Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to assess service quality in sport child camps among both participants and parents and its effects on satisfaction and behavioural intentions.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected from participants (n = 258) and parents (n = 226) of a sport child camp. A confirmatory factor analysis analysed the psychometric properties of the constructs, and a subsequent structural equation model examined the effects of service quality on satisfaction and behavioural intentions.
Findings
The results indicate a multi-dimensional construct of service quality that influences satisfaction and behavioural intentions differently among parents and participants. For participants, Service Failures and Recovery, Safety and Food influenced satisfaction, while Service Failures and Recovery and Fun influenced Behavioural Intentions. For parents, Management Commitment to Service Quality, Staff, Food and Contact with Physical Environmental influenced satisfaction, while Management Commitment to Service Quality and Staff influenced Behavioural intentions.
Research limitations/implications
Both parents and participants' perceptions of service quality in sport child camps were captured and its effects on satisfaction and behavioural intentions. The study provides sport child camp managers with critical information about service delivery and its outcomes among the two key consumers (participants and parents).
Originality/value
This study offers new ideas to advance knowledge on sport child camps by capturing the perceptions of two key stakeholders and providing useful insights into how different attributes of service quality influence the levels of satisfaction and behavioural intentions among parents and participants.
Keywords
Citation
Sousa, M., Gonçalves, C., Biscaia, R. and Carvalho, M.J. (2024), "Service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions in sport child camps: participants and parents' perspectives", International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 18-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-10-2022-0183
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Marisa Sousa, Celina Gonçalves, Rui Biscaia and Maria José Carvalho
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ legalcode
Introduction
Sport child camps are the most important form of organized leisure activity for children and adolescents, and their popularity and market competition has been increasing (Lehto et al., 2020; Omelan et al., 2018). In 2016, the American Camping Association (ACA) estimated that more than 14 million youth participated in these events, a number that increased to more than 26 million in 2020 (Wycoff, 2021). Given that these events face a seasonal demand, its success relies on returning satisfied consumers (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005). The delivery of high-quality services has been associated to organizational advantages (Cronin et al., 2000) and often highlighted in sport child camps research as a predictor of participants' satisfaction (Costa et al., 2004), which in turn tends to positively affect the intentions to re-attend the camps (Kwok et al., 2010). Thus, camp managers need to listen to participants, plan enjoyable activities and provide them with an exceptional experience (Kwok et al., 2010).
In addition to participants' evaluation of these events, understanding the perceptions of parents is crucial as they often evaluate and relate to camps differently (Costa et al., 2004). Previous studies have mainly focused on the assessment of sport child camps by children (i.e. participants; Kotíková and Kotíková, 2016; Kwok et al., 2010; Omelan et al., 2018). Nevertheless, despite children experiencing these camps firsthand, parents are those who often make the final purchase decision (Costa et al., 2004; Omelan et al., 2018). Thus, collecting data from both is important to favour camp managers' efforts in improving service delivery, addressing expectations (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005) and promoting conative loyalty (Walsh et al., 2017). Nevertheless, despite parents and participants being key stakeholders of sport child camps, examinations of service quality (SQ) and its outcomes among these two groups are lacking. Additionally, it is important to note that sport child camps provide core (e.g. program of sport activities) and complementary services (e.g. food) that may influence consumers' satisfaction (Lee et al., 2012; Tsuji et al., 2007) differently, and these effects have not been considered in past research (Costa et al., 2004).
Understanding how both parents and participants evaluate SQ and its subsequent outcomes allows camp managers to better understand their customers' desires and meet their needs, thus favouring the reputation and profitability of these events (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005). Considering existent literature highlighting the link between SQ, satisfaction and behavioural intentions (BI) (e.g. Biscaia et al., 2021), the importance of parents and children for sport child camps and the lack of understanding of these relationships in the perspective of the two types of consumers, the purpose of the current study is to examine the relationships between SQ, satisfaction and BI among both participants and their parents in sport child camps.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Sport child camps
Children often spend large amounts of time watching television and playing video games (Roberts et al., 2017) decreasing their physical activity rates (D'Haese et al., 2015). Thus, camps are an opportunity to participants to attain the recommended levels of physical activity, and to practice sport activities (Jefferies, 2005; Weaver et al., 2014), encouraging the adoption of healthy lifestyles (D'Haese et al., 2015), and increasing sport participation.
Sport child camps are events promoted for children to spend their school vacations, practice a variety of sports (Jago and Baranowski, 2004; Mahoney, 2011), have fun, learn new skills (Jefferies, 2005), and socialize with their peers. For example, the University of Porto sports camp, which runs for a week (Monday to Friday) from 9:00 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., at the University facilities, beach, or park, essentially consisting of sports activities (CDUP, n.d.). These camps are often conducted by trained physical staff with a focus on sport instruction (Jefferies, 2005) allowing participants to try different sports during the experience. Its importance relies on the impact those events have on children's physical activity, since children who participate in sport child camps tend to be more physically active than those who do not participate, and often choose to be more physically active in the future (Tovar et al., 2010).
The growing interest in sport child camps provides opportunities for organizational profit (Monk and Deutsch, 2016), leading to an increase of consumer behaviour research (Kwok et al., 2010; Jones, 2005). However, a gap identified in the literature (Sousa et al., 2022) was that studies are mainly focused on participants' (i.e. children) evaluation of these events (e.g. Kwok et al., 2010), and few have examined parents' opinions (e.g. Walsh et al., 2017). Parents search these camps to their children (Seifried, 2007), and often make the final purchase decision (Omelan et al., 2018). But children are those who live the camp experience benefiting from it (Omelan et al., 2018). Parents and participants are pivotal stakeholders because they can either affect or be affected by the sport child camps' actions (Mainardes et al., 2012). Thus, both parents and participants' perspectives must be considered by sport child camp managers when organizing the events, because the success of any organization depends to a great extent on its ability and satisfy key stakeholders (Bryson, 2004) and develop sustainable relationships over time (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005).
Service quality and its effect on satisfaction and behavioural intentions
Service quality has been widely studied in fitness contexts (Chang and Chelladurai, 2003), sport events (Biscaia et al., 2013), professional leagues (Yoshida and James, 2010) and leisure activities such as sport child camps (Costa et al., 2004). It refers to a consumer's global judgement of the excellence of the service provided by an organization (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003) and is often accepted as a multi-dimensional concept (Brady and Cronin, 2001) comprising different attributes such as the core service, facilities, interaction with staff and other consumers (Dias et al., 2019). In sport child camps, SQ's importance relies on the fact that parents and participants tend to evaluate the camps' quality differently (Costa et al., 2004), which may affect subsequent responses. Also, SQ is an imperative for the success of sport child camps due to its importance to building competitive advantage (Cronin et al., 2000) in an increasingly competitive camp industry (Lacanienta et al., 2018).
Previous studies on sport child camps evaluation have focused on the incentives for participation (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005), features that participants consider when choosing the camps (Lehto et al., 2020) and the ones that trigger more enjoy during their experiences (Jones, 2005). Participants tend to consider both core attributes of the camps such as activities' program (AP), and complementary aspects such sense of safety, quality of facilities and staff (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005; Costa et al., 2004), which highlights a social element associated to these events for children. Both core (AP) and complementary services (access/communication, staff, facilities, food, and safety) are also important for parents, but these seem to focus their evaluation more on issues directly related to the organization of the event (Costa et al., 2004; Lehto et al., 2020). In fact, previous research on SQ in sports services (e.g. Chang and Chelladurai, 2003; Ferreira et al., 2015) have considered attributes associated to the organization such as management commitment to SQ (MCSQ), service climate (SC), contact with physical environmental (CWPE), but also to the service itself, such as the contact with other participants (CWOP) and service failures and recovery (SFR). Considering that parents often value event organization (Lehto et al., 2020), the inclusion of related attributes when measuring SQ in sport child camps should be considered. Similarly, previous literature highlights the importance of attributes such as opportunities to have fun (Barlas et al., 2011; Baker et al., 2019), quality and variety of food (Costa et al., 2004; Lehto et al., 2020), Rules (Chavez et al., 2014), communication of the events (Costa et al., 2004; Lehto et al., 2020) and the sense of safety (Klunk et al., 2021; Omelan et al., 2018) as important features of the overall SQ in sport child camps.
Despite the general agreement that multi-dimensional models are crucial for measuring SQ (Biscaia et al., 2021), there is a dearth of research on the dimensionality of SQ in sport child camps, particularly when considering the perceptions of both parents and participants and its effects on subsequent responses among these two groups. This is important to address because managers need to satisfy both parents and participants due to their role on decision-making and associated retention (Omelan et al., 2018; Schwab et al., 2010).
SQ has been also described as an antecedent of consumer satisfaction (Biscaia et al., 2013; Cronin et al., 2000), since satisfaction reflects individuals' overall feelings derived from the perceived quality of the core product and ancillary services (Oliver et al., 1997). Also, as noted by Bitner (1990), consumers make judgements about quality-satisfaction relationships based on their experiences with the service provider. Although some studies have investigated satisfaction in sport child camps (e.g. Kotíková and Kotíková, 2016), none have analysed SQ effects on both participants and parents' satisfaction, and this analysis is important because satisfaction of these groups may be influenced by different service attributes (Costa et al., 2004). Also, satisfaction with sport child camps is usually dependent on the evaluation of the camp's core service (i.e. sport activities' program) (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005), but these camps also include complementary services (e.g. food, interaction with staff), and both tend to impact satisfaction (Lee et al., 2012; Tsuji et al., 2007). The core service refers to the central service provided by an organization (Yoshida and James, 2010), while complementary services are those that assist the sale and consumption of the main offer (Hume, 2008). In sport child camps, the core service provided is related to the AP (sport activities), while the complementary services refer to features that assist these sport activities, including for example the food, interaction with staff, provision of safety environments, management of potential service failures, or the interaction with physical environment.
In the current study, we examine the relationships between SQ dimensions and both sport child camp satisfaction (CCS) and complementary services satisfaction (CSS) among both participants and parents. Following Lee et al. (2012), CCS is defined in this study as a consumer satisfaction with the core service of sport child camp, while the CSS is defined as a consumer satisfaction with the complementary services experienced at the sport child camp. Considering the positive link between SQ and satisfaction (Oliver et al., 1997), and the need to better understand these relationships in the context of sport child camps, the following hypotheses were formulated.
Participants' perspectives of SQ have a positive effect on their (a) CSS, (b) CCS.
Parents' perspectives of SQ have a positive effect on their (a) CSS, (b) CCS.
Additionally, past studies have highlighted that specific SQ attributes may also have a direct effect on future behavioural intentions (e.g. Tsuji et al., 2007). The underlying rationale guiding these studies is that consumers tend to consider favourable SQ evaluations (e.g. good program of sport activities, quality food, management commitment to quality services) to continue interacting with the event organizers (Biscaia et al., 2021; Byon et al., 2013). Considering that the sport child camps' success relies on returning consumers (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005), and the lack of understanding of SQ and BI relationships in the perspective of both camp consumers (i.e. parents and participants), the following hypotheses were proposed.
Participants' perspectives of SQ have a positive effect on their BI.
Parents' perspectives of SQ have a positive effect on their BI.
Satisfaction and behavioural intentions
Satisfaction is often described as a summary of cognitive and affective reactions regarding service encounters (Oliver et al., 1997), being a concept that has attracted considerable attention in the sport consumption literature (Biscaia et al., 2013) for two main reasons. First, satisfaction is derived from consumers' perception, being an important criterion to assess the quality of service delivery (Yoshida and James, 2010). Second, satisfaction is often highlighted as an antecedent of consumers' BI (e.g. Calabuig et al., 2014) also in sport events (Zhang et al., 2020). Following Yoshida and James (2010), in the current study, satisfaction refers to the individuals' (i.e. parents and participants) pleasurable response derived from the core product and complementary services at sport child camps.
Satisfaction is widely studied in different contexts including sport child camps (e.g. Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005), and it is often suggested that it creates long-term benefits for the organizers (e.g. Walsh et al., 2017). The rationale beyond these benefits is based on the idea that positive experiences with a service make individuals want to repeat them in the future (Oliver, 1999). Complementarily, satisfaction with core and ancillary services have been found to have a positive impact on BI (Yoshida and James, 2010). However, and although the interest in satisfaction in sport child camps is becoming evident (Kwok et al., 2010), there is a lack of studies simultaneously assessing parents and participants' perceptions. Also, previous studies have not considered core and complementary services when evaluating consumer satisfaction with sport child camps. Both core and complementary services are experienced by children and assessed by parents in a subjective way often based on their children's feedbacks. This assessment is essential for the final choice to return and recommend subsequent editions of the camp.
Considering the relationship between satisfaction and BI noted in past studies about sport consumers (e.g. Yoshida and James, 2010), and the lack of examination of the path from CCS and CSS to BI of sport child camps among both participants and parents, the following hypotheses were proposed.
Participants' perspectives of (a) CSS, and (b) CCS have a direct positive effect on BI.
Parents' perspectives of (a) CSS, and (b) CCS have a direct positive effect on BI.
Behavioural intentions
Behavioural intentions are often associated with consumers' willingness to pay a price premium, repurchasing a service, and recommending it to others (Kharouf et al., 2020; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Specifically, in events, favourable behavioural intention refers to the intention of revisiting sports events in the future and spreading a positive word-of-mouth to potential consumers (Duan et al., 2020; Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Although an intention does necessarily translate into a behaviour (Hassan et al., 2016), it has been suggested that this link often occurs (Ajzen, 2001). The rationale for this assumption is provided by the theory of planned behaviour highlighting that an intention represents an indicator of how much a person is willing to engage in a particular behaviour (Ajzen, 2001). Therefore, and consistent with previous literature on sport consumer behaviour (Biscaia et al., 2021; Yoshida and James, 2010), in the current study BI are defined as a consumer's favourable intentions to participate in the sport child camp again in the future, recommend it to others and remain loyal to the camp.
Given the growing competition in the sport child camps market and the fact these events face a seasonal demand, it is becoming increasingly important for camp managers to retain their consumers (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005). Thus, it is vital to understand if participants and their parents intend to attend the same camp again and/or recommend the camp to others (Lee et al., 2004). Responding to the calls for further empirical investigation on consumers' reactions to sport child camps (Sousa et al., 2022), the current study examines the relationship between satisfaction and BI for both participants and parents. The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1. Participants and parents' perspectives are assessed separately in different studies as described below.
Study 1– participants
Participants and data collection
The context of this study was a sport child camp that occurred during the summer of 2020 in Porto, Portugal. This is an annual sport child camp that comprising 4 weeks, and children stay in the camp all weekdays between 8:30a.m. and 6:00p.m. The core service includes combat sports (karate, judo, taekwondo), team sports (football, tag rugby, baseball), individual sports (athletics, swimming, archery), and nature sports (tree climbing, rappel, surf). Data were collected from a convenience sample of 258 participants, after their camp experience. From the 295 participants aged 10 years or older (see details below), a response rate of 87.5% was obtained. Participants filled out a face-to-face questionnaire during the last day of the camp, under the best conditions of a private room in the camp facilities. Camp staff were present to help and ensure participants understood what was being asked. All staff received training from the research team and a guide to ensure consistency in the procedures of data collection. Ages of the participants ranged from 10 to 15 years (M = 11.7 ± 1.1 years). The minimum age of 10 years was based on previous literature suggesting that only around 10–11 years, children's memory capacity and constructive processes seem to function similarly to those of adults (Leeuw et al., 2004). Literature recommendations were followed (Bell, 2007; Bird, 2009; Leeuw et al., 2004): (1) items were short and with straightforward syntax; (2) a short title and introductory text were included in each section to help children; (3) clear instructions describing how participants were expected to respond to the items (“If you completely agree with a statement, tick the number 7. If, on the other hand, you completely disagree with it, tick the number 1. For any other opinion, use the intermediate numbers. Please indicate only one number for each statement.”).
Approximately two-thirds were boys (N = 164; 63.6%) and 94 were girls (36.4%). Parents signed a consent form explaining the purpose and the voluntary nature of the study, granting permission for participants to fill out the questionnaires.
Instrument
A questionnaire with three sections was applied. The first section evaluated perceptions of SQ and included a 32-item scale adapted from Chang and Chelladurai (2003) that was validated by Ferreira et al. (2015) to the Portuguese language in sports services contexts. It included the attributes of MCSQ, SC, staff, AP, CWPE, CWOP and SFR. Additionally, items to measure fun (three), food (five), rules (three), and safety (seven) were designed based on previous literature highlighting these aspects in sport child camps (e.g. Lehto et al., 2020; Klunk et al., 2021) and an open questionnaire to understand which camp features that were missing from the initial scale (details below).
The second section measured satisfaction and BI. Satisfaction was evaluated through CSS and CCS, using 6 items adapted from Yoshida and James (2010). In turn, BI was measured with 3 items adapted from Cronin et al. (2000). All questionnaire items were measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = completely agree to 7 = strongly disagree. The third section was composed by demographic information.
Prior to the questionnaire application, a pre-test was performed with 156 participants to further assess clarity of the proposed instrument among target respondents; verify the adequacy of time, language, as other logistical issues of the questionnaire application process and, analyse the internal consistency of the proposed constructs (Bell, 2007). The language and clarity of the items has been then simplified before data collection as noted above.
Data analysis
Data were analysed using AMOS 25.0. A two-step maximum likelihood structural equation model was conducted. Internal consistency of the constructs was measured through composite reliability (Hair et al., 2018). Convergent validity was evaluated based on the average variance extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was assessed through the correlation's coefficients and AVE tests of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Also, standardized loadings (Hair et al., 2018), the pattern of standardized residual correlation values (Kline, 2005), and item-level theoretical rationale (Marôco, 2021) were considered. The significance of the structural weights was evaluated using the Z tests produced by AMOS and statistical significance was assumed at a 0.05 level.
Results
Measurement model
The results of the CFA including SQ attributes, Satisfaction dimensions and BI showed that the factor loadings from all the items of MCSQ, SC, AP and Rules failed to exceed the cut-off point of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2018), and as such, the constructs were eliminated. This may be due to the fact children do not have in consideration the issues directly related to the planning and organization of the event. After this scale refinement, the final measurement model consisted of 31 items, distributed by Staff and CWOP (four items), CWPE, SFR, Fun, Safety, CCS, CSS, and BI (three items each), and Food (two items). The refined model showed an acceptable fit to the data [χ2(389) = 882.824 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.27, TLI = 0.88, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07].
As indicated in Table 1 (and Appendix), all items showed high factor loadings ranging from 0.609 to 0.970. The composite reliability ranged from 0.75 (Food and BI) to 0.96 (CWOP) indicating the constructs were internally consistent (Hair et al., 2018). Evidence of convergent validity was found based on the factor loadings above 0.50 (Hair et al., 2018; Marôco, 2021) and the fact that the AVE values ranged from 0.50 (RI) to 0.79 (CCS). The squared correlations ranged from 0.06 to 0.55. Except for Fun and BI (φ = 0.55), the AVE values for the other constructs were greater than the squared correlations between these constructs and any other. Still, this correlation coefficient was lower than the suggested criterion of 0.85 (Kline, 2005). In addition, we compared the χ2 statistics when the correlation between the two constructs was free versus constrained to one (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). There was a statistically significant decrease in the χ2 value when the correlation was free between Fun and BI (Δχ2 = 52.19; Δdf = 1; p < 0.01). Thus, evidence discriminant validity was provided.
Structural model
The examination of the structural model included a test of the overall model fit and individual tests of the hypothesized relationships. The model shows an acceptable fit to the data [χ2(358) = 753.090 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.1, TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07]. The path coefficients for the structural model are illustrated in Table 2.
The relationship between Staff, CWPE, CWOP and Fun with CSS was not significant (p > 0.05). In turn, SFR (β = 0.33, p < 0.05), Food (β = 0.37, p < 0.01) and Safety (β = 0.20, p < 0.01) were positively related to CSS, partially supporting H1a. The H1b was also partially supported, because SFR (β = 0.39, p < 0.01), Food (β = 0.33, p < 0.01) and Safety (β = 0.25, p < 0.01) were positively related to CCS. However, the relationship between Staff, CWPE CWOP and Fun with CCS was not significant (p > 0.05). Similarly, H3 was partially supported since SFR (β = 0.34, p < 0.05), and Fun (β = 0.53, p < 0.05) were positively related to BI. However, Staff, CWPE, CWOP, Food and Safety were not related to BI (p > 0.05). Both H5a and H5b were not supported because CSS and CCS respectively, were not related to BI (p > 0.05). The combined effects of the model explained 53% of CSS (R2 = 0.53), 56% of CCS (R2 = 0.56) and 66% of BI (R2 = 0.66).
Study 2 – parents
Data in this study was collected from the same sport child camp as in study 1, and collected after the camp experience with 226 parents, which represents 76.6% of the eligible parents (see study 1). Ages ranged from 31 to 76 years (M = 43.9 ± 5.2 years), being more women (N = 152; 67.3%) than men (N = 74; 32.7%). Parents filled the questionnaires in person, receiving it at the beginning of the last day and returning it at the end of the same day. As for participants, the questionnaire was also composed of three sections. The first evaluated the SQ through the same scale used for participants, but as per study 1 new items to measure Food (four items), Communication (two items) and Safety (seven items) were designed, based on previous literature indicating its importance for sport service contexts (e.g. Costa et al., 2004; Lehto et al., 2020) and an open questionnaire to understand which camp features were missing from the initial scale (details below). The second and third sections, were as in study 1. Also, a pre-test was performed to 54 parents (Perneger et al., 2015) with equal purpose to participants' pre-test, resulting in the rewording of some items. A two-step structural equation model was then performed to test the proposed structure of the measurement and test the hypotheses.
Results
Measurement model
The results of the CFA showed that the factor loadings from all the items of SC failed to exceed the cut-off point of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2018), thus the construct was eliminated. This may have been related to the fact all items include reference to staff members, and parents did not witness staff interaction with children during the camp. Additionally, the correlations between Communication and Staff, and MCSQ and Fun were higher than 0.85 suggesting a very strong association between these constructs. Thus, the items of Communication and Staff were grouped in a single construct named Staff. This decision was because most camp communications to parents were made directly by staff members, which may have led parents to consider the communication process as a staff responsibility. This is consistent with past literature indicating that during the camp, staff should maintain communication channels with the parents (Gaslin, 2013) being this critical to camp success (Nachman et al., 2021). Similarly, MCSQ and Fun were grouped and labelled MCSQ to better reflect the item content and prior literature suggesting that an essential task of camp managers is to ensure that participants have fun during the sport camps (Walsh, 2011; Henderson et al., 2007). After this scale refinement, the final measurement model consisted of 38 items, divided by Staff (six), CWPE (five), MCSQ and CWOP (four each), SFR, Food, CSS, CCS and BI (three each), and AP and Safety (two each). The model showed an acceptable fit to the data [χ2(600) = 1370.009 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.28, TLI = 0.89, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.08].
The correlation matrix, AVE values and squared correlations are reported in Table 3. All items showed high factor loadings ranging from 0.685 to 0.998 (see Table 2 and Appendix), and the AVE values ranged from 0.53 (CWPE) to 0.99 (Safety), which provides evidence of convergent validity. The composite reliability ranged from 0.79 (AP) to 0.99 (Safety) supporting internal consistency. The squared correlations ranged from 0.04 to 0.72. The squared correlations between MCSQ and Staff (φ = 0.72) and CWPE and FSR (φ = 0.72) were higher than the AVE values of these constructs. Nevertheless, these correlation coefficients were equal or lower to cut-off point of 0.85 (Kline, 2005). Also, when comparing χ2 statistics (i.e. correlation between the two constructs free vs constrained to one; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) there was a statistically significant decrease in the χ2 value (MCSQ and Staff: Δχ2 = 87.38; Δdf = 1; p < 0.001; CWPE and SFR: Δχ2 = 39.82; Δdf = 1; p < 0.001), which supports evidence of discriminant validity among the constructs.
