LibQUAL+ in the UK and Ireland: three years findings and experience

1. LibQUAL+ in the UK and Ireland:three years findings and experience Stephen Town & Selena Lock Cranfield University 6th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measures in Libraries and Information Services 22nd August 2005

2. Objectives • To give an overview of SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation • To present the overall results of the 2003 - 2005 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. Overall Potential UK Sample to 2005 • Full variety of institutions • 25% of institutions • 32% of HE students (>700,000) • 34% of Libraries • 37% of Library expenditure

11. 2. Results from SCONUL

12. SCONUL 2003 20 institutions 11,919 respondents SCONUL 2004 16 institutions 16,611 respondents Increase by 4,692 SCONUL 2005 16 institutions 17,355 respondents Increase by 744 LibQUAL+ 2003 308 institutions 128,958 respondents LibQUAL+ 2004 202 institutions 112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 LibQUAL+ 2005 199 institutions 108,504 respondents Decrease by 4,047 Response Comparisons

13. SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005

14. Affect of Service Information Control Library as a Place Affect of Service Access to Information Personal Control Library as Place Dimensions of Quality 2004 & 2005 Dimensions of Quality 2003

15. F. Heath, 2005

16. Core Questions

17. ARL College or University Summary 2004

18. SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005

19. SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004

20. SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003

21. Overall Comparisons

22. Undergraduate Results 2005

23. Postgraduate Results 2005

24. Academic Staff Results 2005

25. Library Staff Results 2005

26. Affect of Service Comparisons

27. Information Control Comparisons

28. Library as Place Comparisons

29. Overall Comparisons by User Group

30. 3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

31. Purpose for participating • Benchmarking • Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+ • Trialling alternative survey methods • More library focused than previous in-house method • Supporting Charter Mark application process • Planned institutional survey failed to happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap.

32. Primary aim(s) for surveying users • Understand what their opinions of our service is, to inform strategic planning. • Making sure we knew what customers concerns really are as we have had much lobbying by one group of students. Also nearly three years since last survey, so needed an update after much change in services. • User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to know how they view us and whether we are improving. 3 years of the same survey can have some credibility. • To gain information for better planning of our service and make adjustments in areas found wanting.

33. Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process • Majority found it straightforward • Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias • Some issues in obtaining: • Email addresses • Demographic data • The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part

34. Feedback on results • Overall results were as expected by the institutions • “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence known already” • Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys • Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one

35. How can LibQUAL+ be improved? • Summary and commentary on results • More flexibility on the content and language of the questionnaire • More interaction with other UK participating libraries • Providing results by department, campus, and for full time and part time students • Simpler questionnaire design • We really need a ConvergedServQual tool! • Needs to allow you to use a word other than library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)

36. Changes made as a result of the survey • It has strengthened our case in asking for more money to improve the environment. • We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals which had been axed several weeks before the survey was conducted. • Implementing PG forums to address issues raised • Main Library makeover/Group study area • Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating to resource expenditure at the most senior levels

37. Conclusions

38. Conclusions • LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector • Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK • At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again

39. Lessons learnt • The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys • The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate • Collecting demographics is time consuming • Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex

40. Acknowledgements • Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries • Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M University • Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, Austin • Martha Kyrillidou & ARL • Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL Newsletter. Number 31. • All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

41. J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Defence College of Management and Technology Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk Selena Lock Research and Development Officer Defence College of Management and Technology s.a.lock@cranfield.ac.uk