libqual+ and the community college library

This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 16 September 2014, At: 04:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Community & Junior CollegeLibrariesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcl20

LibQUAL+ and the CommunityCollege LibraryWendell G. Johnson aa Northern Illinois University , DeKalb, IL, 60115,USAPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Wendell G. Johnson (2007) LibQUAL+ and the CommunityCollege Library, Community & Junior College Libraries, 14:2, 139-150, DOI:10.1300/02763910802139405

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/02763910802139405

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/02763910802139405

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/02763910802139405

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

LibQUAL+and the Community College Library

Wendell G. Johnson

ABSTRACT. Community colleges can use market surveys to better un-derstand the delivery of library services from the standpoint of the enduser. One such survey, LibQUAL+, measures library service in three di-mensions: 1. Affect of Service (patron interaction with library staff);2. Information Control (availability of needed resources and ease of ac-cessing); and 3. Library as Place (the physical environment). Waub-onsee Community College in Sugar Grove, Illinois, used LibQUAL+ in2005, and as a result of the survey, added tenure-track staff, increasedthe house at two satellite campuses, and made updates to its informationdelivery capabilities.

KEYWORDS. LibQUAL+, library surveys, libraries–user satisfaction,quality of service

In order to remain a vital part of their respective academic environ-ments, many community college libraries are seeking to improve cus-tomer service (Hasty 2005). Marketing surveys have identified thecustomer or user as the most critical voice in assessing service quality.Before assessments can be made of service quality in community col-lege libraries, it is essential to investigate what connotes service qualityin the minds of library users (Nitecki 1995). The dimensions of servicein the undergraduate library are not always understood from the stand-point of the end user. The LibQUAL+ survey, a product of the Associa-

Wendell G. Johnson is Social Sciences Librarian, Northern Illinois University,DeKalb, IL 60115 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Community & Junior College Libraries, Vol. 14(2) 2007Available online at http://cjcl.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1080/02763910802139405 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

tion of Research Libraries, attempts to identify those dimensions andmeasure the gaps between expected service and perceived service ineach dimension (Cook and Heath 2001). In order to better gauge theservice expectations of its student body and to provide measurable out-comes for assessment purposes, Todd Library at Waubonsee Commu-nity College (WCC) in Sugar Grove, Illinois chose to participate inLibQUAL+.

WHAT IS LIBQUAL+ ?

LibQUAL+ was adapted from the survey instrument ServQUAL de-veloped by V. A. Zietlhaml, A. Parasuraman and L. L. Berry (Zietllmalet al 1990). The survey questionnaire contains 22 items and also allowsrespondents to supply open-ended comments regarding their concernsand suggestions. The LibQUAL+ questionnaire asks patrons to rate li-brary services in three dimensions: (1) Affect of Service (patron interac-tion with library staff); (2) Information Control (availability of neededresources and ease of accessing); (3) Library as Place (the physical en-vironment). On a sliding scale of 1-9 (1 is lowest, 9 is highest), users arerequested to indicate the minimum, desired, and perceived level of li-brary service. Examples of the statements in the LibQUAL+ to which(WCC) users responded include the following:

Affect of Service

• Employees who instill confidence in users• Librarians who have the knowledge to answer users’ questions

Information Control

• A library web site enabling me to locate information on my own• The printed library materials that I need for my work

Library as Place

• A comfortable and inviting location• Quiet areas for individual activities

140 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

USING LIBQUAL+

The initial expenditure for enrolling in LibQUAL+ was $2,250 andrequired a staff commitment of approximately 60 hours. Participationinvolved very little technical support on the part of the library. The sur-vey is web-based and requires about 10 minutes to complete. The li-brary publicized the survey throughout the campus during the semesterin which it was taken. In order to encourage participation, each personcompleting the survey was served a beverage (which could be con-sumed in the library). Although the survey was anonymous, respon-dents were given the option of providing their email addresses to thelibrary. At the end of the survey period, a drawing was held (for thosewho furnished their email address), and the library gave away a portableCD player, jump drives, and gift certificates to the campus book store.

WAUBONSEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, TODD LIBRARY

LibQUAL Survey Results

Demographic Information:

Respondents by User Group

• Students, n = 556• Faculty, n = 66• Staff, n = 45 (6 of these were ‘library staff’)• Total, n = 667

Common Student Intents:

• 238 (35.7%) students attended WCC to take courses necessary fortransferring to a 4-year college or university

• 187 (28%) students attended WCC to obtain an Associates degree

Top ‘Disciplines’ of Respondents:

Note: Only responses by Students and Faculty are shown (this ques-tion does not apply to the staff). The high number of “other” responsesindicates that the categories given did not cover the topic area suffi-ciently.

Wendell G. Johnson 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Respondent Age Groups:

Note: The most common age group for the student respondents was18-22 (somewhat younger than the age of the average student). Themode for faculty and staff was 46-65.

Respondents by Gender:

Note: The student population has fluctuated between 41 and 43% malethe last few semesters. Survey responses according to gender corre-spond to the overall student demographic.

Core Questions Summary:

Note: Faculty and staff groups reported significantly different levels ofuser satisfaction. Library staff are tallied apart from the group “staff” asa whole.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Affect of Service

Students Only:

• Students reported that their perceived level of service quality wasnot significantly different than their desired level of service qualityin all tested areas.

Faculty Only:

• Quality in the following areas:

• Giving users individual attention. In this area faculty re-ported that users’ perceived level of service quality is abovetheir desired level of service

• Employees who are consistently courteous• Readiness to respond to users’ questions• Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion

Staff Only:

• Staff reported that in the following areas users perceived level ofservice quality is below their minimum level of service quality:

• Dependability in handling users’ service problems

Library Staff Only:

• Library staff reported that users’ perceived level of service qualityis above their desired level of service quality in the following areas:

• Employees who are consistently courteous• Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion• Willingness to help users

Information Control

Students Only:



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Faculty Only:

• Faculty reported that their perceived level of service quality wasnot significantly different than their desired level of service qualityin all tested areas.

Library Staff Only:

• Library staff reported that users’ perceived level of service qualityis above their desired level of service quality in the following ar-eas:

• The printed library materials I need for my work• The electronic information resources I need• Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my

own• Making information easily accessible for independent use

Staff Only:


• A library Web site enabling me to locate information on myown

Library as Place

Students Only:


Faculty Only:

• Faculty reported that their perceived level of service quality wasnot significantly different than their desired level of service qualityin all tested areas.

Library Staff Only:

• Library staff reported that in the following areas users perceivedlevel of service quality is below their minimum level of servicequality:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

• Library space that inspires study and learning• Quiet space for individual activities• A comfortable and inviting location• Community space for group learning and group study

Staff Only:


• Community space for group learning and group study

Library Use Summary:

How often do you use resources on library premises?

Note: With the exception of library staff, students used the resources inthe library most frequently, followed by faculty members. Generallyspeaking, staff members did not come to the library to use its resources(many staff frequented the library only monthly or quarterly).

How often do you access library resources through a library Webpage?

Note: With the exception of library staff, the students the were the mostfrequent users of library resources through the library Web page, fol-lowed by faculty members. Once again, staff members accessed libraryvia the library Web page only monthly or quarterly.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

How often do you use Yahoo™, Google™, or non-library gateways forinformation?

Note: Over 80% of each respondent group indicated that they usednon-library gateways for information on either a daily or weekly basis(the tyypical student, faculty, and library staff member uses non-librarygateways for information on a daily basis).

Combined Population (n = 662):

• The use of non-library search engines (Google or Yahoo) are usedwith a higher frequency on a daily basis (53.78%; n = 356) than re-sources on library premises or the library Web page.

• The resources in the library are used more frequently weekly(34.59%; n = 229), monthly (26.74%; n = 177), and quarterly(24.32%; n = 161) than library resources accessed through the li-brary Web page or a non-library search engine.

Local Questions Summary:

Questions used:

1. Availability of online help when using my library’s electronic re-sources

2. Ready access to computers/Internet/software3. Librarians teaching me how to effectively use the electronically

available databases, journals and books4. Ability to navigate library Web pages easily5. Enabling me to find information myself 24 hours a day

Students and staff reported that their perceived level of service qual-ity was not significantly different than their desired level of servicequality in all ‘local questions’ areas.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Faculty reported that users’ perceived level of service quality isabove their desired level of service quality in the following areas:

• Librarians teaching me how to effectively use the electronicallyavailable databases, journals and books

Library staff reported that users’ perceived level of service quality isabove their desired level of service quality in the following areas:

• Availability of online help when using my library’s electronic re-sources

• Ready access to computers/Internet/software• Enabling me to find information myself 24 hours a day

General Satisfaction Summary

Scale: Strongly Disagree = 1, (5–understood neutral) Strongly Agree = 9In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the li-brary.

In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research,and/or teaching needs.

How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the li-brary?

Notes: 1. Library staff had the highest group mean of any respondentson all questions.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

2. Satisfaction with the ‘way in which I am treated’ in the li-brary had (other than library staff) the highest ratings in thegeneral satisfaction category.

3. All general satisfaction ratings (including the standard devi-ation) are above a rating of 5 (the assumed neutral point).

Information Literacy Outcomes Summary

Scale: Strongly Disagree = 1, (5–understood neutral) Strongly Agree = 9

The library helps me stay abreast of development in my field(s) of in-terest.

The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustwor-thy information.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work orstudy.

Notes: 1. Students rate the literacy outcomes areas the most positivelyof any group (other than library staff).

2. The staff has the lowest regard for literacy outcomes.3. The literacy outcome rated the most positively of the 5 areas

tested is “The library provides me with the information skillsI need in my work or study.”

4. With the exception of the library staff, the range of ratings (+or � 1 standard deviation) includes the neutral rating of 5.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the LibQUAL+ survey undertaken at WaubonseeCommunity College, the library instituted improvements in each of theservice dimensions. A full-time tenure track librarian was added toimprove library service. Prior to the LibQUAL+ survey, the libraries onthe two satellite campuses, Aurora and Copley, were not staffed byprofessional librarians. Each of these libraries is now staffed two days aweek. In order to extend information control, the library purchased in-dexing software and now provides federated searching of the OPAC,electronic databases, and selected web pages. Finally, study rooms havebeen set aside for group activities.

REFERENCES

Cook, Colleen, and Fred Heath (2001). “Users’ Perceptions of Library Service Qualty:A Libqual+ Qualitative Survey.” Library Trends, 49: 548-84.

Hasty, Douglas (2005). “Applying Fourth Generation Management to access services:Reinventing customer service and process management.” Journal of Access Ser-vices, 2: 21-42.

Nitecki, Danua (1995). The Assessment of the Applicability of SERVQUAL Dimen-sions as Customer-Based Criteria for Evaluating Quality of Services in an Aca-demic Library (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Zeithaml, Valerie, A. Parasuraman, and Lloyd L. Berry (1990). Delivering QualityService–Balancing Customer Percepteions and Expectations. New York: The FreePress.

Received: 06/22/07Accepted: 09/20/07


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 04:

08 1

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

libqual+ and the community college library

Documents