Project URL – http://www.libqual.org/

TM

LibQUAL+™ IntroductionSeattle / LondonJanuary, 2007

Presented by:

Colleen CookBruce Thompson

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

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.

Participating Libraries

World LibQUAL+™ Survey

Premises

Three Seminal Quotations

PERCEPTIONS SERVICE

“….only customers judge quality;

all other judgments are essentially

irrelevant”

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

LibQUAL+™ Premise #1

LibQUAL+™ Premise #2

“Il est plus nécessaire d'étudier

les hommes que les livres”

—FRANÇOIS DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD

“We only care about the things we measure.”

--Bruce Thompson, CASLIN, 2006

LibQUAL+™ Premise #3

Extended GAPS ModelOrganizational Barriers to SQ Customers’ Assessment of SQ

Poor UpwardCommunication

Poor HorizontalCommunication

Poor Tech - JobFit

Perception ofInfeasibility

GAP 1

GAP 2

GAP 3

GAP 4

GAP 5

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

Tangibles

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

“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

Interpreting Service Quality Data

Three Interpretation Frameworks

Benchmarking Against Peer Institutions

--1,000,000 Users; 1,000 Institutions!

NORMS! NORMS! NORMS!

Interpretation Framework #1

Score Norms

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

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

Institutional Norms for PerceivedMeans on 25 Core Questions

Note: Thompson, B. LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Selected Norms, (2002).

Benchmarking Against Self, Longitudinally

“Nobody is more like me than me!”--Anonymous

Interpretation Framework #2

Interpreting Perceived Scores Against Minimally-Acceptable and Desired

Service Levels (i.e., “Zones of Tolerance”)

Interpretation Framework #3

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/Information/Manual/index.cfm