1 / 17

Using LibQUAL+™ Results Observations from ARL Program “Making Library Assessment Work”

Using LibQUAL+™ Results Observations from ARL Program “Making Library Assessment Work”. Steve Hiller University of Washington Libraries ARL Visiting Program Officer 2004-06. Making Library Assessment Work: Practical Approaches for Developing and Sustaining Effective Assessment.

trevor-camacho
Télécharger la présentation

Using LibQUAL+™ Results Observations from ARL Program “Making Library Assessment Work”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using LibQUAL+™ ResultsObservations from ARL Program “Making Library Assessment Work” Steve Hiller University of Washington Libraries ARL Visiting Program Officer 2004-06

  2. Making Library AssessmentWork:Practical Approaches for Developing and Sustaining Effective Assessment • 2 year ARL project to assist libraries with moving assessment efforts forward • Led by Steve Hiller (UW) and Jim Self (UVa) • Recognition that libraries understand value of assessment but have trouble sustaining efforts and using results • Site visits conducted to evaluate assessment and develop practical approaches to effective local practices • Identify common barriers and facilitators to assessment • 7 libraries participating in Phase I Spring 2005; 12-14 during 2005-06 academic year; final report in 2006

  3. Phase I Libraries and Latest LibQUAL+™ Survey • Spring 2005 Participants Latest Survey Year • University of Arizona 2004 (2005 too) • Arizona State University 2004 • University of Connecticut 2004 • University of Illinois U-C 2002 • New York University 2002 • University of Notre Dame 2002 • University of Oregon 2005

  4. Using LibQUAL+™ ResultsSome General Observations • Response numbers low, especially for faculty • Comparisons important • Between internal group • By academic area • Peer institutions • Over time • Uncertain how to analyze • Uncertain how to follow-up unless very negative • Difficulty in using for planning and decision-making • Comments help tell the story and pinpoint problems

  5. SIZE MATTERS! Maximize the Number of Survey Responses

  6. LibQUAL+ ™ Number of Survey Respondents by Group

  7. Respondent Composition by Selected Academic Area & Group 2003-04 - University “Z”

  8. Some Complementary Information • Fine Arts/Architecture libraries “temporarily” merged • Budget reductions impacted collections and staff • Book budget cut • Some hours reduced in branch libraries • Comments corroborated the above as important concerns for faculty and graduate students

  9. University “X” Peer Comparisons

  10. University “X” Overall Library Quality:Mining the Data - Faculty Frequency Responses By Area

  11. Likes Librarian liaisons***** ILL** Concerns Copiers Loan periods/renewals Print collection (Faculty) Journal collection (Faculty) Noise Student assistants Off-campus online access Web site University “X” Comments

  12. Service Adequacy Gaps by DimensionUniversity “X”Undergrads by Year in School

  13. Information Control “Y”/ARL Adequacy Gaps By Group 2005

More Related