You are here

Scale Reviews

Find reliable measures for use in your questionnaires. Search Now


I have relied on the Marketing Scales Handbooks over several years in academic and industry roles and look forward to using the newest edition. A seven on a seven-point satisfaction scale!
Tom Prinsen, Ph.D.
Global Manager Market Intelligence, Biomet Orthope


Five items are used to measure how ambiguous and chaotic a visual stimulus with multiple parts appears to be.

The level of exactitude a person believes was used in a particular advertising claim is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

Five, seven-point bi-polar adjectives are used to measure how much a person believes a brand's personality is evident and clear.

A person's inconsistent attitude toward an object is measured in this scale using five, seven-point Likert-type items.  Chang (2011) used various versions of the scale to measure two constructs: ambivalence toward "green" products and ambivalence toward buying "green" products.

The six item, nine-point Likert-type scale measures the difficulty a consumer had in knowing what people from various references groups thought about products and what their recommendations would have been. The scale was called ambiguous social reaction by Heitmann, Lehmann, and Herrmann (2007).

The scale is composed of three, six-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a person expresses having difficulty making a decision. The scale was called perceived ambiguity by Kardes et al. (2007).

Four bi-polar adjectives are used to measure the degree to which a person perceives a stimulus to have a quality characteristic of a broader class of stimuli rather than one particular stimulus. Aggarwal and Law (2005) used the scale as a manipulation check to make sure two scenarios were similar in their levels of abstraction.

The scale is composed of semantic differential items intended to measure the difficulty a person has understanding the meaning of an advertisement.

Sixteen Likert-type statements are purported to measure an individual's tendency to interpret situations that cannot be adequately categorized (ambiguous) as sources of threat because of a lack of sufficient cues.  Although the construct is more popularly known as tolerance for ambiguity, the way it was scored by Richardson, Jain, and Dick (1996) was measuring the opposite tendency.