Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LibQUAL Survey Report 2013
Elsabé Olivier & Gerda Beukes
Student prize winners!
1st 2nd
3rd 4th
Student prize winners!
5th
6th 6th
Student prize winners!
7th 7th
7th 7th
Faculty library prize winners!
18.64%
14.44%
13.57% 13.40%
13.09%
10.14% 7.14% 2.53%
VETLAWNAT & ENGEMSHUMEDUHEALTHOTHER
Highest participation percentage: Veterinary Science Library
Best team spirit: Economic & Management Sciences
Library
Contents
Background Survey administration Respondent demographics Survey results analysis Comparisons Comments Future Conclusion Thank you!
Report feedback
During August 2013 UPLS participated in the LibQUAL+ survey
Purpose of this presentation summarize highlight the results include background information analysis of the free text comments
Action required: Executive will discuss the results and indicate areas which should be addressed
Background
Background to LibQUAL
LibQUAL+ is a survey developed by the Association of Research Libraries
22 core questions measures user perceptions & expectations of library service quality in 3 dimensions: Affect of service (interactions, helpfulness & competency of
library staff) Information control (finding the required information in the
library) Library as place (library as place: physical environment for
individual or group work) Open-ended comments box for feedback on service
Background to LibQUAL cont.
Core questions are in the form of a phrase Minimum level they are willing to accept Desired level of service Actual level of service they perceive to have been provided
The desired & minimum scores establish the upper & lower boundaries of a “zone of tolerance”
University Library has also participated in 2005 and 2009
Survey administration
Survey administration
Survey advertised: Library web page Facebook Twitter UP facebook UP Twitter Posters ClickUP & staff intranet Emails to postgraduates & academic staff members SMS to postgraduates Campus News
Survey administration
Prizes offered
Optional draw advertised:
Response rate in %
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2005 2009 2013
7.56 6.82
10.91
International survey comparison
122 institutions participated in LibQUAL+ University A had 6,907 surveys (1st) (population 52
747) University of Pretoria had 6,075 valid surveys (2nd)
(population 54 199) University B had 5,562 (3rd) (population 29 860)
National survey comparison
University X LibQUAL Lite 1738 valid surveys University Y 798 valid surveys University Z 137 valid surveys
Respondent demographics
Respondents 2005, 2009 & 2013 User group 2005 2009 2013
Undergraduates 1826 2264 4491
Postgraduates 716 835 1116
Academic staff 179 253 307
Library staff 67 42 85
Other staff 69 93 76
Total 2857 3721 6075
Respondents by user sub-group
Respondents by discipline
Valid surveys collected by language
7%
93%
AfrikaansEnglish
Respondent profile by age
27
3620
1462
617 251
13
<1818-2223-3031-4546-65>65
Respondent profile by sex
43%
57%
MalesFemales
Demographic summary – undergraduates 4491 or 73.93%
0200400600800
1000120014001600 1469
1156 1039
307 219
14
287
Demographic summary – postgraduates 1116 or 18.37%
050
100150200250300350400450500
307
457
268
63
14 7
Taught MResearch MPhDDiplomaNon-degreeUndecided
Demographic summary – academic staff 307 or 5.05%
0102030405060708090
100
Prof Ass Prof SeniorLecturer
Lecturer Researchstaff
Other
39 41
80 91
31 25
Demographic summary – support staff 161 or 2.65%
01020304050607080
5 12
35
75
34
Survey results analysis
The library used most often
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 3833
72 295 182
461 301 19 4 1 2 155
524
Radar charts
Summarize the 22 questions and 3 scales: Minimum, desired & actual level of service Each dimension is labeled
Each line indicates one survey question Points close to the center has low value &
near the edge has high value Differences are highlighted in colour: Yellow and Blue: within the zone of tolerance Red (-): perceived service level is below minimum Green (+): perceived level is above desired level
Bar charts
Bar charts provide another way of looking at the data Data of the 3 dimensions are presented in bar
chart format Zone of tolerance is shaded in grey Adequacy gap is shown as an orange bar
Radar chart: All clients
Giving users individual attention 6.78
Library staff who instill confidence in users 6.78
Space for group learning and group study 6.89
Bar chart: All clients
Minimum mean 6.76
Perceived mean 7.19
Desired mean 7.97
Library use summary: all clients
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
How often do you useresources within the
library?
