10.3.
Quantitative data analysis
Quantitative data analysis refers to the conversion of data into information by making use of
numerical representations of observation results obtained to describe and explain facts. Statistical
techniques are used in the analysis of quantitative data. Choosing the test statistic appropriate to
the research model and hypotheses is important to obtain meaningful analysis results. The
analysis of the quantitative data of research consists of two parts. These are the analysis of
demographic data and the differences between the expectations and perceptions of the
participants about the service quality of the restaurant. SPSS 18.0 package program was used for
analysis of research data.
Descriptive statistics have been used in the analysis of demographic data. Paired simple T‐test
was used to analyze participants’ expectations and perceptions of service quality, and
participants’ expectation and perceptions of service quality at the restaurant level were
compared. However, in quantitative research, reliability analysis should be performed on the data
obtained before the data analysis. Results of the reliability analysis showed that the Cronbach’s α
coefficients for all the expectation and perception attributes, ranging from 0.913 to 0.956, were
quite high.
10.4. Quantitative findings
The quantitative findings of this study consist of two parts. The first part is the demographic
characteristics of the participants. The second part is the participants’ expectations and
perceptions about the quality of service of the Oba restaurant.
When the demographic characteristics of the participants are analyzed; we see 136 women, 172
men. A total of 28 of the participants are in the age range of 18–28, 35 are in the age range of
36–45, and 40 are in the age range of 45 and more. When the level of education of the
participants is analyzed, 8 primary education, 8 secondary education, 77 high school, 155
university, 40 masters and doctoral level education. When monthly income levels of the
participants’ families are examined; 16 of them are 1500 TL, and six of them are from Turkey,
36 of them are between 1501–2500 TL, 61 are from 2501–3500 TL, 49 are from Turkey, 3501–
4500 are from Turkey, and 146 are from Turkey and 4501 TL. Finally, when the participants’
monthly frequency of eating out is examined, 18 of the participants eat once a month or less, 28
twice a month, 40 a month three times, and 222 a month four times a month or more.
After examining the demographic data of the participants, the expectations and differences
regarding the quality of service provided in the Oba restaurant operation were analyzed. Paired t‐
test carry out to test the significant difference between two means of expectations and
perceptions. Table 2 shows the differences in expectations and perceptions regarding the quality
of the services the participants received from the restaurant.
Attributes Expectations Perceptions (PM‐ t‐
means (SD) means (SD) EM) value
Tangibles 4.63 (0.38) 4.35 (0.41) −0.28 10.78
This restaurant has visually attractive parking 4.37 (0.77) 3.66 (0.82) −0.71 11.28
Attributes Expectations Perceptions (PM‐ t‐
means (SD) means (SD) EM) value
areas and building exteriors.
This restaurant has a visually attractive dining 4.61 (0.54) 4.26 (0.63) −0.35 8.80
area.
This restaurant has staff members who are clean, 4.80 (0.51) 4.52 (0.57) −0.28 7.77
neat, and appropriately dressed.
This restaurant has a decor in keeping with its 4.50 (0.67) 4.31 (0.68) −0.19 4.23
image and price range.
This restaurant has a menu that is easily 4.63 (0.60) 4.57 (0.60) −0.06 1.80
readable.
This restaurant has a visually attractive menu 4.39 (0.74) 4.16 (0.76) −0.23 4.43
that reflects the restaurant’s image.
This restaurant has a dining area that is 4.70 (0.50) 4.53 (0.65) −0.17 3.96
comfortable and easy to move around in.
This restaurant has rest rooms that are 4.83 (0.43) 4.44 (0.70) −0.39 8.80
thoroughly clean.
This restaurant has dining areas that are 4.88 (0.31) 4.59 (0.51) −0.29 2.63
thoroughly clean.
This restaurant has comfortable seats in the 4.56 (0.64) 4.33 (0.70) −0.23 5.29
dining room.
Reliability 4.81 (0.30) 4.58 (0.44) −0.23 9.57
This restaurant serves you in the time promised. 4.79 (0.42) 4.44 (0.61) −0.35 9.44
This restaurant quickly corrects anything that is 4.77 (0.46) 4.54 (0.61) −0.23 6.27
wrong.
This restaurant is dependable and consistent. 4.85 (0.35) 4.64 (0.52) −0.21 6.30
This restaurant provides an accurate guest 4.83 (0.39) 4.65 (0.56) −0.18 5.17
check.
This restaurant serves your food exactly as you 4.83 (0.40) 4.61 (0.62) −0.22 6.12
ordered it.
Responsiveness 4.66 (0.49) 4.48 (0.51) −0.18 5.36
This restaurant during busy times has employees 4.63 (0.69) 4.46 (0.70) −0.17 3.47
shift to help each other to maintain speed and
quality of service.
This restaurant provides prompt and quick 4.81 (0.42) 4.69 (0.51) −0.12 3.67
service.
This restaurant gives extra effort to handle your 4.53 (0.72) 4.29 (0.68) −0.24 5.63
special requests.
Assurance 4.70 (0.43) 4.51 (0.47) −0.19 6.96
This restaurant has employees who can answer 4.69 (0.55) 4.56 (0.58) −0.13 3.86
your questions completely.
This restaurant makes you feel comfortable and 4.75 (0.55) 4.67 (0.53) −0.08 2.03
confident in your dealings with them.
This restaurant has personnel who are both able 4.66 (0.60) 4.36 (0.74) −0.30 6.99
Attributes Expectations Perceptions (PM‐ t‐
means (SD) means (SD) EM) value
and willing to give you information about menu
items, their ingredients, and methods of
preparation.
This restaurant makes you feel personally safe. 4.75 (0.47) 4.64 (0.56) −0.11 3.47
This restaurant has personnel who seem well‐ 4.68 (0.57) 4.48 (0.61) −0.20 4.93
trained, competent, and experienced.
This restaurant seems to give employees support 4.67 (0.54) 4.36 (0.63) −0.31 8.53
so that they can do their jobs well.
Empathy 4.66 (0.47) 4.41 (0.56) −0.25 8.42
This restaurant has employees who are sensitive 4.64 (0.55) 4.31 (0.70) −0.33 8.11
to your individual needs and wants rather than
always relying on policies and procedures.
This restaurant makes you feel special. 4.66 (0.57) 4.42 (0.69) −0.24 6.06
This restaurant anticipates your individual needs 4.50 (0.80) 4.28 (0.80) −0.22 4.78
and wants.
This restaurant has employees who are 4.75 (0.45) 4.50 (0.61) −0.25 7.19
sympathetic and reassuring if something is
wrong.
This restaurant seems to have the customers’ 4.74 (0.50) 4.53 (0.67) −0.21 5.71
best interests at heart.
Total 4.69 (0.41) 4.46 (0.47) −0.22
Table 2.
Differences in expectation and perception about the quality of the services of the participants
received from the restaurant.
Table 2 shows the results of the paired‐samples t‐test conducted to demonstrate the differences
between the expectations and perceptions of customers regarding the quality of the services
offered at the restaurant. Positive scores indicate that the service quality of the restaurant is
higher than expected, while negative scores indicate that the service quality is expected to be
lower than expected.
As a result of the analysis of the quantitative data obtained, it is the reliability (4.81) that
customer has the highest expectation from Oba restaurant operation. The reliability dimension at
the customer expectation dimension is followed by a dimension of enthusiasm and empathy with
an average of 4.70 assurance and an average of 4.66. The lowest level of expectation of
customers from restaurant business (4.63) is tangibles. Again, customers perceive the lowest
quality of service in the restaurant is tangibles with an average of 4.35. Besides, the dimension
that the customers perceive the highest quality of the restaurant (4.58) is reliability. The
reliability dimension is followed by the assurance dimension with an average of 4.51.
Dimensions in which the difference between the expectations and perceptions of customers’
service quality is the highest; Tangibles (−0.28), empathy (−0.25), and reliability (−0.23).
In addition, factor analysis was conducted to reduce the statements related with service quality to
significant dimensions. As a result of the analysis, 29 expressions were collected under five
factors; assurance, reliability, responsiveness, empathy, and tangibles. These factors are
consistent with the DINESERV scale. In the factor analysis, the KMO value is 0.909 and the
total variance of the five factors is the explanatory level of 60.238. This research was not based
on an influence or relationship between variables. However, in a study, the dimensions that
emerged with factor analysis can be used to analyze whether these dimensions differ according
to the demographic findings of the research, or to analyze the relationship of research variables
to other variables that can be added to the research.
