an introduction to libqual+ university of westminster, london 5th february 2010 selena killick...
TRANSCRIPT
An Introduction to LibQUAL+An Introduction to LibQUAL+
University of Westminster, London
5th February 2010
Selena KillickARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Consortium
& Cranfield University
www.libqual.org
www.libqual.org
The Day
• Introduction to LibQUAL+ & Background on the SCONUL Consortium
• Process Overview
• LibQUAL+ Lite pilot experience
• Consortium future directions
• Survey results
• Questions and answers
www.libqual.org
Introduction to LibQUAL+ and
the SCONUL Consortium
Stephen Town
University of York
& LibQUAL+ Steering Committee
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
ARL RolesARL Roles
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
ARL Statistics and AssessmentARL Statistics and Assessment
…To describe and measure the
performance of research libraries and their contribution
to teaching, research, scholarship and community service …
www.libqual.org
Reference Transactions ARL Statistics 2006-07
Reference Transactions
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
www.libqual.org
Total Circulation ARL Statistics 2006-07
Total Circulation
400,000
500,000
600,000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
www.libqual.org
AssessmentAssessment
“The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable—i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution. Librarians have either made do with oversimplified national data or have undertaken customized local evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been devised an effective way to link the two.”
Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
Issue 230/231 available on the web
www.libqual.org
PERCEPTIONS SERVICE “….only customers judge quality;
all other judgments are essentially
irrelevant”
Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999).
Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.
SERVQUAL
www.libqual.org
The need for LibQUAL+
• Underlying need to demonstrate our worth• The reallocation of resources from
traditional services and functions• Rapid shifts in information-seeking
behavior• Need to keep abreast of customer demands
• Increasing user demands• 37% of UK 16 – 18 year olds expect better
libraries in return for their top-up fees
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Development
• An ARL/Texas A&M University joint developmental effort based on SERVQUAL.
• LibQUAL+ initially supported by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE)
• Initial project established an expert team, re-grounded SERVQUAL concepts, and designed survey methodology
• Survey conducted at over 700 libraries resulting in a data base of over half a million user responses
www.libqual.org
76 Interviews Conducted
• York University• University of Arizona• Arizona State• University of Connecticut• University of Houston• University of Kansas
• University of Minnesota• University of
Pennsylvania• University of Washington• Smithsonian• Northwestern Medical
www.libqual.orgLoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:\Admin\Colleen\ServQual Interviews\TEXT Only\01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:\zz\atlasti\fred
www.libqual.org
www.libqual.org
Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality
Information Control
LibraryServiceQuality
Self-Reliance
Equipment
Timeliness
Ease of Navigation
Convenience
Scope of Content
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Reliability
Assurance
Responsiveness
Empathy
Refuge
Symbol
Utilitarian Space
www.libqual.org
DimensionsDimensions
2000 2001 2002 2003-Present
41 items 56 items 25 items 22 items
Affect of Service Affect of Service Affect of Service Affect of Service
Library as Place Library as Place Library as Place Library as Place
Reliability Reliability Personal ControlInformation Control
Provision of Physical Collections
Self-RelianceInformation Access
Access to Information
Access to Information
www.libqual.org
Survey Structure Survey Structure (Detail View)(Detail View)
www.libqual.org
Rapid GrowthRapid Growth• Languages
– Afrikaans– English (American, British)– Chinese– Danish– Dutch – Finnish– French (Belge, Canada, Europe)– German– Greek– Hebrew– Japanese– Norwegian– Spanish– Swedish– Welsh
• Consortia*Each may create 5 local questions to add to their
survey
• Countries– Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt,
Finland, France, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UAE, U.K., U.S., etc…..
