Presentation on theme: "What Is LibQUAL+ ? Part of the Library’s ongoing process of service evaluation and planning. Web-based tool for assessing library service quality & identifying."— Presentation transcript:
What Is LibQUAL+ ? Part of the Library’s ongoing process of service evaluation and planning. Web-based tool for assessing library service quality & identifying opportunities for enhancements Developed and refined over 9 years, 1,00,000+ respondents, 1,000+ institutions Based on ServQual. 17 years of research and application at Texas A&M, etc.
How Does LibQUAL+ Measure Quality? Rating of services in context and Based on client perceptions and expectations Gap analysis between perceived level of service, and minimum and desired service level Although higher scores are better, they have no absolute intrinsic meaning on their own. Meaningful in comparison with past years, other libraries & norms developed over the years
Gap Rating System [Perceived – Minimum = Service Adequacy Gap] Desired level of service, or Value Minimum Expected level of service Perceived level of service
LibQUAL+ Survey in Canada 2007 LibQUAL Canada Consortium Queen’s participated in 2007 LibQUAL Canada Consortium (54 libraries across Canada). Queen’s will participate in the next consortial survey, 2010: Opportunity to benchmark results with a group of comparable peer institutions: e.g. research-intensive institutions across Canada and universities across Ontario.
LibQUAL+ Winter 2010 Survey 22 service quality survey questions 5 optional “local” questions Demographic & usage questions One open comments box
LibQUAL+ Winter 2010 Survey LibQUAL+ Lite Each respondent answers a reduced number of questions randomly selected from the full survey. 11 service quality survey questions 1 optional “local” question Demographic & usage questions One open comments box
Why LibQUAL+ Lite Survey LibQUAL+ Lite was developed in 2008 by ARL in response to the concern among past participants that the size of the full survey (22 core+ 5 optional questions) was limiting their response rates. Trials using the Lite survey have shown significant increases in the response rate over the full survey: Queen’s has opted to use LibQUAL+ Lite to survey our university community in 2010.
Library Service Quality Affect of Service Empathy Responsiveness Assurance Reliability Library as Place Utilitarian Space Information Control Ease of Navigation Convenience Scope of collections Timeliness Refuge Symbol Modern Equipment Service Quality “Dimensions”
When it comes to… My Minimum Service Level Is low …… high My Desired Service Level Is low …… high Perceived Service Performance Is low …… high N/A 1 Employees who instill confidence in users N/A 2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own N/A 3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work N/A Survey - Sample Section
in relation to LibQUAL results are a measure of perceived service quality in relation to user expectations
Detailed Report This report compares the Queen’s 2007 results against those in 2004 & against the 2007 Canadian Consortial results Highlights of report: ongoing trends (most & least valued service areas) Library performance (strengths & areas for potential enhancements) assess effectiveness of changes to library facilities and services implemented since 2004.
Issues & Actions Report This document summarizes issues for potential attention arising the from survey action plans to enhance these services & facilities
2007 Findings Actions Example from Library Web Site: 2007/issues&actions.htmlhttp://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual- 2007/issues&actions.html Issues & Action plans to enhance services & facilities
Higher Scores Higher expectations
Overall 2007 Performance Ratings Among the top Canadian Library Participants Strongest: Library as Place Affect of Service or client services Area for improvement: Information Control (Collections & access to information)
Value vs Performance Information Control Highest value/lowest rating or “Gap” score Library as Place Lowest value/highest rating Affect of Service Lower value/higher rating
Affect of Service Giving users individual attention Employees who instill confidence in users Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion Availability of subject specialist assistance lower value ratings high performance ratings Tends to generate lower value ratings & relatively high performance ratings compared to other service areas. Queen’s among highest performance ratings in Canadian Consortium
Affect of Service Challenges to Libraries: Promote the value of research & instructional services to the community Reaching out to users who don’t/won’t come to training sessions or the reference desk
Information Control highest value ratings low performance ratings Tends to generate highest value ratings & relatively low performance ratings compared to other service areas. Queen’s in top 10 among Canadian Participants in 2007; improved overall performance since 2004 survey Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work The electronic information resources I need A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own Ability to navigate library Web pages easily Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
Information Control Challenges: More & better discovery resources (e.g. databases) have raised expectations about timely availability of full-text resources, incl. ILL/Doc Del More effective access to library resources & services from the Library web site; maximize existing resources Improve electronic & print collections Continuing need to market available services and collections effectively
Library as Place Improved on already strong overall 2004 performance Most Queen’s campus libraries continue to be highly rated as: A comfortable and inviting location Most important to undergrads
Library as Place Challenges: Lack of sufficient quiet spaces for individual study & research Insufficient seating during exams, Expensive copying/printing charges, Request for longer hours all term & all libraries, In Stauffer: dirty washrooms and a general lack of adequate maintenance; Controversy over food & drink policy
Frequency of Use At least once a week, respondents used: Google & other search engines: >90% Library resources sites: >80% Library premises: 60%
Internal Consultation Process Report discussed at Management Team; consultation plan developed Report and plan distributed to all staff All-Staff information session Units and functional teams Meetings of individual units and functional teams identify the issues in their areas of responsibilities and recommend appropriate actions. Management Team Reviewed the compilation of issues and objectives in developing the 2005/06 Budget Report. Compiled and approved action items prepared by the functional teams and units.
Roll Out to Public Articles for The Gazette & The Journal in Fall 2007 Survey results & action plans published on the Library’s LibQUAL+ web site: htmlhttp://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual-2007/results html