libqual+ in the uk and ireland: three years findings and experience stephen town & selena lock...

LibQUAL+ in the UK and Ireland:three years findings and experience

Stephen Town & Selena LockCranfield University

6th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measures in Libraries and Information

Services22nd August 2005

Objectives

• To give an overview of SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation

• To present the overall results of the 2003 - 2005 SCONUL Cohort

• To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt

UK HE Libraries survey methods

• General Satisfaction– Exit questionnaires– SCONUL Satisfaction Survey

• Designed Surveys– Satisfaction vs Importance 1989-– Priority Surveys 1993-

• Outcome measurement– ACPI project 2003-

• National Student Survey (1 Question)

Survey methods used in the UK

West, 2004A Survey of Surveys

27

18

13

11

4

22

6

Libra

LibQUAL+

In-House

SPSS

SNAP

Perception

Excel

Others

1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

The UK approach

• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI)

• 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2003

• 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participated in 2004

• 17 UK & Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions participating in 2005

• 43 different institutions

LibQUAL+ Participants 2003

• University of Bath• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway & Bedford

New College • University of Lancaster • University of Wales,

Swansea• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow• University of Liverpool• University of London Library• University of Oxford• University College

Northampton

• University of Wales College Newport

• University of Gloucestershire

• De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan

University• Liverpool John Moores

University • Robert Gordon University• South Bank University• University of the West of

England, Bristol • University of

Wolverhampton

LibQUAL+ Participants 2004

• Brunel University• Loughborough University • University of Strathclyde • University of York • Glasgow University • Sheffield University • Trinity College, Dublin • UMIST + University of

Manchester• University of Liverpool

• Anglia Polytechnic University

• University of Westminster

• London South Bank University

• Napier University • Queen Margaret

University College • University College

Worcester • University of East London

LibQUAL+ Participants 2005

• University of Exeter• University of Edinburgh• University of Dundee• University of Bath• University of Ulster• University College

Northampton• University of Birmingham• Roehampton University

• University of Glasgow• University of Surrey• Royal Holloway UoL• City University• Cranfield University• University of Luton• Dublin Institute of

Technology• London South Bank

University• Coventry University

Overall Potential UK Sample to 2005

• Full variety of institutions• 25% of institutions• 32% of HE students (>700,000)• 34% of Libraries• 37% of Library expenditure

2. Results from SCONUL

Response Comparisons

• SCONUL 2003– 20 institutions – 11,919 respondents

• SCONUL 2004 – 16 institutions– 16,611 respondents

• Increase by 4,692

• SCONUL 2005– 16 institutions– 17,355 respondents

• Increase by 744

• LibQUAL+ 2003– 308 institutions– 128,958 respondents

• LibQUAL+ 2004– 202 institutions– 112,551 respondents

• Decrease by 16,407

• LibQUAL+ 2005– 199 institutions– 108,504 respondents

• Decrease by 4,047

SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005

Dimensions of Quality 2004 &

2005

• Affect of Service• Information Control• Library as a Place

• Affect of Service• Access to

Information• Personal Control• Library as Place

Dimensions of Quality 2003

Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality

Empathy

InformationControl

Responsiveness

Symbol

Utilitarian space

Assurance

Scope of Content

Ease of Navigation

Self-Reliance

Library as Place

LibraryServiceQuality

Model 3

Refuge

Affect of Service

Reliability

Convenience

Timeliness

Equipment

F. Heath, 2005

Core Questions

ARL College or University Summary 2004

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003

Overall Comparisons

Undergraduate Results 2005

Postgraduate Results 2005

Academic Staff Results 2005

Library Staff Results 2005

Affect of Service Comparisons

Information Control Comparisons

Library as Place Comparisons

Overall Comparisons by User Group

3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

Purpose for participating

• Benchmarking• Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+• Trialling alternative survey methods• More library focused than previous in-

house method• Supporting Charter Mark application

process• Planned institutional survey failed to

happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap.

Primary aim(s) for surveying users

• Understand what their opinions of our service is, to inform strategic planning.

• Making sure we knew what customers concerns really are as we have had much lobbying by one group of students. Also nearly three years since last survey, so needed an update after much change in services.

• User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to know how they view us and whether we are improving. 3 years of the same survey can have some credibility.

• To gain information for better planning of our service and make adjustments in areas found wanting.

Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process

• Majority found it straightforward• Hard work subtracting / managing

inbuilt US bias• Some issues in obtaining:

– Email addresses– Demographic data

• The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part

Feedback on results

• Overall results were as expected by the institutions

• “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence known already”

• Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys

• Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one

How can LibQUAL+ be improved?

• Summary and commentary on results• More flexibility on the content and language

of the questionnaire• More interaction with other UK participating

libraries• Providing results by department, campus,

and for full time and part time students• Simpler questionnaire design• We really need a ConvergedServQual tool! • Needs to allow you to use a word other

than library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)

Changes made as a result of the survey

• It has strengthened our case in asking for more money to improve the environment.

• We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals which had been axed several weeks before the survey was conducted.

• Implementing PG forums to address issues raised

• Main Library makeover/Group study area • Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating

to resource expenditure at the most senior levels

Conclusions

Conclusions

• LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector

• Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK

• At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again

Lessons learnt

• The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys

• The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate

• Collecting demographics is time consuming• Results are detailed and comprehensive,

further analysis is complex

Acknowledgements

• Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries

• Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M University

• Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, Austin

• Martha Kyrillidou & ARL • Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL

Newsletter. Number 31.• All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

J. Stephen Town

Director of Information Services

Defence College of Management and Technology

Deputy University LibrarianCranfield University

j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk

Selena Lock

Research and Development Officer

Defence College of Management and Technology

s.a.lock@cranfield.ac.uk