Download - What is LibQUAL + ?
Large-scale, web-based, user-centered assessment of library service effectiveness across multiple institutions.
Co-developed by ARL and Texas A&M University, 1999
Responds to the increasing pressure for libraries to develop more outcomes-based assessment efforts, instead of relying merely on input or resource metrics.
Supported in part by a 3-year, $498,000 FIPSE grant; sustained by participant fees.
What is LibQUAL+?
Grounded in the “Gap Theory” of Service Quality; addresses a set of four service dimensions:
1. Access to Information—timely and convenient access to information resources: local & remote, print & electronic, general and special.
2. Affect of Service—knowledge, courtesy, and responsiveness of employees; their ability to instill confidence; their willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
3. Library as Place—a library space that is quiet, comfortable, and conducive to study and learning, for individuals as well as groups.
4. Personal Control—modern equipment, easy to use access tools, and a website that allow users to locate information independently, both within the Library and from remote locations.
What is LibQUAL+?(The “Gap Theory” model and 4 dimensions of service quality)
Foster a culture of excellence and continuous improvement in providing library service;
Provide libraries with comparable assessment information from peer institutions;
Identify best practices in library service; and
Enhance library staff members’ analytical skills for interpreting and acting on data.
The goals of LibQUAL+
Phase 0 (2000): Pilot; 12 ARL libraries survey 5,000 users
Phase 1 (2001): 43 ARL libraries survey 34,000 users
Phase 2 (2002): 164 libraries (incl. OhioLINK, AAHSL) test a shorter, more
refined instrument (25 questions); 78,000 respondents
Phase 3 (2003): End of FIPSE grant; final revisions to instrument. 308 libraries (incl. international) and 125,000 respondents
Overall project timeline
Association of Research Libraries (66 members)
New York Reference and Research Resources System (76, incl. 71 college/university libraries & 5 public libraries)
OhioLINK (45)
Network of Alabama Academic Libraries (9)
Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (21)
Oberlin Libraries Group (12)
Military Education & Research Library Network (5)
Society of College, National, & University Libraries (20) [UK & Ireland; includes Glasgow University]
Who participated in 2003?(Groups & consortia)
Arizona State U. WestBoston CollegeBrigham Young U.Case Western ReserveColorado State UniversityColumbia UniversityCornell UniversityEmory UniversityGeorge Washington U.Georgia TechIowa State UniversityKent State UniversityLouisiana State UniversityMcGill UniversityNew York State LibraryOhio State UniversityStony Brook UniversitySyracuse University Temple University
Texas A&M University U. LavalU. at AlbanyU. of AlabamaU. of AlbertaU. of ArizonaU. of California, DavisU. of California, IrvineU. of California, L.A.U. of CincinnatiU. of Florida U. of Guelph
U. of Hawaii at ManoaU. of HoustonU. of KansasU. of KentuckyU. of ManitobaU. of MarylandU. of MinnesotaU. of Missouri-ColumbiaU. of Nebraska, LincolnU. of New MexicoU. of PittsburghU. of South CarolinaU. of Texas at AustinU. of WashingtonVirginia TechWashington State U.Wayne State U.
66 ARL libraries,including…
Who participated in 2003?(ARL Libraries)
16 libraries from theGreater Western Library Alliance
(GWLA), including…
Arizona State U. WestBaylor UniversityBrigham Young U.Colorado State UniversityIowa State University
Oregon State UniversityTexas A&M University U. of ArizonaU. of HoustonU. of KansasU. of Missouri-Columbia
U. of Nebraska, LincolnU. of New MexicoU. of Texas at AustinU. of WashingtonWashington State University
Who participated in 2003?(GWLA Libraries)
Gather random sample (1,200 u-grads; 800 grads; 800 faculty)
Prepare website to manage publicity, communication, etc.
Send “pre-survey” message from Dean (March 25)
Send email with imbedded URL for online survey (March 30)
Send 2 reminders from the Dean (April 3 & 8)
Survey closes on April 11, 2003
Announce incentive prize winners (May 19)
Checklist of local activities
Who responded at ISU?(Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads)
648 of the 2,800 users surveyed (23.1%), including:
• 250 of the 800 faculty surveyed (31.3%)
• 202 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (25.2%)
• 196 of the 1,200 undergrad students surveyed (16.3%)
Among the 66 ARL libraries participating in 2003, ISU ranked 13th in the number of surveys completed!
