After the Academy Selena Lock LibQUAL+ Results Meeting 22nd August 2005
Jan 03, 2016
Cranfield University at DCMT (RMCS)
• Quality Management Student Perspective Survey 1993
• Exit Questionnaires 1994-• Information Services Survey 1996
– Priority Search
• DTC MSc & MA Course Students 1997– Repeat of 1996 methodology
Continued …
• Researchers Survey 1998– First Web-based survey; PR methodology
• SCONUL ACPI WGUS Survey 1999– Satisfaction vs importance template; PR analysis
• University Libraries Survey 2001– SCONUL template +; PR analysis
• LibQUAL+ Pilot 2003• LibQUAL+ 2005
LibQUAL+ 2003
• Ran LibQUAL+ March 2003– 538 Responses overall– 166 at DCMT
• Overall results were positive• Further data analysis conducted by the
Library and Information Statistics Unit at Loughborough
LISU Report
• Campus breakdown necessary• Also provided analysis:
– By user group– By gender– By discipline (overall)– Comparisons of campuses– Comparisons to the SCONUL Average– Comparisons to a US Average
• Including commentary & recommendations
Further analysis conducted
• Comments analysed in-house• Detailed management report produced
at DCMT– Building upon LISU findings– Including Comment analysis
LibQUAL+ 2005
• Ran LibQUAL+ February to April 2005– 768 Responses overall– 237 at DCMT
• 15.8% Response rate
• Overall results were positive• Decided to develop analysis skills
internally
2005 Service Quality Evaluation Academy
• Intensive five-day programme• Focused on both qualitative and
quantitative methods for collecting and analyzing library service quality data
• Some focus on LibQUAL+, but basic concepts applicable to service quality evaluations in general
• Introduced the use of Atlas.TI and SPSS to analyse results
What did I gain?
• Full understanding of all LibQUAL+ data and how it is calculated
• Further advanced statistical measures• Experience in using SPSS to calculate these• Understanding of Qualitative methods • Experience in Focus Groups• Practical knowledge of how to use Atlas.TI with
LibQUAL+ data• Shared experience with other LibQUAL+
participants
Results of training (so far)
• Detailed DCMT report – By User Group– By Discipline
• Business & Management• Computer Science• Engineering & Technology
– Including Comment Analysis
• Initial Benchmarking• Comparisons with local Exit Questionnaire
DCMT Exit Questionnaire 2003
• Exit Questionnaire– Conducted June 2003– Issued to all graduating students– Ratings calculated on a 6 point scale– Total responses at Shrivenham = 152
• LibQUAL+– Conducted March 2003– Issued to all staff and students– Rating calculated on a 9 point scale– Total responses at Shrivenham = 166
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Opening hours. Assistance fromlibrary staff.
Stock of relevantbooks (Print or
Electronic).
Stock of relevantjournals (print or
electronic).
Availablilty ofelectronic
databases andservices.
Trainingprovision in use
of library.
library webpages.
Inter libraryloans.
Provision ofcomputers in
library.
Mean
Exit Questionnaire mean score LibQUAL+ Perceived Mean Exit Questionnaire importance score LibQUAL+ Desired Mean
Comparison Conclusions
• Users Perceptions better in Exit Questionnaire if not closely matched
• Bigger difference between “importance” and “desired”
• LibQUAL+ sets a bigger agenda for chance, even when only considering nine questions
Further analysis planned
• Detailed analysis of other Campuses results
• Benchmarking– Internally– Nationally– Internationally
Potential research
• Is there a correlation between Information Skills and Information Control?
• Trend analysis by institution type– e.g. CURL, Old, New & HEC
• Comparisons with SCONUL Statistics• Comparisons with the SCONUL survey
and National Student Survey
Selena Lock
Research and Development OfficerDefence College of Management and
Technology