Library Satisfaction Survey Results Spring 2008 LibQUAL Survey Analysis User Focus Team (Sharon, Mickey, Joyce, Joan C., Paula, Edith, Mark) Sidney Silverman Library, Bergen Community College

Agenda  What did we learn? LibQUAL background, topline results LibQUAL background, topline results  What did they say? Pro/Con comments Pro/Con comments  What does this mean? Customer service impacts Customer service impacts  Did you know that? Subgroup views Subgroup views

First, other recent news… Graduate Survey   Class of 2008 Dec 2007 and May ,454 graduates   Survey 368 responses (26% response rate)   Results Satisfaction with services Library is the highest among all services Top score of 3.6 (1 to 4 scale)

Graduate Survey   Library: 63% Very Satisfied Highest level of very satisfied, except for WebAdvisor 30% Somewhat Satisfied 2% Somewhat Dissatisfied 1% Very Dissatisfied 0% Didn’t know service exists 3% Did not use service

Background on LibQUAL  National academic library survey (sponsored by ARL) conducted in spring 2008 From February 25 to March 14, From February 25 to March 14, Same survey as the one given in spring Same survey as the one given in spring Except 2 of 5 VALE questions changed.Except 2 of 5 VALE questions changed.  About 5% response Total of 683 library users sent in completed and usable questionnaires (more than in 2005) Total of 683 library users sent in completed and usable questionnaires (more than in 2005) 550 students550 students 101 faculty members101 faculty members 27 staff members (incl. library)27 staff members (incl. library) Comments Comments 287 respondents (42%) provided written comments, reflecting a strong interest in providing input to the Library.287 respondents (42%) provided written comments, reflecting a strong interest in providing input to the Library.

Our Response Rates LibQUAL Surveys, 2005 vs. 2008

Core Satisfaction Measures  22 core customer satisfaction issues As expected, the Library improved significantly among the “Library as Place” issues (facilities, space). As expected, the Library improved significantly among the “Library as Place” issues (facilities, space). Library is perceived as adequate on 21 of 22 issues. Library is perceived as adequate on 21 of 22 issues. Except for “Quiet space for individual activities.”Except for “Quiet space for individual activities.” Users rate us above the community college norms on all three key dimensions. Users rate us above the community college norms on all three key dimensions. This is an improvement over 2005.This is an improvement over 2005.

Key Indicators  Comparisons: Between pre-renovation survey in 2005 and post-renovation in 2008 Between pre-renovation survey in 2005 and post-renovation in 2008 Library usage is higher.Library usage is higher. 68% of users come in daily or weekly 68% of users come in daily or weekly 53% of users go to Library website daily/weekly. 53% of users go to Library website daily/weekly. Overall satisfaction remains high.Overall satisfaction remains high. On 1 to 9 (high) scale, users are satisfied with: On 1 to 9 (high) scale, users are satisfied with: “Overall quality of the service provided in the Library.” 7.43“Overall quality of the service provided in the Library.” 7.43 “The way I am treated at the Library” avg. 7.5“The way I am treated at the Library” avg. 7.5

Key Indicators  Comparisons: Between pre-renovation survey in 2005 and post-renovation in 2008 Between pre-renovation survey in 2005 and post-renovation in 2008 Library instruction continues to prove useful. They rate us:Library instruction continues to prove useful. They rate us: “Teaching me how to locate, evaluate and use information.” 7.5 “Teaching me how to locate, evaluate and use information.” 7.5 “Provides me with the information skills I need…” 7.09 “Provides me with the information skills I need…” 7.09 “Enables me to be more efficient..” 7.12 “Enables me to be more efficient..” 7.12

Concerns  Good overall results, but some causes for concern: Statement: “Giving users individual attention” is lowest rated of all factors. Statement: “Giving users individual attention” is lowest rated of all factors. Disaffected or non-users: Disaffected or non-users: 14.3% rarely or never use library14.3% rarely or never use library 24.1% rarely or never use library’s website24.1% rarely or never use library’s website And on Feedback forms: And on Feedback forms: “Did you accomplish what you set out to do?” and “Was the level of service received sufficient?” -- # of positive responses is decreasing.“Did you accomplish what you set out to do?” and “Was the level of service received sufficient?” -- # of positive responses is decreasing..

Concerns Comments indicate some problems persist. Comments indicate some problems persist. These are:These are: availability of computers, availability of computers, noise, and noise, and customer service. customer service. These concerns run as a constant. These concerns run as a constant. Since 2005 in over 1,290 comments from LibQUAL 2005, Feedback Forms, and LibQUAL 2008.Since 2005 in over 1,290 comments from LibQUAL 2005, Feedback Forms, and LibQUAL 2008.

Opportunities Users find resources and a place to study, but are they satisfied with the help they get? Users find resources and a place to study, but are they satisfied with the help they get? Some say YES. They say we are: helpful, needed, excellent, competent, knowledgeable, and friendly.Some say YES. They say we are: helpful, needed, excellent, competent, knowledgeable, and friendly. Some say NO. They say we: can’t answer technical problems; are rude; need better interpersonal skills; don’t smile; are unfriendly; not always available to help.Some say NO. They say we: can’t answer technical problems; are rude; need better interpersonal skills; don’t smile; are unfriendly; not always available to help.

Knowing Our Users All Users Are NOT the Same: All Users Are NOT the Same: Direct feedback from student advisory group indicate need to focus on specific user segments within the student body.Direct feedback from student advisory group indicate need to focus on specific user segments within the student body. Further LibQUAL analysis will be done to investigate the segments of users that gave us lower ratings.Further LibQUAL analysis will be done to investigate the segments of users that gave us lower ratings. Further work will be done to review the low usage and non-user groups. Further work will be done to review the low usage and non-user groups.

User Groups All Students = 14,186 (spring08)  Evening Students 48% of students in Fall 07 and Spring 08 took at least one evening (past 5pm) class. 48% of students in Fall 07 and Spring 08 took at least one evening (past 5pm) class. 27% of all circulating items are taken out after 5 pm. [between 4 -11pm = 34% of all circ]27% of all circulating items are taken out after 5 pm. [between 4 -11pm = 34% of all circ]  Online Students (spring08) 2,343 take Online 2,343 take Online 20% of 2,343 take ONLY online classes.20% of 2,343 take ONLY online classes. 400 take Hybrid (1/2 online; ½ campus) 400 take Hybrid (1/2 online; ½ campus)

User Groups  Students eligible for accomodations: 18% of total (fall07) = 10 diff. categories 18% of total (fall07) = 10 diff. categories Largest category is learning disabled.Largest category is learning disabled.  Unreached/Disenfranchised During the semester: During the semester: 14.3% come into the Library once or never.14.3% come into the Library once or never. 24.1% use Library web once or never.24.1% use Library web once or never. Perceived levels of service ratings: Perceived levels of service ratings: 5.6Employees instill confidence.5.6Employees instill confidence. 6.1 Giving individual attention.6.1 Giving individual attention.