Structural model
The model showed an acceptable fit to the data [χ2(601) = 1384.223 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.3, TLI = 0.89, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.08]. The relationship between AP, CWPE, CWOP, SFR and Safety with CSS was not significant (p > 0.05). In turn, MCSQ (β = 0.25, p < 0.05), Staff (β = 0.27, p < 0.05) and Food (β = 0.62, p < 0.01) were positively related to CSS, partially supporting, H2a. The H2b was also partially supported, because MCSQ (β = 0.56, p < 0.01) and CWEP (β = 0.38, p < 0.01) were positively related to CCS. However, the relationship between CCS, Staff, AP, CWOP, SFR, Food and Safety was not significant (p > 0.05). Similarly, H4 was partially supported since MCSQ (β = 0.41, p < 0.05) and Staff (β = 0.38, p < 0.05) were positively related to BI. However, AP, CWPE, CWOP, SFR, Food and Safety, were not significantly related to BI (p > 0.05). Both H6a and H6b were not supported because CSS and CCS respectively were not significantly related to BI (p > 0.05). All path coefficients are illustrated in Table 4, and the combined effects of the model explained 82% of CSS (R2 = 0.82), 73% of CCS (R2 = 0.73) and 75% of BI (R2 = 0.75).
General discussion
The purpose of the current research was to examine the relationships between SQ, satisfaction and BI in sport child camps among participants (i.e. children) and parents. Given that participants and parents experience sport child camps differently, and existing studies have not considered the perspectives of these two key stakeholders, the current study adds to the literature by highlighting the SQ attributes that most contribute to positive outcomes among these groups. The results indicate that SQ influences both satisfaction and BI, but in different way among parents and participants.
For participants, the first main finding is that SFR, Safety and Food positively influence both CSS and CCS. This confirms that SFR influence service evaluations by consumers and their subsequent satisfaction (Smith and Bolton, 2002) also in sport child camps. Participants perceived that potential fails were properly solved, supporting that high SQ implies fewer incidents (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003). From a managerial point of view, this result suggests that sport camp managers must continue to prevent service failures and work on service recovery immediately when such circumstances occur. Likewise, Food and Safety influence participants' satisfaction, providing empirical support to previous studies on sport child camps (Klunk et al., 2021). On one hand, Food is a complementary service that adds value to the core service (Martín et al., 2011), playing special attention in sport child camps (Kennedy et al., 2017). Participating in sport child camps requires high energy expenditure (Franchini et al., 2021); thus, an implication to practice is that managers must continue to guarantee balanced dining options must be continued, ensuring a sufficient energy intake to participants, and the opportunity for children to improve their overall nutrition and health (Kennedy et al., 2017). On other hand, Safety seems a priority for participants (Omelan et al., 2018), because there is a potential risk of injuries and illnesses (Miller and Barth, 2016), and a high-risk of contagion of COVID-19 among participants (Leoni et al., 2022). This research was developed after the COVID-19 pandemic as started (with safety measures implemented), and the findings provide initial evidence suggesting that the lessons learnt by organizers in terms of health and safety are likely to become standard procedures from now onwards. This means that managers should consider maintaining measures such hand washing routines, outdoor activities, and frequent material disinfection. Another implication for practice is the implementation of injuries and illness preventive measures allowing managers to maintain camp safety and participants' satisfaction. Also, staff certification to first aid/CPR, easy access to first aid equipment, teaching safety measures to participants when using sport equipment (archery, climbing equipment), and implementation of emergency action plans (planned by staff, camp manager and local emergency services) are all practical measures to be considered by those involved in the organization of sport child camps to improve service quality and subsequent satisfaction.
Contrary to the hypothesized model, CWOP affected participants' CCS negatively. In fact, the language and/or behaviour of some participant may disturb other participants (Dias et al., 2019), which is something that camp managers must be aware and act upon. Thus, the establishment of a violence prevention regulation in camps, the attribution to participants of fair-play prizes, or the inclusion of activities themes as solidarity, team spirit, and collaboration with peers are important implications to be considered by managers. Additionally, after the COVID-19 lockdowns, changes in children behaviour were described (Ezpeleta et al., 2020) such as problems with peers, deterioration of the relationships with others, and lowest socialization capability (Jiao et al., 2020). Sport child camps imply participants' interactions during the activities, meaning that pre-pandemic enjoyable moments may now be a source of stress. Thus, strategies as ice-breaker activities should be implemented to develop group work and mutual aid and fun (Perron, 2016).
Another key finding among participants is that SFR and Fun positively influenced BI. The SFR-related findings confirm that this is a critical management aspect (Kim and Baker, 2020) even in sport child camps. Although service failures are inevitable at some point (Kim and Baker, 2020), its recovery is relevant to the organization's profitability because it affects retention. Additionally, despite event failures are a widespread and common phenomenon (Nordvall and Heldt, 2017), it is still an unexplored issue in sport-related literature. Thus, considering the SFR's influence on RI among participants, camp managers must continuously develop recovery strategies such as listing the most common and the rarest service failures, preparing a plan B for each potential failure (failures in food, activities, or facilities). Regarding Fun, its positive effect in participants' BI supports the idea that sport child camps must be planned to be a positive and fun environment (Barlas et al., 2011; Baker et al., 2019). From a managerial point of view, it is crucial to consider new and different sport activities (Blo-Ball; Hammerfield; 4D Soccer), paralympic sports (boccia, wheelchair tennis, seated volleyball) or the most enjoyed sport activities in the previous camp edition (i.e. requires surveying participants; Jones, 2005).
For parents, the positive effect of MCSQ, Staff, Food and CWPE on satisfaction were key results. MCSQ influenced both CSS and CCS, supporting the view that camp organizers should continuously implement operational and strategic measures to improve service delivery (Lewis et al., 2016) and thus favour parents' satisfaction. Likewise, Staff and Food showed a positive influence on parents' CSS, which adds to existing literature in other sport-related environments (e.g. spectator sports and fitness centres) that highlights these SQ attributes as important factors of consumer experiences (García-Fernández et al., 2018). On one hand, top-quality staff are vital for sport child camps (Dubin et al., 2020) because they are those who lead almost all sport activities (Walsh, 2011) and deal directly with participants, ensuring their safety (McCole et al., 2012). On other hand, sport child camps should be used as opportunities to influence children's positive eating habits (Tilley et al., 2014) fighting the weight-related problems among children, mainly during the summertime (Tilley et al., 2014). An implication for practice is that camp managers must maintain high-quality staff and provide participants with enough lunch options to ensure parents' satisfaction. Similarly, CWPE influenced parents CCS positively. Parents' CWPE in the context of our sport child camp occurred when they dropped-off their children in the morning and picked them up at afternoon, and these contacts seem to be favoured by what they saw. Our child sport camp took place in recently renovated sports facilities, with easy access, car parking, well signposted information, and in an environment which parents perceived the implemented preventive measures to COVID-19. This positive relationship between CWPE and CCS highlights the importance attributed by parents to the physical environment (Costa et al., 2004; Lehto et al., 2020). Contrarily to the hypothesized model, safety showed a negative influence on parents' CCS. Considering the COVID-19 measures implemented by the camp organization, perhaps parents have perceived that camp organizers were being too conservative, or that the sport nature of the camp has been changed, disturbing their children's fun; thus affecting their satisfaction. Further research may be necessary to better understand whether this negative relationship was mainly due to the pandemic-related preventive measures or if other aspects may play a role when assessing safety.
Another key result among parents is that MCSQ and Staff positively influenced BI. The MCSQ aims to assess the perception that parents have of the activities developed by camp organizers, and this seems to be pivotal when choosing to engage with the camp again in the future. Camp managers should continue to show parents that they are focused in improving camp's service quality, apply regular satisfaction questionnaires, and develop new camp services. Additionally, aspects such as staff friendliness and availability to help and listen participants seem to be essential for parents' BI of the camp. This supports previous sport consumer behaviour literature (e.g. Biscaia et al., 2021) describing SQ attributes such as interaction with staff as predictors of BI. This result also highlights that staff is determinant for the event's success (Dubin et al., 2020). Consistently, camp managers must continue to invest in improving staff quality since this is essential to retain parents. For example, prior camp staff experience is described as a good indicator of competency (Wahl-Alexander et al., 2017), but it is virtually impossible to always recruit experienced staff. Thus, camp managers must invest in regular training schemes to increase operational performance (Hogreve et al., 2017) and promote BI among parents. Also, sharing the results of parents and participants' questionnaires may contribute to staff behavioural improvements. Additionally, retained staff allows camp managers time and cost savings. This may improve program quality and contribute to nurturing relationships with participants (McCole et al., 2012) through more enjoyable experiences (Biscaia et al., 2021). But it is worth noting that sport child camps often struggle to retain staff (McCole et al., 2012); thus, camp managers should implement strategies such as allowing adequate time-off for self-care, reducing workload, enhancing teamwork, implementing mindfulness-based programs (Sousa et al., 2022), and showing to staff that their work is meaningful and impactful (e.g. staff recognition events) (Warner et al., 2021). Lastly, and considering the influence of staff on parents BI, camp managers could also work to extend staff diversity through partnerships with universities for the inclusion of medical/nursing (Vogt et al., 2011), pharmacy (Johnson, 2007) and social worker students (Williams et al., 2002).
Lastly, contrary to the hypothesized model, both parents and participants' satisfaction did not influence BI. Regarding participants, as in other child leisure activities (e.g. Schwab et al., 2010), their participation in camps is mainly decided by their parents (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005) meaning that satisfied participants may not return due to parents' decisions. For parents, this finding suggests that BI of the child sport camp may be decided by other factors such as participation logistics (e.g. rides), camp nature, location, and price. Therefore, it is essential to understand why participants and parents return to sport camps. Surveying consumers periodically is pivotal to examine why they choose one sport camp over another and why they decide to repeat the participation. This will provide useful insights to sport camp managers regarding consumer preferences, allowing to strengthen relationships with them and create competitive advantages, which in turn favour consumers' retention.
This study was driven by the need of capturing how both parents and participants evaluate child sport camps and offers new ideas to advance the management of these events. The evaluation of sport camp services may allow the improvement of the services (Costa et al., 2004), enabling camp managers to create attractive programs, understand the desires of consumers, satisfy them, and promote their return in future editions. This study represents an initial effort to aid camp managers at improving their practices and promote consumers' positive outcomes.
Limitations and future research
This study has limitations that should be acknowledged and considered in future endeavours. Firstly, the instrument may have been too long, particularly for participants, with some items of the questionnaires not being considered in the final model, which may have been caused by respondent fatigue or lack of motivation to employ sufficient cognitive efforts (Kock et al., 2021). Also, the factorial structure of the model was slightly different among parents and participants. Future studies should build on the final model of the current research and revise it to ensure consistency among the two groups. Also, shorter questionnaires can be applied (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012). In addition, despite recommendations for children's questionnaires were followed (Bell, 2007; Bird, 2009; Leeuw et al., 2004) including pre-tests and stressing that there are no right or wrong answers and there is always a risk of a social desirability bias among children participation in research studies.
Third, despite the model showing predictive validity, a considerable amount of the variance of satisfaction and BI remains to be explained. Thus, new variables such as organization's brand, price and camp location (Alexandris and Kouthouris, 2005; Omelan et al., 2018) could be included in future studies aiming to better understand the differences and similarities in satisfaction and BI in sport child camps among participants and parents.
Figures
Factor loading, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), correlation matrix, and squared correlations among constructs (participants)
| Construct | Factor loadings | CR | AVE | Correlation matrix | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||||
| 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.50 | ||||
| 1. Staff | 0.68–0.85 | 0.83 | 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 0.38 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.26 |
| 2. Contact with Physical Environment | 0.68–0.82 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.26 |
| 3. Contact with Other Participants | 0.72–0.81 | 0.96 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.70 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.12 |
| 4. Service Failures and Recovery | 0.66–0.81 | 0.78 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.38 |
| 5. Food | 0.74–0.82 | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.24 | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.22 |
| 6. Fun | 0.72–0.91 | 0.85 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.51 | 0.36 | 0.54 | 0.45 | 1.00 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.55 |
| 7. Safety | 0.61–0.97 | 0.81 | 0.69 | 0.35 | 0.51 | 0.44 | 0.46 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 1.00 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.17 |
| 8. Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.81–0.91 | 0.91 | 0.76 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.53* | 0.57** | 0.50 | 0.41* | 1.00 | 0.48 | 0.32 |
| 9. Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.84–0.97 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.37 | 0.47 | −0.28* | 0.55** | 0.55** | 0.52 | 0.43** | 0.69 | 1.00 | 0.30 |
| 10. Behavioural Intentions | 0.69–0.74 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.35 | 0.62* | 0.47 | 0.74** | 0.41 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 1.00 |
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Correlations reported in the lower triangle. Squared correlations depicted in the upper triangle; Model Fit [χ2(389) = 882.824 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.27, TLI = 0.88, CFI = 0.90, GFI = 0.82, RMSEA = 0.07]
Summary of the structural model (participants)
| Hypotheses | Path | Supported? | β |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | Partially | ||
| Staff → Complementary Services Satisfaction | −0.03 | ||
| Contact With Physical Environmental → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.06 | ||
| Contact With Other Participants → Complementary Services Satisfaction | −0.17 | ||
| Service Failures and Recovery → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.33* | ||
| Food → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.37** | ||
| Fun → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.14 | ||
| Safety → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.20** | ||
| H1b | Partially | ||
| Staff → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | −0.03 | ||
| Contact With Physical Environmental → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.06 | ||
| Contact With Other Participants → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | −0.24* | ||
| Service Failures and Recovery → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.39** | ||
| Food → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.33** | ||
| Fun → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.15 | ||
| Safety → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.25** | ||
| H3 | Partially | ||
| Staff → Behavioural Intentions | −0.05 | ||
| Contact With Physical Environmental → Behavioural Intentions | −0.05 | ||
| Contact With Other Participants → Behavioural Intentions | −0.09 | ||
| Service Failures and Recovery → Behavioural Intentions | 0.34* | ||
| Food → Behavioural Intentions | 0.05 | ||
| Fun → Behavioural Intentions | 0.53* | ||
| Safety → Behavioural Intentions | 0.16 | ||
| H5a | Complementary Services Satisfaction → Behavioural Intentions | No | 0.09 |
| H5b | Sport Child Camp Satisfaction → Behavioural Intentions | No | −0.01 |
| Explained variance | |
|---|---|
| Complementary Services Satisfaction | R2 = 0.53 |
| Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | R2 = 0.56 |
| Behavioural Intentions | R2 = 0.66 |
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; Model fit [χ2(358) = 753.090 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.1, TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.07]
Factor loading, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), correlation matrix, and squared correlations among constructs (parents)
| Construct | Factor loadings | CR | AVE | Correlation matrix | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||||
| 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 0.83 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.99 | 0.67 | 0.76 | 0.68 | ||||
| 1. Management Commitment to Service Quality | 0.77–0.87 | 0.89 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 0.72 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.16 | 0.50 | 0.15 | 0.48 | 0.38 | 0.59 | 0.66 |
| 2. Staff | 0.77–0.90 | 0.93 | 0.69 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.66 | 0.17 | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.58 | 0.64 |
| 3. Activities Program | 0.76–0.85 | 0.79 | 0.65 | 0.54 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.16 |
| 4. Contact with Physical Environment | 0.69–0.82 | 0.85 | 0.53 | 0.59 | 0.71 | 0.37 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.72 | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.25 |
| 5. Contact with other Participants | 0.87–0.94 | 0.95 | 0.83 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.27 | 0.65 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.05 |
| 6. Service Failures and Recovery | 0.78–0.85 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.81 | 0.36 | 0.85 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.16 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 0.40 |
| 7. Food | 0.74–0.92 | 0.88 | 0.71 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 0.19 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 0.13 | 0.62 | 0.14 | 0.24 |
| 8. Safety | 0.98–0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.69 | 0.66 | 0.29 | 0.54 | 0.26 | 0.57 | 0.36 | 1.00 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.36 |
| 9. Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.68–0.88 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.62* | 0.65* | 0.31 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 0.58 | 0.79** | 0.52 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 0.42 |
| 10. Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.81–0.91 | 0.90 | 0.76 | 0.77** | 0.76 | 0.55 | 0.62* | 0.38 | 0.66 | 0.38 | 0.50* | 0.67 | 1.00 | 0.49 |
| 11. Behavioural Intentions | 0.78–0.87 | 0.86 | 0.68 | 0.81* | 0.80* | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.23 | 0.63 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 1.00 |
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Correlations reported in the lower triangle. Squared correlations depicted in the upper triangle. Model Fit [χ2(600) = 1370.009 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.28, TLI = 0.89, CFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.77, RMSEA = 0.08]
Summary of the structural model (parents)
| Hypotheses | Path | Supported? | β |
|---|---|---|---|
| H2a | Partially | ||
| Management Commitment to Service Quality → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.25* | ||
| Staff → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.27* | ||
| Activities Program → Complementary Services Satisfaction | −0.08 | ||
| Contact With Physical Environmental → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.26 | ||
| Contact With Other Participants → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.02 | ||
| Service Failures and Recovery → Complementary Services Satisfaction | −0.26 | ||
| Food → Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.62** | ||
| Safety → Complementary Services Satisfaction | −0.02 | ||
| H2b | Partially | ||
| Management Commitment to Service Quality → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.56** | ||
| Staff → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.27 | ||
| Activities Program → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.11 | ||
| Contact With Physical Environmental → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.38** | ||
| Contact With Other Participants → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | −0.07 | ||
| Service Failures and Recovery → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | −0.20 | ||
| Food → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.14 | ||
| Safety → Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | −0.18* | ||
| H4 | Partially | ||
| Management Commitment to Service Quality → Behavioural Intentions | 0.41* | ||
| Staff → Behavioural Intentions | 0.38* | ||
| Activities Program → Behavioural Intentions | −0.08 | ||
| Contact With Physical Environmental → Behavioural Intentions | −0.16 | ||
| Contact With Other Participants → Behavioural Intentions | −0.10 | ||
| Service Failures and Recovery → Behavioural Intentions | 0.06 | ||
| Food → Behavioural Intentions | 0.05 | ||
| Safety → Behavioural Intentions | 0.02 | ||
| H6a | Complementary Services Satisfaction → Behavioural Intentions | No | 0.06 |
| H6b | Sport Child Camp Satisfaction → Behavioural Intentions | No | 0.14 |
| Explained variance | |
|---|---|
| Complementary Services Satisfaction | R2 = 0.82 |
| Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | R2 = 0.73 |
| Behavioural Intentions | R2 = 0.75 |
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; Model fit [χ2(601) = 1384.223 (p < 0.000), χ./df = 2.3, TLI = 0.89, CFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.77, RMSEA = 0.08]
Factor loadings, composite reliability (CR) and average variance (AVE) of the model (parents and participants)
| Constructs/Items | Participants | Parents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | Parents | Loading | CR | AVE | Loading | CR | AVE |
| Management Commitment to Service Quality | Management Commitment to Service Quality | – | – | 0.89 | 0.67 | ||
| The organization of the Sport Child Camp made sure that my son had fun | – | 0.768 | |||||
| The organization of the Sport Child Camp planned this event | – | 0.780 | |||||
| My son had fun along the Sport Child Camp | – | 0.869 | |||||
| My son was happy at the Sport Child Camp | – | 0.860 | |||||
| Staff | Staff | 0.83 | 0.55 | 0.93 | 0.69 | ||
| The staff were fast | The staff were available to help my son | 0.716 | 0.808 | ||||
| The staff always helped me | The staff treated my student with courtesy | 0.849 | 0.804 | ||||
| The staff were respectful | The staff allowed my son to do the activities according to their abilities | 0.681 | 0.845 | ||||
| The staff were understanding with me | The staff were understanding with my son | 0.713 | 0.905 | ||||
| The staff corrected the mistakes made by my son | – | 0.774 | |||||
| The communication from the Sport Child Camp organization to me, was taken care of | – | 0.844 | |||||
| Activities Program | Activities Program | 0.79 | 0.65 | ||||
| At the Sport Child Camp, my son was able to try new activities | 0.854 | ||||||
| At the Sport Child Camp, my son was able to meet new sport modalities | 0.762 | ||||||
| Contact with Physical Environment | Contact with Physical Environment | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.85 | 0.53 | ||
| The Sport Child Camp kept the facilities clean | The Sport Child Camp kept the facilities clean | 0.778 | 0.694 | ||||
| The Sport Child Camp had attractive facilities | The Sport Child Camp has had attractive facilities | 822 | 0.713 | ||||
| The Sport Child Camp had comfortable changing rooms | The Sport Child Camp had comfortable changing rooms | 0.680 | 0.685 | ||||
| The Sport Child Camp kept the W.C. clean | – | 0.705 | |||||
| The facilities and equipment always worked | 0.824 | ||||||
| Contact with other Participants | Contact with other Participants | 0.96 | 0.60 | 0.95 | 0.83 | ||
| The participants supported each other | The participants supported each other | 0.767 | 0.874 | ||||
| The participants gave each other constructive opinions | The participants gave each other constructive opinions | 0.811 | 0.936 | ||||
| The participants encouraged each other | The participants encouraged each other | 0.804 | 0.923 | ||||
| The participants worried about each other | The participants worried about each other | 0.723 | 0.915 | ||||
| Service Failures and Recovery | Service Failures and Recovery | 0.78 | 0.55 | 0.86 | 0.67 | ||
| Overall, there were no failures in the Sport Child Camp | Overall, there were no failures in the Sport Child Camp | 0.656 | 0.776 | ||||
| Overall, when there were failures, the problem was quickly resolved | Overall, when there were failures, the problem was quickly resolved | 0.807 | 0.836 | ||||
| Overall, the organization of the Sport Child Camp was able to predict the problems and made the necessary decisions to avoid them | Overall, the organization of the Sport Child Camp was able to predict the problems and made the necessary decisions to avoid them | 0.739 | 0.845 | ||||
| Food | Food | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.88 | 0.71 | ||
| The Sport Child Camp gave me a quality feed | The Sport Child Camp gave to my son a quality feed | 0.815 | 0.918 | ||||
| The Sport Child Camp gave me a variety of food | The Sport Child Camp gave to my son a variety of food | 0.741 | 0.854 | ||||
| The Sport Child Camp gave to my son a feed in the amount he needed | 0.738 | ||||||
| Fun | Fun | 0.85 | 0.65 | – | – | ||
| I had fun along the Sport Child Camp | – | 0.719 | – | ||||
| I was happy at the Sport Child Camp | – | 0.908 | – | ||||
| Overall, I enjoyed participating in the Sport Child Camp | – | 0.782 | – | ||||
| Safety | Safety | 0.81 | 0.69 | 0.99 | 0.99 | ||
| I felt safe staying at this Sport Child Camp, despite of COVID-19 | The organization complied with National Health Institution recommendations | 0.609 | 0.989 | ||||
| The organization complied with National Health Institution recommendations | The measures to prevent and control the COVID-19 virus were clear | 0.967 | 0.998 | ||||
| The staff were protected | 0.663 | ||||||
| Complementary Services Satisfaction | Complementary Services Satisfaction | 0.91 | 0.76 | 0.86 | 0.67 | ||
| I am satisfied with the other services (e.g. food, staff, facilities) that I experienced in this Sport Child Camp | I am satisfied with the other services (e.g. food, staff, facilities) that my son experienced in this Sport Child Camp | 0.902 | 0.875 | ||||
| I am happy with the other services (e.g. food, staff, facilities) that I experienced in this Sport Child Camp | I am happy with the other services (e.g. food, staff, facilities) that my son experienced in this Sport Child Camp | 0.912 | 0.879 | ||||
| I am fascinated by the other services (e.g. food, staff, facilities) that I experienced in this Sport Child Camp | I am fascinated by the other services (e.g. food, staff, facilities) that my son experienced in this Sport Child Camp | 0.805 | 0.680 | ||||
| Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | Sport Child Camp Satisfaction | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.76 | ||
| I am satisfied with program of activities of this Sport Child Camp | I am satisfied with program of activities of this Sport Child Camp | 0.861 | 0.887 | ||||
| I am happy with program of activities of this Sport Child Camp | I am happy with program of activities of this Sport Child Camp | 0.970 | 0.908 | ||||
| I am excited about this Sport Child Camp's program of activities | I am excited about this Sport Child Camp's program of activities | 0.838 | 0.813 | ||||
| Behavioural Intentions | Behavioural Intentions | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.86 | 0.68 | ||
| The probability that I will participate again in this Sport Child Camp is | The probability of my son will participate again in this Sport Child Camp is | 0.689 | 0.783 | ||||
| The probability that I would recommend Sport Child Camp to a friend is | The probability of me recommending this Sport Child Camp to a friend is | 0.704 | 0.820 | ||||
| If I could go back, the probability of choosing the same Sport Child Camp would be | If I could go back, the probability of me choosing the same Sport Child Camp would be | 0.738 | 0.866 | ||||
References
Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 27-58, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27.
