Intro Bern

Slide1: 

LibQUAL+®: An Introduction Bern, Switzerland July 9, 2007 PRESENTED BY: Martha Kyrillidou Association of Research Libraries www.libqual.org

Overview: 

Overview Introduction and Overview LibQUAL+® in the UK Research Foundations Qualitative Process Quantitative Evidence The Survey Process General Discussion and Q&A

World LibQUAL+® Survey: 

World LibQUAL+® Survey

Rapid Growth in Other Areas: 

Rapid Growth in Other Areas Languages American English British English Chinese (2007) French Dutch Swedish Norwegian Finnish Danish Consortia Each may create 5 local questions to add to their survey Countries Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UAE, U.K., U.S. Types of Institutions Academic Health Sciences Academic Law Academic Military College or University Community College Electronic European Business Family History FFRDC High School (2007) Hospital National Health Service England Natural Resources New York Public Public Smithsonian State University/TAFE

LibQUAL+® Participants: 

LibQUAL+® Participants * 2007 data reflects Session I data only

LibQUAL+® First Year Participants: 

LibQUAL+® First Year Participants * 2007 data reflects Session I data only

LibQUAL+® Surveys by Type: 

LibQUAL+® Surveys by Type

LibQUAL+® Languages: 

LibQUAL+® Languages

Surveys by Session: 2004-2006: 

Surveys by Session: 2004-2006

Survey methods used in the UK: 

Survey methods used in the UK West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys Source: Stephen Town, Paris, March 22-23, 2007

The UK approach: 

The UK approach Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Working Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI) 2003 - 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions 2004 -17 UK & Irish HE institutions 2005 - 16 UK & Irish HE institutions 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions 2007 – 22 UK & Irish HE institutions 62 different institutions Source: Stephen Town, Paris, March 22-23, 2007

Response Comparisons: 

Response Comparisons SCONUL 2003 20 institutions 11,919 respondents SCONUL 2004 16 institutions 16,611 respondents Increase by 4,692 SCONUL 2005 16 institutions 17,355 respondents Increase by 744 SCONUL 2006 20 institutions 19,108 respondents Increase by 1,753 LibQUAL+ 2003 308 institutions 128,958 respondents LibQUAL+ 2004 202 institutions 112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 LibQUAL+ 2005 199 institutions 108,504 respondents Decrease by 4,047 LibQUAL+ 2006 298 institutions 176,360 respondents Increase by 67,856 Source: Stephen Town, Paris, March 22-23, 2007

SCONUL Response by User Group 2006: 

SCONUL Response by User Group 2006

SCONUL Response by Discipline 2006: 

SCONUL Response by Discipline 2006

Respondent Comparisons: 

Respondent Comparisons Glasgow University 2006 = 1,535 2005 = 1,384 2004 = 2,178 2003 = 503 London South Bank University 2006 = 700 2005 = 766 2004 = 568 2003 = 276 Source: Stephen Town, Paris, March 22-23, 2007

General findings: 

General findings Highly desired Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Print and/or electronic journals I require for my work A haven for study, learning or research Lowest Library staff who instil confidence in users Giving users individual attention Space for group learning and group study Source: Stephen Town, Paris, March 22-23, 2007

Free Text Comments Received: 

Free Text Comments Received Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368 Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161 Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342 Source: Stephen Town, Paris, March 22-23, 2007

Why LibQUAL+?: 

Why LibQUAL+? Benchmarking Cost effectiveness Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+ Fast delivery of results Support available, especially regarding analysis of results Trialling alternative survey methods More library focused than previous in-house method Planned institutional survey failed to happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap. Source: Stephen Town, Paris, March 22-23, 2007

Research Foundations: 

Research Foundations

Total Circulation: 

Total Circulation Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

Reference Transactions: 

Reference Transactions Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

Assessment: 

Assessment “The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable—i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution. Librarians have either made do with oversimplified national data or have undertaken customized local evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been devised an effective way to link the two.” Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996

Multiple Methodsof Listening to Customers: 

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.

Premises: 

Premises Three Seminal Quotations

LibQUAL+™ Premise #1: 

PERCEPTIONS SERVICE “….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press. LibQUAL+™ Premise #1

LibQUAL+™ Premise #2: 

LibQUAL+™ Premise #2 “Il est plus nécessaire d'étudier les hommes que les livres” —FRANÇOIS DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD

LibQUAL+™ Premise #3: 

“We only care about the things we measure.” --Bruce Thompson, CASLIN, 2006 LibQUAL+™ Premise #3

Dimensions: 

Dimensions

Survey Structure (Detail View): 

Survey Structure (Detail View)

Interpreting Service Quality Data: 

Interpreting Service Quality Data Three Interpretation Frameworks

Interpretation Framework #1: 

Benchmarking Against Peer Institutions --1,000,000 Users; 1,000 Institutions! NORMS! NORMS! NORMS! Interpretation Framework #1

Score Norms: 

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

Interpretation Framework #2: 

Benchmarking Against Self, Longitudinally “Nobody is more like me than me!” --Anonymous Interpretation Framework #2

Interpretation Framework #3: 

Interpreting Perceived Scores Against Minimally-Acceptable and Desired Service Levels (i.e., “Zones of Tolerance”) Interpretation Framework #3

“22 Items and The Box….”: 

“22 Items and The Box….” Why the Box is so Important About 40% of participants provide open-ended 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.

“…and Five Ancillary Items”: 

“…and Five Ancillary Items” Either Zero or Five Ancillary items are selected to address local or consortial concerns Items from the initial LibQUAL+TM item pool. Items written by previous consortial groups.

Qualitative Grounding: 

Qualitative Grounding

Premise for Mixed-Methods: 

Premise for Mixed-Methods “The underlying premise of mixed-method inquiry is that each paradigm offers a meaningful and legitimate way of knowing and understanding” (p. 7). Note. Greene, J.C. and Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method valuation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

LibQUAL+ Process: 

LibQUAL+ Process SERVQUAL dimensions served as a priori theoretical starting point

Slide45: 

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 76 Interviews Conducted

Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality: 

Dimensions of Library Service Quality

Slide49: 

“You put a search on a book and it’s just gone; it’s not reacquired. … There’s more of a problem of lost books, of books that are gone and nobody knows why and nobody’s doing anything about it.” Faculty member Reliability

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 Affect of Service

Ubiquity of Access: 

“Over time my own library use has become increasingly electronic. So that the amount of time I actually spend in the library is getting smaller and the amount of time I spend at my desk on the web … is increasing.” Faculty member Ubiquity of Access

Comprehensive Collections: 

“I think one of the things I love about academic life in the United States is that as a culture…, we tend to appreciate the extraordinary importance of libraries in the life of the mind.” Faculty member Comprehensive Collections

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 Library as Place

Library as Place: 

“I guess you’d call them satisfiers. As long as they are not negatives, they won’t be much of a factor. If they are negatives, they are a big factor.” Faculty member Library as Place

Library as Place: 

“The poorer your situation, the more you need the public spaces to work in. When I was an undergraduate, I spent most of my time in the library, just using it as a study space.” Faculty member Library as Place

Self-reliance: 

“…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 Self-reliance

Self-reliance: 

“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 Self-reliance

Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality: 

Dimensions of Library Service Quality

Slide59: 

Dimensions of Library Service Quality

Core Items and Dimensions: 

Core Items and Dimensions 22 core items (i.e., questions) Three dimensions: Affect of Service – 9 questions Information Control – 8 questions Library as Place – 5 questions

Understanding a Radar Chart: 

Understanding a Radar Chart

Key to Radar Charts: 

Key to Radar Charts

Radar Chart Basics: 

Radar Chart Basics

Understanding Thermometer Charts: 

Understanding Thermometer Charts

Dimension Summary: 

Dimension Summary

Library Use Question (Unified): 

Library Use Question (Unified)

2006 LibQUAL+® Highlights: Overall: 

2006 LibQUAL+® Highlights: Overall

Qualitative Analysis: User Comments: 

Qualitative Analysis: User Comments About one-half of users include comments on their surveys User Comments available on the LibQUAL+ ® Web site Download comments in Excel or text file Skim the comments Conduct Atlas.ti analysis

General Discussion and Q&A: 

General Discussion and Q&A

Summary and Closure: 

Summary and Closure

LibQUAL+® Resources: 

LibQUAL+® Resources LibQUAL+® Web site: http://www.libqual.org Publications: http://www.libqual.org/publications Events and Training: http://www.libqual.org/events Gap Theory/Radar Graph Introduction: http://www.libqual.org/Information/Tools/libqualpresentation.cfm LibQUAL+® Procedures Manual: http://www.libqual.org/Publications/index.cfm

Contact LibQUAL+® : 

Contact LibQUAL+® Martha Kyrillidou Director, Statistics and Service Quality Programs martha@arl.org MaShana Davis Technical Communications Liaison mashana@arl.org Kristina Justh Customer Relations Coordinator kristina@arl.org Gary Roebuck Technical Operations Manager gary@arl.org Selena Lock, Research and Development, Cranfield University