering app success model”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 77,
pp. 19-30.
Wei, C.V., Chen, H. and Lee, Y.M. (2021), “Factors influencing customers’ dine out intention during
COVID-19 reopening period: the moderating role of country-of-origin effect”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 95, p. 102894.
Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), “Linking service quality, customer satisfaction and
behavio”, Marketing Health Services, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 5.
Yang, Y., Liu, H. and Chen, X. (2020), “COVID-19 and restaurant demand: early effects of the pandemic
and stay-at-home orders”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 3809-3834.
Yeo, V.C.S., Goh, S.K. and Rezaei, S. (2017), “Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention
toward online food delivery (OFD) services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 35,
pp. 150-162.
Yeo, S.F., Tan, C.L., Teo, S.L. and Tan, K.H. (2021), “The role of food apps servitization on repurchase
intention: a study of Food Panda”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 234,
p. 108063.
Yost, E. and Cheng, Y. (2021), “Customers’ risk perception and dine-out motivation during a pandemic:
insight for the restaurant industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 95,
p. 102889.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), “Service quality delivery through web sites: a
critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 362-375.

Corresponding author
Janelle Chan can be contacted at: janelle.chan@polyu.edu.hk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com