Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the value of commonly used methods for measuring customer value: a multi-setting empirical study

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the importance of customer value, considerable divergence of opinion exists on how to adequately conceptualize and measure this construct. In this study, four commonly used methods for measuring customer value (i.e., the methods proposed by Dodds et al. (1991), Gale (1994), Holbrook (1999) and Woodruff and Gardial (1996)) are compared. First and foremost, the psychometric properties of the different methods are evaluated. Next, the authors compare the predictive ability of the different methods with respect to key outcome variables (i.e., satisfaction, word of mouth, repurchase intention). Finally, the methods are compared based on their relative practicality and actionability. The authors’ findings show that each method has its own benefits and costs and should be used based on its suitability for a particular application. The paper culminates with a prescriptive flowchart that summarizes the main findings and provides direction for choosing the optimal value measurement method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In line with the work of Anderson et al. (1994) and Cronin et al. (2000), we define customer satisfaction as the cumulative evaluation that is based on all experiences with the supplier’s offering over time and we included a direct link between value and behavioral intentions.

References

  • Agarwal, S., & Teas, R. K. (2001). Perceived value: mediating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(4), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Rust, R. T. (1997). Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: differences between goods and services. Marketing Science, 16(2), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babakus, E., Bienstock, C. C., & Van Scotter, J. R. (2004). Linking perceived quality and customer satisfaction to store traffic and revenue growth. Decision Sciences, 35(4), 713–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, K. L., Donthu, N., & Kennett, P. A. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction and profitability. Journal of Business Research, 47(2), 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, J., & Murphy, R. (2001). The nature of value created by UK online grocery retailers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(4), 279–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blocker, C. P., Flint, D. J., Myers, M. B., & Slater, S. F. (2011). Proactive customer orientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 216–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdeau, L., Chebat, J. C., & Couturier, C. (2002). Internet consumer value of university students: e-mail-vs.-Web users. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9, 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruana, A., & Fenech, N. (2005). The effect of perceived value and overall satisfaction on loyalty: a study among dental patients. Journal of Medical Marketing, 5(3), 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. W., Yim, C. K., & Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). A conceptual model of perceived customer value in E-commerce: a preliminary investigation. Psychology & Marketing, 20(4), 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares. Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 655–690). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Oosterveld, P. (2004). Response rate and response quality of Internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Marketing Letters, 15(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, S. J., Dong, H. K., & Brown, M. (2003). Selecting a scale for measuring quality. Marketing Research, 15(3), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G. (2001). Do we really need multiple-item measures in services research? Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 102–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Mithas, S., Morgeson, F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). Customer satisfaction and stock prices: high returns, low risk. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Rust, R., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2010). The effect of customer satisfaction on consumer spending growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, B. T. (1994). Managing customer value: Creating quality and service that customers can see. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallarza, M. G., & Gil-Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behavior. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm fro scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotlieb, J. B., Grewal, D., & Brown, S. W. (1994). Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: complementary or divergence constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 875–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graeff, T. R. (1997). Comprehending product attributes and benefits: the role of product knowledge and means-end chain inferences. Psychology & Marketing, 14(2), 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C. (2011). Service as business logic: implications for value creation and marketing. Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C., & Ravald, A. (2011). Service as business logic: implications for value creation and marketing. Journal of Services Management, 22(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruca, T. S., & Rego, L. L. (2005). Customer satisfaction, cashflow, and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: an illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 714–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlis, D., Saporta, G., & Spinakis, A. (2003). A simple rule for the selection of principal components. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 32(3), 643–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, F., Griffin, M., & Babin, B. J. (2009). How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 980–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laitamäki, J., & Kordupleski, R. (1997). Building and deploying profitable growth strategies based on the waterfall of customer value added. European Management Journal, 15(2), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. H., Sher, P. J., & Shih, H. Y. (2005). Past progress and future directions in conceptualizing customer perceived value. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(4), 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, E. K., Wilson, H., Martinez, V., & Toossi, A. (2011). Assessing value-in-use: a conceptual framework and exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 671–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. B. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, A. (2001). Experiential value: conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Marketing Science, 25(5), 426–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, V., Anderson, E. W., Sayrak, A., & Tadikamalla, P. (2005). Dual emphasis and the long-term financial impact of customer satisfaction. Marketing Science, 24(4), 544–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overby, J. W., Gardial, S. F., & Woodruff, R. B. (2004). French versus American consumers’ attachment of value to a product in a common consumption context: a cross-national comparison. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 437–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrick, J. F. (2002). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived value of a service. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 119–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 24–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The customer relationship management process: its measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return on marketing: using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, D. M., Gremler, D. D., Washburn, J. H., & Carrión, G. C. (2008). Service value revisited: specifying a higher-order, formative measure. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1278–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahmer, K., Hanafi, M., & Qannari, E. M. (2006). Assessing unidimensionality within PLS path modeling framework. In M. Spiliopoulou, R. Kruse, A. Nürnberger, C. Borgelt, & W. Gaul (Eds.), From data and information analysis to knowledge engineering (pp. 222–229). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2009). The conceptualisation and measurement of consumer value in services. International Journal of Market Research, 51(1), 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiders, K., Voss, G. B., Grewal, D., & Godfrey, A. L. (2005). Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating influences in a retailing context. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setijono, D., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2007). Customer value as a key performance indicator (KPI) and a key improvement indicator (KII). Measuring Business Excellence, 11(2), 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F. (1997). Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 162–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. C. (1999). Ethics and the typology of consumer value. In M. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 147–158). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. J. (1992). A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. International Journal of Management Science, 20(5/6), 569–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teas, R. K., & Agarwal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: findings from an Internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships: gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: a planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2008). The impact of marketing-induced versus word-of-mouth customer acquisition on customer equity growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, J., & Lee, M. C. (2003). An examination of the quality and context-specific applicability of commonly used customer satisfaction measures. Journal of Service Research, 5(4), 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: an attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know your customer: New approaches to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Cambridge: Blackwell Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, R. B., & Flint, D. J. (2006). Marketing’s service-dominant logic and customer value. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 183–195). New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar, J. H. (1996). Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Wim Janssens for his helpful comments on early drafts of this article. The authors thank the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen) for a doctoral fellowship.

Funding

This work was supported by the Marketing Science Institute [grant #4-1668].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing & Strategy, Hasselt University, Agoralaan - D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Sara Leroi-Werelds, Sandra Streukens & Gilbert Swinnen

  2. Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Michael K. Brady

Authors
  1. Sara Leroi-Werelds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Streukens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael K. Brady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gilbert Swinnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Leroi-Werelds.

Appendices

Appendix A

 

TOOTHPASTE

SOFT DRINK

DVD PLAYER

DAY CREAM

Quality attributes

Quality attributes

Quality attributes

Quality attributes

Attributes

Good taste

Good taste

Price-quality relationship

Caring

Whitening

Amount of sparkles

Look (e.g., design, color, size)

A well-known brand

Against teeth cavities

Amount of sugar

Quality

Quality

User-friendly packaging

Nice feeling in mouth

A well-known brand

Texture (gel, cream)

Cleaning

Packaging

User-friendly menu

A nice smell

Against dental plaque

A well-known brand

Short start-up time

Price-quality relationship

Against teeth sensitivity

Presence of extra ingredients

User-friendly remote control

Hypoallergenic (= little or no risk at allergic reaction)

A well known brand

(caffeine, tea extracts)

Recording possibilities (recorder, hard disk)

 

Quality

 

Technical possibilities (HDMI,USB port,…)

Working against a specific skin problem (e.g., oily skin, dry skin, redness)

Price attribute

Price attribute

Price attribute

Price attribute

Price

Price

Price

Price

Benefits

Benefits

Benefits

Benefits

Consequences

Fresh breath

Tastes good

Easy to use

Makes me feel good

Whiter teeth

Thirst-quenching

Good picture quality

Makes me look good

Helps me to look good

Healthier than other soft drinks

Good sound quality

Enhances my confidence

Enhances my confidence

Nice feeling drinking this SD

Looks good in my interior

Makes my skin feel pleasant

Fresh taste in my mouth

Gives me energy

Quick start up

Helps keeping skin healthy

Less dental caries

I won’t get fat

Allows me to record movies and programs

Applying this DC feels nice

Easy to use

Bloated feeling (R)

Energy-saving

Feel clean

Makes brushing enjoyable

Refreshing

Brand ensures quality

Refreshing

Clean teeth

Brand ensures quality

Meets my needs

Brand ensures quality

Less dental plaque

   

Helps me feel good

   

Healthy teeth

   

Less dental pain

   

Brand ensures quality

   

Sacrifices

Sacrifices

Sacrifices

Sacrifices

Budget-friendly (R)

Budget-friendly (R)

Budget-friendly (R)

Budget-friendly (R)

This choice saves me money (R)

This choice saves me money (R)

This choice saves me money (R)

This choice saves me money (R)

Note: (R) = reverse scored.

Appendix B

Dodds et al. ( 1991 )

  

TP

SD

DVD

DC

Item loadings

1. This X is a very good value for the money

 

.80**

.81**

.88**

.82**

2. At the price shown this X is very economical.

 

.73**

.82**

.69**

.78**

3. This is a good buy.

 

.82**

.86**

.89**

.88**

4. The price shown for this X is unacceptable. (R)

 

.42**

.53**

.44**

.65**

5. This X appears to be a bargain.

 

.37**

.68**

.43**

.51**

  

Construct-level psychometric properties

 

λ1

2.27

2.93

2.57

2.89

 

λ2

1.14

.88

1.03

.90

 

αa

 

.81

 

.81

 

AVEa

 

.56

 

.55

  1. Note: (R) = reverse scored; X stands for toothpaste, soft drink, DVD player or day cream.
  2. TP = toothpaste; SD = soft drink; DVD = DVD player; DC = day cream.
  3. λ1 and λ2 = eigenvalues that are used to evaluate unidimensionality of the scale; α = Cronbach’s alpha, which is used to evaluate the reliability of the scale; AVE = Average Variance Extracted, which is used to evaluate within method convergent validity
  4. aSince the scale was not unidimensional for think offerings,we did not evaluate Cronbach’s alpha and AVE for the toothpaste and DVD settings
  5. *p < .10 **p < .05

Gale ( 1994 )

(The items [attributes] are presented in Appendix A)

Importance

Please indicate how important each of the following characteristics of toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD players is to you.

Performance (following Babakus et al. ( 2004 ))

Please indicate how you evaluate your toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player relative to the competition.

Market Perceived Quality:

$$ MPQ={\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n{w}_i RP{Q}_i} $$

With

w i :

normalized weight of quality attribute i

RPQ i :

relative performance on quality attribute i

Market Perceived Price:

$$ MPP={\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^m{w}_j RP{P}_j} $$

With

w j :

normalized weight of price attribute j

RPP j :

relative performance on price attribute j

Item

Item loadings

 

TP

SD

DVD

DC

MPQ

.98**

1.00**

1.00**

1.00**

MPP

−.24**

−.23**

−.31**

−.31**

*p < .10 **p < .05

Woodruff and Gardial (1996) (The items [consequences] are presented in Appendix A)

Benefits

 

TP

SD

DVD

DC

  

Item loadings

 BEN1

 

.56**

.83**

.77**

.77**

 BEN2

 

.46**

.65**

.76**

.77**

 BEN3

 

.42**

.36**

.77**

.65**

 BEN4

 

.29**

.64**

.54**

.88**

 BEN5

 

.50**

.47**

.58**

.92**

 BEN6

 

.58**

.31**

.20**

.66**

 BEN7

 

.62**

.23**

.51**

.72**

 BEN8

 

.69**

.73**

.70**

.72**

 BEN9

 

.78**

.61**

.79**

.77**

 BEN10

 

.69**

   

 BEN11

 

.62**

   

 BEN12

 

.70**

   

 BEN13

 

.61**

   

 BEN14

 

.85**

   
  

Second-order loadings

1.00**

1.00**

1.00**

1.00**

Sacrifices

 

TP

SD

DVD

DC

  

Item loadings

 SAC1

 

.96**

.97**

.97**

.96**

 SAC2

 

.92**

.92**

.70**

.96**

  

Construct-level psychometric properties

 

  λ1

1.76

1.79

1.50

1.85

 

  λ2

.24

.21

.50

.15

 

  α

.92

.88

.67

.92

 

  AVE

.88

.89

.71

.92

  

Second-order loadings

 

−.32**

−.14

−.29**

−.40**

  1. Note: TP = toothpaste; SD = soft drink; DVD = DVD player; DC = day cream.
  2. λ1 and λ2 = eigenvalues that are used to evaluate unidimensionality of the scale; α = Cronbach’s alpha, which is used to evaluate the reliability of the scale; AVE = Average Variance Extracted, which is used to evaluate within method convergent validity
  3. *p < .10 **p < .05

Holbrook ( 1999 )

Social value (adapted from Sweeney and Soutar (2001))

 

TP

SD

DVD

DC

  

Item loadings

 Helps me to feel acceptable.

 

.94**

.95**

.98**

.85**

 Improves the way I am perceived.

 

.95**

.97**

.99**

.94**

 Makes a good impression on others.

 

.91**

.92**

.81**

.95**

 Gives me social approval.

 

.91**

.95**

.95**

.90**

  

Construct-level psychometric properties

 

λ1

3.45

3.60

3.55

3.34

 

λ2

.23

.25

.30

.32

 

α

.95

.96

.96

.93

 

AVE

.86

.90

.87

.83

  

Second-order loadings

  

.09

.03

−.14

.21

Play (adapted from Petrick (2002))

 

TP

SD

DVD

DC

  

Item loadings

 Makes me feel good.

 

.82**

.82**

.58**

.80**

 Gives me pleasure.

 

.91**

.90**

.81**

.93**

 Gives me a sense of joy.

 

.95**

.95**

.90**

.94**

 Makes me feel delighted.

 

.91**

.96**

.85**

.94**

 Gives me happiness.

 

.91**

.95**

.82**

.93**

  

Construct-level psychometric properties

 

λ1

4.09

4.20

3.42

4.14

 

λ2

.56

.42

.76

.52

 

α

.94

.95

.88

.95

 

AVE

.81

.84

.64

.83

  

Second-order loadings

  

.39

.47

.35

.56

Excellence (adapted from Oliver (1997))

TP

SD

DVD

DC

  

Item loadings

 The quality is excellent.

 

.87**

.92**

.83**

.88**

 One of the best regarding quality.

 

.93**

.94**

.91**

.92**

 High quality product.

 

.95**

.94**

.91**

.93**

 Superior compared to competing products.

 

.84**

.85**

.81**

.82**

  

Construct-level psychometric properties

 

λ1

3.23

3.35

3.00

3.17

 

λ2

.41

.36

.51

.48

 

α

.92

.93

.89

.91

 

AVE

.81

.84

.75

.79

  

Second-order loadings

  

.99

.98

.91

.96

Aesthetic value (based on laddering interviews)

 

TP

SD

DVD

DC

  

Item loadings

 I think I look good by using this TP/DC/SD.

 

.59**

.96**

 

.95**

 I think my teeth/skin is beautiful by using this TP/DC.

 

.93**

  

.96**

 I think I have a fresh breath by using this toothpaste.

 

.88**

   

 I think I have a nice figure by drinking this soft drink.

  

.93**

  

 I think this DVD player is beautiful.

   

.92**

 

 This DVD player looks good in my interior.

   

.92**

 

 This DVD player has a beautiful design.

   

.95**

 

 This DVD player has a beautiful color.

   

.93**

 
  

Construct-level psychometric properties

 

.λ1

 

1.79

3.46

1.82

 

.λ2

 

.21

.22

.18

 

Α

 

.88

.95

.90

 

AVE

 

.89

.86

.91

  

Second-order loadings

  

.65

.21

.55

.79

Efficiency (adapted from Ruiz et al. (2008))

 

TP

SD

DVD

DC

  

Item loadings

 The price is high (R)

 

.05

.78

−.15

.05

 The effort I expend to receive X is high (R)

 

.35*

−.55

.07

.24

 This TP/DC/DVD is easy to use

 

.98**

 

.86**

.99**

 Starting up the DVD player requires a lot of time (i.e., the time between turning on the DVD player and the moment the DVD starts). (R)

   

.48**

 
  

Second-order loadings

  

.42

.00

.68

.47

  1. Note: (R) = reverse scored; X stands for toothpaste, soft drink, DVD player or day cream.
  2. TP = toothpaste; SD = soft drink; DVD = DVD player; DC = day cream.
  3. λ1 and λ2 = eigenvalues that are used to evaluate unidimensionality of the scale; α = Cronbach’s alpha, which is used to evaluate the reliability of the scale; AVE = Average Variance Extracted, which is used to evaluate within method convergent validity
  4. *p < .10 **p < .05

Satisfaction (adapted from Anderson et al. ( 1994))

Please indicate the extent to which you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player. (11-point scale following Wirtz and Lee (2003))

Loyalty (adapted from Zeithaml et al. ( 1996))

Please indicate how likely it is that you would…

  1. 1.

    Say positive things about your toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player to other people.

  2. 2.

    Recommend your toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player to someone who seeks your advice.

  3. 3.

    Encourage friends and relatives to buy this toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player.

  4. 4.

    Consider this toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player your first choice to buy toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player.

  5. 5.

    Buy this toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player again when you need toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player.

  6. 6.

    Doubt about buying this toothpaste/day cream/soft drink/DVD player again.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leroi-Werelds, S., Streukens, S., Brady, M.K. et al. Assessing the value of commonly used methods for measuring customer value: a multi-setting empirical study. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 42, 430–451 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0363-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0363-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation