FROM DATA TO ASSESSMENT Collecting, Presenting, and Using Statistics Jim Self University of Virginia VIVA Stats Workshop February 2, 2010 THIS MORNING’S PROGRAM A few basic statistical concepts Displaying the data Examples from U.Va. and elsewhere Moving toward assessment Questions, comments WHY MEASURE OR COUNT? To evaluate To compare To improve WHEN NOT TO COLLECT DATA When someone has already done it When the data will not be useful When the results do not justify the costs MAKING DATA MEANINGFUL Summarize Compare Analyze Present MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY Median Mean Mode Midrange MEASURES OF DISPERSION Range Variance Standard Deviation Interquartile Range SAMPLING Selection Strive for an unbiased sample Unambiguous, pre-set selection process Sample of members is crucial size Large enough for appropriate precision Small enough to be economical DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE Confidence Level Interval of confidence U.VA. STUDENT SURVEY Question: U.Va? First Year Students Do you own a computer at Yes 99.0% Graduate Students Do Yes 88.2% we know if these two groups are different in terms of computer ownership? 95% LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE Population Size Sample Size Percent in Sample Answering “Yes” Plus or Minus Sample Error Grads 5,400 443 88.2% 2.9% 85.3% 91.1% 1st Years 102 99.0% 1.9% 97.1% 99.9+% 2,900 Min. Value Max. Value PREPARATION FOR DATA COLLECTION Clarify your objectives Prefer the simplest procedures Choose the appropriate technique Collect only data you can use FOUR USEFUL ASSUMPTIONS Your problem is not unique. You have more data than you think. You need less data than you think. There is a useful measurement that is much simpler than you think. Hubbard, D. (2007) “How to Measure Anything.” PROCESSING THE DATA Check and re-check the numbers Summarize Compare Find the interesting points Look for explanations COMMON PITFALLS Sampling with bias Surveys with a message Graphs with distorted figures Graphs with varying time frames Atypical projections Inappropriate grouping of data False precision Confusion of correlation and causality “…BUT TO SUPPOSE THAT THE FACTS, ONCE ESTABLISHED IN ALL THEIR FULLNESS, WILL ‘SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES’ IS AN ILLUSION.” Carl Becker Annual Address of the President of the American Historical Association, 1931 DATA REPORTING Integrate data, graphs, and narrative to tell a succinct and accurate story. Show the data Give the source of the data Do not decorate graphics, let the data speak Put your name on the report UVA LIBRARY SURVEYS Faculty 1993, 1996, 2000, 2004 Response rates 59% to 70% Students 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005 Separate analysis for grads and undergrads Response rates 43% to 63% LibQual+ 2006 Response rates 14% to 24% Annual Surveys 2008+ Student samples One third of faculty Response rates 29% to 47% FINAL QUESTION U.VA. LIBRARY SURVEY Please rate your overall satisfaction with the library. Not at all Satisfied 1 Very Satisfied 2 3 4 5 No Opinion X 2000 U.VA. FACULTY SURVEY OVERALL RATING 1 2 3 4 5 X 0 5 19 126 154 11 U.VA. FACULTY SURVEYS OVERALL RATING 1 2 3 4 5 X Total 1993 1 5 52 174 93 24 349 1996 1 8 36 146 136 12 339 2000 0 5 19 126 154 11 315 OVERALL SATISFACTION U.VA. LIBRARY SURVEYS Category Mean 1993 Faculty 4.09 1994 Undergraduates 4.01 Graduate Students 3.96 1996 Faculty 4.26 1998 Undergraduates 3.90 Graduate Students 3.97 2000 Faculty 4.41 2001 Undergraduates 4.07 Graduate Students 4. 02 2004 Faculty 4.20 2005 Undergraduates 3.94 Graduate Students 4.02 OVERALL SATISFACTION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LIBRARY 1993/94 1996/98 2000/01 2004/05 2008/09 Faculty 4.09 4.26 4.41 4.20 4.23 Graduate Students 3.96 3.97 3.97 4.02 4.17 Undergrads 4.01 3.90 3.97 3.94 4.12 OVERALL SATISFACTION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LIBRARY 1993-2009 4.60 4.40 Faculty 4.20 Grads 4.09 4.00 4.23 4.17 4.12 Undergrads 4.01 3.96 3.80 1993/94 1996/98 U.Va. Library Surveys 1993-2009 2000/01 2004/05 http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/mis/reports/ 2008/09 U.VA. FACULTY AND STUDENTS WHO PHYSICALLY VISIT A LIBRARY AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 100% 84% 80% Undergrads 79% 72% 69% 60% Grads 43% 40% Faculty 26% 20% 0% 1993/94 1996/98 2000/01 2004/05 2008/09 DATA PRESENTATION ACCORDING TO DILBERT THE LIBRARY BUDGET AS PIE Sources of Funding FY09 SR,SS 0% DR 2% EI, DI 4% EF, ER, EU 9% FA 2% GF 