LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland: five years experience J. Stephen Town and Selena Lock, Cranfield University
LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland: five years experience J. Stephen Town and Selena Lock, Cranfield University.
Dec 16, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
LibQUAL+ in the UK & Ireland:
five years experience
J. Stephen Town and Selena Lock,Cranfield University
Summary
• The overall SCONUL experience• Some detailed results and observations• Some thoughts on the role of LibQUAL+
in the context of ‘national’ academic library measurement
The SCONUL Experience
Conclusions
• LibQUAL+ successfully applied to the UK & Irish academic library sector (and beyond)
• Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK
• Twenty institutions have conducted repeat surveys
• Substantial impact of the results within institutions
Response Comparisons
• 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
• SCONUL 2006– 20 institutions– 19,108 respondents
• Increase by 1,753
• 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
• LibQUAL+ 2006– 298 institutions– 176,360 respondents
• Increase by 67,856
Overall Potential UK Sample to 2007
• Full variety of institutions• 49% of institutions*• 53% of HE students (>850,000)• 36% of Libraries• 45% of Library expenditure
*Based on Universities UK membership of 126
Detailed results and observations
Some questions?
• What is important to UK & Irish academic library users and non-users?
• What do the SCONUL cohort results over the past five years indicate about UK academic library performance and the influence of survey use?
• How does this compare to US results?• What does all this mean in the broader context
of library evaluation and quality development?
SCONUL Cohort priorities
Most Desired Aspects
Question textYears appeared in top 5 desired
Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 5
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 4
A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 5
The electronic information resources I need 4
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 3
Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information 4
Least Desired Aspects
Question text
Years appeared in bottom 5 desired
A comfortable and inviting location
5
Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion
5
Library staff who instil confidence in users
4
Giving users individual attention
5
Space for group learning and group study
5
Longitudinal Analysis
Data from 2003 to 2007 (Session 1)
Affect of Service
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mean
Information Control
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Library as Place
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Overall
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Dimensions of Quality Five-year analysis
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
Affect of ServiceFive-year analysis
Undergraduates
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mea
n
Postgraduates
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Academic Staff
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Library Staff
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
Information ControlFive-year analysis
Undergraduates
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mean
Postgraduates
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Academic Staff
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Library Staff
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
Library as PlaceFive-year analysis
Undergraduates
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mean
Postgraduates
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Academic Staff
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Library Staff
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
Overall Five-Year Analysis by User Group
Undergraduates Overall
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mean
Postgraduates Overall
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Academic Staff Overall
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Library Staff Overall
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Minimum Mean
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
Radar Charts
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2007 Session 1
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2004
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2005
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2006
SCONUL Undergraduate Results 2007Session 1
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2004
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2005
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2006
SCONUL Postgraduate Results 2007Session 1
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2004
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2005
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2006
SCONUL Academic Staff Results 2007Session 1
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2004
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2005
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2006
SCONUL Library Staff Results 2007Session 1
ARL College or University Summary 2004
ARL College or University Summary 2005
ARL College or University Summary 2006
US & UK Desired Comparisons
UK Desired Comparisions - Information Control
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006
US Desired Comparisions - Information Control
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
8.30
8.40
8.50
2003 2004 2005 2006
UK Desired Comparisions - Library as Place
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
7.70
7.90
2003 2004 2005 2006
US Desired Comparisions - Library as Place
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
7.70
7.90
2003 2004 2005 20066.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
7.70
7.90
2003 2004 2005 2006
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning LP-2 Quiet space for individual work
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research
LP-5 Space for group learning and group study
UK Desired Comparisions - Overall
7.676666667
7.58 7.58
7.998.01
7.967.99
7.4
7.63 7.64 7.647.61
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
2003 2004 2005 2006
Affect of service Information Control Library as Place
US Desired Comparisions - Overall
7.84
7.78 7.797.81
8.245 8.258.27 8.27
7.42
7.59 7.59
7.64
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
2003 2004 2005 2006
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
2003 2004 2005 2006
Affect of service Information Control Library as Place
Conclusions
The ‘national’ role for LibQUAL+?
Discussion
• National standardised comparative user satisfaction & benchmarking
• ‘Globalisation’ and international comparisons
• The Quality Assurance role– The QA cycle
• The Impact & Value role
J. Stephen Town & Selena Lock
Correspondence to:
Related Documents
