REPORT - University of Namibia€¦ · LibQUAL+® 2012 Survey Results - University of Namibia 1 Introduction 1.1 Acknowledgements This notebook contains information from the 2012

LibQUAL+® 2012 Survey Results - University of Namibia

2012 SURVEY

Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University www.libqual.org

R E P O R T

ANALYSIS OF UNAM LIBRARY SERVICE USERS

SATISFACTION

August 2013 Data Analyst Consultant:

Dr Mitonga Kabwebwe Honoré

University of Namibia

Tel: +264 (0)612065013 Fax: + 264 (0) 61206 5093 Email: [email protected]

Qualitative Data Analysis by:

Irmela Pfohl

HOD: TECHNICAL SERVICES

Office of the Librarian

University of Namibia

Tel: 061-2063870

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.libqual.org/

mailto:[email protected]


A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

We would like to thank all UNAM Library users who participated in the survey, the key informants and questionnaire

respondents for their openness and honesty in contributing to this external evaluation and for their generosity in

giving-up their precious time in which to do this.


E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y The report presents the investigation of the current importance the UNAM Library holds for its users.

Methods

This survey used the LibQual+ instrument to explore overall use r satisfaction. The LibQual+ instrument is a

survey questionnaire conducted by many universities worldwide to evaluate university libraries and reveal

users’ perspectives on the quality of service provided.

In LibQual+ the service quality has three dimensions or attributes, which are “Affect Service”, “Library as a

Place” and “Information Control”. In this survey the three dimensions were considered and an additional

dimension of “Local Questions” was added. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis was used.

Findings:

All these four dimensions “Affect Service”, “Library as a Place” and “Information Control” and “Local

Questions” have a significant effect on overall users’ satisfaction. The top ten important service quality features

ranked as minimum expectations of the users were:

- Adequate hours of service,

- Access to photocopying and printing facilities,

- A comfortable and inviting location,

- Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own,

- Library space that inspires study and learning,

- Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions,

- A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own,

- Making information easily accessible for independent use,

- Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed informatio n,

- A haven for study learning or research.

For all users, the top ten important features ranked as desired expectations of the service users:

- Adequate hours of service,

- Library space that inspires study and learning,

- Access to photocopying and printin g facilities,

- Quiet space for individual work,

- Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information,

- A comfortable and inviting location,


- A haven for study learning or research,

- A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own,

- The electronic information resources I need,

- Library staff that have the knowledge to answer user questions.

The above statements on features ranking indicate that services features related to all the dimensions Local Questions

dimension, Library as a Place dimension, Information Control dimension and Affect Service dimension are considered as

important by the library users.

Furthermore the perceived importance of the service quality dimensions significantly differs among the

categories of users - undergraduates, postgraduates, academic staff, library staff, and administrative staff.

Based on the results and suggestions from the library service users, the critical areas or issues affecting the

library service quality and the satisfaction by the servic e users, the library needs to improve the following:

- Customer care, good interpersonal relationship and communication skills by some of the library staff

- Access to electronic resources

- Library instruction and training

- Effective photocopying facilities

- Working Student Computer equipment

- Appropriate space for different categories of users, particularly for postgraduate students.

- Library opening hours

- Noise free facilities

- Library security

- Fast and effective Internet connectivity Areas for which the library is doing well:

The survey indicated that not all library users are dissatisfied with the library services. Some users

appreciated and praised the library services rendered to them. The following aspects, though found negative

by others, were noted as areas where the library is doing well:

- Access to both electronic and printed materials

- General library services

- Useful student computers

Library users identified a range of enablers and barriers that have impact on the service provided by the Library:


Enablers Barriers

- Flexibility in scheduling of opening hours

- updated library collection

- Skills, knowledge and expertise of library staff members

- Customer care

- Users's friendly library system

- Clear instructions on how to maintain the library quiet

- Staff transfers and attrition

- Variable internet access

- Lack of skills of some library staff members

- Lack of customer care

- Lack of appropriate space

- Computer Viruses

In order to improve the service quality and maintain the level quality achieved, it is suggested that the

library in different campuses be evaluated regularly to see if the manpower, the resources are effective or

not.


T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................................5

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................................6

Table Of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................9

Library Statistics For University Of Namibia ..............................................................................................................2

Scope ..........................................................................................................................................................................5

Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................................6

Service Quality And Library Quality ........................................................................................................................6

Customer Satisfaction .............................................................................................................................................6

Methodology...............................................................................................................................................................8

Qualitative Analysis .................................................................................................................................................9

Data Analysis and Results .........................................................................................................................................10

Interpretation of Results...........................................................................................................................................12

Minimum Expectations .........................................................................................................................................12

Users’ Desired Expectations ..................................................................................................................................14

Minimum, Desired And Perceived Users’ Desired Expectations On Service Quality Dimensions ........................14

Core Question Dimensions Summary ..................................................................................................................19

Local Question Summary .....................................................................................................................................20

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary .....................................................................................21

Overall Customers’ Satisfaction Rates ......................................................................................................................22

Customers’ Satisfaction Rates Related To The Overall Affect Of Service .............................................................25

Customers’ Satisfaction Rates Related To The Overall Information Control........................................................28

Customers’ Satisfaction Rates Related To The Overall Library As A Place ...........................................................31

Customers’ Satisfaction Rates Related To The Local Questions Dimension .........................................................34

Access To Archives And Special Collections ......................................................................................................35

Access To Photocopying And Printing ...............................................................................................................37

Adequate Hours Of Service ...............................................................................................................................40

An Electronic Catalog Where It's Easy To Identify Printed And Electronic Documents Offered By My

Institution ..........................................................................................................................................................43

Library Staff Teaching Me How To Effectively Use The Electronically Available Databases, Journals, And

Books .................................................................................................................................................................46

Satisfaction To Library Ict Services ....................................................................................................................49

Core Questions Summary For Undergraduate .........................................................................................................52


Qualitative Analysis For Undergraduate Students Library Users..........................................................................58

Postgraduate Summary For University Of Namibia .................................................................................................70

Core Questions Summary For Postgraduate ........................................................................................................70

Core Question Dimensions Summary For Postgraduate ....................................................................................72

Local Question Summary For Postgraduate ....................................................................................................73

Postgraduate Students Library Users .......................................................................................................................73

Qualitative Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................76

Academic Staff Summary For University Of Namibia ..............................................................................................83

Core Questions Summary For Academic Staff ......................................................................................................83

Local Question Summary For Academic Staff .....................................................................................................86

Conclusion And Key Recommendations .................................................................................................................109

References ..............................................................................................................................................................111


1 Introduction

1.1 Acknowledgements

This notebook contains information from the 2012 administration of the LibQUAL+® protocol. The material on the

following pages is drawn from the analysis of responses from the participating institutions collected in 2012.

The LibQUAL+® project requires the skills of a dedicated group. We would like to thank several members of the

LibQUAL+® team for their key roles in the development of this service. From Texas A&M University, the qualitative

leadership of Yvonna Lincoln has been key to the project 's integrity. The behind-the-scenes roles of Bill Chollet and

others from the library Systems and Training units were also formative in the early years. From the Association

of Research Libraries, we are appreciative of the past contributions of Consuella Askew, MaShana Davis, Richard

Groves, Kaylyn Groves, Amy Hoseth, Kristina Justh, Mary Jackson, Jonathan Sousa, and Benny Yu.

A New Measures initiative of this scope is possible only as the collaborative effort of many libraries . To the

directors and liaisons at all participating libraries goes the largest measure of gratitude.Without your commitment,

the development of LibQUAL+® would not have been possible. We would like to extend a special thank you to all

administrators at the participating consortia and libraries that are making this project happen effectively across

various institutions.

We would like to acknowledge the role of the Fund for the Improvement of Post -secondary Education (FIPSE), U.S.

Department of Education, which provided grant funds of $498,368 over a three-year period (2001-03). We would

also like to acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) for its grant of $245,737 over a

three-year period (2002-04) to adapt the LibQUAL+® instrument for use in the science, math, engineering, and

technology education digital library community, a project known as DigiQUAL. We would like to express our

thanks for the financial support that has enabled the researchers engaged in this project to exceed all of our

expectations in stated goals and objectives and deliver a remarkable assessment tool to the library community.

Colleen Cook David Green

McGill University Association of Research Libraries

Fred Heath Martha Kyrillidou

University of Texas Association of Research Libraries

Bruce Thompson Gary Roebuck

Texas A&M University Association of Research Libraries


1.2 LibQUAL+®: A Project from StatsQUAL®

I would personally like to say a word about the development of LibQUAL+® over the last few years and to thank

the people that have been involved in this effort. LibQUAL+® would not have been possible without the many

people who have offered their time and constructive feedback over the years for the cause of improving library

services. In a sense, LibQUAL+® has built three kinds of partnerships: one between ARL and Texas A&M

University, a second one among the participating libraries and their staff, and a third one comprising the thousands

of users who have provided their valuable survey responses over the years.

LibQUAL+® was initiated in 2000 as an experimental project for benchmarking perceptions of library service

quality across 13 ARL libraries under the leadership of Fred Heath and Colleen Cook, then both at Texas A&M

University Libraries. It matured quickly into a standard assessment tool that has been applied at more than 1,000

libraries. Through 2010, we have had 1,492 surveys implemented in over 20 countries, 20 language translations,

and well over 1 million surveys. About 40% of the users who respond to the survey provide rich comments about

the ways they use their libraries.

There have been numerous advancements over the years. In 2005, libraries were able to conduct LibQUAL+® over

a two session period (Session I: January to May and Session II: July to December). The LibQUAL+® servers were

moved from Texas A&M University to an external hosting facility under the ARL brand known as StatsQUAL® .

Through the StatsQUAL® gateway we will continue to provide innovative tools for libraries to assess and manage

their environments in the coming years. In 2006, we added an experimental version of the LibQUAL+ ® Analytics

(for more information, see Section 1.6). Between 2007 and 2010 we incorporated additional languages including non-

roman languages like Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, and Japanese.

In 2008, we started experimenting with a new technology platform that incorporates many desired enhancements and

tested a shorter version of the LibQUAL+® survey known as LibQUAL+® Lite. In 2010, we launched the new

platform in our operational environment after researching extensively the LibQUAL+® Lite behavior [see:

Kyrillidou, M. (2009). Item Sampling in Service Quality Assessment Surveys to Improve Rates and Reduce

Respondent Burden: The 'LibQUAL+® Lite' Randomized ControlTrial (RCT) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

<https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14570/Kyrillidou_Martha.pdf?sequence=3>].

In 2010, we introduced a participation fee that rewards systematic periodic participation in LibQUAL+® in a way

that the implementation fee gets reduced when a library implements the protocol on an annual or biennial basis. In

2011, we introduced a Membership Subscription fee to support access to the data repository for those years that

libraries do not implement a survey and for future enhancement of LibQUAL+ ® Analytics.

LibQUAL+® findings have engaged thousands of librarians in discussions with colleagues and ARL on what these

findings mean for local libraries, for their regions, and for the future of libraries across the globe. Consortia have

supported their members’ participation in LibQUAL+® in order to offer an informed understanding of the changes

occurring in their shared environment. Summary highlights have been published on an annual basis showcasing the

rich array of information available through LibQUAL+®:

LibQUAL+® 2011 Survey Highlights

<http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/LibQUALHighlights2011_Full.pdf>

<http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/LibQUALHighlights2011_Full_Supplement.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/LibQUALHighlights2010_Full.pdf>

<http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/LibQUALHighlights2010_Full_Supplement.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2009_Full.pdf>

<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2009_Full_Supplement.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2008_Full1.pdf>

http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14570/Kyrillidou_Martha.pdf?sequence=3

http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/LibQUALHighlights2011_Full.pdf


http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/LibQUALHighlights2011_Full_Supplement.pdf




http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2009_Full.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2009_Full_Supplement.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2008_Full1.pdf


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2008_Full_Supplement1.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2007_Full1.pdf>

<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/2007_Highlights_Supplemental.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2006.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights20051.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/ExecSummary%201.3.pdf>


<http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/ExecSummary1.1_locked.pdf>

Summary published reports have also been made available:

<http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/libqualpubs/index.shtml>

The socio-economic and technological changes that are taking place around us are affecting the ways users interact

with libraries. We used to think that libraries could provide reliable and reasonably complete access to published

and scholarly output, yet we now know from LibQUAL+® that users have an insatiable appetite for content. No

library can ever have sufficient information content that would come close to satisfying this appetite.

The team at ARL and beyond has worked hard to nurture the community that has been built around LibQUAL +®.

We believe that closer collaboration and sharing of resources will bring libraries nearer to meeting the ever changing

needs of their demanding users. It is this spirit of collaboration and a willingness to view the world of libraries as

an organic, integrated, and cohesive environment that can bring forth major innovations and break new ground.

Innovation and aggressive marketing of the role of libraries in benefiting their communities strengthen libraries.

In an example of collaboration, LibQUAL+® participants are sharing their results within the LibQUAL+®

community with an openness that nevertheless respects the confidentiality of each institution and its users.

LibQUAL+® participants are actively shaping our Share Fair gatherings, our in-person events, and our

understanding of how the collected data can be used. LibQUAL+® offers a rich resource that can be viewed using

many lenses, should be interpreted in multiple ways, and is a powerful tool libraries can use to understand their

environment.

LibQUAL+® is a community mechanism for improving libraries and I hope we see an increasing number of

libraries utilizing it successfully in the years to come. I look forward to your continuing active involvement in

helping us understand the many ways we can improve library services.

With warm regards,

Martha Kyrillidou, PhD

Senior Director, ARL Statistics and Service Quality Programs

Association of Research Libraries

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2008_Full_Supplement1.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2007_Full1.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/2007_Highlights_Supplemental.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights2006.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/LibQUALHighlights20051.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/ExecSummary%201.3.pdf

http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/ExecSummary1.1_locked.pdf

http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/libqualpubs/index.shtml

http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/libqualpubs/index.shtml


1.3 LibQUAL+®: Defining and Promoting Library Service Quality

What is LibQUAL+®?

LibQUAL+® is a suite of services that libraries use to solicit, track, understand, and act upon users’ opinions of

service quality. These services are offered to the library community by the Association of Research Libraries

(ARL).The program’s centerpiece is a rigorously tested Web-based survey paired with training that helps libraries

assess and improve library services, change organizational culture, and market the library. The survey instrument

measures library users’ minimum, perceived, and desired service levels of service quality across three dimensions:

Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as Place. The goals of LibQUAL+® are to:

• Foster a culture of excellence in providing library service

• Help libraries better understand user perceptions of library service quality

• Collect and interpret library user feedback systematically over time

• Provide comparable assessment information from peer institutions

• Identify best practices in library service

• Enhance library staff members’ analytical skills for interpreting, and acting on data

Since 2000, more than 1,000 libraries have participated in LibQUAL+®, including college and university libraries,

community college libraries, health sciences libraries, academic law libraries, and public libraries---some through

various consortia, others as independent participants. LibQUAL+® has expanded internationally, with participating

institutions in Africa, Asia, Australia and Europe. It has been translated into a number of languages, including

Afrikaans, Chinese (Traditional), Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Norwegian,

Spanish, Swedish, and Welsh. The growing LibQUAL+® community of participants and its extensive dataset are

rich resources for improving library services.

How will LibQUAL+® benefit your library?

Library administrators have successfully used LibQUAL+® survey data to identify best practices, analyze deficits,

and effectively allocate resources. Benefits to participating institutions include:

• Institutional data and reports that enable you to assess whether your library services are meeting user

• expectations

• Aggregate data and reports that allow you to compare your library’s performance with that of peer

• institutions

• Workshops designed for LibQUAL+® participants

• Access to an online library of LibQUAL+® research articles

• The opportunity to become part of a community interested in developing excellence in library services

LibQUAL+® gives your library users a chance to tell you where your services need improvement so you can respond

to and better manage their expectations. You can develop services that better meet your users’ expectations by

comparing your library’s data with that of peer institutions and examining the practices of those libraries that are

evaluated highly by their users.

How is the LibQUAL+® survey conducted?

Conducting the LibQUAL+® survey requires little technical expertise on your part. Use our online Management

Center to set up and track the progress of your survey. You invite your users to take the survey by distributing the

URL for your library’s Web form via e-mail or posting a link to your survey on the library’s Web site.Respondents

complete the survey form and their answers are sent to the LibQUAL+® database. The data are analyzed and

presented to you in reports describing your users’ desired , perceived, and minimum expectations of service.


What are the origins of the LibQUAL+® survey?

The LibQUAL+® survey evolved from a conceptual model based on the SERVQUAL instrument, a popular tool for

assessing service quality in the private sector. The Texas A&M University Libraries and other libraries used

modified SERVQUAL instruments for several years; those applications revealed the need for a newly adapted tool

that would serve the particular requirements of libraries. ARL, representing the largest research libraries in North

America, partnered with Texas A&M University Libraries to develop, test, and refine LibQUAL+®. This effort was

supported in part by a three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of

Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE).

1.4 Web Access to Data

Data summaries from the 2012 iteration of the LibQUAL+® survey will be available to project participants online

in the Data Repository via the LibQUAL+® survey management site:

<http://www.libqual.org/repository>

1.5 Explanation of Charts and Tables

A working knowledge of how to read and derive relevant information from the tables and charts used in your

LibQUAL+® results notebook is essential. In addition to the explanatory text below, you can find a self-paced

tutorial on the project web site at:

<http://www.libqual.org/about/about_survey/tools>

Both the online tutorial and the text below are designed to help you understand your survey results and present and

explain those results to others at your library.

Radar Charts

Radar charts are commonly used throughout the following pages to display both aggregate results and results from

individual institutions. Basic information about radar charts is outlined below, and additional descriptive information

is included throughout this notebook.

What is a radar chart?

Radar charts are useful when you want to look at several different factors all related to one item.Sometimes called

“spider charts” or “polar charts”, radar charts feature multiple axes or “spokes” along which data can be plotted.

Variations in the data are shown by distance from the center of the chart. Lines connect the data points for each

series, forming a spiral around the center.

In the case of the LibQUAL+® survey results, each axis represents a different survey question. Questions are

identified by a code at the end of each axis. The three dimensions measured by the survey are grouped together on

the radar charts, and each dimension is labeled: Affect of Service (AS), Information Control (IC), and Library as

Place (LP).

Radar charts are used in this notebook to present the item summaries (the results from the 22 core survey questions).

How to read a radar chart

Radar charts are an effective way to show strengths and weaknesses graphically by enabling you to observe symmetry

or uniformity of data. Points close to the center indicate a low value, while points near the edge indicate a high value.

When interpreting a radar chart, it is important to check each individual axis as well as the chart’s overall shape in

order to gain a complete understanding of its meaning. You can see how much data fluctuates by observing whether

the spiral is smooth or has spikes of variability.

Respondents’ minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted on each axis of your

LibQUAL+® radar charts. The resulting “gaps” between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red.

http://www.libqual.org/repository

http://www.libqual.org/about/about_survey/tools


Generally, a radar graph shaded blue and yellow indicates that users’ perceptions of service fall within the “zone of

tolerance”; the distance between minimum expectations and perceptions of service quality is shaded in blue, and the

distance between their desired and perceived levels of service quality is shown in yellow. When users’ perceptions

fall outside the “zone of tolerance,” the graph will include areas of red and green shading. If the distance between

users’ minimum expectations and perceptions of service delivery is represented in red , that indicates a negative

service adequacy gap score. If the distance between the desired level of service and perceptions of service delivery

is represented in green, that indicates a positive service superiority gap score.

Means

The mean of a collection of numbers is their arithmetic average, computed by adding them up and dividing by their

total number.

In this notebook, means are provided for users’ minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality for

each item on the LibQUAL+® survey. Means are also provided for the general satisfaction and information

literacy outcomes questions.

Standard Deviation

Standard deviation is a measure of the spread of data around their mean. The standard deviation (SD) depends on

calculating the average distance of each score from the mean. If all users rated an item identically, the SD would be

zero. Larger SDs indicate more disparate opinions of the users about library service quality.

In this notebook, standard deviations are provided for every mean presented in the tables. In a very real sense, the

SD indicates how well a given numerical mean does at representing all the data. If the SD of the scores about a

given mean was zero, the mean perfectly represents everyone’s scores, and all the scores and the mean are all

identical!

Service Adequacy

The service adequacy gap score is calculated by subtracting the minimum score from the perceived score on any

given question, for each user. Both means and standard deviations are provided for service adequacy gap scores on

each item of the survey, as well as for each of the three dimensions of library service quality. In general, service

adequacy is an indicator of the extent to which you are meeting the minimum expectations of your users. A negative

service adequacy gap score indicates that your users’ perceived level of service quality is below their minimum

level of service quality and is printed in red.

Service Superiority

The service superiority gap score is calculated by subtracting the desired score from the perceived score on any

given question, for each user. Both means and standard deviations are provided for service superiority gap scores on

each item of the survey, as well as for each of the three dimensions of library service quality. In general, service

superiority is an indicator of the extent to which you are exceeding the desired expectations of your users. A

positive service superiority gap score indicates that your users’ perceived level of service quality is above their

desired level of service quality and is printed in green.

Sections with charts and tables are omitted from the following pages when there are three or fewer individuals in a

specific group.

In consortia notebooks, institution type summaries are not shown if there is only one library for an institution type.

Individual library notebooks are produced separately for each participant.

1.6 A Few Words about LibQUAL+® 2012

Libraries today confront escalating pressure to demonstrate value and impact. As Cullen (2001) has noted,

Academic libraries are currently facing their greatest challenge since the explosion in tertiary education

and academic publishing which began after World War II... [T]he emergence of the virtual university,

supported by the virtual library, calls into question many of our basic assumptions about the role of the

academic library, and the security of its future. Retaining and growing their customer base, and focusing


more energy on meeting their customers' expectations is the only way for academic libraries to survive in

this volatile environment. (pp. 662-663)

Today, "A measure of library quality based solely on collections has become obsolete " (Nitecki, 1996, p. 181).

These considerations have prompted the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to sponsor a number of "New

Measures" initiatives. The New Measures efforts represent a collective determination on the part of the ARL

membership to augment the collection-count and fiscal input measures that comprise the ARL Index and ARL

Statistics, to date the most consistently collected statistics for research libraries, with outcome measures such as

assessments of service quality and satisfaction. One New Measures Initiative is the LibQUAL+® service (Cook,

Heath & B. Thompson, 2002, 2003; Heath, Cook, Kyrillidou & Thompson, 2002; Kyrillidou & Cook, 2008;

Kyrillidou, Cook, & Rao, 2008; Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2003; Thompson, Cook & Thompson, 2002;

Thompson, Kyrillidou & Cook, 2007a, 2007b, 2008).

Within a service-quality assessment model, "only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially

irrelevant" (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry, 1990, p. 16). LibQUAL+® was modeled on the 22- item SERVQUAL

tool developed by Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml (Parasuraman, Berry & Zeithaml, 1991). However, SERVQUAL

has been shown to measure some issues not particularly relevant in libraries , and to not measure some issues of

considerable interest to library users.

The final 22 LibQUAL+® items were developed through several iterations of studies involving a larger pool of 56

items. The selection of items employed in the LibQUAL+® survey has been grounded in the users' perspective as

revealed in a series of qualitative studies involving a larger pool of items . The items were identified following

qualitative research interviews with student and faculty library users at several different universities (Cook, 2002a;

Cook & Heath, 2001).

LibQUAL+® is not just a list of 22 standardized items. First, LibQUAL+ ® offers libraries the ability to select five

optional local service quality assessment items. Second, the survey includes a comments box soliciting open-ended

user views. Almost half of the people responding to the LibQUAL+® survey provide valuable feedback through the

comments box. These open-ended comments are helpful for not only (a) understanding why users provide certain

ratings, but also (b) understanding what policy changes users suggest, because many users feel the obligation to be

constructive. Participating libraries are finding the real-time access to user comments one of the most useful devices

in challenging library administrators to think outside of the box and develop innovative ways for improving library

services.

LibQUAL+® is one of 11 ways of listening to users, called a total market survey. As Berry (1995) explained,

When well designed and executed, total market surveys provide a range of information unmatched by any

other method... A critical facet of total market surveys (and the reason for using the word 'total') is the

measurement of competitors' service quality. This [also] requires using non-customers in the sample to rate

the service of their suppliers. (p. 37)

Although (a) measuring perceptions of both users and non-users, and (b) collecting perceptions data with regard to

peer institutions can provide important insights Berry recommended using multiple listening methods and

emphasized that "Ongoing data collection... is a necessity. Transactional surveys, total market surveys, and employee

research should always be included" (Berry, 1995, p. 54).


LibQUAL+® Lite

In 2010, the LibQUAL+® Lite customization feature was introduced: a shorter version of the survey that takes less

time to fill in. The Lite protocol uses item sampling methods to gather data on all 22 LibQUAL+® core items, while

only requiring a given single user to respond to a subset of the 22 core questions. Every Lite user responds to one

“linking” item from each of the subscales (Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as Place), and to a

randomly-selected subset of five items from the remaining 19 core LibQUAL+® items. However, all 22 core items

are completed by at least some users on a given campus. As a consequence, because individual Lite users only

complete a subset of the core items, survey response times are roughly cut in half, while the library still receives

data on every survey question. Each participating library sets a “Lite-view Percentage” to determine what

percentage of individuals will randomly receive the Lite versus the long version of the survey.

The mechanics of item sampling strategy and results from pilot testing are described in Martha Kyrillidou’s

dissertation. Findings indicate that LibQUAL+® Lite is the preferred and improved alternative to the long form of

22 core items that has been established since 2003. The difference between the long and the Lite version of the

survey is enough to result in higher participation rates ranging from 3.1 to 10.6 percent more for surveys that reduce

average response times from 10 to 6 minutes (Kyrillidou, 2009, Thompson, Kyrillidou & Cook, 2009a; Thompson,

Kyrillidou & Cook, 2009b).

Score Scaling

"Perceived" scores on the 22 LibQUAL+® core items, the three subscales, and the total score, are all scaled 1 to 9,

with 9 being the most favorable. Both the gap scores ("Adequacy" = "Perceived" - "Minimum"; "Superiority" =

"Perceived" - "Desired") are scaled such that higher scores are more favorable. Thus, an adequacy gap score of +1.2

on an item, subscale, or total score is better than an adequacy gap score of +1.0. A superiority gap score of -0.5 on an

item, subscale, or total score is better than a superiority gap score of -1.0.

Using LibQUAL+® Data

In some cases LibQUAL+® data may confirm prior expectations and library staff will readily formulate action plans

to remedy perceived deficiencies. But in many cases library decision-makers will seek additional information to

corroborate interpretations or to better understand the dynamics underlying user perceptions.

For example, once an interpretation is formulated, library staff might review recent submissions of users to

suggestion boxes to evaluate whether LibQUAL+® data are consistent with interpretations, and the suggestion box

data perhaps also provide user suggestions for remedies. User focus groups also provide a powerful way to explore

problems and potential solutions. A university-wide retreat with a small-group facilitated discussion to solicit

suggestions for improvement is another follow-up mechanism that has been implemented in several LibQUAL+®

participating libraries.

Indeed, the open-ended comments gathered as part of LibQUAL+® are themselves useful in fleshing out insights

into perceived library service quality. Respondents often use the comments box on the survey to make constructive

suggestions on specific ways to address their concerns. Qualitative analysis of these comments can be very fruitful.

In short, LibQUAL+® is not 22 items. LibQUAL+® is 22 items plus a comments box!

Cook (2002b) provided case study reports of how staff at various libraries have employed data from prior renditions

of LibQUAL+®. Heath, Kyrillidou, and Askew edited a special issue of the Journal of Library Administration (Vol.

40, No. 3/4) reporting additional case studies on the use of LibQUAL+® data to aid the improvement of library

service quality. This special issue has also been published by Hayworth Press as a monograph. Kyrillidou (2008)

edited a compilation of articles that complements and provides an updated perspective on these earlier special

issues. These publications can be ordered by sending an email to libqual@arl. org. Numerous other articles have

been published in the literature and a good number of references can be located on the LibQUAL+® publication

page search engine under ‘Related articles.’



2012 Data Screening

The 22 LibQUAL+® core items measure perceptions of total service quality, as well as three sub-dimensions of

perceived library quality: (a) Service Affect (9 items, such as "willingness to help users"); (b) Information Control (8

items, such as "a library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own" and "print and/or electronic journal

collections I require for my work"); and (c) Library as Place (5 items, such as "a getaway for study, learning, or

research").

However, as happens in any survey, in 2012 some users provided incomplete data, inconsistent data, or both. In

compiling the summary data reported here, several criteria were used to determine which respondents to omit from

these analyses.

1. Complete Data. The Web software that presents the core items monitors whether a given user has completed

all items. On each of these items, in order to submit the survey successfully, users must provide a rating of (a)

minimally-acceptable service, (b) desired service, and (c) perceived service or rate the item "not applicable"

("N/A"). If these conditions are not met, when the user attempts to leave the Web page presenting the core items, the

software shows the user where missing data are located, and requests complete data. The user may of course

abandon the survey without completing all the items. Only records with complete data on the presented core items

and where respondents chose a "user group,"if applicable, were retained in summary statistics.

2. Excessive "N/A" Responses. Because some institutions provided access to a lottery drawing for an

incentive (e.g., an iPod) for completing the survey, some users might have selected "N/A" choices for all or most of

the items rather than reporting their actual perceptions. Or, some users may have views on such a narrow range of

quality issues that their data are not very informative. It was decided that records of the long version of the survey

containing more than 11 "N/A"responses and records of the Lite version containing more than 4 “N/A” responses

should be eliminated from the summary statistics.

3. Excessive Inconsistent Responses. On the LibQUAL+® survey, user perceptions can be interpreted by

locating "perceived" results within the "zone of tolerance" defined by data from the "minimum" and the "desired"

ratings. For example, a mean "perceived" rating of 7.5 on the 1-to-9 (9 is highest) scale might be very good if the

mean "desired" rating is 6.0. But a 7.5 perception score is less satisfactory if the mean "desired" rating is 8.6, or if

the mean "minimum" rating is 7.7.

One appealing feature of such a "gap measurement model" is that the rating format provides a check for

inconsistencies (i.e., score inversions) in the response data (Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2000). Logically, on a given

item the "minimum" rating should not be higher than the "desired" rating on the same item. For each user a count of

such inconsistencies was made. Records of the long version of the survey containing more than 9 logical

inconsistencies and records of the Lite version containing more than 3 logical inconsistencies were eliminated from

the summary statistics.

LibQUAL+® Norms

An important way to interpret LibQUAL+® data is by examining the zones of tolerance for items, the three subscale

scores, and the total scores. However, the collection of such a huge number of user perceptions has afforded us with

the unique opportunity to create norms tables that provide yet another perspective on results.

Norms tell us how scores "stack up" within a particular user group. For example, on the 1-to-9 (9 is highest) scale,

users might provide a mean "perceived" rating of 6.5 on an item, "the printed library materials I need for my work."

The same users might provide a mean rating on "minimum" for this item of 7.0, and a mean service-adequacy "gap

score" (i.e., "perceived" minus "minimum") of -0.5.

The zone-of-tolerance perspective suggests that this library is not doing well on this item, because "perceived" falls

below "minimally acceptable." This is important to know. But there is also a second way (i.e., normatively) to

interpret the data. Both perspectives can be valuable.


A total market survey administered to more than 100,000 users, as was LibQUAL+® in 2004 and 2005, affords the

opportunity to ask normative questions such as, "How does a mean 'perceived' score of 6.5 stack up among all

individual users who completed the survey?", or "How does a mean service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 stack up

among the gap scores of all institutions participating in the survey?"

If 70 percent of individual users generated "perceived" ratings lower than 6.5, 6.5 might not be so bad. And if 90

percent of institutions had service-adequacy gap scores lower than -0.5 (e.g., -0.7, -1.1), a mean gap score of -0.5

might actually be quite good. Users simply may have quite high expectations in this area. They may also

communicate their dissatisfaction by rating both (a) "perceived" lower and (b) "minimum" higher. This does not

mean that a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 is necessarily a cause for celebration. But a service-adequacy gap

score of -0.5 on an item for which 90 percent of institutions have a lower gap score is a different gap score than the

same -0.5 for a different item in which 90 percent of institutions have a higher service-adequacy gap score.

Only norms give us insight into this comparative perspective. And a local user-satisfaction survey (as against a total

market survey) can never provide this insight.

Common Misconception Regarding Norms. An unfortunate and incorrect misconception is that norms make

value statements. Norms do not make value statements! Norms make fact statements. If you are a forest ranger, and

you make $25,000 a year, a norms table might inform you of the fact that you make less money than 85 percent of

the adults in the United States.

But if you love the outdoors, you do not care very much about money, and you are very service-oriented, this fact

statement might not be relevant to you. Or, in the context of your values, you might interpret this fact as being quite

satisfactory.

LibQUAL+® Norms Tables. Of course, the fact statements made by the LibQUAL+® norms are only valuable if

you care about the dimensions being evaluated by the measure. More background on LibQUAL+® norms is

provided by Cook and Thompson (2001), and Cook, Heath and B. Thompson (2002). LibQUAL+® norms are

available on the LibQUAL+® Web site at::

<http://www.libqual.org/resources/norms_tables>

Response Rates

At the American Library Association (ALA) Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio in January 2000, participants were

cautioned that response rates on the final LibQUAL+® survey would probably range from 25-33 percent. Higher

response rates can be realized (a) with shorter surveys that (b) are directly action-oriented (Cook, Heath & R.L.

Thompson, 2000). For example, a very high response rate could be realized by a library director administering the

following one-item survey to users:

Instructions. Please tell us what time to close the library every day. In the future we will close at whatever

time receives the most votes.

Should we close the library at?

(A) 10 p.m. (B) 11 p.m. (C) midnight (D) 2 p.m.

Lower response rates will be expected for total market surveys measuring general perceptions of users across

institutions, and when an intentional effort is made to solicit perceptions of both users and non -users. Two

considerations should govern the evaluation of LibQUAL+® response rates.

Minimum Response Rates. Response rates are computed by dividing the number of completed surveys at an

institution by the number of persons asked to complete the survey. However, we do not know the actual response

rates on LibQUAL+®, because we do not know the correct denominators for these calculations.

http://www.libqual.org/resources/norms_tables

http://www.libqual.org/resources/norms_tables


For example, given inadequacy in records at schools, we are not sure how many e-mail addresses for users are

accurate. And we do not know how many messages to invite participation were actually opened. In other words,

what we know for LibQUAL+® is the "lower-bound estimate" of response rates.

For example, if 200 out of 800 solicitations result in completed surveys, we know that the response rate is at least 25

percent. But because we are not sure whether 800 e-mail addresses were correct or that 800 e-mail messages were

opened, we are not sure that 800 is the correct denominator. The response rate involving only correct e-mail addresses

might be 35 or 45 percent. We don't know the exact response rate.

Representativeness Versus Response Rate.

If 100 percent of the 800 people we randomly selected to complete our survey did so, then we can be assured that

the results are representative of all users. But if only 25 percent of the 800 users complete the survey, the

representativeness of the results is not assured. Nor is unrepresentativeness assured.

Representativeness is actually a matter of degree. And several institutions each with 25 percent response rates may

have data with different degrees of representativeness.

We can never be sure about how representative our data are as long as not everyone completes the survey.But we

can at least address this concern by comparing the demographic profiles of survey completers with the population

(Thompson, 2000). At which university below would one feel more confident that LibQUAL+® results were

reasonably representative?

Completers (n=200 / 800)

Alpha University Population (N=16,000)

Gender Gender

Students 53% female Students 51% female

Faculty 45% female Faculty 41% female

Disciplines Disciplines

Liberal Arts 40% Liberal Arts 35%

Science 15% Science 20%

Other 45% Other 45%

Completers (n=200 / 800)

Omega University Population (N=23,000)

Gender Gender

Students 35% female Students 59% female

Faculty 65% female Faculty 43% female

Disciplines Disciplines

Liberal Arts 40% Liberal Arts 15%

Science 20% Science 35%

Other 40% Other 50%

The persuasiveness of such analyses is greater as the number of variables used in the comparisons is greater. The

LibQUAL+® software has been expanded to automate these comparisons and to output side-by-side graphs and

tables comparing sample and population profiles for given institutions. Show these to people who question result

representativeness.

However, one caution is in order regarding percentages. When total n is small for an institution, or within a

particular subgroup, huge changes in percentages can result from very small shifts in numbers.

LibQUAL+® Analytics

The LibQUAL+® Analytics is a new tool that permits participants to dynamically create institution -specific tables

and charts for different subgroups and across years . The current interface grants access to 2004-2012 statistical data

and unifies the legacy Institution Explorer (a summary of all questions and dimension means for any combination of


user groups and disciplines) and Longitudinal Analysis (allows participants to perform longitudinal comparisons of

their data across survey years) modules to provide a one-stop dynamic shop to interactively analyze results and

benchmark with other institutions.

Participants can refine the data by selecting specific years, user groups, and disciplines, view and save the selection

in various tables and charts, and download their datasets for further manipulation in their preferred software.has two

sections:

These current version of LibQUAL+® Analytics is only the beginning of our effort to provide more customized

analysis. More features are in development based on feedback we receive from our participants. For a subscription

to LibQUAL+® Analytics, email [email protected].

Survey Data

In addition to the notebooks, the norms, and the Analytics, LibQUAL+® also makes available (a) raw survey data in

SPSS and (b) raw survey data in Excel for all participating libraries. Additional training using the SPSS data file is

available as a follow-up workshop and through the Service Quality Evaluation Academy (see below), which also

offers training on analyzing qualitative data. The survey comments are also downloadable in various formats from

the Web site.

ARL Service Quality Evaluation Academy

LibQUAL+® is an important tool in the New Measures toolbox that librarians can use to improve service quality.

But, even more fundamentally, the LibQUAL+® initiative is more than a single tool. LibQUAL+ ® is an effort to

create a culture of data-driven service quality assessment and service quality improvement within libraries.

Such a culture must be informed by more than one tool, and by more than only one of the 11 ways of listening to

users. To facilitate a culture of service quality assessment, and to facilitate more informed usage of LibQUAL+®

data, the Association of Research Libraries has created the ARL Service Quality Evaluation Academy. For more

information about the Academy, see the LibQUAL+® Events page at

<http://www.libqual.org/events>

The intensive, five-day Academy teaches both qualitative and quantitative skills that library staff can use to evaluate

and generate service-quality assessment information. The Academy is one more resource for library staff who would

like to develop enhanced service-quality assessment skills.

Library Assessment Conference

The growing community of practice related to library assessment is convening regularly in North America through

the biennial Library Assessment Conference. The first gathering of this community took place in 2006 in

Charlottesville, VA. The proceedings and recent information is available at

<http://www.libraryassessment.org>

For more information, about LibQUAL+® or the Association of Research Libraries’ Statistics and Assessment

program, see:

<http://www.libqual.org/>

<http://www.statsqual.org/>

<http://www.arl.org/stats/>


http://www.libqual.org/events

http://www.libraryassessment.org/


http://www.statsqual.org/

http://www.arl.org/stats/


References

Berry, L.L. On Great Service: A Framework For Action. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

Cook, Colleen C., Fred Heath, and Bruce Thompson. LibQUAL+™ from the UK Perspective. 5th Northumbria

International Conference Proceedings, Durham, UK, July, 2003.

Cook, Colleen C. (Guest Ed.). “Library Decision-Makers Speak to Their Uses of Their LibQUAL+™ Data: Some

LibQUAL+™ Case Studies.” Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3 (2002b).

Cook, Colleen C. “A Mixed-Methods Approach to the Identification and Measurement of Academic Library Service

Quality Constructs: LibQUAL+™.” (PhD diss., Texas A&M University, 2001) Dissertation Abstracts

International, 62 (2002A): 2295A (University Microfilms No. AAT3020024).

Cook, Colleen C., and Fred Heath. “Users' Perceptions of Library Service Quality: A ’LibQUAL+™’ Qualitative

Study.” Library Trends, 49 (2001): 548-84.

Cook, Colleen C., Fred Heath, and Bruce Thompson. “’Zones of tolerance’ in Perceptions of Library Service

Quality: A LibQUAL+™ Study.” portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3 (2003): 113-123.

Cook, Colleen C., Fred Heath and Bruce Thompson.. “Score Norms for Improving Library Service Quality: A

LibQUAL+™ Study.” portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2 (2002): 13-26.

Cook, Colleen C., Fred Heath, and Russell L. Thompson. “A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or

Internet-based Surveys.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (2000): 821-36.

Cook, Colleen C., and Bruce Thompson. “Psychometric Properties of Scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+™

Study of Perceptions of Library Service Quality.” Library Trends, 49 (2001): 585-604.

Cook, C., Bruce Thompson, and Martha Kyrillidou. (2010, May). Does using item sampling methods in library

service quality assessment affect score norms?: A LibQUAL+® Lite study.

<http://libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/lq_gr_3.pdf> . Paper presented at the 2nd Qualitative

and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML 2010) International Conference, Chania (Crete), Greece,

May 27, 2010.

Cullen, Rowena. “Perspectives on User Satisfaction Surveys.” Library Trends, 49 (2002): 662-86.

Heath, F., Martha Kyrillidou. and Consuella A. Askew (Guest Eds.). “Libraries Report on Their LibQUAL+®

Findings: From Data to Action.” Journal of Library Administration 40 (3/4) (2004).

Heath, F., Colleen C. Cook, Martha Kyrillidou, and Bruce Thompson. “ARL Index and Other Validity Correlates of

LibQUAL+™ Scores.” portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2 (2002): 27-42.

Kyrillidou, M. The Globalization of Library Assessment and the Role of LibQUAL+®. From Library Science to

Information Science: Studies in Honor of G. Kakouri (Athens, Greece: Tipothito-Giorgos Dardanos, 2005).

[In Greek]

Kyrillidou, Martha. “Library Assessment As A Collaborative Enterprise.” Resource Sharing and Information

Networks, 18 ½ (2005-2006): 73-87.

Kyrillidou, Martha. (2006). “Measuring Library Service Quality: A Perceived Outcome for Libraries. This chapter

appears in Revisiting Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education. Edited by Peter Hernon, Robert E.

Dugan, and Candy Schwartz (Westport, CT: Library Unlimited, 2006): 351-66.

http://libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/lq_gr_3.pdf


Kyrillidou, Martha. (Guest Ed.). “LibQUAL+® and Beyond: Library assessment with a focus on library

improvement.” Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9 (3) (2008).

Kyrillidou, M. “Item Sampling in Service Quality Assessment Surveys to Improve Response Rates and Reduce

Respondent Burden: The “LibQUAL+® Lite” Randomized Control Trial (RCT)” (PhD diss., University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009).

<https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14570/Kyrillidou_Martha.pdf?sequence=3>

Kyrillidou, Martha and Colleen C. Cook. “The evolution of measurement and evaluation of libraries: a perspective

from the Association of Research Libraries.” Library Trends 56 (4) (Spring 2008): 888-909.

Kyrillidou, Martha and Colleen C. Cook and S. Shyam Sunder Rao. “Measuring the Quality of Library Service

through LibQUAL+®.” In Academic Library Research: Perspectives and Current Trends. Edited by Marie

L. Radford and Pamela Snelson (Chicago, IL: ACRL/ALA, 2008): 253-301.

Kyrillidou, M., Terry Olshen, Fred Heath, Claude Bonnelly, and Jean-Pierre Côte. “Cross-Cultural Implementation

of LibQUAL+™: the French Language Experience. 5th Northumbria International Conference

Proceedings (Durham, UK, 2003): 193-99.

Kyrillidou, M., Colleen Cook. and Bruce Thompson. (2010, May). Does using item sampling methods in library

service quality assessment affect zone of tolerance boundaries?: A LibQUAL+® Lite study

<http://libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/lq_gr_2.pdf> . Paper presented at the 2nd Qualitative


May 27, 2010.

Kyrillidou, M. and Mark Young. ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries,

2005.

Nitecki, D.A. “Changing the Concept and Measure of Service Quality in Academic Libraries.” The Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 22 (1996): 181-90.

Parasuraman, A., Leonard Berry, and Valerie Zeithaml. “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale

Journal of Retailing, 67 (1991): 420-50.

Thompson, B. “Representativeness Versus Response Rate: It Ain't the Response Rate!.” Paper presented at the

Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Measuring Service Quality Symposium on the New Culture of

Assessment: Measuring Service Quality, Washington, DC, October 2002.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Fred Heath. “The LibQUAL+™ Gap Measurement Model: The Bad, he Ugly,

and the Good of Gap Measurement.” Performance Measurement and Metrics, 1 (2002): 165-78.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Fred Heath. “Structure of Perceptions of Service Quality in Libraries: A

LibQUAL+™ Study.” Structural Equation Modeling, 10 (2003): 456-464.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Russell L. Thompson. Reliability and Structure of LibQUAL+™ Scores:

Measuring Perceived Library Service Quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2 (2002): 3-12.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. (2005). Concurrent validity of LibQUAL+® scores: What

do LibQUAL+® scores measure? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31: 517-22.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “Using Localized Survey Items to Augment Standardized

Benchmarking Measures: A LibQUAL+® Study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2) (2006): 219-30.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “Stability of Library Service Quality Benchmarking

http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14570/Kyrillidou_Martha.pdf?sequence=3


P a g e | 1

Norms Across Time and Cohorts: A LibQUAL+® Study.” Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Conference

of Library and Information Education and Practice (A-LIEP), Singapore, April 3-4 2006.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “How Can You Evaluate the Integrity of Your Library

Assessment Data: Intercontinental LibQUAL+® Analysis Used as Concrete Heuristic Examples.” Paper

presented at the Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, and Practical

Assessment, Charlottesville, VA, August 4-6, 2006.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “On-premises Library versus Google™-Like Information

Gateway Usage Patterns: A LibQUAL+® Study.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 7 (4) (Oct 2007a):

463-480.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “User library service expectations in health science vs.

other settings: a LibQUAL+® Study.” Health Information and Libraries Journal 24 (8) Supplement 1,

(Dec 2007b): 38-45.

Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “Library Users Service Desires: a LibQUAL+® Study.”

Library Quarterly 78 (1) (Jan 2008): 1-18.

Thompson, B., Martha Kyrillidou, and Colleen Cook. “Item sampling in service quality assessment surveys to

improve response rates and reduce respondent burden: The "LibQUAL+® Lite" example.” Performance

Measurement & Metrics, 10 (1) (2009): 6-16.

Thompson, B., Martha Kyrillidou, and Colleen Cook. “Equating scores on Lite and long library user survey forms:

The LibQUAL+® Lite randomized control trials.” Performance Measurement & Metrics, 10 (3) (2009):

212-219.

Thompson, B., Martha Kyrillidou, and Colleen Cook. (2010, May). “Does using item sampling methods in library

service quality assessment compromise data integrity?: A LibQUAL+® Lite study.

<http://libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/lq_gr_1.pdf> ”. Paper presented at the 2nd Qualitative


May 27, 2010.

Thompson, B., Martha Kyrillidou, and Colleen Cook (forthcoming). “Does using item sampling methods in library

service quality assessment compromise data integrity or zone of tolerance interpretation?: A LibQUAL+®

Lite Study.” 2010 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment.

Baltimore MD, October 25-27, 2010. (Washington DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2011)

Zeithaml, Valerie, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry. Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer

Perceptions and Expectations. New York: Free Press, 1990.


P a g e | 2

L I B R A R Y S T A T I S T I C S F O R U N I V E R S I T Y OF N A M I B I A

The statistical data below were provided by the participating institution in the online Representativeness* section. Definitions for these items can be found in the ARL Statistics: <http://www.arl.org/stats/>.

Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When statistical data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.

Volumes held: 124,318

Volumes added during year - Gross: 6,349

Total number of serial titles currently received,: 28,505

Total library expenditures (in U.S. $): $1,255,000

Personnel - professional staff, FTE: 31

Personnel - support staff, FTE: 52

http://www.arl.org/stats/

P a g e | 3

2.1 Respondents by User Group

User Group

Undergraduate

Respondent

n

Respondent

%

First year 299 29.40%

Second year 299 29.40%

Third year 209 20.55%

Fourth year 115 11.31%

Fifth year and above 23 2.26%

Non-degree 12 1.18%

Sub Total:

957

94.10%

Postgraduate

Taught Masters degree

10

0.98%

Research Masters degree 10 0.98%

Doctoral Research degree 1 0.10%

Non-degree 8 0.79%

Undecided 0 0.00%

Sub Total: 29 2.85%

Academic Staff

Professor 1 0.10%

Reader 0 0.00%

Senior / Principal Lecturer 4 0.39%

Lecturer 6 0.59%

Research Staff 4 0.39%

Other Academic Status 3 0.29%

Sub Total: 18 1.77%

Library Staff

Senior Management 1 0.10%

Department Head / Team Leader 1 0.10%

Professional Staff 6 0.59%

Support Staff 0 0.00%

Other 1 0.10%

Sub Total:

9

0.88%

Staff

Administrative or Academic Related Staff

4

0.39%

Other staff positions 0 0.00%

Sub Total:

4

0.39%

Total: 1,017 100.00%

Language: English (British)

Institution Type: College or University

Consortium: None

User Group: All

P a g e | 4

I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D R A T I O N A L E

This report explores overall UNAM Library user satisfaction. It will assess the performance provide by the

library based on the users perception. I-Ming Wang et al. found that the overall service quality has

significantly positive effect on the overall user sat isfaction.

The Library is concerned about how to bring satisfactory services when offering information and data to the

readers. Hence, “User satisfaction” is what librarians always devote to pursue.

User satisfaction comes from services provided, which is based on whether readers are satisfied or not.

Therefore, to improve service quality is to provide services that meet reader’s expectations and satisfy their

needs. When readers or library service us ers are not satisfied, it is inferred that there is something wrong

with the library.

This report surveys UNAM Library users’ perception on each of the attributes as specified in LIBQUAL+

(Affect of service, Information Control, Library as Place) and thei r evaluation of the library.

Although we can analyze the performance of libraries from some statistical information such as the information of

the number of people using the services, e.g. the number of people borrowing books, it is still inadequate to reveal

users’ real perceptions of the library.

From this point of view, the present report applies the LibQual+ survey questionnaires results on the overall

UNAM Library service quality from users’ perspectives and from appropriate statistical analyses.

P a g e | 5

SCOPE

The scopes of the LibQual+ are:

• Foster a culture of excellence in providing library service

• Help libraries better understand user perceptions of library service quality

• Collect and interpret library user feedback systematically over time

• Provide comparable assessment information from peer institutions

• Identify best practices in library service

• Enhance library staff members’ analytical skills for interpreting, and acting on data

This report aims to assess whether the UNAM library services are meeting users’ expectations.

P a g e | 6

L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

S E R V I C E Q U A L IT Y A N D L IB R A R Y Q U A L IT Y

Parasuraman et al. (1985) defined service quality as “the global evaluation or attitude of overall excellence of services”.

Therefore, service quality is the difference between customers’ expectation and perceptions of services delivered by the service

firms.

Nitecki et al. (2000) defined service quality in terms of “meeting or exceeding customer expectations, or as the difference

between customer perceptions and expectations of the service”.

In this report, the UNAM Library service quality is defined as “the overall excellence of UNAM Library services that satisfy

users’ expectations”.

The key determinant for library service quality are electronic resources, collections of printed publications, other library service,

technical facilities, library environment, and human side of user service (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2003).

The dimensions of the library service quality include: guidance, waiting time, electronic services, staff (including obtainment

courtesy, accessibility of services and friendliness), and accurate places of data, normal operations equipment, handling time

of data delivery, library buildings and environment (library facilities such as drinking fountains), data that meets users’ needs

and so forth.

The understanding of users’ expectations and meeting these expectations is very crucial in retaining the users. The

assessment of the library service quality helps in identifying users’ needs, desires or requirements and improving the service

by decreasing the gap between users’ perceptions and expectations. “Retaining and growing their customer base and

focusing more energy on meeting their customers’ expectations is the only way for academic libraries to survive in this volatile

competitive environment” (Cullen, 2001, pp. 662-663). In this regard, the service delivery in all academic libraries should be

user-centered and the library should not function in total isolation from its users’ expectations.

Libraries decision makers should know the users’ expectations to improve the quality of services offered (Scott, 1992).

C U S T O M E R S A T IS F A C T IO N

Kotler (1996, pp. 54-72) defined customer satisfaction as “the level of a person felt state resulting from comparing a

product’s perceived performance or outcome in violation to his/her own expectations”.

In this report we will consider the customer satisfaction as “the levels of UNAM Library service quality performance that

meets users’ expectations”.

P a g e | 7

The assessment of the Library users’ satisfaction is based on the service adequacy and service superiority which consider the

minimum expectations and the desired expectations compared to the perceptions.

Many researchers (Heath & Cook, 2003; Shi, Holahan, & Jurkat, 2004) agreed that expectations serve as reference points in

customers’ evaluation of performance. Expectations are mostly considered in terms of what a service would offer (Nitecki,

1999) and viewed as desires or wants of consumers or what a service firm should ideally provide in order to meet the

customers or service users’ satisfaction (Boulding, et al., 1993; Parasuraman, et al., 1985, 1988).

Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1993) stated that customers’ expectations are based on the previous experiences, word-

of-mouth communications, overt and covert services promised by an organization.

Zeithaml, et al. (1993) found that users do not have one level of expectation, but two levels or types: “Minimum

expectations” and “Desire expectations”. In fact, Desire expectations are users’ ideal expectations that they wish to receive

from the library and “Minimum expectations” are level of service that users consider as adequate or acceptable minimum.

The range between minimum and desire expectations is called zone of tolerance with desired expectations at the top and

minimum expectations at the bottom of the scale. Hence, the primary objective of service quality assessment is to minimize the

gap between users’ expectations and actual service delivery as perceived by the users.

Service Adequacy

The service adequacy gap score is calculated by subtracting the minimum score from the perceived score on any given question,

for each user. Both means and standard deviations are provided for service adequacy gap scores on each item of the survey, as

well as for each of the three dimensions of library service quality. In general, service adequacy is an indicator of the extent

to which you are meeting the minimum expectations of your users. A negative service adequacy gap score indicates that

your users’ perceived level of service quality is below their minimum level of service quality and is printed in red.

Service Superiority

The service superiority gap score is calculated by subtracting the desired score from the perceived score on any given question,

for each user. Both means and standard deviations are provided for service superiority gap scores on each item of the survey,

as well as for each of the three dimensions of library service quality. In general, service superiority is an indicator of the extent

to which you are exceeding the desired expectations of your users. A positive service superiority gap score indicates that your

users’ perceived level of service quality is above their desired level of service quality and is printed in green.

P a g e | 8

M E T H O D O L O G Y

This report discusses the degree of importance of UNAM Library users on every service attributes as per

LibQual+ survey and the performance of the UNAM Library, attempting to comprehend whether UNAM Library

provides satisfactory services and meets the users’ expectations.

