In this study, we plan to conduct an on-site survey by modifying Moteki’s [17] three-group question scale of the on-site survey and Moteki’s [18] online survey, both of which are surveys of governmental institutions; we also use our own three-group question framework of facilities and equipment, staff response, and exhibition content. The self-administered questionnaire survey at the Higashihiroshima City Museum of Art in Summer 2022 will target visitors after they have viewed the special collection. The survey period will be six business days.
Researchers will wait at desks near the exit of the art museum and give visitors an envelope with (1) a letter requesting survey participation, explaining the cooperation agreement between the Higashihiroshima City Government and the affiliated university to create an international research center in Higashihiroshima. The letter will also include a telephone number, the response times for questions during the weekday, and e-mail address of the author as the principal investigator, so that the visitors can inquire about any unclear points in the survey; (2) a questionnaire; (3) an envelope for returning the completed questionnaire; and (4) a ballpoint pen. We plan to distribute 1,000 questionnaires. The envelopes will be returned immediately after the visitors leave the exhibition room. We do not wish to have visitors answer the questions on the spot to avoid disturbing the lingering atmosphere of the exhibition and to avoid inconveniencing them. Further, the envelopes are returned just outside the exhibition room, instead of the lobby on the first floor, to avoid confusion, as not all visitors to the museum are exhibition visitors. The lobby of the museum is free of charge, and because the museum is located near a park, 30–40% of visitors only use the restroom and do not enter the gallery or pay the entrance fee. We will consider using museum-related goods such as clear files as souvenirs.
An analytical model with the question items for the explanatory variables classified into three groups is shown in Fig 1. The specific questions for Groups A to C and Y are shown in Table 1. Group A has five items about the equipment and interior of the facility. For example, AQ2, "the atmosphere of the building" refers to the atmosphere that visitors feel from the architectural design of the museum facility itself, and AQ3, "the lighting in the building" refers to whether the lighting at the entrance is too bright or too dark, and whether the lighting in the exhibition rooms is bright enough to allow visitors to view the artworks without stress. Group B includes four items about the staff at the museum. Group Y includes three items about overall satisfaction, including whether the visitors learned from their experience at the museum.
Fig 1. Research analysis model.
Data processing and analysis
The authors plan to use confirmatory factor analysis to examine the appropriateness of the grouping of questions and then analyze the main determinants of customer satisfaction by principal component regression analysis, as in Moteki [17].
First, to measure the appropriateness of the questions grouping, factor analysis will be conducted to confirm that the research framework of the three groups is appropriate; this is done based on eigenvalues and scree plots. Then, principal component analysis and multiple regression analysis will be conducted on each question category to examine the determinants of art museum service customer satisfaction.
The method of using factor and principal regression analyses together follows Takahashi’s [19] suggestion, who explains how factor analysis can be conducted separately to examine the characterization of each question item within a group, for a questionnaire on customer satisfaction consisting of multiple groups, and then finally analyzed by principal component and multiple regression analyses. The difference between this paper’s method and Takahashi [19] is the purpose and scope of the factor analysis. Similarly, Talib and Shukor [20] conducted a factor analysis for all questions using the same set of questions as SERVQUAL and found that it was appropriate to divide the questionnaire into three groups. In our study, we will use the maximum likelihood method for the factoring method, and the Varimax method for factor rotation. We will also use the Kaiser–Guttman criteria to select eigenvalues greater than or equal to 1. The number of factors determined according to both the Kaiser–Guttman criteria and the scree plot criterion will be compared with the initial assumed number of groups, which is three.
After performing confirmatory factor analysis, we will implement a principal component regression analysis using the three main groups of questions confirmed by the preceding factor analysis. If the confirmatory factor analysis results in a different grouping from the assumed grouping, subsequent analyses will be conducted using both the new and the original grouping.
First, the principal component analysis for each question in category Y will be performed. We will examine the configuration figure showing the positioning of the three questions of the Y category with respect to the first and second components of overall customer satisfaction. The dataset acquires ZY1 and ZY2 of the principal component scores as new variables. Then, we will conduct a correlation analysis between the composite variable of ZY1 and each of the explanatory variables from Groups A to C. The principal components analysis for groups A–C will use the question items with a correlation coefficient of 0.4 or higher. For the question items selected here, principal component analysis will be performed for each group from Group A to Group C. Two composite variables will be calculated for each group and added to the data set.
We will finish with a multiple regression analysis with the principal component scores of the three groups A–C. We will use the variable increasing and decreasing method with synthetic variables generated from the categories of explanatory variable questions (ZA1, ZA2, ZB1, ZB2, ZC1, and ZC2) and then examine the adjusted R-squared value of the model’s coefficient of determination and the standardized partial regression coefficients of each explanatory variable. The significance levels for the rejection range of the null hypothesis will be set to 1% and 5%. The value of the variance inflation factor will then determine the risk of multicollinearity for each standardized coefficient. The criteria for these factors, in order of strictness, are 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, etc. We will use 2.0 as our criterion for judgment. A variance inflation factor of the compound variables valued at 2.00 will indicate possible multicollinearity, that is, overlap between the explanatory variables in the questions group.
Table 1. Outline of basic question items in the survey.
Concept Groups
|
Question Items
|
A) Museum equipment (buildings, lighting, and others)
|
AQ1 (Q3_1) Location (access from home)
|
AQ2 (Q3_2) Tables and chairs in the building
|
AQ3 (Q3_3) Lighting in the building
|
AQ4 (Q3_4) Air conditioning in the building
|
AQ5 (Q3_5) Ease of understanding the buildings’ locations and entrances at the site of the museum
|
B) Software (staff responses)
|
BQ1 (Q3_6) Politeness of the staff’s response
|
BQ2 (Q3_7) Ease of asking questions to the staff
|
BQ3 (Q3_8) Ease of understanding oral explanations from the officer in charge
|
BQ4 (Q3_9) Security guard’s response
|
C) Exhibits
|
CQ1 (Q4_1) I was moved by the exhibits
|
CQ2 (Q4_2) The exhibits were beautiful
|
CQ3 (Q4_3) The exhibits were easy to see
|
CQ4 (Q4_4) The explanatory text on the exhibits was easy to understand
|
CQ5 (Q4_5) The explanatory text on the exhibits was easy to understand
|
Y) Degree of customer satisfaction with the museum services provided
|
YQ1 (Q5_1) I am satisfied with my experience at the museum
|
YQ2 (Q5_2) I was able to learn from my visit to the museum
|
YQ3 (Q5_3) I would recommend the Higashihiroshima City Museum of Art to others
|
Procedures for conducting research on human participants
This study is not biomedical research directly covered by the Declaration of Helsinki. However, it will undergo an elective ethical review at our institution in order to ensure that a more appropriate research execution is accomplished before the actual research is implemented. It is to be noted that the affiliated department did not have a research ethics review committee until FY2021 because it specializes in the humanities and social sciences, especially law and political sciences. Any research subject to the Declaration of Helsinki in a strict sense has not been conducted. A pan-university reorganization of departments, however, led to the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences being integrated into a larger group; in this group, departments that had traditionally conducted research ethics reviews, such as psychology, were thus included. Beginning FY2022, it will be possible to conduct an ethical review of research that affects society or the subject, such as questionnaire surveys, even if the research topic is not covered by the Declaration of Helsinki. Therefore, this study will apply for ethical review by the research ethics committee of the department to which the researcher belongs, with all research subcontractors as applicants.
The survey is within the scope of a normal social survey, and the question items in the questionnaire are not invasive. However, referring to the three principles outlined in the Declaration, we will prepare a detailed survey implementation plan and questionnaire for the ethical review by the research ethics committee of the graduate school. Before preparing the research plan, the detailed research design will be reviewed by the council’s review committee, which includes government practitioners, for funding and evaluating the appropriateness of the overall design.
Finally, the name of the survey and the entity conducting the survey will be displayed on the first page of the questionnaire at two locations in the booth, and questionnaires will be distributed to willing art museum visitors. The enclosed request letter clearly states (1) the purpose of the survey; (2) that the responses are voluntary and that the aggregate results will be used only for academic purposes; (3) the name of the organization conducting the survey, person in charge, address, contact telephone number, and e-mail address; and (4) the procedures to be followed if participants wished to receive the survey results. Points (1) and (2) are clearly stated again at the beginning of the questionnaire, along with the name of the organization conducting the survey. We will also explain that the results of individual responses will not be shared with City Hall, and participants will not be inconvenienced because of the content of their responses. No independent written consent forms will be provided, and questionnaires will be distributed only at the survey booth. The responses will be mailed using enclosed stamped return envelopes. These measures will ensure that participation is voluntary throughout the survey process.