background on the sconul libqual+ implementation stephen town, cranfield university

Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation

Stephen Town,Cranfield University

Objectives

• To give an overview of SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation

• To present the overall results of the 2003 & 2004 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


• 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


• 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

CURL (9/28)

• University of Edinburgh

• University of Glasgow

• University of Liverpool

• University of London Library

• University of Oxford

• Sheffield University • Trinity College,

Dublin • University of

Manchester• University of

Birmingham

Pre-92 & 94 Group (5/13)

• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway &

Bedford New College • University of Wales,

Swansea• Brunel University• Loughborough University • University of Strathclyde

• UMIST • University of Dundee• University of Ulster• University of Bath• University of Lancaster• University of York• University of Exeter• University of Surrey

CMU+ ( 15/37)

• University of Wales College Newport

• De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan

University• Liverpool John Moores

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

England, Bristol

• Anglia Polytechnic University • University of Westminster• Napier University • Queen Margaret University

College • University of East London• Roehampton University • University of Luton• Coventry University• University of Wolverhampton

Former Colleges+

• University of Gloucestershire• University College Northampton• University College Worcester • Dublin Institute of Technology

Potential UK Sample 2003

• Full variety of institutions• 12% of institutions• 19% of HE students (>300,000)• 18% of Libraries• 18% of Library expenditure

Potential UK Sample 2004

• Full variety of institutions• 10% of institutions• 17% of HE students (>290,000)• 11% of Libraries• 15% of Library expenditure

Overall Potential UK Sample to 2004

• 20% of institutions• 31% of HE students (>530,000)• 26% of Libraries• 28% of Library expenditure

Time frame

• December – Registration• January – UK Training• February to May – Surveys run• June – Results distributed • July – Dissemination• Plus second run in 2005 (Coventry)

Dimensions of Quality 2003

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

Affect of Service

Empathy

Information Access

Personal Control

Responsiveness

Symbol

Utilitarian space

Assurance

Scope

Timeliness

Convenience

Library as Place

LibraryServiceQuality

Refuge

Reliability

Ease of Navigation

Convenience

Modern Equipment

C. Cook & B. Thompson, 2002.

Dimensions of Quality 2004

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

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

2003 – 5 additional questions for all SCONUL Participants

• Access to photocopying and printing facilities

• Main text and readings needed• Provision for information skills training• Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT

problems• Availability of subject specialist

assistance

2004 – 5 local question selected from a range of over 100

Different questions tailored to local needs

Sample Survey

Sample Survey… continued

2. Results from SCONUL

Respondents by Institution 2003

College or University Respondent (n)

Cranfield University 579

De Montfort University 643

Glasgow University Library 502

Lancaster 883

Leeds Metropolitan University 814

Liverpool John Moores University 1,261

Robert Gordon University 805

Royal Holloway University of London 616

South Bank University 276

University of Bath 841

Respondents by Institution 2003 (continued)

College or University Respondents (n)

University College Northampton 500

University of Edinburgh 514

University of Gloucestershire 713

University of Liverpool Library 398

University of London Library 70

University of Oxford 1,063

University of the West of England, Bristol 737

University of Wales College, Newport 368

University of Wales Swansea 161

University of Wolverhampton 175

Grant total 11,919

Respondents by Institution 2004


Anglia Polytechnic University 688

Brunel University 1,882

Glasgow University 2,178

London South Bank University 568

Loughborough University 350

Napier University 611

Queen Margaret University College 478

Sheffield University 1,541

Respondents by Institution 2004(Continued)


Trinity College, Dublin 1,786

UMIST + University of Manchester 2,333

University College Worcester 268

University of East London 464

University of Liverpool 552

University of Strathclyde 1,211

University of Westminster 1,241

University of York 460

Total 16,611

Respondent Comparisons

• Glasgow University– 2004 = 2,178– 2003 = 503

• Increase by 1,675

• University of Liverpool– 2004 = 552– 2003 = 398

• Increase by 154

• London South Bank University– 2004 = 568– 2003 = 276

• Increase by 292

Response Comparisons

• SCONUL 2004 – 16 institutions– 16,611 respondents

• Increase by 4,692

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

• Decrease by 16,407

• SCONUL 2003– 20 institutions – 11,919 respondents

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

Core Questions

Core Question Summary 2004

Core Question Summary 2003

Affect of Service - Adequacy Means

ID Question 2003

2004 Difference

AS-1

Library staff who instill confidence in users

0.76 0.66 -0.10

AS-2

Giving users individual attention 0.75 0.49 -0.26

AS-3

Library staff who are consistently courteous

0.65 0.41 -0.24

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' enquiries

0.54 0.40 -0.14

AS-5

Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions

0.49 0.44 -0.05

AS-6

Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion

0.63 0.51 -0.12

AS-7

Library staff who understand the needs of their users

0.45 0.31 -0.14

AS-8

Willingness to help users 0.59 0.40 -0.19

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

0.42 0.28 -0.14

Information Control - Adequacy Means

ID Question 2003 2004 Difference

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

0.04 0.06 0.02

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own

0.57 0.31 -0.26

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

-0.12

-0.34

-0.22

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need 0.18 0.06 -0.12

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information

0.36 0.08 -0.28

IC-6

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

0.32 0.18 -0.14

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for independent use

0.35 0.18 -0.17

IC-8

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

-0.19

-0.36

-0.17

Library as Place - Adequacy Means

ID Question 2003

2004 Difference

LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning

0.22 -0.31 -0.53

LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 0.07 -0.26 -0.33

LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 0.89 0.10 -0.79

LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research

0.09 -0.18 -0.27

LP-5 Space for group learning and group study

0.42 -0.10 -0.52

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004

Range of Minimum to Desired

Range of Minimum to Perceived (“Adequacy Gap”)

InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2004



InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary 2003



Access toInformation

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

PersonalControl

Undergraduates

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003

Undergraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means


IC-1


0.04 0.18 0.14

IC-2


0.57 0.46 -0.11

IC-3


-0.12

-0.31

-0.19

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need 0.18 0.23 0.05

IC-5


0.36 0.15 -0.21

IC-6


0.32 0.28 -0.04

IC-7


0.35 0.26 -0.09

IC-8


-0.19

-0.19

0.00

Undergraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means

ID Question 2003

2004 Difference


0.22 -0.29 -0.51




0.09 -0.13 -0.22


0.42 -0.23 -0.65

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004



InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2004



InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates 2003




Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

PersonalControl

Postgraduates

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003

Postgraduates Information Control - Adequacy Means


IC-1


0.04 -0.05

-0.09

IC-2


0.57 0.13 -0.44

IC-3


-0.12

-0.46

-0.34

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need 0.18 -0.20

-0.38

IC-5


0.36 -0.01

-0.37

IC-6


0.32 0.08 -0.24

IC-7


0.35 0.10 -0.25

IC-8


-0.19

-0.61

-0.42

Postgraduates Library as Place - Adequacy Means

ID Question 2003

2004 Difference


0.22 -0.46 -0.68




0.09 -0.34 -0.43


0.42 0.09 -0.33

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Postgraduates 2004



InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Graduates 2004



InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Postgraduates 2003




Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

PersonalControl

Academic Staff

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003

Academic Staff Information Control - Adequacy Means


IC-1


0.04 -0.41

-0.45

IC-2


0.57 -0.11

-0.68

IC-3


-0.12

-0.37

-0.25

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need 0.18 -0.39

-0.57

IC-5


0.36 -0.12

-0.48

IC-6


0.32 -0.10

-0.42

IC-7


0.35 -0.02

-0.37

IC-8


-0.19

-0.88

-0.69

Academic Staff Library as Place - Adequacy Means

ID Question 2003

2004 Difference


0.22 -0.26 -0.48




0.09 -0.19 -0.28


0.42 0.41 -0.01

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Academic Staff 2004



InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

ARL Core Question Dimensions Summary - Faculty 2004



InformationControl

Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

Overall

SCONUL Core Question Dimensions Summary for Academic Staff 2003




Affect ofService

Libraryas Place

PersonalControl

Comments

Free text comments received 2003

London South Bank University

428

University of London 422

UWE, Bristol 419

University of Wolverhampton 413

University of Bath 412

University of Gloucestershire 407

Lancaster University 396

Robert Gordon University 395


Liverpool John Moores University

353

Royal Holloway University 341

University of Wales, Swansea 340

Uni of Wales College, Newport 339

University of Oxford 337

University College Northampton

332

Glasgow University 330

University of Edinburgh 328

Leeds Metropolitan University 327

DE Montfort University 326

Cranfield University 170

Free text comments received 2004

UMIST + University of Manchester

1090

Trinity College Library Dublin 1032

Glasgow University 920

Brunel University 906

University of Sheffield 786

University of Westminster 671

University of Strathclyde 511

London South Bank University

358

Anglia Polytechnic University 311

Napier University 299


Queen Margaret University College

251

University of York 239

University of East London 239

University College Worcester 170

Loughborough University Library

120

Comments Comparisons

• Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161

• Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342

• Increased by 819.

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

Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process

• Overall it is seen as straightforward• Hard work subtracting / managing

inbuilt US bias• Some issues in obtaining:

– Email addresses– Demographic data

Feedback on results

• Overall results were as expected by the institutions

• 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• Ability to add own subject mix – for all UK

participants• More flexibility on the content and language of

the questionnaire• More interaction with other UK participating

libraries• Provide results for full time and part time

students• Simpler questionnaire design

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 and subject categories are not always fitting

• 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 • Selena Lock, R&D Officer, Cranfield University• All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

J. Stephen Town

Director of Information ServicesRoyal Military College of Science

Deputy University LibrarianCranfield University

[email protected]

background on the sconul libqual+ implementation stephen town, cranfield university

Documents