LibQUAL+ 2002 Aggregate Notebook

TM

TM

LibQUAL+™ Spring 2002 Aggregate Survey Results

Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University Duane Webster

Fred M. Heath

Executive Director, Association of Research Libraries [email protected]

Dean and Director, Texas A&M University Libraries [email protected]

http://www.libqual.org Bibliography of LibQUAL+TM Studies: http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib.htm

-1Summary Statistics and Graphs

TM


Aggregate Statistics and Graphs June, 2002

Contributors: Colleen Cook Texas A&M University

Consuella Askew Waller Association of Research Libraries

Fred Heath Texas A&M University

Martha Kyrillidou Association of Research Libraries

Bruce Thompson Texas A&M University

Jonathan D. Sousa Association of Research Libraries Amy Hoseth Association of Research Libraries Kaylyn Hipps Association of Research Libraries

http://www.libqual.org Bibliography of LibQUAL+TM Studies: http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib.htm

Published by the Association of Research Libraries 21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884 Copyright: ©2002 by the Association of Research Libraries ISBN 0-918006-84-8

Contents 1

Introduction 1.1 Acknowledgements 1.2 Web Access to Data 1.3 Explanation of Charts 1.4 A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002

2

Aggregate Analysis 2.1 Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 2.1.1 Respondents by Institution 2.1.2 Completion Rates 2.1.3 Surveys Completed by Date 2.2 Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 2.2.1 Respondents by Institution Type 2.2.2 Respondents by Age (Excludes NYPL) 2.2.3 Respondents by Sex 2.3 Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 2.3.1 Aggregate Item Summary 2.3.2 Aggregate Dimension Summary 2.3.3 General Satisfaction 2.3.4 Library Use 2.4 Item Analysis for Library Staff 2.4.1 Item Summary for Library Staff 2.4.2 Dimension Summary for Library Staff 2.4.3 General Satisfaction for Library Staff 2.4.4 Library Use for Library Staff

3

4-Year Institution Analysis 3.1 4-Year Institution Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 3.1.1 4-Year Institution Completion Rates 3.1.2 4-Year Institution Surveys Completed by Date 3.2 4-Year Institution Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 3.2.1 4-Year Institution Respondents by Age 3.2.2 4-Year Institution Respondents by Sex 3.2.3 4-Year Institution Respondents by User Group 3.2.4 4-Year Institution Respondents by Discipline 3.3 4-Year Institution Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 3.3.1 4-Year Institution Item Summary 3.3.2 4-Year Institution Dimension Summary 3.3.3 4-Year Institution General Satisfaction 3.3.4 4-Year Institution Library Use

4

Community College Analysis 4.1 Community College Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 4.1.1 Community College Completion Rates 4.1.2 Community College Surveys Completed by Date 4.2 Community College Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 4.2.1 Community College Respondents by Age 4.2.2 Community College Respondents by Sex 4.2.3 Community College Respondents by User Group 4.2.4 Community College Respondents by Discipline 4.3 Community College Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 4.3.1 Community College Item Summary 4.3.2 Community College Dimension Summary 4.3.3 Community College General Satisfaction

4.3.4 Community College Library Use 5

Health Sciences Library Analysis 5.1 Health Sciences Library Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 5.1.1 Health Sciences Library Completion Rates 5.1.2 Health Sciences Library Surveys Completed by Date 5.2 Health Sciences Library Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff) 5.2.1 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Age 5.2.2 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Sex 5.2.3 Health Sciences Library Respondents by User Group 5.2.4 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Discipline 5.3 Health Sciences Library Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) 5.3.1 Health Sciences Library Item Summary 5.3.2 Health Sciences Library Dimension Summary 5.3.3 Health Sciences Library General Satisfaction 5.3.4 Health Sciences Library Library Use

6

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey 6.1 Description 6.2 Print Version of the Survey - Page 1, Introduction 6.3 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (4-Year Institution) 6.4 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Community College) 6.5 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Health Sciences Library) 6.6 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (New York Public Library) 6.7 Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Smithsonian Institution) 6.8 Print Version of the Survey - Page 3, Core Questions 6.9 Print Version of the Survey - Page 4, Satisfaction Questions 6.10 Print Version of the Survey - Page 5, E-Mail Address

7

Appendix B: LibQUAL+ Dimensions 7.1 Description 7.2 LibQUAL+ 2000 Dimensions 7.3 LibQUAL+ 2001 Dimensions 7.4 LibQUAL+ 2002 Dimensions

1


1. Introduction 1.1

Acknowledgements This notebook contains information from the third administration of the LibQUAL+TM protocol. The material on the following pages is drawn from the analysis of more than 78,000 respondents from 164 participating institutions, many of them members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). LibQUAL+TM is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create user-based quality-assessment tools for local planning. LibQUAL+TM tests a tool for measuring library users' perceptions of service quality and identifies gaps between desired, perceived, and minimum expectations of service. The project will continue as an R&D endeavor based at ARL in collaboration with the Texas A&M University Libraries through 2003, by which time LibQUAL+TM will evolve into an ongoing service quality assessment program at ARL. There are four main goals of LibQUAL+TM: 1) development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality; 2) development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries; 3) identification of best practices in providing library service; and 4) establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL. A project of this magnitude requires the skills of a dedicated group. We would like to thank the other members of the LibQUAL+TM team for their key roles in this developmental project. From Texas A&M University, the project management role of Colleen Cook, the quantitative guidance of Bruce Thompson, and the qualitative leadership of Yvonna Lincoln have been key to the project's integrity. The behind-the-scenes roles of Bill Chollet and others from the library Systems and Training units were also formative. From the Association of Research Libraries, the oversight role of Martha Kyrillidou and the day-to-day contributions of Consuella Askew Waller and Jonathan Sousa were fundamentally important. Julia Blixrud, Kaylyn Hipps, and Amy Hoseth were also important contributors. A New Measures Initiative of this scope is possible only as the collaborative effort of many libraries. To the directors and liaisons at all 164 participating libraries goes the largest measure of gratitude. Without your commitment, the development of LibQUAL+TM would not have been possible. We would also like to extend a special thank you to administrators at the two participating consortiums. From OhioLINK, Tom Sanville and Jeff Gatten were particularly helpful. From the American Association of Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the efforts of Rick Forsman and Tamera Lee were greatly appreciated. The advisory groups from each consortium also provided needed assistance. This note would be incomplete without acknowledging the enabling role of the Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education, which granted funds of $498,368 over a three-year period towards the LibQUAL+ TM project, enabling us to expand the protocol to all post-secondary institutions. Fred Heath Texas A&M University Duane Webster Association of Research Libraries

Introduction - Acknowledgements

2

1.2


Web Access to Data Data summaries from the 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey will be available to project participants online at the LibQUAL+TM survey management site: http://survey.libqual.org/Manage/

Introduction - Web Access to Data

3


1.3

Explanation of Charts Several different types of charts are used throughout this document to display aggregate results. A working knowledge of how to read and derive relevant information from these charts is essential. The basic chart types are outlined below, and additional descriptive information is included throughout this notebook.

1.3.1 Pie Chart On a pie chart, each slice represents a percentage of the whole. Pie charts are especially useful for displaying classes or groups of data in proportion to the whole data set. On the pages that follow, pie charts are used primarily to present demographical information collected as part of the survey.

1.3.2 Bar Chart Bar charts are easy to read and are useful for comparing classes and groups of data. For LibQUAL+TM results, bar charts are used to present information on survey completion rates, the chronological distribution of survey completion, respondents' general satisfaction with their libraries' service, service quality dimension summaries, and other sets of data that easily lend themselves to this format.

1.3.3 Radar Chart On a radar chart, variations in the data are shown by distance from the center of the chart. Radar charts feature multiple axes along which data are plotted. In the case of the LibQUAL+TM survey results, each axis represents a different survey question. Radar charts are used to present the item summaries (the results from the 25 survey questions) and the local question analysis (the results from the additional questions added by individual institutions). Radar graphs are an effective way to graphically show strengths and weaknesses. Points close to the center indicate a low value, while points near the edge indicate a high value. When interpreting a radar graph, it is important to check each individual axis as well as the graph's overall shape in order to gain a complete understanding of its meaning.

Introduction - Explanation of Charts

4

1.4


A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002 Libraries today confront escalating pressure to demonstrate impact. As Cullen (2001) recently noted, Academic libraries are currently facing their greatest challenge since the explosion in tertiary education and academic publishing which began after World War II... [T]he emergence of the virtual university, supported by the virtual library, calls into question many of our basic assumptions about the role of the academic library, and the security of its future. Retaining and growing their customer base, and focusing more energy on meeting their customers' expectations is the only way for academic libraries to survive in this volatile environment. (pp. 662-663) In this environment, "A measure of library quality based solely on collections has become obsolete" (Nitecki, 1996, p. 181). These considerations have prompted the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to sponsor a number of "New Measures" initiatives. The New Measures efforts represent a collective determination on the part of the ARL membership to augment the collection-count and fiscal input measures that comprise the ARL Index and ARL Statistics, to date the most consistently collected statistics for research libraries, with outcome measures, such as assessments of service quality and satisfaction. One New Measures initiative has been the LibQUAL+TM project (Cook, Heath & B. Thompson, 2002; Heath, Cook, Kyrillidou & Thompson, 2002; Thompson, Cook & Thompson, 2002). Within a service-quality assessment model, "only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant" (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry, 1990, p. 16). Consequently, the selection of items employed with the LibQUAL+TM has been grounded in the users' perspective as revealed in a series of qualitative studies (Cook, 2002a; Cook & Heath, 2001). LibQUAL+TM is a "way of listening" to users called a total market survey. As Berry (1995) explained, When well designed and executed, total market surveys provide a range of information unmatched by any other method... A critical facet of total market surveys (and the reason for using the word 'total') is the measurement of competitors' service quality. This [also] requires using noncustomers in the sample to rate the service of their suppliers. (p. 37) Although (a) measuring perceptions of both users and non-users and (b) collecting perceptions data as regards peer institutions can provide important insights, LibQUAL+TM is only one (i.e., a total market survey) of 11 "ways of listening" (Berry, 1995, pp. 32-61).

Using LibQUAL+TM Data In some cases LibQUAL+TM data may confirm prior expectations and library staff will readily formulate action plans to remedy perceived deficiencies. But in many cases library decision-makers will seek additional information to corroborate interpretations or to better understand the dynamics underlying user perceptions. For example, once an interpretation is formulated, library staff might review recent submissions of users to suggestion boxes to evaluate whether LibQUAL+TM data are consistent with interpretations, and the suggestion box data perhaps also provide user suggestions for remedies. User focus groups also provide a powerful way to explore problems and potential solutions. Cook (2002b) provides case study reports of how staff at various libraries have employed data from prior renditions of LibQUAL+TM.

Introduction - A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002

5


2002 Data Screening LibQUAL+TM consists of 25 items. The 25 items measure perceptions of total service quality, as well as four subdimensions of perceived library quality: (a) Service Affect (9 items, such as "willingness to help users"); (b) Library as Place (5 items, such as "a haven for quiet and solitude"); (c) Personal Control (6 items, such as "website enabling me to locate information on my own"); and (d) Information Access (5 items, such as "comprehensive print collections" and "convenient business hours"). However, as happens in any survey, in 2002 some users provided incomplete data, or inconsistent data, or both. In compiling the summary data reported here, several criteria were used to determine which data cases to omit from these analyses. 1.

Complete Data. The web software that presents the 25 core items monitors whether a given user has completed all items. On each of these items, in order to proceed to the next survey page, users must provide a rating of (a) minimally-acceptable service, (b) desired service, and (c) perceived service or rate the item "not applicable" ("NA"). If these conditions are not met, when the user attempts to leave the web page presenting the 25 core items, the software shows the user where missing data were located, and requests complete data. The user cannot exit the page containing the 25 items until all items are completed. Only records with complete data on the 25 items were retained in summary statistics.

2.

Excessive "NA" Responses. Because some institutions provided access to a lottery drawing for an incentive (e.g., a Palm Pilot) for completing the survey, some users might have selected "NA" choices for all or most of the items rather than reporting their actual perceptions. Or some users may have views on such a narrow range of quality issues that their data are not very informative. In this survey we made the judgment that records containing more than 11 "NA" responses should be deleted.

3.

Excessive Inconsistent Responses. On LibQUAL+TM user perceptions can be interpreted by locating "perceived" results within the "zone of tolerance" defined by data from the "minimum" and the "desired" ratings. For example, a mean "perceived" rating on the 1-to-9 ("9" is highest) scale of 7.5 might be very good if the mean "desired" rating is 6.0. But a 7.5 perception score is less satisfactory if the mean "desired" rating is 8.6, or if the mean "minimum" rating is 7.7. One appealing feature of such a "gap measurement model" is that the rating format provides a check for inconsistencies in the response data (Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2000). Logically, on a given item the "minimum" rating should not be higher than the "desired" rating on the same item. For each user a count of such inconsistencies, ranging from "0" to "25" was made. Records containing more than 9 logical inconsistencies were deleted.

LibQUAL+TM Norms An important way to interpret LibQUAL+TM data is by examining the zones of tolerance for items, the 4 subscale scores, and the total scores. However, the collection of such a huge number of user perceptions has afforded us with the unique opportunity to create "norms" tables that provide yet another perspective on results. Norms tell us how scores "stack up" within a particular user group. For example, on the 1-to-9 ("9" is highest) scale, users might provide a mean "perceived" rating of 6.5 on an item, "complete run of journal titles." The same users might provide a mean rating on "minimum" for this item of 7.0, and a mean service-adequacy "gap score" (i.e., "perceived" minus "minimum") of -0.5. The zone-of-tolerance perspective suggests that this library is not doing well on this item, because "perceived" falls below "minimally acceptable." This is important to know. But there is also a second way (i.e., normatively) to interpret the data. Both perspectives can be valuable. Introduction - A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002

6


A total market survey administered to tens of thousands of users, as was LibQUAL+TM in 2002, affords the opportunity to ask normative questions such as, "How does a mean 'perceived' score of 6.5 stack up among all individual users who completed the survey?", or ""How does a mean service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 stack up among the gap scores of all institutions participating in the survey?" If 70% of individual users generated "perceived" ratings lower than 6.5, 6.5 might not be so bad. And if 90% of institutions had service-adequacy gap scores lower than -0.5 (e.g., -0.7, -1.1), a mean gap score of -0.5 might actually be quite good. Users simply may have quite high expectations in this area. They may also communicate their dissatisfaction by both (a) rating "perceived" lower and (b) "minimum" higher. This does not mean that a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 is necessarily a cause for celebration. But a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 on an item on which 90% of institutions have a lower gap score is a different gap score than the same -0.5 for a different item in which 90% of institutions have a higher service-adequacy gap score. Only norms give us insight into this comparative perspective. And a local user-satisfaction survey (as against a total market survey) can never give us this insight. Common Misconception Regarding Norms. An unfortunate and incorrect misconception is that norms make value statements. Norms do not make value statements! Norms make fact statements. If you are a forest ranger, and you make $25,000 a year, a norms table might inform you of the fact statement that you make less money than 85% of the adults in the United States. But if you love the outdoors, you do not care very much about money, and you are very service-oriented, this fact statement might not be relevant to you. Or, in the context of your values, you might interpret this fact as being quite satisfactory. LibQUAL+TM 2002 Norms Tables. Of course, the fact statements made by the LibQUAL+TM norms are only valuable if you care about the dimensions being evaluated by the measure. More background on LibQUAL+TM norms is provided by Cook and Thompson (2001) and Cook, Heath and B. Thompson (2002). LibQUAL+TM norms for 2002 are available on the web at URL: http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/libq2002.htm

Response Rates At the American Library Association mid-winter meeting in San Antonio in January, 2000, participants were cautioned that response rates on the final LibQUAL+TM would probably range from 25% to 33%. Higher response rates can be realized (a) with shorter surveys that (b) are directly action-oriented (Cook, Heath & R.L. Thompson, 2000). For example, a very high response rate could be realized by a library director administering the following one-item survey to users: Instructions. Please tell us what time to close the library every day. In the future we will close at whatever time receives the most votes. Should we close the library at? A. 10pm

B. 11pm

C. midnight

D. 2pm

Lower response rates will be expected for total market surveys measuring general perceptions of users across institutions, and when an intentional effort is made to solicit perceptions of both users and non-users. Two considerations should govern the evaluation of LibQUAL+ TM response rates. Minimum Response Rates. Response rates are computed by dividing the number of completed surveys at an institution by the number of persons asked to complete the survey. However, we do not know the actual Introduction - A Few Words About LibQUAL+TM 2002

7


response rates on LibQUAL+TM, because we do not know the correct denominators for these calculations. For example, given inadequacy in records at schools, we are not sure how many e-mail addresses for users are accurate. And we do not know how many messages to invite participation were actually opened. In other words, what we know for LibQUAL+ TM is the "lower-bound estimate" of response rates. For example, if 200 out of 800 solicitations result in completed surveys, we know that the response rate is at least 25%. But because we are not sure whether 800 e-mail addresses were correct or that 800 e-mail messages were opened, we are not sure that 800 is the correct denominator. The response rate involving only correct e-mail addresses might be 35% or 45%. We don't know the exact response rate. Representativeness Versus Response Rate. If 100% of the 800 people we randomly selected to complete our survey did so, then we can be assured that the results are representative of all users. But if only 25% of the 800 users complete the survey, the representativeness of the results is not assured. Representativeness is actually a matter of degree. And several institutions each with 25% response rates may have data with different degrees of representativeness. We can never be sure about how representative our data are as long as not everyone completes the survey. But we can at least address this concern by comparing the demographic profiles of survey completers with the population (Thompson, 2000). At which university below would one feel more confident that LibQUAL+TM results were reasonably representative? Alpha University Completers (n=200 / 800) Gender Students 53% female Faculty 45% female Disciplines Liberal Arts 40% Science 15% Other 45%

Population (n=16,000) Gender Students 51% female Faculty 41% female Disciplines Liberal Arts 35% Science 20% Other 45%

Omega University Completers (n=200 / 800) Gender Students 35% female Faculty 65% female Disciplines Liberal Arts 40% Science 20% Other 40%

Population (n=23,000) Gender Students 59% female Faculty 43% female Disciplines Liberal Arts 15% Science 35% Other 50%

The persuasiveness of such analyses is greater as the number of variables used in the comparisons is greater. The LibQUAL+TM software is being expanded to automate these comparisons and to output side-by-side graphs comparing sample and population profiles for given institutions. Show these to people who question result representativeness.

ARL Service Quality Assessment Academy LibQUAL+TM hopefully is an important tool in the New Measures toolbox that librarians can use to improve service quality. But, even more fundamentally, the LibQUAL+TM initiative is more than a single tool. LibQUAL+TM is an effort to create a culture of data-driven service quality assessment and service quality improvement within libraries.


