LibQUAL+ 2002 Tales from Past Participants Vanderbilt ...

LibQUAL+ 2002 Tales from Past Participants Vanderbilt ...

LibQUAL+ 2002 Tales from Past Participants Vanderbilt University Library Flo Wilson, Deputy University Librarian [email protected] Vanderbilts Survey Experience Background and survey administration Waiting for the data and the analysis What do we think we know? What do we want to do about it? Which ways of presenting data are most useful? Survey and Survey Response Volunteer committee established Survey announced on librarys webpage Preliminary message sent a week ahead Sample size of 3400+ Approximately 40 messages bounced Only 18 could not be corrected Request to participate sent from the University Librarian Two reminders sent Starbucks gift certificates as incentives Survey and Survey Response WAITING . . . Committee reviewed examples from last years session Chair took SPSS class in anticipation of data file Comments reviewed, sorted (discipline and then user group), posted on web Results arrive!

Survey and Survey Response WAITING . . . -- for the analysis Experimenting -- with ways of presenting data Survey and Survey Response Final Sample Complete Responses Response Rate 923 281 30.4% Graduate Students 1,017 296 29.1% Undergrads 1,499 357 23.8% Faculty 2 Other Total

3,439 936 27.2% Survey and Survey Response RESPONSE AND COMMENTS BY DISCIPLINE Agriculture/Environmental Studies Architecture Business Communications/Journalism Education Engineering/Computer Science Health Sciences Humanities Law Performing & Fine Arts Science/Math Social Sciences/Psychology General Studies Undecided Other Total Respondents Undergrad Graduate Faculty 0 1 0 1 0 0 20 25 9 22 0 3 21 55 16

60 33 37 15 14 5 29 33 65 16 31 13 18 1 19 41 35 52 64 38 51 3 0 0 24 0 0 23 30 11 357 296 281 Total 1 1 54 25 92 130 34 127 60

38 128 153 3 24 64 934 Comments % with Undergrad Grad Faculty Staff Total Comments 1 1 100% 0% 5 4 5 14 26% 8 1 9 36% 10 21 5 36 39% 16 10 12 38 29% 9 2 1 12 35% 15 20 34 69 54% 8 11 2 21

35% 7 1 9 17 45% 16 16 23 1 56 44% 30 21 25 76 50% 1 1 33% 6 6 25% 10 12 2 24 38% 141 119 119 1 380 41% Survey and Survey Response LibQUAL + Jean and Alexander Heard Library, Vanderbilt University Unsatisfied (or want "more" or "faster) Satisfied (positive comments) Access to Information I.L.L. E-journals, data bases Hard copy collection Library Hours 162 33

10 11 27 5 45 4 65 0 Affect of Service 45 97 Library as Place Facilitates quiet study Physical plant Comfortable Security 129 16 24 3 42 0 13 2

5 0 Personal Control Convenient access to collection Equipment (copiers, microfiche) 88 24 15 0 18 0 General 4 62 428 232 Survey and Survey Response Comments per Section 180 160 num ber of com m ents 140 120 100 Unsatisfied Satisfied 80

60 40 20 0 Access to Information Affect of Service Library as Place Personal Control Data Review and Analysis Library Management Council Retreat Day long discussion What did we conclude Higher than ARL mean, but very near the middle Substantial room for improvement Most desired services (highest) are in Personal Control, particularly related to electronic services/resources Faculty want more extensive digital AND print collections Data Review and Analysis What else did we conclude Our highest perceived scores are in Affect of Service Undergraduates highly dissatisfied with hours of operation Main library building (we assume) meets only minimum expectations for some and is below for many Disciplinary breakdown did not really help with making assumptions about which Library the respondent was evaluating How will we move forward? Generated action items for further pursuit Marketing and communication plan Make information about remote access more available and more visible on website Extended hours proposal Complete analysis of ILL performance Develop a customer service training program for

staff Review fines policy for substantial changes Decide on strategy for improving main library facilities How will we move forward? Follow-up study needed What were you thinking the question meant when you answered it? What specific problems do you experience with accessing electronic resources from home or office? Convenient access to collections Time required to analyze the data limits ability to make measurable changes by next round Can we establish quantitative goals? How close to desired do we want to be? Data Sources and Analysis Published dataOverall, group, individual Published dataOther libraries Re-keying to Excel Data file Save as Excel file Extract selected data and statistics to Excel Institutional means Norms Data Analysis and Presentation Bar charts and general satisfaction Results by question (high/low/close) Radar charts for role/discipline analysis Gap tables for identifying significant areas needing improvement Rankings and scatter charts for library comparisons Norms

