What is LibQUAL + ?

1. What is LibQUAL+? • Large-scale, web-based, user-centered assessment of library service effectiveness across multiple institutions. • Co-developed by ARL and Texas A&M University, 1999 • Responds to the increasing pressure for libraries to develop more outcomes-based assessment efforts, instead of relying merely on input or resource metrics. • Supported in part by a 3-year, $498,000 FIPSE grant; sustained by participant fees.

2. What is LibQUAL+?(The “Gap Theory” model and 4 dimensions of service quality) • Grounded in the “Gap Theory” of Service Quality; addresses a set of four service dimensions: • Access to Information—timely and convenient access to information resources: local & remote, print & electronic, general and special. • Affect of Service—knowledge, courtesy, and responsiveness of employees; their ability to instill confidence; their willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. • Library as Place—a library space that is quiet, comfortable, and conducive to study and learning, for individuals as well as groups. • Personal Control—modern equipment, easy to use access tools, and a website that allow users to locate information independently, both within the Library and from remote locations.

3. The goals of LibQUAL+ • Foster a culture of excellence and continuous improvement in providing library service; • Provide libraries with comparable assessment information from peer institutions; • Identify best practices in library service; and • Enhance library staff members’ analytical skills for interpreting and acting on data.

4. Overall project timeline • Phase 0 (2000): Pilot; 12 ARL libraries survey 5,000 users • Phase 1 (2001): 43 ARL libraries survey 34,000 users • Phase 2 (2002): 164 libraries (incl. OhioLINK, AAHSL) test a shorter, more refined instrument (25 questions); 78,000 respondents • Phase 3 (2003): End of FIPSE grant; final revisions to instrument. 308 libraries (incl. international) and 125,000 respondents

5. Who participated in 2003?(Groups & consortia) • Association of Research Libraries (66 members) • New York Reference and Research Resources System (76, incl. 71 college/university libraries & 5 public libraries) • OhioLINK (45) • Network of Alabama Academic Libraries (9) • Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (21) • Oberlin Libraries Group (12) • Military Education & Research Library Network (5) • Society of College, National, & University Libraries (20) [UK & Ireland; includes Glasgow University]

6. Who participated in 2003?(ARL Libraries) 66 ARL libraries, including… U. of Hawaii at Manoa U. of Houston U. of Kansas U. of Kentucky U. of Manitoba U. of Maryland U. of Minnesota U. of Missouri-Columbia U. of Nebraska, Lincoln U. of New Mexico U. of Pittsburgh U. of South Carolina U. of Texas at Austin U. of Washington Virginia Tech Washington State U. Wayne State U. Arizona State U. West Boston College Brigham Young U. Case Western Reserve Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Emory University George Washington U. Georgia Tech Iowa State University Kent State University Louisiana State University McGill University New York State Library Ohio State University Stony Brook University Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University U. Laval U. at Albany U. of Alabama U. of Alberta U. of Arizona U. of California, Davis U. of California, Irvine U. of California, L.A. U. of Cincinnati U. of Florida U. of Guelph

7. Who participated in 2003?(GWLA Libraries) 16 libraries from the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA), including… Arizona State U. West Baylor University Brigham Young U. Colorado State University Iowa State University U. of Nebraska, Lincoln U. of New Mexico U. of Texas at Austin U. of Washington Washington State University Oregon State University Texas A&M University U. of Arizona U. of Houston U. of Kansas U. of Missouri-Columbia

8. Checklist of local activities • Gather random sample (1,200 u-grads; 800 grads; 800 faculty) • Prepare website to manage publicity, communication, etc. • Send “pre-survey” message from Dean (March 25) • Send email with imbedded URL for online survey (March 30) • Send 2 reminders from the Dean (April 3 & 8) • Survey closes on April 11, 2003 • Announce incentive prize winners (May 19)

9. 648 of the 2,800 users surveyed (23.1%), including: 250 of the 800 faculty surveyed (31.3%) 202 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (25.2%) 196 of the 1,200 undergrad students surveyed (16.3%) Who responded at ISU?(Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads) Among the 66 ARL libraries participating in 2003, ISU ranked 13th in the number of surveys completed!

10. Who responded at ISU?(By age & Sex) Age Sex 3% 25.2% 25.2% 25.9% 40.9% 59.1% 25.7% 63.7% 20.2%

11. Who responded at ISU?(Frequency of library use) I use the library electronically… I use the library on premises… 3.4% 1.4% 8.3% 10% 19.2% 14.3% 22.4% 37.5% 38.5% 45%

12. Who responded at ISU?(e-Library vs. Google use) I use the library electronically… I use GoogleTM, etc. for info… 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 10% 6.1% 19.2% 22.4% 60.1% 27.1% 45%

13. Sample Survey

14. Dimension 1: Access to Information

15. Dimension 2:Affect of Service

16. Dimension 3:Library as Place

17. Dimension 4:Personal Control

18. Addendum:General Satisfaction

19. Addendum:Information Literacy Questions

20. Sample spider graph = Minimum Question 1 = Perceived = Desired Question 5 Question 2 Question 4 Question 3

21. Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Aggregate data (all ARL universities, all users) D P Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work M Text box

22. Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty)(Graph) ARL ISU Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work Text box Community space for group learning and study

23. Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty)(Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service: Difference between perceived and desired service:

24. Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Undergraduates(Graph) ARL ISU Text box Text box

25. Comparison: Undergraduates(Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

26. Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Graduate Students(Graph) ARL ISU Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Text box Community space for group learning/study.

27. Comparison: Graduate Students (1)(Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

28. Comparison: Graduate Students (2)(Table) Difference between perceived and desired service:

29. Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Faculty(Graph) ARL ISU Journal collections (print / electronic) I need for my work Electronic info resources I need Printed library materials I need for my work Journal collections (print / electronic) I need for my work Making e-resources accessible from home or office Library website enabling me to locate info on my own Community space for group learning and study Quiet space for individual activities Community space for group learning and study

30. Comparison: Faculty (1)(Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

31. Comparison: Faculty (2)(Table) Difference between perceived and desired service:

32. Conclusions… Conclusions: Areas of strength Areas of strength…

33. Conclusions… Conclusions: Areas of strength Areas of strength… Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS).

34. Conclusions… Conclusions: Areas of challenge Areas of strength… Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS). Areas of challenge… Areas of challenge lie in Access to Information (AI) and Personal Control (PC).

35. General Satisfaction Questions (1) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

36. General Satisfaction Questions (2) In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs. In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

37. General Satisfaction Questions (3) In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs. How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

38. Information Literacy Questions (1) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

39. Information Literacy Questions (2) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

40. Information Literacy Questions (3) The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits. The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

41. Information Literacy Questions (4) The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits. The library helps me distinguish trustworthy /untrustworthy information. The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

42. Information Literacy Questions (5) The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits. The library helps me distinguish trustworthy /untrustworthy information. The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study. The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

43. Qualitative Data: Sample comments Number: 6 Date: 12:03 AM 3/31/2003 C.S.T. User Group: Undergraduate Discipline: Science / Math Library Branch: Parks Library Age: 18 - 22 Sex: Female KEYWORDS: ILL/DD Comment: I was shocked to find such fast delivery for journal articles I have requested.

44. Qualitative Data (50+ user comments) # of users Topic

45. Qualitative Data (20-49 user comments) # of users Topic

46. Qualitative Data (10-19 user comments) # of users Topic

47. Qualitative Data (1-9 user comments) # of users Topic

48. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Collections-related) Collections-related More journals! Grow the journal collection, avoid cuts, & stand strong against coercive publishers. More full-text journals, including back files. Improve remote access to e-resources, especially journals. Many comments and suggestions regarding specific subject areas, titles, etc.

49. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Staff-related) Staff-related Vast majority of respondents see library staff as uniformly courteous, friendly, helpful. Still, some respondents (c.5) see staff as unfriendly, rude, disinterested, dismissive. Several respondents comment on the inconsistency of staff service: the mix of professional & unprofessional behaviors. Perceived lack of knowledge (on part of some staff) results in time delays and lots of referrals. Several individual staff singled out for praise or criticism.

50. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes…(Noise) Noise, individual/group study, etc. Importance of the library as a study hall. Many users currently find the library a “wonderful environment for study,” individually or in groups. Especially conducive to quiet study: the Periodical Room and the branches. Vast majority of comments indicate that the Parks Library is too noisy. There is a need for designated “silent zones,” and for more group study rooms that are isolated and/or soundproofed to minimize disruption to others. Occasionally, it’s the library staff who are talking too loudly!