Staff Library Summit I

1
(No Transcript)
2
Staff Library Summit I

• Fred Heath
• University of Texas at Austin Libraries
• October 11, 2005

3
Why Hold a Library Summit?

• Review current state of library service quality
• How well are we advancing/enabling teaching and
  learning?
• Generate fresh ideas for change and improvement
  from the Libraries community
• Respond to shifts in user information-seeking
  behaviors reallocation essential
• Gather qualitative data for strategic planning
  process from internal constituents
• Provosts Compact risk management, budget
  justification

4
LibQUAL Survey Tool

• Web-based survey sent to 1200 faculty, 1200
  graduate students and 2400 undergraduates
• Participants selected randomly from University
  email databases
• Conducted at UT Austin 2001-2005
• 22 questions measuring users perceptions of
  library service quality

5
Why LibQUAL?

• In an age of accountability, there is a pressing
  need for an effectiveprocess to evaluate and
  compare research libraries.
• 124 Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
  alone, over 3.2 billion dollars were expended in
  2000/2001
• 500 LibQUAL participants in LibQUAL
• Note M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002).
• ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C. ARL,
  p.5.

6
Dimensions of Library Service Quality
7
Peer Assessment

• University of Texas Libraries compares favorably
  to peers
• University of Washington
• University of Wisconsin Madison
• UCLA
• Ohio State University
• University of Minnesota Twin Cities

8

• UT had slightly higher minimum, perceived and
  desired ratings than the peer group and the
  Affect of Service superiority gap tended to be
  smaller for UT than the peer group, but the
  differences were not significant.

9

• Library as a Place scores UT had slightly
  higher minimum, perceived and desired ratings
  than the peer group.

10

• Information Control scores. UT hadhigher
  perceived scores than did the peer group.
• UT had a larger adequacy gap and a significantly
  smaller superiority gap than did the peer groups.

11

• Information Control scores. UT hadhigher
  perceived scores than did the peer group.
• UT had a larger adequacy gap and a significantly
  smaller superiority gap than did the peer groups.

12

• Overall (the average of the three primary
  dimensions) scores UT had higher perceived
  scores than the peer group, UT had a
  significantly smaller superiority gap than the
  peer group.

13

• Overall. In terms of the item, How would you
  rate the overall quality of the service provided
  by the library? UT clients were more satisfied
  than were the clients of the peer group.

14
Constituent Group

• What are the differences we can recognize by
  constituent group?
• Undergraduate
• Graduate Students
• Faculty
• Library Staff

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Consider Discipline Differences

• Are there statistically different behaviors by
  discipline to which we need to respond?

18

• Humanities (N 103)
• Humanities had significantly lower perceived
  scores for Library as Place
• (Humanities 6.15 other UT 6.565).
• The adequacy gap for Affect of Service was
  marginally higher
• (Humanities 1.089 other UT 0.778).

19

• Humanities (N 103)
• Humanities had significantly lower perceived
  scores for Library as Place
• (Humanities 6.15 other UT 6.565).
• The adequacy gap for Affect of Service was
  marginally higher
• (Humanities 1.089 other UT 0.778).

20

• Engineering Computer Science (N 112)
• Respondents from Engineering and Computer Science
  had significantly lower minimum
• (E CS 5.771
• other UT 6.230) standards for Affect of Service
  and Information Control (E CS 6.462
• other UT 6.742). The perceived rating for
  Information Control was also significantly lower
  (E CS 7.979
• other UT 8.188).
• The adequacy gap was significantly larger for
  Affect of Service (E CS 1.197 other UT
  0.757)
• and overall (E CS 0.939 other UT 0.607).

21

• Engineering Computer Science (N 112)
• Respondents from Engineering and Computer Science
  had significantly lower minimum
• (E CS 5.771
• other UT 6.230) standards for Affect of Service
  and Information Control (E CS 6.462
• other UT 6.742). The perceived rating for
  Information Control was also significantly lower
  (E CS 7.979
• other UT 8.188).
• The adequacy gap was significantly larger for
  Affect of Service (E CS 1.197 other UT
  0.757)
• and overall (E CS 0.939 other UT 0.607).

22

• Engineering Computer Science (N 112)
• Respondents from Engineering and Computer Science
  had significantly lower minimum
• (E CS 5.771
• other UT 6.230) standards for Affect of Service
  and Information Control (E CS 6.462
• other UT 6.742). The perceived rating for
  Information Control was also significantly lower
  (E CS 7.979
• other UT 8.188).
• The adequacy gap was significantly larger for
  Affect of Service (E CS 1.197 other UT
  0.757)
• and overall (E CS 0.939 other UT 0.607).

23

• The adequacy gap for Affect of Service was
  significantly larger (PMA 1.405 other UT
  0.792) for the Physics-Math-Astronomy Library
  than for all other libraries.

24

• The Undergraduate Library had a significantly
  higher perceived (UGL 6.832
• other UT 6.465) score and a marginally higher
  desired (UGL 7.658 other UT 7.374) score for
  Library as Place
• The Undergraduate Library had significantly
  lower minimum (UGL 6.292 other UT 6.771) and
  desired (UGL 7.926 other UT 8.197) scores
  for Information Control.

25

• The Undergraduate Library had a significantly
  higher perceived (UGL 6.832
• other UT 6.465) score and a marginally higher
  desired (UGL 7.658 other UT 7.374) score for
  Library as Place
• The Undergraduate Library had significantly
  lower minimum (UGL 6.292 other UT 6.771) and
  desired (UGL 7.926 other UT 8.197) scores
  for Information Control.

26
Alignment of values

• Can we be sure that our priorities, values
  correctly align with those of our constituents?
• If a case for misalignment can be made, what can
  we do to align ourselves more effectively?

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
Adequacy Gap by User Group 2001 2003, with
Desired Mean Ranking (The University of Texas at
Austin Libraries)
33
Adequacy Gap by User Group 2001 2003, with
Desired Mean Ranking (The University of Texas at
Austin Libraries)
34
Special Services

• The protocol also enables us to measure the
  effectiveness of special services that are
  evaluated year-to-year.

35

• Trustworthy Information. In terms of the item
  The library helps me distinguish between
• trustworthy and untrustworthy information, UT
  was rated significantly higher than the peer
  group.
• Information Skills. In terms of the item The
  library provides me with the information skills
• I need in my work or study, UT was rated
  significantly higher than the peer group.

36
Todays Goal

• Learn what we do well, and leverage those
  services for the benefit of our constituents
• Determine areas important to constituents where
  there are deficits or concerns
• Suggest reallocations or enhancements that are
  needed to achieve improvement

37
Roundtable Discussions

• Discussions organized around LibQUAL dimensions
  (8-10 per table) Affect of Service, Library as
  Place, Personal Control, Access to Information
• Innovative and constructive solutions from your
  perspective
• Negative gaps, danger zones, and areas of
  possible misalignment
• Focus on how to not cant do
• Facilitator library staff roles

38
Facilitators

• Janelle Headstrom, RIS
• Adrian Johnson, LIS
• Jo Anne Newyear-Ramirez, RS
• Michele Ostrow, LIS
• Rue Ramirez, DLS
• Alexia Thompson-Young, DLS
• Lindsey Schell, RS
• Craig Schroer, BLAC

39
Thanks!

• Data will be used to improve services and for
  strategic planning process
• Data will be made available on assessment web
  site
• If you would like more information about LibQUAL
  or the data analysis, please contact
• Damon Jaggars, jaggars_at_austin.utexas.edu
• Jocelyn Duffy jduffy_at_mail.utexas.edu
• Fred Heath fheath_at_austin.utexas.edu

40
(No Transcript)