Journal of Marketing Management, 2005, 21, 779-808

Developing a Value-Based Measure

Shu-Ching Chen1 and
Pascale G. Quester2
Southwest Jiaotong University,
China1
University of Adelaide1
of Market Orientation in an
Interactive Service Relationship
This study developed a value-based scale measuring
market orientation using both qualitative and
quantitative research approaches. The shared views
of both front-line employees and customers were
used in the scale development process. Findings
from the first stage of qualitative research resulted
in a preliminary construct incorporating both
concepts of market orientation and customer value.
The following quantitative research steps validated
the developed measures and supported the
robustness of the proposed construct.

Keywords: market orientation, customer value, measure

Introduction

Previous researchers in the market orientation area have made a great

contribution to our knowledge of successful business operations (e.g. Day
and Wensley 1988; Hooley et al. 1990). Empirical findings about market
orientation, however, often remain mixed: For example, its implementation
does not appear to guarantee business profit (e.g., Kohli and Jaworski 1990;
Narver and Slater 1990 cf. Atuahene-Gima 1995; Greenley 1995). A possible
explanation for this may lie in the measurement of market orientation, as
scales adopted by scholars in previous research have favoured the supply-
side (i.e., the organizational perspective on market orientation) at the expense
of the demand-side (i.e., the customers’ perspective on market orientation).
As a result, current market orientation studies may benefit from the formal
inclusion of consumers’ views - and their perception of value - in their
measure of market orientation (Harris 2002).
Indeed, many researchers have emphasized that the development of

1 Shu-Ching Chen, Associate Professor in Marketing, School of Economics and

Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610031, P.R. China
Tel (8628) 8760 0833, Fax (8628) 8763 4343, E-mail: schen@home.swjtu.edu.cn
2 Correspondence: Pascale G. Quester, Professor in Marketing, School of Commerce,

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia Tel (618) 8303 4767, Fax
(618) 8303 4368, E-mail: Pascale.Quester@adelaide.edu.au
ISSN1472-1376/2005/7-8/00779 + 29 £8.00/0 ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.
780 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

market orientation should involve customers’ viewpoints (e.g., Deshpandé et

al. 1993, Harris 2002). Moreover, scholars in this area have also long
recognized the pivotal role of customer value in explaining the construct of
market orientation (e.g., Narver et al. 1998). Despite this, however, little effort
has been made to date to formally identify and weave the components of
customer value into the market orientation construct and its measurement.
This paper seeks to address this gap by examining the contribution of
customer value to the construct of market orientation. Narver and Slater
(1990) mentioned the term “customer value” and highlighted the notion of
customer value in relation to market orientation, although they did not
formally include this concept in their model, nor elucidate its specific
composition. Using their seminal work as our starting point, therefore, we
develop and measure a customer value-based market orientation (CVBMO)
construct and we describe the development of a measuring scale, which may
address some of the inconsistencies previously identified in the research
examining the link between market orientation and performance.
Importantly, market-oriented organizations must recognise that customer
value can only be defined by customers themselves (Weinstein and Pohlman
1998). Thus, we propose to follow Harris (2002) by including the
simultaneous views of both suppliers and their customers, albeit in a service
rather than a manufacturing context. Recent research in marketing has
emphasized the importance of measuring phenomena from a dyadic
perspective and our study, therefore, explicitly includes the concept of
customer value as perceived by both service providers and their customers.
Derived from a review of the relevant literature, the theoretical foundation
of the study is presented and a conceptual framework proposed. Based on
these, the scale development process began with a qualitative study using
focus group interviews to generate initial scale items. Quantitative research,
including pre-test and field-test, was then undertaken to validate the
developed scale. The research results are then presented and discussed.
Finally, a number of academic and managerial implications are proposed and
the limitations of this study as well as directions for future study are also
discussed.

Theoretical Foundation

Market Orientation
The literature provides evidence of prolific and varied scale development
processes in relation to market orientation. However, most measures can be
identified as stemming from two distinct origins: (1) Kohli and Jaworski
(1990), and (2) Narver and Slater (1990). Importantly, these two pioneering
market orientation constructs were derived from field interviews with
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 781

business executives or managers and, as such, may well present only a partial
perspective on market orientation. In particular, the lack of customers’ input
in market orientation scale development has been considered a key problem
(e.g., Gabel 1995; Harris 2002). While subsequent developments of market
orientation scales have aimed to better understand the context of market
orientation (e.g., Ruekert 1992; Deng and Dart 1994), these works are rare and
often continue to overlook customers’ opinions in their scale development
process.
It is a generally accepted approach for scholars to modify existing
constructs or build theory from existing conceptualisation (Zaltman et al.
1982). In terms of research focus for this study, selecting a convincing basis
from existing market orientation constructs and/or conceptualisations was a
crucial first step. The literature suggests that Narver and Slater’s approach
may be preferable in terms of conceptualisation (e.g., Wrenn 1997), scale
development (e.g., Gabel 1995), validity and reliability (e.g., Oczkowski and
Farrell 1998), applicability (e.g., Chang and Chen 1998) and generalisability
(e.g., Mavondo and Farrell 2000). Additionally, the market orientation model
of Narver and Slater also appeared more appropriate when conducting a
cross-country or cross-industry research (Mavondo and Farrell 2000).
Therefore, Narver and Slater’s conceptualisation of market orientation, and
its underlying premise of providing superior value for exchange partners,
justified its use as the protype for the proposed value-based market
orientation scale developed in this study. Customer-centric thinking was then
included to this measure by involving customers’ opinions in the definition of
value.

Customer Value
The literature on the benefits of customer value suggests three key
arguments for adopting this concept in this study: (1) customer value is a
theory emphasising the implementation of customer-centric thinking in
marketing (e.g., Weinstein and Pohlman 1998); (2) customer value is regarded
as the premise to achieve a positive business performance (e.g., Woodruff,
Schumann and Gardial 1993; Gale 1997); (3) customer value provides a useful
conceptual link to examine the relationship between market orientation and
customer retention (e.g., Cadogan and Diamantopoulos 1995). Customer
value thus appears pivotal in consolidating the market orientation construct.
A review of the literature on customer value also suggests that existing
research in this domain has yet to provide a valid scale for use in empirical
investigations. Most researchers have focused on theoretical exploration
rather than on empirical verification of existing measures (e.g., Woodruff and
Gardial 1996; Weinstein and Johnson 1999; Daniels 2000). Due to the
unavailability of valid customer value measures employed in market
782 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

orientation research, this study develops a conceptual categorisation of

customer value based on a summary of the literature review. This conceptual
categorisation constitutes a basis for the proposed value based market
orientation measure.
A combined view on customer value is adopted in this study. As shown in
Table 1, two primary thoughts on value are identified from the research
domain of consumer behaviour: (1) the rational perspective of value (e.g.
Zeithaml 1988; Day 1990; Kotler 1994) and (2) the experiential perspective of
value (e.g. Woodruff and Gardial 1996; Woodruff 1997; Holbrook 1999).
According to Zeithaml (1988), the rational perspective of value is a kind of
return for paying for commodity, and such return involves an assessment of
trade-off or a comparison of benefits and sacrifices (i.e., the monetary and
non-monetary costs) in terms of the consumption experience. By contrast, the
experiential perspective of value places an emphasis on the personal and
subjective perception such as emotion or preference. As Holbrook and
Hirschman (1982) stated, “this experiential perspective is phenomenological
in spirit and regards consumption as a primarily subjective state of
consciousness with a variety of symbolic meanings, hedonic responses, and
esthetic criteria.” As both perspectives are equally important to enhance the
comprehension of value in consumption experiences (Holbrook and
Hirschman 1982), both are employed in this study.
Moreover, an overview of value theory suggests that customers can
perceive value from several aspects. Overall, two kinds of measures for
customer value are identified from relevant studies under the rational and
experiential perspectives of value: they are attribute / monetary (e.g.,
Weinstein and Pohlman 1998; Weinstein and Johnson 1999) and experiential
/non-monetary ones (e.g., Holbrook 1999; de Ruyter et al. 1997). In addition,
some scholars also introduce different dimensions of customer value, which
can mainly be classified as extrinsic and intrinsic ones (e.g., Hartman 1967;
Holbrook 1994, 1999). These studies provide the basis of a conceptual
categorization of customer value, which is used for developing the desired
measures in the study, as shown in Table 1.
In addition, studies in customer value suggest that customer value can be
derived from the consequence of comparing perceived benefits and perceived
costs (e.g., Zeithaml 1988; Woodruff and Gardial 1996; Weinstein and
Pohlman 1998). Integrating customer value into the measurement of market
orientation was undertaken in a systematic manner, as described in the
following section.

A Conceptual Framework

Based on the previous review of th e literatures on market orientation and

 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 783

Table 1. A Conceptual Categorisation of Customer Value Developed in the

Study

Extrinsic Aspect Intrinsic Aspect

Perspective Type
(utilitarian/functional) (hedonic/symbolic)
e.g., Store facilities
Attribute benefits e.g., Service quality
Rational (physical aspect in store)
Perspective e.g., Perceived value
Monetary costs e.g., Price paid
at a certain price
e.g., Personal
Experiential benefits e.g., Store appearance
Experiential identification to store
Perspective e.g., Convenience e.g., Convenience
Non-monetary costs
(store feature) (time, service)
Source: Hartman (1967), Holbrook and Hirschman (1982), Zeithaml (1988)

customer value, a diagrammatic representation of the conceptual framework

is shown in Figure 1. The research focus is on the interaction between front-
line employees and their customers in a selected service-dominating industry.
As most studies in market orientation focus on the internal interface
(organisation/employees), a focus on the external interface (employees
/customers) should provide a more complete understanding of the effects of
implementing customer value-based market orientation (CVBMO).

Implemented Customer Value Perceived Customer Value

Customers’ Appraisal of
Front-line Employees’ Efforts
Front-line Employees’
to Implement Market
Performance of Market
Orientation
Orientation

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Previous research has demonstrated the interactive nature of market

orientation. In particular, Siguaw, Simpson and Baker (1998) were amongst
the first to provide empirical evidence that suppliers’ market orientation
affected that of distributors and that distributors’ market orientation
influenced in turn other important relationship factors. While our study is
concerned with service providers and their customers, a dyadic perspective
and the simultaneous measure of customer value based market orientation
from both perspectives would appear just as essential to a comprehensive
assessment of market orientation and its effect on business performance.
Given that both firms (represented by front-line service employees) and
784 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

customers were involved in the intended scale development process, their

perceptions of, and reaction to, market orientation by means of customer
value should be examined simultaneously. On the firm side, the focus is on
understanding employees’ efforts to implement market orientation, by means
of customer value delivery, based on the appraisal of their own service
performance (Implemented CVBMO). On the customer side, our focus is on
understanding employees’ service performance of market orientation practice
from customers’ perspective (Perceived CVBMO). An integrated view from
both sides should allow a more comprehensive appraisal of the overall
construct of customer value-based market orientation and this provided the
basis for our scale development process.

Scale Development Process

A good scale should exhibit four essential qualities: objectivity, validity,

reliability, and practicality (Emory 1976). However, the soundness of any
research instrument also depends on a reliable process of scale development
(Gabel 1995) and in particular, the recognition of the specific nature of the
construct under scrutiny, such as concrete or abstract (Rossiter 2002) and/or
its relationship with potential measurement items, such as reflective or
formative (Jarvis et al. 2003). In our particular case, we seek to identify items
that reflect an essentially abstract formed construct, based on the views of two
distinct but interacting populations, namely the service providers and the
customers, with the view to develop an integrative scale allowing researchers
to measure market orientation based on customer value.
A qualitative pilot study using focus group interviews with potential
informants was therefore undertaken. This approach avoided the domination
of the researcher in the scale development process and enhanced the rigor of
our research. This also ensured that the subsequent validation of measures at
the pre-test and post-fieldwork stage was more meaningful. This initial
qualitative process then gave way to quantitative assessment of the
contribution of items to the definition of factors defining the shared views of
customers and service provider on customer based market orientation. The
final scale was then empirically validated with a full-scale survey undertaken
in a specific service industry. Hence, this study comprised both a qualitative
and quantitative phase in order to fully uncover the nature of customer value-
based market orientation. The process used to develop the desired measures
is illustrated in Figure 2.
These steps were used as the basic structure for this study and are reported
sequentially in the following sections. A preliminary data collection was
undertaken to gain an in-depth understanding of market orientation practice
from the viewpoint of front-line employees and customers, allowing the
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 785

development of dimensions and variables for the proposed construct (study

1). The following questionnaire-based quantitative research included pre-test
(study 2) and a full-scale fieldwork (study 3) conducted in sequence to
validate this construct.

Research Setting and Sampling Frame

The study was undertaken in the service industry, and the research scope
was further defined as retailing. The service industry provides a good
research context for a study of value-based market orientation. In this setting,
an organization’s business activities are easier to perceive by customers as
well as more likely to generate prompt and direct responses. Moreover, the
potential effects of market orientation in the service sector should be greater
due to the more immediate “moments of truth” (Carlzon 1987) component of
service. Furthermore, previous empirical studies on market orientation have
been primarily conducted in the manufacturing setting. Supplying academic
evidence beyond conventional manufacturing industry may thus contribute
usefully to the existing market orientation literature.
In order to understand the impact of market orientation upon the
interaction between service providers and customers, this study focuses on
firms with relatively high interaction and long customer service in the service
industry. Firms operating within the hairdressing industry were thus chosen.
In addition to providing a suitable type of service interaction, selecting one
specific service industry in one specific country, such as hairdressing in
Taiwan, allowed some control over other industry-specific or national
variables which may impact on customer value definition, delivery and
perception.
In order to understand market orientation in practice and the effect of such
implementation, key informants came from two sources: front-line employees
and their customers. Therefore, the sampling frame draws from two sets of
populations under the selected sample firms. One involved the front-line
employees of selected chain-store hairdressing retailers. The other involved
their customers. The importance of key informants to the quality of research
is well established (e.g., John and Reves 1982; Churchill 1999). Most
researchers use convenience samples, including students, as respondents.
However, this may bias the research outcome due to the divergence of
opinions between ideal and practical informants. By contrast, this study
accessed ‘ideal’ informants, a more diverse sample of actual hairdressing
customers, ensuring the quality of the research outcomes.
786 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

