What is Lib QUAL v Large-scale web-based user-centered

What is Lib. QUAL+? v Large-scale, web-based, user-centered assessment of library service effectiveness across multiple institutions. v Co-developed by ARL and Texas A&M University, 1999 v Responds to the increasing pressure for libraries to develop more outcomes-based assessment efforts, instead of relying merely on input or resource metrics. v Supported in part by a 3 -year, $498, 000 FIPSE grant; sustained by participant fees.

What is Lib. QUAL+? (The “Gap Theory” model and 4 dimensions of service quality) Grounded in the “Gap Theory” of Service Quality; addresses a set of four service dimensions: 1. Access to Information—timely and convenient access to information resources: local & remote, print & electronic, general and special. 2. Affect of Service—knowledge, courtesy, and responsiveness of employees; their ability to instill confidence; their willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. 3. Library as Place—a library space that is quiet, comfortable, and conducive to study and learning, for individuals as well as groups. 4. Personal Control—modern equipment, easy to use access tools, and a website that allow users to locate information independently, both within the Library and from remote locations.

The goals of Lib. QUAL+ v Foster a culture of excellence and continuous improvement in providing library service; v Provide libraries with comparable assessment information from peer institutions; v Identify best practices in library service; and v Enhance library staff members’ analytical skills for interpreting and acting on data.

Overall project timeline v Phase 0 (2000): Pilot; 12 ARL libraries survey 5, 000 users v Phase 1 (2001): 43 ARL libraries survey 34, 000 users v Phase 2 (2002): 164 libraries (incl. Ohio. LINK, AAHSL) test a shorter, more refined instrument (25 questions); 78, 000 respondents v Phase 3 (2003): End of FIPSE grant; final revisions to instrument. 308 libraries (incl. international) and 125, 000 respondents

Who participated in 2003? (Groups & consortia) v Association of Research Libraries (66 members) v New York Reference and Research Resources System (76, incl. 71 college/university libraries & 5 public libraries) v Ohio. LINK (45) v Network of Alabama Academic Libraries (9) v Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (21) v Oberlin Libraries Group (12) v Military Education & Research Library Network (5) v Society of College, National, & University Libraries (20) [UK & Ireland; includes Glasgow University]

Who participated in 2003? (ARL Libraries) Arizona State U. West Boston College Brigham Young U. Case Western Reserve Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Emory University George Washington U. Georgia Tech Iowa State University Kent State University Louisiana State University Mc. Gill University New York State Library Ohio State University Stony Brook University Syracuse University Temple University 66 ARL libraries, including… Texas A&M University U. Laval U. at Albany U. of Alabama U. of Alberta U. of Arizona U. of California, Davis U. of California, Irvine U. of California, L. A. U. of Cincinnati U. of Florida U. of Guelph U. of Hawaii at Manoa U. of Houston U. of Kansas U. of Kentucky U. of Manitoba U. of Maryland U. of Minnesota U. of Missouri-Columbia U. of Nebraska, Lincoln U. of New Mexico U. of Pittsburgh U. of South Carolina U. of Texas at Austin U. of Washington Virginia Tech Washington State U. Wayne State U.

Who participated in 2003? (GWLA Libraries) 16 libraries from the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA), including… Arizona State U. West Baylor University Brigham Young U. Colorado State University Iowa State University Oregon State University Texas A&M University U. of Arizona U. of Houston U. of Kansas U. of Missouri-Columbia U. of Nebraska, Lincoln U. of New Mexico U. of Texas at Austin U. of Washington State University

Checklist of local activities v Gather random sample (1, 200 u-grads; 800 faculty) v Prepare website to manage publicity, communication, etc. v Send “pre-survey” message from Dean (March 25) v Send email with imbedded URL for online survey (March 30) v Send 2 reminders from the Dean (April 3 & 8) v Survey closes on April 11, 2003 v Announce incentive prize winners (May 19)

Who responded at ISU? (Response rates for faculty, grads, undergrads) 648 of the 2, 800 users surveyed (23. 1%), including: • 250 of the 800 faculty surveyed (31. 3%) • 202 of the 800 graduate students surveyed (25. 2%) • 196 of the 1, 200 undergrad students surveyed (16. 3%) Among the 66 ARL libraries participating in 2003, ISU ranked 13 th in the number of surveys completed!

