Library Assessment Working Group
Meeting Minutes 10/11/10
Present: S. Avery, S. Braxton, K. Dougan (chair), L. Hinchliffe, J. Jacoby, C. Phillips, D.
Ward (visiting), E. Phetteplace (GA)
Absent: K. Kern
1. Announcements (Dougan)
a) Sweeps week and encouraging year-round use of Desk Tracker (and
related future faculty meeting presentation. There will be a )
presentation (Eric, David, Kathleen, Kirstin?) at a future faculty meeting
to share some data visualizations to show the utility of year-round
statistics, comparability between units.
1. MPAL, BEL, ESSL, Institute libraries, UGL, RRGIS, LIS all use yearround. Scholarly Commons will and David is talking to Archives about
switching over.
b) Tweaks to LAWG website (Phetteplace). We want more navigation on the
home page rather than text, move the RSS feed to a sidebar, tell users
what they can do and filter them towards their destination. Eric will email
out any drafts once they are completed.
c) This may be moving back towards old design, might want to investigate.
d) Move Faculty Publications under Assessment @ UIUC.
2. READ pilot (Ward/all)
a) Scott Walter is in favor of READ for embedded librarians and wants to
bring in Bella Gerlich, creator of the scale. She would help with training,
calibration, getting people involved. Those would likely be split into two
talks (introduction and then a training session for the pilot). Need to
discuss who should/could be in the pilot—mix of embedded and desks?
b) What are we hoping to accomplish with READ? We have to have a
compelling narrative. Embedded librarians should have a means to
compare with other libraries. We don’t want to limit this to just
embedded librarians—but need to think about the context of evaluating
all service models.
c) With the internet, we get less ready reference and more sophisticated
questions [this is not necessarily true across all libraries]. READ
demonstrates question complexity. Currently we only have poor proxies
for complexity (duration, subject). A lengthy question might involve many
repetitions of a simple procedure or a user who just needs more help
navigating resources.
d) This would be a great project for the new Reference Coordinator position.
(but we can’t wait until that position is filled.)
e) Wouldn't be until late November when we can get into a faculty meeting.
The pilot might start earlier but would still need official calibration.
f) David Ward agreed to help with the planning committee along with
Kathleen and Carissa.
g) ACTION ITEM: Kirstin will contact Bella concerning her availability and
fee.
3. LibQUAL funding proposal and planning (all)
a) Revisions to the proposal. Consider addressing to both the AUL for
Services and University Librarian.
b) What resulted from the last iteration of LibQUAL? It's difficult to single
out items that would not have happened without LibQUAL, but it did
contribute to certain actions such as the additional outlets in UGL. This is
part of a broader, holistic assessment method, the information was
available for all to act on. Specific examples can be removed but added
later upon request.
c) The charge of the committee is to create an assessment infrastructure but
it's up to library administration and librarians to act on the information
LAWG puts out. LibQUAL allows longitudinal and institutional
comparisons.
d) Last paragraph of proposal (re: Lite protocol) can be removed. Instead
say “LibQUAL+/LibQUAL+ Lite” throughout.
e) LibQUAL Lite is the same price and answers the same questions. But it
has increased response rates and tends to sample a more realistic
population (people with favorable opinions of the library are more likely
to fill out the long form, thus inflating mean scores a little bit).
f) A mixed long/lite survey would allow for score conversion and help
maintain the longitudinal nature of the data.
g) Pending funding approval, there is an opportunity to discuss with ARL
and ask what they would recommend, e.g. what proportion lite and long
or different proportions among different populations (long form for
faculty and lite for students). We might consider just doing all Lite from
here forward.
h) Review of the planning timeline. IRB approval needs to get going. Spring
might not be realistic. Spring means an April survey date.
i) ACTION ITEM: Kirstin will make further edits to proposal and share with
LAWG before sending to Walter and Kaufman.
4. Assessment grants program proposal (all)
a) Review of draft documents (attached)
b) Didn't have time to get to. Wait until we hear back about LibQUAL+
before requesting a budget. ARL Assessment Conference could be on the
budget so that LAWG can send someone each year.