2. TM Project web site www.arl.org/libqual/ 2002 Results Colleen Cook Fred Heath April 2, 2003 Texas Library Association Houston :

3.  98% agree with statement, “My … library contains information from credible and known sources” Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment. Library Remains a Credible Resource

4.  15.7% agreed with the statement “The Internet has not changed the way I use the library” Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment. Information Seeking Behaviors are Changing

5.  92.7% find out about e-journals on-line  21.7% report using print resources to find  16.5% would ask a person for assistance  Only 2.5% would prefer to ask a librarian Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment. Finding Electronic Journals for Research

6.  Only 13.9% ask a librarian  Only 3.2% consider consulting a librarian a preferred way of identifying information Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment. Finding Print Journals for Research

7. Total Circulation Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002). ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

8. In House Use of Materials Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002). ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

9. Reference Transactions Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002). ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

10. The Imperative for our Research In an age of accountability, there is a pressing need for an effective and practical process to evaluate and compare research libraries. In the aggregate, among the 124 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) alone, over $2.8 billion dollars were expended in 1999/2000 to satisfy the library and information needs of the research constituencies in North America (Kyrillidou & Young, 2001, p. 5).

11. LibQUAL+  Description LibQUAL+  is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create useful quality- assessment tools for local planning.

12. u SERVQUAL dimensions served as a priori theoretical starting point LibQUAL+  Process

13. Relationships: Perceptions, Service Quality and Satisfaction ….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

14. LibQUAL+  Resources uAn ARL/Texas A&M University joint developmental effort based on SERVQUAL uLibQUAL+  initially supported by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) uInitial project established an expert team, regrounded concepts, and designed survey methodology uSurvey conducted at over 200 libraries resulting in a data base of over 78,000 user responses

15. LibQUAL+  Project Goals uEstablishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL uDevelopment of web-based tools for assessing library service quality uDevelopment of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries uIdentification of best practices in providing library service

16. LibQUAL+  Participants Spring 2000 Year 1 12 Participants For More Information about Participants: Visit the LibQUAL+  web site. Year 2 43 Participants Year 3 164 Participants 316 Participants Year 4 Spring 2001 Spring 2002 Spring 2003

17. LibQUAL+  Fundamental Contributions to the Measurement of Effective Delivery of Library Services uShift the focus of assessment from mechanical expenditure-driven metrics to user-centered measures of quality uRe-ground gap theory for the library sector, especially academic libraries uGrounded questions yield data of sufficient granularity to be of value at the local level uDetermine the degree to which information derived from local data can be generalized, providing much needed “best practices” information uDemonstrate the efficacy of large-scale administration of user-centered assessment transparently across the web uMakes little demand of local resources and expertise

18. Multiple Methods of Listening to Customers  Transactional surveys*  Mystery shopping  New, declining, and lost-customer surveys  Focus group interviews  Customer advisory panels  Service reviews  Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture  Total market surveys*  Employee field reporting  Employee surveys  Service operating data capture *A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these methods Note. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000). Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C.

19. 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

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

22. Dimensions of Library Service Quality

23. Affect of Service uAbsorbed several of the original SERVQUAL questions measuring Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy uIn the current analysis also includes Reliability uAll in all: the Human Dimension of Service Quality

24. Affect of Service “I want to be treated with respect. I want you to be courteous, to look like you know what you are doing and enjoy what you are doing. … Don’t get into personal conversations when I am at the desk.” Faculty member

25. Reliability “You put a search on a book and it’s just gone; it’s not reacquired. … There’s more of a problem of lost books, of books that are gone and nobody knows why and nobody’s doing anything about it.” Faculty member

26. Service as Performance “…as users have metamorphosed from penitents to self-reliant information surfers, the rules of engagement have changed. Service is not something dispensed; rather, it is enacted as an elaborate cultural ritual, the texture and fabric of which is changing in front of us. Service may now embody multiple overlays of meaning, many too dense for anything but an anthropological fieldwork study to uncover” (Lincoln, p. 15).

27. Access to Information uCovers scope, timeliness, and convenience of access uAdequacy of collections uComprehensiveness, quality, and depth of information resources uAll in all: required information delivered in the format, location, and time of choice

28. Comprehensive Collections “I think one of the things I love about academic life in the United States is that as a culture…, we tend to appreciate the extraordinary importance of libraries in the life of the mind.” Faculty member

29. Ubiquity of Access “Over time my own library use has become increasingly electronic. So that the amount of time I actually spend in the library is getting smaller and the amount of time I spend at my desk on the web … is increasing.” Faculty member

30. Cultural Perspective - Collections “In the physical [vs. virtual] reality, ‘texture’ has become important. Density of collections becomes important, and, if collections are not complete, users want to know where they can find missing volumes, journal articles, and/or how swiftly interlibrary loan will work for them” (Lincoln, p. 11).

31. Personal Control uCovers ease of navigation, convenience, and support services uPersonal control of the information universe in general and web navigation in particular uAll in all: How users want to interact with the modern library

32. Personal Control “By habit, I usually try to be self-sufficient. And I’ve found that I am actually fairly proficient. I usually find what I’m looking for eventually. So I personally tend to ask a librarian only as a last resort.” Graduate student

33. Personal Control “…first of all, I would turn to the best search engines that are out there. That’s not a person so much as an entity. In this sense, librarians are search engines [ just ] with a different interface.” Faculty member

34. Cultural Perspective – Self-reliance “If Foucault is correct that we in the West live in surveilled societies, then what function does self- reliance serve? …the library user who wishes to navigate resources with as little help as possible – seeks a kind of privacy from the surveillance of librarian help …Having found the relative anonymity of cyberspace and a virtual world, this self-reliant user now seeks the same independence and lack of surveillance in the text-based and digitized universe of information resources known as the library” (Lincoln, p. 12).

