2002 Results

TM

Project web site www.arl.org/libqual/

2002 Results2002 ResultsColleen CookFred Heath

April 2, 2003Texas Library Association

Houston

::

98% agree with statement, “My … library contains information from credible and known sources”

NoteNote. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and InformationResources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

Library Remains aCredible Resource

15.7% agreed with the statement “The Internet has not changed the way I use the library”


Information Seeking Behaviors are Changing

92.7% find out about e-journals on-line 21.7% report using print resources to find 16.5% would ask a person for assistance Only 2.5% would prefer to ask a

librarian


Finding Electronic Journals for Research

Only 13.9% ask a librarian Only 3.2% consider consulting a librarian a

preferred way of identifying information


Finding Print Journalsfor Research

Total Circulation

Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002).ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

In House Use of Materials


Reference Transactions


The Imperative for our Research

In an age of accountability, there is a pressing need for an effective and practical process to evaluate and compare research libraries. In the aggregate, among the 124 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) alone, over $2.8 billion dollars were expended in 1999/2000 to satisfy the library and information needs of the research constituencies in North America (Kyrillidou & Young, 2001, p. 5).

LibQUAL+ Description

LibQUAL+ is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create useful quality-assessment tools for local planning.

SERVQUAL dimensions served as a priori theoretical starting point

LibQUAL+ Process

Relationships: Perceptions, Service Quality and Satisfaction

….only customers judge quality;all other judgments are essentiallyirrelevant”

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

LibQUAL+ Resources

An ARL/Texas A&M University joint developmental effort based on SERVQUAL

LibQUAL+ initially supported by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE)

Initial project established an expert team, regrounded concepts, and designed survey methodology

Survey conducted at over 200 libraries resulting in a data base of over 78,000 user responses

LibQUAL+ Project Goals

Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL

Development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality

Development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries

Identification of best practices in providing library service

LibQUAL+ Participants

Spring2000

Year 112

Participants

For More Information about Participants:

Visit the LibQUAL+ web site.

Year 243

Participants

Year 3164

Participants

316 Participants

Year 4

Spring2001

Spring2002

Spring2003

LibQUAL+ Fundamental Contributions

to the Measurement of Effective Delivery of Library Services

Shift the focus of assessment from mechanical expenditure-driven metrics to user-centered measures of quality

Re-ground gap theory for the library sector, especially academic libraries

Grounded questions yield data of sufficient granularity to be of value at the local level

Determine the degree to which information derived from local data can be generalized, providing much needed “best practices” information

Demonstrate the efficacy of large-scale administration of user-centered assessment transparently across the web

Makes little demand of local resources and expertise

Multiple Methodsof 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.

76 Interviews Conducted

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

LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:\Admin\Colleen\ServQual Interviews\TEXT Only\01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:\zz\atlasti\fred

Dimensions of LibraryService Quality

Affect of Service

Absorbed several of the original SERVQUAL questions measuring Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy

In the current analysis also includes Reliability

All in all: the Human Dimension of Service Quality

Affect of Service

“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

Reliability

“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

Service as Performance

“…as users have metamorphosed from penitents to self-reliant information surfers, the rules of engagement have changed. Service is not something dispensed; rather, it is enacted as an elaborate cultural ritual, the texture and fabric of which is changing in front of us. Service may now embody multiple overlays of meaning, many too dense for anything but an anthropological fieldwork study to uncover” (Lincoln, p. 15).

Access to Information

Covers scope, timeliness, and convenience of access

Adequacy of collections

Comprehensiveness, quality, and depth of information resources

All in all: required information delivered in the format, location, and time of choice

Comprehensive Collections

“I think one of the things I love about academic life in the United States is that as a culture…, we tend to appreciate the extraordinary importance of libraries in the life of the mind.”

Faculty member

Ubiquity of Access

“Over time my own library use has become increasingly electronic. So that the amount of time I actually spend in the library is getting smaller and the amount of time I spend at my desk on the web … is increasing.”

Faculty member

Cultural Perspective - Collections

“In the physical [vs. virtual] reality, ‘texture’ has become important. Density of collections becomes important, and, if collections are not complete, users want to know where they can find missing volumes, journal articles, and/or how swiftly interlibrary loan will work for them” (Lincoln, p. 11).

Personal Control

Covers ease of navigation, convenience, and support services

Personal control of the information universe in general and web navigation in particular

All in all: How users want to interact with the modern library

Personal Control

“By habit, I usually try to be self-sufficient. And I’ve found that I am actually fairly proficient. I usually find what I’m looking for eventually. So I personally tend to ask a librarian only as a last resort.”

Graduate student

Personal Control

“…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

Cultural Perspective –Self-reliance

“If Foucault is correct that we in the West live in surveilled societies, then what function does self-reliance serve? …the library user who wishes to navigate resources with as little help as possible – seeks a kind of privacy from the surveillance of librarian help …Having found the relative anonymity of cyberspace and a virtual world, this self-reliant user now seeks the same independence and lack of surveillance in the text-based and digitized universe of information resources known as the library” (Lincoln, p. 12).

Library as Place

Covers usefulness of space, symbolic value, and refuge for work and study

Transcends the SERVQUAL dimension of Tangibles to include the idea of the library as the campus center of intellectual activity

All in all: As long as physical facilities are adequate, library as place may not be an issue

Library as Place

“I guess you’d call them satisfiers. As long as they are not negatives, they won’t be much of a factor. If they are negatives, they are a big factor.”

Faculty member

Library as Place

“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

“The poorer your situation, the more you need the public spaces to work in. When I was an undergraduate, I spent most of my time in the library, just using it as a study space.”

Faculty member

Cultural Perspective –Library as Place

“…It’s beyond the ease [with] which you can find information, just because the library experience is something like Greece or Athens…” (Undergraduate)

“…the library needs to welcome them in. It needs to make them feel like this is a place where they can be in almost a haven, a refuge” (Business professor)

“writing an undergraduate thesis with this big dome over his head…he felt really like a scholar” (Linguistics professor)

Writing a dissertation in a particular library for another scholar “was an emotional experience”

Survey Design Considerations

Three scales exploring optimal, minimal, and actual service levels

Twenty-five questions clustered around four dimensions

Survey covers a sample of targeted user population

Data illuminates gap between desired level of service and perception of experience

LibQUAL+ Core Questions Y1_____________________________________________________________________________ Factor_ ______ _ No. I II III IV Item Core _____________________________________________________________________________ 32 .84947 .12848 .24465 .13335 1 Willingness to help users33 .80847 .13662 .25348 .14147 1 Giving users individual attention 7 .80757 .17881 .12781 .21125 1 Employees deal with users caring fashion50 .79273 .19288 .18847 .12497 1 Employees who are consistently courteous31 .77262 .16358 .26461 .20061 1 Employees have knowledge answer questions 5 .74072 .14754 .18453 .29624 1 Employees understand needs of users 3 .74052 .15102 .17296 .20793 1 Readiness to respond to users' questions18 .71718 .19757 .18289 .26766 1 Employees who instill confidence in users43 .62487 .22402 .29970 .28256 0 Dependability handling service problems 20 .16556 .87679 .11430 .16236 2 A haven for quiet and solitude 2 .17739 .83172 .08498 .13901 2 A meditative place19 .22362 .83147 .14705 .22566 2 A contemplative environment25 .16013 .80492 .18894 .16628 2 Space that facilitates quiet study41 .20398 .80204 .17599 .20255 2 A place for reflection and creativity 37 .22528 .12353 .78405 .15466 * website enabling me locate info on my own28 .19602 .09611 .75780 .13173 * elec resources accessible home or office14 .33339 .16156 .60389 .31109 * access tools allow me find on my own45 .30467 .23784 .59090 .28919 3 Modern equip me easily access info I need17 .35390 .18467 .55690 .41864 * info easily accessible for independent use29 .30136 .21018 .55341 .38474 4 Convenient access to library collections 11 .13494 .23183 .18868 .73636 3 Comprehensive print collections39 .14894 .23743 .29367 .60350 3 Complete runs of journal titles16 .29445 .19831 .22384 .60107 3 Interdisciplinary library needs addressed 9 .27782 .05333 .16331 .57866 4 Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan 8 .22850 .18484 .13137 .56343 0 Convenient business hours

________________________________________________________________

Sample SurveySpring 2002

Sample Survey…continued

LibQUAL+ 2002 Iteration

42 — ARL Libraries 35 — Health Sciences Libraries 36 — State Colleges & Universities

(excluding ARL) 34 — Private Colleges & Universities

(excluding ARL) 15 — Community Colleges 2 — Special & Public Libraries

(Smithsonian & NYPL)

Respondents by Age (Excludes NYPL)

Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results. (2002). vol. 1, p. 19

Respondents by Sex


4-Year Institution Respondent by Discipline(n=54,073)

Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results. (2002). Vol. 1, p. 38

Aggregate Dimension Means(n=70,445)

Dimension Minimum Desired Perceived SA Gap

Access to Information 6.57 7.93 6.82 0.25

Affect of Service 6.51 7.90 7.11 0.60

Library as Place 5.98 7.41 6.62 0.64

Personal Control 6.74 8.15 7.07 0.33


Mean Perceived Scores2001/2002 Trend (n=34)

6.0000

6.2000

6.4000

6.6000

6.8000

7.0000

7.2000

6.0000 6.2000 6.4000 6.6000 6.8000 7.0000 7.2000

2001 Data

2002 D

ata

TAMU Faculty Item Summary

Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results. (2002). vol. 2, p. 40

ARL Faculty Item Summary

Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - ARL. (2002). Vol. 5, p. 46

Institutional Norms for Perceived Means on 25 Core Questions

Note: Thompson, B. LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Selected Norms, (2002).

ARLTop 40

6.84(.46)

ARLOther6.74(.27)

PrivateColleges

6.90(.49)

State Colleges& Universities

6.38(.30)

CommunityColleges

7.26(.55)

Overall Mean Scores and Service Adequacy Gap ScoresBy Cohort Group

2002 LibQUAL+ Iteration(n=162)

AAHSL7.07(.56)

LibQUAL+TM Related Documents

• LibQUAL+TM Web Site http://www.arl.org/libqual/

• LibQUAL+TM Bibliographyhttp://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib

woofwoof

2002 Results

Documents

Transcript of 2002 Results