Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation

1. Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University

2. Objectives • To give an overview of SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation • To present the overall results of the 2003 & 2004 SCONUL Cohort • To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt

3. UK HE Libraries survey methods • General Satisfaction • Exit questionnaires • SCONUL Satisfaction Survey • Designed Surveys • Satisfaction vs Importance 1989- • Priority Surveys 1993- • Outcome measurement • ACPI project 2003- • National Student Survey (1 Question)

4. Survey methods used in the UK West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys

5. 1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

6. The UK approach • Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI) • 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2003 • 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2004 • 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participating in 2005 • 43 different institutions

7. University of Bath Cranfield University Royal Holloway & Bedford New College University of Lancaster University of Wales, Swansea University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of London Library University of Oxford University College Northampton University of Wales College Newport University of Gloucestershire De Montfort University Leeds Metropolitan University Liverpool John Moores University Robert Gordon University South Bank University University of the West of England, Bristol University of Wolverhampton LibQUAL+ Participants 2003

8. Brunel University Loughborough University University of Strathclyde University of York Glasgow University Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin UMIST + University of Manchester University of Liverpool Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster London South Bank University Napier University Queen Margaret University College University College Worcester University of East London LibQUAL+ Participants 2004

9. University of Exeter University of Edinburgh University of Dundee University of Bath University of Ulster University College Northampton University of Birmingham Roehampton University University of Glasgow University of Surrey Royal Holloway UoL City University Cranfield University University of Luton Dublin Institute of Technology London South Bank University Coventry University LibQUAL+ Participants 2005

10. University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of London Library University of Oxford Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin University of Manchester University of Birmingham CURL (9/28)

11. Cranfield University Royal Holloway & Bedford New College University of Wales, Swansea Brunel University Loughborough University University of Strathclyde UMIST University of Dundee University of Ulster University of Bath University of Lancaster University of York University of Exeter University of Surrey Pre-92 & 94 Group (5/13)

12. University of Wales College Newport De Montfort University Leeds Metropolitan University Liverpool John Moores University Robert Gordon University South Bank University University of the West of England, Bristol Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster Napier University Queen Margaret University College University of East London Roehampton University University of Luton Coventry University University of Wolverhampton CMU+ ( 15/37)

13. Former Colleges+ • University of Gloucestershire • University College Northampton • University College Worcester • Dublin Institute of Technology

14. Potential UK Sample 2003 • Full variety of institutions • 12% of institutions • 19% of HE students (>300,000) • 18% of Libraries • 18% of Library expenditure

15. Potential UK Sample 2004 • Full variety of institutions • 10% of institutions • 17% of HE students (>290,000) • 11% of Libraries • 15% of Library expenditure

16. Overall Potential UK Sample to 2004 • 20% of institutions • 31% of HE students (>530,000) • 26% of Libraries • 28% of Library expenditure

17. Time frame • December – Registration • January – UK Training • February to May – Surveys run • June – Results distributed • July – Dissemination • Plus second run in 2005 (Coventry)

18. Dimensions of Quality 2003 • Affect of Service • Information Access • Personal Control • Library as a Place

19. C. Cook & B. Thompson, 2002.

20. Dimensions of Quality 2004 • Affect of Service • Information Control • Library as a Place

21. F. Heath, 2005

22. 2003 – 5 additional questions for all SCONUL Participants • Access to photocopying and printing facilities • Main text and readings needed • Provision for information skills training • Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT problems • Availability of subject specialist assistance

23. 2004 – 5 local question selected from a range of over 100 Different questions tailored to local needs

24. Sample Survey

25. Sample Survey… continued

26. 2. Results from SCONUL

27. Respondents by Institution 2003

28. Respondents by Institution 2003(continued)

29. Respondents by Institution 2004

30. Respondents by Institution 2004(Continued)

31. Respondent Comparisons • Glasgow University • 2004 = 2,178 • 2003 = 503 • Increase by 1,675 • University of Liverpool • 2004 = 552 • 2003 = 398 • Increase by 154 • London South Bank University • 2004 = 568 • 2003 = 276 • Increase by 292

32. SCONUL 2004 16 institutions 16,611 respondents Increase by 4,692 LibQUAL+ 2004 202 institutions 112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 SCONUL 2003 20 institutions 11,919 respondents LibQUAL+ 2003 308 institutions 128,958 respondents Response Comparisons

33. Core Questions

34. Core Question Summary 2004

35. Core Question Summary 2003

36. Affect of Service - Adequacy Means

37. Information Control - Adequacy Means

38. Library as Place - Adequacy Means

39. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

40. ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

41. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2003 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

42. Undergraduates

43. Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004

44. Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003

45. Undergraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means

46. Undergraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means

47. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

48. ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place Overall

49. SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2003 Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

50. Postgraduates