Introduction

Interpreting the Survey

Key Findings

How Are We Responding to the Results?

Introduction

In the spring of 2003, Niagara University Library conducted a patron survey using an instrument called LibQUAL, which was developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and is used by hundreds of libraries located throughout North America. LibQUAL is designed to measure patron perceptions of Library service quality. LibQUAL is grounded in the "Gap Theory of Service Quality" and provides data on patrons' desired, perceived, and minimum expectations of service. In analyzing the data, the Library is particularly interested in the following:

Adequacy Gap: The numerical gap between the minimum level of service and the perceived level of service. This is almost always a positive number.

Superiority Gap: The numerical gap between desired level of service and the perceived level of service. This number is almost always negative (as in many aspects of life, we usually desire more than we get).  

For example, if a respondent were to rate an item with a minimum level of service a score of 4, the perceived level of service a score of 6, and the desired level of service a score of 9, the Adequacy Gap would be 2.0 and the Superiority Gap would be -3.0.  

The Library sent email invitations to faculty, students, and staff of the University asking them to complete a web-based survey. Survey forms were also distributed in the Library, and a link to the survey was provided on the Library web site.

We received the following number of survey respondents:

• Undergraduate Students:273
• Graduate Students: 46
• Faculty: 58
• Staff: 26

Additional questions allowed respondents to indicate how satisfied they were with Library and information literacy services in general.

The Library also received 155 comments from respondents.

Interpreting the Survey

Adequacy and Superiority Gaps can best be made sense of by comparing Niagara's scores with the scores of other institutions. ARL is quick to warn, however:

LibQUAL allows institutions to compare user PERCEPTIONS of service delivery against expectations; a Library may assert that it is doing a better job of meeting user expectations (based on Gap Scores), than another but it is not useful to assert that a Library is BETTER than another. Libraries may compare their results with those of peer institutions for identifying best practices and emulation in meeting user expectations and in managing user perceptions. Perceptions and attitudes can change rapidly as a result of local circumstances; rank ordering is not useful in this context. LibQUAL attempts to serve as a tool for local diagnostic purposes and cross-institutional comparisons for learning from one another.

It should be noted that we need to interpret the results with care. One problem is that the survey was ponderous, and many users who started the survey never made it through to the end.

Respondents seemed to be representative of the student population, but it is a concern that the sample was self-selected, consisting of the type of person who has the patience and stamina to make it through the survey. It should also be noted that we sent survey invitations to students via email based upon addresses we had in our circulation database, which means that respondents were more likely to be students who have checked out books in the past. Also, since graduate students are probably underrepresented in our database, we were able to invite fewer graduate students than we would have liked. The survey can not be thought of as providing a comprehensive evaluation of Library service quality. More than anything, it points to issues that need to be investigated further. That being said, for stylistic reasons, the analysis below assumes that the survey is valid and that the benchmark comparisons are relevant. Otherwise, disclaimers would have to be repeatedly inserted, which would not only make this report awkward but would also reduce clarity of analysis, rather than enhance it. It should also be noted that some generalizations that we believe are valid will be made but may not be the statistically technically correct way to phrase a finding. This is necessary because the purpose of this document is to communicate results to our patrons, who will not be steeped in knowledge of the LibQUAL process. In any case, the complete statistical reports are available from a link on this page.

Key Findings  

Undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty rate Niagara University Library more highly in nearly every dimension measured than students and faculty at the benchmark colleges ranked their libraries (the benchmark consisted of students at private 4-year Colleges in New York State).  

Among all user groups, the Library scores best in the "Personal Control" area represented by questions like:

• Easy to use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
• Convenient access to Library collections.
• A Library web site enabling me to locate information on my own
• Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information
• Making information easily accessible for independent use
• Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

The survey flagged the following areas as needing attention:

• There were three "Access to Information" dimensions where we did not meet our users' minimum level of service. For faculty, on the question "the printed Library materials I need for my work," and for graduate students, on the questions "Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work" and "the printed Library materials I need for my work."

• In terms of Library collections, faculty and graduate students report a larger gap between desired level of service and perceived level of service than undergraduates do. This may simply reflect the fact that we are primarily an undergraduate Library, but it is a concern that graduate students and faculty have higher collection expectations than we are able to satisfy.

• Undergraduates' rating of the Library as a "comfortable and inviting location" was worse than the benchmark, which is telling because our ratings were almost always better than the benchmark.

• Undergraduates rated Library staff lower than faculty and graduate students did.

How Are We Responding to the Results?

Faculty and graduate students perceive some inadequacies in the collection. Our new automation system, installed in the Fall of 2004, allows us to conduct much more effective analysis of circulation patterns and book catalog search behavior, and therefore will be more responsive to user needs in building the collection. This won't tell the whole story, though, so follow up surveys will need to be conducted to learn more.

Undergraduates rated the Library as a "comfortable and inviting location" worse in the benchmark. We have been working on the building all along. For example, since the survey, we have added televisions with VCR/DVD players to the two group study rooms. We are also working on creating additional nice study space.

Faculty and graduate students rate Library staff more highly than undergraduates. We need to do a better job reaching out to undergraduates, encouraging them to utilize the staff more. With this in mind, a new reference desk was purchased in the spring of 2005. The previous desk looked like a personal desk, and students sometimes seemed hesitant to approach the desk, thinking that they were interrupting the reference librarian on duty. The new desk looks like a service desk. We are also examining our reference desk practices in an attempt to develop ways of being more approachable and proactive. This is particularly important in serving undergraduates because they are often more hesitant to ask for assistance than faculty and graduate students are. We have also done more public relations aimed at undergraduates. For example, we now regularly get articles about the Library published in the student newspaper.

Finally, in the Fall of 2003, we introduced a new program for freshmen through the Freshmen Symposium course. Students come over to the Library for a 50-minute session to learn more about:

• The physical layout of the Library
• The services offered at the Library
• How to access resources available through the Library

We try to make the Library session enjoyable and fun so that students become more comfortable with the Library and its staff.