2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey
2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyPrepared byVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs – Ohio UniversityJuly 2010
2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
AcknowledgementsMany people contributed to the success of this survey, and we are grateful for theirsupport and assistance. Project staff at Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadershipand Public Affairs included Nicole Yandell, Project Manager; Sara Lichtin Boyd, SeniorResearch Associate; Holly Craycraft, Research Assistant; Rachel Barnette,Undergraduate Research Associate. At the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, wewish to thank Heidi Griesmer, Media Relations Manager; Mike Riggleman, Manager,Mobile Sources Section; Dave Alspaugh, E-Check Section Supervisor; and BarbaraWalker, Environmental Specialist. At Envirotest Systems Corporation, we are deeplygrateful for the assistance provided by Prentiss Taylor, General Manager; Gina Giordano,Customer Service & Public Relations Supervisor; and Jane Pickett, QA & CustomerService Manager.2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary . 1Introduction . 5How the Survey Was Conducted . 7Survey Instrument . 7Sample Selection . 7Survey Process . 7Survey Response . 8Survey Results . 9Satisfaction with the E-Check Experience . 10Prior Knowledge of Vehicle Maintenance Benefits . 12Awareness of E-Check Information Resources . 13Usage of E-Check Information Resources . 14Assistance from Ohio EPA . 16Preparing for the E-Check Test. 17Failing E-Check . 18Recalling the E-Check Experience . 19Understanding E-Check Requirements . 23Opinions Regarding Emissions Testing Options . 26Vehicle Emissions and the Environment . 28Demographic Questions . 30Appendix I: 2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Opinion Survey . 33Appendix II: 2009 E-Check Frequency Tables . 382009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Executive SummaryThe 2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey was mailed to 1,200 motoristsevenly divided among those whose vehicles were tested in Zone 1 and Zone 4.1 A total of629 completed surveys were returned for a 52.4 percent response rate (compared to 42percent in 2008). This year’s survey instrument was unchanged from the 2008 survey.Last year, five new questions were added to the survey addressing emissions testingoptions. Even with these additions, the majority of the survey remains unchanged fromprior years, allowing for comparison of past and current results.Findings from the 2009 survey demonstrate the same high rates of motorist satisfaction asin the previous three surveys and, similar to last year, show evidence of a slight upwardtrend in many areas. There have been increases in awareness of the E-Check Web site aswell as the relationship between vehicle emissions and the environment. In addition,motorists’ experiences at the E-Check station were mostly very positive, and customeropinions show continued improvement compared to the previous surveys. Customerapproval of Ohio EPA’s management of the E-Check program has also increasedsignificantly over the past four years.In response to the questions addressing motorist interest in alternative emissions testingsystems, respondents expressed strong support for the current independent testing systemas compared to a system that also allows for testing at authorized automotive repairstations. A majority indicated they would not feel confident of their test results if theirvehicles were repaired at the same facility at which the test took place.There was no significant variation in response to the survey by gender, race, educationallevel, or income and little variation by age and zone. Important findings are describedbelow.1Zone 1 consists of Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit counties while Cuyahoga Countyis the entirety of Zone 4. See map on page 6.12009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Overall Satisfaction with the E-Check Experience Overall satisfaction with the E-Check experience remains high. For twoconsecutive years, 94 percent of all respondents answered yes when asked, “Wereyou satisfied with your overall experience when you received your last E-Checktest?” Similarly, when satisfaction was queried as a scaled question, 93 percent of2009 and 2008 respondents agreed or strongly agreed they were satisfied withtheir most recent test experience. Compared to those who were dissatisfied with their E-Check experience, satisfiedrespondents were significantly more likely to understand why their vehicle neededto be tested, to feel the wait time at the station was of acceptable length, and thattheir test results were explained well. Satisfied respondents were also significantlymore likely than dissatisfied respondents to believe that emissions testing canreduce air pollution, to believe that they are helping to reduce air pollution byhaving their car tested, and to approve of Ohio EPA’s management of E-Check. Those few respondents indicating dissatisfaction with their overall experiencewere also more likely to be concerned that their vehicle might be damaged duringtesting.Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Regarding the three questions on the benefits of regular vehicle maintenance,respondents were least familiar with the impact of regular maintenance on theirvehicle’s gas mileage. In 2009, the average cost of repairs for respondents’ vehicles that failed the initialE-Check test was 261 compared to 328 in 2006. Median costs were 300 and 150, respectively.Usage of E-Check Information Resources The survey appears to show a shift from telephone to internet as the primarymeans by which people obtain information about the E-Check program. Morerespondents are aware of and use the E-Check Web site than the toll-freeinformation number. The majority of respondents, at least 98 percent each year, have not contactedOhio EPA for assistance with the program or to discuss their test experience.22009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Recalling the E-Check Experience There has been continued improvement in the already high approval ratings formost aspects of the E-Check experience. In 2009, at least 93 percent ofrespondents reported the stations were easy to find, the waiting booths were clean,the test results were accurate, and the employees were polite and helpful. At least84 percent of respondents in 2009 found the wait time at the E-Check station to beacceptable and were not concerned that their vehicle would be damaged duringtesting. Satisfaction rates were not as high for a few aspects of the E-Check testingexperience, but these continue to show improvement compared to previous years.About 74 percent of the 2009 respondents felt their test results were explainedwell, and 32 percent would have liked a better explanation of what happened totheir vehicle during testing.Understanding E-Check Requirements In 2009, there was a decline in the percentage of respondents that found the ECheck requirements hard to understand. This year, 61 percent of respondents reported difficulty understanding why ECheck is not a statewide program, compared to 66 percent in 2008 andapproximately 59 percent in 2006 and 2007.Opinions Regarding Emissions Testing Options For the second year in a row, respondents expressed the greatest level of support(67 percent) for the current testing system, while 22 percent expressed interest ina system offering E-Check stations as well as testing at authorized repair stations. A minority of respondents, 21 percent, expressed interest in an emissions testingsystem that provides testing and automotive repair services at the same location,while 20 percent agreed they would be confident in test results if their vehicle wasrepaired at the same facility where it was tested.32009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Vehicle Emissions, the Environment, and Ohio EPA Significantly more respondents are aware of the relationship between vehicleemissions and the environment. In 2009, 77 percent agreed that vehicle emissionstesting helps reduce air pollution, and 71 percent reported they are helping toreduce air pollution by having their car E-Checked, compared to 67 and 61percent, respectively in 2006. More 2009 respondents (48 percent) agreed that motor vehicles create more ozonepollution than industry compared to 39 percent in 2006. However, each yearapproximately one-third of all respondents did not answer this question, perhapsindicating a lack of knowledge. The approval rating for Ohio EPA’s management of the E-Check programincreased significantly from 68 percent in 2006 to 83 percent in 2009, a change of15 percentage points.42009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
IntroductionStarting in 2000, motorist satisfaction with the Ohio E-Check program has beenevaluated annually by means of independently administered surveys. Until 2005, changesto the survey instrument and the E-Check population prohibited analysis of variations andtrends from year to year. Since 2005, however, the survey has shared the same E-Checkpopulation and a majority of the questions, making it possible to compare results acrosstime.This report reviews the results of the current survey and compares results from the lastfour years when possible. Survey results are illustrated with graphs of the responses tothe 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 surveys. Statistical testing was conducted between the2006 and 2009 studies, and these results are reported as well. Also noted in the report areany significant differences in the 2009 survey results due to E-Check zone, reportedsatisfaction with the E-Check program or demographic variations among respondents.The response rate to the 2009 survey was 52.4 percent, a 10 percentage point increaseover the 2008 response rate of 42.1 percent.52009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
62009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
How the Survey Was ConductedSurvey InstrumentThe 2009 survey was the same as the 2008 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey.For 2008, several changes were made to the survey instrument. These changes included;(1) revisions to the questions on the usage of E-Check information resources; (2) theaddition of five questions to gauge customers’ opinions on potential changes to theemission testing program; (3) the removal of a question on receiving a wavier; and (4)adjustments to the question order and layout to account for these changes. For the thirdyear, the previously black-and-white form was printed in color to make it more attractivefor recipients to complete and return. Minimal changes were made to the letters andpostcards that are used in this survey, and the sample size of 600 households per zone isalso duplicative of the previous studies. A copy of the survey instrument is provided asAppendix I.Sample SelectionThe sample was selected from among all vehicles tested for emissions between October15 and December 15, 2009. The Voinovich School was provided with a database oftested vehicles from each of the two zones. Project staff applied a random numbergenerator to this database to ultimately select 600 vehicle owners from each zone toreceive the survey. To provide adequate representation of customers who failed theemissions test, care was taken to ensure that 13 percent of the selected vehicles failedtheir initial emissions test. Also as part of this selection process, vehicles associated withpotentially troublesome addresses were removed from the sample, including those thatappeared to be fleet vehicles, those owned by businesses, and those for which only apartial or out of state address was provided.Survey ProcessFour mailings were used to maximize response in correspondence with the methodologyoutlined by Dan Dillman in Mail and Internet Surveys, 2nd Edition. The first of thesemailings, an advance postcard explaining the survey and requesting the participation ofprospective respondents, took place on February 26, 2010. The survey instrument, cover72009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
letter, and a stamped, return-addressed envelope were mailed on March 3, followed by athank you/reminder postcard sent out on March 10. On March 25, the fourth and finalmailing to non-respondents took place. This fourth mailing included a cover letter, thesurvey form, and a stamped, return-addressed envelope. The cover letter reiterated theimportance of the project and again encouraged prospective respondents to return theirsurvey.Survey Response2009 Survey Response Rate1Number surveys returnedNumber surveys mailed1All ZonesN%62952.4%1200Zone 1N325600Zone 4%54.2%N302600%50.3%N for all zones does not equal total for Zone 1 and Zone 4 because two surveys were returned with missing identifiers.The Voinovich School received 629 completed surveys by May 2010, for a response rateof 52 percent. This response rate is 10 percentage points higher than the 2008 survey.Two surveys were returned with their form number removed, making it impossible toidentify the zone from which they originated. The response rate per zone for theremaining surveys was 54 percent from Zone 1, and 50 percent from Zone 4. Theresponse rates for the various E-Check surveys conducted since 2000 have rangedbetween 41 and 62 percent.2Comparison of E-Check Survey Response RatesTable 2: E-Check Survey Response RatesNYear Survey Conducted ,2002005 (OBD-II %41.2%47.9%47.0%42.1%52.4%22000 through 2004 response rates obtained from E-Check survey reports prepared by The Ohio StateUniversity Center for Survey Research.82009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Survey ResultsThis section outlines the responses to the 2009 E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey.When available, the 2008, 2007, and 2006 survey results are graphically presentedalongside this year’s results for comparison. This section also includes the results of chisquare3 testing conducted on the disaggregated 2009 survey results, as well as betweenthe 2006 and the 2009 results. Where appropriate, the 2009 results are also reported by: E-Check zone Reported satisfaction with the E-Check test experience (q1 and q23) Age, gender, race, household income, and educational level of the surveyrespondents.In addition, Appendix II contains frequency distributions for each item on the 2009survey for all respondents and by E-Check zone. Where appropriate, Appendix II alsodocuments margin of error on the survey results, based on a 95 percent confidenceinterval.3A chi-square test is used to determine if two variables are significantly related. Significant crosstabulations are indicated in the report by the notation (p .05) where p probability that a finding ofinterest was reached by chance.92009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Satisfaction with the E-Check ExperienceYesAgreeStrongly AgreeNo100%8.6%9.6%5.9%6.4%DisagreeStrongly 00820092009Two questions on the survey address overall satisfaction with E-Check. The E-Check program continues to maintain a high level of overall satisfaction. Inresponse to question 1, approximately 94 percent of 2009 and 2008 respondentsanswered “yes,” they were satisfied with their most recent E-Check test. In response to question 23, the percentage of the sample that agreed or stronglyagreed that they were satisfied with their test experience was 93 percent in 2009and 2008.102009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Satisfaction with Overall Experience by County of it .1%4.5%2.4%15.6%5.9%Satisfaction varies from 84.4 percent to 97.6 percent across the countiesparticipating in the E-Check program. The highest levels of respondentsatisfaction are from Medina County, and the lowest levels are from PortageCounty.Satisfaction with Overall Experience by E-Check 42181716272442332672025 Customers from each of the 23 E-Check stations participated in the survey. There is little variation in satisfaction level by the station where the respondent’svehicle was tested. Only one station (Station 19) had more than four respondents reporting they werenot satisfied with their most recent test experience.112009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Prior Knowledge of Vehicle Maintenance BenefitsBefore seeing this survey, were you aware %60%50%NoYes40%30%20%10%0%200720082009regular vehicle maintenancecan improve your vehicle'sgas mileage200720082009regular vehicle maintenancecan increase your vehicle'sengine life200720082009with regular maintenanceyour vehicle is more likelyto pass the emissions testStarting in 2007, the E-Check Customer Opinion Survey examined respondents’understanding of the potential benefits of regular vehicle maintenance to the vehicle andthe environment. When respondents were asked about the impact of regular vehicle maintenance ongas mileage, approximately 12 percent were unaware that regular maintenancecould improve a vehicle’s gas mileage by as much as 10 percent. Almost two percent of respondents were unaware that regular maintenance canincrease their vehicle’s engine life. Approximately 98 percent of respondents knew that, with regular maintenance,their vehicle is more likely to pass the emissions test.122009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Awareness of E-Check Information 9Before seeing this survey, were you aware of E-Check's tollfree information number, 1-800-CAR-TEST?20062007Before seeing this survey, were you aware of the E-CheckWeb site www.ohioecheck.org?The following survey findings relate to respondents’ knowledge of the various sources ofinformation on E-Check. For the second year in a row, approximately a quarter of respondents reported theywere aware of E-Check’s toll-free information number. Respondents’ awareness of the E-Check Web site has increased each year. In 2009,32.3 percent of respondents reported they were aware of the Web site. Thisrepresents an almost 13 percentage point increase from 2006 (p .05). More respondents aged 59 or less than those aged 60 and older were aware of ECheck’s Web site (p .05).132009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Usage of E-Check Information 10%19.6%17.7%200720080%20062009Have you used the 1-800-CAR-TEST number to getinformation about the E-Check program?Have you visited the E-Check Web site to get informationabout the E-Check program?A question was added to the 2008 E-Check Customer Opinion Survey to gaugerespondents’ usage of the E-Check Web site as an information resource. Among the respondents to the 2009 survey who knew about 1-800-CAR-TEST,25.3 percent used this resource to get information about the E-Check program. Of the respondents who were aware of www.ohioecheck.org, almost 36 percenthave visited the Web site to get information about the E-Check program. Approximately 99 percent of respondents who visited the E-Check Web sitefound the information helpful. Proportionally, more respondents aged 59 or less than those aged 60 and olderreported visiting the E-Check Web site to get information about the E-Checkprogram (p .05).142009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
