Using the adequacy and superiority scales and scores to

gain insight and understanding of LibQUAL+ results

Ron Ward &

Alan GaleUniversity of Guelph Library, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA

The Issues…How can we fully utilize and best

understand the LibQUAL+ results?What do the “mean” values

represent? Are they truly representative of the frequency distribution? Do they fit the assumptions for “normal distributions”?

How do the MINIMUM, PERCEIVED and DESIRED distributions relate to each other?

Do all respondents use the scales similarly?Are the “anchor” definitions sufficient or adequate for the LibQUAL+ 1-9 scale?

How do the Adequacy and Superiority Gap values address these issues?

What more can we do to help users understand / interpret these data?

What can be inferred by certain values or relationships?

What we did…Determined (SPSS) and plotted (Excel) the frequency distribution of scores and measures of central tendency (mean, median & std. dev) for each question for each group of interest on our campusCompared the MINIMUM, PERCEIVED and DESIRED distributions and measures with the Adequacy and Superiority Gap distributions and measuresAssessed the score distributions and their characteristics (normal-bell curve, skewed, bi-modal, etc.)Examined where the mean score fell within the distribution and subjectively determined if these values adequately represented that distributionExamined how the areas under the adequacy and superiority gap distributions related to each otherConferred with our Library colleagues to discuss and determine which values and distributions gave them better understanding of the results (on-going)

AS-7 Employees who understand the needs of their users Category %

 Role

Superiority Undergrad Students

Graduate Students

Faculty & Staff

All Respondents

perceived well below desired (≤ -2) 18.3% 28.1% 22.5% 21.0% perceived close to desired or above (≥ -1) 81.8% 71.9% 77.5% 79.0% perceived met or exceeded desired (≥ 0) 53.6% 43.4% 55.0% 51.5% perceived exceeded desired (≥ +1) 13.5% 9.1% 10.6% 12.2%

Total (n) 800 274 160 1234

DiscussionDifficulty interpreting, translating and describing the results from the LibQUAL+ standard reports led us to examine how to analyze and relate the values and relationships between the scales to better enable understanding and utilization of the feedback in the dataThe use of the Adequacy and Superiority scales and the collapsing of different portions of these scales provided an additional framework for interpreting our LibQUAL+ results and gave us values that we continue to work with to assist in understanding and prioritizing the important issues assessed through LibQUAL+

Further questions or issues; Review and analysis of the relationship between the adequacy and superiority gapsDetermining the critical cut-points for assessing priority areas based on these outcomesThe areas defined, such as superiority scores less than “-2 “ as being “well below desired” are admittedly subjective We welcome feedback

NOTES: The line graphs above are for demonstration purposes only; used for the illustration of multiple variables on a single plot. LibQUAL+ scores are discrete values (i.e. whole numbers only) and should be more accurately demonstrated using bar charts.The “perceived exceeding” values for either the adequacy or superiority data sets are subset values of the larger “perceived met or exceeded” the minimum expectations or desired levels of service groups.

CHANGING LIVES

IMPROVING LIFE

Mean Range: 5.28- 6.64SD Range: 1.54 – 1.87Median Range: 5 - 7

One Example Question

Approx Mean Range

Approx Mean Range

Approx Mean Range