Affect of Service:
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
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. This article will examine how
library users judge us on the nine questions in the Affect
of service dimension, which focuses on the quality of our
customer service. As in the previous articles, the different
perceptions among EMU user groups and among the nine disciplines/academic
departments, which had a least twenty respondents, will
be discussed.
How successful is the library in providing the following:
Employees who instill confidence in users (828 respondents
- 496 undergraduates, 117 graduate students, 155 faculty,
9 library staff, 51 university staff) Chart 1
This question is one of only two in this dimension where
all five user groups report that the library exceeds their
minimum expectations. Although undergraduate respondents
overall perceive that their minimum standards are exceeded
by +.27, seniors feel that from their perspective library
staff do not meet acceptable standards in instilling confidence
in users. Graduate students, faculty and university staff
find that the library slightly exceeds their minimum expectations
with adequacy gaps of +.03, +.18 and +.10 respectively.
Although library employees are harsh self-critics in the
Affect of service dimension, they do believe their ability
to instill confidence exceeds minimum standards by +.78.
Business, Communications/Journalism, Education, Health Sciences, Performing
and Fine Arts and Science/Math respondents all give the library positive scores
here, with adequacy gaps ranging from +.03 from Performing and Fine Arts up
to +.73 from Science/Math. Engineering/Computer Science and Humanities respondents
are negative in their assessment with adequacy gaps of -.07 and -.54 respectively.
Readiness to respond to users’ questions (847 respondents
- 510 undergraduates, 119 graduate students, 158 faculty,
9 library staff, 51 university staff) Chart 2
In this area, the library meets the minimum level of
service expected by undergraduates overall; however, junior
and seniors feel that we do not provide acceptable service.
In fact, seniors, with an adequacy gap of -.27, are nearly
as dissatisfied as graduate students who find that our
service fails to meet minimum standards by -.37. Faculty
respondents perceive that library staff slightly exceed
their minimum expectations. University staff, usually reporting
very positive perceptions about the library, feel that
library staff’s readiness to respond to questions
falls short of minimum standards by -.18. Likewise, library
staff, with an adequacy gap of -.11, feel that the service
provided is not quite acceptable.
Business, Communications/Journalism and Health Sciences respondents are the
only disciplines to report that library customer service here exceeds their
minimum expectations. Respondents from the other six disciplines give the library
negative adequacy gap scores ranging from -.04 from Science/Math down to -.57
from Humanities.
Willingness to help users (856 respondents - 517 undergraduates,
120 graduate students, 159 faculty, 9 library staff,
51 university staff) Chart 3
Although seniors believe that our willingness to help
users falls below their minimum standards by -.19, undergraduates
overall report that our service here exceeds acceptable
levels by +.07. Faculty and university staff also give
the library positive scores here, with adequacy gaps of
+.14 and +.06 respectively. Graduate students (-.23 adequacy
gap) and library employees (-.11 adequacy gap) perceive
that staff’s willingness to help users does not meet
minimum standards.
Business, Communications/Journalism, Education, and Science/Math give the library
positive adequacy gap scores ranging from +.12 from Education up to +.44 from
Communications/Journalism. Health Sciences respondents report that the library
exactly matches their minimum expectations in this area. The negative adequacy
gap scores from respondents in the other four disciplines fall between -.12
from Social Sciences/Psychology and -.23 from Humanities.
Dependability in handling users’ service problems (796 respondents - 479 undergraduates, 111 graduate students,
150 faculty, 9 library staff, 47 university staff) Chart
4
According to the perceptions of all five user groups,
the library has significant problems in this area. Undergraduates
are the least critical, reporting an adequacy gap of -.05.
Freshmen and sophomores actually feel that we exceed their
minimum expectations, but their positive scores are outweighed
by the negative opinions of juniors, seniors and fifth
year and above students. University staff find us falling
below acceptable standards by -.17 while library staff
are slightly more critical with an adequacy gap of -.22.
On its dependability in handling users’ service problems,
the library receives poor evaluations from graduate students
(-.48 adequacy gap) and faculty (-.42 adequacy gap). These
two scores are the worst received from user groups in the
Affect of service dimension.
Among the nine disciplines, the library receives positive adequacy gap scores
from Business (+.08), Communications/Journalism (+.52) and Health Sciences
(+.02). The remaining disciplines also give the library its harshest scores
for the dimension. Respondents from Education (-.09 adequacy gap) and Social
Sciences/Psychology (-.15 adequacy gap) are the least critical while respondents
from Engineering/Computer Science (-.77 adequacy gap and -1.96 superiority
gap) and Humanities (-.80 adequacy gap and -2.17 superiority gap) are the most
unhappy with the quality of service here.
Giving users individual attention (826 respondents - 500
undergraduates, 114 graduate students, 154 faculty, 9
library staff, 49 university staff) Chart 5
This is the other question in the Affect of service dimension
where all user groups report that the library exceeds their
minimum expectations. As is typical among the undergraduate
population, the positive attitudes decline with each class.
