An Introduction to LibQUAL+
Selena Killick
ARL/SCONUL LibQUAL+ Consortium
& Cranfield University
University of Westminster, London
5th February 2010
www.libqual.org
The Day
• Introduction to LibQUAL+ & Background
on the SCONUL Consortium
• Process Overview
• LibQUAL+ Lite pilot experience
• Consortium future directions
• Survey results
• Questions and answers
www.libqual.org
Introduction to LibQUAL+
and
the SCONUL Consortium
Stephen Town
University of York
& LibQUAL+ Steering Committee
www.libqual.org
ARL Roles
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
ARL Statistics and Assessment
…To
describe and measure the
research
libraries and their contribution to
performance of
teaching, research, scholarship and
community service …
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
Reference Transactions
ARL Statistics 2006-07
Reference Transactions
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
www.libqual.org
20
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
40,000
Total Circulation
ARL Statistics 2006-07
Total Circulation
600,000
500,000
www.libqual.org
20
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
400,000
Assessment
“The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or
set of simple indicators that can be used by
different institutions, and that will compare
something across large groups that is by
definition only locally applicable—i.e., how well a
library meets the needs of its institution.
Librarians have either made do with
oversimplified national data or have undertaken
customized local evaluations of effectiveness,
but there has not been devised an effective way
to link the two.”
Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996
www.libqual.org
Issue 230/231 available on the web
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
SERVQUAL
PERCEPTIONS
SERVICE
“….only customers judge quality;
all other judgments are essentially
irrelevant”
Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999).
Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.
www.libqual.org
The need for LibQUAL+
• Underlying need to demonstrate our worth
• The reallocation of resources from
traditional services and functions
• Rapid shifts in information-seeking
behavior
• Need to keep abreast of customer demands
• Increasing user demands
• 37% of UK 16 – 18 year olds expect better
libraries in return for their top-up fees
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Development
• An ARL/Texas A&M University joint
developmental effort based on SERVQUAL.
• LibQUAL+ initially supported by a 3-year grant
from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund
for the Improvement of Post-Secondary
Education (FIPSE)
• Initial project established an expert team, regrounded SERVQUAL concepts, and designed
survey methodology
• Survey conducted at over 700 libraries resulting
in a data base of over half a million user
responses
www.libqual.org
76 Interviews Conducted
•
•
•
•
•
•
York University
University of Arizona
Arizona State
University of Connecticut
University of Houston
University of Kansas
• University of Minnesota
• University of
Pennsylvania
• University of Washington
• Smithsonian
• Northwestern Medical
www.libqual.org
www.libqual.org
LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:\Admin\Colleen\ServQual Interviews\TEXT Only\01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:\zz\atlasti\fred
www.libqual.org
Dimensions of
Library Service Quality
Library
Service
Quality
Affect of Service
Information Control
Empathy
Scope of Content
Responsiveness
Library as Place
Assurance
Convenience
Ease of Navigation
Utilitarian Space
Reliability
Timeliness
Symbol
Equipment
Refuge
Self-Reliance
www.libqual.org
Dimensions
2000
2001
2002
2003-Present
41 items
56 items
25 items
22 items
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Reliability
Reliability
Personal Control
Information
Control
Provision of
Physical
Collections
Self-Reliance
Information
Access
Access to
Information
Access to
Information
www.libqual.org
Survey Structure
(Detail View)
www.libqual.org
Rapid Growth
•
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
Languages
Types of Institutions
Afrikaans
English (American, British)
Chinese
Danish
Dutch
Finnish
French (Belge, Canada, Europe)
German
Greek
Hebrew
Japanese
Norwegian
Spanish
Swedish
Welsh
Consortia
*Each may create 5 local questions to add to their
survey
•
Countries
–
Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt,
Finland, France, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan,
Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden,
Switzerland, UAE, U.K., U.S., etc…..
www.libqual.org
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Academic Health Sciences
Academic Law
Academic Military
College or University
Community College
Electronic
European Business
European Parliament
Family History
Research Centers (FFRDC) Libraries
High School
Hospital
National Health Service England
Natural Resources
New York Public
Public
Smithsonian
State
University/TAFE
LibQUAL+ Languages
American English
French Canadian
Swedish
British English
Afrikaans
Dutch English
Dutch
Continental French
Swedish
(British English)
German
Norwegian
Finnish
Danish
Over 700 institutions
1,000,000 respondents
www.libqual.org
®
LibQUAL+ Participation
350
250,000
307
308
300
205,639
250
286
200,000
250
176,360
167,986
204151,460
206
200
150,000
128,958
Number of
Institutions
Number of
Responses
164
150
113,480
100,000
78,863
100
Number of Institutions
50
43
13
0
50,000
Number of Responses
20,416
4,407
2000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Survey Year
www.libqual.org
2006
2007
2008
®
LibQUAL+ First Year Participants
First year participants as a percentage of participants
100%
81%
83%
77%
71%
57%
59%
54%
42%
30%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
www.libqual.org
2006
2007
2008
2009
LibQUAL+® Surveys by Type
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Academic law
1
25
10
6
3
3
1
Academic Military
6
1
1
Canadian Government
College or University
18
13
41
Community college
111
244
150
201
219
217
170
162
16
29
3
15
27
26
12
3
Electronic
1
European Business
5
16
17
European Parliament
4
Family History
1
FFRDC
Health Sciences
1
35
23
13
2
1
5
1
2
1
13
9
11
5
High School
5
1
Hospital
10
1
1
National Health
National Health Service Eng.
10
Natural Resources
New York Public library
4
1
Public
Smithsonian
State
2
4
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
University/TAFE
www.libqual.org
1
LibQUAL+® Surveys by Language
American English
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
13
42
164
285
176
207
236
217
114
117
4
1
5
1
31
50
40
27
Afrikaans
British English
20
22
Chinese
4
Continental French
1
1
Danish
Dutch
Dutch English
38
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
Finnish
1
1
2
French Belge
French Canadian
1
3
2
1
4
26
1
1
French European
5
10
Japanese
2
1
2
5
German
1
Norwegian
1
Norwegian English
5
Spanish
Swedish
1
5
2
Swedish British English
Swedish English (A.E.)
1
1
2
Welsh
1
2
1
1
www.libqual.org
1
LibQUAL+® Surveys by Consortia
2000
AAHSL
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1
35
21
14
12
AJCU
20
2007
7
11
2008
3
2009
1
21
AJCU-Law
Alabama Academic (NAAL)
2006
1
10
CES
1
8
2
13
1
6
CCLA
7
7
CCCU
14
California State University System
1
6
City University of New York
19
CONSULS
5
CUC
8
1
Department of Justice Canada
12
EBSLG
6
FFRDC
17
19
5
Georgia
19
Harrisburg CC
5
JULAC
1
11
Keystone Lib Network
15
LibQUAL Canada
13
63
www.libqual.org
3
LibQUAL+® Surveys by Consortia
(cont’d)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
LQ Belge
3
LibQUAL Japan
3
LibQUAL France
7
Maine URSUS Libraries
13
Mass-LSTA
5
MCCLPHEI
23
MERLN
6
National Health
10
NELLCO
8
1
North Carolina Community Colleges
15
Norwegian Academic Libraries
15
NY3Rs
76
Oberlin
12
10
2
1
1
9
13
2
1
45
1
14
2
6
20
17
16
20
State Universities of Florida
6
2
1
University of Wisconsin System
14
SCONUL
2
10
Hospital/MLA
OhioLINK
2009
57
VALE
2
21
18
22
1
2
12
12
www.libqual.org
2
1
11
Participating Libraries by Country
Country
2000
2001
2002
2003
Australia
2004
1
2005
6
2006
2
2007
2008
2009
3
4
1
Bahamas
1
Bangladesh
1
Belgium
4
3
9
8
Canada
1
3
4
8
10
15
11
75
China
1
Denmark
1
2
Egypt
1
2
Finland
4
1
2
France
1
2
8
1
5
French Polynesia
1
Japan
Hong Kong
3
2
1
3
11
Ireland
1
1
2
1
Morocco
1
Mexico
Netherlands
9
1
1
1
New Zealand
5
1
www.libqual.org
3
1
2
2
2
1
Participating Libraries by Country
(cont’d)
Country
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Norway
2006
2007
2
Singapore
South Africa
Sweden
3
Switzerland
2
2009
4
10
1
1
3
12
8
5
9
4
4
2
3
2
2
Thailand
1
U.A.E.
UK
2008
1
20
17
www.libqual.org
1
16
33
21
20
20
Surveys by Session: 2004-2008
Year
Session I
Session II
2004
202
2
2005
199
56
2006
205
93
2007
218
68
2008
154
58
2009
146
33
www.libqual.org
World LibQUAL+® Survey
www.libqual.org
R&D
• Colleen Cook, “A MIXED-METHODS APPROACH TO
THE IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF
ACADEMIC LIBRARY SERVICES” (PhD diss., Texas
A&M University, 2001).
• Martha Kyrillidou, “ITEM SAMPLING IN SERVICE
QUALITY ASSESSMENT SURVEYS TO IMPROVE
RESPONSE RATES AND REDUCE RESPONDENT
BURDEN: THE ‘LibQUAL+® Lite’ RANDOMIZED
CONTROL TRIAL (RCT)” (PhD diss., University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009)
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
www.libqual.org
Association of Research Libraries
LibQUAL+ and SCONUL
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ and SCONUL
• 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
agree to pilot the survey in a consortium of
SCONUL Members
• Pilot seen as a success
• Consortium of SCONUL Libraries has
participated in LibQUAL+ annually since 2003
• 67 Different institutions in 6 years
www.libqual.org
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
www.libqual.org
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
www.libqual.org
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
www.libqual.org
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
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2007
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anglia Ruskin University
University of Bath
University of Birmingham
University of Central
Lancashire
Cambridge University Library
Cranfield University
De Montfort University
University of Edinburgh
University of Leeds
London South Bank University
Napier University
• University of Manchester
• Royal Holloway University of
London
• Senate House Library,
University of London
• University of Surrey
• Coventry University
• Nottingham Trent University
• School of Oriental and African
Studies
• University of Wales Bangor
• University of Limerick
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2008
• University of Bangor (Welsh)
• University of Bangor (English)
• University of Central
Lancashire
• Cranfield University
• University of Glasgow
• University of Leeds
• Liverpool John Moores
University
• University of Liverpool
• Queen Mary, University of
London
• Robert Gordon University
• University of Warwick
• University of Westminster
• University of York
• University of Cumbria
• London Metropolitan University
• University College, Cork
• University College London
www.libqual.org
LibQUAL+ Participants 2009
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Aberdeen
University of Bath
University of Birmingham
Cambridge Medical Library
Cambridge Betty & Gordon
Moore
University of Central
Lancashire
Coventry University
Cranfield University
University of Edinburgh
University of Glasgow
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Leeds
University of Limerick
Royal Holloway London
Goldsmiths London
St George’s London
University of Manchester
Institute of Technology,
Tallaght
Trinity College Dublin
University of Ulster
University of York
Bradford University
St Andrew’s University
www.libqual.org
The LibQUAL+ Questionnaire
www.libqual.org
Process Overview
• Register with ARL (2008 cost $3,000)
• Institutional contact sets survey to local needs
• Local Questions
• Disciplines
• Send out a URL to the survey via email
• Mounted on ARL servers
• Watch the surveys come in
• Close the survey when ready, institutional results
available after a couple of weeks
• PDF
• SPSS
• Excel
www.libqual.org
Time frame
• January – Registration opens
• February – UK Training
• Mid-Jan – Mid-Dec – Survey available
(exc. June)
• November – Registration closes
• January 2011 – Consortium results
available
www.libqual.org
Survey Composition
• 22 Core Questions
– Affect of Service
– Information Control
– Library as Place
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 Local Questions (optional)
5 Information Literacy Questions
3 General Satisfaction Questions
Library Usage Patterns
Demographics
Free Text Comments Box
www.libqual.org
Five Local Questions
• Participants can choose 5 questions to
add to their survey from a range of over
100
• Helping participants focus on local issues
• Maintaining standardisation for
benchmarking purposes
www.libqual.org
Free-Text Comments Box
• About 40% of participants provide open-ended
comments, and these are linked to
demographics and quantitative data
• Users elaborate the details of their concerns
• Users feel the need to be constructive in their
criticisms, and offer specific suggestions for
action
• Available in real-time enabling prompt
responses to concerns
www.libqual.org
Usage & Demographics
•
•
•
•
•
•
Library Usage
User group
Discipline
Age
Sex
Gender
• Attached to SPSS and Excel results
• Enabling detailed further analysis by type
www.libqual.org
Survey Instrument
www.libqual.org
Gap Theory
• For the 22 items LibQUAL+ asks users’ to rate
their:
• Minimum service level
• Desired service level
• Perceived service performance
• This gives us a ‘Zone of Tolerance’ for each
question; the distance between minimally
acceptable and desired service ratings
• Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of
Tolerance
www.libqual.org
Gap Theory
Desired
Minimum
Perceived is greater
than desired
Perceived
Perceived is greater
than minimum, less
than desired
Perceived is less
than minimum
Perceived
Perceived
Minimum
www.libqual.org
Desired
Results from SCONUL
www.libqual.org
Core Questions
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2009
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2008
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2007
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
www.libqual.org
SCONUL Results by Dimension
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
8.50
8.00
7.50
Mean
7.00
6.50
Affect of Service
6.00
8.50
5.50
8.00
5.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
7.50
Minimum Mean
7.00
Desired Mean
www.libqual.org
Perceived Mean
2009
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
SCONUL Results by User Group
Undergraduates Overall
Postgraduates 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
Academic Staff Overall
Desired Mean
7.00
Perceived Mean
Desired Mean
Minimum Mean
Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Mean
7.00
Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
7.00
Perceived Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
6.50
6.50
6.50
6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
Library Staff Overall
5.50
5.50
5.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
www.libqual.org
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
www.libqual.org
Comments
www.libqual.org
Free text comments received 2006
Scottish Agricultural College
134
Aberdeen University
574
St George’s, UoL
299
Cambridge University
106
654
Cranfield University
147
University of Central
Lancashire
412
Glasgow University
620
University of
Gloucestershire
Goldsmith College
399
University of Leeds
888
Institute of Education, UoL
487
University of Leicester
791
Institute of Technology Tallaght
200
University of Liverpool
255
London South Bank University
382
736
Queen Mary, UoL
745
University of the West of
England, Bristol
Robert Gordon University
181
University of Warwick
355
University of Westminster
916
www.libqual.org
Comments Comparisons
•
•
•
•
Total number of comments 2006 = 9,281
Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368
Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161
Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342
www.libqual.org
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!
www.libqual.org
Feedback from UK Participants
www.libqual.org
Why use LibQUAL?
Feedback from LibQUAL+ Users
“Why did you choose to use LibQUAL+?”
• LibQUAL+ was recommended to us as offering a
well designed, thoroughly Library-focused set of
survey tools
• Cost-effectiveness
• Automated processing & fast delivery of results
• Opportunity to benchmark
• Respectability and comparability (with others
and historically)
www.libqual.org
The benefits of LibQUAL+
LibQUAL+ has enabled us to find out what a
broad range of our users thought of the
services we offer; what level of servicedelivery 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).
UK HE Institution, 2006
www.libqual.org
In Closing LibQUAL+…
• Focuses on success from the users’ point of view
(outcomes)
• Demonstrates that a web-based survey can handle large
numbers; users are willing to fill it out; and survey can be
executed quickly with minimal expense
• Requires limited local survey expertise and resources
• Analysis available at local, national and inter-institutional
levels
• Offers opportunities for highlighting and improving your
status within the institution
• Can help in securing funding for the Library
www.libqual.org