You are on page 1of 228

On the Meaning of Customer Satisfaction

A Study in the Context of Retail Banking

Maarten Terpstra

Printed by: Offsetdrukkerij Ridderprint B.V., Ridderkerk ISBN/EAN: 978-90-5335-171-0 Copyright: © Maarten Terpstra

On the Meaning of Customer Satisfaction
A Study in the Context of Retail Banking

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Tilburg, op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. F.A. van der Duyn Schouten, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van de Universiteit op vrijdag 14 november 2008 om 14.15 uur door

Maarten Jan Terpstra geboren op 24 augustus 1969 te Boxmeer

Promotores:

Prof. dr. A.A.A. Kuijlen Prof. dr. K. Sijtsma

The latter years I studied the meaning of the psychological property satisfaction. they helped and inspired me.Preface There exists confusion about the meaning of psychological properties. I thank Monique for her confidence in me finishing my study and for her unconditional support throughout the years. This may sound odd. This is because a psychological property is not a thing within a person. Most of all. but it means that a psychological property is a theoretical concept which we use to interpret and describe behaviour of persons. . I thank Tom Breur for his support and his feedback on the many drafts he read. I am also grateful to ING for facilitating my study. Furthermore. I want to express my gratitude to my promotores Ton Kuijlen and Klaas Sijtsma. They taught me how to do scientific research. First of all. The results of the study are reported in this thesis. but an organisational principle with respect to behaviour of persons. and I have enjoyed our cooperation. and to many colleagues from ING for their support and interest in my results.

.

Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 References Introduction Measurement of psychological constructs The theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction Deductive design for test development and construct validation Method of the first empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK Results of the first empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK Method of the second empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK Results of the second empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK General discussion 1 11 33 65 81 97 151 159 183 191 205 211 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) Appendices .

.

The thesis includes a theoretical study of customer satisfaction and an empirical study into customer satisfaction with a major Dutch retail bank. Ironically. attribute satisfaction. 2000). The phrase meaning of customer satisfaction has multiple connotations. 15-17). consumer satisfaction. life satisfaction. and academic contexts. such as job satisfaction. Giese & Cote. and (d) the importance of customer satisfaction in the domain of retail banking.g. transaction-specific satisfaction. This is evidenced by the vast amount of studies that were conducted with respect to satisfaction in various contexts. This is reflected by the use of different terms. the domain of the consumer satisfaction is larger than the domain of customer satisfaction. Oliver. pp. satisfaction seems to be a somewhat elusive phenomenon.Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Introduction Satisfaction is an important concept in societal contexts. because customer satisfaction is only appropriate for satisfaction in commercial contexts and consumer satisfaction may also be used for satisfaction in other contexts. It is as Oliver (1997. it refers to (a) the linguistic use of the term customer satisfaction. In this thesis. nobody knows. (c) the empirical indicators of customer satisfaction. 1997. and aggregated satisfaction.’ This warrants further research into the meaning of satisfaction. consumer satisfaction and customer satisfaction are closely related since both pertain to the satisfaction response to consumption-related experiences. and these two terms were used more or less interchangeably in the marketing literature (e. service satisfaction. business contexts. The types of satisfaction are mutually related by what Wittgenstein (1953) labeled family resemblances. The subject of this thesis is the unravelling of the meaning of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking.. 1 . p. For example. However. until asked to give a definition.. summary satisfaction. 13) noted: ‘Everyone knows what satisfaction is. customer satisfaction. (b) the theoretical framework of customer satisfaction. meaning that they are mutually related in diverse ways. 2 A typology of satisfaction studies Satisfaction was studied in various settings and at various levels of aggregation (e.g. Then it seems.

. 1997. 15). industries. 2000.g. & Mazvancheryl. Fornell. 1997. For example. a consumer satisfaction response may reflect anhedonic cognitions (Oliver. An example is the consumer satisfaction response to using a pencil. for example. an industry. and (b) studies that are conducted at higher levels of aggregation. 318). meaning that it reflects cognitions that are not emotionally processed. there is a vast amount of studies into satisfaction in the marketing literature (e. 1997. Whereas the former satisfaction response may encompass a feeling of pleasure. 2000. 3 Satisfaction research in the marketing domain Satisfaction is an important concept in marketing theory. These are. transaction-specific satisfaction. studies of satisfaction of persons with single encounters with a phenomenon (i. Fornell. 1994. Oliver. several theorists (e. Anderson. The second type of satisfaction studies is conducted at higher levels of aggregation. Thus. Most studies dealt with satisfaction of consumers or customers with products or services or companies providing products or services.e. Anderson. 15). 2005) used satisfaction data at the firm level to study the connections between satisfaction and economic performance of firms.g. summary satisfaction. 1997. the latter satisfaction response may encompass a feeling of relief. 1990). p. The first type of satisfaction studies is characterised by analyses of person data. These studies are characterised by the analysis of satisfaction data that are aggregated at the level of firms. the consumer satisfaction response to dinner in a restaurant differs from the consumer satisfaction response to dental treatment.. Furthermore. In these studies. p. there are different types of satisfaction and different types of satisfaction studies. or societies. such as a firm. 15).There are also differences within each type of satisfaction with respect to the characteristics of the satisfaction response. For example. It is useful to examine the difference between two types of satisfaction studies. or a society (Oliver.e. & Lehmann. 2004. satisfaction is often 2 . Anderson & Mittal. Giese & Cote. Yi. and is limited to persons’ summary satisfaction with a company of which they are customers.. p. The present satisfaction study is conducted at the individual person level. Oliver 1997. Gruca & Rego. which are (a) studies that are conducted at the individual person level. or studies of satisfaction of persons with the accumulation of encounters with a phenomenon (i.. p. We refer to this kind of satisfaction as customer satisfaction (see also Chapter 3). Consequently. Oliver.

p. The meaning of satisfaction thus is context-dependent. they recommended the development of context-specific definitions of satisfaction. but the characteristics of the satisfaction response and the nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl. p. Satisfaction with a retail bank has both similarities and differences with satisfaction with dinner in a restaurant. 1997. 2000. Examples of concepts used as proxies for satisfaction are quality perceptions. 15-17). On the basis of a review of the literature. 13). Marketing theorists generally agree that satisfaction is a response to consumptionrelated experiences (e.g. 1994. satisfaction with consumption of non-durable consumer goods. 1997. which is caused by the complexity and the context-specific nature of satisfaction. a researcher must explicitly define satisfaction and justify the definition selected. Peterson & Wilson. and (c) the justification of the measurement of satisfaction. All pertain to the fulfilment response (Oliver. Anderson. Giese & Cote. Giese and Cote (2000) demonstrated a number of deficiencies in the definition and measurement of satisfaction in studies that were conducted in the last three decades.labeled consumer satisfaction or customer satisfaction. The use of these concepts as proxies for satisfaction has contributed to the confusion about the meaning of satisfaction (Oliver. 1992). loyalty. there exist a variety of definitions and measures of satisfaction in academic marketing research (e. Because it is impossible to develop a universal definition of satisfaction. the term satisfaction is sometimes applied to antecedents and sometimes to consequences of satisfaction (Oliver. behaviour. and profits. 15). 1990). Yi.. The deficiencies hampered the development and validation of satisfaction theory (e. Yi.. There are similarities and differences in the meaning of satisfaction in different domains. Fornell & Lehmann. This stance implies that measures of satisfaction should also be context-specific.g.g. and satisfaction with consumption of durable consumer goods. 3 . The measurements of these antecedents and consequences are sometimes used as proxies for satisfaction. they do not coincide with satisfaction. 1988. 1997. Although these concepts may serve the purpose of specific studies. because the measure should match the definition of satisfaction. (b) the justification of the definition of satisfaction. 1997. Giese & Cote. pp. Tse & Wilton. as there exist multiple definitions of satisfaction. recommendation intentions. Oliver. 1990). Giese and Cote (2000) argued that. Giese and Cote (2000) proposed a framework to guide researchers in developing a context-specific definition and a corresponding measurement procedure for satisfaction. Giese & Cote. and is often measured by means of a psychological test that is administered in survey research (Section 4). 2000. Furthermore. 2000. Still. These deficiencies pertain to (a) the explication of the definition of satisfaction..

g. 1971. p. which are labeled psychological constructs (e. 2000). p. the phrase test is often used when maximum performance is measured (e. p. divergent.g. This is in accordance with suggestions by Cronbach and Meehl (1955).g. 8. 1995). Nunally. academic studies in this domain increasingly discuss the convergent. Therefore. p. 1995.. Schouwstra. and Peter (1981). 4 . Churchill (1979).. Murphy & Davidshofer.g. 14. 2000. 35).. as with personality traits and attitudes). 1996. Molenaar. and nomological validity of measurements of the constructs of interest. as with educational testing and intelligence testing) and the phrase questionnaire when typical behaviour is measured (e. 1968. 96) and which may be measured by means of psychological tests and psychological questionnaires (e. pp.g. the responses of a person to the items administered in the survey) that is representative of the property of interest. 4 Measurement of satisfaction Satisfaction is a psychological property. which postulates that single items often yield inadequate measurements of constructs (e. Lord & Novick. Second.... This is broadly acknowledged since the influential papers of Jacoby (1976). well-chosen sets of items that are administered in a survey) that are assumed to elicit behaviour (e. The position of the person on the property is inferred from the response behaviour of the person (e. Psychological properties are mostly conceived of as theoretical constructions. Campbell and Fiske (1959).g. Oosterveld. First. 352. In the psychometric literature. This is in accordance with psychometric theory. Cronbach. measurements of psychological constructs in academic marketing research are generally based upon multiple-item instruments..g. the first objective of this study was to explore the theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking. Schouwstra. 1991. 56-77) we prefer to use it also in this thesis for measurement instruments for typical behaviour. Molenaar. and to develop a context-specific definition and measurement procedure for customer satisfaction.1955) of satisfaction differ between these domains. pp. and Peter (1981).g.. Messick.. as proposed by Giese and Cote (2000). 443. Churchill (1979). 1978.g. These differences warrant the development of context-specific definitions and corresponding measurement procedures for satisfaction. Because test has gained a wider use in psychological measurement (e. Validity of measurement is a key success factor in satisfaction research and in marketing research in general. Psychological tests and psychological questionnaires are instruments (e. 1989.

. 2000. This implies that the methodology of validation research should incorporate a methodology of test development. and such conceptual ambiguities slow down scientific progress. and company profitability (e. 1959) as mindless and mechanical.g. 1989. 1995. and has been criticised by validity theorists. Validity theorists (e. Schouwstra. & Van 5 . Goedee.g. p. Reijnders. which are construct underrepresentation and irrelevant variance (e. 1990. 1992. 129) noticed that attribute-based measures of satisfaction differ from affective measures of satisfaction. Verhoef (2001. Hausknecht. 1997). involving the collection of facts with little concern for their usefulness for construct validation. 1979.g. 2004. Schouwstra. For example. Messick. including the Dutch market for retail banking (e. Peterson & Wilson. Borsboom. 1992.g. Therefore. and Van Heerden (2004) criticised the practice of assessing nomological validity. The second objective of the present study is the selection of a methodology for the development of a test for customer satisfaction and the validation of test scores that is in line with validity theory. Giese & Cote. Messick. Oliver. Fornell. customer satisfaction is considered of strategic importance for companies in many retail markets. The practice of validation of measurements of psychological constructs often is not consistent with theory of validity.. Cronbach & Meehl. customer profitability.. different studies use different labels for the same construct or use the same label for different constructs. 1955) does not cover the major threats to construct validity. Yi. Cronbach (1989) characterised most applications of the multitrait-multimethod design (Campbell & Fiske. divergent. 1990). 2000) agree that construct validation has to start at the outset of test development. 5 Importance of satisfaction Customer satisfaction is expected to influence customer behaviour. Anastasi.. 2000). 2000. Churchill. 1959. Borsboom et al.. and nomological validity (Campbell & Fiske. This criticism includes the practice of validation research in satisfaction studies. and that the latter measures of satisfaction have strong resemblance with measures of affective commitment. Mellenbergh. The assessment of convergent.g. and proposed to assess validity on the basis of the test of a causal theory regarding the relation between the property of interest and response behaviour. A review of the marketing literature demonstrates a serious problem regarding the definition and measurement of psychological constructs such as satisfaction (e. 1988. Anderson & Mittal. 1989..The interest in validity of measurement by no means implies that the issues with regard to validity are resolved. Thus.

Virtually each Dutch adult owned at least a current account and most owned a variety of financial products. Longitudinal studies (e. mutual funds. 1992. 6 . 1987. They all offered a broad range of financial products. 1988). and retention of customers is of major importance for companies in these markets (Fornell. including current accounts. are rare in the marketing literature. Therefore. longitudinal studies conducted at the person level and exploring the relation between customer satisfaction and future customer profitability. The usefulness of satisfaction research for the development of satisfaction theory may be increased by the resolution of these deficiencies. 1990). During the present study. Anderson. Fornell. 2008).Thiel. psychometric methods may serve to overcome these deficiencies.. Reichheld & Sasser. If customer satisfaction influences customer profitability. loans. 6 Research goal Deficiencies in the definition and measurement of satisfaction have hampered the development and validation of satisfaction theory (e. credit cards. Most of the market was divided between six large retail banks. However. and insurances. 1990). Customer satisfaction is considered a key success factor for these companies. A number of these products was also offered by insurance companies and various niche players. mortgages. Gruca & Rego. Fornell (1992) argued that customer satisfaction is a key success factor for companies that operate in mature and competitive markets. saving accounts. because it is expected to affect retention of customers and to provide a defence against offensive strategies by its competitors (Fornell & Wernerfelt.g. 2000. Anderson & Mittal. In these markets. Peterson & Wilson. & Lehmann. there must be a relation between customer satisfaction at time t = 0 and customer profitability at time t > 0. Most of them had products from different financial companies. company growth is accomplished at the expense of competing firms. the Dutch market for retail banking was a mature and competitive market. Giese & Cote. the third objective of this study is to explore the latter relation on the basis of longitudinal data. The results of these studies strengthen the expectation that customer satisfaction influences customer profitability. 1994. This thesis aims at contributing to the improvement of the methodology of satisfaction research by the use of psychometric methods for the definition and measurement of customer satisfaction. Because psychometrics is concerned with the measurement of psychological constructs such as satisfaction. 1992.g. Yi. 2000. 2005) demonstrated a relation between customer satisfaction and future financial results of companies.

The chapter starts with an explication of the deductive design. Subsequently.Furthermore. Chapter 2 addresses the measurement of psychological constructs. 2000). the development of the test for 7 . 4. and the measurement process. (b) a theoretical study into the meaning of customer satisfaction and customer dissatisfaction. the theory of validity of measurement is discussed. 1996). a definition of customer satisfaction in the domain of retail banking is provided. Chapter 3 discusses the theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction. Chapter 4 discusses the deductive design (Schouwstra. and the conceptions of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in these theories. the thesis addresses four research questions: 1. the different approaches to test development. and (c) two empirical studies into customer satisfaction with a major Dutch retail bank. Subsequently. the purpose of the empirical study. the theory of violators (Oort. The empirical studies were based on survey research that was conducted among customers of the bank. the thesis aims at contributing to the development and validation of satisfaction theory by means of a study into the meaning of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking. 3. The chapter ends with the choice of the appropriate methodology for test development and construct validation for this study. which are (a) a theoretical study into the measurement of psychological constructs and the validity of measurement. The chapter starts with an introduction into the conception of psychological constructs. the nomological network of customer satisfaction is explored. Subsequently. 2. In order to meet the research goal. On the basis of these explorations. which is a methodology for test development and construct validation for personality traits and attitude-like properties. The chapter starts with an exploration of the theory on customer satisfaction and customer dissatisfaction. What is a suitable methodology for test development and construct validation in the domain of satisfaction research? What is the theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking? What is the empirical meaning of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking? What is the importance of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking? 7 Contents of the thesis This thesis encompasses three components.

The purpose of the first empirical study was to measure customer satisfaction with a retail bank. the relation between customer satisfaction and future customer profitability is further explored. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the meaning of the results of the empirical study for the assessment of the validity of measurement of customer satisfaction. and the main study. and the tests of the remaining hypotheses regarding the validity of the measurements of customer satisfaction.customer satisfaction with a retail bank. Chapter 5 addresses the method of the first empirical study. and the data collection. The chapter includes a discussion of the preliminary analyses. and to explore the relation between customer satisfaction and future customer profitability. Next. The chapter includes a discussion of the measurement instruments that were applied in this study. the questionnaire. and the hypotheses regarding the validity of measurement of customer satisfaction are addressed. the pre-tests. The chapter starts with the discussion of the preliminary data analyses. Chapter 6 presents the results of the first empirical study. the outline of the measurement model. The purpose of the second empirical study was to test hypotheses regarding the validity of measurement that were not addressed in the first empirical study. the sample. the measurement analyses. Chapter 8 presents the results of the second empirical study. The chapter includes a discussion of the measurement instruments that were applied in this study. to investigate the validity of the measurement of customer satisfaction. the pilot study. 8 . It discusses the results from this study and their implications for customer satisfaction theory and marketing measurement. Subsequently. Chapter 9 is the general discussion. the questionnaire. the measurement analyses and the tests of the hypotheses are discussed. Chapter 7 addresses the method of the second empirical study. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the meaning of the results of the study for the assessment of the validity of the measurements of customer satisfaction.

9 .

10 .

This is the major subject of psychometrics. observable behaviours. the term concept refers to a somewhat broader group of theoretical abstractions than the term construct. and that constructs refer to concepts that are sort of formally defined in scientific theories. Borsboom. and to some extent both terms may be used interchangeably. (b) to assess whether these instances provide a representative sample. such as any linguistic term.g. Borsboom et al. this position is not discussed in this chapter. Thus. Hox (1997. p.g.. Operationalism equates theoretical constructs with their measurements. meaning that they represent ideas that are formed by generalisations from similar phenomena. For the latter purpose one needs to apply statistical models and to assess the quality of measurement.. 2006). 2006). pp. A third position regarding the ontology of constructs is operationalism (e. 6-9).Chapter 2 Measurement of psychological constructs 1 Introduction A psychological construct such as satisfaction is a theoretical construction with both linguistic and empirical content. Kane. Because it is broadly acknowledged that operationalism is untenable (e. 2003. 2003. 2003. The focus of the chapter is on theory regarding the conception and the measurement of attitude-constructs. Mellenbergh & Van Heerden. and (c) to assess how to combine the observations into a measure of the construct of interest. Borsboom. Heiser. and (b) relations with empirical phenomena. 11 . is not taken into account. Theory that is specific for the conception and the measurement of ability-constructs.g. 2006. Borsboom. Mellenbergh & Van Heerden. This means that a psychological construct is a term with (a) linguistic meaning. such as satisfaction. In order to measure a construct one needs (a) to obtain a sample of instances within the corresponding behavioural domain. These two positions are discussed in the next section. This chapter addresses the theory on the conception and the measurement of psychological constructs. 2005. such as the various types of specific intelligence. 49) noted that both constructs and concepts are theoretical abstractions.. that is. The major positions regarding the ontology of psychological constructs are realism and constructivism (e.. Constructs are highly similar to concepts. Borsboom.

Thomson. for example. p. 1958. Borsboom et al. empirical meaning refers to the definition of a construct in terms of observable data. A psychological construct such as intelligence has both theoretical and empirical meaning. The theoretical meaning of intelligence entails its definition in terms of (a) the group of attributes or phenomena to which it refers. 2005. Mellenbergh. The realistic position is founded upon the assumption that psychological properties exist as unobservable but real entities (e. and (b) its relation with other constructs in the nomological network. and that the measurement of a particular psychological property is a reflection of the entity. 1953. 11). 2004. The realistic position regarding the existence of psychological properties raises the question What is property X.. Frege. Torgerson (1958. Borsboom. the operationally defined intelligence is not universally agreed to be the same thing as the theoretically defined intelligence. However. The question regarding the meaning of a particular psychological property is ultimately a linguistic question (Wittgenstein.. This means that a property exists independent of its observations. 2003. 6). There is no identity relation between the theoretical meaning of a construct and its empirical referents. p. it seems that the question regarding the meaning of a particular psychological property precedes the question regarding the ontological status of this property. 2006). p. (2003) argued that measurement of psychological properties requires a realistic position regarding the particular construct. There is an ongoing debate regarding the ontological status of psychological properties (e. a property-construct must possess both theoretical meaning and empirical meaning (Torgerson. 1956. 2005. Whereas theoretical meaning refers to the definition of a construct in terms of theoretical concepts. which is supposed to exist? Thus. as the sentences Test X measures the attitude towards nuclear energy and Attitudes do not exist cannot both be true. He argued that. 9) denoted psychological constructs such as satisfaction as property-constructs. The empirical meaning of intelligence entails the empirical indicators of the construct and includes. Sijtsma.. 2006. and contrasted them to system-constructs.2 Conception of psychological constructs Scientific concepts are the core of scientific theories (Sartori. 1958).g. to be of use in scientific theory. This implies that psychological constructs are the core of psychological theories. Borsboom. the score on a particular intelligence test. Carnap. Borsboom. which are objects and things that possess sets of particular properties. 1984. 1892). p. 1961).g.g. as Torgerson (1958. 7) noted. & Van Heerden. The major positions regarding the ontological status of psychological properties are realism and constructivism. The distinction between theoretical meaning and empirical meaning of constructs is founded in linguistic and logical positivistic philosophies (e. This 12 .

such as psychological theory. 7-9) differentiated between three constructivist movements. and whether it is useful. Social constructivism deserves special attention because it advocates a linguistic conception of psychological constructs. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing – But suppose the word beetle had a use in these people’s language? – If so it would not be used as the 13 . and (b) the denial of knowledge about the existence of theoretical concepts as realistic entities. but it does defy knowledge beyond the observable. section 293): ‘Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a beetle – Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in the box. the description of particular cases of a construction will reveal the meaning of the construction. instrumentalism. A sharp definition will not converge with the actual use of a construct.means that the property is a term with a meaning that needs to be clarified on the basis of an examination of the use of the term in linguistic contexts. The linguistic conception of psychological properties does not defy the existence psychological properties in a realistic sense. 44). There is no combination of defining characteristics. whether it is appropriate in a particular context. It makes sense to question what a particular construct refers to. section 43). but it makes no sense to question whether a particular construct exists in any physical or physiological sense. including psychological theories. Borsboom (2005. meaning that it is the linguistic use of the term that grants theoretical meaning to the construct (Wittgenstein. These movements have many different characteristics and concerns. According to Wittgenstein (1953. which separates all cases of thinking from everything else. beyond their existence as organisational principles of behaviour. 1958). This is best illustrated by the beetle argument (Wittgenstein. According to constructivism. Constructivism does not assume the existence of psychological properties as entities in a realistic sense. and social constructivism. 1958. It is fruitless to search for a sharp definition of a construction like thinking. This point of view implies that the justification of a particular construct is founded in the use of the construct within a particular language context. which are logical positivism. p. 1953. pp. 1958. because cases of thinking are connected to each other by family resemblances. 1953. a psychological property may be conceived of as an organisational principle with respect to behaviour. but what they have in common is (a) the differentiation between a theoretical concept and an empirical concept. because the actual use does not have distinct borders (Wittgenstein. Empirical observations have to demonstrate the use of a construction in a particular language context.

whatever it is. He acknowledged that social science theories are generally expressed in natural language. 1984. 1958). Sartori (1984. However.’ Sartori (1984) provided an important extension of the linguistic conception of social science concepts. 1892. unequivocal definitions cannot bridge the gap between theoretical meaning and empirical meaning. Wittgenstein. pp.name of a thing. or processes denoted by words. Concept analysis is a useful starting point for research into social science concepts and marketing concepts. 1950. pp. The thing in the box has no place in the language game at all. and operationalisation of concepts. Sartori’s (1984) concept analysis bears resemblance to the explication of constructs (Carnap. one can divide through by the thing in the box. which are the objects. 1956). 31-35) proposed concept analysis. 32-33) proposed to define a concept in terms of a well-specified set of defining and accompanying characteristics. The empirical referents are loosely described as the real world counterpart of words. There is ample evidence of a negative effect of conceptual ambiguities regarding constructs on scientific progress. The unequivocal definition of a construct is legitimate and desirable for the development of scientific theory (Sartori. because the meaning of a term differs from the empirical referents (Frege. 14 . because it may serve to overcome these conceptual ambiguities. which encompasses the unequivocal definition of its concepts. He argued that science needs a specialised language. which implies fuzzy reasoning. entities. Concept analysis aims at establishing the meaning of the concept by establishing the scientific definition of the concept. – That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of ‘object and designation’ the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant. making sure that the concept is understood unequivocally. This is a verbal definition. Concepts that have different connotations in natural language have to be split. Theoretical constructs exist as linguistic constructions. Torgerson. The core of concept analysis is the establishing of the scientific definition of the concept. 1958). – No. For this purpose. and that language influences our reasoning and theorising. not even as a something: for the box might even be empty. See Yi (1990) and Giese and Cote (2000) for discussion on the importance of an unequivocal conceptualisation of satisfaction for the development of satisfaction theory. Sartori (1984. it cancels out. and they have a surplus meaning over any empirical meaning. 1953. and determining the empirical referents of the concept. which results in unequivocally defined concepts. thinking.

p. Torgerson. one can hardly depend on the observation of one instance within a domain in order to measure the construct. Third. which originate from the conception of psychological constructs as linguistic constructions. Psychological constructs can be measured by means of psychological tests (Chapter 1. Moreover. 96. 1958). Section 4). 3 Test development The development of scientific theory requires that its concepts can be measured adequately (Sartori. and the analysis of the use of the term reveals the meaning of the term. such as psychological theories. which is concerned with the modelling of data that reflects behaviour of persons. 1984. the measurement of a psychological 15 . and they are the raw material for measurement. Second. Sijtsma. As a psychological construct is connected to a domain of behaviours. 352) explained that psychometrics does not assume the existence of a property in a physical or physiological sense: ‘…nowhere in psychological theory is there any necessary implication that traits exist in any physical or physiological sense.. psychological constructs are terms that are used in different language contexts. 2006). Nunnally.The constructivist position regarding the ontology of psychological properties is in line with psychometrics. but it is not the attribute behind the data (e. one cannot point to one particular kind of behaviour or one particular set of behaviours. 105-109. pp. Messick (1989) noticed that single items yield moderate measurements of constructs because they almost certainly reflect a confounding of multiple determinants. The behaviours are the second observable. which are behaviours interpreted in terms of the construct. p. psychological constructs may have empirical referents. This means that the latent trait in a measurement model is estimated from the data. First. Consequently. It is sufficient that a person behave as if he/she were in possession of a certain amount of each of a number of relevant traits and that he/she behaves as if these amounts substantially determined his behaviour. 1978. Lord and Novick (1968.g. which totally cover a particular construct and nothing else.’ Theory about psychological constructs has to take three points into consideration. This means that a particular psychological construct is connected to a domain of behaviours that cannot be delineated sharply and cannot be listed exhaustively. The linguistic use of the term is the first observable.

which means that the analysis of the available data makes up the core of test development. 61). 24). 1996. if the different items have different unique components that are mutually independent. which are the deductive approach. p. On the basis of empirical research into the quality of different methods. 25) categorised these methods in three approaches for test development. 1973) and the facet design method (Guttman. Oosterveld (1996. the intuitive approach. The methods of the deductive approach are based upon explicit theory about the construct of interest. which are (a) the conception of the construct. 16 . There is no theory regarding the construct of interest that grounds the formulation of a definition of the construct and eventually the content of the items and the composition of the test. This means that the methods of the deductive approach yielded tests that provided test scores having better validity and reliability than the methods of the other approaches. The definition of the construct in terms of phenomena and attributes that it refers to is called the explicit definition. Scientific research has suggested different methods for the development of psychological tests. (c) scale construction. The construct method (Oosterveld. 1996. p. pp. Oosterveld (1996) studied two methods of the deductive approach. 127) concluded that the deductive approach to test construction yields better tests than the intuitive and inductive approaches. 2000. and the definition of the construct in terms of its relation with other constructs in the nomological network is called the implicit definition (Schouwstra. The methods can be described in terms of four components. The methods of the intuitive approach are based upon implicit knowledge and implicit hypotheses regarding the construct of interest. which were the construct method (Jackson. The methods of the inductive approach are exploratory. This problem is solved with multipleitem scales. The second step of the method is elaboration or scale development. p. A test is developed on the basis of observable relations between either the items or the items and some criterion. The methods may be characterised as data driven. 1996. (b) scale development. 1971. 1954). 25). 16-20) is a theory-oriented method.construct on the basis of a single item will be biased. Oosterveld (1996. p. and the inductive approach. and (d) evaluation of scale scores (Oosterveld. p. The first step of the method is the definition of the construct on the basis of scientific theory regarding the construct. This theory is the basis of the formulation of a definition of the construct and eventually the content of the items and the composition of the test (Oosterveld.

which are (a) population facets. This step includes. 20-24. Thus. and a particular combination of elements of each content facet is called a structuple (Oosterveld. The facet design defines a universe of observations by classifying them with a scheme of facets (i. 1996.e. for example. 1996. item production. and item judgement. The fourth step is the evaluation of the scale scores. The product of all elements of all content facets defines the set of structuples and delineates the concept (see. The items need to be content saturated. and item judgement. Each item must be specific for a single structuple of the facet structure. The items have to be derived from the facet structure. This step includes item specification. The facet design method (Oosterveld. the assessment of reliability and construct validity of scale scores. Facet theory distinguishes three types of facets. item production. This means that each item should correlate relatively high with the scale score that represents the concept the item is expected to measure. each item must possess convergent and divergent validity.. and relatively low with scale scores representing other concepts (Oosterveld.g. The third step of the method is scale construction. which refers to the application of a measurement model to the empirical data aimed at producing a scale on which persons can be measured with respect to the concept of interest. Mellenbergh & Hoogstraten. Section 4 from Chapter 4). for example. 19). 1993) is a method for test development that is aimed at the optimisation of content validity by means of a systematic representation of the concept.. 22). The concept is represented on the basis of the combination of one or more content facets. p. which classify the behaviours.This step includes item specification. The second step of the method is elaboration or scale development. variables) that contain different elements (i. Scale construction refers to the analysis of the data by means of a measurement model. The third step of the method is scale construction. Each of these facets has one or more distinct values that are called the elements of the facet. p. This step includes. the assessment of reliability and construct validity of scale scores. values). The product of all elements of all facets defines the universe of observations. which classify the population. Both the construct method and the facet design method incorporate some kind of concept analysis that clarifies the meaning of the construct of interest and facilitates its 17 . and (c) response facets. see also Hox. The fourth step of the method is the evaluation of the scale scores. It may be noted that the construct method bears resemblance to Churchill’s (1979) procedure for test development in marketing research. (b) content facets. which classify the concept. 1996. pp. 1997) introduced the facet design.. aimed at producing the measurement scales and the scale scores. e. Stouthard. Guttman (1954. Each content facet has one or more elements.e.

and it is stimuli and/or persons. this analysis should facilitate a definition of the construct in the format of a facet design. it is not immediately clear what this concept analysis is. including scientific theories. 4 Measurement process Coombs (1964. In practice. that reveals the meaning of the construct and facilitates its definition. 1958. 1958. See Giese and Cote (2000) for an example of this practice in consumer satisfaction research. this requires the inventarisation of diverse studies into the construct. and the introduction of a framework for the development of context-specific definitions of consumer satisfaction. 3-6. the researcher has to decide on the collection of observations. In phase three. Following this argumentation. which are measured. that is. the examination of definitions of consumer satisfaction in scientific research. and the examination of the conception of the construct in these studies. The universe of observations is theoretically unlimited.definition. Coombs (1964. and the classification of stimuli and/or persons on a scale constitutes the measurement of a property. and to classify the stimuli and/or the persons. 44) argued that it is the examination of examples of the use of a term in language contexts that reveals the meaning of the term. in order to clarify the meaning of the construct and to develop a research definition of the construct. In phase two. it is appropriate to examine the use of the term in various language contexts. Thus. A scale represents a property. Wittgenstein (1953. 29) conceived of data as interpretations of observations by the researcher. However. the researcher transforms the observations into data. p. and it is up to the researcher to choose and to record particular observations from a particular research population. it is properties of stimuli and/or persons. p. 9). and the data are psychological data. 4) represented the process of psychological measurement in a scheme (Figure 1). In the case of the facet design method. which are classified (Torgerson. and in the case of the construct method this analysis should facilitate an explicit and an implicit definition of the construct. The observations Coombs (1964) referred to are observations of behaviour. p. the researcher applies a measurement model to the data in order to construct one or more scales. the analysis of similarities and differences between these definitions. In phase one of the process. Therefore. It always takes some decision or action on the part of the researcher to create the data on the basis of his/her observations. 18 . pp.

. which influence the output of the phase concerned and the measurements. p. ordinal data. For this reason. The quality of measurement is not self-evident but has to be demonstrated. or numerical data. 5) argued that the phases preceding the scaling analyses are at least as important components of the measurement process. the desired level of measurement. Embretson & Reise. The major types of measurement models are the classical test theory (CTT) model (Lord & Novick. The first criterion is the fit of the measurement model. Gorsuch. The choice of a researcher for a particular measurement model may be based on the hypothesised relationship between the data and the property. The major criteria with respect to quality of measurement are the fit of the measurement model. For example. 2000) and the factor analytic models (e. Psychometrics suggests different measurement models that may be applied in the last phase of the measurement process. 5) noted that ‘psychological data and measurements and scales are theory’. the item response theory (IRT) models (e. and the validity of the interpretation of the scale scores (Molenaar. Coombs (1964. the scheme illustrates that each phase encompasses one or more decisions made by the researcher. the researcher may code the answers to some closed question as nominal data. Bollen. and use a suitable measurement model to analyse the data.. It is noteworthy that different measurement models may yield different scales of the property. The coding of the responses and the choice of the measurement model are based upon assumptions made by the researcher with respect to the observations that he or she made. p. 1983). 1995). p. the generalisability of conclusions. 1964. which means that they may yield different classifications of persons. Coombs (1964. Furthermore. The fit of the model refers to the extent 19 .g. the reliability of the scale scores. The measurement model is a formal representation of the expected data structure. 1968). and the intention to test hypotheses about the fit of the model. 4) Figure 1 illustrates that the scaling analyses are not at the core but at the end of the measurement process.Universe of potential observations Phase 1 Recorded observations Data Inferential classification of individuals and stimuli Phase 3 Phase 2 Figure 1: The Measurement Process (Coombs.g. 1989.

or whether a scale score is significantly different from a cut score. The second criterion is reliability. 1971) and the Rasch model (Rasch. and can be used for testing hypotheses about the true score. which refers to the extent to which conclusions from measurement analyses are generalisable over various conditions. 1951). To assess the 20 . the item response function defines the probability of a particular score given the person’s measurement value on the scale of interest. 1995). one person may be measured with greater accuracy using a particular item and a particular test than another person who has another scale location (Molenaar. The reliability coefficient is generally used to obtain the standard error of measurement in scale scores. or the extent to which a theoretical assumption such as unidimensionality is in agreement with the dimensionality of the empirical data. their fit can be falsified on the basis of empirical data. which serve as estimates of the true scores. In IRT. which are defined as the observed scores minus the measurement errors. This is. The standard error of measurement is used to estimate a confidence interval for a person’s true score. such as the internal consistency coefficient. nor the true score variance can be observed. the reliability coefficient has to be estimated by other means. the extent to which the theoretical correlation matrix that is based upon the scale scores is in agreement with the empirical correlation matrix. Since these models imply testable statements regarding the structure of the data. which is known as coefficient alpha (Cronbach. for example. 1960) is the availability of powerful tests of the fit of the model to the data (Molenaar. an item response function is defined for each item in the test. The reliability coefficient originated from CTT. The third criterion is generalisability. Thus. are different. Thus. A major advantage of IRT models such as the Mokken model (Mokken. Persons having higher arithmetic ability levels have higher probabilities of giving the correct answer. Neither the true scores.to which the theoretical assumptions of the model regarding the structure of the data match the empirical data. For example. persons with different measurement values have different probabilities of providing a particular score. Therefore. and is defined as the ratio of the true score variance and the observed score variance in the population of interest. it can be tested whether two scale scores. An example is an item response function that defines the probability of a correct answer to a particular arithmetic item as an increasing function of arithmetic ability. 1995). which refers to the accuracy of scale scores. The use of item response functions implies that the magnitude of the measurement error depends on the person’s location on the scale. For a particular item.

(b) the sampling of items. results obtained via telephone interviews cannot be compared with results obtained from on-line interviews without having investigated the comparability of these modes of data collection (e. 445-449) and validity for decision-making (i. Initially. pp.. Cronbach. 1971. 81) a set of items may constitute a scale in one empirical study but not in another empirical study. 1995). (b) content validity. 145.g.. Cronbach. 1986. It is recommended to reflect on the plausible sources of randomness in advance of a study and. (c) the test conditions. 2000). which is called criterion-related validity (e.e. 1988. 1927).. Validity is extensively discussed in the next session. For example. The fourth criterion is validity.e. due to differences in test conditions (e. if necessary. Messick (1989. 13) defined validity as ‘an integrated evaluative judgement of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores or other modes of assessment’. 445-449). 1995). Furthermore. and (c) construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl. p. 1955). the validity of test-score interpretations for making decisions about a person.g. Messick. it proved to be difficult to find objective criteria for different kinds of measurements. Bronner & Kuijlen. 1988. 2007). Anastasi. 21 .generalisability of conclusions. 1989. Cronbach & Meehl. the validity of test-score interpretations for describing a person. 1971. to test empirically whether particular generalisations are justified (Molenaar.. Anastasi. the mode of administration may influence the responses to test items. pp. p. such as measurements of different psychological constructs.g.. p. such as (a) criterion-related validity. Validity was demonstrated on the basis of the correlation of test scores with some criterion. validity was conceived of as the degree to which a test measures what it purports to measure (Kelley. This necessitates the assessment of the fit of the measurement model in different empirical studies in which the measurement instrument is used.g. Schouwstra. This definition entails validity of measurement (i. Angoff. and (d) the mode of administration of the test. For example. Major sources of randomness are (a) the sampling of persons. This problem gave rise to new methods for establishing validity and eventually to different conceptualisations of validity. 1955).. one has to study the sources of randomness in measurement (Molenaar. 5 Validity The concept of validity has evolved throughout time (e. However.

pp. 140. In order to establish content validity. and their explanation illustrates that they conceived of construct validity as the 22 . content validity is a property of tests rather than of test-score interpretations (Messick. and they concluded that construct validation may include many investigations. it cannot be expressed as a single coefficient. One additional remark is in order. and inter-test correlations. 107-109). p. Because this judgement is qualitative by nature. and not to what the test scores actually reflect (Anastasi.g. which means that all aspects or structuples are equally represented in the test. This is the core of content validity. Thus. Messick (1989. Cronbach & Meehl (1955) explained construct validation. Construct validation requires the integration of all evidence into a judgement of construct validity. a researcher can develop a test which covers all aspects or facets of the construct of interest according to a specified rule such as equal coverage. 1991. one must depart from an elaborated definition of the construct of interest. Messick. validity theorists do not consider face validity as a conceptualisation of validity. inter-item correlations. and of what the construct does not refer to but may be related to (Schouwstra. p. 1988.Content validity is established by showing that the behaviours sampled by the test are a representative sample of the domain of interest (e. content validity pertains to evidence about the domain coverage and the degree to which the content of the test represents the domain. Anastasi. 1971. 1955). content validity has to be incorporated at the onset of test development. The latter pertains to whether the test looks valid to test users. Furthermore. 17) Two additional remarks are in order. They discussed construct validation. p. 39) noted that.. The study of relations between test scores and measurements of concepts in the nomological network provides evidence pro or contra construct validity. 39-42. such as the reliability of test scores (Cronbach & Meehl. Cronbach. This network is the nomological network. First. Cronbach and Meehl (1955) conceived of construct validity as the appropriateness of test-score interpretations. Therefore. pp. 144).451. they proposed defining a construct by means of a network of associations or propositions in which the construct of interest occupies a central position. content validity should not be confused with face validity. such as research into content validity. This definition should include a detailed description of what the construct refers to. For example. As such. 1989. p. 2000). p. Second. Content validity is then established on the basis of the comparison of the structure of the test with the specified structure of the construct. Murphy & Davidshofer. 1988. criterion-related validity. on the basis of the construct definition. 1989.

The lack of an explicit definition may have contributed to confusion about the meaning of construct validity. The work of these authors has guided validation research in academic marketing research up to the present day.g. 1959) to investigate construct validity. (b) divergent validity. 447). and unwillingness to respond may contaminate the data. 1981. and (c) different traits measured by means of different methods. Belson (1986) proposed assessing validity in survey 23 . Bradburn. 1998. For example. 1971. questionnaire length. Schuman & Presser.appropriateness of test-score interpretations (see also Cronbach. Belson. Rugg. 1982. The measurement of psychological constructs is typically based upon survey research. and method bias is assessed on the basis of a comparison of the second and the third set of correlations. so that each trait is measured by each method. which does not match the conception of construct validity as the appropriateness of test-score interpretations.. Churchill (1979) and Peter (1981) proposed multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) research (Campbell & Fiske. (b) different traits measured by means of the same method. the quality of the survey data delineates the validity of measurements of psychological constructs. For these reasons. Belson (1986) explicitly addressed the subject of validity in survey research. p. Ample evidence exists of the effects of questionnaire format. MTMM research requires measurements of at least two traits by at least two methods. Churchill (1979) conceived of construct validity as a property of a test. Churchill (1979) and Peter (1981) introduced construct validity in the marketing literature. However. Nomological validity refers to the relationships between the test scores and measures purported to assess different but related concepts. and (c) convergent validity. Convergent validity is assessed on the basis of inspection of the first set of correlations. they did not provide an explicit definition of construct validity. Thus. divergent validity is assessed on the basis of inspection of the second set of correlations. 1983. Sudman & Bradburn. Discriminant or divergent validity refers to the extent to which test scores differ from measures of other concepts that are expected to be different from the concept of interest in theoretically interesting ways. The MTMM matrix consists of the correlations between (a) the same trait measured by means of different methods. 1995). memory decay of participants. Saris et al. Scherpenzeel. 1941. 1981. Belson (1986) noted that the accuracy of answers to survey questions cannot be taken for granted because misinterpretations of questions. they split construct validity into (a) nomological validity. and the wording of questions and response categories on the responses of participants to questions (e. Elaborating on the work of Cronbach and Meehl (1955) and Campbell and Fiske (1959). Convergent validity refers to the extent to which test scores correlate with other measurements of the same construct.

or no validity at all. such as (a) the evaluation of the data collection procedure in terms of the known principles of question formulation and questionnaire design. Oliver. 34-35. Messick (1989. the definition expresses that different lines of evidence have to be considered when making a judgement of validity. 1971. This includes the investigation of the quality of opinion data. 20-21) differentiated between the assessment of construct validity and the assessment of the consequences of the use and the interpretation of test scores as the two bases of validity. p. (b) the pre-testing of the questions. 1979) addressed two general threats to construct validity. This judgement has a gradual nature (Messick. p. Messick (1989. pp.research on the basis of an investigation of the quality of the answers given to survey questions. 1971. the definition expresses unequivocally that the subject of validation is the interpretation and the use of test scores. 343). 34. p. Messick’s (1989.. which are construct underrepresentation and irrelevant variance. Second. p. Messick. Cronbach. 20-21. and (c) the execution of a pilot of the questionnaire. Irrelevant 24 . Cronbach.. 1989. This includes evidence of criterion-related validity. 1988. 1955. 1995). such as only the cognitive aspect of customer satisfaction instead of both the cognitive and affective aspects of the construct (e. 1955). p. Anastasi. low validity. 464. see also Cook & Campbell. 13). content validity.g. Belson (1986) proposed various techniques to assess the validity of survey research. Fifth.g. Cronbach. This is in agreement with the practice of validation in psychological research. Construct underrepresentation refers to the risk of measuring only a part of the construct of interest. pp. pp. 1995) argued that construct validity comprises the rationales and evidence supporting the trustworthiness of test-score interpretations in terms of the construct of interest. First. 1991). and the original conception of construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl. In that context. 1989. p. but have to be integrated into a judgement regarding the test-score interpretation (e. 13) definition of validity is important for various reasons.. Fourth. Messick.g. 1997. Cronbach & Meehl. the definition expresses that validation is an unending process that includes the judgement of evidence gathered in the processes of test development and test use (Anastasi. the definition expresses that these different lines of evidence cannot be integrated into a single coefficient. Messick (1989. Murphy & Davidshofer. 1971. 452. Third. 13). moderate validity. 1988. 1995. 1989. 1986. which is to investigate the meaning of test scores in a specific context and the usefulness of test scores for various decision-making purposes (e. and that the validation of decision-making practices of test scores comprises the appraisal of social consequences of the use and interpretation of test scores. which implies that the test-score interpretations may have high validity.

the test score may still reflect only part of the attribute. 1995) conception of construct validity as a property of test-score interpretations is today’s dominant conception of construct validity in psychometrics. 58-59) proposed the deductive design. As such. the relation between the attribute and response behaviour. Borsboom et al. the test score may reflect something more than just the attribute of interest. When a relationship is found between the measure of the attribute and other attributes. Both construct underrepresentation and irrelevant variance refute the interpretation of test scores in terms of a reflection of the construct of interest and nothing else. (2004) criticised Messick’s (1989. pp. For this purpose. Schouwstra’s methodology encompasses the collection of theoretical and empirical evidence regarding the interpretation of test scores in terms of the construct of interest. They subscribed to Kelley (1927) that a test is valid if it measures what it purports to measure. Also. such as other traits. concepts related to specific group membership. Borsboom et al. it does not provide a clear-cut methodology for investigating construct validity. Because a 25 . 2004) defined validity as a property of tests. The research should test a hypothesis with respect to the processes that lead to measurement outcomes. They opposed Cronbach and Meehl (1955) and Messick (1989. Two additional remarks are in order. Evidence of validity should be based upon research into the response process. which is a methodology for the development of tests for typical behaviour such as behaviour related to satisfaction and construct validation. It may be noted that the common practice of collecting empirical evidence for a network of associations between measurements does not exclude the two threats to construct validity. However. Borsboom et al. (2004) argued that the conception of validity as a property of tests has direct relevance for validation research. Messick’s (1989. and nothing else.variance refers to the risk of measuring more than just the construct of interest. (2003. The deductive design is consistent with Messick’s conception of construct validity. or response tendencies. This amounts to a test of a causal theory about the relation between attribute and response behaviour. who conceived of construct validity as a property of test-score interpretations. First. and they took a realistic stance regarding the nature of psychological constructs. 13) definition and conception of validity. 1995). and (b) variations in the attribute causally produce variations in the outcomes of measurement procedures’. and they defined validity of tests accordingly: ‘A test is valid for measuring an attribute if (a) the attribute exists in the real world. that is. Thus. and conceived of psychological constructs as postulated attributes of people. p. Schouwstra (2000. it takes the two global threats to construct validity into account. which are construct underrepresentation and construct irrelevant variance.

26 . and partly to validity theory that is still developing and has not yet come to a conclusion. 1993). Peter (1981) and Fornell and Larcker (1981) further elaborated Churchill’s perspective and the associated methods for validation research. & Mobley. but test a causal theory about the processes that evoke behaviour. in their view validation research should not assess the relationship of the construct with other constructs in the nomological network. the authors considered the nomological network irrelevant for validation research. Consequently. 1997). Churchill’s procedure for test development in marketing research has contributed markedly to the measurement of psychological constructs in the corresponding domain (e. (2004) argued that the conception of validity as a property of tests has direct relevance for test construction. Bearden. (b) the Messick perspective. Netemeyer. Thus. The criteria associated with Churchill’s perspective do not address the two global threats to construct validity. 1995. This approach to test development has been applied successfully with respect to measurement of some specific ability constructs. 6 Discussion There is no broad consensus on either the conception of validity or the methodology of validation research. such as transitive reasoning (Bouwmeester & Sijtsma. and (c) the Borsboom perspective. A large part of test validity research has to be done at the stage of test construction. which are construct underrepresentation and construct irrelevant variance (Messick. the methods associated with this perspective do not suffice for the assessment of construct validity. 1989. The Churchill perspective on construct validity is the leading perspective on construct validity in academic marketing research.nomological network is not a theory of the causal relation between attribute and test score. Borsboom et al. Test development should depart from a theory on the causal relation between the attribute and behaviour.. These perspectives are presented in Table 1. 2006) and cognitive development (Jansen & Van der Maas. This is due partly to different conceptions of validity being based upon different conceptions of psychological constructs. Second. 2000). Schouwstra. It was introduced in Churchill’s (1979) procedure for test development in marketing research.g. but Churchill’s perspective on construct validity is not in line with modern theories of construct validity. We discerned three perspectives on validity and validation research that are important for current academic research: (a) the Churchill perspective.

1989. p. empirical evidence is needed to support construct validity.. Bearden et al. it is necessary that the traits chosen are clearly similar and that the methods chosen are clearly different. 1979. Instead. and that the agreement between two measures of the same trait that are obtained by maximally different methods reflects validity. This is partly due to the fact that MTMM research is not concerned with content validity. the methods applied in MTMM studies are 27 . Such evidence comes from the investigation of the fit of the measurement model. Anastasi (1988. content validity receives insufficient attention in Churchill’s perspective on construct validity. 36-42). In general. p.g. and the nomological network of the construct. 3). the plausible sources of measurement bias. Second. For example. 158) argued that the agreement between two measures of the same trait that are obtained by maximally similar methods reflects reliability. Messick. Moreover. because face validity only provides intuition for a particular interpretation of what the test measures. This may be considered the major flaw of the Churchill perspective. and partly due to the lack of direction of how to choose appropriate traits and methods in MTMM studies. the practice of MTMM research does not generate strong evidence of construct validity. content validity was confused with face validity (e. The investigation of a test’s content validity adds to the process of construct validation in that it provides evidence whether the item set used in the test is representative for the hypothetical domain of items used to operationalise the attribute (e.. 1993. For obtaining strong evidence of construct validity. pp. Churchill.Table 1: Three Perspectives on Validity and Validation Research Churchill perspective Theoretical foundation Conception Construct validity is a property of tests Criteria Convergent validity Divergent validity Nomological validity Prototypical design Outcome MTMM design Correlation with criterion Gradual judgement of validity Gradual judgement of validity Binary judgement of validity Construct validity is a property of test-score interpretations Quality of construct representation Absence of irrelevant variance Deductive design Experimental design Test of causal theory Validity is property of tests Constructivism Messick perspective Constructivism Borsboom perspective Realism First.g.

(2004) criticised Messick’s (1989. 1983. 1995). Also. (2004) recommended that one explicates and tests theories of response behaviour.g. 1981. the agreement between different measures of the same trait mostly reflects reliability rather than validity. The Messick perspective matches the constructivist position regarding the ontology of psychological constructs. 1998. Saris et al. Schuman & Presser. a particular interpretation of a test score may be valid while another interpretation is invalid. Third. Borsboom et al. Saris et al. 1941.e.quite similar (e. and construct validity of test scores). This is a major virtue of the Messick perspective. construct validity is conceived of as a property of test-score interpretations (i. Another major virtue is that it can be put into action by the deductive design (Schouwstra. and that proof of construct representation is founded in theory regarding the construct of interest. They rightly argued that the investigation of these types of validity is subordinate to other evidence regarding construct representation. Fourth. Scherpenzeel. validity of test-score interpretations. (2004) demonstrated the limited usefulness of investigating convergent. the deductive design incorporates the rationales behind test development. because there is ample evidence of the disturbing influence of method characteristics on response behaviour (e. First. The deductive design provides a methodology for validation research that addresses the two global threats of construct validity. p. the appropriateness of the interpretations of test scores in terms of the construct of interest. 2003). divergent. Bradburn. and invalid measurements of the construct in another context.. (2004) rightly argued that construct representation is at the core of validity. we subscribe to Messick’s perspective on construct validity and Schouwstra’s methodology for validation research. and not the test. Second. Borsboom et al. As a consequence. This is in agreement with the notion stipulating that construct validation starts with the process of test development. Belson. Churchill & Supranant.. Moreover. Fornell & Larcker. and that is in line with Messick’s conception of construct validity. 1981. Scherpenzeel. Borsboom et al. The Messick perspective is the leading perspective on construct validity in psychology.g. 2000).. 1995. Byrne. such as theory testing. Belson. For these reasons. The Borsboom perspective is important for several reasons. it advocates a theorydriven approach to construct validation. The best argument in favour of this conception of construct validity is that a test may yield valid measurements of the construct of interest in one context. This is a useful suggestion. Wirtz & Lee. 1986. 1981. 1982. 1989. 1998. this is also labeled validity of measurement. Sudman & Bradburn. Borsboom et al. and nomological validity. 1982. 13) definition of validity as a judgement instead of a property. We subscribe to that criticism 28 . In this perspective. Therefore it is the test-score interpretation that needs to be validated. Rugg..

29 . for example. and which response patterns exist and which not. how responses vary if levels of the property vary. for psychological attributes such as satisfaction the Messick perspective is to be preferred. The theory should specify the set of responses for each level of the property. Other organisational principles are less useful because they have few if any empirical referents. 2005. Thus. we contend that the statement property X exists expresses that property X exists as an organisational principle. because it is founded on a constructivist position regarding the ontology of psychological properties. Borsboom et al. which causes three problems. because whether a test measures what it purports to measure does not depend exclusively on the content of the test. (2004) subscribed to Kelley (1927) that a test is valid if it measures what it purports to measure. independent of the observations (Borsboom. However. Thus. We consider this interpretation inappropriate. 6). It also depends on. a particular test may measure what it purports to measure in one instance but not in another instance. the Borsboom perspective is characterised by the conception of validity as a property of tests. The third problem pertains to the definition of properties. Borsboom’s perspective requires a well-specified theory on the relationship between the property and response behaviour. An example is clairvoyance. the administration of the test. This amounts to a definition of the property in terms of response patterns. but that cannot be the meaning of the property. and eventually on the research goal. Thus. Consequently. p. The second problem pertains to the statement that variations in the property cause variations in the outcomes of measurement procedures. such as transitive reasoning. The first problem pertains to the meaning of the statement Property X exists. the statement expresses that property X exists as an entity. Thus. the population in which the test is used. Some of these organisational principles are useful because they have many empirical referents. The Borsboom perspective may suit abilities. but not where it concerns validity for decision-making uses of test scores. This conception of validity is problematic. one cannot know whether this statement is true. for which the meaning is close to its operationalisation. because properties are organisational principles through which we perceive and interpret the world. An example is aggression. This statement cannot be tested because one cannot observe covariation between an unobservable entity and its measurement. and this justifies a conception of validity as a property of test-score interpretations. The major weakness of the Borsboom perspective is its foundation in a realistic conception of properties. validity has to be assessed with each administration of a test. According to realism.where it concerns construct validity.

The development and validation of psychological theory requires measurements of constructs that are in line with their theoretical meaning. This means that a construct has a surplus meaning over its empirical indicators.7 1. For this reason. we chose the methodology of the deductive design for test development and construct validation in the empirical study (Chapter 4 onwards). and it is the examination of the linguistic use that demonstrates the theoretical meaning of the construct. 4. p. 7. 4). This means that the theoretical meaning of a construct should be studied by means of an examination of various examples of the linguistic use of that construct. Conclusions A psychological construct is a theoretical concept with theoretical and empirical meaning. 30 . 1964. There is. Nevertheless. which means that the development of the test is based upon a formal definition of the construct of interest. however. This supports a deductive approach to test development. 2. The former component is expressed in the explicit definition of the construct and the latter component in the implicit definition of the construct (Schouwstra. p. 6. 61). 5. construct validity is the appropriateness of test-score interpretations in terms of the construct of interest. In this perspective. It is the linguistic use of a construct that grants meaning to the construct. 3. no identity relation between the theoretical meaning and the empirical meaning. 2000. and (b) the relation of the construct with other constructs in a nomological network. The theoretical meaning of a construct encompasses (a) the group of attributes and phenomena the construct refers to. The sampling of these observations constitutes the first phase of the measurement process (Coombs. The deductive design exemplifies how to validate measurements according to Messick’s perspective. The Messick perspective on construct validity corresponds best with the linguistic conception of psychological constructs. The empirical meaning of a construct embraces a domain of behaviours that cannot be delineated sharply and cannot be listed exhaustively. The theoretical meaning of a construct is linguistic by nature. the construct has to be measured on the basis of different observations from this behavioural domain.

31 .

32 .

The different definitions of these terms reflect different conceptions of satisfaction. the term customer satisfaction is explained and defined. 1997. p. The investigation encompasses an examination of (a) conceptions of satisfaction. first column) and the second is satisfaction as a valenced response to consumption (Table 1. we concluded that the theoretical meaning of a construct is inherently linguistic. In order to clarify the theoretical meaning of satisfaction. Based on the results of the investigation. For this reason. (d) concepts in the nomological network of satisfaction. The explicit definition of customer satisfaction addresses the group of attributes and phenomena that customer satisfaction refers to. we examined the major conceptions and the corresponding definitions of satisfaction in the marketing literature. and transaction-specific satisfaction. (c) theories of satisfaction. and that it is the linguistic use of the term that grants meaning to the construct (Wittgenstein. the theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction is investigated. and (e) measures of satisfaction in the marketing literature. which 33 . The first is satisfaction as a response to disconfirmation (Table 1. customer satisfaction. In the present chapter. summary satisfaction. 15). the theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction has to be clarified by means of an examination of the linguistic use of the term. 2 Conceptions of satisfaction A review of the marketing literature by Yi (1990) and Giese and Cote (2000) yielded a multitude of definitions of consumer satisfaction. and the implicit definition of customer satisfaction addresses the connections of customer satisfaction with other concepts in a nomological network. (b) conceptions of dissatisfaction. 1953). second column). The marketing literature distinguishes two important conceptions of satisfaction. Both conceptions can be applied to transaction-specific satisfaction (Oliver. This is the examination of examples of the linguistic use of the term in scientific studies as well as its use in everyday language.Chapter 3 The theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction 1 Introduction In chapter 2.

2000). 1982. second row). 1997. Oliver & DeSarbo. Giese & Cote. negative disconfirmation of expectations contributes to dissatisfaction. first row). 1988. Tse & Wilton.g. 1997. pp. Because the subject of this thesis is summary satisfaction with a bank. & Peeters. 2000. we discuss both satisfaction as a response to disconfirmation and satisfaction as a valenced response to consumption. 1988. Whereas positive disconfirmation of expectations contributes to satisfaction. Disconfirmation theory is the dominant satisfaction theory.. 119-121).g. and also the prototypical definitions of summary satisfaction associated with each of the two conceptions of satisfaction. In the augmented disconfirmation theory. perceptions. 1999. Oliver.g. the level of satisfaction (and also dissatisfaction) is a function of pre-consumption expectations and disconfirmation of expectations. 1980. Bloemer.concerns satisfaction with single encounters with the focal object (Table 1. Oliver & Burke. 1997. & Van Rijn. and to summary satisfaction (Oliver. 1997. Table 1: Conceptions of Satisfaction in the Marketing Literature Response to disconfirmation Valenced response to consumption Based on a single encounter with Transaction-specific satisfaction Transaction-specific satisfaction focal object Based on accumulation of encounters with focal object Summary satisfaction Summary satisfaction Satisfaction as a response to disconfirmation Disconfirmation refers to the perceived discrepancy between pre-consumption expectations and post-consumption perceptions. the level of satisfaction is also a function of the perceptions of outcomes of consumption (Oliver. and was investigated in several studies (e. The augmented disconfirmation model is represented in Figure 1. and disconfirmation 34 . Yi. p. Each cell in Table 1 is associated with several definitions of satisfaction. 1980. as they can be found in the marketing literature (e. Van Montfort. Oliver. De Ruyter. 15). Although these studies are not unanimous with respect to the magnitude of the effects of expectations.. 1990). 1997). Churchill & Suprenant.. The conception of satisfaction as a response to disconfirmation originated from disconfirmation theory (e. which concerns satisfaction with the accumulation of encounters with the focal object (Table 1. Masurel. Oliver. According to disconfirmation theory.

and (c) standards concerning fairness held by the consumer (Oliver. Tse & Wilton (1988. there is evidence of the significance of each of these effects (e. 1997. Bloemer.. which should be the core of the explicit definition of the concept (e. 133-134). 1997. Thus. it is not possible to measure pre-consumption expectations. Oliver. also see Table 2) defined 35 .g. 1984.g. The first problem pertains to the use of pre-consumption expectations as the comparison standard for the consumer’s post-consumption perceptions. Expectations Disconfirmation (Dis)satisfaction Perceptions Figure 1: The augmented disconfirmation model of satisfaction The disconfirmation model has met with three important problems. Oliver. 61).. Tse & Wilton. and instead one can only measure retrospective expectations at best. Sartori. The third and major problem pertains to the conception of satisfaction as a response to disconfirmation (e. 71-72. p.on satisfaction. 1999). p. For example. 32-33. 1993. This conception disregards the content of the satisfaction response. Oliver. Alternatives for this comparison standard are (a) the ideals held by the consumer. If one cannot get access to consumers before consumption took place.g. Oliver & Burke. The second problem pertains to the operationalisation of expectations. 2000. Schouwstra. there is no broad consensus about the conception of disconfirmation. Because expectations may change during the process of consumption. 13. pp. p. 1997.. retrospective expectations may differ from the pre-consumption expectations held by the consumer. The definitions of satisfaction associated with this theory define satisfaction in terms of a response to disconfirmation. 1980. pp. (b) the needs of the consumer. 1988). 93.

see Bloemer & Kasper. which results from a low degree of processing of expectations and performances. 61. Bloemer & Poiesz. and is therefore typical of consumer satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Oliver (1997). p. Satisfaction as a valenced response to consumption The conception of satisfaction as a valenced response to consumption concerns the satisfaction response to consumption experiences.. also. also see Table 2) defined satisfaction as the ‘outcome of the subjective evaluation that the chosen alternative (the brand) meets or exceeds the expectations of the person’. It may be noted that in the conception of satisfaction as a valenced response to consumption.g. Thus. Bloemer (1993. Bloemer (1993. Fornell (1992). and valenced responses towards things. and 2+2=4).g. The prototypical definitions associated with this conception of satisfaction are the definitions provided by Howard and Sheth (1969). A neutral response to consumption is given when a person is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with his or her consumption experience. and manifest satisfaction. also see Table 2) defined satisfaction as ‘the buyer’s cognitive state of being adequately or inadequately rewarded for the sacrifices he or she has undergone’. 28) explained valence as ‘polarity. and Giese and Cote (2000). It may be noted that the subjective evaluation is the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and actual performance of the brand. which results from a high degree of processing of expectations and performances. Oliver (1997. and that the subjective evaluation results from the processing of expectations and performance of the brand. 93. Because this differentiation is an elaboration of the conception of satisfaction. a person’s judgement of a car that he or she never drove). There are important differences between these definitions. 1989) argued that the extent to which persons process expectations and performances depends on both the motivation and the ability of the person to do so. Howard and Sheth (1969. she differentiated between latent satisfaction. it is an important extension of disconfirmation theory. the satisfaction response is distinguished from non-valenced responses (e. 1995. the positivity or negativity of a state of nature’.consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction as ‘the consumer’s response to the evaluation of the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations (or some other norm of performance) and the actual performance of the product as perceived after its consumption’. For this reason. This is the 36 .. p. the propositions it is dark. A special case of the valenced response is the neutral response. which were not consumed (e. p. a valenced response can be placed on a dimension that ranges from negative to positive.

or cumulative satisfaction.Table 2: Definitions of Satisfaction in the Marketing Literature Explanation of the definition of satisfaction A prototypical definition of satisfaction in disconfirmation theory. (c) determined at the time of purchase or temporal points during consumption. The definition expresses that the satisfaction response is cognitive by nature. (b) directed Cote (2000) to consumption towards focal aspects of the acquisition and/or consumption op products and services. Giese & Valenced response (a) an affective response of varying intensity. The authors discriminate between the processes that evoke manifest satisfaction and the processes that evoke latent satisfaction. (1992) to consumption Oliver Valenced response The judgement that a product or a service feature. A prototypical definition of satisfaction in disconfirmation theory. A prototypical definition of summary satisfaction. The definition expresses that the satisfaction response may have affective and cognitive content. Author Conception of Definition of satisfaction satisfaction Tse & Response to The consumer’s response to the evaluation of the perceived Wilton disconfirmation discrepancy between prior expectations (or some other norm of (1988) performance) and the actual performance of the product as perceived after its consumption. overfulfilment. but it is conceived as a response to disconfirmation. Satisfaction is not equated with disconfirmation. or the product (1997) to consumption or service itself. including levels of under. provided or is providing a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment. Bloemer Response to The outcome of the subjective evaluation that the chosen (1993) disconfirmation alternative (the brand) meets or exceeds the expectations of the person. .or The definition expresses that the satisfaction response is affective by nature. Howard & Valenced response The buyer’s cognitive state of being adequately or inadequately 37 Sheth (1969) to consumption rewarded for the sacrifices she or he has undergone. Fornell Valenced response An overall post-purchase evaluation.

Johnson. 2000. cognitive dissonance. & Lehmann. Lemmink. 2004. Therefore he concluded that satisfaction may become manifest in various responses. First. need fulfilment. 2001. which implies that it is evoked during or after consumption. satisfaction with the postal services may become manifest in the form of cognitions. and processing of affects. pp. the definition expresses that satisfaction is a response to fulfilment. the term pleasurable in the definition expresses that satisfaction includes affects. Oliver (1997. 318-319) distanced himself from the view of satisfaction as anhedonic cognition. including levels of under. Third. and it was the basis of several national customer satisfaction indices (Fornell. Gustafsson. Fornell. Andreassen. Fourth. the term fulfilment in the definition expresses that a goal exists. the focal object. Westbrook and Oliver (1991) demonstrated that a large part of the 38 . 2003). This notion is in line with the results from recent studies into the nature of satisfaction responses (e. 1991). provided or is providing a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment. Oliver (1997. Fornell (1992. Whether the satisfaction response is manifested as an affect. pp. 2001). equity evaluations. also see Anderson. such as performance evaluations. In some contexts. This definition requires an explanation. satisfaction-as-pleasure.g. This definition was only applied with respect to summary satisfaction. disconfirmation of expectations. pp. Friman. or the product or service itself. Van Dolen. For example. & Cha. 1992. Consequently. Westbrook & Oliver. Giese & Cote. a cognition (a positive or a negative judgement). a cognition. Wirtz & Lee. processing of expectations. satisfaction-as-delight and satisfaction-as-relief. In survey research in the automotive industry. 337342) suggested differentiating between four prototypical satisfaction responses. 13) defined consumer satisfaction as ‘the judgement that a product or a service feature. p. This means that satisfaction may be manifested in affects as well as in cognitions. Oliver (1997. & Rhoen. Oliver (1997) demonstrated that satisfaction may arise from different processes.or overfulfilment’. or both depends on the person. Second. 318-319) noted that satisfaction responses may become manifest as an affect (a pleasant or an unpleasant feeling). 1994. 2000. Oliver (1997. Lervik. and the context. satisfaction may be manifested as the absence of dissatisfaction (Giese & Cote.prototypical definition of satisfaction as a cognition. He concluded that affects coexists alongside cognitive judgements in producing the satisfaction response.. or both. which he labeled satisfaction-as-contentment. also see Table 2) defined customer satisfaction as ‘an overall post-purchase evaluation’. that something needs to be fulfilled. Mattsson. and satisfaction with dinner in a restaurant may become manifest in the form of affects. the term judgement in the definition expresses that the satisfaction response is a valenced response.

This is the prototypical definition of satisfaction as an affect. Contentment satisfaction or latent satisfaction (Bloemer. most persons will be responding from a satisfaction-as-contentment state. and (c) determined at the time of purchase or temporal points during consumption. such as the consumption of postal services or of a long-lasting consumer durable. 340). According to Oliver (1997. 339) described the contentment satisfaction state as a passive response to consumption that results when satisfaction states are maintained or prolonged. p. for example. 2000) demonstrated that 60 to 70 percent of the participants explained the term satisfaction in terms of affect. Qualitative research in a sample of 158 persons (Giese & Cote. 340). and negatively to dissatisfaction items. For example. or satisfaction-as-relief state. and these differences influence the meaning of satisfaction in these contexts. Giese and Cote (2000) defined consumer satisfaction as ‘(a) an affective response of varying intensity. p. They proposed a 39 . Giese and Cote also argued that the meaning of satisfaction is context-specific. Giese and Cote (2000) concluded that consumer satisfaction is an affective response of a consumer towards some phenomenon. satisfaction with a retail bank differs from satisfaction with medical care or satisfaction with a sports car. Persons have different needs and different expectations in different contexts.consumers was rather unemotional about their car. 1993) appears to be a common meaning of satisfaction in contexts that are characterised by stable consumption outcomes. satisfaction-as-pleasure. According to Oliver (1997. Oliver (1997. (b) directed towards focal aspects of the acquisition and/or consumption of products or services. There are many contextual variables that affect how satisfaction is perceived. satisfaction might be interpreted as the absence of dissatisfaction. but that these cognitions do not constitute consumer satisfaction. these consumers responded positively to satisfaction items. Therefore. that consumers remain satisfied until problems occur that hamper consumption. Giese and Cote (2000) concluded that the definition and the measurement of satisfaction also are context-specific. In general. and lasting for a finite but variable amount of time’. and fewer persons will be responding from a satisfaction-as-delight. absence of dissatisfaction is a special case of satisfaction-as-contentment. if a survey focuses on satisfaction in an ongoing-use situation. and these variables differ over domains in reality. They argued that cognitions may be at the basis of the formation of consumer satisfaction. This implies. The authors argued that in this consumer segment. p. This is an important result because it demonstrates the affective content of satisfaction.

Similarly. This means. 28) definition of dissatisfaction as ‘the negative satisfaction state. Mausner.g. the framework addresses three components of the definition of satisfaction. Johnston. Herzberg et al. According to the one-factor theory. In line with their definition. when the consumer’s level of fulfilment is unpleasant’. This stance is reflected in. is the conception of dissatisfaction. According to the two-factor theory (Herzberg. Oliver’s (1997. 1990). dissatisfaction is the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension. It is noteworthy that the conception of dissatisfaction as the opposite of satisfaction does not defy the possibility that a consumer is satisfied with one aspect of consumption outcomes and dissatisfied with another aspect. However. The literature provides two stances regarding the conception of dissatisfaction (Giese & Cote. including satisfaction research in the marketing domain. for example. Thus. the car is reliable but does not accelerate well. (b) the timing of the response. (1959. 1995). that one can be simultaneously satisfied and dissatisfied with one’s car if. and should be conceived of as independent dimensions. and (c) the focus of the response. & Snyderman. he considers dissatisfaction to be the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension. For example. The notion that satisfaction and dissatisfaction have different antecedents. 3 Conceptions of dissatisfaction A major issue in satisfaction research. 1959) satisfaction and dissatisfaction have different antecedents. 72-74) 40 . 1959. Johnston (1995) reported that the phenomenon of helpfulness of a bank was a determinant of satisfaction with a bank. and that the phenomenon of integrity of a bank was a determinant of dissatisfaction with a bank. results from research into phenomena that caused satisfaction responses and phenomena that caused dissatisfaction responses (e. pp. Figure2) or satisfaction and dissatisfaction are viewed as two different dimensions (the two-factor theory. it does defy the possibility that a consumer is both satisfied and dissatisfied with one phenomenon at one point in time. p. Figure 2). 2000).. These components are (a) the type of affective response. The framework should facilitate the development of contextspecific definitions of satisfaction and corresponding measurement procedures. Herzberg et al.framework for developing context-specific definitions of consumer satisfaction. Dissatisfaction is either considered to be the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension (the one-factor theory. for example. for example. The latter stance postulates that an individual can be simultaneously satisfied and dissatisfied with a focal object (Yi.

reported that the phenomenon of responsibility was a determinant of satisfaction with a job, and the phenomenon of salary was a determinant of dissatisfaction with a job. The phenomena that are expected to cause satisfaction responses are often labeled motivator factors or motivators, and the phenomena that are expected to cause dissatisfaction are often labeled hygiene factors or hygienes (e.g., Oliver, 1997, pp. 146-150; Wolf, 1970).

One-factor theory

Two-factor theory

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Not satisfied

Satisfied

Not dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfaction is the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension

Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are unipolar constructs

Figure 2: Conceptions of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the one-factor theory and the twofactor theory, respectively The two-factor theory is disputable because empirical research demonstrated that a phenomenon (e.g., magnitude of responsibility) can be a source of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction (e.g, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction; for an overview of empirical studies into the two-factor theory, see Wolf, 1970; see also Oliver 1997, pp. 146–150). For example, Soliman (1970) studied satisfaction and dissatisfaction of persons with their jobs, and found that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the opposite ends of a continuum. Furthermore, Soliman (1970) found that when needs of a person were provided for adequately, motivators were more important for satisfaction/dissatisfaction than hygienes, and when needs of a person were provided for moderately, motivators and hygienes were equally important for satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Eventually, Soliman (1970) concluded that the effects of motivators and hygienes on satisfaction/dissatisfaction were dependent upon the level of need fulfilment which was already accomplished. On the basis of a review of various research findings, Wolf (1970) reached a similar conclusion.

41

Generalising the results of Soliman (1970) and Wolf (1970) implies, for example, that a person’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction with his or her car depends on the level of need fulfilment which was already accomplished. Assuming that the acceleration power of a car is a motivator factor and that the reliability of a car is a hygiene factor, acceleration power of one’s car is more important for satisfaction/dissatisfaction when the needs of a person are provided for adequately, and reliability of one’s car is more important for satisfaction/dissatisfaction when the needs of a person are provided for badly. Russell and Carroll (1999a) investigated whether positive affect at some point in time is the opposite of negative affect at that same point in time, or whether positive affect is independent of negative affect. They defined a bipolar model of momentary affect, deduced the theoretical correlations between positive affect measures and negative affect measures, and compared these theoretical correlations with the empirical correlations observed in various empirical studies (for an overview, see Russell & Carroll, 1999a). The authors concluded that when controlling for the major factors that influence the correlation between positive affect and negative affect, which are measurement error, item selection, and response format, there was no basis for rejection of the bipolarity hypothesis. The more sources of bias against bipolarity were removed the closer the data matched the bipolar model. Consequently, Russell and Carroll (1999a, 1999b) concluded that the empirical evidence supports the bipolarity hypothesis of momentary affect. It is plausible that this conclusion can be generalised to satisfaction, and that dissatisfaction should be conceived of as the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension. This is consistent with the dominant causal theory of satisfaction, which is disconfirmation theory (e.g., Oliver, 1997; Tse & Wilton, 1988). Generalising the results of Russell and Carroll (1999a, 1999b) to satisfaction and dissatisfaction, a person’s simultaneous satisfaction with the reliability of his or her car and dissatisfaction with its acceleration power does not imply that satisfaction and dissatisfaction have to be considered two different dimensions. It implies that satisfaction/dissatisfaction is assessed with respect to different attributes of the car and that, with respect to each attribute, satisfaction is the opposite of dissatisfaction on a bipolar dimension. Thus, satisfaction with a focal object can be conceived of as the opposite of dissatisfaction with the same focal object (Oliver, 1997, p. 28).

42

4

The dual process model of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Oliver (1997) proposed a model that describes how both a satisfaction response and a dissatisfaction response may result from different psychological processes. This model is denoted as the dual-process model (Oliver, 1997, p. 317), because it addresses two kinds of processes, appraisal and non-appraisal of affects and cognitions, which may evoke a satisfaction response. The satisfaction response may be manifested in the form of (a) unappraised affects, (b) appraised affects, (c) unappraised cognitions, and (d) appraised cognitions. Oliver conceived of unappraised affects and unappraised cognitions as the immediate affects and the immediate cognitions that follow upon the experience of the focal object. Appraised affects and appraised cognitions refer to affects and cognitions that have been elaborated more intensively. Satisfaction responses as unappraised affect refer to the immediate pleasure or the immediate displeasure caused by consumption experiences. For example, an unappraised affect is the immediate pleasure caused by smoking a cigarette. Satisfaction responses as appraised affects result from the elaborations upon these affects. These elaborations include the attribution of affects to a particular cause, and the evaluation of the value of the affect for the individual. For example, the immediate reaction to smoking a cigarette may be the experience of satisfaction and feelings of comfort, but the cognitive elaboration upon smoking may yield feelings of doubt and eventually dissatisfaction. Unappraised cognitions are factual cognitions regarding consumption outcomes, which are not further processed and do not raise affects. The processes evoking unappraised cognitions account for the manifestation of satisfaction as anhedonic cognitions; for example, noticing that one’s car functions well without experiencing any feelings whatsoever (e.g., Oliver, 1997, pp. 318; Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). Satisfaction responses as appraised cognitions result from elaborations of cognitions resulting from consumption experiences, such as the satisfaction responses that result from disconfirmation of expectations. For example, contrary to expectation one’s car may not function well. The disconfirmation may evoke feelings of displeasure and eventually dissatisfaction. The dual-process model is represented in Figure 3. It may be noted that affects, cognitions, and satisfaction are psychological properties, and that consumption and appraisal are activities. The dual-process model accounts for different manifestations of satisfaction. First, the process evoking unappraised affects accounts for the manifestation of satisfaction as an affective response to consumption experiences. The conception of satisfaction as unappraised

43

affect is a special case of the manifestation of the satisfaction response according to the definition of satisfaction by Giese and Cote (2000), which also includes affective appraisals of cognitions. Second, the process evoking appraised affects accounts for the manifestation of satisfaction as an overall evaluation. This manifestation of the satisfaction response may be interpreted as a special case of the definition of satisfaction by Fornell (1992), which seems to be focussed primarily at the cognitive evaluation of consumption experiences without explicitly distinguishing immediate cognitions and elaborations of cognitions, but far less at affects. Third, the process evoking unappraised cognitions accounts for the manifestation of satisfaction as anhedonic cognitions (e.g., Oliver, 1997, pp. 318; Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). Fourth, the process evoking appraised cognitions accounts for the manifestation of satisfaction as a response to cognitions, such as the affective response to disconfirmation. This manifestation of the satisfaction response is consistent with the definition of satisfaction given by Giese and Cote (2000).

Affects

Consumption

Appraisal

(Dis)satisfaction

Cognitions

Figure 3: Dual-process model of satisfaction and dissatisfaction T he dual-process model is in agreement with the conception of satisfaction as a valenced response to consumption experiences, and with Oliver’s (1997, p. 13) definition of satisfaction. Therefore, the dual-process model constitutes an important contribution to satisfaction theory. However, two remarks are in order. First, according to the dual-process model appraisal is either present or absent. This may be a simplification of reality, because appraisal may be represented by a continuum ranging from absence of appraisal to presence
44

2000). quality. thus. Trust is often seen as an antecedent of satisfaction (but for an exception. and commitment may be split up into affective commitment and calculative commitment (e. image. retention. Each of these concepts may be further split up into part concepts. 2001). 2000. Hennig-Thurau. 2004). 2002. loyalty. marketing communication.g. we decided to leave then out to maintain a simple model tailored to the practice of this study (Chapter 4 onwards). This nomological network is shown in Figure 4. image may be split up into corporate associations.. 2001. Hennig-Thurau et al.. Gwinner.g. commitment. in Figure 4 an arrow runs from trust to satisfaction. Second. Even though one might argue that the alternative concepts also have a place in the nomological network of satisfaction. 2001). First. 2007. The nomological network of a concept is the network of associations of a concept with other concepts.g. and cross-sell. Yi. Oliver. Singh & Sirdeshmukh. Luo & Homburg. see Singh & Sirdeshmukh. The four concepts are (a) considered important in the financial services industry. and corporate reputation (e. The nomological network with respect to satisfaction that is relevant in this study includes the concepts of trust. Verhoef. 2002). According to many theorists (e. loyalty. 45 . Verhoef.. 1997. and (c) it was anticipated that the measurement of all concepts in a survey would produce a questionnaire that would be too long and ask too much time and effort of the participants of this study. Therefore. the dual-process model does not express the conditions under which appraisal is present or absent.of appraisal. because (a) trust. the relationship between trust and customer satisfaction is discussed. customer satisfaction is also related to concepts such as word-of-mouth. & Gremler. Trust is considered to be of major importance in retail banking. such as the inclusion of both loyalty (primary importance) and commitment (alternative concept). (b) inclusion of all concepts would introduce redundancy. quality.g. and profitability. further research is needed to elaborate the model. 5 Concepts in the nomological network of customer satisfaction with a retail bank This section addresses the nomological network of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking (Figure 4). For example. Berens. corporate image.. and profitability were considered of primary importance to satisfaction research in the context of retail banking. 1990). Verhoef. These additional concepts were ignored in this study. and has been shown to be related to customer satisfaction (e. and (b) expected to be related to customer satisfaction in this industry.

in Figure 4 the arrow runs from quality to satisfaction. the relationship between quality and customer satisfaction is addressed. and customer satisfaction is often conceived of as a necessary although not a sufficient condition for customer loyalty (e. Caruana. thus. in Figure 4 the arrow runs from satisfaction to loyalty. 1996. 1996). Anderson et al. 1999). Zeithaml & Bitner. Quality of products and services is considered to be of major importance in retail banking. quality is often conceived of as an antecedent of satisfaction but there seems to be more agreement among theorists with respect to quality.Quality Trust Satisfaction Loyalty Profitability Figure 4: Nomological network of satisfaction in the context of retail banking Second.. and Gruca and Rego (2005) have investigated the relationship between customer satisfaction and future financial performance of companies. (1994).. the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is addressed. In Figure 4. Oliver. Third. Therefore. the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer profitability is discussed. The relationship between these constructs has been demonstrated in various studies (e. The results of these studies strengthen the expectation that customer satisfaction influences customer profitability. Cronin & Taylor.g. Anderson and Mittal (2004).. Longitudinal studies by Anderson et al. Like trust. Gremler & Brown.g. 1994. 46 . Fourth. Oliver. 2002. the arrow pointing toward customer profitability shows the influence of customer satisfaction on customer profitability. 1992. and has been shown to be related to customer satisfaction (e. 1999).g.

we defined trust as a person’s confidence in the reliability and integrity of the company.. while the behavioural-conception focuses on a person’s behavioural intentions with respect to an exchange partner (Singh & Sirdeshmukh. 2000). such as competence-trust and benevolence-trust (e. which we also adopt in this study (also. for example. This is an expectations-conception of trust. p. It may be noted that some authors suggested distinguishing between different dimensions of trust. The major difference between these conceptions is that the expectations-conception of trust does not include behavioural intentions in the domain of trust. while the behavioural-conception of trust does. 1994). trust may also be conceived of as an antecedent of customer satisfaction (Singh & Sirdeshmukh. This relation is reflected in disconfirmation theory.Conceptions of trust A review of the marketing literature yields two important conceptions of trust. which is based upon Rotter (1967). Verhoef. the dimensionality of trust is an empirical question. Singh & Sirdeshmukh. Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000) conceived of trust as a continuum that is bounded on one side by a high level of trust and on the other side by a high level of distrust. in which expectations are conceived of as antecedents of customer satisfaction (e. 2000). 2000) so that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Following Morgan and Hunt (1994). 1997.g. Medlin & Quester. Morgan and Hunt (1994) conceived of trust as existing when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity.g. who defined trust as a generalised expectancy held by an individual that the word of another individual or a group can be relied upon. by buying new products such as an insurance or a mortgage in addition to a bank account. 2001. 2000). Because trust concerns a person’s expectations regarding an exchange partner (Morgan & Hunt. 2002). and an example of a behavioural intention is the customer’s intention to continue the relationship with the bank or even expand the relationship. or benevolence-trust and honesty-trust (e.18). Oliver..g. This stance implies that each dimension of trust is bounded by a high level of trust on the one side and by a high level of distrust on the other side. However. 47 . This is a common definition of trust in the marketing literature (e. Tse & Wilton. see Chapter 5)... The expectations-conception of trust focuses on a person’s expectations with respect to an exchange partner. An example of an expectation is that a customer expects to be treated fair by the bank. The trust state and the distrust state differ with respect to the valence of the expectations held by the person. 1988). It may also be noted that empirical research demonstrated a relation between expectations and customer satisfaction. and studies establishing the dimensionality of trust are rare (Singh & Sirdeshmukh.g.

which corresponds with the suggestion of theorists (e.. Perceived quality is similar to perceived performance of products or services. because the number of failures is counter-indicative of quality. Grönroos. This implies that the definition and the operationalisation of quality have to be adapted to the context and the purpose of a study. quality is established with respect to distinct attributes of products and services. or a process meets its technical specifications. Grönroos. 1994. p. Cronin & Taylor. product quality. 1985. Service quality has been studied extensively (e. & Berry.g. 1990). in this study quality was conceived of as perceived quality. p... a service. Because persons are expected to prefer a company they trust to companies they do not trust.g. Woodall. 1990). 2001. Garvin. which is broadly conceived of as an antecedent of customer satisfaction (e. 1990.. It may be operationalised as the number of failures of a product. trust is considered an important success factor for companies in the financial services industry (e. 1988. It may be operationalised on the basis of a questionnaire (e. small numbers of failures reflect high quality and large numbers of failures reflect low quality). 1990. a service. or a process (e. Zeithaml & Bitner. Thus. and price quality as drivers of customer satisfaction. 162-166).g.In the financial services industry. 1996) to distinguish different dimensions of quality. 1983. 1992). Oliver. 6. 1989. 1992. Furthermore. p. 85) distinguished service quality. which is the common conception of trust in the marketing literature. 1984. This is in agreement with the expectations-conception of trust.g. Parasuraman. 1988. Goedee. Zeithaml and Bitner (1996.g.. which is in agreement with the conception of quality in many studies (e. we defined quality as a person’s perceptions of the quality of attributes of products and services provided by the company (also.g. Parasuraman. Kackar. & Berry. 1988.. Reijnders. Zeithaml & 48 . 1994. Tse & Wilton. 1990. see Chapter 5). 2000. Parasuraman. trust is often conceived of as confidence in the reliability and integrity of a company.. Berry.g. Conceptions of quality There are two important conceptions of quality. Objective quality pertains to the extent that a product. For example. Zeithaml et al. The meaning of quality is context-specific. & Van Thiel. Perceived quality pertains to a person’s judgements of quality of products or services. Cronin & Taylor. 2008). The combination of a customer’s positions on these dimensions was expected to drive customer satisfaction. Zeithaml. 1997. & Zeithaml. which are objective quality and perceived quality (Oliver. Zeithaml. Anderson & Mittal. In the present study. 1997. Yi.

1994). 2000. possesses a positive attitudinal disposition towards the provider. Van Montfort. which are (a) behavioural loyalty. 1990). Yi. Oliver. Gremler and Brown (1996. Conceptions of customer loyalty In present marketing theories. On the other end of this continuum is the ultimately non-loyal customer. One remark is in order concerning these instruments. does not really like the organisation. A major part of in-company research in this industry is aimed at the assessment of distinct dimensions of quality.Bitner. 1996). 1991. Buttle. 1999) have defined loyalty to a service provider as ‘the degree to which a customer exhibits repeat purchasing behaviour from a service provider. 2001. 1997. 49). Tse & Wilton. for example SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al. and considers using another service provider for 49 . Terpstra & Van Gastel. These studies yielded several measurement instruments for service quality. does not think highly of it. & Van Rijn. Masurel. quality is broadly conceived of as a driver of customer satisfaction (e.g. 2008. 2004). and considers only this provider when a need for this service arises’.. Parasuraman. This description of the loyal customer includes an implicit comparison of the service provider with other providers (also. Goedee et al. who may be described as one who does not regularly use a service provider. and does not ever consider using another service provider for this service’. 1997. 2002. see Dick & Basu. the instruments may not cover all aspects of quality that are relevant within a particular industry. Coulthard.g. and their relations with satisfaction. This is in accordance with academic studies and theories (e. quality is mostly operationalised on the basis of quality judgements by customers. 1996... 1996..g. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF were developed for the measurement of quality across industries. Oliver. but they were not customised for the measurement of quality in particular industries. customer loyalty is conceived of as a psychological construct. For this purpose. Zeithaml & Bitner.. and for that reason business researchers are required either to customise these instruments to their research domain or to develop new measurement instruments. really likes the organisation and thinks very highly of it. Zeithaml. 1992). 1988. Therefore. In the financial services industry. Caruana. p. This definition encloses three different aspects of loyalty. Newman. 2004. and (c) cognitive loyalty. (b) attitudinal loyalty. regarding distinct attributes of products and services. & Berry. such as retail banking (e. Gremler and Brown (1996) described the ultimately loyal customer as one who ‘regularly uses a service provider. 1988) and SERVPERF (Cronin & Taylor.

2002..g..g.. the operationalisation did not agree with the definitions of customer loyalty provided by Oliver (1997. 1999) conception of customer loyalty in general. 1996). This seems to be inconsistent with customer loyalty. Empirical research using measurement instruments of customer loyalty that are composed of items reflecting psychological aspects and behavioural aspects of customer loyalty (e. Cooper & Kaplan. 1996. Gremler & Brown. which is a concept that was not investigated in this study. Niraj. This agrees with results from academic research (e. 1999). 1999). 2002. 1996. Oliver. the operationalisation ignored the general principle that psychological constructs are best measured on the basis of multiple-item scales (e. 2002. including the financial services industry. 2001). 1999). who said they will recommend a particular company to friends and family. First. friends. Theorists suggested using customer profitability for marketing decision-making and accounting (e... 1999) conception of loyalty to a service provider is similar to Oliver’s (1997.. 1999. Because of three reasons.g. Customer loyalty is expected to affect the behaviour of customers and ultimately their profitability.g.g. Reichheld. or colleagues (e.. business researchers in this domain broadly conceive of customer loyalty as a consequence of customer satisfaction. Caruana. Gremler and Brown’s (1996. the construct has to be measured on the basis of a set of items that reflect both aspects. Most theorists agreed that customer loyalty encompasses psychological aspects as well as behavioural aspects (e. 1999). 50 .g.g.. customer loyalty is considered important for commercial success of companies (e. Furthermore. often said they will recommend competing companies. yielded unidimensional measurements of customer loyalty. Gremler & Brown. Messick. 2008). Reichheld’s (2006) operationalisation appears more consistent with conceptions of word-of-mouth. Conceptions of customer profitability Customer profitability is of major importance for all commercial companies in service industries. Therefore.. Oliver 1997. Dick & Basu. In the financial services industry. Second. Caruana. 1999. which are gross customer profitability and net customer profitability. Hennig-Thurau et al. Gupta. Gremler & Brown.this service (Gremler & Brown. Terpstra (2006a) found indications that customers. Mulhern. There are two important conceptions of customer profitability. 1994. 2006). Customer loyalty has also been operationalised as an intention to recommend the company to family. 1999) and Gremler and Brown (1996. & Narasimhan. 1991. it is doubtful whether this was a proper operationalisation. 1989) Third. Goedee et al. 1997.

The net financial contribution consists of the customer’s gross customer profitability in that period of time minus the companies’ costs allocated to the corresponding customer in the same period of time (e.g. a customer’s profitability is also related to his or her financial means. Net customer profitability refers to the net financial contribution of a customer to a company in some period of time. For example.. 469. 1999. In the context of retail banking. due to the high purchase frequency. p. the gross financial contribution consists of interest profits and provision profits (to be discussed in Chapter 5). the period of time may be a day. For example. Cooper & Kaplan. 2004). Pfeifer. a customer with large financial means may achieve higher customer profitability than a customer with smaller financial means. Campbell & Frei. but we held no expectation about the influence of customer satisfaction 51 . at least a one-year period may be required to reliably record customers’ purchase behaviour with a retail bank. In the financial services industry. Furthermore. For example. because a customers’ behaviour changes over time. Haskins. & Conroy. customer profitability also changes over time. p. We expected that customer satisfaction positively influenced a customer’s gross financial contribution. which in this kind of research is more the rule than the exception. The absence of data with respect to customers’ means. 1991. 2004. Niraj et al. 2005). but due to the much lower purchase frequency. a month.Gross customer profitability refers to the gross financial contribution of a customer to the company in some period of time (e. Because a customers’ financial behaviour is related to his or her financial means. Because customers differ with respect to their behaviour. they also differ with respect to customer profitability. Campbell & Frei. 1991. or a year (e.. 2001). customer profitability is the resultant of financial behaviour. a two-week period may be sufficient to reliably record customers’ purchase behaviour in a supermarket (a two-week period is expected to cancel out highs and lows). Niraj et al. 2001. while a one year period is required for the operationalisation of customer profitability in retail banking. Therefore. Mulhern. The operationalisation of customer profitability is context-dependent.g.g. Cooper & Kaplan. may complicate research into the connection between customer satisfaction and customer profitability in the financial services industry.. Obviously. a two-week period may suffice for the operationalisation of customer profitability for supermarkets. a quarter of a year.. Customer profitability is the resultant of customer behaviour. such as the acquisition and use of products and services from the focal company. a customer who increases his or her business with the company will become more profitable to the company than he or she was before.. 469.

Anderson et al. The influence of customer satisfaction on customer profitability Customer satisfaction is broadly expected to influence customer profitability and company profitability (e. Fornell (1992) hypothesised that customer satisfaction affects the commercial success of companies that operate in mature and competitive markets. The exact specification of the model is context-dependent (see Chapter 6). 2004. Ittner & Larcker. Anderson & Mittal.on the costs associated with a customer. we expect that in retail banking industries in mature markets. 2005. Homburg et al. such as involvement of customers and the availability of alternatives in the market. other independent variables (denoted Xi). It is plausible that the effect size of customer satisfaction on future customer profitability depends on characteristics of customers and markets. If customer satisfaction (denoted by CS) influences customer profitability (denoted by CP). 1994. we chose the gross customer profitability conception of customer profitability for the present study. 2001. Mittal & Kamakura. and future CP (denoted CPt>0) is: CPt >0 = α + βCS t =0 + . there must be a relation between customer satisfaction at time t = 0 and customer profitability at time t > 0 (e. Anderson et al.. Gruca & Rego. 1997.. 1992.. 2000. Oliver. including the financial services industry.g.. 1994. Fornell. + ∑ γ i X i + ε . Various studies (Anderson et al. Therefore. 2005. Then a model for the relation between customer satisfaction (denoted CSt=0). because it is the customer profitability at a point in time after the measurement of customer satisfaction.g. 2005. 1998). we defined customer profitability as the gross financial contribution of a customer to the company in some period of time. Current customer profitability is measured at time t = 0 and customer satisfaction is measured at time t = 0. Therefore. Rust & Zahorik. In agreement with this conception of customer profitability. customer profitability at time t > 0 is labeled future customer profitability. customer satisfaction has a significant positive effect on future customer profitability. Gustafsson et al. The model was based on Ittner and Larcker (1998). Anderson & Mittal. 1993). Henceforth.. This is an important reason for the interest in customer satisfaction in various industries. 1998) demonstrated a relationship between customer satisfaction and 52 . 2000.. Ittner & Larcker..

’ They also demonstrated that method-related factors. The self-report measures differed with respect to the number of items included (varying from one to six items). and items reflecting observations of behaviours such as the number of complaints). and measurement timing. 6 Measures of satisfaction Many measures of satisfaction have been reported in the marketing literature (e. such as number of complaints about the focal product) and self-report measures (i.e. The list included behavioural measures (i. 1992. 2005. It is remarkable that different measures of satisfaction. This relationship may be due to.. inertia of customers. survey items. affected the 53 . Former studies in the financial services industry (e. such as rating scales). Terpstra. and the relationship between current customer profitability and the financial means of customers.company profitability after one year. 1981. questionnaire administration. we expect that in retail banking the influence of customer satisfaction on customer profitability is manifest after one year. which were used in different studies. In-company research (Terpstra. For these reasons.. Wirtz & Lee. such as question format. registrations of behaviour. Hausknecht. the wording of the items (some items were phrased in the form of a question and others were phrased in the form of a statement) and the format of response categories (varying from two to thirteen response categories). Peterson & Wilson. 2003). 2004. Ittner & Larcker (1998) also demonstrated a relationship between customer satisfaction and customer profitability after one year. Campbell & Frei. graphical items. Westbrook & Oliver. 1990. 2008) demonstrated a relationship between customer satisfaction and customer profitability after 15 months. which were used in satisfaction research. Hausknecht (1990) listed 34 measures (i.e. operationalisations) of satisfaction. for example. we consider current customer profitability an indispensable variable in the model of the relation between customer satisfaction and future customer profitability in retail banking.e.. question context.. Peterson and Wilson (1992) noted that ‘Virtually all self-reports of customer satisfaction possess a distribution in which a majority of the responses indicate that customers are satisfied and the distribution itself is negatively skewed. Hausknecht (1990) noted that the validity of measurements of satisfaction was rarely assessed. yielded similar distributions of satisfaction ratings..g.g. 2005. Therefore. also see Giese and Cote (2000) and Peterson and Wilson (1992). 2006b) demonstrated that current customer profitability is the major determinant of future customer profitability. the format of items (verbal items.

First. but this does not 54 . Bloemer (1993. 1990). the item was used in various multiple-item measures of satisfaction (e.g. In this section. First. and that more effort is needed to improve the measurement of customer satisfaction. 1979. a percentage ranging from 0 to 100. Furthermore. Jacoby. These three drawbacks call into question the validity of the measurement using a single item. However. Third. Westbrook and Oliver (1991) demonstrated that their 7-point version of the item performed worse than other measures of satisfaction that were used in the same study. 1976. the measure lacks a thorough explanation. Churchill. Westbrook & Oliver. pp. a person was asked whether he or she was satisfied or dissatisfied with the focal object.average satisfaction ratings and the skewness of distributions of satisfaction ratings. The item reads: ‘Considering everything. 1989. the definition of satisfaction by Tse and Wilton (1988) has a level of abstractness that does not automatically lead to this specific item. Messick. Bloemer’s (1993) measure correlated with commitment and repeat-purchasing behaviour. 1991. They concluded that it is not clear what customer satisfaction ratings reflect. 2003). The definitions of satisfaction and the corresponding measures are listed in Table 3. it is a single-item measure of satisfaction.. different measures of satisfaction are discussed in association with the corresponding definitions of satisfaction as discussed in Section 2 (Table 2). for example. Nevertheless. that average satisfaction ratings are not very informative without valid norms for average customer satisfaction. the measure has three drawbacks.g. the person was asked how satisfied (or how dissatisfied) he or she was in terms of.g. This bipolar item is a rather common measure of satisfaction. Yi. 79. 2003). which was a 5-point bipolar item with response categories ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. which was also used by others who. Wirtz & Lee. how satisfied are you with the [product]?’. Tse and Wilton (1988) used a single-item measure of satisfaction... Second. however. whereas most theorists suggested the use of multiple-item measures for the measurement of psychological constructs such as satisfaction because multiple-item measures better capture the meaning of the construct (e. 128) conceived of satisfaction and dissatisfaction as two different dimensions. Wirtz & Lee. three comments are in order. Bloemer (1993) proposed a two-step approach to measure satisfaction and dissatisfaction. used a 7-point rating scale instead of a 5-point rating scale (e. Tse and Wilton (1988) demonstrated that their single-item measure correlated with disconfirmation and perceived performance. Second. First.

o.or overfulfilment. (c) determined at the time of purchase or is generally applicable. . (b) directed Cote (2000) towards focal aspects of the acquisition and/or consumption op products and services.o. As a consequence. Satisfaction [with a f.o. 55 Fornell An overall post-purchase evaluation. including levels of under. provided or is providing a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment.Table 3: Measures of Customer Satisfaction and/or Consumer Satisfaction Measure of satisfaction Satisfaction [ with a focal object (f.)] was measured on the basis of one 5point bipolar item. A multiple-item measure of satisfaction [with a f.] was measured on the basis of a 2-step approach: • Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the brand? • How much are you satisfied (dissatisfied) in terms of a percentage? Author Definition of satisfaction Tse & The consumer’s response to the evaluation of the perceived Wilton discrepancy between prior expectations (or some other norm of (1988) performance) and the actual performance of the product as perceived after its consumption. Giese & (a) an affective response of varying intensity. no measure was proposed that Sheth (1969) rewarded for the sacrifices she or he has undergone. Howard & The buyer’s cognitive state of being adequately or inadequately No measure was proposed. with response categories ranging from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’. Bloemer The outcome of the subjective evaluation that the chosen (1993) alternative (the brand) meets or exceeds the expectations of the person. (1992) Oliver The judgement that a product or a service feature. Satisfaction [with a f.] was measured on the basis of 3 questions: • one 10-point bipolar item on global satisfaction • one 10-point bipolar item on disconfirmation of expectations • one 10-point bipolar item on distance to the ideal. A framework was proposed for the development of context-specific definitions of satisfaction.o.] was proposed: • seven 5-point Likert items that are indicative of satisfaction • five 5-point Likert items that are counter-indicative of satisfaction. temporal points during consumption. or the (1997) product or service itself.

Fornell. a study by Westbrook and Oliver (1991). 1993. 1997.g. 1969) are summated performance ratings (Oliver.. Fornell. 318). We subscribe to Oliver’s (1997. Gruca & Rego. 1990).. Fornell. The measure was incorporated in the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Index. 2004. & Bryant. (b) these measurements do not match the theoretical meaning of satisfaction. Ittner & Larcker. Fornell. 2005. 1992. but most theorists advocate multiple-item scales for the measurement of psychological constructs such as satisfaction (e. & Cha. 2001). 1976. the Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Index. 1989. and (c) these measurements are useless for research in which the influence of features of products and services on satisfaction are investigated. or company. the assessment of the level of satisfaction is based upon only one item (Bloemer. Anderson. Fornell (1992) proposed a measure of summary satisfaction (or cumulative satisfaction) that was composed of three 10-point bipolar items. Howard and Sheth (1969) did not discuss the measurement of satisfaction. & Mazvancheryl. Yi. An example is the measurement of customer satisfaction by means of the sum of a customer’s ratings of features of products and services. and it was used in various empirical studies (e. it is appropriate to separately measure the level of satisfaction as well as the level of dissatisfaction of each customer. the measure lacks correspondence with Fornell’s (1992) definition of satisfaction. or company. and (c) the distance from the customers’ hypothetical ideal product. Messick.g. 1998). This is in contrast with Bloemer’s (1993) stance. meaning that it is not obvious why the abstract definition of satisfaction resulted 56 . 1979. which incorporates the affective content of satisfaction. p.explain the use of a two-step approach to measure satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Andreassen. Anderson. Cha. Lervik. & Lehmann. The items concerned (a) global satisfaction of the customer with the product. 318) criticism that (a) it is unclear which features of products and services may be used for the measurement of customer satisfaction and how these features may be weighted. Churchill. This strengthened the confidence in the quality of the measure. or company. who used one 11-point item on satisfaction and one 11-point item on dissatisfaction. Johnson. service. One may argue that if satisfaction and dissatisfaction are conceived of as different dimensions. Anderson & Mittal. Third. 1996. Gustafsson. Howard & Sheth. 1994. p.g.g. service. 33-34. service. indicated that dissatisfaction and satisfaction are opposites on a bipolar dimension. Anderson. (b) disconfirmation of expectations of the customer regarding the product. Second. and did not propose a measure of satisfaction. Johnson.. and the American Customer Satisfaction Index (e. However. Measures of satisfaction that are associated with the definition of satisfaction as a cognition (e..145). pp. 2000. Jacoby.

An example of such item was ‘How satisfied are you with the personal attention of XYZ’?. Third. p. dissonance. disconfirmation. Fornell. ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied (the seven items were in the same format). Oliver noted that satisfaction is best measured using a multiple-item scale. Wirtz & Lee.in this particular measure of satisfaction and not in another measure. he included several items that are counter-indicative of satisfaction and. 1996). 1994) that was much different from Fornell’s (1992) measure. An earlier version of the measure was composed of six 5-point Likert items (Oliver. p. 18. This is consistent with the conception of dissatisfaction as the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension. such as performance evaluations. Verhoef (2001. The inclusion of items on various phenomena in Oliver’s (1997) measure of summary satisfaction does not imply that the author conceived of summary satisfaction as a multidimensional construct. and affects.g. The dimensionality of a construct is ultimately an empirical question. Oliver (1997. Oliver listed several aspects or antecedents of satisfaction that may be incorporated in a measure of satisfaction. and was accommodated to the measurement of satisfaction with a flu vaccination program.g. 1980).. and empirical research (e. Second. he noted that the measure should contain an anchor item. expectations. For example. 1993. The measure was accommodated to the measurement of satisfaction with one’s car. Oliver & Swan. & Lehmann. Because Fornell’s (1992) definition does not provide many clues for constructing measures. Oliver. Oort. and with general psychometric principles regarding the measurement of psychological constructs (e. need fulfilment. it is difficult to judge whether Fornell’s (1992) and Verhoef’s (2001) measures correspond with this definition. 57 . 2003) has supported the conception of summary satisfaction as a unidimensional construct. p. 343) proposed a measure of summary satisfaction that incorporates different phenomena together defining the meaning of satisfaction. Fourth. which had five response categories. indicative of dissatisfaction. consequently.. 1993. Mano & Oliver. Verhoef’s (2001) measure of satisfaction was the total score (or the factor score derived from confirmatory factor analysis) on seven items regarding satisfaction with the company. First. which is an item formulated in terms of general satisfaction with the product or the service provided. also Anderson. 57) developed a measure of satisfaction on the basis of the definition by Fornell (1992. Oliver’s (1997) measure of summary satisfaction was composed of twelve 5-point Likert items. 1989. Seven items were indicative of satisfaction and five items were counterindicative of satisfaction.

Three remarks are in order with respect to the measurement instruments of satisfaction listed in Table 3. except for Oliver’s (1997) measure it was insufficiently investigated whether the measures sufficiently represented the construct. 343). and none of the other studies investigated contamination of measurements with method-related irrelevant variance. Third. Verhoef. and contrasts Fornell’s (1992) position that resulted in a measure that was applicable across a variety of industries. 1959). such measurement instruments may be developed on the basis of context-specific definitions of satisfaction. Wirtz & Lee. the definition of satisfaction by Fornell (1992. 2001.. Because the meaning of satisfaction is context-specific. Tse & Wilton. Oliver. the usefulness of satisfaction research for the further development of satisfaction theory may be enhanced by the further improvement of measurement instruments of satisfaction. and not in another one. Oliver & Burke. the correspondence between a particular definition of satisfaction on the one hand and a particular measurement instrument of satisfaction on the other hand is often ambiguous. as a result. p. For example. 1997. which did not provide sufficiently many clues for the development of a measurement instrument of satisfaction.Oliver (1997) argued that the optimal composition of a measure depends on (a) the research topic and (b) the research purpose. Thus. & Lehmann. Westbrook & Oliver. and nomological validity of measurements of satisfaction (e. but failed to address the main threats to construct validity. 1989). see also Anderson. which are construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance (Messick. if a particular phenomenon such as disconfirmation has to be related to satisfaction. 2000). This lack of clarity may be due to the generality of most definitions of satisfaction. they did not propose a measure of satisfaction that is generally applicable. 1994) was used as a justification for two very different measurement instruments of customer satisfaction. For example. 58 . 1991. For example. This is in accordance with the psychometric principle regarding divergent validity (Campbell & Fiske. 1980. it is not obvious why a particular definition of the construct resulted in a particular measurement instrument for satisfaction. 1988. This implies the development of different measurement instruments for satisfaction for different research domains (also. Fornell. The absence of a general measure is consistent with the view that satisfaction may have different meanings in different contexts. 2003). Giese and Cote (2000) argued that a measure of satisfaction should be context-specific and. Second. it should not be incorporated in the satisfaction measure (Oliver. construct validity has been underexposed. 1999. First. divergent. see Giese & Cote.g. Satisfaction studies yielded evidence of convergent.

The definitions associated with this conception are process definitions. Second. The prototypical definitions associated with the conception of satisfaction as a valenced response to consumption differ with respect to the specification of the properties of the satisfaction response and the level of detail of the explanation of the satisfaction response. 59 . we subscribe to Giese and Cote’s (2000) recommendation to develop context-specific definitions and corresponding measurement instruments of satisfaction. 1997. depends on the research domain and on characteristics of the person (Oliver. we consider the latter conception more useful for defining satisfaction than the former conception. which probably is due to the contextspecific nature of satisfaction (Giese & Cote. 12-13). pp. we think that a sufficiently detailed definition of satisfaction requires the specification and the explanation of (a) the type of satisfaction response. regret. thus. Here. we do not agree with Giese and Cote (2000) that satisfaction is limited to affective responses to consumption experiences. expectations. 1984. 1997. because it can manifest in performance evaluations.7 Discussion Satisfaction may be considered a response to disconfirmation. There is no consensus definition of satisfaction. As was noted in Section 6. Because the meaning of satisfaction concerns the content of the satisfaction response (for a more general discussion. Following Giese and Cote (2000). pp. Fornell’s (1992) definition of satisfaction was too generic for the development of a measurement instrument of satisfaction. whereas Giese and Cote (2000) defined satisfaction as an affective response to consumption. the content of the satisfaction response is central. They describe the process that evokes the satisfaction response. Schouwstra. (b) the focal object of the satisfaction response. Fornell (1992) provided a generic definition of satisfaction. Alternatively. 2000). but fail to explain what the satisfaction response is (Oliver. whereas Oliver (1997) provided a detailed definition of satisfaction. satisfaction may be considered a valenced response to consumption. First. Oliver (1997) demonstrated that satisfaction can have cognitive content and affective content. disconfirmation. Howard and Sheth (1969) defined satisfaction as a cognitive response to consumption. Because the meaning of satisfaction is contextdependent. see Sartori. 316-318). 2000). and emotions. the process that evokes the satisfaction response is at the centre of attention. Therefore. Whether the cognitive content or the affective content prevails. and (c) the timing of the satisfaction response.

appraised affects. may result from appraised affects. and regret. It is not possible to develop an explicit definition of satisfaction that grasps the meaning of satisfaction in all contexts. customer satisfaction is the opposite of customer dissatisfaction on a bipolar dimension. appraised cognitions. becomes manifest in customers’ performance evaluations. because a customer’s satisfaction with a bank may range from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. 60 . unappraised affects. For this reason. unappraised cognitions. First. customer satisfaction results from the accumulation of encounters with the company. and that the definition and measurement of satisfaction also need to be context-specific. and it is limited to summary satisfaction. Second. In this context. This study pertains to customer satisfaction with a retail bank. the construct includes both manifest customer satisfaction and latent customer satisfaction. pertains to the company as a whole. In this context. It is more fruitful to analyse the meaning of customer satisfaction within a particular context. and then develop a context-specific definition. each of these four remarks was taken into account. because customer satisfaction may result from unappraised affects. Persons remain customer of a bank for a long period of time. disconfirmation. results from the psychological processing of consumption outcomes. Third. Explicit definition of customer satisfaction with a retail bank Giese and Cote (2000) rightly argued that the meaning of satisfaction is context-specific. we consider customer satisfaction the best term for satisfaction in the context of retail banking. covers customers’ affects and cognitions reflecting a value judgement. and is the opposite of customer dissatisfaction on a bipolar dimension. and not to single products or services. and appraised cognitions. In this study. expectations. consumption of products and services from a retail bank is an ongoing process. satisfaction pertains to the satisfaction of the customers of the bank. results from the accumulation of encounters of customers with the company. emotions. Fourth. and maintain some contact with the company.Four additional remarks are in order to explain satisfaction in the context of retail banking. in which they make use of products and services from the company. and unappraised cognitions. customer satisfaction (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) is limited to the satisfaction of customers of the company.

Second. dissatisfaction is simultaneously defined as the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension. p. 8 1. and (b) the examples are context-dependent. and that customers are not both satisfied and dissatisfied with the same phenomenon at one point in time. Therefore. 2. For this reason (a) it cannot be sharply defined but it needs to be explained by means of examples. and its influence on customer profitability. and evoked by the customer’s experiences with the retail bank throughout time. quality. This means that satisfaction/dissatisfaction is expected to constitute a unidimensional construct. and (d) future customer profitability. Conclusions The meaning of customer satisfaction differs between and within contexts. Third. and customer loyalty. As a consequence. 2000. Because evaluations range from positive to negative. 3. the focus of the customer’s response is the retail bank. Implicit definition of customer satisfaction with a retail bank Whereas the explicit definition addresses the construct. 61). First. It may be noted that the definition covers the three components. which was discussed in section 5 of this chapter. Customer satisfaction with a retail bank is implicitly defined in terms of its relations with trust. the timing of the response is during or after the customer’s experiences with the retail bank. satisfaction is conceived of as the customer’s valenced response.These eight characteristics explain the content of customer satisfaction with a retail bank. the implicit definition addresses the construct’s relations to other constructs and variables (Schouwstra. (c) loyalty to the company. directed towards the retail bank. which Giese and Cote (2000) required from a definition of satisfaction. We summarise them accordingly: customer satisfaction with a retail bank is the valenced response of the customer. it is expected that overall satisfaction with a retail bank is positively related to (a) trust in the company. the implicit definition of customer satisfaction is founded on the nomological network of the construct. Dissatisfaction may be conceived of as the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar dimension. (b) quality perceptions regarding the products and services provided by the company. Customer satisfaction with a retail bank is explicitly defined as the valenced response of the customer that is directed towards the bank and that is evoked by the whole of 61 . This is the explicit definition of customer satisfaction with the retail bank.

and different measures of satisfaction are associated with different definitions of the construct. 4. evidence of construct validity of most measures of satisfaction is absent. and (c) assessment of validity of measurements of satisfaction. 6. In the domain of retail banking. In the next chapters. The usefulness of satisfaction research for the development of satisfaction theory may be enhanced by further improvement of the measures of satisfaction. (c) customer loyalty. (b) explication of correspondence between the definition and the measure of satisfaction. 5. This definition encloses various cases that are mutually related by family resemblances. However. and (d) future customer profitability are considered most important. the relations of satisfaction with (a) trust. we will develop a context-specific measurement instrument of satisfaction and validate the measurements obtained with this instrument. Customer satisfaction with a retail bank is implicitly defined on the basis of its connections with other psychological constructs and with behaviour. The improvement of measures of satisfaction entails (a) explication of the context-specific meaning of satisfaction.consumption experiences with the bank. (b) quality. Many measures of satisfaction have been reported in the marketing literature. This limits the usefulness of satisfaction research for the development of satisfaction theory. 62 .

63 .

64 .

his or her position on the scale for the property is inferred. For example. a test measures only a part of the construct of customer satisfaction with a focal object when it only includes items that reflect cognitions about the object but no items that reflect affects. pp. Messick (1989. Measurement of irrelevant variance occurs when not only the construct is measured. attributes related to group 65 . it is consistent with the deductive approach to test development (Oosterveld. For this purpose. 2000) is a methodology for test development and construct validation for typical-behaviour properties such as customer satisfaction. p. we applied the deductive design (Schouwstra. A psychological test is an instrument which elicits behaviour that is representative of the property of interest and which can be used to measure the extent to which a person possesses the property. 57) defined construct validity as ‘an evaluative judgement of the trustworthiness of a test-score interpretation in terms of a construct’. In this respect. 13. 1995) addressed two general threats to construct validity. 1996). 2000) for test development and construct validation. Following Messick (1989.Chapter 4 Deductive design for test development and construct validation 1 Introduction Psychological properties can be measured by means of psychological tests (Chapter 1. The purpose of the study was to develop a measurement instrument for customer satisfaction with retail banks. and (b) measurement of irrelevant variance. 34). which are (a) construct underrepresentation. pp. The methodology departs from a theoretical analysis of the construct of interest. This chapter addresses the design of the empirical study. Section 4). Construct underrepresentation occurs when only a part of the construct is measured. Schouwstra (2000. 34-35. 2 The deductive design The deductive design (Schouwstra. and to test the relations of customer satisfaction with constructs and variables in the corresponding nomological network. On the basis of the responses a person provides to these items. but also other psychological properties. A test may consist of a well-chosen set of items that are administered in a survey.

Also. a test for customer satisfaction measures more than just the intended construct when it also includes items that require a high level of verbal intelligence to be comprehended. For example. This stance is reflected in the deductive design. which demands two lines of evidence for construct validation (Table 1. 60). test scores partly depend on administration mode. Schouwstra (2000) argued that construct validation should start at the outset of test development. a test for customer satisfaction may be administered to one part of the sample by telephone and to another part by the Internet. 1989. and to which other constructs it is related. 2000. 2000). and the second line of evidence should be made of empirical evidence that the test score reflects the complete construct and nothing else. Modelling Empirical evidence Of what construct of interest is Of construct of interest into test content How test score reflects construct That test score reflects whole of construct And what not And nothing else And nothing else And nothing else Construct representation Irrelevant variance The rationales consist of an explanation of how the test-score interpretations are derived from the theory about the construct (Schouwstra. and the variation in test scores that is caused by variation in verbal intelligence is conceived of as irrelevant variance. Then. Table 1: Outline of Construct Validation Within the Deductive Design (Schouwstra. Now. and the variation in test scores that is caused by differences in the administration procedure is conceived of as irrelevant variance. from Schouwstra. Hence. or response tendencies.membership. this explanation requires formulating what the construct of interest is and what it is not. p. 2000). 2000. the test scores also depend on verbal intelligence. and as a result of these different administration modes different response categories may be used. Translation c. First. Each line of evidence should address construct representation and absence of irrelevant variance in test scores. The first line of evidence should be made of rationales underlying the test-score interpretations. 60) Scientific arguments Rationales a. Formulation b. Schouwstra. p. The construct has to be defined explicitly by means of the specification of the 66 . construct validation concerns the assessment of construct representation and absence of irrelevant variance. Following Anastasi (1986). Both construct underrepresentation and irrelevant variance refute the interpretation of test scores in terms of a reflection of the construct and nothing else (Messick.

aspects and attributes to which it refers. (b) the implicit construct representation. Method-related irrelevant variance pertains to variance caused by phenomena that are not related to the construct of interest. 71). Concept-related irrelevant variance pertains to variance caused by phenomena that are related to the construct of interest. and is assessed on the basis of tests of corresponding hypotheses. Following Cronbach (1988. These hypotheses refer to (a) the explicit construct representation. pp. and divergent validity. This judgement reflects the interpretation whether and to what extent the evidence supports the interpretation of test scores in terms of the construct of interest. such as the concepts in the nomological network and properties related to group membership. and is assessed on the basis of tests of hypotheses regarding the relationship of test scores with measures of other concepts in the nomological network. p. Both lines of evidence need to be integrated into an evaluative judgement of the validity of the test-score interpretations (Schouwstra. 2000. and (c) the items. Second. the way in which the construct definition is translated into test content needs to be specified. such as response tendencies and characteristics of the research method. (c) concept-related irrelevant variance. Schouwstra (2000. 1-3) noted that a strong version of construct validity research involves the testing of hypotheses about what a test score measures and what it does not measure. 2000. the measurement model that is expected to fit the empirical data needs to be specified. The empirical evidence consists of results from empirical research into the test-score interpretations. Both method-related irrelevant variance and concept-related irrelevant variance are investigated on the basis of tests of hypotheses regarding the contamination of test scores by other properties and variables. pp. and nothing else. This specification involves the formulation of (a) guidelines concerning the formulation of items that reflect the construct and nothing else. 68-71). 1989). The implicit construct representation pertains to the nomological validity of test scores. The methodology to test hypotheses regarding the contamination of test scores is addressed in the next section. the more convincing the support for construct 67 . which constitute the operationalisation of the construct. and (d) method-related irrelevant variance (Schouwstra. The explicit construct representation of test scores encompasses content validity. Third. The more comprehensive the argumentation for the test-score interpretation. and implicitly by the specification of related concepts that constitute the nomological network. (b) guidelines for acts that control for possible response tendencies. This specification includes the explanation of the relationship between the items and the test score. convergent validity.

p.g. 1971. When a test is used in a sample containing participants with different levels of education. However. and ‘An item I is unbiased with respect to a potential violator V and given trait T if and only if. p. it is not possible to exclude all irrelevant variance in the context of psychological measurement. for all values i and v and t: P(I=i | T=t. p. 7): ‘A scale consisting of a set of items is unidimensional if and only if each of the items is unbiased with respect to every potential violator that might be relevant in whatever context the test might be used’. This example implies that construct validity is almost always imperfect. p. The methodology encompasses the explication of rationales and the collection of empirical evidence with respect to the interpretation of test scores. For example. 1989. Summarising. construct representation is to some extent arbitrary.validity. Messick. irrelevant variance is conceived of as variance caused by phenomena that violate the unidimensionality of the scale (Oort. Cronbach. pp. such as other traits. attributes related to group membership. Wittgenstein. First. 1986. 1996. the support is never conclusive. 452. 1988. Second. 2000. Second.. because constructs do not have sharp boundaries (e. test scores are readily biased with respect to varying linguistic skills of participants. and the extent to which a participant possesses these skills can influence his or her response behaviour (e. it is directed towards the development of tests that encompass all the important aspects of the construct of interest. Schouwstra. V=v) = P(I=i | T=t). 13). In the theory of violators. 81-83).g. The theory of violators is based upon the following definitions of item bias and unidimensionality (Oort. construct validation is an unending process that includes the judgement of evidence gathered in the processes of test development and test use (Anastasi. most psychological tests require linguistic skills of participants. the deductive design is directed towards the minimisation of test-score variance that is irrelevant to the construct of interest (Schouwstra. 63). the deductive design is a methodology for test development and test-score validation. 2000. First.’ 68 . Third. 1958). 3 The theory of violators The theory of violators (Oort. 1996) addresses a methodology to test hypotheses with respect to the contamination of test scores by other variables.. 1996). or response styles. 1953.

Gardner. characteristics of the measurement instrument (e. the method of administration and the question format. and the measurement of the construct may turn out multidimensional instead of unidimensional. is independent of violatorscore v. 1993). and to validate theory regarding the meaning of customer satisfaction in the domain of retail banking. This is in agreement with the notion that it is impossible to eliminate all irrelevant variance in psychological measurement. three comments are in order.. and it endorses the notion that a judgement of construct validity has to be qualitative and gradual by nature (e. perfect unidimensionality seems impossible because it is unlikely that the items of a scale would be unbiased for all possible violators (e. Nevertheless. First. Then. item bias may be investigated by means of the partial correlation of an item I and violator V while controlling for the rest-score R.The theory of violators requires local independence between item and violator.g. 1955). 1983) may affect the magnitude of test scores without affecting the unidimensionality of the scale.g. research into the unidimensionality of a scale cannot exclude all irrelevant variance that may threaten the interpretation of test scores in terms of the construct of interest. The theory of violators provides a useful methodology for empirical research into the contaminating effects of violators on test scores.. a particular construct may encompass different attributes (e. meaning that the probability of endorsement with item I. Third. Marginal independence between item and violator is not required. Oort (1996) suggested restricted factor analysis (to be discussed in Chapter 6) for testing the hypothesis that test scores are not contaminated by a violator V. 1819). Let rest-score R be the total score of a person on the set of items measuring trait T minus the score on an item I. 1996. multidimensionality does not necessarily imply that the measurement is invalid. Bradburn. For example. Given the context of this study. Cronbach & Meehl. 4 Purpose of the study and conditions for test development The purpose of this study was to develop a measurement instrument for customer satisfaction with retail banks. and it had to be used in empirical research in the corresponding domain. pp.g. 69 . Oort. intelligence may encompass verbal intelligence and spatial intelligence. Second. given trait-score t. the measurement instrument had to be accommodated to the meaning of customer satisfaction with a retail bank. meaning that it is not required that the probability of endorsement to item I is independent of violator-score v.. For example..g.

quality. p. The measurement instrument had to be applied in survey research to a sample from this population. customer satisfaction with a retail bank was explained on the basis of eight characteristics. cognitive response and affective response). and customer profitability. customer satisfaction was defined implicitly by its connections with trust. 1998. and evoked by the customer’s experiences with the retail bank throughout time.e.e. The explicit definition was used here to formulate a facet design (Table 2) with three facets representing the three components (the response focus facet was not reflected in Table 2. 343). Following Oliver (1997. Sheatsley. customer loyalty. Furthermore. timing of the response. see Chapter 3). and therefore it was administered in Dutch. and the facet response focus had one element (i... the instrument had to comply with requirements regarding the composition of questions and questionnaires used in surveys (e. 1983. Belson.e.g. the bank).The population of interest in this study consisted of the mature customers of a Dutch retail bank. 5 Test development Test development is the development of the measurement instrument. Sudman & Bradburn. and they delineate the construct to a large extent. In Chapter 3 (Section 7). present and past). The facet response type had two elements (i. the facet design had four structuples. which are response type. we chose to formulate a 70 . in this study denoted as BANK. directed towards the retail bank. & Bowker. which were summarised in the explicit definition: customer satisfaction with a retail bank is the valenced response of the customer. Tortora. 1982). Thus. The explicit definition of customer satisfaction with a retail bank covers the three components Giese and Cote (2000) required of a definition of satisfaction. Dillman. Table 2: The Facet Design for Customer Satisfaction with a Retail Bank Response type / Time frame Cognitive Affective Present Structuple 1 Structuple 3 Past Structuple 2 Structuple 4 The purpose of the design was to facilitate the formulation of an item set that yields a complete construct representation. because it had one element). and focus of the response (also... 1986. The latter concepts are part of the nomological network of customer satisfaction in the domain of retail banking. the facet time frame had two elements (i. Furthermore.

5. this means that the probability of choosing a particular answer category or a higher answer category in response to a positively worded item. 119). the subject in each item should be the bank. This means that items should not be phrased in terms of (a) preference for the company over other companies. Fabrigar. Belson. to keep things simple we call this monotonicity. or product feature. in order to represent both poles of the satisfaction/dissatisfaction continuum. None of the items should be phrased in terms of related constructs such as trust. and customer loyalty (Chapter 3).. The item set should contain one anchor item (Oliver. 2005. 71 . an item such as I am satisfied with BANK).. 4. and monotonicity should hold as well. 1997. This type of items allows for the construction of items that are (a) expected to be monotonically related to the construct of interest. For this reason. Each item should be monotonically related to customer satisfaction. 1986)..g. and not a particular transaction. 3. 2.comprehensive set of items of the Likert type (Likert. 1996). the function either increases monotonically.e. The wording of the items should be kept simple and unambiguous (e. product. that the items should be kept short and easy to understand.e. One item should be indicative and the other counter-indicative of the construct (e. or increases across some intervals of the scale and remains constant across other intervals. 343). p. Negatively worded items are re-coded prior to data analysis.. In order to prevent the questionnaire from becoming too long and ask too much of the participants. Oort. 1932). In the context of this study. 2002.g. pp. and (b) either indicative or counter-indicative of the construct of interest (e. quality. (b) expectations regarding competence and integrity of the company. Each item should reflect general satisfaction with the company. remains constant. Likert. Instead. for example. and that negations should be avoided. & MacDougall. and (c) attributes of products and services provided by the company. should be a monotonically nondecreasing function of customer satisfaction (i. the number of items for each structuple was limited to two. Each structuple is represented by two items. see Sijtsma & Molenaar. henceforth. 20. Krosnick. 1932). which is an item that is formulated in terms of satisfaction with the company (i. 6. The following specifications guided the formulation of the items: 1. This means.g. a function that decreases nowhere along the scale.

often 0/1 for disagree/agree). It was hypothesised that a unidimensional measurement model fits the data.e. The relationship is typically represented by an item response function (IRF). All items were of the Likert type with five ordered response categories that ranged from totally agree to totally disagree. 1971) was used for this investigation (Chapter 5 through Chapter 8). The MH model is an item response theory (IRT) model. The Mokken model of monotone homogeneity (MH model. a set of nine items was formulated (Table 3). it was expected that a unidimensional measurement model would fit the empirical data and that all items were monotonically related to the satisfaction/dissatisfaction dimension. score 1) with an item given a particular position 72 . For dichotomously scored items (i. We chose five response categories in order to also include a neutral option. Because satisfaction/dissatisfaction was conceived of as a continuum (Chapter 3). the IRF reflects the probability of endorsement (i. If the measurement model represents the data well. Table 3: Items of Customer Satisfaction with BANK Item I am satisfied with BANK BANK meets all my requirements for a bank There are good reasons to leave BANK (*) BANK has met my expectations Last year I had some problems with BANK (*) At BANK I feel at home I have mixed feelings about BANK (*) Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK I have regretted my choice for BANK (*) Structuple None 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Aspect General satisfaction Need fulfilment Cognition Disconfirmation of expectations Cognition Affect Affect Affect Regret (*) = item is counter-indicative of customer satisfaction with BANK 6 The measurement model A measurement model is a statistical representation of the responses of the participants of a survey to the measurement instrument... The set contained one anchor item and eight items representing the four structuples (Table 2). IRT is a psychometric theory about the relation between a trait and the probability of a particular response to an item reflecting the trait. and that all items are monotonically related to the underlying construct of satisfaction with BANK (see Section 5). two scores.On the basis of these specifications. a scale for measurement and measurement values for the participants follow from the model. Mokken.e.

and if the trait is held constant all remaining variation in the item scores is due to error. given a fixed value of the latent trait. 3. 2. which means that all items reflect the same trait. p. 18-21). the higher one’s level of customer satisfaction the higher the probability of obtaining a high score on items measuring the trait. local independence. 4) of an item given a particular position on the trait (e. 2002. The MH model is based upon three assumptions (Sijtsma & Molenaar. then under the MH model the ordering of the participants by means of their X + values reflects their ordering on the scale of the latent trait. x = 0. except for measurement error (Sijtsma & Molenaar.. and let the sum score or the total score of participant p on the items (indexed i) in the test be defined as the sum of the item scores..g. the MH model for polytomous items. 2. but ordinal measurements suffice for many measurement purposes. Bouwmeester. 2008). This may sound odd but local independence is a mathematical way of saying that only customer satisfaction explains relationships among items measuring aspects of this trait. which means that. 2002.on the trait (e.g.. e.. The second assumption is local independence. 1960).. In particular. such as 73 .. also. see the MH model for dichotomous items. (2008) suggested the use of total-score X + for diagnostic purposes. 121. & Roorda. customer satisfaction. let the score of person p on item i be denoted Xpi. e.g. 3.e. The first assumption is unidimensionality.. 2005). p. at least a score of x. p. Emons. 2002. A consequence of the assumptions of unidimensionality. X + p = ∑i X pi . Nyklicek. 119). This is different from the numerical measurements obtained by more-demanding parametric IRT models. the item step response function (ISRF) reflects the probability of choosing a particular answer category or a higher category (i. Sijtsma & Molenaar. such as the assessment of the position of a person on the latent trait. 4). 2002. 1.e. This means that items reflecting customer satisfaction are unrelated in a group of persons who have the same level of customer satisfaction.g. Sijtsma et al. 11). Thus. 1. Sijtsma & Molenaar. and monotonicity is that the MH model yields ordinal measurements of the trait. For polytomously scored items (i. The third assumption is monotonicity. pp. Empirical research has demonstrated that the total-score X + has a strong linear correlation with the estimated latent trait value from parametric IRT models in several measurement applications (e. Sijtsma. and for statistical analyses. such as the Rasch model (Rasch. reflecting degrees of endorsement. see Van der Ark. 0. three or more ordered scores.g. which means that the probability of obtaining at least a score of x is a non-decreasing function of the latent trait. the probability of obtaining at least a score of x is unrelated to the scores obtained on the other items in the test. for example.