Bar Charts and General Satisfaction 9.00 8.00 7.51 7.53 7.05 7.34 7.21 7.16 6.71 7.00 6.71 6.85 6.77 6.96 7.26 7.24 7.14 7.03 6.00 Undergraduate Graduate 5.00 Faculty All VU respondents All ARL Library Respondents 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Ingeneral, I amsatisfiedwith the way inwhichI am

treatedat the libraries. Ingeneral, I amsatisfiedwith library support f or my learningresearch and/ or teachingneeds Howwould yourate the overall quality of the service providedby the library? (Extremely poor to Extremely good) Results by QuestionHigh/low/close 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3 8 9 19 22 Access to Information 1 4

11 14 15 17 Affect of Service 18 20 24 2 10 13 21 Library as Place Question Number 23 5 6 7 12 16 Personal Control 25

Results by QuestionHigh/low/close Personal Control by User Group 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 VU Desired VU Minimum VU Perceived 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 Electronic resources accessible from home or office Modern equipment that lets me easily access information Website enables me to Easy to use access locate information on tools to find things on my own my own Making information accessible for independent use Faculty Grad Undergrad Faculty Grad

Undergrad Faculty Grad Undergrad Faculty Grad Undergrad Faculty Grad Undergrad Faculty Grad Undergrad 4.50 Convenient access to library collections Radar ChartComplete Runs of Journals Undecided Businesss 9.00 Comm/Journalism 7.00 Social Sciences 5.00

Education 3.00 Science/Math 1.00 Perf & Fine Arts Engineering/CS Health Sciences Other Humanities Law Minimum Desired Perceived Radar ChartIndividual Attention Freshman 9.00 Other academic 8.00 7.00 Sophomore 6.00 5.00 4.00 Lecturer Junior 3.00 2.00 1.00

Professor Senior Assoc. Prof. Masters Asst. Prof. Doctoral Minimum Desired Perceived Using Gaps to Identify Areas of Focus MOST SIGNIFICANT GAPS BETWEEN USER WISHES AND PERFORMANCE Question Number 3 21 25 5 12 6 22 19 8 13 2 1 7 23 16 9 Faculty Complete runs of journal titles A comfortable and inviting place Convenient access to library collections Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need

Comprehensive print collections Convenient business hours Timely document delivery/ILL A place for reflection and creativity Space that facilitates quiet study Willingness to help users A library website enabling me to locate information on my own A contemplative environment Making information easily accessible for independent use Interdisciplinary library needs being met Graduate Undergrad 7 10 18 20 17 10 8 6 9 1 1 2 5 5 8 14

7 5 17 13 3 1 11 25 18 15 2 21 3 19 Shading represents a statement w hose gap betw een desirability and performance is one of ten greatest for that user group. Number represents desired rank (most to least, 1 to 25) of item ARL Libraries (sorted by perceived) 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 Desired 5.00 Perceived Minimum 4.00 3.00 2.00

1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Selected ARL Peers for Comparison Libraries with one or more scores in the top ten--Perceived Service Level, Service Adequacy, or Service Superiority Average Average Average Perceived Minimum Desired Perceived Rank Library A 6.58 7.92 7.18 1 Library B 6.43 7.92 7.12 2 Library C 6.22 7.82 7.11 3 Library D 6.38

7.91 7.06 4 Library E 6.50 7.87 7.05 5 Library F 6.46 7.90 7.05 6 Library G 6.38 7.83 7.04 7 Library H 6.40 7.87 7.00 8 Library I 6.18 7.74 6.99 9 Library J 6.61 7.98 6.99 10 Library K (Vanderbilt) 6.25 7.83 6.94 12 Library L 6.18 7.89 6.90 16 Library M

6.25 7.62 6.88 19 Library N 6.13 7.90 6.76 29 Library O 6.09 7.76 6.75 30 Average Average Service Adequacy Service Superiority Adequacy Gap Rank Superiority Gap Rank 0.61 12 (0.74) 2 0.69 4 (0.80) 6 0.89 1 (0.71) 1 0.68 6 (0.85) 8 0.55 15 (0.82) 7 0.59 14 (0.86) 9

0.66 7 (0.79) 5 0.60 13 (0.87) 10 0.81 2 (0.75) 4 0.39 24 (0.98) 16 0.69 5 (0.89) 11 0.72 3 (0.98) 15 0.63 10 (0.75) 3 0.64 9 (1.14) 31 0.66 8 (1.02) 19 Norm ComparisonsVanderbilt Percentiles Individual Score Norms--Perceived Service 25 Question Affect of Library as Personal Access to Mean Service

Place Control Information 45th 47th 39th 53rd 42nd 46th 48th 43rd 51st 44th 39th 45th 33rd 50th 38th 46th 47th 40th 52nd 46th 45th 44th 43rd 56th 40th Perceived level of service 46th Service adequacy gap (perceived minus minimum) 80th Service superiority gap (desired minus perceived) 55th 51st 85th 65th 32nd 60th 40th

58th 80th 60th 45th 70th 50th 70th 90th 80th 50th 66th 50th 70th 90th 70th 40th 75th 50th All respondents ARL library respondents All faculty Graduate students Undergraduate students Institutional score norms--All Libraries Institutional score norms--ARL Libraries Perceived level of service 66th Service adequacy gap (perceived minus minimum) 90th Service superiority gap (desired minus perceived) 66th LibQUAL Report and Presentations http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/admin/lq/LQhome.htm

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • NATURALISMO - Educacional

    NATURALISMO - Educacional

    REALISMO NATURALISMO - Forte influência da literatura de Gustave Flaubert (França). - Forte influência da literatura de Émile Zola (França). - Romance documental, apoiado na observação e na análise. - Romance experimental, apoiado na experimentação e observação científica.
  • Development of Auditory-Visual Speech Perception in Toddlers ...

    Development of Auditory-Visual Speech Perception in Toddlers ...

    Auditory-visual speech perception in young children: language and age-specific factors ... (Native minus Non-native speech perception N-NN) 18 N [voiced vs. voiceless] + 18 NN [voiced vs. prevoiced] Reading Test WRAT-3 reading subtest: 15 letters + 42 words = 57...
  • How am I going to do that? MY

    How am I going to do that? MY

    The timeworn gas light flickered on the dilapidated porch of the de la Fathom's uninhabitable home. It was as if the longstanding dwelling was whispering to catch our ear.
  • AZF Ammonium Nitrate Explosion

    AZF Ammonium Nitrate Explosion

    Explosion occurred at the Azote Fertilisant Plant (AZF) in Toulouse, France on September 21st, 2001. The explosion caused 30 fatalities. The plant was owned by the Total Group (an oil and gas company) The explosion occurred in a storage tank...
  • Good Morning - WordPress.com

    Good Morning - WordPress.com

    Healy. Ethan. David. Dean. Killian. DarraghBarnes. Kristian. ... Mark important quotes for later. Warm-up - write at top of page. What is your understanding of the term 'vengeance'. As in, I will have vengeance, avenge me or give me my...
  • Presentación de PowerPoint - NIST

    Presentación de PowerPoint - NIST

    stopwatch. is the time measured by the instrument under calibration. 2. isthecoverage factor k. ACCURACY. Frequency. Offset. DIRECT TIME MEASUREMENT. Author: Nubia Milena Rodriguez Roberto Title: Presentación de PowerPoint Last modified by:
  • TYPHON - University of California, Irvine

    TYPHON - University of California, Irvine

    The Typhon Algorithm. A New Variational Approach to Ground State Computation in Binary Planar Markov Random Fields. by Julian Yarkony, CharlessFowlkesAlexander Ihler. Good Afternoon, My name is Julian Yarkony and I will be presenting Planar Cycle Covering Graphs for inference...
  • Lecture 14 - Introduction to the Central Processing Unit (CPU)

    Lecture 14 - Introduction to the Central Processing Unit (CPU)

    Lecture 13 - Introduction to the Central Processing Unit (CPU) * * * * * Outcomes What is a CPU? How are instructions prepared by the CPU before execution? What registers and operations are involved in this preparation stage? Introduce...