An Introduction to LibQUAL+ Selena Killick ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Consortium & Cranfield University University of Westminster, London 5th February 2010 www.libqual.org

Introduction to LibQUAL+ & Background on the SCONUL Consortium The Day Introduction to LibQUAL+ & Background on the SCONUL Consortium Process Overview LibQUAL+ Lite pilot experience Consortium future directions Survey results Questions and answers www.libqual.org

Introduction to LibQUAL+ and the SCONUL Consortium Stephen Town University of York & LibQUAL+ Steering Committee www.libqual.org

Association of Research Libraries ARL Roles www.libqual.org Association of Research Libraries 4

ARL Statistics and Assessment …To describe and measure the performance of research libraries and their contribution to teaching, research, scholarship and community service … Is this the first year that you are working on the ARL Statistics for your institution? Did you attend last year’s webcast? www.libqual.org Association of Research Libraries 5

Reference Transactions ARL Statistics 2006-07 www.libqual.org

Total Circulation ARL Statistics 2006-07 www.libqual.org

Assessment “The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable—i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution. Librarians have either made do with oversimplified national data or have undertaken customized local evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been devised an effective way to link the two.” Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996 www.libqual.org

Association of Research Libraries Issue 230/231 available on the web www.libqual.org Association of Research Libraries 9

“….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially SERVQUAL PERCEPTIONS SERVICE “….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press. www.libqual.org

Underlying need to demonstrate our worth The need for LibQUAL+ Underlying need to demonstrate our worth The reallocation of resources from traditional services and functions Rapid shifts in information-seeking behavior Need to keep abreast of customer demands Increasing user demands 37% of UK 16 – 18 year olds expect better libraries in return for their top-up fees Proving our worth Keep abreast of what our customers demand Counting is not enough www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Development An ARL/Texas A&M University joint developmental effort based on SERVQUAL. LibQUAL+ initially supported by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) Initial project established an expert team, re-grounded SERVQUAL concepts, and designed survey methodology Survey conducted at over 700 libraries resulting in a data base of over half a million user responses www.libqual.org

76 Interviews Conducted York University University of Arizona Arizona State University of Connecticut University of Houston University of Kansas University of Minnesota University of Pennsylvania University of Washington Smithsonian Northwestern Medical www.libqual.org

LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:\Admin\Colleen\ServQual Interviews\TEXT Only\01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:\zz\atlasti\fred www.libqual.org

www.libqual.org

Dimensions of Library Service Quality Affect of Service Information Control Empathy Scope of Content Responsiveness Convenience Library as Place Assurance Ease of Navigation Utilitarian Space Reliability Timeliness Symbol Equipment Refuge Self-Reliance www.libqual.org

Dimensions 2000 2001 2002 2003-Present 41 items 56 items 25 items Affect of Service Library as Place Reliability Personal Control Information Control Provision of Physical Collections Self-Reliance Information Access Access to Information www.libqual.org

Survey Structure (Detail View) www.libqual.org

Rapid Growth Languages Consortia Countries Types of Institutions Afrikaans English (American, British) Chinese Danish Dutch Finnish French (Belge, Canada, Europe) German Greek Hebrew Japanese Norwegian Spanish Swedish Welsh Consortia *Each may create 5 local questions to add to their survey Countries Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UAE, U.K., U.S., etc….. Types of Institutions Academic Health Sciences Academic Law Academic Military College or University Community College Electronic European Business European Parliament Family History Research Centers (FFRDC) Libraries High School Hospital National Health Service England Natural Resources New York Public Public Smithsonian State University/TAFE www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Languages Over 700 institutions 1,000,000 respondents www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+® Participation www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+® First Year Participants www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+® Surveys by Type   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Academic law 1 25 10 6 3 Academic Military Canadian Government 18 College or University 13 41 111 244 150 201 219 217 170 162 Community college 16 29 15 27 26 12 Electronic European Business 5 17 European Parliament 4 Family History 2 FFRDC Health Sciences 35 23 9 11 High School Hospital National Health National Health Service Eng. 2  Natural Resources New York Public library Public Smithsonian State University/TAFE 1  www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+® Surveys by Language   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 American English 13 42 164 285 176 207 236 217 114 117 Afrikaans 4 1 5 British English 20 22 31 50 38 40 27 Chinese Continental French Danish 2 Dutch Dutch English Finnish French Belge 3 French Canadian 26 French European 10 Japanese German Norwegian Norwegian English Spanish Swedish Swedish British English Swedish English (A.E.) Welsh www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+® Surveys by Consortia   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AAHSL 1 35 21 14 12 7 11 3 AJCU 20 AJCU-Law Alabama Academic (NAAL) 10 8 2 13 CES 6 CCLA CCCU California State University System City University of New York 19 CONSULS 5 CUC Department of Justice Canada EBSLG 17 FFRDC Georgia Harrisburg CC JULAC Keystone Lib Network 15 LibQUAL Canada 63 www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+® Surveys by Consortia (cont’d) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 LQ Belge 3 LibQUAL Japan   2 LibQUAL France 10 Hospital/MLA 7 Maine URSUS Libraries 13 Mass-LSTA 5 MCCLPHEI 23 MERLN 6 National Health NELLCO 8 1 North Carolina Community Colleges 15 Norwegian Academic Libraries NY3Rs 76 Oberlin 12 9 OhioLINK 57 45 14 SCONUL 20 17 16 21 18 22 State Universities of Florida University of Wisconsin System VALE 11 www.libqual.org

Participating Libraries by Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Australia   1 6 2 3 4 Bahamas Bangladesh Belgium Canada 8 10 15 11 75 9 China Denmark Egypt Finland France 5 French Polynesia Japan Hong Kong Ireland Morocco Mexico Netherlands New Zealand www.libqual.org

Participating Libraries by Country (cont’d) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Norway   2 4 10 Singapore 1 South Africa 12 8 5 9 3 Sweden Switzerland Thailand U.A.E. UK 20 17 16 33 21 www.libqual.org

Surveys by Session: 2004-2008 Year Session I Session II 2004 202 2 2005 199 56 2006 205 93 2007 218 68 2008 154 58 2009 146 33 www.libqual.org

World LibQUAL+® Survey www.libqual.org

Association of Research Libraries R&D Colleen Cook, “A MIXED-METHODS APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY SERVICES” (PhD diss., Texas A&M University, 2001). Martha Kyrillidou, “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) www.libqual.org Association of Research Libraries 31

Association of Research Libraries www.libqual.org Association of Research Libraries 32

Association of Research Libraries www.libqual.org Association of Research Libraries 33

LibQUAL+ and SCONUL www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ and SCONUL Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Working Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI) 2003 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions agree to pilot the survey in a consortium of SCONUL Members Pilot seen as a success Consortium of SCONUL Libraries has participated in LibQUAL+ annually since 2003 67 Different institutions in 6 years www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Participants 2003 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 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 www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Participants 2004 Brunel University Loughborough University University of Strathclyde University of York Glasgow University Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin UMIST + University of Manchester University of Liverpool Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster London South Bank University Napier University Queen Margaret University College University College Worcester University of East London www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Participants 2005 University of Exeter University of Edinburgh University of Dundee University of Bath University of Ulster University College Northampton University of Birmingham Roehampton University University of Glasgow University of Surrey Royal Holloway UoL City University Cranfield University University of Luton Dublin Institute of Technology London South Bank University www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Participants 2006 Cambridge University Library Cranfield University Goldsmiths College Institute of Education Institute of Technology Tallaght Queen Mary, University of London Robert Gordon University St. George's University of London University of Aberdeen University of Central Lancashire University of Glasgow University of Gloucestershire University of Leeds University of Leicester University of Liverpool University of the West of England University of Warwick University of Westminster London South Bank University www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Participants 2007 Anglia Ruskin University University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Central Lancashire Cambridge University Library Cranfield University De Montfort University University of Edinburgh University of Leeds London South Bank University Napier University University of Manchester Royal Holloway University of London Senate House Library, University of London University of Surrey Coventry University Nottingham Trent University School of Oriental and African Studies University of Wales Bangor University of Limerick www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Participants 2008 University of Bangor (Welsh) University of Bangor (English) University of Central Lancashire Cranfield University University of Glasgow University of Leeds Liverpool John Moores University University of Liverpool Queen Mary, University of London Robert Gordon University University of Warwick University of Westminster University of York University of Cumbria London Metropolitan University University College, Cork University College London www.libqual.org

LibQUAL+ Participants 2009 University of Aberdeen University of Bath University of Birmingham Cambridge Medical Library Cambridge Betty & Gordon Moore University of Central Lancashire Coventry University Cranfield University University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Leeds University of Limerick Royal Holloway London Goldsmiths London St George’s London University of Manchester Institute of Technology, Tallaght Trinity College Dublin University of Ulster University of York Bradford University St Andrew’s University www.libqual.org

The LibQUAL+ Questionnaire www.libqual.org

Process Overview Register with ARL (2008 cost $3,000) Institutional contact sets survey to local needs Local Questions Disciplines Send out a URL to the survey via email Mounted on ARL servers Watch the surveys come in Close the survey when ready, institutional results available after a couple of weeks PDF SPSS Excel www.libqual.org

January – Registration opens February – UK Training Time frame January – Registration opens February – UK Training Mid-Jan – Mid-Dec – Survey available (exc. June) November – Registration closes January 2011 – Consortium results available www.libqual.org

Survey Composition 22 Core Questions 5 Local Questions (optional) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place 5 Local Questions (optional) 5 Information Literacy Questions 3 General Satisfaction Questions Library Usage Patterns Demographics Free Text Comments Box www.libqual.org

Helping participants focus on local issues Five Local Questions Participants can choose 5 questions to add to their survey from a range of over 100 Helping participants focus on local issues Maintaining standardisation for benchmarking purposes www.libqual.org

Free-Text Comments Box About 40% of participants provide open-ended comments, and these are linked to demographics and quantitative data Users elaborate the details of their concerns Users feel the need to be constructive in their criticisms, and offer specific suggestions for action Available in real-time enabling prompt responses to concerns www.libqual.org

Attached to SPSS and Excel results Usage & Demographics Library Usage User group Discipline Age Sex Gender Attached to SPSS and Excel results Enabling detailed further analysis by type www.libqual.org

Survey Instrument www.libqual.org

Gap Theory For the 22 items LibQUAL+ asks users’ to rate their: Minimum service level Desired service level Perceived service performance This gives us a ‘Zone of Tolerance’ for each question; the distance between minimally acceptable and desired service ratings Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance www.libqual.org

Gap Theory Minimum Desired Perceived is greater than desired Perceived is greater than minimum, less than desired Perceived is less than minimum Minimum Desired Perceived www.libqual.org

Results from SCONUL www.libqual.org

Core Questions www.libqual.org

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2009 www.libqual.org

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2008 www.libqual.org

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2007 www.libqual.org

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006 www.libqual.org

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005 www.libqual.org

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004 www.libqual.org

SCONUL Results by Dimension www.libqual.org

SCONUL Results by User Group www.libqual.org

General findings Highly desired Lowest Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Print and/or electronic journals I require for my work A haven for study, learning or research Lowest Library staff who instil confidence in users Giving users individual attention Space for group learning and group study Information Control questions consistently the most desired. Of these, “The printed materials I need for my work” is the lowest. Still a desire for a library building, a space to come and study User attitudes moving towards autonomy, they don’t want our help they want to be able to do it for themselves. www.libqual.org

Comments www.libqual.org

Free text comments received 2006 Scottish Agricultural College 134 St George’s, UoL 299 University of Central Lancashire 654 University of Gloucestershire 412 University of Leeds 888 University of Leicester 791 University of Liverpool 255 University of the West of England, Bristol 736 University of Warwick 355 University of Westminster 916 Aberdeen University 574 Cambridge University 106 Cranfield University 147 Glasgow University 620 Goldsmith College 399 Institute of Education, UoL 487 Institute of Technology Tallaght 200 London South Bank University 382 Queen Mary, UoL 745 Robert Gordon University 181 www.libqual.org

Total number of comments 2006 = 9,281 Comments Comparisons Total number of comments 2006 = 9,281 Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368 Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161 Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342 www.libqual.org

Expect everything From: The library in DCMT is one of the best, if not the best, departments of the campus. The staff are outstanding, professional, helpful and extremely friendly. The place is always inviting and welcoming. To: The library is consistently unimpressive, except as a consumer of funds and resources. And everything in between! www.libqual.org

Feedback from UK Participants www.libqual.org

Why use LibQUAL? Feedback from LibQUAL+ Users “Why did you choose to use LibQUAL+?” LibQUAL+ was recommended to us as offering a well designed, thoroughly Library-focused set of survey tools Cost-effectiveness Automated processing & fast delivery of results Opportunity to benchmark Respectability and comparability (with others and historically) www.libqual.org

The benefits of LibQUAL+ LibQUAL+ has enabled us to find out what a broad range of our users thought of the services we offer; what level of service-delivery quality we had achieved in their eyes, and to get a clear picture of what they actually wanted the Library to deliver (as opposed to what we thought they wanted). UK HE Institution, 2006 www.libqual.org

In Closing LibQUAL+… Focuses on success from the users’ point of view (outcomes) Demonstrates that a web-based survey can handle large numbers; users are willing to fill it out; and survey can be executed quickly with minimal expense Requires limited local survey expertise and resources Analysis available at local, national and inter-institutional levels Offers opportunities for highlighting and improving your status within the institution Can help in securing funding for the Library www.libqual.org