1. Using LibQUAL+™ Results Observations from ARL Program “Making Library Assessment Work” Steve Hiller University of Washington Libraries ARL Visiting Program Officer 2004-06

2. Making Library Assessment Work: Practical Approaches for Developing and Sustaining Effective Assessment 2 year ARL project to assist libraries with moving assessment efforts forward Led by Steve Hiller (UW) and Jim Self (UVa) Recognition that libraries understand value of assessment but have trouble sustaining efforts and using results Site visits conducted to evaluate assessment and develop practical approaches to effective local practices Identify common barriers and facilitators to assessment 7 libraries participating in Phase I Spring 2005; 12-14 during 2005-06 academic year; final report in 2006

3. Phase I Libraries and Latest LibQUAL+™ Survey Spring 2005 ParticipantsLatest Survey Year –University of Arizona2004 (2005 too) –Arizona State University2004 –University of Connecticut2004 –University of Illinois U-C2002 –New York University2002 –University of Notre Dame2002 –University of Oregon2005

4. Using LibQUAL+™ Results Some General Observations Response numbers low, especially for faculty Comparisons important –Between internal group –By academic area –Peer institutions –Over time Uncertain how to analyze Uncertain how to follow-up unless very negative Difficulty in using for planning and decision-making Comments help tell the story and pinpoint problems

5. SIZE MATTERS! Maximize the Number of Survey Responses

6. Institution (year)UndergradGradFaculty Arizona (2004)11812282 Arizona State (2004)107200205 Connecticut (200430419596 NYU (2002)32286146 Notre Dame (2002)308255183 Oregon (2004)1148763 LibQUAL+ ™ Number of Survey Respondents by Group

10. Academic AreaGrad 2003 Grad 2004 Grad Pop Faculty 2003 Faculty 2004 Faculty Pop Fine Arts/Arch5%8%4%9%15%5% Humanities9%14%6%8%15%9% Social Sciences21%22%11%19%18%16% Science7%16%11%23%16%19% Engineering12%9%12%10%4%7% Respondent Composition by Selected Academic Area & Group 2003-04 - University “Z”

11. Some Complementary Information Fine Arts/Architecture libraries “temporarily” merged Budget reductions impacted collections and staff –Book budget cut Some hours reduced in branch libraries Comments corroborated the above as important concerns for faculty and graduate students

12. University “X” Peer Comparisons UG Treat UG Support UG Over all Grad Treat Grad Support Grad Over all Fac Treat Fac Support Fac Over all “X” 7.467.337.40 7.097.267.416.677.00 Peer 1 7.126.776.987.426.956.997.506.997.27 Peer 2 6.966.756.816.906.726.827.537.027.27 Peer 3 7.126.776.987.426.956.997.506.997.27 Peer 4 6.92 6.737.027.30 6.917.067.69 7.127.37

13. University “X” Overall Library Quality: Mining the Data - Faculty Frequency Responses By Area

14. University “X” Comments Likes –Librarian liaisons***** –ILL** Concerns –Copiers –Loan periods/renewals –Print collection (Faculty) –Journal collection (Faculty) –Noise –Student assistants –Off-campus online access –Web site

15. Service Adequacy Gaps by Dimension University “X” Undergrads by Year in School

16. Information Control “Y”/ARL Adequacy Gaps By Group 2005