The University of Scranton Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University www.libqual.org Language: Institution Type: Consortium: User Group: American English College or University None All Language: Institution Type: Consortium: User Group: American English College or University None All
82
Embed
The University of Scranton · Page 4 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton 1.2 LibQUAL+®: A Project from StatsQUAL® I would personally like to say a word about
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
The University of Scranton
Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University
www.libqual.org
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
The University of Scranton
Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University
www.libqual.org
Contributors
Colleen Cook MaShana DavisTexas A&M University Association of Research Libraries
Fred Heath Martha KyrillidouUniversity of Texas Association of Research Libraries
Bruce Thompson Gary RoebuckTexas A&M University Association of Research Libraries
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Russell L. Thompson. Reliability and Structure of LibQUAL+™ Scores:
Measuring Perceived Library Service Quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2 (2002): 3-12.
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Kyrillidou, M. (2005). Concurrent validity of LibQUAL+® scores: What do
LibQUAL+® scores measure? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31: 517-22.
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Kyrillidou, M. “Using Localized Survey Items to Augment Standardized
Benchmarking Measures: A LibQUAL+® Study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2) (2006): 219-30.
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “Stability of Library Service Quality Benchmarking Norms
Across Time and Cohorts: A LibQUAL+® Study.” Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Conference of
Library and Information Education and Practice (A-LIEP), Singapore, April 3-4 2006.
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “How Can You Evaluate the Integrity of Your Library
Assessment Data: Intercontinental LibQUAL+® Analysis Used as Concrete Heuristic Examples.” Paper
presented at the Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, and Practical Assessment,
Charlottesville, VA, August 4-6, 2006.
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “On-premises Library versus Google™-Like Information
Gateway Usage Patterns: A LibQUAL+® Study.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 7 (4) (Oct 2007a):
463-480.
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “User library service expectations in health science vs.
other settings: a LibQUAL+® Study.” Health Information and Libraries Journal 24 (8) Supplement 1,
(Dec 2007b): 38-45.
Thompson, B., Colleen C. Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou. “Library Users Service Desires: a LibQUAL+® Study.”
Library Quarterly 78 (1) (Jan 2008): 1-18.
Zeithaml, Valerie, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry. Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer
Perceptions and Expectations. New York: Free Press, 1990.
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Page 20 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
1.7 Library Statistics for Univ of Scranton
The statistical data below were provided by the participating institution in the online Representativeness* section. Definitions for these items can be found in the ARL Statistics: <http://www.arl.org/stats/>.
Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When statistical data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
493,350
6,184
22,364
19
17
Volumes held June 30, 2008:
Volumes added during year - Gross:
Total number of current serials received:
Total library expenditures (in USD):
Personnel - professional staff, FTE:
Personnel - support staff, FTE:
$3,344,865
1.8 Contact Information for Univ of Scranton
The person below served as the institution's primary LibQUAL+® liaison during this survey implementation.
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 21 of 77
2 Demographic Summary for Univ of Scranton
2.1 Respondents by User Group
User Group
Respondent
n
Respondent
%
Undergraduate
18 8.33%First year
28 12.96%Second year
34 15.74%Third year
23 10.65%Fourth year
1 0.46%Fifth year and above
0 0.00%Non-degree
Sub Total: 48.15% 104
Graduate
28 12.96%Masters
2 0.93%Doctoral
1 0.46%Non-degree or Undecided
Sub Total: 14.35% 31
Faculty
10 4.63%Adjunct Faculty
18 8.33%Assistant Professor
17 7.87%Associate Professor
2 0.93%Lecturer
28 12.96%Professor
1 0.46%Other Academic Status
Sub Total: 35.19% 76
Library Staff
0 0.00%Administrator
0 0.00%Manager, Head of Unit
1 0.46%Public Services
0 0.00%Systems
0 0.00%Technical Services
1 0.46%Other
Sub Total: 0.93% 2
Staff
0 0.00%Research Staff
3 1.39%Other staff positions
Sub Total: 1.39% 3
Total: 216 100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Page 22 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
2.2 Population and Respondents by User Sub-Group
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by sub-group (e.g. First year, Masters, Professor), based on user responses to the demographic questions at the end of the survey instrument and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*.
The chart maps the percentage of respondents for each user subgroup in red. Population percentages for each user subgroup are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each user sub-group for the general population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
First year (Undergraduate)
Second year (Undergraduate)
Third year (Undergraduate)
Fourth year (Undergraduate)
Fifth year and above (Undergraduate)
Non-degree (Undergraduate)
Masters (Graduate)
Doctoral (Graduate)
Non-degree or Undecided (Graduate)
Adjunct Faculty (Faculty)
Assistant Professor (Faculty)
Associate Professor (Faculty)
Lecturer (Faculty)
Professor (Faculty)
Other Academic Status (Faculty)
Percentage
Population Profile by User Sub-Group
Respondent Profile by User Sub-Group
Us
er
Su
b-G
rou
p
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 23 of 77
Respondents
nUser Sub-Group
Respondents
%
Population
N
Population
% %N - %n
18 8.53% 1,175 14.72%First year (Undergraduate) 6.19%
28 13.27% 1,001 12.54%Second year (Undergraduate) -0.73%
34 16.11% 940 11.78%Third year (Undergraduate) -4.34%
23 10.90% 948 11.88%Fourth year (Undergraduate) 0.97%
1 0.47% 68 0.85%Fifth year and above (Undergraduate) 0.38%
0 0.00% 117 1.47%Non-degree (Undergraduate) 1.47%
28 13.27% 1,516 18.99%Masters (Graduate) 5.72%
2 0.95% 102 1.28%Doctoral (Graduate) 0.33%
1 0.47% 1,642 20.57%Non-degree or Undecided (Graduate) 20.09%
18 8.53% 61 0.76%Assistant Professor (Faculty) -7.77%
17 8.06% 81 1.01%Associate Professor (Faculty) -7.04%
2 0.95% 10 0.13%Lecturer (Faculty) -0.82%
28 13.27% 87 1.09%Professor (Faculty) -12.18%
1 0.47% 14 0.18%Other Academic Status (Faculty) -0.30%
Total: 100.00% 7,983 211 100.00% 0.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
Page 24 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+® standard discipline categories. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
2.3 Population and Respondents by Standard Discipline
0
4
8
12
16
20
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science
General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 25 of 77
Social Sciences / Psychology 28 13.27% 861 14.33% 1.06%
Undecided 9 4.27% 122 2.03% -2.24%
Total: 100.00% 6,010 211 100.00% 0.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
Page 26 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
2.4 Population and Respondents by Customized Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
0
4
8
12
16
20
Biology/Chemistry/Environ Science
Communications / Journalism
Computing Science/Math
Counseling/HS/HAHR
Distance Learner-KSOM or SEOL
Education
English/Theatre/World Cultures & Lang
General Studies
History/Political Science
KSOM
Nursing/OT/PT
Other or Undeclared
Philosophy/Theology/RS
Physics/EE
Psychology
Sociology/Criminal Justice/Gerontology
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 27 of 77
Page 28 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
2.5 Respondent Profile by Age
This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Age
Respondents
%
Respondents
n
Under 18 0 0.00%
18 - 22 99 46.48%
23 - 30 15 7.04%
31 - 45 32 15.02%
46 - 65 59 27.70%
Over 65 8 3.76%
Total: 100.00% 213
2.6 Population and Respondent Profiles by Sex
The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Sex
Respondents
%
Respondents
n
Population
N
Population
%
Male 75 35.21%43.10% 2,220
Female 138 64.79%56.90% 2,931
Total: 100.00% 213100.00% 5,151
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 29 of 77
This radar chart shows the aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service , Information Control, and Library as Place.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red.
The following two tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
3.1 Core Questions Summary
3 Survey Item Summary for Univ of Scranton
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AS-1
AS-2
AS-3
AS-4
AS-5AS-6
AS-7
AS-8
AS-9
IC-1
IC-2
IC-3
IC-4
IC-5
IC-6
IC-7IC-8
LP-1
LP-2
LP-3
LP-4
LP-5
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Page 30 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion TextID
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service
Employees who instill confidence in users 6.12 7.62 7.33 1.21AS-1 199-0.29
Employees who are consistently courteousAS-3 208 1.78 1.43 1.82 1.26 1.28
Readiness to respond to users' questionsAS-4 203 1.72 1.47 1.74 1.33 1.29
Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions
AS-5 211 1.82 1.33 1.89 1.31 1.33
Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion
AS-6 212 1.87 1.31 1.72 1.29 1.37
Employees who understand the needs of their
users
AS-7 207 1.86 1.44 1.73 1.26 1.39
Willingness to help usersAS-8 207 1.87 1.47 1.72 1.27 1.52
Dependability in handling users' service problemsAS-9 169 2.03 1.85 2.09 1.41 1.62
Information Control
Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office
IC-1 212 1.86 1.90 1.99 1.66 1.43
A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own
IC-2 210 1.79 1.63 1.90 1.43 1.28
The printed library materials I need for my workIC-3 205 1.88 1.87 1.96 1.61 1.60
The electronic information resources I needIC-4 211 1.80 1.85 2.03 1.53 1.28
Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information
IC-5 206 1.76 1.93 2.26 1.75 1.23
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own
IC-6 205 1.86 1.61 1.92 1.45 1.33
Making information easily accessible for
independent use
IC-7 211 1.85 1.65 1.84 1.45 1.28
Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work
IC-8 207 1.90 1.99 2.04 1.60 1.50
Library as Place
Library space that inspires study and learningLP-1 192 1.99 2.23 2.32 1.86 1.79
Quiet space for individual activitiesLP-2 193 1.99 2.35 2.45 1.76 1.76
A comfortable and inviting locationLP-3 203 2.09 1.96 2.22 1.50 1.61
A getaway for study, learning, or researchLP-4 200 1.91 1.99 1.98 1.76 1.71
Community space for group learning and group
study
LP-5 185 2.20 2.39 2.55 1.82 1.85
214Overall: 1.53 1.30 1.52 1.11 1.09
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Page 32 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.
3.2 Core Question Dimensions Summary
4
5
6
7
8
9
Information
Control
Affect of
Service
Library as
Place
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")
Range of Minimum to Desired
Me
an
Dimension
Overall
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 33 of 77
The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanDimension
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service 6.75 7.91 7.83 1.08 213-0.07
Information Control 6.93 8.09 7.57 0.64 214-0.51
Library as Place 6.50 7.72 7.34 0.84 208-0.38
6.77 7.95 7.64 0.86 214-0.31Overall:
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDDimension
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Affect of Service 213 1.65 1.27 1.53 1.14 1.23
Information Control 214 1.56 1.43 1.61 1.24 1.08
Library as Place 208 1.82 1.88 1.97 1.43 1.57
The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
214Overall: 1.53 1.30 1.52 1.11 1.09
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Page 34 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
3.3 Local Questions Summary
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion Text
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
6.54 7.48 7.77 1.23 184 0.29
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
5.62 6.66 7.42 1.79 125 0.75
This table displays the standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium , where n is the number of respondents for each question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDQuestion Text
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
184 2.21 1.68 1.81 1.48 1.92
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
125 2.63 2.18 2.28 1.85 2.48
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 35 of 77
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions on the LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.
3.4 General Satisfaction Questions Summary
MeanSatisfaction Question nSD
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. 8.08 213 1.22
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.
7.58 214 1.58
How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.78 214 1.24
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where n is the number of respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the information literacy outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".
3.5 Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary
MeanInformation Literacy Outcomes Questions nSD
The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 6.86 214 1.85
The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline or work. 7.38 214 1.63
The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits or work. 7.43 214 1.62
The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information.
6.78 214 1.78
The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study. 7.05 214 1.57
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Page 36 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.
3.6 Library Use Summary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Never
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?
How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?
How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?
Frequency
P
erc
en
tag
e
Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never n / %
How often do you use resources on library
premises?
38
17.76%
83
38.79%
62
28.97%
19
8.88%
12
5.61%
214
100.00%
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
32
14.95%
106
49.53%
52
24.30%
17
7.94%
7
3.27%
214
100.00%
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?
143
66.82%
50
23.36%
11
5.14%
3
1.40%
7
3.27%
214
100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All (Excluding Library Staff)
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 37 of 77
4 Undergraduate Summary
4.1 Demographic Summary for Undergraduate
4.1.1 Population and Respondent Profiles for Undergraduate by Standard Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+® standard discipline categories. The chart
maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue.
The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey
respondents (n).
