Customer Journey Effectiveness

What it measures

Four items provide a global assessment of how positive, appealing, and satisfying a consumer considers a brand's overall customer journey experience. Kuehn, Jozic, and Homburg (2019) used this as a dependent variable in an additional study with 190 participants to demonstrate the convergent validity of the CJD second-order scale. The CJD scale explained 66% of variance in this global measure. AVE was .74.

Response format

Mixed format: items 1–3 are 7-point bipolar semantic differentials; item 4 is a 7-point Likert (totally disagree/totally agree)

Scale items

• like not at all / like very much
• very bad / very good
• not at all appealing / very appealing
• This brand offers a great customer journey experience. [totally disagree / totally agree]

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

Mixed response format: items 1–3 are semantic differentials with bipolar anchors embedded in the item text; item 4 is a Likert statement with totally disagree/totally agree anchors. Item 1's phrasing ('like not at all') is awkward English — consider 'don't like at all / like very much' as a cleaner alternative. A description of 'customer journey' should be provided to participants given that even experts lack a widely accepted definition. Companion subscales are IDs 958, 959, 960.

Recommended companion scales

Citation

Kuehn, C., Jozic, D., & Homburg, C. (2019). Effective customer journey design: Consumers' conception, measurement, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 551–568.

Keywords