You are here

Scale Reviews

Find reliable measures for use in your questionnaires. Search Now

Testimonial

As a researcher, it's important to use validated scales to ensure reliability and improve interpretation of research results. The Marketing Scales database provides an easy, unified source to find and reference scales, including information on reliability and validity.
Krista Holt
Senior Director, Research & Design, Vital Findings

satisfaction

The scale is composed of three, seven-point Likert-type statements that are used to measure the degree of disagreement and frustration that a client states having with his/her representative(s) at the company's advertising agency.

The scale is used to allow customers to evaluate their past experiences with some specified organization. Three, five-point semantic differential items compose the scale. The context in which the respondents were given this scale was after being told to remember a recent service experience that led to their lodging a complaint. The scale stem directs the respondent to think of the state of the relationship prior to making the complaint. Unlike most other service quality measures, this one does not focus on a particular facet but is a global-type measure.

In its fullest form, the scale is composed of twelve Likert-type items and measures a consumer's degree of satisfaction with a product he/she has recently purchased. Most of its uses have been in reference to the purchase of cars but Mano and Oliver (1993) appear to have adapted it so as to be general enough to apply to whatever product a respondent was thinking about. Mattila and Wirtz (2001) adapted a short version of the scale to measure customers’ satisfaction with a shopping experience. Seven of the items were modified by Hausman (2004) for use with the patient-physician encounter.

The scale is composed of three, nine-point Likert-type statements intended to measure the degree to which a consumer believes a decision he/she has made regarding a service-related purchase was the right one. Due to the third item in the scale, the facility used to provide the service is an integral aspect of what is being measured.

The scale is used to measure the degree to which a customer who lodged a complaint is pleased with the way the problem was resolved. The context in which the respondents were given this scale was after being told to remember a recent service experience that led to their lodging a complaint. Four, five-point Likert-type items compose the scale.

The scale is composed of three items intended to produce a overall evaluation of a customer's s satisfaction level. Given that the scale was created for use with a service encounter it may not be quite as suited for use as a satisfaction measure with respect to physical goods.

The scale is used to measure a person's satisfaction with a product after the selection/purchase has been made and probably after consumption/usage of the product has occurred. The context for the scale's usage was at the end of an experiment when subjects had made a selection between a variety of brands (Fitzsimons (2000; Huffman and Kahn 1998). The full version of the scale has six items whereas the abbreviated version has three.

The scale is composed of five, seven-point items attempting to assess a consumer's expected level of satisfaction prior to some behavior such as buying a certain product. The implication is that the respondents have been exposed to some information by the time they respond to the measure (e.g., promotion, word-of-mouth) but they have not committed themselves in the form of a purchase yet.

Four, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure a theater attendee's confidence in the quality and consistency of the shows produced by a specified theater. The scale was called trust by Garbarino and Johnson (1999).

The scale has three, seven-point Likert-type statements and is intended to measure a customer's belief that a specific retailer has employees who get to know their regular customers over time and care about them. The scale was referred to as interpersonal communication by De Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder, and Iacobucci (2001).