Transcript Slide 1

TM
8th International
Bielefeld Conference
Academic Library and Information Services:
New Paradigms for the Digital Age
Bielefeld, Germany
February 8, 2006
Presented by:
Dr. Colleen Cook, Dean
Texas A&M University
&
Dr. Fred Heath, Vice Provost of General Libraries
University of Texas
Project web site – www.arl.org/libqual/
Why Assess?
“In an age of accountability, there is a pressing
need for an effective…process to evaluate and
compare research libraries.”
 700 participants in LibQUAL+™
 123 Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
alone, over $3.4 billion dollars were expended in
2003/2004
Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2005).
ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.5.
Libraries Remain a Credible
Resource in 21st Century
98% agree with statement, “My … library
contains information from credible and
known sources.”
Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information
Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.
Changing Behaviors
Recent Survey:
Only 15.7% agreed with the statement “The
Internet has not changed the way I use the
library.”
Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information
Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.
Faculty: Dependence on
Electronic Resources Will Increase
“I will become increasingly dependent on electronic research resources in the future.”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Not Well
Somewhat
Very Well
10%
0%
2000
2003
http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/144/guthrie_files/guthrie.ppt
Research Behavior:
Personal Control
When searching for print journals for
research:
• Only 13.9% ask a librarian for assistance
• Only 3.2% consider consulting a librarian a preferred
way of identifying information
Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information
Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.
Total Circulation
600000
550000
500000
450000
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
19
91
400000
Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2005). ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.6.
Reference Transactions
170000
160000
150000
140000
130000
120000
110000
100000
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
19
91
90000
Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2005). ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.6.
Web Usage
Total File Requests - UT Austin Libraries 2000-2003
900,000,000
800,000,000
700,000,000
600,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
0
Total Hits
2000
2001
2002
2003
Enter LibQUAL+™

The necessity of assessment

Rapid shifts in information-seeking behavior

The reallocation of resources from traditional
services and functions
The LibQUAL+™ Premise
PERCEPTIONS
SERVICE
“….only customers judge quality;
all other judgments are essentially
irrelevant”
Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999).
Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.
13 Libraries
English LibQUAL+™ Version
4000 Respondents
Emergent
2000
QUAL
PURPOSE
Describe library
environment;
build theory of library
service quality from
user perspective
LibQUAL+™ Project
DATA
Unstructured interviews
at 8 ARL institutions
ANALYSIS
Content analysis:
(cards & Atlas TI)
PRODUCT/RESULT
Case studies1
Valid LibQUAL+™ protocol
LibQUAL+™
QUAN Test
instrument
Web-delivered survey
Reliability/validity
analyses: Cronbachs
Alpha, factor analysis,
SEM, descriptive statistics
Scalable process
Enhanced understanding of
user-centered views of service
quality in the library
environment2
QUAL
Refine theory
of service quality
Unstructured interviews at
Health Sciences and the
Content analysis
Smithsonian libraries
Cultural perspective3
QUAL
Refine LibQUAL+™
instrument
E-mail to survey
administrators
Content analysis
Refined survey delivery
process and theory of service
quality4
QUAN
Test LibQUAL+™
instrument
Web-delivered survey
Reliability/validity analyses
including Cronbachs Alpha,
factor analysis, SEM,
descriptive statistics
Refined LibQUAL+™
instrument5
Focus groups
Content analysis
QUAL Refine theory
Iterative
2005
700 Libraries English, Dutch, Swedish,
German LibQUAL+™ Versions
160,000 anticipated respondents
Vignette
Re-tooling
Local contextual
understanding of
LibQUAL+™ survey
responses6
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
Library Service Quality
Library
Service
Quality
Information
Control
Affect of Service
Empathy
Scope of Content
Responsiveness
Convenience
Assurance
Reliability
Ease of Navigation
Library as Place
Utilitarian space
Symbol
Refuge
Model 3
Timeliness
Equipment
Self-Reliance
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
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
Information 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
Information 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
Multiple Methods
of 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.
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 a expert team, re-grounded
SERVQUAL concepts, and designed survey
methodology

Survey conducted at over 700 libraries resulting in a
data base of over half a million user responses

NSF funded project to refocus LibQUAL+™ on the
National Science Digital Library (NSDL)
World LibQUAL+™ Survey 2005
Participating Libraries
LibQUAL+™ Languages
American English
French Canadian
Swedish
British English
Afrikaans
Dutch English
Dutch
Continental French
Swedish
(British English)
German
Norwegian
Finnish
Danish
Rapid Growth in Other Areas

Languages






American English
British English
French
Dutch
Swedish
Types of Institutions







In development




Chinese
Greek
Spanish
German




Countries


Consortia

Each may create 5 local
questions to add to their
survey
Academic Health Sciences
Academic Law
Academic Military
College or University
Community College
European Business
Hospital
Public
State
U.S., U.K., Canada, the
Netherlands, South Africa,
Sweden, France, Australia,
New Zealand, Malaysia
“22 items”
2000
2001
2002
2003
41-items
56-items
25-items
22-items
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Service Affect
Service Affect
Reliability
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Reliability
Personal Control
Information
Control
Provision of
Physical
Collections
Self-Reliance
Information
Access
Access to
Information
Access to
Information
Survey Instrument
“And a Box”
Why the Box is so Important

About 40% of participants provide openended comments, and these are linked to
demographics and quantitative data.

Users elaborate the details of their
concerns.
Users feel the need to be constructive in
their criticisms, and offer specific
suggestions for action.

Understanding LibQUAL+™
Results
•
Measures the distance between minimally
acceptable and desired service quality
ratings
•
Perception ratings ideally fall within the
Zone of Tolerance
Key to Bar Charts
LibQUAL+™ 2004 Summary Colleges
or Universities American English
(n = 69,449)
OVERALL
A getaway
for study,
A quiet space
for individual
Dependability
in handling
Employees
who
Knowledgable
employees
Employees
who are
Employees
who instill
Information
easily
Modern
equipment
Print library
materials
Remote
access to
Adequacy Gap
The difference between the minimum and perceived score
The difference between the minimum and perceived score.
Adequacy Gap
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
LibQUAL+™
0.60
UT Austin
0.40
ARL
Peers
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
Score Norms

Norm Conversion Tables facilitate the
interpretation of observed scores using norms
created for a large and representative sample.

LibQUAL+™ norms have been created at both
the individual and institutional level
LibQUAL+™ Interactive
Institution Statistics
YEAR (REQ.) – defaults to
current year of the survey;
controls the Master List (dynamic)
1)
User selects an institution from the Master
List, the selection is then added to “Your
List”. To avoid duplicate choices, the
selection from the Master List will
disappear once added to “Your List”.
All
Master List of
Institutions
Your List
Other parameters can be added below
(institution type, language, consortia, and/
or SAVED LISTS).
Clear
Text here stating that this section is optional and may be
added to “Your List” to narrow down results.
INSTITUTION TYPE
Consortia,
based on
current year;
dynamic
LANGUAGE
CONSORTIA
SAVED LISTS
2)
SAVE
ADD
Language (s) will be
determined based on
selection (s) from the Master
List of Institutions; dynamic
ADD
ADD
Text box for user to name
and save search parameters
for future searches.
ADD
• OVERALL – defaults to OVERALL
• Dimension (3)
4 items
included in this
drop-down
menu
min
des
per
adeq
sup
SUBMIT
VARIABLES - Default to
perceived
Results Page: This page generates a graph,
Summary Statistics, Your Statistics, and Norms
(including users’ norm values); restates information
entered into the form
In Closing LibQUAL+™

Focuses on success from the users’ point of view
(outcomes)

Demonstrates that a web-based survey can
handle large numbers; users are willing to fill it
out; and survey can be executed quickly with
minimal expense

Requires limited local survey expertise and
resources

Analysis available at local and inter-institutional
levels

Offers many opportunities for using demographics
LibQUAL+™ Resources

LibQUAL+™ Website:
http://www.libqual.org

Publications:
http://www.libqual.org/publications

Events and Training:
http://www.libqual.org/events

LibQUAL+™ Bibliography:
http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib

LibQUAL+™ Procedures Manual:
http://www.libqual.org/Information/Manual/index.cfm
LibQUAL+™
Contact Information

Amy Hoseth



Richard Groves



Statistics Research Assistant
[email protected]
MaShana Davis



LibQUAL+™ Communications Coordinator
[email protected]
Junior Technical Applications Developer
[email protected]
Martha Kyrillidou


Director, ARL Statistics and Measurement Program
[email protected]
https://webspace.utexas.edu/fh355/www/
- 30 -