8


Such a culture must be informed by more than one tool, and by more than only one of the 11 ways of listening to users. To facilitate a culture of service quality assessment, and to facilitate more informed usage of LibQUAL+TM data, the Association of Research Libraries has created the ARL Service Quality Assessment Academy: http://www.arl.org/libqual/geninfo/academy_participants.html The intensive, five-day Academy teaches both qualitative and quantitative skills that library staff can use to evaluate and generate service-quality assessment information. The first cohort of Academy participants graduated in May 2002. The Academy is one more resource for library staff who would like to develop enhanced service-quality assessment skills.

References Berry, L.L. (1995). On great service: A framework for action. New York: The Free Press. Cook, C.C. (2002a). A mixed-methods approach to the identification and measurement of academic library service quality constructs: LibQUAL+TM. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 2295A. (University Microfilms No. AAT3020024) Cook, C. (Guest Ed.). (2002b). Library decision-makers speak to their uses of their LibQUAL+ TM” data: Some LibQUAL+TM” case studies. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3. Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2001). Users' perceptions of library service quality: A "LibQUAL+ TM" qualitative study. Library Trends, 49, 548-584. Cook, C., Heath, F. & Thompson, B. (2002). Score norms for improving library service quality: A LibQUAL+TM study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 13-26. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836. Cook, C., & Thompson, B. (2001). Psychometric properties of scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+ TM study of perceptions of library service quality. Library Trends, 49, 585-604. Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49, 662-686. Heath, F., Cook, C., Kyrillidou, M., & Thompson, B. (2002). ARL Index and other validity correlates of LibQUAL+TM scores. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 27-42. Nitecki, D.A. (1996). Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22, 181-190. Thompson, B. (2000, October). Representativeness versus response rate: It ain't the response rate!. Paper presented at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Measuring Service Quality Symposium on the New Culture of Assessment: Measuring Service Quality, Washington, DC. Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2000). The LibQUAL+ TM gap measurement model: The bad, the ugly, and the good of gap measurement. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 1, 165-178. Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Thompson, R.L. (2002). Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+TM scores: Measuring perceived library service quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 3-12.


9


Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Free Press.


10



11


2. Aggregate Analysis 2.1

Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

2.1.1 Respondents by Institution Below is a listing of all the institutions that participated in the 2002 LibQUAL+TM survey. They have been separated into four groups: 4-Year Institutions, Community Colleges, Health Sciences Libraries, and Others. The completion percentage and number of completed surveys has been listed for each institution.

Institution

Completion Percentage

Completed Surveys

58.20% 60.37% 55.14% 59.34% 49.83% 44.44% 27.60% 61.62% 49.52% 47.99% 56.48% 64.39% 43.48% 50.69% 46.80% 48.07% 55.02% 53.59% 62.34% 54.38% 52.50% 52.98% 48.93% 18.86% 59.86% 54.64% 50.82% 58.73% 61.58% 63.46%

142 710 890 756 604 523 130 1,175 206 358 623 537 774 110 168 449 548 254 649 584 736 267 456 43 607 353 496 1,510 327 672

4-Year Institution Antioch College, Olive Kettering Library Arizona State University Ashland University Library Auburn University Baylor University Libraries Bowling Green State University Bowling Green State University, Firelands College Library Brown University Library California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Capital University Carnegie Mellon University Libraries Case Western Reserve University, University Library Cedarville University Centennial Library Christopher Newport University, Captain John Smith Library Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary Clemson University Libraries Cleveland State University Library College of Mount St. Joseph College of William and Mary, Swem Library College of Wooster Libraries Cornell University Library CUNY Lehman College Library Denison University Libraries DePaul University Libraries Duke University Libraries Emory University Fordham University Libraries Humboldt State University Indiana University, Bloomington James Madison University

Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Respondents by Institution

12


4-Year Institution (continued) Kent State University Kent State University, Stark Campus Malone College Library Marietta College, Dawes Memorial Library Marquette University Libraries McGill University Libraries Middle Tennessee State University Library Mount Carmel College of Nursing Mount Union College Library Muskingum College New Mexico State University Library New York University Libraries Oberlin College Library Ohio Dominican College Library Ohio Northern University Ohio State University and Central Ohio Technical College, Newark Campus Library Ohio State University at Mansfield Ohio State University Libraries Ohio University - Lancaster, McCauley Library Ohio University Eastern Ohio University Libraries, Athens Campus Ohio University Southern Campus Library Ohio University Zanesville/Muskingum Area Technical College Ohio Wesleyan University Otterbein College Courtright Memorial Library Penn State University Libraries Prairie View A&M University Radford University Library Shawnee State University, Clark Memorial Library St. John's University (NY) SUNY Buffalo Temple University Libraries Texas A&M University, College Station Texas A&M University, Commerce Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi Texas A&M University, Galveston Texas Tech University Libraries Texas Woman's University Libraries University of Akron Libraries University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa University of Alberta Library University of Arizona Library University of Calgary Information Resources University of Central Florida Library University of Cincinnati Libraries Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Respondents by Institution

57.30% 33.86% 52.35% 70.00% 61.04% 66.72% 50.70% 41.55% 57.00% 50.58% 55.25% 50.55% 63.24% 45.76% 47.87% 54.27% 42.69% 46.51% 57.20% 45.79% 61.46% 46.20% 53.95% 42.72% 63.47% 59.02% 12.69% 55.64% 64.06% 29.08% 52.47% 59.79% 50.18% 56.68% 63.97% 54.05% 56.43% 52.17% 46.40% 51.07% 59.55% 55.31% 59.76% 63.45% 49.33%

534 150 345 203 929 866 764 59 175 438 200 369 905 399 415 235 146 606 139 49 464 146 205 314 318 759 57 1,086 123 344 1,401 229 713 297 300 80 1,545 132 367 311 988 818 1,004 276 842

13


4-Year Institution (continued) University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries University of Dayton Library University of Denver Penrose Library University of Findlay, Shafer Library University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries University of Houston Libraries University of Illinois at Chicago University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Kentucky Libraries University of Maryland Libraries University of Memphis University Libraries University of Miami University of Minnesota Libraries University of Mississippi, Oxford University of Nevada, Las Vegas Libraries University of New Mexico Libraries University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Academic Affairs Libraries University of Notre Dame University Libraries University of Pittsburgh University of Richmond University of Tennessee Libraries University of Texas at Austin University of Toledo University of Washington Libraries Ursuline College, Ralph M. Besse Library Vanderbilt University, Jean and Alexander Heard Library Virginia Tech Wake Forest University, Z. Smith Reynolds Library Washburn University Washington State University Wayne State University Wittenberg University, Thomas Library Wright State University Libraries Xavier University Libraries Yeshiva University Library York University Libraries Youngstown State University, William F. Maag Jr. Library Sub Total:

60.95% 46.71% 65.01% 34.88% 54.64% 51.72% 53.59% 56.35% 53.19% 66.15% 43.31% 49.84% 57.77% 53.67% 54.40% 60.14% 52.02% 62.07% 59.58% 60.56% 56.91% 64.23% 29.87% 59.23% 57.02% 61.03% 63.43% 69.58% 52.79% 60.39% 51.01% 58.58% 52.07% 42.51% 40.45% 53.14% 52.62%

871 305 1,102 165 771 195 425 630 575 762 570 456 636 336 402 445 671 892 339 1,078 527 711 365 430 203 974 1,358 837 161 523 654 553 592 874 381 796 552

54.29%

58,819

51.27% 21.36% 52.36% 47.34%

243 22 333 187

Community College Belmont Technical College Learning Resource Center Cincinnati State Technical and Community College, Johnnie Mae Berry Library Clark State Community College Library Cleveland State Community College


14


Community College (continued) Columbus State Community College Cuyahoga Community College (Metro, Eastern, and Western) Edison State Community College Library Lakeland Community College Library Lorain County Community College Library Owens Community College Library Sinclair Community College Learning Resources Center Terra Community College Library University of Akron Wayne College Library University of Rio Grande/Rio Grande Community College Washington State Community College Sub Total:

34.21% 53.19% 32.67% 57.33% 51.53% 62.37% 41.61% 65.61% 68.09% 48.99% 52.84%

182 409 98 215 505 905 248 332 128 73 158

52.08%

4,038

35.26% 55.45% 53.93% 56.88% 64.55% 50.08% 48.27% 55.41% 61.68% 50.22% 46.93% 53.12% 55.87% 54.07% 56.11% 51.10% 61.21% 62.61% 54.10% 41.79% 39.98% 47.42% 49.12% 40.39% 53.45% 63.65% 56.79% 53.44% 46.05% 59.15%

891 356 563 1,678 122 598 167 246 103 224 390 179 457 279 381 513 325 447 363 112 379 681 335 206 364 324 1,079 264 1,201 181

Health Sciences Library Duke University Medical Center Library Eastern Virginia Medical School, Edward E. Brickell Medical Sciences Library Georgetown University Medical Center, Dahlgren Memorial Library Harvard Medical School, Countway Library of Medicine Loyola University Health Sciences Library Medical College of Georgia Greenblatt Library Medical College of Ohio, Raymon H. Mulford Library Medical College of Wisconsin Libraries Mercer University School of Medicine, Medical Library & LRC New York Medical College Medical Sciences Library New York University Ehrman Medical Library Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Oliver Ocasek Regional Medical I Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library Ohio State University, Health Sciences Library SUNY Buffalo Health Sciences Library SUNY Upstate Health Sciences Library Texas A&M University, College Station, Medical Sciences Library University of Alabama at Birmingham, Lister Hill Library University of Arizona, Arizona Health Sciences Library University of California San Diego, Biomedical Library University of Cincinnati Academic Information Technology & Libraries University of Colorado, Denver, Health Sciences Center, Denison Memorial Library University of Connecticut Health Center Library University of Florida, Health Science Center Libraries University of Maryland, Health Sciences and Human Services Library University of Mississippi, Jackson, Medical Center Library University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Health Sciences Library University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Robert M. Bird Health Sciences Libr University of Rochester Medical Center, Edward G. Miner Library University of South Alabama Biomedical Library Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Respondents by Institution

15


Health Sciences Library (continued) University of South Carolina School of Medicine Library University of Texas at Galveston Medical Branch, Moody Medical Library University of Vermont, Dana Medical Library University of Virginia Health Sciences Library Vanderbilt University, Eskind Biomedical Library Sub Total:

56.74% 52.78% 55.71% 47.28% 52.93%

244 313 195 313 424

50.97%

14,897

19.83% 41.41%

280 829

32.48%

1,109

53.02%

78,863

Others New York Public Library, The Research Libraries Smithsonian Institution Libraries Sub Total: Grand Total:


16


2.1.2 Completion Rates This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

Page 1 Viewed

148,732

Page Viewed

Page 2 Viewed

123,220

Page 3 Viewed

112,774

Page 4 Viewed

79,985

Survey Completed 0K

78,863

20K

40K

60K

80K

100K

120K

140K

Completed Surveys

Page Viewed

Page Viewed

Percentage

148,732 123,220 112,774 79,985 78,863

100.00% 82.85% 75.82% 53.78% 53.02%

Page 1 Viewed Page 2 Viewed Page 3 Viewed Page 4 Viewed Survey Completed Total:

Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates

148,732

160K

17


2.1.3 Surveys Completed by Date

7,979

The bar chart below shows the number of surveys that were completed on each day of the survey run. Vertical lines indicate Mondays, traditionally the best day for sending out announcements and reminders to survey participants.

8,000

4,756

5,359

6,000

2,899

2,951

439 246 150

4/ 29 /2 00 2

749 479 366 221 92 65 414 191 183 95 48

1,178

1,830 1,117 823

277 259 4/ 22 /2 00 2

1,138 894

340 346 4/ 15 /2 00 2

893

1,972

2,384 2,004

816 342 308

157 196 4/ 1/ 20 02

4/ 8/ 20 02

141 208 3/ 25 /2 00 2

532

769 577

1,770

1,779 1,454

1,151 1,007 569 504 485 255 67 71

832 586 349 238 206 212 127

2,000

1,795

1,838

2,353

2,444

3,000

1,000

3,937

4,000

3,806

3,844

5,000

5/ 6/ 20 02

3/ 18 /2 00 2

3/ 11 /2 00 2

0 3/ 4/ 20 02

Completed Surveys

7,000

Date (Vertical lines indicate Mondays)

Aggregate Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date

18


2.2

Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

2.2.1 Respondents by Institution Type This graph shows respondents by institution type as a percentage of the whole, and includes library staff. Institution types include 4-Year Institutions, Community Colleges, and Health Sciences Libraries. The "Other" category includes Smithsonian Institution and New York Public Library

Other 1.42% Health Sciences Library 19.17%

Community College 5.22%

4-Year Institution Community College Health Sciences Library Other Total:

100.0%

4-Year Institution 74.19%

Institution Type 4-Year Institution Community College Health Sciences Library Other Total:

Respondents

Percentage

54,073 3,804 13,976 1,035

74.19% 5.22% 19.17% 1.42%

72,888

100.00%

Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Institution Type

74.2% 5.2% 19.2% 1.4%

19


2.2.2 Respondents by Age (Excludes NYPL) This pie chart shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45. New York Public Library used a different scale and has been excluded from these results.

Younger than 22 23.87%

22 - 30 28.13%

22 - 30 31 - 45 Older than 45 Younger than 22 Total:

28.1% 23.7% 24.3% 23.9% 100.0%

Older than 45 24.25% 31 - 45 23.74%

Age Younger than 22 22 - 30 31 - 45 Older than 45 Total:

Respondents

Percentage

17,340 20,438 17,249 17,619

23.87% 28.13% 23.74% 24.25%

72,646

100.00%

Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age

20


2.2.3 Respondents by Sex The pie chart below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on responses to the demographic questions at the beginning of the survey instrument.

Male 43.05% Female Male Total:

Female 56.95%

Sex

Respondents

Percentage

41,512 31,376

56.95% 43.05%

72,888

100.00%

Female Male Total:

Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex

57.0% 43.0% 100.0%


21

Aggregate Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex

22


2.3

Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

2.3.1 Aggregate Item Summary This radar chart shows aggregate results for all 25 survey questions. Each axis represents one question (the question numbers are displayed at the outer point of each axis). While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, here they are grouped in quadrants: Affect of Service, Access to Information, Library as Place, and Personal Control. On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red. Generally, a desirable radar graph is shaded blue and yellow, indicating that users' perceptions fall within the "zone of tolerance," i.e., above their minimum expectations (represented in blue) but below their desired level of service (shown in yellow).

11

4

1 22

14

Affect of Service

19

Access to Information

15 9 17 8 18 3 20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 25

24 16 2 12 10 7 Personal Control

13 Library as Place

21

6 23

5

Perceived Less Than Minimum Perceived Greater Than Minimum Perceived Less Than Desired Perceived Greater Than Desired Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Item Summary

23


No.

Question Text

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap

Access to Information 3)

Complete runs of journal titles

6.42

7.90

6.38

-0.04

8)

Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan

6.54

7.90

7.01

0.47

9)

Interdisciplinary library needs being addressed

6.25

7.48

6.62

0.36

19)

Convenient business hours

6.95

8.22

7.19

0.24

22)

Comprehensive print collections

6.46

7.83

6.65

0.20

Affect of Service 1)

Willingness to help users

6.15

7.90

7.00

0.85

4)

Employees who are consistently courteous

6.79

8.12

7.41

0.62

11)

Dependability in handling users' service problems

6.60

7.95

7.02

0.42

14)

Giving users individual attention

6.08

7.47

6.85

0.77

15)

Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion

6.54

7.86

7.18

0.64

17)

Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions

6.91

8.22

7.26

0.35

18)

Readiness to respond to users' questions

6.84

8.13

7.35

0.52

20)

Employees who instill confidence in users

6.19

7.49

6.88

0.69

24)

Employees who understand the needs of their users

6.62

7.96

7.10

0.48

Library as Place 2)

Space that facilitates quiet study

6.18

7.61

6.71

0.53

10)

A haven for quiet and solitude

6.16

7.47

6.71

0.55

13)

A place for reflection and creativity

5.51

6.91

6.18

0.67

21)

A comfortable and inviting location

6.21

7.77

6.85

0.64

23)

A contemplative environment

5.88

7.29

6.55

0.67

Personal Control 5)

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

6.72

8.22

6.89

0.17

6)

Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need

6.65

8.12

7.03

0.39

7)

A library website enabling me to locate information on my own

6.86

8.23

7.25

0.39

12)

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

6.72

8.13

7.04

0.32

16)

Making information easily accessible for independent use

6.70

8.11

7.11

0.41

25)

Convenient access to library collections

6.79

8.12

7.10

0.31

Number of Records: 70,445

Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Item Summary

24


2.3.2 Aggregate Dimension Summary On this chart, aggregate scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, or the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality. The four dimensions measured were Affect of Service (9 items), Personal Control (6 items), Access to Information (5 items), and Library as Place (5 items). A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix B.

9.0

8.0

Average Rating

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0


Affect of Service

Library as Place

Personal Control

Range of Minimum to Desired Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Gap")

Dimension

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap


6.57

7.93

6.82

0.25

Affect of Service

6.51

7.90

7.11

0.60

Library as Place

5.98

7.41

6.62

0.64

Personal Control

6.74

8.15

7.07

0.33

Number of Records: 70,445 Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Dimension Summary

25


2.3.3 General Satisfaction This chart displays aggregate scores for three areas of general satisfaction: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service. These scores are calculated from responses to three questions on page four of the survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction from 1-9, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

9.0

8.0

7.30

7.0

7.14 6.84

Average Rating

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

Satisfaction with Treatment

Aspect of Satisfaction Satisfaction with Treatment Satisfaction with Support Overall Quality of Service

Satisfaction with Support

Overall Quality of Service

Average Rating 7.30 6.84 7.14


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - General Satisfaction

26


2.3.4 Library Use

27,943

28,000

27,124

Here you can see a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

20,904

20,000

16,000

14,214

14,771

Number of Respondents

24,000

5,667

7,959

8,000

8,397

11,175

12,000

1,316

4,000

0

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Library Use On Premises

Frequency Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never

Quarterly

Never

Electronic Library Use

Type of Library Use Library Use On Premises Electronic Library Use Library Use On Premises Electronic Library Use Library Use On Premises Electronic Library Use Library Use On Premises Electronic Library Use Library Use On Premises Electronic Library Use

Number of Records: 69,735 Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Library Use

Respondents

Percentage

8,397 14,771 27,943 27,124 20,904 14,214 11,175 7,959 1,316 5,667

12.04% 21.18% 40.07% 38.90% 29.98% 20.38% 16.02% 11.41% 1.89% 8.13%


27

Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff) - Library Use

28


2.4

Item Analysis for Library Staff

2.4.1 Item Summary for Library Staff This radar chart shows aggregate results for all 25 survey questions. Each axis represents one question (the question numbers are displayed at the outer point of each axis). While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, here they are grouped in quadrants: Affect of Service, Access to Information, Library as Place, and Personal Control. On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red. Generally, a desirable radar graph is shaded blue and yellow, indicating that users' perceptions fall within the "zone of tolerance," i.e., above their minimum expectations (represented in blue) but below their desired level of service (shown in yellow).

11

4

1 22

14

Affect of Service

19


15 9 17 8 18 3 20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 25


13 Library as Place

21

6 23

5

Perceived Less Than Minimum Perceived Greater Than Minimum Perceived Less Than Desired Perceived Greater Than Desired Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Item Summary

29


No.

Question Text

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap



6.19

7.71

6.39

0.20

8)


6.77

8.12

7.29

0.52

9)


6.31

7.49

6.55

0.24

19)


6.85

8.03

7.65

0.80

22)


6.54

7.91

6.73

0.19



6.92

8.44

7.24

0.32

4)


7.37

8.51

7.27

-0.10

11)


6.98

8.32

7.00

0.01

14)


6.75

8.08

7.19

0.43

15)


7.04

8.26

7.23

0.18

17)


7.15

8.44

7.22

0.07

18)


7.22

8.42

7.41

0.19

20)


6.78

8.06

7.08

0.29

24)


7.05

8.34

7.22

0.17

Library as Place 2)


6.23

7.68

6.18

-0.05

10)


6.09

7.37

6.11

0.02

13)


5.77

7.11

5.97

0.20

21)


6.46

7.97

6.51

0.06

23)


5.93

7.27

6.15

0.22

Personal Control 5)


6.68

8.08

7.02

0.34

6)


6.90

8.27

7.01

0.11

7)


6.96

8.25

6.93

-0.03

12)


6.84

8.22

6.87

0.03

16)


6.78

8.17

7.00

0.21

25)


6.97

8.29

7.12

0.15


Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Item Summary

30


2.4.2 Dimension Summary for Library Staff On this chart, library staff scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, or the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality. The four dimensions measured were Affect of Service (9 items), Personal Control (6 items), Access to Information (5 items), and Library as Place (5 items). A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix B.

9.0

8.0

Average Rating

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0


Affect of Service

Library as Place

Personal Control


Dimension

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap


6.57

7.88

6.97

0.40

Affect of Service

7.03

8.32

7.21

0.17

Library as Place

6.11

7.49

6.20

0.09

Personal Control

6.86

8.22

7.00

0.13

Number of Records: 2,443 Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Dimension Summary

31


2.4.3 General Satisfaction for Library Staff This chart displays aggregate scores for three areas of general satisfaction: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service. These scores are calculated from responses to three questions on page four of the survey, in which library staff respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction from 1-9, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

9.0

8.0

7.30

7.0

7.13

7.33

Average Rating

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0







Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Gneral Satisfaction

32


2.4.4 Library Use for Library Staff This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which library staff respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.


1,400

1,426

1,600

1,200

1,000

445

588

600

640

702

800

248

259

364

400

127

200

21

0

Daily

Weekly

Monthly





Aggregate Analysis - Item Analysis for Library Staff - Library Use

Quarterly

Never


Respondents

Percentage

1,426 640 588 702 248 364 127 259 21 445

59.17% 26.56% 24.40% 29.13% 10.29% 15.10% 5.27% 10.75% 0.87% 18.46%

33


3. 4-Year Institution Analysis 3.1

4-Year Institution Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

3.1.1 4-Year Institution Completion Rates This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of 4-Year Institution respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

Page 1 Viewed

108,337

Page Viewed

Page 2 Viewed

90,357

Page 3 Viewed

83,448

Page 4 Viewed

59,451

Survey Completed

58,819

0K

20K

40K

60K

80K

100K

120K

Completed Surveys

Page Viewed Page 1 Viewed Page 2 Viewed Page 3 Viewed Page 4 Viewed Survey Completed Total:

Page Viewed

Percentage

108,337 90,357 83,448 59,451 58,819

100.00% 83.40% 77.03% 54.88% 54.29%

108,337

4-Year Institution Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates

34


3.1.2 4-Year Institution Surveys Completed by Date

6,755

The bar chart below shows the number of surveys that were completed on each day of the survey run. Vertical lines indicate Mondays, traditionally the best day for sending out announcements and reminders to survey participants.

7,000

4,582

5,000

3,280

3,630

4,000

2,796

3,209

2,251

Date (Vertical lines indicate Mondays)

4-Year Institution Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date

5/ 6/ 20 02

4/ 29 /2 00 2

789 528 386 219 117 81 683 432 295 220 136 64 49 205 106 88 49 30

4/ 22 /2 00 2

169 182

506

789

1,239 217 273 4/ 15 /2 00 2

4/ 1/ 20 02

3/ 25 /2 00 2

3/ 18 /2 00 2

3/ 11 /2 00 2

0 3/ 4/ 20 02

1,512

1,842 1,663

595 247 247 4/ 8/ 20 02

652 498 118 175

397 120 153

1,369

1,436 1,204

1,069 750

626 317 387 237 168 41 37

828

251 210 184 212 125

534

1,000

1,512

2,000

1,897

2,154

3,000

697

Completed Surveys

6,000

35


3.2

4-Year Institution Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

3.2.1 4-Year Institution Respondents by Age This pie chart shows a breakdown of 4-Year Institution survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45.


22 - 30 27.07%


27.1% 21.0% 22.1% 29.8% 100.0%

31 - 45 21.03% Older than 45 22.11%


Respondents

Percentage

16,111 14,635 11,373 11,954

29.79% 27.07% 21.03% 22.11%

54,073

100.00%

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age

36


3.2.2 4-Year Institution Respondents by Sex The pie chart below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on responses to the demographic questions at the beginning of the survey instrument.


Female 56.40%

Sex

Respondents

Percentage

30,496 23,577

56.40% 43.60%

54,073

100.00%

Female Male Total:

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex

56.4% 43.6% 100.0%

37


3.2.3 4-Year Institution Respondents by User Group This chart shows the number and percentage of respondents by user group, such as undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, etc.

Faculty 24.87%

Undergraduate 42.99%

Faculty Graduate Library Staff Staff Undergraduate Total:

24.9% 23.9% 3.4% 4.8% 43.0% 100.0%

Graduate 23.94%

Staff 4.81%

User Group Undergraduate Graduate Faculty Library Staff Staff Total:

Library Staff 3.39%

Respondents

Percentage

23,244 12,947 13,448 1,834 2,600

42.99% 23.94% 24.87% 3.39% 4.81%

54,073

100.00%

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by User Group

38


3.2.4 4-Year Institution Respondents by Discipline This chart displays discipline information (academic major or area of focus) for all 4-Year Institution respondents.

2.88

Agriculture / Environmental Studies

0.79

Architecture

10.61

Business

3.70

Communications / Journalism

10.10

Education

9.58

Discipline

Engineering / Computer Science

0.70

General Studies

7.60

Health Sciences

11.06

Humanities

1.74

Law

9.98

Other

4.24

Performing & Fine Arts

11.88

Science / Math

13.16

Social Sciences / Psychology

1.97

Undecided 0

2

4

6

8

10

Percentage of Respondents

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline

12

14

39


Discipline Agriculture / Environmental Studies Architecture Business Communications / Journalism Education Engineering / Computer Science Health Sciences Humanities Performing & Fine Arts Law Science / Math Social Sciences / Psychology General Studies Undecided Other Total:

Respondents

Percentage

1,557 427 5,739 2,002 5,460 5,179 4,109 5,983 2,295 939 6,423 7,115 380 1,067 5,398

2.88% 0.79% 10.61% 3.70% 10.10% 9.58% 7.60% 11.06% 4.24% 1.74% 11.88% 13.16% 0.70% 1.97% 9.98%

54,073

100.00%

4-Year Institution Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline

40


3.3

4-Year Institution Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

3.3.1 4-Year Institution Item Summary This radar chart shows aggregate results for all 25 survey questions. Each axis represents one question (the question numbers are displayed at the outer point of each axis). While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, here they are grouped in quadrants: Affect of Service, Access to Information, Library as Place, and Personal Control. On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red. Generally, a desirable radar graph is shaded blue and yellow, indicating that users' perceptions fall within the "zone of tolerance," i.e., above their minimum expectations (represented in blue) but below their desired level of service (shown in yellow).

11

4

1 22

14

Affect of Service

19


15 9 17 8 18 3 20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 25


13 Library as Place

21

6 23

5

Perceived Less Than Minimum Perceived Greater Than Minimum Perceived Less Than Desired Perceived Greater Than Desired 4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary

41


No.

Question Text

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap



6.36

7.89

6.25

-0.11

8)


6.54

7.94

7.00

0.46

9)


6.23

7.49

6.59

0.36

19)


6.95

8.24

7.16

0.21

22)


6.45

7.86

6.58

0.13



6.08

7.88

6.90

0.82

4)


6.72

8.10

7.31

0.60

11)


6.56

7.95

6.94

0.38

14)


6.01

7.43

6.75

0.73

15)


6.49

7.85

7.09

0.60

17)


6.88

8.22

7.18

0.30

18)


6.80

8.13

7.28

0.48

20)


6.13

7.47

6.79

0.65

24)


6.58

7.96

7.02

0.45

Library as Place 2)


6.12

7.60

6.63

0.51

10)


6.14

7.48

6.64

0.51

13)


5.49

6.93

6.09

0.61

21)


6.17

7.78

6.75

0.57

23)


5.86

7.31

6.47

0.61

Personal Control 5)


6.67

8.22

6.89

0.22

6)


6.60

8.11

6.99

0.39

7)


6.85

8.25

7.26

0.41

12)


6.69

8.14

6.99

0.30

16)


6.67

8.11

7.06

0.39

25)


6.77

8.14

7.02

0.25


4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary

42


3.3.2 4-Year Institution Dimension Summary On this chart, aggregate scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality. The four dimensions measured were Affect of Service (9 items), Personal Control (6 items), Access to Information (5 items), and Library as Place (5 items). A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix B.

