Service Quality Assessment in Research Libraries The Guelph/Waterloo ARL LibQUAL Projects

Service Quality Assessment in Research Libraries

The Guelph/Waterloo ARL LibQUAL Projects

Mark HaslettRon MacKinnonSusan Routliffe

February 1, 2002

Structure of today’s session

Part 1: History & context of LibQUAL

Part 2: Local administration Part 3: Local results Questions

Part 1

History & context of LibQUAL

ARL New Measures Initiative October 1999 Membership Meeting, the ARL

New Measures Initiative was established in response to the following two needs: Increasing demand for libraries to

demonstrate outcomes/impacts in areas important to the institution.

Increasing pressure to maximize use of resources - benchmark best practices to save or reallocate resources.

ARL New Measures Initiative Assessing outcomes important to

students and faculty Maximizing access to information

resources Bench marking best practices Improving services Reallocating resources

ARL New Measures Initiative

1. Higher education outcomes research review

2. LibQUAL (measures for library service quality)

3. Investigation of cost drivers (e.g. technical services cost study)

4. Development of a self-assisted guide for measuring performance of ILL/DD

5. E-Metrics (measures for electronic resources)

Some more context

Traditional focus on inputs “Research libraries have always placed

value in describing their… resources & services.”

Strong history of statistical data collection

Research libraries searching for improved measures

Past practice equated use with value and quantity with quality

Resulted in focus on tonnage But what about the outcome value

for faculty & students?

Research libraries searching for improved measures

New strategic objective for ARL:

“the need for alternatives to expenditure metrics as measures of library performance…”

We need to listen to our users

In order to help “describe and measure the performance of research libraries …”

Such listening should provide opportunities to: Develop & revise our services Use our information resources

effectively Provide for continuous assessment &

accountability

Multiple methods of listening

Active listening Complaints and suggestions Focus groups Students & faculty on committees Web usability studies Surveys

ARL’s LibQUAL proposal

A web survey instrument Identify user expectations -- and user

perceptions of how they're met Not a forecasting or predictive tool Not a ranking tool

LibQUAL goals Establish a library service quality

assessment program at ARL Develop web-based tools for assessing

library service quality Develop mechanisms and protocols for

evaluating libraries Identify best practices in providing

library service

LibQUAL

A research and development project Aim is to have a mature web survey

instrument within 4 to 5 years Focus on client expectations and

perceptions

LibQUAL’s origins Based on SERVQUAL survey instrument

Developed in the 1980s for use in the for-profit sector

Utilizes gap theory to measure service quality

“Only the perceptions of the customers matter.”

What does SERVQUAL measure?

FIVE “Dimensions” of service as perceived by customers: Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

LibQUAL (2000/2001)Nine dimensions of service

Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Access to Collections Library as Place Self-Reliance Instruction

LibQUAL start-up

Spring 1999 ARL meeting – ARL decision to engage in “LibQUAL” pilot project with Texas A&M

October 2000 – ARL Symposium on “Measuring Service Quality.”

LibQUAL phases Phase 1: 1999/2000

12 participating libraries One Canadian – York

Phase 2: 2000/2001 43 participating libraries Three Canadian - Guelph, McGill, Waterloo

Phase 3: 2001/2002 171 participating libraries Four Canadian – Alberta, Calgary, McGill,

York

Purpose of LibQUAL phase 2

Test what was learned in Phase 1 Increase sample size and diversity More Canadian universities Additional questions on, for example,

user self-reliance

Benefits of participation in phase 2

ARL’s collective work Information about user expectations Opportunity to identify service areas for

further review Sharing best practices Experience with this type of survey Experience analyzing the data

Part 2

Local administration of the survey

Research ethics approval

UW

UG

Survey population

How Many

How Selected

Email addresses

How obtained Substitutions Accuracy

Incentive to participate

Project wide incentive Palm pilot

Local incentives Gift certificates

Demographic Detail Population total Students by discipline and year Faculty by status

Start and finish dates

March 15 – March 30 PRAGMATIC FACTORS:

March Break End of classes Beginning of Exams

Testing the questionnaire

Why What we found

Messages to Survey Sample

Four messages Invitation URL Reminders

Responding to questions/comments/complai

nts

Who How much time

Nature of questions/comments/complai

nts Technical problems Can’t/won’t respond Respond later Already responded Spam Survey….

