Nicolás Fernández Martínez1
Pablo Gálvez-Ruiz
Alejandro Lara-Bocanegra- 1Cardenal Spínola CEU University Studies Center, Sevilla, Spain
- 2Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, Valencian International University, Valencia, Spain
- 3Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain
Introduction: Padel is currently an emerging sport that has experienced significant growth, enjoying popularity and widespread accessibility among the population. However, the padel context lacks a tool to assess the perceived quality of users in padel facilities and sports services. This study aims to adapt and validate an evaluation tool based on a literature review.
Methods: The sample included 402 users (298 men and 104 women, predominantly a frequency of play of 1–2 days a week for 1–2 h) from clubs across the Andalusian Autonomous Community (South of Spain). Psychometric properties were evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency through Cronbach's Alpha indicator and composite reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity, using the statistical software SPSS (v.22).
Results: The findings demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in various analyses (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis), showing both internal consistency and validity (convergent and discriminant).
Discussion: The QPadel tool represents a significant contribution and advancement in the academic literature, with potential positive impacts on decision-making for improving padel facilities and services, as well as enhancing competitiveness.
1 Introduction
Padel stands out as one of the emerging sports, experiencing unprecedented growth in recent years, both in terms of participants and the number of facilities. Its popularity is so high that the number of padel players surpasses that of tennis players in countries like Spain, Sweden, and Portugal. Notably, there has been an increase in participation, international expansion of padel infrastructure, and its growing economic importance (1).
The consolidation of padel as a sport of growing popularity and accessibility in various social contexts can be attributed to multiple factors that favour its practice and dissemination: easy to learn, suitable for different ages, gender, abilities or physical condition, or economic access to practice facilitating its democratization. In addition, it encourages the friendship or peer group factor, satisfaction or fun (2), social engagement and interaction among participants, promoting values of cooperation and mutual respect. The combination of these factors contributes significantly to the rise and consolidation of padel in today's sporting landscape (3).
The increase in the number of people interested in padel comes both from the players themselves and from those attending sporting events related to the sport (4). In Spain, López (5) indicated that it is the sport with the greatest development in the last 23 years with a growth of 1,947.41%, more specifically 20% in the last 10 years according Courel-Ibáñez et al. (6), being also the country with the highest number of padel clubs between 2019 and 2021 with a growth of 11%, experiencing the highest Google search for the word padel (1). This situation is transferred to the evolution of the number of licences, whose evolution since 2012 has shown a permanent growth experiencing its hatching in the post-pandemic period thanks to the fact that its practice takes place, mostly, in outdoor facilities. It has gone from 75 thousand licenses in 2020 to over 90 thousand in 2021 (7). In terms of padel facilities, Spain is the country with the highest number of courts in the world (15,300), with 279 million euros spent on the construction of courts in the last two years (1). All these data indicate that padel is one of the most emerging and fastest-growing sports of the 21st century (8).
The evolution experienced in the practice of padel and its economic impact are indicative of the importance of adapting and continuously improving the quality of the services offered. In fact, this impact of padel has focused the attention of the scientific community with recent studies aimed at analysing variables that affect the game and/or players,. however there is a significant lack in the academic literature of studies oriented to the evaluation of the perception of padel users or players on quality, despite its extensive analysis in a variety of sports organisations as a result of the importance of its study as a starting point to achieve satisfaction and future behavioural intention.
Service quality starts from the satisfaction of expectations, i.e., from the comparison of expectations with the service they perceive they have received (9, 10), and has been a widely analysed construct in the sport industry and specifically in sport services [e.g., (11–14)]. In the context of padel and in the face of the latent emerging demand for associated sport services, it is not an easy task to provide satisfactory and high quality services to all customers (15). In this way, knowing which attributes padel users consider most relevant is decisive for an adequate quality management within the service provision process. In this sense, the validation of quality assessment tools specific to padel becomes a critical resource for measuring and improving the user experience (16).
However, there has been an increase in scientific research whose main focus is on areas such as performance analysis, psychology and physiology, while sport management occupies a less prominent place in the literature as reflected in the systematic review by Sánchez-Alcaraz et al. (17). Specifically, research oriented towards sport management aims to analyse the evolution of federal licences (3, 8), an analysis of the World Padel Tour in terms of expenditure per attendee (18) and the cost-benefit of its organisation (19), the standardisation of facilities (20), the viability of padel centres for the development of business plans (21), and a study on user satisfaction (22), which is the most relevant to the present research, involving two padel clubs and a sample of 36 participants. Therefore, we consider that there is a notable lack of research aimed at assessing the perception of padel users, and in parallel this situation suggests a potential opportunity for the validation of instruments that allow the assessment of constructs as relevant as perceived quality in this specific context. In this way, achieving high levels of quality in service provision is considered one of the indispensable requirements when it comes to obtaining adequate competitiveness and viability in organisations, and for because of this it is necessary to pay attention to all the components surrounding the service in order to achieve the greatest possible homogeneity in them (23).
In this context, perceived quality in sport services emerges as a fundamental concept within the interaction that takes place between organisations and their users, being fundamental for the success of organisations and the loyalty of their customers (24), as well as for the increase of competitiveness (25). Within this relationship, the theory of perceived quality suggests that consumers evaluate the quality of a service based on the discrepancy between their prior expectations (or expected service) and their actual perception of the service received (the way it has been performed) (9, 26, 27). Based on this, the two main models are founded on a technical or result dimension and a functional or process dimension (9). On the other hand, series of attributes or dimensions such as tangible elements, reliability, responsiveness, safety and empathy (27), give rise in this second case to one of the most widely used tools (SERVQUAL). This tool has been reconfigured, tested and modified to be useful for measuring customer perceptions in a variety of industries (28) despite the various criticisms received for its lack of specificity or universal applicability (29–32) and even for psychometric aspects (33). This is why the best system is one that is generated or adapted to each organisation according to its characteristics and needs (23).
Perceived quality is currently still the subject of research in various sectors. Specifically in the sport industry and especially in sport services, understanding the relationship of service quality and customer experience to be crucial to improve customer loyalty and in turn build long-term relationships (34), with previous studies revealing that service quality improves both customer satisfaction and loyalty (13, 35, 36), as does experiential quality (37). In addition to the numerous studies using the SERVQUAL scale by Parasuraman et al. (27), other tools available for the evaluation of sport services are the QUESC scale (38), the SQFS scale (39), the SQAS scale (40) and its reduced version SQAS-19 (28), the SQS-FC scale (41), the QSCSEF scale (42), the CALIDFIT scale (43) and the CECASDEP scale and its reduced version (12, 44), among others. There are also validated tools for other contexts, such as the SSQRS scale for recreational sports (45), the EVENTQUAL scales (46) or Eventserv (47) and its reduced version Eventserv-Short (48) for spectators of sporting events. Participants also receive attention in different contexts such as fantasy sports websites (49), running races (50), duathlon (51), or open water swimming (52).
In the specific context of padel, the study by Aparicio-Sarmiento et al. (22) used the EPOD scale (53) keeping the scale intact with 28 items distributed in 4 dimensions (sports technicians, material resources, activities, and image of the organisation), a tool that was subsequently validated in a sample of athletes participating in physical activities in a multi-sport centre using a 29-item version (54). In the study by Aparicio-Sarmiento et al. (22), although they reported adequate internal consistency (α = 0.92), this is a value corresponding to the global scale and no information is provided on the psychometric properties of the tool applied to this specific context (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis). Therefore, we consider it necessary to explore new options for the assessment of perceived quality in this context since, as stated by Haensel and Hoffmann (55), the dimensions of service quality can be significantly different depending on the type of business.
Based on different reviews in the scientific literature (40, 56–59) and extending it, Table 1 presents the main dimensions of a total of 34 studies that use different tools or adaptations for the evaluation of perceived quality in different sport services. The use of the dimensions “staff” and “programmes” are the most frequent in the literature, forming part of 33 and 25 scales, respectively. In the case of “facilities”, a dimension present in 28 scales, there are different terminologies to refer to the infrastructure that enables sport practice, although certain scales use what we could call a second level when referring to “sport spaces”, understanding these as the specific enclosures provided with the necessary means that allow practice (including here other uses such as learning or training and competition). In this sense, the scales CECASDEP, CECASDEP-R, SQAS and the adaptation of SQAS establish a differentiation between the physical installation and the specific facilities or spaces for carrying out an activity or exercise (e.g., gymnasium, swimming pool, or in the case of the present research, padel court), while in the case of the EPOD2 scale, the 3 items of the so-called “spaces” dimension refer to changing rooms (2 items) and cleanliness (1 item). Material” or “equipment” is another dimension frequently used in different scales, using some of these terms to refer to the elements that allow the adequate development of the contents during sport practice. Finally, other dimensions used in some scales have been included, such as tangible elements, cleanliness, changing rooms, user care, or information and communication, among others.
Table 1. Scales for assessing the perceived quality of sport services.
Therefore, the objective of this work is focused on adapting a perceived quality assessment tool to the padel context, analyzing the psychometric properties necessary for its validation using a sample of users of sports facilities and services of padel, thus responding to the gap existing in the academic literature in a specific context of great relevance today.
2 Methodology
2.1 Participants
The sample consisted of a total of 402 padel users (298 men and 104 women), all from the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. In relation to the characteristics of the sample, the age range of the participants was between 18 and 68 years old, with the highest percentages concentrated in the 19 and 21 age group (9.2%, 9.0% and 12.2%, respectively), 63.7% of the participants indicated that they were not members of a padel club, 73.4% practised padel in a private facility, while in terms of occupation, percentages close to 50% were obtained for both students (48%) and workers (52%). In relation to proximity, 77.1% indicated that it took them less than 15 min to get to the sports facility, and in relation to the practice profile, 61.4% played padel between 1 and 2 times a week, with the majority using between 1 and 2 h as playing time per day (89.6%) (Table 2).
Table 2. Profile and socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.
2.2 Instrument
The tool used in this study is adapted from a previous research work developed in the context of sports services (12), and has been adapted by research carried out in Mexico (85), Chile (86), Ecuador and Colombia (87) in the context of sports services, obtaining adequate psychometric properties.
For the adaptation to the context of padel, a committee of 4 experts of the Degree in Physical Activity and Sport Sciences from different universities was created, of which 2 were specialists in racket sports and sports management, 1 specialist in sports management and owner of a padel club, and 1 specialist in methodology, all with 15 years of professional experience. The Delphi methodology (88, 89) was used to configure the committee of experts, guaranteeing anonymity at all times between the participating members of the committee. The process had 2 rounds of review, analyzing the relevance of the items and making the necessary. Thus, the name of 3 dimensions of the original tool was modified, specifically padel courts instead of sports spaces, padel activity programme instead of activity programme, and padel technicians instead of teacher-monitor. On the other hand, 1 item of the padel courts dimension was eliminated as it lacked possible adaptation (“the acoustics of the sports spaces are good”), and the content of some items was slightly adapted to be specifically oriented to the context of padel (e.g., “the external dimensions of the courts where I play are adequate” instead of “the dimensions of the space where the activity takes place are adequate”, or “the courts offer me safety” instead of “the sports space offers safety”).
Thus, the version used for the present research was a model composed of forty-eight items maintaining the five-point response format (1 = “I do not agree at all” to 5 = “I strongly agree”) and the five original dimensions: sports facility (ID, 10 items), padel courts (PP, 9 items), changing rooms (V, 12 items), padel activities programme (PAP, 9 items), and padel technicians (TP, 8 items). A specific block was included with the following socio-demographic questions: age, gender, level of studies, professional situation, type of club where padel is played, time to get to the padel facility, years of practice, days of practice per week, hours of practice per day and amount of money spent per month to practice padel.
2.3 Procedure
The Andalusian Padel Federation was contacted and agreed to participate in the research by providing the link to access the tool through their website. Data were collected over a 12-month period, specifically between 23 April 2022 and 23 April 2023. The questionnaire was administered in an online format created with Google forms, with all questions set to mandatory to eliminate non-response bias. The wording requested voluntary participation and guaranteed the anonymity of the responses, followed by the obligation to mark informed consent in order to continue with the process. The questionnaire took approximately 8–10 min to complete.
2.4 Data analysis
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviation) and the normality of the data were calculated using univariate skewness and kurtosis values. To check the internal structure of the questionnaire adapted to the context of padel, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), principal component analysis and oblimin oblique rotation were carried out, checking the relevance through Bartlett's test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (KMO), in addition to the percentage of variance explained. Measures to check the quality of the results were communalities [≥0.50; (90)] and factor weights [≥0.50; (91)]. The internal consistency of the dimensions was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha [α≥; (92)]. Several measures were used to assess model fit quality in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): (1) χ2 and its differences of degrees of freedom [χ2/df ≤ 3; (93)], the comparative fit index (CFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). According to Geiser (94), a model with a good fit to the data is characterised by CFI, IFI and TLI values above 0.90 and RMSEA values of 0.08 or lower, while values ≥0.60 are adequate for the PCFI indicator (63). Additionally, composite reliability [CR > 0.70; (95)], average variance extracted [AVE > 0.50; (95)], convergent and discriminant validity were calculated.
3 Results
Normality test results showed adequate skewness and kurtosis values for all variables, falling within the conventional criteria for normality [±3; (96)]. The mean value of the dimensions showed a very low difference (range of 0.30), namely between 3.96 for the dimensions sports facility (SD = 0.34) and changing room (SD = 0.96) and 4.26 for the dimension padel technicians (SD = 0.92). Within this first phase of analysis, the internal consistency of the dimensions was checked by means of Cronbach's Alpha indicator, obtaining in all cases values above the recommended 0.90.
The relevance of the EFA provided satisfactory results for both Bartlett's test of specificity [χ2 (1128) = 16103.81; p < 0.001] and the KMO test (0.956), thus showing an adequate factor structure for the different dimensions that explains 69.70% of the variance. The EFA results showed communalities above 50% for all items except for items ID4 (0.45) and ID5 (0.47), and factor loadings for the items above 0.50. The factor structure of the EFA was assessed by means of a CFA in order to test the model fit, using a maximum likelihood estimation method to determine how the items represented the different constructs. The results obtained showed a satisfactory fit according to the different indices considered, with a χ2/df value below 3 (2.17), CFI (0.92), IFI (0.92) and TLI (0.91) values above the minimum cut-off point, the PCFI indicator (0.86) above 0.60 and the RMSEA index [0.054 (LO = 0.051; HI = 0.057)] below the 0.08 cut-off point. In the case of the factor loadings between observable variables, they showed high values, above 0.60 in all cases, without the need to eliminate any item, as good results were obtained in all cases in all the analyses carried out to check the psychometric properties (Table 3).
Table 3. Properties of the items of QPadel.
Additionally, complementary measures were analysed to test the reliability and validity of the tool. For the first case, the composite reliability (CR) obtained values higher than 0.70 in all the constructs, its being able to affirm that the items of the manifest variables really measure each of the underlying variables (97). For the second case, the average variance extracted (AVE) was used, which represents the proportion of variance of the construct that can be explained by its indicators, obtaining values higher than the minimum value 0.50 assuming convergent validity, and convergent validity was also analysed using the Fornell-Larcker (98) criterion, where squared correlations were obtained between constructs lower than their respective AVE values (Table 4).
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
4 Discussion
The relevance of padel as an emerging sport has attracted attention in the scientific literature in recent years, with several studies focusing on aspects related to the players (performance, psychology, or physiology) as well as certain variables associated with sports management, but the quality of the service has not been adequately addressed. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate a tool to assess the quality perceived by users of padel facilities and services, using a sample of users of this type of facilities and services from the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, a region located in the south of Spain.
Aparicio-Sarmiento et al. (22) focused their study on the analysis of the satisfaction of padel users in a sample of 36 participants, using the EPOD tool (53), originally designed for the evaluation of user satisfaction in sports organisations. However, the items used in the study have a shorter wording than the original version without describing the adaptation process used, without providing information on the psychometric properties, as well as using the construct satisfaction and not perceived quality. Perceived quality implies according to Bitner and Hubbert (99) a consumer's impression of the relative superiority or inferiority of an organisation and its services, whereas satisfaction implies a post-consumer (100) or post-purchase (101) response or evaluation, hence quality is considered an antecedent of satisfaction (62) and satisfaction an antecedent of behavioural intention (102). This is in line with Baena-Arroyo et al.'s (35) assertion that perceived quality is a first step to customer loyalty, while other variables such as satisfaction are determinants of consumer behaviour (87).
Perceived quality is one of the variables that have received most attention in the sport industry. In the present study, with the intention of filling a gap in the literature, a review of tools designed for the evaluation of perceived quality in different contexts within sport services was carried out, considering the use of the CECASDEP tool for adaptation to the context of padel. Its internal structure integrates 3 of the most commonly used dimensions in the literature (see Table 1), namely personnel (referring to the human resources and workers of the specific service), programmes (referring to the contents, services and activities of padel), and facilities (referring to the global installation that integrates the different sports spaces necessary for the development of the sport activity).
