EQOL Journal (2018) 10(2):
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Fitness- and Healthcenter evaluation by resigned members
Georgios Zarotis 1✉
Received: 10th June, 2018 |
DOI: 10.31382/eqol.181205 |
Accepted: 23rd July, 2018 |
|
© The Author(s) 2018. This article is published with open access. |
|
Abstract
The aim of the study is to examine if and to what extent the evaluations of fitness studios by persons who have recently resigned from their membership are related to general studio conditions such as studio atmosphere, facilities, trainer’s competence and other features. In other words, the question is whether there are typical prioritizations on positive or negative evaluations by dropouts from fitness sport. In the survey a total of 225 people, who had quitted their membership in the past, were questioned in a telephone inquiry. The study was conducted in a
The data show that the various evaluation aspects were clearly assessed differently by the respondents, and that there was apparently little generalized information on the studio evaluation.
✉zarotisg@rhodes.aegean.gr
1University of the Aegean, Faculty of Human Sciences, Rhodes, Greece
Keywords
members
Introduction
In the statistical analyses presented here, we examine the evaluations of a fitness studio by persons who have just given up the activity in this sports facility. We examine the question as to which are the characteristics of the individual evaluation aspects by dropouts. Furthermore, we examine the extent to which these evaluations differ from one another. Thus, we aim to answer the question whether there are typical prioritizations on positive or negative evaluations by dropouts from fitness sport.
For many years the number of fitness clubs is almost stagnating. The fitness line is also marked by an annual fluctuation of total membership numbers. High customer fluctuation, however, significantly complicate
Brehm and Eberhardt (1995) questioned fitness studio members about their reasons for quitting training because they had not renewed their contract. The major reason for quitting the activity
39
EQOL Journal (2018) 10(2):
was the “lack of fun in the sporting activities”. Also important for the quitting decision were “motivation problems” (e.g., laziness), “lack of time” (often due to heavy workload) and “financial reasons” (too expensive membership fees). In response to an open question about the specific quitting reasons, the members criticized the “studio atmosphere” (too impersonal) as well as the “lack of social support” (e.g. no contact with other members, partner has quit the training, etc.) and also the “high membership costs” (e.g. for additional services like childcare) were viewed critically. This shows that quitting a sports program always depends on personal as well as situational characteristics (Rampf, 1999). Although it is possible to identify specific reasons which finally lead to dropping out, the participation behavior is affected by a complex factor structure.
Dishman (1982, 1998) several times remarks critically on the
Method
A total of 225 people, who had terminated their contract in the past, were questioned by a telephone inquiry about their decision. The advantages of the telephone survey are the low cost per interview, the possibility of responding to queries and the high external validity (Homburg & Krohmer, 2008).
The study was conducted in a
The persons were asked about the importance of different reasons for their decision to leave the gym. They were asked to rank the importance of each of
40
these 19 reasons for leaving in a
In most of the questionnaire items there were no response refusals, so that in 14 of the 19 questionnaires there are valid values even N = 225. In three items there was a missing value, i.e. a person refused to respond, in one item there were 2 missing values and in another item 3 missing values.
In the data analysis, the sample characteristics are initially described in terms of “gender distribution”, “age” (in years and in age categories) and “duration of membership in the studio”. Respondents’ age data were divided into the following four age categories:
Age category 1 |
Respondents |
up to |
25 |
years old |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age category 2 |
Respondents |
between |
26 |
and 40 years old |
|
||
|
|
||
Age category 3 |
Respondents |
between |
41 |
and 55 years old |
|
||
|
|
||
Age category 4 |
Respondents |
from |
56 |
years old and over |
|
||
|
|
The 19 studio evaluations are described descriptively on the basis of the distribution characteristic values: mean, median and standard deviation.
A variance analysis with measurement repetition factor is calculated to ensure the inferential statistic of the differences between studio evaluations. The variance analysis checks the empirical data of the sample against the null hypothesis that in total all evaluation aspects basically have the same central tendency.
It is, of course, to be expected that the sample data will contradict this null hypothesis, since the assumption that all studio evaluations are in fact the same is really not plausible. The variance analysis initially provides only an "Overall"
EQOL Journal (2018) 10(2):
More important than the question of whether there is any difference between the quitting reasons, is the question of which evaluations are comparatively particularly positive or negative.
For this purpose, one could theoretically make full pairwise individual comparisons. However, this is impractical for two reasons:
The number of required pairwise individual comparisons is 171 (18 + 17 + 16 + ... + 2 3 + 1) individual comparisons. This is very unclear because of the variety of the individual results.
In this variety of individual comparisons via T- tests for connected samples, the problem of
Table 1. Sample distribution characteristic values
Instead, each mean value of the 19 justifications is tested as regards to significance against the overall mean value of all 19 justifications. One sample
Results
The sample consists of almost ¾ of female respondents and ¼ of male respondents. The age range is between 16 and 74 years with a respondents’ mean age of 43.5 years and a distribution of 13.0 years. In the age categories mentioned, most respondents (42.9%) are in age category 3 and a further 31.3% is in age category 2. Very young respondents represent only 9% of the respondents and respondents over 55 years 17% of the respondents. Contract terminations were made on average after 4.4 years of membership, with a very large distribution (standard deviation) of 3.8.
|
|
N |
% |
M |
Median |
SD |
N |
Gender |
Female |
164 |
72.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
61 |
27.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
225 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
|
43.5 |
43.0 |
13.0 |
224 |
Membership duration (years) |
|
|
|
4.4 |
3.0 |
3.8 |
225 |
Age categories |
up to 25 years |
20 |
8.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
31.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
42.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
>55 years |
38 |
17.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
224 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
41
EQOL Journal (2018) 10(2):
Table 2 shows the mean value, median and standard deviation of the 19 studio evaluations.
Table 2. Mean, median and distribution of the studio evaluations
Variable |
|
N = 224 |
|
|
M |
Median |
SD |
||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Studio location |
1.7 |
2.0 |
0.7 |
|
Parking facilities |
2.0 |
2.0 |
0.9 |
|
First impression |
1.5 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
|
Opening hours |
1.4 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
|
Studio atmosphere |
1.7 |
2.0 |
0.7 |
|
Trial training |
1.5 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
|
Membership costs |
2.5 |
2.0 |
0.8 |
|
Strength training offer |
1.9 |
2.0 |
0.5 |
|
Endurance training offer |
1.9 |
2.0 |
0.5 |
|
Spaciousness |
2.3 |
2.0 |
0.7 |
|
Music |
2.3 |
2.0 |
0.6 |
|
Light |
1.8 |
2.0 |
0.6 |
|
Ventilation |
2.2 |
2.0 |
0.6 |
|
Locker rooms |
2.1 |
2.0 |
0.6 |
|
Sanitary facilities |
2.0 |
2.0 |
0.5 |
|
Gastronomy |
2.0 |
2.0 |
0.4 |
|
Trainer’s friendliness |
1.3 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
|
Trainer’s helpfulness |
1.3 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
|
Trainer’s competence |
1.3 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Among all 19 studio evaluations occurs in the sample a mean evaluation of 1,821 (SD: 0.318).
Table 3 shows the different values that result when the significance of each individual reason in the
sample is compared to the mean of the significance of all reasons. This corresponds to the distance between the blue bars and the red line in Figure 1.
Table 3. Mean value of each evaluation in relation to the overall mean value of all evaluations
|
|
Mean value |
Difference |
|
Evaluation aspects |
M |
of all |
||
value |
||||
|
|
Evaluations |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Studio location |
1.7 |
1.8 |
||
Parking facilities |
2 |
1.8 |
0.2 |
|
First impression |
1.5 |
1.8 |
||
Opening hours |
1.4 |
1.8 |
||
Studio atmosphere |
1.7 |
1.8 |
||
Trial training |
1.5 |
1.8 |
||
Membership costs |
2.5 |
1.8 |
0.7 |
|
Strength training offer |
1.9 |
1.8 |
0.1 |
|
Endurance training |
1.9 |
1.8 |
0.1 |
|
Spaciousness |
2.3 |
1.8 |
0.5 |
|
Music |
2.3 |
1.8 |
0.5 |
|
Light |
1.8 |
1.8 |
0.0 |
|
Ventilation |
2.2 |
1.8 |
0.4 |
|
Locker rooms |
2.1 |
1.8 |
0.3 |
|
Sanitary facilities |
2 |
1.8 |
0.2 |
|
Gastronomy |
2 |
1.8 |
0.2 |
|
Trainer’s friendliness |
1.3 |
1.8 |
||
Trainer’s helpfulness |
1.3 |
1.8 |
||
Trainer’s competence |
1.3 |
1.8 |
Figure 1. Difference values of the individual studio evaluations in relation to the total mean value
42
EQOL Journal (2018) 10(2):
As expected, the variance analysis with measurement repeat factor gives a highly significant effect with p < .001 (F: 67,769; df: 18/203) for N = 221 cases with valid values in all 19 items. So initially it proved particularly significant, that not all evaluations are the same and that the evaluations’ differences are not a mere random variation of this specific sample selection. This result was to be expected, however, since a complete similarity of all the evaluations would not be very plausible.
The extremely high variance clarification (partial Eta squared) of 857 appears to be more important in this result. This means that 85.7% of the total variance in all evaluation aspects can be derived from the fact
that different questionnaires are available. Only 15% of the total variance is attributable to differences between the respondents within the same evaluation aspect. Thus, the respondents of the sample answered very homogeneously as regards to the individual evaluation aspects and are quite differentiated between the different evaluation aspects.
Table 4 shows the results of the significance test using
Table 4. Significance of the deviations of the mean values of the studio evaluation from the total mean value of all evaluations
|
|
Test value = 1.821 |
|
|
||
Variable |
|
|
|
Mean |
||
t |
df |
Sig. |
value |
|||
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
difference |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Studio location |
223 |
0.017 |
|
|||
Parking facilities |
3.593 |
223 |
0.000 |
0.206 |
|
|
First impression |
222 |
0.000 |
|
|||
Opening hours |
223 |
0.000 |
|
|||
Studio atmosphere |
223 |
0.001 |
|
|||
Trial training |
223 |
0.000 |
|
|||
Membership costs |
12.170 |
223 |
0.000 |
0.639 |
|
|
Strength training offer |
2.308 |
223 |
0.022 |
0.076 |
|
|
Endurance training offer |
1.555 |
222 |
0.121 |
0.053 |
|
|
Spaciousness |
10.401 |
223 |
0.000 |
0.465 |
|
|
Music |
10.798 |
223 |
0.000 |
0.433 |
|
|
Light |
222 |
0.635 |
|
|||
Ventilation |
9.590 |
222 |
0.000 |
0.394 |
|
|
Locker rooms |
7.210 |
223 |
0.000 |
0.277 |
|
|
Sanitary facilities |
5.849 |
223 |
0.000 |
0.206 |
|
|
Gastronomy |
6.643 |
223 |
0.000 |
0.188 |
|
|
Trainer’s friendliness |
223 |
0.000 |
|
|||
Trainer’s helpfulness |
223 |
0.000 |
|
|||
Trainer’s competence |
223 |
0.000 |
|
It seems that the mean values of 17 out of the 19 evaluations differ significantly from the overall mean value of all studio evaluations. In 15 of the 19 tests, the results are significant at the 0.1% level, in two cases (studio location and strength training offer) significant at the 5% level. The mean evaluation of the lighting conditions in the studio is clearly not different from the overall mean value.
The results confirm that the individual aspects of the studio evaluation were actually evaluated independently by the interviewees and are not the expression of a generalized evaluation of the studio.
Discussion
In general, the mean values of the evaluations vary between 1.3 and 2.5, i.e. all are consistently in the positive evaluation range of the scale. Most items are a little below or slightly above the value of 2, which is “good”.
