IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i3p1279-d1332183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid Model for Fitness Influencer Competency Evaluation Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Chin-Cheng Yang

    (Department of Leisure Services Management, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung 413310, Taiwan
    Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin 640301, Taiwan)

  • Wan-Chi Jackie Hsu

    (Department of Marketing Management, Central Taiwan University of Sciences and Technology, Taichung 406053, Taiwan)

  • Chung-Shu Yeh

    (Department of Leisure Services Management, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung 413310, Taiwan)

  • Yu-Sheng Lin

    (General Education Center, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung 413310, Taiwan
    Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 50007, Taiwan)

Abstract

Fitness influencers are an emerging profession in recent years. At present, the main research on fitness influencers focuses on their personal traits, professional knowledge and skills, and course content, while there is still a large research gap on the social media marketing strategies of fitness influencers, how they interact with fans, and the reasons for their influence on fans. There is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework for fitness influencer research, and there is no clear research on what competencies are required to become a qualified fitness influencer. Therefore, it has become an important issue to establish a comprehensive fitness influencer competency evaluation. In this study, a hybrid model of fitness influencer competency evaluation framework was developed based on government competency standards and expert knowledge using the Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model perspective. This evaluation should expand to include the principles of sustainable development, emphasizing the influencers’ role in advocating for environmental responsibility, social equity, and economic viability within the fitness industry. First, the study developed 21 criteria in six dimensions of fitness influencer competencies through a literature survey and interviews with several experts. The 21 criteria resonate with many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The Bayesian Best-Worst Method (Bayesian BWM) was used to generate the best group weights for fitness influencer competencies. Then, a modified Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution Based on Aspiration Level (modified TOPSIS-AL) was applied to evaluate the performance ranking of major fitness influencers in Taiwan by integrating the concept of the aspiration level. The results of the study revealed that behavioral standards were the most important dimension, emphasizing the need for fitness influencers to establish a comprehensive set of norms for their own behavioral standards. The top five criteria for fitness influencers’ competencies were self-review, punctuality and prudence, creativity, rapport and motivation, and the need to conform to one’s body image. The performance ranking was used to compare the evaluated subjects to the desired level to obtain a basis for improvement. This study effectively identifies key fitness industry competency indicators and refines business performance through the management implications proposed in this study to facilitate the development of the fitness industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Chin-Cheng Yang & Wan-Chi Jackie Hsu & Chung-Shu Yeh & Yu-Sheng Lin, 2024. "A Hybrid Model for Fitness Influencer Competency Evaluation Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:3:p:1279-:d:1332183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1279/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1279/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Dobson & Pete McLuskie, 2020. "Performative entrepreneurship: identity, behaviour and place in adventure sports Enterprise," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 879-895, September.
    2. Zhang, Yuanyuan & Zhao, Huiru & Li, Bingkang & Zhao, Yihang & Qi, Ze, 2022. "Research on credit rating and risk measurement of electricity retailers based on Bayesian Best Worst Method-Cloud Model and improved Credit Metrics model in China's power market," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    3. Jacqueline Ahrens & Fiona Brennan & Sarah Eaglesham & Audrey Buelo & Yvonne Laird & Jillian Manner & Emily Newman & Helen Sharpe, 2022. "A Longitudinal and Comparative Content Analysis of Instagram Fitness Posts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    5. Paul Jones & Vanessa Ratten & Ted Hayduk, 2020. "Sport, fitness, and lifestyle entrepreneurship," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 783-793, September.
    6. Casaló, Luis V. & Flavián, Carlos & Ibáñez-Sánchez, Sergio, 2020. "Influencers on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 510-519.
    7. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Lo, Huai-Wei & Liou, James J.H. & Huang, Chun-Nen & Chuang, Yen-Ching, 2019. "A novel failure mode and effect analysis model for machine tool risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 173-183.
    3. Himanshu Gupta & Kumar Shreshth & Manjeet Kharub & Ashwani Kumar, 2024. "Strategies to overcome challenges to smart sustainable logistics: a Bayesian-based group decision-making approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 11743-11770, May.
    4. Mu-Hsin Chang & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2019. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Strategic Alliance Partners in the Green Biopharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Morteza Yazdani & Prasenjit Chatterjee & Maria Jose Montero-Simo & Rafael A. Araque-Padilla, 2019. "An Integrated Multi-Attribute Model for Evaluation of Sustainable Mobile Phone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    7. Elkadeem, Mohamed R. & Younes, Ali & Jurasz, Jakub & AlZahrani, Atif S. & Abido, Mohammad A., 2025. "A spatio-temporal decision-making model for solar, wind, and hybrid systems – A case study of Saudi Arabia," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 383(C).
    8. Dhalmahapatra, Krantiraditya & Garg, Ashish & Singh, Kritika & Xavier, Nirmal Francis & Maiti, J., 2022. "An integrated RFUCOM – RTOPSIS approach for failure modes and effects analysis: A case of manufacturing industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    9. Shih-Ping Shen & Jung-Fa Tsai, 2022. "Evaluating the Sustainable Development of the Semiconductor Industry Using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    10. Tai-Wu Chang & Huai-Wei Lo & Kai-Ying Chen & James J. H. Liou, 2019. "A Novel FMEA Model Based on Rough BWM and Rough TOPSIS-AL for Risk Assessment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Weijie Wu & Dongwei Li & Hui Sun & Yixin Li & Yining Zhang & Mingrui Zhao, 2024. "Building a Sustainable Future: A Three-Stage Risk Management Model for High-Permeability Power Grid Engineering," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-23, July.
    12. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Wang, Le & Luo, Xin (Robert) & Li, Han, 2022. "Envy or conformity? An empirical investigation of peer influence on the purchase of non-functional items in mobile free-to-play games," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 308-324.
    14. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    15. Paul, Ananna & Shukla, Nagesh & Trianni, Andrea, 2023. "Modelling supply chain sustainability challenges in the food processing sector amid the COVID-19 outbreak," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    16. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    18. Fayyaz, Muhammad Shahzeb & Abbasi, Amir Zaib & Kumar, Sanjeev & Qureshi, Ammar & Hussain, Khalil & Muhammad, Lakhi, 2025. "Integrating digital influencer persuasion model and theory of planned behavior: The mediating role of consumer involvement in endorsed brands," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    19. Juuso Pajasmaa & Kaisa Miettinen & Johanna Silvennoinen, 2025. "Group Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization: A Systematic Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 329-371, April.
    20. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:3:p:1279-:d:1332183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.