LibQual+ is one of the protocols most widely used and effective to establish the opinion of library users – LibQual+

is a recognized instrument that libraries use to “solicit, tract, understand, and act upon users’ opinions of service

quality” (Association of Research Libraries, 2010). It is an instrument which easily identifies service quality

from customers or users perspective.

Service quality is defined as the degree of overall excellence of the library service that meets user’s expectations.

For measurement of the service quality, a scale of items as established by LibQual+, was used.

In this report, we define user satisfaction as the degree of perceived quality that meets users’ expectations. The mean

score is calculated as to represent overall user satisfaction.

The LibQual+ survey instrument is based on conceptual framework on service quality (SERQUAL) scale which

defines the service quality as “the difference between customers’ perceptions and expectations” on different

attributes (core questions) or items related to three dimensions: Affect of Service (AS), Information Control (IC),

and Library as a Place (LP). For the UNAM Library there is a particular dimension called “Local Questions (L)”

which groups specifics quality service performance indicators adapted to the University of Namibia context.

The “Affect of Service” dimension consists of nine questions related to courtesy, knowledge and helpfulness of

library staff in delivering users’ services. The “Information Control” dimension addresses (through eight

questions) on the adequacy of print and electronic collection, easy-to-use access tools, modern equipments, library

websites and self-reliance in information access. The third dimension “Library as a Place” focuses on user

perceptions on a quiet, comfortable, inviting and reflective study space that inspires study and learning. The last

dimension specific to UNAM Library “Local Questions” comprises questions related to access to archives, special

collections, photocopying and printing facilities, adequacy of library hours of service, electronic catalog and the

capacity of library staff to teach effectively the use of electronic resources.

Users rate all LibQual+ items or quality service indicators on three columns side by side from 1 (low) to 9 (high)

scales for “perception”, “desire”, and “minimum” services.

P a g e | 9

The minimum and desired service expectations were considered indicators of the importance of the service (attribute

or dimension item) to the users. We have determined the most important areas for service improvement by

identifying the items that ranked highest by users on minimum/desired service level.

The minimum expectations of level of service that users consider as adequate represents their minimum level of

service that users will tolerate or willing to accept. The services performed below users’ minimum expectations

could create disappointment, frustration and dissatisfaction as well as decrease their loyalty and reliability.

To test measurement model reliability for the survey instrument, we used the Cronbach's Alpha. The values of

Cronbach's Alpha are 0.902 for the questions related to “Affect of Service”, 0.885 for “Information control” and

0.835 for the “Library as Place”, which suggest acceptable levels for the data instrument used (a Cronbach's Alpha

of 0.70; Nitse et al., 2004).

The overall customer satisfaction rate and specifics customer satisfaction rates related to library service

dimensions were determined for different groups of library users.

Q U A L IT A T I V E A N A L Y S IS

The qualitative analysis from the general comments of the survey participants was done using Atlas.ti. Codes were

grouped into different themes in relation to different dimensions related to the library users’ perceptions on the

performance items indicators.

For all the users’ groups the main themes were identified in different dimensions “Affect of service”, “Information

Control”, “Library as a Place”, and “Local Questions”. The themes below related to different dimensions were

similar for different users’ groups which are Undergraduates, Postgraduates, Academic staff, Library staff, and

Staff:

The comments were also grouped under the same themes namely “Affect of Service” (staff positive/negative; service

bad/good; training and orientation), “Library as a place” (noise, study space, aircon) and “Information control”

(collections good/bad; electronic resources; books mishelved/missing) with an extra theme of ICT related (ICT

positive/negative; photocopiers/printers; easy to use access tools) comments.

P a g e | 10

D A T A A N A L Y S I S A N D R E S U L T S

C O R E Q U E S T I O N S S U M M A R Y F O R U N I V E R S I T Y O F N A M I B I A

This radar chart shows the aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis repr esents one question . A code to

identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service

quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service ,

Information Control, and Library as Place.

On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting

"gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green,

and red.

The following two tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of

respondents f o r e a c h p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n . (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to

this notebook.)

AS-7 AS-6

AS-5 Affect of Service

(customer care)

AS-1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

IC-3 LP-5

IC-8

Perceived Less Than Minimum

Perceived Greater Than Minimum

Perceived Less Than Desired

Perceived Greater Than Desired

P a g e | 11

Table 1 : Results related to the Library Performance Dimensions

ID Question Text Minimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority n

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

Affect of Service

AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 5.92 7.56 5.8 -0.12 -1.76 997

AS-2 Giving users individual attention 5.32 7.18 5.34 0.02 -1.84 981

AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 5.88 7.31 5.9 0.02 -1.4 973

AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 6.02 7.57 5.95 -0.07 -1.62 991

AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions 6.31 7.76 6.33 0.02 -1.43 986

AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion 5.98 7.44 5.93 -0.05 -1.51 973

AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users 6.15 7.6 5.99 -0.17 -1.61 984

AS-8 Willingness to help users 6.19 7.71 6.11 -0.07 -1.6 987

AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 5.56 7.26 5.42 -0.15 -1.84 951

Overall for Affect Service 5.97 7.52 5.92 -0.05 -1.60 Information Control

IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 5.78 7.64 5.68 -0.1 -1.96 942

IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 6.3 7.77 6.19 -0.11 -1.58 993

IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 5.93 7.6 5.86 -0.07 -1.75 977

IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 6.16 7.77 5.92 -0.24 -1.85 983

IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 6.23 7.82 6.02 -0.21 -1.8 992

IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 6.35 7.72 6.24 -0.1 -1.48 991

IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 6.24 7.68 6.21 -0.04 -1.48 979

IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 6.02 7.65 5.94 -0.08 -1.71 958

Overall for Information Control 6.13 7.71 6.01 -0.12 -1.70 Library as Place

LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 6.34 7.93 6.3 -0.04 -1.63 1,001

LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 6.04 7.83 5.91 -0.13 -1.92 997

LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 6.37 7.8 6.5 0.13 -1.3 986

LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 6.2 7.78 6.03 -0.17 -1.74 987

LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 5.97 7.61 5.82 -0.15 -1.8 979

Overall for Library as a Place

6.18

7.79

6.11

-0.07

-1.68 Local Questions

L-185 Access to archives, special collections 5.99 7.53 6.07 0.08 -1.46 965

L-110 Access to photocopying and printing facilities 6.42 7.91 6.32 -0.1 -1.58 982

L-335 Adequate hours of service 6.88 7.98 6.92 0.04 -1.06 995

L-847 An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents offered by my institution

6.07

7.61

5.83

-0.23

-1.77

953

L-159

Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available databases, journals, and books

5.47

7.5

5.23

-0.23

-2.26

960

Overall for Local Questions

6.17

7.71

6.07

-0.09

-1.63

Source: LibQual Survey 2012

P a g e | 12

I N T E R P R E T A T I O N O F R E S U L T S

The figure of radar chart and the table 1 above show the results related to the dimensions Affect of Service,

Information Control, Library as a Place and Local Questions with the Minimum means scores, Desired means scores,

Perceived means scores, the Adequacy means and the Superiority means for each performance indicator over the four

library services dimensions.

M IN IM U M E X P E C T A T I O N S

The Adequacy mean is the difference between the perceived mean score and the minimum mean score while the

superiority mean is the difference /between the perceived mean and the desired mean.

The high minimum mean score and desired expectations mean score could be described as the level of importance a user

gives to various services.

By ranking all services performance indicators (from the highest to the lowest) based on the minimum mean score for

individual for overall user group, the six services performance indicators having the highest minimum expectations were

mostly related to the Local Questions dimension followed by the Library as a Place dimension then by Information

Control dimension and lastly by the Affect Service dimension. These services performance indicators were “Adequate

hours of service”, “Access to photocopying and printing facilities”, “A comfortable and inviting location”, “Easy-to-use

access tools that allow me to find things on my own”, “Library space that inspires study and learning”, “Library staff

who have the knowledge to answer user questions”, “An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and

electronic documents offered by my institution”,… (See table 2). These highest means indicate that services related to

all the dimensions Local Questions dimension, Library as a Place dimension, Information Control dimension and

Affect Service dimension are important for users.

The six services having the lowest minimum expectations were mostly related to the dimension Affect Service. Some

of these items were: “Giving users individual attention”, “Dependability in handling users' service problems”,

“Library staff who instill confidence in users”. The lowest minimum mean score items demonstrated that the library

users did not give high importance to these indicators. (See table 2).

The ranking (from the highest to the lowest) of different dimensions in terms of importance based on the minimum mean

scores is given below (See table 3): Library as a Place, Local Questions, Information Control and at last Affect of

service. All the individual users groups (Undergraduates, Postgraduates, Academic staff and staff) unanimously

consider very important the dimension Library as a Place followed by the Local Questions dimension and then by

Information Control dimension and finally by the Affect of Service dimension.

P a g e | 13

Table 2. Minimum Expectations of overall User groups

Rank ID Question Text Minimum

SD

CV (%) Mean

1 L-335 Adequate hours of service 6.88 2.2 32

2 L-110 Access to photocopying and printing facilities 6.42 2.36 37

3 LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 6.37 2.19 34

4 IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 6.35 2.22 35

5 LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 6.34 2.22 35

6 AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions 6.31 2.21 35

7 IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 6.3 2.32 37

8 IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 6.24 2.16 35

9 IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 6.23 2.29 37

10 LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 6.2 2.23 36

11 AS-8 Willingness to help users 6.19 2.19 35

12 IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 6.16 2.23 36

13 AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users 6.15 2.23 36

14


6.07

2.36

39

15 LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 6.04 2.55 42

16 AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 6.02 2.31 38

17 IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 6.02 2.31 38

18 L-185 Access to archives, special collections 5.99 2.22 37

19 AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion 5.98 2.28 38

20 LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 5.97 2.47 41

21 IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 5.93 2.42 41

22 AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 5.92 2 34

23

AS-3

Library staff who are consistently courteous

5.88

2.14

36

24

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

5.78

2.39

41

25

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

5.56

2.32

42

26

L-159

Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available

databases, journals, and books

5.47

2.64

48

27

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

5.32

2.38

45

CV: Coefficient of variation represents the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean and it is a useful statistic for comparing the

degree of variation from one data series to another. In simple language, a low ratio of the coefficient of variation means that there

is no high variation in the responses of the service users. In this instance, we would say that there are no disparate opinions of the

service users about the library service quality component.

P a g e | 14

Table 3. Results of Library Performance Aggregated per Library users satisfaction Dimensions

Dimension Minimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority n


Affect of Service 5.92 7.48 5.85 -0.07 -1.63 1,008

Information Control 6.12 7.70 6.00 -0.12 -1.7 1,008

Library as Place 6.18 7.79 6.11 -0.07 -1.68 1,008

Local Questions 6.17 7.71 6.07 -0.09 -1.63

Overall 6.10 7.67 6.01 -0.09 -1.66 1,008

U S E R S ’ D E S I R E D E X P E C T A T IO N S

The high desired mean score could be described as the level of importance that the user gives to various

services. We ranked all the services indicators (from the highest to the lowest) based on the desire mean

score for the overall user group. For the overall user group, highest items were related to the Local

Questions, the Library as a Place and Information Control dimensions. These items were “Adequate hours

of service”, “Library space that inspires study and learning”, “Access to photocopying and printing facilities”,

“ Quiet space for individual work”, “Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information”, “A

comfortable and inviting location”. (See table 4). It seems that the library users in all groups gave the

least preference to “Giving users individual attention” and “Dependability in handling users' service

problems”.

M IN IM U M , D E S IR E D A N D P E R C E IVE D U S E R S ’ D E S I R E D E X P E C T A T IO N S O N S E R V I C E Q U A L I T Y D IM E N S IO N S

The results of pair sample t-test (See Table 5) showed that the library users’ minimum expectations were

significantly different than the desire expectations on all services items and dimensions, also the perceived

Mean scores compared to the minimum mean scores and the desired mean scores were statistically different.

Users did not have similar demand for the minimum and desired level. Thus their adequate (minimum) demand

is different from their ideal (desire) demand.

The results suggested that users’ minimum and desired expectations significantly differed on all four service

quality dimensions for the individual services performance indicators.

P a g e | 15

Table 4. Desired Expectations of Overall User Group

Rank ID Question Text Desired

SD Mean

1 L-335 Adequate hours of service 7.98 1.64

2 LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 7.93 1.74

3 L-110 Access to photocopying and printing facilities 7.91 1.76

4 LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 7.83 1.86

5 IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 7.82 1.7

6 LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 7.8 1.63

7 LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 7.78 1.71

8 IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 7.77 1.83

9 IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 7.77 1.66

10 AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions 7.76 1.66

11 IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 7.72 1.76

12 AS-8 Willingness to help users 7.71 1.72

13 IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 7.68 1.7

14

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

7.65

1.74

15 IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 7.64 1.89

16 LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 7.61 1.91

17


7.61

1.78

18 AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users 7.6 1.76

19 IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 7.6 1.93

20 AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 7.57 1.85

21 AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 7.56 1.81

22 L-185 Access to archives, special collections 7.53 1.79

23

L-159 Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available databases, journals, and books

7.5

2.01

24

AS-6

Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion

7.44

1.86

25

AS-3

Library staff who are consistently courteous

7.31

1.89

26

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

7.26

1.99

27

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

7.18

1.98

P a g e | 16

Table 5. Paired Samples Test on Means scores

Paired Differences

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1

Average desired score for fully answered core item

responses - Average minimum score for fully answered

core item responses

1.25

1.59

0.04

1.17

1.34

29.03

1355

0

Pair 2

Average perceived score for fully answered core item responses - Average minimum score for fully answered

core item responses

-0.13

1.59

0.04

-0.21

-0.04

-2.97

1355

0.003

Pair 3

Average perceived score for fully answered core item

responses - Average desired score for fully answered core

item responses

-1.38

1.66

0.05

-1.47

-1.29

-30.68

1355

0

P a g e | 17

Table 1a : Results related to the Library Performance Dimensions (Standard deviations)

ID

Question Text

Minimum

SD

Desired

SD

Perceived

SD

Adequacy

SD

Superiority

SD

n

Affect of Service

AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 2.00 1.81 2.06 2.26 2.38 997

AS-2 Giving users individual attention 2.38 1.98 2.35 2.59 2.60 981

AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 2.14 1.89 2.14 2.30 2.34 973

AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 2.31 1.85 2.18 2.48 2.39 991

AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer

user questions

2.21 1.66 2.15 2.27 2.23 986

AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring

fashion

2.28 1.86 2.18 2.29 2.28 973

AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their

users

2.23 1.76 2.19 2.39 2.32 984

AS-8 Willingness to help users 2.19 1.72 2.19 2.40 2.29 987

AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 2.32 1.99 2.27 2.44 2.53 951

Information Control

IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my

home or office

2.39 1.89 2.27 2.62 2.62 942

IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate

information on my own

2.32 1.83 2.34 2.42 2.48 993

IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 2.42 1.93 2.26 2.50 2.46 977

IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 2.23 1.66 2.10 2.42 2.33 983

IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access

needed information

2.29 1.70 2.17 2.48 2.31 992

IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find

things on my own

2.22 1.76 2.17 2.35 2.28 991

IC-7 Making information easily accessible for

independent use

2.16 1.70 2.12 2.30 2.24 979

IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I

require for my work

2.31 1.74 2.24 2.50 2.41 958

Library a

LP-1

s Place Library space that inspires study and learning

2.22

1.74

2.14

2.21

2.27

1,001

LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 2.55 1.86 2.38 2.64 2.60 997

LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 2.19 1.63 2.06 2.20 2.09 986

LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 2.23 1.71 2.16 2.40 2.30 987

LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 2.47 1.91 2.45 2.66 2.64 979

Overall: 1.59 1.28 1.49 1.64 1.64 1,008


P a g e | 18

The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL +®

survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the

headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be

found in Appendix A.

Dimension Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n

Affect of Service 5.92 7.48 5.85 -0.07 -1.63 1,008

Information Control 6.12 7.70 6.00 -0.12 -1.70 1,008

Library as Place 6.18 7.79 6.11 -0.07 -1.68 1,008

Overall 6.07 7.64 5.99 -0.09 -1.66 1,008

The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the

LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed

explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their

dimensions can be found in Appendix A.

Dimension Minimum

SD

Desired

SD

Perceived

SD

Adequacy

SD

Superiority

SD n

Affect of Service 1.71 1.39 1.65 1.73 1.74 1,008

Information Control 1.69 1.33 1.61 1.78 1.77 1,008

Library as Place 1.81 1.36 1.71 1.84 1.83 1,008

Overall 1.59 1.28 1.49 1.64 1.64 1,008


P a g e | 19

Me

an

C O R E Q U E S T I O N D I M E N S IO N S S U M M A R Y

On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars

represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of

minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.

9

8

7

6

5

4

Affect of

Service

Information

Control

Library as

Place Overall

Dimension

Range of Minimum to Desired

Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”)


P a g e | 20

L O C A L Q U E S T I O N S U M M A R Y

This table shows mean scores of each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is the

number of respondents for each particular question. For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the introduction

to this notebook.

Question Text

Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n

Access to archives, special collections 5.99 7.53 6.07 0.08 -1.46 965

Access to photocopying and printing facilities 6.42 7.91 6.32 -0.10 -1.58 982

Adequate hours of service 6.88 7.98 6.92 0.04 -1.06 995

An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify

printed and electronic documents offered by my

institution

Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the

electronically available databases, journals, and

books

6.07 7.61 5.83 - 0.23 -1.77 953

5.47 7.50 5.23 -0.23 -2.26 960

P a g e | 21

INFORMATION LITERACY OUTCOMES QUESTIONS SUMMARY

This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where

n is the number of respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the information literacy

outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a

scale from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Mean SD n

The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 5.97 2.10 1,008

The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline or work. 6.31 1.99 1,008

The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits or work. 6.49 2.01 1,008

The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy information. 5.73 2.29 1,007

The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study. 6.42 2.09 1,006

P a g e | 22

O V E R A L L C U S T O M E R S ’ S A T I S F A C T I O N R A T E S

Table 6 : Percentages of Library users satisfaction

(Perceived Mean compared to Minimum Mean)

AvPerCount1

Total

Not adequately

satisfied with the

Service

Adequately Satisfied

with the Service

User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count

599

649

1248

% within AvPerCount1

94.2%

93.2%

93.7%

% of Total

45.0%

48.7%

93.7%

Postgraduate

Count

16

23

39


2.5%

3.3%

2.9%

% of Total

1.2%

1.7%

2.9%

Academic Staff

Count

13

10

23


2.0%

1.4%

1.7%

% of Total

1.0%

0.8%

1.7%

Library Staff

Count

6

9

15


0.9%

1.3%

1.1%

% of Total

0.5%

0.7%

1.1%

Staff

Count

2

5

7


0.3%

0.7%

0.5%

% of Total

0.2%

0.4%

0.5%

Total

Count

636

696

1332


100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

% of Total

47.7%

52.3%

100.0%

Percentages of library users’ satisfaction

Table 6 above provides statistical data of the library user’s satisfaction in terms of how the library services meet the

minimum required by service users. The overall percentages of service users who are not adequately satisfied

(Perceived Mean Score compared to the Minimum Mean Score) is 47.7% while 52.3% of the service users are adequately

satisfied - this means that the library services is meeting the minimum mean score required by the services users

at 52.5%, and is not meeting the minimum mean score required at 47.7% of the service users. The table also

indicates the satisfaction rates of different groups of library users.