These 3 dimensions include a specific dimension for the changing room and a dimension for the playing space itself (padel courts). In the case of the changing room, it is a space necessary at a functional level (e.g., change of clothes, hygiene, safety through lockers), and at the level of user experience (pleasant atmosphere, cleanliness, additional or complementary equipment, etc.), including in both cases adaptability and accessibility for people with functional diversity. However, this dimension is only used in the SQAS tool (40) and in the adaptation made by Yu et al. (80), although there are some tools that address this space, although not in such a specific way. This is the case of the QUESC scale (38) which includes the dimension “ambiance” with 7 items, 3 of them referring to changing rooms (comfortable temperature, warm changing room, and cleanliness); the HATSQ scale (70) includes the dimensions “ambience and accessibility” where 2 items refer to changing rooms (changing rooms and hygiene in the shower area); the NEPTUNO scale (73) included a specific dimension for cleanliness where they dedicated 1 item to ask about the cleanliness of the toilets; the EPOD scale used by Aparicio-Sarmiento et al. (22) for the satisfaction of padel clubs refers to the changing room using only 1 item to assess cleanliness. As for the specific dimension on padel courts, no tools have been found that address this specific sports space, so the present study adapted the original dimension called “sports spaces” as padel courts are considered a determining factor in the perception of service quality, this criterion contributing to a better positioning in a competitive market. The adaptation process led to the elimination of 1 item that lacked the possibility of adaptation due to lack of application to the specific context (“the acoustics of the sports spaces are good”), and the remaining items addressed aspects related to dimensions, lighting, playing surface, net, maintenance, cleanliness, orientation and safety.
The results obtained in this study show adequate psychometric properties of the CECASDEP tool adapted to the context of padel. Given the importance of the analysis of perceived quality in the sports sector, it is crucial to have tools that comply with a rigorous methodology and that allow a valid and reliable assessment to be carried out. In this sense, the QPadel tool has an internal structure of 5 dimensions and 48 items that allow the evaluation of the perceived quality of users of padel facilities and services, and also represents a novel contribution to the literature as it is a validated tool for a context in which there is a significant gap. Additionally, it has a great potential for adaptability to different contexts related to racket and padel sports, and consequently, to different practical realities by providing an important aid to managers of padel facilities for the analysis of the perceived quality of their customers and users, facilitating the establishment of strategies to generate a service that allows a better adaptation to the needs and interests.
4.1 Practical implications
The QPadel tool, adapted and validated for the present study, makes an important contribution to the literature by filling an existing gap and has a broad applicability by providing the possibility to assess the quality perceived by users. Therefore, and considering the relevance of providing a superior service for the survival of a service organisation (103), the assessment of perceived quality will facilitate decision-making and the use of available resources for the improvement of quality, and consequently, satisfaction and loyalty.
The results obtained confirm that the dimensions used are relevant in the context of padel, obtaining adequate psychometric properties in the different analyses developed. This is especially remarkable in a context that has experienced a high boom and growth, as it provides organisations with a reliable and valid tool.
Focusing on managers, the results of this study have important implications considering the relevance of the information provided by each of the dimensions, impacting positively on the development of competitive strategies by allowing the identification of areas for improvement in aspects related to these dimensions, such as including improvements in infrastructure, providing specific training for staff, or the creation of programmes of activities and/or events tailored to the needs of users. Therefore, we want to encourage sport managers of padel-related facilities to work with a validated tool that facilitates the establishment of quality standards within the padel industry. It can also serve as a starting point for a benchmarking process that promotes healthy competition and an overall increase in the levels of quality offered to users.
We believe that the implementation of the findings of this study can help to achieve a significant improvement in the management and operation of padel sport facilities, increasing user satisfaction and loyalty and strengthening the competitive position of organisations.
4.2 Limitations and future directions
Future studies need to be aware of the limitations found in the present research. The volume of users in padel clubs is not comparable to that of other sporting activities and the frequency of use is also lower, so the sample collection is not an easy task and could not be carried out in a short space of time. Despite the support of the Andalusian Padel Federation, which facilitated the distribution of the tool throughout the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, we were not able to make a specific selection of the participating padel clubs and this provided an imbalance between public and private clubs (types of facilities). Another imbalance was obtained in the gender variable, where the sample of women was much lower than that of men and prevented us from going deeper into specific perceptions and analysing the possible existence of differences. In relation to the frequency of use (weekly practice), we consider it necessary to increase the participants of users who practice padel between 3 and 4 times a week by adding a specific question that allows us to identify whether they practice in the same sports facility or not, so that we can identify whether there is any reason other than proximity (convenience of service) that is associated with the perceived quality, and also, consider the variables age and level of play to check for possible discrepancies in perceived quality, all aimed at better management of both the facilities and the services offered.
5 Discussion
The results obtained in this study show adequate psychometric properties of the QPadel assessment tool, which comes from the adaptation of another perceived quality evaluation tool after an indepth review of the literature. Specifically, QPadel responds to the consideration of the three dimensions most commonly used in the literature (facilities, program and staff). These dimensions include items that encompass user attention, location and external equipment (facilities), characteristics and expectations (programme), and, finally, content and interaction (staff). In addition, this tool dedicates a specific dimension to the sports space where the activity takes place, including items on comfort and functionality, and last of all, in the case of the changing room dimension, it includes items on environmental elements and comfort.
Given the importance of the analysis of perceived quality in the sports sector, it is crucial to have tools that comply with a rigorous methodology and that allow a valid and reliable assessment to be carried out. In this sense, the QPadel tool has an internal structure of 5 dimensions and 48 items that allow the evaluation of the perceived quality of users of padel facilities and services, and also represents a novel contribution to the literature as it is a validated tool for a context in which there is a significant gap. Additionally, it provides important help to managers of padel facilities for the analysis of the perceived quality of their customers and users, facilitating the establishment of strategies to generate a service that allows a better adaptation to the needs and interests.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because No se requería en el momento del inicio del estudio. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
NF: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. PG-R: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft. RG: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft. AL-B: Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the Andalusian Padel Federation for its collaboration and help in disseminating the evaluation tool.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Playtomic & Monitor Deloitte. Global Padel Report—Playtomic. Playtomic & Monitor Deloitte (2023). Available online at: https://playtomic.com/global-padel-report-by-playtomic-and-deloitte/ (Accessed July 07, 2024).
