LibQUAL+ & LibQUAL Lite at the University of Glasgow

1. LibQUAL+ & LibQUAL Lite at the University of Glasgow Jacqui Dowd LibQUAL+ and Beyond: Using Results Effectively University of Glasgow 24th May 2010

2. History of LibQUAL+ at the University of Glasgow • Member of the First SCONUL Consortium in 2003, • 2004, 2005, and 2006 • Again in Spring 2008, • Winter 2008 LibQUAL Lite Pilot and • Spring 2009 • And Spring 2010 LibQUAL Lite 100%

3. LibQUAL+ Lite Why did we choose LibQUAL+ Lite for 2010 Effect of Lite on Longitudinal/Internal benchmarking Effect of Lite on External Benchmarking Effect of Lite on the Library’s Balanced Scorecard

4. LibQUAL+ Lite Why 100% LibQUAL+ Lite? To increase the response rates -Although we have always had a representative sample, the response rates have been consistently below 10% By Reducing the burden on the respondents -LibQUAL+ requires 97 responses – unreasonable expectation!LibQUAL+ Lite requires only (?) 51 responses

5. Increase Valid Survey Yield? “Typically about half of the people who view the survey tend to submit a complete version of the survey.” Martha Kyrillidou, Item Sampling in Service Quality Assessment Surveys To Improve Response Rates and Reduce Respondent Burden: The “LibQUAL+ Lite” Randomized Control Trial (RCT) Dissertation, University of Illinois, 2009 At Glasgow? Yes! Completed surveys = 48% Valid Surveys = 46%

6. Lite Effect • 100% Lite response rate increased by 4.2% on LibQUAL Full Protocol 2009

7. LibQUAL+ Lite • Reduction in the burden on Respondents? • Yes – in so much as fewer responses were required • Not significantly in terms of the average completion time saving only 1 minute 48 seconds • Yes – significantly in terms of the median completion time by saving 3 minutes 20 seconds

8. LibQUAL+ Lite v Full “Thus, the samples of people deciding to provide data are to some extent qualitatively different across the two protocols, with samples for the Lite protocol having somewhat more negative views of library service quality” Item Sampling in Service Quality Assessment Surveys to Improve Response Rates and Reduce Respondent Burden the “LibQUAL+® Lite” Example Bruce Thompson, Martha Kyrillidou, Colleen Cook , Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 10(1), 2009: 6-16. “The fact that for the most part these small differences are in the direction of Lite producing slightly lower scores, one may argue that Lite produces slightly more accurate estimates of the population statistics for these (LP & IC) concepts……..” Martha Kyrillidou, Item Sampling in Service Quality Assessment Surveys To Improve Response Rates and Reduce Respondent Burden: The “LibQUAL+ Lite” Randomized Control Trial (RCT), Dissertation, University of Illinois, 2009

9. Effect of Lite: 22 Core Scores • All Lite Service Level scores lower than 2008 & 2009

10. Effect of Lite-Affect of Service Scores • All Lite scores ≥ 2008 & 2009

11. Effect of Lite Information Control scores • All Lite Service Level scores < 2008 & 2009

12. Library As Place Scores • All Lite Service Level scores < 2008 & 2009

13. General Satisfaction • Lite score < 2008 & 2009

14. Academic Support • Lite score > 2008 & < 2009

15. Information Literacy Outcomes Lite score > 2008 & 2009

16. Effect on Benchmarking Lite scores have a negative effect when benchmarking with other Russell Group Libraries! This pattern is repeated at item level!

17. Effect on Balanced Scorecard • The University of Glasgow Library’s 2009-2010 Balanced Scorecard has five User Perspective KPIs based on LibQUAL+ Scores • KPI U-2a LibQUAL+ Library as Place: average perceived service level score to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6.4 • KPI U-2b LibQUAL+ Information Control: average staff & Postgraduate perceived service level score to be greater than SCONUL Average and greater than 6.8

18. Effect on Balanced Scorecard • KPI U-2c LibQUAL+ Affect of Service: average staff & postgraduate perceived service level scores to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6.8 • KPI U-2d LibQUAL+ General Satisfaction: average score to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6.7 • KPI U-5 LibQUAL+ Information Literacy: average satisfaction score to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6

19. Effect on Balanced Scorecard KPI U-2a LibQUAL+ Library as Place: average perceived service level score to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6.4 ☺Glasgow Average Score = 6.84 Sconul Average Score = 6.75 KPI U-2b LibQUAL+ Information Control: average staff & Postgraduate perceived service level score to be greater than SCONUL Average and greater than 6.8 ☺Glasgow Pg Average Score = 6.95 Sconul Pg Average Score = 6.94 ☺Glasgow Staff Average Score = 7.12 Sconul Staff Average Score = 6.87

20. Effect on Balanced Scorecard • KPI U-2c LibQUAL+ Affect of Service: average staff & postgraduate perceived service level scores to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6.8 • ☺Glasgow Pg Average Score = 7.20 Sconul Pg Average Score = 7.09 • ☺Glasgow Staff Average Score = 7.49 Sconul Staff Average Score = 7.26 • KPI U-2d LibQUAL+ General Satisfaction: average score to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6.7 • ☺Glasgow Average Score = 7.13 Sconul Average Score = 6.97

21. Effect on Balanced Scorecard KPI U-5 LibQUAL+ Information Literacy: average satisfaction score to be greater than SCONUL average and greater than 6 (Information Literacy Outcome questions 4 & 5, The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy information & The Library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study) ☺Glasgow Average Score = 6.25 Sconul Average Score = 5.99

22. Summary of Lite Effect • Effect of Lite on Longitudinal/Internal benchmarking • Lite 22 core mean perceived service levels score lower than Full protocol • Information Control & Library as Place lower than Full protocol • Affect of Service mean perceived service level scores higher than Full protocol • Effect of Lite on External Benchmarking • Serious negative effect on 22 core mean perceived service level scores • Serious negative effect on Information Control & Library as Place mean perceived service level scores • Minor positive effect on Affect of Service mean received service level scores • Effect of Lite on the Library’s Balanced Scorecard

23. Summary of Lite Effect • Effect of Lite on the Library’s Balanced Scorecard • Targets achieved with improvement on 2008-2009 • KPI U-2a Library as Place • KPI U-2b Information Control • KPI U-2c Affect of Service • Target achieved with smaller margin on 2008-2009 • KPI U-2d General Satisfaction • KPI U-5 New to Balanced Scorecard 2009-2010

24. Future Participation • “Given that Lite forms have higher participation and significantly lower completion times than the long forms, Lite is advantageous and the preferred form to implement” • “Though score conversion is not needed, there are some circumstances under which score conversion may be more useful for large research libraries that rely heavily on the LibQUAL+ protocol through annual or biennial implementations.” • Martha Kyrillidou, ibidem • All things considered, Glasgow’s future participation will continue as 100% Lite