In addition, the library has begun to incorporate the LibQUAL+® Lite ratings
with the Balanced Scorecard and has created metrics and targets for future
administrations of the Balanced Scorecard. The library’s 2009–10 Balanced
Scorecard has identified a number performance indicators based on LibQUAL+®
scores. These indicators will be used as benchmarks within the library as well as
against the SCONUL consortium scores.
LibQUAL+® Lite Qualitative Data
The volume of qualitative data harvested from users’ comments was unaffected
by using the LibQUAL+® Lite protocol in 2010. As in previous years, 43% of
respondents (1,070) made in excess of 1,600 distinct comments. This is very good
news as the qualitative data is often more persuasive in decision making as it
provides information that is easier to understand than numerical score ratings. It
identifies problems and provides the context to understand issues.
Conclusion
In the current economic climate, the ability of libraries to demonstrate that the
services they provide are accessible, effective, efficient, progressive, and
responsive is unavoidable and absolutely necessary. Over the last seven years,
LibQUAL+®, together with other national and international survey instruments
and local assessment tools, has been a major factor in this library’s success in
increasing and improving access to information resources within a physical
environment that is comfortable, inspiring, inviting, and a secure place of work
for the students and staff of the university. For the future, there is confidence that
LibQUAL+® Lite will be a necessary tool for the library’s continued development
of services that are designed to meet users’ needs and expectations.
1
Chris Bailey, University of Glasgow Annual Report 2001 (Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 2002).
2
Steve Hiller, “Another Tool in the Assessment Toolbox: Integrating LibQUAL+® into the University of
Washington Libraries Assessment Program,” in Libraries Act on Their LibQUAL+® Findings: From Data
to Action, eds. Fred M. Heath, Martha Kyrillidou, and Consuella Askew (New York: Haworth Press,
2004): 127.
3
A Service Adequacy Gap score is calculated by subtracting the minimum score from the perceived
score on any given question for each user. In general, a Service Adequacy Gap score is an indicator of
the extent to which the library is meeting the minimum expectations of users. A negative Service
Adequacy Gap score indicates that the users’ perceived level of service quality is below their
minimum level of service quality. For a fuller understanding of the LibQUAL+® scales and graphs, see
the online tutorial on “LibQUAL+® Tools,” http://libqual.org/about/about_survey/tools/.
4
Eric Ackermann, “LibQUAL+® and the Evolution of ‘Library as Place’ at Radford University,
2002–2008,” in Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: Proceedings of the 2008 Library
Assessment Conference, Seattle, Washington, August 4–7, 2008, eds. Steve Hiller, Kristina Justh, Martha
Kyrillidou, and Jim Self (Washington DC: ARL, 2009): 43–49,
http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proceedings-lac-2008.pdf.
5
Charts 1 and 2 show floating bar charts where the blue box defines the “zone of tolerance”—the
RLI 271
19
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
Previous Page Next Page