Online Northwest Twentieth Annual ConferenceCorvallis, Oregon • February 28, 2003Julia Blixrud, ARL Director of Information Services

LibQUAL+TM: An Innovative, Technology- Based Assessment Tool for Libraries

Why New Measures Increased customer and stakeholder

expectations Greater demands for accountability Exploding growth in use and applications

of technology Increasing competition for resources Need for reliable and valid data

– Benchmarking and best practice

– Trends over time

ARL New Measures Initiative

Collaboration among member leaders with strong interest in this area

Specific projects developed with different models for exploration

Projects self-funded by interested members Intent to make resulting tools and

methodologies available to full membership and wider community

Freeze modifications to existing descriptive measures

Antecedents

Effective service delivery

– “every unit … is valued in proportion to its contribution to the quality success of the campus” Danuta Nitecki

LibQUAL+™ Description

LibQUAL+TM is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create useful quality-assessment tools for local planning.

Project Resources

LibQUAL+TM is an ARL/Texas A&M University joint effort. The project is supported in part by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE).

To fill a knowledge void in modeling the dimensions of library service quality from a user perspective

Based upon the model, to develop a web-delivered, effective total market survey instrument equivalent for service quality assessment in academic libraries

Using the derived instrument to recommend a process for an ongoing program of comparative outcome measurement for academic libraries

The Purpose of the Research

LibQUAL+™ Project Goals

Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL

Development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality

Development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries

Identification of best practices in providing library service

Relationships: Perceptions, Service Quality and Satisfaction

….only customers judge quality;all other judgments are essentiallyirrelevant”

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

Source: Parasuraman, ARL Symposium on Measuring Service QualityWashington, DC, October 2000

70+ Interviews Conducted

York University University of

Arizona University of

Connecticut University of

Houston University of Kansas

University of Minnesota

University of Pennsylvania

University of Washington

Smithsonian Northwestern

Medical

Content Analysis Software Atlas Ti

Content Analysis Software Atlas Ti

Dimensions of LibraryService Quality

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

Survey Dimensions

Access to InformationAccess to Information

Information AccessSelf RelianceProvision of Physical Collections

Personal ControlReliabilityLibrary as Place

Library as PlaceLibrary as PlaceReliability

Service AffectAffect of ServiceAffect of Service

Spring 2002

(25-Item Survey)

Spring 2001

(56-Item Survey)

Spring 2000

(41-Item Survey)

Affect of Service

Emerged as the dominant factor early in our work

Absorbed several of the original SERVQUAL questions measuring Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy

In the current analysis also includes Reliability

All in all: the Human Dimension of Service Quality

Library as Place

Transcends the SERVQUAL dimension of Tangibles to include the idea of the library as the campus center of intellectual activity

As long as physical facilities are adequate, library as place may not be an issue

Personal Control

How users want to interact with the modern library

Personal control of the information universe in general and web navigation in particular

Access to Information

Ubiquity of access: information delivered in the format, location and time of choice

Comprehensive collections—either print or electronic

The Challenge of Analysis

There are few useful conclusions to be drawn from aggregate data of all institutions, because their missions and subsequent user expectations for service are too diverse

There are commonalities in service delivery profiles that merit further investigation

In the long run, information that may be derived from demographic responses of individuals may yield the richest data

LibQUAL+TM Participants

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Spring 2001Spring 2000 Spring 2002

12 Participants

43 Participants

164 Participants

For More Information about Participants:

Visit the LibQUAL+ web site.

Process Timeline

August 2002

•Gather information about LibQUAL+TM survey

•Determine if have appropriate resources

•Identify budgetary requirements if any

September 2002

•Register for LibQUAL+TM related workshops

•Identify and initiate steps to obtain human subjects research approval from IRB

October – December 2002June/July 2002

•Register for Spring 2003 survey

•Subscribe to ARL-QUALITY listserv

•Designate survey liaison/committee/project team

•Identify sample groups

•Identify best data source to obtain valid e-mail addresses for sample groups

•Meet with person(s) who will be drawing e-mail addresses to determine process feasibility

•Register for LibQUAL+TM

related workshops

Process Timeline

January 2003

•Need to have IRB approval by mid-January

•January 27-28, orientation session for participating libraries held during ALA Midwinter, Phildelphia, PA Attendance is required!

•Complete online demographics questionnaire

•Preview survey turned on

•Draw final e-mail address samples

•Spring 2003 survey open to public.

•Send out survey announcements

•Spring 2003 survey closed to public

•Participants complete online post hoc survey

February 2003 March-April 2003 May 2003 June 2003

•Survey results distributed

July 2003

•LibQUAL+TM evaluation questionnaire sent to participants

Survey Instrument

3 scales: Minimum Desired Perceived

Survey Instrument

9 point scale

Sample Survey

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Sample Survey…continued

Technology Approach Software

• Reduced HTML requirements

• No client-side actions (no javascript, Java, Active-X, cookies)

• ColdFusion (for website and load-balanced servers)

• SQL Server 2000 (for database server)

Technology Approach Hardware

• 4 servers at TAMU– 1 reserved for old.libqual.org site

– 2 load-balanced web/application ColdFusion-only servers that serve up the web pages of the survey

– Database server that collects all data

• 1 development server at ARL

Hardware Diagram

Project Deliverables

Print and web-based results include:– Aggregate Summaries – Demographics by Library– Item Summaries– Dimension Summaries– A copy of the survey instrument– Dimensions measured for survey

implementation

Surveys Completed Spring 2002

LibQUAL+ Assessment Survey

Aggregate (All Ranks)(All)

Aggregate (All Ranks)Texas A&M University

Aggregate DimensionSummary (n=70,445)

Note: LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results. (2002). vol. 1, p. 24

Interpretation FrameworkZone of Tolerance

The area between minimally acceptable and desired service quality ratings

Perception ratings ideally fall within the Zone of Tolerance

Interpretation FrameworkScore Norms

Norm Conversion Tables facilitate the interpretation of observed scores using norms created for a large and representative sample

LibQUAL+TM norms have been created at both the individual and institutional level

LibQUAL+™ Fundamental Contributions to the Measurement of Effective Delivery

of Library Services

Shift the focus of assessment from mechanical expenditure-driven metrics to user-centered measures of quality

Re-ground gap theory for the library sector, especially academic libraries

Grounded questions yield data of sufficient granularity to be of value at the local level

Determine the degree to which information derived from local data can be generalized, providing much needed “best practices” information

Demonstrate the efficacy of large-scale administration of user-centered assessment transparently across the web

Makes little demand of local resources and expertise

LibQUAL+™ Resources

LibQUAL+LibQUAL+ Web Site http://www. libqual.org

LibQUAL+LibQUAL+ Bibliographyhttp://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib

Survey Participants Policies and Procedures Manualhttp://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/procedures3.8.pdf

Julia C. BlixrudDirector of Information Services

Association of Research Libraries

21 Dupont Circle, Ste 800

Washington, DC 20036

jblix@arl.org

202-296-2296 ext. 133

202-872-0884 (fax)

202-251-4678 (mobile)