%0.0%0.2%200620072008200920062007200820090%I phoned 1-800-CAR-TEST I sent an e-mail to E-CheckEach year, three percent or fewer of the respondents who were aware of the ECheck toll-free number called it to discuss their most recent test experience. In 2009, three of the 16 respondents who reported calling 1-800-CAR-TEST did notfind it helpful. In 2009, one respondent reported sending an e-mail to E-Check regarding their testexperience or for assistance with the program. This individual did not indicatewhether or not it was helpful.152009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Assistance from Ohio %2.3%1.8%1.3%20062007200820092006200720082009I visited an EPA office I phoned Ohio EPAMost respondents did not visit an Ohio EPA office or phone Ohio EPA forassistance with the E-Check program or to discuss their test experience. Each year, approximately two percent of respondents report visiting an EPAoffice or calling Ohio EPA regarding the E-Check program. In 2009, 13 respondents reported visiting an Ohio EPA office. Of the respondentsthat visited an Ohio EPA office for assistance, nine reported that it was helpfuland four did not answer this follow-up question. Of the seven respondents who reported calling Ohio EPA regarding the E-Checkprogram, three indicated that the call was helpful, one reported it was not helpful,and three did not answer the follow-up question.162009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Preparing for the E-Check TestIn anticipation of having the E-Check test, how much did you spend on repairs? 500Mean 461Median 450 400 406 350 306 300 298 250 200 214 200 180 175 150 100 50 02006 200720082009Approximately 11 percent of 2009 respondents reported taking their car in forrepairs prior to having their car tested, an increase from the seven percent ofrespondents in 2006 (p .05). In 2009, the mean (average) amount spent in anticipation of E-Check testing was 306, and the median4 amount was 200.4Median: Of all reported repair amounts, the middle one from the highest and the lowest values.172009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Failing E-CheckHow much did you spend on repairs for the retest? 500MeanMedian 450 400 350 328 300 300 282 261 250 200 181 200 150 150 100 72 50 02006 200720082009In 2009, approximately eight percent of respondents reported that their vehiclefailed the E-Check test. Among those whose vehicles failed the test, the mean (average) amount spent onrepairs was 261, and the median amount was 300.182009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Recalling the E-Check Experience100%93.6%95.0%94.2%94.0%93.1%Percent of Respondents who Agree or Strongly Agree93.4%90%93.0%91.4%80%70%The waiting booth was cleanThe E-Check station was easy to find60%50%2006 200720082009In 2009, 94 percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the waiting boothwas clean. The percentage of respondents reporting that the waiting room was clean hasbeen consistently high across the four-year period. The percentage of respondents that agreed the E-Check station was easy to findincreased from approximately 91 percent in 2006 to 93 percent in 2009.192009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
100%96.6%94.4%95.0%95.0%Percentage of Respondents who Agree or Strongly %70%The employees were politeThe employees were helpfulThe employees knew how to do their jobs60%50%2006200720082009 The survey respondents continue to be satisfied with the E-Check employees. In 2009, approximately 97 percent agreed or strongly agreed that E-Check employeeswere polite compared to 92 percent in 2006 (p .05). The percentage of respondents that strongly agreed or agreed that the E-Checkemployees were helpful increased from 90 percent in 2006 to 95 percent in 2009(p .05). For the second consecutive year, 97 percent either agreed or strongly agreed thatE-Check employees knew how to do their jobs.202009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
100%96.4%97.3%95.8%94.6%96.4%95.6%Percentage of Respondents Who Agree or Strongly Agree94.2%94.7%90%Everything was explained well when I received my test resultsI believe the test results were accurateI was treated well by the employees at the E-Check facility80%74.0%70%69.9%63.4%62.3%60%50%2006 200720082009The percentage of respondents that either agreed or strongly agreed thateverything was explained well when they received their test results increased 12percentage points from 62 percent in 2006 to 74 percent in 2009 (p .05). Proportionally, more respondents who agreed everything was explained wellwhen they received their results were satisfied with their E-Check experience thanthose who disagreed (p .05). Approximately 96 percent of 2009 respondents affirmed their belief that the ECheck test results were accurate. Over 97 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they were treated wellby E-Check facility employees.212009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction SurveyVoinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University