P a g e | 23

Table 7: Percentages of Library users satisfaction

(Perceived Mean compared to Desired Mean)

AvPerCount2

Total

Perceived Mean score

less than the Desired

Mean


greater than or equal

to the Desired Mean

score

User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count

948

198

1146


94.2%

92.5%

93.9%

% of Total

77.7%

16.2%

93.9%

Postgraduate

Count

25

10

35


2.5%

4.7%

2.9%

% of Total

2.0%

0.8%

2.9%

Academic Staff

Count

18

4

22


1.8%

1.9%

1.8%

% of Total

1.5%

0.3%

1.8%

Library Staff

Count

12

1

13


1.2%

0.5%

1.1%

% of Total

1.0%

0.1%

1.1%

Staff

Count

3

1

4


0.3%

0.5%

0.3%

% of Total

0.2%

0.1%

0.3%

Total

Count

1006

214

1220


100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

% of Total

82.5%

17.5%

100.0%

The conceptual difference between WITHIN-SUBJECT and BETWEEN-SUBJECT effects is something

Within-person (or within-subject) effects represent the variability of a particular score for individuals in the

sample. In this instance, the percentge (%) within User Group ID is a measure of how much a group of

users (Undergraduate, Postgraduate, Academic staff, Staff) in the sample tends to change (or vary) over

time and or contribute to the two categories “Perceived Affect of Service less than the Minimum Affect Service

required by service users” and “Perceived Afffect of Service greater than or equal to the Minimum Mean Score

of Affect service by service users”.

P a g e | 24

In other words, the percentage (%) within AvPerCount2 represents the “Between-user group percentage)”

for each category. It gives the contribution of the users groups to each of the two categories “Perceived

Affect of Service less than the Minimum Affect Service required by service users” and “Perceived Afffect of

Service greater than or equal to the Minimum Mean Score of Affect service by service users”.

Percentages of library users’ satisfaction

The table 7 above provides statistical data of the library user’s satisfaction in terms of how the library services meet the

desired mean score required by the service users. The overall percentages of service users who’s the perceived mean

score is less than the desired mean is 82.5% (Perceived Mean Score compared to the Desired Mean Score) while the

percentage of service users who’s perceived mean score is greater than or equal to the desired mean score is

17.5% - this means that among the library services users 17.5% perceived that the library is delivering more than

what they desire.

P a g e | 25

C U S T O M E R S ’ S A T IS F A C T I O N R A T E S R E L A T E D T O T H E O V E R A L L A F F E C T O F S E R V I C E

The Affect of Service dimension as illustrated in the figure above and the table below, show Adequacy

means (Perceived Mean score minus Minimum Mean score) below averages for the six indicators in red and

a slight above for the indicators in green.

Negative perceptions indicators on Affect of Service

•Library staff who instill confidence in users,

•Readiness to respond to users' enquiries,

•Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion,

•Library staff who understand the needs of their users,

•Willingness to help users,

•Dependability in handling users' service problems

Positive perceptions indicators on Affect of Service

•Giving users individual attention,

•Library staff who are consistently courteous,

•Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions

The overall Affect of service indicators the perceived means scores are less than the desired means scores,

which resulted in the negative superiority means scores. This means that the library services need to increase

the Affect of service component in order to reach the desired means scores of the services users.

Therefore the survey results show that 47.3% of the service users are having perceived means related to the

dimension Affect of service less than the minimum mean scores. This means that the library is not meeting

the minimum required on the indicators of Affect of services; whereas 52.7% of the service users are having

the perceived means score which is greater than or equal to the minimum mean scores related to the

components of the dimension Affect of service meaning that for 52.7% of the service users, the library is

delivering more than the minimum required for the indicators related to Affect of service dimension. These

results are shown on tables 8 and 9 below, including details different users groups (Undergraduate,

Postgraduate, Academic Staff, Library Staff and Staff).

P a g e | 26

Table 8: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Affect Service dimension

(Perceived Mean compared to the Minimum)

D1AvPerCount1 Total

Perceived Affect of

Service less than

the Minimum

Affect Service

required by service

users

Perceived Afffect

of Service greater

than or equal to the

Minimum Mean

Score of Affect

service by service

users User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 554 623 1177

% within User Group ID 47.1% 52.9% 100.0%

% within D1AvPerCount1 93.6% 94.5% 94.1%

% of Total 44.3% 49.8% 94.1% Postgraduate

Count 16 19 35



% of Total 1.3% 1.5% 2.8% Academic Staff

Count 12 10 22



% of Total 1.0% 0.8% 1.8% Library Staff

Count 6 7 13



% of Total 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% Staff

Count 4 0 4



% of Total 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% Total

Count 592 659 1251



% of Total 47.3% 52.7% 100.0%

P a g e | 27

Table 9:Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Affect Service dimension

(Perceived Mean compared to Desired Mean)

D1AvPerCount2

Total

Perceived Mean

Score of Affect

Service less than the

Desired Score


of Affect Service

greater or equal to the

Desired Mean Score

User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count

855

277

1132

% within User Group ID

75.5%

24.5%

100.0%

% within D1AvPerCount2

94.1%

93.3%

93.9%

% of Total

70.9%

23.0%

93.9%

Postgraduate

Count

27

8

35


77.1%

22.9%

100.0%


3.0%

2.7%

2.9%

% of Total

2.2%

0.7%

2.9%

Academic Staff

Count

16

6

22


72.7%

27.3%

100.0%


1.8%

2.0%

1.8%

% of Total

1.3%

0.5%

1.8%

Library Staff

Count

7

6

13


53.8%

46.2%

100.0%


0.8%

2.0%

1.1%

% of Total

0.6%

0.5%

1.1%

Staff

Count

4

0

4


100.0%

0.0%

100.0%


0.4%

0.0%

0.3%

% of Total

0.3%

0.0%

0.3%

Total

Count

909

297

1206


75.4%

24.6%

100.0%


100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

% of Total

75.4%

24.6%

100.0%

P a g e | 28

C U S T O M E R S ’ S A T IS F A C T I O N R A T E S R E L A T E D T O T H E O V E R A L L IN F O R M A T IO N C O N T R O L

Information Control

Regarding the dimension Information Control, the UNAM Library service is negatively perceived by

the service users for all the components below in red:

Negative perceptions indicators of Information Control

• Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

• A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own

• The printed library materials I need for my work

• The electronic information resources I need

• Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information

• Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

• Making information easily accessible for independent use

• Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

The overall Information Control indicators the perceived means scores are less than the desired means

scores, which resulted in the negative superiority means scores. This means that the library services need to

increase the Information Control component in order to reach the desired means scores of the services users.

Therefore the survey results show that 50.7 % of the service users are having perceived means related to the

dimension Information Control less than the minimum mean scores. This means that the library is not meeting

the minimum required on the indicators of Information Control; whereas 49.3 % of the service users are

having the perceived means score which is greater than or equal to the minimum mean scores related to the

components of the dimension Information Control meaning that for 49.3 % of the service users, the library

is delivering more than the minimum required for the indicators related to Information Control dimension.

These results are shown on tables 10 and 11 below, including details of different users groups (Undergraduate,


P a g e | 29

Table 10 : Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Information Control dimension


D2AvPerCount1 Total

Perceived of

Information

Control less than

the Minimum

Score required by

service users

Perceived of

Information

Control greater

than or equal to

the Minimum

required User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 596 579 1175



% of Total 47.7% 46.3% 94.0%

Postgraduate

Count 18 17 35



% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 12 10 22



% of Total 1.0% 0.8% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 6 7 13



% of Total 0.5% 0.6% 1.0%

Staff

Count 2 3 5



% of Total 0.2% 0.2% 0.4%

Total

Count 634 616 1250



% of Total 50.7% 49.3% 100.0%

P a g e | 30

Table 11 : Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Information Control dimension

(Perceived Mean compared to the Desired)

D2AvPerCount2 Total

Perceived Mean

less than the

Desired Mean

score required

Perceived Mean

Greater than or

equal to the

Desired Mean

score required User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 900 275 1175



% of Total 72.0% 22.0% 94.0%

Postgraduate

Count 26 9 35



% of Total 2.1% 0.7% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 15 7 22



% of Total 1.2% 0.6% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 11 2 13



% of Total 0.9% 0.2% 1.0%

Staff

Count 3 2 5



% of Total 0.2% 0.2% 0.4%

Total

Count 955 295 1250



% of Total 76.4% 23.6% 100.0%

P a g e | 31

C U S T O M E R S ’ S A T IS F A C T I O N R A T E S R E L A T E D T O T H E O V E R A L L L IB R A R Y A S A P L A C E

Library as Place

Regarding the dimension Library as Place, the UNAM Library service is negatively perceived by the

service users for all the components below in red and positively perceived for the components in green:

Negative perceptions' indicators on Library as Place

•Library space that inspires study and learning

•Quiet space for individual work

•Space for group learning and group study

•A haven for study, learning, or research

Positive perceptions' indicators on Library as Place

•A comfortable and inviting location

The overall Library as Place indicators the perceived means scores are less than the desired means scores,

which resulted in the negative superiority means scores. This means that the library services need to increase

the Library as Place component in order to reach the desired means scores of the services users.


dimension Library as Place less than the minimum mean scores. This means that the library is not meeting

the minimum required on the indicators of Library as Place; whereas 55.3 % of the service users are having

the perceived means score which is greater than or equal to the minimum mean scores related to the

components of the dimension Library as Place meaning that for 55.3 % of the service users, the library is

delivering more than the minimum required for the indicators related to Library as Place dimension. These

results are shown on tables 12 and 13 below, including details of different users groups (Undergraduate,


P a g e | 32

Table 12: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Library as a Place dimension


D3AvPerCount1 Total

Perceived Mean

of Library as a

Place is less than

the Minimum

required

Perceived Mean

of Library as a

Place is greater

than or equal to

the Minimum


Undergraduate

Count 525 648 1173



% of Total 42.1% 52.0% 94.1%

Postgraduate

Count 11 24 35



% of Total 0.9% 1.9% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 12 10 22



% of Total 1.0% 0.8% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 7 6 13



% of Total 0.6% 0.5% 1.0%

Staff

Count 3 1 4



% of Total 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

Total

Count 558 689 1247



% of Total 44.7% 55.3% 100.0%

P a g e | 33

Table 13: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Library as a Place dimension

(Perceived Mean compared to the Desired Mean Score)

D3AvPerCount2 Total

Perceived Mean

of Library as a

Place is less than

the desired mean

score

Perceived Mean

of Library as a

Place is greater

than or equal to

the desired mean


Undergraduate

Count 869 304 1173



% of Total 69.7% 24.4% 94.1%

Postgraduate

Count 24 11 35



% of Total 1.9% 0.9% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 16 6 22



% of Total 1.3% 0.5% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 8 5 13



% of Total 0.6% 0.4% 1.0%

Staff

Count 4 0 4



% of Total 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

Total

Count 921 326 1247



% of Total 73.9% 26.1% 100.0%

P a g e | 34

C U S T O M E R S ’ S A T I S F A C T I O N R A T E S R E L A T E D T O T H E L O C A L Q U E S T IO N S D IM E N S IO N

The Local questions

Regarding the dimension Local questions, the UNAM Library service is negatively perceived by the

service users for all the components below in red and positively perceived for the components in green:

Negative perception on indicators of Local Quesions dimension

• Access to photocopying and printing facilities

• An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents offered by my institution

• Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available databases, journals, and books

Positive perception on indicators of Local Questions dimension

• Access to archives, special collections

• Adequate hours of service

The overall Local Questions indicators on the component “Access to Archives and special collections” the

perceived means scores are less than the desired means scores, which resulted in the negative superiority

means scores. This means that the library services need to increase the Local Questions “Access to Archives

and special collections” component in order to reach the desired means scores of the services users.


dimension Local Question less than the minimum mean scores. This means that the library is not meeting

the minimum required on the indicators of Local Question; whereas 64.9 % of the service users are having the

perceived means score of “Access to Archives and special collections” which is greater than or equal to the

minimum mean scores related to the “Access to Archives and special collections” of the dimension Local

Question meaning that for 64.9 % of the service users, the library is delivering more than the minimum

required for the indicators related to Local Questions dimension. These results are shown on tables 14

and 15 below, including details different users groups (Undergraduate, Postgraduate, Academic Staff,

Library Staff and Staff).

P a g e | 35

ACCESS TO ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

Table 14: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Access to archives and special collections


L185PerCount1 Total

Perceived Mean

score of Access to

archives and

special

collections is less

than the required

Minimum mean

score

Perceived Mean

score of Access to

archives and

special

collections is

great than or

equal to the

required

Minimum mean User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 391 719 1110


% within L185PerCount1 94.2% 93.9% 94.0%

% of Total 33.1% 60.9% 94.0%

Postgraduate

Count 9 24 33



% of Total 0.8% 2.0% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 8 12 20



% of Total 0.7% 1.0% 1.7%

Library Staff

Count 5 8 13



% of Total 0.4% 0.7% 1.1%

Staff

Count 2 3 5



% of Total 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%

Total

Count 415 766 1181



% of Total 35.1% 64.9% 100.0%

P a g e | 36

Table 15: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Access to archives and special collections


L185PerCount2 Total

Perceived Mean

score of Access to

archives special

collections is less

than the desired

mean required

Perceived Mean

score of Access to

archives is greater

than or equal to

the desired mean


Undergraduate

Count 632 475 1107



% of Total 53.7% 40.4% 94.1%

Postgraduate

Count 19 14 33



% of Total 1.6% 1.2% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 7 13 20



% of Total 0.6% 1.1% 1.7%

Library Staff

Count 8 5 13



% of Total 0.7% 0.4% 1.1%

Staff

Count 3 1 4



% of Total 0.3% 0.1% 0.3%

Total

Count 669 508 1177



% of Total 56.8% 43.2% 100.0%

P a g e | 37

ACCESS TO PHOTOCOPYING AND PRINTING

The overall Local Questions indicators on the component “Access to photocopying and printing” the perceived

means scores are less than the desired means scores, which resulted in the negative superiority means scores.

This means that the library services need to increase the Local Questions “Access to photocopying and

printing” component in order to reach the desired means scores of the services users.




perceived means score of “Access to photocopying and printing” which is greater than or equal to the minimum

mean scores related to the “Access to photocopying and printing” of the dimension Local Question

meaning that for 63.9 % of the service users, the library is delivering more than the minimum required

for the indicators related to Local Questions dimension. These results are shown on tables 16 and

17 below, including details different users groups (Undergraduate, Postgraduate, Academic Staff, Library

Staff and Staff).

P a g e | 38

Table 16: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Access to photocopying and printing


L110PerCount1 Total

Perceived Mean

score of Access to

photocopying and

printing less than

the Minimum

score required

Perceived Mean

score of Access to

photocopying and

printing greater

than or equal to

Minimum mean


Undergraduate

Count 401 723 1124



% of Total 33.6% 60.7% 94.3%

Postgraduate

Count 13 20 33



% of Total 1.1% 1.7% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 10 9 19



% of Total 0.8% 0.8% 1.6%

Library Staff

Count 5 8 13



% of Total 0.4% 0.7% 1.1%

Staff

Count 1 2 3



% of Total 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%

Total

Count 430 762 1192



% of Total 36.1% 63.9% 100.0%

P a g e | 39

Table 17: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Access to photocopying and printing

(Perceived Mean compared to the Desired Mean score)

L110PerCount2 Total

Perceived mean

score of Access to

photocopying and

printing less than

the desired mean

score

Perceived mean

score of Access to

photocopying and

printing greater

than or equal to

the desired mean

score User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 635 492 1127



% of Total 53.2% 41.2% 94.5%

Postgraduate

Count 18 15 33



% of Total 1.5% 1.3% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 12 7 19



% of Total 1.0% 0.6% 1.6%

Library Staff

Count 7 5 12



% of Total 0.6% 0.4% 1.0%

Staff

Count 2 0 2



% of Total 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

Total

Count 674 519 1193



% of Total 56.5% 43.5% 100.0%

P a g e | 40

ADEQUATE HOURS OF SERVICE

The overall Local Questions indicators on the component “Adequate hours of service” the perceived means

scores are less than the desired means scores, which resulted in the negative superiority means scores. This

means that the library services need to increase the Local Questions “Adequate hours of service” component

in order to reach the desired means scores of the services users.




perceived means score of “Adequate hours of service” which is greater than or equal to the minimum mean

scores related to the “Adequate hours of service” of the dimension Local Question meaning that for

68.5 % of the service users, the library is delivering more than the minimum required for the indicators

related to Local Questions dimension. These results are shown on tables 18 and 19 below, including details

different users groups (Undergraduate, Postgraduate, Academic Staff, Library Staff and Staff).

P a g e | 41

Table 18: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Adequate hours of service


L335PerCount1 Total

Perceived Mean

score of Adequate

hours of service

less than the

Minimum score

Perceived Mean

score of Adequate

hours of service

greater than or

equal to the

Minimum score User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 353 774 1127



% of Total 29.4% 64.4% 93.8%

Postgraduate

Count 13 22 35



% of Total 1.1% 1.8% 2.9%

Academic Staff

Count 9 13 22



% of Total 0.7% 1.1% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 3 10 13



% of Total 0.2% 0.8% 1.1%

Staff

Count 0 4 4



% of Total 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

Total

Count 378 823 1201



% of Total 31.5% 68.5% 100.0%

P a g e | 42

Table 19 : Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Adequate hours of service

(Perceived Mean compared to the Desired Mean)

L335PerCount2 Total

Perceived Mean

score of Adequate

hours of service

less than the

desired mean

score

Perceived Mean

score of Adequate

hours of service

greater than or

equal to the

desired mean

score User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 549 580 1129



% of Total 45.7% 48.3% 93.9%

Postgraduate

Count 15 19 34



% of Total 1.2% 1.6% 2.8%

Academic Staff

Count 11 11 22



% of Total 0.9% 0.9% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 7 6 13



% of Total 0.6% 0.5% 1.1%

Staff

Count 0 4 4



% of Total 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

Total

Count 582 620 1202



% of Total 48.4% 51.6% 100.0%

P a g e | 43

AN ELECTRONIC CATALOG WHERE IT'S EASY TO IDENTIFY PRINTED AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

OFFERED BY MY INSTITUTION

The overall Local Questions indicators on the component “An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify

printed and electronic documents” the perceived means scores are less than the desired means scores, which

resulted in the negative superiority means scores. This means that the library services need to increase the

Local Questions “An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents”

component in order to reach the desired means scores of the services users.




perceived means score of “An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents”

which is greater than or equal to the minimum mean scores related to the “An electronic catalog where

it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents” of the dimension Local Question meaning that for

60.4 % of the service users, the library is delivering more than the minimum required for the indicators

related to Local Questions dimension. These results are shown on tables 20 and 21 below, including details of

different users groups (Undergraduate, Postgraduate, Academic Staff, Library Staff and Staff).

P a g e | 44

Table 20: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Electronic catalog


L847PerCount1 Total

Perceived Mean

score of

Electronic catalog

less than the

Minimum score

required

Perceived Mean

score of

Electronic catalog

greater than or

equal to the

Minimum score


Undergraduate

Count 432 656 1088



% of Total 37.4% 56.8% 94.2%

Postgraduate

Count 9 21 30



% of Total 0.8% 1.8% 2.6%

Academic Staff

Count 9 11 20



% of Total 0.8% 1.0% 1.7%

Library Staff

Count 5 8 13



% of Total 0.4% 0.7% 1.1%

Staff

Count 2 2 4



% of Total 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

Total

Count 457 698 1155



% of Total 39.6% 60.4% 100.0%

P a g e | 45

Table 21: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Electronic catalog


L847PerCount2 Total

Perceived Mean

score of the

Electronic

catalogue less

than the desired

mean score

Perceived Mean

score of the

Electronic

catalogue greater

than or equal to

the desired mean

score User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 653 439 1092



% of Total 56.3% 37.9% 94.2%

Postgraduate

Count 15 15 30



% of Total 1.3% 1.3% 2.6%

Academic Staff

Count 13 7 20



% of Total 1.1% 0.6% 1.7%

Library Staff

Count 10 3 13



% of Total 0.9% 0.3% 1.1%

Staff

Count 2 2 4



% of Total 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

Total

Count 693 466 1159



% of Total 59.8% 40.2% 100.0%

P a g e | 46

LIBRARY STAFF TEACHING ME HOW TO EFFECTIVELY USE THE ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE

DATABASES, JOURNALS, AND BOOKS

The overall Local Questions indicators on the component “Library staff teaching me how to effectively use

the electronically available databases, journals, and books” the perceived means scores are less than the desired

means scores, which resulted in the negative superiority means scores. This means that the library services

need to increase the Local Questions “Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically

available databases, journals, and books” component in order to reach the desired means scores of the

services users.




perceived means score of “Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available

databases, journals, and books” which is greater than or equal to the minimum mean scores related to the

“An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents” of the dimension Local

Question meaning that for 60.9 % of the service users, the library is delivering more than the minimum

required for the indicators related to Local Questions dimension. These results are shown on tables 22 and

23 below, including details of different users groups (Undergraduate, Postgraduate, Academic Staff, Library

Staff and Staff).

P a g e | 47

Table 22a: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Library staff effective teaching


L159PerCount1 Total

Perceived mean

score of Library

staff teach how to

use effectively

less than the

Minimum

required

Perceived mean

score of Library

staff teach how to

use effectively

greater than or

equal to the

Minimum


Undergraduate

Count 428 664 1092



% of Total 36.8% 57.1% 93.9%

Postgraduate

Count 11 23 34



% of Total 0.9% 2.0% 2.9%

Academic Staff

Count 9 12 21



% of Total 0.8% 1.0% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 5 7 12



% of Total 0.4% 0.6% 1.0%

Staff

Count 2 2 4



% of Total 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

Total

Count 455 708 1163



% of Total 39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

P a g e | 48

Table 22b: Percentages of Library users satisfaction on Library staff effective teaching


L159PerCount2 Total

Perceived Mean

score of Library

staff teach

effectively less

than the desired

mean score

Perceived Mean

score of Library

staff teach

effectively greater

than or equal to

the desired mean

score User Group ID

Undergraduate

Count 677 417 1094



% of Total 58.1% 35.8% 93.9%

Postgraduate

Count 19 15 34



% of Total 1.6% 1.3% 2.9%

Academic Staff

Count 12 9 21



% of Total 1.0% 0.8% 1.8%

Library Staff

Count 9 3 12



% of Total 0.8% 0.3% 1.0%

Staff

Count 2 2 4



% of Total 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

Total

Count 719 446 1165



% of Total 61.7% 38.3% 100.0%

P a g e | 49

SATISFACTION TO LIBRARY ICT SERVICES

Due to demand for improvement of library IT services and internet connectivity in the Main Campus library

expressed by students during 2007/2008, UNAM library used the Libqual+ IT related questions to create a

new dimension measuring satisfaction to ICT services in 2012. Library in cooperation with the Computer

Centre has addressed the IT equipment and services problems by acquiring 110 new PCs for the use of

students, through improved internet connectivity and by employing Systems Librarian to address digital and

online services.

The questions used to measure satisfaction to ICT services were done through a new variable compiled from

questions evaluating ICT tools and services. (IC-1, IC-2, IC-5, IC-6 and L-110)

P a g e | 50

Table 23a: Library users’ satisfaction in terms of how the library ICT services meet the acceptable minimum level of ICT access and

virtual services

User Group ID * ITadSat Crosstabulation

ITadSat Total

IT adequacy

dissatisfaction

IT adequacy

Satisfaction

Count 489 503 992

Undergraduate

% within User Group

ID

49.3% 50.7% 100.0%

% within ITadSat 94.2% 94.5% 94.4%

% of Total 46.5% 47.9% 94.4%

Count 15 15 30

Postgraduate

% within User Group

ID

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

% within ITadSat 2.9% 2.8% 2.9%

% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 2.9%

Count 9 9 18

User Group ID

Academic Staff

% within User Group

ID

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%


% of Total 0.9% 0.9% 1.7%

Count 5 4 9

Library Staff

% within User Group

ID

55.6% 44.4% 100.0%


% of Total 0.5% 0.4% 0.9%

Count 1 1 2

Staff

% within User Group

ID

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%


% of Total 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Count 519 532 1051

Total

% within User Group

ID

49.4% 50.6% 100.0%

% within ITadSat 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 49.4% 50.6% 100.0%

P a g e | 51

The Library is meeting the minimum service level acceptable to library users for 50.6% of the library users, and not meeting

the acceptable basic service level for 49.4% of library users.

P a g e | 52

Table 23b: Library users’ satisfaction in terms of how the library ICT services meet the desired/optimum level of ICT access and virtual

services

User Group ID * ITsupSat Crosstabulation

ITsupSat Total

Not Satisfied Superiority

Satisfaction

Count 769 223 992

Undergraduate

% within User Group

ID

77.5% 22.5% 100.0%

% within ITsupSat 94.6% 94.1% 94.5%

% of Total 73.2% 21.2% 94.5%

Count 21 8 29

Postgraduate

% within User Group

ID

72.4% 27.6% 100.0%


% of Total 2.0% 0.8% 2.8%

Count 14 4 18

User Group ID

Academic Staff

% within User Group

ID

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%


% of Total 1.3% 0.4% 1.7%

Count 7 2 9

Library Staff

% within User Group

ID

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%


% of Total 0.7% 0.2% 0.9%

Count 2 0 2

Staff

% within User Group

ID

100.0% 0.0% 100.0%


% of Total 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

Count 813 237 1050

Total

% within User Group

ID

77.4% 22.6% 100.0%

% within ITsupSat 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 77.4% 22.6% 100.0%

The Library is meeting the desired level of ICT services for 22.6% of the library users, and not meeting the desired level of

P a g e | 53

ICT service level for 77.4% of library users.

P a g e | 54

C O R E Q U E S T I O N S S U M M A R Y F O R U N D E R G R A D U A T E

This radar chart shows the aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to




On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps"

between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red.


respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this

notebook.)

AS-6 AS-7 AS-5

AS-8

AS-4

Affect of Service

AS-9 AS-3

IC-1 AS-2

IC-2 AS-1

IC-3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LP-5

IC-4 LP-4

Information Control

IC-5

IC-6 LP-2

LP-3

Library as Place

IC-7

IC-8 LP-1





P a g e | 55

ID Question Text

Affect of Service

Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n



AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 5.89 7.32 5.88 -0.01 -1.44 923


AS-5

AS-6

Library staff who have the knowledge to answer

user questions


6.30 7.77 6.33 0.03 -1.44 937

5.99 7.45 5.93 -0.07 -1.52 923

AS-7

AS-8

Library staff who understand the needs of their

users

Willingness to help users

6.16 7.61 5.97 -0.19 -1.64 933

6.18 7.71 6.10 -0.08 -1.61 937


Information Control

IC-1

IC-2

IC-3

Making electronic resources accessible from my

home or office

A library Web site enabling me to locate


The printed library materials I need for my work

5.76 7.62 5.68 -0.07 -1.93 892

6.32 7.77 6.19 -0.13 -1.57 943

5.95 7.61 5.90 -0.06 -1.72 930


IC-5

IC-6

IC-7

IC-8

Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed

information

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things

on my own

Making information easily accessible for

independent use

Print and/or electronic journal collections I require

for my work

6.24 7.83 6.02 -0.22 -1.81 941

6.35 7.72 6.24 -0.10 -1.48 942

6.24 7.69 6.19 -0.05 -1.50 933

6.04 7.65 5.95 -0.08 -1.70 910

Library as Place

LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 6.35 7.95 6.33 -0.02 -1.62 953





Overall: 6.08 7.65 5.99 -0.09 -1.66 957

P a g e | 56

Me

an

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Undergraduate




9

8

7

6

5

4

Affect of

Service

Information

Control

Dimension

Library as

Place

Overall


Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")

P a g e | 55





Dimension Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n

Affect of Service 5.92 7.48 5.84 -0.07 -1.64 957

Information Control 6.13 7.70 6.01 -0.12 -1.70 957

Library as Place 6.18 7.80 6.12 -0.06 -1.67 957

Overall 6.08 7.65 5.99 -0.09 -1.66 957

SD SD SD SD SD n

Affect of Service 1.70 1.38 1.66 1.73 1.75 957 Information Control 1.68 1.32 1.60 1.78 1.76 957 Library as Place 1.80 1.34 1.71 1.83 1.82 957

Overall 1.58 1.27 1.49 1.64 1.64 957

Local Question Summary for Undergraduate



to this notebook.

Question Text Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n

Access to archives, special collections 6.01 7.54 6.07

0.06

-1.47

918

Access to photocopying and printing facilities 6.43 7.94 6.37

-0.06

-1.57

937

Adequate hours of service 6.91 8.01 6.94

0.03

-1.06

944



6.05 7.61 5.81

-0.24

-1.79

907

institution Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the

electronically available databases, journals, and books

5.43

7.47

5.19

-0.24

-2.28

911

P a g e | 56

Undergraduate Library users

In general the perception of the UNAM Library is that the undergraduate users are under their acceptable

minimum and less than their desired service quality; meaning that the UNAM Library is not performing

adequate as per the service users.

Affect of Service

Regarding the dimension Affect of Service, the UNAM Library service is negatively perceived by the

service users on the components below:

Negative percepions by undergraduate regarding the Affect of Service

•Library staff who instill confidence in users

•Library staff who are consistently courteous

•Readiness to respond to users' enquiries

•Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion


•Willingness to help users

•Library staff who understand the needs of their users

Positive perceptions by undergraduate regarding the Affect of Service

•Giving users individual attention


Information Control

Regarding the dimension Information Control, the UNAM Library service is negatively perceived by

the service users for all the components below:

Negative perceptions by undergraduate regarding the Information Control

•Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

•A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own

•The printed library materials I need for my work

•The electronic information resources I need

•Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information

•Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

•Making information easily accessible for independent use

•Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

P a g e | 57

Library as Place

Regarding the dimension Library as Place, the UNAM Library service is negatively perceived by the

service users for all the components below in red and positively perceived on one component in green:

Negative percepions by undergraduate regarding the Library as Place

• Library space that inspires study and learning

• Quiet space for individual work

• Space for group learning and group study

• A haven for study, learning, or research

Positive perceptions by undergraduate regarding the Library as Place

• A comfortable and inviting location

The Local questions

Regarding the dimension Local questions, the UNAM Library service is negatively perceived by the

service users for all the components below:

Negative percepions by undergraduate regarding the Library as Place

•Access to photocopying and printing facilities

•An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents offered by my institution

•Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available databases, journals, and books

Positive perceptions by undergraduate regarding the Library as Place

•Access to archives, special collections

•Adequate hours of service

P a g e | 58

QU ALITATI VE A NALYS IS FOR U ND ERGRA DU ATE S TU DENT S LIB RAR Y U S ERS

The qualitative analysis has been conducted and the following themes were identified: General remarks theme,

Themes and subthemes identified for Affect of service: library staff (Human resources) and relation with the

service users, induction and training (subthemes: customer services, staff shortage).Themes for Information

Control: materials, (photocopiers, computers, IT-support), books and library resources, Internet connectivity,

Library opening hours. Themes for Library as Place: Library as a study and research environment, infrastructure.

The frequencies for different themes and subthemes from different respondents are given on the figure below:

Libqual comments

Photocopiers/printers - positive

ICT - positive

Easy to use access tools

Collection - negative

Books misshelved/missing

Training/orientation

Service - good

Staff - positive

0.30%

1.48%

1.77% 1.48%

2.22%

0.89% 1.26%

2.14% 3.40%

1.85%

5.84%

6.43%

13.01%

18.99%

19.88%

Noise

Library building- positive

Aircon

0.59%

2.29% 0.96%

4.66% 5.54%

5.03%

P a g e | 59

General remarks

Generally, the majority of undergraduate students’ library users have shown appreciation towards the services

provided by UNAM library. Some of the appreciations are quoted below:

I find studying in the library very helpful.

Keep up the good work and service.

The Unam library is one good and best library I have used so far in my life. As a Law

student, the library has always been supportive to me and helping me improve my

academic results by providing me with the required and prescribed materials and

sources needed for my studies. I don’t have anything bad against my library but only

appreciate its good work. Thank you

THE LIBRARY IS AN ESSENTIAL INSTRUMENT THAT HELPS STUDENTS WHO

CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY BOOKS SUCCEED IN THEIR EDUCATION

Just to keep the good services which they offer and provide them effectively.

Some undergraduates’ service users indicated some aspects which need some improvement toward the UNAM library

service. Those aspects are quoted as follow:

Some offices are ever locked

Services at the library should be improved to increase the students’ interest of visiting the

library more often, access and comfortably.

Students should be allowed to enter the library with their bags. Just as Poly does,

cost spending 30 minutes at the bag counter line is a true waste of time.

P a g e | 60

Affect of Service

Books misshelved/missing

2%

Security staff 4%

Affect of Service Staff - positive

5%

Training/orientation 6%

Service - bad 10%

Staff - negative

18%

Service - good

55%

Library staff (Human resources) and relation with the service users

The comments of the majority of the undergraduate students expressed some disappointment on the attitudes and

practices of some library staff members which illustrate poor service delivery which result in customer

dissatisfaction. In addition, some comments in relation to library regulations on bags counter queuing and safety

and control in the library were highlighted. Herein are some selected quotations:

The library staff is very rude and do not always want to assist students, this is part of my

reasons for avoiding the library unless absolutely necessary.

The bag counter is also a hassle - perhaps we can look at the Polytechnic for some ideas.

Please I would like to comment that library staff members should pay full attention to

students, sometimes they are just busy with their computers and they do not help students on

time.

The Staff members need to change their behaviors towards student when they need assistance

Please security guards that guards us in library should treat us as academicians not as prisoners

mostly when it comes to guns

P a g e | 61

Induction and training

On the theme above, the undergraduates’ library service users have shown high interest on the need for induction

and training on the use of information resources to first year students and continuous refresher training to them

and senior undergraduate students as information resources are perpetually upgrading. Training is crucially

important for students to use the resources to keep themselves abreast with trends and development in their areas

of interest and to become independent in searching information resources and lifelong researchers. Below are

some citations from the respondents.

I am satisfied with the help I get from library staff, but as a first year student it is a bit

difficult to access information that I need because I do not know how to use all the electronic

devices in the library.

As a 1st year student i really do not know how the library system working, so I ask for help, but

the staff is really not helpful.

The librarians are very kind and helpful, but some portray rather a character of rudeness and

impatience, and tend to take an explanation as an excuse

The library staff is not very qualified and professional. It seems to me they don’t really know

what is going on there. The library urgently needs a change in staff. Thank you so much for the

possibility of answering these questions!

Staffs are not that helpful.

We need more staff for helping students in the library.

The library staff is often unfriendly and no welcoming, which makes one feel uncomfortable and

not eager to return.

P a g e | 62

Information Control

Collection - positive

Easy to use Information Control

12% access tools 10%

Electronic resources

8%

Collection -

negative 70%

Materials (Photocopiers, Computers, printers,..)

Undergraduate service users articulated concerns towards the library computers, photocopiers and printing materials

as being insufficient, outdated, and not meeting the learning, studying and information needs of students for

academic purposes. The survey reported that the Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC) library system computers

are mostly not functioning, student computers needs regular updates of anti-viruses to prevent frustration due

to computers crashes which lead to loss of students’ works. Photocopiers and printing facilities at the library were

found to be insufficient resulting in students spending more time in queues for photocopying and printing.

Library service users have also pointed out the need for standby IT technicians to provide full technical assistance

at all times.

Photocopiers/print ers - negative

22%

ICT Photocopiers/print

ers - positive 1%

ICT - positive 6%

ICT - negative

71%

P a g e | 63

Below are some of the comments related to the materials theme:

The computers in the Library are also not sufficient to cater for the needs of the majority of

students. Students will be standing for hours just to get a chance to use a computer. We need

more computers in the Library

The computers at the library are too few for the high number of students and not all of us

have PC's, this makes it difficult for us to get a computer to access information from the

internet for academic purpose.

