1. LibQUAL+ 2002 Tales from Past Participants Vanderbilt University Library Flo Wilson, Deputy University Librarian flo.wilson@vanderbilt.edu

2. Vanderbilt’s Survey Experience Background and survey administration Waiting for the data and the analysis What do we think we know? What do we want to do about it? Which ways of presenting data are most useful?

3. Survey and Survey Response Volunteer committee established Survey announced on library’s webpage Preliminary message sent a week ahead –Sample size of 3400+ –Approximately 40 messages bounced –Only 18 could not be corrected Request to participate sent from the University Librarian Two reminders sent Starbuck’s gift certificates as incentives

4. Survey and Survey Response WAITING... Committee reviewed examples from last year’s session Chair took SPSS class in anticipation of data file Comments reviewed, sorted (discipline and then user group), posted on web Results arrive!

5. Survey and Survey Response WAITING... -- for the analysis Experimenting -- with ways of presenting data

6. Survey and Survey Response Final Sample Complete Responses Response Rate Faculty 92328130.4% Graduate Students 1,01729629.1% Undergrads 1,49935723.8% Other 2 Total 3,43993627.2%

7. Survey and Survey Response

10. Data Review and Analysis Library Management Council Retreat –Day long discussion What did we conclude –Higher than ARL mean, but very near the middle Substantial room for improvement –Most desired services (highest) are in Personal Control, particularly related to electronic services/resources –Faculty want more extensive digital AND print collections

11. Data Review and Analysis What else did we conclude –Our highest perceived scores are in Affect of Service –Undergraduates highly dissatisfied with hours of operation –Main library building (we assume) meets only minimum expectations for some and is below for many –Disciplinary breakdown did not really help with making assumptions about which Library the respondent was evaluating

12. How will we move forward? Generated action items for further pursuit –Marketing and communication plan –Make information about remote access more available and more visible on website –Extended hours proposal –Complete analysis of ILL performance –Develop a customer service training program for staff –Review fines policy for substantial changes –Decide on strategy for improving main library facilities

13. How will we move forward? Follow-up study needed –What were you thinking the question meant when you answered it? –What specific problems do you experience with accessing electronic resources from home or office? –Convenient access to collections Time required to analyze the data limits ability to make measurable changes by next round Can we establish quantitative goals? How close to desired do we want to be?

14. Data Sources and Analysis Published data—Overall, group, individual Published data—Other libraries –Re-keying to Excel Data file –Save as Excel file –Extract selected data and statistics to Excel Institutional means Norms

15. Data Analysis and Presentation Bar charts and general satisfaction Results by question (high/low/close) Radar charts for role/discipline analysis Gap tables for identifying significant areas needing improvement Rankings and scatter charts for library comparisons Norms

16. Bar Charts and General Satisfaction

17. Results by Question—High/low/close

19. Radar Chart—Complete Runs of Journals

20. Radar Chart—Individual Attention

21. Using Gaps to Identify Areas of Focus

22. ARL Libraries (sorted by perceived)

23. Selected ARL Peers for Comparison

24. Norm Comparisons—Vanderbilt Percentiles

25. LibQUAL Report and Presentations http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/admin/lq/LQhome.htm