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) Working
Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI)
• 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
• 2007 – 22 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 62 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 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
LibQUAL+ Participants 2007
• Anglia Ruskin University
• Cambridge University
Library
• Coventry University
• Cranfield University
• De Montfort University
• London South Bank
University
• Napier University
• Nottingham Trent University
• Royal Holloway University of
London
• School of Oriental and
African Studies
• Senate House Library,
University of London
• St Andrews University
• University College, Cork
• University of Bath
• University of Birmingham
• University of Central
Lancashire
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Leeds
• University of Limerick
• University of Manchester
• University of Surrey
• University of Wales Bangor
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
• London South Bank
University
• University of the West of
England, Bristol
• University of Central
Lancashire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anglia Ruskin University
University of Westminster
Napier University
Queen Margaret University
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 2007
•
•
•
•
•
Full variety of institutions
49% of institutions*
53% of HE students (>850,000)
36% of Libraries
45% of Library expenditure
*Based on Universities UK membership of 126
Time frame
•
•
•
•
•
•
December – Registration
January – UK Training & Results Meeting
February to May – Session I
July – UK Training & Results Meeting
July to December – Session II
January 2008 – SCONUL results available
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
2. Results from SCONUL
Response Comparisons
•
SCONUL 2003
–
–
•
20 institutions
11,919 respondents
SCONUL 2004
–
–
16 institutions
16,611 respondents
•
•
16 institutions
17,355 respondents
•
•
• LibQUAL+ 2004
– 202 institutions
– 112,551 respondents
• Decrease by 16,407
• LibQUAL+ 2005
– 199 institutions
– 108,504 respondents
Increase by 744
SCONUL 2006
–
–
– 308 institutions
– 128,958 respondents
Increase by 4,692
SCONUL 2005
–
–
• LibQUAL+ 2003
20 institutions
19,108 respondents
• Increase by 1,753
• Decrease by 4,047
• LibQUAL+ 2006
–
–
298 institutions
176,360 respondents
• Increase by 67,856
SCONUL Response by User Group 2006
SCONUL Response by Discipline 2006
Respondent Comparisons
• Glasgow University
–
–
–
–
2006 = 1,535
2005 = 1,384
2004 = 2,178
2003 = 503
• London South Bank University
–
–
–
–
2006 = 700
2005 = 766
2004 = 568
2003 = 276
Core Questions
Core Questions
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003
Overall Comparisons
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
8.50
7.00 Mean
Desired
7.00
Minimum
Mean
7.00
Mean
Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
Affect of Service
6.50
Perceived
Mean
6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
8.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
8.00
5.00
5.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2003
2004
2005
7.50
Minimum Mean
7.00
ean
Desired Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2006
2003
2004
2005
2006
Undergraduates
Core Question Summary for
Undergraduates 2006
Core Question Summary for
Undergraduates 2005
Core Question Summary for
Undergraduates 2004
Core Question Summary for
Undergraduates 2003
Postgraduates
Core Question Summary for
Postgraduates 2006
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 2006
Core Question Summary for
Academic Staff 2005
Core Question Summary for
Academic Staff 2004
Core Questions Summary for
Academic Staff 2003
Comparisons by Dimension
Affect of Service Comparisons
Undergraduates
Postgraduates
Library Staff
Academic Staff
8.50
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
Perceived Mean
6.50
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
Minimum Mean
Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
6.50
7.00
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
Affect of Service
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
8.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
8.00
5.00
2003
5.00
5.00
2006
5.00
2006
2004
2005
2006
2003
2004
2005
2003
7.50
Minimum Mean
ean
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2006
Information Control Comparisons
Postgraduates
Undergraduates
Academic Staff
Library Staff
8.50
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
6.50
Perceived Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
Minimum Mean
Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Mean
Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
Affect of Service
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
8.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
8.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2006
5.00
2006
2003
2004
2005
2006
2003
2004
2005
2003
7.50
Minimum Mean
ean
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2006
Library as Place Comparisons
Postgraduates
Undergraduates
Academic Staff
8.50
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
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.00
Affect of Service
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
8.00
2003
2004
2005
5.00
2006
2003
2004
2005
5.00
2006
Perceived Mean
2003
7.50
Minimum Mean
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
6.50
Perceived Mean
6.50
7.00
Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Mean
Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
6.50
8.50
ean
Library Staff
6.50
5.00
2006
Perceived Mean
2003
2004
2005
2006
Overall Comparisons by User Group
Undergraduates Overall
Postgraduates Overall
Academic Staff Overall
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.00
Desired Mean
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
7.00
Perceived Mean
Affect of Service6.50
6.50
6.50
6.00
8.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
5.50
5.50
2006
5.50
2006
5.50
2006
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2003
7.50
Minimum Mean
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
2003
ean
Minimum Mean
Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
Library Staff Overall
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2006
General findings
• Highly desired
– Making electronic resources accessible from my home or
office
– Print and/or electronic journals I require for my work
– A haven for study, learning or research
• Lowest
– Library staff who instil confidence in users
– Giving users individual attention
– Space for group learning and group study
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
Free text comments received 2006
Aberdeen University
574
Scottish Agricultural College
134
Cambridge University
106
St George’s, UoL
299
Cranfield University
147
654
Glasgow University
620
University of Central
Lancashire
Goldsmith College
399
University of Gloucestershire
412
Institute of Education, UoL
487
University of Leeds
888
Institute of Technology Tallaght
200
University of Leicester
791
University of Liverpool
255
736
London South Bank University
382
Queen Mary, UoL
745
University of the West of
England, Bristol
Robert Gordon University
181
University of Warwick
355
University of Westminster
916
Comments Comparisons
•
•
•
•
Total
Total
Total
Total
number
number
number
number
of
of
of
of
comments
comments
comments
comments
2006 =
2005 =
2004 =
2003 =
9,281
8,368
8,161
7,342
Expect everything
From:
• The library in DCMT is one of the best, if not
the best, departments of the campus. The
staff are outstanding, professional, helpful
and extremely friendly. The place is always
inviting and welcoming.
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
Why LibQUAL+?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benchmarking
Cost effectiveness
Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+
Fast delivery of results
Support available, especially regarding analysis of
results
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
• We wanted to find out what a broad range of our users thought
of the services we offer; what level of service-delivery quality
we had achieved in their eyes, and to get a clear picture of
what they actually wanted the Library to deliver (as opposed
to what we thought they wanted).
• 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
• 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
• “In the majority of cases the results proved our own
suspicions, and there were few surprises. We were
very pleased, though, to actually have an
independent source of information to which we
could refer during debates and discussions.”
• “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence
known already”
• Detailed questions highlighted new information, as
LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous
surveys
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.
• New reception desk instituted. Staff meetings to discuss
customer service. Summer training programme enhanced to
encompass areas of concern.
• 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.
• 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 Knowledge Services
Defence College of Management and Technology
Deputy University Librarian
Cranfield University
j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk