This article puts forth stated improvement scales, improvement rankings, maximum difference scaling, and Q-sort as stated improvement research methods identified in the literature. For each method, an overview is provided along with their advantages and disadvantages. Future research needs to examine stated improvement research methods in more detail, to identify best practices for each approach, and to determine which method is the most valid and accurate. Stated improvement methods are proposed as a complimentary analysis to more traditional inferred improvement methods.
AmooT.FriedmanH. H. (2000). Overall evaluation rating scales: An assessment. International Journal of Market Research, 42(3), 301–310.
2.
BaconD. R. (2003). A comparison of approaches to IPA. International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), 55–71.
3.
BaconD. R. (2012). Understanding priorities for service attribute improvement. Journal of Services Research, 15(2), 199–214.
4.
BansalH. S.DuvergerP. (2013). Investigating the measures of relative importance in marketing research. International Journal of Market Research, 55(5), 675–694.
5.
ChrzanK. (2023). Performance improvement experiments for CX research. Quirks Marketing Research Review. (September).
6.
ChrzanK.GolovashkinaN. (2006). An empirical test of six stated importance measures. International Journal of Market Research, 48(6), 717–740.
7.
GarverM. S. (2003). Customer-driven improvement model: Best practices in identifying improvement opportunities. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(6), 455–466.
8.
GarverM. S. (2009). A maximum difference scaling application for customer satisfaction researchers. International Journal of Market Research, 51(4), 158–175.
9.
GarverM. S. (2011). Improving continuous improvement with maximum difference scaling. Quirks Marketing Research Review. (October).
10.
GarverM. S. (2018). Adaptive Q-sort: A new approach for prioritizing customer preferences. Quirks Marketing Research Review. (March).
11.
GarverM. S. (2024). New CX measurement scales: Examining the best ever scale and stated improvement scale. Quirks Marketing Research Review.
12.
GarverM. S.WilliamsZ. (2020). Utilizing relative weight analysis in customer satisfaction research. International Journal of Market Research, 62(2), 158–175.
13.
HairJ. F.AndersonR.TathamR.BlackW. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
14.
HealeR.ForbeD. (2014). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidenced Based Nursing, 16(4), 4.
15.
JohnsonJ. W.LeBretonJ. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7(3), 238–257.
LeBretonJ. M.PloyhartR. E.LaddR. T. (2004). A Monte Carlo comparison of relative importance methodologies. Organizational Research Methods, 7(3), 257–258.
18.
MartillaJ. A.JamesJ. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79.
19.
PerkinsT.EvansH.BuoyeA.RubinD.KeininghamT.AksoyL. (2022). Journal of Creating Value, 8(2), 284–305.
20.
PetersonR. A.WilsonW. R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: Fact and artifact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 61–71.
21.
RustR.ZahorikA.KeininghamT. (1994). Return on quality (ROQ): Making service quality financially accountable. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 58–70.
22.
SlackN. (1994). The Importance-Performance Matrix as a Determinant of Improvement Priority. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(5), 59–75.
23.
WaddellH. (1999). A better customer satisfaction scale. Quirks Marketing Research Review. (October).
24.
WirtzJ. (2000). An examination of the presence, magnitude and impact of halo on consumer satisfaction measures. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7(2), 89–99.