The Marketing Scales Handbook is indispensible in identifying how constructs have been measured and the support for a measure's validity and reliability. I have used it since the beginning as a resource in my doctoral seminar and as an aid to my own research. An electronic version will make it even more accessible to researchers in Marketing and affiliated fields.
satisfaction
Four, seven-point semantic-differentials are used to measure the degree to which a customer expects the cause of a service failure to persist over time. The scale was called attributions of stability by Hess, Ganesan, and Klein (2003).
The scale is composed of four, five-point items that measure the level of general satisfaction a consumer expresses towards a service provider, with an emphasis on how well the service provider is viewed compared to the ideal provider.
Three, ten-point semantic differentials are used to measure the level of general satisfaction a customer has with a certain service provider. The scale appears to combine aspects of disconfirmation with a comparison to the "ideal" provider.
The scale is composed of four statements that measure the level of satisfaction a consumer believes he/she would experience if a certain set of events transpired.
This semantic differential scale measures a consumer's degree of satisfaction with something specific rather than his/her overall level of contentment in life. The scale may be most suited for measuring a consumer's satisfaction with another party with whom a transaction has occurred or with whom a relationship has developed.
The scale has been used to study salespeople (Oliver and Swan 1989a; Reynolds and Beatty 1999a, 1999b), hairstylists (Price and Arnould 1999; Bansal, Taylor, and James 2005), banks (Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty 2000), and auto repair facilities (Bansal, Irving, and Taylor 2004; Bansal, Taylor, and James 2005; Thomas, Vitell, Gilbert, and Rose 2002).
Seven, seven-point Likert-type statements are used in the scale. Together they measure the degree to which a person expresses commitment to buying from a certain e-retail website in the future and not switching to another website. The scale was referred to as e-loyalty by Srinivasan, Anderson, and Ponnavolu (2002).
Depending somewhat on the version used, the scale measures the degree to which a customer of a business expects to continue buying from it in the future and/or engages in positive word-of-mouth communications about it. Due to the particular subsets of items used by Srinivasan, Anderson, and Ponnavolu (2002) and Verhoef, Franses, and Hoekstra (2002), they referred to their scales as word-of-mouth and customer referrals, respectively.
The degree to which a customer who lodged a complaint thinks that the resolution of the problem was appropriate is the subject of the scale. In the study by Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran (1998) the respondents were given this scale after being told to remember a recent service experience that led to their lodging a complaint. Similarly, in Smith, Bolton, and Wagner (1999; Smith and Bolton 2002) subjects were asked to imagine a visit to a service provider they had been to before and what they would do if a service failure occurred.
The scale has been used to measure the degree to which a consumer's expectations regarding a decision are not met. The three-item version has been used most (Oliver 1993; Oliver and Swan 1989a, 1989b; Wallace, Giese, and Johnson 2004, Westbrook 1987), but a two-item, seven-point version has been used as well (Oliver 1980).
The scale measures the relative value of a specified brand to a consumer compared to similar competing brands due to its name (above and beyond its features and quality). It is composed of four, five-point Likert-type statements.
