Transcript Slide 1

LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland:
five years experience
J. Stephen Town and Selena Lock,
Cranfield University
Summary
• The overall SCONUL experience
• Some detailed results and observations
• Some thoughts on the role of LibQUAL+ in
the context of ‘national’ academic library
measurement
The SCONUL Experience
Conclusions
• LibQUAL+ successfully applied to the UK &
Irish academic library sector (and beyond)
• Provided first comparative data on academic
library user satisfaction in the UK
• Twenty institutions have conducted repeat
surveys
• Substantial impact of the results within
institutions
Response Comparisons
•
SCONUL 2003
–
–
•
20 institutions
11,919 respondents
SCONUL 2004
–
–
16 institutions
16,611 respondents
•
•
16 institutions
17,355 respondents
•
•
• LibQUAL+ 2004
– 202 institutions
– 112,551 respondents
• Decrease by 16,407
• LibQUAL+ 2005
– 199 institutions
– 108,504 respondents
Increase by 744
SCONUL 2006
–
–
– 308 institutions
– 128,958 respondents
Increase by 4,692
SCONUL 2005
–
–
• LibQUAL+ 2003
20 institutions
19,108 respondents
• Increase by 1,753
• Decrease by 4,047
• LibQUAL+ 2006
–
–
298 institutions
176,360 respondents
• Increase by 67,856
Overall Potential UK Sample to 2007
•
•
•
•
•
Full variety of institutions
49% of institutions*
53% of HE students (>850,000)
36% of Libraries
45% of Library expenditure
*Based on Universities UK membership of 126
Detailed results and observations
Some questions?
• What is important to UK & Irish academic library
users and non-users?
• What do the SCONUL cohort results over the past
five years indicate about UK academic library
performance and the influence of survey use?
• How does this compare to US results?
• What does all this mean in the broader context of
library evaluation and quality development?
SCONUL Cohort priorities
Most Desired Aspects
Question text
Years appeared in
top 5 desired
Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office
5
Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work
4
A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own
5
The electronic information resources I need
4
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own
3
Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information
4
Least Desired Aspects
Years appeared in
Question text
bottom 5 desired
A comfortable and inviting location
5
Library staff who deal with users in
a caring fashion
Library staff who instil confidence
in users
5
Giving users individual attention
Space for group learning and group
study
5
5
4
Longitudinal Analysis
Data from 2003 to 2007 (Session 1)
Dimensions of Quality
Five-year analysis
Information Control
Affect of Service
Library as Place
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.00
7.00
Perceived Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Overall
6.50
Minimum Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
8.50
Perceived Mean
6.50
6.50
8.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
8.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
5.00
7.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mean
7.00
Perceived Mean
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.00
5.00
Overall
Perceived Mean
Affect of Service
Five-year analysis
Undergraduates
Postgraduates
Library Staff
Academic Staff
8.5
8.5
8.5
8
8
8
8
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7
7
6.5
7
Perceived Mean
6.5
Overall
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.5
Desired Mean
8.50
6
6
6
5.5
8.00
5.5
5.5
5.5
5
2007
5
7.50
2003
2004
Mean
7.00
2005
2006
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
2006
Perceived Mean
6.5
6
5
Minimum Mean
Mean
Desired Mean
7
Minimum Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
Mean
Mean
8.5
5
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Information Control
Five-year analysis
Undergraduates
Postgraduates
Academic Staff
Library Staff
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.00
8
8
8
7.50
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.00
7
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.5
Minimum Mean
Mean
Perceived Mean
6.5
7
Minimum Mean
Mean
Desired Mean
Overall
6.50
7
Minimum Mean
Mean
Mean
8.50
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.5
8.50
6.00
8.00
5.50
5.00
7.50
2003
2004
Mean
7.00
2005 2006
6
6
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
5
2007
2003
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
2006
5
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Library as Place
Five-year analysis
Postgraduates
Undergraduates
Academic Staff
Library Staff
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.00
7.00
6.50
Desired Mean
6.50
Overall
Perceived Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
7.00
Mean
Minimum Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
8.50
Desired Mean
6.50
6.00
8.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
8.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
Perceived Mean
7.502004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2003
7.00
Mean
5.00
Minimum Mean
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
Overall Five-Year Analysis by User Group
Undergraduates Overall
Postgraduates Overall
Library Staff Overall
8.5
8.5
8
8
8
8
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7
Desired Mean
Overall
6.5
8.50
6
8.00
5.5
7.50
2003
