You are here

Scale Reviews

Find reliable measures for use in your questionnaires. Search Now

Testimonial

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.
Dr. Terry Childers
Iowa State University

satisfaction

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).

The scale is composed of three, seven-point Likert-type items measuring the displeasure a consumer experiences after a specific purchase decision when he/she believes that another brand should have been selected. Although it may be most natural for the scale to be completed by consumers with respect to their own regret, in the study by Tsiros and Mittal (2000) it had to do with the attribution of regret on others based on knowledge of what they had experienced. In other words, one party believes that another party who has made a "bad" purchase decision is feeling regretful about it.

The scale is composed of three items used to measure a theater attendee's perception of the quality of acting observed at a specified theater. The items utilized different anchors on their response scales. The scale was called actor satisfaction by Garbarino and Johnson (1999).

The scale measures the degree to which one reports experiencing a pleasing feeling. It appears like the scale can be used to measure the emotional response to a stimulus (e.g., Mano and Oliver 1993) or a mood that one feels prior to exposure to a stimulus of interest (e.g., Mano 1999).

The scale's three, seven-point items are intended to capture the extent to which a consumer has taken action after being dissatisfied with a product by going to the marketing channel member(s) perceived to have some responsibility for resolving the problem. Actions such as complaining to a marketer and returning products to a store are sometimes referred to as voice behaviors (e.g., Moorman 1998, p. 85). The timeframe referred to in the scale is a year and the product category is food; both of these appear to be amenable for change if need be.

Four, five-point Likert-type items compose the scale. The items are used to measure the extent to which a customer who lodged a complaint thinks that he/she was allowed the opportunity to fully describe the problem to the other party in the transaction. 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 measure is intended to capture the degree to which a person thinks that the other party in a transaction was telling the truth. 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 is intended to measure the degree to which a customer who has lodged a complaint thinks that it has been dealt with quickly. 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 items measure the degree to which a person reports that the other party in a transaction was pleasant and acted courteously. 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 is composed of four, five-point Likert-type items.

Four, five-point Likert-type items compose the scale. The items are intended to measure the degree that a customer who lodged a complaint thinks that the other party in the transaction adjusted procedures in order to resolve the problem. 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.