1% LG 2% LS 1% SE 2% SG 77% CORROBORATION Data are more credible if they are supported by other information John Le Carre’s two proofs ANALYZING SURVEY RESULTS Two Scores for Resources, Services, Facilities Satisfaction = Mean Rating (1 to 5) Visibility = Percentage Answering the Question Permits comparison over time and among groups Identifies areas that need more attention UVA REFERENCE ACTIVITY AND REFERENCE VISIBILITY IN STUDENT SURVEYS 7,000 6,008 Reference Questions Recorded per Week in Annual Sample 64% Visibility 39% Visibility 34% Visibility Reference Visibility among Undergraduate 75% Visibililty 1,756 10% 1,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 COLLECTING AND USING DATA AT THE U.VA. LIBRARY Customer Surveys Staff Surveys Mining Existing Records Comparisons with peers Qualitative techniques Statistical compilations Revealing the budget process and issues DATA MINING Acquisitions Circulation Finance University www.arl.org Records COLLECTIONS EXPENDITURES BY FORMAT University of Virginia Library $4,000,000 Electronic Resources Print Monographs $3,500,000 Print Serials Manuscripts Miscellaneous $3,000,000 Microforms Expenditures Video or Film $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Fiscal Year USAGE DATA AT UVA – CIRC, REF, E-JRNLS 2,500,000 Circulation Reference 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 E-Journal Articles INVESTMENT AND CUSTOMER ACTIVITY UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LIBRARY 1993-2006 Acquisitions Expenditures by Format Customer Activities $3,000,000 2,400,000 1,800,000 $2,000,000 E-Journals Circulation Reference 1,200,000 $1,000,000 600,000 Electronic Resources Print Monographs Print Serials $0 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 0 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AT UVA 1989—2003 300% % Change since 1989 Research (+219%) Other Academic Support (+200%) Total Academic Division (+140%) Libraries (+81%) Instruction (+80%) 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 -50% Fiscal Year LOOKING AT LIBQUAL+ 22 core questions 1-9 scale Ratings of minimum, desired, perceived Locally selected questions General satisfaction ratings SELECTING AND DISPLAYING LIBQUAL+ Choose the meaningful data Ignore the chaff Summarize those data Compare By category and subgroups Over time With peers Present findings transparently LibQUAL+ 2006 ARL Composite Faculty 9 8 7 6 5 AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5 LibQUAL+ 2006 University of Virginia Faculty 9 8 7 6 5 AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5 LibQUAL+ 2006 Ratings of AS-3: Employees who are consistently courteous 9 Library Staff Faculty Grads Undergrads 8 7 6 5 Faculty AS-3 Grad AS-3 Undergrad AS-3 Library Staff AS-3 USING DATA AT UVA Additional resources for the science libraries (1994+) Redefinition of collection development (1996) Initiative to improve shelving (1999) Clemons Library open 24 hours (2000) Additional resources for the Fine Arts Library (2000) Support for transition from print to e-journals (2004) New and improved study space (2005-06) Increased appreciation of the role of journals (2007) Re-design of main floor of Clemons Library (2008) USING DATA: FROM STATS TO ASSESSMENT Counting Traditional statistics emphasize inputs: expenditures, acquisitions, holdings Assessing More recent efforts assess outputs: service quality WHY ASSESS? Improve services Justify resources Compare with others Identify changing needs Identify questionable services Promote services PARALLEL TRENDS Customer-Centered Library All services and activities are viewed through the eyes of the customers Customers determine quality Library services and resources add value to the customer Culture of Assessment Organizational environment in which decisions are based on facts, research and analysis. Services are planned and delivered to maximize positive customer outcomes EFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT Is customer-focused Uses representative groups of users Asks fair and unbiased queries Develops criteria for success Uses multiple assessment methods Uses corroboration from other sources Provides results that can be used to improve libraries A CULTURE OF ASSESSMENT Decisions based on facts, research, and analysis Wide recognition and acceptance of the importance of assessment Expertise and staff development related to assessment QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? More information: Jim Self self@virginia.edu www.lib.virginia.edu/mis