They must provide enough computers, photo copy machines and printing machines to alleviate

long queues in the library. Thanks for your co-operation.

In my opinion the library service is extremely poor at the moment. Most of the times the copy

machines are broken, and the people working in the library are not able to fix them. We need a

lot more copying machines, in order to let each student copy their needed information without

standing in the queue for hours, or not being able to print at all due to the machine not working

at all.

The computers are very few comparing to the number of Unam students they have

Shortage of computer, student must stop Facebook, order many book especial for languages.

I am happy about the services so far, but if they can think of increasing the computers as the

number of students is raising every year. I thank you

Computers are often packed and the times that i have made use of the library, the printers

were not working.

Library computers are very few, and students have to wait so long for a computer, sometimes

which is not even connected to the printer.

There are only 20 computers available to all the student in the campus which make us to suffer

that is at HP Campus.

P a g e | 64

Information resources: Books and other Library resources

The undergraduate library users presented the following issues with regards to information resources at the library:

the majority stated that the library books and references books are insufficient and the available ones are mostly

outdated to support learning at the university. According to the survey, undergraduate students prefer accessing

thesis and dissertations and other UNAM publications on the portal, and electronic resources should be accessible

on the UNAM webpage for clear visibility.

Just improve on the library materials especially for law students we don’t have text books and

also provide more electronically equipment

Some materials are too old...

Need to get the latest material

Please invest in on-line Juta Stat software - accessible off campus

And buy more law books and ebooks

Improve with the provision of reference books; most books are outdated for current problems.

There are hardly books in the shelves for my course

Generally the best dissertations as well as university publications from respective faculties

must be made available on the portal

The library is a good place for me to study; i get all the information i need except that some

books are outdated. We need newer published books

P a g e | 65

Library staff are generally helpful, resources are scarce though, and not maintained. Books

catalogued on OPAC are nearly always not where they are supposed to be, either overdue by

weeks or just nowhere to be found if listed as available. It is understandable that many people

are making use of the resources and therefore they will not always be available all the time but

there seems to be no control over returns of books and overdue books, for most students the

campus library is the only accessible source of information but in my experience over the past

two years, not very helpful. Plus most recent editions of books are not available. The library

used to be very helpful during my first to third years, but in my personal experience not anymore.

But also well done on the new computer system, much more effective, very user friendly, great

initiative!

Books especially for law students are not sufficient to cater for all students. Access to online

journals and other research documents is satisfactory

Get enough books and available when studies need them

The library should have e-books on their website to make it easier for us to access them when

we need them any time. They should also have current journal rather than having old journals

that are older than a year.

The library needs more up to date books on various topics

The library is quiet good but need to be improve especially on bringing in the latest edition of

the academic books

In the library there are no enough books related to our modules

They must provide enough sources for example books more especially for psychology related.

The numbers of days given to return back staffs taken in library should at least be shifted to a

maximum of 20 days.

Not enough books for Records management

The staff members usually provide good service to the students, but there are no enough

studying materials, There are only few books that we suppose to use, It will be fine if the

ministry that is responsible for supplying books to campuses starts supplying books to the

libraries because we (students) are in-need of books for us to study.

The library services should be improved because the books are not enough at HP Campus

P a g e | 66

Internet

The undergraduate library service users identified the following issues as affecting library service satisfaction in

relation to the Internet access: slow Internet connection, making it difficult for students to properly research their

work; blocking of relevant Internet sites limit students access to relevant blocked sites. The majority of the

undergraduate request the library to block Facebook and rather allow students with educational research to use the

Internet.

Google services are very slow and can't be accessed at times

Internet is very slow, we should move to 4G network.

The internet is slow

I would prefer a more efficient and easily accessible internet service. The current system is

limiting and quite ineffective. Accessing academic journals is never easy due to the restrictions

placed on internet use.

Internet sites should not be blocked as some of these sites are relevant for our research work.

Perhaps you can also extend the wireless service to cover the entire library

I would just like to ask you to please block facebook during the day and make it accessible as

from 5pm or so. Thanks

The internet network is weak

I think facebook is the real waste of time, when people want to do their educational things with

computers.

I think facebook is the real waste of time, when people want to do their educational things with

computers.

Internet is very slow

Upgrade the internet, it’s very slow

P a g e | 67

Library opening hours

Special collection must open every day even during weekends

We would also like an extension of library hours

I Think the Library should increase their hours during weekends

Library as Place

Library as a Place

Bags

Aircon 5%

Study space 25%

Noise 29%

12%

Library building- positive

3% Library building -

negative 26%

Library as a study and research environment

On the above theme, the undergraduate library users pointed out that the library is not conducive for studying and

learning due to the following factors: poor control of noise, inadequate discussion rooms, small reading and

studying space which is unable to accommodate higher numbers of library users.

Infrastructure

The survey finds that there is a poor maintenance of library equipment such as air condition.

P a g e | 68

The space is too small. Please increase the numbers of computers and introduce a room where

group discussions can be conducted

The study space is not conducive enough

The air-conditioning is very inconsistent and at times it’s too cold or too hot

Noise is too high in the library and we do not study well. Thank you

Really sound environment but lacking in organization

The services are quite good. I will say that more room for studying is needed

The space is very small,

Disturbance from students

The library is mostly over-crowed during exams making it difficult for some to get a place to

study.

Safe environment could use more computers, area for group assignments and a safer place to

leave our bags when we want to use the library more lockers!

The library urgently needs a change in facilities. Thank you so much for the possibility of

answering these questions!

Library is too small.

Too noisy, cellphone and earphones are brought in all time, the library is not really strict and

silent like polytechnic one's... There are no cellphone detectors, security seems not to care if

someone talks on the phone, If we try to be like or be more (better) than they. The library is

also not clean all the time but you guys are trying, maybe you need more training and the

supervisor should be kind of more strict, please do check on the problems we facing, listen to

me even though I’m a first year. It will surely make a difference.

Page 169

Talking of noise at the study areas, it turns into a discussion area although there is a discussion

area somewhere in the library, think the supervision needs to be strengthened or changed.

P a g e | 70

P O S T G R A D U A T E S U M M A R Y F O R U N I V E R S I T Y OF N A M I B I A

C O R E Q U E S T I O N S S U M M A R Y F O R P O S T G R A D U A T E









notebook.)

AS-6 AS-7 AS-5

AS-8

AS-4

Affect of Service

AS-9 AS-3

IC-1 AS-2

IC-2 AS-1

IC-3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LP-5

IC-4 LP-4

Information Control

IC-5

IC-6 LP-2

LP-3

Library as Place

IC-7

IC-8 LP-1





P a g e | 71

ID Question Text

Affect of Service

Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n




AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 6.17 8.17 6.59 0.41 -1.59 29

AS-5

AS-6


user questions


6.36 7.93 6.57 0.21 -1.36 28

6.11 7.61 6.50 0.39 -1.11 28

AS-7

AS-8


users


6.34 7.76 6.90 0.55 -0.86 29

6.34 8.07 6.76 0.41 -1.31 29


Information Control

IC-1

IC-2

IC-3


home or office




6.34 8.41 5.76 -0.59 -2.66 29

6.34 8.31 6.24 -0.10 -2.07 29

5.82 7.93 5.57 -0.25 -2.36 28


IC-5

IC-6

IC-7

IC-8


information


on my own


independent use


for my work

5.93 8.10 6.59 0.66 -1.52 29

6.56 7.89 6.74 0.19 -1.15 27

6.44 8.04 6.72 0.28 -1.32 25

5.86 8.04 5.93 0.07 -2.11 28

Library as Place




LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 6.31 8.28 6.48 0.17 -1.79 29

LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 5.96 7.56 6.44 0.48 -1.11 27

Overall: 6.16 7.96 6.29 0.14 -1.66 29

P a g e | 72

Me

an

C O R E Q U E S T I O N D I M E N S IO N S S U M M A R Y F O R P O S T G R A D U A T E




9

8

7

6

5

4

Affect of

Service

Information

Control

Dimension

Library as

Place

Overall



P a g e | 73

LOCAL QUESTION SUMMARY FOR POSTGRADUATE



to this notebook.


Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n


0.59

-1.52

27


-0.61

-1.57

28


0.21

-1.28

29

An electronic catalog where it's easy to

identify printed and electronic documents

6.31 7.73 6.58

0.27

-1.15

26


electronically available databases, journals, and

6.07

8.18

6.39

0.32

-1.79

28

P O S T G R A D U A T E S T U D E N T S L I B R A R Y U S E R S

In general the perception of the UNAM Library Postgraduate users is under their acceptable minimum and

less than their desired service quality meaning that the UNAM Library service is not adequate as per the

service users.

Affect of Service

Regarding the dimension Affect of Service, the perceptions of the Postgraduate students’ library users

are given below:

P a g e | 74

Negative perceptions by Postgraduate regarding the Affect of Service

•Library staff who instill confidence in users


Positive perceptions by Postgraduate regarding the Affect of Service

•Giving users individual attention


•Readiness to respond to users' enquiries

•Willingness to help users


•Library staff who understand the needs of their users


Information Control

Regarding the dimension Information Control, the perception of the Postgraduate students library users

on different components are given below:

Negative percepions by Postgraduate regarding Information Control




• A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own

Positive perceptions by Postgraduate regarding the Information Control

• Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information

• Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

• Making information easily accessible for independent use


P a g e | 75

Library as Place

Regarding the dimension Library as Place, the perceptions of the Postgraduate students’ library users on

different components are given below:

Negative percepions by Postgraduate regarding Library as Place


•Quiet space for individual work

Positive perceptions by Postgraduate regarding the Library as Place

• A comfortable and inviting location

•Space for group learning and group study

•A haven for study, learning, or research

The Local questions

Regarding the dimension Local Questions, the perceptions of the Postgraduate students’ library users on

different components are given below:

Negative percepions by Postgraduate regarding Local Questions


Positive perceptions by Postgraduate regarding the Local Questions


•Adequqte hours of service

•Library staff teaching me how effectively use the lectronically available databases, journals, and books

•An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents offered by my institution

P a g e | 76

Q U A L I T A T IV E A N A L Y S IS

General remarks theme

Concerning the general comments on the UNAM Library service the survey respondents for the majority of

postgraduate students are satisfied on library service. These views and perceptions are reflected in the quotes

below:

Good service at the moment. i have used the library for four years

So far am happy with the service

Not that bad, improvement is of need in customer service.

No complain am so far satisfy with the service

I find the library very useful and it has contributed significantly towards my university career.

Loving the e-resource.

P a g e | 77

Affect of Service


The comments of the Postgraduate students expressed some dissatisfaction towards the library staff attitudes and

practices. On the contrary, some other post graduate students are appreciating the library service as indicated in

the quotations below.

Librarians/ assistants should treat people well and consider all students equally be it distances

of full time students we are all studying for the common goal.

Library staff are very professional and helpful, keep it up

I am pleased by the service I am receiving at Khomasdal Campus, but at the main campus, i am

suggesting more librarians to be employed to meet the need of students

The staff members lack customer care, the way they treat students is like they are all kinds.

They do not distinguish whether some have families and children like them, they just put all

students in the same pot and treat them like higher school kids. They are not friendly and not

willing to assist the students. Though some students have bad attitudes, this does not mean

that they should also show that same attitudes to students. More, especially to some of us who

do not have any relatives or family members working at the university, we are the most victims

affected by their attitudes

Please help some staff members to be friendly enough when helping students. A smile will do.


On the above mentioned theme, the postgraduate library service users have shown high interest on the need for

induction and training on the use of electronic information resources and suggested the library to also concentrate

on library services training. Generally, the postgraduate students are satisfied with the library service particularly

with the e-resources. Below are some citations from the respondents.

P a g e | 78

I think students should be taught about the library services when they are registered and the

library staff should work hand-in-hand with lectures to assist students.

Group tuition in how to use jstor etc was not effective. I need one on one tuition.

Generally the library service is fine however there is a need to improve the e-recourse for

research information needed

Loving the e-resource.

Information Control

Materials (Photocopiers, Computers,)

Postgraduate service users articulated concerns towards the library computers as being insufficient at the main

campus and at the Oshakati campus. The survey study also suggested separate computer centre and a study area

for the post graduate students.

P a g e | 79

Computer in the library must be increased because students are waiting for so long to uses

internet.

The library in Oshakati campus is useless, no studying material neither adequate internet.

University computers are broken.

The computers are not enough in the library and the internet connection is very slow. People

should be limited to one hour a day like before because some students spent the whole day

facebooking while there are those students who wanted to do their school work.

Post graduate students should be given their own space for accessing information (their own

computer space)

The library must have separate computers and study area for postgraduate students only since

at the moment, they are being disturbed by the undergraduate.

P a g e | 80

Information resources: Books and e-resources

The post graduate students have indicated the following as contributing to the library services dissatisfaction:

insufficient books for post graduate level, outdated books to meet research needs, unavailability of local research

contents, and the need for more e-journals. Some postgraduate students expressed that they are satisfied with the

library service.

The books in the library are mostly older than 10 years which hampers research especially

literature review. These need to be updated.

Most of the prescribed books are not easy to get in the library however alternative books are

readily available.

The library for main campus does not have enough books that students need.

Please make resources accessible. We need more research papers for studies done in Namibia.

The Books in the library are too old; we need new books from new researches. Thank you!

I am so far happy with the service that the libraries provide, they only need to buy more text

books

Internet

The postgraduate library users find the library internet service very slow to meet research needs.

I mostly google from my home computer as the internet at the university is too slow.

P a g e | 81

Library Opening Hours

The majority of postgraduate students suggested the library to operate during weekend time.

The main dismay as far as the library service is concerned is its early closure on Friday. Not

every student prefers to socialize on Friday. The libray MUST operate throughout were

Fridays are not excluded until 22H00 pm.

Please relook at the opening hours and

I am so far happy with the service that the libraries provide, they only need to allocate more

hours especially for weekends.

P a g e | 82

Library as Place


Need to improve on the noise pollution

The library has no place where students who study part-time can sit to study after work, until they

feel they have finished; for example, there are no study facilities that are open throughout the

night.

There is no place to store your bag close to the library on Main Campus. The huge flight of stair at

the entrance is not user friendly as you have to carry your loose books up and down them. Art

books are very big and heavy and I find it difficult to carry them because of the many stairs as we

are not allowed to take in a carry bag.

The Unam main library has a large space but it does not have enough sitting areas for the student

The library must have separate computers and study area for postgraduate students only since at

the moment, they are being disturbed by the undergraduate.

The postgraduate students indicated that the library is too noisy making the environment not conducive for

learning and research. Postgraduates further suggested to be provided with a separate study areas.

P a g e | 83

A C A D E M I C S T A FF S U M M A R Y F O R U N I V E R S I T Y OF N A M I B I A

C O R E Q U E S T IO N S S U M M A R Y F O R A C A D E M IC S T A FF









notebook.)

AS-6 AS-7 AS-5

Affect of Service

AS-8 AS-4

AS-9 AS-3

IC-1 AS-2

IC-2 AS-1

IC-3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LP-5

IC-4 LP-4

Information Control

IC-5

IC-6 LP-2

LP-3

Library as Place

IC-7

IC-8 LP-1





P a g e | 84

ID Question Text

Affect of Service

Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n



AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 5.12 6.12 6.12 1.00 0.00 17


AS-5

AS-6


user questions


6.41 6.94 6.00 -0.41 -0.94 17

5.06 6.78 5.17 0.11 -1.61 18

AS-7

AS-8


users


5.39 6.89 5.28 -0.11 -1.61 18

6.18 7.29 5.88 -0.29 -1.41 17


Information Control

IC-1

IC-2

IC-3


home or office




6.00 7.65 5.06 -0.94 -2.59 17

5.18 7.00 5.88 0.71 -1.12 17

4.60 6.40 4.13 -0.47 -2.27 15


IC-5

IC-6

IC-7

IC-8


information


on my own


independent use


for my work

5.72 6.94 5.17 -0.56 -1.78 18

5.83 7.17 5.56 -0.28 -1.61 18

5.59 6.53 6.18 0.59 -0.35 17

5.47 7.00 5.06 -0.41 -1.94 17

Library as Place






Overall: 5.66 6.96 5.33 -0.32 -1.62 18

P a g e | 85

Me

an

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Academic Staff




9

8

7

6

5

4

Affect of

Service

Information

Control

Dimension

Library as

Place

Overall







P a g e | 8 Dimension Minimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority n

6


Affect of Service 5.43 6.84 5.30 -0.14 1.54 18

Information Control 5.71 7.01 5.35 -0.35 1.66 18

Library as Place 5.75 7.04 5.17 -0.57 1.86 18

Overall 5.66 6.96 5.33 -0.32 1.62 18

LO CA L Q UES T IO N S UMMAR Y FOR AC ADEM IC S T A FF



to this notebook.


Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n


0.44

-0.75

16


-1.27

-2.07

15


-0.11

-1.00

18



6.19 7.31 5.56

-0.63

-1.75

16


5.88

7.29

5.00

-0.88

-2.29

17 electronically available databases, journals, and books

P a g e | 87

Academic Staff Library users

In general the perception of the UNAM Library the Academic Staff Library users is under their acceptable

minimum and less than their desired service quality meaning that the UNAM Library is not adequate as per

the service users.

Affect of Service

Regarding the dimension Affect of Service, below are the perceptions of Academic Staff Library users

related to the Affect Service dimension.

Negative percepions by Academic Staff regarding Affect of Service

• Library staff who instill confidence in users

• Readiness to respond to users' enquiries

• Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions

• Dependability in handling users' service problems

• Willingness to help users

• Library staff who understand the needs of their users

Positive perceptions by Academic Staff regarding Affect Service

• Giving users individual attention



P a g e | 88

Information Control

Regarding the dimension Information Control, the perceptions of Academic staff are given below:

Negative percepions by Academic Staff regarding Affect of Service




•Modern equipment that lets me easyly access needed information


•Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

Positive perceptions by Academic Staff regarding Affect Service

• A library Website enabling me to locate information on my own

•Making information easily accessible for independent use

Library as Place

Regarding the dimension Library as Place, the perceptions of Academic staff are given below:

Negative percepions by Academic Staff regarding Library as a Place

• Space for group learning and group study

• Quiet space for individual work

• A haven for study, learning, or research


Positive perceptions by Academic Staff regarding Library as Place • A comfortable and inviting location

P a g e | 89

The Local questions

Regarding the dimension Local questions, the perceptions of Academic staff are given below:

Negative percepions by Academic Staff regarding Local Questions





Positive perceptions by Academic Staff regarding Local Questions • Access to archives, special collections

Qualitative Analysis

Affect of Service


Participants identified the following factors as part of library staff theme in relation to the Affect of service

dimension such as: unfriendly staff, needs for customer services training, and information searching skills in order

to deliver quality library services to the users.