How often do youaccess library
resources through alibrary web page?
How often do you useYahoo or Google etc
as gateways forinformation?
2415 2040
3660
293
2485
1619
886 946
401 513 382 144 82 136 165
DailyWeeklyMonthlyQuarterlyNever
Radar chart: undergraduates
Library staff who instill confidence in users 6.71
Space for group learning and group study 6.89
Library staff who are consistently courteous 6.95
Bar chart: undergraduates
Perceived mean 7.19
Desired mean 7.97
Minimum mean 6.73
Perceived mean 7.17
Desired mean 7.92
Library use summary: undergraduates
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
How often do you useresources within the
library?
How often do youaccess library
resources through alibrary web page?
How often do you useYahoo or Google etc
as gateways forinformation?
2127
1496
2792
1570 1829
1227
510 734
266 239 318 96 45 114 3
DailyWeeklyMonthlyQuarterlyNever
Radar chart: postgraduates Giving users individual attention 6.91
Library staff who instill confidence In users 6.93
Space for group learning and group study 6.94
Library space that inspires study and learning 6.99
Bar chart: postgraduates
Minimum mean 6.76
Perceived mean 7.19
Desired mean 7.97
Minimum mean 6.80
Perceived mean 7.23
Desired mean 8.10
Library use summary: postgraduates
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
How often do you useresources within the
library?
How often do youaccess library
resources through alibrary web page?
How often do you useYahoo or Google etc
as gateways forinformation?
253
418
651
387
490
280 257
151 104
191
44 37 28 13 44
DailyWeeklyMonthlyQuarterlyNever
Radar chart: academic staff
Space for group learning and group study 6.75
A haven for study, learning or research 6.93
Quiet space for individual work 6.89
Library space that inspires study and learning 6.92
Bar chart: academic staff
Perceived mean 7.19
Desired mean 7.97
Minimum mean 6.87
Perceived mean 7.33
Desired mean 8.12
Library use summary: academic staff
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
How often do you useresources within the
library?
How often do youaccess library resourcesthrough a library web
page?
How often do you useYahoo or Google etc as
gateways forinformation?
27
108
176
116
142
90 94
42
23
63
12 10 7 3 8
DailyWeeklyMonthlyQuarterlyNever
Radar chart: other staff
Space for group learning and group study 6.89
Bar chart: other staff
Minimum mean 6.95
Desired mean 8.00
Perceived mean 7.30
Library use summary: other staff
05
1015202530354045
How often do you useresources within the
library?
How often do youaccess library resources
through a library webpage?
How often do you useYahoo or Google etc as
gateways forinformation?
8
18
41
20 24
22 25
19
8
20
8
1 2 6
3
DailyWeeklyMonthlyQuaterlyNever
Radar chart: library staff
Space for group learning and group study 6.96
Quiet space for individual work 6.88
Library space that inspires study and learning 6.89
Bar chart: library staff
Minimum mean 7.22
Perceived mean 7.46
Desired mean 8.23
Library use summary: library staff
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
How often do you useresources within the
library?
How often do youaccess library resources
through a library webpage?
How often do you useYahoo or Google etc as
gateways forinformation?
52 50 53
15 18 22
11 12 6 5
2 3 2 3 1
DailyWeeklyMothlyQuaterlyNever
Comparisons
LibQUAL surveys scores
2005 2009 2013
Affect of service 6.82 7.05 7.11
Information control 6.78 7.11 7.33
Library as place 6.62 6.89 7.09
Overall 6.76 7.03 7.19
Radar chart: UP comparison
2009 2013
2005
Bar chart: UP comparison
2005
2009 2013
Perceived mean 6.76
Perceived mean 7.03
Perceived mean 7.19
Radar chart: international comparison
UP 7.19
A 7.24
B 7.33
Bar chart: international comparison
UP
7.19 7.24
7.59 7.18 6.79
7.43 7.20 7.44
7.33
7.11 7.33 7.09
A
B
Radar chart: national comparison
UP 7.19
X 6.88
Y 6.46
Bar chart: national comparison
UP
7.11 7.33 7.09 7.05
6.55
X
7.19 6.88
6.91
Y
6.74 6.48 5.89
6.46
Surveys score 2004 – 2013
3.87 3.96 3.76 3.87 3.91
4.1 3.71
3.99
0
1
2
3
4
5
2004IH 2005IH 2005LQ 2006IH 2009LQ 2011UP 2012UP 2013LQ
Comments
Comments
A total of 3607 comments made 2374 positive comments 1935 negative comments
Staff stars!
