Library Assessment in North America

Stephanie Wright, University of WashingtonLynda S. White, University of Virginia

American Library Association Mid-Winter Conference

January 11, 2008

Association of Research Libraries Sessions

Background

May-June 2007 74 respondents (60%) 85% from US academic libraries 12% from Canadian academic

libraries 3% from public libraries

In the beginning…

17

18

11

4

9

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

<1980 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000>

Impetus for Assessment

Desire to know more about your customers 91.3%

Investigation of possible new library services or resources

71.0%

Desire to know more about your processes 65.2%

Desire to identify library performance objectives 62.3%

Need to reallocate library resources 55.1%

Accountability requirements from your parent institution 37.7%

Institutional or programmatic accreditation process 29.0%

Other (please specify) 23.2%

Proposal from staff member with assessment knowledge

17.4%

Assessment Methods

% Used Currently

% Used Previously

Statistics gathering (e.g., e-resource usage, gate counts, ARL statistics, etc.) 98.6% 1.4%

Suggestion Box 82.2% 8.2%

Web usability testing 80.8% 12.3%

User interface usability 78.1% 12.3%

Surveys developed elsewhere (e.g., CSEQ, LibQUAL+®) 75.3% 20.5%

Focus Groups 69.9% 21.9%

Data mining and analysis 58.9% 8.2%

Facilities use studies 56.2% 30.1%

Statistics inventory 54.8% 12.3%

Student learning outcomes evaluations 54.8% 15.1%

Interviews 52.1% 30.1%

Online user feedback (pop-up windows, etc.) 52.1% 24.7%

Observation 50.7% 30.1%

Benchmarking 50.7% 15.1%

Locally designed user satisfaction survey 49.3% 42.5%

Areas Assessed: >80%

Website 100.0%

Electronic Resources 98.4%

User Instruction 97.6%

Collections 97.6%

Reference 96.0%

Online Catalog 94.6%

Facilities 94.0%

Circulation/Reserve 93.8%

Interlibrary Loan 93.4%

Branch Libraries 88.5%

Digital Initiatives 85.7%

Shelving 84.8%

Acquisitions 84.5%

Selectors/Subject Liaisons 81.8%

Cataloging 80.5%

Areas Assessed: <80%

Staff Training/Development 79.8%

Special Collections 77.9%

IT Systems 76.7%

Preservation 74.0%

Work Climate 69.3%

Other 57.1%

Administration 56.3%

Financial/Business Services 52.9%

Development/Fundraising 45.5%

Human Resources 43.1%

Publicity/Marketing 37.3%

Responsibility for Assessment

30.00%

18.57%17.14%

15.71%

12.86%

5.71%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

Other Part-timeCoordinator

StandingCommittee

Full-timeCoordinator

Department Ad hocCommittee

Growth of Assessment

4

1

12

1

10

9

1

4

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1980s 1990s 2000s

Nu

mb

er o

f p

rog

ram

s

Ad Hoc Committee (4)

Part-time Coordinator (13)

Full-time Coordinator (11)

Department (9)

Standing Committee (12)

Importance of Assessment

Reporting Levels

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

1 Level 2 Levels 3 Levels

Full-time

Part-time

Dept Head

Assessment Tasks

Analyzes, interprets, and reports on data collected in assessment activities

95.9%

Consults with staff on assessment methods and needs 93.9%

Performs assessment activities 87.8%

Monitors/coordinates assessment projects throughout the library

77.6%

Coordinates collection of data across the library 75.5%

Submits external surveys (ARL, ALS, NATC, American Library Directory, etc.)

69.4%

Coordinates the reporting/archiving of the library’s statistical data

67.3%

Fills requests for library data 67.3%

Provides training on assessment topics 55.1%

Other (please specify) 26.5%

Approves assessment projects throughout the library 24.5%

Distribution of Results

LibraryStaff

ParentInstitution

GeneralPublic

Web site 81% 58% 57%

Library newsletter articles 65% 51% 39%

Print reports (e.g., annual report)

71% 57% 26%

Presentations 84% 46% 16%

E-mail announcements 84% 23% 6%

Campus newsletter articles 23% 45% 20%

Other 6% 0% 0%

Assessment Website Content

answer optionsStaff-onlyWebsite

Publicly Accessible

Website N

General library statistics 69% 53% 71

Analysis of assessment activity results

62% 47% 63

Assessment data 55% 28% 48

Presentations 52% 31% 48

Publications 34% 43% 45

Online assessment tools (e.g., surveys)

45% 21% 38

Links to other library assessment sites or information

38% 22% 35

Coordination with Other Units

Full-time Part-time DepartmentStanding

CommitteeAd hoc

Committee

Yes 72.73% 8 69.23% 9 88.89% 8 41.67% 5 75.00% 3

No 27.27% 3 30.77% 4 11.11% 1 58.33% 7 25.00% 1

Training for Assessment

answer options % N

Yes, support is given for training provided outside of our institution

61.8% 42

Yes, support is given for training provided by our parent institution

32.4% 22

No, there is no particular training provided

29.4% 20

Yes, training is provided by the library

27.9% 19

Training Programs

answer options % N

Assessment methods 58.33% 14

Basic statistics 45.83% 11

Survey construction 45.83% 11

Value of assessment 41.67% 10

Data analysis 37.50% 9

Other (please specify) 29.17% 7

Data presentation 29.17% 7

Sampling techniques 25.00% 6

Report writing 12.50% 3

Assessment Networking

% Who Have Attended

% Who Recommend

Venue

ARL assessment-related meetings 83.6% 100.0%

Library Assessment Conference (e.g., Charlottesville 2006) 58.2% 100.0%

Other 20.9% 100.0%

ALA/LAMA sessions/discussion groups on assessment 52.2% 97.1%

ALA/ACRL sessions/discussion groups on assessment 59.7% 92.5%

Northumbria International Conferences on Performance Measurement in Libraries 16.4% 90.0%

Evidenced-Based Library and Information Practice Conference 16.4% 81.8%

Culture of Assessment

% Agreeing at 4 or 5 (1-5 scale)

Library administrators are committed to supporting assessment 79.4%

Assessment results are used to improve my library 76.5%

Assessment is evident in our library planning documents such as the strategic plan 73.5%

My library evaluates its operations and programs for service quality 72.1%

Assessment is a library priority 67.6%

My library has local assessment resources and experts 50.0%

There is support and/or rewards for staff who engage in assessment activities 42.6%

Staff accepts responsibility for assessment activities 30.9%

Staff have the necessary assessment expertise and skills 19.1%

Staff development in assessment is adequate 16.2%

Assessment Plans

% N

No, the library has no assessment plan 53.7% 36

Yes, the library has a library-wide assessment plan 29.9% 20

Yes, the library has an assessment plan for some departments/units 19.4% 13

Yes, the library has an assessment plan for every department/unit 4.5% 3

Outcomes

Website 31 49%

Facilities 23 37%

Collection Development 19 30%

Services 17 27%

Access Services 14 22%

Hours 14 22%

Web

Redesign Usability Content Online catalog (29%)

Methods LibQUAL / surveys (26%) Usability studies (16%) Focus groups / interviews (10%)

Facilities

Changing spaces Expanding / renovating old spaces Creating new spaces Repurposing Branch closures / consolidations

Methods LibQUAL / surveys (35%) Focus groups / interviews (17%)

Services

Getting out there Going virtual Liaisons Quality of service

Methods Surveys Reference stats Focus groups / interviews

Collection Development

Focusing the collection Going “e” Cancellations/subscriptions Subject areas

Methods Usage stats (26%) Surveys Focus groups / interviews

Everything Else

Hours Extended – during interims/finals LibQUAL/surveys, focus groups & gate

counts Access Services

Processes – circ & shelving ILL / document delivery Off-site storage Surveys, stats

Everything Else

Organizational Development (16%) Equipment (13%)

Computers Photocopy / print

Training (14%) Instruction (6%) Marketing (5%)

ARL SPEC Kit 303

Stephanie Wright University of Washingtonswright@u.washington.edu

Lynda S. WhiteUniversity of Virginialsw6y@virginia.edu