Large-scale, web-based, user-centered assessment of library service effectiveness across multiple institutions.
Co-developed by ARL and Texas A&M University, 1999
Responds to the increasing pressure for libraries to develop more outcomes-based assessment efforts, instead of relying merely on input or resource metrics.
Supported initially by a 3-year, $498,000 FIPSE grant; sustained by participant fees ($2,850/year)
What is LibQUAL+?
Grounded in the “Gap Theory” of Service Quality; addresses a set of three service dimensions:
1. Information Control—timely, convenient, and self-reliant access to information resources: local & remote, print & electronic.
2. Affect of Service—knowledge, courtesy, and responsiveness of employees; their ability to instill confidence; their willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
3. Library as Place—a library space that is quiet, comfortable, and conducive to study and learning, for individuals as well as groups.
What is LibQUAL+?(The “Gap Theory” model and 4 dimensions of service quality)
Help libraries better understand user perceptions of service quality
Provide comparable assessment information from peer institutions
Identify best practices in library service
Continuously improve library service quality
The goals of LibQUAL+
Over 250 institutions, including:
Members of Association of Research Libraries (35)
Other college and university libraries (164)
Community college libraries (18)
A small number of governmental, public, school, and special libraries
A growing number of international participants in Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Sweden, and the U.K.
Who participated in Spring 2007?(Groups & consortia)
University of Alberta Libraries (A) University of Arizona Library (A,G,P)University of British Columbia Library (A)University of California, Los Angeles (A)University of Chicago Library (A)University of Cincinnati Libraries (A)University of Guelph (A)University of Houston Libraries (A,G)University of Kentucky Libraries (A)University of Manitoba (A)University of Maryland Libraries (A)University of Massachusetts Amherst (A)University of Miami (A)University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries (A,G)University of New Mexico (A, G)University of Saskatchewan Library (A)University of South Carolina (A)University of Southern California (A,G)University of Toronto Libraries (A)University of Waterloo (A)University of Western Ontario (A)Washington University in St. Louis (A,G)York University Libraries (A)
Who participated in 2007?(Peer institutions)
Auburn University (A)Baylor University Libraries (G)Duke University Libraries (A)Iowa State University Library (A,G, P)Kansas State University Libraries (G)McMaster University Libraries (A)Ohio State University Libraries (A,P)Queen's University (A)Rice University (A,G)SUNY Buffalo (A)Texas A&M University, College Station (A,G, P)Université de Montréal (A)Université Laval (A)University of Alabama (A)
37 peer institutions from Association of Research Libraries, Greater Western Library Alliance,
and “Peer 11 Land-Grant,” including…
Gather random sample (1,600 u-grads; 800 grads; 800 faculty)
Prepare website to manage publicity, communication, etc.
Send “pre-survey” message from Dean (March 21)
Send email with imbedded URL for online survey (March 26)
Send reminder from the Dean (March 29)
Survey closes on April 6, 2007
Announce incentive prize winners (May 1)
Checklist of local activities
Who responded at ISU?(Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads)
280 of the 3,200 users surveyed (8.8%) responded to the quantitative questions, including:
• 134 of the 800 faculty surveyed (16.8%)
• 69 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (8.6%)
• 77 of the 1,600 undergrad students surveyed (4.8%)
119 of these respondents also provided written comments (i.e., qualitative data)
Who responded at ISU?(By age & Sex)
Sex
59.4%40.6%
Age
21.2%
24.4%
19.6%
31.1%
3.6%
I use the library electronically…
I use the library on premises…
7.7%
34.7%
36.2%
19.8% 23.4%
46.1%
18.8%
9.7%
I use GoogleTM, etc. for information…
71.9%
18.4%
5.3%
Daily Weekly Monthly
Quarterly
Never
<1%
Respondents’ use of library / intranet(By age & Sex)
When it comes to… My Minimum Service level is
My Desired Service level is
My Perception of the library's service performance is
(low) (high) (low) (high) (low) (high)
1 Employees who instill confidence in users
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
4 Readiness to respond to users' questions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
5 Quiet space for individual activities
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A
Sample Survey
Dimension 1: Information Control
IC-1 Making electronic resources available from my home or office
IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own
IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work
IC-4 The electronic information resources I need
IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information
IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use
IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
Information ControlDimension 1:
Dimension 2: Affect of Service
AS-1 Employees who instill confidence in users
AS-2 Giving users individual attention
AS-3 Employees who are consistently courteous
AS-4 Readiness to respond to users questions
AS-5 Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions
AS-6 Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion
AS-7 Employees who understand the needs of their users
AS-8 Willingness to help users
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems
Affect of ServiceDimension 2:
Dimension 3: Library as Place
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning or research
LP-5 Community space for group learning and group study
Library as PlaceDimension 3:
Addendum:General Satisfaction
GS-1 In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.
GS-2 In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs.
GS-3 How would you rate the overall quality of the serviceprovided by the library?
General Satisfaction QuestionsAddendum:
Addendum:Information Literacy Questions
IL-1 The library helps me stay abreast of developmentsin my field(s) of interest.
IL-2 The library aids my advancement in my academicdiscipline.
IL-3 The library enables me to be more efficient in myacademic pursuits.
IL-4 The library helps me distinguish betweentrustworthy and untrustworthy information.
IL-5 The library provides me with the information skills I needin my work or study.
Information Literacy QuestionsAddendum:
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3Question 4
Question 5
= Minimum= Perceived= Desired
Sample spider graph
Adequacy Gap
Superiority Gap
Text box
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Aggregate data (all peer universities, all users)
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
MDP
IC-8
Affect of Service
Information ControlLibrary as Place
(-0.03)
Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty)(Graph)
Text box
Peers ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Information Control
Affect of Service
Information Control
Affect of Service
CoverupCoverup
CoverupCoverup Coverup
CoverupLibrary
as Place
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.15)
CoverupLibrary
as PlaceIC-8
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (0.11)
Difference between perceived and minimal service:
Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (1)(Table)
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Adequacy gap Adequacy gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.23 1.20 0.97
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities. 0.23 1.16 0.93
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.56 1.40 0.84
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research 0.49 1.29 0.80
LP-5 Community space for group learning & group study 0.82 1.54 0.72
Areas in which peer libraries and/or ISU fall below minimum…
IC-8 Print and/or e- journal collections I require for my work -0.03 0.11 0.14
Difference between perceived and desired service:
Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (2) (Table)
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Superiority gap Superiority gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning -1.37 -0.47 0.90
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities. -1.12 -0.32 0.80
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location -0.98 -0.29 0.69
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research -1.00 -0.38 0.62
LP-5 Community space for group learning & group study -0.64 -0.02 0.62
Areas in which peer libraries and/or ISU exceed desired service levels
[none]
Text box
Text box
Peers ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Comparison: Undergraduates(Graph)
Coverup Coverup
CoverupCoverup
Coverup Coverup
Information Control
Affect of Service
Information Control
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Library as Place
Difference between perceived and minimal service:
Comparison: Undergraduates (1)(Table)
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Adequacy Gap Adequacy Gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.24 1.19 0.95
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities 0.15 0.88 0.73
IC-8 Print and/or e-juornal collections I require for my work 0.31 0.96 0.65
IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.51 1.15 0.64
LP-5 Community space for group learning & group study 0.63 1.26 0.63
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 0.56 1.13 0.57
Areas in which peer libraries and/or ISU fall below minimum…
[none]
Difference between perceived and desired service:
Comparison: Undergraduates (2)(Table)
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Superiority Gap Superiority Gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning -1.45 -0.46 0.99
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities -1.27 -0.53 0.74
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research -1.02 -0.43 0.59
IC-8 Print and/or e-juornal collections I require for my work -1.07 -0.57 0.50
Areas in which peers and/or ISU exceed desired service levels…
[none]
Text box
Peers ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Comparison: Graduate Students(Graph)
Information Control
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Coverup Coverup
CoverupCoverup
CoverupLibrary
as Place
CoverupLibrary as Place
Information Control
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.19)
IC-8
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.12)
IC-8
Comparison: Graduate Students (1)(Table)
Difference between perceived and minimal service:
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Adequacy Gap Adequacy Gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.14 1.22 1.08
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.49 1.39 0.90
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities 0.15 1.00 0.85
LP-5 Community space for group learning & group study 0.95 1.68 0.73
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research 0.40 1.12 0.72
AS-8 Willingness to help users 0.71 1.31 0.60
Areas in which peer libraries and/or ISU fall below minimum…
IC-8 Print and/or e-journal collections I require for my work -0.18 -0.12 0.06
Comparison: Graduate Students (2)(Table)
Difference between perceived and desired service:
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Superiority Gap Superiority Gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning -1.48 -0.69 0.79
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location -1.07 -0.52 0.55
Areas in which peers and/or ISU exceed desired service levels…
[none]
Peers ISU
Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum
Comparison: Faculty(Graph)
Information Control
Affect of Service
Information Control
Affect of Service
Coverup Coverup
CoverupCoverup
Coverup
Library as Place
Coverup
Library as Place
IC-3
IC-4
IC-6
Remote access (-0.08)
Website (-0.28)
IC-1
IC-2
Print resources (-0.09)
E-resources (-0.15)
Access tools (-0.08)
Remote access (-0.03)
IC-1
IC-4
Print and/or e- journals (-0.23)
IC-8
Community space for group learning (0.34)
LP-5
Quiet space for individual activities (0.13)
LP-2
Print and/or e- journals (-0.54)
IC-8
LP-3 Comfortable location (0.01)
E-resources (-0.1)
Comparison: Faculty (1)(Table)
Difference between perceived and minimal service:
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Adequacy Gap Adequacy Gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.60 1.58 0.98
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities 0.58 1.41 0.83
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.37 1.16 0.79
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research 0.56 1.27 0.71
IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.09 0.53 0.62
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 0.32 0.91 0.59
IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access info 0.13 0.70 0.57
IC-7 Making info easily accessible for independent use 0.10 0.62 0.52
Areas in which peer libraries and/or ISU fall below minimum…
IC-1 Making e-resources accessible from my home or office -0.08 -0.03 0.05
IC-2 A library website enabling me to locate info on my own -0.28 0.02 0.30
IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.09 0.53 0.62
IC-4 The electronic information resources I need -0.15 -0.10 0.05
IC-6 Easy to use access tools […] to find things on my own -0.08 0.27 0.35
IC-8 Print and/or e-journal collections I require for my work -0.54 -0.23 0.31
Peer ISU Difference
Areas in which ISU stands out from peer libraries (by >0.5)… Superiority Gap Superiority Gap [ISU-ARL]
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location -0.78 0.01 0.79
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities -0.61 0.12 0.73
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning -1.01 -0.41 0.60
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research -0.77 -0.20 0.57
Areas in which peers and/or ISU exceed desired service levels…
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities -0.61 0.12 0.73
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location -0.78 0.01 0.79
LP-5 Community space for group learning & group study 0.01 0.34 0.33
Comparison: Faculty (2)(Table)
Difference between perceived and desired service:
UNDERG
AdequacyGap
(P-M)
LP-5 Community space for group learning and group study 1.26
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 1.19
AS-7 Employees who understand the needs of their users 1.17
IC-7 Making info easily accessible for independent use 1.15
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 1.13
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 1.09
AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' questions 1.06
Conclusions: Areas of challenge
Conclusions…
Areas of strength…
UNDERG GRAD FACULTY ALL
Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy AdequacyGap Gap Gap Gap
(P-M) (P-M) (P-M) (P-M)
LP-5 Community space for group learning and group study 1.26 1.68 1.63 1.54
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 1.19 1.22 1.16 1.20
AS-7 Employees who understand the needs of their users 1.17 0.77 0.73 0.85
IC-7 Making info easily accessible for independent use 1.15 0.57 0.62 0.75
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 1.13 0.37 0.91 0.85
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 1.09 1.39 1.58 1.40
AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' questions 1.06 1.10 0.94 1.01
Conclusions: Areas of challenge
Conclusions…
Areas of strength…
Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS).
