Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

MÜŞTERİ MEMNUNİYETİ ÖLÇÜM KALİTESİNİ, TERCİH EDİLEN ÖLÇEK DERECESİ NASIL ETKİLER?

Year 2021, Volume: 20 Issue: 40, 542 - 556, 25.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.873800

Abstract

Sürdürülebilir müşteri ilişkileri yönetimi, sürdürülebilir müşteri değerinden; müşteri değerini anlamanın yansıması ise müşteri memnuniyetinin ölçümünden geçmektedir. Bu gerçekten hareketle müşteri memnuniyetinin ölçümünde ölçek derece seçimi kritik rol oynamaktadır. Netice itibariyle kurumların mümkün olan en iyi ölçüm enstrümanı ile hareket etmeleri onların müşteri devamlılığını sağlıklı biçimde kurmalarını sağlayacaktır. Halihazırda kurumlar müşteri memnuniyetini çeşitli derecede ölçekler kullanarak ölçmektedirler.
Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı; üç, beş, yedi ve on dereceli ölçekler ile müşteri memnuniyetinin ölçüm farklılıklarını ortaya koymak ve müşteri memnuniyeti ölçümünde ideal ölçek derece sayısına yönelik bir yaklaşım geliştirmektedir. Böylelikle müşteri memnuniyeti ölçümü yapan araştırmacıların ve uygulamacıların daha güvenilir sonuçlara ulaşmaları sağlanacaktır.
Yöntem: Bankacılık sektöründe yapılan bu araştırmaya toplam 212 katılımcı iştirak etmiştir. Banka müşterilerinin hizmet aldıkları bankaya dair memnuniyet seviyeleri üçlü, beşli, yedili ve onlu ölçekler vasıtasıyla ölçülmüş, akabinde hangi dereceli ölçeğin müşteri sadakatini daha güvenilir olarak açıkladığı sınanmıştır.
Bulgular: Müşteri memnuniyetinin müşteri sadakatine olan etkisinin de nomolojik anlamda sınandığı araştırma bulguları ışığında; on dereceli ölçeğin müşteri sadakatini açıklamakta diğer ölçek derecelerine kıyasla daha anlamlı sonuçlar doğurduğu ortaya konmuştur.
Özgünlük: Türkiye’de memnuniyet ölçek derecesinin müşteri sadakatini ne güvenilirlikte açıkladığına dair bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu yönüyle çalışma literatürde özgün bir rol oynamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Müşteri Memnuniyeti, Müşteri Memnuniyeti Ölçümü, Müşteri Elde Tutma, Müşteri Sadakati.

References

  • Alwin, D.F. (1997) "Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales – which are better?", Sociological Methods and Research, Vol.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 and Research, Vol.20, pp.139–181.
  • Anderson, E. W.; Fornell, C.; Lehmann D. R. (1994), "Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden," Journal of Marketing, Vol.58(3), pp.53–66
  • Bayuk, M.; Küçük, F. (2014). “Müşteri̇ Tatmi̇ni̇ Ve Müşteri̇ Sadakati̇ İli̇şki̇si̇”, Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Vol.(1), pp. 285-292
  • Bolton, R. N.; Lemon, K. N. (1999), "A Dynamic Model of Customers' Usage of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and Consequence of Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.36, pp.171–186.
  • Brooks, R.; Goldstein, S. (2001). "Raising Resilient Children: Fostering Strength, Hope, and Optimism in Your Child". USA: Contemporary Books
  • Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M. B. (2001). "The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty". Journal of Marketing, Vol.65(2), pp.81–93
  • Choi, K-S.; Cho, W-H.; Lee, S.; Lee, H.; Kim, C. (2004). "The Relationships among Quality, Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention in Health Care Provider Choice - A South Korean Study ", Journal of Business Research, Vol.57(8), pp.913-921
  • Chyung, S. Y.; Swanson, I.; Roberts, K.; Hankinson, A. (2018). "Evidence‐Based Survey Design: The Use of Continuous Rating Scales in Surveys". Performance Improvement, Vol.57(5), pp.38–48.
  • 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, Vol.17, pp.407–422.
  • Erickson, S. (2018), "Why Customer Loyalty Is So Important to Investors" The Motley Fool (September 18), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/why-customer-loyalty-so-important-investors-2018-09-18.
  • Farris, P.; Bendle, N.; Pfeifer, P. E.; Reibstein, D. J. (2016). Marketing metrics: The manager's guide to measuring marketing performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Education
  • Fornell, C.; Johnson, M. D.; Anderson, E. W.; Cha, J.; Bryant, B. E. (1996), "The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings," Journal of Marketing, Vol.60, pp.7–18.
  • Fornell, C.; Morgeson, F. V.; Hult, G. T. M. (2016), "Stock Returns on Customer Satisfaction Do Beat the Market: Gauging the Effect of a Marketing Intangible," Journal of Marketing, Vol.80(5), pp.92–107.
  • George, D.; Mallery, M. (2010). "SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference (10thed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
  • Green, P.E.; Rao, V.R. (1970) "Rating scales and information recovery – how many scales and response categories to use", Journal of Marketing, Vol.34, pp.33–39.
  • Gruca, Thomas S. and Lopo L. Rego (2005), "Customer Satisfaction, Cash Flow, and Shareholder Value," Journal of Marketing, Vol.69(3), pp.115–130.
  • Jenkins, G.D.; Taber, T.D. (1977) "A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp.392–398.
  • Le Bon, J. (2009). "Appraising, Predicting, and Preventing Business Customer Dissatisfaction and Disloyalty: Highlights and Impacts of a Marketing and Accounting Initiative". AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, Vol. 20, pp.164–165
  • Malhotra, N.; Birks, D. (2003) "Marketing Research: An Applied Approach", 2nd European edn. Prentice Hall.
  • Mittal, V.; Anderson, E. W.; Sayrak, A.; Tadikamalla, P. (2005), "Dual Emphasis and the Long-Term Financial Impact of Customer Satisfaction," Marketing Science, Vol.24(4), pp.544–555.
  • Neumann, L. & Neumann, Y. (1981) "Comparison of six lengths of rating scales: students' attitudes toward instruction", Psychological Reports, Vol.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, Vol.37, pp.513–532.
  • Schmider, E.; Ziegler, M.; Danay, E.; Beyer, L.; Bühner, M. (2010). "Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption". European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, pp.147-151
  • Segal, J. A. (2017). "All Relationships Dissipate Except This: The Attitude-Behavior Link on the Roberts Court". Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol.54, pp.181–194
  • 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.
  • Sütütemiz, N.; Çiftyıldız, S. (2014). “Müşteri Sadakati Modellerinin Karşılaştırılması Üzerine Bir Çalışma”, Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, Vol.1(2), pp. 155-172
  • 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.
  • Türkiye Bankalar Birliği. (2019). “İstatistiki Raporlar: Seçilmiş İstatistikler: Aktif Büyüklüklerine Göre Banka Sıralaması”. Retrieved from https://www.tbb.org.tr/tr/bankacilik/banka-ve-sektor-bilgileri/istatistiki-raporlar/59

HOW DOES THE PREFERRED NUMBER OF SCALE POINTS AFFECTS THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT QUALITY?

Year 2021, Volume: 20 Issue: 40, 542 - 556, 25.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.873800

Abstract

Sustainable customer relationship management passes through sustainable customer value; understanding the reflection of customer value passes through the measurement of customer satisfaction. In this fact, the choice of the number of scale points plays a crucial role in measuring customer satisfaction. At the end of the day, companies acting with the best possible measurement instrument will enable them to secure customer retention. At present, companies measure customer satisfaction using scales with various points.
Purpose: This research aims to develop an approach towards the ideal number of scale points in customer satisfaction measurement by testing it through; three, five, seven, and ten pointed scales.
Method: This research is conducted in the banking industry through the participation of 212 respondents.
Findings: By the study, the effect of customer satisfaction on customer retention is also nomologically tested. In light of the research findings, it was concluded that the ten-pointed scale produced significantly more reliable results in explaining customer retention comparing the other scales.
Originality: Through the study, the explanatory power of different scale degrees in the measurement of customer satisfaction is scrutinized.
Keywords: Customer Satisfaction, Customer Satisfaction Measurement, Customer Retention, Customer Loyalty

References

  • Alwin, D.F. (1997) "Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales – which are better?", Sociological Methods and Research, Vol.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 and Research, Vol.20, pp.139–181.
  • Anderson, E. W.; Fornell, C.; Lehmann D. R. (1994), "Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden," Journal of Marketing, Vol.58(3), pp.53–66
  • Bayuk, M.; Küçük, F. (2014). “Müşteri̇ Tatmi̇ni̇ Ve Müşteri̇ Sadakati̇ İli̇şki̇si̇”, Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Vol.(1), pp. 285-292
  • Bolton, R. N.; Lemon, K. N. (1999), "A Dynamic Model of Customers' Usage of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and Consequence of Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.36, pp.171–186.
  • Brooks, R.; Goldstein, S. (2001). "Raising Resilient Children: Fostering Strength, Hope, and Optimism in Your Child". USA: Contemporary Books
  • Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M. B. (2001). "The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty". Journal of Marketing, Vol.65(2), pp.81–93
  • Choi, K-S.; Cho, W-H.; Lee, S.; Lee, H.; Kim, C. (2004). "The Relationships among Quality, Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention in Health Care Provider Choice - A South Korean Study ", Journal of Business Research, Vol.57(8), pp.913-921
  • Chyung, S. Y.; Swanson, I.; Roberts, K.; Hankinson, A. (2018). "Evidence‐Based Survey Design: The Use of Continuous Rating Scales in Surveys". Performance Improvement, Vol.57(5), pp.38–48.
  • 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, Vol.17, pp.407–422.
  • Erickson, S. (2018), "Why Customer Loyalty Is So Important to Investors" The Motley Fool (September 18), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/why-customer-loyalty-so-important-investors-2018-09-18.
  • Farris, P.; Bendle, N.; Pfeifer, P. E.; Reibstein, D. J. (2016). Marketing metrics: The manager's guide to measuring marketing performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Education
  • Fornell, C.; Johnson, M. D.; Anderson, E. W.; Cha, J.; Bryant, B. E. (1996), "The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings," Journal of Marketing, Vol.60, pp.7–18.
  • Fornell, C.; Morgeson, F. V.; Hult, G. T. M. (2016), "Stock Returns on Customer Satisfaction Do Beat the Market: Gauging the Effect of a Marketing Intangible," Journal of Marketing, Vol.80(5), pp.92–107.
  • George, D.; Mallery, M. (2010). "SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference (10thed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
  • Green, P.E.; Rao, V.R. (1970) "Rating scales and information recovery – how many scales and response categories to use", Journal of Marketing, Vol.34, pp.33–39.
  • Gruca, Thomas S. and Lopo L. Rego (2005), "Customer Satisfaction, Cash Flow, and Shareholder Value," Journal of Marketing, Vol.69(3), pp.115–130.
  • Jenkins, G.D.; Taber, T.D. (1977) "A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp.392–398.
  • Le Bon, J. (2009). "Appraising, Predicting, and Preventing Business Customer Dissatisfaction and Disloyalty: Highlights and Impacts of a Marketing and Accounting Initiative". AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, Vol. 20, pp.164–165
  • Malhotra, N.; Birks, D. (2003) "Marketing Research: An Applied Approach", 2nd European edn. Prentice Hall.
  • Mittal, V.; Anderson, E. W.; Sayrak, A.; Tadikamalla, P. (2005), "Dual Emphasis and the Long-Term Financial Impact of Customer Satisfaction," Marketing Science, Vol.24(4), pp.544–555.
  • Neumann, L. & Neumann, Y. (1981) "Comparison of six lengths of rating scales: students' attitudes toward instruction", Psychological Reports, Vol.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, Vol.37, pp.513–532.
  • Schmider, E.; Ziegler, M.; Danay, E.; Beyer, L.; Bühner, M. (2010). "Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption". European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, pp.147-151
  • Segal, J. A. (2017). "All Relationships Dissipate Except This: The Attitude-Behavior Link on the Roberts Court". Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol.54, pp.181–194
  • 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.
  • Sütütemiz, N.; Çiftyıldız, S. (2014). “Müşteri Sadakati Modellerinin Karşılaştırılması Üzerine Bir Çalışma”, Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, Vol.1(2), pp. 155-172
  • 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.
  • Türkiye Bankalar Birliği. (2019). “İstatistiki Raporlar: Seçilmiş İstatistikler: Aktif Büyüklüklerine Göre Banka Sıralaması”. Retrieved from https://www.tbb.org.tr/tr/bankacilik/banka-ve-sektor-bilgileri/istatistiki-raporlar/59
There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Nihat Tavşan 0000-0001-7085-0893

Cem Duran 0000-0001-5171-0270

Publication Date June 25, 2021
Submission Date February 3, 2021
Acceptance Date April 15, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 20 Issue: 40

Cite

APA Tavşan, N., & Duran, C. (2021). MÜŞTERİ MEMNUNİYETİ ÖLÇÜM KALİTESİNİ, TERCİH EDİLEN ÖLÇEK DERECESİ NASIL ETKİLER?. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(40), 542-556. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.873800