The library exceeds freshmen’s minimum standards
by +.47 but exceeds seniors by only +.03. Graduate students,
with an adequacy gap of +.10, have slightly more favorable
impressions than seniors. Faculty (+.35 adequacy gap) and
university staff (+.24 adequacy gap) are also content with
the level of attention they receive. Library staff are
very pleased with the service here, reporting that library
employees exceed not only minimum expectations (+1.00 adequacy
gap) but also the desired level of service (+.33 superiority
gap).
Respondents from seven of the nine disciplines also perceive that the library
exceeds their minimum expectations, with adequacy gaps ranging from +.11 from
Health Sciences up to +.73 from Education. Even the respondents from Humanities
(-.06 adequacy gap) and Engineering/Computer Science (-.08 adequacy gap) report
that the library is close to meeting acceptable levels of service.
Employees who have the knowledge to answer user
questions (850 respondents - 514 undergraduates, 119 graduate students,
157 faculty, 9 library staff, 51 university staff) Chart
6
In this area, all user groups, except library staff,
report that the library fails to meet minimum standards.
Faculty (-.04 adequacy gap), university staff (-.06 adequacy
gap) and undergraduates (-.12 adequacy gap) are not too
critical. Interestingly, seniors (-.30 adequacy gap) and
fifth year and above students (-.37 adequacy gap) have
the most negative opinions of our service,
surpassing even the disapproval of graduate students (-.29
adequacy gap). Library employees report that their knowledgeableness
exceeds minimum standards by +.33.
Business, Communications/Journalism and Education respondents perceive that
the library exceeds their minimum expectations by +.23, +.30 and +.01 respectively.
The negative perceptions from the other six disciplines range from a -.10 adequacy
gap score from Science/Math down to -.55 from Humanities and -.65 from Engineering/Computer
Science.
Employees who are consistently courteous (860 respondents
- 518 undergraduates, 121 graduate students, 160 faculty,
9 library staff, 52 university staff) Chart 7
Only faculty (+.04 adequacy gap) and university staff
(+.07 adequacy gap) feel that the courteousness of library
staff meets their minimum expectations, although obviously
neither group is particularly impressed. From the undergraduate
population, the library receives slightly positive adequacy
gap scores from freshmen and juniors but receives negative
scores from sophomores and seniors, resulting in an overall
adequacy gap of -.11. Seniors, with an adequacy gap of
-.33 are more negative than graduate students (-.25 adequacy
gap). Even library employees, with an adequacy gap of -.11,
believe that their courteousness leaves something to be
desired.
Among the disciplines, Communications/Journalism respondents are the most positive
in their assessment, finding that library staff exceed their minimum expectations
by +.34. Business, Education and Engineering/Computer Science respondents report
that staff courteousness slightly exceeds acceptable standards. Respondents
from the remaining five disciplines do not feel they are receiving acceptable
treatment, with Humanities (-63 adequacy gap and -2.04 superiority gap) expressing
the most dissatisfaction.
Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion (836
respondents - 503 undergraduates, 117 graduate students,
158 faculty, 9 library staff, 49 university staff) Chart
8
As is the case in the previous question, faculty and
university staff are the only groups to find that customer
service in this area exceeds their minimum standards by
+.09 and +.08 respectively. Although undergraduates perceive
our service to fall below acceptable standards by only
-.02, seniors, with an adequacy gap of -.35, are again
more negative in their assessment. In fact, their perceptions
are very close to those of library employees, who with
an adequacy gap of -.33, give themselves the most negative
score among the user groups. Graduate students find that
customer service quality here falls below their minimum
standards by -.21.
Although respondents from six disciplines feel that the library exceeds minimum
expectations, their positive adequacy gap scores, with the exception of the
+.52 from Communications/Journalism, are quite small. Engineering/Computer
Science, Health Sciences and Humanities respondents perceive customer service
quality in this area to be less than acceptable, with adequacy gaps ranging
from -.10 from Health Sciences down to -.50 from the other two disciplines.
Employees who understand the needs of their users (819
respondents - 489 undergraduates, 115 graduate students,
156 faculty, 9 library staff, 50 university staff) Chart
9
The highest approval rating here comes from library employees
who give themselves an adequacy gap score of +.22. While
the library does barely meet the minimum expectations of
undergraduates (+.01 adequacy gap), the positive perceptions
of freshmen and sophomores are replaced by negative ones
from juniors and seniors. University employees report that
their minimum standards are being exceeded by +.14. Graduate
students (-.31 adequacy gap) and faculty (-.19 adequacy
gap) report that customer service in this area falls below
acceptable standards.
The library receives its most favorable score from Business (+.33 adequacy
gap) while respondents from Performing and Fine Arts, Science/Math and Social
Sciences/Psychology find customer service quality in this area to just slightly
exceed the minimum level they expect. Education respondents report that their
perceptions of our service quality exactly match their minimum standards. The
remaining four disciplines have negative perceptions, ranging from an adequacy
gap of -.13 from Communications/Journalism down to -.82 from Engineering/Computer
Science.
|
LibQUAL+