Customer Satisfaction Measurement

Coelho.
qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 313
International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3
The choice between a five-point and a

ten-point scale in the framework of
customer satisfaction measurement
Pedro S. Coelho
Susana P. Esteves
New University of Lisbon
In marketing research, and particularly in the context of customer satisfaction

measurement, we often try to measure attitudes and human perceptions. This
raises a number of questions regarding appropriate scales to use, such as the
number of response alternatives. Obviously, there is a trade-off between the
desired response discrimination level and the effort that is demanded of the
respondent to situate his or her answer in one of the scale categories. If this effort
is too high it can reduce the quality of responses and increase the non-response
rate. In the context of customer satisfaction measurement we compare a five-
point and a ten-point numerical scale. The analysis includes the evaluation of
non-response rates, response distribution, the ability to model customer
satisfaction, as well as convergent, discriminant and nomological validity of
constructs used in the ECSI (European Customer Satisfaction Index) model.
Globally, results tend to favour the choice of the ten-point scale, which
contradicts some conventional wisdom. Moreover, we conclude that in this
context there are no effects of socio-demographic characteristics (namely
educational level) on the ability of respondents to use each scale.
Introduction
In marketing research, and particularly in the framework of customer
satisfaction measurement, we often try to measure attitudes and human
perceptions. This task raises a number of questions regarding
questionnaire design and particularly about the appropriate response
scales to use. Among the usual decisions is the choice between a verbal or
numerical scale, along with the number of response alternatives.
Received (in revised form): 28 December 2006
© 2007 The Market Research Society 313

Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 314
Customer satisfaction measurement
In fact, in recent years some discussion has taken place among

academics and practitioners regarding the appropriate number of response
alternatives to use. It is usually accepted that a small number of points
does not allow a good discrimination of responses (limiting the ability to
find significant differences between segments) and may limit the data
analysis methods that can be used. More points improve the data metric,
enrich the possible data analyses and facilitate the calculation of
covariances between variables, which are used in most multivariate data
analysis methods. Obviously, there is a trade-off between the desired
response discrimination level and the effort that is demanded of the
respondent to locate his response in one of the scale categories. If this
effort is too high it can reduce the quality of responses and increase the
non-response rate. Some of the traditional guidelines suggest the use of a
number of categories between three and nine (Stem & Noazin 1985;
Malhotra & Birks 2003) and clearly the most used number of response
alternatives is seven (Cox 1980). Motivational theorists have been arguing
against questions with a large number of response alternatives, based on
the fact that respondents may not be sufficiently motivated to make
meaningful discriminations (Tourangeau 1984; Krosnick & Alwin 1989;
Alwin 1991). Obviously the choice regarding the number of response
alternatives depends on several factors, such as the nature of the
phenomena being measured, the involvement of respondents in the
phenomena, the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and
even the nature of the data collection methods.
Also, some discussion exists regarding the use of an odd or even number
of response alternatives. The choice between an odd or even number of
alternatives is usually based on providing a neutral point as an acceptable
response to a specific question. We contend that, within an odd scale, the
middle point is often used by the respondents that prefer to reduce the
response effort. This fact results in an overestimation of the true frequency
associated with this middle point. We also contend that, for most
questions measuring attitudes within customer satisfaction surveys, the use
of a scale with an even number of response alternatives is a preferable
choice. For this reason, we would consider that respondents should have
at least a slightly positive or slightly negative attitude towards the
evaluated attribute. Obviously, it is possible that a respondent does not
have an opinion or experience with regard to specific attributes, but that
should cause a non-response or a ‘no experience’ response, instead of
being considered indifferent.
314
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 315
In spite of these well-known ideas very little work has been done in
trying to validate them. Particularly in the context of customer satisfaction
measurement many authors have proposed the ten-point numerical scale
(anchored in the extremes). This is the usual approach in the European
Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) (ECSI 1998; Ball et al. 2004) and in
the framework of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
(Fornell et al. 1996, 1998; Johnson et al. 2001). Nevertheless, some
practitioners have criticised this scale, arguing that respondents have
difficulty discriminating answers using more than five points (particularly
in a telephone survey) and that an odd number of points may be preferable
in order to account for neutrality. According to these arguments a standard
five-point scale would be a preferable choice over a ten-point scale.
This paper aims to compare a five-point and a ten-point numerical scale
in the context of customer satisfaction measurement. The analysis includes
the evaluation of non-response rates, response distribution, the ability to
discriminate between attributes being measured, the ability to model
customer satisfaction, as well as convergent, discriminant and nomological
validity of constructs used in the ECSI model. Moreover, we investigate the
effects of social-demographic characteristics on the ability of respondents
to use each scale. The social-demographic analysis includes both the effects
on response profile and the probability of non-response.
The structure of the paper is organised as follows. The Introduction
presents the problem and the goals of the paper. In the next section we
introduce the use of scales in attitude measurement, and approach the
problem of choosing the number of response alternatives, referring to
previous work in this context. The organisation of the empirical study is
shown in the subsequent section. This presentation includes the ECSI
model as well as the study design. The fourth section presents and analyses
the main results obtained in the study. The final section discusses the main
findings.
Number of scale points in attitude measurement

Most marketing research and particularly customer satisfaction surveys
involve the measurement of attitudes. In fact, when using surveys we are
often interested in measuring behaviour, but in practice we are usually
limited to the measurement of attitudes. The reasons behind this practice
are that, on the one hand, it is easier and more feasible to question about
attitudes than to observe real behaviour and, on the other, there is the
common belief that attitudes can be seen as antecedents of behaviours.
315
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 316
For instance, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty are considered

antecedents of behaviours like customer attrition, customer acquisition
and customer value. Attitude variables that can be found in typical surveys
include things such as beliefs, preferences and intentions.
In surveys, attitude variables are often measured using rating scales.
Among the major decisions when constructing a rating scale are the
number of response alternatives and the use of an odd or even number of
categories. The choice between attitude scales and particularly the choice
regarding the number of response alternatives is not new in marketing
theory, but there is clearly a lack of empirical work on this issue.
Moreover, in published research there is little agreement about the optimal
number of response alternatives (Neumann & Neumann 1981; Alwin
1997), or the use of an odd or even number of categories (Malhotra &
Birks 2003). While several authors have concluded that there are no
significant gains in using more than five response alternatives (Jenkins &
Taber 1977; Stem & Noazin 1985; Converse & Presser 1986), others have
favoured scales with more alternatives (up to 25) (Green & Rao 1970;
Cox 1980; Alwin 1997). Nevertheless, most of the results tend to favour
a solution with a number of alternatives between five and nine (Andrews
& Withey 1976; Cox 1980; Neumann & Neumann 1981; Givon &
Shapira 1984; Cicchetti et al. 1985; Alwin & Krosnick 1991; Colman
et al. 1997).
Green and Rao (1970), comparing scales with two, three, six and
eighteen response categories, recommend using at least six points and at
least eight scales per variable. Nevertheless, they conclude that little
information appears to be gained by increasing the number of response
categories beyond six. Ramsay (1973), studying the effects of the number
of response categories on precision of scale values, concluded that using
seven categories provides almost as much precision as a scale requiring a
continuous judgment. Jenkins and Taber (1977), using a Monte Carlo
study to analyse composite scale reliability, conclude that reliability levels
off after five response categories. Neumann and Neumann (1981)
compared six rating scales of lengths between two and ten points.
Although their conclusions favour the longer scales, they could not find
significant differences between a seven-point and a ten-point scale in terms
of correlation and eta coefficients. Moreover they found that deviations of
actual averages from theoretical means increase as the number of choice
points increase. Stem and Noazin (1985) have investigated the number of
scale positions on test–retest reliability, concluding that five- and seven-
point scales are the most reliable for bipolar adjective scales. Moreover,
316
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 317
they have not found any increase in reliability from using a number of
categories above five, and detected a significant decrease in reliability
when using more than seven points. Cicchetti et al. (1985), using a Monte
Carlo simulation to access the extent to which the interrater reliability is
affected by the number of scale points, concluded that, although reliability
increases up to seven scale points, no substantial increases occur beyond
that point. Nevertheless, conclusions are necessarily limited to the
simulation parameters. Haley and Case (1979) have tested 13 attitude
scales for agreement, discrimination among brands and response pattern,
but their study did not offer much insight into the choice of the number of
response alternatives within a same scale type. Givon and Shapira (1984)
use a stochastic model to investigate the conjoint effect of the number of
items and number of response alternatives on the sampling error of a
composite scale estimator. They conclude that sampling error may be
reduced, increasing the number of response alternatives up to five, seven
or nine, depending on the number of items used. A review of the work
done up until the beginning of the 1980s, regarding the optimal number of
response alternatives, can be found in Cox (1980). The author concludes
that there is no single number of response alternatives for a scale that is
appropriate under all circumstances. Also, he concludes that no formula
can be given to indicate what this number should be, even in a particular
set of circumstances. Nevertheless, he establishes that scales with two or
three response alternatives are generally inadequate and that the marginal
return from using more than nine response alternatives is minimal.
Consequently, he proposes that the optimal number of response
alternatives is normally situated between five and nine. One exception is
Alwin’s (1997) work, which compares seven- and eleven-category rating
scales. His conclusions favour the eleven-point scale in terms of
measurement precision, and reject the idea that the eleven-point scale is
more vulnerable to measurement errors.
Description of the study
The ECSI model

The European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) appeared in 1999 and
is adapted from the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Index (Fornell 1992)
and the ACSI (American Customer Satisfaction Index) (Fornell et al.
1998). The ECSI model is well established as a tool for measuring and
explaining customer satisfaction and its antecedents and related constructs
317
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 318
(ECSI 1998; Cassel & Eklof 2001; Vilares & Coelho 2004). It has been
validated across a number of European countries and many industries,
such as insurance, mobile phones, fixed phones, carbonated soft drinks,
public transportation, retail banking, cable TV, supermarkets, postal
services, food products and public service.
The ECSI model is composed of two sub-models: the structural model
and the measurement model. The structural model defines the
relationships between the latent variables and is represented in Figure 1.
Customer satisfaction is the central variable of this model, having as
antecedents the image of the company, customer expectations, perceived
quality of products and services, and perceived value (where the relation
between quality and price is measured). As consequences of customer
satisfaction there are two variables: complaints and loyalty.
The measurement model includes the relations between the latent or
non-observable variables and the observed indicators that correspond to
survey questions (Table 1). Within this model we assume that the
relationships between the latent variables and the observed indicators are
all of the reflective nature (i.e. the indicators are assumed to be reflex of
the latent variables).
Image
Loyalty
Satisfaction
(ECSI)
Expectations
Perceived
value
Perceived
Complaints
quality
Figure 1 ECSI structural model
318
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 319
Table 1 Indicators of each latent variable
Latent variable Indicators

Image Q4A: It is a reliable operator
Q4B: It is well established
Q4C: It gives a positive contribution to society
Q4D: It is concerned about its customers
Q4E: It is innovative and forward looking
Expectations Q5A: Expectations concerning overall quality
Q5B: Expectations concerning the fulfilment of personal needs
Q5C: Expectations concerning reliability
Perceived quality Q6: Perceived overall quality
Q7A: Technical quality of the network
Q7B: Personal attention
Q7C: Quality of services provided
Q7D: Diversity of products and services
Q7E: Product reliability
Q7F: Quality of information provided
Q7G: Coverage of the network
Perceived value Q10: Evaluation of price given quality
Q11: Evaluation of quality given price
Satisfaction Q3: Overall satisfaction
Q9: Fulfilment of expectations
Q18: Distance to the ideal company
Complaints Q15: Complaint handling
Q16: Expectations of complaint handling
Loyalty Q12: Intention of remaining as a customer
Q17: Recommendation to colleagues and friends
PLS (Partial Least Squares) was used to estimate this model using two
data sets obtained as explained in the next section. The methodology PLS
applied to ECSI is presented in detail by several authors (e.g. ECSI 1998;
Cassel et al. 2000).
Data
Data came from a survey corresponding to the 2004 wave of ECSI-
Portugal (the Portuguese Customer Satisfaction Index). The selection of
respondents follows the criteria defined in ECSI (1998). Data collection
took place in November and December 2004, through telephone
interviews supported by a CATI system. The same questionnaire was
administered to both samples, but for one sample we used a five-point
319
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 320
scale and for the other a ten-point scale (anchored in the extremes).1 The
two scales are both numerical, with the same labels on the extreme points.
Therefore, the only difference between them is the number of response
alternatives. The questionnaire is the standard questionnaire used in ECSI-
Portugal for the mobile telecommunications industry. The questionnaire
includes a set of questions regarding the seven constructs of a structural
satisfaction model (image, expectations, perceived quality, perceived value,
satisfaction, complaints, and loyalty), plus a set of socio-demographic
questions. The sample size was 252 for the five-point scale and 253 for the
ten-point scale. Both data sets were collected among customers of the same
mobile telecommunications operator. The sampling design includes a
random selection of households using random-digit dialling. In each
household one resident is selected randomly and qualified as a member of
the target population.
Results
Descriptive analysis
Table 2 shows the frequency of non-response and the frequency of
response on the middle points of each scale. Results are shown by
indicator and organised in seven groups corresponding to the seven latent
variables in the satisfaction model. From the results presented in Table 2 it
can be seen that, in general, the five-point scale has a higher proportion of
non-responses when compared to the ten-point scale. Among the 25
indicators considered, only four show higher non-response rates for the
ten-point scale.
When we formally test the difference between the proportions of non-
response measured with the two scales, using the hypotheses
H0: pi,5–p = pi,10–p

H1: pi,5–p = pi,10–p
where pi,5–p is the proportion of non-response for variable i, when using

the five-point scale and pi,10–p has the same meaning when using the ten-
point scale, we never reject the null hypothesis, with the exception of
variables Q4a and Q4e, at a 5% significance level. Therefore, although the
1 The labelling varies with the specific attributes but is generally stated as ‘very low’ to ‘very high’.
320
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 321
proportion of non-response is numerically higher in the sample using the

five-point scale, we can not conclude that generally these proportions are
different in the population.
Table 2 Non-response rates and proportion of responses in the middle points of the scale
% of middle points
NR (%) % of 3 % of 5 and 6
Latent variable 1 to 5 1 to 10 Difference 1 to 5 1 to 10 Difference
Image
Q4A 4.0 0.8 3.2* 20.2 21.1 –0.9
Q4B 2.8 1.2 1.6 7.8 10.8 –3.0
Q4C 4.8 2.4 2.4 27.1 21.9 5.2
Q4D 4.4 2.4 2.0 29.0 28.3 0.7
Q4E 4.0 1.2 2.8* 16.9 15.6 1.3
Expectations
Q5A 6.0 4.3 1.7 27.0 24.4 2.6
Q5B 6.7 7.1 –0.4 35.7 25.5 10.2*
Q5C 6.3 6.7 –0.4 40.3 25.8 14.5*
Perceived quality
Q6 0.4 0.0 0.4 19.9 18.2 1.7
Q7A 1.2 0.0 1.2 25.7 16.6 9.1*
Q7B 8.3 4.7 3.6 20.3 13.3 7.0*
Q7C 13.1 10.3 2.8 20.5 17.2 3.3
Q7D 12.7 7.5 5.2 28.6 17.9 10.7*
Q7E 7.1 4.0 3.1 25.2 21.4 3.8
Q7F 6.0 3.2 2.8 26.6 17.1 9.5*
Q7G 0.8 0.4 0.4 32.8 21.0 11.8*
Perceived value
Q10 2.0 1.6 0.4 42.1 44.2 –2.1
Q11 2.8 1.2 1.6 44.1 41.6 2.5
Satisfaction
Q3 0.4 0.8 –0.4 25.5 25.1 0.4
Q9 2.4 2.4 0.0 20.2 27.5 –7.3
Q18 4.4 4.0 0.4 7.8 21.0 –13.2
Complaints
Q15 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 12.5 22.1*
Q16 11.1 11.4 –0.3 31.8 27.6 4.2
Loyalty
Q12 3.2 2.0 1.2 10.7 18.1 –7.4
Q17 3.2 2.8 0.4 17.2 15.0 2.2
* Significant at 5% level
321
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 322
If the response effort were too high using the ten-point scale we would
expect to find a higher frequency of non-response in the group using this
scale. Results do not confirm this hypothesis, and we may conclude that
the use of a five-point or ten-point scale does not tend to affect
significantly the non-response rate.
The concentration of response in the middle points of the scale can also
be seen in Table 2. This table exhibits the proportion of response in
category 3 for the five-point scale and the proportion of response in
categories 5 and 6 for the ten-point scale. It can be observed that in general
the concentration of response in the middle points is higher for the five-
point scale, when compared to the ten-point one. In fact, only six
indicators (among 25) show a higher concentration of response in middle
points for the ten-point scale.
When we formally test the difference between the proportions of
responses in middle points with the two scales, using the hypotheses
H0: pi,5–p = pi,10–p

H1: pi,5–p ≠ pi,10–p
where pi,5–p is the proportion of responses on rate 3 for variable i, when

using the five-point scale and pi,10–p is the proportion of responses on rates
5 and 6 when using the ten-point scale, we reject for eight variables the
null hypothesis that the proportions are equal in the population (cf.
Table 2) at 5% significance level. Therefore, we can conclude that
concentration of response in middle points tends to be higher for the five-
point scale.
This is also an interesting result that tends to confirm our hypothesis
that within an odd scale the middle point is often used by the respondents
that prefer to reduce the response effort, resulting in an overestimation of
the true frequency associated with this middle point. This result, along
with the equivalence of non-response rates using both scales, tends to
validate the idea that for most questions measuring attitudes within
customer satisfaction surveys the use of a scale with an even number of
response alternatives may be a preferable choice.
The mean of each indicator, both for the five-point and the ten-point
scale, is shown is Table 3. We also present the transformed mean, after
conversion of both scales to the interval [0;1], using the formula yi* =
(yi – 1)/Ri where yi is the original rating for respondent i, Ri is the range of
the scale used by respondent i and yi* is the transformed rating for
respondent i.
322
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 323
Table 3 Means by indicator using the original and the transformed scale
1 to 5 1 to 10
Indicator Mean Transformed mean Mean Transformed mean Difference
Image
Q4A 4.0 0.76 7.7 0.75 0.01
Q4B 4.4 0.84 8.3 0.82 0.02
Q4C 3.9 0.72 7.6 0.73 –0.01
Q4D 3.7 0.68 7.2 0.69 –0.01
Q4E 4.1 0.77 7.9 0.77 0.00
Expectations
Q5A 3.8 0.70 7.4 0.71 –0.01
Q5B 3.7 0.68 7.3 0.70 –0.02
Q5C 3.6 0.66 6.9 0.65 0.01
Perceived quality
Q6 4.0 0.75 7.8 0.76 –0.01
Q7A 3.9 0.72 7.6 0.74 –0.02
Q7B 4.1 0.77 7.8 0.76 0.01
Q7C 4.0 0.75 7.7 0.74 0.01
Q7D 3.8 0.70 7.4 0.71 –0.01
Q7E 3.9 0.72 7.4 0.71 0.01
Q7F 3.8 0.71 7.5 0.72 –0.01
Q7G 3.7 0.66 7.2 0.69 –0.03
Perceived value
Q10 2.9 0.47 5.4 0.49 –0.02
Q11 3.4 0.60 6.4 0.60 0.00
Satisfaction
Q3 3.9 0.71 7.5 0.72 –0.01
Q9 3.8 0.69 7.3 0.70 –0.01
Q18 3.6 0.65 7.2 0.69 –0.04
Complaints
Q15 2.7 0.43 5.6 0.51 –0.08
Q16 3.7 0.67 7.0 0.67 0.00
Loyalty
Q12 4.2 0.79 7.7 0.75 0.04
Q17 4.1 0.77 7.7 0.75 0.02
Global average 3.8 0.70 7.3 0.70 0.00
It can be seen that for the transformed variables the global average is
identical both for the five-point and ten-point scales: 0.70. Also, when
analysing individual indicators, both means tend to show similar values
(the differences are always smaller than 0.08).
323
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 324
When we formally test the difference between the transformed means

with the two scales, using the hypotheses
H0: mi,5–p = mi,10–p

H1: mi,5–p ≠ mi,10–p
where mi,5–p is the mean for variable i when using the five-point scale and
mi,10–p has the same meaning when using the ten-point scale, we never
reject the null hypothesis. Therefore we can not conclude that these means
are different in the population. Once again this result tends to confirm that
both scales produce equivalent mean scores and validate the acceptability
of the ten-point scale. In fact, if the efforts demanded of respondents were
too high using the ten-point scale we would expect to find different mean
scores for the two scales.
The effect of socio-demographics on ratings

One specific fear regarding the use of ten-point scales concerns some socio-
demographic groups, specifically those with a lower education level. The
question to be answered is: ‘Do people with different education levels use
the five- and ten-point scales differently?’
To answer this question we have implemented two analyses:
1. an analysis of variance having as dependent variable the ratings to

question Q3 (overall satisfaction)
2. a logistic regression having as its dependent variable a binary variable
representing the non-response to question Q7c (quality of services
provided).
Both analyses include as independent variables three demographic

variables (sex, age group and educational level) and a variable representing
the original scale used by each respondent (ten-point or five-point). Also,
in both cases, a cross-effect between education level and the scale used was
included. So, the analyses allow us to understand if the included
independent variables influence the response pattern and also if some kind
of interaction between education level and the response scale exists. The
variables included in the analyses and their categories are presented in
Table 4. In the analysis of variance the original scales of the dependent
variable were transformed into the interval [0;1], using the transformation
presented in the previous section.
324
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 325
Table 4 Independent variables and categories
Independent variable Categories

Sex Male
Female
Age group <30
30–39
40–49
50 or more
Education level Basic
Secondary (high school)
University degree
Scale used 10 points scale
5 points scale
Scale used × education level cross-effects 10 points scale/Basic
10 points scale/Secondary
10 points scale/University
5 points scale/Basic
5 points scale/Secondary
5 points scale/University
Results for the analysis of variance are given in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5
shows the F tests for the significance of the regression and for each
individual variable (using Type III sum of squares). The null hypothesis
that all model coefficients are zero is rejected, showing the relevance of the
model. From the tested factors, only sex and education level are significant
at any reasonable significance level. These are important results that tend
to show that the scale used (ten-point or five-point) does not influence the
mean rating for the dependent variable. Also, although the education level
Table 5 F tests
Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F value Pr > F

Model 10 1.21637952 0.12163795 3.42 0.0002
Error 491 17.46895476 0.03557832
Corrected total 501 18.68533428
Variables
Sex 1 0.27802108 0.27802108 7.81 0.0054
Used scale 1 0.00268551 0.00268551 0.08 0.7836
Age group 4 0.07279392 0.01819848 0.51 0.7273
Education level 2 0.79510525 0.39755263 11.17 <0.0001
Scale used*education level 2 0.06104471 0.03052235 0.86 0.4247
325
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 326
is a significant factor, there is no interaction between the scale used and the
education level. The conclusion is that people with different educations do
not tend to use the two scales differently.
Table 6 shows coefficient estimates for the significant parameters. Please
remember that only sex and education level were considered significant.
Results confirm the well-known notion in customer satisfaction studies
that females tend to show higher ratings than males, and also that mean
scores tend to decrease with the increase of education level.
With a logistic regression we intend to offer a complementary insight to
the question regarding the hypothetical influence of socio-demographic
variables on the rating profile. With the analysis of variance we have been
concerned with the response pattern to question Q3 (overall satisfaction).
Nevertheless, it is also interesting to understand whether the scale used
and socio-demographic characteristics influence the probability of non-
response. This is particularly important since, despite concluding that the
scale does not influence the response pattern (for respondents), it may
influence the probability of response and therefore the quality of collected
data. The dependent variable Q7c (quality of services provided) was
chosen for being one with the higher non-response rate among variables in
the questionnaire. Results for the logistic regression are given in Tables 7
and 8.
Table 7 shows a chi-square test for the model significance and Wald
statistics2 for individual independent variables. The null hypothesis that all
model coefficients are zero is rejected, showing the relevance of the model.
For the independent variables only age group and education level are
significant at any reasonable significance level. Once again, these results
Table 6 Parameter estimates
Parameter Estimate Standard error t value Pr > |t|

Intercept 0.7424151497 0.07227142 10.27 <0.0001
Female 0.0490012601 0.01752916 2.80 0.0054
Male 0.0000000000
Basic education 0.0849742986 0.03029263 2.81 0.0052
Secondary education 0.0215570425 0.02873063 0.75 0.4534
University education 0.0000000000
2 The Wald statistic is used in this context to test the significance of model coefficients. Under the null hypothesis
(corresponding to the nullity of each coefficient) the statistic follows a chi-square distribution with degrees of
freedom equal to the number of restrictions to be tested.
326
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 327
Table 7 Chi-square tests
Testing global null hypothesis: BETA = 0

Test DF Chi-square Pr > chi sq
Likelihood ratio 10 40.6550 <.0001
Score 10 44.7595 <.0001
Wald 10 36.7804 <.0001
Variables
Sex 1 0.8306 0.3621
Scale used 1 0.6921 0.4054
Age group 4 16.8279 0.0021
Education level 2 12.8545 0.0016
Scale used*education level 2 0.0698 0.9657
tend to show that the scale used (ten-point or five-point) does not influence
the probability of non-response for the dependent variable. Also, although
the education level is a significant factor, there is no interaction between
the scale used and the education level. The conclusion is that within an
education level, people using different scales do not tend to show different
response rates.
Coefficient estimates for the significant parameters are shown in
Table 8. Note that only age group and education level were considered
significant. Also note that the probability modelled in our analysis is with
regard to the response event. Results show that the response probability
tends to decrease with the increase of age. Also it can be seen that the
response probability tends to be higher for people with higher education
levels.
Table 8 Parameter estimates
Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates

Standard Wald
Parameter DF Estimate error chi-square Pr > chi sq
Intercept 1 1.7622 0.2092 70.9829 <0.0001
Age group <30 1 0.9717 0.3625 7.1847 0.0074
Age group 30–39 1 0.4654 0.3489 1.7787 0.1823
Age group 40–49 1 0.7258 0.3529 4.2303 0.0397
Age group 50 or + 1 –0.1955 0.2795 0.4893 0.4842
Education level Basic education 1 –0.6560 0.2155 9.2615 0.0023
Education level Secondary education 1 –0.0335 0.2395 0.0196 0.8888
Education level University education – 0.0000
327
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 328
Globally, we can conclude that:
• some socio-demographic variables, such as sex, age group and

education level, influence the probability of non-response or the
response profiles for respondents
• the scale used (ten-point or five-point) influences neither the
probability of non-response nor the response profiles for respondents
• in neither analysis is there an interaction between the scale used and
the education level; therefore, we can conclude that, within any
education level, people using different scales do not tend to show
different response patterns.
These conclusions tend to confirm the empirical analysis made in the

previous section where we have observed that both scales produced similar
non-response rates as well as similar mean scores (after rescaling).
Therefore, the small and usually non-significant differences in response
rates between both samples, rather than being a consequence of the scale
used, may be totally explained by small differences in the socio-
demographic profile of the samples. In fact, the sample using the ten-point
scale presents a slightly higher proportion of both young and well-
educated people that contributes to a higher response rate.
Validity assessment
Figures 2 and 3 show the estimated path coefficients and t values (between
parentheses) for the structural models estimated with five-point and ten-
point scales, respectively. Generally, the hypothesised links tend to be
significant at 5% significance level. For the model estimated with the five-
point scale the only exceptions are the Image–Loyalty, Expectations–
Satisfaction and the Complaints–Loyalty paths that are not significant at
10% significance level. In particular, the estimate for the hypothesised
path between Complaints and Loyalty is negative (contradicting the
theory) and shows an extremely low t ratio. When using the ten-point scale
only the Image–Loyalty, Expectations–Satisfaction paths are not
significant at 5% significance level. Nevertheless, the Expectations–
Satisfaction path is significant at 10% significance level and the
Image–Loyalty path at 10.5% significance level. Globally the ten-
point scale showed a greater ability to capture the significance of
theoretically supported links, resulting in a higher nomological validity for
this scale.
328
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 329
0.10
(1.31**)
Image
Loyalty
0.25
(3.87)
0.65 0.46
(17.22) (5.73)
0.11
(1.46**)
Satisfaction
0.31 0.25 (ECSI) –0.03
Expectations (3.99) (4.44) (0.34)**
Perceived
value
0.29 0.58
0.66 (3.21) (13.42)
(16.78)
0.30
Perceived (3.93)
Complaints
quality
* Non-significant at 5% significance level
** Non-significant at 10% significance level
Figure 2 Model parameter estimate and t values for the five-point scale
0.14
(1.62**)
Image
Loyalty
0.34
(4.83)
0.64 0.48
(15.43) (4.89)
0.14
(1.79*)
Satisfaction
0.19 0.34 (ECSI) 0.22
Expectations (2.22) (4.56) (3.22)
Perceived
value
0.38 0.55
0.68 (4.76) (9.77)
(22.42)
0.17
Perceived (2.31)
Complaints
quality
* Non-significant at 5% significance level
** Non-significant at 10% significance level
Figure 3 Model parameter estimate and t values for the ten-point scale
329
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 330
Table 9 Determination coefficient (R 2) of satisfaction and loyalty
Latent variable 1 to 5 1 to 10
Satisfaction 0.59 0.66
Loyalty 0.27 0.54
We also access the model’s explanatory power (through the

determination coefficient,3 R2) for the equations explaining satisfaction
and loyalty, both in the five-point and ten-point scales. From the results
presented in Table 9 it can be seen that the ten-point scale shows a higher
explanatory power for customer satisfaction and loyalty, when compared
to the five-point scale. The increase in explanatory power attributed to the
ten-point scale is particularly impressive for the loyalty construct.
The R2 value for satisfaction is higher than 0.50 for both scales (0.59 for
the five-point scale and 0.66 for the ten-point scale). On the other hand,
although the R2 value for loyalty on the ten-point scale is quite high (0.54),
the value is very low for the five-point scale (0.27), showing a weaker
explanatory power for loyalty.
These results clearly favour the ten-point scale and can be seen as a
confirmation of the higher nomological validity of this scale, since,
globally, constructs in the model estimated with the ten-point scale tend to
show higher correlations, confirming theoretical predictions.
Table 10 presents the average communalities for the seven latent
variables of the ECSI model, both for five-point and ten-point scales.
Communality for a manifest variable may be interpreted as the proportion
of its variance, which is reproduced by the directly connected latent
variable. This measure can be used as an indicator of the convergent
validity of the measurement model. In almost all cases latent variable
communalities are higher than 0.50, indicating than the variance captured
by each latent variable is significantly larger than variance due to
measurement error, and thus demonstrating a high convergent validity of
the construct. There are two exceptions: quality and loyalty, which have
communality slightly below 0.50 for the five-point scale (0.479 and 0.468,
respectively). In general the communality is higher for the ten-point scale.
The only exception occurs in expectation (0.717 for the five-point scale
3 The determination coefficient reveals the proportion of variation in each dependent variable (satisfaction and
loyalty) that is explained by the model.
330
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 331
Table 10 Communality and number of indicators by latent variable
Communality Difference
Latent variable 1 to 5 1 to 10 10 to 5 points Number of indicators
Image 0.51 0.60 0.09 5
Expectations 0.72 0.67 –0.04 3
Perceived quality 0.48 0.52 0.04 8
Perceived value 0.74 0.74 0.00 2
Satisfaction 0.68 0.70 0.02 3
Complaints – – – 1
Loyalty 0.47 0.56 0.09 3
and 0.674 for the ten-point scale). Once again these results tend to favour
the convergent validity of the ten-point scale.
Some authors (e.g. Givon & Shapira 1984) have contended that the
advantages of using a higher number of response alternatives tend to be
more pronounced for constructs with fewer number of indicators. The
results showed in Table 10 do not confirm this statement. In fact, the latent
variables with a higher difference between communality for the ten-point
scale and five-point scale are image (0.093), loyalty (0.089) and perceived
quality (0.041). Nevertheless, image and quality are the constructs in our
model with a higher number of indicators (five and eight, respectively). So,
globally, we could not find a relation between the communality
improvements resulting from using a higher number of response
alternatives and the number of indicators in the construct.
One way to assess discriminant validity is to determine whether each
latent variable shares more variance with its own measurement variables
than with other constructs. For that we start to compare measurement
variables communalities with the squared correlations between their own
construct and other constructs in the model. A low percentage of latent
variable squared correlations exceeding measurement variables
communalities tends to confirm discriminant validity (Chin 1998).
Communalities for the indicators of each latent variable and the
percentage of latent variable squared correlations exceeding measurement
variables communalities are shown in Table 11. Regarding the indicators
communalities it can be seen that values tend to be higher for the ten-point
scale, when compared to the five-point one. Among the 24 indicators
considered, only five show higher communalities in the five-point scale.
Regarding the latent variable squared correlations exceeding
measurement variables communalities, in general there are few violations.
331
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 332
Table 11 Indicators communalities and percentage of latent variable squared correlations

exceeding measurement variables communalities
1 to 5 1 to 10
Latent variable Latent variable
square correlations square correlations
exceeding measurement exceeding measurement
variables communalities variables communalities
Commu- Number of % of Commu- Number of % of
Indicator nality comparisons violations nality comparisons violations
Image
Q4A 0.49 6 16.7 0.59 6 0.0
Q4B 0.21 6 83.3 0.43 6 33.3
Q4C 0.57 6 0.0 0.62 6 0.0
Q4D 0.71 6 0.0 0.70 6 0.0
Q4E 0.54 6 16.7 0.64 6 0.0
Expectations
Q5A 0.71 6 0.0 0.65 6 0.0
Q5B 0.78 6 0.0 0.70 6 0.0
Q5C 0.65 6 0.0 0.67 6 0.0
Perceived quality
Q6 0.51 6 16.7 0.59 6 0.0
Q7A 0.45 6 33.3 0.51 6 0.0
Q7B 0.39 6 50.0 0.44 6 50.0
Q7C 0.50 6 16.7 0.63 6 0.0
Q7D 0.50 6 16.7 0.53 6 0.0
Q7E 0.57 6 0.0 0.60 6 0.0
Q7F 0.57 6 0.0 0.53 6 0.0
Q7G 0.33 6 50.0 0.34 6 66.7
Perceived value
Q10 0.67 6 0.0 0.68 6 0.0
Q11 0.80 6 0.0 0.80 6 0.0
Satisfaction
Q3 0.63 6 0.0 0.59 6 0.0
Q9 0.66 6 0.0 0.73 6 0.0
Q18 0.75 6 0.0 0.78 6 0.0
Complaints
Q15–16 1.00 6 0.0 1.00 6 0.0
Loyalty
Q12 0.30 6 0.0 0.72 6 0.0
Q17 0.32 6 0.0 0.76 6 0.0
332
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 333
In expectations, perceived value, satisfaction, complaints and loyalty we

observed no violations. In the other latent variables, the violations tend to
be more significant for the five-point scale. Note that the gains in
discriminant validity for the ten-point scale are concentrated in the Image
and Perceived Quality constructs, which is to be expected since these are
the latent variables measured with a higher number of indicators. The
exception occurs in indicator Q7g of perceived quality, where there is one
more violation for the ten-point scale (four, in a total of six comparisons).
Nevertheless, one should note that this is an indicator with low
discriminant validity in both scales. Generally, these results confirm a
higher discriminant validity of the constructs when using the ten-point
scale.
A complementary assessment of discriminant validity may be obtained
using the variance extracted test (Fornell & Larcker 1981). We compare
the estimates of average variance extracted (AVE) for each pair of
constructs in the model with the correlation between the constructs.
Discriminant validity is demonstrated if both square roots of variance
extracted are greater than this correlation. Table 12 presents the results for
both scales. Elements in the main diagonal represent the square roots of
AVE and the other elements correlations between constructs. Although for
both scales discriminant validity is generally achieved for most constructs,
Table 12 Square roots of average variance extracted and correlations between constructs
Perceived
Image Expectations value Quality Satisfaction Complaints Loyalty
Five-point scale
Image 0.74
Expectations 0.65 0.85
Perceived value 0.46 0.50 0.85
Quality 0.75 0.66 0.50 0.69
Satisfaction 0.67 0.60 0.58 0.69 0.83
Complaints 0.50 0.42 0.44 0.51 0.58 1.00
Loyalty 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.45 0.51 0.29 0.82
Ten-point scale
Image 0.78
Expectations 0.64 0.82
Perceived value 0.52 0.45 0.86
Quality 0.70 0.68 0.51 0.71
Satisfaction 0.72 0.62 0.66 0.67 0.84
Complaints 0.44 0.49 0.40 0.49 0.55 1.00
Loyalty 0.58 0.52 0.49 0.60 0.71 0.55 0.70
333
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 334
results tend to favour the ten-point scale. In fact, with the five-point scale
a lack of discriminant validity is detected between image and quality
constructs (note that these are the constructs where we have found some
construct squared correlations exceeding measurement variables
communalities). Also, the square root of AVE for quality is equal to the
correlation between this construct and satisfaction, while with the ten-
point scale all constructs show square roots of AVEs higher than all the
corresponding correlations.
Discussion and conclusions

This paper aimed to compare a five-point and a ten-point numerical scale
in customer satisfaction measurement in the framework of the Portuguese
Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI-Portugal). The analysis includes the
evaluation of non-response rates, response distribution, as well as
convergent, discriminant and nomological validity of constructs used in
the ECSI model. Moreover we have investigated the effects of socio-
demographic characteristics on the ability of respondents to use each scale.
Globally, it is apparent that the ten-point scale shows better properties
than the five-point scale, validating the choice made in the context of
ECSI-Portugal. In fact, it has been seen that the ten-point scale generally
shows higher validity than the five-point scale. This is true both for
convergent and discriminant validity. Also the ten-point scale showed a
higher explanatory power for the main variables in our model (satisfaction
and loyalty) thus confirming a higher nomological validity.
Results also showed that both scales produced similar non-response
rates and similar mean scores. Therefore results do not tend to confirm the
hypothesis that the response effort demanded by the ten-point scale is too
high for respondents. In addition, we have not confirmed the conclusions
of previous work (e.g. Neumann & Neumann 1981) regarding an increase
in deviation of actual averages from theoretical means as the number of
choice alternatives increase. Moreover, we confirmed that the five-point
scale tends to show a higher attraction of responses to the middle point of
the scale. This result tends to confirm our hypothesis that, within an odd
scale, the middle point is often used by the respondents that prefer to
reduce the response effort, resulting in an overestimation of the true
frequency associated with this middle point. This result, along with the
equivalence of non-response rates and mean scores using both scales, tends
to validate the idea that, when measuring attitudes within customer
satisfaction surveys, a scale with a higher number of response alternatives
334
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 335
may be a preferable choice. We can also conclude that respondents can

deal with scales with an even number of points and therefore the use of
scales with a neutral category should not be mandatory.
Through an analysis of variance aiming to explain response scores and
a logistic regression aiming to explain non-response, we confirmed the
well-known idea in customer satisfaction studies that some socio-
demographic variables, such as sex, age group and education level,
influence the probability of non-response and the response profiles of
respondents. We have also concluded that the scale used (ten-point or five-
point) influences neither the probability of non-response, nor the response
profiles of respondents. Finally, we found that there was not, in either
analysis, any interaction between the scale used and education level.
Therefore we can conclude that within any education level, people using
different scales do not tend to exhibit different response probabilities or
response profiles. This is a particularly important result since some
criticism regarding the use of scales with a high number of response
alternatives is that it would decrease the quality of response, particularly
for people with lower educational levels.
If we use Cox’s (1980) definition regarding the optimal number of
response alternatives for a scale – ‘a scale with the optimal number of
response alternatives is refined enough to be capable of transmitting most
of the information available from respondents without being so refined
that it simply encourages response error’ – we can clearly state that in the
context of our study ten points is a better choice for the number of
response alternatives than five points.
Results obtained contradict some conventional wisdom defending scales
with a lower number of points. What are the possible explanations for
this? First, the context (e.g. population, market) may have some unknown
characteristics that account for the superiority of ten-point scales,
although this seems unlikely. In fact, the target population (users of mobile
phones) reaches more than 80% of the Portuguese population, and they
are well spread through all socio-demographic classes (Vilares & Coelho
2006). Second, there is the purpose of the research used for the analysis.
We have tested the application of scales in the context of customer
satisfaction measurement, which has seldom been used in previous work
regarding the evaluation of rating scales. Although this research was
conducted in the framework of customer satisfaction measurement, we
find it unlikely that our conclusions are specific to this type of research.
We could probably argue that this is a marketing research context where
customers are particularly motivated to participate, since they understand
335
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 336
that they are contributing to the improvement of the product/service

