Libraries are regularly called upon to compete with other areas in their organization for public and private resources. We have to go beyond circulation numbers, material for costs, number of titles and other quantitative measures. This paper explores service quality performance measures using the LibQUAL survey instrument and how it was applied at Queen\u27s University and University of Western Ontario. The issues covered include organizing and marketing the survey project

Kalb, Sam

Martin Gardiner, Margaret

English

Scholarship@Western

Western UniversityScholarship@WesternWestern Libraries Staff Presentations Western Libraries2-3-2006Tell Us How the Library Can Serve You?LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s and WesternSam KalbQueen's University, kalbs@queensu.caMargaret Martin GardinerUniversity of Western Ontario, mgardine@uwo.caFollow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wlpresPart of the Information and Library Science CommonsCitation of this paper:Kalb, Sam and Martin Gardiner, Margaret, "Tell Us How the Library Can Serve You? LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s and Western" (2006).Western Libraries Staff Presentations. Paper 3.http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wlpres/3Tell Us How the Library Can Serve You?LibQUAL+ @  Queen’s and WesternPresented bySam Kalb, Queen’s, andMargaret Martin Gardiner, WesternWhat Is LibQUAL+ ? Web-based tool for assessing library service quality A tool for identifying areas for service improvement Developed and refined over 5 years, 200,000 respondents, 400+ institutions Based on SERVQUAL. 15 years of research and application at Texas A&MHow Does LibQUAL+ Measure Quality?Rating of services in context Based on users’ and non-users’ perceptions and expectations Gap analysis between perceived level of service, and minimum and desired service level Comparison with other libraries, past years & developing normsWhy LibQUAL+? Quick, easy and inexpensive Web based survey administered by Association of Research Libraries (ARL); data collected and analyzed by expert LibQUAL+ staff Allows a library to see relationship to academic libraries across North America over time Complements other local assessments Starting point to identify best practices in providing library serviceLibQUAL+ 2004 Survey Specifics 202 institutions from North America, Europe & Australia - including 57 ARL Libraries & consortia 9 Canadian institutions: Alberta, Calgary, McGill, Montreal, Queen’s, UNB, Western, Windsor, York 113,000 respondentsLibQUAL+ Spring 2004 Survey 22 service quality survey questions in three service dimensions:  Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as Place 5 optional “local” questions Demographic & usage questions One open comments boxService Quality DimensionsLibrary Service QualityAffect of ServiceEmpathyResponsivenessAssuranceReliabilityLibrary as PlaceUtilitarian SpaceInformation ControlEase of NavigationConvenienceScope of collectionsTimelinessRefugeSymbolModern EquipmentWhen it comes to… My Minimum Service Level Islow …… highMy Desired Service Level Islow …… highPerceived Service Performance Islow …… highN/A1 Employees who instill confidence in users1  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  91  2   3  4  5  6   7  8 91  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  9N/A2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own1  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  91  2   3  4  5  6   7  8  91  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  9N/A3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work1  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  91  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  91  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  9N/ASurvey - Sample SectionImplementation some planning considerations Project plan – implementation team (if possible) to review process, establish a timeline, implement survey Environment – e.g., are other surveys being conducted at the same time? Marketing & communication – campus & library staff, e.g., Web site, posters, campus media, presentations, newsletter, etc. Prizes – What value? PDAs, MP3s, gift certificates …Marketing & CommunicationImplementation more considerations Random Sampling – Yes or No?  Expertise? LITS and ITS contacts – valued colleagues Research Ethics Review Board – do you need to submit a proposal? Report Results – to library staff and campus2004 ResultsThe results are a measure of perceived service quality in relation to user expectations for that service or library facility.Comparative results can tell usWhere we need to focus our attention to improve services.A low score compared to other peer libraries points to a potential area for improvement.Comparative results told usUsers priorities and service expectations are strikingly consistent among the institutions participating in the 2004 survey.Comparative results also told usQueen’s top 5 & bottom 5 rated questions were identical to the average ARL top & bottom 5.  Western’s top 5 & bottom 5 rated questions were slightly different compared to the average ARL top & bottom 5.Population for Queen’s Survey Total initial sample: 5,450All full time-faculty: 850Random stratified sample of: 3,000 full-time undergraduates 1000  full-time graduates 600 staffSurvey RespondentsAnalyses based on 773 completed valid user surveys – excludes library staff.  The respondent population was largely representative of the overall population distribution. Population for Western’s Survey Total sample: 3000Random stratified sample of: 1200 undergraduates 600 graduates 600 faculty 600 staff, excluding library staffSurvey RespondentsAnalyses based on 291 completed valid user surveys.  The respondent population was largely representative of the overall population.Respondent CommentsProvides context & detail for survey score • 361 Queen’s respondents (45%) filled in the comments box• 148 Western respondents (51%) filled in the comments boxQueen’s Comments databaseAvailable to all staff - facilitated analysisDifferences among User GroupsFaculty at Queen’s and Western Affect of Service – perceived that libraries are more than meeting minimum level expected, close to desired Information Control – perceived that libraries are not meeting minimum level of service expected Library as Place – perceived that libraries are more than meeting desired level of serviceDifferences among User GroupsGraduate Students at Queen’s and Western Affect of Service – more than meeting minimum level expected Information Control - not meeting minimum level of service expected Library as Place – at Queen’s more than meeting minimum level expected; at Western identified need for improvementDifferences among User GroupsUndergraduates at Queen’s and Western Affect of Service – more than meeting minimum level expected Information Control – more than meeting minimum level expected Library as Place – at Queen’s more than meeting minimum level expected; at Western identified need for improvementAffect of ServiceHighly rated for: Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion Willingness to help othersInformation Control Service dimension most important to faculty and students as evidenced in the highest mean for minimum expected service out of the three dimensions Faculty most dissatisfied; low negative rating Graduate students also dissatisfied; difficult transitions from one university to another Undergraduates are most satisfied; positive rating almost matches overall ARL rating. Library as Place Service dimension with lowest priority for all three user groups Important to undergraduate students who are most frequent users of physical librariesCreating Change Broad consultation within the library and the university community to: Identify key areas of concern and initiatives already underway; Develop and implement plans for improvements, especially in weaker areas Provide your community with a summary of survey results with actions taken, underway and planned – to be updated after subsequent surveys.Where do we go from here? Address some of the longer term challenges in the survey Further investigation where necessary, e.g. focus groups, etc.  LibQUAL+ is only one assessment tool Continue doing LibQUAL+ in future to assess improvements undertaken and to identify services that continue to need improvement as well as new concernsCARL LibQUAL+ Survey In 2007, Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) will coordinate a consortial survey of Canadian academic libraries. Major Benefits: ARL compiled comparative data for Canadian libraries, presently unavailable Shared marketing information, data analysis expertise, information exchange (listserv), etc. Presentation: https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/2 52 Queen’s LibQUAL+ Web Site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm Western’s LibQUAL+ Web Site: http://www.lib.uwo.ca/aboutwl/libqual.htm ARL LibQUAL+ Site: http://www.libqual.org/Web Sites

Tell Us How the Library Can Serve You?  LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s and Western

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&amp;context=wlpres

Tell Us How the Library Can Serve You? LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s and Western

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarship@Western