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

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

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

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

1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

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 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participating in different institutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

2. Results from SCONUL

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

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

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

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

Core Questions

Key to Radar Charts

Core Question Summary 2004

Affect of Service - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference AS-1Library staff who instill confidence in users AS-2Giving users individual attention AS-3Library staff who are consistently courteous AS-4Readiness to respond to users' enquiries AS-5Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions AS-6Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion AS-7Library staff who understand the needs of their users AS-8Willingness to help users AS-9Dependability in handling users' service problems

Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work IC-4The electronic information resources I need IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning LP-2Quiet space for individual work LP-3A comfortable and inviting location LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research LP-5Space for group learning and group study

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

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

Undergraduates

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004

Undergraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work IC-4The electronic information resources I need IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

Undergraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning LP-2Quiet space for individual work LP-3A comfortable and inviting location LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research LP-5Space for group learning and group study

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

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

Postgraduates

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004

Postgraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work IC-4The electronic information resources I need IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

Postgraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning LP-2Quiet space for individual work LP-3A comfortable and inviting location LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research LP-5Space for group learning and group study

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

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

Academic Staff

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

Academic Staff Information Control - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own IC-3The printed library materials I need for my work IC-4The electronic information resources I need IC-5Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information IC-6Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own IC-7Making information easily accessible for independent use IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

Academic Staff Library as Place - Adequacy Means IDQuestion Difference LP-1Library space that inspires study and learning LP-2Quiet space for individual work LP-3A comfortable and inviting location LP-4A haven for study, learning, or research LP-5Space for group learning and group study

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Royal Military College of Science Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University