offered by their supplier, but this seems to be an insufficient cause for the
specificity of the results. Third, the analysis performed differs from most
previous studies defending a lower number of response categories. In fact,
we have compared the two scales using multi-item constructs estimated in
a structural equation modelling (SEM) framework. Some of the previous
work concerned with single-item measures and the ones using multi-item
constructs were almost exclusively concerned with reliability. In fact,
validity, which was one of the major concerns in our study, has not been
used as a criterion for most studies. Fourth, it is possible that the
conventional wisdom of 20 or 30 years ago no longer applies. One
possible explanation is that consumers have become more sophisticated at
taking tests and rating their attitudes. Globally, the familiarity with scales
has definitely been growing. Decades ago, the use of standardised tests and
attitude scales was much less common than today. Phrases such as ‘On a
scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate …’ have crept into popular speech.
Taken together, these facts may point to a shift in the ability of average
consumers to use more discriminating scales with greater ease.
If it is true that consumers can use scales with more scale points more
easily than they could in the past, there is every reason for researchers to
use such scales. Our results suggest that more scale points, routinely used,
will result in greater ability to identify important relationships, higher
validity for constructs, and better hypothesis tests in theory and practice.
Nevertheless, this study shows several limitations and should be
improved in different ways. First, we have considered only a numerical
interval scale. In fact, when using other types of scales (e.g. a Likert-type
scale) we may arrive at different conclusions. Second, our analysis is
limited to the comparison between five and ten response alternatives.
Although our results favour the ten-point scale we can not state that this
is an optimal number of response alternatives, and we may not exclude the
possibility that a number of response alternatives between five and ten
would produce better results than the scales analysed. Also, our study does
not consider the effects of different types of labelling of the response
alternatives. For instance, labelling that tries to produce an unbalanced
scale may result in different conclusions when choosing the number of
response alternatives. We have not also tested the use of any fully labelled
scale, so we can only confirm the superiority of a ten-point scale over an
end-labelled five-point one, but we can not exclude the hypothesis that a
fully labelled five-point scale would perform better. This limitation
constitutes fertile ground for future research. Finally, it should be pointed
336
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 337
out that the analysis was limited to the fact that the two questionnaires
(using different scales) were administered to independent samples. Some
additional analysis would be beneficial if the two questionnaires were
administered to the same sample.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Dwayne Ball (University of Nebraska-
Lincoln) and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
References
Alwin, D.F. (1991) Research on survey quality. Sociological Methods & Research,
20, pp. 3–29.
Alwin, D.F. (1997) Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales – which are better?
Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 3, pp. 318–340.
Alwin, D.F. & Krosnick, J.A. (1991) The reliability of attitudinal survey measures:
the role of question and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods & Research,
20, pp. 139–181.
Andrews, F.M. & Withey, S.B. (1976) Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans’
Perceptions of Life Quality. New York: Plenum.
Ball, A.D., Coelho, P.S. & Machás, A. (2004) The role of communication and trust
in explaining customer loyalty: an extension to the ECSI model. European Journal
of Marketing, 38, available from the authors.
Cassel, C. & Eklof, J.A. (2001) Modeling customer satisfaction and loyalty on
aggregate levels: experience from the ECSI pilot study. Total Quality Management,
12, 7–8, pp. 834–841.
Cassel, C., Hackl, P. & Westlund, A. (2000) On measurement of intangibles assets: a
study of robustness of partial least squares. Total Quality Management, 7,
pp. 897–907.
Chin, W.W. (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. In: G.A. Marcoulides (ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cicchetti, D.V., Showalter, D. & Tyrer, P.J. (1985) The effect of number of rating
scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: a Monte Carlo investigation.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1, pp. 31–36.
Colman, A.M., Norris, C.E. & Preston, C.C. (1997) Comparing rating scales of
different lengths: equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales.
Psychological Reports, 80, pp. 355–362.
Converse, J.M. & Presser, S. (1986) Survey Questions: Handcrafting the
Standardized Questionnaire. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cox, E.P. (1980) The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review.
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, pp. 407–422.
337
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 338
ECSI (1998) European Customer Satisfaction Index. Report prepared for the ECSI
Steering Committee.
Fornell, C. (1992) A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish
experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 1, pp. 6–21.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, pp. 39–50.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. & Everitt Bryant, B. (1996)
The American Customer Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose and findings. Journal
of Marketing, 60, 4, pp. 7–18.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. & Everitt Bryant, B. (1998)
The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Methodology Report. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.
Givon, M.M. & Shapira, Z. (1984) Response to rating scales: a theoretical model
and its application to the number of categories problem. Journal of Marketing
Research, 21, pp. 410–419.
Green, P.E. & Rao, V.R. (1970) Rating scales and information recovery – how many
scales and response categories to use. Journal of Marketing, 34, pp. 33–39.
Haley, R.I. & Case, P.B. (1979) Testing thirteen attitude scales for agreement and
brand discrimination. Journal of Marketing, 43, pp. 20–32.
Jenkins, G.D. & Taber, T.D. (1977) A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three
indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,
pp. 392–398.
Johnson, M., Gustafsson, A., Andreason, T.W., Lervik, L. & Cha, G. (2001) The
evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 22, pp. 217–245.
Krosnick, J.A. & Alwin, D.F. (1989) Response strategies for coping with the
cognitive demands of survey questions. Unpublished manuscript. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Malhotra, N. & Birks, D. (2003) Marketing Research: An Applied Approach,
2nd European edn. Prentice Hall.
Neumann, L. & Neumann, Y. (1981) Comparison of six lengths of rating scales:
students’ attitudes toward instruction. Psychological Reports, 48, pp. 399–404.
Ramsay, J.O. (1973) The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision
of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika, 37, pp. 513–532.
Reynolds, F.D. & Neter, J. (1982) How many categories for respondent
classification. Journal of the Market Research Society, 24, 4, pp. 345–346.
Stem, D.E. & Noazin, S. (1985) The effects of number of objects and scale positions
on graphic position scale reliability. In: R.E. Lusch et al. (eds) AMA Educators’
Proceedings. Chicago: Marketing Association, pp. 370–372.
Tourangeau, R. (1984) Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: T.B. Jabine, M.L.
Straf, J.M. Tanur & R. Tourangeau (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Survey
Methodology: Building a Bridge between Disciplines. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, pp. 73–100.
Vilares, M. & Coelho, P. (2004) The employee–customer satisfaction chain in the
ECSI model. European Journal of Marketing, 37, pp. 1703–1722.
Vilares, M. & Coelho, P. (2006) ECSI-Portugal – Relatório de Sectores. Lisbon: IPQ.
338
Coelho.qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 339
About the authors

Pedro Simões Coelho is Associate Professor at Instituto Superior de
Estatística e Gestão de Informação of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa
(ISEGI-UNL). He is also a researcher in the Statistics and Information
Management Center (CEGI) at ISEGI-UNL, Vice-President of the
Portuguese Association for Classification and Data Analysis (CLAD) and
Vice-President of Qmetrics, SA. Additionally, he is co-coordinator of the
Portuguese committee of the ECSI-Portugal (European Customer
Satisfaction Index) project. At ISEGI-UNL he is Director of the Master
degrees and is lecturing courses in survey methodology, marketing
research, data collection methodologies and quantitative methods for
marketing. Pedro Simões Coelho has been a consultant for several
organisations, including the Portuguese Statistical Office. His main
research interests are in survey methodology, structural equation
modelling, customer satisfaction measurement, and the explanation of
customer loyalty.
Susana Pereira Esteves (susanaesteves@isegi.unl.pt) is presently Assistant
Professor at Instituto Superior de Estatística e Gestão de Informação of the
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (ISEGI-UNL). She is a researcher in the
Statistics and Information Management Research Center (CEGI) of the
same university and is also a member of the workgroup of ECSI - Portugal
(European Customer Satisfaction Index) project. Her current work focuses
on marketing research, in particular customer satisfaction and loyalty
measurement.
Address correspondence to: Professor Pedro Simões Coelho, ISEGI-
UNL, Campus de Campolide, 1070-312 Lisboa, Portugal.
Email: psc@isegi.unl.pt
339

Customer Satisfaction Measurement

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Customer Satisfaction Measurement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Coelho.

qxp 26/04/2007 14:56 Page 313

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

The choice between a five-point and a

In marketing research, and particularly in the context of customer satisfaction

Received (in revised form): 28 December 2006

© 2007 The Market Research Society 313