Personal Control:
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 the last article, we examined
how library users judged us on the Access to Information
dimension. This article will explore the six questions
in the closely related Personal Control dimension, which
seeks to discover how easily and independently users can
access library resources both within the building itself
and remotely from home or office. The LibQUAL survey developers,
recognizing the overlap among the eleven questions in these
two dimensions, have now combined and condensed both into
the Information Control dimension, which has eight questions.
As in the previous article, the differences in library
service needs among EMU user groups and among the different
disciplines will be discussed. (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:
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own (872 respondents- 533 undergraduates, 120 graduate
students, 158 faculty, 9 library staff, 49 university staff)
Chart 1
University staff respondents are the only user group
to report that our service here exceeds their minimum expectations
and that is only by the narrow margin of +.10. Undergraduates
as a whole give us an adequacy gap of -.11, although freshmen
and sophomores feel that the quality of the library’s
access tools does exceed their minimum expectations by
+.35 and +.22 respectively. We lose ground with juniors
and seniors; in fact, seniors, with an adequacy gap score
of -.47 are more critical than graduate students who give
us a score of -.16. Faculty give us the poorest marks in
this area with an adequacy gap score of -.61 and a superiority
gap of -2.15. Interestingly, library staff, with an adequacy
gap of -.56 and a superiority gap of -2.00, are not far
behind in their negative assessment of our access tools.
This is the only question in both the Access to Information
and Personal Control dimensions to receive negative adequacy
and superiority gap scores from library staff. In fact,
the library staff also give this question their highest
desired mean score (8.78) among all 25 survey questions.
Looking at the other user groups, the desired mean score
for this question ranges from 8.14 from undergraduates
up to 8.34 from faculty, indicating that library staff
place more importance on access tools or finding aids than
other user groups do.
In nine disciplines, there were at least twenty respondents, allowing us to
gauge whether opinions about access tools vary by academic department. Business
and Education respondents report that the quality of library access tools exceeds
their minimum expectations. Communication/Journalism, Engineering/Computer
Science, Health Sciences, Humanities, Performing and Fine Arts, Science/Math,
and Social Sciences/Psychology respondents all have negative opinions of our
finding aids, with the harshest scores from Engineering/Computer Science with
an adequacy gap of -.94 and a superiority gap of -2.13 followed by Humanities
and Performing and Fine Arts both with adequacy gaps of -.63 and superiority
gaps of -2.37 and -2.19 respectively.
Convenient access to library
collections (853 respondents
- 516 undergraduates, 119 graduate students, 159 faculty,
9 library staff, 47 university staff) Chart 2
Undergraduates, library staff and university staff all
report that the library exceeds their minimum expectations
in this area. As is usual among the undergraduate population,
the library receives higher marks from freshmen and sophomores
than from juniors and seniors. Graduate students perceive
our service in this area to be only slightly less than
their minimum standards, with an adequacy gap of -.08.
Faculty perceive that their access to library collections
falls below acceptable standards by -.58 and also report
the largest superiority gap (-1.96) among the user groups.
Business, Communication/Journalism and Education respondents consider the service
in this area to exceed their minimum expectations by +.52, +.47 and +.14 respectively.
The remaining six departments do not find this to be the case, with Humanities
reporting the largest negative adequacy gap (-.90) and the largest negative
superiority gap (-2.56).
A library Web site enabling me to locate information
on my own (851 respondents - 515 undergraduates, 120 graduate
students, 156 faculty, 9 library staff, 48 university
staff) Chart 3
Note: The 2003 LibQUAL survey was conducted prior to
the revamping of the library’s Web site during the
summer of 2003. The following opinions are based on the
site as it appeared in February and March of 2003.
Undergraduates, library staff and university staff found
the quality of the Web site to exceed their minimum expectations
by +.23, +.11 and +.06 respectively. The library actually
received positive adequacy gap scores from all four undergraduate
classes, although we went from a high of +.41 from sophomores
and juniors down to only +.02 from seniors. As in the previous
question, the library did not fare too badly among graduate
students who gave our Web site an adequacy gap score of
only -.13. Faculty were the most critical of the Web site,
giving it an adequacy gap score of -.63.
The library’s Web pages exceeded the minimum expectations of Business,
Communication/Journalism and Education respondents, who reported positive adequacy
gaps of +.30, +.87 and +.22 respectively. Engineering/Computer Science respondents
were by far the most critical, judging the Web site to fall below their minimum
standards by -1.04 and below their desired expectations by -2.26. The remaining
departments had negative adequacy gaps ranging from -.10 from Science/Math
down to -.34 from Performing and Fine Arts.
Modern equipment lets me easily access needed
information (862 respondents - 524 undergraduates, 120 graduate students,
159 faculty, 9 library staff, 47 university staff) Chart
4
With the exception of graduate students, every user group
gives the library positive scores for its provision of
modern equipment. Perceptions of our service here exceed
minimum standards, with adequacy gaps ranging from +.08
from faculty up to +.78 from library staff. Although undergraduate
students on average give us high marks, the adequacy gap
scores decline from a high of +.60 for freshmen down to
+.17 for juniors and by their senior year, students find
our technology equipment to fall below their minimum expectations
by -.13. Graduate students find the quality of our technology
equipment to be slightly below acceptable standards with
an adequacy gap of -.11.
Looking at the ratings across disciplines, Business, Communication/Journalism,
Education, Health Sciences and Social Sciences/Psychology respondents all find
the quality of our technology equipment to exceed their minimum standards.
For those disciplines where we fail to meet minimum standards, the library
receives negative adequacy gap scores ranging from -.08 from Performing and
Fine Arts down to -.55 from Engineering/Computer Science.
Making information easily accessible for independent
use (858 respondents - 520 undergraduates, 120 graduate students,
157 faculty, 9 library staff, 49 university staff) Chart
5
Here we receive our only solid positive ratings from
library staff. Even though undergraduates overall find
that the library meets their minimum expectations with
an adequacy gap of +.01, these students’ perceptions
of the library’s capabilities in this area decline
with each class. We go from positive adequacy gaps of +.46
from freshmen down to a negative score of -.29 from seniors.
Graduate students find the library’s facilitation
of independent use to fall below their minimum standards
by only -.06. Faculty are the most critical, perceiving
that library service in this area falls below acceptable
standards by -.32.
The library receives positive marks from Business, Communication/Journalism
and Education with adequacy gaps of +.37, +.41 and +.05 respectively. The most
interesting results come from Engineering/Computer Science respondents who
find that the library’s service here actually meets their minimum expectations.
The most negative scores come from Humanities respondents who give us an adequacy
gap score of -.60 and a superiority gap score of -1.98.
Making electronic resources accessible from home
or office (812 respondents - 483 undergraduates, 119 graduate students,
155 faculty, 8 library staff, 44 university staff) Chart
5
Undergraduates, library staff and university staff report
that remote access to library resources exceeds their minimum
expectations. Library staff and freshmen not only give
our service in this area adequacy gap scores of +.88 and
+.72 respectively but also find the least disparity between
their perceptions and their desired level of service. The
library’s remote provision of electronic resources
impresses the rest of the undergraduate population as well,
although our perceived scores among juniors and seniors
are only slightly above their minimum expectations. Graduate
students and faculty find us deficient in meeting their
minimum standards by -.21 and -.62 respectively. Among
all user groups, except library staff, remote access to
library resources receives the highest desired level of
service in the Personal Control dimension.
As has typically been the case in this dimension, Business, Communication/Journalism
and Education respondents feel the library exceeds their minimum expectations,
with adequacy gaps of +.18, +.46 and +.14 respectively. The library fails to
meet the minimum standards of respondents in the remaining disciplines with
adequacy gap scores ranging from -.14 from Social Sciences/Psychology down
to
-.52 for Health Sciences and -.53 for Engineering/Computer Science.
The library received the most negative gap scores in this dimension as well
as in the closely related Access to Information category, which was examined
in the last article. 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 2004 winter term, the library will
also be holding focus groups with graduate students to learn more about their
specific concerns.
|
LibQUAL+