2004
7.00
2005
2006
Mean
7
Minimum Mean
Minimum Mean
7
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
Minimum Mean
7
Perceived Mean
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
5.5
2007
2003
2004
2005
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2006
5.5
2007
2003
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Mean
8.5
Mean
8.5
Mean
Mean
Academic Staff Overall
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
2006
5.5
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Radar Charts
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2007
Session 1
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2004
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2005
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2006
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2007
Session 1
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2004
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2005
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2006
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2007
Session 1
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2004
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2005
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2006
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2007
Session 1
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2004
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2005
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2006
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2007
Session 1
ARL College or University Summary 2004
ARL College or University Summary 2005
ARL College or University Summary 2006
US & UK Desired Comparisons
US Desired Comparisions - Affect of Service
UK Desired Comparisions - Affect of Service
8.20
8.20
8.00
US Desired Comparisions - Affect of Service
8.00
8.20
7.808.00
7.80
7.607.80
7.60
7.60
7.40
7.40
7.40
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.80
6.80
6.80
2003
2003
20042004
2005 2005
2006 2006
AS-1
Library
staff
confidence
AS-1 Library
staff
whowho
instillinstill
confidence
in users in users
2003
2004
2005
2006
AS-1
Library
who
instill
confidence
users
AS-2
Giving
usersinindividual
attention
AS-2
Givingstaff
users
individual
attention
AS-3
staff to
who
areReadiness
consistently
courteous
AS-4Library
Readiness
respond
to users' enquiries
AS-4
to
respond to users' enquiries
AS-6
Library
staff
who
deal
with
users
in
a
caring
fashion
Library staff who
have
the knowledge
to deal
answer
userusers
questions
AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user AS-5
questions
AS-6
Library
staff who
with
in a carin
AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users
AS-8
Willingness
to
help
users
AS-7
Library
staff
who
understand
the
needs
of
their
users
AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users
AS-8 Willingness to help users
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems
AS-9
Dependability
in handling users' service problems
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems
AS-3 Library
staff
whowho
are consistently
courteous
AS-3
Library
staff
are consistently
courteous
AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions
US Desired Comparisions - Information Control
UK Desired Comparisions - Information Control
UK Desired Comparisions - Information Control
8.50
8.50
0
8.40
8.40
0
8.30
8.30
8.20
8.20
0
IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible
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
0
8.10
8.10
8.00
8.00
0 7.90
7.90
0
0
0 7.80
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
7.80
2003
2003
2004 2004
2005
2005 2006
2003
2006
2004
2005
2006
IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible 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
US Desired Comparisions - Library as Place
UK Desired Comparisions - Library as Place
7.90
7.90
7.70
7.70
7.50
7.50
7.30
7.30
7.10
7.10
6.90
6.90
6.70
6.70
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning
LP-1 Library space
that inspires
study
and learning
LP-3 A comfortable
and inviting
location
LP-5 Space
for group
learning
and group study
LP-3 A comfortable
and
inviting
location
LP-5 Space for group learning and group study
2003
2004
2005
2006
LP-1 Library
LP-2 Quiet space for individual
workspace that inspires study and learning
LP-2
space
forA individual
work
LP-3
comfortable
and
inviting location
LP-4 A Quiet
haven for
study,
learning,
or research
LP-5
Space
for
group
learning
and group study
LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research
8.27
8.25
.245
8.27
US Desired Comparisions - Overall
UK Desired Comparisions - Overall
8.4
8.4
8.245
8.2
.84 8
8.25
8.27
8.27
8.2
8.01
7.99
8
7.99
7.81
7.797.96
7.78
7.84
7.8
7.8
7.78
7.79
7.81
7.64
7.676666667
7.59
7.6
7.59
7.63
7.64
7.58
7.58
7.64
7.617.6
.42
7.4
7.4
20032004
Affect of service
7.4
2004
2005 2005
Information Control
2006
2006
7.64
7.59
7.42
2003
Library as Place
Affect of service
7.59
Information Control
2004
2005
Affect of service
Library as Place
2006
Informa
Conclusions
The ‘national’ role for LibQUAL+?
Discussion
• National standardised comparative user
satisfaction & benchmarking
• ‘Globalisation’ and international
comparisons
• The Quality Assurance role
– The QA cycle
• The Impact & Value role
J. Stephen Town & Selena Lock
Correspondence to:
[email protected]
[email protected]