libqual+ 2002 aggregate notebook › documents › admin › aggregatenotebook.pdf · from the...

Summary Statistics and Graphs

LibQUAL+™Spring 2002 Aggregate

Survey Results

Association of Research Libraries /Texas A&M University

Duane WebsterExecutive Director,

Association of Research [email protected]

Fred M. HeathDean and Director,

Texas A&M University [email protected]

TM

- 1 -Bibliography of LibQUAL+TM Studies: http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib.htm

http://www.libqual.org

TM

Aggregate Statistics and GraphsJune, 2002

Contributors:

Consuella Askew WallerAssociation of Research Libraries

Martha KyrillidouAssociation of Research Libraries

Jonathan D. SousaAssociation of Research Libraries

Amy HosethAssociation of Research Libraries

Kaylyn HippsAssociation of Research Libraries

Colleen CookTexas A&M University

Fred HeathTexas A&M University

Bruce ThompsonTexas A&M University

LibQUAL+™Spring 2002 Aggregate

Survey Results

Bibliography of LibQUAL+TM Studies: http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib.htmhttp://www.libqual.org

TM

Published by the Association of Research Libraries21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884

<http://www.arl.org/>Copyright: ©2002 by the Association of Research Libraries

ISBN 0-918006-84-8

Contents

1 Introduction 1.1 Acknowledgements 1.2 Web Access to Data 1.3 Explanation of Charts 1.4 A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002

2 Aggregate Analysis 2.1 Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 2.1.1 Respondents by Institution 2.1.2 Completion Rates 2.1.3 Surveys Completed by Date 2.2 Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 2.2.1 Respondents by Institution Type 2.2.2 Respondents by Age (Excludes NYPL) 2.2.3 Respondents by Sex 2.3 Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 2.3.1 Aggregate Item Summary 2.3.2 Aggregate Dimension Summary 2.3.3 General Satisfaction 2.3.4 Library Use 2.4 Item Analysis for Library Staff 2.4.1 Item Summary for Library Staff 2.4.2 Dimension Summary for Library Staff 2.4.3 General Satisfaction for Library Staff 2.4.4 Library Use for Library Staff

3 4-Year Institution Analysis 3.1 4-Year Institution Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 3.1.1 4-Year Institution Completion Rates 3.1.2 4-Year Institution Surveys Completed by Date 3.2 4-Year Institution Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 3.2.1 4-Year Institution Respondents by Age 3.2.2 4-Year Institution Respondents by Sex 3.2.3 4-Year Institution Respondents by User Group 3.2.4 4-Year Institution Respondents by Discipline 3.3 4-Year Institution Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 3.3.1 4-Year Institution Item Summary 3.3.2 4-Year Institution Dimension Summary 3.3.3 4-Year Institution General Satisfaction 3.3.4 4-Year Institution Library Use

4 Community College Analysis 4.1 Community College Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 4.1.1 Community College Completion Rates 4.1.2 Community College Surveys Completed by Date 4.2 Community College Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 4.2.1 Community College Respondents by Age 4.2.2 Community College Respondents by Sex 4.2.3 Community College Respondents by User Group 4.2.4 Community College Respondents by Discipline 4.3 Community College Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 4.3.1 Community College Item Summary 4.3.2 Community College Dimension Summary 4.3.3 Community College General Satisfaction

4.3.4 Community College Library Use

5 Health Sciences Library Analysis 5.1 Health Sciences Library Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 5.1.1 Health Sciences Library Completion Rates 5.1.2 Health Sciences Library Surveys Completed by Date 5.2 Health Sciences Library Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 5.2.1 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Age 5.2.2 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Sex 5.2.3 Health Sciences Library Respondents by User Group 5.2.4 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Discipline 5.3 Health Sciences Library Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 5.3.1 Health Sciences Library Item Summary 5.3.2 Health Sciences Library Dimension Summary 5.3.3 Health Sciences Library General Satisfaction 5.3.4 Health Sciences Library Library Use

6 Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey 6.1 Description 6.2 Print Version of the Survey - Page 1, Introduction 6.3 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (4-Year Institution) 6.4 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Community College) 6.5 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Health Sciences Library) 6.6 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (New York Public Library) 6.7 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Smithsonian Institution) 6.8 Print Version of the Survey - Page 3, Core Questions 6.9 Print Version of the Survey - Page 4, Satisfaction Questions 6.10 Print Version of the Survey - Page 5, E-Mail Address

7 Appendix B: LibQUAL+ Dimensions 7.1 Description 7.2 LibQUAL+ 2000 Dimensions 7.3 LibQUAL+ 2001 Dimensions 7.4 LibQUAL+ 2002 Dimensions

LibQUAL+™ Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Acknowledgements

This notebook contains information from the third administration of the LibQUAL+TM protocol. The material on the following pages is drawn from the analysis of more than 78,000 respondents from 164 participating institutions, many of them members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).

LibQUAL+TM is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create user-based quality-assessment tools for local planning. LibQUAL+TM tests a tool for measuring library users' perceptions of service quality and identifies gaps between desired, perceived, and minimum expectations of service. The project will continue as an R&D endeavor based at ARL in collaboration with the Texas A&M University Libraries through 2003, by which time LibQUAL+TM will evolve into an ongoing service quality assessment program at ARL.

There are four main goals of LibQUAL+TM: 1) development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality; 2) development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries; 3) identification of best practices in providing library service; and 4) establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL.

A project of this magnitude requires the skills of a dedicated group. We would like to thank the other members of the LibQUAL+TM team for their key roles in this developmental project. From Texas A&M University, the project management role of Colleen Cook, the quantitative guidance of Bruce Thompson, and the qualitative leadership of Yvonna Lincoln have been key to the project's integrity. The behind-the-scenes roles of Bill Chollet and others from the library Systems and Training units were also formative. From the Association of Research Libraries, the oversight role of Martha Kyrillidou and the day-to-day contributions of Consuella Askew Waller and Jonathan Sousa were fundamentally important. Julia Blixrud, Kaylyn Hipps, and Amy Hoseth were also important contributors.

A New Measures Initiative of this scope is possible only as the collaborative effort of many libraries. To the directors and liaisons at all 164 participating libraries goes the largest measure of gratitude. Without your commitment, the development of LibQUAL+TM would not have been possible. We would also like to extend a special thank you to administrators at the two participating consortiums. From OhioLINK, Tom Sanville and Jeff Gatten were particularly helpful. From the American Association of Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the efforts of Rick Forsman and Tamera Lee were greatly appreciated. The advisory groups from each consortium also provided needed assistance.

This note would be incomplete without acknowledging the enabling role of the Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education, which granted funds of $498,368 over a three-year period towards the LibQUAL+TM project, enabling us to expand the protocol to all post-secondary institutions.

Fred HeathTexas A&M University

Duane WebsterAssociation of Research Libraries

Introduction - Acknowledgements

LibQUAL+™ Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results2

Data summaries from the 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey will be available to project participants online at the LibQUAL+TM survey management site:

http://survey.libqual.org/Manage/

1.2 Web Access to Data

Introduction - Web Access to Data


1.3 Explanation of Charts

1.3.1 Pie Chart

Several different types of charts are used throughout this document to display aggregate results. A working knowledge of how to read and derive relevant information from these charts is essential. The basic chart types are outlined below, and additional descriptive information is included throughout this notebook.

On a pie chart, each slice represents a percentage of the whole. Pie charts are especially useful for displaying classes or groups of data in proportion to the whole data set. On the pages that follow, pie charts are used primarily to present demographical information collected as part of the survey.

1.3.2 Bar Chart

Bar charts are easy to read and are useful for comparing classes and groups of data. For LibQUAL+TM results, bar charts are used to present information on survey completion rates, the chronological distribution of survey completion, respondents' general satisfaction with their libraries' service, service quality dimension summaries, and other sets of data that easily lend themselves to this format.

1.3.3 Radar Chart

On a radar chart, variations in the data are shown by distance from the center of the chart. Radar charts feature multiple axes along which data are plotted. In the case of the LibQUAL+TM survey results, each axis represents a different survey question. Radar charts are used to present the item summaries (the results from the 25 survey questions) and the local question analysis (the results from the additional questions added by individual institutions).

Radar graphs are an effective way to graphically show strengths and weaknesses. Points close to the center indicate a low value, while points near the edge indicate a high value. When interpreting a radar graph, it is important to check each individual axis as well as the graph's overall shape in order to gain a complete understanding of its meaning.

Introduction - Explanation of Charts


1.4 A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002

Libraries today confront escalating pressure to demonstrate impact. As Cullen (2001) recently noted,

Academic libraries are currently facing their greatest challenge since the explosion in tertiary education and academic publishing which began after World War II... [T]he emergence of the virtual university, supported by the virtual library, calls into question many of our basic assumptions about the role of the academic library, and the security of its future. Retaining and growing their customer base, and focusing more energy on meeting their customers' expectations is the only way for academic libraries to survive in this volatile environment. (pp. 662-663)

In this environment, "A measure of library quality based solely on collections has become obsolete" (Nitecki, 1996, p. 181).

These considerations have prompted the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to sponsor a number of "New Measures" initiatives. The New Measures efforts represent a collective determination on the part of the ARL membership to augment the collection-count and fiscal input measures that comprise the ARL Index and ARL Statistics, to date the most consistently collected statistics for research libraries, with outcome measures, such as assessments of service quality and satisfaction.

One New Measures initiative has been the LibQUAL+TM project (Cook, Heath & B. Thompson, 2002; Heath, Cook, Kyrillidou & Thompson, 2002; Thompson, Cook & Thompson, 2002). Within a service-quality assessment model, "only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant" (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry, 1990, p. 16). Consequently, the selection of items employed with the LibQUAL+TM has been grounded in the users' perspective as revealed in a series of qualitative studies (Cook, 2002a; Cook & Heath, 2001).

LibQUAL+TM is a "way of listening" to users called a total market survey. As Berry (1995) explained,

When well designed and executed, total market surveys provide a range of information unmatched by any other method... A critical facet of total market surveys (and the reason for using the word 'total') is the measurement of competitors' service quality. This [also] requires using noncustomers in the sample to rate the service of their suppliers. (p. 37)

Although (a) measuring perceptions of both users and non-users and (b) collecting perceptions data as regards peer institutions can provide important insights, LibQUAL+TM is only one (i.e., a total market survey) of 11 "ways of listening" (Berry, 1995, pp. 32-61).

Using LibQUAL+TM Data

In some cases LibQUAL+TM data may confirm prior expectations and library staff will readily formulate action plans to remedy perceived deficiencies. But in many cases library decision-makers will seek additional information to corroborate interpretations or to better understand the dynamics underlying user perceptions.

For example, once an interpretation is formulated, library staff might review recent submissions of users to suggestion boxes to evaluate whether LibQUAL+TM data are consistent with interpretations, and the suggestion box data perhaps also provide user suggestions for remedies. User focus groups also provide a powerful way to explore problems and potential solutions. Cook (2002b) provides case study reports of how staff at various libraries have employed data from prior renditions of LibQUAL+TM.

Introduction - A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002


2002 Data Screening

LibQUAL+TM consists of 25 items. The 25 items measure perceptions of total service quality, as well as four subdimensions of perceived library quality: (a) Service Affect (9 items, such as "willingness to help users"); (b) Library as Place (5 items, such as "a haven for quiet and solitude"); (c) Personal Control (6 items, such as "website enabling me to locate information on my own"); and (d) Information Access (5 items, such as "comprehensive print collections" and "convenient business hours").

However, as happens in any survey, in 2002 some users provided incomplete data, or inconsistent data, or both. In compiling the summary data reported here, several criteria were used to determine which data cases to omit from these analyses.

1. Complete Data. The web software that presents the 25 core items monitors whether a given user has completed all items. On each of these items, in order to proceed to the next survey page, users must provide a rating of (a) minimally-acceptable service, (b) desired service, and (c) perceived service or rate the item "not applicable" ("NA").

If these conditions are not met, when the user attempts to leave the web page presenting the 25 core items, the software shows the user where missing data were located, and requests complete data. The user cannot exit the page containing the 25 items until all items are completed. Only records with complete data on the 25 items were retained in summary statistics.

2. Excessive "NA" Responses. Because some institutions provided access to a lottery drawing for an incentive (e.g., a Palm Pilot) for completing the survey, some users might have selected "NA" choices for all or most of the items rather than reporting their actual perceptions. Or some users may have views on such a narrow range of quality issues that their data are not very informative. In this survey we made the judgment that records containing more than 11 "NA" responses should be deleted.

3. Excessive Inconsistent Responses. On LibQUAL+TM user perceptions can be interpreted by locating "perceived" results within the "zone of tolerance" defined by data from the "minimum" and the "desired" ratings. For example, a mean "perceived" rating on the 1-to-9 ("9" is highest) scale of 7.5 might be very good if the mean "desired" rating is 6.0. But a 7.5 perception score is less satisfactory if the mean "desired" rating is 8.6, or if the mean "minimum" rating is 7.7.

One appealing feature of such a "gap measurement model" is that the rating format provides a check for inconsistencies in the response data (Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2000). Logically, on a given item the "minimum" rating should not be higher than the "desired" rating on the same item. For each user a count of such inconsistencies, ranging from "0" to "25" was made. Records containing more than 9 logical inconsistencies were deleted.

LibQUAL+TM Norms

An important way to interpret LibQUAL+TM data is by examining the zones of tolerance for items, the 4 subscale scores, and the total scores. However, the collection of such a huge number of user perceptions has afforded us with the unique opportunity to create "norms" tables that provide yet another perspective on results.

Norms tell us how scores "stack up" within a particular user group. For example, on the 1-to-9 ("9" is highest) scale, users might provide a mean "perceived" rating of 6.5 on an item, "complete run of journal titles." The same users might provide a mean rating on "minimum" for this item of 7.0, and a mean service-adequacy "gap score" (i.e., "perceived" minus "minimum") of -0.5.

The zone-of-tolerance perspective suggests that this library is not doing well on this item, because "perceived" falls below "minimally acceptable." This is important to know. But there is also a second way (i.e., normatively) to interpret the data. Both perspectives can be valuable.



A total market survey administered to tens of thousands of users, as was LibQUAL+TM in 2002, affords the opportunity to ask normative questions such as, "How does a mean 'perceived' score of 6.5 stack up among all individual users who completed the survey?", or ""How does a mean service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 stack up among the gap scores of all institutions participating in the survey?"

If 70% of individual users generated "perceived" ratings lower than 6.5, 6.5 might not be so bad. And if 90% of institutions had service-adequacy gap scores lower than -0.5 (e.g., -0.7, -1.1), a mean gap score of -0.5 might actually be quite good. Users simply may have quite high expectations in this area. They may also communicate their dissatisfaction by both (a) rating "perceived" lower and (b) "minimum" higher.

This does not mean that a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 is necessarily a cause for celebration. But a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 on an item on which 90% of institutions have a lower gap score is a different gap score than the same -0.5 for a different item in which 90% of institutions have a higher service-adequacy gap score.

Only norms give us insight into this comparative perspective. And a local user-satisfaction survey (as against a total market survey) can never give us this insight.

Common Misconception Regarding Norms. An unfortunate and incorrect misconception is that norms make value statements. Norms do not make value statements! Norms make fact statements. If you are a forest ranger, and you make $25,000 a year, a norms table might inform you of the fact statement that you make less money than 85% of the adults in the United States.

But if you love the outdoors, you do not care very much about money, and you are very service-oriented, this fact statement might not be relevant to you. Or, in the context of your values, you might interpret this fact as being quite satisfactory.

LibQUAL+TM 2002 Norms Tables. Of course, the fact statements made by the LibQUAL+TM norms are only valuable if you care about the dimensions being evaluated by the measure. More background on LibQUAL+TM norms is provided by Cook and Thompson (2001) and Cook, Heath and B. Thompson (2002). LibQUAL+TM norms for 2002 are available on the web at URL:

http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/libq2002.htm

Response Rates

At the American Library Association mid-winter meeting in San Antonio in January, 2000, participants were cautioned that response rates on the final LibQUAL+TM would probably range from 25% to 33%. Higher response rates can be realized (a) with shorter surveys that (b) are directly action-oriented (Cook, Heath & R.L. Thompson, 2000). For example, a very high response rate could be realized by a library director administering the following one-item survey to users:

Instructions. Please tell us what time to close the library every day. In the future we will close at whatever time receives the most votes.

Should we close the library at?

A. 10pm B. 11pm C. midnight D. 2pm

Lower response rates will be expected for total market surveys measuring general perceptions of users across institutions, and when an intentional effort is made to solicit perceptions of both users and non-users. Two considerations should govern the evaluation of LibQUAL+TM response rates.

Minimum Response Rates. Response rates are computed by dividing the number of completed surveys at an institution by the number of persons asked to complete the survey. However, we do not know the actual



response rates on LibQUAL+TM, because we do not know the correct denominators for these calculations.

For example, given inadequacy in records at schools, we are not sure how many e-mail addresses for users are accurate. And we do not know how many messages to invite participation were actually opened. In other words, what we know for LibQUAL+TM is the "lower-bound estimate" of response rates.

For example, if 200 out of 800 solicitations result in completed surveys, we know that the response rate is at least 25%. But because we are not sure whether 800 e-mail addresses were correct or that 800 e-mail messages were opened, we are not sure that 800 is the correct denominator. The response rate involving only correct e-mail addresses might be 35% or 45%. We don't know the exact response rate.

Representativeness Versus Response Rate. If 100% of the 800 people we randomly selected to complete our survey did so, then we can be assured that the results are representative of all users. But if only 25% of the 800 users complete the survey, the representativeness of the results is not assured.

Representativeness is actually a matter of degree. And several institutions each with 25% response rates may have data with different degrees of representativeness.

We can never be sure about how representative our data are as long as not everyone completes the survey. But we can at least address this concern by comparing the demographic profiles of survey completers with the population (Thompson, 2000). At which university below would one feel more confident that LibQUAL+TM results were reasonably representative?

Alpha University Completers (n=200 / 800) Population (n=16,000) Gender Gender Students 53% female Students 51% female Faculty 45% female Faculty 41% female Disciplines Disciplines Liberal Arts 40% Liberal Arts 35% Science 15% Science 20% Other 45% Other 45%

Omega University Completers (n=200 / 800) Population (n=23,000) Gender Gender Students 35% female Students 59% female Faculty 65% female Faculty 43% female Disciplines Disciplines Liberal Arts 40% Liberal Arts 15% Science 20% Science 35% Other 40% Other 50%

The persuasiveness of such analyses is greater as the number of variables used in the comparisons is greater. The LibQUAL+TM software is being expanded to automate these comparisons and to output side-by-side graphs comparing sample and population profiles for given institutions. Show these to people who question result representativeness.

ARL Service Quality Assessment Academy

LibQUAL+TM hopefully is an important tool in the New Measures toolbox that librarians can use to improve service quality. But, even more fundamentally, the LibQUAL+TM initiative is more than a single tool. LibQUAL+TM is an effort to create a culture of data-driven service quality assessment and service quality improvement within libraries.



Such a culture must be informed by more than one tool, and by more than only one of the 11 ways of listening to users. To facilitate a culture of service quality assessment, and to facilitate more informed usage of LibQUAL+TM data, the Association of Research Libraries has created the ARL Service Quality Assessment Academy:

http://www.arl.org/libqual/geninfo/academy_participants.html

The intensive, five-day Academy teaches both qualitative and quantitative skills that library staff can use to evaluate and generate service-quality assessment information. The first cohort of Academy participants graduated in May 2002. The Academy is one more resource for library staff who would like to develop enhanced service-quality assessment skills.

References

Berry, L.L. (1995). On great service: A framework for action. New York: The Free Press.

Cook, C.C. (2002a). A mixed-methods approach to the identification and measurement of academic library service quality constructs: LibQUAL+TM. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 2295A. (University Microfilms No. AAT3020024)

Cook, C. (Guest Ed.). (2002b). Library decision-makers speak to their uses of their LibQUAL+TM” data: Some LibQUAL+TM” case studies. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3.

Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2001). Users' perceptions of library service quality: A "LibQUAL+TM" qualitative study. Library Trends, 49, 548-584.

Cook, C., Heath, F. & Thompson, B. (2002). Score norms for improving library service quality: A LibQUAL+TM study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 13-26.

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.

Cook, C., & Thompson, B. (2001). Psychometric properties of scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+TMstudy of perceptions of library service quality. Library Trends, 49, 585-604.

Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49, 662-686.

Heath, F., Cook, C., Kyrillidou, M., & Thompson, B. (2002). ARL Index and other validity correlates of LibQUAL+TM scores. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 27-42.

Nitecki, D.A. (1996). Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22, 181-190.

Thompson, B. (2000, October). Representativeness versus response rate: It ain't the response rate!. Paper presented at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Measuring Service Quality Symposium on the New Culture of Assessment: Measuring Service Quality, Washington, DC.

Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2000). The LibQUAL+TM gap measurement model: The bad, the ugly, and the good of gap measurement. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 1, 165-178.

Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Thompson, R.L. (2002). Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+TM scores: Measuring perceived library service quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 3-12.



Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Free Press.



2.1.1 Respondents by Institution

2. Aggregate Analysis

2.1 Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

Below is a listing of all the institutions that participated in the 2002 LibQUAL+TM survey. They have been separated into four groups: 4-Year Institutions, Community Colleges, Health Sciences Libraries, and Others. The completion percentage and number of completed surveys has been listed for each institution.

CompletedSurveysInstitution

Completion Percentage

4-Year Institution

Antioch College, Olive Kettering Library 14258.20%Arizona State University 71060.37%Ashland University Library 89055.14%Auburn University 75659.34%Baylor University Libraries 60449.83%Bowling Green State University 52344.44%Bowling Green State University, Firelands College Library 13027.60%Brown University Library 1,17561.62%California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 20649.52%Capital University 35847.99%Carnegie Mellon University Libraries 62356.48%Case Western Reserve University, University Library 53764.39%Cedarville University Centennial Library 77443.48%Christopher Newport University, Captain John Smith Library 11050.69%Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary 16846.80%Clemson University Libraries 44948.07%Cleveland State University Library 54855.02%College of Mount St. Joseph 25453.59%College of William and Mary, Swem Library 64962.34%College of Wooster Libraries 58454.38%Cornell University Library 73652.50%CUNY Lehman College Library 26752.98%Denison University Libraries 45648.93%DePaul University Libraries 4318.86%Duke University Libraries 60759.86%Emory University 35354.64%Fordham University Libraries 49650.82%Humboldt State University 1,51058.73%Indiana University, Bloomington 32761.58%James Madison University 67263.46%

Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Respondents by Institution


4-Year Institution (continued)

Kent State University 53457.30%Kent State University, Stark Campus 15033.86%Malone College Library 34552.35%Marietta College, Dawes Memorial Library 20370.00%Marquette University Libraries 92961.04%McGill University Libraries 86666.72%Middle Tennessee State University Library 76450.70%Mount Carmel College of Nursing 5941.55%Mount Union College Library 17557.00%Muskingum College 43850.58%New Mexico State University Library 20055.25%New York University Libraries 36950.55%Oberlin College Library 90563.24%Ohio Dominican College Library 39945.76%Ohio Northern University 41547.87%Ohio State University and Central Ohio Technical College, Newark Campus Library 23554.27%Ohio State University at Mansfield 14642.69%Ohio State University Libraries 60646.51%Ohio University - Lancaster, McCauley Library 13957.20%Ohio University Eastern 4945.79%Ohio University Libraries, Athens Campus 46461.46%Ohio University Southern Campus Library 14646.20%Ohio University Zanesville/Muskingum Area Technical College 20553.95%Ohio Wesleyan University 31442.72%Otterbein College Courtright Memorial Library 31863.47%Penn State University Libraries 75959.02%Prairie View A&M University 5712.69%Radford University Library 1,08655.64%Shawnee State University, Clark Memorial Library 12364.06%St. John's University (NY) 34429.08%SUNY Buffalo 1,40152.47%Temple University Libraries 22959.79%Texas A&M University, College Station 71350.18%Texas A&M University, Commerce 29756.68%Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi 30063.97%Texas A&M University, Galveston 8054.05%Texas Tech University Libraries 1,54556.43%Texas Woman's University Libraries 13252.17%University of Akron Libraries 36746.40%University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa 31151.07%University of Alberta Library 98859.55%University of Arizona Library 81855.31%University of Calgary Information Resources 1,00459.76%University of Central Florida Library 27663.45%University of Cincinnati Libraries 84249.33%



4-Year Institution (continued)

University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries 87160.95%University of Dayton Library 30546.71%University of Denver Penrose Library 1,10265.01%University of Findlay, Shafer Library 16534.88%University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries 77154.64%University of Houston Libraries 19551.72%University of Illinois at Chicago 42553.59%University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 63056.35%University of Kentucky Libraries 57553.19%University of Maryland Libraries 76266.15%University of Memphis University Libraries 57043.31%University of Miami 45649.84%University of Minnesota Libraries 63657.77%University of Mississippi, Oxford 33653.67%University of Nevada, Las Vegas Libraries 40254.40%University of New Mexico Libraries 44560.14%University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Academic Affairs Libraries 67152.02%University of Notre Dame University Libraries 89262.07%University of Pittsburgh 33959.58%University of Richmond 1,07860.56%University of Tennessee Libraries 52756.91%University of Texas at Austin 71164.23%University of Toledo 36529.87%University of Washington Libraries 43059.23%Ursuline College, Ralph M. Besse Library 20357.02%Vanderbilt University, Jean and Alexander Heard Library 97461.03%Virginia Tech 1,35863.43%Wake Forest University, Z. Smith Reynolds Library 83769.58%Washburn University 16152.79%Washington State University 52360.39%Wayne State University 65451.01%Wittenberg University, Thomas Library 55358.58%Wright State University Libraries 59252.07%Xavier University Libraries 87442.51%Yeshiva University Library 38140.45%York University Libraries 79653.14%Youngstown State University, William F. Maag Jr. Library 55252.62%

58,81954.29%Sub Total:

Community College

Belmont Technical College Learning Resource Center 24351.27%Cincinnati State Technical and Community College, Johnnie Mae Berry Library 2221.36%Clark State Community College Library 33352.36%Cleveland State Community College 18747.34%



Community College (continued)

Columbus State Community College 18234.21%Cuyahoga Community College (Metro, Eastern, and Western) 40953.19%Edison State Community College Library 9832.67%Lakeland Community College Library 21557.33%Lorain County Community College Library 50551.53%Owens Community College Library 90562.37%Sinclair Community College Learning Resources Center 24841.61%Terra Community College Library 33265.61%University of Akron Wayne College Library 12868.09%University of Rio Grande/Rio Grande Community College 7348.99%Washington State Community College 15852.84%

4,03852.08%Sub Total:

Health Sciences Library

Duke University Medical Center Library 89135.26%Eastern Virginia Medical School, Edward E. Brickell Medical Sciences Library 35655.45%Georgetown University Medical Center, Dahlgren Memorial Library 56353.93%Harvard Medical School, Countway Library of Medicine 1,67856.88%Loyola University Health Sciences Library 12264.55%Medical College of Georgia Greenblatt Library 59850.08%Medical College of Ohio, Raymon H. Mulford Library 16748.27%Medical College of Wisconsin Libraries 24655.41%Mercer University School of Medicine, Medical Library & LRC 10361.68%New York Medical College Medical Sciences Library 22450.22%New York University Ehrman Medical Library 39046.93%Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Oliver Ocasek Regional Medical I 17953.12%Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library 45755.87%Ohio State University, Health Sciences Library 27954.07%SUNY Buffalo Health Sciences Library 38156.11%SUNY Upstate Health Sciences Library 51351.10%Texas A&M University, College Station, Medical Sciences Library 32561.21%University of Alabama at Birmingham, Lister Hill Library 44762.61%University of Arizona, Arizona Health Sciences Library 36354.10%University of California San Diego, Biomedical Library 11241.79%University of Cincinnati Academic Information Technology & Libraries 37939.98%University of Colorado, Denver, Health Sciences Center, Denison Memorial Library 68147.42%University of Connecticut Health Center Library 33549.12%University of Florida, Health Science Center Libraries 20640.39%University of Maryland, Health Sciences and Human Services Library 36453.45%University of Mississippi, Jackson, Medical Center Library 32463.65%University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Health Sciences Library 1,07956.79%University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Robert M. Bird Health Sciences Libr 26453.44%University of Rochester Medical Center, Edward G. Miner Library 1,20146.05%University of South Alabama Biomedical Library 18159.15%



Health Sciences Library (continued)

University of South Carolina School of Medicine Library 24456.74%University of Texas at Galveston Medical Branch, Moody Medical Library 31352.78%University of Vermont, Dana Medical Library 19555.71%University of Virginia Health Sciences Library 31347.28%Vanderbilt University, Eskind Biomedical Library 42452.93%

14,89750.97%Sub Total:

Others

New York Public Library, The Research Libraries 28019.83%Smithsonian Institution Libraries 82941.41%

1,10932.48%Sub Total:

78,863Grand Total: 53.02%



This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

2.1.2 Completion Rates

0K 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K 120K 140K 160K

148,732

123,220

112,774

79,985

78,863

Page

Vie

wed

Completed Surveys

Page 1Viewed

Page 2Viewed

Page 3Viewed

Page 4Viewed

SurveyCompleted

Page Viewed Page Viewed Percentage148,732Page 1 Viewed 100.00%123,220Page 2 Viewed 82.85%112,774Page 3 Viewed 75.82%

79,985Page 4 Viewed 53.78%78,863Survey Completed 53.02%

Total: 148,732

Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates


The bar chart below shows the number of surveys that were completed on each day of the survey run. Vertical lines indicate Mondays, traditionally the best day for sending out announcements and reminders to survey participants.

2.1.3 Surveys Completed by Date

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

3/4/20

02

3/11/2

002

3/18/2

002

3/25/2

002

4/1/20

02

4/8/20

02

4/15/2

002

4/22/2

002

4/29/2

002

5/6/20

02

832

586

349

238

206

212

127

1,83

856

950

448

525

567 71

1,79

52,

353

1,15

11,

007

532

141

208

3,84

41,

779

1,45

476

957

715

719

63,

806

5,35

92,

444

1,77

081

634

230

87,

979

3,93

72,

384

2,00

489

334

034

64,

756

2,95

11,

972

1,13

889

427

725

92,

899

1,83

01,

117

823

439

246

150

1,17

874

947

936

622

192 65

414

191

183

95 48

Date

Com

plet

ed S

urve

ys

(Vertical lines indicate Mondays)

Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date


2.2.1 Respondents by Institution Type

74.19%4-Year Institution

5.22%Community College

19.17%Health Sciences Library

1.42%Other

4-Year Institution 74.2%Community College 5.2%Health Sciences Library 19.2%Other 1.4%Total: 100.0%

RespondentsInstitution Type Percentage4-Year Institution 54,073 74.19%Community College 3,804 5.22%Health Sciences Library 13,976 19.17%Other 1,035 1.42%

Total: 72,888 100.00%

This graph shows respondents by institution type as a percentage of the whole, and includes library staff. Institution types include 4-Year Institutions, Community Colleges, and Health Sciences Libraries. The "Other" category includes Smithsonian Institution and New York Public Library

2.2 Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Institution Type


2.2.2 Respondents by Age (Excludes NYPL)

This pie chart shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45. New York Public Library used a different scale and has been excluded from these results.

28.13%22 - 30

23.74%31 - 45

24.25%Older than 45

23.87%Younger than 22

22 - 30 28.1%31 - 45 23.7%Older than 45 24.3%Younger than 22 23.9%Total: 100.0%

RespondentsAge Percentage17,340Younger than 22 23.87%20,43822 - 30 28.13%17,24931 - 45 23.74%17,619Older than 45 24.25%

Total: 72,646 100.00%

Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age


2.2.3 Respondents by Sex

56.95%Female

43.05%Male

Female 57.0%Male 43.0%Total: 100.0%

RespondentsSex Percentage41,512Female 56.95%31,376Male 43.05%

Total: 72,888 100.00%

The pie chart below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on responses to the demographic questions at the beginning of the survey instrument.

Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex


Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3

8

9

19

2214

11

14

15

17

18

20

24

2

10

13

2123 5

6

7

12

16

25

Access to InformationAffect of Service

Library as Place

Personal Control

Perceived Less Than MinimumPerceived Greater Than MinimumPerceived Less Than DesiredPerceived Greater Than Desired

This radar chart shows aggregate results for all 25 survey questions. Each axis represents one question (the question numbers are displayed at the outer point of each axis). While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, here they are grouped in quadrants: Affect of Service, Access to Information, Library as Place, and Personal Control.

On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red. Generally, a desirable radar graph is shaded blue and yellow, indicating that users' perceptions fall within the "zone of tolerance," i.e., above their minimum expectations (represented in blue) but below their desired level of service (shown in yellow).

2.3 Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

2.3.1 Aggregate Item Summary

Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Item Summary


GapPerceivedDesiredQuestion TextNo. Minimum

Access to Information

Complete runs of journal titles 6.42 7.90 6.38 -0.043)

Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan 6.54 7.90 7.01 0.478)

Interdisciplinary library needs being addressed 6.25 7.48 6.62 0.369)

Convenient business hours 6.95 8.22 7.19 0.2419)

Comprehensive print collections 6.46 7.83 6.65 0.2022)

Affect of Service

Willingness to help users 6.15 7.90 7.00 0.851)

Employees who are consistently courteous 6.79 8.12 7.41 0.624)

Dependability in handling users' service problems 6.60 7.95 7.02 0.4211)

Giving users individual attention 6.08 7.47 6.85 0.7714)

Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion 6.54 7.86 7.18 0.6415)

Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions

6.91 8.22 7.26 0.3517)

Readiness to respond to users' questions 6.84 8.13 7.35 0.5218)

Employees who instill confidence in users 6.19 7.49 6.88 0.6920)

Employees who understand the needs of their users 6.62 7.96 7.10 0.4824)

Library as Place

Space that facilitates quiet study 6.18 7.61 6.71 0.532)

A haven for quiet and solitude 6.16 7.47 6.71 0.5510)

A place for reflection and creativity 5.51 6.91 6.18 0.6713)

A comfortable and inviting location 6.21 7.77 6.85 0.6421)

A contemplative environment 5.88 7.29 6.55 0.6723)

Personal Control

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

6.72 8.22 6.89 0.175)

Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need

6.65 8.12 7.03 0.396)

A library website enabling me to locate information on my own

6.86 8.23 7.25 0.397)

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

6.72 8.13 7.04 0.3212)

Making information easily accessible for independent use

6.70 8.11 7.11 0.4116)

Convenient access to library collections 6.79 8.12 7.10 0.3125)

Number of Records: 70,445

Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Item Summary


2.3.2 Aggregate Dimension Summary

On this chart, aggregate scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, or the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality.

The four dimensions measured were Affect of Service (9 items), Personal Control (6 items), Access to Information (5 items), and Library as Place (5 items). A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix B.

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Affect of Service

Access toInformation

Library as Place Personal Control

Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Gap")Range of Minimum to Desired

GapDimension Minimum Desired PerceivedAccess to Information 6.57 7.93 6.82 0.25Affect of Service 6.51 7.90 7.11 0.60Library as Place 5.98 7.41 6.62 0.64Personal Control 6.74 8.15 7.07 0.33


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Dimension Summary


2.3.3 General Satisfaction

This chart displays aggregate scores for three areas of general satisfaction: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service. These scores are calculated from responses to three questions on page four of the survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction from 1-9, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

7.30

6.847.14

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Satisfaction withTreatment

Satisfaction withSupport

Overall Qualityof Service

Average RatingAspect of Satisfaction7.30Satisfaction with Treatment6.84Satisfaction with Support7.14Overall Quality of Service


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - General Satisfaction


2.3.4 Library Use

Here you can see a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

24,000

28,000

8,39

7

27,9

43

20,9

04

11,1

75

1,31

6

14,7

71

27,1

24

14,2

14

7,95

9

5,66

7

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

Library Use On Premises Electronic Library Use

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never

RespondentsFrequency Type of Library Use PercentageDaily 8,397Library Use On Premises 12.04%

14,771Electronic Library Use 21.18%Weekly 27,943Library Use On Premises 40.07%

27,124Electronic Library Use 38.90%Monthly 20,904Library Use On Premises 29.98%

14,214Electronic Library Use 20.38%Quarterly 11,175Library Use On Premises 16.02%

7,959Electronic Library Use 11.41%Never 1,316Library Use On Premises 1.89%

5,667Electronic Library Use 8.13%


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Library Use


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Library Use




2.4.1 Item Summary for Library Staff

2.4 Item Analysis for Library Staff

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3

8

9

19

2214

11

14

15

17

18

20

24

2

10

13

2123 5

6

7

12

16

25


Library as Place

Personal Control


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Item Summary




Complete runs of journal titles 6.19 7.71 6.39 0.203)





Affect of Service


Employees who are consistently courteous 7.37 8.51 7.27 -0.104)





7.15 8.44 7.22 0.0717)




Library as Place

Space that facilitates quiet study 6.23 7.68 6.18 -0.052)





Personal Control


6.68 8.08 7.02 0.345)


6.90 8.27 7.01 0.116)


6.96 8.25 6.93 -0.037)


6.84 8.22 6.87 0.0312)


6.78 8.17 7.00 0.2116)



Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Item Summary


On this chart, library staff scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, or the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality.


2.4.2 Dimension Summary for Library Staff

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Affect of Service






Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Dimension Summary


This chart displays aggregate scores for three areas of general satisfaction: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service. These scores are calculated from responses to three questions on page four of the survey, in which library staff respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction from 1-9, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

2.4.3 General Satisfaction for Library Staff

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

7.307.13

7.33

Ave

rage

Rat

ing






Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Gneral Satisfaction


This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which library staff respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

2.4.4 Library Use for Library Staff

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,42

6

588

248

127

21

640

702

364

259

445

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents




640Electronic Library Use 26.56%Weekly 588Library Use On Premises 24.40%

702Electronic Library Use 29.13%Monthly 248Library Use On Premises 10.29%

364Electronic Library Use 15.10%Quarterly 127Library Use On Premises 5.27%

259Electronic Library Use 10.75%Never 21Library Use On Premises 0.87%

445Electronic Library Use 18.46%


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Library Use


3. 4-Year Institution Analysis

This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of 4-Year Institution respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

3.1.1 4-Year Institution Completion Rates

3.1 4-Year Institution Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

0K 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K 120K

108,337

90,357

83,448

59,451

58,819

Page

Vie

wed

Completed Surveys

Page 1Viewed

Page 2Viewed

Page 3Viewed

Page 4Viewed

SurveyCompleted

Page Viewed Page Viewed Percentage108,337Page 1 Viewed 100.00%

90,357Page 2 Viewed 83.40%83,448Page 3 Viewed 77.03%59,451Page 4 Viewed 54.88%58,819Survey Completed 54.29%

Total: 108,337

4-Year Institution Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates



3.1.2 4-Year Institution Surveys Completed by Date

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

3/4/20

02

3/11/2

002

3/18/2

002

3/25/2

002

4/1/20

02

4/8/20

02

4/15/2

002

4/22/2

002

4/29/2

002

5/6/20

02

828

534

251

210

184

212

125

626

317 387

237

168

41 371,

512

2,15

41,

069

750

397

120

153

3,20

91,

436

1,20

465

249

811

817

53,

280

4,58

21,

897

1,36

959

524

724

76,

755

2,79

61,

842

1,66

369

721

727

33,

630

2,25

11,

239

789

506

169

182

1,51

278

952

838

621

911

781

683

432

295

220

136

64 4920

510

688 49 30

Date

Com

plet

ed S

urve

ys


4-Year Institution Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date


This pie chart shows a breakdown of 4-Year Institution survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45.

27.07%22 - 30

21.03%31 - 45

22.11%Older than 45



RespondentsAge Percentage16,111Younger than 22 29.79%14,63522 - 30 27.07%11,37331 - 45 21.03%11,954Older than 45 22.11%

Total: 54,073 100.00%

3.2.1 4-Year Institution Respondents by Age

3.2 4-Year Institution Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age



3.2.2 4-Year Institution Respondents by Sex

56.40%Female

43.60%Male



Total: 54,073 100.00%

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex


This chart shows the number and percentage of respondents by user group, such as undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, etc.

3.2.3 4-Year Institution Respondents by User Group

24.87%Faculty

23.94%Graduate

3.39%Library Staff4.81%

Staff

42.99%Undergraduate

Faculty 24.9%Graduate 23.9%Library Staff 3.4%Staff 4.8%Undergraduate 43.0%Total: 100.0%

RespondentsUser Group PercentageUndergraduate 23,244 42.99%Graduate 12,947 23.94%Faculty 13,448 24.87%Library Staff 1,834 3.39%Staff 2,600 4.81%

Total: 54,073 100.00%

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by User Group


This chart displays discipline information (academic major or area of focus) for all 4-Year Institution respondents.

3.2.4 4-Year Institution Respondents by Discipline

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Agriculture / Environmental Studies

Architecture

Business

Communications / Journalism

Education

Engineering / Computer Science

General Studies

Health Sciences

Humanities

Law

Other

Performing & Fine Arts

Science / Math

Social Sciences / Psychology

Undecided

2.88

0.79

10.61

3.70

10.10

9.58

0.70

7.60

11.06

1.74

9.98

4.24

11.88

13.16

1.97

Dis

cipl

ine

Percentage of Respondents

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline


RespondentsDiscipline PercentageAgriculture / Environmental Studies 1,557 2.88%Architecture 427 0.79%Business 5,739 10.61%Communications / Journalism 2,002 3.70%Education 5,460 10.10%Engineering / Computer Science 5,179 9.58%Health Sciences 4,109 7.60%Humanities 5,983 11.06%Performing & Fine Arts 2,295 4.24%Law 939 1.74%Science / Math 6,423 11.88%Social Sciences / Psychology 7,115 13.16%General Studies 380 0.70%Undecided 1,067 1.97%Other 5,398 9.98%

Total: 54,073 100.00%

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline




3.3.1 4-Year Institution Item Summary

3.3 4-Year Institution Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3

8

9

19

2214

11

14

15

17

18

20

24

2

10

13

2123 5

6

7

12

16

25


Library as Place

Personal Control


4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary




Complete runs of journal titles 6.36 7.89 6.25 -0.113)





Affect of Service







6.88 8.22 7.18 0.3017)




Library as Place






Personal Control


6.67 8.22 6.89 0.225)


6.60 8.11 6.99 0.396)


6.85 8.25 7.26 0.417)


6.69 8.14 6.99 0.3012)


6.67 8.11 7.06 0.3916)



4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary


On this chart, aggregate scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality.


3.3.2 4-Year Institution Dimension Summary

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Affect of Service






4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Dimension Summary



3.3.3 4-Year Institution General Satisfaction

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

7.24

6.767.06

Ave

rage

Rat

ing






4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - General Satisfaction


This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which 4-Year Institution respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

3.3.4 4-Year Institution Library Use

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

24,000

6,57

8

21,6

85

15,4

02

7,33

0

812

10,1

61

21,2

89

11,1

57

5,68

5

3,51

5

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents







5,685Electronic Library Use 10.97%Never 812Library Use On Premises 1.57%



4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Library Use


4. Community College Analysis

This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of Community College respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

4.1.1 Community College Completion Rates

4.1 Community College Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

7,753

6,340

5,692

4,187

4,038

Page

Vie

wed

Completed Surveys

Page 1Viewed

Page 2Viewed

Page 3Viewed

Page 4Viewed

SurveyCompleted

Page Viewed Page Viewed Percentage7,753Page 1 Viewed 100.00%6,340Page 2 Viewed 81.77%5,692Page 3 Viewed 73.42%4,187Page 4 Viewed 54.00%4,038Survey Completed 52.08%

Total: 7,753

Community College Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates



4.1.2 Community College Surveys Completed by Date

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

3/4/20

02

3/11/2

002

3/18/2

002

3/25/2

002

4/1/20

02

4/8/20

02

4/15/2

002

4/22/2

002

4/29/2

002

5/6/20

02

0 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 0 044

173 6

135 4 3 4 0 0

213

127

8143

146 4

7461

7910

056

21 1589

197

111 12

780

3725

141

190

141

9611

013 16

412

234

138

182

5618 15

165

128

8657

5 7 698

23 208 5

Date

Com

plet

ed S

urve

ys


Community College Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date


This pie chart shows a breakdown of Community College survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45.

21.37%22 - 30

29.07%31 - 45

24.66%Older than 45



RespondentsAge Percentage947Younger than 22 24.89%81322 - 30 21.37%

1,10631 - 45 29.07%938Older than 45 24.66%

Total: 3,804 100.00%

4.2.1 Community College Respondents by Age

4.2 Community College Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age



4.2.2 Community College Respondents by Sex

67.85%Female

32.15%Male



Total: 3,804 100.00%

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex



4.2.3 Community College Respondents by User Group

17.27%Faculty

2.31%Library Staff

12.04%Staff

68.38%Student

Faculty 17.3%Library Staff 2.3%Staff 12.0%Student 68.4%Total: 100.0%

RespondentsUser Group PercentageStudent 2,601 68.38%Faculty 657 17.27%Library Staff 88 2.31%Staff 458 12.04%

Total: 3,804 100.00%

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by User Group


This chart displays discipline information (academic major or area of focus) for all Community College respondents.

4.2.4 Community College Respondents by Discipline

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Agriculture / Environmental Studies

Applied Technologies & Trades

Architecture

Business

Communications / Journalism

Education

Engineering / Computer Science

General Studies

Health Sciences

Humanities

Law

Other

Performing & Fine Arts

Personal Improvement / Leisure

Science / Math

Social Sciences / Psychology

Undecided

0.50

3.89

0.66

17.56

3.10

12.54

11.59

2.21

16.11

3.94

2.92

10.75

1.66

0.39

3.47

5.21

3.50

Dis

cipl

ine


Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline


RespondentsDiscipline PercentageAgriculture / Environmental Studies 19 0.50%Applied Technologies & Trades 148 3.89%Architecture 25 0.66%Business 668 17.56%Communications / Journalism 118 3.10%Education 477 12.54%Engineering / Computer Science 441 11.59%Health Sciences 613 16.11%Humanities 150 3.94%Performing & Fine Arts 63 1.66%Law 111 2.92%Personal Improvement / Leisure 15 0.39%Science / Math 132 3.47%Social Sciences / Psychology 198 5.21%General Studies 84 2.21%Undecided 133 3.50%Other 409 10.75%

Total: 3,804 100.00%

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline




4.3.1 Community College Item Summary

4.3 Community College Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3

8

9

19

2214

11

14

15

17

18

20

24

2

10

13

2123 5

6

7

12

16

25


Library as Place

Personal Control


Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary









Affect of Service







7.05 8.05 7.50 0.4517)




Library as Place






Personal Control


6.75 7.80 7.07 0.325)


6.86 7.99 7.34 0.486)


6.91 7.93 7.31 0.417)


6.85 7.89 7.29 0.4412)


6.82 7.89 7.34 0.5116)



Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary




4.3.2 Community College Dimension Summary

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Affect of Service






Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Dimension Summary



4.3.3 Community College General Satisfaction

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

7.397.12

7.43

Ave

rage

Rat

ing






Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - General Satisfaction


This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which Community College respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

4.3.4 Community College Library Use

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

245

1,09

2

1,07

8

1,08

5

148

215

865 88

0

933

755

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents



RespondentsFrequency Type of Library Use PercentageDaily 245Library Use On Premises 6.72%

215Electronic Library Use 5.89%Weekly 1,092Library Use On Premises 29.93%

865Electronic Library Use 23.71%Monthly 1,078Library Use On Premises 29.55%

880Electronic Library Use 24.12%Quarterly 1,085Library Use On Premises 29.74%

933Electronic Library Use 25.58%Never 148Library Use On Premises 4.06%

755Electronic Library Use 20.70%


Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Library Use


5. Health Sciences Library Analysis

This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of Health Sciences Library respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

5.1.1 Health Sciences Library Completion Rates

5.1 Health Sciences Library Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

0K 4K 8K 12K 16K 20K 24K 28K 32K

29,228

23,834

21,379

15,222

14,897

Page

Vie

wed

Completed Surveys

Page 1Viewed

Page 2Viewed

Page 3Viewed

Page 4Viewed

SurveyCompleted

Page Viewed Page Viewed Percentage29,228Page 1 Viewed 100.00%23,834Page 2 Viewed 81.55%21,379Page 3 Viewed 73.15%15,222Page 4 Viewed 52.08%14,897Survey Completed 50.97%

Total: 29,228

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates



5.1.2 Health Sciences Library Surveys Completed by Date

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

3/4/20

02

3/11/2

002

3/18/2

002

3/25/2

002

4/1/20

02

4/8/20

02

4/15/2

002

4/22/2

002

4/29/2

002

5/6/20

02

352

9825 13 0 2

1,20

925

211

720

469

23 2727

018

875

247

127

1655

415

212

166

70 6229 17

444

712

454

289

149

61 4698

877

238

118

587 72

4796

148

354

521

6 233

9161

914

749

422

230

130

9352

289

149

82 83 7920 10

107

61 6826 12

Date

Com

plet

ed S

urve

ys


Health Sciences Library Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date


This pie chart shows a breakdown of Health Sciences Library survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45.

34.72%22 - 30

32.22%31 - 45

31.08%Older than 45



RespondentsAge Percentage277Younger than 22 1.98%

4,85222 - 30 34.72%4,50331 - 45 32.22%4,344Older than 45 31.08%

Total: 13,976 100.00%

5.2.1 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Age

5.2 Health Sciences Library Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age



5.2.2 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Sex

56.20%Female

43.80%Male



Total: 13,976 100.00%

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex



5.2.3 Health Sciences Library Respondents by User Group

35.50%Faculty

34.26%Graduate

3.08%Library Staff

22.59%Staff

4.56%Undergraduate

Faculty 35.5%Graduate 34.3%Library Staff 3.1%Staff 22.6%Undergraduate 4.6%Total: 100.0%

RespondentsUser Group PercentageUndergraduate 638 4.56%Graduate 4,788 34.26%Faculty 4,962 35.50%Library Staff 431 3.08%Staff 3,157 22.59%

Total: 13,976 100.00%

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by User Group


This chart displays discipline information (academic major or area of focus) for all Health Sciences Library respondents.

5.2.4 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Discipline

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Graduate School

Hospital / Health System

Other

School of Allied Health Professions

School of Dentistry

School of Education

School of Law

School of Medicine

School of Nursing

School of Optometry

School of Pharmacy

School of Professional Psychology

School of Public Health

School of Social Work

School of Veterinary Medicine

Shared Services / Library

5.00

11.83

3.56

3.48

2.75

0.09

0.06

53.68

6.70

0.39

2.36

0.15

5.72

0.31

0.97

2.96

Dis

cipl

ine


Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline


RespondentsDiscipline PercentageSchool of Allied Health Professions 486 3.48%School of Dentistry 384 2.75%School of Education 13 0.09%School of Law 9 0.06%School of Medicine 7,502 53.68%School of Nursing 936 6.70%School of Optometry 54 0.39%School of Pharmacy 330 2.36%School of Professional Psychology 21 0.15%School of Public Health 799 5.72%School of Social Work 44 0.31%School of Veterinary Medicine 135 0.97%Graduate School 699 5.00%Hospital / Health System 1,653 11.83%Shared Services / Library 413 2.96%Other 498 3.56%

Total: 13,976 100.00%

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline




5.3.1 Health Sciences Library Item Summary

5.3 Health Sciences Library Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3

8

9

19

2214

11

14

15

17

18

20

24

2

10

13

2123 5

6

7

12

16

25


Library as Place

Personal Control


Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary









Affect of Service







6.99 8.25 7.48 0.4917)




Library as Place






Personal Control


6.90 8.35 6.86 -0.045)


6.76 8.18 7.12 0.366)


6.91 8.27 7.23 0.327)


6.79 8.15 7.15 0.3612)


6.80 8.17 7.24 0.4416)



Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary




5.3.2 Health Sciences Library Dimension Summary

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Affect of Service






Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Dimension Summary



5.3.3 Health Sciences Library General Satisfaction

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

7.47

7.057.35

Ave

rage

Rat

ing






Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - General Satisfaction


This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which Health Sciences Library respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

5.3.4 Health Sciences Library Library Use

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1,41

7

4,79

4

4,19

3

2,60

8

332

4,24

7

4,64

9

2,00

3

1,19

8

1,24

7

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents







1,198Electronic Library Use 8.98%Never 332Library Use On Premises 2.49%



Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Library Use


6.1 Description

6. Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey

The LibQUAL+TM survey is a five-page, web-based instrument. A print version of the survey is included below and on the following pages.

Page 1 is an introduction and general description of the LibQUAL+TM survey.

Page 2 contains the demographic information for the survey. (Because slightly different demographic information was collected from each type of institution, five versions of page 2 have been included.)

Page 3 contains the core survey questions, 1-25. Questions relating to each dimension of library service quality (Library as Place, Personal Control, etc.) are distributed randomly throughout the survey.

Page 4 of the survey contains questions relating to user satisfaction and usage patterns, and allows respondents to add any additional comments they may have about library services.

Page 5, the final page of the survey instrument, thanks the respondents for completing the survey and provides them with an opportunity to include their e-mail address if they would like to enter the prize drawing.

6.2 Print Version of Survey - Page 1, Introduction

Welcome!

Please help us. Your participation in this survey will allow us to improve library services. Better understanding your expectations will help us tailor services to your needs.

We are conducting this survey to measure library service quality and identify best practices through the Association of Research Libraries' LibQUAL+TM program. Partial funding for this project is provided by the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). Please answer all items. The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete.