Literature Focal Research

Review Question

Conceptual Framework

Qualitative
Focus Group Interviews

Content Analysis Study 1

Generation of
Measurement Items
y Scale Purification
y Validity Assessment
(Face, Content Validity)
y Reliability Assessment Pre-test &
(Test-retest, Inter-item Study 2
Validation of Measures
Consistency Reliability)

y Scale Purification
y Validity Assessment Quantitative
(Concurrent, Convergent, Fieldwork
Nomological Validity)
y Reliability Assessment
(Inter-item Consistency
Study 3
Reliability) Post-fieldwork
y Confirmatory Factor Validation of Measures
Analysis
(Convergent validity,
reliability, Discriminant
validity) Valid Value-based
Market Orientation Measures

Figure 2. The Procedure for Developing Value-based Market Orientation

Measures

Study 1: Generation of Scale Items

Focus Group Interview (FGI)

This stage of qualitative research was aimed at discovering possible
candidate variables for certain dimensions of market orientation, at
understanding customer value in an organization claiming market
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 787

orientation, and at identifying customers’ perceptions of customer value from

an organization’s market orientation practice. Focus group interviews were
adopted as the research method as they allow complex research issues such as
behaviour or attitudes to be revealed in depth due to direct interaction
amongst participants (e.g., Stewart and Shamdasani 1990).
Twenty-four front-line employees and 30 office workers (both male and
female) were recruited as focal informants. Six focus group interviews, 3 for
the firms and 3 for the customers, were then conducted. Eight to 10 persons
attended each session. The necessary steps for conducting FGI followed the
guidelines suggested in previous studies (Keown 1983; Stewart and
Shamdasani 1990; Carson et al. 2001). Several open-ended questions were
prepared beforehand and raised in the interview. Major topics for service
providers’ discussion concerned their views of customer value and their
implementation of customer service. As to the customers, major topics
included the concept of customer value and their perception of service
providers’ performance of customer service. A detailed program for FGI was
prepared in advance and implemented, comprising three parts: preparation,
screening and recruiting of participants, and design of a moderator guide for
FGI.

Content Analysis
Content analysis was undertaken to ensure the content validity of focus
group interviewing, and to identify reliable variables for scale development.
The process of conducting content analysis has been described in previous
studies (e.g., Riffe et al. 1998). The analysis procedure involved the steps of
data processing (data making and data reduction) and reliability assessment.
Data processing for the two types of sources (i.e. firms and customers) was
undertaken independently as these two types of informants were different in
nature and therefore considered two independent populations. The data from
customers was used to explore their views of customer value as well as to
clarify their perceptions of the firms’ market-oriented actions, generating the
demand-side dimensions of the potential value-based market orientation
construct. In the same way, the customer value embedded in the firms’
market-oriented practice was derived from the data collected from the firms
and generated the supply-side dimensions of the potential value-based
market orientation construct. Both constructs were further combined to define
a comprehensive view of value-based market orientation construct.
To ensure the reliability of our categorization of variables contents, the
following reliability assessment was used to test inter-judge reliability. The
reliability index, Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen 1960), was used due to its wide
acceptance in the judgment-based coding procedures (Perreault and Leight
1989; Kolbe and Burnett 1991). The widely accepted number of judges is two
788 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

(Kolbe and Burnett 1991). Two academic experts were therefore invited to act
as independent judges. A content analysis protocol developed by the
researchers was provided with pre-processed written data in the form of
mixed independent sentences. Both judges worked independently and re-
categorized the sentences. After this, the researchers compared the results of
the two judges and calculated the frequency of occurrence and the level of
agreement under each classification of variables respectively. Eventually, the
interjudge reliability was generated by the formula of Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen
1960).

Table 2. Dimensionality of Value-based Market Orientation (VBMO) Scale

Further classification Initial classification

• Good attitude to serve customers
• The emphasis of service quality in business
1. Good service behaviours
policy

• Good outlet atmosphere

2. Good consuming environment • Cosy store environment

• Customized service approaches

• Skilled service technique
3. Positive service episodes
• Efficient and facile service procedure

• Convenience
• Novelty
• Consumer sovereignty
4. Individualised value
• Respectability and exclusivity
• Aesthetics consciousness

• Pricing incentive/Fairness
• Payment equity
5. Economic value
• Promotional incentive

• Goodwill effect
6. Risk avoidance in service • Sense of security / trustworthiness in service

• Personal identification from interaction

7. Social-psychological interaction • Incentives of relationship establishment

• Service offers in comparison with the

8. Considerations of service
competitors
alternatives
• Service outcomes
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 789

The test of interjudge reliability was undertaken in two waves. The first wave
was undertaken after the generation of potential components of a value-based
market orientation construct from customers and firms, respectively. The
interjudge reliability of content analysis was high. The coefficient of
agreement, Kappa, reached 91% and 95% for firms and customers
respectively. Based on this reliable classification of potential components, we
subjectively identified the similarities between both parties in their
viewpoints on value as implemented by the firms and perceived by
customers. These similarities provided the basis for the development of items
for a dyadic questionnaire used in the following quantitative survey (see right
column in Table 2). This process also suggested a certain degree of
consistency between customer value and market orientation.
In order to simplify the dimension of the intended value-based market
orientation, the grouping data validated from the first test were further
classified into 8 dimensions in terms of similar attributes (see left column of
Table 2). The two academic judges then undertook a second wave of Kappa
test. The Kappa value for the second test of interjudge reliability was 89%. In
general, the accepted reliability figure for content analysis is in the range of
0.8 to 0.9 (e.g., Riffe et al. 1998). Therefore, the results of our content analysis
appear very acceptable.

Results

Validity and reliability were ensured in this preliminary research phase by

the participation of key informants in the scale development process (content
validity) and the objective outcomes of content analysis (inter-judge reliability
from Kappa test). As a result, the outcomes of the qualitative pilot study
provided an early validation of our proposed customer value-based market
orientation (CVBMO) measure. The resulting 8 dimensions of scale items,
based on shared views on CVBMO by the firm and the customers, are shown
in the left column of Table 2. Items identified at this research stage were
adopted for further scale development.

Study 2: Pre-test of Scale Items

The primary purpose of pre-testing is to detect any problem pertaining to the

development of scale items. The research design for the current study is
dyadic in nature. Two questionnaires were therefore developed for the firms
and the customers respectively. The views common to both the firms and
customers were derived from prior qualitative research and developed into
question items. A total of 93 items were included in the pre-testing
questionnaire for firms and customers respectively. All variables were
790 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

measured using seven-point Likert-type scales anchored with 1 (Completely

Disagree), 4 (Neither Disagree Nor Agree), and 7 (Completely Agree).
A field test undertaken with the participation of key informants (different
from the informants of the pilot study) provided a reliable approach for
validating the measures. Sixty sample front-line employees (store manager
and hairstylists) and 58 sample customers (mature students having practical
working experience and studying for degrees such as Executive MBA or PhD)
were included in the pre-test. Both types of respondents represent their
respective population (firms and customers) well. The front-line employees
defined their own market-oriented efforts towards satisfying customers in
terms of customer value. The representatives of general customers were asked
to describe their appraisal of front-line employees’ market-oriented
performance in terms of customer value. These respondents then completed a
self-administered questionnaire provided to them with instructions in a cover
letter.

Scale Purification
In a preliminary step of scale purification, a test-retest test was undertaken.
In determining reliability, the Pearson correlation coefficient was used to
assess the reliability of the scales employed and to facilitate the selection of
appropriate measure items. The items with poor test-retest reliability were
identified and deleted at first. Any measure item which a correlation
significant at the level of p< .05 (2-tailed) was retained in the final research
instrument.
In order to ensure internal consistency of the measures, the Cronbach's
alpha was also used at the pre-test stage to further examine and delete
measure items with poor coefficients. Scale items that showed a sharp drop in
the plotted pattern and a poor item-to-total correlation became candidates for
elimination. The purified measures were then tested in the full-scale
fieldwork (study 3).
In order to allow for the same measure items to be used in the paired
questionnaires for each firm and its customers, any measure item with poor
reliability in either questionnaire was deleted simultaneously from both
questionnaires at the pre-test stage. Consequently, 63 items were retained to
represent aspects of front-line employees’ efforts to implement market
orientation (firm CVBMO) and customers’ perceptions of front-line
employees’ market orientation efforts (customer CVBMO) (see Table 3).
Table 3. Reliability Assessment (Firm & Customer CVBMO)

Item deletion Cronbach’s Alpha

Original No. Final No. of Items
Dimension Post-fieldwork Pre-test Post-fieldwork
of Items Pre-test
F C F C F C F C
1. Good service behaviours 12 3 0 0 9 9 .9149 .9354 .9298 .8935
2. Good consuming
11 6 1 1 4 4 .8265 .8678 .8405 .8180
environment
3. Good episodes in service 13 7 0 0 6 6 .9055 .9439 .8891 .9016
4. Individualised
22 2 1 4 19 16 .8840 .9389 .9417 .9478
value
5. Economic
12 2 1 0 9 10 .8152 .9387 .9220 .9407
value
6. Risk avoidance in
9 3 0 0 6 6 .9463 .9435 .9167 .9150
service
7. Social-psychological
8 4 0 0 4 4 .8393 .9148 .9100 .9041
interaction
8. Considerations of service
6 3 0 1 3 2 .8169 .8879 .8091 .8428
alternatives
Combined Scale .9725 .9879 .9827 .9828

Note: F-Firm, C-Customer

Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation
791
792 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

Validity Assessment
According to the scientific approach of validating any measurement, more
than two methods should be adopted (Churchill 1979). Two types of validity
were supported at this stage of pre-test: face validity and content validity.
Face validity was tested when the measure items were generated. In this
study, attention was paid to the evolution of the research instrument from
beginning to end. For example, when drafting the actual questions derived
from a large pool of items generated from focus group interview, the dialect
used by participants was re-edited for clarity. Also, the wording was adjusted
in terms of different types of informants (front-line employees and general
customers) for their understanding. In addition, both the questionnaires for
the firms and the customers were reviewed by practitioners and academics
and refined for clarification. This supports the face validity of the research
instrument.
In order to examine whether the measures used were adequate and
capable of delineating the intended value-based market orientation concept,
content validity was also assessed. As the measures used in this study were
derived from a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, and
supported from the results of focus group interviews in qualitative pilot
study, as well as examined and purified in the qualitative pre-testing, the
content validity of our value-based market orientation measure was ensured.

Reliability Assessment
The test-retest method was used to examine the reliability of the measures
at the pre-test stage. This test examines whether “a measurement taken at any
point in time is reliable” (Hair et al. 1998, p.118). The respondents’ memory
has been raised as problematic by some scholars (e.g., Churchill 1979), due to
the repeat of the same test with the same respondents, with or without an
interval between testing. However, a longer interval between the two tests
decreases such an effect. In addition, when there is a large number of ratings
to be made, memory in later test is almost unaffected by the former one
(Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). This situation applies to our case. Hence, a
test-retest procedure was undertaken by distributing questionnaires twice at
an interval of at least two weeks to the sampling firms and customers to
assess the reliability and consistency of their response.
The data collected from the two rounds of test were analysed using
correlation analysis. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was examined to
determine the test-retest reliability. A strong correlation between the two
time-interrupted investigations would suggest a high reliability of the
research instrument (Hair et al. 1998). Indeed, most of the measures exhibited
a satisfactory correlation coefficient ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 at a significance
level of p<.05. Moreover, the minimum acceptable correlation coefficient is 0.3
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 793

as generally reported in the literature (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). This

provided evidence for the test-retest reliability of the proposed measures.
Though there is no consensus on adopting the test-retest method to assess
reliability (e.g. Nunnally and Bernstein 1994 cf. Churchill 1979), using this
method solely for reliability assessment is a major concern (Peter 1979). Since
test-retest reliability does not indicate the level to which different measure
items may measure the same trait, inter-item consistency reliability test was
also undertaken.
The internal consistency of the entire scale for each dimension was
assessed by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Cronbach 1946). Results suggested
that the scales employed in this study for the two constructs (Firm and
Customer CVBMO) were appropriate in representing the nature of each
construct. As shown in Table 3, all Cronbach’s alpha values at pre-test stage
were above the limit recommended by Nunnally (1967). This provided
support for the inter-item consistency reliability of the paired constructs.
These results suggest the appropriateness of the scales employed for both
measures, representing the nature of front-line employees’ efforts and that of
customer satisfaction respectively. The internal consistency assessed by the
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha provides support for construct reliability.

Study 3: Post-fieldwork Validation of Scale Items

A stratified random sampling procedure (Sekaran 1992) was used in the full-
scale fieldwork to acquire data from informants from every sample firm. It is
widely accepted that the consumption behaviours in major cities are distinct
from that in rural areas, due to different customer characteristics. In order to
reduce a possible research bias caused by geographical factors, and to ensure
greater homogeneity in the sample firms and customers in terms of
geographic and lifestyle dimensions, only those stores located in major cities
were selected. Accordingly, the number of sample stores of a particular chain
in every city was systematically defined based on the store population across
the major cities. For each city, random sampling was applied to select stores.
The use of a stratified random sampling procedure in this study ensured that
the sample represents its population (Chatfield 1988). Consequently, a total of
78 chained hair salons located in 7 metropolises of Taiwan were included in
the study. Chained hair salons were deemed preferable because they would
exhibit greater homogeneity in terms of management styles and strategic
positioning than would independent service outlets.
A dyad sampling frame was designed for collecting data. The term “dyad”
or “dyadic”, as used in this study represents a matched set of service
provider-customer pairs from two different populations (i.e., the firms and
the customers). Specifically, the unit of analysis was the paired sample of a
794 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

service provider and her/his customers.

The individual average monthly sales and number of customers of each
service-provider were used as criteria for selection. This type of informant
was then randomly selected from each sample firm. For customers, only those
customers who were served by these focal representatives were considered as
potential informants. The available business hours allowed the randomisation
of customer sampling: customers who happened to enter the store at a pre-
determined survey time (i.e., a constant interval of time in the morning and
afternoon on weekdays, and afternoon on weekends) and agreed to
participate were selected as respondents. In this way, a variety of customers
with different consumption patterns were included in the sample. This also
avoided the effect of subjectivity in selecting customers.
Overall, a total of 900 customer questionnaires and 218 service provider
questionnaires were distributed. On average, four customers for each service
provider received the questionnaire. This yielded a total of 191 valid fully
matched sets. Each dyad involved a complete set of one service provider with
the average of two to three of their customers. A final response rate of 49.0%
for customers and 87.6% for service providers was calculated.

Scale Purification
On completion of the data collection, a series of post-fieldwork validation
was undertaken. Scale purification was undertaken again using Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha and item-to-total correlation. At the stage of post-fieldwork,
the scale purification ensured that the measures used to generate data for
resolving the research problems were validated. Item deletion regarding the
same measure item in the paired questionnaires (i.e., the constructs of firm
CVBMO & Customer CVBMO) was different from that used for the pre-test. To
enhance the practicality of the scale and make a contribution to future
research in this area, any measure with poor reliability in either questionnaire
was deleted from further analysis. Consequently, 60 and 57 items respectively
were retained for the Firm CVBMO and the Customer CVBMO constructs (see
Table 3).

Validity Assessment
Two primary validity tests were undertaken: criterion-related validity and
construct validity. The former was supported by concurrent validity. The
latter was supported by convergent and nomological validity. The way to
establish concurrent validity is to examine whether the empirical relationship
of two concurrent measures of the same construct is as expected. This
depends on the direction and magnitude of correlation coefficients. In this
study, the relationship of the two major constructs of firm and customer
CVBMO was examined. As shown in a shaded area of Table 4, the correlation
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 795

values between the components of the two major constructs were

significantly high. The direction and strength of these relationships were
consistent with expectations.
As to convergent validity, it involved evaluating whether all components
converge on a common construct. Correlation analysis was undertaken to
investigate the relationship between every two components of the same
construct. A strong correlation between two components indicates that they
are converging on a common underlying construct, Value Based Market
Orientation (VBMO). As shown in the non-shaded area of the following
correlation matrixes (Table 4), the components in each major construct were
all highly correlated with each other at a significance level of p< .01. This also
applied to the results of the associated sub-dimensions of each construct and
was evident by a further examination of zero-order correlation matrixes for
the sub-dimensions (see Appendix 4).
Based on the relationship between two variables in the same construct,
nomological validity is used to empirically verify the anticipated relationship
of these two variables, which are supposed to be relevant in theory. In this
study, the relationship between two major variables (firm and customer
CVBMO) was examined. The correlation matrixes, as shown in a shaded area
of Table 4, also indicated the predicted relationships between two variables.
The results show that the examined variables were all significantly correlated
with each other at a significance level of p< .01. The direction and weights
exhibited by the correlation coefficients were all consistent with the
anticipated relationships. Consequently, all three types of tests provided
support for the validity of our value-based market orientation measure.
Discriminant validity will be discussed in more detail in the section dealing
with Dimensionality Confirmation.

Reliability Assessment
In a similar fashion, the inter-item consistency reliability was assessed
again after fieldwork. The reliability was supported, again using Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha (Cronbach 1946), with all Cronbach’s alpha values above the
cut-off level of reliability (0.70) recommended for theory testing research
(Nunnally and Bernstein 1994) and the suggested level for scale robustness
(Nunnally 1978). As shown in Table 3, all Cronbach’s alpha values at post-
fieldwork stage were high, as recommended by Nunnally (1967). These
results confirm the appropriateness of the scales employed in representing
the nature of front-line employees’ CVBMO and that of customers CVBMO
respectively. The inter-item consistency reliability of both constructs was
established.
 796

Table 4. Item Correlation Matrixes

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
F1 1
F2 .788** 1
F3 .823** .815** 1
F4 .795** .708** .839** 1
F5 .708** .643** .778** .874** 1
F6 .724** .613** .728** .848** .874** 1
F7 .706** .632** .752** .835** .795** .814** 1
F8 .665** .637** .761** .791** .746** .727** .749** 1
C1 .560** .437** .532** .540** .492** .512** .548** .496** 1
C2 .406** .564** .505** .470** .425** .421** .475** .472** .747** 1
C3 .450** .463** .609** .559** .538** .512** .563** .592** .802** .786** 1
C4 .359** .315** .443** .584** .523** .516** .584** .526** .714** .705** .787** 1
C5 .298** .279** .402** .516** .546** .501** .550** .529** .660** .657** .764** .877** 1
Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

C6 .359** .336** .457** .529** .526** .587** .587** .550** .718** .703** .794** .856** .890** 1
C7 .299** .284** .409** .477** .442** .454** .599** .494** .684** .658** .775** .811** .790** .843** 1
C8 .365** .313** .476** .478** .472** .478** .541** .624** .715** .652** .796** .729** .752** .815** .760** 1
** p< .01
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 797

Dimensionality Confirmation
In order for researchers to utilize our developed measures with confidence,
a further validity assessment was undertaken to examine the dimensionality
of proposed construct. Prior inter-judge reliability of content analysis
generated by the formula of Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen 1960) ensured the
reliability of our categorization of variables contents. A confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) using AMOS 4.0 was undertaken to examine further the
proposed eight dimensional construct (see Table 2.). However, the results did
not validate every dimension of the proposed eight dimensional construct. In
order to clarify the underlying structure of each dimension of the construct,
therefore, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was undertaken for each
dimension of construct, revealing several sub-dimensions. Accordingly, a
second CFA was conducted to confirm the precise structure of the construct,
including its 8 dimensions and their sub-dimensions.
As presented in Appendices 1 and 2, the standardized loadings all
exceeded the acceptable limit of .50 (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991).
Moreover, the fit statistics indicated a reasonable level of fit, demonstrating
adequate convergent validity for all dimensions. Furthermore, measures of
composite reliability and variance extracted showed the construct reliability
and validity (both convergent and discriminant) to be good (see Appendix 1).
Both the measures of composite reliability and variance extracted exceeded
the acceptable level of 0.50 (Hair et al. 1998). All composite reliabilities of
dimensions and sub-dimensions were above .84, demonstrating the internal
consistency of each latent construct and associated dimensions and providing
evidence for the reliability of the overall construct. The average variance
extracted ranged from 0.80 to 0.98 and from 0.61 to 0.95 respectively,
confirming the representative nature of the indicators for the latent construct
and its associated dimensions.
Further evidence of discriminant validity was provided by the fact that the
average variance extracted for each construct was beyond the threshold level
of 0.50 (Hair et al. 1998). This also applied to the results of the associated
dimensions for each construct. In addition, the average variance extracted for
any given construct was greater than the squared correlations between it and
the other constructs (see Appendices 1 and 3). According to Fornell and
Larcker (1981)’s test and criteria for discrimant validity (Fornell and Larcker
1981, p.46), these results suggest that the proposed eight dimensions are
distinct. In summary, the above tests (convergent validity, reliability, and
discriminant validity) validated our proposed eight-dimensional construct
and its associated sub-dimensions. The final dimensions and their scale items
are reported in Appendix 1.
798 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

Conclusions

This study identified the components of a value-based market orientation

construct using both firms and customers’ perceptions of customer value
employed in market orientation practice. Developed initially from focus
group interviews with representatives from both parties, and verified by
different validity and reliability tests at different research stages, value-based
market orientation measures were generated and subsequently validated.
Evidence from this study provides support for the robustness of the
developed measure items. The final list of items can be found in Appendix 1.
The scales used to measure value-based market orientation were shown to
appropriately represent the nature of each dimension, as evidenced by the
validation of measure items. This demonstrated that customer value can be
successfully integrated into market orientation, opening up an avenue to
consolidate the market orientation construct.
Therefore, this study empirically verified the theoretical assertion of the
importance of customer value in market orientation. Content analysis clearly
revealed the importance of customer value in the implementation of market
orientation. According to the validated components derived from both
demand and supply sides of service, similarities between both perspectives
were identified in relation to value-based market orientation. Given that
misunderstanding customers generally stems from a partial viewpoint by the
firm, a further examination of these similar views reveals appropriate
solutions for closing the gaps between perceptions by both service parties, by
explicitly integrating customer value in market orientation practice.

