Transcript Library Assessment in North America

Library Assessment in
North America
Stephanie Wright, University of Washington
Lynda S. White, University of Virginia
American Library Association
Mid-Winter Conference
January 11, 2008
Association of Research Libraries Sessions
Background





May-June 2007
74 respondents (60%)
85% from US academic libraries
12% from Canadian academic
libraries
3% from public libraries
In the beginning…
20
18
18
17
16
14
11
12
10
9
8
6
4
4
2
2
0
<1980
1980-84
1985-89
1990-94
1995-99
2000>
Impetus for Assessment
Desire to know more about your customers
91.3%
Investigation of possible new library services or
resources
71.0%
Desire to know more about your processes
65.2%
Desire to identify library performance objectives
62.3%
Need to reallocate library resources
55.1%
Accountability requirements from your parent institution
37.7%
Institutional or programmatic accreditation process
29.0%
Other (please specify)
23.2%
Proposal from staff member with assessment
knowledge
17.4%
Assessment Methods
% Used
Currently
% Used
Previously
Statistics gathering (e.g., e-resource usage, gate counts,
ARL statistics, etc.)
98.6%
1.4%
Suggestion Box
82.2%
8.2%
Web usability testing
80.8%
12.3%
User interface usability
78.1%
12.3%
Surveys developed elsewhere (e.g., CSEQ, LibQUAL+®)
75.3%
20.5%
Focus Groups
69.9%
21.9%
Data mining and analysis
58.9%
8.2%
Facilities use studies
56.2%
30.1%
Statistics inventory
54.8%
12.3%
Student learning outcomes evaluations
54.8%
15.1%
Interviews
52.1%
30.1%
Online user feedback (pop-up windows, etc.)
52.1%
24.7%
Observation
50.7%
30.1%
Benchmarking
50.7%
15.1%
Locally designed user satisfaction survey
49.3%
42.5%
Areas Assessed: >80%
Website
100.0%
Electronic Resources
98.4%
User Instruction
97.6%
Collections
97.6%
Reference
96.0%
Online Catalog
94.6%
Facilities
94.0%
Circulation/Reserve
93.8%
Interlibrary Loan
93.4%
Branch Libraries
88.5%
Digital Initiatives
85.7%
Shelving
84.8%
Acquisitions
84.5%
Selectors/Subject Liaisons
81.8%
Cataloging
80.5%
Areas Assessed: <80%
Staff Training/Development
79.8%
Special Collections
77.9%
IT Systems
76.7%
Preservation
74.0%
Work Climate
69.3%
Other
57.1%
Administration
56.3%
Financial/Business Services
52.9%
Development/Fundraising
45.5%
Human Resources
43.1%
Publicity/Marketing
37.3%
Responsibility for Assessment
35.00%
30.00%
30.00%
25.00%
18.57%
20.00%
17.14%
15.71%
15.00%
12.86%
10.00%
5.71%
5.00%
0.00%
Other
Part-time
Coordinator
Standing
Committee
Full-time
Coordinator
Department
Ad hoc
Committee
Growth of Assessment
14
Ad Hoc Committee (4)
Number of programs
12
10
12
Part-time Coordinator (13)
10
Full-time Coordinator (11)
9
Department (9)
8
Standing Committee (12)
7
6
4
4
4
2
1
1 1
0
1980s
1990s
2000s
Importance of Assessment
Full-time
Reporting Levels
Part-time
60.00%
Dept Head
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 Level
2 Levels
3 Levels
Assessment Tasks
Analyzes, interprets, and reports on data collected in
assessment activities
95.9%
Consults with staff on assessment methods and needs
93.9%
Performs assessment activities
87.8%
Monitors/coordinates assessment projects throughout the
library
77.6%
Coordinates collection of data across the library
75.5%
Submits external surveys (ARL, ALS, NATC, American Library
Directory, etc.)
69.4%
Coordinates the reporting/archiving of the library’s statistical
data
67.3%
Fills requests for library data
67.3%
Provides training on assessment topics
55.1%
Other (please specify)
26.5%
Approves assessment projects throughout the library
24.5%
Distribution of Results
Library
Staff
Parent
Institution
General
Public
Web site
81%
58%
57%
Library newsletter articles
65%
51%
39%
Print reports (e.g., annual
report)
71%
57%
26%
Presentations
84%
46%
16%
E-mail announcements
84%
23%
6%
Campus newsletter articles
23%
45%
20%
6%
0%
0%
Other
Assessment Website Content
answer options
Staff-only
Website
Publicly
Accessible
Website
N
General library statistics
69%
53%
71
Analysis of assessment activity
results
62%
47%
63
Assessment data
55%
28%
48
Presentations
52%
31%
48
Publications
34%
43%
45
Online assessment tools (e.g.,
surveys)
45%
21%
38
Links to other library
assessment sites or
information
38%
22%
35
Coordination with Other Units
Full-time
Part-time
Department
Standing
Committee
Ad hoc
Committee
Yes
72.73% 8 69.23% 9 88.89% 8 41.67% 5 75.00% 3
No
27.27% 3 30.77% 4 11.11% 1 58.33% 7 25.00% 1
Training for Assessment
answer options
%
N
Yes, support is given for training
provided outside of our
institution
61.8%
42
Yes, support is given for training
provided by our parent
institution
32.4%
22
No, there is no particular
training provided
29.4%
20
Yes, training is provided by the
library
27.9%
19
Training Programs
answer options
%
N
Assessment methods
58.33%
14
Basic statistics
45.83%
11
Survey construction
45.83%
11
Value of assessment
41.67%
10
Data analysis
37.50%
9
Other (please specify)
29.17%
7
Data presentation
29.17%
7
Sampling techniques
25.00%
6
Report writing
12.50%
3
Assessment Networking
% Who Have
Attended
% Who
Recommend
Venue
ARL assessment-related meetings
83.6%
100.0%
Library Assessment Conference
(e.g., Charlottesville 2006)
58.2%
100.0%
Other
20.9%
100.0%
ALA/LAMA sessions/discussion
groups on assessment
52.2%
97.1%
ALA/ACRL sessions/discussion
groups on assessment
59.7%
92.5%
Northumbria International
Conferences on Performance
Measurement in Libraries
16.4%
90.0%
Evidenced-Based Library and
Information Practice Conference
16.4%
81.8%
Culture of Assessment
% Agreeing at 4 or 5 (1-5 scale)
Library administrators are committed to supporting
assessment
79.4%
Assessment results are used to improve my library
76.5%
Assessment is evident in our library planning documents such
as the strategic plan
73.5%
My library evaluates its operations and programs for service
quality
72.1%
Assessment is a library priority
67.6%
My library has local assessment resources and experts
50.0%
There is support and/or rewards for staff who engage in
assessment activities
42.6%
Staff accepts responsibility for assessment activities
30.9%
Staff have the necessary assessment expertise and skills
19.1%
Staff development in assessment is adequate
16.2%
Assessment Plans
%
N
No, the library has no
assessment plan
53.7%
36
Yes, the library has a librarywide assessment plan
29.9%
20
Yes, the library has an
assessment plan for some
departments/units
19.4%
13
Yes, the library has an
assessment plan for every
department/unit
4.5%
3
Outcomes
Website
31
49%
Facilities
23
37%
Collection Development
19
30%
Services
17
27%
Access Services
14
22%
Hours
14
22%
Web

Redesign




Usability
Content
Online catalog (29%)
Methods



LibQUAL / surveys (26%)
Usability studies (16%)
Focus groups / interviews (10%)
Facilities

Changing spaces





Expanding / renovating old spaces
Creating new spaces
Repurposing
Branch closures / consolidations
Methods


LibQUAL / surveys (35%)
Focus groups / interviews (17%)
Services

Getting out there




Going virtual
Liaisons
Quality of service
Methods



Surveys
Reference stats
Focus groups / interviews
Collection Development

Focusing the collection




Going “e”
Cancellations/subscriptions
Subject areas
Methods



Usage stats (26%)
Surveys
Focus groups / interviews
Everything Else

Hours



Extended – during interims/finals
LibQUAL/surveys, focus groups & gate
counts
Access Services




Processes – circ & shelving
ILL / document delivery
Off-site storage
Surveys, stats
Everything Else


Organizational Development (16%)
Equipment (13%)





Computers
Photocopy / print
Training (14%)
Instruction (6%)
Marketing (5%)
ARL SPEC Kit 303
Stephanie Wright
University of Washington
[email protected]
Lynda S. White
University of Virginia
[email protected]