TM
®
LibQUAL+ : An Overview
The Third Lodz [Poland] Library Conference
Technical University of Lodz
25-27 June, 2008
Presented by:
Bruce Thompson and Colleen Cook
Texas A&M University
Project URL – http://www.libqual.org/
Total Circulation
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
20
05
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
0
Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2008). ARL Statistics 2005-06. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.10.
Transactions
ReferenceReference
Transactions
170,000
150,000
130,000
110,000
90,000
70,000
20
05
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
50,000
Multiple Methods
of Listening to Customers

Transactional surveys*
Mystery shopping

New, declining, and lost-customer surveys

Focus group interviews


Customer advisory panels
Service reviews

Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture

Total market surveys*

Employee field reporting

Employee surveys

Service operating data capture

*A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these methods
Note. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000).
Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C.
Seminal Quotation #1
PERCEPTIONS
SERVICE
“….only customers judge quality;
all other judgments are essentially
irrelevant”
Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999).
Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.
Seminal Quotation #2
“Il est plus nécessaire d'étudier
les hommes que les livres”
—FRANÇOIS DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD
Seminal Quotation #3
“We only care about the things we
measure.”
--Bruce Thompson, CASLIN, Czech Republic, 2006
13 Libraries
English LibQUAL+™ Version
4000 Respondents
Emergent
2000
QUAL
PURPOSE
Describe library
environment;
build theory of library
service quality from
user perspective
LibQUAL+™ Project
DATA
Unstructured interviews
at 8 ARL institutions
ANALYSIS
Content analysis:
(cards & Atlas TI)
PRODUCT/RESULT
Case studies1
Valid LibQUAL+™ protocol
LibQUAL+™
QUAN Test
instrument
Web-delivered survey
Reliability/validity
analyses: Cronbachs
Alpha, factor analysis,
SEM, descriptive statistics
Scalable process
Enhanced understanding of
user-centered views of service
quality in the library
environment2
QUAL
Refine theory
of service quality
Unstructured interviews at
Health Sciences and the
Content analysis
Smithsonian libraries
Cultural perspective3
QUAL
Refine LibQUAL+™
instrument
E-mail to survey
administrators
Content analysis
Refined survey delivery
process and theory of service
quality4
QUAN
Test LibQUAL+™
instrument
Web-delivered survey
Reliability/validity analyses
including Cronbachs Alpha,
factor analysis, SEM,
descriptive statistics
Refined LibQUAL+™
instrument5
Focus groups
Content analysis
QUAL Refine theory
Iterative
2004
315 Libraries English, Dutch, Swedish,
German LibQUAL+™ Versions
160,000 anticipated respondents
Vignette
Re-tooling
Local contextual
understanding of
LibQUAL+™ survey
responses6
Dimensions
2000
2001
2002
2003-2008
41 items
56 items
25 items
22 items
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Reliability
Reliability
Personal Control
Information Control
Provision of
Physical
Collections
Self-Reliance
Information Access
Access to
Information
Access to
Information
Survey Instrument
“22 Items and The Box….”
Why the Box is so Important



About 40% of participants provide open-ended
comments, and these are linked to demographics
and quantitative data.
Users elaborate the details of their concerns.
Users feel the need to be constructive in their
criticisms, and offer specific suggestions for
action.
“…and Five Ancillary Items”
Either Zero or Five Ancillary items are
selected to address local or consortial
concerns
 Items from the initial LibQUAL+TM item
pool.
 Items written by previous consortial
groups.
World LibQUAL+™ Survey
Participating Libraries
®
LibQUAL+ Participants
350
200,000
300
180,000
307
308
176,360
160,000
151,460
250
152,111
250
140,000
128,958
218
204
200
113,480
Number of
Institutions
Number of
100,000 Responses
164
150
80,000
78,863
60,000
100
Number of Institutions
50
43
40,000
Number of Responses
20,000
20,416
13
0
120,000
4,407
2000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Survey Year
* 2007 data reflects Session I data only
Rapid Growth in Other Areas

Languages











Afrikaans
American English
British English
Danish
Dutch
Finnish
French
German
Norwegian
Swedish
Consortia
*Each may create 5 local questions to add to
their survey

Countries

Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt,
Finland, France, Hong Kong, New Zealand,
the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa,
Sweden, Switzerland, UAE, U.K., U.S.

Types of Institutions



















Academic Health Sciences
Academic Law
Academic Military
College or University
Community College
Electronic
European Business
European Parliament
Family History
Research Centers (FFRDC) Libraries
High School (2007)
Hospital
National Health Service England
Natural Resources
New York Public
Public
Smithsonian
State
University/TAFE
Interpreting Service Quality Data
Three Interpretation Frameworks
Interpretation Framework #1
Benchmarking Against Peer Institutions
--1,000,000 Users; 1,000 Institutions!
NORMS! NORMS! NORMS!
Score Norms


Norm Conversion Tables facilitate the interpretation
of observed scores using norms created for a large
and representative sample.
LibQUAL+™ norms have been created at both the
individual and institutional level
Institutional Norms for Perceived
Means on 25 Core Questions
Note: Thompson, B. LibQUAL+ Spring 2002 Selected Norms, (2002).
Interpretation Framework #2
Benchmarking Against Self, Longitudinally
“Nobody is more like me than me!”
--Anonymous
Longitudinal Graphs
Information Control – Faculty (Compare 2003 to 2007)
INFORMATION CONTROL: Faculty
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
4.00
IC MEAN
IC-1:
eResources
assessible
IC-2: Web site
IC-3: Printed
materials
IC-4: Needed
eResources
IC-5: Modern
equipment
IC-6: Easy-touse access
tools
IC-7:
Independent
use
IC-8:
Print/Electronic
Journals
Interpretation Framework #3
Interpreting Perceived Scores Against
Minimally-Acceptable and Desired
Service Levels (i.e., “Zones of
Tolerance”)
LibQUAL+ 2004 Summary
Colleges or Universities
Undergraduates – American English
™
(n = 37,661)
LibQUAL+ 2004 Summary
Colleges or Universities
Graduates – American English
™
(n = 16,750)
LibQUAL+ 2004 Summary
Colleges or Universities
Faculty – American English
™
(n = 11,755)
The Underused “Analytics Tool”
Q. What is NEW for 2008
and beyond?
A.
®
LibQUAL+
Lite
®
LibQUAL+
Lite
LibQUAL+® Lite is a survey methodology in
which (a) ALL users answer a few, selected
survey questions, but (b) the remaining survey
questions are answered ONLY by a randomlyselected subsample of the users. Thus, (a) data
are collected on ALL QUESTIONS, but (b)
each user answers FEWER QUESTIONS,
thus shortening the required response time!!!
®
LibQUAL+
Lite
Person


Item
Bob
Mary Bill Sue
Ted








Service Affect #1
Info Control #1
Service Affect #2
Library as Place #1
Service Affect #3
Info Control #2
Library as Place #2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LibQUAL+ Resources
™

LibQUAL+™ Website:
http://www.libqual.org

Publications:
http://www.libqual.org/publications

Events and Training:
http://www.libqual.org/events

Gap Theory/Radargraph Introduction:
http://www.libqual.org/Information/Tools/libqualpresentation.cfm

LibQUAL+™ Procedures Manual:
http://www.libqual.org/Manual/index.cfm