Academic Library and Information Services: New Paradigms for the Digital Age

1. 8th International Bielefeld Conference Academic Library and Information Services:New Paradigms for the Digital Age Bielefeld, Germany February 8, 2006 Presented by: Dr. Colleen Cook, Dean Texas A&M University & Dr. Fred Heath, Vice Provost of General Libraries University of Texas

2. Why Assess? “In an age of accountability, there is a pressing need for an effective…process to evaluate and compare research libraries.” • 700 participants in LibQUAL+™ • 123 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) alone, over $3.4 billion dollars were expended in 2003/2004 Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2005). ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.5.

3. Libraries Remain a CredibleResource in 21st Century 98% agree with statement, “My … library contains information from credible and known sources.” Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

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. Faculty: Dependence onElectronic Resources Will Increase “I will become increasingly dependent on electronic research resources in the future.” http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/144/guthrie_files/guthrie.ppt

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.

7. Total Circulation Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2005). ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.6.

8. Reference Transactions Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2005). ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.6.

9. Web UsageTotal File Requests - UT Austin Libraries 2000-2003

10. EnterLibQUAL+™ • The necessity of assessment • Rapid shifts in information-seeking behavior • The reallocation of resources from traditional services and functions

11. 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.

12. 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 2005 700 Libraries English, Dutch, Swedish, German LibQUAL+™ Versions 160,000 anticipated respondents

13. 76 Interviews 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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 700 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)

23. Participating Libraries World LibQUAL+™ Survey 2005

24. LibQUAL+™ Languages

25. Languages American English British English French Dutch Swedish In development Chinese Greek Spanish German 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

26. “22 items”

27. Survey Instrument

28. “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.

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

30. Key to Bar Charts

31. LibQUAL+™ 2004 Summary Collegesor Universities American English (n = 69,449)

32. Adequacy GapThe difference between the minimum and perceived score LibQUAL+™

33. 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

34. LibQUAL+™ InteractiveInstitution Statistics

35. In Closing LibQUAL+™ • 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 • Requires limited local survey expertise and resources • Analysis available at local and inter-institutional levels • Offers many opportunities for using demographics to discern user behaviors

36. 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

37. LibQUAL+™Contact Information • Amy Hoseth • LibQUAL+™ Communications Coordinator • amyh@arl.org • Richard Groves • Statistics Research Assistant • richard@arl.org • MaShana Davis • Junior Technical Applications Developer • mashana@arl.org • Martha Kyrillidou • Director, ARL Statistics and Measurement Program • martha@arl.org

38. https://webspace.utexas.edu/fh355/www/

39. - 30 -