Research Contribution

This study contributes to the field of marketing by integrating customer value

in the research domain of market orientation, and by developing a validated
scale measuring customer-value-based market orientation. Furthermore, the
procedure used for developing our value-based market orientation measure
contributed to a growing number of multi-perspective studies, most notably
Siguaw et al. (1998) and Harris (2002). Customer-centric thinking was thus
fully integrated, providing a new insight into market orientation.
Moreover, the rigorous examination of our value-based market orientation
measures in different phases of research demonstrated desirable levels of
reliability and validity. Therefore, our value-based market orientation
measure is distinct from previous market orientation measures in its adoption
of the combined views of both firms and customers in the scale development
process, and was empirically verified with data collected from both types of
qualified respondents.
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 799

In addition, this study explored the relationship between employees and

customers in terms of market orientation implementation and outcomes,
providing additional insights into the effects of implementing market
orientation on customers and filling a gap in the literature where previous
studies primarily focused on the relationship between the organisation and its
employees. A better understanding of the effects of market orientation was
also achieved by the inclusion of the customers’ perspective.

Management Implications

The demonstrated robustness of the proposed scales augurs well for their
managerial applicability and relevance. Our proposed customer-value based
market orientation construct may be of interest for organizations seeking to
gauge their business performance, not just from their subjective view of
market orientation, but also from their customers’.
The measures for firm CVBMO are identical to that for customer CVBMO.
The former can be used for an organisation to appraise their front-line
employees’ service performance. Moreover, the latter can provide an effective
mean to evaluate front-line employees’ efforts to satisfy customers.
Management can thus adopt both measures to understand the service
performance gap between the firm (by the measure for firm CVBMO) and its
customers (by the measure for customer CVBMO).
In addition, the items measuring the service practices and attitudes of both
firms and customers also provide the means to compare the views of both
parties on market orientation. Insight drawn from this comparison may
further suggest specific directions to close the gap in different interpretations
of market orientation by both parties.

Limitations and Future Research

These empirical results are valid only for a specific context - the service-
dominated industry of retailing, further qualified by two criteria of relatively
higher degree of interaction between front-line employees and customers,
and relatively longer duration of exchange process, as is the case for
hairdressing. Hence, managers in other industries should employ our value-
based market orientation measure with caution. A replication of the study in
different kinds of industries is clearly needed to increase the generalisability
of this value based market orientation measure.
In addition, the value-based market orientation measures developed in
this study were based on the interaction between the front-line employees
and the customers (i.e., interactive relationship) and did not include the other
two relationships included in Kotler’s triangle model of services marketing
(Kotler 1994): internal and external marketing. Future research should include
800 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

these three relationships to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effect

of market orientation upon business relationships.
This study undertook a stratified random sampling procedure for
collecting data from both firms and their customers. Random sampling of
front-line employees was achieved by selecting randomly from the roster of
front-line employees provided by sampling firms. However, the sampling
process for customers was not perfectly random in that the population of
customers could not be defined. A priori predetermined time schedule for
customer data collection was used to address this shortcoming and enhanced
the chance to include a variety of sample customers with different
consumption patterns.
Finally, researchers may find it interesting to replicate our study in
different research domains by comparing our findings with those derived
from different measures.

References

Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995), “An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Market

Orientation on New Product Performance - A Contingency Approach”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12, pp.275-293
Cadogan, J.W. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1995), “Narver and Slater, Kohli and
Jaworski and the Market Orientation Construct: Integration and
Internationalisation”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 3, pp.41-60
Carlzon, J. (1987), Moments of Truth, New York, Bollinger
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C. and Gronhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative
Marketing Research, Sage Publications
Chang, T-Z. and Chen, S-J. (1998), “Market orientation, Service Quality and
Business Profitability: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Evidence”, The
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.246-264
Chatfield, C. (1988), Problem Solving: A Statistician’s Guide, London, Chapman
& Hall
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of
Marketing Constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February,
pp.64-73
Churchill, G.A. (1999), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 7th ed.,
The Dryden Press
Cohen, J. (1960), “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales”, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20, pp.37-46
Cronbach, L.J. (1946), “Response Sets and Test Validating”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 6, pp.475-494
Daniels, S. (2000), “Customer Value Management”, Work Study, Vol. 49, No. 2,
pp.67-70
Day, G.S. (1990), Market Driven Strategy, New York, The Free Press
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 801

Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing Advantage: A Framework for

Diagnosing Competitive Superiority”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 2,
April, pp.1-20
de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., Lemmink, J. and Mattsson, J. (1997), “The
Dynamics of the Service Delivery Process: A Value-based Approach”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, pp.231-243
Deng, S. and Dart, J. (1994), “Measuring Market Orientation: A Multi-factor,
Multi-item Approach”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 10, pp.725-
742
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. (1993), “Corporate Culture,
Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad
Analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp.23-27
Emory, C.W. (1976), Business Research Methods, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models
with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 18, February, pp.39-50
Gabel, T.G. (1995), “Market Orientation: Theoretical and Methodological
Concerns”, In: Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Summer
Educator's Conference, (Eds.), Stern, B.B. and Zinkhan, G.M., Chicago,
American Marketing Association, pp.368-375
Gale, B. (1997), “Satisfaction is Not Enough”, October 27, Marketing News, p.18
Greenley, G. E. (1995), “Market Orientation and Company Performance:
Empirical Evidence from UK Companies”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 6, pp.1-13
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate
Data Analysis, Prentice Hall
Harris, L.C. (2002), “Measuring Market Orientation: Exploring a Market
Oriented Approach”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5, pp.239-
270
Hartman, R.S. (1967), The Structure of Value: Foundations of A Scientific
Axiology, Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale
Holbrook, M.B. (1994), “The Nature of customer Value: An Axiology of
Services in the Consumption Experience”, In: Service Quality: New
Directions in Theory and Practice, (Eds.), Rust, R. T. and Oliver, R. L.,
California, Sage Publications, pp.21-71
Holbrook, M.B. (1999), “Introduction to Consumer Value”, In: Consumer
Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, (Ed.), Holbrook, Morris B.,
New York, Routledge, pp.1-28
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The Experiential Aspects of
Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9, pp.132-140
Hooley, G.J., Lynch, J.E. and Shepherd, J. (1990), “The Marketing Concept:
802 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

Putting the Theory into Practice”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24,
No. 9, pp.7-24
Jarvis, C.E., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A Critical Review of
Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Specification in Marketing
and Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, pp.199-218
John, G. and Reves, T. (1982), “The Reliability and Validity of Key Informant
Data from Dyadic Relationships in Marketing Channels”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 19, November, pp.517-524
Keown, C. (1983), “Focus Group Research: Tool for the Retailer”, Journal of
Small Business Management, Vol. 21, April, pp.59-65
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market Orientation: The Construct,
Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.1-18
Kolbe, R.H. and Burnett, M.S. (1991), “Content-Analysis Research: An
Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research
Reliability and Objectivity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
September, pp.243-250
Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation,
and Control, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall
Mavondo, F.T. and Farrell, M.A. (2000), “Measuring Market Orientation: Are
There Differences between Business Marketers and Consumer
Marketers?”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, September,
pp.223-244
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The Effect of A Market Orientation on
Business Profitability”, Journal of Marketing, October, pp.20-35
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and Tietje, B. (1998), “Creating a Market Orientation”,
Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 2, pp.241-255
Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Methods, New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill
Series in Psychology
Oczkowski, E. and Farrell, M.A. (1998), “Discriminating between
Measurement Scales Using Non-nested tests and Two-stage Least Squares
Estimators: The Case of Market Orientation”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 15, pp.349-366
Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L.E. (1989), “Reliability of Nominal Data Based on
Qualitative Judgments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, May, pp.135-
148
Peter, J.P. (1979), “Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent
Marketing Practices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp.6-
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 803

17
Riffe, D., Lacy, S. and Fico, F.G. (1998), Analysing media messages: using
quantitative content analysis in research, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates
Rossiter, J.R. (2002), “The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in
Marketing”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, pp.305-
335
Ruekert, R.W. (1992), “Developing A Market Orientation: An Organizational
Strategy Perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9,
pp.225-245
Sekaran, U. (1992), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach,
John Wiley & Sons
Siguaw, J.A., Simpson, P.M. and Baker, T.L. (1998), “Effects of Supplier
Market Orientation on Distributor Market Orientation and the Channel
Relationship: The Distributor Perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62,
pp.99-111
Steenkamp, J.B. and van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991), “The Use of LISREL in
Validating Marketing Constructs”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.283-299
Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasani, P.N. (1990), Focus Group: Theory and Practice,
Beverly Hills, California, Sage
Weinstein, A. and Johnson, W.C. (1999), Designing and Delivering Superior
Customer Value: Concepts, Cases, and Applications, London, St. Lucie Press
Weinstein, A. and Pohlman, R.A. (1998), “Customer Value: A New Paradigm
for Marketing Management”, Advances in Business Studies, Vol. 6, No. 10,
pp.89-97
Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive
Advantage”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp.139-153
Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (1996), Know Your Customer: New Approaches
to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Blackwell
Woodruff, R.B., Schumann, D.W. and Gardial, S.F. (1993), “Understanding
Value and Satisfaction from the Customer’s Point of View”, Survey of
Business, Summer/Fall, pp.33-40
Wrenn, B. (1997), “The Market Orientation Construct: Measurement and
Scaling Issues”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Summer, pp.31-54
Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K. and Heffring, M. (1982), Theory Construction in
Marketing: Some Thoughts on Thinking, New York, John Wiley and Sons
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A
Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52,
July, pp.2-22
804 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

Appendix 1. CFA of a Value-based Measures of Market Orientation*

Final Dimensionality and Measure Items SL C / F CR C / F VE C / F

1. Good service behaviours (two sub-dimensions) .98 / .98 .97 / .96
1a. Good attitude to serve customers .99 / .98 .94 / .94
a show of politeness .87 / .94
a show of friendliness/kindness .98 / .96
a show of courtesy .79 / .79
honest response to service choice .65 / .68
1b. The emphasis of service quality in business policy .98 / .98 .89 / .90
consideration for the customers’ interests .79 / .81
meticulous attitude in service details .81 / .91
consistent service quality as expected .50 / .85
a quality service with the awareness of the dynamic
.71 / .79
competitive market
understanding customer demands beforehand .79 / .77
2. Good consuming environment (one dimension) .98 / .97 .92 / .89
delight in the service process .83 / .88
ease in service procedure .84 / .91
a tidy store environment .70 / .64
wide distance among seats for privacy .64 / .60
3. Good episodes in service (two sub-dimensions) .98 / .97 .97 / .94
3a. Good service skills .98 / .95 .93 / .87
service at customers’ verbal requirement .79 / .73
a sense of exclusive treatment .85 / .83
achieving a sense of “value for money” .85 / .75
3b. Efficient and facile service procedure .97 / .96 .92 / .89
saving time on communication by a specific service
.82 / .80
provider
adequately delegate employee for service .91 / .80
actively enquiring about opinions and reacting
.71 / .83
accordingly
4. Individualized value (five sub-dimensions) .99 / .99 .97 / .97
4a. Convenience - store aspect .86 / .84 .61 / .58
less commuting time to store .52 / .50
flexible operating hours .53 / .82
non-trainee employee service in all service steps .53 / .61
the adoption of a reservation system .59 / .55
4b. Convenience - product aspect .95 / .95 .86 / .88
the lasting of designed hairstyle .67 / .80
ease of self-handling hairstyle after service .81 / .82
aesthetics in hairstyle .64 / .72
4c. Novelty .98 / .97 .93 / .89
updating skills for fashionable hairstyle .75 / .74
fresh and new in usual hairstyle .87 / .85
new service experiences .88 / .88
demonstration of aesthetics in the store appearance .62 / .62
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 805

Appendix. (continued)
4d. Consumer sovereignty .96 / .95 .82 / .80
freedom of selecting a hairdresser .60 / .62
actively notifying customers information .82 / .84
free from pressure of in-store promotion .69 / .83
sincerity in dealing with service complaint .81 / .79
providing extra service for pleasure .59 / .58
4e. Respectability and exclusivity .94 / .96 .81 / .87
differential service in favour of frequent customers .59 / .85
price allowance for frequent customers .83 / .83
attractive gifts for frequent customers .71 / .65
initiative in communication taken by employees .52 / .54
5. Economic value (three sub-dimensions) .99 / .99 .98 / .97
5a. Payment equity - service issues .97 / .98 .93 / .93
positive response to service failure .66 / .75
fairness of the exchange of payment for service outcome .86 / .97
fairness of the exchange of payment for service contents .94 / .90
5b. Payment equity - non-service issues .96 / .92 .90 / .79
fairness of the exchange of payment for quality of
.82 / .70
auxiliary hairdressing
fairness of the exchange of payment for time spent in store .64 / .76
fairness in the sales promotion in store .79 / .67
5c. Promotional incentive .95 / .87 .82 / .63
matching prices with competitors’ short-term campaign .57 / .56
promotional offerings regarding the customers’ interests .64 / .68
notice of sales promotion by different media .72 / .76
assurance of low risk for participating in promotion
.84 / .87
activities
6. Risk avoidance in service (two sub-dimensions) .99 / .98 .97 / .96
6a. Goodwill effect .98 / .97 .95 / .91
assertion of high service quality .81 / .75
maintaining and enhancing company’s reputation in
.92 / .96
service
executing well service process prescribed for customers .86 / .82
6b. Sense of security/trustworthiness in service .97 / .97 .92 / .93
the cleanness of employees’ appearance .80 / .88
the sanitation of hairdressing utensils .86 / .89
promptly dealing with customers’ complaints to service .73 / .80
7. Social-psychological interaction (one dimension) .97 / .98 .89 / .91
recognizing and greeting customers whenever visiting .69 / .88
entertaining different customers in different ways .76 /.82
letting a customer speak his/her mind without reticence .91 / .83
maintaining relationship after service .79 / .76
8. Considerations of alternatives (one dimension) .97 / .92 .91 / .80
masterly skills in comparison with competitors .88 / .55
instantly understanding of service needs .68 / .63
opinions of relatives and/or friends to the service
.75 / .99
outcome
* Note: C / F - Customer / Firm (Front-line employee);
SL: Standardised Loading; CR: Composite Reliability; VE: Variance Extract
806 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

Appendix 2. Goodness-of-Fit Measure*

Goodness-of-Fit Absolute Incremental Parsimonious

Measure Fit Indices Fit Indices Fit Indices
Chi-
AIC C / F
Final square D.F. P value GFI CFI NFI
(default;
Dimensionality value C/F C/F C/F C/F C/F
saturated)
C/F
1. Good service 104.839/ 26/ 0/ .895/ .935/ .916/ 142.839; 90/
behaviours 884.956 26 0 .907 .961 .945 122.956; 90
2. Good consuming 33.447/ 2/ 0/ .917/ .908/ .904/ 49.447; 20/
environment 36.160 2 0 .916 .910 .907 52.160; 20
3. Good episodes in 30.222/ 8/ 0/ .950/ .968/ .957/ 56.222; 42/
service 33.930 8 0 .950 .957 .945 59.930; 42
4. Individualized 339.259/ 165/ 0/ .898/ .919/ .855/ 429.259; 420/
value 333.516 165 0 .908 .922 .857 423.516; 420
129.581/ 32/ 0/ .890/ .920/ .897/ 175.581; 110/
5. Economic value
68.985 32 0 .933 .967 .941 114.985; 110
6. Risk avoidance in 38.633/ 8/ 0/ .934/ .962/ .953/ 64.633; 42/
service 28.323 8 0 .955 .977 .969 54.323; 42
7. Social- 7.820/ 2/ 0.02/ .980/ .988/ .984/ 23.820; 20/
psychological 1.677 2 0.432 .995 1 .996 17.677; 20
interaction
8. Considerations of 0/ 0/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 12; 12/
alternatives 0 0 1 1 1 1 12; 12
*Note: C / F - Customer / Firm (Front-line employee)

Appendix 3. Phi Correlation of Major Dimensions*

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
F1
F2 .816
F3 .907 .852
F4 .831 .814 .921
F5 .771 .719 .894 .955
F6 .719 .677 .797 .902 .934
F7 .740 .731 .835 .887 .841 .855
F8 .742 .701 .747 .760 .769 .766 .776
C2 .912
C3 .925 .910
C4 .861 .892 .960
C5 .727 .767 .872 .891
C6 .805 .818 .899 .939 .936
C7 .783 .807 .840 .835 .791 .880
C8 .803 .843 .903 .894 .843 .893 .856
*Note: C / F - Customer / Firm (Front-line employee)
 Developing a Value based Measure of Market Orientation 807

Appendix 4. Zero-order Correlation Matrixes for the Sub-dimensions*

C-Customer*:
C1a C1b C2 C3a C3b C4a C4b C4c C4d C4e C5a C5b C5c C6a C6b C7 C8
C1a 1
C1b .770 1
C2 .759 .689 1
C3a .746 .759 .729 1
C3b .624 .621 .646 .720 1
C4a .518 .621 .576 .585 .403 1
C4b .593 .602 .621 .537 .686 .681 1
C4c .584 .642 .674 .704 .636 .748 .700 1
C4d .640 .674 .722 .558 .532 .697 .770 .752 1
C4e .437 .428 .527 .597 .477 .736 .721 .780 .726 1
C5a .599 .630 .624 .559 .534 .528 .559 .683 .567 .591 1
C5b .534 .595 .615 .655 .615 .630 .596 .657 .665 .617 .807 1
C5c .416 .497 .525 .561 .483 .590 .563 .590 .600 .671 .739 .756 1
C6a .625 .633 .687 .700 .703 .584 .663 .522 .605 .595 .609 .580 .669 1
C6b .650 .660 .658 .556 .527 .546 .551 .520 .617 .518 .635 .571 .627 .869 1
C7 .629 .632 .658 .701 .699 .517 .665 .652 .719 .527 .750 .643 .572 .808 .789 1
C8 .585 .630 .652 .689 .695 .456 .630 .655 .692 .523 .715 .703 .544 .765 .780 .760 1
* Note: All correlations are significant at p<0.001

F-Firm (Front-line employee) *:

F1a F1b F2 F3a F3b F4a F4b F4c F4d F4e F5a F5b F5c F6a F6b F7 F8
F1a 1
F1b .839 1
F2 .724 .757 1
F3a .645 .738 .656 1
F3b .700 .735 .792 .713 1
F4a .432 .457 .470 .493 .473 1
F4b .627 .712 .670 .516 .529 .774 1
F4c .632 .717 .673 .704 .543 .757 .793 1
F4d .611 .651 .591 .630 .474 .672 .774 .780 1
F4e .529 .599 .565 .563 .631 .770 .720 .748 .729 1
F5a .606 .677 .608 .708 .530 .295 .568 .488 .544 .609 1
F5b .585 .680 .610 .669 .654 .370 .511 .557 .549 .581 .799 1
F5c .492 .512 .502 .502 .496 .440 .521 .512 .435 .589 .680 .766 1
F6a .564 .586 .555 .627 .625 .359 .498 .477 .546 .542 .469 .471 .630 1
F6b .594 .619 .565 .578 .627 .319 .519 .464 .557 .565 .470 .507 .559 .805 1
F7 .617 .663 .632 .644 .690 .418 .526 .523 .516 .638 .599 .694 .588 .664 .778 1
F8 .551 .640 .637 .603 .648 .503 .495 .490 .469 .584 .609 .679 .550 .590 .647 .749 1
• Note: All correlations are significant at p<0.001
808 Shu-Ching Chen and Pascale G. Quester

About the Authors

Shu-Ching Chen is an associate professor, School of Economics and

Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, China. She holds a PhD from
the University of Adelaide (Australia).

Dr Pascale Quester is Professor in Marketing at the School of Commerce of

the University of Adelaide. She completed her undergraduate business
studies in France before being awarded a scholarship to study at Ohio State
University where she gained a Master’s degree (Marketing) in 1986. In 1987,
she moved to New Zealand where she lectured at Massey University while
completing a PhD on sales promotions. She joined the University of Adelaide
in 1991. She is the author of two leading marketing textbooks and has written
or co-authored more than 100 journal articles and conference papers. Her
work has appeared in Psychology and Marketing, Industrial Marketing
Management, the Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Business Research,
European Journal of Marketing, International Business Review and many others.
She is a founding director of FACIREM, the Franco-Australian Centre for
International Research in Marketing.