The adoption of measurement scales for the assessment of transit service quality shapes the subjective evaluation of the system. However, the discrete nature of the Likert scale falls short in capturing the inherent vagueness of human perception and behavior. In contrast, the evolution of fuzzy set theory has overcome this limitation and demonstrated the utility of fuzzy scales in qualitative studies. The type 2 fuzzy scale, an advanced version of the type 1 fuzzy scale, effectively incorporates both vagueness and randomness and forms of uncertainty. The present study addresses the limitation of not involving travelers in constructing the measurement scale. Two Indian cities, each with distinct demographic, socioeconomic, and travel characteristics, were selected as study cities, and 434 samples were collected from different types of travelers. This study focuses on developing a scale for evaluating transit service quality, with the travelers’ trip characteristics captured through their frequency of transit use (users, infrequent users, and nonusers). Through hypothesis testing, the study identified statistically significant differences in the boundary values of linguistic terms and their membership functions across user groups. These findings confirm that the same linguistic label (e.g., “good”) may represent different perception levels for different user categories. The proposed fuzzy scale thus better accommodates variability in individuals’ perceptions. Additionally, the observed variation between the two cities highlights the influence of socioeconomic and demographic factors on how transit quality is perceived, reinforcing the need for localized calibration of measurement scales in service quality assessments.
IbrahimA. N. H.BorhanM. N.Sex Disparity in Satisfaction and Loyalty Towards Urban Rail Transit: A Survey of Light Rail Transit (LRT) Passengers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2021, pp. 223–228. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2021.13.03.027.
8.
ImamR.Measuring Public Transport Satisfaction from User Surveys. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9, No. 6, 2014, pp. 106–114. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n6p106.
9.
ParkK.FarbA.ChenS.First-/Last-Mile Experience Matters: The Influence of the Built Environment on Satisfaction and Loyalty Among Public Transit Riders. Transport Policy, Vol. 112, 2021, pp. 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.08.003.
10.
PapadimitriouE.MylonaV.GoliasJ.Perceived Level of Service, Driver, and Traffic Characteristics: Piecewise Linear Model. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 10, 2010, pp. 887–894. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000154.
11.
de OñaJ.de OñaR.GarridoC.Extraction of Attribute Importance from Satisfaction Surveys with Data Mining Techniques: A Comparison Between Neural Networks and Decision Trees. Transportation Letters, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2017, pp. 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2015.1136917.
12.
EboliL.MazzullaG.A New Customer Satisfaction Index for Evaluating Transit Service Quality. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2009, pp. 21–37.
13.
WangY.ZhangZ.ZhuM.WangH.The Impact of Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction on Reuse Intention in Urban Rail Transit in Tianjin, China. SAGE Open, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2020, P. 2158244019898803. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898803.
MemmedovaK.ErtunaB.Development of a Fuzzy Likert Scales to Measure Variables in Social Sciences. Information Sciences, Vol. 654, 2024, P. 119792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119792.
18.
HodgeD. R.GillespieD.Phrase Completions: An Alternative to Likert Scales. Social Work Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2003, pp. 45–55.
19.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK.Research Methods in Education. Routledge, London, 2017.
20.
RussellC. J.BobkoP.Moderated Regression Analysis and Likert Scales: Too Coarse for Comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 3, 1992, pp. 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.336.
21.
CleggF.Simple Statistics: A Course Book for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
22.
LubianoM. A.DeS.RosaLaSáa De MontenegroM.SinovaB.GilM. Á.Descriptive Analysis of Responses to Items in Questionnaires. Why Not Using a Fuzzy Rating Scale?Information Sciences, Vol. 360, 2016, pp. 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.04.029.
23.
CarifioJ.PerlaR. J.Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends About Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and Their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2007, pp. 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(93)90283-S.
24.
CalcagnìA.LombardiL.Dynamic Fuzzy Rating Tracker (DYFRAT): A Novel Methodology for Modeling Real-Time Dynamic Cognitive Processes in Rating Scales. Applied Soft Computing Journal, Vol. 24, 2014, pp. 948–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.08.049.
25.
MaraziN. F.MajumdarB. B.SahuP. K.PandaS.KoramatiS.Traffic Congestion Assessment Tool for Urban Roads Based on Traffic and Geometric Characteristics: A Case of Hyderabad, India. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, Vol. 149, No. 11, 2023. pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1061/JTEPBS.TEENG-7908.
ChenP. Y.YaoG.PRM40 Improving the Measurement of Quality of Life Based on Fuzzy Scale. Value in Health, Vol. 14, No. 7, 2011, p. A428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.1071.
28.
VonglaoP.Application of Fuzzy Logic to Improve the Likert Scale to Measure Latent Variables. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2017, pp. 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.01.002.
29.
LubianoM. A.García-IzquierdoA. L.GilM. Á.Fuzzy Rating Scales: Does Internal Consistency of a Measurement Scale Benefit from Coping with Imprecision and Individual Differences in Psychological Rating?Information Sciences, Vol. 550, 2021, pp. 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.10.042.
30.
RaginC. C.Fuzzy-Set Social Science. The University of Chicago Press, Ltd, London, 2000.
31.
BenoitE.FoulloyL.The Role of Fuzzy Scales in Measurement Theory. Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, Vol. 46, No. 8, 2013, pp. 2921–2926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.04.043.
32.
WadgaveU.KhairnarM. R.Parametric Tests for Likert Scale: For and Against. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 24, 2016, pp. 67–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2016.08.016.
33.
ChaiC.ShiX.WongY. D.ErM. J.GweeE. T. M.Fuzzy Logic-Based Observation and Evaluation of Pedestrians’ Behavioral Patterns by Age and Gender. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 40, 2016, pp. 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.04.004.
34.
JansenP.ColleyM.PfeiferT.RukzioE.Visualizing Imperfect Situation Detection and Prediction in Automated Vehicles: Understanding Users’ Perceptions via User-Chosen Scenarios. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 104, 2024, pp. 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.05.015.
35.
MendelJ. M.Type-2 Fuzzy Sets and Systems: An Overview. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2007, pp. 20–29.
36.
ZadehL. A.The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning-III. Information Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1975, pp. 43–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90017-1.
37.
SamE. F.BrijsK.DanielsS.BrijsT.WetsG.Construction and Validation of a Public Bus Passenger Safety Scale. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 66, 2019, pp. 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.017.
38.
de OñaJ. Understanding the Mediator Role of Satisfaction in Public Transport: A Cross-Country Analysis. Transport Policy, Vol. 100, 2021, pp. 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.09.011.
39.
JastiP. C.Vinayaka RamV.Integrated Performance Assessment and Service Level Benchmarking of Urban Bus System Using Fuzzy Logic. European Transport, No. 69, 2018, pp. 1–14.
40.
HassanM. N.NajmiA.RashidiT. H.A Two-Stage Recreational Destination Choice Study Incorporating Fuzzy Logic in Discrete Choice Modelling. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 67, 2019, pp. 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.10.015.
41.
AllenJ.EboliL.MazzullaG.De DiosJ.Effect of Critical Incidents on Public Transport Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Ordinal Probit SEM–MIMIC Approach. Springer US, Switzerland, 2020.
42.
DoganO.DeveciM.CanıtezF.KahramanC.A Corridor Selection for Locating Autonomous Vehicles Using an Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Method. Soft Computing, Vol. 24, No. 12, 2020, pp. 8937–8953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04421-5.
43.
LiX. H.HuangL.LiQ.LiuH. C.Passenger Satisfaction Evaluation of Public Transportation Using Pythagorean Fuzzy MULTIMOORA Method under Large Group Environment. Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12, No. 12, 2020, P. 4996. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124996.
44.
TumsekcaliE.AyyildizE.TaskinA.Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP-WASPAS Based Public Transportation Service Quality Evaluation by a New Extension of SERVQUAL Model: P-SERVQUAL 4.0. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 186, 2021, P. 115757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115757.
45.
LiQ.ChenQ. Y.LiuZ.LiuH. C.Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Evaluation Using an Extended Thermodynamic Method: A Case Study of Shanghai, China. Soft Computing, Vol. 25, No. 16, 2021, pp. 10901–10914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05790-6.
46.
ÖztürkF.A Hybrid Type-2 Fuzzy Performance Evaluation Model for Public Transport Services. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol. 46, No. 10, 2021, pp. 10261–10279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-05687-4.
47.
WangH.YaoJ.ZhangX.ZhangY.An Area Similarity Measure for Trapezoidal Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets and Its Application to Service Quality Evaluation. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 23, No. 7, 2021, pp. 2252–2269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-021-01099-6.
48.
CelikE.BilisikO. N.ErdoganM.GumusA. T.BaracliH.An Integrated Novel Interval Type-2 Fuzzy MCDM Method to Improve Customer Satisfaction in Public Transportation for Istanbul. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 58, 2013, pp. 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.06.006.
49.
SamaH. R.ChenL. S.NalluriV.ChendragiriM.Enhancing Service Quality of Rural Public Transport During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Novel Fuzzy Approach. Public Transport, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2023, pp. 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-022-00318-z.
50.
CaiY.A Generalized Integrated Framework for Urban Public Transport Operations Evaluation Based on Interval Neutrosophic TODIM and EDAS Technique. Soft Computing, Vol. 28, No. 17, 2024, pp. 10331–10344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-024-09787-9.
51.
Kempf-LeonardK. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement. Elsevier, Boston; London, 2005.
52.
KothariC. R.Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. New Delhi, India, 2015.
53.
JankováZ.RakovskáE.Comparison Uncertainty of Different Types of Membership Functions in T2FLS: Case of International Financial Market. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, P. 918. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020918.
VasudevanN.GoreN.ZopeR.ArkatkarS.JoshiG.Determining Mode Shift Elasticity Based on Household Income and Travel Cost. Elsevier Ltd, Netherlands, 2021.
59.
SumanH. K.BoliaN. B.TiwariG.Comparing Public Bus Transport Service Attributes in Delhi and Mumbai: Policy Implications for Improving Bus Services in Delhi. Transport Policy, Vol. 56, 2017, pp. 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.002.
60.
SumanH. K.BoliaN. B.TiwariG.Perception of Potential Bus Users and Impact of Feasible Interventions to Improve Quality of Bus Services in Delhi. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2018, pp. 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.07.009.
61.
AllenJ.MuñozJ. C.De Dios OrtúzarJ.On the Effect of Operational Service Attributes on Transit Satisfaction. Transportation, Vol. 47, No. 5, 2020, pp. 2307–2336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10016-8.
62.
PrabhakaranP.AnandakumarS.PriyankaE. B.ThangavelS.Development of Service Quality Model Computing Ridership of Metro Rail System Using Fuzzy System. Results in Engineering, Vol. 17, 2023, P. 100946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.100946.
