Table 4:Rotated Component Matrixa(overall image) Table3:Rotated Component Matrixa( common image) Component Component Cognitive Historical brand brand o7_1 .804 Q66_1 .865 o6_1 .774 Q67_1 .853 o9_1 .760 Q69_1 .792 Q65_1 .758 o10_1 .745 Q68_1 .688 o8_1 .731 Q25_1 .784 Q22_1 .680 o5_1 .668 .338 Q26_1 .648 o4_1 .610 .429 Q21_1 .551 Q24_1 .535 o2_1 .780 Q37_1 .791 o1_1 .762 Q36_1 .775 Q38_1 .685 o3_1 .744 Q29_1 .743 Q28_1 .622 Q30_1 .552 .321 Q31_1 .536 Q34_1 .760 Q35_1 .662 Q33_1 .610 5.5. Underlying dimensions of perceived quality The results of a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated that perceived quality set was appropriate for factor analysis( =746.62, df= 28, KMO= 0.705). Based on the eigenvalue greater than one, scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of variance criterion, three factors were extracted through principal component analysis with orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations was assessed to identify underlying dimensions of perceived quality. The three-factor model captured 58.5% of the total. A total of four items had
Table3:Rotated Component Matrixa( common image) Component Q66_1 .865 Q67_1 .853 Q69_1 .792 Q65_1 .758 Q68_1 .688 Q25_1 .784 Q22_1 .680 Q26_1 .648 Q21_1 .551 Q24_1 .535 Q37_1 .791 Q36_1 .775 Q38_1 .685 Q29_1 .743 Q28_1 .622 Q30_1 .552 .321 Q31_1 .536 Q34_1 .760 Q35_1 .662 Q33_1 .610 Table 4:Rotated Component Matrixa(overall image) Component Cognitive brand Historical brand o7_1 .804 o6_1 .774 o9_1 .760 o10_1 .745 o8_1 .731 o5_1 .668 .338 o4_1 .610 .429 o2_1 .780 o1_1 .762 o3_1 .744 5.5. Underlying dimensions of perceived quality The results of a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated that perceived quality set was appropriate for factor analysis( =746.62, df= 28, KMO= 0.705). Based on the eigenvalue greater than one, scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of variance criterion, three factors were extracted through principal component analysis with orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations was assessed to identify underlying dimensions of perceived quality. The three-factor model captured 58.5% of the total. A total of four items had