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science
General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Page 38 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
Social Sciences / Psychology 14 13.46% 536 12.93% -0.54%
Undecided 3 2.88% 122 2.94% 0.06%
Total: 100.00% 4,147 104 100.00% 0.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 39 of 77
4.1.2 Population and Respondent Profiles for Undergraduate by Customized Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
Biology/Chemistry/Environ Science
Communications / Journalism
Computing Science/Math
Counseling/HS/HAHR
Distance Learner-KSOM or SEOL
Education
English/Theatre/World Cultures & Lang
General Studies
History/Political Science
KSOM
Nursing/OT/PT
Other or Undeclared
Philosophy/Theology/RS
Physics/EE
Psychology
Sociology/Criminal Justice/Gerontology
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Page 40 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 41 of 77
4.1.3 Respondent Profile for Undergraduate by Age
This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Respondents
%
Respondents
nAge
Under 18 0 0.00%
18 - 22 97 93.27%
23 - 30 3 2.88%
31 - 45 1 0.96%
46 - 65 3 2.88%
Over 65 0 0.00%
Total: 100.00% 104
4.1.4 Population and Respondent Profiles for Undergraduate by Sex
The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Respondents
%
Respondents
n
Population
%
Population
NSex
Male 22 21.15%43.32% 1,790
Female 82 78.85%56.68% 2,342
Total: 100.00% 104 4,132 100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Page 42 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
4.2 Core Questions Summary for Undergraduate
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service , Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AS-1
AS-2
AS-3
AS-4
AS-5AS-6
AS-7
AS-8
AS-9
IC-1
IC-2
IC-3
IC-4
IC-5
IC-6
IC-7IC-8
LP-1
LP-2
LP-3
LP-4
LP-5
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 43 of 77
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion TextID
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service
Employees who instill confidence in users 5.74 7.35 6.92 1.18AS-1 96-0.44
Employees who are consistently courteousAS-3 102 1.98 1.65 2.03 1.40 1.47
Readiness to respond to users' questionsAS-4 99 1.95 1.55 1.81 1.36 1.46
Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions
AS-5 102 2.15 1.51 2.03 1.25 1.43
Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion
AS-6 102 2.11 1.59 1.95 1.42 1.57
Employees who understand the needs of their
users
AS-7 101 2.07 1.61 1.83 1.28 1.53
Willingness to help usersAS-8 100 2.04 1.59 1.82 1.39 1.57
Dependability in handling users' service problemsAS-9 80 2.16 1.83 2.24 1.36 1.52
Information Control
Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office
IC-1 104 2.08 2.24 2.15 1.74 1.68
A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own
IC-2 104 2.05 1.74 1.97 1.43 1.48
The printed library materials I need for my workIC-3 102 2.00 1.55 1.88 1.33 1.54
The electronic information resources I needIC-4 103 2.08 2.08 2.29 1.54 1.47
Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information
IC-5 102 2.09 2.42 2.84 2.04 1.44
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own
IC-6 101 2.04 1.79 2.19 1.56 1.45
Making information easily accessible for
independent use
IC-7 103 2.06 1.80 2.04 1.54 1.33
Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work
IC-8 102 2.08 2.06 2.09 1.53 1.66
Library as Place
Library space that inspires study and learningLP-1 103 1.95 2.11 2.44 1.82 1.47
Quiet space for individual activitiesLP-2 104 2.10 2.37 2.72 1.90 1.59
A comfortable and inviting locationLP-3 104 2.18 1.70 2.17 1.32 1.33
A getaway for study, learning, or researchLP-4 103 2.09 2.15 2.11 1.68 1.72
Community space for group learning and group
study
LP-5 102 2.28 2.49 2.73 1.99 1.63
104Overall: 1.77 1.47 1.72 1.14 1.19
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 45 of 77
4.3 Core Question Dimensions Summary for Undergraduate
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Information
Control
Affect of
Service
Library as
Place
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")
Range of Minimum to Desired
Me
an
Dimension
Overall
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Page 46 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanDimension
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service 6.43 7.71 7.54 1.11 103-0.17
Information Control 6.63 7.91 7.43 0.81 104-0.48
Library as Place 6.60 8.00 7.24 0.64 104-0.76
6.55 7.86 7.44 0.89 104-0.42Overall:
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDDimension
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Affect of Service 103 1.88 1.45 1.71 1.22 1.35
Information Control 104 1.81 1.64 1.82 1.29 1.21
Library as Place 104 1.90 1.84 2.09 1.43 1.34
The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
104Overall: 1.77 1.47 1.72 1.14 1.19
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 47 of 77
4.4 Local Questions Summary for Undergraduate
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion Text
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
6.26 7.30 7.45 1.19 94 0.15
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
5.54 6.60 7.43 1.89 63 0.83
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDQuestion Text
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
94 2.36 1.77 1.91 1.70 1.93
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
63 2.73 2.16 2.49 1.65 2.33
This table displays the standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium , where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Page 48 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
4.5 General Satisfaction Questions Summary for Undergraduate
MeanSatisfaction Question nSD
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. 7.89 1.20 104
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research,
and/or teaching needs. 7.50 1.55 104
How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.61 1.18 104
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction with
Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions on the
LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.
4.6 Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary for Undergraduate
MeanInformation Literacy Outcomes Questions nSD
The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 6.67 1.95 104
The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline or work. 7.25 1.64 104
The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits or work. 7.35 1.60 104
The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information. 6.74 1.73 104
The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study. 7.01 1.42 104
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the information literacy
outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale
from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 49 of 77
4.7 Library Use Summary for Undergraduate
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Never
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?
How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?
How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?
Frequency
P
erc
en
tag
e
Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never n / %
How often do you use resources on library
premises?
27
25.96%
48
46.15%
21
20.19%
7
6.73%
1
0.96%
104
100.00%
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
6
5.77%
46
44.23%
36
34.62%
12
11.54%
4
3.85%
104
100.00%
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?
76
73.08%
21
20.19%
4
3.85%
1
0.96%
2
1.92%
104
100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Undergraduate
Page 50 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
5 Graduate Summary
5.1 Demographic Summary for Graduate
5.1.1 Population and Respondent Profiles for Graduate by Standard Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+® standard discipline categories. The chart
maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue.
The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey
respondents (n).
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science
General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 51 of 77
Social Sciences / Psychology 7 22.58% 276 19.00% -3.59%
Undecided 2 6.45% 0 0.00% -6.45%
Total: 100.00% 1,453 31 100.00% 0.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Page 52 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
5.1.2 Population and Respondent Profiles for Graduate by Customized Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Biology/Chemistry/Environ Science
Communications / Journalism
Computing Science/Math
Counseling/HS/HAHR
Distance Learner-KSOM or SEOL
Education
English/Theatre/World Cultures & Lang
General Studies
History/Political Science
KSOM
Nursing/OT/PT
Other or Undeclared
Philosophy/Theology/RS
Physics/EE
Psychology
Sociology/Criminal Justice/Gerontology
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 53 of 77
Page 54 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
5.1.3 Respondent Profile for Graduate by Age
This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Respondents
%
Respondents
nAge
Under 18 0 0.00%
18 - 22 2 6.45%
23 - 30 11 35.48%
31 - 45 12 38.71%
46 - 65 6 19.35%
Over 65 0 0.00%
Total: 100.00% 31
5.1.4 Population and Respondent Profiles for Graduate by Sex
The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Respondents
%
Respondents
n
Population
%
Population
NSex
Male 11 35.48%36.22% 272
Female 20 64.52%63.78% 479
Total: 100.00% 31 751 100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 55 of 77
5.2 Core Questions Summary for Graduate
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service , Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AS-1
AS-2
AS-3
AS-4
AS-5AS-6
AS-7
AS-8
AS-9
IC-1
IC-2
IC-3
IC-4
IC-5
IC-6
IC-7IC-8
LP-1
LP-2
LP-3
LP-4
LP-5
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Page 56 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion TextID
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service
Employees who instill confidence in users 6.33 7.63 7.41 1.07AS-1 27-0.22
Employees who are consistently courteousAS-3 28 1.42 1.04 1.56 1.27 0.86
Readiness to respond to users' questionsAS-4 29 1.15 0.94 1.33 0.87 1.06
Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions
AS-5 30 1.22 1.17 1.36 0.99 1.17
Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion
AS-6 31 1.57 1.00 1.45 1.15 1.41
Employees who understand the needs of their
users
AS-7 28 1.37 0.86 1.32 1.18 1.03
Willingness to help usersAS-8 29 1.70 1.45 1.48 1.24 1.77
Dependability in handling users' service problemsAS-9 25 1.71 1.54 1.60 1.12 1.65
Information Control
Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office
IC-1 30 1.43 1.36 1.33 1.35 1.13
A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own
IC-2 29 1.24 1.57 1.57 1.45 1.16
The printed library materials I need for my workIC-3 26 1.70 1.68 1.50 1.86 1.70
The electronic information resources I needIC-4 29 1.45 1.57 1.37 1.50 1.01
Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information
IC-5 27 1.07 1.55 1.60 1.32 0.94
