The lodging quality index: an independent assessment of validity and dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purposes of this study are: to examine the reliability and validity of the lodging quality index (LQI); and to assess the relative importance of the five dimensions of the LQI in the Canadian hotel context. The LQI was developed by Getty and Getty and published in 2003 in the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management . Design/methodology/approach Data are collected from 200 Canadian respondents who had stayed in a hotel in Canada within the preceding three months. Data are examined using confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis. Findings The findings support the reliability and the validity of the LQI's structure of five dimensions. The scale is shown to be a reliable instrument for measuring overall service quality and for predicting the satisfaction and behavioral intentions of hotel guests. In terms of the importance of the five dimensions, the study finds that “tangibility” and “communication” are the most important. Originality/value This is the first independent assessment of the reliability and validity of the LQI scale. The research provides valuable insights for hotel managers in Canada. Hoteliers should focus their efforts on the provision of good service quality on “tangibility” and “communication”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".