1. Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University

2. Objectives To give an overview of the SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation To present the overall results of the 2004 SCONUL Cohort To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt

3. UK HE Libraries survey methods General Satisfaction –Exit questionnaires –SCONUL Satisfaction Survey Designed Surveys –Satisfaction vs Importance 1989- –Priority Surveys 1993- Outcome measurement –ACPI project 2003- National Student Survey (1 Question)

4. Survey methods used in the UK West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys

5. 1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

6. The UK approach Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI) 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2003 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2004 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participating in 2005 43 different institutions

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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 Coventry University

10. CURL (9/28) University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of London Library University of Oxford Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin University of Manchester University of Birmingham

11. Pre-92 & 94 Group (5/13) Cranfield University Royal Holloway & Bedford New College University of Wales, Swansea Brunel University Loughborough University University of Strathclyde UMIST University of Dundee University of Ulster University of Bath University of Lancaster University of York University of Exeter University of Surrey

12. CMU+ ( 15/37) University of Wales College Newport De Montfort University Leeds Metropolitan University Liverpool John Moores University Robert Gordon University South Bank University University of the West of England, Bristol Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster Napier University Queen Margaret University College University of East London Roehampton University University of Luton Coventry University University of Wolverhampton

13. Former Colleges+ University of Gloucestershire University College Northampton University College Worcester Dublin Institute of Technology

14. Potential UK Sample 2003 Full variety of institutions 12% of institutions 19% of HE students (>300,000) 18% of Libraries 18% of Library expenditure

15. Potential UK Sample 2004 Full variety of institutions 10% of institutions 17% of HE students (>290,000) 11% of Libraries 15% of Library expenditure

16. Overall Potential UK Sample to 2004 20% of institutions 31% of HE students (>530,000) 26% of Libraries 28% of Library expenditure

17. Time frame December – Registration January – UK Training February to May – Surveys run One month after survey closes – Results distributed July – Dissemination Plus second run in 2005 (Coventry)

18. 2. Results from SCONUL

19. Respondents by Institution 2003 London South Bank University276 University of London70 UWE, Bristol737 University of Wolverhampton175 University of Bath841 University of Gloucestershire713 Lancaster University883 University of Liverpool398 University of Oxford1,063 Liverpool John Moores University1,261 Royal Holloway University616 University of Wales, Swansea161 Uni of Wales College, Newport368 University College Northampton500 Glasgow University502 University of Edinburgh514 Leeds Metropolitan University814 De Montfort University643 Cranfield University579 Robert Gordon University805

20. Respondents by Institution 2004 UMIST + University of Manchester2,333 Trinity College Library Dublin1,786 Glasgow University2,178 Brunel University1,882 University of Sheffield1,541 University of Westminster1,241 University of Strathclyde1,211 London South Bank University568 Anglia Polytechnic University688 Napier University611 University of Liverpool552 Queen Margaret University College478 University of York460 University of East London464 University College Worcester268 Loughborough University Library350

21. Respondent Comparisons Glasgow University –2004 = 2,178 –2003 = 503 Increase by 1,675 University of Liverpool –2004 = 552 –2003 = 398 Increase by 154 London South Bank University –2004 = 568 –2003 = 276 Increase by 292

22. Response Comparisons SCONUL 2004 –16 institutions –16,611 respondents Increase by 4,692 LibQUAL+ 2004 –202 institutions –112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 SCONUL 2003 –20 institutions –11,919 respondents LibQUAL+ 2003 –308 institutions –128,958 respondents

23. Core Questions

24. Key to Radar Charts

25. Core Question Summary 2004

26. Affect of Service - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference AS-1Library staff who instill confidence in users0.760.66-0.10 AS-2Giving users individual attention0.750.49-0.26 AS-3Library staff who are consistently courteous0.650.41-0.24 AS-4Readiness to respond to users' enquiries0.540.40-0.14 AS-5Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions 0.490.44-0.05 AS-6Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion 0.630.51-0.12 AS-7Library staff who understand the needs of their users 0.450.31-0.14 AS-8Willingness to help users0.590.40-0.19 AS-9Dependability in handling users' service problems 0.420.28-0.14

27. Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.040.060.02 IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.570.31-0.26 IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.12-0.34-0.22 IC-4The electronic information resources I need0.180.06-0.12 IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.360.08-0.28 IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.320.18-0.14 IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.350.18-0.17 IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work -0.19-0.36-0.17

28. Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22-0.31-0.53 LP-2Quiet space for individual work0.07-0.26-0.33 LP-3A comfortable and inviting location0.890.10-0.79 LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research0.09-0.18-0.27 LP-5Space for group learning and group study0.42-0.10-0.52

29. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

30. ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

31. Undergraduates

32. Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004

33. Undergraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.040.180.14 IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.570.46-0.11 IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.12-0.31-0.19 IC-4The electronic information resources I need0.180.230.05 IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.360.15-0.21 IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.320.28-0.04 IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.350.26-0.09 IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work -0.19 0.00

34. Undergraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22-0.29-0.51 LP-2Quiet space for individual work0.07-0.21-0.28 LP-3A comfortable and inviting location0.890.11-0.78 LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research0.09-0.13-0.22 LP-5Space for group learning and group study0.42-0.23-0.65

35. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

36. ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

37. Postgraduates

38. Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004

39. Postgraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.04-0.05-0.09 IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.570.13-0.44 IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.12-0.46-0.34 IC-4The electronic information resources I need0.18-0.20-0.38 IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.36-0.01-0.37 IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.320.08-0.24 IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.350.10-0.25 IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work -0.19-0.61-0.42

40. Postgraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22-0.46-0.68 LP-2Quiet space for individual work0.07-0.48-0.55 LP-3A comfortable and inviting location0.890.05-0.84 LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research0.09-0.34-0.43 LP-5Space for group learning and group study0.420.09-0.33

41. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Postgraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

42. ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Graduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

43. Academic Staff

44. Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

45. Academic Staff Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.04-0.41-0.45 IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.57-0.11-0.68 IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.12-0.37-0.25 IC-4The electronic information resources I need0.18-0.39-0.57 IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.36-0.12-0.48 IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.32-0.10-0.42 IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.35-0.02-0.37 IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work -0.19-0.88-0.69

46. Academic Staff Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion20032004Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22-0.26-0.48 LP-2Quiet space for individual work0.07-0.20-0.27 LP-3A comfortable and inviting location0.890.15-0.74 LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research0.09-0.19-0.28 LP-5Space for group learning and group study0.420.41-0.01

47. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Academic Staff 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

48. ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Faculty 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place Overall

49. Comments

50. Free text comments received 2003 London South Bank University428 University of London422 UWE, Bristol419 University of Wolverhampton413 University of Bath412 University of Gloucestershire407 Lancaster University396 Robert Gordon University395 University of Liverpool378 Liverpool John Moores University353 Royal Holloway University341 University of Wales, Swansea340 Uni of Wales College, Newport339 University of Oxford337 University College Northampton332 Glasgow University330 University of Edinburgh328 Leeds Metropolitan University327 DE Montfort University326 Cranfield University170

51. Free text comments received 2004 UMIST + University of Manchester1090 Trinity College Library Dublin1032 Glasgow University920 Brunel University906 University of Sheffield786 University of Westminster671 University of Strathclyde511 London South Bank University358 Anglia Polytechnic University311 Napier University299 University of Liverpool258 Queen Margaret University College251 University of York239 University of East London239 University College Worcester170 Loughborough University Library120

52. Comments Comparisons Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161 Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342 Increased by 819.

53. 3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

54. Purpose for participating Benchmarking Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+ Trialling alternative survey methods More library focused than previous in-house method Supporting Charter Mark application process

55. Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process Overall it is seen as straightforward Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias Some issues in obtaining: –Email addresses –Demographic data

56. Feedback on results Overall results were as expected by the institutions Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one

57. How can LibQUAL+ be improved? Summary and commentary on results Ability to add own subject mix – for all UK participants More flexibility on the content and language of the questionnaire More interaction with other UK participating libraries Provide results for full time and part time students Simpler questionnaire design

58. Conclusions

59. LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again

60. Lessons learnt The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate Collecting demographics is time consuming and subject categories are not always fitting Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex

61. Acknowledgements Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M University Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, Austin Martha Kyrillidou & ARL Selena Lock, R&D Officer, Cranfield University All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

62. J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Royal Military College of Science Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk