 Large-scale, web-based, user-centered assessment of library service effectiveness across multiple institutions.  Co-developed by ARL and Texas A&M University, 1999  Responds to the increasing pressure for libraries to develop more outcomes-based assessment efforts, instead of relying merely on input or resource metrics.  Supported in part by a 3-year, $498,000 FIPSE grant; sustained by participant fees. What is LibQUAL + ?

Grounded in the “Gap Theory” of Service Quality; addresses a set of four service dimensions: 1.Access to Information —timely and convenient access to information resources: local & remote, print & electronic, general and special. 2.Affect of Service —knowledge, courtesy, and responsiveness of employees; their ability to instill confidence; their willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. 3.Library as Place —a library space that is quiet, comfortable, and conducive to study and learning, for individuals as well as groups. 4.Personal Control —modern equipment, easy to use access tools, and a website that allow users to locate information independently, both within the Library and from remote locations. What is LibQUAL + ? (The “Gap Theory” model and 4 dimensions of service quality)

 Foster a culture of excellence and continuous improvement in providing library service;  Provide libraries with comparable assessment information from peer institutions;  Identify best practices in library service; and  Enhance library staff members’ analytical skills for interpreting and acting on data. The goals of LibQUAL +

 Phase 0 (2000): Pilot; 12 ARL libraries survey 5,000 users  Phase 1 (2001): 43 ARL libraries survey 34,000 users  Phase 2 (2002): 164 libraries (incl. OhioLINK, AAHSL) test a shorter, more refined instrument (25 questions); 78,000 respondents  Phase 3 (2003): End of FIPSE grant; final revisions to instrument. 308 libraries (incl. international) and 125,000 respondents Overall project timeline

 Association of Research Libraries (66 members)  New York Reference and Research Resources System (76, incl. 71 college/university libraries & 5 public libraries)  OhioLINK (45)  Network of Alabama Academic Libraries (9)  Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (21)  Oberlin Libraries Group (12)  Military Education & Research Library Network (5)  Society of College, National, & University Libraries (20) [UK & Ireland; includes Glasgow University] Who participated in 2003? (Groups & consortia)

Arizona State U. West Boston College Brigham Young U. Case Western Reserve Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Emory University George Washington U. Georgia Tech Iowa State University Kent State University Louisiana State University McGill University New York State Library Ohio State University Stony Brook University Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University U. Laval U. at Albany U. of Alabama U. of Alberta U. of Arizona U. of California, Davis U. of California, Irvine U. of California, L.A. U. of Cincinnati U. of Florida U. of Guelph U. of Hawaii at Manoa U. of Houston U. of Kansas U. of Kentucky U. of Manitoba U. of Maryland U. of Minnesota U. of Missouri-Columbia U. of Nebraska, Lincoln U. of New Mexico U. of Pittsburgh U. of South Carolina U. of Texas at Austin U. of Washington Virginia Tech Washington State U. Wayne State U. 66 ARL libraries, including… Who participated in 2003? (ARL Libraries)

16 libraries from the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA), including… Arizona State U. West Baylor University Brigham Young U. Colorado State University Iowa State University Oregon State University Texas A&M University U. of Arizona U. of Houston U. of Kansas U. of Missouri-Columbia U. of Nebraska, Lincoln U. of New Mexico U. of Texas at Austin U. of Washington Washington State University Who participated in 2003? (GWLA Libraries)

 Gather random sample (1,200 u-grads; 800 grads; 800 faculty)  Prepare website to manage publicity, communication, etc.  Send “pre-survey” message from Dean (March 25)  Send with imbedded URL for online survey (March 30)  Send 2 reminders from the Dean (April 3 & 8)  Survey closes on April 11, 2003  Announce incentive prize winners (May 19) Checklist of local activities

Who responded at ISU? (Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads) 648 of the 2,800 users surveyed (23.1%), including: 250 of the 800 faculty surveyed (31.3%) 202 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (25.2%) 196 of the 1,200 undergrad students surveyed (16.3%) Among the 66 ARL libraries participating in 2003, ISU ranked 13 th in the number of surveys completed!

63.7% Sex Who responded at ISU? (By age & Sex) 25.2% 59.1%40.9% Age 25.9% 25.7% 20.2% 25.2% 3%

I use the library electronically… I use the library on premises… Who responded at ISU? (Frequency of library use) 8.3% 37.5% 38.5% 14.3% 1.4% 19.2% 45% 22.4% 10% 3.4%

I use the library electronically… I use Google TM, etc. for info… Who responded at ISU? (e-Library vs. Google use) 19.2% 45% 22.4% 10% 3.4% 60.1% 27.1% 6.1% 3.3% 3.4%

Sample Survey

Dimension 1: Access to Information

Dimension 2: Affect of Service

Dimension 3: Library as Place

Dimension 4: Personal Control

Addendum: General Satisfaction

Addendum: Information Literacy Questions

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3Question 4 Question 5 = Minimum = Perceived = Desired Sample spider graph

Text box Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Aggregate data (all ARL universities, all users) Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work M D P

Tex t box ARLISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (Graph) Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work Community space for group learning and study

Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service: Difference between perceived and desired service:

Text box ARLISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Undergraduates (Graph)

Comparison: Undergraduates (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

Text box ARL ISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Comparison: Graduate Students (Graph) Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work Community space for group learning/study.

Comparison: Graduate Students (1) (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

Comparison: Graduate Students (2) (Table) Difference between perceived and desired service:

ARL ISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Faculty (Graph) Making e- resources accessible from home or office Journal collections (print / electronic) I need for my work Library website enabling me to locate info on my own Quiet space for individual activities Community space for group learning and study Electronic info resources I need Community space for group learning and study Printed library materials I need for my work Journal collections (print / electronic) I need for my work

Comparison: Faculty (1) (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

Comparison: Faculty (2) (Table) Difference between perceived and desired service:

Conclusions… Conclusions: Areas of strength Areas of strength…

Conclusions… Conclusions: Areas of strength Areas of strength… Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS).

Conclusions… Conclusions: Areas of challenge Areas of strength… Areas of challenge… Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS). Areas of challenge lie in Access to Information (AI) and Personal Control (PC).

General Satisfaction Questions (1) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

General Satisfaction Questions (2) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs.

General Satisfaction Questions (3) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs. How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

Information Literacy Questions (1) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

Information Literacy Questions (2) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

Information Literacy Questions (3) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline. The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

Information Literacy Questions (4) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline. The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits. The library helps me distinguish trustworthy /untrustworthy information.

Information Literacy Questions (5) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline. The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits. The library helps me distinguish trustworthy /untrustworthy information. The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.

Qualitative Data: Sample comments Number: 6 Date: 12:03 AM 3/31/2003 C.S.T. User Group: Undergraduate Discipline: Science / Math Library Branch: Parks Library Age: Sex: Female KEYWORDS: ILL/DD Comment: I was shocked to find such fast delivery for journal articles I have requested.

Qualitative Data (50+ user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data (20-49 user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data (10-19 user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data (1-9 user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Collections-related) Collections-related More journals! Grow the journal collection, avoid cuts, & stand strong against coercive publishers. Improve remote access to e-resources, especially journals. Many comments and suggestions regarding specific subject areas, titles, etc. More full-text journals, including back files.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Staff-related) Staff-related Vast majority of respondents see library staff as uniformly courteous, friendly, helpful. Several respondents comment on the inconsistency of staff service: the mix of professional & unprofessional behaviors. Perceived lack of knowledge (on part of some staff) results in time delays and lots of referrals. Still, some respondents (c.5) see staff as unfriendly, rude, disinterested, dismissive. Several individual staff singled out for praise or criticism.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Noise) Noise, individual/group study, etc. Importance of the library as a study hall. Vast majority of comments indicate that the Parks Library is too noisy. There is a need for designated “silent zones,” and for more group study rooms that are isolated and/or soundproofed to minimize disruption to others. Occasionally, it’s the library staff who are talking too loudly! Many users currently find the library a “wonderful environment for study,” individually or in groups. Especially conducive to quiet study: the Periodical Room and the branches.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Building, equipment, furniture) Building, equipment, furniture New copiers are nice, but are too slow, too expensive, and need more options (paper size, duplexing). Need better lighting in bathrooms, stairwells, stacks, study areas, aisles. Need new, more attractive, more comfortable chairs. Stack/tier layout is confusing; need better signage. Building is too hot & stuffy, especially in upper tiers/floors. Retrieval of items from Storage is inconvenient, and items sent to Storage are not sufficiently old.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (e-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc.) E-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc. Mixed ratings of the e-Library website. Some see it as excellent and appreciate its integration with other library services. Others express concern that the website is too graphics-intensive, lacks an effective site search, and is less navigable than the old one. The growing tendency of many users to prefer Google or other Internet search engines for locating information and information resources. Specific suggestions for enhancing the e-Library or Library Catalog. The need for easier and more effective access to journals and indexes, by title and by subject.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Circulation policy/practice; Hours) Circulation policy/practice Need to review and revise Circulation and Collection Development policies (loan periods, recalls, overdue fines, purchase of multiple copies) to improve book availability. Need to move to (versus printed) correspondence with users. Hours The need for longer hours during break periods, especially the weekend before classes begin. A desire for expanded hours in general, including several requests for 24/7.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Public computing, printers, etc.) Public computing, printing, etc. The library needs better printers, “even if you have to pay…” Add MS Office to more computers, and make more computers available for . The library needs more computers (including an open computer lab, and in group study rooms).

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Instruction) Instruction The growing need for effective remote access to e-resources for distance education students. The constancy of change. (“Everything has changed since I took Library 160…”) The need for more instruction in specific areas, but especially finding books, journals, and journal articles in the e-Library. More events like DataPalooza. Concerns regarding the validity of information resources and the user’s ability to locate and recognize unbiased information.

Next steps Share qualitative and quantitative data with appropriate library units, for analysis. Implement and document changes based on findings. Explore opportunities to compare findings with colleagues (GWLA, etc.) Repeat survey biennially (next in 2005) and watch the trajectories. Consider focus groups to explore areas of concern.

Recommendations Acquire more e-journals, and make them accessible from both on and off campus. Investigate the effectiveness of and alternatives to SerialsSolutions. Investigate and act on respondent’s recommendations for specific material purchases. Use circulation data to trigger the purchase of additional copies of heavily-used books.

Recommendations (cont.) Improve library support for distance learning. Improve turnaround time, communication, user education, and PR regarding interlibrary loan. Implement notification for all circulation correspondence. Establish and promote an official quiet zone within the Parks Library. Explore ways to make the physical arrangement of collections more intuitive for users.

Recommendations (cont.) Improve access to laser printing within library facilities. Consider respondents’ concerns when negotiating our next contract for public copiers. Improve lighting in the stairwell that connects floors and tiers. Use respondents’ comments/complaints regarding customer service to shape staff development sessions in the upcoming year.