Percentage of Respondents who Disagree or Strongly Disagree100%The wait was too longI was concerned my vehicle would be damagedI would have liked a better explanation of the processPercentage who disagree or strongly disagree with each This chart shows the percentage of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed withthe three survey items designed to capture customer criticism of the E-Check process. Over the past four survey years, E-Check showed steady improvement in customeropinions regarding wait times (p .05), explanation of the testing process (p .05), andconcern over vehicle damage (p .05). In 2009, approximately 85 percent of respondents did not feel their wait time at the ECheck facility was too long. Proportionally, more respondents who reported the wait time at the E-Check facility wasreasonable were satisfied than those who reported the wait time was too long (p .05). Approximately 16 percent of all respondents in 2009 were concerned theirvehicles would be damaged during the E-Check process. Respondents that were concerned their vehicle would be damaged were more likely to bedissatisfied with their E-Check experience than those that were unconcerned (p .05). Approximately one-third of 2009 respondents would have liked a better
2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey 7 Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University How the Survey Was Conducted Survey Instrument The 2009 survey was the same as the 2008 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey. For 2008, several changes were made to the survey instrument. These changes included;
2016 Ohio IT 4708 General Instructions New Ohio IT K-1 Use the Ohio IT K-1 to report each investor's or beneficiary's proportionate or distributive share of the partnership's, corporation's, estate's or trust's Ohio income and credits. Each entity with Ohio income should prepare a separate Ohio IT K-1 for each investor or
Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Ohio Counselor, Social Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist Board Ohio Department of Higher Education Ohio Department of Medicaid Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services State Board of Psychology State Medical Board of Ohio Deter
The Ohio Nursing Articulation Model (ONAM) Advisory Committee Dr. Richard Arndt Ohio Board of Regents Director, K-16 Initiatives Columbus, Ohio W. Rae Arnold, MA, RN Ohio Nurses Association Director Community Outreach Grant/Riverside Methodist Hospitals Ohio Health Columbus, Ohio Nora Bostic, LPN (Until 2/2003)
while the minima of —16 F at Toledo and Sandusky and —17 F at Fremont are several degrees higher than the minima for the other cities. TABLE 1* Toledo, Ohio Sanduskv, Ohio Fremont, Ohio Bowling Green, Ohio Napoleon, Ohio Morenci, Michigan Adrian, Michigan Monroe, Michigan Len g Rec o Yr. 40 40 38 40. . 40 30 39 22 u a 26 27 27 26 25 25 .
Sunbury, Ohio Friday & Saturday, Sept. 16 & 17 Each session begins at 12:00 noon 2016 Ohio Selected Jug Sale 2016 OHIO SELECTED JUG SALE OHIO SELECTED JUG SALE This year's sale will be held in two sessions: Friday, September 16 at 12:00 noon Saturday, September 17 at 12:00 noon Lexington Selected Yearling Sale P.O. Box 8790, Lexington, KY 40533
Customer satisfaction has identified as an important influencer on customer loyalty. Further, customer trust impacted by customer satisfaction which proved that customer satisfaction is an antecedent of customer trust. Moreover, an indirect relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty through customer trust was observed.
Dec 08, 2009 · IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel. RHONDA L. COLVIN, 1665 W. Choctaw Dr. London, Ohio 43140, and THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel. C. DOUGLAS MOODY, 5419 Darcy Road Columbus, Ohio 43229, Case No. 8-1813 Relators, . Original Action in Mandamus vs. Expedited Elec
Reading Practice Test, a practice opportunity for the Nebraska State Accountability (NeSA). Each question will ask you to select an answer from among four choices. For all questions: † Read each passage. Then answer each question carefully by choosing the best answer. † Mark your answers for ALL of the questions. Remember only one of the choices provided is the correct answer. SP10R08XP01 .
