Results and Comparisons for SCONUL

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UK Council of Research Repositories UKCoRR Launch - 21 st May 2007 University of Nottingham.
Advertisements

LibQUAL+ ® : The UK and Irish Experience Selena Killick Library Quality Officer, Cranfield University J. Stephen Town Director of Information, The University.
LibQUAL+ in the local context: results, action and evaluation Selena Lock & Stephen Town Cranfield University 6th Northumbria International Conference.
THE sustainability one-stop-shop for further and higher education across the UK.
LibQUAL+ in the UK and Ireland: three years findings and experience Stephen Town & Selena Lock Cranfield University 6th Northumbria International Conference.
The LibQual+ CUL Assessment Working Group Jeff Carroll Joanna DiPasquale Joel Fine Andy Moore Nick Patterson Jennifer Rutner Chengzhi Wang January.
Pdr36O review A service for students’ unions from.
LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland: five years experience J. Stephen Town and Selena Lock, Cranfield University.
Library Service Quality Survey Results Yeo Pin Pin Li Ka Shing Library April 2013.
Listening To Our Users Queen’s 2010
Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
1 Wymagania informacyjne uzytkownikow bibliotek akademickich 21 wieku Maria Anna Jankowska University of Idaho Library Biblioteki XXI wieku. Czy przetrwamy?
WHAT COUNTS IN STUDY ABROAD? Joan Anton Carbonell Kingston University BUTEX Symposium - June 2009.
Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
Evaluating Library Services: LibQUAL+ as a performance measurement tool J. Stephen Town Cranfield University INULS Conference 30th June 2006.
LibQUAL+™ old.libqual.org An Introduction to LibQUAL+ Selena Killick Cranfield University Presented at the Aslib Engineering Group AGM 17th January 2008.
TM Project web site Quantitative Background for LibQUAL+ for LibQUAL+  A Total Market Survey Colleen Cook Bruce Thompson January.
LibQUAL+ and Beyond: Using Results Effectively 23 rd June 2008 Dr Darien Rossiter.
LibQUAL + ™ Data Summary An overview of the results of the LibQUAL+™ 2003 survey with comparisons to the 2001 survey.
LibQUAL+ ® Survey Results Presented by: Selena Killick ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Administrator Cranfield University Introduction to LibQUAL+
The votes are in! What next? Introduction to LibQUAL+ Workshop University of Westminster, London 21st January 2008 Selena Killick Association of Research.
Reliability and Validity of 2004 LibQUAL+™ Scores for Different Language Translations Martha Kyrillidou Colleen Cook Bruce Thompson ALA Annual Conference.
Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
New Ways of Listening To Our Users: LibQUAL+ Queen’s.
Getting Staff Involved in Assessment at the University of Connecticut Libraries Brinley Franklin 17 August 2009.
How to participate in LibQUAL+ and effectively utilise the data.
Data Summary July 27, Dealing with Perceptions! Used to quantifiable quality (collection size, # of journals, etc.) Survey of opinions or perceptions.
LibQual 2013 Concordia University Montréal, Québec.
LibQUAL+ at Cranfield University Selena Lock LibQUAL+ International Results Meeting 17 th July 2006.
Frank Haulgren Collection Services Manager & Assessment Coordinator Western Libraries Lite 2010 Survey Results.
Testing the LibQUAL+ Survey Instrument James Shedlock, AMLS, Dir. Linda Walton, MLS, Assoc. Dir. Galter Health Sciences Library Northwestern University.
Perspectives from two UK institutions Stephen Town University of York, UK LibQUAL+ Exchange Florence, 2009.
Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
January 17, 2005 Brinley Franklin Vice Provost, University Libraries University of Connecticut Libraries LibQual+™ Management Information.
An Introduction to LibQUAL+ Introduction to LibQUAL+ Workshop University of Westminster, London 21st January 2008 Selena Killick Association of Research.
LibQUAL The UK and London South Bank experience.
Service priority alignment in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries Damon Jaggars & Shanna Smith University of Texas at Austin Jocelyn.
Going Beyond The Numbers How We Are Benefiting From Our Experience With LibQUAL+® The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey Carolyn Gutierrez Associate.
Effectively utilising LibQUAL+ data J. Stephen Town.
LibQUAL+ Finding the right numbers Jim Self Management Information Services University of Virginia Library ALA Conference Washington DC June 25, 2007.
Re-Visioning the Future of University Libraries and Archives through LIBQUAL+ Cynthia Akers Associate Professor and Assessment Coordinator ESU Libraries.
How to participate in LibQUAL+ and effectively utilise the data.
Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University.
Columbia University. Data source LibQUAL Service Quality Survey –Administered on a three-year cycle since 2003 –Adequacy Gap Scores from the 22 core questions.
Texas State University LibQUAL Survey 2015 Core Survey Section IC 1-8 Information Control Ray Uzwyshyn Director, Collections and Digital Services Texas.
LibQual at UAB Lister Hill Library Pat Higginbottom Associate Director for Public Services
LibQUAL Survey Results Customer Satisfaction Survey Spring 2005 Sidney Silverman Library Bergen Community College Analysis and Presentation by Mark Thompson,
LibQUAL 2005 at London South Bank and a Lincolnshire man in Chicago.
LibQual+ Spring 2008 results and recommendations Library Assessment Working Group 11/19/2008 Library Faculty Meeting.
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER Leeds University Library LibQUAL+ at Leeds - one year on Pippa Jones Head of Customer Services, Leeds University Library.
TM Project web site Presented by Colleen Cook June 26, 2004 Orlando, FL ALA.
Focus on SCONUL Institutions: Cranfield University – DCMT Campus Stephen Town.
Our 2005 Survey Results. “….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Delivering Quality Service : Balancing Customer.
Listening to the Customer: Using Assessment Results to Make a Difference.
How to participate in LibQUAL+ and effectively utilise the data.
A half decade of partnership and the love affair continues….. LibQual+: A Total Market Survey with 22 Items and a Box ALA Midwinter Meeting January 17,
Higher Education Fair Strode’s College 26 April pm – 8.00pm
Library Assessment Tools & Technology
BY DR. M. MASOOM RAZA  AND ABDUS SAMIM
How to participate LibQUAL+
International Results Meeting LibQUAL+TM
LibQUAL+® 2008 A summary of results from the Consortium of Church Libraries and Archives.
LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland: five years experience
An Introduction to LibQUAL+
What Do Users Think of Us? Mining Three Rounds of Cornell LibQUAL Data
Reading Radar Charts.
Comparing the employability outcomes
UK STUDENT MOBILITY: AN UPDATE IN FIGURES (from to 2007/08)
LibQUAL+® Survey Results
LibQual+ Survey Results 2002
Presentation transcript:

