1 / 28

Testing the LibQUAL+ Survey Instrument

Testing the LibQUAL+ Survey Instrument. James Shedlock, AMLS, Dir. Linda Walton, MLS, Assoc. Dir. Galter Health Sciences Library Northwestern University. Testing the LibQUAL+ Survey Instrument. A presentation for the Midwest Chapter-Medical Library Association Annual Meeting

chace
Download Presentation

Testing the LibQUAL+ Survey Instrument

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. Testing the LibQUAL+ Survey Instrument James Shedlock, AMLS, Dir. Linda Walton, MLS, Assoc. Dir. Galter Health Sciences Library Northwestern University

  2. Testing the LibQUAL+ Survey Instrument A presentation for the Midwest Chapter-Medical Library AssociationAnnual Meeting Minneapolis, Minnesota Sept. 27-Oct. 1, 2002

  3. Goals • To introduce the LibQUAL+ survey as a tool for measuring the quality of library service • To demonstrate application of LibQUAL+ in an academic health sciences library • To show how LibQUAL+ results can be used

  4. Outline • Background • Participating in LibQUAL+, 2001 and 2002 • Results • Discussion • Conclusion • Reference … for further reading

  5. Background: LibQUAL+ • What is LibQUAL+

  6. Background: LibQUAL+ • LibQUAL+ is a survey instrument first developed at Texas A&M University Libraries, now supported by Dept. of Education grants in collaboration with the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).

  7. Background: LibQUAL+ • LibQUAL+ derives from the SERVQUAL instrument, tested in several business industries, and proven to work. • SERVQUAL theory: • “Only users can determine quality.” • Quality measured in gaps, between minimum expectations and perceived service • LibQUAL+ has undergone several tests to refine the tool for accuracy. • The 2002 test involved 128 U.S. libraries and 78,000 participants.

  8. Background: LibQUAL+ • LibQUAL+ currently tests for quality in four dimensions (2002 test): access to info, personal control, library as place, affect of service. • LibQUAL+ employs three levels of user response: minimum, desired and perceived service levels. • LibQUAL+ uses a nine-point scale, measuring low to high.

  9. Background: Galter Library • Galter Library (GHSL) participated in the 2001 and 2002 tests. • GHSL was only stand-alone academic medical library in 2001 test; no true peer group for benchmarks. • GHSL among 36 academic medical libraries in the 2002 test (supported by NLM, AAHSL and individual libraries).

  10. Background: Galter Library • Motivation for participating in LibQUAL+: • Evaluating services part of strategic plan • Easy way to meet goals, learn more about users • Wanted to be on the cutting edge for measuring quality • As AAHSL Annual Stats editor, needed to learn how to measure quality • Relatively low cost

  11. Participating in LibQUAL+ • Fully web automated • Reliance on email communication • Need access to users email addresses; use bulk mail, lists, listservs, etc. • Consider all users or a sample • At Galter, all users with email known to med school were solicited.

  12. Participating in LibQUAL+ • Sample questions … • Complete run of journals; Comprehensive print collections; Enabling website; Comfortable, inviting location; Willingness to help; Consistently courteous • 5 special questions in 2002 for AAHSL libraries • “When it comes to … [complete runs of journal titles] … my minimum service level is … my desired service level is … perceived service performance is …

  13. When it comes to… My Minimum Service Level Is low high My Desired Service Level Is low high Perceived Service Performance Is low high N/A 1) Willingness to help users 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 2) Space that facilitates quiet study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 3) Complete runs of journal titles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Results • See sample web form:

  14. Results • Scoring • Average scores for each question, for each user group, for each parameter (minimum, desired, perceived) • Gap scores = perceived – minimum • Graphs • Radar graphs – shows total results, by aggregate and group • Zone of tolerance – shows dimensions • General satisfaction • Percentile within normative group

  15. Results

  16. Results

  17. Results • Participation: • 2001 • 3,575 surveys sent • 476 responses • 13.3% return rate • 2002 • 3,819 surveys sent • 457 responses • 12% return rate

  18. Results • Age, gender changed little from 2001 to 2002 results • Group participation …

  19. Results • Aggregate – sample gap scores: • 2001 • Negative gaps • Comprehensive print collections: -0.21 • Complete run of journals: -0.31 • Convenient business hours: -0.35 • Positive gaps • Attractive facility: 2.21 • Employees who enjoy what they do: 1.41 • Library focus on here and now: 1.38

  20. Results • Sample score: • 2001 • Comprehensive print collections • Minimum score: 6.45 • Desired: 7.92 • Perceived: 6.25 • 6.25 – 6.45 = -0.20

  21. Results • Aggregate – sample gap scores: • 2002 • Negative gaps • Complete run of journals: -0.36 • Convenient business hours: -0.68 • Making e-resources accessible: -0.09 • Positive gaps • Comfortable, inviting location: 0.74 • [staff] willingness to help users: 0.66 • [staff] giving uses individual attention: 0.65

  22. Results • User group summary for 2002: • Faculty • Timely document delivery: -0.01 • Interdisciplinary needs: -0.05 • Comfortable, inviting location: 1.09 • Contemplative environment: 0.89 • Employees who instill confidence: 0.86

  23. Results • User group summary for 2002: • Staff • No negative scores • Comfortable, inviting location: 1.64 • Convenient access to collections: 1.18 • Contemplative environment: 1.10

  24. Results • User group summary for 2002: • Students • Convenient business hours: -1.80 • Space facilitating quiet study: -0.51 • Complete run of journals: -0.32 • Place for reflection, creativity: 0.65 • Willingness to help users: 0.61 • Comfortable, inviting location: 0.50

  25. Discussion • Learn what to fix! • These are the users’ issues with the library – listen to them, even if you disagree. “The customer is always right!” • Good insight for very little effort. • Do once a year, notice change in scores.

  26. Discussion • Follow-up: use gap scores in conjunction with other data. Gap scores are but one piece of data for evaluating library services. • Study users’ comments (new in 2002). • Review AAHSL Annual Stats for quantitative data, benchmarks • Consider using focus groups to listen to users; e.g., ask faculty how they interpret LibQUAL+ questions • What do your users think about quality?

  27. Conclusion • Incorporate into strategic plan • Easy to do • Considering a third survey if we can make change happen • Potential to be a powerful tool for the library profession, especially in time of change • Future: under consideration at ARL

  28. Reference • For more information about LibQUAL+, see: www.arl.org/libqual Look closely at About(FAQs)and Publications(bibliography).

More Related