 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 initially by a 3-year, $498,000 FIPSE grant; sustained by participant fees ($2,850/year) What is LibQUAL + ?

Grounded in the “Gap Theory” of Service Quality; addresses a set of three service dimensions: 1.Information Control —timely, convenient, and self-reliant access to information resources: local & remote, print & electronic. 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. What is LibQUAL + ? (The “Gap Theory” model and 4 dimensions of service quality)

 Help libraries better understand user perceptions of service quality  Provide comparable assessment information from peer institutions  Identify best practices in library service  Continuously improve library service quality The goals of LibQUAL +

199 institutions, including:  Members of Association of Research Libraries (34)  Other college and university libraries (140)  Community college libraries (13)  Society of College, National, & University Libraries (16) [United Kingdom & Ireland] With a growing number of international participants in Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia, and Sweden Who participated in Spring 2005? (Groups & consortia)

Université Laval (A) University of Alabama (A) University of Alberta Libraries (A) University of Arizona Library (A, G, P) University of California, Los Angeles (A) University of Cincinnati Libraries (A) University of Florida (A) University of Guelph (A) University of Houston Libraries (A, G) University of Maryland Libraries (A) University of New Mexico (A, G) University of Pittsburgh (A) University of Oklahoma Libraries (A, G) University of Oregon Libraries (A, G) University of South Carolina (A) University of Southern California (A, G) University of Texas at Austin (A, G) Virginia Tech & State University (A) Wayne State University (A) Who participated in 2005? (Peer institutions) Auburn University (A) Baylor University Libraries (G) Brown University Library (A) Duke University Libraries (A) Emory University (A) Iowa State University (A, G, P) McGill University Libraries (A) Ohio State University Libraries (A, P) Ohio University Libraries, Athens Campus (A) Purdue University (A, P) Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (A) Syracuse University (A) Temple University Libraries (A) Texas A&M University, College Station (A, G, P) 33 peer institutions from Association of Research Libraries, Greater Western Library Alliance, and “Peer 11 Land-Grant,” including…

 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 23)  Send with imbedded URL for online survey (March 28)  Send 2 reminders from the Dean (March 31 & April 5)  Survey closes on April 8, 2003  Announce incentive prize winners (May 3) Checklist of local activities

Who responded at ISU? (Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads) 508 of the 2,800 users surveyed (18.1%) responded to the quantitative questions, including: 220 of the 800 faculty surveyed (27.5%) 162 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (20.3%) 126 of the 1,200 undergrad students surveyed (10.5%) 202 of these respondents also provided written comments (i.e., qualitative data)

Who responded at ISU? (By age & Sex) Sex 59.4%40.6% Age 21.2% 24.4% 19.6% 31.1% 3.6%

I use the library electronically… I use the library on premises… 7.7% 34.7% 36.2% 19.8% 1.6% 23.4% 46.1% 18.8% 9.7% 2% ISU Library -- LibQUAL Survey 2005 (Physical library vs. e-Library use) I use Google TM, etc. for information… 71.9% 18.4% 5.3% 1.6% 2.8% Daily Weekly Monthly QuarterlyNever

Sample Survey

Dimension 1: Information Control

Dimension 2: Affect of Service

Dimension 3: Library as Place

Addendum: General Satisfaction

Addendum: Information Literacy Questions

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

Text box Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Aggregate data (all peer universities, all users) Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work M D P IC-8 Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place (-0.15)

Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (Graph) Tex t box PeersISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Community space for group learning (0.1) Information Control Affect of Service Information Control Affect of Service Coverup Library as Place Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.15) Coverup Library as Place IC-8 LP-5 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.03) IC-8

Difference between perceived and minimal service: Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (1) (Table) Adequacy Gap

Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (2) (Table) Difference between perceived and desired service: Adequacy Gap

Text box PeersISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Undergraduates (Graph) Coverup Information Control Affect of Service Information Control Affect of Service Library as Place

Difference between perceived and minimal service: Comparison: Undergraduates (1) (Table) Adequacy Gap

Difference between perceived and desired service: Comparison: Undergraduates (2) (Table) Adequacy Gap

Text box Peers ISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Graduate Students (Graph) Information Control Affect of Service Coverup Library as Place Coverup Library as Place Information Control Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.28) IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.1) IC-8 Community space for group learning (0.11) LP-5

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

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

Peers ISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comparison: Faculty (Graph) Information Control Affect of Service Information Control Affect of Service Coverup Library as Place Coverup Library as Place IC-3 IC-4 IC-6 Remote acccess (-0.23) Website (-0.34) IC-1 IC-2 Print resources (-0.33) E-resources (-0.25) Acceess tools (-0.17) Remote acccess (-0.27) IC-1 Website (-0.22) IC-2 IC-4 E-resources (-0.02) Print and/or e- journals (-0.37) IC-8 Community space for group learning (0.31) LP-5 Quiet space for individual activities (0.05) LP-2 Print and/or e- journals (-0.78) IC-8

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

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

Conclusions: Areas of strength (undergrads) Conclusions… Areas of strength…

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

Conclusions: Areas of challenge Conclusions… 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 Information Control (IC).

Affect of Service ISU Peers Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions: ( )

Affect of Service ISU Peers Information Control ISU Peers Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions ( )

Affect of Service ISU Peers Information Control ISU Peers Library as Place ISU Peers Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions ( )

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. Hidden text—Hidden text

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. Hidden text—Hidden text

Qualitative Data: Sample comments Number: 152 Date: 12:15 AM 4/02/2005 C.S.T. User Group: Undergraduate Discipline: LAS: Biology Library Branch: Parks Library Age: Sex: Female KEYWORDS: HOURS; STUDY HALL; CAFÉ Comment: I wish the library was open later because there is no good place to study after midnight and I am a night owl. Also, it would be really nice if there was a cafe in or near the library so that I could grab coffee and a muffin or something when I’m studying for a long time.

Qualitative Data (>40 user comments) Topic# of users

Qualitative Data (>40 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>30 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>30 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>20 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>20 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>10 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>10 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>5 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data (>5 user comments) Topic# of users (Compare 2003)

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Collections-related) Collections-related Buy more journals! Avoid cancellations; try to restore some journals that have been cut. Improve remote access to all e-resources, but especially journals. Add journals to support “newer fields of study” at ISU. More full-text journals, including back files. Many comments and suggestions regarding specific subject areas, titles, etc. Make theses available full- text, like at Virginia Tech. Add more “seats” for SciFinder Scholar.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (e-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc.) E-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc. Make the e-Library website more user-friendly. Improve the organization; make it less graphics- intensive. Allow for easy, automatic searching beyond the Library Catalog (i.e., federated searching). The Library Catalog remains central; continue to enhance it. Make the display of serials holdings information less confusing. Consider a search box on the e-Library home page. Make the e-Library and the Library Catalog more like Google. Simplify remote access. Add more services to the e-Library, especially online renewals.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Staff-related) Staff-related Majority of respondents see library staff as courteous, friendly, helpful, hardworking, and knowledgeable. Several respondents comment on the inconsistency of staff service: the mix of professional & unprofessional behaviors. Still, some respondents see staff as rude, unapproachable, unhelpful, and “lacking in customer service.” A few comment on the risk of over- reliance on student workers.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Building, equipment, furniture) Building, furnishings, etc. Desire for an external and/or drive-up book return. Parts of the building can be hot & stuffy. Many comment explicitly on their low use (or non- use) of the physical library. “I’m 100% electronic…” However, “wireless internet or gourmet coffee would get me there.”

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Noise) Noise and the study environment Importance of the Parks Library and branch facilities as places to study. Ongoing concern 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! Continue to enforce the cell phone policy.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Specific services) Specific services Circulation: Need to review and revise Circulation and Collection Development policies (loan periods, recalls, overdue fines, purchase of multiple copies) to improve book availability. Please allow online renewals! Interlibrary Loan: ILL is timely, efficient, and extremely valuable, but needs closer integration with other services (e.g., My Account, web request forms, etc.) Instruction: The continuing need for effective services for distance learners, including remote access to e-resources.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Hours) Hours More open hours would be nice, especially during break periods and final exams. However, users recognize that there are funding and staffing issues related to open hours. A few ask for “24/7,” but many users would be happy with any improvement “past midnight.”

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 2007) and watch the trajectories. Consider focus groups to explore areas of concern.

Recommendations Continue to acquire more e-journals, including backfiles, and make them accessible from both on and off campus. Investigate and act on respondent’s recommendations for specific material purchases. Implement electronic theses & dissertations. Complete a major revision of the e-Library website, with additional online services.

Recommendations (cont.) Improve library support for distance learning. Create additional quiet zones within the Parks Library. Use respondents’ comments/complaints regarding customer service to shape staff development sessions in the upcoming year. Review and revise circulation policies, and explore feasibility of online renewals.