Access to Information:
Library Users Speak Up
Mary Meernik
Assessment Librarian
The 2003 LibQUAL survey consisted of a core group of 25
questions designed to measure users’ perceptions
and expectations of library service quality in the following
four areas or dimensions: Access to information, Personal
control, Affect of service, and Library as place. Respondents
were asked to rate on a scale of 1-9 (with 9 being the
most favorable) not only their current perceptions of library
service quality but to also indicate the minimum levels
of service they are willing to accept and the desired levels
of service they want to receive. By subtracting the minimum
score from the perceived score on any given question, we
obtain the service adequacy gap. A positive adequacy gap
score indicates that users’ perceptions of our service
quality exceed their minimum expectations while a negative
score means that users consider our service to be less
than acceptable. The service superiority gap is calculated
by subtracting the desired score from the perceived score.
Again, a positive number reflects very well on our service
quality while a negative number reveals how large the gap
is between the service users feel they are receiving and
the service they desire. In this article, we will examine
how the library was judged on the five questions dealing
with access to information, noting the differences among
EMU user groups and among the different disciplines. (Note:
In order to accommodate all types of institutions, the
LibQUAL survey used general subject categories which do
not correspond uniformly to specific EMU academic departments.)
How successful is the library in providing the following:
Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work (799 respondents- 478 undergraduates, 119 graduate
students, 157 faculty, 9 library staff, 36 university staff)
Chart 1
Apparently it is universally difficult for libraries
to fullfill their users’ expectations in this specific
area. The Association for Research Libraries, which sponsors
LibQUAL, reports that nearly all libraries regardless of
collection size are struggling to meet even the minimum
level of service users expect here. University staff, library
staff and undergraduate respondents do report that their
perceptions of the comprehensiveness and scope of our journal
collection exceed their minimum requirements. However,
among undergraduates, we receive our best marks from freshmen
with perceptions of collection quality falling among sophomores,
juniors and seniors. Graduate students and faculty respondents
believe there are significant gaps between their perceptions
of journal coverage and their minimum expectations, with
an adequacy gap score of -.46 for graduate students and
-.66 for faculty. These three user groups also report very
sizeable superiority gaps between what they perceive the
quality of our journal collection to be and what they desire
it to be.
In nine disciplines, there were more than twenty respondents to at least give
us some perspective on whether opinions about journal coverage vary by academic
department. Business, Education, and Performing and Fine Arts respondents report
that we actually exceed their minimum expectations in this area. Communication/Journalism,
Engineering/Computer Science, Health Sciences, Humanities, Science/Math, and
Social Sciences/Psychology respondents indicate that their perceptions of our
journal collection are below their minimum expectations,with Engineering/Computer
Science having the largest adequacy gap of -.65.
Convenient service hours (864 respondents - 528 undergraduates,
121 graduate students, 156 faculty, 9 library staff, 50
university staff) Chart 2
Ironically, although many respondents voiced their dissatisfaction
in the LibQUAL comments area concerning the hours the library
is open, all of the user groups report that their perceptions
of service quality regarding hours did exceed their minimum
expectations. Of course, every group except library staff
expresses a desire for a level of service quality (longer
hours) that exceeds their current perceptions.
The same also holds true across response by discipline, although Communication/Journalism
respondents report that their perceptions actually match their desired level
of service.
Printed library materials I need for my work (822 respondents
- 504 undergraduates, 117 graduate students, 153 faculty,
8 library staff, 40 university staff) Chart 3
Although library staff and university staff respondents
believe the print collections exceed their minimum standards,
the library fails to satisfy the minimum expectations of
undergraduate, graduate student and faculty respondents
with adequacy gaps of -.06, -.55 and -.79 respectively.
The difference between perceived and desired levels of
service is significant too, with graduate students reporting
a superiority gap of
-2.07 and faculty a gap of -1.90.
Likewise the library also fails to meet respondents’ minimum expectations
across the nine disciplines we looked at. In Business, Education, and Performing
and Fine Arts, library users’ perceptions are only slightly less than
their minimum expectations. The harshest scores are from Humanities with an
adequacy gap of -.94 and a superiority gap of -2.40 followed by Social Sciences/Psychology
with an adequacy gap score of -.60 and a superiority gap of -1.70.
Electronic information resources I need (842 respondents
- 512 undergraduates, 117 graduate students, 157 faculty,
9 library staff, 44 university staff) Chart 4
Library staff and university staff respondents again
give the library high marks here; in fact, library staff
feel that even their desired expectations are being met.
Overall our undergraduate students’ perceptions concerning
the library’s provision of electronic resources also
exceed acceptable service quality. However, freshmen report
that we exceed their minimum needs with an adequacy gap
of +.78, but the positive gap starts declining each year
after that (to +.40 for sophomores, +.10 for juniors and
-.29 for seniors). Graduate students and faculty respondents
both give the library mean perceived scores of 6.73 which
falls below their minimum expectations of 7.06 and 7.25
respectively. Interestingly, for graduate students, their
desired level of service for electronic resources is less
than the level of service they desire for print resources
while just the opposite is true for faculty. Undergraduates
desire the same level of service for both print and electronic
resources.
Looking at the ratings across disciplines, the library does better with its
provision of electronic resources than it does with its collection of print
materials. Business, Communication/Journalism and Education respondents report
that our service here slightly exceeds their minimum expectations. Respondents
in the other six disciplines find our service quality to be less than their
minimum needs, with negative adequacy gaps ranging from -.11 for Health Sciences
and Social Sciences/Psychology down to -.67 for Engineering/Computer Science.
Timely document delivery/interlibrary loan (562 respondents
- 316 undergraduates, 82 graduate students, 130 faculty,
8 library staff, 26 university staff) Chart 5
While undergraduates find that the quality of our service
exceeds their minimum expectations by +.17, graduate students
and faculty perceptions of our service fall below their
minimum expectations by -.30 and -.35 respectively. Library
staff and university staff respondents find the quality
of this service to exceed acceptable standards.
By discipline, we have evenly divided ratings among the eight areas having
more than 20 respondents. Business, Communication/Journalism, Performing and
Fine Arts, and Social Sciences/Psychology all find that our service here exceeds
their minimum expectations, with adequacy gaps ranging from +.24 for Communication/Journalism
up to +.90 for Business. Education, Health Sciences, Humanities, and Science/Math
rate our service quality below their minimum standards, with adequacy gaps
ranging from -.03 for Education down to -.81 for Health Sciences.
The library received the most negative gap scores in this dimension as well
as in the closely related Personal control category, which will be examined
in the next issue. However, since many of the questions in these two dimensions
are open to varying interpretations, we are attempting to use your written
survey comments for clarification. In the winter term, the library will also
be holding focus groups with graduate students to learn more about their
specific concerns.
|
LibQUAL+