How is the Chatbot Service Quality scale scored?

It is multidimensional: score each facet as the mean of its items, and report facet-level reliability. Use a total score only if the original validation supports it.

Where do I find the full validated items?

In the original publication cited on this page - always administer the validated item wording rather than paraphrases.

How reliable is the Chatbot Service Quality (post-2020) scale?

Reported reliability: alphas 0.82–0.91 across dimensions. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach's alpha of .70+ is acceptable, .80+ good, and .90+ excellent for established measures.

Home › Scale Atlas › Information Systems › Chatbot Service Quality (post-2020)

Chatbot Service Quality (post-2020)

Information SystemsReliability: alphas 0.82–0.91 across dimensions4 sample items

About this scale

A multi-item measure of consumer-perceived service quality of an AI-powered chatbot, including efficiency, accuracy, empathy, and reliability. Adapts SERVQUAL and E-S-QUAL to chatbot-mediated service contexts.

Sample item(s)

“The chatbot resolves my queries quickly.”

“The chatbot's responses are accurate.”

“The chatbot understands my emotions.”

“I can rely on the chatbot for important issues.”

Reliability

Reported internal consistency: alphas 0.82–0.91 across dimensions. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach’s α ≥ .70 is considered acceptable, ≥ .80 good, and ≥ .90 excellent for established measures.

Notes

Pair with anthropomorphism-toward-AI scales for AI-conversational-agent research.

Source & citation

Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., & Kim, S. J. (2020): Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 587–595.

Chung, Ko, Joung & Kim (2020): Chatbot e-service. JBR, 117, 587–595.

Source. Scale details are summarised from the publication cited above. Always consult the original source for the full item set, scoring, and permission to use.

How to administer & score it

All items are typically rated on a Likert-type agreement scale (check the original article for the exact anchors — keeping them unchanged preserves comparability with published findings). This instrument is multidimensional: score each facet separately (the mean of its items) and only use a total score if the original validation supports one. Reporting facet-level results is usually more informative and is what reviewers expect. Include at least one attention check in longer surveys, and randomise item order within the scale block to reduce position effects.

In the original validation, reported internal consistency was alphas 0. Always re-estimate reliability in your own sample: report Cronbach's α (and, if you run CFA/SEM, composite reliability and AVE). An α noticeably below the published range usually signals a translation issue, careless responding, or a mis-scored reverse-coded item — not necessarily a bad scale.

Adapting this scale? A 5-point validity checklist

Keep the response anchors. Changing a 7-point scale to 5 points changes the psychometrics; only do it with a reason you can defend.
Translate properly. Use forward and back translation with bilingual reviewers, and pilot the translated version before full data collection.
Change the referent, not the meaning. Adapting "my organisation" to "my university" is fine; rewording items until they measure something else is not.
Report every change. Reviewers accept adaptations that are documented and justified; silent modifications are a rejection risk.
Re-test validity. After any adaptation, re-check reliability and discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker, HTMT) — our reliability & validity guide walks through the thresholds.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use the Chatbot Service Quality scale in my research for free?
Most academic scales are free for non-commercial research use with proper citation, but permission terms belong to the original authors/publisher — check the source article (cited above) and request permission where indicated.

Do I need the full item wording?
Yes — always work from the original publication's item set rather than paraphrases, so your instrument matches the validated version. This page summarises the scale; the citation above is the authoritative source.

How do I build a questionnaire with this scale?
You can assemble it (with consent text, demographics, and attention checks) in the free SmartForm builder, then verify reliability live as responses arrive, and test your full model in SmartSEM.

Use it in your research

Need to check the reliability or psychometrics of this scale in your own data? Use the free DrAIStudio research tools:

Cronbach’s alpha calculator All statistical calculators Search the full Scale Atlas Academic writing humanizer