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own
IC-6 29 1.40 1.48 1.53 1.28 0.83
Making information easily accessible for
independent use
IC-7 31 1.16 1.15 1.21 1.14 1.02
Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work
IC-8 29 1.66 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.08
Library as Place
Library space that inspires study and learningLP-1 21 2.36 3.22 3.02 2.11 2.29
Quiet space for individual activitiesLP-2 20 1.56 2.01 1.79 1.50 1.46
A comfortable and inviting locationLP-3 22 1.87 2.44 2.46 1.68 1.57
A getaway for study, learning, or researchLP-4 24 1.67 1.08 1.22 1.38 1.69
Community space for group learning and group
study
LP-5 21 1.79 1.60 1.63 1.61 1.65
31Overall: 0.93 1.04 1.00 0.88 1.00
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Page 58 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
5.3 Core Question Dimensions Summary for Graduate
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Information
Control
Affect of
Service
Library as
Place
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")
Range of Minimum to Desired
Me
an
Dimension
Overall
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 59 of 77
The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanDimension
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service 7.17 7.91 7.84 0.67 31-0.07
Information Control 7.62 8.30 7.74 0.11 31-0.57
Library as Place 6.79 7.53 7.39 0.60 26-0.14
7.28 8.03 7.74 0.46 31-0.29Overall:
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDDimension
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Affect of Service 31 0.97 0.95 1.01 0.86 1.10
Information Control 31 1.00 1.12 1.06 0.99 0.89
Library as Place 26 1.80 1.99 1.85 1.31 1.84
The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
31Overall: 0.93 1.04 1.00 0.88 1.00
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Page 60 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
5.4 Local Questions Summary for Graduate
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion Text
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
7.00 7.37 8.05 1.05 19 0.68
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
6.10 7.24 7.71 1.62 21 0.48
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDQuestion Text
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
19 2.24 2.14 2.12 1.08 2.27
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
21 2.34 1.97 1.83 1.35 2.21
This table displays the standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium , where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 61 of 77
5.5 General Satisfaction Questions Summary for Graduate
MeanSatisfaction Question nSD
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. 7.65 1.92 31
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research,
and/or teaching needs. 7.81 1.17 31
How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.84 1.07 31
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction with
Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions on the
LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.
5.6 Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary for Graduate
MeanInformation Literacy Outcomes Questions nSD
The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 7.10 1.78 31
The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline or work. 7.81 1.35 31
The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits or work. 7.71 1.44 31
The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information. 6.94 1.88 31
The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study. 7.26 1.90 31
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the information literacy
outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale
from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Page 62 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
5.7 Library Use Summary for Graduate
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Never
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?
How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?
How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?
Frequency
P
erc
en
tag
e
Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never n / %
How often do you use resources on library
premises?
4
12.90%
4
12.90%
10
32.26%
3
9.68%
10
32.26%
31
100.00%
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
4
12.90%
19
61.29%
5
16.13%
1
3.23%
2
6.45%
31
100.00%
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?
14
45.16%
12
38.71%
3
9.68%
0
0.00%
2
6.45%
31
100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Graduate
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 63 of 77
6 Faculty Summary
6.1 Demographic Summary for Faculty
6.1.1 Population and Respondent Profiles for Faculty by Standard Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+® standard discipline categories. The chart
maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue.
The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey
respondents (n).
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science
General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Page 64 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
Social Sciences / Psychology 7 9.21% 49 11.95% 2.74%
Undecided 4 5.26% 0 0.00% -5.26%
Total: 100.00% 410 76 100.00% 0.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 65 of 77
6.1.2 Population and Respondent Profiles for Faculty by Customized Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Biology/Chemistry/Environ Science
Communications / Journalism
Computing Science/Math
Counseling/HS/HAHR
Distance Learner-KSOM or SEOL
Education
English/Theatre/World Cultures & Lang
General Studies
History/Political Science
KSOM
Nursing/OT/PT
Other or Undeclared
Philosophy/Theology/RS
Physics/EE
Psychology
Sociology/Criminal Justice/Gerontology
D
isc
ipli
ne
Percentage
Population Profile by Discipline
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Page 66 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 67 of 77
6.1.3 Respondent Profile for Faculty by Age
This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Respondents
%
Respondents
nAge
Under 18 0 0.00%
18 - 22 0 0.00%
23 - 30 1 1.33%
31 - 45 19 25.33%
46 - 65 47 62.67%
Over 65 8 10.67%
Total: 100.00% 75
6.1.4 Population and Respondent Profiles for Faculty by Sex
The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Respondents
%
Respondents
n
Population
%
Population
NSex
Male 40 53.33%58.96% 158
Female 35 46.67%41.04% 110
Total: 100.00% 75 268 100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Page 68 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
6.2 Core Questions Summary for Faculty
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service , Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AS-1
AS-2
AS-3
AS-4
AS-5AS-6
AS-7
AS-8
AS-9
IC-1
IC-2
IC-3
IC-4
IC-5
IC-6
IC-7IC-8
LP-1
LP-2
LP-3
LP-4
LP-5
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 69 of 77
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion TextID
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service
Employees who instill confidence in users 6.62 8.05 7.84 1.22AS-1 73-0.22
Employees who are consistently courteousAS-3 75 1.61 1.11 1.52 0.95 1.07
Readiness to respond to users' questionsAS-4 72 1.51 1.49 1.74 1.38 1.05
Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions
AS-5 76 1.44 1.12 1.86 1.50 1.25
Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion
AS-6 76 1.60 0.89 1.47 1.03 0.97
Employees who understand the needs of their
users
AS-7 75 1.65 1.34 1.69 1.22 1.28
Willingness to help usersAS-8 75 1.65 1.31 1.63 1.09 1.34
Dependability in handling users' service problemsAS-9 61 1.86 1.77 1.93 1.59 1.53
Information Control
Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office
IC-1 75 1.50 1.56 2.00 1.62 1.08
A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own
IC-2 74 1.34 1.51 1.84 1.46 0.91
The printed library materials I need for my workIC-3 74 1.67 2.19 2.15 1.87 1.50
The electronic information resources I needIC-4 76 1.41 1.63 1.85 1.57 1.02
Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information
IC-5 74 1.32 1.07 1.41 1.29 1.02
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own
IC-6 72 1.63 1.42 1.64 1.33 1.30
Making information easily accessible for
independent use
IC-7 74 1.66 1.64 1.75 1.43 1.31
Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work
IC-8 73 1.70 2.01 2.14 1.77 1.35
Library as Place
Library space that inspires study and learningLP-1 65 1.85 1.84 1.78 1.87 1.85
Quiet space for individual activitiesLP-2 66 1.90 2.28 2.11 1.52 2.00
A comfortable and inviting locationLP-3 74 1.94 1.97 2.12 1.71 1.78
A getaway for study, learning, or researchLP-4 70 1.72 1.99 1.99 2.02 1.73
Community space for group learning and group
study
LP-5 59 2.08 2.13 2.34 1.60 2.01
76Overall: 1.31 1.08 1.36 1.13 0.95
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 71 of 77
6.3 Core Question Dimensions Summary for Faculty
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Information
Control
Affect of
Service
Library as
Place
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")
Range of Minimum to Desired
Me
an
Dimension
Overall
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Page 72 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanDimension
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Affect of Service 7.07 8.23 8.22 1.15 76-0.01
Information Control 7.09 8.27 7.69 0.60 76-0.58
Library as Place 6.31 7.46 7.48 1.17 75 0.02
6.92 8.09 7.86 0.94 76-0.23Overall:
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDDimension
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Affect of Service 76 1.44 0.99 1.39 1.03 0.96
Information Control 76 1.27 1.26 1.48 1.27 0.95
Library as Place 75 1.71 1.77 1.79 1.50 1.66
The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+® survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
76Overall: 1.31 1.08 1.36 1.13 0.95
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 73 of 77
6.4 Local Questions Summary for Faculty
Adequacy
Mean
Perceived
Mean
Desired
MeanQuestion Text
Minimum
Mean n
Superiority
Mean
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
6.78 7.72 8.12 1.34 68 0.40
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
5.59 6.56 7.21 1.62 39 0.64
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
Adequacy
SD
Perceived
SD
Desired
SDQuestion Text
Minimum
SD n
Superiority
SD
Contribution to the intellectual atmosphere of the
The library staff reflects and promotes the Jesuit ideals
of social justice and respect for all persons
68 1.97 1.38 1.57 1.17 1.81
The 24 by 7 live chat service provides information
assistance when and where I need it
39 2.59 2.17 2.06 2.36 2.73
This table displays the standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium , where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Page 74 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
6.5 General Satisfaction Questions Summary for Faculty
MeanSatisfaction Question nSD
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. 8.38 1.25 76
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research,
and/or teaching needs. 7.59 1.78 76
How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.97 1.38 76
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction with
Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions on the
LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.
6.6 Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary for Faculty
MeanInformation Literacy Outcomes Questions nSD
The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 7.05 1.74 76
The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline or work. 7.42 1.71 76
The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits or work. 7.43 1.75 76
The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information. 6.72 1.84 76
The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study. 6.99 1.65 76
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each question. These scores are calculated from responses to the information literacy
outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+® survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale
from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 75 of 77
6.7 Library Use Summary for Faculty
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Never
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?
How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?
How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?
Frequency
P
erc
en
tag
e
Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never n / %
How often do you use resources on library
premises?
7
9.21%
31
40.79%
28
36.84%
9
11.84%
1
1.32%
76
100.00%
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
22
28.95%
39
51.32%
10
13.16%
4
5.26%
1
1.32%
76
100.00%
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?
52
68.42%
15
19.74%
4
5.26%
2
2.63%
3
3.95%
76
100.00%
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
Faculty
Page 76 of 77 LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton
7 Appendix A: LibQUAL+® Dimensions
LibQUAL+® 2000 Dimensions
The 2000 iteration of the LibQUAL+® survey, which had 41 questions, measured eight separate dimensions:
· Assurance (the knowledge and courtesy of employees, and their ability to convey trust and confidence)
· Empathy (caring, individual attention)
· Library as Place (library as a sanctuary/haven or site for learning and contemplation)
· Reliability (ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately)
· Responsiveness (willingness to help customers and provide prompt service)
· Tangibles (appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communications materials)
· Instructions/Custom Items
· Self-Reliance
LibQUAL+® 2001 Dimensions
After careful analysis of the results from the 2000 survey, the dimensions were further refined to re-ground the
SERVQUAL items in the library context. Four sub-dimensions resulted for the 2001 iteration:
· Service Affect (nine items, such as “willingness to help users”)
· Library as Place (five items, such as “a haven for quiet and solitude”)
· Personal Control (six items, such as “website enabling me to locate information on my own”), and
· Information Access (five items, such as “comprehensive print collections” and “convenient business hours”)
LibQUAL+® 2002 and 2003 Dimensions
For the 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+® survey, the dimensions were once again refined based on analysis of the
previous year's results. While the four dimensions were retained, their titles were changed slightly to more clearly
represent the questions and data. The same four dimensions were also used on the 2003 survey:
· Access to Information
· Affect of Service
· Library as Place
· Personal Control
LibQUAL+® 2004 - Present Dimensions
After the 2003 survey was completed, factor and reliability analyses on the resulting data revealed that two of the
dimensions measured by the survey-Access to Information and Personal Control-had collapsed into one. The
following three dimensions have been measured since then: Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as
Place. In addition, three core items were eliminated from the 2003 version of the survey, leaving 22 core items on the
final survey instrument.
The list below displays the dimensions used to present the results in the 2009 notebooks, along with the questions
that relate to each dimension. (Note: The questions below are those used in the College and University
implementation of the survey, American English version.)
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
Language:
Institution Type:
Consortium:
User Group:
American English
College or University
None
All
LibQUAL+® 2009 Survey Results - Univ of Scranton Page 77 of 77
Affect of Service
[AS-1] Employees who instill confidence in users
[AS-2] Giving users individual attention
[AS-3] Employees who are consistently courteous
[AS-4] Readiness to respond to users’ questions
[AS-5] Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions
[AS-6] Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion
[AS-7] Employees who understand the needs of their users
[AS-8] Willingness to help users
[AS-9] Dependability in handling users’ service problems
Information Control
[IC-1] Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office
[IC-2] A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own
[IC-3] The printed library materials I need for my work
[IC-4] The electronic information resources I need
[IC-5] Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information
[IC-6] Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
[IC-7] Making information easily accessible for independent use
[IC-8] Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
Library as Place
[LP-1] Library space that inspires study and learning
[LP-2] Quiet space for individual activities
[LP-3] A comfortable and inviting location
[LP-4] A getaway for study, learning or research
[LP-5] Community space for group learning and group study