TM
LibQUAL+ Introduction
™
Seattle / London
January, 2007
Presented by:
Colleen Cook
Bruce Thompson
Project URL – http://www.libqual.org/
Total Circulation
Total Circulation
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
400,000
Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003).
ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.
Reference Transactions
Reference Transactions
170,000
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
120,000
110,000
100,000
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
90,000
Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003).
ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.
Assessment
“The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of
simple indicators that can be used by different
institutions, and that will compare something across
large groups that is by definition only locally applicable—
i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution.
Librarians have either made do with oversimplified
national data or have undertaken customized local
evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been
devised an effective way to link the two.”
Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996
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.
World LibQUAL+™ Survey
Participating Libraries
Premises
Three Seminal Quotations
LibQUAL+ Premise #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.
LibQUAL+ Premise #2
™
“Il est plus nécessaire d'étudier
les hommes que les livres”
—FRANÇOIS DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD
LibQUAL+ Premise #3
™
“We only care about the things we
measure.”
--Bruce Thompson, CASLIN, 2006
Extended GAPS Model
Organizational Barriers to SQ
Poor Upward
Communication
Customers’ Assessment of SQ
GAP 1
Reliability
Perception of
Infeasibility
Responsiveness
GAP 2
GAP 5
Poor Tech - Job
Fit
Assurance
Empathy
GAP 3
Tangibles
Poor Horizontal
Communication
GAP 4
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
“22 items”
2000
2001
2002
2003
41-items
56-items
25-items
22-items
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
Service Affect
Service Affect
Reliability
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Library as Place
Reliability
Personal Control
Information
Control
Provision of
Physical
Collections
Self-Reliance
Information
Access
Access to
Information
Access to
Information
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
Interpretation Framework #3
Interpreting Perceived Scores Against
Minimally-Acceptable and Desired
Service Levels (i.e., “Zones of
Tolerance”)
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/Information/Manual/index.cfm