Chapter 5). which is defined a priori to form a scale.3 and H ≥ 0. 2000.3. 74 .0 provides the test-score distribution and interesting summary statistics. Coefficient H ranges from a negative value. A general condition for this use of X + is that the MH model fits the data. 1948.3 (Sijtsma & Molenaar. gradually approaching 1 as the slopes become nearly vertical. 2002. 60-61). A Mokken scale is unidimensional and allows sufficiently reliable person measurement by means of total-score X + . p. In particular. pp. it facilitates (a) the investigation of the dimensionality of an item set using a confirmatory strategy. depending on several characteristics of the item scores. H i ≥ 0. Mokken 1971) for the whole set of items. To have a Mokken scale. The confirmatory strategy to investigate the dimensionality entails the investigation whether a set of items. indeed is found to be a scale based on values of the item scalability coefficients H i and total-scale scalability coefficient H in the sample data set from the population of interest. A virtue of an analysis by means of the MH model is the availability of the MSPwin5. 48).the comparison of groups or the measurement of change. and (c) the test of the assumption of monotonicity. and the skewness of this distribution (Molenaar & Sijtsma. such as the mean. For a given distribution of total-score X + and a particular set of monotone increasing ISRFs. as the slopes of the ISRFs become steeper. the standard deviation. item scalability coefficients H i and total-scale scalability coefficient H have higher positive values. and this in turn means that person ordering by means of X + is more reliable. or (b) the investigation of the dimensionality of an item set using an exploratory strategy.0 facilitates this strategy by means of the item selection method Test (Molenaar & Sijtsma. The extent to which the theoretical data structure predicted by the MH model is different from the observed data is expressed by means of total-scale scalability coefficient H (Loevinger. Thus. Molenaar & Sijtsma. Furthermore. p. high positive values (usually. 2000. 2000). to the maximum of 1. MSPwin5.0 software (software for Mokken Scale analysis for Polytomous items. MSPwin5. MSPwin5. Sijtsma & Molenaar.0 facilitates to investigate statistically whether the MH model fits the data. and item scalability coefficient H i for individual items. all inter-item correlations must be positive and the values of H i and H must be at least 0. 60) of item scalability coefficients H i and total-scale scalability coefficient H in a data set are taken as evidence of steeply monotone ISRFs.

in which x = 0. third. Because every participant has one of the five possible scores. The use of the total-score X + would lead to heavily biased estimates of the ISRFs of item i. Rest-score R is the total-score X + minus the item-score X i .0 is Alpha = 0.The exploratory strategy to investigate the dimensionality entails the clustering of items from a larger set into smaller clusters (one cluster is also allowed). only the four ISRFs for x = 1. MSPwin5.0 facilitates this search strategy by means of the item selection methods Search normal (forms item clusters from a set of items) and Search extended (takes the second. each of which is characterised by positive inter-item correlations and item scalability coefficients H i and totalscale scalability coefficient H that are at least 0. The option Alpha = p manipulates the significance level for tests of significance of violations of monotonicity. …. In MSPwin5. and this is prevented by using rest-score R. by estimating the ISRFs from the data. MSPwin5. 4 are of interest. and an option Minvi which defines the minimum value of observed violations of monotonicity in sample ISRFs that are subjected to statistical testing (small violations may be uninteresting irrespective of whether they are significant or not. 2000.3 for item scalability coefficients H i and total-scale scalability coefficient H (Molenaar & Sijtsma. and the option to choose different lower bounds than the default value 0. which are conditional probabilities P( X i ≥ x | θ ) . and so on. has five different ISRFs.0. The assumption of monotonicity can be investigated for every ISRF of every item. the probability of obtaining at least a score of 0 equals 1 (a participant always has one of the scores). Thus.0 provides an option called Minsize for the manipulation of the minimum size of the rest-score groups (adjacent rest-score groups may be merged to obtain sufficiently large groups. An item which has five different item scores. the default value for Minsize is 10 percent of the sample size. Mokken scale found by means of Search normal as point of departure for clustering while leaving the other items free for selection). 40). 75 . Default in MSPwin5. p. pp. 2000. …. 67-73). when the ISRFs of item i are estimated. 4 and θ stands for the latent trait.05. A rest-score group contains all participants having equal rest scores. The assumption of monotonicity is violated in the sample if the probability of obtaining a score on item i of at least x is higher for a lower rest-score group than for a higher rest-score group.3. and the default for Minvi is 0. this is convenient for small and large scores which are often underrepresented in samples). Molenaar & Sijtsma.03 on a probability scale that runs from 0 to 1. the latent trait is replaced by the rest-score R. Thus. each cluster represents a Mokken scale. In data analysis.

it was expected that the nine items (Table 3) constituted a scale according to the MH model (Section 6). Third. Variables that are presumably related to customer 76 . and (d) method-related irrelevant variance. Explicit construct representation First. the satisfaction with BANK scale-scores). The associations between these concepts were postulated in the nomological network of customer satisfaction (Chapter 3). and the scale scores can be computed. If the MH model fits the data. 1959). a scale according to the MH model can be constructed. (b) the implicit construct representation.. it was expected that persons attached different connotations to the term satisfaction when asked to explain what satisfaction with the company meant to them.e. This was in agreement with the requirement of convergent validity (Campbell & Fiske. (c) conceptrelated irrelevant variance. and they were tested in empirical studies with respect to customer satisfaction (Chapter 5 through Chapter 8). Concept-related irrelevant variance Concept-related irrelevant variance refers to variance due to variables that are presumably related to the construct of interest. The purpose of the tests of the hypotheses was to gather empirical evidence whether the scale scores can be interpreted in terms of satisfaction with BANK. 7 Hypotheses This section addresses the formulation of hypotheses regarding characteristics of the satisfaction scores (i. Implicit construct representation Customer satisfaction was expected to be positively related to (a) trust.It was hypothesised that the nine items of satisfaction with BANK constitute a scale according to the MH model. Second. This expectation was in line with the theory of Oliver (1997) that satisfaction may result from different processes. and (d) future customer profitability. it was expected that the satisfaction with BANK scale-scores were positively related to other satisfaction with BANK scores. (c) customer loyalty. The hypotheses concerned (a) the explicit construct representation. 1958) that the linguistic meaning of a term cannot be delineated sharply. This hypothesis was tested in sample data from the population of interest. (b) quality. and nothing else. and the notion by Wittgenstein (1953.

noncontingent responding. such as characteristics of the method of the study and response styles of persons. 1983).g.g. and the wording of items (e. midpoint responding. 2000). and socially desirable responding (e.g. pp. Schuman & Presser. 2006. who demonstrated that 46% of the participants in a survey supported free speech when asked ‘Do you think the United Stated should forbid public speeches against democracy’. 17) explained a response style of a person as a consistent tendency of a person to respond to questionnaire items on some basis other than the specific item content (i. it was expected that trust. The measurement instrument for customer satisfaction was constructed with the purpose to minimise contamination of scale scores by these variables (Section 5).. Bronner & Kuijlen. 2006. 1986. Knowles & Nathan. Paulhus. 1981. Belson.satisfaction are the variables in the nomological network of the construct (Chapter 3). Theorists (e. Baumgartner & Steenkamp. These two response styles may be investigated by means of control scales. 1991. In terms of the theory of violators (Oort..e. 2001. what the items were designed to measure). 2007. Characteristics of the method that may affect response behaviour are. 276-278) replicated this result. 1999.. 1981. Baumgartner & Steenkamp. Paulhus. Examples of response styles are acquiescence. Van Herk. Schuman and Presser (1981. while only 25% of the participants supported free speech when asked ‘Do you think the United States should allow public speeches against democracy.’ Thus. 1996). Method-related irrelevant variance Method-related irrelevant variance refers to variance caused by variables that are presumably unrelated to the construct of interest.. 2001. The acquiescence response style is defined as a general preference for the agreement response categories of item scales. and the disacquiescence response style is defined as a general preference for the disagreement response categories of item scales. 1983). and current customer profitability did not contaminate satisfaction scores obtained by the satisfaction with BANK measurement instrument. Bradburn. Sheatsley. for example. 1983. 1997. p. the mode of administration. The classical example was provided by Rugg (1941). Therefore. quality. such variables are possible violators of the unidimensionality of the scale of the construct of interest. disacquiescence. the format of items. Bradburn. There is ample evidence of the effect of these phenomena on the person’s responses to items (e.g.. Paulhus (1991. customer loyalty. the item order. the question phrased in terms of to allow yielded different results than the question phrased in terms of to forbid. extreme responding. 77 . Krosnick.

p. 548). 1991). Second. Paulhus. p. Socially desirable responding refers to the tendency of persons to make themselves look good by providing socially desirable responses to the items. 1997. Greenleaf 1992a.1991.g. Messick (1991. pp. Bronner & Kuijlen. 1999) is response behaviour that is characterised by giving much consideration to the accuracy of the responses. 1958) argued that stylistic responding is inversely related to the extent that responses of persons to items are content-driven. Messick’s (1991) stance implies that the conditions that enhance satisficing also enhance stylistic responding. The extreme response style is defined as a general preference for extreme response categories (i. 2000) suggested limiting the influence of these two response styles on the measurement of a trait by simultaneously using items that are indicative of that trait and items that are counter-indicative of that trait. 1999. he or she is said to optimise (Krosnick. Baumgartner & Steenkamp.. For example. and the midpoint response style is defined as a general preference for the middle response category of item scales. Optimising (Krosnick. 1992b). Third. it was decided to start the study into effects of 78 . This response style may be investigated by means of multivariate outlier analyses (e. This is an important stance.. control scales may be used to measure general midpoint responding and general extreme responding. First. Satisficing (Krosnick. 1991. 1999) is response behaviour that is characterised by giving little consideration to the accuracy of the responses. and (c) persons’ motivation to optimise (Krosnick. this stance implies that stylistic responding is inhibited by optimising. and the corresponding scores may be correlated with measurements of the trait of interest in order to assess the influence of stylistic responding on the measurement of the trait. 1999. This response style may be investigated by means of control scales (e. when a person puts effort in understanding an item and in providing the optimal response to the item. 74-75). when a person does not spend effort to generate the most accurate answer to a question but settles for a merely satisfactory one. 546-547). Noncontingent responding refers to the tendency to respond randomly to items. 2007. These two response styles also may be investigated by means of control scales (e.. 1991. Tabachnick & Fidell. 548). p. the endpoints) of item scales.g. 2006.e. Van Herk. 2001. this stance implies that stylistic responding is enhanced by satisficing. These conditions are (a) task difficulty. he or she is said to satisfice (Krosnick. see Jackson & Messick. For example. Stylistic responding is a threat to validity of measurement. It is beyond the scope of this study to assess the contamination of scale scores by all method-related phenomena. (b) persons’ abilities. For example. Both kinds of items were included in the measurement instrument of customer satisfaction (see Section 5). For this reason.g. 1999.. also.

these phenomena by addressing four issues that were important for further applications of the instrument. it was investigated whether persons’ positions on the extreme response style influenced satisfaction scores. it was investigated whether persons’ positions on the midpoint response style influenced satisfaction scores. Third. Table 4: List of Hypotheses Explicit construct representation H1 Customer satisfaction is manifested in various expressions that are mutually related but not sharply delineated H2 The satisfaction items constitute a scale according to the MH model H3 The satisfaction scores are positively related to other satisfaction scores Implicit construct representation H4 Satisfaction scores are positively related to trust scores H5 Satisfaction scores are positively related to quality scores H6 Satisfaction scores are positively related to loyalty scores H7 Satisfaction scores are positively related to future customer profitability Concept related irrelevant variance H8 The satisfaction scores are not contaminated by trust H9 The satisfaction scores are not contaminated by quality H10 The satisfaction scores are not contaminated by loyalty H11 The satisfaction scores are not contaminated by current customer profitability Method related irrelevant variance H12 The satisfaction scores are not affected by the location of items in the questionnaire H13 The satisfaction scores are not affected by the presentation of the response categories of satisfaction items H14 The satisfaction scores are not affected by the midpoint response style H15 The satisfaction scores are not affected by the extreme response style 79 . The hypotheses are listed in Table 4. Second. Fourth. The hypotheses The expectations and questions with respect to construct representation and irrelevant variance were formalised in a set of hypotheses. and for satisfaction research in general. First. it was investigated whether the presentation mode of response alternatives of satisfaction items influenced satisfaction scores. it was investigated whether the location of satisfaction items in the questionnaire influenced satisfaction scores.

80 .

ranging from totally agree (which was scored 4) to totally disagree (which was scored 0) (Table 1). 81 .. Chapter 4) with five ordered response categories each. The nine items were expected to constitute a unidimensional scale after re-scoring the counter-indicative items (Chapter 4). the pre-tests. Table 1: Items Reflecting Customer Satisfaction with BANK Code Q3a Q3b Q3d* Q3e* Q3g Q4a Q4b Q4c* Q4d* Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK I have mixed feelings about BANK BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK Last year I had some problems with BANK Aspect Affect General satisfaction Cognition Affect Need fulfilment Affect Disconfirmation Regret Cognition Score range 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 * = item is counter-indicative of customer satisfaction with BANK American Customer Satisfaction Index Customer satisfaction was also operationalised by means of a measurement instrument adopted from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI. and the construction of the questionnaire.. the pilot study. Fornell et al. The chapter provides an outline of the operationalisations of the constructs.Chapter 5 Method of the first empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK 1 Introduction This chapter addresses the method of the first empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK. e. 2 Operationalisations Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction was operationalised by means of nine Likert items (Table 3. and the main study. 1996). This instrument (Table 2) consisted of three items with ten ordered response categories each.g.

a set of seven Likert items was formulated.ranging from very negative (e. very satisfied. confidence in integrity and confidence in reliability are intertwined (see also Chapter 3). Table 2: American Customer Satisfaction Index Code Q20b Q20c Q20d Item How satisfied are you with BANK? To what extent does BANK meet your ideal of a bank? To what extent has BANK met your expectations? Score range 0–9 0-9 0-9 Trust Following Morgan and Hunt (1994). Each item had five ordered response categories that ranged from totally agree (which was scored 4) to totally disagree (which was scored 0).. On the basis of the definition of trust. Table 3: Items Reflecting Trust Code Q5a Q5b Q5c Q5d* Q5e* Q5f Q5g Item I can depend on BANK to treat me fairly I can depend on BANK to handle my banking affairs correctly I can depend on BANK to keep its promises I sometimes doubt the competence of BANK I sometimes doubt the good will of BANK I can trust BANK I can depend on BANK to serve me well Aspect Integrity Both Both Reliability Integrity Both Both Score range 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 *= item is counter-indicative of trust 82 . The instrument is further denoted as the ACSI. Many expectations.g. such as the expectation that the company will keep its promises and the expectation that the company will handle the banking matters of a person properly. we expected the seven items to constitute a unidimensional scale.g. trust was defined as a person’s confidence in the reliability and integrity of the company. which was scored 9).. Consequently. and covered distrust. very dissatisfied. Two items were counter-indicative of trust. encompass both confidence in the reliability of the company and confidence in the integrity of the company. The seven items are listed in Table 3. In the context of retail banking. which was scored 0) to very positive (e. The three items were expected to constitute a unidimensional scale (see Chapter 3).

quality was defined as a person’s perception of the quality of attributes of products and services provided by the company. 2004). Second. thus defining 16 items. and covered a broad range of topics. Furthermore. The set of attributes was assessed on the basis of previous satisfaction research of the company (Terpstra & Van Gastel. Terpstra & Van Gastel.g. was included in the questionnaire (Table 4). First. It was expected that the 16 items were not correlated or weakly correlated. Because quality pertains to distinct attributes of products and services provided by the company. The response yes was scored 1. meaning that responses to items about quality of attributes of products or services provided by the company were influenced by general satisfaction with the company. we decided to operationalise quality in two different and concrete and detailed ways. Persons were asked whether or not these problems had occurred to them in the preceding twelve months. it was expected that the items constituted multiple scales.Quality In Chapter 3. we expected the combination of a customer’s positions on these dimensions to drive customer satisfaction (Chapter 3. The occurrence of halo effects may have been enhanced by the operationalisations of quality. and the response no was scored 0. Wirtz and Bateson (1995. and previous research into drivers of customer satisfaction (e. also Wirtz 2000) demonstrated that halo effects influenced several measurements of quality. To control for halo effects. This definition is in agreement with the conception of quality as perceived quality. we expected the instrument to yield a multidimensional measurement of quality. 2004). A total of 16 problems. A listing of problems was assessed on the basis of an inventory of customer complaints with the company. Because it covered a broad range of topics. which we hoped would stimulate the respondent to contemplate about the quality of distinct attributes of products and services rather than provide an overall and perhaps too impressionistic global evaluation. Section 5). quality was operationalised by means of a set of 24 items measuring judgements about attributes of the products and services provided by the company (Table 5). 83 . Each item had four ordered response categories that ranged from excellent (which was scored 3) to bad (which was scored 0). quality was operationalised by means of a set of items regarding the experience of problems with BANK in the preceding twelve months.. which implies that quality had to be measured by means of a psychological measurement instrument.

All Items are Counter-Indicative of Quality. Code Q6a Q6b Q6c Q6d Q6e Q6f Q6g Q6h Q6i Q6j Q6k Q6l Q6m Q6n Q6o Q6p Problem Errors in the execution of your banking affairs Errors in the execution of your orders Insufficient information on your banking affairs Ambiguous information on your banking affairs Unfair costs of banking services Slow service Slow money transfers Not keeping an appointment Insufficient accessibility by telephone Insufficient accessibility by Internet Insufficient accessibility of offices Insufficient response to questions Problems with debit cards Problems with cash withdrawels Problems with internet banking Another problem Score range 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 84 .Table 4: Items Reflecting Quality.

According to this definition.Table 5: Items Reflecting Quality Code Q7a Q7b Q7c Q7d Q7e Q7f Q8a Q8b Q8c Q8d Q8e Q8f Q9a Q9b Q9c Q9d Q9e Q9f Q10a Q10b Q10c Q10d Q10e Q10f Item Correct execution of orders Speed of money transfers Speed of service delivery Adherence to promises Correct execution of banking matters Distribution of bank statements Costs of accounts of the company Convenience of products and services Clarity of information provided Sufficiency of information provided Costs of services of the company Interest rates of the company Service by telephone Service by the Internet Service by bank offices Service by mail correspondence Accessibility of the company Facilities for Internet banking Friendliness of employees Capability of employees Reliability of employees Openness for questions Responsiveness of the company Handling of complaints Score range 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 Customer loyalty Following Gremler and Brown (1996. Each item reflected a particular aspect of customer 85 . On the basis of this definition. customer loyalty was defined as the degree to which a customer is doing repeat business with the company. possesses a positive attitudinal disposition towards the provider. affects. customer loyalty encompasses (a) cognitions. a set of six Likert items was constructed to operationalise customer loyalty (Table 6). 1999). and (b) a comparison of the company with other firms. and considers only this provider when a need for this service arises. and behaviour with respect to the company.

Interest profits and provision profits were a function of the balances held or the provisions paid by a customer on the one hand. and 86 . Table 6: Items Reflecting Customer Loyalty Code Q14a Q14b Q14c* Q14d* Q14e Q14f Item I have more sympathy for BANK than for other banks For some matters I am better of with another bank I consider switching from BANK to another bank BANK offers me benefits other banks don’t offer For many years BANK has been my primary bank Aspect Affect Cognition Cognition Cognition Behaviour Score range 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–4 If I need new financial products. if a customer held 1000 euro credit balance during one month. p.loyalty (i. the interest profits yielded by the customer were equal to 2 euro. CP at time t was the gross financial contribution of a customer to a company in the twelve months preceding time t. The summation of all profits from a customer over 12 months preceding time t was labeled CP at time t. see for example Cooper & Kaplan.. Caruana. September 2006. The CP-figures from September 2005. 469). and had five ordered response categories ranging from totally agree (which was scored 4) to totally disagree (which was scored 0).g. we expected the six items to constitute a unidimensional scale. For example. or past behaviour). and the corresponding gross margins of the company on the other hand (the gross margins are the margins of the company before the costs for servicing the customer. Thus.002 euro per month. affect.. First. CP consisted of interest profits and provision profits. contact costs. such as transaction costs. and overhead costs. cognition. 1991. In accordance with former studies using similar measurement instruments of customer loyalty (e. 2002. Gremler & Brown. we chose a time period of a year for the measurement of CP. 1999). Three additional remarks are in order. Because a long time period is less subject to behavioural anomalies than a short time period (Mulhern. 1999). customer profitability (CP) was defined as the gross financial contribution of a customer to a company in a specified period of time. BANK is my first choice Cognition * = item is counter-indicative of customer loyalty Customer profitability In Chapter 3. CP at time t was computed monthly by the company. marketing costs.e. are accounted for. and expressed in euro. and the companies’ gross margin on 1 euro credit balance was 0.

Third. customer loyalty. Interest Interest was measured in order to test the quality of the survey data by means of correlating items reflecting customer satisfaction and items reflecting interest (to be discussed in Section 2 from Chapter 6). Table 7: Items Reflecting Interest Code Q17 Q18 Item How interested are you in banking matters? by banks? Score range 0-4 How interested are you in the development of new products and services 0 . We expected that items reflecting customer satisfaction were uncorrelated with items reflecting interest. Only the accounts for which the customer was registered as the primary owner were included in the calculation of profitability of the customer. For example. and some other items were included to optimise the design of the questionnaire.g.September 2007 were collected from the internal databases of the company (Section 6 of the present chapter). Second. and a different result would raise suspicion about the quality of the survey data. some items regarding product ownership and contacts with the 87 . the customer did not generate any profits from that month onwards. and after a year the profits generated by this customer in the preceding twelve months were reduced to zero. some items were included in the questionnaire for business purposes. one of these customers was registered by the company as the primary owner of the product. In addition.. We expected the items to be positively correlated. The company registered this as a missing value on CP at time t. a mortgage) was held by two or more customers. and interest. if a customer left the company. if an account (e.4 3 The questionnaire The questionnaire (Appendix 1. Each item had five ordered response categories that ranged from highly interested (which was scored 4) to not interested (which was scored 0). A customer’s interest in banking matters was operationalised on the basis of two items (Table 7). in Dutch) was composed of the items reflecting customer satisfaction (represented by two item sets). but in this study this missing value actually represents zero profits. quality (also represented by two item sets). trust.

Krosnick. Furthermore. They claimed that they could not answer particular items if they had no experience with the subject. 1999. 1986. 2007. 1997). Krosnick & Fabrigar. Dillman. Thus.. (c) A pilot study (to be discussed in Section 5) demonstrated that the no answer option was rarely used with respect to the satisfaction items. An example of such an item concerned the handling of complaints by the company.g. 1999). pp. because of four reasons it was decided to maintain the no answer option of items: (a) Interviews with participants after they had taken pre-tests of the questionnaire revealed that they appreciated the no answer option. The response option apparently did not invoke satisficing on this subject. the format of the items. 1998. 1998). some items regarding relations of the participant with other providers of financial services were included in order to elicit his or her memories of other providers of financial services before proceeding with the measurement of loyalty with the company. It is well known that items allowing respondents to use a no answer option may provide problems in data analysis (e. Such a mechanism may contaminate the data.. 1983: Sudman & Bradburn.. simple. the item texts were kept short. Nevertheless. 88 . because a participant may have good reasons not to answer a particular question (Dillman et al. The administration mode encompassed a forcing mechanism that required the participant to respond to an item before proceeding to the next item. and that a no answer option may invoke satisficing (e. Sheatsley. and the wording of the items were based upon general principles concerning survey research (see. 62-63). (b) To limit the risk of satisficing (Krosnick. and (d) A practical reason for using the no answer option was that the questionnaire was to be administered via the Internet.g. Tortora. e. The design of the questionnaire. Tabachnick & Fidell. & Bowker. and concrete in order to limit the difficulty of the participants’ task and prevent participants from taking the easy way in answering the items thus using the no answer option too light-heartedly. 1982).. the no answer option was also meant to neutralise the forcing mechanism.company were included in order to elicit the participant’s memories of the company before the measurement of satisfaction with the company started. It was considered useful to include these items in the questionnaire.g. Belson. An important issue was the inclusion of the no answer option among the response options of the items. in particular to collect data on the seriousness of a particular problem.

These were adults who were registered by the company as the primary owner of at least one banking product provided by the company. by means of depth interviews with mature customers of BANK. The effect of the location of the satisfaction items (Q3. Sudman & Bradburn. before executing the pilot study and the main study. The second objective of the pre-tests was to test the first hypothesis of the empirical study (i. Sheatsley. was different across different administrations of the questionnaire. the results were used to test the first hypothesis. Four were male and six were female.The ordering of items within a block of items. we explained the purpose of the study in the E-mail (Appendix 2. p. and Q20. The questionnaire was improved by means of qualitative pre-tests among 10 persons and a pilot study among 372 persons. 262). Krosnick. 1983. The first objective of the pre-tests was to test how long it took participants to complete the questionnaire and to explore participants’ interpretations of the items in the questionnaire. 223. p. in Dutch) by which they were invited to participate in the survey. Their age varied between 29 and 71 years. Appendix 1) on the scale scores was assessed in the pilot study. Target population The target population of this study consisted of the mature customers of a Dutch retail bank. 1982. In order to motivate participants to complete the questionnaire. The results of the pre-tests were used to improve the wording of the items and the design of the questionnaire..e. We considered this rather long and suspected this might demoralise participants. 248-249. pp. The pre-tests (to be discussed in Section 4) demonstrated that it took 15 to 35 minutes for participants to complete the questionnaire. Sample The sample was composed of ten mature customers of the bank. 1999. The objective of these measures was to test and to control for order effects. Furthermore. such as the items within block Q3 (Appendix 1). and stimulate satisficing (e. Q4. 4 The pre-tests The questionnaire was pre-tested between February 2005 and May 2005.g. Their education ranged from professional 89 . customer satisfaction is manifested in various expressions that are mutually related but not sharply delineated. see Section 7 in Chapter 4)..

and into the answers he or she had given to the survey items. and to test the hypotheses 12 and 13. 90 . The first objective of the pilot study was to test the procedure of the survey. The responses were registered on paper by the interviewer. Procedure The questionnaire was presented in paper-and-pencil format to the participant. the interviewer interviewed the participant. had an effect on the average satisfaction scores. The second objective was to test the hypotheses 12 and 13 (the hypotheses regarding the effect of (a) location of satisfaction items and (b) ordering of response categories on scale scores. and (b) the ordering of the response categories of satisfaction items.to academic. It was assessed (a) how many participants completed the questionnaire. None of the persons was occupied in consumer research or the financial services industry. On the basis of this design (Table 8) it was tested whether (a) the location of the satisfaction items in the questionnaire. (b) how often missing values on items occurred. see Section 7 in Chapter 4). Design Four versions of the questionnaire were administered that differed with respect to the location of the satisfaction items in the survey. and the ordering of the response categories of the satisfaction items. and (c) what kind of comments the participants made with respect to the questionnaire. The participant was probed into his or her satisfaction with the company. Afterwards. The participant filled out the questionnaire. 5 The pilot study The pilot survey was conducted in August 2005. The results of the pilot study were used to decide on technical properties of the main survey. among mature customers of the bank. Data The interviewer’s notes about the time span of the survey and the responses of participants to the post-survey interview constituted the raw data. and the interviewer registered the time it took to complete the questionnaire. into the meaning that he or she attached to satisfaction with a retail bank.

In the survey versions 2 and 4. Sample The sample was drawn from the research panel of the company. (b) the person is free to participate in the research or to decline. which was the possibility that the panel might be 91 . The agreement encompassed that (a) the company is free to approach the person for marketing research. Q4 and Q20 (Appendix 1) in the questionnaire. the locations of Q3 and Q4 on the one hand and Q20 on the other hand were reversed. (b) its facilities for Internet research. The order of response categories refers to the response categories of the Likert items.Table 8: Design of the Pilot Study Survey version 1 2 3 4 location of items A A B B ordering of categories A B A B N 90 95 89 98 The location of the satisfaction items refers to the location of Q3. The reasons for using the research panel for this study were (a) its considerable size. In the survey versions 3 and 4. This panel was composed of a total of 3984 mature customers of the company who had agreed to participate in marketing research via the Internet. Target population The target population of this study consisted of the mature customers of a Dutch retail bank. which were totally agree – agree – neutral – disagree – totally disagree. (c) the company is allowed to use the survey data for research purposes only. All panel members could be approached by E-mail. These were adults who were registered by the company as the primary owner of at least one banking product provided by the company. The customer-id facilitated the enrichment of the survey data with the company data that were needed in this study. and had a unique customer-id that was used for identification purposes. the response categories were displayed in reversed order. and (d) the company is not allowed to distribute any personalised data to third parties. The arguments in favour of the use of the research panel outweighed the argument against the panel. and (c) the availability of a customer-id for each panel member.

First. error due to the result that different units in the target population have different probabilities of being included in the sample. The average age in the target population appears to be high.. the segment that was overrepresented in the research panel). the panel.g. it cannot be ruled out that (a) persons who were willing to participate in the panel had a different attitude towards banking than persons who were not willing to participate in the panel. Second.001) from the target population with respect to the distribution of customer segment (Table 9). p < 0. the choice for using the research panel may have enhanced coverage error (i. 1989). and (b) persons who had access to the Internet had different psychological characteristics than persons who do not have access to the Internet. p < 0.001) from the target population with respect to the distribution of gender.. In total. Thus. was segmented in one and only one of these segments. Standard Customers. the panel differed significantly (χ2(2) = 1270. 2001. Males were overrepresented in the panel (Table 9). which were Top Customers.001) from the target population with respect to the distribution of age group (Table 9). Each customer of the company. The response rate in the pilot study was approximately 47% (N = 372). and partly to unknown causes. and the participants were distributed more or less evenly across the four versions of the questionnaire (Table 8). The distributions of customer segment. 800 persons were invited to participate in the survey.biased with respect to some psychological characteristics. and the sample are reported in Table 9.e. and in the target population it was 48 years. These persons were selected randomly from the research panel. the panel differed significantly (χ2(2) = 324. p < 0. 92 . but this is because only adults constituted this population. Third. and which was used by the company for marketing purposes.e. Because the company’s most valuable customers (i. the variable customer segment refers to a segmentation which reflects the value of the customers to the company.. The company distinguished three segments. The average age in the panel was 47 years.e. Dillman & Bowker. and Development Customers. This was partly due to the overrepresentation of males among the segment Top Customers (i. e. Groves. Top Customers) were overrepresented in the research panel. and age group within subsequently the company. except the ones that were not administered as the primary owner of a product provided by the company. Three additional remarks with respect to the research panel are in order.. the panel differed significantly (χ2(2) = 299. gender. For example.

91. the sample differed significantly from the panel with respect to customer segment (χ2(2) = 16. p < 0.001).In line with our expectations. The sample was representative of the panel with respect to gender and age group. the sample differed significantly from the target population with respect to customer segment (χ2(2) = 209. p < 0. The participants received a small incentive (i. The questionnaire was accessible from 19 August 2005 until 4 September 2005. saving points valued 10 euro).e. Thus. Persons had access to the site on the basis of a password and were identified on the basis of a customer-id. p < 0. Gender. and age group (χ2(2) = 35. p < 0. Persons were invited by E-mail to participate in the survey. respondents differed significantly from non-respondents with respect to customer segment. and Age Group in the Pilot Study Company Customer segment Top Standard Development Gender Female Male Unknown Age group 18 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60 years and older 35 38 27 30 51 19 28 52 20 44 52 4 31 66 3 30 68 2 30 44 26 56 32 12 64 30 6 Panel Sample Procedure The survey was administered via the Internet.001).001). After a participant completed the questionnaire. Furthermore. The questionnaire was made available at a site of the marketing research agency that managed the survey. Table 9: Distribution (Percentages) of Customer Segment.. the data were uploaded to the agency.001). 93 . gender (χ2(2) = 42. This is the common fee that the company paid to panel members that responded to a survey of medium length.

p < 0. the sample differed significantly from the remainder of the panel with respect to customer segment (χ2(2) = 75..001). and the sample are reported in Table 10.05). Thus. and to test the hypotheses (see Section 7 in Chapter 4). 94 . p < 0.001). the remainder of the panel. and age group (χ2(2) = 157. and age group (χ2(2) = 8. p < 0. which were (a) customer segment ultimo September 2005. the file was merged with the marketing database. Subsequently. Furthermore. among mature customers of the bank. and age group. the part of the panel that did not participate in the pilot study). In order to enrich the raw data. p < 0. and (c) age ultimo September 2005. The study was used to construct the measurements of the constructs. gender (χ2(2) = 9.85. gender. gender. They were the remainder of the research panel of the company (i. These were adults who were registered by the company as the primary owner of at least one banking product provided by the company. and for practical purposes they may be ignored.01). The distributions of customer segment. The response rate in the main study was approximately 47% (N = 1689). and it was successful for all participants.001). which were the coded responses of the participants to the survey items (the research agency scored a no answer response as a missing value). In line with our expectations. Target population The target population of this study consisted of the mature customers of a Dutch retail bank. (b) gender. p < 0. three variables were added to the file.95. gender (χ2(2) = 183. the sample differed significantly from the target population with respect to customer segment (χ2(2) = 813.e. 6 The main study The main survey was conducted in October 2005.001). p < 0. The merging was executed on the basis of customer-id.Data The research agency yielded a file containing the raw data. and age group within subsequently the company. respondents differed significantly from non-respondents with respect to customer segment. Sample A total of 3612 persons were invited to participate in the survey. For gender and age the absolute differences were very small.

Persons were invited by E-mail to participate in the survey.. Data The research agency yielded a file containing the raw data. (c) age ultimo September 2005. and it was successful for all participants.e. Persons had access to the site on the basis of a password and were identified on the basis of a customer-id.Table 10: Distributions (Percentages) of Customer Segment. (d) CP ultimo September 2005. Gender. saving points valued 10 euro). (e) CP ultimo September 2006. (b) gender. The questionnaire was accessible from 30 September 2005 until 16 October 2005. The questionnaire was made available at a site of the marketing research agency that managed the survey. a no answer response was scored as a missing value). This is the common fee that the company paid to panel members that responded to a survey of medium length. which were the coded responses of the participants to the survey items (again. the data were uploaded to the agency. the file was merged with the marketing database. and (g) indicator whether the customer had deceased between September 2005 and September 2007. 95 . The merging was executed on the basis of customer-id. (f) CP ultimo September 2007. Subsequently. After a participant completed the questionnaire. seven variables were added to the file. and Age Group in the Main Study Company Customer segment Top Standard Development Gender Female Male Unknown Age group 18 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60 years and older 35 38 27 30 51 19 28 52 20 44 52 4 31 66 3 30 68 2 30 44 26 55 32 13 61 30 9 Remainder of Panel Sample Procedure The survey was administered via the Internet. In order to enrich the raw data. The participants received a small incentive (i. which were (a) customer segment ultimo September 2005.

96 .

the measurement analyses are discussed.Chapter 6 Results of the first empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK 1 Introduction This chapter addresses the results of the first empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK. the pilot study and the main study. Fifth. The report of each interview included (a) the registration of the time the participant took to complete the survey. 2 Preliminary analyses Method This section addresses the preliminary analyses of the raw data from the pre-tests. The purpose of these analyses was to examine the data quality and to prepare the data for the subsequent analyses. The interviewer reproduced the interviews verbatim on the basis of the notes he made during the interview. The purpose of these analyses was to construct the scales of customer satisfaction. Third. the implications of the results of the empirical study are addressed. Fourth. (b) the 97 . Pre-test data First. Second. The purpose of these analyses was to explore this relation in more detail than we did for the tests of the hypotheses. quality. The discussion includes the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the customer satisfaction scale. First. trust. additional research into the relation between customer satisfaction and future customer profitability (future CP) is discussed. The purpose of these tests was to collect empirical evidence regarding the validity of measurement of customer satisfaction. and customer loyalty. the preliminary analyses are discussed. the data from the pre-tests were analysed. the conclusions of the study are presented. Sixth. the tests of the hypotheses explained in more detail in Chapter 4 are discussed.

g. Pilot study data Second. Item-score imputation is a method for handling missing item scores in multiple-item questionnaires. 15 98 . in which multiple items are used to measure one underlying construct such as satisfaction. and (c) the participant’s comments on the survey and the questionnaire items. the correlations between the items reflecting customer satisfaction with the retail bank and the items reflecting interest in banking matters were examined. Then. say. For this purpose. proc univariate (SAS STAT) and proc means (SAS STAT) were used. 2002. In order to test the data quality.g. and (c) the items reflecting satisfaction and the items reflecting interest were uncorrelated. In order to get an impression of the distribution characteristics of the variables. This mechanism often is difficult to identify once the missingdata problem has presented itself.participant’s explanation of his or her satisfaction with the retail bank. Tabachnick & Fidell. histograms and descriptive statistics of all variables in the dataset were computed and examined. 2002). the data from the pilot study were analysed. and this complicates adequate missing-data handling in much empirical research. the score of participant p on item i is missing. to be discussed shortly in more detail. For this purpose. Little & Rubin.. Suppose. and the items that were assumed to be counterindicative of the constructs (see the description of the measurement instruments in Chapter 5) were recoded in the opposite direction. (b) the items reflecting interest were highly correlated. and Sijtsma (2007) found that imputation of item scores has little or no biasing effect on outcomes of statistical analyses when the percentage of missing item scores in the data matrix does not exceed. Missing data may hamper the data analyses (e. In the statistical literature (e. proc corr (SAS STAT) was used. (a) the items reflecting satisfaction were highly correlated. Van der Ark. it is well known that the way in which missing data have to be handled depends on the mechanism that underlies the missingness. It was expected that. Schafer & Graham. the imputation of an item score based on the observed part of the data for participant p and item i. as with the popular missing data handling by means of listwise deletion.. 62). p. the dataset containing the raw data was converted into a SAS dataset. is an effective and simple way to complete the data matrix and not lose a large part of the sample. Bernaards and Sijtsma (2000) and Van Ginkel. For this purpose. For item-score missingness in multiple-item questionnaires. 2007.

The explanation for this robustness is that the available data contain much information on the underlying construct. and thus are well able to compensate for the non-randomness of the missing data.e. 2007. item-score imputation could be used safely (results discussed in the next section). the overall mean OM). Van Ginkel. For the imputation of item scores. and the expected scores TWpi computed by means of method TW-E. Van Ginkel. In two-way imputation with normally distributed errors. the person mean PMp. Van der Ark.. and (c) the mean of all available scores of all persons in the sample on all items which constitute the scale (i. Let the score of person p on item i be missing. 2003.e. and this rounded value is imputed in cell (p. the item mean IMi).. a real value TWpi is estimated on the basis of (a) the mean of person p’s available scores on the other items of the scale (i. so that TWpi(E) = TWpi + εpi. Van Ginkel (2007) demonstrated that this method yielded nearly unbiased results in important psychometric quantities such as Cronbach’s alpha. Serious bias is absent even when the missingness mechanism cannot be ignored in the sense that the missing item scores cannot be considered a random sample from the complete data matrix. and consequently TWpi. Method TW-E requires that at least one item from the item set reflecting a construct is answered by the participant. 2000. we used two-way imputation with normally distributed errors (abbreviated method TW-E. so that TWpi = PMp + IMi – OM.e. the person mean PMp). Variance σε2 is obtained from the squared differences between the observed scores Xpi in the data matrix. In twoway imputation.i) of the data matrix. If TWpi(E) is a real number. cannot 99 . it is rounded to the nearest integer within the range of feasible item scores. (b) the mean of the available scores of the other persons in the sample on item i (i. e. Bernaards & Sijtsma. Method TW-E is suited in particular for item sets that measure one construct. 2007). a random error εpi is added to TWpi.percent. The random error is drawn from a normal distribution with zero mean and variance σε2. Because in the pilot study and the main study the total percentage of missing item scores did not exceed 15.g. Otherwise.. & Sijtsma. Sijtsma & van der Ark..

in which the decision to include the no answer option was discussed). (b) the examination of distribution characteristics of the variables in the dataset. it was demonstrated that the sample differed significantly from the target population with respect to customer segment. see Table 5 in Chapter 5) may be due to the item being nonapplicable for participants who never had a complaint about the company. and comparing the results from statistical analyses with and without weighting. For example. item Q10f. we decided to weight participants in order to obtain proportional representation of customer segments in the sample.. we did not impute values for these missing scores but rather excluded this case from the analysis (also. Because in-company research demonstrated that customer segment is an important variable in customer profitability analyses (e. Main study data Third. and (d) the examination of correlations between items reflecting satisfaction and items reflecting interest in banking matters. the data from the main study were analysed.e. Because it is unrealistic to impute a score for a missing value that indicates that an item may not be applicable for a participant. For example. gender. see Chapter 5. Following Hox (1998). in the main study (but not in the pilot study) a weighting factor containing weights for persons in the dataset was computed. In Chapter 5. similar to the data from the pilot study. We excluded participants with missing scores from particular analyses if it was plausible that missing scores on an item were due to the item being non-applicable for these participants. missing scores on an item addressing quality of complaint handling by the company (i. and age group. (b) there were no substantive arguments for the imputation of the missing scores.g. two variables reflecting customer loyalty were deleted from the dataset because of these reasons (to be further discussed in the Section Results). We excluded variables from the dataset if it was suspected that (a) the missingness was nonignorable. and outlier analyses were done. 2005) and because we intended to analyse the relation between customer satisfaction and customer profitability. These analyses included (a) the recoding of items that were assumed to be counter-indicative of the construct of interest. and (c) the variables were considered to be dispensable for the study. Hox (1998) advocated weighting of persons if the sample is biased. The analyses demonstrated that the difference with respect to customer segment between the sample and the target population was larger than the differences with respect to gender and age group. Terpstra. Thus.be computed. we compared the 100 . (c) the imputation of missing values. Furthermore. no values were imputed for missing scores of participants who did not answer at least one item from a particular scale..

We chose the leverage statistic for the detection of multivariate outliers. is defined as: hpp = (MD / N . we did all analyses on the dataset including the outliers (i. Furthermore. Persons with a significant value for leverage (p < 0. To evaluate the impact of outliers on the results.results of the analyses regarding the relation between customer satisfaction and future customer profitability. 72-77). 74-75). This means that the participants belonging to a customer segment that was overrepresented in the sample were given a smaller weight than the participants belonging to a segment that was underrepresented in the sample. 101 . the reduced dataset).5.. and N the sample size. pp.001) were defined as multivariate outliers. Univariate and multivariate outlier analyses were conducted to find cases that may hamper the data analyses (e. For the detection of univariate outliers.1) + (1 / N). the choice of the criterion variable in the regression analysis is unimportant).g. If this proportion exceeded 0. For the detection of multivariate outliers. the histograms of variables were examined. Tabachnik & Fidell.. pp. denoted hpp.e. for each participant the proportion of missing values on each set of items constituting a measurement instrument was computed. with and without the weighting (Section 4). the distances of persons to the centroid of the multivariate space defined by the items in the dataset were examined. which is a function of the Mahalanobis Distance (Tabachnick & Fidell. the complete dataset) and on the dataset without outliers (i. 111-112). Let MD denote the Mahalanobis Distance. This was done using several items that reflected different constructs as predictors and customer-id as criterion (because the leverage statistic expresses the distances of persons to the centroid of the multivariate space defined by the predictor variables in the regression analysis. then for person p his/her leverage. 74-75. pp. The weights of the participants belonging to a particular customer segment were computed as the ratio between the proportion of the customer segment in the company population and the proportion of the customer segment in the sample.e. Following Tabachnick & Fidell (2007. 2005. 1936) and by the leverage statistic. a participant was marked as an outlier.. and their score patterns were visually examined to find out what caused the high leverage value. 2007. These distances can be expressed by the Mahalanobis Distance (Mahalanobis. The outliers were marked in the dataset by an indicator variable. regression analysis was used to calculate the leverage statistic. because this statistic is readily available in SAS.

This is not what I expected from [BANK]. I’m not particularly concerned with banking affairs. They [BANK] do nothing wrong. They charge basic services. such as [COMPETITOR] X]. 9 10 Satisfied It is all right. it never goes wrong … I don’t care much about banking affairs … I don’t have any referents. they [BANK] refused to compensate. There is nothing to be dissatisfied about … There is nothing to be enthusiastic about either. but last year I had an incident with [BANK]. my partner takes care of banking affairs … 5 6 7 8 Very satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied The staff is always friendly. If [COMPETITOR] would have current accounts. It [BANK] is a friendly bank … They [BANK] are accessible … There is nothing to be dissatisfied about. while they make enormous profits with our money. I would switch immediately. 3 4 Satisfied Satisfied They [BANK] will not deceive you. The participant’s explanations of his or her satisfaction with the retail bank are listed in Table 1. with limited costs. They are friendly and they are accessible … Although a relative once had an annoying incident with [BANK].Results The pre-tests The participants explained their satisfaction with the retail bank in different ways. and then it’s all right with me . Table 1: Listing of Explanations of Satisfaction with the Company Participant Satisfaction Explanation of satisfaction with the retail bank 1 2 Very satisfied Satisfied I feel good about [BANK]. It was satisfied about the costs of banking services. That was my former bank … [BANK] is easy to deal with. I’ve got the impression that they [BANK] will not deceive me. 102 . to me it’s important that I can trust my bank. I trust [BANK] … I won’t go to [COMPETITOR]. and the bank is easy to deal with… I feel good about [BANK]. First.. and they are discussed in Section 4. My banking affairs are taken care of well with [BANK].. Moderately In general it is all right. Her card was stolen and was used abroad.

e.61 ** -1.85 3.13 ** -0... standard deviation. no further actions were undertaken with respect to these outliers.. and negatively to items.73 0. trust. and mostly negatively skewed. most participants responded positively to items. and interest were single peaked. This result supports the use 103 .e. The descriptive statistics (i. see Chapter 5. Oliver. customer loyalty.94 2. and skewness) for the items before imputation were almost identical to the descriptive statistics for the items after imputation. Because these items were not used in subsequent analyses of the pilot data.69 0. also. quality (two item sets).94 0.001 The descriptive statistics demonstrated a low incidence of missing values (i.88 2.27 2. 1997. The histograms also revealed a small group of outliers on the items adopted from the ACSI. Table 2 shows that there were few missing item scores.85 ** -0. Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Items Reflecting Customer Satisfaction (Before Imputation.03 Skewness -0.36 ** -0. smaller than five percent) on the items reflecting customer satisfaction. 1992).71 1. which were indicative of satisfaction. trust.g.87 ** Q3d* There are good reasons to leave BANK Q4d* Last year I had some problems with BANK * = scored reversely. which were counter-indicative of satisfaction (Table 2).85 SD 0.The pilot study Histograms (not shown here) demonstrated that the polytomous items reflecting customer satisfaction (two item sets).72 ** -0.96 2.95 0.67 2.99 ** -1.20 ** -0.72 2. This latter result was probably due to items mentioning topics that were irrelevant to particular participants. For the items constituting the measurement instrument for customer satisfaction. and interest.73 0. Peterson & Wilson.83 0. N = 372) Code Q3a Q3b Q3e* Q3g Q4a Q4b Q4c* Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK I have mixed feelings about BANK BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK Nmiss 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 2.99 2. For example. This corresponds with the findings in other satisfaction studies (e.95 ** -1. ** = p < 0. and a higher incidence of missing values on some items reflecting quality. mean. customer loyalty.77 0. thus method TW-E was used for imputing values for the missing item scores.

1967. September 2006. 20% of the customers is responsible for 80% of the company’s profits). Tabachnick & Fidell. see Table 4. e. but because they had correct values for CP (i...08 0. Table 3: Correlations Between Two Items (Q3a and Q3b) reflecting Customer Satisfaction and Two Items (Q17 and Q18) Reflecting Interest Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK How interested are you in banking matters? How interested are you in the development of new products and services by banks? Code Q3a Q3b Q17 Q18 Q3a Q3b 0. Forty-three participants had a standardised CP in September 2005. To reduce the skewness of the distribution and the influence of the outliers on subsequent analyses.72 Q17 0. see Chapter 4). customer loyalty. CP according to the gross CP conception. the analyses for the test of the hypotheses 12 and 13.g. In agreement with our expectations.65 The main study The results from the preliminary analyses of the data from the main study were similar to the results from the analyses of the pilot data.e. or 2007. and mostly negatively skewed.01 Q18 0. and interest were single peaked.. histograms (not shown here) showed single peaked and positively skewed distributions. These participants were outliers. 2006. Table 3 shows the correlations between two items reflecting satisfaction (Table 1 in Chapter 5) and two items reflecting interest in banking matters (Table 7 in Chapter 5). customer profits (i. which was larger than 3. (b) the interest items correlated highly.. we applied a logarithmic transformation to CPt (Jack. Outliers are common in financial data. trust.of method TW-E. and September 2007. and (c) the satisfaction items and the interest items were almost uncorrelated.03 -0. For the variables reflecting customer profitability (CP) in September 2005. they were retained for the data analyses. 104 . not incorrect values due to. Chapter 3) often follow a Pareto-like distribution (i.e. quality.e. and the items after imputation were used for subsequent analyses (i. In the financial services industry. (a) the satisfaction items correlated highly.04 0. clerical errors).. These results strengthened our confidence in the quality of the data.e. Histograms (not shown here) demonstrated that all polytomous items reflecting customer satisfaction.

11 -0.98 ** -0.94 -0. N = 1689) Code Q3a Q3b Q3d* Q3e* Q3g Q4a Q4b Q4c* Q4d* Q5a Q5b Q5c Q5d* Q5e* Q5f Q5g Q14a Q14b Q14c* Q14d* Q14e Q14f Q17 Q18 Q20b Q20c Q20d Item Customer satisfaction items At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK I have mixed feelings about BANK BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK Last year I had some problems with BANK Trust items I can depend on BANK to treat me fairly I can depend on BANK to handle my banking aff.65 ** -0.99 0.08 ** -1.21 ** -0.44 1.90 2.71 -1.90 2. BANK is my first choice I have more sympathy for BANK than for other banks For some matters I am better of with another bank I consider switching from BANK to another bank BANK offers me benefits other banks don’t offer For many years BANK has been my primary bank Interest items How interested are you in banking matters? How interested are you in dev.76 0.89 2.56 6.77 2.97 0.80 ** -0.95 0.95 ** -0.11 6.71 0.78 2.73 ** -1. (**) = p < 0.18 2.21 2.64 0.23 ** 22 34 2.70 0.71 ** -1.01 2.83 3. Trust.95 0.90 1.03 1. corr.75 ** -0.77 3. of new p&s by banks? ACSI items How satisfied are you with BANK? To what extent does BANK meet your ideal of a bank? To what extent has BANK met your expectations? 7 48 19 6.75 0.75 0.66 0.63 0.47 ** -0.87 0.Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Polytomous Items Reflecting Customer Satisfaction.03 ** Nmiss Mean SD Skewness (*) = scored reversely.04 -1.54 1.62 2.80 2.41 ** 0.84 ** 8 2 25 19 2 10 5 14 14 2.72 ** -0.47 1.12 ** -1.00 ** -1.00 ** -1.99 -0.83 2. products.60 ** -0.73 0.82 2.30 ** -0.04 ** -0.91 0.05 ** -1.72 2. Customer Loyalty and Interest (Before Imputation.22 ** 26 34 124 36 97 9 2.37 -1.96 0.70 2.41 ** -0.92 3.87 0.13 ** -1.44 2.27 1.71 0. I can depend on BANK to keep its promises I sometimes doubt the competence of BANK I sometimes doubt the good will of BANK I can trust BANK I can depend on BANK to serve me well Customer loyalty items If I need new fin.08 ** 9 4 16 20 24 4 6 2.01 0.001 105 .88 0.82 0.30 1.01 2.

Let CPt denote CP at time t. because the phrase offers me benefits was not articulated. Thus. and indicator variables identified them in the dataset. customer loyalty. even though the percentages of missing item scores were smaller than 15. In agreement with our expectations. These participants were considered outliers. and interest had few missing data on (i. The missing data on the remainder of the items reflecting customer loyalty (Table 4) were imputed using method TW-E. Table 5 shows the correlations between two items reflecting satisfaction (Table 1 in Chapter 5) and two items reflecting interest in banking matters (Table 7 in Chapter 5). or interest unanswered (Table 6).2007. and ln the natural logarithm. it is unclear whether this phrase refers to characteristics of the company. probably referring to a variety of products and services that are provided by retail banks. see Table 4). Table 4 demonstrates substantial percentages of missing scores on two items reflecting customer loyalty. The descriptive statistics of the items before imputation were almost identical to the descriptive statistics of the items after imputation.e. Nmiss = 6 percent) and Q14e (BANK offers me benefits other banks don’t offer. trust. pp. trust. such as a personalised interest rate. we applied the following transformation: TCPt = ln(CPt + 1) . or to financial offers by the company. this is discussed shortly. (a) the satisfaction items correlated highly. which are the items Q14c (For some matters I am better off with another bank. Because the minimum values for CPt was zero euro. 5% or less. 87-89). (b) the interest items correlated highly. The unfortunate phrasing of these two items in combination with the circumstance that these items were dispensable for the study led us to delete the items from the dataset. such as the location of a bank office or the availability of Internet banking facilities. TCPt transformed CPt. These results strengthened our confidence in the quality of the data. The items reflecting customer satisfaction (including the items from the ACSI).. so that item-score imputation could be used safely. An exception was made for the items with respect to customer loyalty. Some participants left more than 50 percent of the items reflecting satisfaction. Some participants left more than 50 percent of the items 106 . because the phrase some matters is ambiguous and imprecise. The meaning of item Q14e also was probably too vague. The meaning of item Q14c was probably too vague. and (c) the satisfaction items and the interest items were almost uncorrelated. Nmiss = 7 percent).

01 Q18 0. For example. These participants were considered outliers. Thus.e. Table 7). a missing score on an item concerning telephone service by the company (i. Similarly. see Chapter 5).64 Q17 0. Table 7) might indicate that the participant never had any complaints with the company. a missing score on an item concerning the quality of complaint-handling by the company (i. see Table 7. the regular users of the BANK have a greater chance of running into problems with transactions and services than the low-frequency users.62 Table 6: Number of Participants Leaving More Than Half of the Items Unanswered Satisfaction N 1 ACSI 14 Trust 6 Loyalty 5 Interest 11 Histograms (not shown here) demonstrated that all polytomous items reflecting quality were single peaked and mostly negatively skewed. item Q9a. The polytomous items reflecting quality had many missing item scores. Table 5: Correlations Between Two Items (Q3a and Q3b) Reflecting Customer Satisfaction and Two Items (Q17 and Q18) Reflecting Interest Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK How interested are you in banking matters? How interested are you in the development of new products and services by banks? Code Q3a Q3b Q17 Q18 Q3a Q3b 0.reflecting customer loyalty unanswered (Table 6). might indicate that the participant never phoned the company. the leverage statistic was computed by means of a regression analysis using customer-id as the criterion variable..e. it is likely that the latter group is overrepresented in the missing scores on the quality items. In general. Because imputation of values for missing scores on such items would be meaningless.04 -0. and as the predictor variables 107 .05 -0. we decided to exclude persons with missing scores on the polytomous items reflecting quality from analyses of the data about quality. In order to detect multivariate outliers..02 0. and we created an indicator variable to identify them in the dataset. part of which may be due to items being non-applicable for the participants involved (also. item Q10f.

and the dataset without the 39 outliers was labeled the reduced dataset). This variable was joined with the variables marking the participants who left the majority of items reflecting a particular construct unanswered (see Table 6). It was suspected that the eight participants with the highest leverage value had responded inconsistently to the survey items. Q4b. Q3e.001) leverage value. pp.e.. trust (Table 4). Furthermore. and Q4d. and the items from the ACSI (Table 4) (see Tabachnick & Fidell. Subsequently. Table 4) and extremely negative to the other half of the items reflecting satisfaction with the company (i. Table 4) and extremely positive to the items from the ACSI (ACSI items.25 items reflecting customer satisfaction (Table 4). An indicator variable was created to identify them in the dataset. and Q3g. The union of these variables identified 39 outliers in the dataset. Table 4). items Q20c and Q20d.. 75-76.e. A third example is a participant who answered extremely negative to all items reflecting satisfaction with the bank (customer satisfaction items. the inspection demonstrated that the eight participants with the highest leverage value alternated extremely positive and extremely negative responses to different items having similar content. Table 4). For example. interest (Table 4). a participant responded extremely positive to one half of the items reflecting satisfaction with the company (i.. Q3b. items Q3a. Table 4) and extremely negative to the other items from the ACSI (i. item Q20b. These 39 outliers were excluded from some analyses (the dataset including the 39 outliers was labeled the complete dataset. Another example is a participant who answered extremely positive to one item from the ACSI (i. The analysis yielded 119 participants with a significant (p < 0. 108 .. Visual inspection of the data demonstrated that these participants tended to give extremely positive or extremely negative responses. the items Q14c and Q14e were excluded). customer loyalty (Table 4. the weights were recorded in a variable called the weighting factor (Table 8). Q3d.e. 111-112). 2007. items Q4a. The weights needed to achieve proportional representation with respect to customer segment were computed on the basis of the distributions of customer segment in the company population and in the sample (see Chapter 5). Q4c. Table 4).e.

33 ** -0.70 1.55 ** -0.60 0.61 ** -0.49 ** -0.82 1.31 ** -0.71 Skewness -0.81 1.11 1.19 0.07 0.86 0.58 0.001 Table 8: Distribution of Customer Segment Within the Company.67 1.38 1.56 ** -0.40 ** -0.27 ** -0.69 0.65 0.09 1.65 0.94 1.91 1.91 2.39 ** -0.68 0.63 0.53 0.78 1.89 1. the Panel and the Sample Customer Segment Top Standard Development Company 30% 44% 26% Sample 61% 30% 9% Weighting factor 30 / 61 44 / 30 26 / 9 109 .67 ** ** = p < 0.84 1.55 ** -0.04 1.31 ** 0.52 ** -0.02 1.97 1.65 0.69 0.74 1.61 0.77 0.71 1.41 ** -0.63 ** -0.50 ** -0.57 ** 0.37 ** -0.62 0.70 0.57 0.66 ** -0.57 0.61 0.82 0.49 0.81 1.47 ** -0.60 0.65 ** -0.80 1.70 0.Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Polytomous Items Reflecting Quality (N = 1689) Code Q7a Q7b Q7c Q7d Q7e Q7f Q8a Q8b Q8c Q8d Q8e Q8f Q9a Q9b Q9c Q9d Q9e Q9f Q10a Q10b Q10c Q10d Q10e Q10f Item Correct execution of orders Speed of money transfers Speed of service delivery Adherence to promises Correct execution of banking matters Distribution of bank statements Costs of accounts of the company Convenience of products and services Clarity of information provided Sufficiency of information provided Costs of services of the company Interest rates of the company Service by telephone Service by the internet Service by bank offices Service by mail correspondence Accessibility of the company Facilities for internet banking Friendliness of employees Capability of employees Reliability of employees Openness for questions Responsiveness of the company Handling of complaints Nmiss 11 12 37 162 19 10 201 32 32 51 94 144 456 325 288 376 85 302 202 250 327 360 219 656 Mean 2.50 0.35 ** -0.67 SD 0.85 1.87 2.62 ** -0.

trust. customer satisfaction on the basis of the ACSI. This analysis yields one or more higher-order factors that account for the common variance that is due to all items. For this purpose. the correlation matrix of oblique factors is further factoranalysed. 1983. 1989. who reported the presence of halo effects in measurements of attribute satisfaction (Oliver. (e.0 was used (Molenaar & Sijtsma. Gorsuch. 1989). both Mokken scale analyses and factor analyses (Gorsuch. If the researcher does not have such a hypothesis. Because it was hypothesised that each set of items reflecting a construct constituted a unidimensional scale. We used Mokken’s MH model (Chapter 4) to analyse the data representing the participants’ responses to the measurement instruments used in the empirical study.. 2000). he or she may apply confirmatory factor analysis to test this hypothesis. which may be used to explore the dimensionality in a dataset if dimensions are nonorthogonal. The use of the MH model yielded the measurement scales and the participants’ scale scores. Gorsuch. we used exploratory strategies for scale development. exploratory factor analysis (e. and the factor analyses were done using proc factor (SAS STAT). the confirmatory search strategy of Mokken scale analysis (Chapter 4) was used. Following Wirtz (2000) and Wirtz and Bateson (1995). 1983) is a technique for investigating the dimensionality of an item set..g. 239-256) were used. If the researcher has a hypothesis regarding the dimensionality of the item set and which items load on particular factors. we suspected that halo 110 . and customer loyalty were constructed using the MH model. The scales of customer satisfaction. Instead of computing loadings for often difficult to interpret oblique factors. The Mokken scale analyses were done using MSPwin5. pp.3 Measurement analyses Measurement analyses aim to construct scales and to evaluate their psychometric quality. pp. 1983. Bollen. pp.g. Because it was expected that the items reflecting quality constituted multiple scales and we had no hypothesis about the number of scales..0. For the analysis of the item scores reflecting quality. 1983) may be used for investigating the structure of the item set and the identification of common factors that account for correlations in the item set. Bollen.g. and two or more orthogonalised lower-order factors that account for the common variance that is due to clusters of items (Gorsuch. 239-256) is a type of exploratory factor analysis. 1993). Hierarchical factor analysis (Gorsuch. All measurement analyses were done on the basis of the data from the main study. 248252). 1983. Factor analysis (e. meaning that factors are correlated. the software program MSPwin5.

and cause strong correlations between factors reflecting different dimensions of quality. 28-29). customer segment. Sixth. The lowest item scalability coefficient Hi was equal to 0. Fifth.91 (Table 9). and age groups was investigated. lowerbound Hi = 0. the scale-score statistics (Molenaar & Sijtsma. univariate analyses of variance were done to test whether subgroups defined on the basis of customer segment. proc GLM (SAS STAT) was used. Mokken scale analysis was done using MSPwin5. and thus the conception of customer satisfaction as a unidimensional construct.effects also could prevail in the measurement of the quality of attributes of products and services provided by the company. we also applied Mokken scale analysis to the data. Minvi = 0. the dimensionality of the item set was investigated using the confirmatory strategy (Section 6 from Chapter 4). the dataset without outliers. pp. 2000. The check for item monotonicity on the basis of the default options in MSPwin5. Third.03 and Minsize = 168. The confirmatory Mokken scale analyses (item selection method = Test) demonstrated that the nine items constituted a Mokken scale with a total-scale scalability coefficient H equal to 0. gender. First. pp. For this purpose. gender. which is 10 percent of the sample) did not reveal any 111 . These halo effects might strengthen the correlations between all items. For this purpose.e. This result supports the conception of customer satisfaction as the bipolar opposite of customer dissatisfaction. Second. the effect of outliers on the results was investigated by repeating the analyses on the reduced dataset (i. Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction was operationalised using the measurement instrument presented in Chapter 5 (Table 1 in Chapter 5). see Section 2).e. the scalability of the item set within distinct customer segments.. the assumption of monotonicity was investigated (Section 6 from Chapter 4). and age differed significantly with respect to scale scores. Therefore we chose hierarchical factor analysis for the exploration of the dimensionality of the data about quality. It was hypothesised that the nine items constitute a scale according to the MH model. gender groups. To test this hypothesis. and age group were defined as grouping variables (Molenaar & Sijtsma.. This result supported the inclusion of all nine items in the scale.. In order to explore the robustness of the results of the factor analysis. 60-61) were evaluated.50.59 and a reliability coefficient rho equal to 0. Fourth. The scale consists of items that are indicative of satisfaction and items that are counter-indicative of satisfaction. which is well above the default lowerbound for the Hi used in exploratory analyses (i. 2000.0.0 (i.3).e.

Table 9: Customer Satisfaction Scale’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H, Item Scalability Coefficients Hi, and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Complete Dataset (N = 1689)
Total group T 0.57 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.60 0.66 0.61 0.50 0.59 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.59 0.56 0.65 0.62 0.51 0.45 0.61 0.58 0.46 0.58 0.90 0.60 0.60 0.65 0.63 0.60 0.65 0.63 0.73 0.66 0.65 0.76 0.76 0.67 0.72 0.94 0.60 0.58 0.67 0.62 0.59 0.70 0.59 0.55 0.66 0.63 0.57 0.65 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.64 0.50 0.60 0.91 0.61 0.53 0.67 0.58 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.74 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.64 0.65 0.62 0.51 0.60 0.91 0.63 0.60 0.69 0.67 0.61 0.79 0.66 0.64 0.57 0.53 0.60 0.59 0.56 0.66 0.57 0.59 0.48 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.57 0.54 0.63 0.54 0.48 0.54 0.89 S D F M U 18-39 40-59 60+ Customer segment Gender Age

Label

At BANK I feel at home

I am satisfied with BANK

There are good reasons to leave BANK *

I have mixed feelings about BANK *

BANK meets all my requirements for a bank

Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK

BANK has met my expectations

I have regretted my choice for BANK *

Last year I had some problems with BANK *

112

H

Rho

* = scored reversely

Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Scores in the Complete Dataset (N = 1689)
Gender Female 26.23 16.35 < 0.001 25.88 Male Unknown 24.53 1.99 0.13 Age group 18-39 25.31 40-59 26.14 60+ 26.39 4.67 < 0.01 25.96 Total

Customer segment

T

S

D

Mean

26.44

25.60

23.78

F

p

violations of the assumption of monotonicity. This means that the ISRF’s of all items were nondecreasing for all rest-score groups. However, the check for item monotonicity on the basis of smaller rest-score groups (i.e., Minsize = 84, which is 5 percent of the sample) yielded two significant violations of the assumption of monotonicity. These violations were due to small decreases in the estimated ISRF for Q3d >= 2 (There are good reasons to leave BANK; Table 4) (Figure 1) and the estimated ISRF for Q4c >= 4 (I have regretted my choice for BANK; Table 4) (Figure 2). Thus, the MH model did not fit the data perfectly. The psychometric properties of the scale were slightly improved if item Q3d was removed from the scale. The 8-item scale yielded a total-scale scalability coefficient H equal to 0.59 without significant violations of the assumption of monotonicity, a result that was also found when the assumption was tested on the basis of small rest-score groups (i.e., Minsize = 84). However, it is doubtful whether the 8-item scale yielded better measurements of satisfaction, because each item in the scale is important for sufficient content validity (i.e., equal coverage of all aspects of customer satisfaction in the scale). We decided to proceed with the 9-item scale because the violations of monotonicity in the 9-item scale were small, and the 9-item scale had the best content validity.

Figure 1: Item step response functions of item Q3d: There are good reasons to leave BANK

113

Figure 2: Item step response functions of item Q4c: I have regretted my choice for BANK

The customer satisfaction scale-score distribution is presented in Figure 3. It may be noted that the distribution of scale scores was significantly skewed to the left (p < 0.001), and that there were outliers in the skew tail. The negative skewness is a common result in customer satisfaction measurements (Peterson & Wilson, 1992). It is unknown whether the outliers were caused by extreme dissatisfaction of the corresponding participants with the company or by stylistic responding. Stylistic responding is investigated in Chapter 8. The Mokken scale analyses using the grouping variables customer segment (valued Top Customers, Standard Customers, and Development Customers; see Chapter 5), gender (valued female, male, and missing), and age (valued 18 to 39 years, 40 years to 59 years, and 60 years onwards; see Chapter 5) demonstrated that the nine items constituted a strong Mokken scale (i.e., H > 0.5) in each subgroup (Table 9). The checks for item monotonicity did not yield significant violations of the assumption of monotonicity, a result that was also found for smaller rest-score groups (i.e., Minsize = 84). For this reason, it was concluded that the 9-item scale may be used to measure customer satisfaction in different subgroups of the target population.

114

freq 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 freq

Figure 3: Distribution of customer satisfaction scores in the complete dataset (N = 1689, mean = 25.96, SD = 5.57, and skewness = -0.85)

Table 10 shows that customer segments differed significantly with respect to scale score (based on analysis of variance). This result is consistent with results from previous satisfaction studies done by the company (e.g., Terpstra, 2005), and it suggests that the three customer segments differ with respect to the average satisfaction with the company. The result also supports the pursuit of proportional representation of customer segments in descriptive studies of customer satisfaction. Furthermore, gender groups did not differ significantly with respect to scale score (Table 10). Age groups differed significantly with respect to scale score (Table 10). The latter result was unexpected, but because the magnitude of the differences between the age groups was small, we considered it unimportant in the context of the present study. The analyses of the reduced dataset yielded similar results as the analyses of the complete dataset. The confirmatory Mokken scale analyses (item selection method = Test) yielded a scale with a total-scale scalability coefficient H equal to 0.60 and a reliability coefficient rho equal to 0.91 (Table 11). The check for item monotonicity on the basis of the default options (i.e., Minvi = 0.03 and Minsize = 165, which is 10 percent of the sample) did not reveal violations of the assumption of monotonicity. The same result was found for the

115

Minsize = 83). which is 10 percent of the sample) did not yield significant violations of the assumption of monotonicity in subgroups. Minsize = 83) yielded a significant violation of the assumption of monotonicity for item Q4c (Table 4) in the age group of 60 years and older. The Mokken scale analyses using the grouping variables customer segment.e.e. Gender groups did not differ significantly. and age yielded a strong Mokken scale (i. H > 0...03 and Minsize = 165. univariate analyses of variance demonstrated that the customer segments and the age groups differed significantly with respect to scale score (Table 12). Because the magnitude of the decrease was small.. and skewness = -0.84) 116 .96 in the highest rest-score group). the MH model fitted the data in the reduced dataset. freq 250 200 150 freq 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Figure 4: Distribution of customer satisfaction scores in the reduced dataset (N = 1650. Minvi = 0.check for item monotonicity with smaller rest-score groups (i.e.e. The checks for item monotonicity on the basis of the default options (i.001). mean = 26.. Furthermore.50. the check for item monotonicity on the basis of smaller rest-score groups (i. the proportion of responses Q4c >= 3 decreased from 1. gender. However..e.04. Thus.5) in each subgroup (Table 11). we considered it not disturbing and we concluded that the scale score is useful for the measurement of customer satisfaction in different subgroups of the target population. The customer satisfaction scale-score distribution (Figure 4) was significantly skewed to the left (p < 0. This was due to a decrease of the estimated ISRF for Q4c >= 3 (i. SD = 5.00 in the middle rest-score group to 0.

60 0.59 0.58 0.91 0.51 0.51 25.59 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.60 0. Item Scalability Coefficients Hi.76 0.65 0.64 0.60 0.52 0.61 0.90 0.57 0.60 0.66 0.56 0.74 0.61 0.84 F p .64 0.66 0.57 0.71 0.68 23.79 0.59 0.91 0.90 S D F M U 18-39 40-59 60+ Customer segment Gender Age Label At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK * I have mixed feelings about BANK * BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK * Last year I had some problems with BANK * 117 H Rho * = scored reversely Table 12: Customer Satisfaction Scores in the Reduced Dataset (N = 1650) Gender Female 26.61 0.72 0.59 0.63 0.91 0.62 1.60 0.60 0.91 0.54 0.67 0.49 0.57 0.51 0.60 0.65 0.57 0.55 0.62 0.55 0.65 0.65 0.56 0.93 0. and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Reduced Dataset (N = 1650) Total group T 0.45 0.53 0.58 0.18 Age group 18-39 25.60 0.23 60+ 26.60 0.63 0.62 0.65 0.60 0.26 16.91 0.57 0.63 0.57 0.69 0.66 0.60 0.64 0.61 0.56 0.67 0.76 0.66 0.60 0.001 25.66 0.91 0.01 < 0.72 0.64 0.59 0.58 0.Table 11: Customer Satisfaction Scale’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H.39 < 0.61 0.59 0.66 0.55 0.01 26.65 0.61 0.67 0.04 Total Customer segment T S D Mean 26.69 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.64 0.59 0.47 0.94 0.74 0.60 0.47 5.51 0.52 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.52 0.36 40-59 26.99 Male Unknown 24.62 0.66 0.68 0.

Third. First. The analyses of the complete dataset demonstrated that the three ACSI items constituted a strong Mokken scale (Table 13). we refrained from inquiries into the causes of the irregularities of the ACSI score distribution. Item Scalability Coefficients Hi.84 0. and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Complete Dataset (CD) and the Reduced Dataset (RD) Item How satisfied are you with BANK? To what extent does BANK meet your ideal of a bank? To what extent has BANK met your expectations? H Rho CD (N = 1684) 0. Because our major concern was the measurement of customer satisfaction on the basis of the nine-item scale (Table 1 in Chapter 5) and we expected that the irregularities of the ACSI score distribution would not seriously hamper the tests of the hypotheses (Section 4). Second. the MH model also fitted the data in the reduced dataset. The default check for item monotonicity (i. Minsize = 168) did not yield violations of the assumption of monotonicity.. The scale-score distribution is presented in Figure 5. and a drop for scale-score 22. and shows negative skewness.American Customer Satisfaction Index The ACSI (Table 2 in Chapter 5) was used as the second operationalisation of customer satisfaction. Table 13: ACSI’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H. The empirical data were analysed by means of Mokken scale analyses.82 0.82 0. Thus. The analyses of the reduced dataset (Table 13) yielded similar results as the analyses in the complete dataset.03.82 0.92 RD (N = 1650) 0. peaks for the scale-scores 18 and 21. the scale scores and the scale-score statistics were computed.92 118 . Thus.83 0. the MH model fitted the data. Minvi = 0. the assumption of monotonicity was tested using the default check for item monotonicity (see Chapter 4). The analyses were done in both the complete dataset and the reduced dataset.83 0. The results in the reduced dataset were similar to the results in the complete dataset. The scale-score distribution is presented in Figure 6. the dimensionality of the item set was investigated using the confirmatory strategy (see Chapter 4).e. outliers in the skew tail.86 0.81 0.

80 and skewness = -1.22. SD = 3. mean = 19.06) 119 .77. and skewness = -1. SD = 3.08) freq 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 freq Figure 6: Distribution of ACSI scores in the reduced dataset (N = 1650. mean = 19.freq 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 freq Figure 5: Distribution of ACSI scores in the complete dataset (N = 1684.20.

the MH model fitted the data.69 0. the MH model also fitted the data in the reduced dataset.69 0.63 0. the scale scores and the scale-score statistics were computed. The scale-score distribution is presented in Figure 7. Thus. and a large peak for scalescore 21.63 0.57 0. The default check for item monotonicity (i. Because our major concern was the measurement of customer satisfaction and we expected that the irregularities of the trust score distribution would not seriously hamper the tests of the hypotheses (Section 4). had outliers in the skew tail..03. First.66 0.63 0. Minvi = 0.63 0. we refrained from inquiries into the causes of the irregularities in the trust score distribution.91 RD (N = 1650) 0.63 0. the assumption of monotonicity was tested on the basis of the default check for item monotonicity (Chapter 4).66 0.57 0. Third.Trust The empirical data collected by means of the trust instrument (see Chapter 5. the dimensionality of the item set was investigated using the confirmatory research method (Chapter 4). Table 3) were analysed by means of Mokken scale analyses. Second. The analyses of the reduced dataset yielded similar results as the analyses of the complete dataset (Table 14). and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Complete Dataset (CD) and the Reduced Dataset (RD) Item I can depend on BANK to treat me fairly I can depend on BANK to handle my banking affairs correctly I can depend on BANK to keep its promises I sometimes doubt the competence of BANK * I sometimes doubt the good will of BANK * I can trust BANK I can depend on BANK to serve me well H Rho * = scored reversely CD (N = 1689) 0. The analyses of the complete dataset demonstrated that the seven items for trust constituted a Mokken scale (Table 14). Item Scalability Coefficients Hi. The results in the reduced dataset were similar to the results in the complete dataset.63 0.58 0. The scale-score distribution is presented in Figure 8. Thus. Table 14: Trust Scale’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H.66 0.57 0.66 0. Minsize = 168) yielded no violations of the assumption of monotonicity. The distribution was significantly skewed to the left.e.91 120 .

73) 121 .71. mean = 19.97.02. and skewness = -0. and skewness = -0. SD = 4.freq 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 freq Figure 7: Distribution of trust scores in the complete dataset (N = 1689. mean = 19.75.71) freq 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 freq Figure 8: Distribution of trust scores in the reduced dataset (N = 1650. SD = 3.

The number of available participants for the analyses of the remaining 22 items was N = 599 in the complete dataset and N = 591 in the reduced dataset. and using an oblique rotation method (i. The four orthogonalised lower-order factors reflected quality of contact handling. and hierarchical factor analysis was done to investigate the relations among the factors.. 2007. Second. we decided to proceed with all four factors in the hierarchical factor analysis. see also Tabachnick & Fidell. Table 7) were excluded from the analyses because of the large percentages of missing values on these items. 1983) was used to establish the dimensionality of the data set for the 22 quality items. The analyses were repeated in the reduced dataset. using method promax) 4-factor solution. p. The higher-order factor reflected all quality items and accounted for approximately 72 percent of the common variance in the items (Table 16). and accounted for approximately 28 percent of the common variance in the items (Table 16). 1983. Mokken scale analysis was done to assess explore the robustness of the results. we had doubts about the dimensionality of the quality items and the interpretation of 122 . This decision was supported by the simple structure (Gorsuch..e. Gorsuch. First. The hierarchical factor analysis was done using an iterative procedure to estimate the communalities.. factor analysis and Mokken scale analysis were done based on listwise deletion (see Section 2). Factor analysis (e. respectively. The factor analysis of the correlation matrix of the oblique factors yielded one higher-order factor.e. The eigenvalues are reported in Table 15. 631). and equity of costs and revenues. Next.e. The results of these analyses were used to construct scales for quality. quality of Internet facilities. pp. Q10d and Q10f. and the inter-factor correlations of the four oblique-rotated factors were high (Table 17). Because we expected a large number of factors. two items (i. 176-179) of the non-orthogonally rotated (i.. method promax). because many item scores were missing due to inappropriateness of item content for several participants. The exploratory factor analysis with squared multiple correlations used as prior communality estimates yielded only eleven positive eigenvalues (this is the result of inserting estimates of the communalities in the trace of the correlation matrix. quality of processes. Exploratory factor analysis was done to identify the factor structure of the dataset. which was readily interpretable.g. Because the major part of the common variance was explained by the higher-order factor.Quality Quality was operationalised using the set of 24 items measuring judgements of attributes of products and services provided by the retail bank (Table 7). and the primary four factors explained almost 91 percent of the common variance (Table 15).

44 1.37 0.3 were used). we suspected that a halo effect (Thorndike. Chapter 5).40 0.98 0.93 0. It seems that a general perception of the quality of the company affected the participants’ responses to all items regarding quality of attributes of products and services provided by the company.22 0.404 1.249 2.29 0. which yielded a 20-item scale in the complete dataset and a 21-item scale in the reduced dataset (Table 18).30 1.95 0.939 2.657 8.238 EV 8.01 PCVE 67.09 0.04 HFA PCVE 66. we decided to use in the remainder of this study the data collected by means of the set of 16 items measuring the experience of problems with BANK in the preceding twelve months (Table 4.12 0.712 3.196 10. These doubts were enhanced by exploratory Mokken scale analyses (item selection method = Search normal.30 0. In addition to the complications caused by the missing data on the items reflecting quality.013 4.868 1.58 0.966 0.771 0.27 0.09 0.37 0.731 0.61 0.481 0.081 EV 8.425 10.31 0.081 EV 8.717 4.08 0. Wirtz and Bateson (1995.23 0.763 1.386 7.59 0. Based on these results. 2000) reported a similar result in studies into drivers of customer satisfaction.801 0.10 0. also Wirtz.03 HFA PCVE 67.477 0.321 123 . 1920) had affected the responses to the items reflecting quality.668 1. and lowerbound Hi = 0.04 0.13 0.33 1.21 0.888 2.383 1.667 10.965 2.723 7.644 0.the lower-order factors.325 0.03 0.01 Reduced dataset (N = 591) PFA PCVE 67.496 1.40 0.46 1.715 0.221 2.750 3.32 1.31 0.056 0.033 0.784 4.955 10.488 4.06 0.042 0. Table 15: Eigenvalues (EV) and Percentages Common Variance Explained (PCVE) from Principal Factor Analyses (PFA) and Hierarchical Factor Analyses (HFA) on the QualityItems Complete dataset (N = 599) PFA EV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 8.06 0.13 0.61 0.30 0.35 0.22 0.242 0.00 0.845 2.13 0.317 7.518 1.

71 0.67 -0. LO3 = third lower order factor.01 0.61 0.07 Accessibility of the company 0.51 0.66 0.04 0.00 0.38 -0.04 0.43 -0.01 0.01 Correct execution of banking matters 0.49 -0.66 0.52 -0.05 0.03 -0.70 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.08 Costs of services of the company 0.50 -0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.05 -0.02 -0. and LO4 = fourth lower order factor.67 Interest rates of the company 0.72 -0.27 -0.68 0.04 0.33 -0.01 0.03 0.16 -0.62 0.42 -0.17 0.20 Costs of accounts of the company 0.32 0.51 0.02 0.09 0.02 Responsiveness of the company 0.00 0.52 -0.03 Facilities for Internet banking 0. LO2 = second lower order factor.00 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.63 -0.04 0.33 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.02 0. in the Complete Dataset and the Reduced Dataset Complete Dataset (N = 599) HO LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4 HO LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4 Reduced Dataset (N = 591) 124 Correct execution of orders 0.73 0.02 0.72 0.17 -0.51 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.07 -0.02 -0.03 -0.51 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.01 -0.47 -0.02 -0.63 -0.64 -0.02 0.32 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.73 0.09 -0.09 0.03 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.63 0.04 0.17 0.01 Capability of employees 0.04 0.00 0.05 Service by bank offices 0.48 -0.03 0.24 -0.02 0.46 -0.01 -0.64 0.03 Distribution of bank statements 0.02 0.04 0.17 0.04 0. .03 -0.09 0.07 -0.65 Convenience of products and services 0.03 -0.23 0.09 -0.00 0.70 0.17 0.15 0.72 -0.03 -0.02 0.02 Clarity of information provided 0.26 0.05 0.43 Service by telephone 0.38 0.10 Speed of service delivery 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.01 -0.01 Reliability of employees 0.02 -0.66 0.21 0.38 -0.02 HO = higher order factor.03 -0.53 -0.69 0.09 -0.06 -0.02 0.67 0.02 0.23 0.19 0.40 -0.04 Speed of money transfers 0.42 0.02 0.06 -0.01 0.20 0.43 0.05 0.03 -0.26 0.34 -0.63 -0.02 0.02 0.02 0.40 0.04 0.03 -0.03 -0.Table 16: Factor Pattern Matrices of the Orthogonalised Hierarchical Factor Analysis Solution on the Quality Items.02 0.05 0.03 Service by the Internet 0.04 -0.70 0.52 0.31 0.09 Service by mail correspondence 0. LO1 = first lower order factor.52 -0.01 0.05 0.04 Friendliness of employees 0.69 0.63 0.12 0.06 -0.00 0.24 -0.01 0.61 0.01 0.04 Sufficiency of information provided 0.25 -0.06 0.67 0.03 Adherence to promises 0.04 0.68 -0.15 -0.01 -0.06 0.53 -0.02 -0.49 -0.

48 0.32 0.46 0.54 0. and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Complete Dataset and the Reduced Dataset Item Correct execution of orders Speed of money transfers Speed of service delivery Adherence to promises Correct execution of banking matters Distribution of bank statements Costs of accounts of the company Convenience of products and services Clarity of information provided Sufficiency of information provided Costs of services of the company Interest rates of the company Service by telephone Service by the internet Service by bank offices Service by mail correspondence Accessibility of the company Facilities for internet banking Friendliness of employees Capability of employees Reliability of employees Responsivenss of the company H Rho Complete dataset 0.62 0.47 0.67 0.93 Reduced dataset 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.72 0.50 0.46 0.40 * 0. Lower Half = Reduced Dataset) Factor1 Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 0.68 Factor3 0.42 0.47 0.46 0.3 125 .47 0.48 0.47 0.38 0.35 0.73 Factor4 0.46 Table 18: Quality Scale’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H.93 * = excluded from the scale because item scalability coefficient Hi < 0.46 0.49 0.47 0.44 Factor2 0.49 0.32 0.50 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.41 0.53 0.52 0.Table 17: Correlations Between the Four Factors Representing Quality (Upper Half = Complete Dataset.49 0.40 0.44 0.30 0.44 0.41 0.51 * 0.40 0. Item Scalability Coefficients Hi.49 0.49 0.34 0.53 * 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.

Kackar. This result is consistent with the conception of quality as a multidimensional construct..e. This definition of quality is in line with the conception of quality as absence of failures (e. satisfaction scores are positively related to quality scores) and hypothesis 9 (i. pp. 57 percent of the participants mentioned the incidence of at least one problem with BANK in the preceding twelve months. 126 . 6. Because the minimum value for NP was zero. This result indicates that the responses to the items were not the result of a unidimensional trait such as a general perception of the quality of the company. TNP transformed NP. and six items that were non-scalable. the items reflecting experience of problems were recoded into the opposite direction (Section 2). and ln the natural logarithm.e. Quality was then operationalised as the total score on the 16 recoded items regarding the incidence of problems with BANK in the preceding twelve months (Table 19). Exploratory Mokken scale analyses (item selection method = Search normal. The distribution of the quality scores was negatively skewed (Table 19). 87-89) to reflect negatively skewed variables and transform the reflected variables. see also Chapter 3).. Woodall. satisfaction scores are not contaminated by quality). 1989. Following a suggestion of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007.g. and once using TNP. The hypotheses 5 and 9 were tested once using the quality scores.e. In the remainder of this study.. p. quality was re-defined as absence of problems..The distribution of the number of problems with BANK in the preceding twelve months is presented in Table 19.3 were used) yielded five scales of two items each. This may hamper the tests of the hypothesis 5 (i. The quality score (i. we applied the following transformation: TNP = ln( NP + 1) . we applied a logarithmic transformation to the variable number of problems. Let NP denote the number of problems. In both the complete dataset and the reduced dataset. 2001. total score) ranged from 0 (if the participant had 16 problems with BANK in the preceding 12 months) to 16 (if the participant had 0 problems with BANK in the preceding 12 months). 1983. Because the experience of a problem is counter-indicative of quality. and lowerbound Hi = 0. Garvin.

Third. First.08 >=2.95 2. and the estimated ISRF for Q14d>= 4 decreased at the beginning of the scale (Figure 9). Mokken scale analyses were done to investigate whether the MH model fitted the data from the remaining four items. Minvi = 0. Thus. The checks for item monotonicity with smaller rest-score groups (i.39 1.Table 19: Distribution of the Number of Problems (NP).03 and Minsize = 168) revealed significant violations of the assumption of monotonicity.e. However.10 1.e.80.61 1.54 and a reliability coefficient rho equal to 0. Minsize = 84) revealed that the estimated ISRF for Q14d >= 3 also decreased at the beginning of the scale (Figure 10).e. Table 4) decreased at the end of the rest-score scale.. The analyses were done in both the complete dataset and the reduced dataset. the MH model did not fit the data. Thus. The analyses of the complete dataset yielded a total-scale scalability coefficient H equal to 0. Q14c and Q14e. the dimensionality of the data was investigated using the confirmatory research method (Chapter 4). Transformed Number of Problems (TNP).69 1.79 1. Second.. The analyses in the reduced dataset corroborated the results found in the reduced dataset. the scale scores and the scale-score statistics were computed.20 Quality Score 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 <=9 Percentage in Complete Dataset (N=1689) 43 25 16 8 4 2 1 1 Percentage in Reduced Dataset (N=1650) 43 25 16 8 4 2 1 1 Customer loyalty Two items (i. the assumption of monotonicity was tested on the basis of the default check for item monotonicity (Chapter 4). Chapter 5) due to unfortunate item wording (Section 2). the default check for item monotonicity (i. The estimated ISRF for Q14d >= 3 (I consider switching from BANK to another bank. 127 . the MH model also did not fit the data in the reduced dataset. Table 4) were deleted from the customer loyalty item set (Table 6. and Quality Scores in the Complete Dataset and the Reduced Dataset NP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 >= 7 TNP 0..

Figure 9: Item step response functions of item Q14d: I consider switching from BANK to another bank (Minsize = 168) Figure 10: Item step response functions of item Q14d: I consider switching from BANK to another bank (Minsize=84) 128 .

Because of sufficient coverage of customer loyalty and because the 3-item scale met the requirements of the MH-model. Minsize = 84).. The default item-check for monotonicity (i. Item Scalability Coefficients Hi. The analyses of the reduced dataset yielded similar results as the analyses of the complete dataset (Table 20). the MH model also fitted the three items in the reduced dataset.Because the violations of monotonicity were substantial.e. and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Complete Dataset (CD) and the Reduced Dataset (RD) Item If I need new financial products. Minvi = 0. the MH model fitted the data for the three items in the complete dataset.81 129 . This result was also found with smaller rest-score groups (i.64 0.. We refrained from inquiries into the cause of the skewness. because we expected that the skewness would not seriously hamper the test of the hypotheses (Section 4).03 and Minsize = 168) did not reveal violations of the assumption of monotonicity.64 0.e. Table 20: Customer Loyalty Scale’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H. The content validity of the 3-item scale was considered sufficient because the three items reflected the three aspects of customer loyalty (see Table 6 in Chapter 5). Thus.82 (Table 20). BANK is my first choice I have more sympathy for BANK than for other banks For many years BANK has been my primary bank H Rho CD (N = 1686) 0.65 0. Thus.64 0.63 0.65 0.82 RD (N = 1650) 0. we decided to repeat the measurement analyses without item Q14d (Table 4).64 and a reliability coefficient rho of 0. we decided to use the 3-item scale to measure customer loyalty in all subsequent analyses.63 0. The corresponding scale-score distributions are presented in Figure 11 (complete dataset) and Figure 12 (reduced dataset). The scale-score distributions were skewed to the left.64 0. The analyses of the complete dataset yielded a total-scale scalability coefficient H of 0.

freq 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

freq

Figure 11: Distribution of customer loyalty scores in the complete dataset (N = 1686, mean = 7.87, SD = 2.42, and skewness = -0.62)

freq 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

freq

Figure 12: Distribution of customer loyalty scores in the reduced dataset (N = 1650, mean = 7.89, SD = 2.40, and skewness = -0.62)

130

4

Tests of the hypotheses

In this section, the tests of the hypotheses (see Chapter 4) are discussed. Successively, we tested the hypotheses regarding explicit construct representation, concept-related irrelevant variance, method-related irrelevant variance, and implicit construct representation. The purpose of these tests was to collect empirical evidence with respect to the validity of the measurement of customer satisfaction. Explicit construct representation Hypothesis 1 was: customer satisfaction is manifested in various expressions that are mutually related but not sharply delineated. The hypothesis was tested by means of an examination of the verbal explanations of satisfaction given by the participants to the pretests. The pre-tests data demonstrated that participants attached diverse meanings to the term satisfaction (see Table 1). When asked to explain their satisfaction with the company in their own words, participants answered in terms of (a) general affect, (b) friendliness, (c) past performances, (d) qualities of the company, (e) absence of dissatisfaction, and (f) trust in the company. With respect to the last result, some participants answered ‘I trust the company’, ‘The company will not deceive me, such as … did ’, or ‘I don’t think they deceive me’. These answers indicate that overall satisfaction with a particular retail bank and trust of the bank are strongly interrelated. The results support the hypothesis that satisfaction is manifested in various expressions that are mutually related but not sharply delineated. Hypothesis 2 was: the satisfaction items constitute a scale according to the MH model. The hypothesis was supported by the results of the measurement analyses (see Section 3), which demonstrated that the items constituted a strong MH model scale in the whole sample as well as all subgroups investigated. Hypothesis 3 was: the satisfaction measure is positively correlated to other measures of satisfaction. The hypothesis was tested by means of correlation analyses between the satisfaction measure and the ACSI. The correlation was significant (p < 0.001) in both the complete dataset and the reduced dataset (Table 21). Thus, the hypothesis was supported. Table 21: Product-Moment Correlations (r) Between Satisfaction and the ACSI
Complete Dataset (N = 1681) r 0.78* * = p <0.001
131

Reduced Dataset (N = 1650) r 0.79* 95%-interval for ρ

95%-interval for ρ

0 . 76 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 . 80

0 . 77 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 . 81

Concept-related irrelevant variance Following Oort (1996), the hypotheses regarding concept-related irrelevant variance were tested using restricted factor analysis. Restricted factor analysis is confirmatory factor analysis with particular restrictions on the loadings. In restricted factor analysis, a model is specified such that the indicators of the trait load on the factor reflecting the trait, and not on the factor reflecting the violator. Thus, the loadings of the indicators of the trait on the factor reflecting the violator are restricted to the value 0. The loadings of the indicators reflecting the the violator on the factor reflecting the trait are also restricted to the value 0. Then, the fit of the model is evaluated in order to determine the model’s tenability. Oort (1996, pp. 46-49) suggested to use the modification indices (MI’s) or adjusted modification indices (AMI’s; to be discussed later) to detect item bias (i.e., whether particular indicators reflecting the trait are biased with respect to a violator). The MI is a statistic which reveals how much the fit of the model will improve if the factor loading of an indicator I of trait T on violator V is set free to be estimated. The MI is approximately chi-squared distributed with one degree of freedom (Bollen, 1989, p. 299). If the MI’s reveal that the fit of the model will improve significantly by allowing a particular indicator I to load on violator V, this means that indicator I is biased with respect to violator V, and that the measurement of trait T is contaminated with respect to violator V. If the MI’s reveal that the fit of the model will not be improved significantly by allowing a particular indicator I to load on violator V, this means that none of the indicators I is biased with respect to violator V, and that the measurement of trait T is not contaminated with respect to violator V. A larger number of significance tests and a larger sample size increase the likelihood of finding significant MI’s and of obtaining false positives. In order to reduce the risk of false positives, Oort (1996, p. 49) suggested to use AMI’s to detect biased items. The AMI is a statistic, which reduces the power of the MI, and thus is useful for the detection of items that are substantially biased. The AMI is defined as: AMI = ((df – 1) / (χ2 – MI)) * MI, where χ2 is the chi-squared value and df is the degrees of freedom under the null model (i.e., the restricted model). If the AMI exceeds a critical chi-squared value with one degree of freedom, such as the critical chi-squared value for the 5 percent level of significance (i.e, χ2 = 3.84), the item is judged to be biased.

132

In this study, restricted factor analysis was performed using proc calis (SAS STAT). Thus, a model was specified in which the nine items reflecting satisfaction loaded on a factor reflecting satisfaction, and not on a factor reflecting the violator under investigation (Figure 13). The indicator of the violator loaded on the factor reflecting the violator and not on the factor reflecting satisfaction. Because only one indicator loaded on the factor reflecting the violator, no error term was specified for that indicator (Oort, 1996, p. 47). The AMI’s were calculated by hand on the basis of the chi-squared value and the degrees of freedom under the null model, and the MI’s of the nine items reflecting satisfaction. The fit of the model was evaluated on the basis of the goodness of fit index (GFI), the normed fit index (NFI), and the non-normed fit index (NNFI). As a rule of thumb, indices having a value of 0.90 or higher indicate an acceptable fit (e.g., Bollen, 1989, pp. 269-281). The analyses were performed on both the complete dataset (N = 1689) and the reduced dataset (N = 1650).

S

V

I1

I2

…………..

I9

I10

E1

E2

E9

Figure 13. Graphical display of the factor model with nine indicators of customer satisfaction and one indicator of the violator. Hypothesis 8 was: the satisfaction scores are not contaminated by trust. This hypothesis was tested by means of a restricted factor analysis model using the nine items reflecting satisfaction with the company, and the trust score. The factor model was specified such that the nine items reflecting satisfaction loaded on the factor reflecting satisfaction, and the trust score loaded on the factor reflecting the violator. The factor model fitted the data

133

The factor model did not fit the data well (i. and the hypothesis was not supported. and none of the AMI’s was significant (Table 22. Similar results were found in the reduced dataset (Table 22.92.42 p-value ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Hypothesis 9 was: the satisfaction scores are not contaminated by quality. Thus. The factor model was specified such that the nine items reflecting satisfaction loaded on the factor reflecting satisfaction.90 for the NNFI).e.02 0.e. and the AMI of item Q4d (Last year I had some problems with BANK. the reduced dataset). NFI = 0. NNFI = 0.92). Similar results were found in the reduced dataset (Table 23. Thus.well (i.e.52 0. Table 4) was significant (Table 23. NNFI = 0. the complete dataset)..00 0. the factor model was specified such that the remaining eight items reflecting satisfaction loaded on the factor reflecting 134 . This hypothesis was tested by means of a restricted factor analysis model using the nine items reflecting satisfaction with the company and the quality scores (because the analyses using quality scores yielded similar results as the analyses using TNP (Section 3).11 0. A restricted factor analysis without item Q4d (i. GFI = 0.05 0. we reported the results from the former analyses). and the hypothesis was supported.45 0.10 1.89.42 p-value ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Reduced dataset (N=1650) AMI 0.07 0. and the quality score loaded on the factor reflecting the violator.65 1. item Q4d was significantly biased with respect to quality.67 0. Table 22: AMI’s of the Satisfaction Items in the Complete Dataset and the Reduced Dataset Complete dataset (N=1689) Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK * I have mixed feelings about BANK * BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK * Last year I had some problems with BANK * * = scored reversely AMI 0.02 1. which is below the critical value of 0.82 0. the complete dataset).66 0.29 0.02 0..93..18 0. the reduced dataset). none of the items reflecting satisfaction was significantly biased with respect to trust.

e. the reduced dataset). the contamination of satisfaction scores by customer loyalty was due to item Q3a only. GFI = 0.14 6.46 0.90 for the NNFI).93. the complete dataset).55 0. the factor model was specified such that the remaining eight items reflecting satisfaction loaded on the factor reflecting satisfaction) yielded a good fit (i.04 0. and NNFI = 0. Similar results were found in the reduced dataset. A restricted factor analysis without item Q3a (i. 135 .74 0. NNFI = 0.91..93.00 0. and the loyalty score.18 6.93.00 0. Thus.e.00 0.00 0.. which is below the critical value of 0. and NNFI = 0.88. This hypothesis was tested by means of a restricted factor analysis model using the nine items reflecting satisfaction with the company. and the AMI of item Q3a (At BANK I feel at home. and none of the AMI’s was significant. item Q3a was significantly biased with respect to customer loyalty.59 0.01 0.93. GFI = 0. the complete dataset). Table 4) was significant (Table 24. The factor model was specified such that the nine items reflecting satisfaction loaded on the factor reflecting satisfaction.87 p-value ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0. and the loyalty score loaded on the factor reflecting the violator.05 Reduced dataset (N=1650) AMI 1. Similar results were found in the reduced dataset (Table 24. the contamination of satisfaction scores by quality was due to item Q4d only.e. the complete dataset)..e. Thus.02 0.45 0. and none of the AMI’s was significant.satisfaction) yielded a good fit (i. and the hypothesis was not supported. NFI = 0. The factor model did not fit the data well (i..91. NFI = 0. Table 23: AMI’s of the Satisfaction Items in the Complete Dataset and the Reduced Dataset Complete dataset (N=1689) Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK * I have mixed feelings about BANK * BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK * Last year I had some problems with BANK * * = scored reversely AMI 1.01 0. Similar results were found in the reduced dataset.52 p-value ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0.01 Hypothesis 10 was: the satisfaction scores are not contaminated by loyalty. Thus.81 0.

and none of the AMI’s was significant (Table 25.00 1. Similar results were found in the reduced dataset (Table 25.18 0.Table 24: AMI’s of the Satisfaction Items in the Complete Dataset and the Reduced Dataset Complete dataset (N=1686) Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK * I have mixed feelings about BANK * BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK * Last year I had some problems with BANK * * = scored reversely AMI 10.e.90).. and TCP2005 loaded on the factor reflecting the violator..02 3.84 p-value <0. This hypothesis was tested by means of a restricted factor analysis model using the nine items reflecting satisfaction with the company. GFI = 0. The factor model fitted the data well (i. and the hypothesis was supported.01 1.17 0. the reduced dataset).01 0. Section 2).24 0. and NNFI = 0.73 0. the complete dataset).16 0.00 0. the logarithmic transformation of CP2005.00 0.04 0.01 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Reduced dataset (N=1650) AMI 12.92.49 p-value <0. and TCP2005 (i.34 0.92.42 0. NFI = 0. Thus.01 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Hypothesis 11 was: the satisfaction scores are not contaminated by current customer profitability. 136 . The factor model was specified such that the nine items reflecting satisfaction loaded on the factor reflecting satisfaction.04 2.e.00 0. none of the items reflecting satisfaction was significantly biased with respect TCP2005.

and the average satisfaction score in the versions 2 and 4 of the pilot study (see Table 8 in Chapter 5. The hypothesis was tested by means of a t-test of the difference between the average satisfaction score in the versions 1 and 3 of the pilot study. and the average satisfaction score in the versions 3 and 4 of the pilot study (see Table 8 in Chapter 5.00 0.30 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.09 p-value ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Method-related irrelevant variance Hypothesis 12 was: the satisfaction scores are not affected by the location of the satisfaction items in the questionnaire. Table 26: Differences of Satisfaction Scores in Groups of the Pilot Study Groups Hypothesis 12 Hypothesis 13 Difference -0.00 0. note that the satisfaction score is the total score on the 9-item satisfaction scale).46 t-statistic -1.87 0. 137 . note that the satisfaction score is the total score on the 9-item satisfaction scale).79 p-value ns ns Hypothesis 13 was: the satisfaction scores are not affected by the presentation of the response categories of the satisfaction items.01 1.19 -0.71 0. the hypothesis was supported. Because the difference was not significant (Table 26).00 0.70 -0.07 p-value ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Reduced dataset (N=1650) AMI 0. the hypothesis was supported.12 0. Because the difference was not significant (Table 26).Table 25: AMI’s of the Satisfaction Items in the Complete Dataset and the Reduced Dataset Complete dataset (N=1689) Item At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK * I have mixed feelings about BANK * BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK * Last year I had some problems with BANK * * = scored reversely AMI 0.33 0. The hypothesis was tested by means of a t-test of the difference between the average satisfaction score in the versions 1 and 2 of the pilot study.

and loyalty scores. the hypothesis was tested in the second empirical study (Chapter 8). 138 . 2001. respectively. Table 4) was biased with respect to customer loyalty. The test of this hypothesis required the measurement of general extreme responding (e. Because the present study did not yield suitable data to create a suitable measure of general midpoint responding. Baumgartner & Steenkamp. First. Hypothesis 15 was: the satisfaction scores are not affected by the extreme response style. the hypothesis was supported. quality scores. Therefore. The product-moment correlation between customer satisfaction and trust was positive and significant (p < 0. the hypothesis was tested in the second empirical study (Chapter 8). the test of hypothesis 9 demonstrated that item Q4d (Last year I had some problems with BANK. Table 4) was biased with respect to quality. Hypothesis 4 was: satisfaction scores are positively related to trust scores. were tested by means of correlation analyses.001) in both the complete dataset and the reduced dataset (see Table 27). 2001. The use of this item in the satisfaction scale was expected to inflate the correlation between customer satisfaction and quality. Second. Therefore. 2006). we decided to exclude the item from the satisfaction scale when testing the hypothesis regarding the relation between customer satisfaction and quality. Thus. Implicit construct representation The hypotheses regarding implicit construct representation were tested last.Hypothesis 14 was: the satisfaction scores are not affected by the midpoint response style. the test of hypothesis 10 demonstrated that item Q3a (At BANK I feel at home. we decided to exclude this item from the satisfaction scale when testing the hypothesis regarding the relation between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. The use of this item in the satisfaction scale was also expected to inflate the correlation between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. 2006). because the results of the tests of other hypotheses were used in the tests of the hypotheses regarding implicit construct representation. Because the present study did not yield suitable data to create a suitable measure of general extreme responding. The test of this hypothesis required the measurement of general midpoint responding (e. The hypotheses concerning the relation of satisfaction scores to trust scores. Baumgartner & Steenkamp..g. This hypothesis was tested using the total score on the customer satisfaction scale and the total score on the trust scale.g..

Thus. 47 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 .001 0. These relations were negative because the experience of a problem is counter-indicative of quality. This means that the fewer problems a participant has had with BANK.51* 95%-interval for ρ Reduced dataset (N = 1650) r 0.51* 95%-interval for ρ 0 . 80 0 .79* 0.Hypothesis 5 was: satisfaction scores are positively related to quality scores. 44 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 .001) in both the complete dataset and the reduced dataset (Table 27). 47 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 . item Q4d (Table 4) was excluded from the customer satisfaction scale.47* 0. The product-moment correlation between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty was positive and significant (p < 0. 81 0 . the hypothesis was supported. In order to test this hypothesis. In order to test this hypothesis. the hypothesis was supported. Because it may also be interesting to examine the relations between the experience of singular problems and customer satisfaction. Hypothesis 6 was: satisfaction scores are positively related to loyalty scores. the higher his or her satisfaction with BANK was. the hypothesis was tested using the total score on the 8-item customer satisfaction scale and the quality scores (because the analyses using quality scores yielded similar results as the analyses using TNP (Section 3). except that the correlations in the former analyses were positive and the correlations in the latter analyses were negative. 55 0 .78* 0. 77 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 . Thus.48* 0. these relations were also reported (Table 28). 52 0 . the hypothesis was tested using the total score on the 8-item customer satisfaction scale and the total score on the customer loyalty scale. 76 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 . 55 139 . 43 ≤ ρ ≤ 0 . Table 27: Product-Moment Correlations Between Customer Satisfaction and Other Concepts Complete dataset (N = 1689) r Trust Quality Loyalty * = p < 0. Thus. item Q3a (Table 4) was excluded from the customer satisfaction scale. Thus. 51 0 .001) in both the complete dataset and the reduced dataset (see Table 27). The product-moment correlation between customer satisfaction and quality was positive and significant (p < 0. we reported the results from the former analyses).

18 -0. the following model was suggested for the relation between customer satisfaction (denoted CSt=0).10* -0.18 -0. other independent variables (denoted Xi).33 -0.21 -0. and future customer profitability (denoted CPt>0): CPt >0 = α + βCS t =0 + .14 0. + ∑ γ i X i + ε .40 -0.05 0.12 0.45 -0.47 -0.08 Polychoric correlation -0.04 0.07 0.38 -0.21 -0.24 -0.06 0.32 -0.16 0.09 0.24 -0.29 0.33 -0.07 0.24 -0..33 -0.43 -0.09* -0.06 Hypothesis 7 was: satisfaction scores are positively related to future customer profitability.28 -0.12 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.24 -0.03 0.04 0.05 0. 140 .03 0.32 -0.33 -0. CSt=0 was operationalised as customer satisfaction in September 2005 (denoted CS2005). Because it was expected that the influence of customer satisfaction on CP manifested after one year (Section 5 from Chapter 3).20 -0.06 0. In Chapter 3.40 -0.28 Ambiguous information on your banking affairs 0. Because customer satisfaction was measured in September 2005.04 0.05 Proportion 0. Furthermore.Table 28: Relations Between the Incidence of Singular Problems and Customer Satisfaction Complete dataset (N=1689) Item Errors in the execution of your banking affairs Errors in the execution of your orders Insufficient information on your banking affairs Unfair costs of banking services Slow service Slow money transfers Not keeping an appointment Insufficient accessibility by telephone Insufficient accessibility by internet Insufficient accessibility of offices Insufficient response to questions Problems with debit cards Problems with cash withdrawels Problems with internet banking Another problem * = not significant at p <0.45 -0.05 0.44 -0.09 0.38 -0.03 0.06 0.12 0. CPt>0 was operationalised as CP in September 2006 (denoted CP2006)..06 0.08 Reduced dataset (N=1650) Proportion Polychoric correlation -0.27 -0.47 -0.05 0.12 0.22 -0.16 0.06 0.

because former studies indicated that current CP accounts for the largest part of future CP (Section 5 from Chapter 3), Xi was operationalised as CP in September 2005 (denoted CP2005). The preliminary analyses demonstrated that the distributions of CP2005 and CP2006 were positively skewed and included many outliers in the skew tail (Section 2). Therefore, CP2005 and CP2006 were logarithmically transformed. The logarithmic transformation of CP2005 was denoted TCP2005 and the logarithmic transformation of CP2006 was denoted TCP2006 (Section 2). Hypothesis 7 was tested by means of a regression analysis of TCP2006 on TCP2005 and CS2005. TCP2006’ is the predicted value of TCP2006, a is the intercept, b1 is the effect of TCP2005 on TCP2006, and b2 is the effect of TCS2005 on TCP2006. The regression model was: TCP2006’ = a + b1TCP2005 + b2CS2005. (Model 1)

We used hierarchical regression analyses (e.g., Cohen & Cohen, 1983, pp. 120-122; Hays, 1988, pp. 662-665; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pp. 138-147) to compute the contribution of each predictor to the explanation of TCP2006. Because we expected that TCP2005 accounted for the largest part of TCP2006, TCP2005 was entered first in the analyses and CS2005 was entered second. Statistic Fseq expresses the significance of sequential entries of predictor variables for the explanation of the criterion variable. Let RM denote the restricted model without the predictor variable of interest, ERM the error sum of squares under the restricted model, dfRM the degrees of freedom under the restricted model, FM the full model including the predictor, EFM the error sum of squares under the full model, and dfFM the degrees op freedom under the full model. Then statistic Fseq is defined as (Maxwell & Delaney, 1990, pp. 73-74):
( E RM − E FM ) /(df RM − df FM ) . E FM / df FM

Fseq =

which theoretically follows an F distribution with dfRM – dfFM and dfFM degrees of freedom. Following Cohen and Cohen (1983, p.155), we also computed the effect size (denoted f2) for sequential entries of predictor variables. Let R 2 RM be the variance explained under the restricted model and R 2 FM the variance explained under the full model. Then effect size f2 is defined as:
R 2 FM − R 2 RM . f = 1 − R 2 FM
2

141

The regression analyses were done using proc reg (SAS STAT). To assess the robustness of the results, the full model was tested with and without weighting of participants (Section 2), and with and without outliers (i.e., the complete dataset and the reduced dataset, respectively). Thus, four regression analyses were done; the first analysis was in the complete dataset without weighting of participants, the second analysis in the complete dataset with weighting of participants, the third analysis in the reduced dataset without weighting of participants, and the fourth analysis in the reduced dataset with weighting of participants. Seven participants were excluded from the analyses because they had deceased since September 2005. The results from the regression analyses are presented in Table 29. The major statistics reported are R2, which represents the cumulative proportion of the variance explained after including a new predictor in the analysis; f2, which represents the effect size of each new predictor entered in the analysis; Fseq, which represents the significance of each new predictor for the explanation of CP2006; and SRW, which represents the standardised regression weight (e.g., Hays, 1988, pp. 623-625) of each predictor. Because we reported the standardised solution, intercept a was equal to zero and not reported in Table 29. Each analysis demonstrated a significant contribution of CS2005 to the explanation of TCP2006, when TCP2005 was accounted for (Fseq in Table 29). Furthermore, each analysis yielded a positive effect for CS2005 on TCP2006 (SRW in Table 29). The similarity of the results from the analyses demonstrates their robustness. Thus, hypothesis 7 was supported by the results of the analyses. The percentage explained variance of TCP2006 was 84% or more (R2 in Table 29) across analyses. This result were almost completely due to TCP2005, which also had large effect size (f2 in Table 29) in each analysis. Thus, current TCP was the main predictor of future TCP. This result is in line with the results from former customer profitability analyses in the financial services industry (e.g., Campbell & Frei, 2004; Terpstra, 2005, 2006b).

142

Table 29: Results From Hierarchical Regression Analyses Estimating Model 1 (Standardised Solution)
Reduced dataset (N = 1644) Unweighted dataset Fseq Weighted dataset Fseq f2 f2 F2 5.5189 0.0105 SSE (dfE) 1394 (2) t-value 101.08(³) 0.0092 2.91( )
2

Complete dataset (N = 1682) Weighted dataset Fseq Fseq

Unweighted dataset

ES

R2
0.8464 0.8482 SSM (dfM)
3

f2

R2
5.5104 0.0119 SSE (dfE) 255 (1679) SE 0.0096 0.0096 4.51( )
3

R2
0.8619 0.8626 SSM (dfM) (dfE) 226 (1641) SE 0.0092 5150 ( )
3

R2
0.8466 0.8482 SSM (dfM)

statistics 9255 (3) 6.2411 0.0051 SSE F-value 8.46 (2) 20.37 (3) F-value 4691 ( ) (2) t-value SRW 0.9267 0.0267 95.65(³)
3

TCP2005

0.8612

6.2046

10422 (3)

10246 (3)

9061 (3) 17.39 (3) F-value 249 (1641) 4584 (3)

CS2005

0.8620

0.0060

10.20 (2)

MF 1426 (2) SRW 0.9152 0.0432 1417

SSM

SSE

F-value

statistics

(dfM)

(dfE)

Full

1449

232

5245 ( )

model

(2)

(1679)

PV

SRW

SE

t-value

SRW 0.9155 0.0404

SE 0.0097 0.0097

t-value 94.55(³) 4.17(3)

143
2

statistics

TCP2005

0.9262

0.0091

101.99(³)

CS2005

0.0290

0.0091

3.19( )

The criterion variable was transformed customer profitability in September 2006. ES statistics is effect size statistics; R 2 is proportion of variance explained after including the predictor; f2 is effect size; Fseq is sequential F-value; TCP2005 is transformed customer profitability in September 2005; CS2005 is customer satisfaction in September 2005; MF statistics is model fit statistics; SSM is model sum of squares; dfM is degrees of freedom used for estimating the model; SSE is error sum of squares; dfE is degrees of freedom left after estimating the model; full model is the model including all predictor variables; PV statistics is predictor variable statistics; SRW is standardised regression weight; SE is standard error of regression weight; (¹) = significant at p<0.05; (²) = significant at p<0.01; (³) = significant at p<0.001.

5

Relation between customer satisfaction and future CP with a time-lag of two years

The test of hypothesis 7 demonstrated that customer satisfaction was positively related to future CP. It is unknown how a time lag larger than one year between measurements of customer satisfaction and future CP affects the relation between customer satisfaction and future CP. This warrants further research into the relation between customer satisfaction and future CP. We investigated the relationship of customer satisfaction and future CP on available data pertaining to a two-year time-lag. Method Because CP2005 and CP2007 were skewed and included many outliers, we applied a logarithmic transformation to CP2005 and CP2007 (Section 2). The logarithmically transformed CP2005 was denoted TCP2005 and the logarithmically transformed CP2007 was denoted TCP2007 (Section 2). We regressed TCP2007 on TCP2005 and CS2005. TCP2007’ is the predicted value of TCP2007, a is the intercept, b1 is the effect of TCP2005 on TCP2007, and b2 is the effect of CS2005 on TCP2007. The regression model was: TCP2007’ = a + b1TCP2005 + b2CS2005. (Model 2)

We used hierarchical regression analyses (e.g., Cohen & Cohen, 1983, pp. 120-122; Hays, 1988, pp. 662-665; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pp. 138-147) to compute the contribution of each predictor to the explanation of TCP2007. Because we expected that TCP2005 accounted for the largest part of TCP2007, TCP2005 was entered first in the analyses and CS2005 was entered second. In order to explore the robustness of the results, we estimated the model with and without weighting of participants, and with and without outliers. Thus, we did four regression analyses. Results The results are reported in Table 30. Because we reported the standardised solutions, intercept a was equal to zero and not reported in Table 30. Each analysis demonstrated a significant contribution of CS2005 to the explanation of TCP2007, when TCP2005 was accounted for. Furthermore, each analysis yielded a positive effect for CS2005. The similarity of the results from the analyses demonstrates their robustness. Thus, there is evidence of a relation between customer satisfaction and future TCP, when future TCP is measured with a time lag of two years.
144

6382 SSM (dfM) 3 f2 R2 1.6341 0.Table 30: Results From Hierarchical Regression Analyses Estimating Model 2 (Standardised Solution) Reduced dataset (N = 1644) Unweighted dataset Fseq Weighted dataset Fseq f2 f2 f2 1.0086 SSE (dfE) 608 (1679) SE 0.7902 0. SRW is standardised regression weight.6483 0.47 (3) 0. TCP2005 is transformed customer profitability in September 2005. (²) = significant at p<0. CS2005 is customer satisfaction in September 2005.51 (3) F-value 2982 (3) TCP2005 0.35 (3) F-value Weighted dataset Fseq Complete dataset (N = 1682) Unweighted dataset ES R2 0.0150 0.0145 55.20 (3) CS2005 0.42 (3) 14.0526 597 (1641) SE 0.8217 3060 (3) CS2005 0.001.7907 0. (³) = significant at p<0.6449 0.05.0150 t-value 52.0145 3.7330 0.77 (3) 3.6474 SSM (dfM) 1064 579 1506 ( ) 3 R2 0. MF statistics is model fit statistics.51 (3) 1438 (3) Fseq 2845 (3) 12.38 (3) SRW 0.0563 SSM SSE F-value statistics (dfM) (dfE) Full 1090 591 1548 ( ) model (2) (1679) PV SRW SE t-value 145 statistics TCP2005 0. full model is the model including all predictor variables. SSE is error sum of squares.0077 13. Fseq is sequential F-value.6351 0.8003 0.53 (3) 0.0147 0.81 (3) 0.7405 0.0147 3. dfE is degrees of freedom left after estimating the model.0075 SSE (dfE) 1046 (2) t-value 54.0147 0.61(3) The criterion variable was transformed customer profitability in September 2007. f2 is effect size. SSM is model sum of squares.01.8161 0.0069 SSE (dfE) F-value 11. PV statistics is predictor variable statistics. R 2 is proportion of variance explained after including the predictor. dfM is degrees of freedom used for estimating the model.8000 t-value SRW SE (2) (1641) 1481 ( ) 3 R2 0.6456 1.6368 SSM (dfM) statistics 2924 (3) 1. (¹) = significant at p<0. SE is standard error of standardised regression weight.00 (3) MF 1073 (2) SRW 0.0496 53.0147 3. . ES statistics is effect size statistics.0523 0.

Baumgartner & Steenkamp. 146 . but we consider it a plausible result which is is in agreement with the opinion in marketing that it is important to keep profitable customers satisfied. A fourth strength is that the inclusion of items that are indicative and items that are counter-indicative of customer satisfaction in the measurement instrument seems to limit the effects of aquiescent responding on the scale scores (e. For customers having a small value for TCP2005. demonstrated that the impact of CS2005 on the predicted value for CP2007 was dependent on the value for TCP2005. All aspects of customer satisfaction were evenly represented in the instrument.55). and the exponential transformation of the predicted values for TCP2007 to predicted values for CP2007. the study demonstrated several strengths and weaknesses of the measurement instrument for customer satisfaction and the corresponding scale scores. 2006. and this supports the claim that the scale scores cover the meaning of customer satisfaction well.The computation of the predicted values for TCP2007 on the basis of the unstandardised solutions (not shown here).. A third strength is the fit of the measurement model in the subgroups based on customer segment. 2000. and gender. while for customers having a large value for TCP2005. the score for CS2005 had almost no impact on the predicted value for CP2007. A first strength is the explicit and implicit definitions of customer satisfaction underlying the measurement instrument. A second strength is the fit of the measurement model. the score for CS2005 had a substantial impact on the predicted value for CP2007. age. A fifth strength of the scale is that the scale is composed of a large number of items. which supports the use of the scale scores to measure customer satisfaction. Furthermore.5 ) scale according to the MH-model. 6 Discussion The first empirical study demonstrated that the set of nine items reflecting customer satisfaction constituted a strong ( H ≥ . Because the measurement instrument was composed of items that were indicative of customer satisfaction and items that were counter-indicative of the construct. the fit of the measurement model also confirms the conception of customer satisfaction as the opposite of customer dissatisfaction on a bipolar dimension.g. Lack of bias also supports the confidence in the validity of the scale-score interpretations. Van Herk. The tests of the model yielded no substantial violations of the MH model. which limited the effect of a biased item on the scale score. p. This result may be due to using logarithmically transformed values for CP2005 and CP2007 in the regression analyses. This supports the generalisability of the scale across subgroups in the target population. 2001.

and the items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction were all positively skewed. and suggests that being satisfied is more or less the default satisfaction state of most persons. not only current CP should be used for the estimation of customer lifetime value. The tests of the hypotheses regarding concept-related irrelevant variance revealed that the customer satisfaction scores were contaminated by quality and customer loyalty. the outliers on the 147 . Table 4) and Q4d (Last year I had some problems with BANK. 1992). It cannot be ruled out that the outliers were due to stylistic responding. but for example also customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.g. the items indicative of customer satisfaction were all negatively skewed. It also implies that it may be dangerous to estimate customer lifetime value by solely using current CP. Furthermore. the scale had to be modified for research into the connections of customer satisfaction with these constructs. This warrants further research into the effect of customer satisfaction on the cumulated customer profitability. the results of the analyses in the complete dataset and the reduced dataset were nearly similar. 1997.The major weakness of the scale scores was their divergent validity. companies cannot take the future CP of existing customers for granted. Fourth. The decaying implies that. a comparison of the results of the analyses predicting future CP with a time lag of one year (Table 29) and the analyses predicting future CP with a time lag of two years (Table 30) reveals that the influence of current CP on future CP decreases when the time lag between the measurements of current CP and future CP increases. This was due to the items Q3a (At BANK I feel at home. current customer profitability had a large effect on future customer profitability. A point of concern were the outliers in the left-skew tail of the distribution of the customer satisfaction scores. First. Second. Third. Table 4). and matched the correlation between customer satisfaction and the score on the ACSI.. The analyses into relations between customer satisfaction and future CP with a time lag of two years yielded some important results. Six additional remarks are in order. Verhoef. & De Jong. 2007). It was demonstrated that the influence of customer satisfaction on customer profitability lasts for at least two years. This is in agreement with the results found in various satisfaction studies in various domains (e. For this reason. Oliver. Based on this research. This indicates that there is a large overlap between the construct of customer satisfaction and the construct of trust in the context of retail banking. Peterson & Welson. Therefore we recommend including current customer profitability as a predictor in regression models of future customer profitability in the financial services industry (see also Donkers. in the long run. the correlation between customer satisfaction and trust was found to be very high. Thus.

p. Because the test of these hypotheses yielded further information about the meaning of the scale scores in the first empirical study. the generalisability of the results of the study into the relation between customer satisfaction and future CP has to be investigated. Hays. such as the total financial means of a customer (Chapter 3). we advocate research into the generalisability of the results of the present study to other groups and companies within the financial service industry. we prefer to present the final conclusions about the validity of measurement after the presentation of the results of the second empirical study. meaning that the results warrant the interpretation of the scale scores in terms of satisfaction with the company. The sample was drawn from the research panel of the company. However. the validation study was not completed because two hypotheses regarding the contamination of scale scores by method related irrelevant variance were not tested. and interest did not influence the results of the data analyses substantially. These hypotheses were tested in the second empirical study (Chapter 8). customer loyalty. This may be due to the omission of important predictors.. 148 . 1988. Therefore we suggest including measurements of the total financial means of customers in future research into the influence of customer satisfaction on future CP. Sixth. the results of the first empirical study yielded much evidence for construct validity. trust. 655). 7 Conclusion So far. and it cannot be ruled out that persons who were willing to participate in the panel have a different attitude towards banking than persons who were not willing to participate in the panel. and that the attitude towards banking influences the relation between customer satisfaction and future CP. the effect sizes for customer satisfaction on future CP were small.items reflecting customer satisfaction. in the regression analyses (e.g. Therefore. Fifth.

149 .

150 .

p. and general extreme responding as a participant’s proportion of responses in the extreme response categories of rating scales of items (Chapter 8). Testing these hypotheses required the measurement of (a) customer satisfaction. p. Generalising Paulhus’ (1991.Chapter 7 Method of the second empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK 1 Introduction The purpose of the second empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK was to test hypothesis 14 (i. Greenleaf (1992b) and Van Herk (2000) operationalised extreme response style as a participant’s proportion of responses in the extreme response categories of rating scales of various items. The midpoint response style may be operationalised as a participant’s proportion of responses in the middle response category of rating scales of various items. and Baumgartner and Steenkamp (2001. Van Herk (2000). Dependence of the operationalisations of response styles on operationalisations of the construct of interest would complicate research into the contamination of measurements of the 151 ..e. Greenleaf (1992b). the satisfaction scores are not affected by the midpoint response style) and hypothesis 15 (i. we decided to operationalise general midpoint responding as a participant’s proportion of responses in the middle response category of rating scales of items. the satisfaction scores are not affected by the extreme response style). (b) general midpoint responding. 49) remark that that persons exhibiting consistent extreme response behaviour across time and stimuli may be said to have an extreme response style. For this reason. We decided to operationalise customer satisfaction on the basis of the 9-item measurement instrument (see Chapter 5).e. 49) remark to midpoint responding. This is in agreement with Paulhus’ (1991. and (c) general extreme responding.. because it was our purpose to combine the conclusions of the second empirical study with those of the first empirical study. persons exhibiting a consistent midpoint response behaviour across time and stimuli may be said to have a midpoint response style. 2006) noted that measures of general midpoint responding and general extreme responding have to be based on persons’ responses to many items with low inter-item correlations. Furthermore.

the questionnaire. and (d) understanding of the Dutch banking market. 2 Operationalisations The design of the questionnaire. a high measurement value for general extreme responding might reflect a high preference for extreme responding as well as a high value on the construct of interest. and to use the items reflecting these constructs to compose the measures for stylistic responding. It encompasses an outline of the operationalisations of the constructs. we included a no answer option in the response options of the items. Because the response format of items may affect stylistic responding (Van Herk. 59). 2000. we decided to measure four constructs. Belson (1986). To prevent that measurements of general midpoint responding and general extreme responding partly reflect customer satisfaction. Sheatsley (1983). and we varied the ordering of items within the groups of items reflecting a construct. p. (c) involvement with banking matters. 1996. which we expected to be unrelated to customer satisfaction. across different administrations of the questionnaire. the items used for the former measurements had to be unrelated to customer satisfaction. Then a high score on general extreme responding can be achieved by answering positively to the items indicative and negatively to the items counter-indicative of the construct of interest. the sample. the procedure. and the wording of the items were based upon general principles concerning survey research as formulated by Sudman and Bradburn (1982). The constructs were (a) expectations with respect to personal spending power. and these two possibilities cannot be distinguished. In that instance. the target population. This chapter discusses the method used in the second empirical study. The second empirical study was conducted in August 2007. 13-14). (b) expectations with respect to the Dutch economy. assume that the measurement of general extreme responding was done on the basis of items reflecting the construct of interest. pp. For this reason. Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction was operationalised by means of nine Likert items with five ordered response categories each. ranging from totally agree (which was scored 4) to totally disagree 152 . The operationalisations of the five constructs were the following. and Dillman et al. which was approximately two years after the first empirical study. For example. and the data. (1998).construct of interest by response styles (Oort. Similar to the first empirical study. All items used were 5-point rating scale items. the format of the items. we used identical response formats for all items used in the study.

Each item had five ordered response categories that ranged from totally agree (which was scored 4) to totally disagree (which was scored 0). Also in the sample used in the second study. 153 . Table 1). Each item had five ordered response categories that ranged from totally agree (which was scored 4) to totally disagree (which was scored 0). We expected the two items to be negatively correlated. Expectations with respect to personal spending power The customers’ positive expectations with respect to personal spending power (EPSP) were measured using two items reflecting this concept (Table 1). Each item had five ordered response categories that ranged from totally agree (which was scored 4) to totally disagree (which was scored 0). We expected the four items to be positively correlated after having been scored in the same direction. we expected the nine items to constitute a scale according to the MH model. Table 2: Items Reflecting Expectations Regarding the Dutch Economy Code Q7b* Q7c Item I expect that the Dutch economy will decrease next year In five years. Table 1: Items Reflecting Expectations Regarding Personal Spending Power Code Q6a Q6d* Item I expect that my spending power will increase next year In five years my spending power will be lower than today Score range 0-4 0-4 *= item is counter-indicative of the concept Expectations with respect to the Dutch economy The customers’ positive expectations with respect to the Dutch economy (EDE) were measured using two items reflecting this concept (Table 2). We expected the two items to be negatively correlated. the Dutch economy will be better than today Score range 0-4 0-4 *= item is counter-indicative of the concept Involvement with banking matters The customers’ involvement with banking matters (labeled involvement) was measured using four items reflecting this concept (Table 3).(which was scored 0) (Chapter 5.

some items were included in the questionnaire for business purposes. several items regarding product possession and contacts with the company were included in order to elicit the participant’s memories of the company. involvement. EPSP. 154 . and some other items were included to optimise the design of the questionnaire. and understanding. EDE. Table 4: Items Reflecting Understanding of the Dutch Banking Market Code Q9a Q9b* Q9c* Q9d Item I know the pros and cons of the retail banks in the Netherlands I find it difficult to judge the quality of BANK I find it difficult to compare the quality of retail banks I know exactly what I may expect from BANK Score range 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 *= item is counter-indicative of the concept 3 The questionnaire The questionnaire (Appendix 3. before the measurement of satisfaction with the company started.Table 3: Items Reflecting Involvement With Banking Matters Code Q8b Q8c Q8d* Q8e* Item I find banking matters very important Arranging banking matters properly makes life easier I find banking matters boring Banking matters leave me cold Score range 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 *= item is counter-indicative of the concept Understanding of the Dutch banking market The customers’ understanding of the Dutch banking market (labeled understanding) was measured using four items reflecting this concept (Table 4). in Dutch) was composed of the items reflecting customer satisfaction. which we considered acceptable. The questionnaire was pre-tested in a small sample (N = 3). For example. We expected the four items to be positively correlated after the correct scoring. The pre-tests demonstrated that it took a participant approximately 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Each item had five ordered response categories that ranged from totally agree (which was scored as 4) to totally disagree (which was scored as 0). In addition.

6 Target population. Subsequently. The panel members had agreed to participate in marketing research via the Internet. the target population consisted of the mature retail customers of a Dutch bank. The participants were registered by the company as the primary owner of at least one banking product provided by the company. (b) the person is free to participate in the research or to decline. The agreement encompassed that (a) the company is free to approach the person for marketing research. The merging was executed on the basis of customer-id. participated in the company’s research panel. The questionnaire was made available at a site of the market research agency that managed the survey.. the research panel. The questionnaire was accessible from 24 August 2007 until 3 September 2007.e. The comparability of the target population (i. and (c) age ultimo September 2007. panel.e. A total of 2972 persons were invited to participate in the survey. and (d) the company is not allowed to distribute any personalised data to third parties. the file was merged with the marketing database. 155 . in August 2007. In order to enrich the raw data. They were mature retail customers who. mature retail customers of a Dutch bank). and had a unique customer-id that was used for identification purposes. The participants received a small incentive (i. and sample Similar to the first empirical study. and it was successful for all participants. three variables were added to the file.. 5 Data The research agency yielded a file containing the raw data. (a) customer segment ultimo September 2007. which were the coded responses of the participants to the survey items (note that a no answer response was scored as a missing value). This is the common fee that the company paid to panel members that responded to a survey of medium length. the data were uploaded to the agency. All panel members could be approached by E-mail. and the final sample is discussed shortly. The persons had access to the site on the basis of a password and were identified on the basis of a customer-id. saving points valued 10 euro). (b) gender. After a person completed the questionnaire. (c) the company is allowed to use the survey data for research purposes only. Panel members were invited by E-mail to participate in the survey.4 Procedure The survey was administered via the Internet to the members of the company’s research panel.

. Table 5 shows the distributions of customer segment. p < 0. gender. p < 0.001). p < 0. because the company’s most valuable customers were overrepresented in the research panel. Table 5: Distribution (Percentages) of Customer Segment. the panel differed significantly (χ2(2) = 1244. First.001) from the target population with respect to the distribution of customer segment (Table 5). the panel differed significantly (χ2(2) = 191. the panel. and partly to unknown causes. Furthermore.The research panel differed in three ways from the target population. p < 0. This was in line with the first empirical study (see Chapter 5). Thus. This was partly due to the overrepresentation of males among the segment Top Customers (i. p < 0. p < 0. the segment that was overrepresented in the research panel).001). Third.001) from the target population with respect to the distribution of age group (Table 5).001) from the target population with respect to the distribution of gender. and age group (χ2(2) = 22. the panel differed significantly (χ2(2) = 212.001).001). The response rate in the study was approximately 41% (N = 1227). Males were overrepresented in the panel (see Table 5). gender. and age group. gender (χ2(2) = 144.001). respondents differed significantly from non-respondents with respect to customer segment. p < 0. and age group (χ2(2) = 110. p < 0.e. The research sample differed significantly from the target population with respect to customer segment (χ2(2) = 710. and age group within the company. p < 0.001). Gender and Age Group in the Study Company Customer segment Top Standard Development Gender Female Male Unknown Age group 18 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60 years and older 34 37 29 26 49 25 22 50 28 44 52 4 33 65 2 29 69 2 34 41 25 64 25 11 70 22 8 Panel Sample 156 . gender (χ2(2) = 14. and the research sample. the research sample differed significantly from the remainder of the panel with respect to customer segment (χ2(2) = 30. Second.

157 .

158 .

Chapter 8 Results of the second empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK 1 Introduction This chapter presents and discusses the results of the second empirical study in which hypothesis 14 (i. proc corr (SAS STAT) was used.e. we (a) examined the distribution characteristics of the variables in the dataset. For this purpose. The histograms (not shown here) demonstrated that all variables were single peaked. which aimed at checking whether the MH model fitted the items for customer satisfaction and at constructing scales for stylistic responding. we discuss the generalisability of the results. we discuss the results of the tests of hypotheses 14 and 15.. Fifth. based on both empirical studies. and (d) conducted outlier analyses.. we discuss measurement analyses. the customer satisfaction scores are not affected by the midpoint response style) and hypothesis 15 (i.e. The correlations between the items reflecting customer satisfaction with the retail bank and the items reflecting expectations regarding personal spending power (EPSP) were examined. For this purpose. Furthermore. (b) the items reflecting EPSP were highly correlated. proc univariate (SAS STAT) and proc means (SAS STAT) were used. and (c) the items reflecting customer satisfaction and the items 159 . First. we computed the histograms and descriptive statistics of all variables in the dataset. Fourth. and the items that were assumed to be counter-indicative of the constructs (see the description of the measurement instruments in Chapter 7) were recoded in the opposite direction. we discuss preliminary analyses of which the purpose was to prepare the data for the subsequent analyses. and that many were negatively skewed. (a) the items reflecting customer satisfaction were highly correlated. (c) conducted missing data analyses. To examine the distribution characteristics of the variables. This finding was corroborated by descriptive statistics (Table 1). Following our expectations. 2 Preliminary data analyses The dataset containing the raw data was converted into a SAS dataset. we discuss the conclusions regarding the validity of measurement of customer satisfaction. the customer satisfaction scores are not affected by the extreme response style) were investigated. Second. (b) explored the data quality. Third.

001) leverage value. As expected. The other items reflecting understanding. involvement. item scores were imputed by means of method TW-E (Bernaards & Sijtsma. EDE. and understanding of the Dutch banking market (understanding) were unrelated to customer satisfaction. and understanding showed few missing data (i. Some participants (N = 41) left more than 50 percent of the items reflecting customer satisfaction. 111-112). which was the testing of hypotheses 14 and 15. EDE. and 21 items reflecting customer satisfaction.e.e. Visual inspection of the data revealed that these participants tended to give extremely positive or extremely negative responses to the items. EPSP. EPSP. and we created indicator variables to mark them in the dataset. Table 1) correlated substantially with the items reflecting customer satisfaction. 2000.. 2007.reflecting EPSP were almost uncorrelated (Table 2). This result suggested that participants did not respond randomly but instead responded to the items’ content. These participants were considered outliers.. Van Ginkel et al. see Table 1). Because it was required that the items reflecting EPSP. EDE. expectations regarding the Dutch economy (EDE). Furthermore. Thus. the leverage statistic (see Chapter 6) was computed by means of a regression analysis using customer-id as the criterion variable. the descriptive statistics of the items before imputation were almost identical to the descriptive statistics of the items after imputation. or understanding unanswered (Table 4). and the items reflecting EPSP. To detect multivariate outliers. the correlations between the items reflecting these constructs and the items reflecting customer satisfaction were computed. Table 3 shows that two items reflecting understanding (i. following the strategy explained in Chapter 6. An indicator variable was created to mark them in the dataset. the inspection demonstrated that the two participants with the highest leverage value had alternated extremely positive and extremely negative responses to different items having similar content. EDE. This variable was joined with the variables marking the participants who left the majority of items 160 . involvement. The items reflecting customer satisfaction. The analysis yielded 60 participants with a significant (p < 0. and understanding as the predictor variables (Tabachnick & Fidell.. 75-76. involvement with banking matters (involvement). and involvement were almost uncorrelated with the items reflecting customer satisfaction. This result strengthened our confidence in the usefulness of the data for the purpose of the second empirical study. pp. EPSP. 5% or less. 2007). involvement. Q9b: I find it difficult to judge the quality of BANK and Q9d: I know exactly what I may expect from BANK. It was suspected that the two participants with the highest leverage value had responded inconsistently to the items.

09 -0.89 0.73 2. In agreement with the first empirical study.77 0.01 -0.62 2.58 2.04 -0. and Understanding (Before Imputation.17 2. EDE.95 0. the dataset including these outliers is labeled the complete dataset.74 2.05 1.99 1.80 0.39 -0.79 0.89 -0.21 2.87 0.07 -0.74 -1.75 -1. N = 1227) Code Q3a Q3b Q3e* Q3g Q4a Q4b Q4c* Label Customer satisfaction items At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK I have mixed feelings about BANK BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK EPSP items I expect that my spending power will increase next year 1 0 7 6 3 4 1 8 8 28 27 22 28 0 5 0 3 21 3 8 5 2.75 Nmiss Mean SD Skewness Q3d* There are good reasons to leave BANK Q4d* Last year I had some problems with BANK Q6a Q6d* In five years my spending power will be lower than today EDE items Q7b* I expect that the Dutch economy will decrease next year Q7c Q8b Q8c Q8e* Q9a Q9c* Q9d In five years. Involvement.43 -0.00 0. Henceforth.14 -0.86 2.reflecting a particular construct unanswered (Table 4).69 3.81 1.93 2.75 0.88 2. the Dutch economy will be better than today Involvement items I find banking matters very important Arranging banking matters properly makes life easier Banking matters leave me cold Understanding items I know the pros and cons of the retail banks in the Netherl. The union of these variables marked 43 outliers in the dataset.84 1.88 0. the results from analyses with outliers and analyses without outliers were examined.02 -1.79 0.85 -0.89 2.96 2.90 2.16 -0.71 2.81 0.95 0.12 -0.75 2.44 0. EPSP.85 -0.82 -1.07 0.43 1.09 2.26 2.90 0.83 0. I find it difficult to compare the quality of retail banks I know exactly what I may expect from BANK Q8d* I find banking matters boring Q9b* I find it difficult to judge the quality of BANK *= scored reversely 161 . Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Items Reflecting Customer Satisfaction.54 0.33 -0.05 0.77 -0. and the dataset without these outliers is labeled the reduced dataset.89 1.91 1.57 0.62 -0.

18 -0.11 0.03 0.00 0.10 -0.03 -0.06 -0.15 -0.08 0.40 Q3g -0.05 Q6d* 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.18 -0.01 0.10 0.Table 2: Correlations Between 2 Items reflecting Customer Satisfaction and 2 Items Reflecting EPSP Q3a At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK I expect that my spending power will increase next year In five years my spending power will be lower than today * = scored reversely Q3a Q3b Q6a Q6d* Q3b 0.04 0.62 Table 3: Correlations Between Items Reflecting Customer Satisfaction (Columns) and Items Reflecting Other Constructs (Rows) Q3a Q6a Q6d Q7b Q7c Q8b Q8c Q8d Q8e Q9a Q9b Q9c Q9d -0.01 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.00 -0.42 Q4a 0.04 -0.05 0.05 -0.24 -0.14 -0.02 -0.01 -0.06 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.04 -0.44 Q3b -0.35 Q3e -0.08 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.74 Q6a -0.03 0.04 0.35 For the legenda see Table 1 Table 4: Number of Participants Leaving More Than Half of the Items Unanswered Customer satisfaction N 0 25 21 0 2 EPSP EDE Involvement Understanding 162 .05 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.06 -0.15 -0.43 Q4b -0.13 0.09 0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.44 Q3d -0.12 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.04 -0.06 0.08 0.04 -0.09 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.04 -0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.40 Q4d 0.03 0.05 -0.10 0.01 0.06 0.20 -0.06 0.08 0.45 Q4c -0.03 -0.02 0.03 0.03 -0.02 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.13 0.03 -0.14 -0.02 0.

31. The distribution was significantly skewed to the left (p < 0. This means that the ISRF’s of all items increased across all rest-score groups.. The peak for the scale-score 27 was mainly caused by participants who agreed with all items indicative of customer satisfaction.e.0 (i. the dimensionality of the item set was investigated using the confirmatory strategy (Chapter 4). the assumption of monotonicity was investigated (Chapter 4). 2000). Table 1). Minvi = 0. Thus. Confirmatory Mokken scale analyses (item selection method = Test) demonstrated that the nine items constituted a strong Mokken scale with a total-scale scalability coefficient H equal to 0. the histogram demonstrates peaks for the scale-scores 27. 65 percent of the participants having scale-score 31 responded 163 . Mokken scale analysis was done using MSPwin5. 66 percent of the participants having scale-score 27 responded agree to the five items indicative of customer satisfaction and disagree to the four items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction). lowerbound Hi = 0.57. For this purpose. First. the MH model fitted the data well.e.e.3 Mokken scale analysis of customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction was operationalised using the measurement instrument presented in Chapter 5 (Chapter 5. the analyses were repeated with the reduced dataset (i. proc GLM (SAS STAT) was used. and 36. gender groups. univariate analyses of variance were done to test whether subgroups differed significantly with respect to the scale scores. the scalability of the item set within distinct customer segments.. Third.03 and Minsize = 122. the scale-scores statistics were computed (Chapter 4).93 (Table 5). Fourth. see Section 2). and age groups (Chapter 7) was investigated. it was demonstrated that the nine items constituted a scale according to the MH model.. which is 10 percent of the sample) did not reveal violations of the assumption of monotonicity. Fifth. Second. To test this hypothesis. and strongly disagreed with all items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction (i.0 (Molenaar & Sijtsma. The peak for scale-score 31 was mainly caused by participants who agreed with all items indicative of customer satisfaction. Sixth.3). In the first empirical study (Chapter 6). Furthermore. The customer satisfaction scale-score distribution is presented in Figure 1..001). which is well above the default lowerbound for Hi used in exploratory analyses (i.67 and a reliability coefficient rho equal to 0. The check for item monotonicity on the basis of the default options in MSPwin5.e. in order to examine the effect of outliers on the results.e. We hypothesised that the nine items also constituted a scale according to the MH model in the second empirical study. the dataset without outliers. The lowest item scalability coefficient Hi was equal to 0.. and disagreed with all items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction (i.

Mokken scale analyses using the grouping variables customer segment (valued Top Customers.e. and 60 years onwards. Because the magnitude of the violation was small (i. male. and strongly disagreed with all items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction.e. It may be noted that the distribution of scale scores in the first empirical study did not contain sharp peaks for the scale-scores 27. Univariate analyses of variance demonstrated that the customer segments and age groups differed significantly with respect to the customer satisfaction scale-scores (Table 6). and we concluded that the MH model fitted the data in subgroups well enough. This violation was due to a decrease of the estimated ISRF for Q4c >= 1 (I have regretted my choice for BANK.. and missing).00 in the middle restscore group to 0. gender groups. see Chapter 7). and Development Customers. the histograms (not shown here) demonstrated peaks for the scale-scores 27. the peaks cannot be attributed to particular customer segments.97 in the highest rest-score group). and age group (valued 18 to 39 years. we considered it unimportant. Thus. the proportion of responses Q4c >= 1 decreased from 1. Standard Customers.agree to the five items indicative of customer satisfaction and totally disagree to the four items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction). gender (valued female. because scalescore 36 could only be achieved by responding totally agree to the five items indicative of customer satisfaction and totally disagree to the four items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction. 40 years to 59 years. Furthermore. and 36 in all subgroups investigated.. This result is further discussed in Section 5 of the present chapter. 164 . 31. see Chapter 7) demonstrated that the nine items also constituted a strong Mokken scale (i. 31. Table 1). or age groups. The peak for scale-score 36 was caused by participants who strongly agreed with all items indicative of customer satisfaction.5) in each subgroup (Table 5). The checks for item monotonicity in the subgroups yielded a significant violation of the assumption of monotonicity in the subgroup Top Customers. H > 0. Figure 3). and 36 (Chapter 6.

66 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.64 0.78 0.67 0.72 0.67 0.87 0.67 0.93 0.67 0.71 0.67 0.69 0.67 0.80 0.51 23.65 0. and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Complete Dataset (N = 1227) Total group T 0.68 0.001 25.67 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.66 0.66 S D F M U 18-39 40-59 60+ 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.76 0.54 60+ 26.70 0.66 0.84 0.24 F p .01 25.71 0.78 0.57 0.34 <0.68 0.58 0.42 Age group 18-39 24.95 0.71 0.64 0.69 40-59 25.65 0.93 0.75 0.93 0.70 0. Item Scalability Coefficients Hi.93 0.46 Male Unknown 25.68 0.71 0.55 0.76 0.72 0.66 0.93 0.62 0.66 0.66 0.74 0.72 0.70 0.76 0.70 0.66 0.63 0.72 0.74 0.65 0.96 0.68 0.67 0.93 0.Table 5: Customer Satisfaction Scale’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H.67 0.57 0.69 0.56 0.67 0.67 0.39 4.70 0.70 0.71 0.67 0.68 0.71 0.77 0.70 0.75 0.72 0.97 <0.63 0.74 0.60 Total Customer segment T S D Mean 25.04 0.66 0.63 0.78 0.79 0.98 7.91 25.65 0.95 0.77 0.57 0.93 Customer Segment Gender Age group At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK * I have mixed feelings about BANK * BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK * Last year I had some problems with BANK * 165 H Rho * = scored reversely Table 6: Customer Satisfaction Scores in the Complete Dataset (N = 1227) Gender Female 25.75 0.57 0.55 0.71 0.67 0.73 0.67 0.54 0.66 0.70 0.88 0.

and age group yielded a strong Mokken scale (i. the MH model fitted the data in the reduced dataset well. Therefore.e. and we concluded that the MH model fitted the data in the subgroups well enough. but the magnitude of the violation was small. Figure 2 shows the customer satisfaction scale-score distribution.67 and a reliability coefficient rho equal to 0. Confirmatory Mokken scale analyses (item selection method = Test) yielded a strong Mokken scale with a total-scale scalability coefficient H equal to 0. The checks for item monotonicity on the basis of the default options (i.. Mokken scale analyses using the grouping variables customer segment.03 and Minsize = 122.001).86) The analyses of the reduced dataset yielded similar results as the analyses of the complete dataset.e.66.60.e. mean = 25. Thus. and skewness = -0. gender.5) in each subgroup (Table 7). SD = 6.freq 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 freq Figure 1: Distribution of customer satisfaction scores in the complete dataset (N = 1227. Minvi = 0. The distribution was significantly skewed to the left (p < 0.93 (Table 7). Minvi = 0. and 36 (66 percent of the participants having scale-score 27 responded agree to the five items indicative of customer satisfaction and disagree to the four items counter-indicative of 166 . 31. which is 10 percent of the sample) yielded a significant violation of the assumption of monotonicity for item Q4c (Table 1) in the segment Top Customers. we considered it unimportant.. and there were peaks for scale-scores 27.. The check for item monotonicity on the basis of the default options (i.03 and Minsize = 122. which is 10 percent of the sample) did not reveal violations of the assumption of monotonicity. H > 0.

and age groups. freq 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 freq Figure 2: Distribution of customer satisfaction scores in the reduced dataset (N = 1184. Univariate analyses of variance demonstrated that the customer segments and the age groups differed significantly with respect to the scale scores (Table 8).85) 167 . Similar distributions of scale scores were found the customer segments. gender groups. mean = 25. and skewness = -0.69. and all participants having scale-score 36 responded totally agree to the five items indicative of customer satisfaction and totally disagree to the four items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction). 66 percent of the participants having scale-score 31 responded agree to the five items indicative of customer satisfaction and totally disagree to the four items counterindicative of customer satisfaction.satisfaction. SD = 6.61.

57 Male Unknown 25.67 0.77 0.76 0.67 0.94 Customer segment Gender Age group At BANK I feel at home I am satisfied with BANK There are good reasons to leave BANK * I have mixed feelings about BANK * BANK meets all my requirements for a bank Last year I had a pleasant relationship with BANK BANK has met my expectations I have regretted my choice for BANK * Last year I had some problems with BANK * 168 H Rho * = scored reversely Table 8: Customer Satisfaction Scores in the Reduced Dataset (N = 1184) Gender Female 25.71 0.66 0.99 8.76 0.72 0.74 0.69 0.55 0.70 0.38 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.58 0.56 0.93 0.Table 7: Customer Satisfaction Scale’s Total-Scale Scalability Coefficients H.56 0.68 0.93 0.66 0.72 0.66 0.96 0.70 0.66 0.93 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.73 0.66 S D F M U 18-39 40-59 60+ 0.68 0.82 <0.71 60+ 26.93 0.68 0.70 0.69 0.95 0.77 0.77 0.46 5.68 0.72 0.58 0.85 0.67 0.79 0.27 F p .69 Total Customer segment T S D Mean 26.70 0.79 0.05 <0.65 0.95 0.59 40-59 25.64 0.69 0.66 0.69 0.64 0.70 0.66 0.67 0.01 25.67 0.75 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.57 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.56 0.57 0.75 0.71 0.75 0.72 0. and Reliability Coefficients Rho in the Reduced Dataset (N = 1184) Total group T 0.78 0.67 0.63 0.62 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.72 0.05 25.56 0.47 23.76 0.71 0.001 25.72 0.60 Age group 18-39 24.70 0.63 0.68 0.89 0.67 0.67 0. Item Scalability Coefficients Hi.67 0.64 0.70 0.75 0.74 0.67 0.77 0.93 0.71 0.74 0.67 0.71 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.71 0.93 0.51 0.

involvement. Furthermore. and involvement. 1996. the non-normed fit index (NNFI). and involvement. The goodness of fit indices demonstrated that the factor model did not fit the data well (because indices having a value of 0. Section 4).e. p. EPSP. EDE. Table 1) were significantly biased (i. a second factor model was tested. Table 1). The fit of the model was evaluated on the basis of the goodness of fit index (GFI). Furthermore. We constructed these measures on the basis of four constructs (i. Bollen. participants with a high value on customer satisfaction were more inclined to respond positively to these understanding-items (note that item Q9b was scored reversely. EPSP.g... we required a value of 0. Because the first factor model did not fit the data.9 or higher indicate an acceptable fit (Bollen. the correlations between the factors were inspected. the four items reflecting involvement. Q9b: I find it difficult to judge the quality of BANK.. A factor model was specified using the nine items reflecting customer satisfaction.. This hypothesis was tested by means of CFA (e.001) with respect to customer satisfaction (i. which were hypothesised to be unrelated to customer satisfaction. Furthermore.9 or higher for each index). Oort. and (b) low correlations with customer satisfaction (see Chapter 7). CFA was done using proc calis (SAS STAT). Therefore. EPSP.e. we decided not to use these items for the measurement of stylistic responding. Because it was required that the items used for measuring general stylistic responding did not reflect customer satisfaction (Chapter 7). 1989. the two items reflecting EDE.. and none of the AMI’s (not shown here) was significant. 1989. p < 0.. and the four items reflecting understanding (Figure 3). The second factor model fitted the data well (Table 10.e. even when understanding is controlled for). 269-281). 49. the second factor model). pp. Section 2) than participants with a low value on customer satisfaction. and understanding (Table 11) were considered sufficiently low for the purpose of the current study. the normed fit index (NFI). the AMI’s (Table 9) demonstrated that two items reflecting understanding (i. the two items reflecting EPSP. and understanding). the absolute correlations between the factors reflecting customer satisfaction. and 169 . 1996). and the AMI’s (Oort. EDE. EDE. and Q9d: I know exactly what I may expect from BANK.4 Measures for stylistic responding Preliminary analyses Measures of general midpoint responding and general extreme responding were constructed on the basis of items with (a) low inter-item correlations.e. EDE. and the two remaining items reflecting understanding (i. Q9a and Q9c. The second factor model was specified using the same items for customer satisfaction. involvement.e. we decided to use the items reflecting EPSP. see also Chapter 6.

Q9d E3a E4d E6a E6d E7b E7c E8b E8e E9a E9d Figure 3: Factor Model with Q3a through Q4d reflecting satisfaction. Q6a and Q6d reflecting EPSP. Q7b and Q7c reflecting EDE.. Q4d Q6a Q6d Q7b Q7c Q8b .. Q8b through Q8e reflecting involvement... Q8e Q9a ...F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 170 Q3a . and Q9a through Q9d reflecting understanding .

Table 9: The Two Largest AMI’s in the Complete Dataset and The Reduced Dataset Complete Dataset (N=1227) Factor 1 Satisfaction AMI 9.24 0.19 0.02 ns 0.10 <0.38 49.001 0.02 <0.38 p-value <0.63 Factor 2 <0.39 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Involvement p-value <0.001 0.10 p-value AMI p-value ns ns EPSP AMI 0.77 Factor 1 Satisfaction AMI 9.44 51.01 0.12 ns 0.01 0.60 ns <0.05 ns Factor 4 EDE p-value ns ns Involvement AMI 4.32 0.05 ns Factor 5 Understanding AMI Factor 5 Understanding AMI p-value p-value - I find it difficult to judge the quality of BANK * I know exactly what I may expect from BANK Reduced Dataset (N = 1184) Factor 3 171 I find it difficult to judge the quality of BANK * I know exactly what I may expect from BANK * = scored reversely .30 ns p-value AMI AMI p-value p-value EPSP EDE AMI 4.

93 0. Q9a and Q9c.02 0.e. The scores on the measure of general midpoint responding ranged from zero to one. Involvement.07 0.e. EPSP. 172 .59. which is rather low but perhaps high enough for research purposes. EDE.12 0.87 0. To test the hypothesis that satisfaction scores were not affected by the midpoint response style.e.93 0..29 (Table 12). Missing values were excluded from the operationalisation.86 RD (N = 1184) 0.92 RD (N = 1184) 0. Table 10: Goodness of Fit of the Factor Models for Customer Satisfaction.48 Involvement 0.93 CD is complete dataset. the four items reflecting involvement.11 0.89 0.02 EDE 0. corresponding to score 2).e. which may vary between zero (if zero responses were in the middle response category) and one (if all responses were in the middle response category).07 0. Lower Triangle = Reduced Dataset) Satisfaction Satisfaction EPSP EDE Involvement Understanding -0.49 0. and the two remaining items reflecting understanding (i.08 0. The reliability (i.28 EPSP -0.28 General midpoint responding General midpoint responding was defined as the participant’s proportional use of the middle response category (i. the two items reflecting EPSP.06 0. For this purpose.05 0.. coefficient alpha) of the scores was valued 0. because they do not provide information about general midpoint responding. First Factor Model CD (N = 1227) GFI NFI NNFI 0.89 0. with a mean equal to 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.92 0. RD is reduced dataset. a measure of general midpoint responding was constructed.87 0.87 Second Factor Model CD (N =1227) 0. and Understanding. the two items reflecting EDE.12 0. for the construction of the measures of general midpoint responding and general extreme responding..09 Understanding -0. Table 1).12 0. Table 11: Inter-Factor Correlations in the Second Factor Model (Upper Triangle = Complete Dataset. Table 1) were used. Q9a and Q9c.93 0.two items reflecting understanding (i.08 -0.

. The reliability (i. The measure of extreme responding to customer satisfaction items was constructed similar to the measure of general extreme responding. a measure of general extreme responding was constructed.e. The scores on the measure of general extreme responding ranged from zero to 0. coefficient alpha) of the scores was valued 0. coefficient alpha) of the scores was valued 0.. corresponding to scores 0 and 4). General extreme responding General extreme responding was defined as the participant’s proportional use of the extreme response categories (i. The reliability (i. a measure of midpoint responding to customer satisfaction items was constructed.Midpoint responding to customer satisfaction items To explore whether general midpoint responding was related to midpoint responding to customer satisfaction items. because they do not provide information about extreme responding. The scores on the measure of extreme responding to satisfaction items ranged from zero to one.26 (Table 12). for the present measure the nine items reflecting customer satisfaction were used.80. 173 . To test the hypothesis that customer satisfaction scores were not affected by the extreme response style. The scores on the measure of midpoint responding to customer satisfaction items ranged from zero to one. the same items were used that were also used for the construction of the measure for general midpoint responding. which may vary between zero (if zero responses were in the extreme response categories) and one (if all responses were in the extreme response categories). However.e. The measure of midpoint responding to customer satisfaction items was constructed similar to the measure of general midpoint responding.17 (Table 12).10 (Table 12).e. a measure of extreme responding to customer satisfaction items was constructed. Missing values were excluded from the operationalisation. coefficient alpha) of the scores was valued 0. Extreme responding to customer satisfaction items To explore whether general extreme responding was related to extreme responding to customer satisfaction items.89. For this purpose. The reliability (i. for the present measure the nine items reflecting customer satisfaction were used.. with a mean of 0. with a mean of 0.e.68. with a mean of 0..80. However.

the correlation was computed between stylistic responding and customer satisfaction scores. This was done using proc corr (SAS STAT). This was done using MS Excel.11 0 0.30 0.17 0.15 0. complete dataset) did not demonstrate a distinct non-monotone relation.11 Mean 0.49 * 1.001 0 0 0 0 Max 1 1 0. Third.29 0.72 * 1.Table 12: Descriptive Statistics of General Midpoint Responding (GMR). the product-moment correlation between general midpoint responding and midpoint 174 . the stylistic responding scores were plotted against the customer satisfaction scores. but the magnitude of the decrease was small (Table 14) and we considered it unimportant. the plot of the customer satisfaction scores against the general midpoint responding scores (Figure 4. General Extreme Responding (GER).26 SD 0. However.20 0.10 0.30 0. and Extreme Responding to Customer Satisfaction Items (ERCSI) Complete dataset (N = 1227) Min GMR MRCSI GER ERCSI 0 0 0 0 Min GMR MRCSI GER ERCSI * = p < 0.17 0.26 Mean 0. the correlation was computed between stylistic responding and stylistic responding to customer satisfaction items.87 * 1.20 0.11 * Reduced dataset (N = 1184) 5 Test of the hypotheses The hypotheses 14 and 15 were tested in a similar way. to detect possible non-monotone relations between stylistic responding and customer satisfaction scores.86 * 1.10 0.80 1 Median 0. First.31 SD 0.31 Skewness 0. The correlation between general midpoint responding and customer satisfaction was not significant (Table 13).83 1 Max 1 1 0.72 * 1.29 0.47 * 1.11 0 0.11 Median 0.12 * Skewness 0.23 0. Second.23 0.15 0. There was a decrease in the standard deviation of the customer satisfaction scores with increasing general midpoint responding scores. This was done using proc corr (SAS STAT). Hypothesis 14 Hypothesis 14 was: the satisfaction scores are not affected by the midpoint response style. Midpoint Responding to Customer Satisfaction Items (MRCSI). Furthermore.

6 0.2 N Figure 4: Plot of general midpoint responding scores versus customer satisfaction scores in the complete dataset (N = 1227).5 109 6.14* Satisfaction -0.7 33 5.2 -5 0 0.8 11 4.6 68 6.1 0.8 1 1.2 0.9 0 131 6.0 7 6.6 GMR 0.3 0.4 171 6.8 13 4.2 0.1 0. and Customer Satisfaction (Satisfaction) Complete dataset (N = 1227) MRCSI GMR * = p < 0.4 0.03 Table 14: Standard Deviation (SD) of Customer Satisfaction in GMR-Groups (N = Group Size) Complete dataset (N = 1227) GMR N SD GMR N SD 0 139 6.1 0.001 0.13* Satisfaction -0.7 33 5.2 0.5 113 6.3 0.1 220 7.1 213 7.0 7 6.Table 13: Product-Moment Correlations Between General Midpoint Responding (GMR).9 0.5 0.9 0. Midpoint Responding to Customer Satisfaction Items (MRCSI).2 211 6.2 1.4 176 6.5 0.03 Reduced dataset (N = 1184) MRCSI 0.4 0.3 220 6.3 0.9 11 8. 175 . The smallest circle represents one participant and the largest circle represents 35 participants.2 Reduced dataset (N= 1184) 40 35 30 25 CS 20 15 10 5 0 -0.9 0.6 67 6.9 11 8.1 0.3 235 6.2 1.3 0.2 212 6.5 0.

responding to customer satisfaction items was significant (Table 13). it is plausible that the correlation was caused by the extreme response style. This implies that it is plausible that the customer satisfaction scores were affected by the midpoint response style. The correlation between general extreme responding and customer satisfaction was significant in the reduced dataset (Table 15). Hypothesis 15 Hypothesis 15 was: the satisfaction scores are not affected by the extreme response style. Thus. the standard deviation of customer satisfaction scores increased as the general extreme responding score increased (Table 16). which means that the variance of customer satisfaction scores differed across subgroups with different general extreme responding scores. complete dataset) showed heteroscedasticity. the plot of the customer satisfaction scores against the general extreme responding scores (Figure 5. This means that high general extreme responding scores corresponded with very high or very low customer satisfaction scores. Furthermore. Because customer satisfaction was almost unrelated to the items underlying the measure of general extreme responding. In agreement with this results. it is plausible that the correlation was caused by the midpoint response style. hypothesis 15 was not supported. Thus. The product-moment correlation between general extreme responding and extreme responding to customer satisfaction items was also significant (Table 15). hypothesis 14 was not supported. Because customer satisfaction was almost unrelated to the items underlying the measure of general midpoint responding. 176 . The distribution of customer satisfaction scores in subgroups having high general extreme responding scores appears bimodal.

1 0.0 0 1.7 6 12.8 0.5 0.5 24 10.8 1 N Figure 5: Plot of general extreme responding scores versus customer satisfaction scores in the complete dataset (N = 1227).8 0.9 0. The smallest circle represents one participant.8 6 12.2 0.4 47 9.6 9 13.6 0.5 21 9.9 0.4 0.1 206 6.001 Satisfaction 0.2 134 7.1 0.1 0.5 0.38** Satisfaction 0.07* Table 16: Standard Deviation (SD) of Customer Satisfaction in GER-Groups (N = Group Size) Complete dataset (N = 1227) GER N SD GER N SD 0 701 5.1 0. Extreme Responding to Customer Satisfaction Items (ERCSI).8 0.8 5 13.5 0 678 5.9 0 1.2 0.2 131 7. 177 .0 0. and the largest circle represents 120 participants.37** * = p < 0.8 0.2 -5 0 0.9 0.9 0 0.4 44 9.6 10 14.5 0. and Customer Satisfaction (Satisfaction) Complete dataset (N = 1227) ERCSI GER 0.3 86 8.Table 15: Product-Moment Correlations Between General Extreme Responding (GER).04 Reduced dataset (N = 1184) ERCSI 0.3 93 8.4 GER 0.05.0 0 - Reduced dataset (N= 1184) 45 40 35 30 CS 25 20 15 10 5 0 -0. ** = p<0.1 204 6.7 6 12.

that the extreme scale-scores were partly due to a high preference for extreme response categories in general.6 Discussion The second empirical study confirmed that the measurement instrument of customer satisfaction constituted a scale according to the MH-model. it limits the construct validity of the scale scores. it is possible that stylistic responding also influenced the scale scores in the first empirical study. 546-548) was less prevalent in the first empirical study 178 . The distribution of scale scores showed remarkable peaks for the scale-scores 27. the composition of the sample. we suspect that the peaks were caused by stylistic responding. Moreover. Because the measurement instrument for customer satisfaction. the distribution of scale scores in the first empirical study did not show such sharp peaks as the distribution of scale scores in the second empirical study. its importance for the assessment of construct validity of the scale scores is also small. Therefore we suspect that stylistic responding was less prevalent in the first empirical study than in the second empirical study. Each peak was mainly caused by a group of participants who responded to all nine items in a similar way (see Section 3).g. we suspect that satisficing (e. Because the contamination of the scale scores due to stylistic responding was small (Tables 13 and 15). In the first empirical study the questionnaire was accompanied by an extensive E-mail in which persons were invited to participate in the survey and in which the purpose of the study was explained. The following difference between the methods used in the first empirical study and the second empirical study may explain the differences between the distributions of the scale scores found in these studies. The tests of the hypotheses demonstrated that stylistic responding influenced the customer satisfaction scale-scores. This result contributes to the validity of the scale-score interpretations in terms of customer satisfaction with the company. This means. Krosnick. However. pp. For example. The explanation of the purpose of the study in the former E-mail may have affected the motivation of participants to complete the questionnaire conscientiously. the location of customer satisfaction items in the questionnaire. and the mode of administration were largely similar in the first and the second study. Therefore.. for example. the results confirmed that the scale also could be used in different subgroups. Therefore. 1999. Still. the peak for the scale-score 36 was caused by participants who agreed strongly with all items indicative of customer satisfaction and disagreed strongly with all items counter-indicative of customer satisfaction. and 36. whereas in the second empirical study the questionnaire was accompanied by a succinct E-mail in which persons were invited to participate in the survey but which did not explain the purpose of the study. 31.

and this limits the construct validity of the scale scores. The contamination of the scale scores may be taken into account in any followup research using the scale scores for customer satisfaction from the second empirical study. Table 1) with other items. This result supports the conception of dissatisfaction as the opposite of satisfaction on a bipolar continuum. Still. 179 . the fit of the MH model supports the interpretation of the scale scores from the second empirical study in terms of customer satisfaction with the company. we suggest taking the possibility that the scale scores were contaminated by stylistic responding into account in any follow-up research using the scale scores for customer satisfaction from the first empirical study. 7 Conclusions 1 The content of the measurement instrument for customer satisfaction and the results from the measurement analyses of the empirical studies supported the validity of the scale-score interpretation in terms of overall satisfaction with the company. 2 The items that were indicative of customer satisfaction and the other items that were counter-indicative of the construct together constituted a unidimensional scale. It cannot be ruled out that the scale scores were also contaminated by stylistic responding in the first empirical study.than in the second empirical study. Summarising. and that for that reason stylistic responding also was less prevalent in the first empirical study than in the second empirical study. 3 The quality of the measurement instrument may be improved by the substitution of the items Q3a (At BANK I feel at home. This means that it should be investigated whether the substitution of these items with two other items that reflect customer satisfaction with a retail bank improves the validity of the measurements of customer satisfaction with a retail bank. there is much evidence for construct validity. Table 1) and Q4d (Last year I had some problems with BANK. Because the content of the measurement instrument also supported that interpretation (Chapter 4). the results of the analyses demonstrated that the scale may be used in different customer populations. Moreover. but there is evidence that contamination of the scale scores by stylisitc responding in the first empirical study was smaller than in the second empirical study. Nevertheless. the tests of the hypotheses indicated that stylistic responding contaminated the scale scores.

1989. 180 . This illustrates that construct validity is a property of score interpretations and not of measurement instruments. and fair evidence for such an interpretation in the second empirical study. Thus. It is plausible that a part of the extreme satisfaction scores was caused by a high general preference for extreme response categories. p. 81).4 The results of the second empirical study indicate that the scale scores partly reflected stylistic responding. and that construct validity is always a matter of degree (see also Messick.13). 5 There is strong evidence for the interpretation of the scale scores in terms of satisfaction with the company in the first empirical study. 1989. It is possible that stylistic responding also influenced the scale scores in the first empirical study but probably to a lesser extent than in the second empirical study. the application of a measurement instrument in one study may yield better scale scores than the application of the instrument in another study (see also Messick. p.

181 .

182 .

. The hypothesised relations between customer satisfaction and trust.. 1990) suggest that customer satisfaction is related to various other psychological constructs. Psychological constructs are organisational principles with respect to behaviour. The meaning of satisfaction is context-specific (Giese & Cote. The ontological status of customer satisfaction as organisational principle constitutes an important component of the meaning of customer satisfaction. and CP constitute the implicit definition of customer 183 . Hennig-Thurau et al. To account for the different manifestations of satisfaction. directed towards the retail bank. commitment. Moreover. We hypothesised that the latter relations also applied to customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking. the definition also covers customer dissatisfaction with a retail bank. and that customer satisfaction precedes customer loyalty and CP. 1994. quality. and image. Because the negative response expresses dissatisfaction and the positive response expresses satisfaction. and to customer profitability (CP). word-ofmouth. we defined customer satisfaction with a retail bank as the valenced response of the customer. quality. such as trust. This means that they are schemes through which we perceive and interpret behaviours of persons. customer loyalty. and an affect for a third customer. Oliver. satisfaction with a retail bank may be the absence of dissatisfaction for one customer. 2002. This definition expresses that customer satisfaction with a retail bank encompasses affects and cognitions that can be placed on a dimension that ranges from negative to positive. There is evidence that customer satisfaction is preceded by quality and trust. Anderson et al. Marketing studies (e. This definition constitutes an important component of the theoretical meaning of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking. Customer satisfaction is a psychological construct. Yi. 2000). customer loyalty. 2001.Chapter 9 General discussion 1 The meaning of customer satisfaction The purpose of this thesis was to unravel the meaning of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking. a judgement of the performance of the bank for another customer..g. and evoked by the customer’s experiences with the bank throughout time. 1997. Verhoef.

We found positive correlations between customer satisfaction and quality. Eventually. These results supported our hypotheses concerning these correlations. 316-318. 1997. The empirical meaning of customer satisfaction is the behaviours that are associated with customer satisfaction. The scale scores were corrected by excluding one item from the customer satisfaction scale when testing for the correlation between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. We did not find a satisfactory solution for these problems. pp. and we measured quality by means of the total score on the recoded items regarding the experience of problems with BANK in the preceding twelve months. emotions. First. The scale scores were corrected by excluding one item from the customer satisfaction scale when testing for the correlation between customer satisfaction and quality. The positive effects of customer satisfaction on future CP after one year and future CP after two years supported the hypothesis that customer satisfaction influences CP. and confirmed the importance of customer satisfaction in the context of retail banking.e. and regret (also. Because customer satisfaction has a large behavioural domain. we developed a nine-item measurement instrument for customer satisfaction with a bank. Five items were indicative of customer satisfaction and four items were counter-indicative of customer satisfaction. This definition also constitutes an important component of the theoretical meaning of the construct. 343-344).. these are manifestations of performance evaluations. In the context of retail banking. 184 . which covered different manifestations of customer satisfaction. These manifestations can be used for the measurement of customer satisfaction. but three remarks are in order. The first empirical study into customer satisfaction with BANK demonstrated that the nine items constituted a unidimensional scale. Second. CP at the time of the measurement of customer satisfaction) is an indispensable variable in analyses of the relation between customer satisfaction and future CP. expectations. the measurement of quality on the basis of items reflecting judgements about products and services provided by the company resulted in missing data problems and halo effects. Third.satisfaction in the context of retail banking. we re-defined quality as absence of problems. we found that the customer satisfaction scale-scores were contaminated by customer loyalty. We found that current CP (i. disconfirmation. and between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. We found that absence of problems with BANK in the preceding twelve months was positively correlated with customer satisfaction with BANK. we found that the customer satisfaction scale-scores were contaminated by quality. Oliver. This result supported the theoretical notion that customer satisfaction is the opposite of customer dissatisfaction on a bipolar dimension.

This means. and this warrants taking more than only current CP into account when estimating customer lifetime value. Still. The scale scores constitute a special case of the empirical meaning of customer satisfaction. We also found a positive correlation between customer satisfaction and trust. The second empirical study demonstrated that the customer satisfaction scores were contaminated by stylistic responding of the participants. The latter results may be useful for the development of methods for investigating the influence of customer satisfaction on CP and estimating customer lifetime value. Further research into the generalisability of this result is needed. we also found that the size of the effect of current CP on future CP decreased as the time-lag between current CP and future CP increased. for example. it limits the construct validity of the scale scores. Psychological constructs can be measured by means of 185 . we found that CP follows a Pareto-like distribution in the context of retail banking. we considered its importance for the construct validity of the scale scores also small. Because the contamination of the scale scores due to stylistic responding was small. Therefore we concluded that the scale scores were rightly interpreted as customer satisfaction with BANK. 2 The measurement of psychological constructs in marketing research Another purpose of this thesis was to select a suitable methodology for the construction of a measurement instrument for customer satisfaction and the validation of the customer satisfaction scale-scores. that the extreme scale-scores were partly due to a high general preference for extreme response categories. In all. and that CP had to be transformed before analysing the relation between customer satisfaction and CP. the empirical studies yielded scale scores for customer satisfaction with BANK and provided much evidence for the construct validity of the scale scores. It may be noted that the correlation between the customer satisfaction scores and the trust scores was as large as the correlation between the customer satisfaction scores and the ACSI scores.However. and dissatisfied with BANK when they did not trust BANK. This was also an outcome of the pre-tests. There seems to be a large overlap between the construct of customer satisfaction and the construct of trust in the context of retail banking. Customers were satisfied with BANK when they trusted BANK. which supported our hypothesis concerning this correlation. Therefore we suggested taking the contamination of the scale scores into account when using these scores for any follow-up research. This implies that companies cannot rely on current CP as a guarantee for future CP. Furthermore.

Construct validity is the appropriateness of test-score interpretations in terms of the construct of interest (e. that the application of a test may yield valid measurements of a construct in one instance. However. 1971. 1989. p.psychological tests (including measurement instruments for typical behaviour. which are MTMM framework and correlating a measure with a criterion variable. Consequently. Churchill’s (1979) criteria for the assessment of construct validity. and less valid measurements of a construct in another instance (see also Chapter 8. do not suffice for the assessment of construct validity. Messick. we applied the deductive 186 . The flaws in Churchill’s (1979) perspective on construct validity justify adopting of Messick’s (1989. see Anastasi. and convergent validity. Cronbach. This means. 1989. Furthermore. for example. 1995) perspective on construct validity and validation research. Peterson & Wilson. 2000. 13. pp. the practice of construct validation in marketing research does not comply with theory of validity as formulated by Messick (1989). the criteria for the assessment of construct validity. For the measurement of psychological constructs in marketing research a test often consists of a set of items that is administered in a survey. 1988. We demonstrated (Chapter 3. divergent validity. because the methods applied in MTMM research are often similar. the agreement between two measures of the same often trait provides evidence for reliability rather than validity (also. Section 6) that construct validity was insufficiently investigated in important satisfaction studies in the marketing literature (see also Giese & Cote. It is broadly acknowledged that validity of measurement is a key success factor for satisfaction research and for marketing research in general. his or her position on the scale for the property is inferred. Churchill’s (1979) perspective is flawed with respect to the conception of construct validity as a property of a test. Because the deductive design (Schouwstra. such as marketing strategy development.g. 34). Moreover. On the basis of a participant’s responses to these items. conflicts with this conception of construct validity. and not of tests. 158). which is the leading perspective in marketing measurement. and the procedures for validation research. see Chapter 1. 1992). This hampers the usefulness of satisfaction research for scientific purposes. Section 4). 2000) is in agreement with Messick’s (1989. Section 7). 1995) perspective on construct validity and construct validation research. and for business purposes. do not address the two major threats to construct validity. which are nomological validity. Construct validity is a property of test-score interpretations. Churchill’s (1979) procedures for validation research. which are construct underrepresentation and constructirrelevant variance (Messick.. Churchill’s (1979) perspective on construct validity. such as testing of satisfaction theories. 1995).

the translation of the construct of interest into test content. It is not feasible to exclude all possible irrelevant variance in the practice of psychological measurement. and the choice of a measurement model for modelling the participant’s responses to the test. Formulation b. in future research we suggest to investigate the degree to which test scores are contaminated by other 187 . Modelling Empirical evidence Of what construct of interest is Of construct of interest into test content How test score reflects construct That test score reflects whole of construct And what not And nothing else And nothing else And nothing else Construct representation Irrelevant variance Psychometric theory provides useful guidelines for the definition of the construct of interest.g. For example. 13). 69-71) suggested formulating and testing hypotheses regarding construct representation and absence of irrelevant variance. 35). the formulation and testing of hypotheses has to be restricted to the most important hypotheses. Translation c. The conclusion that contamination of test scores cannot be avoided in the practice of psychological measurement limits the construct validity of test scores.design for the development of a test for customer satisfaction with BANK and the construct validation of the test scores. we consider the requirement that the test scores reflect the whole construct and noting else too rigid. Second. construct validity is always a matter of degree (see also Messick. 60) Scientific arguments Rationales a. Two remarks concerning the empirical research are in order. it is well-known that single items often yield inadequate measurements of constructs (e. The empirical research is directed at the collection of empirical evidence regarding construct representation and irrelevant variance. and this may explain why customer satisfaction has to be measured by means of a multiple-item scale. Messick. The deductive design addresses test development and construct validation for typical-behaviour properties (Table 1): Table 1: Outline of Construct Validation Within the Deductive Design (Schouwstra. 1989. First. pp. Therefore. Therefore.. Schouwstra (2000. and which are the most important hypotheses remains to some extent arbitrary. p. 14. pp. p. Therefore. 2000. it is not feasible to formulate and test all possible hypotheses regarding construct representation and absence of irrelevant variance. 1989.

we suggest the deductive design (Schouwstra. We subscribe to Giese and Cote (2000) that the meaning of customer satisfaction is context-specific. different inquiries may require different definitions and operationalisations of quality. the application of the deductive design yielded a scale for customer satisfaction with BANK and much evidence for the construct validity of the scale scores. and that definitions and measures of customer satisfaction also should be context-specific. Fourth. Moreover. and the accumulation of profits over longer time periods than one year. We also expect that the antecedents of customer satisfaction are context-specific. We recommend research into the generalisability of the results of the present study to other groups and companies within the financial services industry. and such investigations are important for making customer satisfaction actionable for companies. Because Messick’s (1989. Context-specific customer satisfaction studies may contribute to the further development of general theory about customer satisfaction. The marketing literature uses many psychological constructs. we suggest the deductive design for 188 . We had much difficulty with the measurement of quality in the present study. we recommend future research into the definition and measurement of CP. 2000) for the measurement of psychological constructs in marketing research. Therefore. we consider the deductive design a useful framework for measurement instrument development and construct validation in marketing research. Furthermore. 1995) perspective on construct validity can be put into action by the deductive design. and to take any contamination into account when using the test scores for follow-up research. Marketing research may disentangle these constructs. The third suggestion for future research concerns the development of context-specific definitions of quality and corresponding measurement procedures. and for that purpose it has to define and measure them properly. In all. and there appears to be much redundancy in the collection of constructs. such as the inclusion or exclusion of various costs. we suggest further research into the influence of customer satisfaction on CP in retail banking. The second suggestion for future research concerns executing context-specific customer satisfaction studies.attributes. Proper operationalisations of quality are important for investigating the influence of quality on customer satisfaction. 3 Suggestions for future research First.

and having accomplished that. It explains why customer satisfaction is not exclusively driven by technical quality of products. This is a useful result for the further development of satisfaction theory and eventually for marketing strategy development in the industry of retail banking. and corporate communication. expectations. This is a useful result for the further development of satisfaction theory and for customer satisfaction management in the financial services industry. It was demonstrated that. Therefore a bank’s customer satisfaction management strategy may start with managing technical quality. Customer satisfaction influencing CP warrants the appointment of customer satisfaction as a strategic goal of retail banks. the more because the influence of current CP on future CP decreases when the time lag increases. complaints handling. 189 . and regret.the measurement and the validation of measurements of psychological constructs in marketing research. Furthermore. This is a useful result for the methodology of marketing research and eventually for the development and validation of marketing theories. and processes. customer satisfaction is manifested in performance evaluations. The thesis also demonstrated that the application of psychometric methods for the measurement of customer satisfaction yielded scale scores that can be rightly interpreted as customer satisfaction scores. disconfirmation. it may proceed with managing functional quality. services. 4 Concluding remarks This thesis explored the meaning of customer satisfaction in retail banking. in the context of retail banking. the thesis provided strong evidence for the influence of customer satisfaction on CP. and the usefulness of psychometric methods for test development and construct validation. emotions.

190 .

.E. A. C. (1988). H. The handbook of marketing research: Uses..A..A. Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. G.W. J. (1994). & Sijtsma. misuses and future advances (pp. Doctoral dissertation.I. Anderson. Anastasi. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company Limited. & Mittal. The design and understanding of survey questions. Newbury Park.).H. & Steenkamp. 19-32). & Mobley. Response biases in marketing research. Evolving concepts of test validation. Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain..References Anastasi. (1986). market share and profitability: Findings from Sweden. (2001). 107-123. Validity: An evolving concept. Braun (Eds.R. & Lehmann.. CA: Sage Publications. In H. Journal of Marketing. (2000). K.. Test validity (pp.W. E. (2004). 68. H. (1993). 277-313. M.K. 3. (2004). Vriens (Eds.. Hillsdale. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.M. E.W. Belson.M.O. W.. Validity in survey research.J. (1986).B. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 37. Grover & M. 34. W. 1-15. E. Customer satisfaction. Berens. C. W. Anderson.G.A. (1981). 191 . 53-66. 172-185. Annual Review of Psychology.B. Journal of Marketing Research. C. Belson. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Journal of Service Research. Fornell.).M.F. Bearden. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Anderson. In R. Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Wainer & H. Bernaards. 95-109). Fornell.E.. S. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.A.. & Mazvancheryl. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company Limited. J. (2006). Angoff. & Steenkamp. D. A. 58. 143-156.). Journal of Marketing. Erasmus University. (2000). W. Influence of imputation and EM methods on factor analysis when item nonresponse in questionnaire data is nonignorable. 38. Netemeyer. (1988). R. Corporate branding: The development of corporate associations and their influence on stakeholder reactions. Baumgartner. Baumgartner. Psychological testing (6th ed. Rotterdam. V.

. D.A. R.. D. Response effects. International Journal of Market Research. Doctoral dissertation.. J. J. (2004). Journal of Service Research. Psychological Bulletin. New York: Academic Press Inc. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 7. 56.J. Buttle. Bollen.M. 203-219. Borsboom. & Van Heerden.). (1989). T. The attack of the psychometricians. 8-32. D.. Journal of Economic Psychology. 289-328). 167-190. 425-440.D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. (2006) Constructing a transitive reasoning test for 6-to-13 year old children. 192 . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. R. Structural equations with latent variables. 110.. & Sijtsma. (2005). Journal of Consumer Satisfaction. G. The illusion of consumer satisfaction. Borsboom.. D. The concept of validity. 43-48. Psychological Review. Bloemer. (1959). Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. European Journal of Marketing. Loyaliteit en tevredenheid: Een studie naar de relatie tussen merktrouw en consumententevredenheid. D. J.).M. (2003). N. The theoretical status of latent variables. & Kuijlen. Borsboom. Feigl & M. 2. 30. Scriven (Eds. G. 311-329. New York: Cambridge University Press. F. 111. T.D.. 71. Logical foundations of probability. S. Psychometrika. & Frei. A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. Carnap. (1956). B. Vol I. K.H. Bouwmeester.Bloemer. In P. Bronner. Anderson (Eds. Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior. F. New York: Wiley. (1989). 107-123. Maastricht. Mellenbergh. Measuring the mind. F. CAPI. New York: Springer-Verlag. (1989). 1061-1071. Wright. (2006).. & Fiske.B. (1950). The persistence of customer profitability: Empirical evidence and implications from a financial services firm.M. Campbell.M. The live or digital interviewer: A comparison between CASI. (2007).M. J. Byrne. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. J. D. (1983). SERVQUAL: Review.J. Bradburn. Carnap. In H. Rossi. critique. and CATI with respect to differences in response behaviour. The methodological character of theoretical concepts.B.T. Psychological Review.M. University of Maastricht. H.C. The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. & Poiesz.P. 16. Mellenbergh. (1996). & Van Heerden. 225-232. (2004). 49. J.M. Borsboom.. D. K. & A. (1993). Bloemer.. research agenda.. (1995).M. Handbook of survey research (pp. 22.W. 81-105. Campbell. & Kasper.

16. J. Braun (Eds. T. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed. and readings. S. (1979). J.).. 193 .D. Bloemer. R. Educational measurement (pp. Hillsdale. In R. (1955). Churchill. Cohen. 56. 64-73. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Cronbach. Construct validation after thirty years. R. European Journal of Marketing. L. Urbana. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. theory. L. & Kaplan.). Cook. 281-302. NJ: Prentice Hall. G. L. Journal of Marketing. Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension.J. A theory of data. (1971). L. The design of cost management systems: Text. J. Washington. Five perspectives on the validity argument. & Taylor.J.. & Suprenant.. Cronbach. IL: University of Illinois Press. The Market Research Society.. Wainer & H. & Taylor. 55-68.. Intelligence: Measurement.T. 297-335. (2004). 58.. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. P.J. (1991). Chicago: Rand McNally.). Construct validity in psychological tests. DC: American Council on Education. 52.J.S. (1992). Journal of Marketing Research.H. L. Thorndike (Ed. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. (1983). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. (1997). K.J. & Meehl. P. C.A.). Englewood Cliffs. Cooper. 479-497. 491-504. & Cohen. New York: John Wiley and Sons. (1964).M. Psychometrika. Psychological Bulletin. S. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.I. In H.. 16. De Ruyter. 19. 46. P. J. SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling perfomance-based and perceptions minus expectations measurement of service quality. (1994). Coulthard. (1988).A.A. (2002). 147-171).J.Caruana... Cronbach. 3-17). (1951). A. Journal of Marketing. (1982). 387-406. 36. Linn (Ed. 443-507). Journal of Marketing Research. Coombs. 125-131. Test validation.L. Test validity (pp.A.E. Journal of Economic Psychology. 811-828. 18. (1979).J. Cronbach. C.J. and public policy (pp. Cronbach. G. L. D. cases. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. & Peeters. Measuring service quality: A review and critique of research using SERVQUAL. In R. Merging service quality and service satisfaction: An empirical test of an integrative model. (1989). Cronin. Churchill. Cronin. & Campbell.

D. Fornell. (1992). Fabrigar. C. Gardner. (2005). 25. Oxford England: Blackwell.R. & Wernerfelt..F. On sence and reference. 163-190.S. Journal of Marketing. Garvin. Johnson. 7. Journal of Economic Psychology..A. CA: Sage.. D. L. (1892). D. 6-21.. Principles for constructing web surveys. 61. Bosnjak (Eds. 271-286. A. C. Embretson. D. & Bryant. purpose and findings.E. (2001). Brock & M. Fornell. & Reise. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. & Basu. Journal of Marketing Research. Attitude measurement: Techniques for measuring the unobservable. (1999). In P. Verhoef. The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. 331-353. 337-346. M. Quality on the line. Cha.. (1996). (2004). M. M. J. & Bowker.Dick.K. & MacDougall.)..D. 5. C. D. Frege... G. Quantitative Marketing and Economics. P. 28. The structure of affective reactions to critical incidents. New York: Basic Books. & Bowker. Geach & M.. H. (2000).A. J. A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Friman. B. S. K. Dimensions of internet science (pp. 60. & De Jong. Modeling CLV: A test of competing models in the insurance industry. 159-178)..D.)..A. 65-73. Item response theory for psychologists.G. The American customer satisfaction index: Nature. R.). Fornell. (1981). (1988). C. B. 24. Mahwah. Thousand Oaks.P. Fornell. In U. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. 56. 39-50. 718. & Larcker. (2007). (1952). (1987). Harvard Business Review. 194 . (1983). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. In T. Journal of Marketing.. Dillman.C. (1998).. 99-113.. Dillman. SESRC Technical Report 98-50.. 17-40).E. Krosnick. Marketing Science.A. (1994). D. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Reips & M.C. Washington State Universtity. Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: A theoretical analysis. 22. C. Tortora. Green (Eds. Anderson. Fornell. Journal of Marketing Research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. B. Black (Eds. A model for customer complaint management.W. & Wernerfelt.L. Donkers. Translations of the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege.C. Journal of Marketing Science. B. B.. E. S.

L. (1988). 176-188. Survey errors and survey costs. Factor analysis (2nd ed. A. New York: Wiley.L. Psychometrika. Journal of Marketing Research.pdf. Bankieren in 2020: De impact van consumentenvertrouwen en technologische ontwikkelingen. Public Opinion Quarterly. 395-404. 171-180).L. (1989). New York: Holt. Scheuing (Eds. D. S. Edvardsson. 115-130. D. Service loyalty. Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in service competition. Gremler. 271-299. C. Measurement scales in consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Inc.D. 69.).. Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 195 ..E. Customer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review. Lexington.D. 69. 1-11. European Journal of Marketing. www. (1984). Journal of Consumer Satisfaction. Johnston. J. Journal of Marketing..). W. Guttman. & Brown.R. 18.Giese. MA: Lexington Books. Grönroos. Advancing service quality: A global perspective (pp. International Service Quality Association.. (1990). R. & Brown.W. In B. The loyalty ripple effect: Appreciating the full value of customers. Gorsuch.A.W.org/articles/giese01-2000.amsreview. (2005). (1954). 210-218. (1999). 56. (2000). importance and implications. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Journal of Marketing. International Journal of Service Industry Management. (2005). E. Rinehart and Winston. & Rego. 3. 18. (2008).W. relationship commitment dimensions. Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. Gremler. D. R. A service quality model and its marketing implications. L. L. Johnsons. S. Gruca. Greenleaf. T. Grönroos. 29. cash flow and shareholder value. (1983). W. (1992b). & Roos. 457-461. Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior. and triggers on customer retention. Heiser. Measuring extreme response style. Greenleaf. & Cote. Brown. J. 36-44. Hillsdale. Defining customer satisfaction. S. J. Hays. D. Public Opinion Quarterly. (1992a). Gustafsson. M. 71. Hausknecht. R.A. C.. I. & E. 10.S. (1996). Groves. Measurement without copper instruments and experiment without complete control. W.M. (2006). E. (1990).. Reijnders.L. Goedee. The effects of customer satisfaction.D.A.J.. 176-188.).. its nature. & Van Thiel. Statistics (4th ed.

S. Johnston. & Cha. (1997).N. 36. Kwantitatieve Methoden... Homburg. Journal of Service Research. 775-792). (2005). (1997). J. (1995). Koschate. Anderson (Ed. & Gremler. 243-252.N. H. & Snyderman. A. Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality.P.. & Sheth. (1973). 78.. Jackson. 230-247. New York: John Wiley and Sons. T.R.N.). N. Hox. 229-248. 17. 19...J. J. New York: Wiley.. D. The dynamics of structured personality tests: 1971. Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Mausner. D. Andreassen. N. C. Gustafsson. Collins. (1959). 321-357.W.). 53-71.. The theory of buyer behavior. Metroeconomica. 3. De Leeuw. Content and style in personality assessment. Lervik. Structural personality assessment.. In B. L. J. Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Jacoby. Er is nieuws onder de zon: Nieuwe oplossingen voor oude problemen.. J. 6. J.N.J. Howard. & D. NJ: Prentice Hall.A. 1-11. International Journal of Service Industry Management. Jansen. 55. & Larcker. Handbook of general psychology (pp. (2001).B. Journal of Economic Psychology.D. Gwinner. Jackson. 47-70). J. 19.D. (2002). Lyberg. In B. C. Johnson. (1969). 95-118. E. Developmental Review.. Advances in Consumer Research. The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models. B. P. K. W.. Ittner. Wolman (Ed.F. 4. B. D. M. 1-35. B. (1998). A. Biemer. (1958). 196 . & Van der Maas. B.J. C.D. 69. F. R. 216-223. The determinants of service quality: Satisfiers and dissatisfiers. T. 217-245. The motivaton to work. M. (1971). Jack. 22. Trewin (Eds. D. Psychological Review. In L. Jackson. (1967). Journal of Accounting Research.. Schwarz. Sampling from a Pareto distribution.B. Journal of Marketing.D.). (1976). Psychological Bulletin. Consumer research: Telling it like it is. & Hoyer. 84-96. D.B.. & Messick.Hennig-Thurau. Herzberg. New York: Wiley. (1998). Hox. Survey measurement and process quality (pp. Statistical tests of the rule assessment methodology by latent class analysis.. From theoretical concept to survey question. Dippo.

Loevinger. E. New York: Wiley. Trewin (Eds. (1948). S. Neglected outcomes of customer satisfaction. 537-567. Likert. & Nathan. Consumer behaviour and Y2K. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 50. Pacific Grove: Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole. Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed. 507-530. and satisfaction.B. K.A. Biemer. F. 141-164).. (1993). & Fabrigar. Krosnick. 45. M. Collins.R. Interpretation of educational measurements. D. and the Taguchi method (pp. & Homburg.T. Taguchi’s quality philosophy: Analysis and commentary. H. (1997). M.. 44-53. Psychometrika. (2002). Reading: Addison Wesley. & Rubin. On the generalized distance in statistics. In K. (1968). (1991). Dehnad (Ed. Annual Review of Psychology. D. R.R. 49-55. (1989). 12. & D. (1999). R. H. feeling.. Mahalanobis.D.L.L. P.Kackar. Kane. 197 . 140. X. robust design. Proceedings of the National Institute of Science of India.E. A technique for the measurement of attitudes.). Mano. Dippo.R. (1999). In L.M. Schwarz. J. J.).A. Belmont. (1927). Acquiescent responding in self reports: Cognitive style or social concern. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. 451-466. 213-236. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation. 71. A comment on Borsboom. Lyberg. (1932). J. C. 31. & Delaney. Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 63. & Oliver. 20. L. Archives of Psychology. Krosnick. M. 14-18. Lehmann. New York: Wiley. P. R. T. 5.. Krosnick. R.N.C. Lord. 133-149. Little. (2007). De Leeuw.J. Journal of Marketing.. Kelley.A.. 71. Journal of Consumer Research. Statistical theories of mental test scores.A. Journal of Marketing. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Journal of Research in Personality. (1990). 441445. N. The technique of homogeneous tests compared with some aspects of ‘scale analysis’ and factor analysis.. New York: World Book Company. Luo. Psychological Bulletin. Survey research.. & Novick. 3-19). E.). (1997). CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. (1936). 293-301. Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. J. Quality control. C. Knowles. Maxwell. (2006).S. In praise of pluralism.

Mellenbergh. Mokken. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Improving inquiry in social science: A volume in honor of Lee J.. Englewood Cliffs. (1991). In H.pdf. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie. Test validity (pp. In I.J. Mittal.I. Murphy. 198 . Messick. American Psychologist. Australia. (2001). recent developments and applications (pp. Molenaar & G. 20-38. Molenaar. G. Customer profitability analysis: Measurement. (1971). New York: Springer-Verlag.J. 741-749.). S.org/uploads/papers/4247. (2002). Educational measurement (3rd ed. (2000). 40. 161-200). C. Cronbach (pp. Journal of Marketing. & Kamakura. Molenaar. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. definitie en onderzoek. 3-14). 58.E. K. The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. Braun (Eds. Hillsdale. Linn (Ed. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Messick. (1999). In R. 131-142.. repurchase intent. Messick. MSP5 for windows: User’s manual. Inter-firm trust: Two theoretical dimensions versus a global measure.. Mulhern. (1995). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.). www. S..). Vraagonzuiverheid: Detectie. Rasch models: Foundations. F.). K. Some background for item response theory and the Rasch model. (1995). Morgan. Satisfaction. Hillsdale.O. (1991). R. S.J. & Quester. Messick. Psychology and methodology of response styles. S.Medlin. Journal of Marketing Research.. 50.E. (1994). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. Fischer (Eds.L.J. 38. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berlin: De Gruyter. In R.W. V. Wiley (Eds. & Sijtsma. Journal of Interactive Marketing. Groningen: ProGAMMA. Paper presented at the IMP conference in Perth. 13103). & Hunt.W. Snow & D. R. P. W. I.R. concentration.G. & Davidshofer. (1988). and research directions. S. 425-435. The Hague: Mouton. 25-40.W. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. 3345).impgroup.M. (1989). 13. (1985).H. Psychological testing: Principles and applications (2nd ed.). C. and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effects of customer characteristics. Wainer & H.D.) (pp. I. Validity.A.

L. Journal of Marketing. (1978). J.L.L. (1989).S. Zeithaml.Newman. A. Psychometric theory (2nd ed. Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for future research. V. M... 1-16. International Journal of Bank Marketing. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. & L. (1993). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer.L. Measurement and control of response bias.S. 418-430. Oort.L. Parasuraman. & DeSarbo. & Narasimhan. 111-124. P. Zeithaml.. P. 196-214.A. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. R. Using restricted factor analysis in test construction. 495-507. 49. 63. Gupta. Oliver..L. D. Journal of Service Research. Journal of Retailing. 12-40. 17. (1999). Nunnally. Cognitive. Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. R. 33-44. 19. Paulhus.. 20. 460-469. L. 1. Journal of Marketing. University of Amsterdam.L. Zeithaml.. Niraj.L. R. & Burke.C. Wrightsman (Eds.. affective. L. Oliver. Journal of Consumer Research. Questionnaire design methods. Journal of Consumer Research. In J. (1994). R. R. New York: McGraw Hill. & Berry. Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing.. New York: McGraw Hill. R. Oliver. & Berry. R. W. Oosterveld. Parasuraman. CA: Academic Press Inc. (1996).P. 41-50. 126-139.A. Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach. Parasuraman. University of Amsterdam.. (1985). 17-59). Doctoral dissertation. Interrogating SERVQUAL: A critical assessment of service quality measurement in a high street retail bank.A. L. V. L.J.R. (1988). Amsterdam. Oliver. San Diego. A. C. A. & Swan. Oliver. K. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Expectation processes in satisfaction formation. Journal of Marketing. 14.). R.. Doctoral dissertation. 64. (1991). 199 ..E. R. Oliver.L. Journal of Marketing. Shaver. 58. V. (1997). L.R. Robinson. (1996). (2001). & Berry. 53.). (1999). and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. 65. Journal of Marketing Research.. Amsterdam. Oliver. (1980). J. (2001). (1988). Customer profitability in a supply chain. 21-35. F.

(1995). (1999a). 611-617. R.E. 68. J. F. The ultimate question: Driving good profits and true growth. S. University of Amsterdam.. Reichheld. (1967).J. & Carroll.M. R. & Carroll. 5. Social Indicators Research. & Sasser. CA: Sage.. J. 20. (1999b). Rotter. 133-145. 193-21.M. customer retention and market share.E. Rust. Saris.A. 105-111. Doctoral dissertation. J. On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. (1981). R. J.Peter.R. A question of quality: Evaluating survey questions by multitraitmultimethod studies. customer profitability.E. 125.F. Beverly Hills. The phoenix of bipolarity: Reply to Watson and Tellegen (1999).T..W. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 69. Customer lifetime value. Customer satisfaction.L. Russell. Sartori. 125. A. W. Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Doctoral dissertation. 147-177.. J. 15-85). (2006). 3-30.C. Journal of Personality.F. (2005). 18. (1998). Guidelines for concept analysis. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Public Opinion Quarterly. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust.. Amsterdam. Russell. (1992). & Wilson. Haskins. 35.. Psychological Bulletin.A.P. Journal of Retailing.E. Peterson.J. & Zahorik. In G. (1990). Psychological Bulletin. 200 . Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Journal of Marketing Research. Schouwstra. P. 91-92.A.M. W. Psychological Methods.). W. J. 45. University of Amsterdam. (1941). 651-665. Rasch. Pfeifer. and the treatment of acquisition spending.. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research. A. A. G. Harvard Business Review. (2002).. Zero defections: Quality comes to service. On testing plausible threats to construct validity. 173-199. J. Reichheld. M. J. 7. Experiments in wording questions: II. F. Rugg. G. (2000). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. & Scherpenzeel. Amsterdam. Schafer. (1984). & Graham. 17. Validity and reliability of subjective social indicators: The effect of different measures of association. 61-71. (1993). 11-25. Van Wijk.. & Conroy. Journal of Managerial Issues. (1960). Social science concepts: A systematic analysis (pp.. Measuring customer satisfaction: Fact and artefact. D. Scherpenzeel. Sartori (Ed. T.

Terpstra.. P.D. & Bradburn.Schuman. and Coping. S.. & Van Gastel. Tabachnick. Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. (2005). & A. Amsterdam. Motivation-hygiene theory of job attitudes: An empirical investigation and an attempt to reconcile both the one. wording. Mellenbergh. (1982). & Roorda. (2006b).. Multivariate Behavioral Research. J. Unpublished report. (2002). Questionnaire construction and item writing. Sheatsley. K. Amsterdam. Terpstra. ING Group.J. 452-461. 275-290. (1983). Wright.J. Boston: Pearson Education Inc. M. H.. Sijtsma. Stouthard. N.J. In P. D. Handbook of survey research (pp. Business facts for ING Retail Netherlands.. & Fidell. Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form. M. Quality of Life Research. (2000). 28. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. (1993). 201 .J. Terpstra.). L. S. M..H. (2006a). 451-455.B. J. Assessment of dental anxiety: A facet approach. M. Soliman.B. 6. L. Nonparametric IRT analysis of quality-of-life scales and its application to the world health organization quality-of-life scale (WHOQOL-Bref). Sijtsma. Unpublished report. customer loyalty and customer profitability.J. & Hoogstraten.H. I. ING Group.. Nyklicek. and recommendation intentions. Amsterdam. Anderson (Eds. Sijtsma.. (2003).. Terpstra. (2006). 503-528. S. Anxiety. Sijtsma. B... Psychometrics in psychological research: Role model or partner in science? Psychometrika. customer loyalty. 17.. Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. 195-230). ING Group. M. (1981). & Presser. New York: Academic Press Inc. W. G.M. & Molenaar. Inventory of customer satisfaction surveys.E. 71. 54. (2007). Journal of Applied Psychology. K. Unpublished report. ING Group.M. Amsterdam. New York: Academic Press Inc.and the two-factor theories of job attitudes.S. L. H. Singh. Customer satisfaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. J..A. (2008). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 150-167. Investigation and treatment of missing item scores in test and questionnaire data. Sudman. 89-105. (2004).D. & Van der Ark. Emons. Bouwmeester. W..W. Stress. (1970). I. K. Rossi.M. Customer satisfaction. and context.A. Unpublished report.G. Using multivariate statistics (5th edition). 38. & Sirdeshmukh. K.

M.C. Stochastic ordering of the latent trait by the sum score under various polytomous IRT models. I. 359-376. L. Affective consumer responses in service encounters: The emotional content in narratives of critical incidents. E. (1991). K. Thorndike. J. Doctoral dissertation. Theory and methods of scaling. 202 . & Rhoen. R. (1920). (2000). Van Dolen. (1961). 6. Journal of Economic Psychology. Westbrook. Psychometrika.Terpstra. A constant error in psychological ratings.R.. (1988). 84-102. Verhoef. 204-212. P. Developing better measures of consumer satisfaction: Some preliminary results. 70. 84-91. An experimental investigation of halo effects in satisfaction measures of service attributes. Wirtz. Torgerson. R..S. & Sijtsma.A. Multiple imputation for incomplete test. & Oliver. Van der Ark. (1981). (2005). Tilburg. 20.B. Journal of Marketing Research. Rotterdam.). Westbrook. (1958).. Erasmus University. Tilburg. I. W. Analysing customer relationships: Linking relational constructs and marketing instruments to customer behavior. Advances in consumer research (8th ed. Service satisfaction: An empirical analysis of consumer satisfaction in financial services. 80-94.L.. (2007).A. Tse. J. University of Tilburg.. Monroe (Ed. H. Journal of Applied Psychology. University of Tilburg.) (pp. Van Ginkel. Masurel.A. J. questionnaire. The Service Industries Journal. W. Journal of Consumer Research.G. Models of consumer satisfaction: An extension. MI: Association for Consumer Research.K.L. Equivalence in a cross-national context: Methodological & empirical issues in marketing research.C. J. J. Multiple imputation of item scores in test and questionnaire data. J. Van Herk. 22.. Mattsson. (2007).L. 42..A. 25. Van Montfort. & Oliver. R. The inspiration of science. 25-29. L. (2008). London: Oxford University Press. ING Group. In K.J. (2001). Van der Ark. 4. K. 387-414. Van Ginkel. R. 18. International Journal of Service Industry Management.. and survey data. Lemmink. The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. (2001). and influence on psychometric results. E. & Wilton. D.. Doctoral dissertation. & Bateson. 283-304. P. Amsterdam.. R.E. Doctoral dissertation. Unpublished report. Multivariate Behavioral Research. (1995).. & Van Rijn. G. 94-99). (2000). A model for developing customer satisfaction business cases. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Thomson.

G. Services marketing. Berry. Zeithaml (Ed. A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In W. An examination of the presence. 54. A. M. (1953).A. 7. Six sigma and service quality: Christian Grönroos revisited. 595-607. 5. Wolf. Delivering quality service. Zeithaml. Yi. Journal of Applied Psychology. In V. & Bitner. Journal of Service Research. Wirtz. Review of marketing (pp. V. Amsterdam: Boom. (1990).A.Wirtz. magnitude and impact of halo on consumer satisfaction measures. (1996)... Parasuraman. (1990). An examination of the quality and context-specific applicability of commonly customer satisfaction measures. M. New York: McGraw Hill. Amsterdam: Boom. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services.J. J. L. (2000). L.. Zeithaml. 68-123). Philosophische untersuchungen/Philosophical investigations. Filosofische onderzoekingen. 89-99.L.C. (2003). J. V. Oranje (1996). L. Need gratification theory: A theoretical reformulation of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction and job motivation. The blue and brown books. 345-355. 17. Het blauwe en het bruine boek. Journal of Marketing Management. Y. & Lee. (1958).A.. In M. M. (1970). 8794. Wittgenstein. Chicago: American Marketing Association. 203 .). Woodall. T. (2001). New York: The Free Press. Wittgenstein. Derksen (2002).

204 .

De empirische betekenis van tevredenheid betreft de gedragingen die worden geassocieerd met tevredenheid. en in het verlengde daarvan aan de wetenschappelijke theorie over klanttevredenheid en de methodologie van klanttevredenheidsonderzoek. Dit komt ook tot uiting in de omvangrijke academische literatuur over dit onderwerp. De linguïstische betekenis van tevredenheid is het gebruik van de term tevredenheid in de alledaagse en wetenschappelijke taal. 14). en vormt 205 . 13). Dit rechtvaardigt nader onderzoek naar de betekenis en de meting van tevredenheid. Vaak gebruikt men in het marketingonderzoek voor de meting van dit soort eigenschappen slechts een enkele vraag. De eerste studie in dit proefschrift gaat over theoretische kenmerken van psychologische eigenschappen en meetprocedures voor psychologische eigenschappen. en worden afgeleid uit het gedrag van personen. Dit zijn het ontbreken van een goed uitgewerkte definitie van klanttevredenheid. en omdat het ontbreken van valide metingen van tevredenheid de analyse van de invloed van tevredenheid op klantrendement hindert. Psychologische constructen zoals tevredenheid hebben een bepaalde linguïstische en empirische betekenis.Samenvatting Dit proefschrift gaat over de meting van tevredenheid van klanten in de sector van de financiële dienstverlening door banken. Deze factoren hinderen de interpretatie en vergelijkbaarheid van resultaten van verschillende studies. In marketingonderzoek worden psychologische eigenschappen veelal gemeten door middel van vragenlijsten. en kan worden beschreven in een definitie van tevredenheid. 1997. blz. blz. en het gebrek aan kennis over de invloed van klanttevredenheid op klantrendement. 1989. Dit proefschrift beoogt bij te dragen aan de oplossing van deze problemen. maar uit de psychometrie is bekend dat een enkele vraag de eigenschap onvolledig dekt (Messick. de gebrekkige validiteit van metingen van klanttevredenheid. Verder hanteren verschillende marketingstudies verschillende definities en operationaliseringen van bepaalde eigenschappen. Psychologische eigenschappen zijn theoretische constructen. Psychologische eigenschappen zoals tevredenheid zijn theoretische constructen. Hoofdstuk 1 behandelt de belangrijkste problemen in klanttevredenheidsonderzoek. Het blijkt dat tevredenheid zich moeilijk laat definiëren en meten (Oliver. omdat het ontbreken van een goed uitgewerkte definitie van tevredenheid het meten van tevredenheid hindert. Klanttevredenheid is een onderwerp van maatschappelijk en economisch belang. Deze problemen hangen onderling samen.

zoals psychologische testen en psychologische vragenlijsten. In hoofdstuk 4 wordt het deductive design (Schouwstra. Tevredenheid/ontevredenheid met een bank werd gedefinieerd als de evaluatieve respons van de klant. de specificatie van het meetmodel voor de constructie van schalen. 1971) werd gebruikt om de schaalbaarheid van deze items te onderzoeken. het proces van het meten van psychologische eigenschappen. de constructie van schalen. Het hoofdstuk besluit met een discussie over verschillende opvattingen van constructvaliditeit. 2000) voor de ontwikkeling van psychologische vragenlijsten behandeld. De vragenlijst bestond uit negen gesloten vragen over aspecten van tevredenheid/ontevredenheid over BANK. In navolging van Messick (1989. Het deductive design werd gebruikt voor de ontwikkeling van een psychologische vragenlijst voor klanttevredenheid over BANK. Hoofdstuk 2 behandelt de definitie van psychologische eigenschappen. 206 . De meetprocedures voor psychologische eigenschappen zijn procedures voor het gebruik van psychologische meetinstrumenten. De hypotheses hadden betrekking op de eigenschappen van de schaalscores. en de kwaliteit van meetwaarden. en die wordt veroorzaakt door het geheel van ervaringen van de klant met de bank. Deze opvatting van constructvaliditeit vormde de aanleiding het deductive design te kiezen voor de validatie van de metingen van tevredenheid.de basis voor metingen van tevredenheid. Vastgesteld werd dat tevredenheid en ontevredenheid worden gebruikt om bepaalde gevoelens en oordelen van consumenten te beschrijven. en de negatieve respons drukt ontevredenheid uit. De positieve respons drukt tevredenheid uit. 1995) vatten we constructvaliditeit op als de passing van interpretaties van schaalscores in termen van het te meten construct. de ontwikkeling van meetinstrumenten voor psychologische eigenschappen. de constructie van schalen voor de meting van eigenschappen. die is gericht op de bank. Tot slot werd vastgesteld dat de bestaande vragenlijsten voor klanttevredenheid nauwelijks geschikt zijn voor het meten van tevredenheid met een bank. de formulering van richtlijnen voor de afname van de vragenlijst. en het scoren van personen op de schalen. Het model van monotone homogeniteit (Mokken. Deze gevoelens en oordelen vormen een respons op ervaringen van de klant met bijvoorbeeld een product. en de formulering van hypotheses over eigenschappen van de schaalscores. De tweede studie betrof het gebruik van de eigenschappen tevredenheid en ontevredenheid in de literatuur. en drukt hij een evaluatie van het product uit. en verder heeft de respons betrekking op dit product. Hoofdstuk 3 geeft een overzicht van de belangrijkste definities en theorieën van deze eigenschappen in de marketing literatuur.

Hoofdstuk 7 beschrijft de methode van het onderzoek. De derde studie was een empirisch onderzoek naar klanttevredenheid over BANK. De vragenlijst voor klanttevredenheid werd afgenomen in een steekproef van 3600 klanten van BANK. en het onderzoeken van de invloed van klanttevredenheid op het klantrendement. Tot slot werden positieve effecten van klanttevredenheid op het klantrendement na verloop van respectievelijk één jaar en twee jaar gevonden. hetgeen 1689 respondenten opleverde. en na verloop van twee jaar. Hoofdstuk 5 beschrijft de methode van het onderzoek. zoals een algemene voorkeur voor de middelste antwoordcategorie van items of de extreme antwoordcategorieën. Het doel van dit onderzoek was vast te stellen of de schaalscores voor klanttevredenheid werden beïnvloed door responsstijlen. kwaliteit. Dit resultaat geeft aan dat tevredenheid van invloed is op klantrendement. De vierde studie was een empirisch onderzoek naar klanttevredenheid met BANK.zoals de zuiverheid ervan en de relatie met metingen van andere constructen. Dit resultaat bevestigt het belang van proceskwaliteit voor klanttevredenheid. De resultaten van het eerste empirische onderzoek worden gerapporteerd in hoofdstuk 6. Volgens het model van monotone homogeniteit wordt klanttevredenheid gemeten op een eendimensionele schaal. het beoordelen van de passing van de interpretatie van schaalscores als meetwaarden voor klanttevredenheid over BANK. Ook werden in datzelfde onderzoek de eigenschappen vertrouwen. De toetsen van de hypotheses over de kenmerken van de schaalscores bevestigden de interpretatie van de schaalscores als meetwaarden voor klanttevredenheid over BANK. De passing van het meetmodel alsmede de hypotheses werden onderzocht in twee empirische studies. Uit de toets van de hypothese over de relatie tussen kwaliteit en klanttevredenheid bleek een sterke relatie tussen de afwezigheid van problemen met BANK en tevredenheid over BANK. Dit was het eerste empirische onderzoek. Om de responsstijlen te meten werden ook gegevens verzameld over bijvoorbeeld de verwachtingen van de klant over de ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse economie. 207 . Dit was het tweede empirische onderzoek. na verloop van één jaar. hetgeen 1227 respondenten opleverde. Daarmee werd een opvatting uit de literatuur weerlegd die zegt dat tevredenheid en ontevredenheid twee aparte dimensies representeren. Voor dit onderzoek werd de vragenlijst voor klanttevredenheid afgenomen in een steekproef van bijna 3000 klanten van BANK. en loyaliteit gemeten. Het databestand werd verrijkt met gegevens over het klantrendement op het tijdstip van het onderzoek. De doelen van het onderzoek waren de constructie van een schaal voor klanttevredenheid.

Verder levert het onderzoek ondersteuning voor de theorie over de invloed van klanttevredenheid op klantbaten. Derhalve kan niet worden uitgesloten dat responsstijlen ook de schaalscores voor klanttevredenheid in het eerste empirische studie in lichte mate hebben vertekend. Het gebruik van moderne psychometrische methoden heeft bijgedragen aan ontwikkeling van een meetinstrument voor klanttevredenheid met banken en de vaststelling van de validiteit van de metingen van klanttevredenheid. verwachtingen. Daarom wordt geadviseerd om bij gebruik van de vragenlijst in vervolgonderzoek maatregelen te nemen ter correctie van de invloed van deze responsstijlen. de communicatie met de klant.De resultaten van het tweede empirische onderzoek worden gerapporteerd in hoofdstuk 8. disconfirmatie. maar ook door functionele kwaliteit. Het verklaart bijvoorbeeld waarom klanttevredenheid niet uitsluitend wordt gedreven door technische kwaliteit van wat een bedrijf levert. Dit is een nuttig resultaat voor wetenschappelijke theorievorming over klanttevredenheid en voor klanttevredenheidsmanagement in de financiële dienstverlening. Dit is een nuttig resultaat voor wetenschappelijke theorievorming en voor strategie ontwikkeling in de financiële dienstverlening. spijt. Dit is een nuttig resultaat voor de methodologie van wetenschappelijk en toegepast klanttevredenheidsonderzoek. Uit de resultaten bleek dat de schaalscores voor klanttevredenheid enigzins vertekend werden door responsstijlen. Geconcludeerd werd dat tevredenheid met een bank zich manifesteert in emoties. en rationele oordelen. dus hoe een bedrijf zijn diensten levert. en reputatie van het bedrijf. Hoofdstuk 9 betreft de algemene discussie. 208 .

209 .

210 .

Schadeverzekeringen……………………………….... Beleggingsproducten………………………………..... Internetbankieren…………………………………. Internetbankieren2...…………………………………………. Ja a b c d e f g h i j Betaalrekening……………………………………. Ja a b c d e f g h i j k Medewerker kantoor……………………………. Nee…. Welke financiële producten heeft u op dit moment bij BANK? Er zijn meerdere antwoorden mogelijk. Correspondentie…………………………………. Levensverzekeringen……………………………….Appendix 1 Vragenlijst onderzoek 1 Vraag 0 Beschouwt u BANK als uw belangrijkste bank? Ja…….. E-mail……………………………………………. Vraag 1.………………………………... Hypotheek…………………………………………. Adviseur aan huis…………………………………. Spaarproducten……………………………………....…………………………………..……………………………………..….. Internetbankieren1…………………………. leningen (voor consumptief gebruik)…. Internet. Anders. namelijk ….. Vraag 2..………………………………. Telefoon2…. Via welk kanaal of kanalen heeft u in het afgelopen jaar contact met BANK gehad? Er zijn meerdere antwoorden mogelijk. Telefoon1……. Betaalpas…………………………………………… Credit card…………………………………………. 211 . Geen………………………………………………. Kredieten.

Vraag 3. Wilt u nu van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen. (stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal stellingen over het vertrouwen in de dienstverlening van BANK. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D E F G H I Ik voel me thuis bij BANK Ik ben tevreden over BANK Nvt Er zijn goede redenen om weg te gaan bij BANK IIk heb gemengde gevoelens over BANK Nvt BANK voldoet aan alle eisen die ik aan een bank stel Nvt Nvt | | | | | | | | | Vraag 4. Wilt u van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen. Wilt u van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D Ik had afgelopen jaar een prettige relatie met BANK BANK heeft aan mijn verwachtingen voldaan Ik heb spijt gehad van mijn keuze voor BANK Ik had afgelopen jaar problemen met BANK | | | | Vraag 5. (stellingen roteren) In dit blok staat een aantal stellingen over BANK. en in het bijzonder aan uw ervaringen met BANK. en 1 antwoordcategorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D E F G Ik kan er op rekenen dat BANK mij eerlijk behandelt Ik kan er op rekenen dat BANK mijn zaken correct afhandelt Ik kan er op vertrouwen dat BANK beloftes en afspraken nakomt Ik twijfel soms aan de kwaliteiten van BANK Ik twijfel soms aan de goede wil van BANK Ik kan BANK vertrouwen Bij BANK kan ik rekenen op een goede service | | | | | | | 212 . (stellingen roteren) Als u eens terugdenkt aan het afgelopen jaar.

(stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal aspecten van producten en diensten van BANK. (stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal aspecten van de dienstverlening van BANK. en 1 antwoordcategorie ‘weet niet’> A B C D E F De tarieven van betaalpakketten van BANK De gemak van de producten en diensten van BANK De duidelijkheid van de informatie die BANK u verstrekt over uw bankzaken De toereikendheid van informatie die BANK u verstrekt over uw bankzaken De kosten die BANK rekent voor het gebruik van diensten De rentes van producten van BANK | | | | | | 213 . Kunt u aangeven of u een dergelijk probleem heeft gehad. Het nakomen van afspraken en beloftes door BANK Het correct afhandelen van uw bankzaken De frequentie waarmee u rekeningafschriften ontvangt van BANK | | | | | | Vraag 8. Kunt u op grond van uw persoonlijke ervaringen de prestatie van BANK op deze aspecten beoordelen? <4 antwoordcategorieen van ‘uitstekend’ tot en met ‘slecht’. Er volgt nu een aantal stellingen over problemen met BANK. Ja A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q Fouten in de afhandeling van uw bankzaken Fouten in de verwerking van uw opdrachten Onvoldoende informatie over uw bankzaken Onduidelijke informatie over uw bankzaken Onredelijke kosten voor het gebruik van diensten Trage dienstverlening Trage overboekingen Slecht nakomen van afspraken door BANK Onvoldoende bereikbaarheid via de telefoon Onvoldoende bereikbaarheid via internet Onvoldoende bereikbaarheid van kantoren Slecht beantwoorden van uw vragen Problemen met passen Problemen met pinnen Problemen met internetbankieren Een ander probleem Geen probleem Vraag 7. en 1 antwoordcategorie ‘weet niet’> A B C D E F De juiste verwerking van opdrachten die u geeft De snelheid waarmee overboekingen worden verricht De snelheid van de dienstverlening door BANK. Kunt u op grond van uw persoonlijke ervaringen de prestatie van BANK op deze aspecten beoordelen? <4 antwoordcategorieen van ‘uitstekend’ tot en met ‘slecht’.Vraag 6. in het afgelopen jaar? Er zijn meerdere antwoorden mogelijk.

. en 1 antwoordcategorie ‘weet niet’> A B C D E F De dienstverlening via telefoon De dienstverlening via internet De dienstverlening via het kantoor De dienstverlening via post/correspondentie Het gemak waarmee u BANK kunt bereiken De voorzieningen voor internetbankieren | | | | | | Vraag 10. Kunt u op grond van uw persoonlijke ervaringen de prestatie van BANK op deze aspecten beoordelen? <4 antwoordcategorieen van ‘uitstekend’ tot en met ‘slecht’. beleggen. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B BANK Bank … | | 214 . (alleen BANK en de banken uit vraag 11) Hoe belangrijk is elk van de volgende banken voor u? <5 antwoordcategorieen. verzekeren. Kunt u op grond van uw persoonlijke ervaringen de prestatie van BANK op deze aspecten beoordelen? <4 antwoordcategorieen van ‘uitstekend’ tot en met ‘slecht’. lenen. en 1 antwoordcategorie ‘weet niet’> A B C D E F De vriendelijkheid van medewerkers van BANK De deskundigheid van medewerkers van BANK De betrouwbaarheid van medewerkers van BANK De mate waarin BANK luistert naar uw wensen en vragen De manier waarop BANK u te woord staat De manier waarop BANK klachten behandelt | | | | | | Vraag 11. Ja a b c d e f g h Bank1 Bank2 Bank3 Bank4 Bank5 Bank6 Andere bank. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. (stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal aspecten van de dienstverlening via de verschillende kanalen van BANK. Geen andere bank Vraag 12. namelijk……………………………. Met welke banken heeft u verder een relatie? Kunt u per bank aangeven of u hier bankzaken heeft lopen? Met bankzaken doelen wij op alle soorten van bankzaken. (stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal aspecten van contacten met BANK en medewerkers van BANK.Vraag 9. internetbankieren et cetera. sparen. zoals betalen. hypotheken.

van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. Hoeveel interesse heeft u voor nieuwe financiele producten en diensten die banken afnemen? <5 antwoordcategorieen. Nvt Vraag 17. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> <antwoord> | Vraag 18. in vergelijking tot andere banken. van ‘veel interesse’ tot en met ‘geen interesse’. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B BANK Bank … | | Vraag 14. van ‘bijzonder ontevreden’ tot en met ‘bijzonder tevreden’. en 1 antwoordcategorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D E F Indien ik nieuwe bankproducten nodig heb. Kunt u van elke stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens ben? <5 antwoordcategorieen. (alleen BANK en de banken uit vraag 11) Hoe tevreden bent u over de volgende banken? <10 antwoordcategorieen.Vraag 13. Nvt | 215 . en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> <antwoord> Vraag 19. Hoeveel interesse heeft u voor bankzaken? <5 antwoordcategorieen. is BANK mijn eerste keuze Ik heb meer sympathie voor BANK dan voor andere banken Voor sommige dingen kan ik het beste terecht bij een andere bank Ik overweeg om over te stappen van BANK naar een andere bank BANK biedt mij voordelen die andere banken niet bieden BANK is al jarenlang mijn belangrijkste bank | | | | | | Vraag 15. (stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal stellingen over uw houding ten opzichte van BANK. van ‘veel interesse’ tot en met ‘geen interesse’. Nvt Vraag 16.

<10 antwoordcategorieen. ( vraag 20b t/m 20e roteren) In dit blok staat een aantal vragen over BANK. waarbij 1 betekent ‘bijzonder ontevreden’ en 10 betekent ‘bijzonder tevreden’. <10 antwoordcategorieen. van ‘bijzonder ontevreden’ tot en met ‘bijzonder tevreden’. waarbij 1 betekent ‘ verre van ideaal’ en 10 betekent ‘ideaal’. waarbij 1 betekent ‘ zeer slecht’ en 10 betekent ‘uitstekend’. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> cijfer | Vraag 20d Hoe goed heeft BANK. aan uw verwachtingen voldaan? Wilt u uw oordeel uitdrukken in een cijfer. van ‘zeer slecht’ tot en met ‘uitstekend’. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> cijfer Vraag 20e Nvt Vraag 20f Nvt | 216 . <10 antwoordcategorieen. Wilt u elk van deze vragen beantwoorden? Vraag 20a Nvt Vraag 20b Hoe tevreden bent u over BANK? Wilt u uw oordeel uitdrukken in een cijfer. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> cijfer | Vraag 20c Hoe goed voldoet BANK aan uw ideaalbeeld van een bank? Wilt u uw oordeel uitdrukken in een cijfer. van ‘verre van ideaal’ tot en met ‘ideaal’.Vraag 20. in het afgelopen jaar.

Voor deelneming aan dit onderzoek ontvangt u 10 punten (waarde € 1. Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan het BANK-Klantenpanel. Wij vragen hiervoor uw begrip. Dit is een bewuste keuze aangezien deze vragenlijst ook een wetenschappelijk doel heeft. Als u de vragen beantwoordt zoals u gewend bent. Over diverse aspecten wordt uw waardering gevraagd. Dit onderzoek gaat over uw tevredenheid over BANK. Met uw persoonlijke nummer (UserID) en unieke code (wachtwoord) kunt u inloggen op uw persoonlijke pagina van www. Sommige vragen in dit onderzoek lijken sterk op elkaar. Klik op de onderstaande link om de vragenlijst te starten. Hoe werkt dit onderzoek? Als u onderstaande link aanklikt komt u vanzelf in de vragenlijst. Deze 10 punten worden binnen 72 uur na het invullen van de vragenlijst aan uw saldo toegevoegd. helpt u tevens mee aan de ontwikkeling van ons marktonderzoek. BANK doet dit in samenwerking met de Universiteit van Tilburg. Deze vragen herhalen we om beter inzicht te krijgen in hoe klanten over BANK denken in verhouding tot vorig jaar. Na minimaal twee onderzoeken kunt u met uw punten een leuke attentie bestellen of uw punten schenken aan een goed doel: Artsen Zonder Grenzen. Natuurmonumenten of SOS Kinderdorpen.nl. Met uw deelname helpt u BANK dus om haar dienstverlening beter te laten aansluiten op uw wensen. Graag nodigen we u uit om aan een vragenlijst van het BANK-Klantenpanel mee te doen. Het invullen duurt ongeveer 20 minuten. Met vriendelijke groet.BANK-klantenpanel. helpdesk BANK-Klantenpanel www.Appendix 2 E-mail bij onderzoek 1 Geachte <aanhef>.=). Misschien herkent u enkele vragen die we vorig jaar ook al eens gesteld hebben. U kunt tot en met 12 oktober aanstaande meedoen aan dit onderzoek. BANK wil achterhalen hoe zij klanttevredenheid het beste kan onderzoeken.nl 217 .BANK-klantenpanel.

.. Spaarproducten…………………………………….. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’.…. Anders ………..……………………………………. Ja a b c d e f g h i j Betaalrekening……………………………………. Kredieten.. leningen (voor consumptief gebruik)…. Internet. Geen………………………………………………. Ja a b c d e f g h i j Medewerker kantoor…. Levensverzekeringen………………………………. Internetbankieren………………………………….. Correspondentie…………………………………. E-mail……………………………………………. …. Adviseur aan huis…………………………………. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B D E G Ik voel me thuis bij BANK Ik ben tevreden over BANK Er zijn goede redenen om weg te gaan bij BANK Ik heb gemengde gevoelens over BANK BANK voldoet aan alle eisen die ik aan een bank stel | | | | | 218 .. Telefoon2……. Betaalpas…………………………………………… Credit card………………………………………….. Schadeverzekeringen……………………………….. Telefoon1……. Internetbankieren……………………………. Wilt u van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen.. Vraag 2 Via welk kanaal of kanalen heeft u in het afgelopen jaar contact met BANK gehad? Er zijn meerdere antwoorden mogelijk..Appendix 3 Vragenlijst onderzoek 2 Vraag 1 Welke financiële producten heeft u op dit moment bij BANK? Er zijn meerdere antwoorden mogelijk..………………………………..…………………………………. Vraag 3 (stellingen roteren) In dit blok staat een aantal stellingen over BANK.....…………………………………………. Hypotheek………………………………………….. Beleggingsproducten……………………………….…………………………..

van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. Wilt u nu van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen. en in het bijzonder aan uw ervaringen met BANK. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D Ik verwacht dat mijn koopkracht het komend jaar gaat verbeteren Ik verwacht dat mijn koopkracht het komend jaar gaat verslechteren Ik verwacht dat mijn koopkracht over 5 jaar beter is dan nu Ik verwacht dat mijn koopkracht over 5 jaar slechter is dan nu | | | | Vraag 7. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D Ik had afgelopen jaar een prettige relatie met BANK BANK heeft aan mijn verwachtingen voldaan Ik heb spijt gehad van mijn keuze voor BANK Ik had afgelopen jaar problemen met BANK | | | | Vraag 5 Nvt Vraag 6. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. (stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal stellingen over uw verwachtingen ten aanzien van de ontwikkeling van uw koopkracht. Wilt u van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen. (stellingen roteren) Er volgt nu een aantal stellingen over uw verwachtingen ten aanzien van de economische ontwikkeling van Nederland. Wilt u van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D Ik verwacht dat de economie van Nederland het komend jaar gaat verbeteren Ik verwacht dat de economie van Nederland het komend jaar gaat verslechteren Ik verwacht dat de economie van Nederland over 5 jaar beter is dan nu Ik verwacht dat de economie van Nederland over 5 jaar slechter is dan nu | | | | 219 .Vraag 4 (stellingen roteren) Als u eens terugdenkt aan het afgelopen jaar.

lenen. beleggen. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D Ik ken de voor. (stellingen roteren) In dit blok staan vier stellingen over de transparantie van de financiële markt. verzekeren. Wilt u van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen. en 1 categorie ‘geen antwoord’> A B C D E F Ik maak me nooit druk over bankzaken Ik vind bankzaken erg belangrijk Het goed regelen van bankzaken maakt het leven gemakkelijker Ik vind bankzaken vervelend Bankzaken laten mij koud Het goed regelen van bankzaken kan veel geld opleveren | | | | | | Vraag 9. sparen. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’. zoals betalen. van ‘zeer mee eens’ tot en met ‘zeer mee oneens’.Vraag 8 (stellingen roteren) In dit blok staan zes stellingen over uw houding ten opzichte van bankzaken.en nadelen van de banken in de Nederlandse markt Ik kan de kwaliteit van BANK moeilijk beoordelen Ik kan de kwaliteit van verschillende banken moeilijk vergelijken Ik weet precies wat ik van BANK kan verwachten | | | | Vraag 10 Nvt 220 . et cetera. hypotheken. Wilt u van iedere stelling aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stelling eens dan wel oneens bent? <5 antwoordcategorieen.