an introduction to libqual+ introduction to libqual+ workshop university of westminster, london 21st...
TRANSCRIPT
An Introduction to LibQUAL+An Introduction to LibQUAL+
Introduction to LibQUAL+ Workshop
University of Westminster, London
21st January 2008
Selena KillickAssociation of Research Libraries
old.libqual.org
old.libqual.org
The Day Ahead
• Introductions
• Introduction to LibQUAL+ and Background on the U.K./SCONUL Consortium
• Process Overview
• The votes are in! What next?
• Questions & Answers
old.libqual.org
Introduction to LibQUAL+ and Background on the U.K./SCONUL Consortium
Premise; Dimensions and Methodology
old.libqual.org
The need for LibQUAL+
• Underlying need to demonstrate our worth• The reallocation of resources from
traditional services and functions• Rapid shifts in information-seeking
behavior• Need to keep abreast of customer demands
• Increasing user demands• 37% of UK 16 – 18 year olds expect better
libraries in return for their top-up fees
old.libqual.org
The LibQUAL+ Premise
“….only customers judge quality;
all other judgments are essentially
irrelevant”
PERCEPTIONS SERVICE
Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Development
• An ARL/Texas A&M University joint developmental effort based on SERVQUAL.
• LibQUAL+ initially supported by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE)
• Initial project established an expert team, re-grounded SERVQUAL concepts, and designed survey methodology
• Survey conducted at over 700 libraries resulting in a data base of over half a million user responses
old.libqual.org
76 Interviews Conducted
• York University• University of Arizona• Arizona State• University of Connecticut• University of Houston• University of Kansas
• University of Minnesota• University of
Pennsylvania• University of Washington• Smithsonian• Northwestern Medical
old.libqual.org
LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:\Admin\Colleen\ServQual Interviews\TEXT Only\01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:\zz\atlasti\fred
old.libqual.org
old.libqual.org
DimensionsDimensions
2000 2001 2002 2003-200741 items 56 items 25 items 22 items
Affect of Service Affect of Service Affect of Service Affect of Service
Library as Place Library as Place Library as Place Library as Place
Reliability Reliability Personal ControlInformation Control
Provision of Physical Collections
Self-RelianceInformation Access
Access to Information
Access to Information
old.libqual.org
Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality
Information Control
LibraryServiceQuality
Self-Reliance
Equipment
Timeliness
Ease of Navigation
Convenience
Scope of Content
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Reliability
Assurance
Responsiveness
Empathy
Refuge
Symbol
Utilitarian Space
old.libqual.org
World World LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Survey Survey
old.libqual.org
Rapid Growth in Other Areas
• Languages• Afrikaans• American English• British English• Danish• Dutch • Finnish• French• German• Norwegian• Swedish
• Consortia• *Each may create 5 local questions
to add to their survey• Countries
• Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UAE, U.K., U.S.
• Types of Institutions• Academic Health Sciences• Academic Law• Academic Military• College or University• Community College• Electronic• European Business• European Parliament• Family History• Research Centers (FFRDC) Libraries• High School (2007)• Hospital• National Health Service England• Natural Resources• New York Public• Public• Smithsonian• State• University/TAFE
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Languages
American English
Dutch EnglishFrench Canadian DutchSwedish
Swedish(British English)
Afrikaans
DanishFinnishGerman Norwegian
British English
Continental French
Over 700 institutions1,000,000 respondents
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+® Participants
250
218
307308
204
164
13
43
152,111
176,360
151,460
113,480
78,863
4,407
20,416
128,958
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Survey Year
Number ofInstitutions
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Number ofResponses
Number of Institutions
Number of Responses
* 2007 data reflects Session I data only
old.libqual.org
LibQUALLibQUAL++®® Surveys by Type Surveys by Type Year
Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Academic Health Sciences 1 35 23 13 13 10 8
Academic Law 1 25 10 6 2
Academic Military 6 1 1
College or University 13 41 111 244 150 201 226 177
Canadian Government 6
Community College 16 29 3 15 27 18
Electronic 1
European Business 5 16
Family History 1 2
Hospital 10 1 1
National Health Services England 10
Natural Resources 4
New York Public 1
Public 4 1 1 3 2
Research Centers (FFRDC) Libraries 5 2 1
Smithsonian 1 1
State 1 1 3 2
University/TAFE 2 1 1
* 2007 data reflects Session I data only
old.libqual.org
Participating Libraries by CountryParticipating Libraries by Country Year
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Australia 1 6 2 1
Canada 1 3 4 8 10 15 11 63
Denmark 1 2
Egypt 1 2 1
Finland 2
France 1 2 1
Ireland 1 1 2 1
Mexico 1
Netherlands 1 1 5
New Zealand 1 1
Norway 2
South Africa 12 8 2
Sweden 3 4 4 2
Switzerland 2 2
U.A.E. 1
U.K. 20 17 16 33 14
* 2007 data reflects Session I data only
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ and SCONUL
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ and SCONUL
• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Working Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI)
• 2003 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions agree to pilot the survey in a consortium of SCONUL Members
• Pilot seen as a success • Consortium of SCONUL Libraries has
participated in LibQUAL+ annually since 2003• 67 Different institutions in 6 years
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2003
• University of Bath• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway & Bedford
New College • University of Lancaster • University of Wales, Swansea• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow• University of Liverpool• University of London Library• University of Oxford• University College
Northampton
• University of Wales College Newport
• University of Gloucestershire • De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan University• Liverpool John Moores
University • Robert Gordon University• South Bank University• University of the West of
England, Bristol • University of Wolverhampton
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2004
• Brunel University• Loughborough University • University of Strathclyde • University of York • Glasgow University • Sheffield University • Trinity College, Dublin • UMIST + University of
Manchester• University of Liverpool
• Anglia Polytechnic University
• University of Westminster• London South Bank
University• Napier University • Queen Margaret
University College • University College
Worcester • University of East London
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2005
• University of Exeter• University of Edinburgh• University of Dundee• University of Bath• University of Ulster• University College
Northampton• University of Birmingham• Roehampton University
• University of Glasgow• University of Surrey• Royal Holloway UoL• City University• Cranfield University• University of Luton• Dublin Institute of
Technology• London South Bank
University
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2006
• Cambridge University Library
• Cranfield University• Goldsmiths College• Institute of Education• Institute of Technology
Tallaght• Queen Mary, University of
London• Robert Gordon University• St. George's University of
London• University of Aberdeen
• University of Central Lancashire
• University of Glasgow• University of
Gloucestershire• University of Leeds• University of Leicester• University of Liverpool• University of the West of
England• University of Warwick• University of Westminster• London South Bank
University
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2007
• Anglia Ruskin University• Cambridge University Library • Coventry University• Cranfield University• De Montfort University • London South Bank University• Napier University • Nottingham Trent University • Royal Holloway University of
London • School of Oriental and African
Studies
• Senate House Library, University of London
• University of Bath• University of Birmingham• University of Central
Lancashire• University of Edinburgh• University of Leeds• University of Limerick• University of Manchester• University of Surrey• University of Wales Bangor
old.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2008
• University of Westminster• University of Glasgow• University of Leeds• Liverpool John Moores
University• University of York• Cranfield University• University of Warwick• University of Cumbria • University of Central
Lancashire
• University of the Arts London• London Metropolitan University• Queen Mary, University of
London• University of Bangor• University of Liverpool• Robert Gordon University• Southampton Solent University• University College London• St Andrews University• University College, Cork
old.libqual.org
The LibQUAL+ Questionnaire
old.libqual.org
Process Overview
• Register with ARL (2008 cost $3,000)• Institutional contact sets survey to local needs
• Local Questions• Disciplines
• Send out a URL to the survey via email• Mounted on ARL servers
• Watch the surveys come in• Close the survey when ready, institutional results
available after a couple of weeks• PDF• SPSS• Excel
old.libqual.org
Time frame
• December – Registration
• January – UK Training
• February to May – Session I
• July to December – Session II
• January 2009 – Consortium results available
old.libqual.org
Survey Composition
• 22 Core Questions– Affect of Service– Information Control– Library as Place
• 5 Local Questions (optional)• 5 Information Literacy Questions• 3 General Satisfaction Questions• Library Usage Patterns• Demographics• Free Text Comments Box
old.libqual.org
Five Local Questions
• Participants can choose 5 questions to add to their survey from a range of over 100
• Helping participants focus on local issues
• Maintaining standardisation for benchmarking purposes
old.libqual.org
Free-Text Comments Box
• About 40% of participants provide open-ended comments, and these are linked to demographics and quantitative data
• Users elaborate the details of their concerns• Users feel the need to be constructive in their
criticisms, and offer specific suggestions for action
• Available in real-time enabling prompt responses to concerns
old.libqual.org
Usage & Demographics
• Library Usage• User group• Discipline • Age• Sex• Gender
• Attached to SPSS and Excel results• Enabling detailed further analysis by type
old.libqual.org
Survey Instrument
old.libqual.org
Gap Theory
• For the 22 items LibQUAL+ asks users’ to rate their:• Minimum service level• Desired service level• Perceived service performance
• This gives us a ‘Zone of Tolerance’ for each question; the distance between minimally acceptable and desired service ratings
• Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance
old.libqual.org
Perceived is greater than desired
Perceived is greater than minimum, less
than desired
Perceived is less than minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Desired
Desired
Perceived
Perceived
Perceived
Gap Theory
old.libqual.org
Results from SCONUL
old.libqual.org
Core Questions
old.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2007
old.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006
old.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
old.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
old.libqual.org
SCONUL Results by Dimension
old.libqual.org
SCONUL Results by User Group
old.libqual.org
General findings
• Highly desired• Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office• Print and/or electronic journals I require for my work• A haven for study, learning or research
• Lowest • Library staff who instil confidence in users• Giving users individual attention• Space for group learning and group study
old.libqual.org
Comments
old.libqual.org
Free text comments received 2006
Aberdeen University 574
Cambridge University 106
Cranfield University 147
Glasgow University 620
Goldsmith College 399
Institute of Education, UoL 487
Institute of Technology Tallaght 200
London South Bank University 382
Queen Mary, UoL 745
Robert Gordon University 181
Scottish Agricultural College 134
St George’s, UoL 299
University of Central Lancashire
654
University of Gloucestershire
412
University of Leeds 888
University of Leicester 791
University of Liverpool 255
University of the West of England, Bristol
736
University of Warwick 355
University of Westminster 916
old.libqual.org
Comments Comparisons
• Total number of comments 2006 = 9,281
• Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368
• Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161
• Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342
old.libqual.org
Expect everything
From:• The library in DCMT is one of the best, if not the
best, departments of the campus. The staff are outstanding, professional, helpful and extremely friendly. The place is always inviting and welcoming.
To:• The library is consistently unimpressive, except
as a consumer of funds and resources.
And everything in between!
old.libqual.org
Feedback from UK Participants
old.libqual.org
Why use LibQUAL?Feedback from LibQUAL+ Users
“Why did you choose to use LibQUAL+?”• LibQUAL+ was recommended to us as offering a
well designed, thoroughly Library-focused set of survey tools
• Cost-effectiveness• Automated processing & fast delivery of results• Opportunity to benchmark• Respectability and comparability (with others
and historically)
old.libqual.org
The benefits of LibQUAL+
LibQUAL+ has enabled us to find out what a broad range of our users thought of the services we offer; what level of service-delivery quality we had achieved in their eyes, and to get a clear picture of what they actually wanted the Library to deliver (as opposed to what we thought they wanted).
UK HE Institution, 2006
old.libqual.org
In Closing LibQUAL+…
• Focuses on success from the users’ point of view (outcomes)
• Demonstrates that a web-based survey can handle large numbers; users are willing to fill it out; and survey can be executed quickly with minimal expense
• Requires limited local survey expertise and resources• Analysis available at local, national and inter-institutional
levels• Offers opportunities for highlighting and improving your
status within the institution• Can help in securing funding for the Library