Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

An Introduction to LibQUAL+ University of Westminster, London 5th February 2010 Selena Killick ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Consortium & Cranfield University www.libqual.org.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "An Introduction to LibQUAL+ University of Westminster, London 5th February 2010 Selena Killick ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Consortium & Cranfield University www.libqual.org."— Presentation transcript:

1 An Introduction to LibQUAL+ University of Westminster, London 5th February 2010 Selena Killick ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Consortium & Cranfield University

2 The Day Introduction to LibQUAL+ & Background on the SCONUL Consortium Process Overview LibQUAL+ Lite pilot experience Consortium future directions Survey results Questions and answers

3 Introduction to LibQUAL+ and the SCONUL Consortium Stephen Town University of York & LibQUAL+ Steering Committee

4 Association of Research Libraries ARL Roles

5 Association of Research Libraries ARL Statistics and Assessment …To describe and measure the performance of research libraries and their contribution to teaching, research, scholarship and community service …

6 Reference Transactions ARL Statistics

7 Total Circulation ARL Statistics

8 Assessment “The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable—i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution. Librarians have either made do with oversimplified national data or have undertaken customized local evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been devised an effective way to link the two.” Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996

9 Association of Research Libraries Issue 230/231 available on the web

10 PERCEPTIONS SERVICE “….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press. SERVQUAL

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:\Admin\Colleen\ServQual Interviews\TEXT Only\01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:\zz\atlasti\fred

15

16 Dimensions of Library Service Quality Information Control Library Service Quality 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

17 Dimensions Present 41 items56 items25 items22 items Affect of Service Library as Place Reliability Personal Control Information Control Provision of Physical Collections Self-Reliance Information Access Access to Information

18 Survey Structure (Detail View)

19 Rapid Growth Languages –Afrikaans –English (American, British) –Chinese –Danish –Dutch –Finnish –French (Belge, Canada, Europe) –German –Greek –Hebrew –Japanese –Norwegian –Spanish –Swedish –Welsh Consortia *Each may create 5 local questions to add to their survey Countries –Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UAE, U.K., U.S., etc….. Types of Institutions –Academic Health Sciences –Academic Law –Academic Military –College or University –Community College –Electronic –European Business –European Parliament –Family History –Research Centers (FFRDC) Libraries –High School –Hospital –National Health Service England –Natural Resources –New York Public –Public –Smithsonian –State –University/TAFE

20 LibQUAL+ Languages Over 700 institutions 1,000,000 respondents

21 LibQUAL+ ® Participation

22 LibQUAL+ ® First Year Participants

23 LibQUAL+ ® Surveys by Type Academic law Academic Military Canadian Government 18 College or University Community college Electronic 1 European Business European Parliament 4 Family History FFRDC 5121 Health Sciences High School 1 Hospital 1011 National Health National Health Service Eng Natural Resources 4 New York Public library 1 Public Smithsonian 1 1 State University/TAFE 212 1

24 LibQUAL+ ® Surveys by Language American English Afrikaans British English Chinese 4 Continental French 1 1 Danish 1 2 Dutch Dutch English Finnish 1 2 French Belge3 French Canadian French European 510 Japanese 21 German 1 Norwegian 1 25 Norwegian English5 Spanish 11 Swedish 5211 Swedish British English 1 2 Swedish English (A.E.) 21 Welsh 1

25 LibQUAL+ ® Surveys by Consortia AAHSL AJCU AJCU-Law 1 Alabama Academic (NAAL) CES 6 CCLA 7 7 CCCU 141 California State University System6 City University of New York 19 CONSULS 5 CUC 8 1 Department of Justice Canada 12 EBSLG FFRDC 5 Georgia 191 Harrisburg CC 5 JULAC 11 Keystone Lib Network LibQUAL Canada 633

26 LibQUAL+ ® Surveys by Consortia (cont’d) LQ Belge3 LibQUAL Japan 32 LibQUAL France10 Hospital/MLA 7 Maine URSUS Libraries 13 Mass-LSTA 5 MCCLPHEI 23 MERLN 6 National Health 10 NELLCO 8 1 North Carolina Community Colleges 15 Norwegian Academic Libraries NY3Rs Oberlin OhioLINK SCONUL State Universities of Florida University of Wisconsin System VALE

27 Participating Libraries by Country Country Australia Bahamas 1 Bangladesh 1 Belgium 43 Canada China 1 Denmark Egypt 1 21 Finland 2 8 France French Polynesia 1 Japan 32 Hong Kong 11 Ireland Morocco 1 Mexico 112 Netherlands New Zealand 131

28 Participating Libraries by Country (cont’d) Country Norway Singapore 11 South Africa Sweden Switzerland Thailand 1 U.A.E. 1 1 UK

29 Surveys by Session: YearSession ISession II

30 World LibQUAL+ ® Survey

31 Association of Research Libraries R&D Colleen Cook, “A MIXED-METHODS APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY SERVICES” (PhD diss., Texas A&M University, 2001). Martha Kyrillidou, “ITEM SAMPLING IN SERVICE QUALITY ASSESSMENT SURVEYS TO IMPROVE RESPONSE RATES AND REDUCE RESPONDENT BURDEN: THE ‘LibQUAL+® Lite’ RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL (RCT)” (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009)

32 Association of Research Libraries

33 Association of Research Libraries

34 LibQUAL+ and SCONUL

35 LibQUAL+ and SCONUL Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Working Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI) 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 Different institutions in 6 years

36 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

37 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

38 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

39 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

40 LibQUAL+ Participants 2007 Anglia Ruskin University University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Central Lancashire Cambridge University Library Cranfield University De Montfort University University of Edinburgh University of Leeds London South Bank University Napier University University of Manchester Royal Holloway University of London Senate House Library, University of London University of Surrey Coventry University Nottingham Trent University School of Oriental and African Studies University of Wales Bangor University of Limerick

41 LibQUAL+ Participants 2008 University of Bangor (Welsh) University of Bangor (English) University of Central Lancashire Cranfield University University of Glasgow University of Leeds Liverpool John Moores University University of Liverpool Queen Mary, University of London Robert Gordon University University of Warwick University of Westminster University of York University of Cumbria London Metropolitan University University College, Cork University College London

42 LibQUAL+ Participants 2009 University of Aberdeen University of Bath University of Birmingham Cambridge Medical Library Cambridge Betty & Gordon Moore University of Central Lancashire Coventry University Cranfield University University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Leeds University of Limerick Royal Holloway London Goldsmiths London St George’s London University of Manchester Institute of Technology, Tallaght Trinity College Dublin University of Ulster University of York Bradford University St Andrew’s University

43 The LibQUAL+ Questionnaire

44 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 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

45 Time frame January – Registration opens February – UK Training Mid-Jan – Mid-Dec – Survey available (exc. June) November – Registration closes January 2011 – Consortium results available

46 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

47 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

48 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

49 Usage & Demographics Library Usage User group Discipline Age Sex Gender Attached to SPSS and Excel results Enabling detailed further analysis by type

50 Survey Instrument

51 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

52 Perceived is greater than desired Perceived is greater than minimum, less than desired Perceived is less than minimum Minimum Desired Perceived Gap Theory

53 Results from SCONUL

54 Core Questions

55 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2009

56 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2008

57 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2007

58 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006

59 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005

60 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004

61 SCONUL Results by Dimension

62 SCONUL Results by User Group

63 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

64 Comments

65 Free text comments received 2006 Aberdeen University574 Cambridge University106 Cranfield University147 Glasgow University620 Goldsmith College399 Institute of Education, UoL487 Institute of Technology Tallaght200 London South Bank University382 Queen Mary, UoL745 Robert Gordon University181 Scottish Agricultural College134 St George’s, UoL299 University of Central Lancashire 654 University of Gloucestershire 412 University of Leeds888 University of Leicester791 University of Liverpool255 University of the West of England, Bristol 736 University of Warwick355 University of Westminster916

66 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

67 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!

68 Feedback from UK Participants

69 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)

70 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

71 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


Download ppt "An Introduction to LibQUAL+ University of Westminster, London 5th February 2010 Selena Killick ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Consortium & Cranfield University www.libqual.org."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google