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 1, Introduction


6.3 Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (4-Year Institution)Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age:

Younger than 22 31-45 22-30 Older than 45

Sex:

Male Female Discipline:

Agriculture/Environmental Studies Humanities Architecture Law Business Performing and Fine Arts Communications/Journalism Science/Math Education Social Sciences/Psychology Engineering/Computer Science General Studies Health Sciences Undecided

Other Undergraduate:

Freshman (Year 1) Junior (Year 3) Sophomore (Year 2) Senior (Year 4)

Graduate:

Masters Non-degree or Undecided Doctoral

Faculty:

Assistant Professor Professor Associate Professor Other Academic Status Lecturer

Library Staff:

Administrator Systems Manager, Head of Unit Technical Services Public Services

Staff:

Research Staff Other staff positions

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (4-Year Institution)


6.4 Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Community College)Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age:


Sex: Female Male

Discipline: Agriculture/Environmental Studies Applied Technologies & Trades Architecture Business Communications/Journalism Education Engineering/Computer Science Health Sciences Humanities Law Performing and Fine Arts Personal Improvement/Leisure Science/Math Social Sciences/Psychology General Studies Undecided

Other Student:

No definite purpose in mind To take a few courses for self-improvement

To take a few job-related courses To take courses necessary for

transferring to another 2-year college

To take courses necessary for transferring to a 4-year college or university

To complete a vocational/technical program

To obtain or maintain a certification To obtain an Associate degree Other Faculty:

Full-time Part-time Library Staff:

Administrator Public Services Manager, Head of Unit Technical Services Systems

Staff: Administrator/Manager Other staff positions

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Community College)


6.5 Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Health Sciences Library)Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age:


Sex: Male Female

Discipline:

School of Allied Health Professions School of Professional Psychology

School of Dentistry School of Public Health School of Education School of Social Work School of Law School of Veterinary Medicine School of Medicine Graduate School School of Nursing Hospital/Health System School of Optometry Shared Services/Library School of Pharmacy Other

Undergraduate: Freshman (Year 1) Junior (Year 3) Sophomore (Year 2) Senior (Year 4)

Graduate: Masters Non-degree or Undecided Doctoral

Faculty: Assistant Professor Professor Associate Professor Other Academic Status Lecturer/Instructor

Library Staff: Administrator Systems Manager, Head of Unit Technical Services Public Services

Staff: Administrator/Manager Resident, Fellow, or Intern Basic Science Staff (non-faculty) Technical Support Staff Clerical Staff (non-exempt) Other staff positions Clinical Staff (non-faculty)

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Health Sciences Library)


6.6 Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (New York Public Library)Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age:


Sex:

Female Male Discipline:

Clergy Computer Services Cultural/Museum Engineering/Architecture Financial Services Government/City Agency Hospitality Industry Journalism Legal Profession Medical Profession Performing Arts/Entertainment Publishing Visual Arts and Design Independent Business Owner Independent Researcher Retired

Current Affiliation:

Graduate Staff Undergraduate High School Faculty Other

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (New York Public Library)


6.7 Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Smithsonian Institution)Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age:


Sex: Male Female

Discipline: Art History Science/Math Other

Select from one category below, the role that best describes you.

Library Staff: Administrator Public Services Manager, Head of Unit Technical Services Systems

Non-Staff: Visiting Researchers Volunteers

Staff: Administrator/Manager Resident, Fellow, or Intern Museum Technician Other staff positions Curator/Scientist

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Smithsonian Institution)


6.8 Print Version of Survey - Page 3, Core Questions

Please rate the following statements by selecting your choices from the pull-down menus to indicate:

• Minimum -- the number that represents the minimum level of service that you would find acceptable.

• Desired -- the number that represents the level of service that you personally want.

• Perceived -- the number that represents the level of service that you believe our library currently provides.

You must EITHER rate all three columns OR Identify the item as N/A.

When it comes to…

My Minimum Service Level Is

low high

My Desired Service Level Is

low high

Perceived ServicePerformance Is

low high

N/A

1) Willingness to help 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) Space that facilitates quiet study

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) Complete runs of journal titles 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) Employees who are consistently courteous

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) Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

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

6) Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need

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

7) A library website enabling me to locate information 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

8) Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan

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

9) Interdisciplinary library needs being addressed

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

10) A haven for quiet and solitude 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

Continued…

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 3, Core Questions


6.8 Print Version of Survey - Page 3, Core Questions (Continued)

When it comes to… My Minimum Service Level Is

low high

My Desired Service Level Is

low high

Perceived ServicePerformance Is

low high

N/A

11) Dependability in handling users' service problems

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

12) 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

13) A place for reflection and creativity

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

14) Giving users individual attention

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

15) Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion

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

16) Making information easily accessible for independent use

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

17) Employees who have the knowledge to answer user 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

18) 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

19) Convenient business hours 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

20) 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

21) A comfortable and inviting location

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

22) Comprehensive print collections

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

23) A contemplative environment 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

24) Employees who understand the needs of their 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

25) Convenient access to library collections

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

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 3, Core Questions


6.9 Print Version of Survey - Page 4, Satisfaction Questions

Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements:

1) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the libraries.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

2) In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research and/or teaching needs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

3) How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely Poor Extremely Good

Please indicate your library usage patterns:

How often do you use resources on library premises?


How often do you use electronic library services remotely?


Please enter any comments about library services below. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 4, Satisfaction Questions


6.10 Print Version of Survey - Page 5, E-Mail Address

Thank you for completing the survey! Please provide your e-mail address below if you would like to enter an optional drawing for a prize (not required). E-mail Address:

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 5, E-Mail Address


The 2000 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey, which had 41 questions, measured eight separate dimensions:- Assurance (the knowledge and courtesy of employees, and their ability to convey trust and confidence)- Empathy (caring, individual attention)- Library as Place (library as a sanctuary/haven or site for learning and contemplation)- Reliability (ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately)- Responsiveness (willingness to help customers and provide prompt service)- Tangibles (appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communications materials)- Instructions/Custom Items- Self-Reliance

7.3 LibQUAL+TM 2001 Dimensions


LibQUAL+TM measures dimensions of perceived library quality - that is, each survey question is part of a broader category (a dimension), and scores within those categories are analyzed in order to derive more general information about library users' perceptions of service.

These dimensions were first based on the original SERVQUAL survey instrument (the framework for the LibQUAL+TM survey tool; for more information on the origins of LibQUAL+TM, go to <http://www.libqual.org/pubs/>).

The LibQUAL+TM survey dimensions have evolved with each iteration, becoming more refined and focused for application specifically to the research library context. The 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey has four dimensions. (Dimensions for each iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey are outlined below.)

7.1 Description

7. Appendix B: LibQUAL+TM Dimensions

After careful analysis of the results from the 2000 survey, the dimensions were further refined to re-ground the SERVQUAL items in the library context. Four sub-dimensions resulted for the 2001 iteration:- Service Affect (nine items, such as "willingness to help users")- Library as Place (five items, such as "a haven for quiet and solitude")- Personal Control (six items, such as "website enabling me to locate information on my own"), and- Information Access (five items, such as "comprehensive print collections" and "convenient business

hours")

Appendix B: LibQUAL+ Dimensions


For the 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey, the dimensions were once again refined based on analysis of the previous year's results. While the same four dimensions were retained, their titles were changed slightly to more clearly represent the questions and data. The list below displays the dimensions, along with the questions that relate to each of the four dimensions.

Access to Information (5 questions) 3) Complete runs of journal titles 8) Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan 9) Interdisciplinary library needs being addressed 19) Convenient business hours 22) Comprehensive print collections

Affect of Service (9 questions) 1) Willingness to help users 4) Employees who are consistently courteous 11) Dependability in handling users' service problems 14) Giving users individual attention 15) Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion 17) Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions 18) Readiness to respond to users' questions 20) Employees who instill confidence in users 24) Employees who understand the needs of their users

Library as Place (5 questions) 2) Space that facilitates quiet study 10) A haven for quiet and solitude 13) A place for reflection and creativity 21) A comfortable and inviting location 23) A contemplative environment

Personal Control (6 questions) 5) Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 6) Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need 7) A library website enabling me to locate information on my own 12) Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 16) Making information easily accessible for independent use 25) Convenient access to library collections


Appendix B: LibQUAL+ Dimensions

Published by the Association of Research Libraries21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884

<http://www.arl.org/>Copyright: ©2002 by the Association of Research Libraries

ISBN 0-918006-84-8

libqual+ 2002 aggregate notebook › documents › admin › aggregatenotebook.pdf · from the...

Documents