63.7%
Sex
Who responded at ISU?(By age & Sex)
25.2% 59.1%40.9%
Age
25.9%
25.7%20.2%
25.2%
3%
I use the library electronically… I use the library on premises…
Who responded at ISU?(Frequency of library use)
8.3%
37.5%
38.5%
14.3%
1.4%
19.2%
45%
22.4%
10%
3.4%
I use the library electronically… I use GoogleTM, etc. for info…
Who responded at ISU?(e-Library vs. Google use)
19.2%
45%
22.4%
10%
3.4%
60.1%27.1%
6.1%
3.3% 3.4%
When it comes to… My Minimum Service level is
My Desired Service level is
My Perception of the library's service performance is
(low) (high) (low) (high) (low) (high)
1 Employees who instill confidence in users
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
4 Readiness to respond to users' questions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
5 Quiet space for individual activities
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
Sample Survey
Dimension 1: Access to Information
AI-1 Print and/or e- journal collections I need for my work
AI-2 Convenient service hours
AI-3 The printed library materials I need for my work
AI-4 The electronic information resources I need
AI-5 Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan
Access to InformationDimension 1:
Dimension 2:Affect of Service
AS-1 Employees who instill confidence in users
AS-2 Readiness to respond to users' questions
AS-3 Willingness to help users
AS-4 Dependability in handling users' service problems
AS-5 Giving users individual attention
AS-6 Employees who have the knowledge to answer users'questions
AS-7 Employees who are consistently courteous
AS-8 Employees who deal with others in a caring fashion
AS-9 Employees who understand the needs of their users
Affect of ServiceDimension 2:
Dimension 3:Library as Place
LP-1 Quiet space for individual activities
LP-2 A comfortable and inviting location
LP-3 Library space that inspires study and learning
LP-4 Community space for group learning and group study
LP-5 A getaway for study, learning, or research
Library As PlaceDimension 3:
Dimension 4:Personal Control
PC-1 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things onmy own
PC-2 Convenient access to library collections
PC-3 A library website enabling me to locate information on myown
PC-4 Modern equipment that lets me easily access neededinformation
PC-5 Making information easily accessible for independent use
PC-6 Making e- resources accessible from my home or office
Personal ControlDimension 4:
Addendum:General Satisfaction
GS-1 In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.
GS-2 In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs.
GS-3 How would you rate the overall quality of the serviceprovided by the library?
General Satisfaction QuestionsAddendum:
Addendum:Information Literacy Questions
IL-1 The library helps me stay abreast of developmentsin my field(s) of interest.
IL-2 The library aids my advancement in my academicdiscipline.
IL-3 The library enables me to be more efficient in myacademic pursuits.
IL-4 The library helps me distinguish betweentrustworthy and untrustworthy information.
IL-5 The library provides me with the information skills I needin my work or study.
Information Literacy QuestionsAddendum:
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3Question 4
Question 5
= Minimum= Perceived= Desired
Sample spider graph
Text box
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Aggregate data (all ARL universities, all users)
Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work
M
D
P
Text box
ARL ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty)(Graph)Journal collections (print
and/or electronic) I need for my work
Community space for group learning and study
Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty)(Table)Difference between perceived and minimal service:
ARL ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from ARL libraries (by >0.5)…
LP-4 Community space for group learning and group study 1.00 1.51 0.51
LP-2 A comfortable and inviting location 0.89 1.39 0.50
Areas in which ARL and/or ISU falls below minimum…
AI-1 Print and/or e- journal collections I require for my work -0.03 0.13 0.16
ARL ISU Difference
Areas in which ARL and/or ISU exceed desired service levels…
LP-4 Community space for group learning and group study -0.45 0.05 0.50
Difference between perceived and desired service:
Text box
Text box
ARL ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Comparison: Undergraduates(Graph)
Comparison: Undergraduates(Table)
Difference between perceived and minimal service:
ARL ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from ARL libraries (by >0.5)…
LP-2 A comfortable and inviting location 0.89 1.39 0.50
Text box
ARL ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office
Comparison: Graduate Students(Graph)Journal collections (print
and/or electronic) I need for my work
Community space for group learning/study.
Comparison: Graduate Students (1)(Table)
Difference between perceived and minimal service:
ARL ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from ARL libraries (by >0.5)…
LP-3 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.46 1.14 0.68
LP-4 Community space for group learning and group study 0.99 1.65 0.66
LP-1 Quiet space for individual activities 0.51 1.17 0.66
LP-2 A comfortable and inviting location 0.80 1.38 0.58
LP-5 A getaway for study, learning, or research 0.58 1.16 0.58
Areas in which ARL and/or ISU falls below minimum…
AI-1 Print and/or e- journal collections I require for my work -0.22 0.03 0.25
PC-6 Making e-resources accessible from my home or office -0.10 0.08 0.18
Comparison: Graduate Students (2)(Table)
Difference between perceived and desired service:
ARL ISU Difference
Areas in which ARL and/or ISU exceed desired service levels…
LP-4 Community space for group learning and group study -0.44 0.15 0.59
ARL ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Comparison: Faculty(Graph)
Making e-resources accessible from home or office
Journal collections (print / electronic) I need for my work
Library website enabling me to locate info on my own
Quiet space for individual activities
Community space for group learning and study
Electronic info resources I need
Community space for group learning and study
Printed library materials I need for my work
Journal collections (print / electronic) I need for my work
Comparison: Faculty (1)(Table)
Difference between perceived and minimal service:
ARL ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from ARL libraries (by >0.5)…
AI-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.30 0.39 0.69
LP-3 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.63 1.14 0.51
AI-5 Timely document delivery/Interlibrary loan 0.21 0.72 0.51
Areas in which ARL and/or ISU falls below minimum…
AI-1 Print and/or e- journal collections I require for my work -0.50 -0.08 0.42
AI-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.30 0.39 0.69
PC-6 Making e-resources accessible from my home or office -0.23 0.18 0.41
PC-3 A library website enabling me to locate info on my own -0.12 0.30 0.42
AI-4 The electronic information resources I need -0.11 0.31 0.42
Comparison: Faculty (2)(Table)
Difference between perceived and desired service:
ARL ISU Difference
Areas in which ARL and/or ISU exceed desired service levels…
LP-4 Community space for group learning and group study 0.11 0.36 0.25
LP-1 Quiet space for individual activities -0.21 0.08 0.29
Conclusions…
Conclusions: Areas of strength
Areas of strength…
Conclusions…
Conclusions: Areas of strength
Areas of strength…
Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS).
ALL UNDERG GRAD FACULTY
Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy AdequacyGap Gap Gap Gap
(P-M) (P-M) (P-M) (P-M)
LP-4 Community space for group learning and group study 1.51 1.30 1.65 1.70
LP-2 A comfortable and inviting location 1.39 1.52 1.38 1.30
AS-5 Giving users individual attention 1.12 1.08 1.16 1.19
LP-1 Quiet space for individual activities 1.08 0.81 1.17 1.32
LP-5 A getaway for study, learning, or research 1.07 0.97 1.16 1.20
AI-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 0.48 0.72 0.44 0.39
PC-3 A library website enabling me to locate info on my own 0.46 0.78 0.42 0.30
AI-4 The electronic information resources I need 0.45 0.79 0.34 0.31
PC-6 Making e- resources accessible from my home or office 0.25 0.64 0.08 0.18
AI-1 Print and/or e- journal collections I require for my work 0.13 0.56 0.03 -0.08
Conclusions…
Conclusions: Areas of challenge
Areas of strength…
Areas of challenge…
Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS).
Areas of challenge lie in Access to Information (AI) and Personal Control (PC).
General Satisfaction Questions (1)
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am
treated at the library.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
General Satisfaction Questions (2)
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am
treated at the library.
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
General Satisfaction Questions (3)
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am
treated at the library.
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.
How would you rate the overall quality of the
service provided by the library?
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (1)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (2)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (3)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
The library enables me to be more efficient in
my academic pursuits.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (4)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
The library enables me to be more efficient in
my academic pursuits.
The library helps me
distinguish trustworthy /untrustworth
y information.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (5)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
The library enables me to be more efficient in
my academic pursuits.
The library helps me
distinguish trustworthy /untrustworth
y information.
The library provides me
with the information
skills I need in my work or
study.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Qualitative Data: Sample comments
Number: 6Date: 12:03 AM 3/31/2003 C.S.T.User Group: UndergraduateDiscipline: Science / MathLibrary Branch: Parks LibraryAge: 18 - 22Sex: FemaleKEYWORDS: ILL/DDComment:I was shocked to find such fast delivery for journal articles I have requested.
