LibQUAL+ ™ Introduction

1. LibQUAL+™ Introduction Thessaloniki, Greece June, 2005 Presented by: Bruce Thompson

2. Total Circulation Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

3. Reference Transactions Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

4. Assessment “The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable—i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution. Librarians have either made do with oversimplified national data or have undertaken customized local evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been devised an effective way to link the two.” Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996

5. LibQUAL+™ Goals • Improve mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries • Develop web-based tools for assessing library service quality • Identify best practices in providing library service • Support libraries seeking to understand changes in user behavior • Assist libraries seeking to re-position library services in the new environment

6. LibQUAL+™ Outcomes • Securing information that contributes meaningfully to planning and improvement efforts at a local level • Providing analytical frameworks that institutional staff can apply without extensive training or assistance • Helping decision-makers understand success of investments • Finding useful inter-institutional comparisons

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Reliability Poor Upward Communication Poor Horizontal Communication Poor Tech - Job Fit Perception of Infeasibility Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles Extended GAPS Model Customers’ Assessment of SQ Organizational Barriers to SQ GAP 1 GAP 2 GAP 5 GAP 3 GAP 4

10. 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 2004 315 Libraries English, Dutch, Swedish, German LibQUAL+™ Versions 160,000 anticipated respondents

11. “22 items”

12. Survey Structure – Page 2(Detail View)

13. Colleges and Universities

14. Colleges and Universities

15. Languages American English British English French Dutch Swedish 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

16. LibQUAL+™ Participants

17. Participating Libraries World LibQUAL+™ Survey

18. 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

19. LibQUAL+™ ContactInformation • Martha Kyrillidou • Director, ARL Statistics and Measurement • martha@arl.org • Amy Hoseth • LibQUAL+™ Communications Coordinator • amyh@arl.org • Jonathan D. Sousa • Technical Applications Development Manager • jonathan@arl.org • Richard Groves • Statistics and Measurement Research Assistant • richard@arl.org