35. Library as Place uCovers usefulness of space, symbolic value, and refuge for work and study uTranscends the SERVQUAL dimension of Tangibles to include the idea of the library as the campus center of intellectual activity uAll in all: As long as physical facilities are adequate, library as place may not be an issue

36. Library as Place “I guess you’d call them satisfiers. As long as they are not negatives, they won’t be much of a factor. If they are negatives, they are a big factor.” Faculty member

37. Library as Place “One of the cherished rituals is going up the steps and through the gorgeous doors of the library and heading up to the fifth floor to my study. … I have my books and I have six million volumes downstairs that are readily available to me in an open stack library.” Faculty member

38. Library as Place “The poorer your situation, the more you need the public spaces to work in. When I was an undergraduate, I spent most of my time in the library, just using it as a study space.” Faculty member

39. Cultural Perspective – Library as Place  “…It’s beyond the ease [with] which you can find information, just because the library experience is something like Greece or Athens…” (Undergraduate)  “…the library needs to welcome them in. It needs to make them feel like this is a place where they can be in almost a haven, a refuge” (Business professor)  “writing an undergraduate thesis with this big dome over his head…he felt really like a scholar” (Linguistics professor)  Writing a dissertation in a particular library for another scholar “was an emotional experience”

40. Survey Design Considerations uThree scales exploring optimal, minimal, and actual service levels uTwenty-five questions clustered around four dimensions uSurvey covers a sample of targeted user population uData illuminates gap between desired level of service and perception of experience

41. LibQUAL+  Core Questions Y1 _____________________________________________________________________________ Factor_______ _ No. I II III IVItem Core _____________________________________________________________________________ 32.84947.12848.24465.13335 1 Willingness to help users 33.80847.13662.25348.14147 1 Giving users individual attention 7.80757.17881.12781.21125 1 Employees deal with users caring fashion 50.79273.19288.18847.12497 1 Employees who are consistently courteous 31.77262.16358.26461.20061 1 Employees have knowledge answer questions 5.74072.14754.18453.29624 1 Employees understand needs of users 3.74052.15102.17296.20793 1 Readiness to respond to users' questions 18.71718.19757.18289.26766 1 Employees who instill confidence in users 43.62487.22402.29970.28256 0 Dependability handling service problems 20.16556.87679.11430.16236 2 A haven for quiet and solitude 2.17739.83172.08498.13901 2 A meditative place 19.22362.83147.14705.22566 2 A contemplative environment 25.16013.80492.18894.16628 2 Space that facilitates quiet study 41.20398.80204.17599.20255 2 A place for reflection and creativity 37.22528.12353.78405.15466 * website enabling me locate info on my own 28.19602.09611.75780.13173 * elec resources accessible home or office 14.33339.16156.60389.31109 * access tools allow me find on my own 45.30467.23784.59090.28919 3 Modern equip me easily access info I need 17.35390.18467.55690.41864 * info easily accessible for independent use 29.30136.21018.55341.38474 4 Convenient access to library collections 11.13494.23183.18868.73636 3 Comprehensive print collections 39.14894.23743.29367.60350 3 Complete runs of journal titles 16.29445.19831.22384.60107 3 Interdisciplinary library needs addressed 9.27782.05333.16331.57866 4 Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan 8.22850.18484.13137.56343 0 Convenient business hours ________________________________________________________________

42. Sample Survey Spring 2002

43. Sample Survey… continued

47. LibQUAL+  2002 Iteration u42 — ARL Libraries u35 — Health Sciences Libraries u36 — State Colleges & Universities (excluding ARL) u34 — Private Colleges & Universities (excluding ARL) u15 — Community Colleges u 2 — Special & Public Libraries (Smithsonian & NYPL)

49. Respondents by Age (Excludes NYPL) Note: LibQUAL+  Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results. (2002). vol. 1, p. 19

50. Respondents by Sex Note: LibQUAL+  Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results. (2002). vol. 1, p. 20

51. 4-Year Institution Respondent by Discipline (n=54,073) Note: LibQUAL+  Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results. (2002). Vol. 1, p. 38

52. Aggregate Dimension Means (n=70,445) DimensionMinimumDesiredPerceivedSA Gap Access to Information6.577.936.820.25 Affect of Service6.517.907.110.60 Library as Place5.987.416.620.64 Personal Control6.748.157.070.33 Note: LibQUAL+  Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results. (2002). vol. 1, p. 24

53. Mean Perceived Scores 2001/2002 Trend (n=34)

54. TAMU Faculty Item Summary Note: LibQUAL+  Spring 2002 Survey Results. (2002). vol. 2, p. 40

55. ARL Faculty Item Summary Note: LibQUAL+  Spring 2002 Survey Results - ARL. (2002). Vol. 5, p. 46

56. Institutional Norms for Perceived Means on 25 Core Questions Note: Thompson, B. LibQUAL+  Spring 2002 Selected Norms, (2002).

57. ARL Top 40 6.84 (.46) ARL Other 6.74 (.27) Private Colleges 6.90 (.49) State Colleges & Universities 6.38 (.30) Community Colleges 7.26 (.55) Overall Mean Scores and Service Adequacy Gap Scores By Cohort Group 2002 LibQUAL+  Iteration (n=162) AAHSL 7.07 (.56)

58. LibQUAL+ TM Related Documents LibQUAL+ TM Web Site http://www.arl.org/libqual/ LibQUAL+ TM Bibliography http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib woof