Qualitative Data (50+ user comments)
Topic # of users
Qualitative Data (20-49 user comments)
Topic # of users
Qualitative Data (10-19 user comments)
Topic # of users
Collections-related 114Staff 57Noise, cell phones, individual/group study, etc. 55
Building, furniture, equipment, and collection storage 43e-Library, Library Catalog, Internet 39Circulation policy & practice 32Hours 22Public computing, printers, scanning, wireless, etc. 22
ILL/DD 18Instruction 18Reference & information services 15Assessment, LibQUAL survey, focus groups, etc. 14Library funding 11
Reserve & Media Services 9Food & drink 4Self-reliance 3Publicity, PR 2International students 1Users with disabilities 1
Qualitative Data (1-9 user comments)
Topic # of users
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Collections-related)
Collections-related
More journals! Grow the journal collection, avoid cuts, & stand strong against coercive publishers.
Improve remote access to e-resources, especially journals.
Many comments and suggestions regarding specific subject areas, titles, etc.
More full-text journals, including back files.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Staff-related)
Staff-related
Vast majority of respondents see library staff as uniformly courteous, friendly, helpful.
Several respondents comment on the inconsistency of staff service: the mix of professional & unprofessional behaviors. Perceived lack of knowledge
(on part of some staff) results in time delays and lots of referrals.
Still, some respondents (c.5) see staff as unfriendly, rude, disinterested, dismissive.
Several individual staff singled out for praise or criticism.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Noise)
Noise, individual/group study, etc.
Importance of the library as a study hall.
Vast majority of comments indicate that the Parks Library is too noisy. There is a need for designated “silent zones,” and for more group study rooms that are isolated and/or soundproofed to minimize disruption to others.
Occasionally, it’s the library staff who are talking too loudly!
Many users currently find the library a “wonderful environment for study,” individually or in groups. Especially conducive to quiet study: the Periodical Room and the branches.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Building, equipment, furniture)
Building, equipment, furniture
New copiers are nice, but are too slow, too expensive, and need more options (paper size, duplexing).
Need better lighting in bathrooms, stairwells, stacks, study areas, aisles.
Need new, more attractive, more comfortable chairs.
Stack/tier layout is confusing; need better signage.
Building is too hot & stuffy, especially in upper tiers/floors.
Retrieval of items from Storage is inconvenient, and items sent to Storage are not sufficiently old.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(e-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc.)
E-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc.
Mixed ratings of the e-Library website. Some see it as excellent and appreciate its integration with other library services. Others express concern that the website is too graphics-intensive, lacks an effective site search, and is less navigable than the old one.
The growing tendency of many users to prefer Google or other Internet search engines for locating information and information resources.
Specific suggestions for enhancing the e-Library or Library Catalog.
The need for easier and more effective access to journals and indexes, by title and by subject.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Circulation policy/practice; Hours)
Circulation policy/practiceNeed to review and revise Circulation and Collection Development policies (loan periods, recalls, overdue fines, purchase of multiple copies) to improve book availability.
Need to move to email (versus printed) correspondence with users.
HoursThe need for longer hours during break periods, especially the weekend before classes begin.
A desire for expanded hours in general, including several requests for 24/7.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Public computing, printers, etc.)
Public computing, printing, etc.
The library needs better printers, “even if you have to pay…”
Add MS Office to more computers, and make more computers available for email.
The library needs more computers (including an open computer lab, and in group study rooms).
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Instruction)
Instruction
The growing need for effective remote access to e-resources for distance education students.
The constancy of change. (“Everything has changed since I took Library 160…”)
The need for more instruction in specific areas, but especially finding books, journals, and journal articles in the e-Library. More events like DataPalooza.
Concerns regarding the validity of information resources and the user’s ability to locate and recognize unbiased information.
Next steps
• Share qualitative and quantitative data with appropriate library units, for analysis.
• Implement and document changes based on findings.
• Explore opportunities to compare findings with colleagues (GWLA, etc.)
• Repeat survey biennially (next in 2005) and watch the trajectories.
• Consider focus groups to explore areas of concern.
Recommendations
• Acquire more e-journals, and make them accessible from both on and off campus.
• Investigate the effectiveness of and alternatives to SerialsSolutions.
• Investigate and act on respondent’s recommendations for specific material purchases.
• Use circulation data to trigger the purchase of additional copies of heavily-used books.
Recommendations (cont.)
• Improve library support for distance learning.
• Improve turnaround time, communication, user education, and PR regarding interlibrary loan.
• Implement email notification for all circulation correspondence.
• Establish and promote an official quiet zone within the Parks Library.
• Explore ways to make the physical arrangement of collections more intuitive for users.
Recommendations (cont.)
• Improve access to laser printing within library facilities.
• Consider respondents’ concerns when negotiating our next contract for public copiers.
• Improve lighting in the stairwell that connects floors and tiers.
• Use respondents’ comments/complaints regarding customer service to shape staff development sessions in the upcoming year.