Mentioned more than 3 times: Marie Theron, Estelle Grobler, Adrienne Warricker & Sunette
Steynberg
Mentioned twice: Elsa Coertze, Antoinette Lourens, Alett Nel, Isobel Rycroft,
Shirley Shai, Liesl Stieger & Clarisse Venter 18 other staff members mentioned positively Junior Baloyi, Fundiswa Buthelezi, Bettie de Kock, Thea
Heckroodt, Magriet Lee, Abram Maboya, Refilwe Matatiele, Richard Mbokane, Josephine Modiba, Nomonde Mtima, Clara Ngobeni, Kabelo Nzima, Elsabe Olivier, Elsa Schaffner, Susan Scheepers, Sophie Silinda & Mike Volschenk
Summary of complaints
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FacilitiesITResourcesServices
Negative comments - Facilities
230
205
159
121
62
60 52
35 23 22 Study spaceNoiseGroup spaceHoursAir conditioningPG spaceStudy centreToiletsAccess card controlMore/bigger libraries
Negative comments - IT
426
73
71
68
58
56
48 29 24 19 13 8
Computers
Internet
Printing
WiFi
Plug points
Social media
Website
Login problems
PG computers
Virus control
Software
Computer hours
Negative comments - Resources
145
80
78
75
59
51
41
40 37
37 21 E-JournalsGapsPrescribed booksNew booksMore copiesWebsiteInternetReserved book hoursEbooksFinding a bookMore books/resources
Negative comments - Service
110
65 37
29
18
15 15
13 13 11 9
Rude/unfriendly staffRude security staffUnwilling staffClient careOnline training coursesBad serviceKnowledgeInformation specialistsXerox staffMarketingLibrary skills courses
Our 15 main complaints
426
230
205
159 145
121
110
80
78
75 73 71
68 65 62
Computers
Study space
Noise
Group study space
E-Journals
Hours
Rude/unfriendly staff
Gaps
Prescribed books
New books
Internet
Printing
WiFi
Rude Security Staff
Air-Condition System
Our 15 main positive comments
1422
508 474
411
189 92
80 76
70
57
53 42 39 35
21
Services
Resources
Facilities
Overall
E-library
Merensky
Silence
General
Training
Personal
IT
LAW
Research Commons
Hours
WiFi
Future
Future
LibQUAL+ lite Shorter version Takes less time to complete Uses item sampling to gather 22 core items Every user responds to one item from each AS, IC or LP & 5
items from remaining core items All 22 core items are still completed
Conclusion
Most desired services (IC)
Information control Making electronic resources accessible from my home or
office (Postgraduates 8.37, Academic staff 8.48) A library web site enabling me to locate information on my
own (Postgraduates 8.32 & Academic staff 8.44) The electronic information resources that I need 8.42
(Academic staff) Print and/or electronic journal collection I require for my work
(Postgraduates 8.33 & Academic staff 8.38)
Most desired services (LP)
Library as place Quiet space for individual work (Undergraduates 8.14)
Most desired services (AS)
Affect of service Willingness to help users 8.37 (Library staff)
In conclusion
Concerns center around two dimensions: Library as place
Space for group learning and group study (UG, PG, AS, LS, OS) Library space that inspires study and learning (PG, AS, LS) Quiet space for individual work (AS, LS) A haven for study, learning or research (AS)
Affect of service Library staff who instill confidence in users (UG, PG) Library staff who are consistently courteous (UG) Giving users individual attention (PG)
Information control: no areas of concern were identified
Thank you!
LibQUAL+ team Gerda Ehlers , Ditebogo Mogakane , Nomonde Mtima,
Sonja Delport , Julene Vermeulen, Abram Maboya, Monica van Schalkwyk, Suzy Nyakale, Marieta Buys, Gcobisa Xalabile, Audrey Lenoge, Elna Randall, Marguerite Nel, Josephine Modiba, Christelle Steyn, Isak van der Walt, Sam Makgalemele & Rachel Phahla
Thanks to: Staff members who completed the survey Staff members who marketed the survey actively