Alexandris, K. and Kouthouris, C. (2005), “Personal incentives for participation in summer children's camps: investigating their relationships with satisfaction and loyalty”, Managing Leisure, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 39-53, doi: 10.1080/13606710500086751.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Baker, M., Fullagar, S. and O'Brien, W. (2019), “All in good fun: governing camp experiences through discourses of ‘good’and ‘fun’”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 260-273, doi: 10.1080/02614367.2018.1547417.
Barlas, A., Kouthouris, C., Kontogianni, E. and Boutselas, V. (2011), “Participation in children's adventure camps in Greece: relationships between incentives and loyalty”, Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 371-378, doi: 10.1080/13606710500086751.
Bell, A. (2007), “Designing and testing questionnaires for children”, Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 461-469, doi: 10.1177/174498710707961.
Bird, D.K. (2009), “The use of questionnaires for acquiring information on public perception of natural hazards and risk mitigation–a review of current knowledge and practice”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1307-1325, doi: 10.5194/nhess-9-1307-2009.
Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Yoshida, M., Rosado, A. and Marôco, J. (2013), “The role of service quality and ticket price on satisfaction and behavioral intentions within professional football”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 301-325, doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-14-04-2013-B004.
Biscaia, R., Yoshida, M. and Kim, Y. (2021), “Service quality and its effects on consumer outcomes: a meta-analytic review in spectator sport”, European Sport Management Quarterly. doi: 10.1080/16184742.2021.1938630.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82, doi: 10.2307/1251871.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. (2001), “Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 34-49, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.3.34.1833.
Bryson, J.M. (2004), “What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis techniques”, Public Management Review, Vol. 6, pp. 21-53, doi: 10.1080/14719030410001675722.
Byon, K.K., Zhang, J.J. and Baker, T.A. (2013), “Impact of core and peripheral service quality on consumption behavior of professional team sport spectators as mediated by perceived value”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 232-263, doi: 10.1080/16184742.2013.767278.
Calabuig, F., Núñez-Pomar, J., Prado-Gascó, V. and Añó, V. (2014), “Effect of price increases on future intentions of sport consumers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 729-733, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.035.
CDUP (n.d.), “Campos de Férias”, available at: https://cdup.up.pt/campos-de-ferias
Chang, K. and Chelladurai, P. (2003), “System-based quality dimensions in fitness services: development of the scale of quality”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 65-83, doi: 10.1080/02642060308565624.
Chavez, A.A., Duzinski, S.V., Wheeler, T.C. and Lawson, K.A. (2014), “Teaching safety at a summer camp: evaluation of a fire safety curriculum in an urban community setting”, Burns, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1172-1178, doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2013.12.006.
Costa, G., Tsitskari, E., Tzetzis, G. and Goudas, M. (2004), “The factors for evaluating service quality in athletic camps: a case study”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22-35, doi: 10.1080/16184740408737465.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environments”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2.
D'Haese, S., Van Dyck, D., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Cardon, G. and Deforche, B. (2015), “Organizing ‘Play Streets’ during school vacations can increase physical activity and decrease sedentary time in children”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0171-y.
Dias, C., Ferreira, A., Pereira, A.R. and Fonseca, A.M. (2019), “Examining the relationship between perceived service quality, satisfaction, and renewal intention in Portuguese fitness centers”, Revista de psicología del deporte, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 49-58.
Duan, Y., Liu, B. and He, Y. (2020), “Study on relationships among sports spectator motivations, satisfaction and behavioral intention: empirical evidence from Chinese marathon”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 409-425, doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-04-2018-0034.
Dubin, A., Garst, B.A., Gaslin, T. and Schultz, B.E. (2020), “Workplace fatigue within summer camp: perspectives from camp health care providers and directors”, Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 71-87, doi: 10.1177/1053825919869367.
Ezpeleta, L., Navarro, J.B., Osa, N., Trepat, E. and Penelo, E. (2020), “Life conditions during COVID-19 lockdown and mental health in Spanish adolescents”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 19, p. 7327, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197327.
Ferreira, A., Dias, C. and Fonseca, A.M. (2015), “Adaptation of quality, satisfaction and loyalty assessment instruments to the Portuguese population”, Revista Portuguesa de Ciências do Desporto, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-63.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi: 10.2307/3151312.
Franchini, C., Rosi, A., Ricci, C. and Scazzina, F. (2021), “The EnergyKids pilot study: comparing energy balance of primary school children during school and summer camp”, Nutrients, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.3390/nu13010092.
García-Fernández, J., Gálvez-Ruíz, P., Pitts, B.G., Vélez-Colón, L. and Bernal-García, A. (2018), “Consumer behaviour and sport services: an examination of fitness centre loyalty”, International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 1-2, pp. 8-23, doi: 10.1504/IJSMM.2017.10012384.
Gaslin, T. (2013), “The duality of communication: information sharing between parent and camp”, Camping Magazine, Vol. Jan/Feb, pp. 31-34.
Hair, J.F., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Black, W.C. (2018), Multivariate Data Analyses, 8th ed., Cengage India, Andover.
Hassan, L.M., Shiu, E. and Shaw, D. (2016), “Who says there is an intention–behaviour gap? Assessing the empirical evidence of an intention–behaviour gap in ethical consumption”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 136 No. 2, pp. 219-236, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0.
Henderson, K.A., Whitaker, L.S., Bialeschki, M.D., Scanlin, M.M. and Thurber, C. (2007), “Summer camp experiences: parental perceptions of youth development outcomes”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 987-1007, doi: 10.1177/0192513X07301428.
Hogreve, J., Iseke, A., Derfuss, K. and Eller, T. (2017), “The service-profit chain: a meta-analytic test of a comprehensive theoretical framework”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 41-61, doi: 10.1509/jm.15.0395.
Hume, M. (2008), “Understanding core and peripheral service quality in customer repurchase of the performing arts”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 349-369, doi: 10.1108/09604520810885608.
Jago, R. and Baranowski, T. (2004), “Non-curricular approaches for increasing physical activity in youth: a review”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 157-163.
Jefferies, S. (2005), “Promote healthy and active lifestyles: organize a physical education summer camp”, Strategies, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 26-28, doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.014.
Jiao, W.Y., Wang, L.N., Liu, J., Fang, S.F., Jiao, F.Y., Pettoello-Mantovani, M. and Somekh, E. (2020), “Behavioral and emotional disorders in children during the COVID-19 epidemic”, The Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 221, pp. 264-266, doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.03.013.
Johnson, J.F. (2007), “A diabetes camp as the service-learning capstone experience in a diabetes concentration”, American Journal of Pharmacy Education, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.5688/aj7106119.
Jones, R. (2005), “What do children most enjoy about summer soccer camp? Gender and group perceptions”, Physical Educator, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 2-13, doi: 10.1080/1740898020070105.
Kennedy, E.L., Lee, R.M., Brooks, C.J., Cradock, A.L. and Gortmaker, S.L. (2017), “What do children eat in the summer? A direct observation of summer day camps that serve meals”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 117 No. 7, pp. 1097-1103, doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.01.026.
Kharouf, H., Biscaia, R., Garcia-Perez, A. and Hickman, E. (2020), “Understanding online event experience: the importance of communication, engagement and interaction”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 121, pp. 735-746, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.037.
Kim, K. and Baker, M.A. (2020), “Paying it forward: the influence of other customer service recovery on future co-creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 121, pp. 604-615, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.015.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford-Press, New-York.
Klunk, A., Holloway, R., Babaoff, A. and Jelin, E.B. (2021), “Rapid return to normal activities at a residential summer camp during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 2, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1007/s10389-021-01597-9.
Kock, F., Berbekova, A. and Assaf, A.G. (2021), “Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: detection, prevention and control”, Tourism Management, Vol. 86, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330.
