When the University of Glasgow LibQUAL+® Lite survey closed, 2,508 valid
surveys had been received with a higher response rate (9.8%) than previous
iterations, and equally important, a representative sample was achieved.
The potential drawback to using LibQUAL+® Lite is that the scores may not
be directly comparable to traditional LibQUAL+® scores. As expected, the 22
core average scores were lower than those achieved using the full protocol (see
Chart 2). This pattern was repeated for the Library as Place and Information
Control dimensions. Although this is not statistically relevant, the perception
is that despite major investment in the physical environment, facilities, and the
provision of information resources, users’ perception of the quality of these
services has fallen. There was little effect on Affect of Service average scores;
the desired service level was identical to 2009, while the minimum acceptable
and the perceived scores increased, meaning both the Service Adequacy and
the Service Superior Gaps narrowed.
[KEVIN: PLEASE PLACE CHART 2 IN THIS VICINITY.]
The most noticeable effect of using 100% LibQUAL+® Lite was highlighting the
benchmarking with the SCONUL consortium. When the 2010 average scores were
benchmarked with the SCONUL consortium and five other Russell Group libraries,
it became apparent that the playing field was not level, or as Bruce Thompson
would say, we were not “comparing apples to apples.” Glasgow University was the
only library in the group that implemented 100% LibQUAL+® Lite in 2010.
RLI 271
18
LibQUAL+® and the “Library as Place” at the University of Glasgow
(
C O N T I N U E D
)
AUGUST 2010 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A BIMONTHLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC
2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
Y E A R
M
E
A
N
Chart 2. Average Scores on 22 Core Items,
University of Glasgow, 2003–10 (except 2007)
Perceived score (red dot) within the zone of tolerance (blue floating bar)
Previous Page Next Page