LibQUAL+ Service Quality Survey : The Results are In
By Noreen McGuire, Assistant University Librarian for Staff Development

In Spring 2003 the Pace Library participated in the LibQUAL+ service quality survey. We want to thank all of you who participated in the survey. Results were summarized from 621 Pace students, staff, and faculty who completed the survey. Respondents identified themselves as follows: 305 Undergraduate students, 149 Graduate students, 118 faculty, and 49 staff. Three randomly selected respondents (two students and one staff member) who chose to participate in the incentive prize drawing each received a $100 American Express gift card.

The Library was one of 308 libraries participating in the survey project this year as part of a national pilot lead by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to establish baseline information about user expectations and ratings of four dimensions of library service quality:
• access to information,
• affect of service,
• library as place,
• personal control.
Twenty-five questions on the survey focused on these four dimensions.

LibQUAL+ is a web-based assessment tool for measuring library users’ perceptions of service quality and identifying gaps between desired, perceived, and minimum expectations of service. According to this gap model, users have both minimum and desired levels of service. The difference between the perceived level of service and minimum expectations is measured in terms of a gap score, which can be positive or negative. This gap attempts to measure perceived service adequacy.

For the first time during the four-year project, this year Libraries were able to collect data on which library facility respondents used most often. For a multi-campus institution like Pace, this could prove very helpful. This information, however, was not included in the analysis provided to us by the LibQUAL+ project group. We have received the data files, which will be analyzed for additional insight to the information gathered from the survey.

Additionally, many respondents provided us with open-ended comments that address more specific concerns and even offer suggestions. A perusal of these comments has already shed light on some survey results, and we believe that a more systematic qualitative analysis of these comments will be fruitful in helping to guide our responses to what users are telling us.

We are pleased to report that users indicate satisfaction with the Affect of Service dimension that looks at employees and how they interact with users and how they deal with user needs.

Most respondents, though not quite all, are also satisfied with the degree of personal control afforded to them when using the library. This dimension includes items such as how easy-to-use access tools and the library web site allow users to find information on their own. There were some concerns about “modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information” and “making electronic resources accessible from my home or office.

The second of these areas of concern, “making electronic resources accessible from my home or office” is an example of where the survey is telling us that we need to get the word out more about a service that we know in fact we are providing at a high level, and that some users perceive we are not. We can hope that the perception is driven by the reality that we can do nothing about firewalls in people’s offices that prohibit them from reaching our resources from their office, but we need to find out if this is the case. It may just be that some people don’t know about remote access. We need to find out and address the concern.

The area or dimension wherein we are most clearly not meeting the expectations of some users is that of Library as Place. This is particularly so in regards to the need for a quiet space for individual activities. We have already seen from a cursory perusal of open-ended comments that there are real concerns with noise, and particularly with the use of cell phones in the library. Even self-policing efforts on the part of students have not proved up to this challenge, and we need to continue to look for ways to make the library a place where users can and want to come for studying and learning.

In the dimension of Access to Information, a couple of areas stand out as areas requiring additional attention. The first concerns “printed library materials I need for my work.” A closer analysis of survey results data by user group and discipline are warranted here to see if the gap between minimum and perceived expectation is widespread or whether this concern rests largely in specific disciplines. This analysis while not yet done, is anticipated to be part of our closer analysis of the data provided by LibQUAL+.

The second concern in the dimension of Access to Information was with “print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work.” To put this item in perspective, we are glad to be able to say that across the boards, in four iterations of the LibQUAL+ survey over the last four years, this is an area where gap scores are consistently low. It is in fact the example item that LibQUAL+ people use to illustrate the value of norm tables that a total market survey such as LibQUAL+ affords its participants. We may not look so good, but when few others look good, that can help us put the results into a comparative perspective and give us another way to look at the results.

This being said, we also know that we are providing access to an incredible number of scholarly and specialized journals through library databases and further through the library-subsidized document delivery services Ingenta and Infotrieve and we believe that this tells us that we need to further publicize these services. To use either of the services, one must create a profile and request a password to get started, and once this is done,
between Ingenta and Infotrieve, students and faculty can access articles from over 10,000 unique journal titles without the intervention of a staff member!

The Pace Library is committed to listening to users and taking steps to better meet user expectations. Further analysis and careful follow-up will help clarify expectations and perceptions of groups of library users and assure that we are focusing efforts and resources, as well as better publicizing current services, where you have told us you expect more.