New Ways of ListeningTo Our Users:

LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s

What Is LibQUAL+ ?

Web-based tool for assessing library service quality.

A tool for identifying areas for service improvement

Developed and refined over 5 years, 200,000+ respondents, 400+ institutions

Based on ServQual. 15 years of research and application at Texas A&M, etc.

How Does LibQUAL+ Measure Quality?

Rating of services Rating of services in contextin context Based on users’ and non-users’

perceptions andand expectations Gap analysis between perceived

level of service, and minimum and desired service level

Comparison with other libraries, past years & developing norms

Why LibQUAL+?

Quick, easy and inexpensive Web based survey administered by Association of

Research Libraries (ARL); data collected & analyzed by expert LibQUAL+ staff

Allows Library to see relationship to academic libraries across North America over time

Complement other local assessments

Starting point to identify best practices in providing library service

LibQUAL+ 2004 Survey Specifics

202 institutions from North America, Europe & Australia - including 57 ARL Libraries & consortia

9 Canadian institutions: Alberta, Calgary, McGill, Montreal, Queen’s, UNB, Western, Windsor, York

113,000 respondents

LibQUAL+ Spring 2004 Survey

22 service quality survey questions 5 optional “local” questions Demographic & usage questions One open comments box

Service Quality Dimensions

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

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

Rating user expectations

Service Adequacy Gap = Perceived Score – Minimum Score

Desired level of service

or

Value

Queen’s 2004 Results

The Results are a measure of perceived service quality in relation to user expectations for that service or library facility.

Comparative results can tell us

Where we need to focus our attention to improve services.

A low score compared to other peer libraries, points to a potential area for improvement.

Comparative results told us

Users priorities and service expectations are strikingly consistent among the institutions participating in the 2004 survey.

Queen’s top 5 & bottom 5 rated questions were identical to the average ARL top & bottom 5.

Population for Queen’s Survey

Total initial sample: 5,450All full time-faculty: 850Random stratified sample of:

3,000 full-time undergraduates1000 full-time graduates600 staff

Survey Respondents

Analyses based 773 completed valid user surveys – excludes library staff. The respondent population was largely representative of the overall population distribution.

Respondent Comments

361 respondents (45%) filled in the comments box

Provides context & detail for survey scores Loaded into a database to facilitate analysis

http://db.library.queensu.ca/libqual/ Summary of general comments

+ Actions taken/planned

http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual/results-2004.htm

Frequency of Use

At least once a week, respondents used:

Library premises: 56% Library resources sites: 76% Google or other non-library

gateway: 90%67% use Google, etc. daily!

Undergrads use the library (63%) & its resources

(67%) with similar frequency

Overall 2004 Ratings

Queen’s exceeded ARL average1st among Canadian participants

Strengths: Library as PlaceService by library staff (Affect of Service)

Most needed improvements:Collections & access to information

(Information Control)

Library as Place

Highly rated as:

A comfortable and inviting location

Higher use = Lower rating

Most important to undergrads

Library as Place

Concerns/Challenges: Lack of seating during exams, insufficient and old computer equipment, insufficient printers, expensive copying/printing charges, need for longer hours, and for more variety of study space (quiet spaces, discussion spaces, informal spaces, etc.)

Affect of Service

Highly rated for:

Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion

More knowledgeable users rate customer service more highly (get more out of these services)

Affect of Service

Challenges to Libraries: Promote the value of instructional

services to the community

Reaching out to users who don’t/won’t come to training sessions or the reference desk

Information Control

Faculty most dissatisfied; low negative rating

Undergraduates are most satisfied; positive rating almost matches overall ARL rating.

Humanities/Social Sciences users generate low service rating across all user groups.

Information Control

System-wide Challenges: Market existing services and collections more

effectively

Easier access to library resources from the desktop; maximize existing resources

Improve electronic & print collections:

boost weak collections/reinforce strong ones

LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline

To Date: Report and consultation plan discussed at

Management Team and AUL Forum Report and plan distributed to all staff

All-Staff information sessions, Oct. 4 & 7 /04 Units and functional teams, Oct. 12-Nov. 5 /04

Meetings of individual units and functional teams identify the issues in their areas of responsibilities and recommend appropriate actions.

AUL Forum, Nov. 8 /04 Review responses, fill in gaps & adjust overlaps and

contradictory directions

LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline

Management Team, January – March /05 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.

Roll Out to Public

Two articles for The Gazette & The Journal 1st Summary of Results [Oct. 2004] 2nd Survey Results piece incorporating actions

planned & taken to improve services [April 2005]

Survey results published on the Library’s LibQUAL+ web site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm

http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm

Queen’s LibQUAL+ Web Site