Library as Place:
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 look at the
five questions in the Library as place dimension which
examines users’ perceptions about the physical environment.
It is not surprising, given our six-year-old, state-of-the-art
facility, that we not only exceed the minimum expectations
of all user groups but in several instances either meet
or come close to meeting their desired expectations. With
a few exceptions, the respondents from the nine disciplines
having more than twenty respondents also have extremely
favorable impressions of the library’s facilities.
How successful is the library in providing the following:
Quiet space for individual activities (855 respondents
- 530 undergraduates, 121 graduate students, 145 faculty,
9 library staff, 50 university staff) Chart 1
Given that the library exceeds the minimum standards
of all user groups, with adequacy gaps ranging from +.23
for undergraduates up to +.91 for faculty, it becomes more
interesting to look at the differences in minimum and desired
expectations among the five groups. University and library
employees have the highest minimum standards (7.44 and
7.14 respectively), and university employees also have
the highest desired standard (8.24). Undergraduates have
higher minimum (6.94) and desired (8.05) expectations than
do graduate students and faculty. However, although undergraduates
overall find that the library exceeds their minimum expectations,
this is not the case with seniors (-.02 adequacy gap) and
fifth year and above students (-.05 adequacy gap). Because
faculty place considerably less importance on the provision
of quiet space, as reflected in their low minimum and desired
standards, the library not only substantially exceeds their
minimum expectations but also comes very close to meeting
their desired standards with a superiority gap of only
-.07.
Respondents from seven of the nine disciplines express satisfaction with quiet
study areas, reporting adequacy gaps ranging from +.18 from Science and Math
up to +1.02 from Communications/Journalism. Engineering/Computer Science and
Health Sciences respondents feel that the study space is not adequate, reporting
adequacy gaps of -.57 and -.56 and sizeable superiority gaps of -1.82 and -1.43
respectively.
A comfortable and inviting location (872 respondents -
531 undergraduates, 122 graduate students, 158 faculty,
9 library staff, 52 university staff) Chart 2
All user group find the library to be comfortable and
inviting. Library and university employees again report
higher minimum and desired expectations than the other
three groups, and the library not only exceeds their minimum
standards by +1.34 and +.96 respectively but also meets
the desired expectations of university employees and exceeds
those of library staff by +.34. Undergraduates (all years),
graduate students and faculty also respond very positively
with adequacy gaps of +.83, +.92 and +1.38 respectively.
Faculty respondents place the least importance on this
facility quality and report that the library exceeds their
desired expectations by +.16.
The library also receives positive adequacy gap scores from all nine disciplines,
and it is noteworthy that respondents who have expressed negative perceptions
in the other dimensions do find the library to be an inviting place. Humanities,
Science/Math and Social Sciences/Psychology respondents report that the library
exceeds their minimum expectations by +1.33, +1.59 and +1.40 respectively.
The library also surpasses the desired expectations of Communications/Journalism
(+.05 superiority gap) and Science/Math (+.15 superiority gap).
Library space that inspires study and learning (857 respondents
- 530 undergraduates, 120 graduate students, 151 faculty,
9 library staff, 47 university staff) Chart 3
Library employees express the most favorable opinions
on this question, with the library exceeding their minimum
expectations by +1.44 and desired expectations by +.11.
All user groups have relatively low minimum standards here,
ranging from 6.47 from graduate students up to 6.74 from
university staff, and only graduate students have a desired
expectation level exceeding 8.00. Undergraduates (all years),
graduate students and faculty perceive that the library
exceeds their minimum standards by +.49, +.56 and +.91
respectively.
Respondents from all nine disciplines again report that the library exceeds
their minimum expectations with adequacy gap scores ranging from +.25 from
Engineering/Computer Science up to +1.11 from Social Sciences/Psychology. Although
the mean scores for desired level of inspirational library space are below
8.00 for all but two disciplines, the library does not receive any positive
superiority gap scores.
Community space for group learning and group study (787
respondents - 492 undergraduates, 107 graduate students,
133 faculty, 9 library staff, 46 university staff) Chart
4
University employees have the highest positive perceptions,
reporting that the library exceeds their minimum expectations
by +1.39 and their desired expectations by +.24. They are
followed closely by faculty (+1.30 adequacy gap and +.10
superiority gap) and library staff (+1.34 adequacy gap
and equaled desired expectations). Faculty place less importance
on the provision of community space, in terms of both their
minimum and desired standards, than do the other user groups.
Graduate students have the lowest positive adequacy gap
score (+.37) as well as the highest negative superiority
gap score (-1.08).
Respondents from eight of nine disciplines feel that the library exceeds their
minimum expectations, with adequacy gaps ranging from +.26 from Engineering/Computer
Science up to +1.29 from Humanities. Health Sciences respondents report that
the library falls below their minimum expectations by -.02 and their desired
expectations by -.96.
A getaway for study, learning or research (822 respondents
- 515 undergraduates, 116 graduate students, 140 faculty,
9 library staff, 42 university staff) Chart 5
Library staff not only report the highest minimum (7.33)
and desired (8.17) mean scores but also the highest positive
adequacy gap score (+1.11) and the only positive superiority
gap score (+.22). Faculty and university employees report
that the library exceeds their minimum expectations by
+.79 and +.77 respectively. Faculty again have the lowest
minimum (6.38) and desired (7.67) mean scores among the
user groups. Undergraduates (all years) and graduate students
have positive impressions, with adequacy gaps of +.40 and
+.31 respectively but the two groups report the highest
negative superiority gaps (-.77 and -1.06).
Eight of the nine disciplines give the library favorable marks here, with adequacy
gaps ranging from +.15 from Science/Math up to +.76 from Social Sciences/Psychology
and +.78 from Communications/Journalism. Engineering/Computer Science respondents
report that the library fall below their minimum standards by -.15 and below
their desired standards by -1.52.
|
LibQUAL+