1 Project web site Evaluating Library Service Quality: Use of LibQUAL+ IATUL Kansas City, MO June...

1Project web site www.arl.org/libqual/

Evaluating Library Service Quality: Use of LibQUAL+

IATUL • Kansas City, MO • June 2002Julia Blixrud • Association of Research Libraries

2

Opportunities and Pressures

• Increasing demand for libraries to demonstrate outcomes/impacts in areas of importance to institution

• Increasing pressure to maximize use of resources through benchmarking resulting in:– Cost savings– Reallocation

3

The Problem of Assessment in Research Libraries

• The lack of metrics

• ARL Membership Criteria Index variables emphasize inputs, primarily expenditures

• No demonstrable relationship between expenditures and service quality

• To rise in the ARL Membership Criteria Index it is only necessary to spend more

4

ARL New Measures Initiative

• Collaboration among member leaders with strong interest in this area

• Specific projects developed with different models for exploration

• Intent to make resulting tools and methodologies available to full membership and wider community

5

LibQUAL+™ Description

LibQUAL+TM is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create useful quality-assessment tools for local planning.

6

LibQUAL+™ Project Goals

• Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL

• Development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality

• Development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries

• Identification of best practices in providing library service

7

Project Resources

LibQUAL+TM is an ARL/Texas A&M University joint effort. The project is supported in part by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE).

8

Theory of Service Quality: SERVQUAL

•A. Parasuraman

•L. Berry

•V. Zeithaml

1985

9

Relationships: Perceptions, Service Quality and Satisfaction

….only customers judge quality;all other judgments are essentiallyirrelevant”

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

10

Survey Instrument

11

12

LibQUAL+LibQUAL+TM TM ParticipantsParticipants

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Spring 2001Spring 2000 Spring 2002

12 Participants

43 Participants

164 Participants

13

14

15

16

17

18

Dimensions of LibraryService Quality

Affect of Service

Empathy

Information Access

Personal Control

Responsiveness

Symbol

Utilitarian space

Assurance

Content/Scope

Timeliness

Convenience

Library as Place

LibraryServiceQuality

Refuge

Reliability

Ease of Navigation

Convenience

Modern Equipment

19

Affect of Service

• Emerged as the dominant factor early in our work

• Absorbed several of the original SERVQUAL questions measuring Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy

• In the current analysis also includes Reliability

• The Human Dimension of Service Quality

20

Library as Place

• Transcends the SERVQUAL dimension of Tangibles to include the idea of the library as the campus center of intellectual activity

• As long as physical facilities are adequate, library as place may not be an issue

21

Personal Control

• How users want to interact with the modern library

• Personal control of the information universe in general and web navigation in particular

Access to Information

• Ubiquity of access: information delivered in the format, location and time of choice

• Comprehensive collections

23

Project Deliverables

Print and web-based results include:– Aggregate Summaries – Demographics by Library– Item Summaries– Dimension Summaries– A copy of the survey instrument– Dimensions measured for survey

implementation

24

Project Deliverables

Radar Graph

25

26

27

28

Interpretation Frameworks

• Zone of tolerance

• Score norms

29

Zone of Tolerance

• The area between minimally acceptable and desired service quality ratings

• Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance

30

31

Score Norms

• Norm Conversion Tables facilitate the interpretation of observed scores using norms created for a large and representative sample.

• LibQUAL+TM norms have been created at both the individual and institutional level

32

Score Norms: An Example

1 9552 3 4 6 7 86.556.55

Only 27% ofall institutionsOnly 27% of

all institutions

33

LibQUAL+™ Fundamental Contributions to the Measurement of Effective Delivery

of Library Services

• Shift the focus of assessment from mechanical expenditure-driven metrics to user-centered measures of quality

• Re-ground gap theory for the library sector, especially academic libraries

• Determine the degree to which information derived from local data can be generalized, providing much needed “best practices” information

• Demonstrate the efficacy of large-scale administration of user-centered assessment transparently across the web

34

NSF Grant

• Assess service quality in digital libraries

• 3 year period

• Adopt LibQUAL+ instrument for use in the Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Education Digital Library community (NSDL)

35

LibQUAL+TM Team

ARL

• Duane Webster

• Martha Kyrillidou

• Kaylyn Hipps

• Julia Blixrud

• Jonathan Sousa

• Consuella Waller

TAMU

• Fred Heath

• Colleen Cook

• Bruce Thompson

• Yvonna Lincoln

• Trey Thompson

• Julie Guidry

36

LibQUAL+TM Related Documents

• LibQUAL+TM Web Site http://www.arl.org/libqual/

• LibQUAL+TM Bibliographyhttp://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib

• Survey Participants Procedures Manual

http://www.arl.org/libqual/procedure/lqmanual2.pdf