9.0

8.0

Average Rating

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0


Affect of Service

Library as Place

Personal Control


Dimension

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap


6.55

7.94

6.77

0.22

Affect of Service

6.46

7.88

7.03

0.57

Library as Place

5.95

7.41

6.53

0.58

Personal Control

6.71

8.16

7.03

0.33

Number of Records: 52,239 4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Dimension Summary

43


3.3.3 4-Year Institution General Satisfaction This chart displays aggregate scores for three areas of general satisfaction: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service. These scores are calculated from responses to three questions on page four of the survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction from 1-9, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

9.0

8.0

7.24

7.0

7.06 6.76

Average Rating

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0







4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - General Satisfaction

44


3.3.4 4-Year Institution Library Use This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which 4-Year Institution respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

16,000 15,402


20,000

21,289

21,685

24,000

10,161

11,157

12,000

5,685

6,578

7,330

8,000

812

3,515

4,000

0

Daily

Weekly

Monthly





4-Year Institution Analysis - Item Analysis - Library Use

Quarterly

Never


Respondents

Percentage

6,578 10,161 21,685 21,289 15,402 11,157 7,330 5,685 812 3,515

12.70% 19.61% 41.86% 41.09% 29.73% 21.54% 14.15% 10.97% 1.57% 6.78%

45


4. Community College Analysis 4.1

Community College Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

4.1.1 Community College Completion Rates This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of Community College respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

Page 1 Viewed

7,753

Page Viewed

Page 2 Viewed

6,340

Page 3 Viewed

5,692

Page 4 Viewed

4,187

Survey Completed

4,038

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Completed Surveys


Page Viewed

Percentage

7,753 6,340 5,692 4,187 4,038

100.00% 81.77% 73.42% 54.00% 52.08%

7,753

Community College Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates

46


4.1.2 Community College Surveys Completed by Date The bar chart below shows the number of surveys that were completed on each day of the survey run. Vertical lines indicate Mondays, traditionally the best day for sending out announcements and reminders to survey participants.

412

450

400

300

234

250

(Vertical lines indicate Mondays)

Community College Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date

5/ 6/ 20 02

4/ 15 /2 00 2

Date

8 5

23 20

18 15 4/ 29 /2 00 2

5 7 6

13 16 4/ 22 /2 00 2

25

21 15

37

57

56

80

86

96

98

110

128

138

141

111 127

79 56

4/ 8/ 20 02

6 4

14 3/ 25 /2 00 2

4/ 1/ 20 02

13 5 4 3 4 0 0

3 6

3/ 18 /2 00 2

3/ 11 /2 00 2

3/ 4/ 20 02

0

0 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 0 0

17

50

43

44

61

74

81

100

89

100

127

150

141

165

182

200

190

197

213

Completed Surveys

350

47


4.2

Community College Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

4.2.1 Community College Respondents by Age This pie chart shows a breakdown of Community College survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45.


22 - 30 21.37%


Older than 45 24.66%


21.4% 29.1% 24.7% 24.9% 100.0%

31 - 45 29.07%

Respondents

Percentage

947 813 1,106 938

24.89% 21.37% 29.07% 24.66%

3,804

100.00%

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age

48


4.2.2 Community College Respondents by Sex The pie chart below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on responses to the demographic questions at the beginning of the survey instrument.

Male 32.15%

Female Male Total:

Female 67.85%

Sex Female Male Total:

Respondents

Percentage

2,581 1,223

67.85% 32.15%

3,804

100.00%

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex

67.8% 32.2% 100.0%

49


4.2.3 Community College Respondents by User Group This chart shows the number and percentage of respondents by user group, such as undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, etc.

Faculty 17.27%

Library Staff 2.31%

Faculty Library Staff Staff Student

Staff 12.04%

Total:

17.3% 2.3% 12.0% 68.4% 100.0%

Student 68.38%

User Group

Respondents

Percentage

Student Faculty Library Staff Staff

2,601 657 88 458

68.38% 17.27% 2.31% 12.04%

3,804

100.00%

Total:

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by User Group

50


4.2.4 Community College Respondents by Discipline This chart displays discipline information (academic major or area of focus) for all Community College respondents.

0.50

Agriculture / Environmental Studies

3.89

Applied Technologies & Trades

0.66

Architecture

17.56

Business

3.10

Communications / Journalism

12.54

Education

11.59

Discipline

Engineering / Computer Science

2.21

General Studies

16.11

Health Sciences

3.94

Humanities

2.92

Law

10.75

Other

1.66

Performing & Fine Arts

0.39

Personal Improvement / Leisure

3.47

Science / Math

5.21

Social Sciences / Psychology

3.50

Undecided 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline

16

18

51


Discipline Agriculture / Environmental Studies Applied Technologies & Trades Architecture Business Communications / Journalism Education Engineering / Computer Science Health Sciences Humanities Performing & Fine Arts Law Personal Improvement / Leisure Science / Math Social Sciences / Psychology General Studies Undecided Other Total:

Respondents

Percentage

19 148 25 668 118 477 441 613 150 63 111 15 132 198 84 133 409

0.50% 3.89% 0.66% 17.56% 3.10% 12.54% 11.59% 16.11% 3.94% 1.66% 2.92% 0.39% 3.47% 5.21% 2.21% 3.50% 10.75%

3,804

100.00%

Community College Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline

52


4.3

Community College Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

4.3.1 Community College Item Summary This radar chart shows aggregate results for all 25 survey questions. Each axis represents one question (the question numbers are displayed at the outer point of each axis). While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, here they are grouped in quadrants: Affect of Service, Access to Information, Library as Place, and Personal Control. On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red. Generally, a desirable radar graph is shaded blue and yellow, indicating that users' perceptions fall within the "zone of tolerance," i.e., above their minimum expectations (represented in blue) but below their desired level of service (shown in yellow).

11

4

1 22

14

Affect of Service

19


15 9 17 8 18 3 20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 25


13 Library as Place

21

6 23

5

Perceived Less Than Minimum Perceived Greater Than Minimum Perceived Less Than Desired Perceived Greater Than Desired Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary

53


No.

Question Text

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap



6.19

7.24

6.68

0.49

8)


6.71

7.67

7.35

0.64

9)


6.44

7.29

6.91

0.47

19)


7.04

8.02

7.43

0.39

22)


6.56

7.55

6.89

0.33



6.49

7.79

7.25

0.76

4)


7.19

8.14

7.66

0.47

11)


6.75

7.77

7.32

0.56

14)


6.57

7.62

7.27

0.69

15)


6.96

7.97

7.49

0.53

17)


7.05

8.05

7.50

0.45

18)


7.03

7.98

7.53

0.49

20)


6.66

7.64

7.24

0.57

24)


6.92

7.92

7.42

0.50

Library as Place 2)


6.70

7.76

7.24

0.54

10)


6.80

7.73

7.28

0.48

13)


6.25

7.29

6.85

0.60

21)


6.73

7.84

7.43

0.70

23)


6.50

7.49

7.13

0.64

Personal Control 5)


6.75

7.80

7.07

0.32

6)


6.86

7.99

7.34

0.48

7)


6.91

7.93

7.31

0.41

12)


6.85

7.89

7.29

0.44

16)


6.82

7.89

7.34

0.51

25)


6.95

7.90

7.46

0.51


Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary

54


4.3.2 Community College Dimension Summary On this chart, aggregate scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality. The four dimensions measured were Affect of Service (9 items), Personal Control (6 items), Access to Information (5 items), and Library as Place (5 items). A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix B.

9.0

8.0

Average Rating

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0


Affect of Service

Library as Place

Personal Control


Dimension

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap


6.65

7.63

7.10

0.46

Affect of Service

6.84

7.87

7.40

0.56

Library as Place

6.60

7.62

7.19

0.59

Personal Control

6.86

7.90

7.30

0.44

Number of Records: 3,716 Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Dimension Summary

55


4.3.3 Community College General Satisfaction This chart displays aggregate scores for three areas of general satisfaction: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service. These scores are calculated from responses to three questions on page four of the survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction from 1-9, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

9.0

8.0

7.43

7.39

7.0

7.12

Average Rating

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0







Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - General Satisfaction

56


4.3.4 Community College Library Use This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which Community College respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

865

880

933

1,000

800 755


1,085

1,078

1,092

1,200

600

148

215

200

245

400

0

Daily

Weekly

Monthly





Community College Analysis - Item Analysis - Library Use

Quarterly

Never


Respondents

Percentage

245 215 1,092 865 1,078 880 1,085 933 148 755

6.72% 5.89% 29.93% 23.71% 29.55% 24.12% 29.74% 25.58% 4.06% 20.70%

57


5. Health Sciences Library Analysis 5.1

Health Sciences Library Survey Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

5.1.1 Health Sciences Library Completion Rates This bar chart shows the completion rate and viewing rates for each page of the survey instrument. The brief chart below the graphic lists the number and percentage of Health Sciences Library respondents who viewed each page of the survey and completed the survey.

Page 1 Viewed

29,228

Page Viewed

Page 2 Viewed

23,834

Page 3 Viewed

21,379

Page 4 Viewed

15,222

Survey Completed 0K

14,897

4K

8K

12K

16K

20K

24K

28K

32K

Completed Surveys


Page Viewed

Percentage

29,228 23,834 21,379 15,222 14,897

100.00% 81.55% 73.15% 52.08% 50.97%

29,228

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Survey Analysis - Completion Rates

58


5.1.2 Health Sciences Library Surveys Completed by Date The bar chart below shows the number of surveys that were completed on each day of the survey run. Vertical lines indicate Mondays, traditionally the best day for sending out announcements and reminders to survey participants.

1,209

1,400

914

961

988

800

749

772

1,000

712

483 381

289

(Vertical lines indicate Mondays)

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Survey Analysis - Surveys Completed by Date

107 26 12

61 68

20 10 5/ 6/ 20 02

52

93 4/ 29 /2 00 2

Date

82 83 79

149

230

91 61 4/ 22 /2 00 2

130 87 72 47 4/ 15 /2 00 2

149 61 46 4/ 8/ 20 02

70 62 29 17 4/ 1/ 20 02

55

127 16

75

3/ 25 /2 00 2

185

289 212 166

247

270 188

204 69 23 27

3/ 18 /2 00 2

98 52

25 13 0 2 3/ 11 /2 00 2

3

3/ 4/ 20 02

0

117

252

400

200

422

454

415

444

545

600

216 233

Completed Surveys

1,200

59


5.2

Health Sciences Library Demographic Analysis (Includes Library Staff)

5.2.1 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Age This pie chart shows a breakdown of Health Sciences Library survey respondents by age. Ages are grouped into four categories: Younger than 22, 22-30, 31-45 and Older than 45.


22 - 30 34.72%

Older than 45 31.08%


34.7% 32.2% 31.1% 2.0% 100.0%

31 - 45 32.22%


Respondents

Percentage

277 4,852 4,503 4,344

1.98% 34.72% 32.22% 31.08%

13,976

100.00%

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Age

60


5.2.2 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Sex The pie chart below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on responses to the demographic questions at the beginning of the survey instrument.


Female 56.20%

Sex Female Male Total:

Respondents

Percentage

7,855 6,121

56.20% 43.80%

13,976

100.00%

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Sex

56.2% 43.8% 100.0%

61


5.2.3 Health Sciences Library Respondents by User Group This chart shows the number and percentage of respondents by user group, such as undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, etc.

Undergraduate 4.56%

Staff 22.59%

Faculty 35.50%

Faculty Graduate Library Staff Staff Undergraduate Total:

Library Staff 3.08%

35.5% 34.3% 3.1% 22.6% 4.6% 100.0%

Graduate 34.26%

User Group Undergraduate Graduate Faculty Library Staff Staff Total:

Respondents

Percentage

638 4,788 4,962 431 3,157

4.56% 34.26% 35.50% 3.08% 22.59%

13,976

100.00%

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by User Group

62


5.2.4 Health Sciences Library Respondents by Discipline This chart displays discipline information (academic major or area of focus) for all Health Sciences Library respondents.

5.00

Graduate School

11.83

Hospital / Health System Other

3.56

School of Allied Health Professions

3.48 2.75

School of Dentistry

0.09

Discipline

School of Education

School of Law 0.06

53.68

School of Medicine

6.70

School of Nursing

0.39

School of Optometry

2.36

School of Pharmacy

School of Professional Psychology 0.15

5.72

School of Public Health

0.31

School of Social Work

0.97

School of Veterinary Medicine

2.96

Shared Services / Library 0

10

20

30

40

50


Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline

60

63


Discipline School of Allied Health Professions School of Dentistry School of Education School of Law School of Medicine School of Nursing School of Optometry School of Pharmacy School of Professional Psychology School of Public Health School of Social Work School of Veterinary Medicine Graduate School Hospital / Health System Shared Services / Library Other Total:

Respondents

Percentage

486 384 13 9 7,502 936 54 330 21 799 44 135 699 1,653 413 498

3.48% 2.75% 0.09% 0.06% 53.68% 6.70% 0.39% 2.36% 0.15% 5.72% 0.31% 0.97% 5.00% 11.83% 2.96% 3.56%

13,976

100.00%

Health Sciences Library Analysis - Demographic Analysis - Respondents by Discipline

64


5.3

Health Sciences Library Item Analysis (Excludes Library Staff)

5.3.1 Health Sciences Library Item Summary This radar chart shows aggregate results for all 25 survey questions. Each axis represents one question (the question numbers are displayed at the outer point of each axis). While questions for each dimension of library service quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, here they are grouped in quadrants: Affect of Service, Access to Information, Library as Place, and Personal Control. On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting "gaps" between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red. Generally, a desirable radar graph is shaded blue and yellow, indicating that users' perceptions fall within the "zone of tolerance," i.e., above their minimum expectations (represented in blue) but below their desired level of service (shown in yellow).

11

4

1 22

14

Affect of Service

19


15 9 17 8 18 3 20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 25


13 Library as Place

21

6 23

5

Perceived Less Than Minimum Perceived Greater Than Minimum Perceived Less Than Desired Perceived Greater Than Desired Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary

65


No.

Question Text

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap



6.67

8.10

6.75

0.08

8)


6.47

7.82

6.93

0.46

9)


6.30

7.49

6.63

0.34

19)


6.96

8.20

7.28

0.32

22)


6.45

7.82

6.82

0.37



6.30

7.97

7.28

0.98

4)


6.94

8.21

7.68

0.74

11)


6.71

8.02

7.22

0.50

14)


6.20

7.54

7.09

0.89

15)


6.62

7.89

7.38

0.77

17)


6.99

8.25

7.48

0.49

18)


6.94

8.19

7.57

0.64

20)


6.26

7.52

7.10

0.84

24)


6.68

7.99

7.27

0.59

Library as Place 2)


6.24

7.60

6.86

0.63

10)


6.08

7.38

6.82

0.75

13)


5.38

6.72

6.32

0.94

21)


6.20

7.74

7.05

0.84

23)


5.80

7.18

6.70

0.91

Personal Control 5)


6.90

8.35

6.86

-0.04

6)


6.76

8.18

7.12

0.36

7)


6.91

8.27

7.23

0.32

12)


6.79

8.15

7.15

0.36

16)


6.80

8.17

7.24

0.44

25)


6.81

8.11

7.31

0.49


Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Item Summary

66


5.3.2 Health Sciences Library Dimension Summary On this chart, aggregate scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The blue bars represent the range of minimum to desired aggregate scores for each dimension. The interior red bars represent the range of minimum to perceived aggregate scores, the "gap," for each dimension of library service quality. The four dimensions measured were Affect of Service (9 items), Personal Control (6 items), Access to Information (5 items), and Library as Place (5 items). A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be found in Appendix B.

9.0

8.0

Average Rating

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0


Affect of Service

Library as Place

Personal Control


Dimension

Minimum

Desired Perceived

Gap


6.62

7.95

6.92

0.31

Affect of Service

6.62

7.95

7.34

0.72

Library as Place

5.95

7.34

6.79

0.84

Personal Control

6.82

8.20

7.15

0.33

Number of Records: 13,545 Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Dimension Summary

67


5.3.3 Health Sciences Library General Satisfaction This chart displays aggregate scores for three areas of general satisfaction: Satisfaction with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service. These scores are calculated from responses to three questions on page four of the survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction from 1-9, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

9.0

8.0

7.47 7.0

7.35 7.05

Average Rating

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0







Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - General Satisfaction

68


5.3.4 Health Sciences Library Library Use This chart shows a graphic description of library use, both on the premises and electronically. Bars represent the frequency with which Health Sciences Library respondents report using the library: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The brief chart below the graphic also includes the number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

4,649

4,000

4,193

4,247

3,000

2,608


4,794

5,000

1,247

1,198

1,417

2,003

2,000

332

1,000

0

Daily

Weekly

Monthly





Health Sciences Library Analysis - Item Analysis - Library Use

Quarterly

Never


Respondents

Percentage

1,417 4,247 4,794 4,649 4,193 2,003 2,608 1,198 332 1,247

10.62% 31.83% 35.93% 34.84% 31.42% 15.01% 19.54% 8.98% 2.49% 9.35%

69


6. Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey 6.1

Description The LibQUAL+TM survey is a five-page, web-based instrument. A print version of the survey is included below and on the following pages. Page 1 is an introduction and general description of the LibQUAL+TM survey. Page 2 contains the demographic information for the survey. (Because slightly different demographic information was collected from each type of institution, five versions of page 2 have been included.) Page 3 contains the core survey questions, 1-25. Questions relating to each dimension of library service quality (Library as Place, Personal Control, etc.) are distributed randomly throughout the survey. Page 4 of the survey contains questions relating to user satisfaction and usage patterns, and allows respondents to add any additional comments they may have about library services. Page 5, the final page of the survey instrument, thanks the respondents for completing the survey and provides them with an opportunity to include their e-mail address if they would like to enter the prize drawing.

6.2

Print Version of Survey - Page 1, Introduction

Welcome! Please help us. Your participation in this survey will allow us to improve library services. Better understanding your expectations will help us tailor services to your needs. We are conducting this survey to measure library service quality and identify best practices through the Association of Research Libraries' LibQUAL+TM program. Partial funding for this project is provided by the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). Please answer all items. The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete.

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 1, Introduction

70

6.3


Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (4-Year Institution) Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age: Younger than 22 22-30

31-45 Older than 45

Sex: Male Discipline: Agriculture/Environmental Studies Architecture Business Communications/Journalism Education Engineering/Computer Science Health Sciences Undergraduate: Freshman (Year 1) Sophomore (Year 2) Graduate: Masters Doctoral Faculty: Assistant Professor Associate Professor Lecturer Library Staff: Administrator Manager, Head of Unit Public Services Staff: Research Staff

Female Humanities Law Performing and Fine Arts Science/Math Social Sciences/Psychology General Studies Undecided Other Junior (Year 3) Senior (Year 4) Non-degree or Undecided

Professor Other Academic Status

Systems Technical Services

Other staff positions

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (4-Year Institution)

71


6.4

Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Community College) Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age: Younger than 22 31-45

22-30 Older than 45

Sex: Female Discipline: Agriculture/Environmental Studies Architecture Communications/Journalism Engineering/Computer Science Humanities Performing and Fine Arts Science/Math General Studies

Male Applied Technologies & Trades Business Education Health Sciences Law Personal Improvement/Leisure Social Sciences/Psychology Undecided Other

Student: No definite purpose in mind To take a few job-related courses To take courses necessary for transferring to a 4-year college or university To obtain or maintain a certification Faculty: Full-time Library Staff: Administrator Manager, Head of Unit Systems Staff: Administrator/Manager

To take a few courses for selfimprovement To take courses necessary for transferring to another 2-year college To complete a vocational/technical program To obtain an Associate degree Other Part-time Public Services Technical Services

Other staff positions

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Community College)

72

6.5


Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Health Sciences Library) Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age: Younger than 22 22-30

31-45 Older than 45

Sex: Male Discipline: School of Allied Health Professions School of Dentistry School of Education School of Law School of Medicine School of Nursing School of Optometry School of Pharmacy Undergraduate: Freshman (Year 1) Sophomore (Year 2) Graduate: Masters Doctoral Faculty: Assistant Professor Associate Professor Lecturer/Instructor Library Staff: Administrator Manager, Head of Unit Public Services Staff: Administrator/Manager Basic Science Staff (non-faculty) Clerical Staff (non-exempt) Clinical Staff (non-faculty)

Female School of Professional Psychology School of Public Health School of Social Work School of Veterinary Medicine Graduate School Hospital/Health System Shared Services/Library Other Junior (Year 3) Senior (Year 4) Non-degree or Undecided

Professor Other Academic Status

Systems Technical Services

Resident, Fellow, or Intern Technical Support Staff Other staff positions

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Health Sciences Library)

73


6.6

Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (New York Public Library) Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age: Younger than 18 30-45

18-29 Older than 45

Female

Male

Sex:

Discipline: Clergy Cultural/Museum Financial Services Hospitality Industry Legal Profession Performing Arts/Entertainment Visual Arts and Design Independent Researcher Current Affiliation: Graduate Undergraduate Faculty

Computer Services Engineering/Architecture Government/City Agency Journalism Medical Profession Publishing Independent Business Owner Retired Staff High School Other

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (New York Public Library)

74

6.7


Print Version of Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Smithsonian Institution) Your responses will only be used for aggregate survey analyses and we will treat them with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be given to anyone for any purpose. For each item, please select the value that most closely describes you. Age: Younger than 22 22-30 31-45 Older than 45 Sex: Male Female Discipline: Art History Science/Math Other Select from one category below, the role that best describes you. Library Staff: Administrator Manager, Head of Unit Systems Non-Staff: Visiting Researchers Staff: Administrator/Manager Museum Technician Curator/Scientist

Public Services Technical Services

Volunteers Resident, Fellow, or Intern Other staff positions

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 2, Demographics (Smithsonian Institution)

75


6.8

Print Version of Survey - Page 3, Core Questions Please rate the following statements by selecting your choices from the pull-down menus to indicate: • • •

Minimum -- the number that represents the minimum level of service that you would find acceptable. Desired -- the number that represents the level of service that you personally want. Perceived -- the number that represents the level of service that you believe our library currently provides.

You must EITHER rate all three columns OR Identify the item as N/A. When it comes to…

My Minimum Service Level Is low

My Desired Service Level Is

high low

Perceived Service N/A Performance Is

high low

high

1)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

2)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

3)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

4)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

5)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

6)

Modern equipment that lets me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 easily access the information I need

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

7)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

8)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

9)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

10)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

Continued…

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 3, Core Questions

76

6.8


Print Version of Survey - Page 3, Core Questions (Continued) When it comes to…

My Minimum Service Level Is

My Desired Service Level Is

low

low

high

Perceived Service N/A Performance Is

high low

high

11)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

12)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

13)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

14)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

15)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

16)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

17)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

18)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

19)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

20)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

21)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

22)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

23)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

24)

Employees who understand the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 needs of their users

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

25)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N/A

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 3, Core Questions

77


6.9

Print Version of Survey - Page 4, Satisfaction Questions Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements: 1) In general, I am satisfied with 1 2 3 the way in which I am treated at the libraries. Strongly Disagree

4

2) In general, I am satisfied with 1 2 3 library support for my learning, research and/or Strongly Disagree teaching needs.

4

3) How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

4

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

Strongly Agree 5

6

7

8

9

Strongly Agree 5

Extremely Poor

6

7

8

9

Extremely Good

Please indicate your library usage patterns: How often do you use resources on library premises? Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never How often do you use electronic library services remotely? Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Never

Please enter any comments about library services below. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 4, Satisfaction Questions

78


6.10 Print Version of Survey - Page 5, E-Mail Address Thank you for completing the survey! Please provide your e-mail address below if you would like to enter an optional drawing for a prize (not required). E-mail Address:

Appendix A: Print Version of the Survey - Page 5, E-Mail Address

79


7. Appendix B: LibQUAL+TM Dimensions 7.1

Description LibQUAL+TM measures dimensions of perceived library quality - that is, each survey question is part of a broader category (a dimension), and scores within those categories are analyzed in order to derive more general information about library users' perceptions of service. These dimensions were first based on the original SERVQUAL survey instrument (the framework for the LibQUAL+TM survey tool; for more information on the origins of LibQUAL+TM, go to ). The LibQUAL+TM survey dimensions have evolved with each iteration, becoming more refined and focused for application specifically to the research library context. The 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey has four dimensions. (Dimensions for each iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey are outlined below.)

7.2

LibQUAL+TM 2000 Dimensions The 2000 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey, which had 41 questions, measured eight separate dimensions: - Assurance (the knowledge and courtesy of employees, and their ability to convey trust and confidence) - Empathy (caring, individual attention) - Library as Place (library as a sanctuary/haven or site for learning and contemplation) - Reliability (ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately) - Responsiveness (willingness to help customers and provide prompt service) - Tangibles (appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communications materials) - Instructions/Custom Items - Self-Reliance

7.3

LibQUAL+TM 2001 Dimensions After careful analysis of the results from the 2000 survey, the dimensions were further refined to re-ground the SERVQUAL items in the library context. Four sub-dimensions resulted for the 2001 iteration: - Service Affect (nine items, such as "willingness to help users") - Library as Place (five items, such as "a haven for quiet and solitude") - Personal Control (six items, such as "website enabling me to locate information on my own"), and - Information Access (five items, such as "comprehensive print collections" and "convenient business hours")

Appendix B: LibQUAL+ Dimensions

80

7.4


LibQUAL+TM 2002 Dimensions For the 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+TM survey, the dimensions were once again refined based on analysis of the previous year's results. While the same four dimensions were retained, their titles were changed slightly to more clearly represent the questions and data. The list below displays the dimensions, along with the questions that relate to each of the four dimensions. Access to Information (5 questions) 3) Complete runs of journal titles 8) Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan 9) Interdisciplinary library needs being addressed 19) Convenient business hours 22) Comprehensive print collections Affect of Service (9 questions) 1) Willingness to help users 4) Employees who are consistently courteous 11) Dependability in handling users' service problems 14) Giving users individual attention 15) Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion 17) Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions 18) Readiness to respond to users' questions 20) Employees who instill confidence in users 24) Employees who understand the needs of their users Library as Place (5 questions) 2) Space that facilitates quiet study 10) A haven for quiet and solitude 13) A place for reflection and creativity 21) A comfortable and inviting location 23) A contemplative environment Personal Control (6 questions) 5) Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 6) Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need 7) A library website enabling me to locate information on my own 12) Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 16) Making information easily accessible for independent use 25) Convenient access to library collections

Appendix B: LibQUAL+ Dimensions

Published by the Association of Research Libraries 21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884 Copyright: ©2002 by the Association of Research Libraries ISBN 0-918006-84-8

LibQUAL+ 2002 Aggregate Notebook

LibQUAL+ 2002 Aggregate Notebook

Suggest Documents

LibQUAL+ 2002 Aggregate Notebook

Notebook Paper UIC at TREC-2002 - CiteSeerX

Evaluation of - LibQUAL+

northumb.wp1 7/15/03 RUNNING HEAD: UK LibQUAL+TM LibQUAL+ ...

Reliability and Structure of - LibQUAL+

LibQUAL+ Workshop: Gulf Cooperation Council: Day 1

Proceedings of the 4th Northumbria International - LibQUAL+

[PDF] Notebook: notebook 7x10 - Google Sites

Sony Notebook User Guide - Notebook Manuals [PDF]

Cotinga 25 Neotropical Notebook 89 Notebook

NOTEBOOK TOSHIBA SATELLITE INGLES Nuevas NOTEBOOK HP ...

pdf Notebook: Unlined Notebook - Google Sites

Sony Notebook User Guide - Notebook Manuals

MAY NOTEBOOK

Notebook Computer

The Notebook

Notebook PC

Notebook Pricelist

The Notebook

Notebook PC

ACER Notebook...

NETBOOK NOTEBOOK

DELL Notebook...

JULy NOTEBOOK