Project URL – http://www.libqual.org/

TM

LibQUAL+™: An OverviewCASLIN

The Czech RepublicJune, 2006

Presented by:

Bruce Thompson

http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson

Total Circulation

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

Reference Transactions

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

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

PERCEPTIONS SERVICE

“….only customers judge quality;

all other judgments are essentially

irrelevant”

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

The LibQUAL+™ Premise

Multiple Methodsof 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 methodsNote. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000).

Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C.

13 LibrariesEnglish LibQUAL+™ Version

4000 Respondents

QUAL

QUAN

QUAL

QUAL

QUAN

QUAL

PURPOSE DATA ANALYSIS PRODUCT/RESULTDescribe library environment;build theory of library service quality from user perspective

Test LibQUAL+™ instrument

Refine theoryof service quality

Refine LibQUAL+™ instrument

Test LibQUAL+™ instrument

Refine theory

Unstructured interviewsat 8 ARL institutions

Web-delivered survey

Unstructured interviews at Health Sciences and the Smithsonian libraries

E-mail to surveyadministrators

Web-delivered survey

Focus groups

Content analysis:(cards & Atlas TI)

Reliability/validityanalyses: CronbachsAlpha, factor analysis,SEM, descriptive statistics

Content analysis

Content analysis

Reliability/validity analyses including Cronbachs Alpha,factor analysis, SEM, descriptive statistics

Content analysis

VignetteRe-tooling

Iterative

Emergent2000

2004315 Libraries English, Dutch, Swedish,

German LibQUAL+™ Versions160,000 anticipated respondents

LibQUAL+LibQUAL+™ Project™ Project

Case studies1

Valid LibQUAL+™ protocol

Scalable process

Enhanced understanding of user-centered views of service quality in the library environment2

Cultural perspective3

Refined survey delivery process and theory of service quality4

Refined LibQUAL+™ instrument5

Local contextual understanding of LibQUAL+™ survey responses6

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

“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

“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

“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

“…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

“22 items”

2000 2001 2002 200341-items 56-items 25-items 22-items

Affect of Service Affect of Service Service Affect Service Affect

Reliability Library as Place Library as Place Library as Place

Library as Place Reliability Personal ControlInformation Control

Provision of Physical Collections

Self-RelianceInformation Access

Access to Information

Access to Information

Survey Instrument

“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”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.

alpha By Language

By LanguageService Info. Lib as

Group n Affect Control Place TOTALAmerican (all) 59,318 .95 .91 .88 .96British (all) 6,773 .93 .87 .81 .94French (all) 172 .95 .90 .89 .95

alpha by University Type

By University TypeService Info. Lib as

Group n Affect Control Place TOTALComm Colleges 4,189 .96 .92 .89 .974 yr Not ARL 36,430 .95 .91 .88 .964 yr, ARL 14,080 .95 .90 .87 .96Acad Health 3,263 .95 .92 .90 .96 

Participating Libraries

World LibQUAL+™ Survey

Rapid Growth in Other Areas Languages

American English British English French Dutch Swedish

Consortia Each may create 5 local

questions to add to their survey

Types of Institutions Academic Health Sciences Academic Law Academic Military College or University Community College European Business Hospital Public State

Countries U.S., U.K., Canada, the

Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia

LibQUAL+™ Participants

12

43

164

316

206

255

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

LibQUAL+™ Implementation

Interpretation:Mean Perceived Scores (n=34)

6.0000

6.2000

6.4000

6.6000

6.8000

7.0000

7.2000

6.0000 6.2000 6.4000 6.6000 6.8000 7.0000 7.2000

2001 Data

2002 D

ata

LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesUndergraduates – American English

(n = 37,661)

LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesGraduates – American English

(n = 16,750)

LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesFaculty – American English

(n = 11,755)

LibQUAL+™ Resources

LibQUAL+™ Website:http://www.libqual.org

Publications: http://www.libqual.org/publications

Events and Training: http://www.libqual.org/events

Gap Theory/Radargraph Introduction: http://www.libqual.org/Information/Tools/libqualpresentation.cfm

LibQUAL+™ Procedures Manual: http://www.libqual.org/Manual/index.cfm

LibQUAL+™ ContactInformation Martha Kyrillidou

Senior Program for Office of Statistics and Measurement martha@arl.org

Mary Jackson LibQUAL+™ Services Manager mary@arl.org

MaShana Davis LibQUAL+™ Technical Communications Liaison mashana@arl.org

Richard Groves Statistics Research Assistant richard@arl.org