1	LibQUAL+ Reports University Libraries Assessment Committee June 2007
2	Overview Assessment Committee overview Brief history of LibQUAL+ Description of instrument Value of instrument General Results for Information Control LibQUAL+ Reports Example report What’s next?
3	Assessment Committee Charge: “To foster a culture of evidence-based practice, the Libraries Assessment Committee will promote and initiate ways by which measurement and evaluation can be integrated into existing library management practices.” Strategic Plan, Client-Centered Focus Goal 2: “Improve the experiences of clients by fostering a culture of continual, assessment-based action and by actively promoting our services.”
4	Assessment continued… Create substantive cycle of LibQUAL+ data dissemination Further system-wide assessment cycle Foster culture of assessment within the Libraries Make LibQUAL+ data more broadly useful
5	A Brief History Based on SERVQUAL instrument (1980s) Modified by ARL and Texas A&M University Libraries (1990s) Financed by U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE). Over 500 libraries across the world have taken part (2005) UCB has participated in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2006 More info: http://www.libqual.org/About/Birth/index.cfm
6	Overview of instrument Demographic questions Core questions Local questions Comments
7	Demographic Questions User group Undergraduate, graduate, faculty Discipline (standard) Humanities, social sciences, science, engineering Customized discipline Chosen based on bibliographers funds Age Sex
8	Core Questions Three dimensions Affect of Service (AS) “Customer service” Information Control (IC) Bibliography, catalog, website, access tools Library as Place (LP) Facilities
9	Affect of Service (AS) [AS-1] Employees who instill confidence in users [AS-2] Giving users individual attention [AS-3] Employees who are consistently courteous [AS-4] Readiness to respond to users’ questions [AS-5] Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions [AS-6] Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion [AS-7] Employees who understand the needs of their users [AS-8] Willingness to help users [AS-9] Dependability in handling users’ service problems
10	Information Control (IC) [IC-1] Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office [IC-2] A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own [IC-3] The printed library materials I need for my work [IC-4] The electronic information resources I need [IC-5] Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information [IC-6] Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own [IC-7] Making information easily accessible for independent use [IC-8] Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
11	Library as Place (LP) [LP-1] Library space that inspires study and learning [LP-2] Quiet space for individual activities [LP-3] A comfortable and inviting location [LP-4] A getaway for study, learning or research [LP-5] Community space for group learning and group study
12	Local Questions (LQ) [LQ-1] Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use information [LQ-2] Librarians teaching me how to effectively use the electronically available databases, journals, and books [LQ-3] A library environment that is hospitable and conducive to finding and using information [LQ-4] Enabling me to find information myself 24 hours a day [LQ-5] Facilitating self-directed research
13	Reponses Minimal level of service “the number that represents the minimum level of service you would find acceptable.” Desired level of service “the number of the service that you personally want.” Perceived level of service “the number that represents the level of service that you believe the library currently provides.”
14	Gap Analysis Superiority Gap Difference between Perceived and Desired Adequacy Gap Difference between Perceived and Minimal Zone of Tolerance Difference between Minimal and Desired
15	Value of Instrument
16	The Beast Usability Redundancy “Value” of questions Indeterminable aspects of responses
17
18	Beauty in the Beast Perceptions in relation to expectations Construct validity Notebook reports Automatic disregard of “illogical” responses
19	LibQUAL+ Notebook 100 page booklet of disaggregated, “clean” data User group analysis In discipline, only by broad disciplines No ARL context
20	Radar Charts
21
22	Information Control Results IC aggregate compared to ARL averages by user group IC-3: The printed library materials I need for my work compared to ARL averages by user group IC-4: The electronic information resources I need compared to ARL averages By user group
23	Information Control
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31	LibQUAL+ Reports Disaggregated raw data Created data tables for bibliographers Cross-tabulated IC questions against locally customized disciplines Compared to Libraries-wide and ARL average scores Created data tables for public service department heads Cross-tabulated AS questions against locally customized disciplines Compared to Libraries-wide and ARL average scores
32	Bibliographers Reports Minimum response of 20 (n=20) Exception for stand-alone collection (Art/Architecture) Conflated some disciplines 12 disciplines
33	Bib Reports continued Provided background context Cautionary notes to analysis Suggestions for use Offer for re-aggregating, further disaggregating, providing more Data for IC, IC-3 and IC-4 Comments
34	Bibliographers Reports
35	Example From Bib Report
36	Another example
37	Point of Service Reports Wanted to get every building Discipline -> collection -> building Some textual context as Bibliographers Just aggregate AS scores Reports Norlin, Business, Math Physics, Engineering, Music, Earth Science, Science
38	What can be done with this data? Promote Further assessment Ask Assessment for more or different data Gather your own data Nothing USE IT AS A TALKING POINT
39	Broad Cautions Not an evaluation of bibliographers Not necessarily an evaluation of specific service Not an evaluation of collection Promotion, access, collection Does Place affect the rest? Piece of larger assessment puzzle
40	What’s Next? Need for Reports? Disseminate data Fall 2007 we plan LibQUAL+ 2008 Local questions Local disciplines Change how we administer LibQUAL+? Data provided on website
41	Assessment Committee Website: http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/internal/assessment/index.htm Members: Brice Austin, John Culshaw (Ex-officio), Deborah Fink (Co-Chair, Ex-officio), Jennifer Gerke, Matthew Hamilton, Lindsay Steussy, Jack Maness (Co-Chair), Scott Seaman, Heather Wicht. LibQUAL+ Summaries: http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/libqual/index.htm