Managing and Enhancing Information: Cultures and Conflicts

1. Managing and Enhancing Information: Cultures and Conflicts Montreal February 11, 2005 Presented by: Colleen Cook, Dean of Libraries Texas A&M University

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. LibQUAL+™ Goals • Improve mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries • Develop web-based tools for assessing library service quality • Identify best practices in providing library service • Support libraries seeking to understand changes in user behavior • Assist libraries seeking to re-position library services in the new environment

5. LibQUAL+™ Outcomes • 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

6. 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.

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 Interview Conducted • University of Minnesota • University of Pennsylvania • University of Washington • Smithsonian • Northwestern Medical • York University • University of Arizona • Arizona State • University of Connecticut • University of Houston • University of Kansas

9. LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:\Admin\Colleen\ServQual Interviews\TEXT Only\01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:\zz\atlasti\fred

11. 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

12. 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

13. Library as Place “I guess you’d call them satisfiers. As long as they are not negatives, they won’t be much of a factor. If they are negatives, they are a big factor.” Faculty member

14. Information Control “…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

15. Information Control “By habit, I usually try to be self-sufficient. And I’ve found that I am actually fairly proficient. I usually find what I’m looking for eventually. So I personally tend to ask a librarian only as a last resort.” Graduate student

16. 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.

17. LibQUAL+™ Resources • 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 a expert team, re-grounded SERVQUAL concepts, and designed survey methodology • Survey conducted at over 500 libraries resulting in a data base of over half a million user responses • NSF funded project to refocus LibQUAL+™ on the National Science Digital Library (NSDL)

18. Library Service Quality Information Affect of Service Control Empathy Scope of Content Responsiveness Convenience Assurance Ease of Navigation Library as Place Reliability Timeliness Utilitarian space Equipment Symbol - Self Reliance Refuge Model 3 Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality

19. “22 items”

20. 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.

21. Survey Instrument

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 2003 LibQUAL+™ Survey Activity

26. Mean Perceived Scores2001/2002 Trend (n=34)

27. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesAmerican English (n = 69,449)

28. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryAcademic Law InstitutionsAmerican English (n = 4,092)

29. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryAcademic Health SciencesAmerican English (n = 3,664)

30. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryHospitalsAmerican English (n = 1,024)

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

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

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

34. LibQUAL+™ 2004 SummaryColleges or UniversitiesStaff – American English (n = 3,283)

35. 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

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

37. LibQUAL+™ InteractiveInstitution Statistics

38. LibQUAL+™ InteractiveMulti-Variable Statistics

39. 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

40. LibQUAL+™ Participants

41. In Closing • LibQUAL+™ methodology 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 • LibQUAL+™ requires limited local survey expertise and resources • Analysis available at local and inter-institutional levels • Many opportunities for using demographics to discern user behaviors

42. LibQUAL+™ Resources • LibQUAL+™ Website:http://www.libqual.org • Publications:http://www.libqual.org/publications • Events and Training: http://www.libqual.org/events • LibQUAL+™ Bibliography: http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib • LibQUAL+™ Procedures Manual:http://www.libqual.org/Information/Manual/index.cfm

43. LibQUAL+™ ContactInformation • Martha Kyrillidou • Senior Program for Office of Statistics and Measurement • martha@arl.org • Consuella Askew • LibQUAL+™ Program Specialist • consuella@arl.org • Amy Hoseth • LibQUAL+™ Project Assistant • amyh@arl.org • Jonathan D. Sousa • Technical Applications Development Manager • jonathan@arl.org