Clearly, the best scores are found in the last three items, in which the studio trainers are evaluated. Also, the items opening hours, trial training and first impression are in the mean value closer to the evaluation level “very good” than at the evaluation
43
EQOL Journal (2018) 10(2):
level “good”. The - relatively speaking - worst ratings appear at the features of membership costs, spaciousness, music and ventilation (Brehm & Eberhardt, 1995, Rampf, 1999).
A concentration of negative aspects in terms of training, will over time lead to an abandonment of the activity. Overall these results confirm the assumption that
It is important that the customer feels comfortable in the training area and in all other parts of the fitness- club. Comfortable feelings are for example guaranteed by not crowding the training area with training equipment. Sufficient space for movement during training, facilitates a positive training experience. Background music also creates a positive atmosphere. Sufficient ventilation is of special significance in that regard (Rampf, 1999).
In the research made by Rampf (1999) it becomes also evident that 19 % of the respondent group stated “too high cost for membership” as the main single reason for quitting the sports program. However, the real amount of cost is not the actual problem but rather the negative cost/benefit balance.
There is also evidence in other studies that financial aspects of dropout play an important role. In the survey by Breuer et al. (2013) even 45.1% of the 149 respondents cite as a reason "membership costs", which is why they discontinue fitness training.
Financial aspects are also mentioned in a study by the IHRSA (2012) as main arguments for the termination of membership in a fitness club. 52.2% of the 1,000 respondents surveyed said they were no longer able to afford their membership or rated them as expensive. Therefore, in future work, the collection of the income should be considered in order to assess its impact on the dropout.
The significance test shows, on one side, that the studio conditions were indeed evaluated very differently, and that a kind of generalized "mind set" is hardly reflected in the evaluation. How an evaluation is made largely depends on the specific evaluation aspect and only on a much lesser scale on personality differences.
With one exception, each evaluation is different as regards to significance, thus differentiated, from the basic trend over all studio evaluations.
44
Conclusions
On the whole, the various aspects of the studio offer and its surroundings were largely rated as "good". The respondents appreciated particularly the coaches (friendliness, helpfulness, competence), followed by opening hours, trial training and the first impression. The membership costs and individual aspects such as space, music and ventilation are assessed more critically, if not really badly.
The data show that the various evaluation aspects were clearly assessed differently by the respondents, and that there was apparently little generalized information on the studio evaluation.
References
Brehm, W., & Eberhardt, J. (1995).
Breuer, C., Wicker, P., & Nagel, N. (2013). A time- economic analysis of fitness training. Cologne: German Sport University Cologne, Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management.
Dishman, R. K. (1982). Compliance/Adherence in Health- Related Exercise. Healthy Psychology, 1,
Dishman, R. K. (1998). Exercise Adherence – Its Impact on Public Health. Champaign: Human Kinetics Books.
Homburg, Ch., & Krohmer, H. (2008). The process of market research: definition of data collection, sample formation and questionnaire design. In Herrmann, A., Homburg, Ch., Klarmann, M., Handbook Market Research (3rd Edition)
IHRSA. (2012). Why did you leave / quit your former health club?In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved
January05,2015, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/246978/reason
Rampf, J. (1999).
Zarotis, G. (1999). Goal
Zarotis, G., & Tokarski, W. (2005).
Zarotis, G., Athanailidis, I., Arvanitidou, V., & Mourtzios, C. (2017).
Zarotis, G., Athanailidis, I., Arvanitidou, V., & Mourtzios,
C.(2017).
|
EQOL Journal (2018) 10(2): |
Zarotis, G., Athanailidis, I., Tosunidis, A., & |
Sport. Comparing the general relevance of Reasons for |
Mastrogiannopoulos N. (2017). |
quitting. Trends in Sport Sciences, 24(4), |
How to cite this article:
Zarotis, G. (2018). Fitness- and Healthcenter evaluation by
APA:resigned members. Exercise and Quality of Life, 10(2),
Zarotis, Georgios. "Fitness- and Healthcenter evaluation by
MLA: resigned members." Exercise and Quality of Life 10.2 (2018): 39- 45.
Zarotis, Georgios. "Fitness- and Healthcenter evaluation by
Chicago: resigned members." Exercise and Quality of Life 10, no. 2 (2018):
45