Comments about the survey

Too long Redundant questions Rating scale is too broad and not

meaningful Questions are confusing

Comments about the Survey More questions about collections No opportunity to provide comments Endless questions… Minimal/desired/perceived format not is

desirable; prefer strongly disagree/agree format

Comments about the Survey Poor visual layout, small dots on beige

page Uninviting layout, too dense Questions didn’t all fit on a screen,

needed to constantly scroll back and forth

Comments about the Survey No way to save a partially completed

survey Total number of questions should have

been indicated at the beginning

Comments about the Survey Should have let respondents indicate

which library they were commenting on Age and sex are never relevant on a

survey Irrelevant questions

Survey administration wrap-up

Summary report to Texas A&M / ARL project team

Part 3

Local results: What we learned

Three areas Demographic data Satisfaction data:

Expectations & perceptions Data models

Area 1: Demographic Data Good match with known discipline

populations More in common than we thought May foster collaboration rather than

competition

Respondents by DisciplineUW UG

Agr/Envl Studies 72 137 Architecture 5 3 Business 47 38 Education 1 2 Engineering 222 43 General Studies 1 5 Health Sciences 43 84 Humanities 78 50 Other 69 49 Performing & Fine Arts 11 10 Science 289 228 Social Sciences 124 145 Undecided 5 0 Total 967 794

Library Use on Premises

Electronic Resource Use

Respondents by Sex

Area 2: Satisfaction Data

Caution Do not over-interpret the data Mature methodology Not a mature instrument (R&D) Even when “mature”, gaps only

indicate probable concern further investigation

Example: When it comes to complete runs of journal

titles…

My desired service level is 1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9

My minimum service level is 1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9

My perception of the library’s service performance is

1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9

Zone of tolerance

Desired level---------------------------------

Zone of Tolerance

Minimum level-------------------------------

Zone of Tolerance / sample

Above and within the zone of tolerance

We do not exceed the zone of tolerance in any dimension

We are within the zone for most areas: Assurance Empathy Responsiveness Tangibles Self-Reliance Instruction

Below the zone of tolerance There were questions for which we fell

below the zone of tolerance; these are in 3 dimensions: Access to Collections Library as Place Reliability

Below the zone for…

Access to Collections

Full text delivered electronically to users

Comprehensive print collections

Complete runs of journal titles

Below the zone for…

Library as Place

A haven for quiet and solitude Space that facilitates quiet study Space for individual/group study…

Of more concern to students than faculty

Below the zone for…

Reliability

Accuracy in the catalogue, borrowing, and overdue records

What matters the least?

Visually appealing facilities Employees who appear to enjoy

what they do

What matters the most?

Accuracy in the catalogue, borrowing and overdue records

What services are perceived as among the worst?

A meditative place Haven for quiet & solitude Complete runs of journal titles

What service is perceived as the best?

“A library website enabling me to locate information on my own”

UW UG Perception 7.59 7.47 Minimum 7.04 7.17 Desired 8.46 8.47

Area 3: Data models “Same old” and “not so same old” tables vs. zone and radar charts Radar Charts

Green: GreatYellow: Very GoodBlue: I can accept thatRed: Danger

Radar chart / sample

“in-the-red” University

“Lotsa Quality” University

Undergraduates

Faculty

What next?

Updates and reports to various groups More in-depth look at the data (SPSS) Compare & contrast best practices Investigate possible problem areas:

follow-up focus groups, etc.)

Mark Haslett mhaslett@library.uwaterloo.ca

519-888-4567 x 3568

Ron MacKinnon rmk@uoguelph.ca

519-824-4120 x 3422

Susan Routliffe sroutlif@library.uwaterloo.ca

519-888-4567 x 3312

ARL LibQUALwww.arl.org/libqual/