Library Quality AssessmentLibrary Quality Assessment

NCES Summer Data Conference

July 25, 2002

Martha Kyrillidou, Julia Blixrud, Consuella Askew Waller

Project web site www.arl.org/libqual/

Opportunities and Pressures

• Increasing demand for libraries to demonstrate outcomes/impacts in areas of importance to institution

• Increasing pressure to maximize use of resources through benchmarking resulting in:– Cost savings

– Reallocation

Antecedents

• Effective service delivery

– “every unit … is valued in proportion to its contribution to the quality success of the campus” Danuta Nitecki

Why New Measures Increased customer and stakeholder

expectations Greater demands for accountability Exploding growth in use and applications

of technology Increasing competition for resources Need for reliable and valid data

– Benchmarking and best practice

– Trends over time

ARL New Measures Initiative

Collaboration among member leaders with strong interest in this area

Specific projects developed with different models for exploration

Projects self-funded by interested members Intent to make resulting tools and

methodologies available to full membership and wider community

Freeze modifications to existing descriptive measures

LibQUAL+™ Description

LibQUAL+TM is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create useful quality-assessment tools for local planning.

To fill a knowledge void in modeling the dimensions of library service quality from a user perspective

Based upon the model, to develop a web-delivered, effective total market survey instrument equivalent for service quality assessment in academic libraries

Using the derived instrument to recommend a process for an ongoing program of comparative outcome measurement for academic libraries

The Purpose of the Research

Project Resources

LibQUAL+TM is an ARL/Texas A&M University joint effort. The project is supported in part by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE).

Relationships: Perceptions, Service Quality and Satisfaction

….only customers judge quality;all other judgments are essentiallyirrelevant”

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

LibQUAL+™ Project Goals

• Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL

• Development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality

• Development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries

• Identification of best practices in providing library service

Process Overview

Dimensions of LibraryService Quality

Affect of Service

Empathy

Information Access

Personal Control

Responsiveness

Symbol

Utilitarian space

Assurance

Content/Scope

Timeliness

Convenience

Library as Place

LibraryServiceQuality

Refuge

Reliability

Ease of Navigation

Convenience

Modern Equipment

Survey Dimensions

Access to InformationAccess to Information

Information AccessSelf RelianceProvision of Physical Collections

Personal ControlReliabilityLibrary as Place

Library as PlaceLibrary as PlaceReliability

Service AffectAffect of ServiceAffect of Service

Spring 2002

(25-Item Survey)

Spring 2001

(56-Item Survey)

Spring 2000

(41-Item Survey)

LibQUAL+TM Participants

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Spring 2001Spring 2000 Spring 2002

12 Participants

43 Participants

164 Participants

Process Timeline

August 2002

•Gather information about LibQUAL+TM survey

•Determine if have appropriate resources

•Identify budgetary requirements if any

September 2002

•Register for LibQUAL+TM related workshops

•Identify and initiate steps to obtain human subjects research approval from IRB

October – December 2002June/July 2002

•Register for Spring 2003 survey

•Subscribe to ARL-QUALITY listserv

•Designate survey liaison/committee/project team

•Identify sample groups

•Identify best data source to obtain valid e-mail addresses for sample groups

•Meet with person(s) who will be drawing e-mail addresses to determine process feasibility

•Register for LibQUAL+TM

related workshops

Process Timeline

January 2003

•Need to have IRB approval by mid-January

•January 27-28, orientation session for participating libraries held during ALA Midwinter, Phildelphia, PA Attendance is required!

•Complete online demographics questionnaire

•Preview survey turned on

•Draw final e-mail address samples

•Spring 2003 survey open to public.

•Send out survey announcements

•Spring 2003 survey closed to public

•Participants complete online post hoc survey

February 2003 March-April 2003 May 2003 June 2003

•Survey results distributed

July 2003

•LibQUAL+TM evaluation questionnaire sent to participants

Sample Survey

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Project Deliverables

Print and web-based results include:– Aggregate Summaries – Demographics by Library– Item Summaries– Dimension Summaries– A copy of the survey instrument– Dimensions measured for survey

implementation

Surveys Completed Spring 2002

LibQUAL+ Assessment SurveyLibQUAL+ Assessment Survey

Aggregate (All Ranks)(All)

Aggregate (All Ranks)Texas A&M University

Interpretation Frameworks

• Zone of tolerance

• Score norms

Technology Approach

• Reduced HTML requirements

• 2 load-balanced web/application server connected to 1 database

• Software use: ColdFusion, IIS webserver, SQL server, and Windows Advanced Server 2000

The Future: LibQUAL+

LibQUAL+ TM Brief History

• Experience with SERVQUAL in many libraries over the last 15 years

• Texas A&M SERVQUAL assessment

• New Measures Initiative called a meeting of interested ARL libraries (ALA Midwinter 2000)

• External funding through FIPSE, U.S. Department of Education (September 2000)

• Consortia and related associations participation

• Expressed interest by another 150 institutions for spring 2003

• International Interest

• Other sectors outside higher education

Emergence of Consensus

• Antecedents

• Credibility

• Collaboration

• Tangibility

• Dissemination

• Evaluation

• External Validation

• Looking Forward: Maintenance of Consensus

Maintenance of Consensus

• Balance central control with local autonomy

• Issues of confidentiality/anonymity vs. desires for longitudinal study

• Normative issues/Best practices vs. “ranking”

• Long-term sustainability

Additional Information

Visit the LibQUAL+TM Web Page:

old.libqual.org