library quality assessment nces summer data conference july 25, 2002 martha kyrillidou, julia...
TRANSCRIPT
Library Quality AssessmentLibrary Quality Assessment
NCES Summer Data Conference
July 25, 2002
Martha Kyrillidou, Julia Blixrud, Consuella Askew Waller
Project web site www.arl.org/libqual/
Opportunities and Pressures
• Increasing demand for libraries to demonstrate outcomes/impacts in areas of importance to institution
• Increasing pressure to maximize use of resources through benchmarking resulting in:– Cost savings
– Reallocation
Antecedents
• Effective service delivery
– “every unit … is valued in proportion to its contribution to the quality success of the campus” Danuta Nitecki
Why New Measures Increased customer and stakeholder
expectations Greater demands for accountability Exploding growth in use and applications
of technology Increasing competition for resources Need for reliable and valid data
– Benchmarking and best practice
– Trends over time
ARL New Measures Initiative
Collaboration among member leaders with strong interest in this area
Specific projects developed with different models for exploration
Projects self-funded by interested members Intent to make resulting tools and
methodologies available to full membership and wider community
Freeze modifications to existing descriptive measures
LibQUAL+™ Description
LibQUAL+TM is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create useful quality-assessment tools for local planning.
To fill a knowledge void in modeling the dimensions of library service quality from a user perspective
Based upon the model, to develop a web-delivered, effective total market survey instrument equivalent for service quality assessment in academic libraries
Using the derived instrument to recommend a process for an ongoing program of comparative outcome measurement for academic libraries
The Purpose of the Research
Project Resources
LibQUAL+TM is an ARL/Texas A&M University joint effort. The project is supported in part by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE).
Relationships: Perceptions, Service Quality and Satisfaction
….only customers judge quality;all other judgments are essentiallyirrelevant”
Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.
LibQUAL+™ Project Goals
• Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL
• Development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality
• Development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries
• Identification of best practices in providing library service
Process Overview
Dimensions of LibraryService Quality
Affect of Service
Empathy
Information Access
Personal Control
Responsiveness
Symbol
Utilitarian space
Assurance
Content/Scope
Timeliness
Convenience
Library as Place
LibraryServiceQuality
Refuge
Reliability
Ease of Navigation
Convenience
Modern Equipment
Survey Dimensions
Access to InformationAccess to Information
Information AccessSelf RelianceProvision of Physical Collections
Personal ControlReliabilityLibrary as Place
Library as PlaceLibrary as PlaceReliability
Service AffectAffect of ServiceAffect of Service
Spring 2002
(25-Item Survey)
Spring 2001
(56-Item Survey)
Spring 2000
(41-Item Survey)
LibQUAL+TM Participants
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Spring 2001Spring 2000 Spring 2002
12 Participants
43 Participants
164 Participants
Process Timeline
August 2002
•Gather information about LibQUAL+TM survey
•Determine if have appropriate resources
•Identify budgetary requirements if any
September 2002
•Register for LibQUAL+TM related workshops
•Identify and initiate steps to obtain human subjects research approval from IRB
October – December 2002June/July 2002
•Register for Spring 2003 survey
•Subscribe to ARL-QUALITY listserv
•Designate survey liaison/committee/project team
•Identify sample groups
•Identify best data source to obtain valid e-mail addresses for sample groups
•Meet with person(s) who will be drawing e-mail addresses to determine process feasibility
•Register for LibQUAL+TM
related workshops
Process Timeline
January 2003
•Need to have IRB approval by mid-January
•January 27-28, orientation session for participating libraries held during ALA Midwinter, Phildelphia, PA Attendance is required!
•Complete online demographics questionnaire
•Preview survey turned on
•Draw final e-mail address samples
•Spring 2003 survey open to public.
•Send out survey announcements
•Spring 2003 survey closed to public
•Participants complete online post hoc survey
February 2003 March-April 2003 May 2003 June 2003
•Survey results distributed
July 2003
•LibQUAL+TM evaluation questionnaire sent to participants
Sample Survey
Sample Survey…continued
Sample Survey…continued
Sample Survey…continued
Sample Survey…continued
Sample Survey…continued
Sample Survey…continued
Project Deliverables
Print and web-based results include:– Aggregate Summaries – Demographics by Library– Item Summaries– Dimension Summaries– A copy of the survey instrument– Dimensions measured for survey
implementation
Surveys Completed Spring 2002
LibQUAL+ Assessment SurveyLibQUAL+ Assessment Survey
Aggregate (All Ranks)(All)
Aggregate (All Ranks)Texas A&M University
Interpretation Frameworks
• Zone of tolerance
• Score norms
Technology Approach
• Reduced HTML requirements
• 2 load-balanced web/application server connected to 1 database
• Software use: ColdFusion, IIS webserver, SQL server, and Windows Advanced Server 2000
The Future: LibQUAL+
LibQUAL+ TM Brief History
• Experience with SERVQUAL in many libraries over the last 15 years
• Texas A&M SERVQUAL assessment
• New Measures Initiative called a meeting of interested ARL libraries (ALA Midwinter 2000)
• External funding through FIPSE, U.S. Department of Education (September 2000)
• Consortia and related associations participation
• Expressed interest by another 150 institutions for spring 2003
• International Interest
• Other sectors outside higher education
Emergence of Consensus
• Antecedents
• Credibility
• Collaboration
• Tangibility
• Dissemination
• Evaluation
• External Validation
• Looking Forward: Maintenance of Consensus
Maintenance of Consensus
• Balance central control with local autonomy
• Issues of confidentiality/anonymity vs. desires for longitudinal study
• Normative issues/Best practices vs. “ranking”
• Long-term sustainability
Additional Information
Visit the LibQUAL+TM Web Page:
old.libqual.org