1 / 29

LibQUAL+ ™ : An Overview

LibQUAL+ ™ : An Overview. CASLIN The Czech Republic June 11-15, 2006 Presented by: Bruce Thompson http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson. Total Circulation. Note . M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8. Reference Transactions.

lisagray
Download Presentation

LibQUAL+ ™ : An Overview

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. LibQUAL+™: An Overview CASLIN The Czech Republic June 11-15, 2006 Presented by: Bruce Thompson http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson

  2. Total Circulation Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

  3. Reference Transactions Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

  4. 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

  5. The LibQUAL+™ Premise “….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” PERCEPTIONS SERVICE Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

  6. Multiple Methodsof Listening to Customers • Transactional surveys* • Mystery shopping • New, declining, and lost-customer surveys • Focus group interviews • Customer advisory panels • Service reviews • Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture • Total market surveys* • Employee field reporting • Employee surveys • Service operating data capture *A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these methods Note. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000). Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C.

  7. 13 Libraries English LibQUAL+™ Version 4000 Respondents LibQUAL+™ Project PURPOSEDATAANALYSISPRODUCT/RESULT Emergent Describe library environment; build theory of library service quality from user perspective Test LibQUAL+™ instrument Refine theory of service quality Refine LibQUAL+™ instrument Test LibQUAL+™ instrument Refine theory 2000 Unstructured interviews at 8 ARL institutions Web-delivered survey Unstructured interviews at Health Sciences and the Smithsonian libraries E-mail to survey administrators Web-delivered survey Focus groups Content analysis: (cards & Atlas TI) Reliability/validity analyses: Cronbachs Alpha, factor analysis, SEM, descriptive statistics Content analysis Content analysis Reliability/validity analyses including Cronbachs Alpha, factor analysis, SEM, descriptive statistics Content analysis QUAL QUAN QUAL QUAL QUAN QUAL Case studies1 Valid LibQUAL+™ protocol Scalable process Enhanced understanding of user-centered views of service quality in the library environment2 Cultural perspective3 Refined survey delivery process and theory of service quality4 Refined LibQUAL+™ instrument5 Local contextual understanding of LibQUAL+™ survey responses6 Iterative Vignette Re-tooling 2004 315 Libraries English, Dutch, Swedish, German LibQUAL+™ Versions 160,000 anticipated respondents

  8. 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

  9. Reliability “You put a search on a book and it’s just gone; it’s not reacquired. … There’s more of a problem of lost books, of books that are gone and nobody knows why and nobody’s doing anything about it.” Faculty member

  10. Affect of Service “I want to be treated with respect. I want you to be courteous, to look like you know what you are doing and enjoy what you are doing. … Don’t get into personal conversations when I am at the desk.” Faculty member

  11. Library as Place “One of the cherished rituals is going up the steps and through the gorgeous doors of the library and heading up to the fifth floor to my study. … I have my books and I have six million volumes downstairs that are readily available to me in an open stack library.” Faculty member

  12. Self-reliance “…first of all, I would turn to the best search engines that are out there. That’s not a person so much as an entity. In this sense, librarians are search engines [ just ] with a different interface.” Faculty member

  13. “22 items”

  14. Survey Instrument

  15. “22 Items and The Box….” Why the Box is so Important • 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.

  16. “…and Five Ancillary Items” Either Zero or Five Ancillary items are selected to address local or consortial concerns • Items from the initial LibQUAL+TM item pool. • Items written by previous consortial groups.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Participating Libraries World LibQUAL+™ Survey

  20. Languages American English British English French Dutch Swedish Consortia Each may create 5 local questions to add to their survey Types of Institutions Academic Health Sciences Academic Law Academic Military College or University Community College European Business Hospital Public State Countries U.S., U.K., Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia Rapid Growth in Other Areas

  21. LibQUAL+™ Participants

  22. LibQUAL+™Implementation

  23. Interpretation:Mean Perceived Scores (n=34)

  24. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesUndergraduates – American English (n = 37,661)

  25. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesGraduates – American English (n = 16,750)

  26. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesFaculty – American English (n = 11,755)

  27. LibQUAL+™ Resources • LibQUAL+™ Website:http://www.libqual.org • Publications:http://www.libqual.org/publications • Events and Training: http://www.libqual.org/events • Gap Theory/Radargraph Introduction: http://www.libqual.org/Information/Tools/libqualpresentation.cfm • LibQUAL+™ Procedures Manual:http://www.libqual.org/Manual/index.cfm

  28. LibQUAL+™ ContactInformation • Martha Kyrillidou • Director of Statistics and Service Quality Programs • martha@arl.org • Mary Jackson • LibQUAL+™ Services Manager • mary@arl.org • MaShana Davis • Technical Communications Liaison • mashana@arl.org • Richard Groves • Customer Relations Coordinator • richard@arl.org

More Related