using libqual+™ results observations from arl program “making library assessment work” steve...
TRANSCRIPT
Using LibQUAL+™ ResultsObservations from ARL Program “Making
Library Assessment Work”
Steve HillerUniversity of Washington Libraries
ARL Visiting Program Officer 2004-06
Making Library Assessment Work: Practical Approaches for Developing and
Sustaining Effective Assessment
• 2 year ARL project to assist libraries with moving assessment efforts forward
• Led by Steve Hiller (UW) and Jim Self (UVa) • Recognition that libraries understand value of assessment
but have trouble sustaining efforts and using results• Site visits conducted to evaluate assessment and develop
practical approaches to effective local practices• Identify common barriers and facilitators to assessment• 7 libraries participating in Phase I Spring 2005; 12-14
during 2005-06 academic year; final report in 2006
Phase I Libraries and Latest LibQUAL+™ Survey
• Spring 2005 Participants Latest Survey Year– University of Arizona 2004 (2005 too)
– Arizona State University 2004
– University of Connecticut 2004
– University of Illinois U-C 2002
– New York University 2002
– University of Notre Dame 2002
– University of Oregon 2005
Using LibQUAL+™ ResultsSome General Observations
• Response numbers low, especially for faculty• Comparisons important
– Between internal group– By academic area– Peer institutions– Over time
• Uncertain how to analyze• Uncertain how to follow-up unless very negative• Difficulty in using for planning and decision-making• Comments help tell the story and pinpoint problems
SIZE MATTERS! Maximize the Number of Survey Responses
Institution (year) Undergrad Grad Faculty
Arizona (2004) 118 122 82
Arizona State (2004) 107 200 205
Connecticut (2004 304 195 96
NYU (2002) 322 86 146
Notre Dame (2002) 308 255 183
Oregon (2004) 114 87 63
LibQUAL+ ™ Number of Survey Respondents by Group
Using Negative Results Positively University "Q" and ARL
"Comfortable & Inviting Environment"
Q
Q
ARL
Q
Undergrads
ARL
Graduate
ARL
Faculty
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.5
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.1
Minimum
Perceived
Desired
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
Undergrad Grad Faculty
What's Going On? Overall Satisfaction by Group University "Z" 2002-2004
2002 2003 2004
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Affect Info Control Place
Adequacy Gaps by Dimension & Group University "Z" 2003 and 2004
Grad 2003 Grad 2004 Fac 2003 Fac 2004
Academic Area Grad 2003
Grad 2004
Grad Pop
Faculty 2003
Faculty 2004
Faculty Pop
Fine Arts/Arch 5% 8% 4% 9% 15% 5%
Humanities 9% 14% 6% 8% 15% 9%
Social Sciences 21% 22% 11% 19% 18% 16%
Science 7% 16% 11% 23% 16% 19%
Engineering 12% 9% 12% 10% 4% 7%
Respondent Composition by Selected Academic Area & Group 2003-04 - University “Z”
Some Complementary Information
• Fine Arts/Architecture libraries “temporarily” merged• Budget reductions impacted collections and staff
– Book budget cut
• Some hours reduced in branch libraries
• Comments corroborated the above as important concerns for faculty and graduate students
University “X” Peer Comparisons
UGTreat
UG Support
UGOver
all
GradTreat
Grad Support
GradOver all
Fac Treat
FacSupport
FacOver all
“X” 7.46 7.33 7.40 7.40 7.09 7.26 7.41 6.67 7.00
Peer 1 7.12 6.77 6.98 7.42 6.95 6.99 7.50 6.99 7.27
Peer 2 6.96 6.75 6.81 6.90 6.72 6.82 7.53 7.02 7.27
Peer 3 7.12 6.77 6.98 7.42 6.95 6.99 7.50 6.99 7.27
Peer 4 6.92
6.73 7.02 7.30
6.91 7.06 7.69
7.12 7.37
University “X” Overall Library Quality:Mining the Data - Faculty Frequency Responses By Area
Other Areas
Liberal Arts
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
University “X” Comments
• Likes– Librarian liaisons*****
– ILL**
• Concerns– Copiers
– Loan periods/renewals– Print collection (Faculty)
– Journal collection (Faculty)
– Noise
– Student assistants
– Off-campus online access
– Web site
Service Adequacy Gaps by Dimension
University “X” Undergrads by Year in School
1st Year
3rd year
4th Year
2nd year
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Affect Place Info Control
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Information Control “Y”/ARL Adequacy Gaps By Group 2005
"Y" Grad
"Y" Grad
"Y" Faculty
"Y" Faculty
ARL Faculty
ARL Faculty
ARL GradARL Grad
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Remote Web site Access tools Independent OnlineResouces
Print Journals
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
"Y" Grad"Y" FacultyARL FacultyARL Grad
Journal Collections I RequireFaculty/Grad Student Adequacy Gaps (ARL Ranks 61-110)
-1.5
-1.3
-1.1
-0.9
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
-1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5FACULTY
GR
AD
ST
UD
EN
TS
ARL Rank 61-80 "Y" ARL Rank 81-110 ARL Mean