Service Recovery Justice (Tax, Brown & Chandrashekaran)
Marketing & SalesReliability: alphas 0.84–0.91 across three dimensions3 sample items
About this scale
A multi-item measure of perceived justice during service recovery, applying the procedural/distributive/interactional framework to complaint-handling situations. Used widely in service-marketing research.
Sample item(s)
“The procedures used to handle my complaint were fair. (procedural)”
“I got what I deserved as compensation. (distributive)”
“I was treated politely during the recovery effort. (interactional)”
Reliability
Reported internal consistency: alphas 0.84–0.91 across three dimensions. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach’s α ≥ .70 is considered acceptable, ≥ .80 good, and ≥ .90 excellent for established measures.
Notes
Use Smith, Bolton & Wagner (1999) when modelling outcome-vs-process justice in recovery.
Source & citation
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998): Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 60–76.
Tax, Brown & Chandrashekaran (1998): Service-recovery justice. JM, 62(2), 60–76.
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.
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