1 / 41

Enhancing Library Service Quality: LibQUAL+™ Spring 2002 Results

Explore the findings and implications of the LibQUAL+™ Spring 2002 survey on library service quality assessment, participant insights, and dimensions of service quality. Uncover trends and challenges in service delivery profiles.

browna
Download Presentation

Enhancing Library Service Quality: LibQUAL+™ Spring 2002 Results

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. TM AAHSL Spring 2002 Results November 12, 2002 San Francisco, CA Colleen Cook Bruce Thompson Project web site old.libqual.org

  2. LibQUAL+™ Project Goals • Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL • Development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality • Development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries • Identification of best practices in providing library service

  3. LibQUAL+TM Participants Year 3 Year 2 164 Participants 43 Participants Year 1 12 Participants Spring 2000 Spring 2001 Spring 2002 For More Information about Participants: Visit the LibQUAL+ web site.

  4. Relationships: perceptions, service quality and satisfaction ….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

  5. Source: Parasuraman, ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality Washington, DC, October 2000

  6. Dimensions of Library Service Quality

  7. Affect of Service • Emerged as the dominant factor early in our work • Absorbed several of the original SERVQUAL questions measuring Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy • In the current analysis also includes Reliability • All in all: the Human Dimension of Service Quality

  8. Library as Place • Transcends the SERVQUAL dimension of Tangibles to include the idea of the library as the campus center of intellectual activity • As long as physical facilities are adequate, library as place may not be an issue

  9. Personal Control • How users want to interact with the modern library • Personal control of the information universe in general and web navigation in particular

  10. Access to Information • Ubiquity of access: information delivered in the format, location and time of choice • Comprehensive collections

  11. Sample Survey Spring 2002

  12. Sample Survey…continued

  13. Sample Survey…continued

  14. LibQUAL+ 2002 Iteration • 42 — ARL Libraries • 35 — Health Sciences Libraries • 36 — State Colleges & Universities (excluding ARL) • 34 — Private Colleges & Universities (excluding ARL) • 15 — Community Colleges • 2 — Special & Public Libraries (Smithsonian & NYPL)

  15. The Challenge of Analysis • There are few, if any useful conclusions to be drawn from aggregate data of all institutions, because their missions and subsequent user expectations for service are too diverse. • There are commonalities in service delivery profiles that merit further investigation. • In the long run, information that may be derived from demographic responses of individuals may yield the richest data.

  16. Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 14

  17. Respondents by Age Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 15

  18. Respondents by Sex Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 16

  19. AAHSL Respondents by Discipline (n=13,976) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 18

  20. Reliability

  21. Factor Analysis - ARL Service Affect Library as place Access to info Personal Control

  22. Factor Analysis -AAHSL Service Affect Library as place Access to info Personal Control

  23. AAHSL Dimension Means (n=13,976) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 22

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

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

  26. Zone of Tolerance • The area between minimally acceptable and desired service quality ratings • Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance

  27. AAHSL Dimension Summary (n=13,976) Average Rating Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 22

  28. Undergraduate AAHSL (n=638) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 28

  29. Graduate AAHSL (n=4,788) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 36

  30. Faculty AAHSL (n=4,962) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 44

  31. Library Staff AAHSL (n=431) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 52

  32. Local Questions - Faculty AAHSL Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 50

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

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

  35. Overall Mean Scores and Service Adequacy Gap Scores By Cohort Group 2002 LibQUAL+ Iteration (n=162) Community Colleges 7.26 (.55) Private Colleges 6.90 (.49) ARL Top 40 6.84 (.46) AAHSL 7.07 (.56) State Colleges & Universities 6.38 (.30) ARL Other 6.74 (.27)

  36. LibQUAL+™ Fundamental Contributions to the Measurement of Effective Delivery of Library Services • Shift the focus of assessment from mechanical expenditure-driven metrics to user-centered measures of quality • Re-ground gap theory for the library sector, especially academic libraries • Grounded questions yield data of sufficient granularity to be of value at the local level • Determine the degree to which information derived from local data can be generalized, providing much needed “best practices” information • Demonstrate the efficacy of large-scale administration of user-centered assessment transparently across the web • Makes little demand of local resources and expertise

  37. Recognize the limitations of listening to customers • Customers have a limited frame of reference and tend to offer incremental, rather than bold, suggestions • A better slide rule • The microwave oven, Post-it Notes, Velcro • Innovation is the responsibility of staff Anthony W. Ulwick, Harvard Business Review, January 2002

  38. Shift the focus to outcomes • Plan outcome-based customer interviews • Capture desired outcomes • Organize the outcomes • Rate the outcomes for importance and satisfaction • Opportunity algorithm: (Importance+(Importance-Satisfaction)=Opportunity) • Use the outcomes to jump-start innovation Anthony W. Ulwick, Harvard Business Review, January 2002

  39. When desired outcomes become the focus of customer research, innovation becomes a manageable, predictable discipline. Anthony W. Ulwick, Harvard Business Review, January 2002

  40. Summary • Survey can handle large numbers • Survey can be turned around quickly • Limited local expertise required • Interpretations should be across chosen cohorts • Lots of opportunities for using demographics to discern user behaviors • Q-technique and other tests will provide opportunities to observe how institutions may cluster

  41. LibQUAL+ Related Documents • LibQUAL+Web Site http://www.libqual.org • LibQUAL+Bibliography • http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib • Survey Participants Procedures Manual • http://www.arl.org/libqual/procedure/lqmanual2.pdf

More Related