Results and Comparisons for SCONUL LibQUAL+ 2004 Results and Comparisons for SCONUL

Participants

SCONUL 2004 Participants Brunel University Loughborough University University of Strathclyde University of York Glasgow University* Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin UMIST + University of Manchester University of Liverpool*

SCONUL 2004 Participants Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster London South Bank University* Napier University Queen Margaret University College University College Worcester University of East London

SCONUL 2003 Participants University of Bath Cranfield University Royal Holloway & Bedford New College University of Lancaster University of Wales, Swansea University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of London Library University of Oxford

SCONUL 2003 Participants University College Northampton University of Wales College Newport University of Gloucestershire De Montfort University Leeds Metropolitan University Liverpool John Moores University Robert Gordon University South Bank University University of the West of England, Bristol University of Wolverhampton

Response Rates

Potential UK Sample 2004 Full variety of institutions 17% of HE students (>290,000) 11% of Libraries 15% of Library expenditure

Potential UK Sample 2003 Full variety of institutions 19% of HE students (>300,000) 18% of Libraries 18% of Library expenditure

Overall Potential UK Sample 20% of institutions 31% of HE students (>530,000) 26% of Libraries 28% of Library expenditure

Respondents by Institution 2004 College or University Respondent (n) Anglia Polytechnic University 688 Brunel University 1,882 Glasgow University 2,178 London South Bank University 568 Loughborough University 350 Napier University 611 Queen Margaret University College 478 Sheffield University 1,541

Respondents by Institution 2004 (Continued) College or University Respondent (n) Trinity College, Dublin 1,786 UMIST + University of Manchester 2,333 University College Worcester 268 University of East London 464 University of Liverpool 552 University of Strathclyde 1,211 University of Westminster 1,241 University of York 460 Total 16,611

Respondents by Institution 2003 College or University Respondent (n) Cranfield University 579 De Montfort University 643 Glasgow University Library 502 Lancaster 883 Leeds Metropolitan University 814 Liverpool John Moores University 1,261 Robert Gordon University 805 Royal Holloway University of London 616 South Bank University 276 University of Bath 841

Respondents by Institution 2003 (continued) College or University Respondents (n) University College Northampton 500 University of Edinburgh 514 University of Gloucestershire 713 University of Liverpool Library 398 University of London Library 70 University of Oxford 1,063 University of the West of England, Bristol 737 University of Wales College, Newport 368 University of Wales Swansea 161 University of Wolverhampton 175 Grant total 11,919

Respondent Comparisons Glasgow University 2004 = 2,178 2003 = 503 Increase by 1,675 University of Liverpool 2004 = 552 2003 = 398 Increase by 154 London South Bank University 2004 = 568 2003 = 276 Increase by 292

Response Comparisons SCONUL 2004 LibQUAL+ 2004 SCONUL 2003 16 institutions 16,611 respondents Increase by 4,692 LibQUAL+ 2004 202 institutions 112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 SCONUL 2003 20 institutions 11,919 respondents LibQUAL+ 2003 308 institutions 128,958 respondents

Core Questions

Core Question Summary 2004

Core Question Summary 2003

Affect of Service - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 0.76 0.66 -0.10 AS-2 Giving users individual attention 0.75 0.49 -0.26 AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 0.65 0.41 -0.24 AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 0.54 0.40 -0.14 AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions 0.44 -0.05 AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion 0.63 0.51 -0.12 AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users 0.45 0.31 AS-8 Willingness to help users 0.59 -0.19 AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 0.42 0.28

Information Control - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.04 0.06 0.02 IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.57 0.31 -0.26 IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.12 -0.34 -0.22 IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 0.18 IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.36 0.08 -0.28 IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.32 -0.14 IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.35 -0.17 IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work -0.19 -0.36

Library as Place - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22 -0.31 -0.53 LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 0.07 -0.26 -0.33 LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.89 0.10 -0.79 LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 0.09 -0.18 -0.27 LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 0.42 -0.10 -0.52

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

Core Question Dimensions Summary 2003 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

Undergraduates

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003

Undergraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.04 0.18 0.14 IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.57 0.46 -0.11 IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.12 -0.31 -0.19 IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 0.23 0.05 IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.36 0.15 -0.21 IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.32 0.28 -0.04 IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.35 0.26 -0.09 IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 0.00

Undergraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22 -0.29 -0.51 LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 0.07 -0.21 -0.28 LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.89 0.11 -0.78 LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 0.09 -0.13 -0.22 LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 0.42 -0.23 -0.65

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2003 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

Postgraduates

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003

Postgraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.04 -0.05 -0.09 IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.57 0.13 -0.44 IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.12 -0.46 -0.34 IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 0.18 -0.20 -0.38 IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.36 -0.01 -0.37 IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.32 0.08 -0.24 IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.35 0.10 -0.25 IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work -0.19 -0.61 -0.42

Postgraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22 -0.46 -0.68 LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 0.07 -0.48 -0.55 LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.89 0.05 -0.84 LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 0.09 -0.34 -0.43 LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 0.42 -0.33

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Postgraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Graduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

Core Question Dimensions Summary - Postgraduates 2003 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

Academic Staff

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003

Academic Staff Information Control - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 0.04 -0.41 -0.45 IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 0.57 -0.11 -0.68 IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work -0.12 -0.37 -0.25 IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 0.18 -0.39 -0.57 IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 0.36 -0.48 IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 0.32 -0.10 -0.42 IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use 0.35 -0.02 IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work -0.19 -0.88 -0.69

Academic Staff Library as Place - Adequacy Means ID Question 2003 2004 Difference LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 0.22 -0.26 -0.48 LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 0.07 -0.20 -0.27 LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.89 0.15 -0.74 LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 0.09 -0.19 -0.28 LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 0.42 0.41 -0.01

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Academic Staff 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Faculty 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Academic Staff 2003 Range of Minimum to Desired Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

Comments

Free text comments received 2004 UMIST + University of Manchester 1090 Trinity College Library Dublin 1032 Glasgow University 920 Brunel University 906 University of Sheffield 786 University of Westminster 671 University of Strathclyde 511 London South Bank University 358 Anglia Polytechnic University 311 Napier University 299 University of Liverpool 258 Queen Margaret University College 251 University of York 239 University of East London University College Worcester 170 Loughborough University Library 120

Free text comments received 2003 London South Bank University 428 University of London 422 UWE, Bristol 419 University of Wolverhampton 413 University of Bath 412 University of Gloucestershire 407 Lancaster University 396 Robert Gordon University 395 University of Liverpool 378 Liverpool John Moores University 353 Royal Holloway University 341 University of Wales, Swansea 340 Uni of Wales College, Newport 339 University of Oxford 337 University College Northampton 332 Glasgow University 330 University of Edinburgh 328 Leeds Metropolitan University 327 DE Montfort University 326 Cranfield University 170

Comments Comparisons Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161 Increased by 819.

Conclusions

J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Royal Military College of Science Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk