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

2. Objectives 1. To give an overview of the 2003 LibQUAL+ Pilot 2. To present the overall results of the 2003 SCONUL Cohort 3. To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learned

3. Previous UK methods used General Satisfaction Exit questionnaires SCONUL Satisfaction Survey Designed Surveys Satisfaction vs Importance 1989- Priority Surveys 1993- Outcome measurement? ACPI project 2003-4

4. 1. The UK LibQUAL+ Pilot

5. 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) colleges participated in the UK Pilot

6. UK Institutions 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

7. UK Institutions 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

8. Potential UK Sample Full variety of institutions 12% of institutions 17% of HE students (>250,000) 20% of Libraries 19% of Library expenditure

9. Steering Group Stephen Town (Co-ordinator) Maggie Black (UWE) Jane Blount (Glasgow) Michael Heaney (Oxford) Margaret Oldroyd (De Montfort University) Kate Robinson (Bath)

10. Time frame October – MoU for participation November – Survey modification December – Registration January 7-8 2003 – UK Training February to May – Surveys run

11. Time frame June – Results distributed July – Dissemination (Northumbria+) September - Review December - Data workshop

12. Dimensions of Quality Affect of Service Information Access Personal Control Library as a Place

13. C. Cook & B. Thompson, 2002.

14. Additional UK questions Access to photocopying and printing facilities Main text and readings needed Provision for information skills training Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT problems Availability of subject specialist assistance

15. Sample Survey

16. Sample Survey… continued

17. 2. Results from SCONUL

18. Respondents by Institution College or UniversityRespondent (n) Respondent (%) Cranfield University5794.86% De Montfort University6435.39% Glasgow University Library5024.21% Lancaster8837.41% Leeds Metropolitan University8146.83% Liverpool John Moores University1,26110.58% Robert Gordon University8056.75% Royal Holloway University of London6165.17% South Bank University2762.32% University of Bath8417.06%

19. College or UniversityRespondents (n) Respondents (%) University College Northampton 5004.19% University of Edinburgh 5144.31% University of Gloucestershire 7135.98% University of Liverpool Library 3983.34% University of London Library 700.59% University of Oxford 1,0638.92% University of the West of England, Bristol 7376.18% University of Wales College, Newport 3683.09% University of Wales Swansea 1611.35% University of Wolverhampton 1751.47% Grand total 11,919100.00% Respondents by Institution (continued)

20. Core Question Summary

21. Access to Information IDQuestion TextAdequacy Mean Access to Information AI-1Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work-0.19 AI-2Convenient opening hours0.36 AI-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.12 AI-4The electronic information resources I need0.18 AI-5Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan0.22

22. Core Question Dimensions Summary Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

23. Local Questions Summary Question TextAdequacy Mean Access to photocopying and printing facilities0.05 The main texts and readings I need for my work-0.58 Provision of information skills training0.79 Helpfulness in dealing with users' IT problems0.36 Availability of subject specialist assistance0.14

24. Core Question Summary for Undergraduates

25. Access to Information - Undergraduates IDQuestion TextAdequacy Mean Access to Information AI-1Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work-0.02 AI-2Convenient opening hours0.42 AI-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.05 AI-4The electronic information resources I need0.30 AI-5Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan0.32

26. Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

27. Core Question Summary for Postgraduate

28. Access to Information - Postgraduates IDQuestion TextAdequacy Mean Access to Information AI-1Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work-0.33 AI-2Convenient opening hours0.05 AI-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.17 AI-4The electronic information resources I need0.06 AI-5Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan0.10

29. Library as a place – Postgraduates IDQuestion TextAdequacy Mean Library as a Place LP-1Quiet space for individual work-0.20 LP-2A comfortable and inviting location0.79 LP-3Library space that inspires study and learning0.19 LP-4Space for group learning and group study0.56 LP-5A haven for study, learning, or research-0.06

30. Core Question Dimensions Summary - Postgraduates Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

31. Core Questions Summary - Academic Staff

32. Access to Information – Academic Staff IDQuestion TextAdequacy Mean Access to Information AI-1Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work-0.69 AI-2Convenient opening hours0.48 AI-3The printed library materials I need for my work-0.32 AI-4The electronic information resources I need-0.14 AI-5Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan-0.01

33. Core Question Dimensions Summary – Academic Staff Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

34. 3. Feedback from participants and lessons learned

35. 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

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

37. 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

38. 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

39. Conclusions and lessons learned from the UK LibQUAL+ Pilot

40. 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

41. Lessons learned 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

42. J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Royal Military College of Science Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk