台灣高鐵自2007年營運以來，大幅縮短南北通行時間，形成一日生活圈，吸引旅客搭乘的主要優勢除了旅行時間外，服務品質及服務可靠度亦為旅客選擇搭乘的重要影響因素。高鐵目前共配置三種座位:商務艙、對號座及自由座，經查2019年高鐵年度搭乘率為68%，其中又以商務艙搭乘率最低。商務艙提供旅客較舒適寬敞座位、免費茶點等較優質選擇，相對一般對號座價位較高。以台北到左營商務車廂為例，票價比標準車廂票價高950元，影響消費者搭乘高鐵時車廂座位的選擇行為。倘能瞭解旅客對於商務車廂服務滿意度及選擇行為與票價對所產生的影響，對於增加高鐵營收及未來採取其他市場行銷策略，均有所助益。
本研究利用問卷調查了解旅客選擇高鐵商務艙座位之影響變因，將旅客搭乘高鐵商務艙滿意度分兩部分討論，分別為「搭乘前及下車後」及「在車廂內搭乘時」，並利用Rasch模式之Winsteps軟體分析不同社經變數受訪者之困難度，以及在不同情境、設備下影響旅客搭乘商務艙意願偏好及願付價格之影響，並以台灣高鐵為例。
研究結果顯示，「在車廂內搭乘時」普遍滿意度較低，又以車廂內販售之點心滿意度及多樣化、放置行李空間太小及車廂內其他旅客音量最為困擾 ; 而在「搭乘前及下車後」階段，受訪者對於其他旅客評價滿意度較低。調查旅客認為商務艙需優先改善之問題前三名分別為票價折扣、增加硬體設備及餐點多元化，因此可研議與在地商家異業結盟，推出季節限定商品及特色餐點，增加高鐵商務艙餐點選擇;另外在情境分析中發現長程旅客對於「增加座椅舒適度」、「增加獨立式包廂座位」及增設「個人化視聽設備」皆可提高4-5成搭乘意願，前兩項設施旅客更願意增加1-3成票價244-732元搭乘。本研究結果可提供台灣高鐵作為未來訂定行銷策略之參考。

The high-speed rail business seat provides more comfortable and considerate services with bitter higher price. It was estimated that the usage rate of business seat lower than 68%. This study goal to discuss the factors which effect the passenger choose behavior, and propose some suggestions to improve THSR business seat’s service and increase the usage rate.
In this study, we use the Rasch model to measure the difficulties that passenger encounter in the stages of using business seats service. There are two service stages including service before getting aboard and service getting off the car、service in the car. This study aims to explore whether different personality could be grouped and develop strategies to attract them to use business seats service. In addition, the different service scenarios of business seats are considered. This study aims to increase the probability of choosing business seats through new service content and understand the willing price of seats certainty. This study takes Taiwan high-speed rail as an example.
The results show that in-car service is the lower customer satisfaction service of two stages. The lower customer satisfaction are often caused by problems such as meal service, luggage area in the car and noisy. It is suggested that meal service problem can be solve by increasing the meal option. As for the problem of luggage area in the carriage, it is suggested that increasing the space of the business seats to meet passengers’ need. Assuming that the scenarios are in the case of taking THSR to travel long trip, if passenger is in a long trip, the respondents who choose the business seats were considered as the passengers who would be willing to pay extra(10~30%) for improving chair comfort , stateroom seats , add personalized audiovisual equipment.

1.孔方正、張倩華、陳柔吟、陳宜群，2010，「環保旅館消費者市場區隔及願付價格之研究」，運動健康與休閒學刊第十六期，pp. 59 -70。
2.江孟桓，2017「探討高鐵自由座服務水準及願付價格之研究」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文。
3.邱美貞，2007，以多項試題反映理論量測兒童步行上學能力，國立交通大學運輸研究所碩士論文
4.余民寧，2011，試題反應理論(IRT)及其應用。台北市;心理出版社股份有限公司。
5.孫珮瑜，2011，應用敘述性選擇法分析低成本航空公司服務之願付價格：以台北-北京航線為例，國立嘉義大學行銷與運籌研究所碩士論文。
6.凌瑞賢，2015，運輸規劃原理與實務 (第三版). 鼎漢國際工程顧問股份有限公司。
7.高誌隆，2008，旅客對台灣高鐵之服務品質知覺及滿意度之研究，國立高雄應用科技大學觀光與餐旅管理研究所碩士論文。
8.張君怡，2011，影響台灣高鐵顧客滿意度因素之探討，逢甲大學國際經營管理研究所碩士論文。
9.陳庭歡，2016，「探討通勤者對於高鐵通勤困難度及願付價格之研究」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文。
10.曾媖媛，2010，台灣高鐵服務品質與顧客滿意度之研究，中華大學行政管理學系研究所碩士論文。
11.覃皓儀，2011，電子收費系統下高速公路小客車駕駛者對車上單元、計次及計程之願付價格，國立暨南大學土木工程學系研究所碩士論文。
12.錢才瑋，2006，Rasch分析在醫療界之應用

國外參考文獻
1.Anderson, E., Fornell, C., and Lehmann, D. R., 1994, Customer Satisfaction, Market Share and Profitability: Findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 53-66.
2.Boyle, D. L., F. G. Sajjadi, and G. S. Firestein ,1996, “Inhibition of Synoviocyte Collagenase Gene Expression by Adenosine Receptor Stimulation,” Arthritis Rheum, 39, 923-930.
3.Chih-Wen Yang, Chean-Chih Chang, 2011, Applying price and time differentiation to modeling cabin choice in high-speed rail. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review Volume 47, Issue 1,January 2011, Pages 73-84.
4.Crocker, L. M., & Algina, J.,1986. Introduction to classical and modern test theory (Vol. 6277). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
5.Cardozo, N. R.,1965. An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfation. Journal of Marketing Research, 2(5), 244-249.
6.Churchill, C. A. Jr. and Suprenant, C., 1982, An Investigation into the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(6), 491-504.
7.Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.,1947, “Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices,” Journal of Farm Economics, 29, 1181-1196.
8.Dawes, J. G.,2008. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International journal of market research, 51(1), 61-77.
9.Eboli, L., Fu, Y., & Mazzulla, G.,2016. Multilevel comprehensive evaluation of the railway service quality. Procedia Engineering, 137, 21-30.
10.Hambleton,R.K., Item respose theory:Principle and applications,Boston:Lluwer-Nijhoff,1983.
11.Hulin,C.L., Drasgow,F.,Parsons,C.K., Item respose theory:Application to psychological measurement,Homewood, IL:Dow Jones-Irwin,1983.
12.Hanemann,W.,1984,Welfare Evaluation in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses,America Journal of Agricultural Economics,Vol.66,pp.332-341.
13.Jahnson, W. L., & Patterson, G. P.,1993. Disconfirmation of Expectation and the Gap Model of Service Quality. An Integration Paradigm. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction , Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6 , 90-99.
14.Kolter, P.,2003. Marketing management (11th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
15.Masters, G. N.,1982. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149-174.
16.McFadden, D.,1986. The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing science, 5(4), 275-297.
17.Miller, J.A.,1977. Studying satisfaction, modifying models, eliciting expectations, posing problems, and making meaningful measurements, Cambridge, Mass:Marketing Science Institute, pp.72-91.
18.Oliver, R. L. & Bearden, W.O., 1985. Disconfirmation Process Consumer Evaluation in Product Usage, Journal of Business Reasearch, 235-246.
19.Oliver, T. A., R. L. Oliver & I.C. MacMillian,1992. A Catastrophe Model for Developing Service Satisfaction Strategies, Journal of Marketing, 56(7), 83-95.
20.ParaSuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A.& Berry L.L.,1985. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 41-50.
21.Rasch,G, Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests Copenhagen:Danish Istitute for Educational Research,1960.
22.Wright, B.D.,1996,Comparing Rasch measurement and factor analysis. Struct Eq Model 3:3-24 Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal.
23.Wang,W.C.,Yao,G.,Tsai,Y.J.,Wang,J.D.,Hsieh,C.L., Validating,improving reliability,and estimating correlation of the four subsccales in the WHOQOL-BREF using multidimensional Rasch analysis, Quality of Life Research,15,pp.607-620,2006.
24.Woodside, Arch G., Lisa L. Frey & Robert Timithy Daly,1989. Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention, Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9, 5-17.