Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL implementation

1
Background on the SCONUL LibQUAL implementation

• Stephen Town,
• Cranfield University

2
Objectives

• To give an overview of the 2003 LibQUAL Pilot
• To present the overall results of the 2003 SCONUL
  Cohort
• To describe the feedback from participants and
  the lessons learned

3
Previous UK methods used

• General Satisfaction
• Exit questionnaires
• SCONUL Satisfaction Survey
• Designed Surveys
• Satisfaction vs Importance 1989-
• Priority Surveys 1993-
• Outcome measurement?
• ACPI project 2003-4

4
1. The UK LibQUAL Pilot
5
The UK approach

• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College,
  National University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory
  Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI)
• 20 UK Higher Education (HE) colleges participated
  in the UK Pilot

6
UK Institutions

• University of Bath
• Cranfield University
• Royal Holloway Bedford New College
• University of Lancaster
• University of Wales, Swansea
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Glasgow
• University of Liverpool
• University of London Library
• University of Oxford

7
UK Institutions

• University College Northampton
• University of Wales College Newport
• University of Gloucestershire
• De Montfort University
• Leeds Metropolitan University
• Liverpool John Moores University
• Robert Gordon University
• South Bank University
• University of the West of England, Bristol
• University of Wolverhampton

8
Potential UK Sample

• Full variety of institutions
• 12 of institutions
• 17 of HE students (250,000)
• 20 of Libraries
• 19 of Library expenditure

9
Steering Group

• Stephen Town (Co-ordinator)
• Maggie Black (UWE)
• Jane Blount (Glasgow)
• Michael Heaney (Oxford)
• Margaret Oldroyd (De Montfort University)
• Kate Robinson (Bath)

10
Time frame

• October MoU for participation
• November Survey modification
• December Registration
• January 7-8 2003 UK Training
• February to May Surveys run

11
Time frame

• June Results distributed
• July Dissemination (Northumbria)
• September - Review
• December - Data workshop

12
Dimensions of Quality

• Affect of Service
• Information Access
• Personal Control
• Library as a Place

13
C. Cook B. Thompson, 2002.
14
Additional UK questions

• Access to photocopying and printing facilities
• Main text and readings needed
• Provision for information skills training
• Helpfulness in dealing with users IT problems
• Availability of subject specialist assistance

15
Sample Survey
16
Sample Survey continued
17
2. Results from SCONUL
18
Respondents by Institution
19
Respondents by Institution (continued)
20
Core Question Summary
21
Access to Information
22
Core Question Dimensions Summary
Range of Minimum to Desired Range of
Minimum to Perceived (Adequacy Gap)
Access to Information
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Personal Control
23
Local Questions Summary
24
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates
25
Access to Information - Undergraduates
26
Core Question Dimensions Summary - Undergraduates
Range of Minimum to Desired Range of
Minimum to Perceived (Adequacy Gap)
Access to Information
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Personal Control
27
Core Question Summary for Postgraduate
28
Access to Information - Postgraduates
29
Library as a place Postgraduates
30
Core Question Dimensions Summary - Postgraduates
Range of Minimum to Desired Range of
Minimum to Perceived (Adequacy Gap)
Access to Information
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Personal Control
31
Core Questions Summary - Academic Staff
32
Access to Information Academic Staff
33
Core Question Dimensions Summary Academic Staff
Range of Minimum to Desired Range of
Minimum to Perceived (Adequacy Gap)
Access to Information
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Personal Control
34
3. Feedback from participants

• and lessons learned

35
Purpose for participating

• Benchmarking
• Analysis compiled by LibQUAL
• Trialling alternative survey methods
• More library focused than previous in-house
  method
• Supporting Charter Mark application process

36
Feedback on the LibQUAL process

• Overall it is seen as straightforward
• Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias
• Some issues in obtaining
• Email addresses
• Demographic data

37
Feedback on results

• Overall results were as expected by the
  institutions
• Detailed questions highlighted new information,
  as LibQUAL goes into more depth than previous
  surveys
• Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other
  surveys including a parallel one

38
How can LibQUAL be improved?

• Summary and commentary on results
• Ability to add own subject mix for all UK
  participants
• More flexibility on the content and language of
  the questionnaire
• More interaction with other UK participating
  libraries
• Provide results for full time and part time
  students
• Simpler questionnaire design

39
Conclusions and lessons

• learned from the UK LibQUAL Pilot

40
Conclusions

• LibQUAL Successfully applied to the UK academic
  sector
• Provided first comparative data on academic
  library user satisfaction in the UK
• At least half the participants would use LibQUAL
  again

41
Lessons learned

• The majority of participants would not sample the
  population in future surveys
• The smaller the sample, the lower the response
  rate
• Collecting demographics is time consuming and
  subject categories are not always fitting
• Results are detailed and comprehensive, further
  analysis is complex

42
J. Stephen Town

• Director of Information Services
• Royal Military College of Science
• Deputy University Librarian
• Cranfield University
• j.s.town_at_cranfield.ac.uk