Kotíková, H. and Kotíková, E. (2016), “Children's camps as a tourism product: a case study”, Czech Journal of Tourism, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 189-202, doi: 10.1515/cjot-2016-0011.
Kwok, L., Fowler, D.C. and Yuan, J. (2010), “Summer camps as a means to recruit prospective college students”, Event Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 149-156, doi: 10.3727/152599510X12766070301000.
Leoni, E., Cencetti, G., Santin, G., Istomin, T., Molteni, D., Picco, G.P., Farella, E., Lepri, B. and Murphy, A.L. (2022), “Measuring close proximity interactions in summer camps during the COVID-19 pandemic”, EPJ Data Science, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Lacanienta, A., Ellis, G., Taggart, A., Wilder, J. and Carroll, M. (2018), “Does theming camp experiences lead to greater quality, satisfaction, and promotion?”, Journal of Youth Development, Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 216-239, doi: 10.5195/jyd.2018.535.
Lee, J., Graefe, A.R. and Burns, R.C. (2004), “Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intention among forest visitors”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-82, doi: 10.1300/J073v17n01_05.
Lee, S., Lee, H., Seo, W. and Green, C. (2012), “A new approach to stadium experience: the dynamics of the sensoryscape, social interaction, and sense of home”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 490-505, doi: 10.1123/jsm.26.6.490.
Leeuw, E., Borgers, N. and Smits, A. (2004), “Pretesting questionnaires for children and adolescents”, in Presser, S., Rothgeb, J.M., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., Martin, J. and Singer, E. (Eds), Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, John-Wiley & Sons, NJ, pp. 409-429, doi: 10.1002/0471654728.ch20.
Lehto, X.Y., Fu, X.X., Kirillova, K. and Bi, C. (2020), “What do parents look for in an overseas youth summer camp? Perspectives of Chinese parents”, Journal of China Tourism Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 96-117, doi: 10.1080/19388160.2017.1410508.
Lewis, B.R., Reid, I. and Bamford, D. (2016), “Managing service quality”, Managing Quality 6e: An Essential Guide and Resource Gateway, John-Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, pp. 119-139, doi: 10.1002/9781119302735.ch6.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001.
Mahoney, J.L. (2011), “Adolescent summer care arrangements and risk for obesity the following school year”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 737-749, doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.08.010.
Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2012), “A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships”, Management Decision, Vol. 50, pp. 1861-1879, doi: 10.1108/00251741211279648.
Marôco, J. (2021), Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, sofware e aplicações, ReportNumber, 3rd ed., Pêro-Pinheiro.
Martín, J.C., Román, C. and Espino, R. (2011), “Evaluating frequent flyer programs from the air passengers' perspective”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 364-368, doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2011.02.008.
McCole, D., Jacobs, J., Lindley, B. and McAvoy, L. (2012), “The relationship between seasonal employee retention and sense of community: the case of summer camp employment”, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 85-101, doi: 10.1177/0047287513513169.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Sparks, B.A. (2003), “Application of fairness theory to service failures and service recovery”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 251-266, doi: 10.1177/1094670502238918.
Miller, R.T. and Barth, B.E. (2016), “Health supply utilization at a boy scout summer camp: an evaluation for improvement and preparedness”, Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 482-491, doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2016.09.004.
Monk, S. and Deutsch, J. (2016), “How to run a sports camp: legally speaking”, Journal of Human Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 2068-2071, doi: 10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3598.
Nachman, S., Brauner, G., Beleck, A. and Handel, A.S. (2021), “Day camp in the time of COVID-19: what went right?”, medRxiv, doi: 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253309.
Nordvall, A. and Heldt, T. (2017), “Understanding hallmark event failure: a case study of a Swedish music festival”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 172-185, doi: 10.1108/IJEFM-11-2015-0043.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4 suppl 1, pp. 33-44, doi: 10.2307/1252099.
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. and Varki, S. (1997), “Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial insight”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 311-336, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90021-X.
Omelan, A.A., Bres, B., Raczkowski, M., Podstawski, R., Polgár, T. and Koltai, M. (2018), “Summer camps from the perspective of participants and organisers”, Polish Journal of Sport and Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 33-38, doi: 10.2478/pjst-2018-0025.
Perneger, T.V., Courvoisier, D.S., Hudelson, P.M. and Gayet-Ageron, A. (2015), “Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires”, Quality of Life Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 147-151, doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0752-2.
Perron, K. (2016), “Camps aren’t just for kids: the power of group work as an adult at IASWG group work camp”, Groupwork, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 121-128.
Roberts, J.D., Rodkey, L., Ray, R., Knight, B. and Saelens, B.E. (2017), “Electronic media time and sedentary behaviors in children: findings from the built environment and active play study in the Washington DC area”, Preventive Medicine Reports, Vol. 6, pp. 149-156, doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.02.021.
Schwab, K.A., Wells, M.S. and Arthur-Banning, S. (2010), “Experiences in youth sports: a comparison between players' and parents' perspectives”, Journal of Applied Sport Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-51, available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/jasm/vol2/iss1/6
Seifried, C. (2007), “Organizing your summer parent-child sports camps”, Coach and Athletic Director, Vol. 76 No. 10, pp. 28-32.
Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (2002), “The effect of customers’ emotional responses to service failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 5-23, doi: 10.1177/03079450094298.
Sousa, M., Gonçalves, C., Biscaia, R. and Carvalho, M.J. (2022), “Management of Child Camps: a structured literature review and new directions”, Movimento, Vol. 28, e28041, doi: 10.22456/1982-8918.123548.
Tilley, F., Weaver, R.G., Beets, M.W. and Turner-McGrievy, G. (2014), “Healthy eating in summer day camps: the healthy lunchbox challenge”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 134-141, doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.11.008.
Tovar, A., Lividini, K., Economos, C.D., Folta, S., Goldberg, J. and Must, A. (2010), “School's out: what are urban children doing? The Summer Activity Study of Somerville Youth (SASSY)”, BMC Pediatrics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-10-16.
Tsuji, Y., Bennett, G. and Zhang, J.J. (2007), “Consumer satisfaction with action sports event”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 199-208.
Vogt, M.A., Chavez, R. and Schaffner, B. (2011), “Baccalaureate nursing student experiences at a camp for children with diabetes: the impact of a service-learning model”, Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 69-73.
Wahl-Alexander, Z., Richards, K.A. and Washburn, N. (2017), “Changes in perceived burnout among camp staff across the summer camp season”, Journal of Park and Recreations Administration, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 74-85, doi: 10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I2-7417.
Walsh, D. (2011), “Strategies for developing a university-sponsored youth sports summer camp”, The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Vol. 82 No. 9, pp. 24-50, doi: 10.1080/07303084.2011.10598689.
Walsh, D.W., Green, B.C. and Cottingham, M. (2017), “Exploring the efficacy of youth sport camps to build customer relationships”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 657-669, doi: 10.1080/02614367.2016.1240222.
Warner, R.P., Godwin, M. and Hodge, C.J. (2021), “Seasonal summer camp staff experiences: a scoping review”, Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 1, doi: 10.18666/JOREL-2021-V13-I1-10535.
Weaver, R.G., Beets, M.W., Turner-McGrievy, G., Webster, C.A. and Moore, J. (2014), “Effects of a competency-based professional development training on children's physical activity and staff physical activity promotion in summer day camps”, New Directions and Youth Development, Vol. 143, pp. 57-78, doi: 10.1002/yd.20104.
Williams, N.R., King, M. and Koob, J.J. (2002), “Social work students go to camp: the effects of service learning on perceived self-efficacy”, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Vol. 22 Nos 3-4, pp. 55-70, doi: 10.1300/J067v22n03_05.
Wycoff, T.M. (2021), “Emergent camp trends”, Camping Magazine, Vols March-April, pp. 38-43.
Yoshida, M. and James, J.D. (2010), “Customer satisfaction with game and service experiences: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 338-361, doi: 10.1123/jsm.24.3.338.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2003), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New-York.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zhang, J.C., Byon, K.K., Xu, K. and Huang, H. (2020), “Event impacts associated with residents' satisfaction and behavioral intentions: a pre-post study of the Nanjing Youth Olympic Games”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 487-511, doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-03-2019-0027.