Library Assessment: LibQUAL+ and the Library Summit Concept

1. Library Assessment:LibQUAL+ and theLibrary Summit Concept Fred Heath Vice Provost and Director, University of Texas Libraries ALA January 2007 Clemson University Libraries Clemson University

2. Why Assess? “In an age of accountability, there is a pressing need for an effective…process to evaluate and compare research libraries.” • Spellings Report • High cost of research libraries • Insitutional weariness with input measures Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002). ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.5.

3. Why Assess • The act of assessment means little unless you do something • You cannot do anything unless the information you obtain has meaning

4. Changing Behaviors Recent Survey: Only 15.7% agreed with the statement “The Internet has not changed the way I use the library.” Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

5. “…everyone in class tried to get those articles on line and some people didn’t even bother to to to the stacks when they couldn’t Google them.” Graduate Student NYT Online 6/21/04 (Katie Hafner, “Old search engine in the the library tries to fit into a Google world”)

6. Research Behavior: Personal Control When searching for print journals for research: • Only 13.9% ask a librarian for assistance • Only 3.2% consider consulting a librarian a preferred way of identifying information Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

9. Enter LibQUAL+ • The necessity of assessment • Rapid shifts in information-seeking behavior • The reallocation of resources from traditional services and functions

11. Survey Structure – Page 2(Detail View)

12. “And a 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.

13. Understanding LibQUAL+ Results • Measures the distance between minimally acceptable and desired service quality ratings • Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance

14. 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

15. Peer Assessment • University of Texas Libraries compares favorably to peers • University of Washington • University of Wisconsin – Madison • UCLA • Ohio State University • University of Minnesota – Twin Cities

17. Constituent Groups • What are the differences we can recognize by constituent group? • Undergraduate • Graduate Students • Faculty • Library Staff

18. Constituent Groups • What are the differences we can recognize by constituent group? • Undergraduate • Graduate Students • Faculty • Library Staff

19. Consider Discipline Differences • Are there statistically different behaviors by discipline to which we need to respond?

20. Alignment of values • Can we be sure that our priorities, values correctly align with those of our constituents? • If a case for misalignment can be made, what can we do to align ourselves more effectively?

22. From Results to Action Community Summit The Clemson Experience

23. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • The Clemson Summit Concept • Concept initiated by President • Summits are organized around a university function • Bring university constituents together to focus on one area SACS – COC December 6, 2004

24. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • LIBQUAL+ and Clemson University Libraries • First LIBQUAL+ followed Library Summits I and II • Used LIBQUAL+ results to determine if the choices • we made from the summits were correct. • We determined that the LIBQUAL+ results • validated the themes and detailed objectives • resulting from the summits. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

25. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • 2003 LIBQUAL+ Results • Received our 3rd LIBQUAL+ Results • Paid close attention to the results of questions • where either the perceived level was below • minimum levels • Also paid attention to the results of questions • which were above minimum but were showing • a declining number. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

26. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • “Disconfirming Expectancy” • Increased credibility by providing negative • information. • We wanted help from faculty and students to • understand the 2003 LIBQUAL+ results. • Because of success of Library Summit I and II • decided to have Library Summit III. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

27. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • Summit Planning: • Planning Committee • Determined date and location (university conference • center) • Determined schedule (3:00PM – 7:00PM) • Determined meal • Set Agenda • Recommended participants (by group) 60 total • Organized discussion topics • Prepared and sent formal invitations SACS – COC December 6, 2004

28. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • Summit Process: • Organized around three LIBQUAL+ areas: • Information control, affect of service, Library as • Place • Had two tables of 10 participants per topic • At half way point had participants change tables. • Table leaders where library staff who also recorded • ideas. • Each table was asked to come up with 9 ideas plus • one “off the wall” suggestion. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

29. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • Summit Process: • Provided the participants with the 2003 Libqual • results. • Had a smaller “results” document that highlighted • the areas which were below minimum levels or showed • decline and asked them to concentrate on these areas for • their suggestions for improvement. • We also provided them with a brief explanation • of the Libqual charts and tables. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

30. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • What Happened: • Providing “negative” information from LIBQUAL+ • results was very positive. • University supports and rewards honest examination • of opportunities to improve. • A real “assessment culture” at Clemson which looks • to “close the loop.” SACS – COC December 6, 2004

31. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • What Happened: • Seeing a “problem patron become actively interested • in helping to solve problems rather than • complaining. • While there were a number of expensive suggestions, • many of the ideas were possible to • accomplish with available funds. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

32. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • Library Town Meetings: • Critical to success of Summit • Had 3 Town Meetings with Library Staff • Staff added ideas and enhanced many of those • suggested at the Summit. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

35. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University SACS – COC December 6, 2004

36. Opening side doors at entrance of PCL to provide means of access in addition to the revolving door

37. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University SACS – COC December 6, 2004

38. Quiet studies

39. Clemson University Libraries Clemson University Clemson University Libraries Clemson University • Benefits of a Summit • Library plans based on LibQual+ survey results • and Summit discussions provide good structure • for showcasing positive outcomes in assessment. • Participants tend to take ownership of their ideas • An organization that makes its weaknesses public • and asks for advice gains positive regard. • Input from Summit participants provides richer and • more detailed data. SACS – COC December 6, 2004

40. 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/Information/Manual/index.cfm