P a g e | 90

Some of the library staff need to be trained in how to handle users. Maybe a public relations

course would benefit them greatly.

We need to be assisted when searching for information, especially when looking for a specific

topic for an English essay.

Staff seem not to be willingly helping users, and do not show a fair amount of kindness to user.

The space can be limited during exam period and there are few group discussion areas. Most

importantly there are only a few books directly related to what one is researching and often

have to wait too long to get to use a specific book or never get the chance.


The academic staff have emphasized on continuous provision of training on how to access e–resources to

contribute to academic publishing.

Provide training to academic staff for them to access peer reviewed Journals in their offices

online. Access to Journals is a problem, which needs to be addressed to improve publications

from UNAM academics.

Information Control

ICT Materials (Photocopiers, Computers,..)

Academics staff pointed that the library computers are too few to serve the needs of the users. On the contrary

some academic staff are happy with the library computers.

P a g e | 91

The computers are not enough.

In Khomasdal Campus we need more computers please because computers here are very few.

Not enough to us.

On a positive note the library computers are faster and the library is always clean.

Information Resources

Academics staff recommended the library e–resources to be readily available on the University portal for easy

accessibility. They further recommended the library to continuously train on how to access electronic and print

resources. Furthermore they pointed out that the OPAC Online Public Access Catalogue) is not up-to-date and

books are inadequate for the needs of academics.

Opening Hours

Academics staff appealed to the library to open all the sections to deliver quality services.

The library has resources, but the access of resources seems not obvious to the users. Maybe

the hyperlinks are not easily accessible.

It is to be visible on the UNAM.MYPORTAL FOR EASY ACCESS.

I think the links are not readily available. If one is aware of the links, you need to remember

how to get there.

In the UNAM libraries are trying their level best, just a lack of access to a wider range of

electronic resources is on the low side.

The OPAC (online Public Access Catalogue) must be always up-to-date. And make sure the

library services must be recognized worldwide as indispensable contributors to education,

otherwise the library service is good and proper!

P a g e | 92

Can the library increase the hours of service for all sites including archive?

Library as Place


Infrastructure

Nothing was mention by the Academic staff regarding the theme above.

P a g e | 93

Core Questions Summary for Library Staff









notebook.)

AS-6 AS-7 AS-5

Affect of Service

AS-8 AS-4

AS-9 AS-3

IC-1 AS-2

IC-2 AS-1

IC-3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LP-5

IC-4 LP-4

Information Control

IC-5

IC-6 LP-2

LP-3

Library as Place

IC-7

IC-8 LP-1





P a g e | 94

ID Question Text

Affect of Service

Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n

AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 6.67 8.00 6.67 0.00 -1.33 9

AS-2 Giving users individual attention 6.89 7.67 6.67 -0.22 -1.00 9


AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 6.11 7.78 6.11 0.00 -1.67 9

AS-5

AS-6


user questions


6.00 8.44 6.22 0.22 -2.22 9

5.89 7.89 5.67 -0.22 -2.22 9

AS-7

AS-8


users


6.22 8.11 6.22 0.00 -1.89 9

6.00 8.13 6.13 0.13 -2.00 8

AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 6.00 8.00 6.13 0.13 -1.88 8

Information Control

IC-1

IC-2

IC-3


home or office




7.25 8.50 6.50 -0.75 -2.00 8

6.33 7.56 6.56 0.22 -1.00 9

5.50 7.63 5.88 0.38 -1.75 8

IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 6.00 8.22 7.11 1.11 -1.11 9

IC-5

IC-6

IC-7

IC-8


information


on my own


independent use


for my work

6.11 8.33 5.11 -1.00 -3.22 9

6.38 7.88 6.75 0.38 -1.13 8

5.56 8.33 6.22 0.67 -2.11 9

5.44 8.00 5.78 0.33 -2.22 9

Library as Place



LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 6.38 8.25 5.50 -0.88 -2.75 8



Overall: 6.21 8.06 6.11 -0.10 -1.95 9

P a g e | 95

Me

an

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Library Staff




9

8

7

6

5

4

Affect of

Service

Information

Control

Dimension

Library as

Place

Overall



P a g e | 96





Dimension Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean

n

Affect of Service 6.20 7.94 6.25 0.05 -1.69 9

Information Control 6.01 8.03 6.22 0.21 -1.81 9

Library as Place 6.48 8.42 5.53 -0.94 -2.89 9

Overall 6.21 8.06 6.11 -0.10 -1.95 9

Local Question Summary for Library Staff



to this notebook.

Minimum

Question Text Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean

n


0

-1.44

9


-0.50

-2.13

8


0

-1.78

9



6.00 7.78 6.11

0.11

-1.67

9



6.00

8.00

6.25

0.25

-1.75

8

P a g e | 97

Library staff

In general the perception of the UNAM Library staff is under their acceptable minimum and less than their

desired service quality meaning that the UNAM Library is not adequate as per the service users. Below are

different perspectives towards the library services:

Affect of Service

Regarding the dimension Affect of Service, the perceptions of the Library staff are given below:

Negative percepions by Library Staff regarding Affect of Service

•- Giving users individual attention

•- Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion

Positive perceptions by Library Staff regarding Affect of Service

• - Library staff who instill confidence in users

•- Library staff who are consistently courteous

•- Readiness to respond to users' enquiries

•- Dependability in handling users' service problems

•- Library staff who understand the needs of their users

•- Willingness to help users

•- Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions

P a g e | 98

Information Control

Regarding the dimension Information Control, the perceptions of the Library staff are given below


•- Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

•- Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information

Positive perceptions by Library Staff regarding Affect of Service

• - A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own

•- The printed library materials I need for my work

•- The electronic information resources I need

•- Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

•- Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

•- Making information easily accessible for independent use

Library as Place

Regarding the dimension Library as Place, the perceptions of the Library staff are given below:


•- Library space that inspires study and learning

•- Quiet space for individual work

•- A comfortable and inviting location

•- Space for group learning and group study

•- A haven for study, learning, or research

• There is no positive comments from the library staff toward the dimension "library as a place".

P a g e | 99

The Local questions

Regarding the dimension Local questions, the perceptions of the Library staff are given below:

Negative percepions by Library Staff regarding Local Questions

•- Access to photocopying and printing facilities

Positive perceptions by the Library staff regarding Local Questions

•- Access to archives, special collections

•- Adequate hours of service

•- Library staff teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available databases, journals, and books

•- An electronic catalog where it's easy to identify printed and electronic documents offered by my institution


Library staff

The number of library staff who participated in the Libqual+ survey was not enough to be representative of all the

library staff members’ perceptions. The following are the comments related to different dimensions from the few

library staff who took part in the survey:

Affect of Service

The library department should give Interpersonal and work relation workshops to their staff

working as from the office.

The services i got from main campus is very appreciated. They always help me when i am doing

my assignments and when i am asking books on inter-lending for my users at our library.

P a g e | 100

Information Control

Materials (Photocopiers, Computers,..)

Library as Place Library as a study and research environment

Infrastructure

Extension of the library is needed urgently because the library ids too small for everyone

since the university gets a big number of students every year.

P a g e | 101

Core Questions Summary for Staff









notebook.)

AS-6 AS-7 AS-5

AS-8

AS-4

Affect of Service

AS-9 AS-3

IC-1 AS-2

IC-2 AS-1

IC-3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LP-5

IC-4 LP-4

Information Control

IC-5

IC-6 LP-2

LP-3

Library as Place

IC-7

IC-8 LP-1





P a g e | 102

Minimum

Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean

n

ID Question Text

Affect of Service


AS-2 Giving users individual attention 6.25 7.25 5.25 -1.00 -2.00 4

AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 6.25 7.00 5.50 -0.75 -1.50 4


AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer

user questions

7.00 7.75 5.75 -1.25 -2.00 4

AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion 6.75 7.25 6.25 -0.50 -1.00 4

AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their

users

6.00 6.75 5.25 -0.75 -1.50 4

AS-8 Willingness to help users 7.25 7.75 6.00 -1.25 -1.75 4


Information Control

IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my

home or office

6.00 7.00 6.50 0.50 -0.50 4

IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate


6.75 7.50 6.75 0.00 -0.75 4

IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 6.50 7.00 5.00 -1.50 -2.00 4


IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed

information

7.50 7.75 6.50 -1.00 -1.25 4

IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things

on my own

7.25 8.00 5.75 -1.50 -2.25 4

IC-7 Making information easily accessible for

independent use

7.50 8.00 6.00 -1.50 -2.00 4

IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require

for my work

7.33 7.33 7.00 -0.33 -0.33 3

Library as Place






O

verall:

6.75

7.40

6.04

-0.71

-1.36

4

P a g e | 103

Me

an

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Staff




9

8

7

6

5

4

Affect of

Service

Information

Control

Dimension

Library as

Place

Overall



P a g e | 104

The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured

by the LibQUAL +® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension.

(For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A

complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix A.

Dimension Minimum

Mean

Desi red

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean

n

Affect of Service 6.45 7.03 5.56 -0.89 - 1.48 4

Information Control 6.88 7.50 6.03 -0.84 - 1.47 4

Library as Place 6.77 7.43 6.28 -0.48 - 1.15 4

Overall 6.75 7.40 6.04 -0.71 - 1.36 4

Local Question Summary for Staff

This table shows mean scores of each of the local questions added by the individual library or

consortium, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. For a more detailed

explanation of the headings, see the introduction to this notebook.

Minimum

Question Text Mean

Desired

Mean

Perceived

Mean

Adequacy

Mean

Superiority

Mean n


-0.25

-1.00

4


-1.50

-3.00

2


0.75

0.50

4



7.25 7.75 6.50

-0.75

-1.25

4



7.50

8.50

7.00

-0.50

-1.50

4

P a g e | 105

Staff

In general the perception of the library by the subgroup staff is under the acceptable

minimum and less than their desired service quality meaning that the UNAM Library is

not adequate as per the service users.

Affect of Service

Regarding the dimension Affect of Service, the perceptions of the staff subgroup are

given below:

Negative percepions by Staff regarding Affect of Service

•- Library staff who instill confidence in users

•- Giving users individual attention

•- Library staff who are consistently courteous

•- Readiness to respond to users' enquiries

•- Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions

•- Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion

•- Library staff who understand the needs of their users

•- Dependability in handling users' service problems

•- Willingness to help users

Positive perceptions by the staff regarding Affect of Service

P a g e | 106

Information Control

Regarding the dimension Information Control, the perceptions of the staff subgroup are

given below:

Negative percepions by Staff regarding Information Control

•- The printed library materials I need for my work

•- The electronic information resources I need

•- Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information

•- Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

•- Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

•- Making information easily accessible for independent use

Positive perceptions by the staff regarding Information Control •- Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

•- A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own

Library as Place

Regarding the dimension Library as Place, the perceptions of the staff subgroup are

given below:

Negative percepions by Staff regarding Library as Place

•- Space for group learning and group study

•- Quiet space for individual work

•- A haven for study, learning, or research

•- Library space that inspires study and learning

Positive perceptions by the staff regarding Library as Place •- A comfortable and inviting location

P a g e | 107

The Local questions

Regarding the dimension Local questions, the perceptions of the staff subgroup are

given below:

Negative percepions by Staff regarding Library as Place





Positive perceptions by the staff regarding Library as Place



The number of staff users’ category who participated in Libqual survey was not enough to be

representative of all the staff members’ perceptions. The following are the comments related to

different dimensions from the few library staff who took part in the survey:

General comments and remarks

Service is better but want more advance one

No comment

Affect of Service Library staff (Human resources) and relation with the service users

Very seldom see staff members of library moving around in library - in case one

needs assistance. Always have to search for them.


P a g e | 108

Information Control Materials (Photocopiers, Computers,..)

All the service is well organized , the problem is only when it coming on printing

some of students don’t have an access.

Books and Library resources

Internet connection

Time – Schedule

Library as Place Library as a study and research environment

Infrastructure

Modern facilities needs to be available in most of our UNAM facilities

P a g e | 109

C O N C L U S I O N A N D K E Y R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Using the LibQual+ survey 2012 at the University of Namibia, we have analysed both the quantitative

and qualitative data on the library users’ level of satisfaction considering the dimension Affect of Service,

Information Control, Library as a Place and Local questions. In terms of library staff, the results show a

relative lack of customers’ service.

Based on the findings it can then be recommended that:

- Customer care service training be organized for the library staff

- Staff retreat for motivation and

- Training for library staff on public relation to improve communication skills with customers

- The library needs to increase the number of staff as suggested by all the library users’ groups in

order to be able to improve the service delivery efficiently and customers’ satisfaction.

- Customer care service and Emotional Intelligence training seminars be organized for library staff

in order to motivate staff and improve public relations, interpersonal and communication skills

with customers.

- The library needs to increase the number of competent professional staff as suggested by all the

library users’ groups (undergraduate, postgraduate and academic staff) in order to improve

efficiency in service delivery and satisfy the needs of the customers.

- The Library must create inviting and reflective study spaces with modern equipment for

postgraduate studies.

- The Library must discuss the hours of service with the users (adequacy gap).

- The Library in consultation with the Computer Centre must improve access to photocopying and

printing facilities.

- The Library in consultation with the Computer Centre must improve internet connectivity to

enable fast surfing of the Web and downloading of online publications.

- The Library must increase the number of Internet-connected student PCs.

- The Library must provide a long term solution to the problematic Students Bag Counter issue.

- The Library must provide spaces that promote quiet study.

- The Library must provide space that inspires study and learning.

- The Library must recruit competent professional staff who have the knowledge to answer user

questions and provide research assistance to users.

- The Library needs to improve the library catalog and library website in order to make information

easily accessible for independent use.

P a g e | 110

- The Library must provide modern equipment that enables users to easily access information

required.

- The existing UNAM libraries need to be refurbished and become havens for study, learning or

research (provide conducive research environment).

- The Library in consultation with faculties must conduct continuous in-depth evaluation of print

and electronic collections and align them with the curriculum.

- The library needs to improve textbook collections.

- The library must acquire materials/ content that support post-graduate research. The library must

also create an institutionary repository and host local content, including postgraduate theses and

dissertations.

- The library must conduct continuous students and staff orientation and information literacy

training in order to promote effective use of library and information resources, services and

facilities..

It was reported that library books are outdated; therefore it is recommendable that the library and faculties

conduct continuous in-depth evaluation of the printed collections and also the electronic collections to

find out if these collections are still in line with the curriculum contents. With relation to inadequate

information resources, the library needs to buy current books and electronic journals.

The survey presented that the library lack local contents materials to support post-graduate students’

research. Based on that it is recommended for the library to create an institutional repository for local

documents including thesis and dissertations of post graduates and academic staff.

The survey finds that there is a high demand for students’ induction and training towards the library

information resources and facilities. It is then recommended that the library introduce induction and

library training programs meeting needs of all library users groups.

P a g e | 111

R E F E R E N C E S

1. Colleen Cook, David Green, Fred Heath, Martha Kyrillidou, Bruce Thompson, Gary

Roebuck, Libqual 2012 Survey – University of Namibia, Association of Research Libraries

/ Texas A&M University, www.libqual.org

2. I-Ming Wang, Chih-Jen Shieh, The relationship between service quality and customer

satisfaction: The example of CJCU library, Journal of Information & Optimization

Sciences, Vol. 27 (2006), No. 1, pp. 193 – 209.

3. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-

item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,

64, 12–40.

4. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations

as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for further

research. Journal of Marketing, 58, 111–124.

5. Godwin J. Udo, Kallol K. Bagchi1, Peeter J. Kirs, An assessment of customers’ e-

service quality perception, satisfaction and intention, International Journal of

Information Management 30 (2010) 481–492.

6. Danuta A. Nitecki and Peter Hernon, “Measuring Service Quality at Yale University’s

Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (2000): 259–273

7. Scott, R. N. (1992). Library user survey, summary report FY 1990-FY 1992: Russell Library,

Georgia College. Retrieved August 23, 2013, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/permalinkPopup.jsp?accno=ED349970.

8. Rowena Cullen, “Perspectives on User Satisfaction Surveys,” Library Trends 49 (2001): 662–686.

9. Martensen, A. and Gronholdt, L. (2003). Improving Library Users' Perceived Quality, Satisfaction

and Loyalty: An Integrated Measurement and Management System. The Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 29 (3), 140-147.

10. Kotler, P. (1976). Applying marketing theory to college admissions. In College En-trance

Examination Board (ed.), A Role for Marketing in College Admissions (pp. 54-72). New York:

College Entrance Examination Board.

11. Thompson, B., Cook, C. & Heath, F. (2003) Structure of perceptions of service quality in

libraries: A LibQUAL++ study Structural Equation Modeling 10(3), 456-464.

12. Thompson, B., Cook, C. & Heath, F. (2003) Two short forms of the LibQUAL++ survey:

Assessing users’ perceptions of library service quality Library Quarterly 73(4), 453-465.


http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/permalinkPopup.jsp?accno=ED349970

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/permalinkPopup.jsp?accno=ED349970

P a g e | 112

13. Shi, Xi, Patricia J. Holahan, and M. Peter Jurkat. “Satisfaction Formation Processes in

Library Users: Understanding Multisource Effects.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 30

(2004): 122–131.

14. Nitecki, Danuta A., and Brinley Franklin. “New Measures for Research Libraries.” Journal

of Academic Librarianship 25 (1999): 484–487.

15. Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richarch Staelin and Valarie Zeithaml, A Dynamic Process Model

of Service Quality : From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Marketing Research,

1993, 30 (February): 7 – 27.

16. Parasuraman, A., Valerie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry, “A Conceptual Model of Service

Quality and Its Implications for future Research.” Journal of Marketing, 1985, 49 (Fall): 41 -50.

17. Parasuraman, A., Valerie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry, “ SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale

for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.”, Journal of Retailing, 1988, 64 (Spring); 12 – 40.

18. Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry, Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer

Perceptions and Expectations (New York: The Free Press, 1990), 26.

19. Zeithaml Valarie A., A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry, “ The Nature and Determinants of Customer

Expectations of Service.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 1993, 21(1):1-12.