What Is LibQUAL+ ? Part of the Library’s ongoing process of service evaluation and planning. Web-based tool for assessing library service quality & identifying.

What Is LibQUAL+ ?

Part of the Library’s ongoing process of service evaluation and planning.

Web-based tool for assessing library service quality & identifying opportunities for enhancements

Developed and refined over 9 years, 1,00,000+ respondents, 1,000+ institutions

Based on ServQual. 17 years of research and application at Texas A&M, etc.

How Does LibQUAL+ Measure Quality?

Rating of services Rating of services in contextin contextBased on client perceptions andand expectations

Gap analysis between perceived level of service, and minimum and desired service level

Although higher scores are better, they have no absolute intrinsic meaning on their own.

Meaningful in comparison with past years, other libraries & norms developed over the years

Gap Rating System[Perceived – Minimum = Service Adequacy Gap]

Desired level of service, or Value

Minimum Expected level of service

Perceived level of service

LibQUAL+ Survey in Canada

Queen’s participated in 2007 LibQUAL Canada 2007 LibQUAL Canada Consortium Consortium (54 libraries across Canada). Queen’s will participate in the next consortial survey, 2010: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/canlibqual/canlibs.htm

Opportunity to benchmark results with a group of comparable peer institutions: e.g. research-intensive institutions across Canada and universities across Ontario.

LibQUAL+ Winter 2010 Survey

22 service quality survey questions

5 optional “local” questions

Demographic & usage questions

One open comments box

LibQUAL+ Winter 2010 Survey

LibQUAL+ LiteLibQUAL+ LiteEach respondent answers a reduced number of

questions randomly selected from the full survey.

11 service quality survey questions

1 optional “local” question Demographic & usage questions One open comments box

Why LibQUAL+ Lite Survey

LibQUAL+ Lite was developed in 2008 by ARL in response to the concern among past participants that the size of the full survey (22 core+ 5 optional questions) was limiting their response rates. Trials using the Lite survey have shown significant increases in the response rate over the full survey: http://www.libqual.org/About/LQLite/index.cfm.

Queen’s has opted to use LibQUAL+ Lite to survey our university community in 2010.

Library Service Quality

Affect of Service

Empathy

Responsiveness

Assurance

Reliability

Library as Place

Utilitarian Space

Information Control

Ease of Navigation

Convenience

Scope of collections

Timeliness

Refuge

Symbol

Modern Equipment

Service Quality “Dimensions”

When it comes to… 

My MinimumService Level Is

low …… high

My DesiredService Level Is

low …… high

Perceived ServicePerformance Islow …… high

N/A 

1 Employees who instill confidence in users

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A 

2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A 

3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A 

Survey - Sample Section

LibQUAL results are a measure of perceived service quality in relation toin relation to user expectations

Detailed ReportThis report compares the Queen’s 2007 results

against those in 2004 & against the 2007 Canadian Consortial results

Highlights of report: ongoing trends (most & least valued service

areas) Library performance (strengths & areas for

potential enhancements)assess effectiveness of changes to library

facilities and services implemented since 2004.

Issues & Actions ReportThis document summarizes issues for potential attention arising the from

survey

action plans to enhance these services & facilities

2007 Findings Actions

Issues & Action plans to enhance services & facilitiesIssues & Action plans to enhance services & facilities

Higher ScoresHigher Scores

Higher expectationsHigher expectations

Overall 2007 Performance Ratings Among the top Canadian Library Among the top Canadian Library

ParticipantsParticipants

Strongest: Library as PlaceAffect of Service or client services

Area for improvement:Information Control (Collections & access to information)

Value vs Performance

Information Control Highest value/lowest rating or “Gap” score

Library as Place Lowest value/highest rating

Affect of Service Lower value/higher rating

Affect of Service

Giving users individual attention

Employees who instill confidence in users

Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion

Availability of subject specialist assistance

Tends to generate lower value ratings lower value ratings & relatively high high performance ratingsperformance ratings compared to other service areas.

Queen’s among highest performance ratings in Canadian Consortium

Affect of Service

Challenges to Libraries: Promote the value of research &

instructional services to the community

Reaching out to users who don’t/won’t come to training sessions or the reference desk

Information Control Tends to generate highest value ratings highest value ratings & relatively low low

performance ratingsperformance ratings compared to other service areas.

Queen’s in top 10 among Canadian Participants in 2007; improved overall performance since 2004 survey

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or officePrint and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work The electronic information resources I need A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own Ability to navigate library Web pages easilyEasy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

Information Control

Challenges:

More & better discovery resources (e.g. databases) have raised expectations about timely availability of full-text resources, incl. ILL/Doc Del

More effective access to library resources & services from the Library web site; maximize existing resources

Improve electronic & print collections

Continuing need to market available services and collections effectively

Library as Place

Improved on already strong overall 2004 performance

Most Queen’s campus libraries continue to be highly rated as:

A comfortable and inviting location

Most important to undergrads

Library as Place

Challenges: Lack of sufficient quiet spaces for

individual study & research Insufficient seating during exams, Expensive copying/printing charges, Request for longer hours all term & all

libraries, In Stauffer: dirty washrooms and a

general lack of adequate maintenance; Controversy over food & drink policy

Frequency of Use

At least once a week, respondents used:

Google & other search engines: >90% Library resources sites: >80% Library premises: 60%

Internal Consultation Process

Report discussed at Management Team; consultation plan developed

Report and plan distributed to all staff

All-Staff information session

Units and functional teams Meetings of individual units and functional teams

identify the issues in their areas of responsibilities and recommend appropriate actions.

Management Team Reviewed the compilation of issues and objectives in

developing the 2005/06 Budget Report. Compiled and approved action items prepared by the functional teams and units.

Roll Out to Public

Articles for The Gazette & The Journal in Fall 2007

Survey results & action plans published on the Library’s LibQUAL+ web site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual-2007/results-2007.html