1.  Large-scale, web-based, user-centered assessment of library service effectiveness across multiple universities.  Co-developed by ARL and Texas A&M University, 1999  Responds to the increasing pressure for libraries to develop more outcome-based assessment efforts, instead of relying merely on input or resource metrics.  Funding: 3-year FIPSE grant covers 49.5% ($498,368) of the estimated costs; Texas A&M and ARL contribute the remaining 50.5% ($508,761) What is LibQUAL+?

2. Grounded in the “Gap Theory” of Service Quality; based on SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman et al (Texas A&M); addresses a set of five service dimensions: 1.Tangibles —appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials; 2. Reliability —ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately; 3. Responsiveness —willingness to help customers and provide prompt service; 4.Assurance —knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence; and 5. Empathy — the caring, individualized attention the organization provides its customers. What is LibQUAL+? (The “Gap Theory” model and 5 original dimensions of service quality)

3. LibQUAL+ adds 4 more dimensions of service quality, specific to libraries: 1.Access to Collections —local & remote, print & electronic, general and special; convenience of access, etc.; 2. Library as Place —secure, safe, comfortable, conducive to study; 3. Self Reliance —enabling the user to work independently; 4.Instruction —adequate and appropriate instructional services. What is LibQUAL+? (The 4 new dimensions of service quality)

4.  Development of tools and protocols for evaluating library service quality;  Development of effective web-based delivery mechanisms;  Identification of best practices; and  Establishment of a service quality assessment program. The goals of LibQUAL+

5.  Phase 0 (2000): Pilot; 12 ARL libraries survey 5,000 users  Phase 1 (2001): 43 ARL libraries survey 20,416 users  Phase 2 (2002): 200+ libraries (incl. OhioLINK, AAHSL, int’l, community college) test a shorter, more refined instrument (25 questions)  Phase 3 (2003): End of grant; final revisions to instrument. Overall project timeline

6. American University University of Arizona Arizona State University University of Arkansas Baylor University Brigham Young U. Clemson University University of Colorado Cornell University Emory University University of Guelph University of Houston University of Illinois/UC Indiana University University of Iowa Iowa State University University of Kentucky McGill University University of Maryland Miami University, Ohio Michigan State University University of Minnesota University of Mississippi University of Missouri University of Nebraska University of New Mexico Northwestern U. Health Sci Lib Ohio University Oklahoma State University University of Oregon Oregon State University University of Pittsburgh Southern Illinois University University of Texas Texas A&M University Texas Tech University University of Utah Virginia Tech Washburn University University of Washington Washington State U. University of Waterloo Wayne State University 43 ARL libraries, including 21 GWLA members Who participated in Phase 1?

7.  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 28)  Send email with imbedded URL for online survey (April 1)  Send 2 reminders from the Dean (April 4 & 9)  Survey closes on April 13, 2001  Announce incentive prize winners (May 10) Checklist of local activities

8. Who responded at ISU? (Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads) 717 of the 2,800 users surveyed (25.6%), including: 291 of the 800 faculty surveyed (36.4%) 230 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (28.8%) 196 of the 1200 undergrad students surveyed (16.3%) ISU ranked 7 th in the number of surveys completed! Range was 173-1000.

9. Ag/Environ. Architecture. Business Education. Engineering Genl Studies Health Sci Humanities Other Performing & Fine Arts Science Soc Science Undecided Who responded at ISU? (By subject area)

10. 36.3% 63.7% 31.1% 19% 24.1% 25.8% Age Sex Who responded at ISU? (By age & Sex)

11. I use the library electronically… I use the library on premises… 16% 43% 23% 12% 6% 8% 45%33% 13% 0.8% Who responded at ISU? (Frequency of library use)

12. Sample Survey

13. Dimension 1: Access to Collections

14. Dimension 2: Assurance

15. Dimension 3: Empathy

16. Dimension 4: Library as Place

17. Dimension 5: Reliability

18. Dimension 6: Responsiveness

19. Dimension 7: Tangibles

20. Dimension 8: Self Reliance

21. Dimension 9: Instruction

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

23. Text box Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Accuracy in the catalog, borrowing, and overdue records Complete runs of journal titles Aggregate data (all universities, all users)

24. Tex t box All UniversitiesISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Complete runs of journal titles Accuracy in the catalog, borrowing, and overdue records Comparison: Aggregate data (all users)

25. Tex t box Comparison: Aggregate data (all users) Text box Comparison: Aggregate data (all users) – TABLE

26. Text box All UniversitiesISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Accuracy in the catalog, borrowing, and overdue records Comparison: Undergraduate Students

27. Text box Comparison: Undergraduate Students Text box Comparison: Undergraduate Students – TABLE

28. Text box All Universities ISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Complete runs of journal titles Convenient business hours A haven for quiet and solitude Space that facilitates quiet study Accuracy in the catalog, borrowing, and overdue records Comparison: Graduate Students

29. Text box Comparison: Graduate Students Text box Comparison: Graduate Students – TABLE

30. Text box All Universities ISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Comprehensive print collections Complete runs of journal titles Accuracy in the catalog, borrowing, and overdue records Comparison: Faculty

31. Text box Comparison: Faculty Text box Comparison: Faculty – TABLE

32. Text box All UniversitiesISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Dimensions: Aggregate (All ranks)

33. Text box All UniversitiesISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Dimensions: Undergrad Students

34. Text box All UniversitiesISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Dimensions: Graduate Students

35. Text box All UniversitiesISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum Dimensions: Faculty

36. All Universities ISU Comparing the gap between perceived and minimum levels of service… Comparing Gap 1: Perceived – Minimum

37. All Universities ISU Comparing the gap between desired and perceived levels of service… Comparing Gap 2: Desired – Perceived

38. All UniversitiesISU Comparison of Minimum Expectations

39. All UniversitiesISU Comparison of Desired Levels of Service

40. All UniversitiesISU Comparison of Perceived Levels of Service

41. Conclusions… Conclusions: 6 items with largest gap Desired – Perceived

42. Conclusions… Conclusions: 6 items with smallest gap Perceived – Minimum

43. Conclusions… Conclusions: 6 items with largest gap Perceived – Minimum

44. Conclusions… Conclusions: 6 items with smallest gap Desired – Perceived

45. Next steps Complete a summary report of findings, to inform operational planning for 2002 Explore opportunities to compare findings with colleagues (UI, GWLA, etc.) Repeat survey in 2003 (and bi-annually thereafter); watch the trajectories Consider focus groups to examines areas of concern?