UNDERG GRAD FACULTY ALL
Adequacy Adequacy Adequacy AdequacyGap Gap Gap Gap
(P-M) (P-M) (P-M) (P-M)
LP-5 Community space for group learning and group study 1.26 1.68 1.63 1.54
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 1.19 1.22 1.16 1.20
AS-7 Employees who understand the needs of their users 1.17 0.77 0.73 0.85
IC-7 Making info easily accessible for independent use 1.15 0.57 0.62 0.75
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 1.13 0.37 0.91 0.85
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 1.09 1.39 1.58 1.40
AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' questions 1.06 1.10 0.94 1.01
IC-1 Making e- resources accessible from my home or office 0.74 0.29 0.02 0.27
IC-2 A library website enabling me to locate information… 0.60 0.26 -0.03 0.24
IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 0.86 0.21 -0.09 0.25
IC-8 Print and/or e- journal collections I require for my work 0.96 -0.12 -0.22 0.11
Conclusions: Areas of challenge
Conclusions…
Areas of strength…
Areas of challenge…
Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS).
Areas of challenge lie in Information Control (IC).
Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions (2001-2007)
2001 2003 2005 2007
Affect of ServiceISUPeers
Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions (2001-2007)
2001 2003 2005 2007
Affect of ServiceISUPeers
Information ControlISUPeers
Affect of ServiceISUPeers
Information ControlISUPeers
Library as PlaceISUPeers
Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions (2001-2007)
2001 2003 2005 2007
General Satisfaction Questions (1)
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am
treated at the library.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
General Satisfaction Questions (2)
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am
treated at the library.
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
General Satisfaction Questions (3)
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am
treated at the library.
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.
How would you rate the overall quality of the
service provided by the library?
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (1)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
Hidden text—Hidden text
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (2)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
Hidden text—Hidden text
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (3)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
The library enables me to be more efficient in
my academic pursuits.
Hidden text—Hidden text
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (4)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
The library enables me to be more efficient in
my academic pursuits.
The library helps me
distinguish trustworthy /untrustworth
y information.
Hidden text—Hidden text
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Information Literacy Questions (5)
The library helps me stay
abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.
The Library aids my
advancement in my
academic discipline.
The library enables me to be more efficient in
my academic pursuits.
The library helps me
distinguish trustworthy /untrustworth
y information.
The library provides me
with the information
skills I need in my work or
study.
Hidden text—Hidden text
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
FacultyFaculty
GraduateGraduate
UndergradUndergrad
ISUARL
Qualitative Data: Sample comments
Number: 61Date: 11:31 PM 3/28/2007 (CST)User Group: UndergraduateDiscipline: AgricultureLibrary Branch: Parks LibraryAge: 23-30Sex: FemaleKEYWORDS: HOURS; NOISE; CAFÉ; FOODComment:Call me a nerd, I would like the library to be open earlier on sun. Also more labeled quiet zones would be helpful. And more room to eat, drink, and socialize by bookend. I think bookends is a great addition to the library and has a great atmosphere, it would just be nice if I could take purchases out of bookend and into the rest of the library.
Qualitative Data (>50 user comments)
Qualitative Data (>50 user comments)
Qualitative Data (>50 user comments)
Qualitative Data (>20 user comments)
Qualitative Data (>10 user comments)
Qualitative Data (>5 user comments)Topic # of users
2007 (2005) (2003)
Collections-related 65 72 114
e-Library 50 64 39
Staff attitudes, behavior, & customer service 26 39 57
Building, furnishings, etc. 22 36 43
Instruction & instructional support 16 13 18
Library funding 13 15 11
ILL/DD 12 18 18
Hours 11 15 22
LibQUAL & library surveys 9 29 14
Noise & the study environment 9 22 55
Branch facilities 7 7 n/a
Services (gen'l) 7 13 n/a
Circulation services & policies 6 19 32
Reference 6 20 15
Café & food in the library 5 4 4
Media 5 4 n/a
Subject librarians 5 n/a n/a
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Collections-related)
Collections-related
Buy more journals!! Avoid cancellations; try to restore some journals that have previously been cut.
Improve remote access to all e-resources, but especially journals. Improve access to books
that are in high demand (and “never available…”)
More full-text journals, including back files.
Many suggestions and requests to purchase specific titles or materials in specific subject areas.
Repeated requests to add more “seats” for SciFinder Scholar.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(e-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc.)
E-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc.
Make the e-Library website more user-friendly. Improve the organization; make it less graphics-intensive.
Simplify searching for non-print media such as videos, DVDs, books-on-tape.
Make searching easier! Consider a search box on the e-Library home page.
Simplify remote access. Keep pursuing a “single sign-on.”
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Staff-related)
Staff-related
Majority of respondents see library staff as courteous, patient, helpful, dedicated, efficient.
A few respondents comment on the inconsistency of staff service: the mix of professional & unprofessional behaviors. Student workers can be “hit and miss…”
Still, a few respondents describe staff as “rude,” “not friendly,” or “lacking in customer service.”
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Building, equipment, furniture)
Building, furnishings, etc.
Many comment explicitly on their low use (or non-use) of the physical library. “I only need the Library’s website…” Some areas in the Parks
Library have poor ventilation, flickering fluorescent lights.
Several respondents like (and only one respondent dislikes) the new Bookends Café.
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Noise)
Noise and the study environment
Importance of the Parks Library and branch facilities as places to study.
Continue to control noise levels in the Library, and to provide adequate, separate, and well-designated spaces for both “quiet” and group study.
Unlike previous years, not a single comment about cell phones!
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Specific services)
Specific services
Circulation: Need continued review of Circulation and Collection Development policies (loan periods, purchase of multiple copies, etc.) to improve book availability.
Interlibrary Loan: Numerous respondents describe ILL as timely, efficient, and extremely valuable—lots of kudos to this service in 2007!
Instruction: Users need help in evaluating electronic resources. Distance learners need specialized assistance. Numerous requests for library seminars on specific topics.
Branches: A few users appeared to be unaware of the Vet Med Express delivery service.
Reproduction & reformatting: Need more and better services & equipment for copying, printing, and scanning. Try to contain costs!
Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Hours)
Hours; FundingSeveral requests for expanded hours, especially on weekends and during holiday and break periods.
Expanded hours are especially important to non-traditional students.
12 users comment on library’s budget constraints. Many admonish us to “keep pushing for funding…”
Next steps
• Share qualitative and quantitative data with appropriate library units, for analysis.
• Implement and document changes based on findings.
• Explore opportunities to compare findings with colleagues (GWLA, etc.)
• Repeat survey biennially (next in 2009) and watch the trajectories.
• Consider focus groups to explore areas of concern.
Recommendations
• Continue to acquire more e-journals, including backfiles, and make them accessible from both on and off campus.
• Review and act on respondents’ recommendations for specific material purchases (including SciFinder Scholar seats).
• Complete an overhaul of the e-Library website, including: more intuitive organization a homepage search box easier access to journals and journal articles (both print & electronic) easier access to non-print media (videos, DVDs, etc.)
• Improve library support for distance learning (including dedicated pages in the e-Library)
Recommendations (cont.)
• Review and act on respondents’ suggestions for specific instructional seminars and workshops in the coming year.
• Create additional quiet zones within the Parks Library.
• Use respondents’ comments/complaints regarding customer service to shape library staff development sessions in the coming year.
• Review and revise circulation and collection development policies to improve availability of “high demand” books.
• Publicize the Vet Med Express delivery service.
Top Related