Theoretical rigor of customer experience scales: a systematic review and a roadmap for researchers

Purpose Prior research has proposed a number of scales measuring the customer experience (CX), which tend to conceptualize and operationalize CX differently, raising potential confusion among researchers (e.g. regarding which scale to use). Addressing this issue, this article conducts a systematic review to inventorize key CX scales and assess their theoretical rigor, with a focus on the identification of potential scale-related drawbacks or risks. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, 104 CX scale development studies published between 1996 and 2024 are identified and analyzed in terms of their respective CX conceptualization, dimensionality, itemization, and adopted theoretical perspective to evaluate their theoretical rigor. Findings The findings reveal the existence of five main risks associated with the adoption of specific CX or related scales, including (1) defining experience with explicit reference to other extant constructs, (2) failure to accurately and comprehensively capture the experience, (3) experience-based tautology and theoretical indeterminacy, (4) experience-based composite constructs, and (5) lacking robustness of experience-based conceptual models. Based on these observations, recommendations are offered for scholars to improve the rigor of their adopted, refined, or proposed CX or related scales. Originality/value This article assesses the benefits and potential risks inherent in the adoption of particular CX scales, equipping researchers with a CX roadmap.