Who responded at ISU? (By age & Sex) Age Sex 3% 25. 2% 25. 9% 20. 2% 25. 7% 40. 9% 63. 7% 59. 1%

Who responded at ISU? (Frequency of library use) I use the library electronically… I use the library on premises… 3. 4% 10% 1. 4% 8. 3% 19. 2% 14. 3% 22. 4% 37. 5% 45% 38. 5%

Who responded at ISU? (e-Library vs. Google use) I use the library electronically… 3. 4% 10% I use Google. TM, etc. for info… 3. 3% 3. 4% 19. 2% 22. 4% 6. 1% 27. 1% 45% 60. 1%

Sample Survey

Dimension 1: Access to Information

Dimension 2: Affect of Service

Dimension 3: Library as Place

Dimension 4: Personal Control

Addendum: General Satisfaction

Addendum: Information Literacy Questions

= Minimum = Perceived = Desired Question 5 Question 4 Sample spider graph Question 1 Question 2 Question 3

Aggregate data (all ARL universities, all users) D P Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work M Text box Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum

Comparison: All users (und. , grad. , faculty) (Graph) ARL ISU Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work Tex t box Community space for group learning and study Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum

Comparison: All users (und. , grad. , faculty) (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service: Difference between perceived and desired service:

Comparison: Undergraduates (Graph) ARL ISU Text box Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum

Comparison: Undergraduates (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

Comparison: Graduate Students (Graph) ARL ISU Journal collections (print and/or electronic) I need for my work Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Text box Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Community space for group learning/study. Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum

Comparison: Graduate Students (1) (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

Comparison: Graduate Students (2) (Table) Difference between perceived and desired service:

Comparison: Faculty (Graph) ARL Electronic info resources I need ISU Printed library materials I need for my work Journal collections (print / electronic) I need for my work Making eresources accessible from home or office Library website enabling me to locate info on my own Community space for group learning and study Perceived > Desired Perceived < Desired Quiet space for individual activities Community space for group learning and study Perceived > Minimum Perceived < Minimum

Comparison: Faculty (1) (Table) Difference between perceived and minimal service:

Comparison: Faculty (2) (Table) Difference between perceived and desired service:

Conclusions… Areas of strength… Conclusions: Areas of strength

Conclusions… Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS). Conclusions: Areas of strength

Conclusions… Areas of strength lie in Library as Place (LP) and Affect of Service (AS). Areas of challenge… Conclusions: Areas of challenge lie in Access to Information (AI) and Personal Control (PC).

General Satisfaction Questions (1) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

General Satisfaction Questions (2) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs.

General Satisfaction Questions (3) In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library. 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 library?

Information Literacy Questions (1) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

Information Literacy Questions (2) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

Information Literacy Questions (3) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. The Library aids my advancement in my academic discipline. The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

Information Literacy Questions (4) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 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 trustworthy /untrustworthy information.

Information Literacy Questions (5) The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest. 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 trustworthy /untrustworthy information. The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.

Qualitative Data: Sample comments Number: 6 Date: 12: 03 AM 3/31/2003 C. S. T. User Group: Undergraduate Discipline: Science / Math Library Branch: Parks Library Age: 18 - 22 Sex: Female KEYWORDS: ILL/DD Comment: I was shocked to find such fast delivery for journal articles I have requested.

Qualitative Data (50+ user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data (20 -49 user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data (10 -19 user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data (1 -9 user comments) Topic # of users

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Collections-related) Collections-related More journals! Grow the journal collection, avoid cuts, & stand strong against coercive publishers. More full-text journals, including back files. Improve remote access to e-resources, especially journals. Many comments and suggestions regarding specific subject areas, titles, etc.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Staff-related) Staff-related Vast majority of respondents see library staff as uniformly courteous, friendly, helpful. Still, some respondents (c. 5) see staff as unfriendly, rude, disinterested, dismissive. Several respondents comment on the inconsistency of staff service: the mix of professional & unprofessional behaviors. Perceived lack of knowledge (on part of some staff) results in time delays and lots of referrals. Several individual staff singled out for praise or criticism.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Noise) Noise, individual/group study, etc. Importance of the library as a study hall. Many users currently find the library a “wonderful environment for study, ” Vast majority of comments individually or in groups. Especially indicate that the Parks Library conducive to quiet study: the is too noisy. There is a need Periodical Room and the branches. for designated “silent zones, ” and for more group study rooms that are isolated and/or soundproofed to minimize disruption to others. Occasionally, it’s the library staff who are talking too loudly!

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Building, equipment, furniture) Building, equipment, furniture New copiers are nice, but are too slow, too expensive, and need more options (paper size, duplexing). Stack/tier layout is confusing; need better signage. Need better lighting in bathrooms, stairwells, stacks, Need new, more attractive, study areas, aisles. more comfortable chairs. Building is too hot & stuffy, especially in upper tiers/floors. Retrieval of items from Storage is inconvenient, and items sent to Storage are not sufficiently old.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (e-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc. ) E-Library, Catalog, Internet, etc. Mixed ratings of the e-Library website. Some see it as excellent and appreciate its integration with other library services. Others express concern that the website is too graphics-intensive, lacks an effective site search, and is less navigable than the old one. The need for easier and more effective access to journals and indexes, by The growing tendency of title and by subject. many users to prefer Google or other Internet search engines for locating information and information resources. Specific suggestions for enhancing the e-Library or Library Catalog.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Circulation policy/practice; Hours) Circulation policy/practice Need to review and revise Circulation and Collection Development policies (loan periods, recalls, overdue fines, purchase of multiple copies) to improve book availability. Need to move to email (versus printed) correspondence with users. Hours The need for longer hours during break periods, especially the weekend A desire for expanded before classes begin. hours in general, including several requests for 24/7.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Public computing, printers, etc. ) Public computing, printing, etc. The library needs better printers, “even if you have to pay…” The library needs more computers (including an open computer lab, and Add MS Office to more in group study rooms). computers, and make more computers available for email.

Qualitative Data: Recurring themes… (Instruction) Instruction The growing need for effective remote access to e-resources for distance education students. Concerns regarding the validity of information resources and the user’s The constancy of change. ability to locate and recognize (“Everything has changed unbiased information. since I took Library 160…”) The need for more instruction in specific areas, but especially finding books, journals, and journal articles in the e-Library. More events like Data. Palooza.

Next steps • Share qualitative and quantitative data with appropriate library units, for analysis. • Implement and document changes based on findings. • Explore opportunities to compare findings with colleagues (GWLA, etc. ) • Repeat survey biennially (next in 2005) and watch the trajectories. • Consider focus groups to explore areas of concern.

Recommendations • Acquire more e-journals, and make them accessible from both on and off campus. • Investigate the effectiveness of and alternatives to Serials. Solutions. • Investigate and act on respondent’s recommendations for specific material purchases. • Use circulation data to trigger the purchase of additional copies of heavily-used books.

Recommendations (cont. ) • Improve library support for distance learning. • Improve turnaround time, communication, user education, and PR regarding interlibrary loan. • Implement email notification for all circulation correspondence. • Establish and promote an official quiet zone within the Parks Library. • Explore ways to make the physical arrangement of collections more intuitive for users.

Recommendations (cont. ) • Improve access to laser printing within library facilities. • Consider respondents’ concerns when negotiating our next contract for public copiers. • Improve lighting in the stairwell that connects floors and tiers. • Use respondents’ comments/complaints regarding customer service to shape staff development sessions in the upcoming year.