Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation

Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation

Stephen Town,Cranfield University

Objectives

• To give an overview of U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation

• To present the overall results of the SCONUL Cohort

• To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt

UK HE Libraries survey methods

• General Satisfaction– Exit questionnaires– SCONUL Satisfaction Survey

• Designed Surveys– Satisfaction vs Importance 1989-– Priority Surveys 1993-

• Outcome measurement– ACPI project 2003-

• National Student Survey (1 Question)

Survey methods used in the UK

West, 2004A Survey of Surveys

27

18

13

11

4

22

6

Libra

LibQUAL+

In-House

SPSS

SNAP

Perception

Excel

Others

1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

The UK approach• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College,

National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI)

• 2003 - 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions • 2004 -17 UK & Irish HE institutions • 2005 - 16 UK & Irish HE institutions • 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions• 54 different institutions

LibQUAL+ Participants 2003

• University of Bath• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway & Bedford

New College • University of Lancaster • University of Wales,

Swansea• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow• University of Liverpool• University of London Library• University of Oxford• University College

Northampton

• University of Wales College Newport

• University of Gloucestershire

• De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan

University• Liverpool John Moores

University • Robert Gordon University• South Bank University• University of the West of

England, Bristol • University of

Wolverhampton

LibQUAL+ Participants 2004

• Brunel University• Loughborough University • University of Strathclyde • University of York • Glasgow University • Sheffield University • Trinity College, Dublin • UMIST + University of

Manchester• University of Liverpool

• Anglia Polytechnic University

• University of Westminster• London South Bank

University• Napier University • Queen Margaret

University College • University College

Worcester • University of East London

LibQUAL+ Participants 2005• University of Exeter• University of Edinburgh• University of Dundee• University of Bath• University of Ulster• University College

Northampton• University of Birmingham• Roehampton University

• University of Glasgow• University of Surrey• Royal Holloway UoL• City University• Cranfield University• University of Luton• Dublin Institute of

Technology• London South Bank

University

LibQUAL+ Participants 2006• Cambridge University

Library • Cranfield University• Goldsmiths College• Institute of Education• Institute of Technology

Tallaght• Queen Mary, University

of London• Robert Gordon University• St. George's University of

London• University of Aberdeen• University College for the

Creative Arts

• University of Central Lancashire

• University of Glasgow• University of

Gloucestershire• University of Leeds• University of Leicester• University of Liverpool• University of the West of

England• University of Warwick• University of Westminster• London South Bank

University

CURL• University of Cambridge• University of Aberdeen• University of Edinburgh• University of Glasgow• University of Liverpool• University of London

Library• University of Oxford

• Sheffield University • Trinity College,

Dublin • University of

Manchester• University of

Birmingham• University of Leeds• University of Warwick

Pre-92 & 94 Group

• Cranfield University• Royal Holloway &

Bedford New College • University of Wales,

Swansea• Brunel University• Loughborough University • Goldsmith College• Queen Mary, University

of London

• University of Dundee• University of Bath• University of Lancaster• University of York• University of Exeter• University of Surrey• University of Leicester• University of Strathclyde

CMU+• University of Wales

College Newport• De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan

University• Liverpool John Moores

University • Robert Gordon University• South Bank University• University of the West of

England, Bristol • University of Central

Lancashire

• Anglia Polytechnic University • University of Westminster• Napier University • Queen Margaret University

College • University of East London• Roehampton University • University of Luton• Coventry University• University of Wolverhampton• University of Ulster

Former Colleges

• University of Gloucestershire• University College Northampton• University College Worcester

Other / Specialist Institutions

• Dublin Institute of Technology• Institute of Education• Institute of Technology Tallaght• St. George’s, University of London• University College for the Creative Arts

Overall Potential UK Sample to 2006

• Full variety of institutions• 43% of institutions*• 38% of HE students (>800,000)• 42% of Libraries• 48% of Library expenditure

*Based on Universities UK membership of 126

Time frame

• December – Registration• January – UK Training• February to May – Session I• April to June – Session I results

distributed • July – Results meeting• July to December – Session II

Dimensions of Quality

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

Dimensions ofLibrary Service Quality

Empathy

InformationControl

Responsiveness

Symbol

Utilitarian space

Assurance

Scope of Content

Ease of Navigation

Self-Reliance

Library as Place

LibraryServiceQuality

Model 3

Refuge

Affect of Service

Reliability

Convenience

Timeliness

Equipment

F. Heath, 2005

2003 – 5 additional questions for all SCONUL Participants

• Access to photocopying and printing facilities

• Main text and readings needed• Provision for information skills training• Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT

problems• Availability of subject specialist

assistance

2004 – 5 local question selected from a range of over 100

Different questions tailored to local needs

Sample Survey

Sample Survey… continued

2. Results from SCONUL

Response Comparisons• SCONUL 2003

– 20 institutions – 11,919 respondents

• SCONUL 2004 – 16 institutions– 16,611 respondents

• Increase by 4,692• SCONUL 2005

– 16 institutions– 17,355 respondents

• Increase by 744

• LibQUAL+ 2003– 308 institutions– 128,958 respondents

• LibQUAL+ 2004– 202 institutions– 112,551 respondents

• Decrease by 16,407• LibQUAL+ 2005

– 199 institutions– 108,504 respondents

• Decrease by 4,047

SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005

Respondent Comparisons

• Glasgow University– 2005 = 1,384– 2004 = 2,178– 2003 = 503

• London South Bank University– 2005 = 766– 2004 = 568– 2003 = 276

Core Questions

Core Questions

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005



Overall Comparisons

Undergraduates

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2005



Postgraduates

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2005



Academic Staff

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003

Comparisons by Dimension

Affect of Service Comparisons

Information Control Comparisons

Library as Place Comparisons

Overall Comparisons by User Group

Comments

Free text comments received 2003

London South Bank University

428

University of London 422UWE, Bristol 419University of Wolverhampton 413University of Bath 412University of Gloucestershire 407Lancaster University 396Robert Gordon University 395University of Liverpool 378Liverpool John Moores University

353

Royal Holloway University 341

University of Wales, Swansea 340

Uni of Wales College, Newport 339

University of Oxford 337

University College Northampton

332

Glasgow University 330

University of Edinburgh 328

Leeds Metropolitan University 327

DE Montfort University 326

Cranfield University 170


UMIST + University of Manchester

1090

Trinity College Library Dublin 1032

Glasgow University 920Brunel University 906University of Sheffield 786University of Westminster 671University of Strathclyde 511London South Bank University

358

Anglia Polytechnic University 311

Napier University 299

University of Liverpool 258

Queen Margaret University College

251

University of York 239

University of East London 239

University College Worcester 170

Loughborough University Library

120


University of Exeter 559University of Edinburgh 206University of Dundee 709University of Bath 527University of Ulster 854University College Northampton

142

University of Birmingham 975Roehampton University 359

University of Glasgow 536University of Surrey 593Royal Holloway UoL 596City University 798Cranfield University 302University of Luton 188Dublin Institute of Technology

569

London South Bank University

455

Comments Comparisons

• Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368



Expect everythingFrom:• The library facility is uniformly of a high

quality in terms of the book collection maintained, on line electronic resources and "customer care" given to the users.

To:• The library is consistently unimpressive,

except as a consumer of funds and resources.

And everything in between!

3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

Purpose for participating• Benchmarking• Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+• Trialling alternative survey methods• More library focused than previous in-house

method• Supporting Charter Mark application process• Planned institutional survey failed to

happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap.

Primary aim(s) for surveying users• Understand what their opinions of our service

is, to inform strategic planning.• Making sure we knew what customers

concerns really are as we have had much lobbying by one group of students. Also nearly three years since last survey, so needed an update after much change in services.

• User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to know how they view us and whether we are improving. 3 years of the same survey can have some credibility.

• To gain information for better planning of our service and make adjustments in areas found wanting.

Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process

• Majority found it straightforward• Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt

US bias• Some issues in obtaining:

– Email addresses– Demographic data

• The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part

Feedback on results• Overall results were as expected by the

institutions• “Not too surprising really given anecdotal

evidence known already”• Detailed questions highlighted new

information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys

• Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one

How can LibQUAL+ be improved?• Summary and commentary on results• More flexibility on the content and

language of the questionnaire• More interaction with other UK

participating libraries• Providing results by department, campus,

and for full time and part time students• Simpler questionnaire design• We really need a ConvergedServQual tool! • Needs to allow you to use a word other

than library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)

Changes made as a result of the survey

• It has strengthened our case in asking for more money to improve the environment.

• We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals which had been axed several weeks before the survey was conducted.

• Implementing PG forums to address issues raised

• Main Library makeover/Group study area • Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating

to resource expenditure at the most senior levels

Tips for participating

• Use a large sample• Promote the survey to help increase the

response rate– Online– Email – Posters– Notices in college newsletters etc.

Tips for participating

• Allow enough time to collect demographics data

• Exploit all areas of help and advice– ARL Web site & discussion list– JISCMail discussion list– Each other– Us!

Conclusions

Conclusions

• LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector

• Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK

• At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again

Lessons learnt

• The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys

• The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate

• Collecting demographics is time consuming and subject categories are not always fitting

• Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex

Acknowledgements• Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University

Libraries • Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished

Research Scholar, Texas A&M University • Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the

University of Texas Libraries, Austin• Martha Kyrillidou & ARL • Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL

Newsletter. Number 31.• Selena Lock, R&D Officer, Cranfield University• All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

J. Stephen TownDirector of Information Services

Defence College of Management and Technology

Deputy University LibrarianCranfield University

[email protected]

Documents

Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation