1. Interpreting, Editing, and Communicating MISO Survey Results
Fred Folmer
Research & Instruction Librarian / Special Projects Coordinator, Connecticut College
This presentation leaves copyright of the content to the presenter. Unless otherwise noted in the materials, uploaded content carries the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, which grants usage to the general public with the stipulated criteria.

2. Quantitative Web-based survey helping libraries/technology organizations in higher education evaluate their services
Stands for Measuring Information Service Outcomes
Nonprofit survey provider, based at Bryn Mawr College
In 2014, approximately 40 institutions participated
What is MISO?

3. Asks about satisfaction with, and importance of, numerous services provided by libraries and information technology organizations
Rates service providers on whether they are responsive, reliable, knowledgeable and friendly.
Asks how well informed respondents feel about various topics
Asks what skills respondents would be interested in learning
Students: what devices owned; whether they’re used for academic or personal purposes
What does MISO measure?

4. Questions/issues to be explored
Lots of data!
Different results for different populations
Longitudinal, comparative
Sifting through it
Communication issues, especially within a merged organization
Questions/issues to be explored

5. Top 10, Satisfaction, Faculty, 2014

6. Top 10, Importance, Faculty, 2014

7. Before drawing a conclusion or getting too far, it’s wise to:
Look at the actual numbers — are tech numbers really problematic, or are they just lower than library numbers? By how much?
Consider some of the differences between technical support services and library services.
This is especially true in a merged organization.
Take all of this in prior to communicating conclusions.
Conclusions?

8. Very high levels of satisfaction
Respondents could rate satisfaction of services as “Dissatisfied” (1), “somewhat dissatisfied” (2), “somewhat satisfied” (3) or “satisfied” (4)
More than 98 percent of the services received a mean satisfaction of 3, or at least “somewhat satisfied,” from all constituencies: faculty, staff and students
Very high levels of satisfaction

9. Overall perceptions of staff were very positive
Respondents asked to consider whether they thought staff in various IS areas (archives, circulation, reference, instr. tech., computer support, phone support, IT Service Desk) were:
Responsive
Reliable
Knowledgeable
Friendly
Some differences among areas, but majority agree.
Overall perceptions of staff were very positive

10. Student perceptions of reference staff

11. Student perceptions of IT Service Desk staff

12. Overall perceptions of staff (cont’d.)
What we communicated:
All staff areas received average score of more than 3 out of 4 (or “somewhat agree”) that criteria were met, across all respondent populations.
Overall perceptions of staff (cont’d.)

13. Comparing satisfaction with importance

14. Relatively high importance/relatively low satisfaction quadrant, faculty

15. Other ways to discern patterns
Use past results for longitudinal data
Do-it-yourself
MISO’s results (has advantages and disadvantages)
Combinations of results from different questions in the survey
MISO’s tool to compare results with other institutions
Combinations of all the above!
Other ways to discern patterns

16. Several areas of tech service improvement over time
Among faculty, mean satisfaction with wireless performance improved over 2012 by 3.38 percent
Among students, mean satisfaction with wireless performance improved over 2012 by 6.84 percent
Among staff, mean satisfaction for the IT Service desk improved by percent
Several areas of tech service improvement over time

17. Increased importance for digital image collections
OVER TIME: Faculty and students rated importance of digital image collections higher than in 2012.
Faculty mean score increased 9.21 percent
Student mean score increased 9.28 percent
CROSS-INSTITUTIONAL: Faculty and students mean scores for importance of digital images were higher than those of peer institutions.
Faculty means of 2.62 versus 2.3, respectively
Student means of 2.59 versus 2.23
Increased importance for digital image collections

18. Faculty, staff and students named information security as an area about which they felt least informed. Respondents who said they felt either “not informed” or only “somewhat informed” included:
71.19 percent of faculty
70.39 percent of staff
74.83 percent of students
Several indicators point toward information security awareness as an area for attention

19. Information security awareness, cont’d.
Other related categories, about which majorities of respondents said they were either “not informed” or “somewhat informed”:
Computer viruses and spyware
Technology-related privacy issues
Data backup
Information security awareness, cont’d.

20. Data backup also possibly an area for attention
42 percent of students and 39 percent of staff said they never back up their data.
The most common answer for those who back up their data was “once or twice” a semester.
Majorities either “interested” or “very interested” in learning more about data backup:
57.69 percent of students
60.59 percent of staff
64.41 percent of faculty
Data backup also possibly an area for attention

21. Greater faculty interest in instructional technology
CURRENT QUESTIONS: Majorities interested in learning more about:
Technology in meeting spaces/classrooms
Our learning platform (Moodle)
OVER TIME:
11.62 percent increase over 2012 in faculty interest in classroom technology
ACROSS INSTITUTIONS: Higher mean scores than peer group in:
Interest in learning about Moodle
Importance of instructional technology support
Interest in learning about technology in meeting spaces and classrooms
Greater faculty interest in instructional technology

22. Communication strategies, spring 2014
Issued preliminary report to IS Committee (made up of faculty and selected IS staff)
Issued similar report to leadership team of library and IT directors
Some items (printing services, wireless) incorporated into strategic goals for the following year
Communication strategies, spring 2014

23. Communication strategies, fall 2015
Issued revised/final report to IS staff at all-IS meeting
“Good news,” trends
Final report to IS Committee; detailed reports on website
Communication strategies, fall 2015

24. VP wrote column for newsletter

25. Communication tips Be thorough when interpreting numbers
Don’t just settle for a first impression
Be prudent about what’s shared and with whom
Look for trends and aggregations
Communication tips