Three items assess the extent to which a customer perceives that a service agent suggested workable options, acted competently, and demonstrated active problem-solving behaviour. Used as a manipulation check in a study of verbal and nonverbal cues in airline service recovery scenarios.
7-point Likert (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)
Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.
Composite reliability (not Cronbach alpha) was reported: .90 for a missed-flight scenario and .87 for a lost-luggage scenario. AVEs were .75 and .70 respectively. CFAs confirmed reasonable fit in both contexts and discriminant validity was supported. The scale was also used as a manipulation check. The original article notes that pairing the scale stem with strongly disagree/strongly agree anchors is grammatically awkward; a suggested fix is to modify the stem so items read as full sentences (e.g., 'The agent suggested feasible options'). A generic employee descriptor (e.g., 'airline agent', 'customer service agent') should replace the blank.
Marinova, D., Singh, S. K., & Singh, J. (2018). Frontline problem-solving effectiveness: A dynamic analysis of verbal and nonverbal cues. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(2), 178–192.
Free access to 2455+ psychometric scales at PsychScales