1. Project URL – http://www.libqual.org/ TM LibQUAL+ ™ : An Overview CASLIN The Czech Republic June, 2006 Presented by: Bruce Thompson http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson

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. 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

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. 13 Libraries English LibQUAL+™ Version 4000 Respondents QUAL QUAN QUAL QUAN QUAL PURPOSE DATA ANALYSIS PRODUCT/RESULT Describe library environment; build theory of library service quality from user perspective Test LibQUAL+™ instrument Refine theory of service quality Refine LibQUAL+™ instrument Test LibQUAL+™ instrument Refine theory Unstructured interviews at 8 ARL institutions Web-delivered survey Unstructured interviews at Health Sciences and the Smithsonian libraries E-mail to survey administrators Web-delivered survey Focus groups Content analysis: (cards & Atlas TI) Reliability/validity analyses: Cronbachs Alpha, factor analysis, SEM, descriptive statistics Content analysis Reliability/validity analyses including Cronbachs Alpha, factor analysis, SEM, descriptive statistics Content analysis Vignette Re-tooling Iterative Emergent 2000 2004 315 Libraries English, Dutch, Swedish, German LibQUAL+™ Versions 160,000 anticipated respondents LibQUAL+™ Project Case studies 1 Valid LibQUAL+™ protocol Scalable process Enhanced understanding of user-centered views of service quality in the library environment 2 Cultural perspective 3 Refined survey delivery process and theory of service quality 4 Refined LibQUAL+™ instrument 5 Local contextual understanding of LibQUAL+™ survey responses 6

8. York University University of Arizona Arizona State University of Connecticut University of Houston University of Kansas  University of Minnesota  University of Pennsylvania  University of Washington  Smithsonian  Northwestern Medical 76 Interviews Conducted

10. “You put a search on a book and it’s just gone; it’s not reacquired. … There’s more of a problem of lost books, of books that are gone and nobody knows why and nobody’s doing anything about it.” Faculty member Reliability

11. “I want to be treated with respect. I want you to be courteous, to look like you know what you are doing and enjoy what you are doing. … Don’t get into personal conversations when I am at the desk.” Faculty member Affect of Service

12. “One of the cherished rituals is going up the steps and through the gorgeous doors of the library and heading up to the fifth floor to my study. … I have my books and I have six million volumes downstairs that are readily available to me in an open stack library.” Faculty member Library as Place

13. “…first of all, I would turn to the best search engines that are out there. That’s not a person so much as an entity. In this sense, librarians are search engines [ just ] with a different interface.” Faculty member Self-reliance

14. “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

15. Survey Instrument

16. “22 Items and The Box….” Why the Box is so Important  About 40% of participants provide open-ended comments, and these are linked to demographics and quantitative data.  Users elaborate the details of their concerns.  Users feel the need to be constructive in their criticisms, and offer specific suggestions for action.

17. “…and Five Ancillary Items” Either Zero or Five Ancillary items are selected to address local or consortial concerns  Items from the initial LibQUAL+ TM item pool.  Items written by previous consortial groups.

18. alpha By Language By Language ServiceInfo.Lib as Group n AffectControlPlaceTOTAL American (all)59,318.95.91.88.96 British (all) 6,773.93.87.81.94 French (all) 172.95.90.89.95

19. alpha by University Type By University Type ServiceInfo.Lib as Group n AffectControlPlaceTOTAL Comm Colleges 4,189.96.92.89.97 4 yr Not ARL36,430.95.91.88.96 4 yr, ARL14,080.95.90.87.96 Acad Health 3,263.95.92.90.96

20. Participating Libraries World LibQUAL+™ Survey

21. 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, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia

22. LibQUAL+ ™ Participants

23. LibQUAL+ ™ Implementation

24. Interpretation: Mean Perceived Scores (n=34)

25. LibQUAL+ ™ 2004 Summary Colleges or Universities Undergraduates – American English (n = 37,661)

26. LibQUAL+ ™ 2004 Summary Colleges or Universities Graduates – American English (n = 16,750)

27. LibQUAL+ ™ 2004 Summary Colleges or Universities Faculty – American English (n = 11,755)

28. 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/Manual/index.cfm http://www.libqual.org/Manual/index.cfm

29. LibQUAL+ ™ Contact Information Martha Kyrillidou  Senior Program for Office of Statistics and Measurement  martha@arl.org martha@arl.org Mary Jackson  LibQUAL+™ Services Manager  mary@arl.org mary@arl.org MaShana Davis  LibQUAL+™ Technical Communications Liaison  mashana@arl.org mashana@arl.org Richard Groves  Statistics Research Assistant  richard@arl.org richard@arl.org