• Types of Institutions– Academic Health Sciences– Academic Law– Academic Military– College or University– Community College– Electronic– European Business– European Parliament– Family History– Research Centers (FFRDC) Libraries– High School– Hospital– National Health Service England– Natural Resources– New York Public– Public– Smithsonian– State– University/TAFE
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Languages
American English
Dutch EnglishFrench Canadian DutchSwedish
Swedish(British English)
Afrikaans
DanishFinnishGerman Norwegian
British English
Continental French
Over 700 institutions1,000,000 respondents
www.libqual.org
250
286
206
307308
204
164
13
43
205,639
167,986176,360151,460
113,480
78,863
4,40720,416
128,958
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Survey Year
Number ofInstitutions
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Number ofResponses
Number of Institutions
Number of Responses
LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Participation Participation
www.libqual.org
LibQUALLibQUAL++®® First Year Participants First Year Participants
First year participants as a percentage of participants
100%
81% 83%
77%71%
57% 59%54%
42%
30%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
www.libqual.org
LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Surveys by Type Surveys by Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Academic law 1 25 10 6 3 3 1
Academic Military 6 1 1
Canadian Government 18
College or University 13 41 111 244 150 201 219 217 170 162
Community college 16 29 3 15 27 26 12 3
Electronic 1
European Business 5 16 17
European Parliament 4
Family History 1 2 1
FFRDC 5 1 2 1
Health Sciences 1 35 23 13 13 9 11 5 5
High School 1
Hospital 10 1 1
National Health
National Health Service Eng. 10 2
Natural Resources 4
New York Public library 1
Public 4 1 1 3 2 1 1
Smithsonian 1 1
State 1 1 3 2
University/TAFE 2 1 2 1
www.libqual.org
LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Surveys by Language Surveys by Language 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
American English 13 42 164 285 176 207 236 217 114 117
Afrikaans 4 1 5 1
British English 20 22 31 50 38 40 27
Chinese 4
Continental French 1 1
Danish 1 2
Dutch 1 2 1 1
Dutch English 1 1 2 1
Finnish 1 2
French Belge 3
French Canadian 2 1 4 26 1 1
French European 5 10
Japanese 2 1
German 1
Norwegian 1 2 5
Norwegian English 5
Spanish 1 1
Swedish 5 2 1 1
Swedish British English 1 2
Swedish English (A.E.) 2 1
Welsh 1
www.libqual.org
LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Surveys by Consortia Surveys by Consortia 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AAHSL 1 35 21 14 12 7 11 3 1
AJCU 20 21
AJCU-Law 1
Alabama Academic (NAAL) 10 1 8 2 13 1
CES 6
CCLA 7 7
CCCU 14 1
California State University System 6
City University of New York 19
CONSULS 5
CUC 8 1
Department of Justice Canada 12
EBSLG 6 17 19
FFRDC 5
Georgia 19 1
Harrisburg CC 5
JULAC 11
Keystone Lib Network 15 13
LibQUAL Canada 63 3
www.libqual.org
LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Surveys by Consortia Surveys by Consortia(cont’d)(cont’d)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
LQ Belge 3
LibQUAL Japan 3 2
LibQUAL France 10
Hospital/MLA 7
Maine URSUS Libraries 13
Mass-LSTA 5
MCCLPHEI 23
MERLN 6
National Health 10
NELLCO 8 1
North Carolina Community Colleges 15
Norwegian Academic Libraries 15 10
NY3Rs 76 2 1 1
Oberlin 12 9 13 2 1 2 2
OhioLINK 57 45 1 14 2 6
SCONUL 20 17 16 20 21 18 22
State Universities of Florida 6 2 1 1 2
University of Wisconsin System 14 12
VALE 12 1 11
www.libqual.org
Participating Libraries by CountryParticipating Libraries by CountryCountry 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Australia 1 6 2 3 4 1
Bahamas 1
Bangladesh 1
Belgium 4 3
Canada 1 3 4 8 10 15 11 75 9 8
China 1
Denmark 1 2 4
Egypt 1 2 1
Finland 2 8
France 1 2 1 5 9
French Polynesia 1
Japan 3 2
Hong Kong 11
Ireland 1 1 2 1 1 3
Morocco 1
Mexico 1 1 2
Netherlands 1 1 5 2 2
New Zealand 1 3 1
www.libqual.org
Participating Libraries by Country Participating Libraries by Country (cont’d)(cont’d)Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Norway 2 4 10
Singapore 1 1
South Africa 12 8 5 9 3
Sweden 3 4 4 2 3
Switzerland 2 2 2
Thailand 1
U.A.E. 1 1
UK 20 17 16 33 21 20 20
www.libqual.org
Surveys by Session: 2004-2008Surveys by Session: 2004-2008
Year Session I Session II
2004 202 2
2005 199 56
2006 205 93
2007 218 68
2008 154 58
2009 146 33
www.libqual.org
World World LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Survey Survey
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
R&DR&D
• Colleen Cook, “A MIXED-METHODS APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY SERVICES” (PhD diss., Texas A&M University, 2001).
• Martha Kyrillidou, “ITEM SAMPLING IN SERVICE QUALITY ASSESSMENT SURVEYS TO IMPROVE RESPONSE RATES AND REDUCE RESPONDENT BURDEN: THE ‘LibQUAL+® Lite’ RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL (RCT)” (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009)
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ and SCONUL
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ and SCONUL
• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Working Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI)
• 2003 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions agree to pilot the survey in a consortium of SCONUL Members
• Pilot seen as a success • Consortium of SCONUL Libraries has
participated in LibQUAL+ annually since 2003• 67 Different institutions in 6 years
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2003
• University of Bath• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway & Bedford
New College • University of Lancaster • University of Wales, Swansea• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow• University of Liverpool• University of London Library• University of Oxford• University College
Northampton
• University of Wales College Newport
• University of Gloucestershire • De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan University• Liverpool John Moores
University • Robert Gordon University• South Bank University• University of the West of
England, Bristol • University of Wolverhampton
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2004
• Brunel University• Loughborough University • University of Strathclyde • University of York • Glasgow University • Sheffield University • Trinity College, Dublin • UMIST + University of
Manchester• University of Liverpool
• Anglia Polytechnic University
• University of Westminster• London South Bank
University• Napier University • Queen Margaret
University College • University College
Worcester • University of East London
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2005
• University of Exeter• University of Edinburgh• University of Dundee• University of Bath• University of Ulster• University College
Northampton• University of Birmingham• Roehampton University
• University of Glasgow• University of Surrey• Royal Holloway UoL• City University• Cranfield University• University of Luton• Dublin Institute of
Technology• London South Bank
University
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2006
• Cambridge University Library
• Cranfield University• Goldsmiths College• Institute of Education• Institute of Technology
Tallaght• Queen Mary, University of
London• Robert Gordon University• St. George's University of
London• University of Aberdeen
• University of Central Lancashire
• University of Glasgow• University of
Gloucestershire• University of Leeds• University of Leicester• University of Liverpool• University of the West of
England• University of Warwick• University of Westminster• London South Bank
University
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2007
• Anglia Ruskin University• University of Bath• University of Birmingham• University of Central
Lancashire• Cambridge University Library • Cranfield University• De Montfort University • University of Edinburgh• University of Leeds• London South Bank University• Napier University
• University of Manchester• Royal Holloway University of
London • Senate House Library,
University of London• University of Surrey• Coventry University• Nottingham Trent University • School of Oriental and African
Studies• University of Wales Bangor• University of Limerick
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2008
• University of Bangor (Welsh)• University of Bangor (English)• University of Central
Lancashire • Cranfield University• University of Glasgow• University of Leeds• Liverpool John Moores
University• University of Liverpool
• Queen Mary, University of London
• Robert Gordon University• University of Warwick• University of Westminster• University of York• University of Cumbria • London Metropolitan University• University College, Cork• University College London
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2009
• University of Aberdeen• University of Bath• University of Birmingham• Cambridge Medical Library• Cambridge Betty & Gordon
Moore• University of Central
Lancashire • Coventry University• Cranfield University• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow
• University of Leeds• University of Limerick• Royal Holloway London• Goldsmiths London• St George’s London• University of Manchester• Institute of Technology,
Tallaght• Trinity College Dublin• University of Ulster• University of York• Bradford University• St Andrew’s University
www.libqual.org
The LibQUAL+ Questionnaire
www.libqual.org
Process Overview
• Register with ARL (2008 cost $3,000)• Institutional contact sets survey to local needs
• Local Questions• Disciplines
• Send out a URL to the survey via email• Mounted on ARL servers
• Watch the surveys come in• Close the survey when ready, institutional results
available after a couple of weeks• PDF• SPSS• Excel
www.libqual.org
Time frame
• January – Registration opens
• February – UK Training• Mid-Jan – Mid-Dec – Survey available
(exc. June)
• November – Registration closes
• January 2011 – Consortium results available
www.libqual.org
Survey Composition
• 22 Core Questions– Affect of Service– Information Control– Library as Place
• 5 Local Questions (optional)• 5 Information Literacy Questions• 3 General Satisfaction Questions• Library Usage Patterns• Demographics• Free Text Comments Box
www.libqual.org
Five Local Questions
• Participants can choose 5 questions to add to their survey from a range of over 100
• Helping participants focus on local issues
• Maintaining standardisation for benchmarking purposes
www.libqual.org
Free-Text Comments Box
• About 40% of participants provide open-ended comments, and these are linked to demographics and quantitative data
• Users elaborate the details of their concerns• Users feel the need to be constructive in their
criticisms, and offer specific suggestions for action
• Available in real-time enabling prompt responses to concerns
www.libqual.org
Usage & Demographics
• Library Usage• User group• Discipline • Age• Sex• Gender
• Attached to SPSS and Excel results• Enabling detailed further analysis by type
www.libqual.org
Survey Instrument
www.libqual.org
Gap Theory
• For the 22 items LibQUAL+ asks users’ to rate their:• Minimum service level• Desired service level• Perceived service performance
• This gives us a ‘Zone of Tolerance’ for each question; the distance between minimally acceptable and desired service ratings
• Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance
www.libqual.org
Perceived is greater than desired
Perceived is greater than minimum, less
than desired
Perceived is less than minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Desired
Desired
Perceived
Perceived
Perceived
Gap Theory
www.libqual.org
Results from SCONUL
www.libqual.org
Core Questions
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2009
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2008
www.libqual.org
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2007
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Results by Dimension
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Results by User Group
www.libqual.org
General findings
• Highly desired• Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office• Print and/or electronic journals I require for my work• A haven for study, learning or research
• Lowest • Library staff who instil confidence in users• Giving users individual attention• Space for group learning and group study
www.libqual.org
Comments
www.libqual.org
Free text comments received 2006
Aberdeen University 574
Cambridge University 106
Cranfield University 147
Glasgow University 620
Goldsmith College 399
Institute of Education, UoL 487
Institute of Technology Tallaght 200
London South Bank University 382
Queen Mary, UoL 745
Robert Gordon University 181
Scottish Agricultural College 134
St George’s, UoL 299
University of Central Lancashire
654
University of Gloucestershire
412
University of Leeds 888
University of Leicester 791
University of Liverpool 255
University of the West of England, Bristol
736
University of Warwick 355
University of Westminster 916
www.libqual.org
Comments Comparisons
• Total number of comments 2006 = 9,281
• Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368
• Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161
• Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342
www.libqual.org
Expect everything
From:• The library in DCMT is one of the best, if not the
best, departments of the campus. The staff are outstanding, professional, helpful and extremely friendly. The place is always inviting and welcoming.
To:• The library is consistently unimpressive, except
as a consumer of funds and resources.
And everything in between!
www.libqual.org
Feedback from UK Participants
www.libqual.org
Why use LibQUAL?Feedback from LibQUAL+ Users
“Why did you choose to use LibQUAL+?”• LibQUAL+ was recommended to us as offering a
well designed, thoroughly Library-focused set of survey tools
• Cost-effectiveness• Automated processing & fast delivery of results• Opportunity to benchmark• Respectability and comparability (with others
and historically)
www.libqual.org
The benefits of LibQUAL+
LibQUAL+ has enabled us to find out what a broad range of our users thought of the services we offer; what level of service-delivery quality we had achieved in their eyes, and to get a clear picture of what they actually wanted the Library to deliver (as opposed to what we thought they wanted).
UK HE Institution, 2006
www.libqual.org
In Closing LibQUAL+…
• Focuses on success from the users’ point of view (outcomes)
• Demonstrates that a web-based survey can handle large numbers; users are willing to fill it out; and survey can be executed quickly with minimal expense
• Requires limited local survey expertise and resources• Analysis available at local, national and inter-institutional
levels• Offers opportunities for highlighting and improving your
status within the institution• Can help in securing funding for the Library