Transcript New Ways of Listening To Our Users: LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s What Is LibQUAL+ ?     Web-based tool for assessing library service quality. A tool for.

New Ways of Listening
To Our Users:
LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s
What Is LibQUAL+ ?




Web-based tool for assessing library
service quality.
A tool for identifying areas for service
improvement
Developed and refined over 5 years,
200,000+ respondents, 400+ institutions
Based on ServQual. 15 years of research
and application at Texas A&M, etc.
How Does LibQUAL+ Measure
Quality?



Rating of services in context
Based on users’ and non-users’
perceptions and expectations
Gap analysis between perceived
level of service, and minimum and
desired service level
Comparison with other libraries, past
years & developing norms
Why LibQUAL+?

Quick, easy and inexpensive
 Web based survey administered by Association of
Research Libraries (ARL); data collected & analyzed by
expert LibQUAL+ staff

Allows Library to see relationship to academic
libraries across North America over time

Complement other local assessments

Starting point to identify best practices in
providing library service
LibQUAL+ 2004
Survey Specifics



202 institutions from North America,
Europe & Australia - including 57 ARL
Libraries & consortia
9 Canadian institutions: Alberta, Calgary,
McGill, Montreal, Queen’s, UNB, Western,
Windsor, York
113,000 respondents
LibQUAL+
Spring 2004 Survey




22 service quality survey questions
5 optional “local” questions
Demographic & usage questions
One open comments box
Service Quality Dimensions
Library
Service
Quality
Affect of Service
Empathy
Library as Place
Utilitarian Space
Responsiveness
Symbol
Assurance
Refuge
Reliability
Information Control
Scope of
collections
Ease of Navigation
Convenience
Timeliness
Modern Equipment
Survey - Sample Section
When it comes to…
My Minimum
Service Level
Is
My Desired
Service Level
Is
N/A
low …… high
Perceived
Service
Performance
Is
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
Rating user expectations
Service Adequacy Gap =
Perceived Score – Minimum Score
Desired level
of service
or
Value
Queen’s 2004 Results
The Results are a measure of
perceived service quality in
relation to user expectations for
that service or library facility.
Comparative results can tell us
Where we need to focus our
attention to improve services.
A low score compared to other peer
libraries, points to a potential area
for improvement.
Comparative results told us
Users priorities and service
expectations are strikingly
consistent among the institutions
participating in the 2004 survey.
Queen’s top 5 & bottom 5 rated
questions were identical to the
average ARL top & bottom 5.
Population for Queen’s Survey

Total initial sample: 5,450
 All
full time-faculty: 850
 Random stratified sample of:
 3,000 full-time undergraduates
 1000 full-time graduates
 600 staff
Survey Respondents
Analyses based 773 completed valid user
surveys – excludes library staff. The
respondent population was largely
representative of the overall population
distribution.
Respondent Comments
361 respondents (45%) filled in the
comments box
 Provides context & detail for survey scores
 Loaded into a database to facilitate analysis
http://db.library.queensu.ca/libqual/
 Summary of general comments
+ Actions taken/planned
http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual/results2004.htm

Frequency of Use
At least once a week, respondents used:



Library premises: 56%
Library resources sites: 76%
Google or other non-library
gateway: 90%
67% use Google, etc. daily!
Undergrads use the library (63%) & its resources
(67%) with similar frequency
Overall 2004 Ratings
Queen’s exceeded ARL average
1st among Canadian participants
Strengths:
 Library as Place
 Service by library staff (Affect of Service)
Most needed improvements:
 Collections & access to information
(Information Control)
Library as Place
Highly rated as:
A comfortable and inviting location
Higher use = Lower rating

Most important to undergrads
Library as Place
Concerns/Challenges:
Lack of seating during exams, insufficient and
old computer equipment, insufficient printers,
expensive copying/printing charges, need for
longer hours, and for more variety of study
space (quiet spaces, discussion spaces,
informal spaces, etc.)
Affect of Service
Highly rated for:
Employees who deal with users in a
caring fashion

More knowledgeable users rate
customer service more highly (get
more out of these services)
Affect of Service
Challenges to Libraries:

Promote the value of instructional
services to the community

Reaching out to users who don’t/won’t
come to training sessions or the
reference desk
Information Control

Faculty most dissatisfied; low negative
rating

Undergraduates are most satisfied;
positive rating almost matches overall
ARL rating.

Humanities/Social Sciences users
generate low service rating across all
user groups.
Information Control
System-wide Challenges:
 Market existing services and collections more
effectively

Easier access to library resources from the
desktop; maximize existing resources

Improve electronic & print collections:
boost weak collections/reinforce strong ones
LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline

To Date:
 Report and consultation plan discussed at
Management Team and AUL Forum
 Report and plan distributed to all staff


All-Staff information sessions, Oct. 4 & 7 /04
Units and functional teams, Oct. 12-Nov. 5 /04
Meetings of individual units and functional teams
identify the issues in their areas of responsibilities
and recommend appropriate actions.

AUL Forum, Nov. 8 /04
Review responses, fill in gaps & adjust overlaps and
contradictory directions
LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline

Management Team, January – March /05
Reviewed the compilation of issues and objectives in
developing the 2005/06 Budget Report. Compiled and
approved action items prepared by the functional teams
and units.
Roll Out to Public


Two articles for The Gazette & The Journal
 1st Summary of Results [Oct. 2004]
 2nd Survey Results piece incorporating actions
planned & taken to improve services [April 2005]
Survey results published on the Library’s LibQUAL+
web site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm
Queen’s LibQUAL+ Web Site
http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm