1 / 48

Quantitative Grounding “ 22 Items and a Box ”

Quantitative Grounding “ 22 Items and a Box ”. :. Bruce Thompson Colleen Cook Martha Kyrillidou Glasgow January 19-20, 2004. Score Integrity. Reliability Validity. 1. alpha By Language. By Language Service Info. Lib as Group n Affect Control Place TOTAL

houston-joyce
Download Presentation

Quantitative Grounding “ 22 Items and a Box ”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quantitative Grounding“22 Items anda Box” : Bruce Thompson Colleen Cook Martha Kyrillidou Glasgow January 19-20, 2004

  2. Score Integrity • Reliability • Validity

  3. 1. alpha By Language By Language Service Info. Lib as Group n Affect Control Place TOTAL American (all) 59,318 .95 .91 .88 .96 British (all) 6,773 .93 .87 .81 .94 French (all) 172 .95 .90 .89 .95

  4. alpha by University Type By University Type Service Info. Lib as Group n Affect Control Place TOTAL Comm Colleges 4,189 .96 .92 .89 .97 4 yr Not ARL 36,430 .95 .91 .88 .96 4 yr, ARL 14,080 .95 .90 .87 .96 Acad Health 3,263 .95 .92 .90 .96

  5. alpha by Consortium By Consortium Service Info. Lib as Group n Affect Control Place TOTAL AAHSL 3,186 .95 .92 .90 .96 OhioLINK 7,203 .95 .91 .88 .96 Oberlin 2,945 .94 .88 .87 .94 Merlin 991 .96 .92 .88 .96 NY3R Coll/Uni 13,008 .95 .92 .88 .96 SCONUL 6,773 .93 .87 .81 .94 Alabama 1,203 .95 .92 .89 .96

  6. n = 59,318; α = .9593 "Corrected" Item‑ alpha Total if Item Item Correlation Deleted SA01APER .6989 .9575 SA04APER .7338 .9571 SA07APER .7621 .9568 SA10APER .7726 .9567 SA12APER .7590 .9568 SA15APER .7760 .9566 SA17APER .7263 .9572 SA20APER .7649 .9567 SA23APER .7914 .9565

  7. n = 59,318; α = .9593 "Corrected" Item‑ alpha Total if Item Item Correlation Deleted PC02APER .6728 .9578 PC11APER .6766 .9577 PC16APER .7313 .9571 PC21APER .7774 .9567 PC25APER .6285 .9583 IA03APER .6327 .9583 IA14APER .6964 .9575 IA18APER .7355 .9571

  8. n = 59,318; α = .9593 "Corrected" Item‑ alpha Total if Item Item Correlation Deleted LP05APER .5633 .9593 LP09APER .6614 .9579 LP13APER .6944 .9576 LP19APER .6144 .9586 LP24APER .7116 .9573

  9. Service Affect Service Affect (n = 71,170 English) SA20APER .80541 .22199 .27521 SA07APER .80338 .27236 .20993 SA17APER .79655 .20844 .22793 SA04APER .77062 .29258 .17694 SA15APER .73437 .34646 .24299 SA23APER .73391 .34359 .27896 SA01APER .71589 .29773 .16972 SA12APER .71541 .32229 .25528 SA10APER .68825 .35941 .28090

  10. Library as Place Library as Place (n = 71,170 English) LP13APER .26213 .25710 .80013 LP05APER .20412 .15920 .73601 LP09APER .27765 .24869 .72631 LP24APER .26672 .34873 .72148 LP19APER .19630 .28102 .70295

  11. Information Control Information Control (n = 71,170 English) IA18APER .29824 .73480 .28164 PC11APER .29045 .71111 .19999 IA03APER .24482 .70341 .18989 PC25APER .21770 .68760 .22736 PC21APER .41572 .65615 .30096 PC02APER .37847 .63860 .16559 PC16APER .33439 .61598 .36448 IA14APER .28759 .58521 .39295

  12. 2. Validity Correlations Validity Correlations Serv_Aff Info_Con LibPlace TOTALper Serv_Aff 1.0000 .7113 .5913 .9061 Info_Con .7113 1.0000 .6495 .9029 LibPlace .5913 .6495 1.0000 .8053 TOTALper .9061 .9029 .8053 1.0000 ESAT_TOT .7286 .6761 .5521 .7587 EOUT_TOT .5315 .6155 .4917 .6250

  13. Mean Perceived Scores 2001/2002 Trend (n=34)

  14. The Challenge of Score Use • Securing information that contributes meaningfully to planning and improvement efforts at a local level • Providing analytical frameworks that institutional staff can apply without extensive training or assistance • Helping decision-makers understand success of investments • Finding useful inter-institutional comparisons

  15. Two Interpretation Frameworks • Zone of Tolerance • Score Norms

  16. 1. Zone of Tolerance • The distance between minimally acceptable and desired service quality ratings • Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance

  17. Perceived Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Gap”) Faculty Dimension Summary Average Rating Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - TAMU. (2002). Vol. 2, p. 42

  18. 7 Institution Types Community Colleges Health Sciences Military Colleges/Universities State/Publics United Kingdom French Canadian

  19. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Summary Colleges or Universities

  20. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Colleges or Universities – Dimension Means

  21. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Colleges or Universities – Library Use

  22. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Colleges or Universities – Core Questions

  23. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Summary Community Colleges

  24. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Community Colleges – Dimension Means

  25. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Community Colleges – Library Use

  26. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Summary Academic Health Sciences

  27. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Health Sciences – Dimension Means

  28. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Health Sciences – Library Use

  29. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Summary Military Institutions

  30. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Military Institutions – Dimension Means

  31. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Military Institutions – Library Use

  32. LibQUAL+™ 2003 SummaryState and Public Institutions

  33. LibQUAL+™ 2003 State and Public – Dimension Means

  34. LibQUAL+™ 2003 State and Public – Library Use

  35. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Summary United Kingdom

  36. LibQUAL+™ 2003 United Kingdom – Dimension Means

  37. LibQUAL+™ 2003 United Kingdom – Library Use

  38. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Summary French Canadian

  39. LibQUAL+™ 2003 French Canadian – Dimension Means

  40. LibQUAL+™ 2003 French Canadian – Library Use

  41. 2. Score Norms • Norm Conversion Tables facilitate the interpretation of observed scores using norms created for a large and representative sample. • LibQUAL+ norms have been created at both the individual and institutional level

  42. Institutional Norms for Perceived Means on 25 Core Questions Note: Thompson, B. LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Selected Norms, (2002).

  43. Response Rates 1. It’s representativesness that counts more than the response rate!

  44. Response Rates 2. We only know the lower bound (or minimum) estimate of the response rate, because we don’t know the correct denominator.

  45. Response Rate Contexts 1. Response rates are higher for action-oriented surveys, which are not relevant or practical for total market surveys.

  46. Response Rate Contexts 2. Survey saturation is tending to lower typical response rates over time.

  47. 2005 and Beyond Matrix Sampling / Short Forms Software Used for Local/Consortial Assessments “Action Snapshots”

  48. LibQUAL+ Related Documents • LibQUAL+Web Site http://www.libqual.org • LibQUAL+Bibliography • http://www.libqual.org/publications/index.cfm • Survey Participants Procedures Manual • http://www.arl.org/libqual/procedure/lqmanual2.pdf

More Related