LIBQUAL+™: The University of Washington Experience

1. LIBQUAL+™: The University of WashingtonExperience Betsy Wilson University of Washington Libraries January 17, 2004 betsyw@u.washington.edu

2. Thanks to Steve Hiller Assessment Coordinator, University of Washington Wherever he may be…

3. University of Washington • Campuses in Seattle, Tacoma, and Bothell • Public research extensive university • 28,000 undergraduates • 11,000 graduate and professional students • 4,000 research and teaching faculty • 1st among public universities in US federal research funds

4. University of Washington Libraries • Large, distributed research library • 6 million plus print volumes • 30%+ of acquisitions budget for electronic information • Annual budget $30 million • 140 librarians, 250 support staff • Largest north of Berkeley and west of Chicago • 22 facilities on three campuses • Main central library • Health sciences library and Regional Medical Library • Undergraduate library • 13 branch libraries serving sciences, engineering, fine arts, and business • UW Tacoma and UW Bothell/Cascadia Community College • Large remote shelving facility

5. Culture of Assessment • Large scale user triennial surveys: 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001 • Survey all faculty • Survey student sample • In-library use surveys every 3 years beginning 1993 • LibQUAL+™ in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 • Focus groups (annually since 1998) • Observation (guided and non-obtrusive) • Usability program • Information about assessment program available at: http://www.lib.washington.edu/assessment/

6. UW Triennial Survey: Core Questions • Use Patterns • Frequency by access method used (in-person, remote) • Frequency of in-person library visits by type of use • Frequency of remote use by type of use and location • Libraries used on a regular basis • Importance • Sources for work (UW Lib., non-library Web, other libraries) • Information resource types (books, journals, bib databases) • Top library priorities for the next 2 years • Satisfaction • Hours • Specific services and resource types • Overall

7. UW Triennial Surveys: What We’ve Learned • UW Libraries considered the most important information resource for faculty and students • High satisfaction among all user groups • Substantial changes in use patterns over time • A marked preference for desktop and remote access • Differences in library use patterns, priorities and needs between academic subject areas and groups • Library as place remains important to undergraduates, less so for graduates, not important for faculty • Information technology and online information resources enhance research and teaching

8. Why LibQUAL+™ at UW? • Gain experience with a Web-based survey tool • Work with a less costly survey method utilizing a standardized survey instrument • Identify service gaps • Compare results with peer institutions • Track user satisfaction and needs during non-triennial survey years • Complement existing assessment program • Participate in a national assessment activity

9. Gain Experience with a Web-Based Survey Direct Costs (average per survey) UW Triennial Survey: $20,000 LibQUAL+™ $2,000 Library Staff Time (average per survey) Design and Development UW Triennial Pre-Survey 600 hours LibQUAL+™ Pre-Survey 5 hours Analysis and Reporting UW Triennial Post-Survey 500 hours LibQUAL+™ Post-Survey 100 hours

10. Identify Service Gaps and Compare Results with Peer Institutions • Service Gaps • Internal, by group and between groups • External comparisons, ARL, Peer libraries • Importance • Use desired level mean, compare internally/externally • Satisfaction • Internal, by group, compare with triennial surveys • External comparisons, ARL, Peer libraries

11. Different Presentation Methods for Comparisons Within and Between Groups • Internal by group and dimension or question • How do desired, perceived, and minimum vary by group • What do we do well (largest positive adequacy gaps) • Where do we need to improve (largest negative superiority gaps) • External by group and dimension or question • Compare desired, perceived and minimum between UW & ARL faculty • Compare importance and service most positive adequacy gaps with peers • Compare importance and least positive (or negative) service adequacy gap with peers • Satisfaction • LibQUAL+™ comparisons with ARL and selected peers • Compare UW Triennial Survey and LibQUAL+™

13. LibQUAL+™ 2003 Comparison: Faculty by Dimension: UW and ARL Means 8.6 Control Access Place Affect 8.4 8.2 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 6.8 ARL UW 6.6 ARL UW 6.4 ARL 6.2 6 Minimum 5.8 UW 5.6 Perceived 5.4 Desired 5.2 ARL 5 UW 4.8

14. LibQUAL+™ 2003:Largest Service Adequacy Positive Gap(Or What We do Well) Green shading indicates mean score closer to desired than minimum; red is closer to minimum than desired

15. LibQUAL+™ 2003:UW Largest Service Superiority Negative Gaps for Each Group (Or Where We Need to Do Better)

16. Some Actions We Have Taken • Major redesign of web site • Replaced proxy with seamless remote access that requires no configuration on users part • Substantial investment in electronic resources • 24x5 access to the physical library • 24x7 access to the digital library • Remodels and renovations informed by data • Strengthened librarian liaison program including offices in colleges and departments • Patron-initiated online holds, recalls, renewals • Mailing materials to a “home” library • Mass digitization • Digital reference, including chat services • Web Bridge link resolver • Web toolkits • Expedited consortial borrowing • Data used in strategic planning, budget requests, and accountability reports

17. LibQUAL+™ 2003: UW & ARL Satisfaction Means

18. Track Satisfaction During Non-Triennial Survey Years

19. Participate in a National Assessment Effort • LibQUAL+™ has created a network of libraries concerned about assessment and service quality • Peer-to-peer support has emerged as a complement to the ARL support infrastructure • Opportunity to use a standardized assessment instrument with hundreds of other libraries

20. Lessons from LibQual+™ • Cost-effective, easy to apply, complements other assessment efforts, consistent with other survey results • Ability to identify service “gaps” adds important context • Helpful to know what you’re doing right and where improvement needed • Opportunity to compare results with peer institutions is valuable and provides broader measure

21. Thank you