1. Project URL – http://www.libqual.org/ TM LibQUAL+ ™ Introduction Martha Kyrillidou Bruce Thompson National Library for Health London, UK August 26, 2005

2. Total Circulation Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

3. Reference Transactions Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

4. Assessment “The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable— i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution. Librarians have either made do with oversimplified national data or have undertaken customized local evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been devised an effective way to link the two.” Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996

5. LibQUAL+ ™ Goals Improve mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries Develop web-based tools for assessing library service quality Identify best practices in providing library service Support libraries seeking to understand changes in user behavior Assist libraries seeking to re-position library services in the new environment

6. Multiple Methods of Listening to Customers Transactional surveys* Mystery shopping New, declining, and lost-customer surveys Focus group interviews Customer advisory panels Service reviews Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture Total market surveys* Employee field reporting Employee surveys Service operating data capture *A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these methods Note. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000). Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C.

7. PERCEPTIONS SERVICE “….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press. The LibQUAL+ ™ Premise

8. Extended GAPS Model Organizational Barriers to SQ Customers’ Assessment of SQ Poor Upward Communication Poor Horizontal Communication Poor Tech - Job Fit Perception of Infeasibility GAP 1 GAP 2 GAP 3 GAP 4 GAP 5 Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles

9. “22 items” 2000200120022003 41-items56-items25-items22-items Affect of Service Service Affect ReliabilityLibrary as Place ReliabilityPersonal Control Information Control Provision of Physical Collections Self-Reliance Information Access Access to Information

10. Survey Instrument

11. Rapid Growth in Other Areas Languages  American English  British English  French  Dutch  Swedish Consortia  Each may create 5 local questions to add to their survey Types of Institutions  Academic Health Sciences  Academic Law  Academic Military  College or University  Community College  European Business  Hospital  Public  State Countries  U.S., U.K., Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, South Africa, Egypt, Australia

12. LibQUAL+ ™ Participants

13. Participating Libraries World LibQUAL+™ Survey

14. LibQUAL+ ™ Resources LibQUAL+™ Website: http://www.libqual.org http://www.libqual.org Publications: http://www.libqual.org/publications http://www.libqual.org/publications Events and Training: http://www.libqual.org/events http://www.libqual.org/events Gap Theory/Radargraph Introduction: http://www.libqual.org/Information/Tools/libqualpresentation.cfm LibQUAL+™ Procedures Manual: http://www.libqual.org/Information/Manual/index.cfm http://www.libqual.org/Information/Manual/index.cfm