410 likes | 536 Views
TM. AAHSL Spring 2002 Results. November 12, 2002 San Francisco, CA. Colleen Cook Bruce Thompson. Project web site old.libqual.org. LibQUAL+ ™ Project Goals. Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL
E N D
TM AAHSL Spring 2002 Results November 12, 2002 San Francisco, CA Colleen Cook Bruce Thompson Project web site old.libqual.org
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
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.
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.
Source: Parasuraman, ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality Washington, DC, October 2000
Dimensions of Library Service Quality
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
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
Personal Control • How users want to interact with the modern library • Personal control of the information universe in general and web navigation in particular
Access to Information • Ubiquity of access: information delivered in the format, location and time of choice • Comprehensive collections
Sample Survey Spring 2002
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)
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.
Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 14
Respondents by Age Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 15
Respondents by Sex Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 16
AAHSL Respondents by Discipline (n=13,976) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 18
Factor Analysis - ARL Service Affect Library as place Access to info Personal Control
Factor Analysis -AAHSL Service Affect Library as place Access to info Personal Control
AAHSL Dimension Means (n=13,976) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 22
Mean Perceived Scores 2001/2002 Trend (n=34)
Two Interpretation Frameworks • Score Norms • Zone of Tolerance
Zone of Tolerance • The area between minimally acceptable and desired service quality ratings • Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance
AAHSL Dimension Summary (n=13,976) Average Rating Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 22
Undergraduate AAHSL (n=638) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 28
Graduate AAHSL (n=4,788) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 36
Faculty AAHSL (n=4,962) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 44
Library Staff AAHSL (n=431) Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 52
Local Questions - Faculty AAHSL Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Survey Results - AAHSL. (2002). Vol. 3, p. 50
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
Institutional Norms for Perceived Means on 25 Core Questions-AAHSL Note: Thompson, B. LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Selected Norms, (2002).
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)
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
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
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
When desired outcomes become the focus of customer research, innovation becomes a manageable, predictable discipline. Anthony W. Ulwick, Harvard Business Review, January 2002
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
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