LibQUAL+ in the UK and Ireland: three years findings and experience Stephen Town & Selena Lock Cranfield University 6th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measures in Libraries and Information Services 22 nd August 2005

Objectives To give an overview of SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation To present the overall results of the SCONUL Cohort To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt

UK HE Libraries survey methods General Satisfaction –Exit questionnaires –SCONUL Satisfaction Survey Designed Surveys –Satisfaction vs Importance –Priority Surveys Outcome measurement –ACPI project National Student Survey (1 Question)

Survey methods used in the UK West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys

1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

The UK approach Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI) 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participating in different institutions

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

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

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 Coventry University

Overall Potential UK Sample to 2005 Full variety of institutions 25% of institutions 32% of HE students (>700,000) 34% of Libraries 37% of Library expenditure

2. Results from SCONUL

Response Comparisons SCONUL 2003 –20 institutions –11,919 respondents SCONUL 2004 –16 institutions –16,611 respondents Increase by 4,692 SCONUL 2005 –16 institutions –17,355 respondents Increase by 744 LibQUAL –308 institutions –128,958 respondents LibQUAL –202 institutions –112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 LibQUAL –199 institutions –108,504 respondents Decrease by 4,047

SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005

Dimensions of Quality 2004 & 2005 Affect of Service Information Control Library as a Place Affect of Service Access to Information Personal Control Library as Place Dimensions of Quality 2003

F. Heath, 2005

Core Questions

ARL College or University Summary 2004

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003

Overall Comparisons

Undergraduate Results 2005

Postgraduate Results 2005

Academic Staff Results 2005

Library Staff Results 2005

Affect of Service Comparisons

Information Control Comparisons

Library as Place Comparisons

Overall Comparisons by User Group

3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

Purpose for participating Benchmarking Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+ Trialling alternative survey methods More library focused than previous in-house method Supporting Charter Mark application process Planned institutional survey failed to happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap.

Primary aim(s) for surveying users Understand what their opinions of our service is, to inform strategic planning. Making sure we knew what customers concerns really are as we have had much lobbying by one group of students. Also nearly three years since last survey, so needed an update after much change in services. User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to know how they view us and whether we are improving. 3 years of the same survey can have some credibility. To gain information for better planning of our service and make adjustments in areas found wanting.

Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process Majority found it straightforward Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias Some issues in obtaining: – addresses –Demographic data The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part

Feedback on results Overall results were as expected by the institutions “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence known already” Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one

How can LibQUAL+ be improved? Summary and commentary on results More flexibility on the content and language of the questionnaire More interaction with other UK participating libraries Providing results by department, campus, and for full time and part time students Simpler questionnaire design We really need a ConvergedServQual tool! Needs to allow you to use a word other than library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)

Changes made as a result of the survey It has strengthened our case in asking for more money to improve the environment. We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals which had been axed several weeks before the survey was conducted. Implementing PG forums to address issues raised Main Library makeover/Group study area Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating to resource expenditure at the most senior levels

Conclusions

LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again

Lessons learnt The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate Collecting demographics is time consuming Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex

Acknowledgements Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M University Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, Austin Martha Kyrillidou & ARL Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL Newsletter. Number 31. All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Defence College of Management and Technology Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University Selena Lock Research and Development Officer Defence College of Management and Technology