Introduction Goal of this work is to better understand Guelph’s 2007 LibQUAL+ comments (in...
1
Introduction •Goal of this work is to better understand Guelph’s 2007 LibQUAL+ comments (in aggregate), within the context of the quantitative findings. •Want to minimize or remove the influence and bias sometimes attributed to individual comments. •Results are presented and compared to data from Guelph’s LibQUAL+ survey, proper. •Conclude that comments, as analysed here, should supplement the survey data, proper, in efforts to understand user needs. Methodology •Scheme for analyzing comments had nine categories and total of 47 sub-categories. •Analyzed each comment by identifying the issues addressed, according to the scheme, and assigning grades. •A grade, ranging from 1 to 9, was assigned for each issue identified, to indicate the intensity of its emotional content. •Intensely negative comment assigned a grade of 1 and intensely positive one assigned a 9. Results •Total valid surveys: 1332. Valid undergraduate surveys: 868. •Total comments (valid surveys): 713. Undergraduate comments (valid surveys): 477. •Analyzed undergraduate comments. The top sub-categories in terms of comments received were: •For analyses, chose four of the above sets of comments. Compared the results to those for broadly similar questions from the LibQUAL+ survey, proper. •The comparisons are shown in the panel to the right; the upper pair deals with library facilities, while the lower pair deals with staffing. •Chart 1a shows the relative frequency of comments with Results (continued) •Chart 1b shows the relative frequency of survey response as a function of the difference between the perceived and minimum values, for the two questions being considered. •For example: 31% of responses from undergraduates about the question “Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions” showed zero difference between the perceived and minimum values. •Charts 2a and 2b have same structure as Chart set 1. •In Chart 1a, on average, 81% of comments are positive, having assigned values of 6, 7, 8, or 9. In Chart 1b, on average, 52% of responses are positive, having a difference of 1 or more between the perceived and minimum values. •In Chart 2a, on average, 20% of comments are positive, having assigned values of 6, 7, 8, or 9. In Chart 2b, on average, 47% of responses are positive, having a difference of 1 or more between the perceived and minimum values.. Discussion / Conclusions •Method of assigning value to the comments leads to bimodal distribution since few of them have “neutral” emotional intensity (assigned a value of 5). •The undergraduate survey response data showing a difference in perceived and minimum acceptable scores of 6 or 7 (Charts 1b and 2b) seems unusual. •Charts 1b and 2b portray broadly similar levels of satisfaction. However, the corresponding charts (1a and 2a, respectively) are quite different. •These comments, as analysed here, should supplement the survey response data in efforts to understand user needs and make decisions regarding library services. •More work is required to refine this method of analyzing comments (e.g. assigning comments’ values) and assess its usefulness in more advanced analyses of LibQUAL+ data. •The method of analysing comments is simple and practical. Alan Gale and Ron Ward University of Guelph Library, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA For further information •Contact Alan Gale, Collections Librarian, University of Guelph Library: E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 519.824.4120 x53606. Results (continued) Are LibQUAL+ open-ended comments an indicator of user satisfaction? Examination of a method of re-coding LibQUAL+ comments. Relativ e frequen cy Relativ e frequen cy Facilities – work space 211 Satisfaction – general 111 Facilities – computers 76 Facilities – noise 71 Staffing – friendly 64 Staffing – effective 60 Chart 1b. LibQUAL responses about Library staffing Chart 1a. Comments about Library staffing Chart 2b. LibQUAL responses about Library facilities Difference between perceived and minimum responses Chart 2a. Comments about Library facilities Assigned value of comment Assigned value of comment Difference between perceived and minimum responses Relativ e frequen cy Relativ e frequen cy More satisfaction Less satisfaction Less satisfaction Less satisfaction Less satisfaction More satisfaction More satisfaction More satisfaction
-
Upload
nigel-clark -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Introduction Goal of this work is to better understand Guelph’s 2007 LibQUAL+ comments (in...
Introduction•Goal of this work is to better understand Guelph’s 2007 LibQUAL+ comments (in aggregate), within the context of the quantitative findings.•Want to minimize or remove the influence and bias sometimes attributed to individual comments. •Results are presented and compared to data from Guelph’sLibQUAL+ survey, proper.•Conclude that comments, as analysed here, should supplement the survey data, proper, in efforts to understand user needs.
Methodology•Scheme for analyzing comments had nine categories andtotal of 47 sub-categories. •Analyzed each comment by identifying the issues addressed, according to the scheme, and assigning grades.•A grade, ranging from 1 to 9, was assigned for each issueidentified, to indicate the intensity of its emotional content. •Intensely negative comment assigned a grade of 1 and intensely positive one assigned a 9.
Results•Total valid surveys: 1332. Valid undergraduate surveys:
868.•Total comments (valid surveys): 713. Undergraduate comments (valid surveys): 477. •Analyzed undergraduate comments. The top sub-categoriesin terms of comments received were:
•For analyses, chose four of the above sets of comments.
Compared the results to those for broadly similar questions from the LibQUAL+ survey, proper.
•The comparisons are shown in the panel to the right; the
upper pair deals with library facilities, while the lower pair deals with staffing.
•Chart 1a shows the relative frequency of comments withthe various assigned values, for the two sub-categories Staffing – friendly and Staffing – effective.•For example, 43% of comments about Staffing – effectivewere assigned a score of 8.
Results (continued)•Chart 1b shows the relative frequency of survey response
as a function of the difference between the perceived and minimum values, for the two questions being considered. •For example: 31% of responses from undergraduates aboutthe question “Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions” showed zero difference between the perceived and minimum values.•Charts 2a and 2b have same structure as Chart set 1. •In Chart 1a, on average, 81% of comments are positive,having assigned values of 6, 7, 8, or 9. In Chart 1b, on average, 52% of responses are positive, having a difference of 1 or more between the perceived and minimum values.•In Chart 2a, on average, 20% of comments are positive,having assigned values of 6, 7, 8, or 9. In Chart 2b, on average, 47% of responses are positive, having a difference of 1 or more between the perceived and minimum values..
Discussion / Conclusions•Method of assigning value to the comments leads to bimodal distribution since few of them have “neutral”emotional intensity (assigned a value of 5).•The undergraduate survey response data showing a difference in perceived and minimum acceptable scores of 6 or 7 (Charts 1b and 2b) seems unusual. •Charts 1b and 2b portray broadly similar levels ofsatisfaction. However, the corresponding charts (1a and 2a, respectively) are quite different.
•These comments, as analysed here, should supplement thesurvey response data in efforts to understand user needs and make decisions regarding library services.•More work is required to refine this method of analyzing comments (e.g. assigning comments’ values) and assess its usefulness in more advanced analyses of LibQUAL+ data.•The method of analysing comments is simple and practical.
Alan Gale and Ron WardUniversity of Guelph Library, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA
For further information•Contact Alan Gale, Collections Librarian,University of Guelph Library:
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 519.824.4120 x53606.
Results (continued)
Are LibQUAL+ open-ended comments an indicator of user satisfaction? Examination of a method of re-coding LibQUAL+ comments.
Relative frequency
Relative frequency
Facilities – work space 211 Satisfaction – general 111Facilities – computers 76Facilities – noise 71 Staffing – friendly 64 Staffing – effective 60
Chart 1b. LibQUAL responses about Library staffingChart 1a. Comments about Library staffing
Chart 2b. LibQUAL responses about Library facilities
Difference between perceived and minimum responses
Chart 2a. Comments about Library facilities
Assigned value of comment
Assigned value of comment Difference between perceived and minimum responses
Relative frequency
Relative frequency
More satisfactionLess satisfaction
Less satisfaction
Less satisfaction
Less satisfaction
More satisfaction
More satisfactionMore satisfaction