2. Rodríguez-Cayetano A, Aliseda V, Morales PT, Pérez-Muñoz S. ¿Por qué el pádel es tan popular?: análisis de los motivos de participación y nivel de satisfacción intrínseca. Padel Sci J. (2023) 1(2):137–56. doi: 10.17398/2952-2218.1.137
3. Fernández-Martínez N, Gómez-Chacón R, Bernal-García A, Pérez-Villalba M. Evolución de las licencias federativas de pádel en andalucía (2009–2016). SPORT TK Rev Euroam Ciencias Deporte. (2018) 7(2):57–64. doi: 10.6018/sportk.343111
4. Vega-Núñez FJ. Características y Evolución del Pádel en España Para Analizar la Factibilidad de la Implementación en Ecuador (Trabajo Fin de Grado). Universitat de Barcelona (2017). Available onlint at: https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/125485/1/TFM-DEE_VegaNunez_2017.pdf
5. López P. Del Fútbol al Pádel: ¿Que Deportes han Crecido más en Federados Desde Barcelona 1992? Palco23 (2017). Available online at: https://www.palco23.com/entorno/del-futbol-al-padel-que-deportes-han-crecido-mas-en-federados-desde-barcelona-1992.html (Accessed July 08, 2024).
6. Courel-Ibáñez J, Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ, García-Benítez S, Echegaray M. Evolution of padel in Spain according to practitioners’ gender and age. Cult Ciencia Deporte. (2017) 12(34):39–46. doi: 10.12800/ccd.v12i34.830
7. Federación Española de Pádel. Federaciones y Delegaciones Autonómicas. Federación Española de Pádel (2023). Available online at: http://www.padelfederacion.es/Federaciones (Accessed July 14, 2024).
8. Gómez-Chacón R, Muñoz-Llerena A, García-Fernández J. El impacto económico de las licencias federativas en la federación andaluza de pádel (2009-2016). In: García-Fernández J, Pérez-Villalba M, Romero-Galisteo RP, Gálvez-Ruiz P, Bernal-García A, Sánchez-Oliver A, et al. editors. Nuevas Realidades y Enfoques en las Organizaciones y Eventos Deportivos: Implicaciones Para la Economía y la Gestión. Málaga: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Málaga (2018). p. 74–6.
9. Grönroos C. A service quality model and its marketing implications. Eur J Mark. (1984) 18(4):36–44. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004784
10. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J Mark. (1985) 49(4):41–50. doi: 10.1177/002224298504900403
11. Eskiler E, Altunışık R. The moderating effect of involvement in the relationship between customer behavioral intentions and its antecedents. SAGE Open. (2021) 11(2). doi: 10.1177/21582440211014495
12. Gálvez-Ruiz P, Morales-Sánchez V. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess perceived quality in sports services. Cult Ciencia Deporte. (2015) 10(28):55–66. doi: 10.12800/ccd.v10i28.515
13. García-Fernández J, Gálvez-Ruiz P, Fernández-Gavira J, Vélez-Colón L, Pitts B, Bernal-García A. The effects of service convenience and perceived quality on perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty in low-cost fitness centers. Sport Manag Rev. (2018) 21(3):250–62. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.003
14. Sevilmiş A, Ozdemir I, García-Fernández J, Zhang JJ. Examining the relationships among perceived quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention in Turkish fitness centers. Phys Cult Sport Stud Res. (2022) 96(1):40–54. doi: 10.2478/pcssr-2022-0018
15. Policani-Freitas AL, Silva-Lacerda T. Fitness centers: what are the most important attributes in this sector? Int J Qual Res. (2019) 13(1):177–92. doi: 10.24874/IJQR13.01-11
16. García-Pascual F, Parra-Camacho D, Martínez-Rico G. Customer experience in sports centres: adaptation and validation of a measurement scale. Sustainability. (2023) 15(7):5954. doi: 10.3390/su15075954
17. Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ, Cánovas J, Muñoz D, Sánchez-Pay A. Research on pádel. A systematic review. Padel Sci J. (2022) 1:71–105. doi: 10.17398/2952-2218.1.71
18. Jiménez-Naranjo HV, Coca-Pérez JL, Gutiérrez-Fernández M, Fernández-Portillo A. Determinants of the expenditure done by attendees at a sporting event: the case of world padel tour. Eur J Manag Bus Econ. (2016) 25(3):133–41. doi: 10.1016/j.redeen.2016.05.002
19. Jiménez-Naranjo HV, Coca-Pérez JL, Gutiérrez-Fernández M, Sánchez-Escobedo MC. Cost-benefit analysis of sport events: the case of world paddle tour. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. (2016) 22(39):131–38. doi: 10.1016/j.iedee.2015.04.001
20. Ávalos-Brunetti H, Sanchís-Almenara M, Magraner-Llavador L, Alcántara-Alcover E. Homologación de instalaciones para pádel. Rev Biomecánica. (2013) 59(enero):15–6.
21. Rodríguez-Fernández M. Padel sports club in Spain. Int J Sport Mark Spons. (2011) 13(1):33–43. doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-13-01-2011-B004
22. Aparicio-Sarmiento A, Gil-López MI, López-Sánchez F, Díaz-Suárez A. Satisfacción de usuarios de dos clubes de pádel de Cartagena (Región de Murcia). SPORT TK Rev Euroam Ciencias Deporte. (2016) 5(2):27–32. doi: 10.6018/264611
23. Gálvez-Ruiz P. Cuestionario para evaluar la calidad de servicios: estudio inicial de las propiedades psicométricas (Doctoral theses). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Málaga (2011).
24. Castillo-Rodríguez A, Onetti-Onetti W, Chinchilla-Minguet JL. Perceived quality in sports centers in Southern Spain: a case study. Sustainability. (2019) 11(14):3983. doi: 10.3390/su11143983
25. Cham TH, Cheah JH, Ting H, Memon MA. Will destination image drive the intention to revisit and recommend? Empirical evidence from golf tourism. Int J Sport Mark Spons. (2022) 23(2):385–409. doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-02-2021-0040
26. Caruana A, Ewing MT, Ramasesham B. Assessment of the three-column format SERVQUAL. J Bus Res. (2000) 49(1):57–65. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00119-2
27. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retail. (1988) 64(1):12–40.
28. Walker JT, Farren G, Dotterweich A, Gould J, Walker L. Fitness center service quality model confirmation SQAS-19. J Park Recreat Adm. (2017) 35(4):49–58. doi: 10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I4-7922
29. Batista JM, Coenders G. Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales (modelos Para el Análisis de Relaciones Causales). Barcelona: La Muralla, S.A (2012).
30. Carman JM. Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. J. Retail. (1990) 66(1):33–55.
31. Johnston R. The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Int J Serv Ind Manag. (1995) 6(5):53–71. doi: 10.1108/09564239510101536
32. Teas RK. Expectations, performance, evaluation, and consumers’ perceptions of quality. J Mark. (1993) 57(4):18–34.
33. Palacios JL. A review and assessment of the role of expectations in the scales to measure perceived quality of service. Methaod Rev Ciencias Soc. (2014) 2(1):59–71. doi: 10.17502/m.rcs.v2i1.38
34. Huang Y, Kim D. How does service quality improve consumer loyalty in sport fitness centers? The moderating role of sport involvement. Sustainability. (2023) 15(17):12840. doi: 10.3390/su151712840
35. Baena-Arroyo MJ, García-Fernández J, Gálvez-Ruiz P, Grimaldi-Puyana M. Analyzing consumer loyalty through service experience and service convenience: differences between instructor fitness classes and virtual fitness classes. Sustainability. (2020) 12(3):828. doi: 10.3390/su12030828
36. Mosahab R, Mahamad O, Ramayah T. Service quality, satisfaction and loyalty: a test to mediation. Int Bus Res. (2010) 3(4):72–80. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v3n4p72
37. Sevilmiş A, Doğan M, Gálvez-Ruiz P, García-Fernández J. Dimensions and outcomes of experiential quality in the fitness industry: the case of Turkey. Int J Sport Mark Spons. (2024) 25(2):396–418. doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-06-2023-0130
38. Kim D, Kim SY. QUESC: an instrument for assessing the service quality of sport centers in Korea. J Sport Manag. (1995) 9(2):208–20. doi: 10.1123/jsm.9.2.208
39. Chang K, Chelladurai P. System-based quality dimensions in fitness services: development of the scale of quality. Serv Ind J. (2003) 23(5):65–83. doi: 10.1080/02642060308565624
40. Lam ETC, Zhang JJ, Jensen BE. Service quality assessment scale (SQAS): an instrument for evaluating service quality of health-fitness clubs. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. (2005) 9(2):79–111. doi: 10.1207/s15327841mpee0902_2
41. Yildiz SM. An importance-performance analysis of fitness center service quality: empirical results from fitness centers in Turkey. Afr J Bus Manag. (2011) 5(16):7031–41. doi: 10.5897/AJBM11.674
42. Almeida M, Luiz F. Criação e avaliação das qualidades psicométricas do questionário de satisfação dos clientes em serviços de educação física (QSCSEF). Rev Brasil Ciencias Esporte. (2013) 35(2):481–501. doi: 10.1590/S0101-32892013000200016
43. García-Fernández J, Cepeda-Carrión G, Martín-Ruiz D. La satisfacción de clientes y su relación con la percepción de calidad en centro de fitness: utilización de la escala CALIDFIT. Rev Psicol Deporte. (2012) 21(2):309–19.
44. Gálvez-Ruiz P, Boleto-Rosado AF, Romero-Galisteo RP. Validación de la versión reducida del CECASDEP en usuarios de servicios deportivos. Suma Psicol. (2015) 22(2):78–5. doi: 10.1016/j.sumpsi.2015.08.001
45. Ko YJ, Pastore DL. A hierarchical model of service quality in the recreation sport industry. Sport Mark Q. (2005) 14(2):84–97.
46. Calabuig F, Mundina J, Crespo J. EVENTQUAL: una medida de la calidad percibida por los espectadores de eventos deportivos. Retos Nuevas Tendencias Educ Física Deporte Recreación. (2010) 7(15):18–24. doi: 10.47197/retos.v0i18.34655
47. Martin DS, O’Neill MA. Scale development and testing: a new measure of cognitive satisfaction in sports tourism. Event Management. (2010) 14(1):1–15. doi: 10.3727/152599510X12724735767471
48. Martin DS, Howell R, Newman C, Martin K. Validation of eventserv-short. Manag Serv Qual. (2012) 22(4):386–98. doi: 10.1108/09604521211253487
49. Suh YI, Pedersen PM. Participants’ service quality perceptions of fantasy sports websites: the relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction, attitude, and actual usage. Sport Mark Q. (2010) 19:78–87.
50. Angosto S. Diseño y validación de un cuestionario sobre calidad percibida en eventos deportivos populares (CAPPEP) (Doctoral thesis). Universidad de Murcia (2014).
51. Magaz-González AM, Sahelices-Pinto C, Mendaña-Cuervo C, García-Tascón M. Overall quality 498 of sporting events and emotions as predictors of future intentions of duathlon participants. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01432
52. Montesinos-Saura E, Vegara-Ferri JM, Morales-Baños V, López-Gullón JM, López-Sánchez GF, Angosto S. Perceived quality, perceived value, satisfaction and future intentions in participants in swimming crossings. J Phys Educ Sport. (2018) 2018(3):1316–22. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2018.s3195
53. Nuviala-Nuviala A, Tamayo-Fajardo JA, Iranzo-Llopis J, Falcón-Miguel D. Creación, diseño, validación y puesta en práctica de un instrumento de medición de la satisfacción de usuarios de organizaciones que prestan servicios deportivos. Retos Nuevas Tendencias Educación Física Deporte Recreación. (2008) 14:10–6. doi: 10.47197/retos.v0i14.35004
54. Nuviala-Nuviala A, Tamayo-Fajardo JA, Nuviala-Nuviala R, González-Jurado JA, Fernández-Martínez A. Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de valoración de organizaciones deportivas EPOD. Retos Nuevas Tendencias Educación Física Deporte Recreación. (2010) 18:82–7. doi: 10.47197/retos.v0i18.34658
55. Haensel M, Hoffmann E. Evaluation of business services from a buyer’s perspective: the service type as a distinctive feature. Supply Chain Forum. (2017) 18:240–48. doi: 10.1080/16258312.2017.1377046
56. Alonso-Serrano J, Segado-Segado F. Analysing instruments for measuring perceived sport service quality: a literature review. Cultura Ciencia Deporte. (2015) 10(28):67–76. doi: 10.12800/ccd.v10i28.516
57. Klasens M. Factor influencing the customer satisfaction rate in Dutch SEM fitness centers (Master thesis business administration). University of Twente (2020).
58. Polyakova O, Mirza MT. Service quality models in the context of the fitness industry. Sport Bus Manag Int J. (2016) 6(3):360–82. doi: 10.1108/SBM-04-2014-0015
59. Romo V, Chinchilla JL, García M. Sport management services: the dimensions of quality. J Hum Sport Exerc. (2010) 5(II):295–306. doi: 10.4100/jhse.2010.52.17
60. Chelladurai P, Scott FL, Haywood FJ. Dimensions of fitness services: development of a model. J Sport Manag. (1987) 1(2):159–72. doi: 10.1123/jsm.1.2.159
61. Howat G, Abher J, Criley G, Milne I. Measuring customer service quality in sports and leisure centres. Manag Leis. (1996) 1(2):77–89. doi: 10.1080/136067196376456
62. Han T. An analysis of members’ satisfaction of ski program quality at private sports centers in Seoul, Korea (Doctoral theses). Faculty to the United States Sports Academy, Daphne (1999).
63. Papadimitriou D, Karteroliotis K. The service quality expectations in private sport and fitness centers: a reexamination of the factor structure. J Sport Mark Q. (2000) 9(3):157–64.
64. Brady MK, Cronin JJ. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. J. Mark. (2001) 65:34–49. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.3.34.18334
65. López A. La calidad del servicio en instalaciones deportivas acuáticas: un estudio cualitativo. Rev Agua Gestión. (2001) 53:30–6.
66. Costa G, Tsitskari E, Tzetzis G, Goudas M. The factors for evaluating service quality in athletics camps: a case study. Eur Sport Manag Q. (2004) 4(1):22–35. doi: 10.1080/16184740408737465
67. Alexandris K, Zahariadis P, Tsorbatzoudis C, Grouios G. An empirical investigation of the relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction and psychological commitment in a health club context. Eur Sport Manag Q. (2004) 4(1):36–52. doi: 10.1080/16184740408737466
68. Afthinos Y, Theodorakis ND, Nassis P. Customer’s expectations of service in Greek fitness centres. Gender, age, type of sport center and motivation differences. Manag Serv Q. (2005) 15(3):245–58. doi: 10.1108/09604520510597809
69. Sanz I, Redondo JC, Gutiérrez P, Cuadrado G. La satisfacción en los practicantes de spinning: elaboración de una escala para su medición. Eur J Hum Move. (2005) 13:17–36.
70. Dhurup M, Singh C, Surijlal J. Application of the health and fitness service quality scale (HAFSQ) in determining the relationship among service quality satisfaction and loyalty in the service industry. Afr J Phys Health Edu Recreat Dance. (2006) 12(3):238–51.
71. Langrosen S, Langrosen Y. Exploring service quality in the health and fitness industry. Manag Serv Q. (2007) 17(1):41–53. doi: 10.1108/09604520710720665
72. Uçan Y. Developing the perceived service quality scale of sport-fitness centers (Doctoral thesis). Abant Izzet Baysal University (2007).
73. Calabuig F, Quintanilla I, Mundina J. (2008). The perception of service quality in sport services: differences according to sport facility, gender, age and user type in nautical services. International Journal of Sport Science (2008) IV(10):25–43. doi: 10.5232/ricyde2008.01003
74. Rial J, Varela J, Rial A, Real E. Modelización y medida de la Calidad Percibida en centros deportivos: la escala QSport-10. (modelling and measuring perceived quality in sports centres: QSport-10 scale). Rev Int Cienc Deporte. (2010) 6(18):57–73. doi: 10.5232/ricyde2010.01804
75. Hwanleep Y, Tae Hoon K, Hyeonseok C, Jeahwan S. Analysis on the improvement of ski resort service quality with the performance model. In: Clute Institute, editors. European Applied Business Research Conference. Dublin: Trabajo presentado en el European Applied Business Research Conference & European College Teaching & Learning Conference (2010).
76. Yildiz SM, Kara A. A re-examination and extension of measuring perceived service quality in physical activity and sports centres (PSC): QSport-14 scale. Int J Sports Mark Spons. (2012) 13(3):26–45. doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-13-03-2012-B004
77. Nuviala-Nuviala A, Grao-Cruces A, Tamayo-Fajardo JA, Nuviala-Nuviala R, Álvarez J, Fernández-Martínez A. Design and analysis of the valuation questionnaire of sport services (EPOD2). Rev Int Med Ciencias Act Física Deporte. (2013) 13(51):419–36.
78. Jasinkas E, Reklaitiene D, Svagzdiene B. Evaluation of service quality in fitness centres. Transform Bus Econ. (2013) 12(1):108–24.
79. Serrano-Gómez V, Rial-Boubeta A, García-García Ó, Gambau i Pinasa V. QGOLF-9: escala para la evaluación de la calidad percibida en los clubes de golf. Rev Psicol Deporte. (2013) 22(1):111–21.
80. Yu HS, Zhang JJ, Kim DH, Chen KK, Henderson C, Min SD, et al. Service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention among fitness center members aged 60 years and over. Soc Behav Personal Int J. (2014) 42(5):757–67. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.757
81. Maksimović N, Matić R, Tovilović S, Popović S, Maksimović B, Opsenica S. Perceived service quality and loyalty of fitness centers' customers: segmenting members through their exercise motives. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreat. (2017) 38(3):253–268. doi: 10.1080/15332969.2017.1366211
82. Tsitskari E, Tzetzis G, Konsoulas D. Perceived service quality and loyalty of fitness centers’ customers: segmenting members through their exercise motives. Ser Mark Q. (2017) 38(4):253–68. doi: 10.1080/15332969.2017.1366211
83. Campos F, Martins F, Simões V, Franco S. Fitness participants perceived quality by age and practiced activity. J Phys Educ Sport. (2017) 17(2):698–704. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2017.02105
84. Montero-Vieira ER, Ferreira JJ. Strategic framework of fitness clubs based on quality dimensions: the blue ocean strategy approach. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. (2018) 29(13-14):1648–67. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1290523
85. Morquecho R. Evaluación de la calidad percibida en organizaciones de servicios deportivos universitarios (Doctoral theses). Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (2014).
86. Farías J. Evaluación de los servicios impartidos por el club Xplotion cheerleading (Doctoral theses). Universidad Andrés Bello (2020).
87. Gálvez-Ruiz P, Conde-Pascual E, Estrella-Andrade A, García-Fernández J, Romero-Galisteo RP, Vélez-Colón L, et al. Testing factorial invariance of the questionnaire of evaluation of the quality perceived in sports services in Spanish, Ecuadorian and Colombian users. Curr Psychol. (2021) 40:1249–56. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-0053-y
88. Bulger SM, Housner LD. Modified delphi investigation of exercise science in physical education teacher education. J Teach Phys Educ. (2007) 26(1):57–80. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.26.1.57
89. Powell C. The delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. (2003) 41(4):376–82. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x
90. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education (2014).
91. Kahn JH. Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice. Couns Psychol. (2006) 34(5):684–18. doi: 10.1177/0011000006286347
92. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge (2009).
93. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press (2005).
95. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. (2019) 31:2–24. doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
96. Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, editors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing (2006). p. 269–314.
97. Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC. Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. (2000) 4:1–77. doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.00407
98. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. (1981) 18:39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
99. Bitner MJ, Hubbert AR. Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality: the consumer’s voice. In: Rust RT, Oliver RL, editors. Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (1994). p. 72–94.
100. Kotler P. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall (1991).
101. Fornell C. A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. J Mark. (1992) 56:6–21. doi: 10.1177/002224299205600103
102. Trail GT, Anderson DF, Fink JS. Consumer satisfaction and identity theory: a model of sport spectator conative loyalty. Sport Mark. Q. (2005) 14:98–111.
Appendix A. Survey items
Sports facilities
ID1: The sports facility is well located
ID2: I find it easy to get to the sports facility
ID3: I find the green areas adequate.
ID4: I find it easy to park when I go to the sports facility.
ID5: The space in the reception area is adequate for my attention.
ID6: The control of users at the reception is adequate.
ID7: The means of transmitting suggestions and/or complaints are adequate.
ID8: In the event of a problem or complaint, I know who to contact.
ID9: When I have a problem, the willingness to help me is good.
ID10: The treatment I receive is friendly.
Padel courts
PP1: The external dimensions of the courts where I play are adequate.
PP2: The lighting of the courts is appropriate.
PP3: The playing surface is in perfect condition.
PP4: The net is in good condition and undamaged.
PP5: The net is taut and suitable for play.
PP6: The maintenance of the glass/walls seems to me to be correct.
PP7: The cleanliness of the pitch seems to me to be correct.
PP8: The orientation of the courts is correct.
PP9: The courts are safe for me.
Changing rooms
V1: The dimensions of the changing rooms are adequate for my comfort.
V2: The provision of benches is sufficient for my comfort.
V3: The size of the shower area is appropriate.
V4: The lockers offer me security.
V5: The toilets are located outside the shower area.
V6: The ventilation of the toilets is adequate.
V7: The floor is non-slip and safe for me.
V8: The temperature of the water in the showers is comfortable.
V9: The ventilation of the changing rooms is adequate.
V10: I find the lighting to be correct.
V11: The temperature is comfortable.
V12: The cleanliness is adequate.
Padel activities programme
PAP1: There is a wide range of activities on offer.
PAP2: It was easy to obtain information about the activities on offer.
PAP3: Activities are changed frequently during the season.
PAP4: Occasional activities take place during the season (tournaments, pull, etc.).
PAP5: The activity in which I participate meets my expectations.
PAP6: The price of the activity is appropriate to the service I receive.
PAP7: The weekly distribution (frequency) of the activities is appropriate.
PAP8: The timetable of the activity is appropriate.
PAP9: The duration of the activity is appropriate.
Padel technicians
TP1: There is good communication between the users and the technician.
TP2: The treatment with the technician is pleasant.
TP3: The classes are well organised.
TP4: The coach takes care to adapt the activity to the level of the users.
TP5: The technician distributes the time available appropriately.
TP6: The technician makes good use of the materials at his disposal.
TP7: The technician's involvement during the activity is adequate.
TP8: The technician is capable of carrying out the activity.
Keywords: padel, perceived quality, sport management, sports services, sports facilities
Citation: Fernández Martínez N, Gálvez-Ruiz P, Gómez Chacón R and Lara-Bocanegra A (2024) Perceived quality of padel users: adaptation and validation of the QPadel assessment tool. Front. Sports Act. Living 6:1526512. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1526512
Received: 11 November 2024; Accepted: 28 November 2024;
Published: 20 December 2024.
Edited by:
Carlos David Gómez-Carmona, University of Zaragoza, SpainReviewed by:
Alberto Rodríguez-Cayetano, Pontifical University of Salamanca, SpainDiego Muñoz, University of Extremadura, Spain
Adrián Escudero-Tena, University of Extremadura, Spain
Copyright: © 2024 Fernández Martínez, Gálvez-Ruiz, Gómez Chacón and Lara-Bocanegra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Pablo Gálvez-Ruiz, cGdhbHZlekB1bml2ZXJzaWRhZHZpdS5jb20=