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
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.
Top Related