Background on the U.K. / SCONUL
LibQUAL+ implementation
Stephen Town,
Cranfield University
Objectives
• To give an overview of U.K. / SCONUL
LibQUAL+ participation
• To present the overall results of the SCONUL
Cohort
• To describe the feedback from participants
and the lessons learnt
UK HE Libraries survey methods
• General Satisfaction
– Exit questionnaires
– SCONUL Satisfaction Survey
• Designed Surveys
– Satisfaction vs Importance 1989– Priority Surveys 1993-
• Outcome measurement
– ACPI project 2003-
• National Student Survey (1 Question)
Survey methods used in the UK
6
2
2
4
27
Libra
LibQUAL+
In-House
11
SPSS
SNAP
Perception
Excel
Others
13
18
West, 2004
A Survey of
Surveys
1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation
The UK approach
• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College,
National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory
Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI)
• 2003 - 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions
• 2004 -17 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 2005 - 16 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 54 different institutions
LibQUAL+ Participants 2003
• University of Bath
• Cranfield University
• Royal Holloway & Bedford
New College
• University of Lancaster
• University of Wales, Swansea
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Glasgow
• University of Liverpool
• University of London Library
• University of Oxford
• University College
Northampton
• University of Wales College
Newport
• University of Gloucestershire
• De Montfort University
• Leeds Metropolitan
University
• Liverpool John Moores
University
• Robert Gordon University
• South Bank University
• University of the West of
England, Bristol
• University of Wolverhampton
LibQUAL+ Participants 2004
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brunel University
Loughborough University
University of Strathclyde
University of York
Glasgow University
Sheffield University
Trinity College, Dublin
UMIST + University of
Manchester
• University of Liverpool
• Anglia Polytechnic
University
• University of Westminster
• London South Bank
University
• Napier University
• Queen Margaret University
College
• University College Worcester
• University of East London
LibQUAL+ Participants 2005
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Exeter
University of Edinburgh
University of Dundee
University of Bath
University of Ulster
University College
Northampton
• University of Birmingham
• Roehampton University
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Glasgow
University of Surrey
Royal Holloway UoL
City University
Cranfield University
University of Luton
Dublin Institute of
Technology
• London South Bank
University
LibQUAL+ Participants 2006
• Cambridge University
Library
• Cranfield University
• Goldsmiths College
• Institute of Education
• Institute of Technology
Tallaght
• Queen Mary, University of
London
• Robert Gordon University
• St. George's University of
London
• University of Aberdeen
• University College for the
Creative Arts
• University of Central
Lancashire
• University of Glasgow
• University of
Gloucestershire
• University of Leeds
• University of Leicester
• University of Liverpool
• University of the West of
England
• University of Warwick
• University of Westminster
• London South Bank
University
CURL
• University of
Cambridge
• University of Aberdeen
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Glasgow
• University of Liverpool
• University of London
Library
• University of Oxford
• Sheffield University
• Trinity College, Dublin
• University of
Manchester
• University of
Birmingham
• University of Leeds
• University of Warwick
Pre-92 & 94 Group
• Cranfield University
• Royal Holloway & Bedford
New College
• University of Wales,
Swansea
• Brunel University
• Loughborough University
• Goldsmith College
• Queen Mary, University of
London
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Dundee
University of Bath
University of Lancaster
University of York
University of Exeter
University of Surrey
University of Leicester
University of Strathclyde
CMU+
• University of Wales College
Newport
• De Montfort University
• Leeds Metropolitan
University
• Liverpool John Moores
University
• Robert Gordon University
• South Bank University
• University of the West of
England, Bristol
• University of Central
Lancashire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anglia Polytechnic University
University of Westminster
Napier University
Queen Margaret University
College
University of East London
Roehampton University
University of Luton
Coventry University
University of Wolverhampton
University of Ulster
Former Colleges
• University of Gloucestershire
• University College Northampton
• University College Worcester
Other / Specialist Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
Dublin Institute of Technology
Institute of Education
Institute of Technology Tallaght
St. George’s, University of London
University College for the Creative Arts
Overall Potential UK Sample to 2006
•
•
•
•
•
Full variety of institutions
43% of institutions*
38% of HE students (>800,000)
42% of Libraries
48% of Library expenditure
*Based on Universities UK membership of 126
Time frame
•
•
•
•
•
•
December – Registration
January – UK Training
February to May – Session I
April to June – Session I results distributed
July – Results meeting
July to December – Session II
Dimensions of Quality
• Affect of Service
• Information Control
• Library as a Place
Dimensions of
Library Service Quality
Library
Service
Quality
Information
Control
Affect of Service
Empathy
Scope of Content
Responsiveness
Convenience
Assurance
Reliability
Ease of Navigation
Library as Place
Utilitarian space
Symbol
Refuge
F. Heath, 2005
Model 3
Timeliness
Equipment
Self-Reliance
2003 – 5 additional questions for all SCONUL
Participants
•
•
•
•
Access to photocopying and printing facilities
Main text and readings needed
Provision for information skills training
Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT
problems
• Availability of subject specialist assistance
2004 – 5 local question selected from a
range of over 100
Different questions tailored to local needs
Sample Survey
Sample Survey… continued
2. Results from SCONUL
Response Comparisons
• SCONUL 2003
– 20 institutions
– 11,919 respondents
• SCONUL 2004
• LibQUAL+ 2003
– 308 institutions
– 128,958 respondents
• LibQUAL+ 2004
– 16 institutions
– 16,611 respondents
– 202 institutions
– 112,551 respondents
• Increase by 4,692
• Decrease by 16,407
• SCONUL 2005
– 16 institutions
– 17,355 respondents
• Increase by 744
• LibQUAL+ 2005
– 199 institutions
– 108,504 respondents
• Decrease by 4,047
SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005
Respondent Comparisons
• Glasgow University
– 2005 = 1,384
– 2004 = 2,178
– 2003 = 503
• London South Bank University
– 2005 = 766
– 2004 = 568
– 2003 = 276
Core Questions
Core Questions
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003
Overall Comparisons
Information Control
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
Minimum Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
7.00
7.00
Affect of Service
8.00
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
6.50
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2005
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2005
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Desired Mean
6.00
5.00
7.50
Mean
8.50
6.50
8.50
Library as Place
8.50
Mean
Mean
Affect of Service
Perceived Mean
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2005
Undergraduates
Core Question Summary for
Undergraduates 2005
Core Question Summary for
Undergraduates 2004
Core Question Summary for
Undergraduates 2003
Postgraduates
Core Question Summary for
Postgraduates 2005
Core Question Summary for
Postgraduates 2004
Core Question Summary for
Postgraduates 2003
Academic Staff
Core Question Summary for
Academic Staff 2004
Core Question Summary for
Academic Staff 2004
Core Questions Summary for
Academic Staff 2003
Comparisons by Dimension
Affect of Service Comparisons
Postgraduates
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
Academic Staff
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.00
Affect of Service 7.00
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean 6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
SCONUL
2005
6.50
6.00
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2003
2005
Minimum Mean
Perceived Mean
SCONUL
2004
Minimum Mean
7.00
6.50
6.50
Perceived Mean
7.00
Mean
Desired Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Library Staff
8.50
Mean
Mean
Undergraduates
5.00
SCONUL
2005
Perceived Mean
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2005
Information Control Comparisons
Postgraduates
Library Staff
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.00
7.00
6.50
Desired Mean
7.00
Perceived Mean
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Mean
Minimum Mean
Mean
Affect of Service
6.50
8.50
Academic Staff
8.50
Mean
Mean
Undergraduates
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean 6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
SCONUL
2005
Perceived Mean
8.00
7.50
7.00
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2005
2003
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
SCONUL
2004
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2005
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2005
Library as Place Comparisons
Postgraduates
8.50
8.00
7.00
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
Minimum Mean
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
7.00
6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
SCONUL
2005
5.00
SCONUL
2005
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2003
Minimum Mean
Perceived Mean
SCONUL
2004
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2003
2005
6.50
Mean
Minimum Mean
Mean
Affect of Service7.00
7.00
Desired Mean
6.50
Library Staff
8.50
5.00
7.50
Academic Staff
8.50
Mean
Mean
Undergraduates
6.50
Perceived Mean
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL
2004
SCONUL
2005
Overall Comparisons by User Group
Postgraduates
Undergraduates
Overall
Library Staff
Academic Staff
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
Perceived Mean
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
7.00
Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Mean
Minimum Mean
Mean
7.00
Affect of Service
Mean
Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
6.50
6.50
8.506.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
Perceived Mean
8.00
5.00
7.50
7.00
SCONUL
2003
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2004
2005
SCONUL
2003
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2004
2005
SCONUL
2003
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2004
2005
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
SCONUL
2003
5.00
SCONUL SCONUL
2004
2005
SCONUL
2003
SCONUL SCONUL
2004
2005
Comments
Free text comments received 2003
London South Bank University
428
Royal Holloway University
341
University of London
422
University of Wales, Swansea
340
UWE, Bristol
419
Uni of Wales College, Newport
339
University of Wolverhampton
413
University of Oxford
337
University of Bath
412
University College Northampton
332
University of Gloucestershire
407
Glasgow University
330
Lancaster University
396
University of Edinburgh
328
Robert Gordon University
395
Leeds Metropolitan University
327
University of Liverpool
378
DE Montfort University
326
Liverpool John Moores University
353
Cranfield University
170
Free text comments received 2004
UMIST + University of Manchester 1090
Anglia Polytechnic University
311
Trinity College Library Dublin
Napier University
299
258
1032
Glasgow University
920
University of Liverpool
Brunel University
906
Queen Margaret University College 251
University of Sheffield
786
University of York
239
University of Westminster
671
University of East London
239
University of Strathclyde
511
University College Worcester
170
London South Bank University
358
Loughborough University Library
120
Free text comments received 2005
University of Exeter
559
University of Glasgow
536
University of Edinburgh
206
University of Surrey
593
University of Dundee
709
Royal Holloway UoL
596
University of Bath
527
City University
798
University of Ulster
854
Cranfield University
302
University College Northampton 142
University of Luton
188
University of Birmingham
975
Dublin Institute of Technology 569
Roehampton University
359
London South Bank University
455
Comments Comparisons
• Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368
• Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161
• Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342
Expect everything
From:
• The library facility is uniformly of a high
quality in terms of the book collection
maintained, on line electronic resources and
"customer care" given to the users.
To:
• The library is consistently unimpressive,
except as a consumer of funds and
resources.
And everything in between!
3. Feedback from participants and
lessons learnt
Purpose for participating
•
•
•
•
Benchmarking
Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+
Trialling alternative survey methods
More library focused than previous in-house
method
• Supporting Charter Mark application process
• Planned institutional survey failed to
happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of
doing something to fill the gap.
Primary aim(s) for surveying users
• Understand what their opinions of our service is, to
inform strategic planning.
• Making sure we knew what customers concerns
really are as we have had much lobbying by one
group of students. Also nearly three years since last
survey, so needed an update after much change in
services.
• User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to
know how they view us and whether we are
improving. 3 years of the same survey can have
some credibility.
• To gain information for better planning of our
service and make adjustments in areas found
wanting.
Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process
• Majority found it straightforward
• Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US
bias
• Some issues in obtaining:
– Email addresses
– Demographic data
• The publicity to the student body was the
most time consuming part
Feedback on results
• Overall results were as expected by the
institutions
• “Not too surprising really given anecdotal
evidence known already”
• Detailed questions highlighted new
information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more
depth than previous surveys
• Surprisingly bad, especially compared with
other surveys including a parallel one
How can LibQUAL+ be improved?
• Summary and commentary on results
• More flexibility on the content and language
of the questionnaire
• More interaction with other UK participating
libraries
• Providing results by department, campus,
and for full time and part time students
• Simpler questionnaire design
• We really need a ConvergedServQual tool!
• Needs to allow you to use a word other than
library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)
Changes made as a result of the survey
• It has strengthened our case in asking for more
money to improve the environment.
• We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals
which had been axed several weeks before the
survey was conducted.
• Implementing PG forums to address issues raised
• Main Library makeover/Group study area
• Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating to
resource expenditure at the most senior levels
Tips for participating
• Use a large sample
• Promote the survey to help increase the
response rate
–
–
–
–
Online
Email
Posters
Notices in college newsletters etc.
Tips for participating
• Allow enough time to collect demographics
data
• Exploit all areas of help and advice
–
–
–
–
ARL Web site & discussion list
JISCMail discussion list
Each other
Us!
Conclusions
Conclusions
• LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK
academic sector
• Provided first comparative data on academic
library user satisfaction in the UK
• At least half the participants would use
LibQUAL+ again
Lessons learnt
• The majority of participants would not
sample the population in future surveys
• The smaller the sample, the lower the
response rate
• Collecting demographics is time consuming
and subject categories are not always fitting
• Results are detailed and comprehensive,
further analysis is complex
Acknowledgements
• Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University
Libraries
• Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished
Research Scholar, Texas A&M University
• Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the
University of Texas Libraries, Austin
• Martha Kyrillidou & ARL
• Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL
Newsletter. Number 31.
• Selena Lock, R&D Officer, Cranfield University
• All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants
J. Stephen Town
Director of Information Services
Defence College of Management and Technology
Deputy University Librarian
Cranfield University
j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk