1.  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 + ?

2. 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)

3.  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 +

4. Over 250 institutions, including:  Members of Association of Research Libraries (35)  Other college and university libraries (164)  Community college libraries (18)  A small number of governmental, public, school, and special libraries  A growing number of international participants in Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Sweden, and the U.K. Who participated in Spring 2007? (Groups & consortia)

5. University of Alberta Libraries (A) University of Arizona Library (A,G,P) University of British Columbia Library (A) University of California, Los Angeles (A) University of Chicago Library (A) University of Cincinnati Libraries (A) University of Guelph (A) University of Houston Libraries (A,G) University of Kentucky Libraries (A) University of Manitoba (A) University of Maryland Libraries (A) University of Massachusetts Amherst (A) University of Miami (A) University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries (A,G) University of New Mexico (A, G) University of Saskatchewan Library (A) University of South Carolina (A) University of Southern California (A,G) University of Toronto Libraries (A) University of Waterloo (A) University of Western Ontario (A) Washington University in St. Louis (A,G) York University Libraries (A) Who participated in 2007? (Peer institutions) Auburn University (A) Baylor University Libraries (G) Duke University Libraries (A) Iowa State University Library (A,G, P) Kansas State University Libraries (G) McMaster University Libraries (A) Ohio State University Libraries (A,P) Queen's University (A) Rice University (A,G) SUNY Buffalo (A) Texas A&M University, College Station (A,G, P) Université de Montréal (A) Université Laval (A) University of Alabama (A) 37 peer institutions from Association of Research Libraries, Greater Western Library Alliance, and “Peer 11 Land-Grant,” including…

6.  Gather random sample (1,600 u-grads; 800 grads; 800 faculty)  Prepare website to manage publicity, communication, etc.  Send “pre-survey” message from Dean (March 21)  Send email with imbedded URL for online survey (March 26)  Send reminder from the Dean (March 29)  Survey closes on April 6, 2007  Announce incentive prize winners (May 1) Checklist of local activities

7. Who responded at ISU? (Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads) 280 of the 3,200 users surveyed (8.8%) responded to the quantitative questions, including: 134 of the 800 faculty surveyed (16.8%) 69 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (8.6%) 77 of the 1,600 undergrad students surveyed (4.8%) 119 of these respondents also provided written comments (i.e., qualitative data)

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

9. I use the library electronically… I use the library on premises… 7.7% 34.7% 36.2% 19.8% 23.4% 46.1% 18.8% 9.7% I use Google TM, etc. for information… 71.9% 18.4% 5.3% Daily Weekly Monthly QuarterlyNever <1% Respondents’ use of library / intranet (By age & Sex)

10. Sample Survey

11. Dimension 1: Information Control

12. Dimension 2: Affect of Service

13. Dimension 3: Library as Place

14. Addendum: General Satisfaction

15. Addendum: Information Literacy Questions

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

17. 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 (-0.03)

18. Comparison: All users (und., grad., faculty) (Graph) Tex t box PeersISU Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum 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 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (0.11)

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

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

21. 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

22. Difference between perceived and minimal service: Comparison: Undergraduates (1) (Table)

23. Difference between perceived and desired service: Comparison: Undergraduates (2) (Table)

24. 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 (-0.19) IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (-0.12) IC-8

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

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

27. 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 access (-0.08) Website (-0.28) IC-1 IC-2 Print resources (-0.09) E-resources (-0.15) Access tools (-0.08) Remote access (-0.03) IC-1 IC-4 Print and/or e- journals (-0.23) IC-8 Community space for group learning (0.34) LP-5 Quiet space for individual activities (0.13) LP-2 Print and/or e- journals (-0.54) IC-8 LP-3 Comfortable location (0.01) E-resources (-0.1)

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

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

30. Conclusions: Areas of challenge Conclusions… Areas of strength…

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

32. 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).

33. Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions (2001-2007) 2001 200320052007 Affect of Service ISU Peers

34. Multi-year Comparison of Adequacy Gaps at ISU and Peer Institutions (2001-2007) 2001 200320052007 Affect of Service ISU Peers Information Control ISU Peers

35. 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 (2001-2007) 2001 200320052007

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

37. 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.

38. 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?

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

40. 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. Hidden text—Hidden text

41. 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. Hidden text—Hidden text

42. 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

43. 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

44. Qualitative Data: Sample comments Number: 61 Date: 11:31 PM 3/28/2007 (CST) User Group: Undergraduate Discipline: Agriculture Library Branch: Parks Library Age: 23-30 Sex: Female KEYWORDS: HOURS; NOISE; CAFÉ; FOOD Comment: Call me a nerd, I would like the library to be open earlier on sun. Also more labeled quiet zones would be helpful. And more room to eat, drink, and socialize by bookend. I think bookends is a great addition to the library and has a great atmosphere, it would just be nice if I could take purchases out of bookend and into the rest of the library.

45. Qualitative Data (>50 user comments)

48. Qualitative Data (>20 user comments)

49. Qualitative Data (>10 user comments)

50. Qualitative Data (>5 user comments)

51. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Collections-related) Collections-related Buy more journals!! Avoid cancellations; try to restore some journals that have previously been cut. Improve remote access to all e-resources, but especially journals. Improve access to books that are in high demand (and “never available…”) More full-text journals, including back files. Many suggestions and requests to purchase specific titles or materials in specific subject areas. Repeated requests to add more “seats” for SciFinder Scholar.

52. 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. Simplify searching for non-print media such as videos, DVDs, books-on- tape. Make searching easier! Consider a search box on the e-Library home page. Simplify remote access. Keep pursuing a “single sign-on.”

53. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Staff-related) Staff-related Majority of respondents see library staff as courteous, patient, helpful, dedicated, efficient. A few respondents comment on the inconsistency of staff service: the mix of professional & unprofessional behaviors. Student workers can be “hit and miss…” Still, a few respondents describe staff as “rude,” “not friendly,” or “lacking in customer service.”

54. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Building, equipment, furniture) Building, furnishings, etc. Many comment explicitly on their low use (or non-use) of the physical library. “I only need the Library’s website…” Some areas in the Parks Library have poor ventilation, flickering fluorescent lights. Several respondents like (and only one respondent dislikes) the new Bookends Café.

55. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Noise) Noise and the study environment Importance of the Parks Library and branch facilities as places to study. Continue to control noise levels in the Library, and to provide adequate, separate, and well-designated spaces for both “quiet” and group study. Unlike previous years, not a single comment about cell phones!

56. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Specific services) Specific services Circulation: Need continued review of Circulation and Collection Development policies (loan periods, purchase of multiple copies, etc.) to improve book availability. Interlibrary Loan: Numerous respondents describe ILL as timely, efficient, and extremely valuable— lots of kudos to this service in 2007! Instruction: Users need help in evaluating electronic resources. Distance learners need specialized assistance. Numerous requests for library seminars on specific topics. Branches: A few users appeared to be unaware of the Vet Med Express delivery service. Reproduction & reformatting: Need more and better services & equipment for copying, printing, and scanning. Try to contain costs!

57. Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Hours) Hours; Funding Several requests for expanded hours, especially on weekends and during holiday and break periods. Expanded hours are especially important to non-traditional students. 12 users comment on library’s budget constraints. Many admonish us to “keep pushing for funding…”

58. 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 2009) and watch the trajectories. Consider focus groups to explore areas of concern.

59. Recommendations Continue to acquire more e-journals, including backfiles, and make them accessible from both on and off campus. Review and act on respondents’ recommendations for specific material purchases (including SciFinder Scholar seats). Complete an overhaul of the e-Library website, including:  more intuitive organization  a homepage search box  easier access to journals and journal articles (both print & electronic)  easier access to non-print media (videos, DVDs, etc.) Improve library support for distance learning (including dedicated pages in the e-Library)

60. Recommendations (cont.) Review and act on respondents’ suggestions for specific instructional seminars and workshops in the coming year. Create additional quiet zones within the Parks Library. Use respondents’ comments/complaints regarding customer service to shape library staff development sessions in the coming year. Review and revise circulation and collection development policies to improve availability of “high demand” books. Publicize the Vet Med Express delivery service.