Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation

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

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

3. Previous UK methods used • General Satisfaction • Exit questionnaires • SCONUL Satisfaction Survey • Designed Surveys • Satisfaction vs Importance 1989- • Priority Surveys 1993- • Outcome measurement? • ACPI project 2003-4

4. 1. The UK LibQUAL+ Pilot

5. 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) colleges participated in the UK Pilot

6. UK Institutions • 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

7. UK Institutions • 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

8. Potential UK Sample • Full variety of institutions • 12% of institutions • 17% of HE students (>250,000) • 20% of Libraries • 19% of Library expenditure

9. Steering Group • Stephen Town (Co-ordinator) • Maggie Black (UWE) • Jane Blount (Glasgow) • Michael Heaney (Oxford) • Margaret Oldroyd (De Montfort University) • Kate Robinson (Bath)

10. Time frame • October – MoU for participation • November – Survey modification • December – Registration • January 7-8 2003 – UK Training • February to May – Surveys run

11. Time frame • June – Results distributed • July – Dissemination (Northumbria+) • September - Review • December - Data workshop

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

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

14. Additional UK questions • 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

15. Sample Survey

16. Sample Survey… continued

17. 2. Results from SCONUL

18. Respondents by Institution

19. Respondents by Institution (continued)

20. Core Question Summary

21. Access to Information

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

23. Local Questions Summary

24. Core Question Summary for Undergraduates

25. Access to Information - Undergraduates

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

27. Core Question Summary for Postgraduate

28. Access to Information - Postgraduates

29. Library as a place – Postgraduates

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

31. Core Questions Summary - Academic Staff

32. Access to Information – Academic Staff

33. Core Question Dimensions Summary – Academic Staff Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”) Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control

34. 3. Feedback from participants and lessons learned

35. 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

36. Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process • Overall it is seen as straightforward • Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias • Some issues in obtaining: • Email addresses • Demographic data

37. Feedback on results • Overall results were as expected by the institutions • 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

38. How can LibQUAL+ be improved? • Summary and commentary on results • Ability to add own subject mix – for all UK participants • More flexibility on the content and language of the questionnaire • More interaction with other UK participating libraries • Provide results for full time and part time students • Simpler questionnaire design

39. Conclusions and lessons learned from the UK LibQUAL+ Pilot

40. 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

41. Lessons learned • 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 and subject categories are not always fitting • Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex

42. J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Royal Military College of Science Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk