LibQUAL+ ® : The UK and Irish Experience

LibQUAL+®: The UK and Irish ExperienceSelena KillickLibrary Quality Officer, Cranfield University

J. Stephen TownDirector of Information, The University of York

&

Consortium Composition

RLUK23%

Pre-199231%

Post-199230%

HE col-leges3%

Irish Repub-

lic14%

LibQUAL+® Participants by HE Sector

RLUK Pre-1992 Post-1992 HE colleges0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

57% 55% 33%7%

LibQUAL+® Libraries by HE Sector

LibQUAL+ Libraries Non-LibQUAL+ Libraries

Russell Group27%

1994 Group30%

Uni-versity

Al-liance16%

Million+27%

LibQUAL+® Participants by Mission Group

Russell Group 1994 Group University Alliance Million+0

5

10

15

20

25

30

60% 68%30%

44%

LibQUAL+® Libraries by Mission Group

LibQUAL+ Libraries Non-LibQUAL+ Libraries

Annual19%

Biannual49%

Three-yearly19%

Other14%

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Repeat Par-ticipation

Expectations

Highest DesiredID Question Desire

d (2011.5)

Years in Top 5

IC-1Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 8.27 9

IC-8Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 8.10 8

IC-2A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 8.09 9

LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 8.04 1IC-7

Making information easily accessible for independent use 8.02 2

Least DesiredID Question Desire

d (2011.5)

Years in Bottom 5

AS-2 Giving users individual attention 6.84 9

LP-5Space for group learning and group study 7.23 9

AS-1

Library staff who instill confidence in users 7.48 8

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems 7.73 3

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning 7.77 2

Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

6.50

6.60

6.70

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Dimension Minimum Mean Comparisons

Minimum Mean 2004 Minimum Mean 2011.5

Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall7.50

7.60

7.70

7.80

7.90

8.00

8.10

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Dimension Desired Mean Comparisons

Desired Mean 2004 Desired Mean 2011.5

5.005.405.806.206.607.00

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Increasing Minimum Expectations

Minimum Mean 2004 Minimum Mean 2011.5

7.707.807.908.008.10

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Decreasing Desired Expectations

Desired Mean 2004 Desired Mean 2011.5

Perceptions

SCONUL Overall 2011.5

SCONUL Overall 2004

Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

6.80

7.00

7.20

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Dimension Perceived Mean Comparisons

Perceived Mean 2004 Perceived Mean 2011.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011.55.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Overall 2004 - 2011.5

Minimum Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011.55.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Affect of Service 2004 - 2011.5

Minimum Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011.55.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Information Control 2004 - 2011.5

Minimum Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011.55.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

SCONUL LibQUAL+® Library as Place 2004 - 2011.5

Minimum Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean

Comparisons

Dimension Summary

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

SCONUL Overall2004

ARL Overall 2004 SCONUL Overall2011.5

ARL Overall 2011.5

Mea

n Sc

ore

SCONUL & ARL Comparisons: 2004 – 2011.5Dimension Summary

Affect of Service

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

SCONUL Affect ofService 2004

ARL Affect of Service2004

SCONUL Affect ofService 2011.5

ARL Affect of Service2011.5

Mea

n Sc

ore

SCONUL & ARL Comparisons: 2004 – 2011.5Affect of Service

Information Control

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

SCONUL InformationControl 2004

ARL InformationControl 2004

SCONUL InformationControl 2011.5

ARL InformationControl 2011.5

Mea

n Sc

ore

SCONUL & ARL Comparisons: 2004 – 2011.5Information Control

Library as Place

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

SCONUL Library asPlace 2004

ARL Library as Place2004

SCONUL Library asPlace 2011.5

ARL Library as Place2011.5

Mea

n Sc

ore

SCONUL & ARL Comparisons: 2004 – 2011.5Library as Place

National Student Survey ComparisonsAspiring to be “Good Enough”

NSS LQ+ Overall Perceived0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4.06

6.79

4.10

6.76

4.04

6.70

National Student Survey Compared to LibQUAL+®

2008 2009 2010

Mea

n

2008 2009 20105.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

4.004.054.104.154.204.254.304.354.404.454.50

4.06 4.14.04

SCONUL LibQUAL+® & NSS Comparisons

NSS LQ+ Minimum LQ+ Desired LQ+ Perceived

LibQUAL+® Results in Action

£14 million improvement programme now underway at St. Andrews to renovate

the Library, expand the collection and increase

study space.

The Library is one of the most oppressively depressing locations on the face of the earth; its ugly décor and offensive lighting gnaw at the

soul and the carpeting is an invitation to madness

• Secured additional funding to increase resources• Improved liaison with Academic staff regarding

recommended readings• Increased e-books where possible• Increased journal subscriptions• Implemented cross-searching database• Improved Library Website• Developed online information literacy tool• Improved help provision via 24/7 Chat

cooperative

• Added /enhanced computing, printing and photocopying facilities

• Upgraded catalogue only ‘quick search stations’• Introduced express PCs – maximum login time of

20 minutes• Increased Study Space• Reduced access to external visitors at busy times• Introduced a study area for researchers• Introduced/improved study zones to control noise• Improved temperature and ventilation

National OutcomesLibraries are being transformed into rowdy social spaces… many of the

changes have had unfortunate – even disastrous – consequences for the

place of libraries in university scholarship and study.

Response published in the next edition of THE from SCONUL

outlining that LibQUAL+® results show that academic staff

perceptions of library buildings are the highest they’ve ever been.

Sharpe, K. 2009. Quiet, please. Times Higher Education . 5 November. [Available Online].

Conclusions

Conclusions•Greater use of LibQUAL+ by Pre-1992

Universities•Biannual participation for ~half of users•Expectations rising in most areas•Perceptions rising also•Not quite as good as ARL•LibQUAL+ provides more information than

NSS•LibQUAL+ helps Libraries to develop and

improve services•The carpet at St. Andrews used to be

mental!

Acknowledgements•Amanda Conway, Dorothy Vuong, Karen

Ready, Jacqui Dowd, John MacColl and the rest of the SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

•The ARL LibQUAL+ Participants•SCONUL Working Group on Performance

and Quality•Martha, Bruce, Colleen, David and the rest

of the LibQUAL+ team

Thank you!Selena Killicks.a.killick@cranfield.ac.ukTel: +44(0)1793 785561

J. Stephen TownDirector of Information, The University of York