by Selena Killick

1. Analysis and Interpretation of the
LibQUAL+® Results
Selena Killick
Association of Research Libraries
Cranfield University
SciencesPo
Paris, France
26th June 2012
www.libqual.org

2. Objectives
• An introduction to the LibQUAL+® results
• Analyzing and interpreting results;
– Internally
– Externally
– Longitudinally
• Interpret the data and identify actionable items
• Qualitative analysis of LibQUAL+® comments
• How to conduct analysis on your survey results
using LibQUAL+® Analytics
• How to analyse Consortium results and compare
them with local results
• French specificities

3. Programme
• Understanding the LibQUAL+ Survey Results
• Internal analysis: Interpretation of results and
identifying actionable items
• Internal analysis: Qualitative analysis of the
LibQUAL+® comments
• External benchmarking: How are we doing
compared to the consortium?
• External benchmarking: Identifying best practice
• Action planning for change
• Communicating your results to stakeholders
• Longitudinal analysis: Assessing impact of change
www.libqual.org

4. Understanding the LibQUAL+®
Survey Results
www.libqual.org

5. Data Repository

6. Results Notebooks
• Sections for
Overall, Undergraduates, Graduates, Faculty, Staff,
Library Staff include:
– Demographic Summary
– Core Questions Summary
– Dimensions Summary
– Local Questions
– General Satisfaction Questions
– Information Literacy Outcomes Questions
– Library Use Summary
• Appendix describing changes in the dimensions and
the questions included in each dimension.
www.libqual.org

7. Results Notebook
Demographic Summary
www.libqual.org

8. Results Notebook
Core Question Summary
www.libqual.org

9. Results Notebook
Core Question Radar Chart
www.libqual.org

10. Results Notebook
Dimension Summary
Key Term:
Zone of Tolerance
www.libqual.org

11. Results Notebook
Local Questions Summary
www.libqual.org

12. Results Notebook
Satisfaction & Outcome Questions Summary
www.libqual.org

13. Results Notebook
Library Use Summary
www.libqual.org

14. Data in Electronic Format
• LibQUAL+® Analytics
• Raw data files
• SPSS

15. LibQUAL+® Analytics
• Access to all institutional results
• Breakdown the data by:
– User group
– Standard discipline
• Export:
– Radar charts
– Data tables
– Thermometer charts
• Very easy to use 

16. LibQUAL+® Analytics

17. Data Selection

18. Representativeness

19. Core Questions

20. Thermometer Chart & Library Use Summary

21. Raw Data Files
In Excel and SPSS Format
Data Repository Link
• You will receive access to your complete
raw survey data in Excel format
• You will also receive an SPSS syntax file
that you can apply to the Excel file to
analyze your data in SPSS
• Instructions on how to create your own
SPSS file are available in the Data
Repository
www.libqual.org

22. SPSS Data Files
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
• More complex analysis than Excel in an
easier way
– Excel can do a lot of things that SPSS can do
but not everything
• Can be complex to use
www.libqual.org

23. SPSS Data Files
Analysis Possibilities:
• Customized Discipline means and SD
• Local question means and SD
• Branch Library means and SD
• Relationship between different variables
• Validity and reliability analysis

24. SPSS Options
• Invest in training on SPSS for Library Staff
• Work in partnership with colleagues in
your institution who use SPSS already
• Commission research from your students
looking to use data in their studies
• Commission LibQUAL+® to conduct the
analysis for you
www.libqual.org

25. You Too Can Chart LQ Data!
www.libqual.org

26. Understanding Disciplines
Standard Disciplines Custom Disciplines
• LibQUAL+® provides standard • You may choose to create your
discipline options that you can own discipline categories,
customize to your institution‟s using your local terminology. If
disciplines or other affiliations. you choose to add your own
categories, each MUST be
mapped to a LibQUAL+®
standard discipline for data
analysis purposes. (Please
make sure your new term(s)
relate to the standard
disciplines.
www.libqual.org

27. Representativeness - Standard Disciplines
An American Academic Library
Respondents
Population
www.libqual.org

28. Representativeness - Customized Disciplines
An Academic Library
Respondents
Population
www.libqual.org

29. Before we go on…
These LQ Constructs can be Challenging!
• Means and Standard Deviation
• The Zone of Tolerance
• Radar Charts
• Standard vs. Customized Disciplines
• Representativeness
www.libqual.org

30. Understanding Means &
Standard Deviation
• Mean = arithmetic average
– A measure of central tendency
– Takes into account all scores
– Sensitive to all values and affected by extreme scores
• Standard Deviation = average distance
– A measure of dispersion
– Takes into account all scores
– Sensitive to all values and affected
by extreme scores
www.libqual.org

31. Understanding the Zone of Tolerance
• For the 22 items LibQUAL+® asks users‟
to rate their
– Minimum service level
– Desired service level
– Perceived service performance
•This gives us a „Zone of Tolerance‟ for each
question; the distance between minimally
acceptable and desired service ratings
• Perception ratings ideally fall within the
Zone of Tolerance
www.libqual.org

32. Understanding the Zone of Tolerance
Zone of Tolerance
www.libqual.org

33. Understanding Radar Charts
www.libqual.org

34. Understanding Radar Charts
www.libqual.org

35. What Do the Colors Mean?
Exceeding
Desired
Expectations
Green
And
Blue
www.libqual.org

36. What Do the Colors Mean?
Red
Not Meeting
Minimum
Expectations
www.libqual.org

37. What Do the Colors Mean?
Little Yellow
Meeting Desired
Expectations
www.libqual.org

38. What Do the Colors Mean?
A lot of Yellow
Exceeding Minimum
Expectations, Just!
www.libqual.org

39. Understanding Thermometer Charts
Perceived
Perceived

40. Internal Analysis
Interpretation of results
www.libqual.org

41. Interpreting Results
How do users
rate the Library?
What „scores‟ do
users give the
Library‟s
performance?
Note: This is the simplest analysis and does not take advantage of the “gap analysis” opportunity

42. Interpreting Results
Identify areas where
the user community
thinks the Library is
performing “best”
and “worst”

43. Minimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority
ID Question Text Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Affect of Service
AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 5.90 7.48 6.66 0.76 -0.82
AS-2 Giving users individual attention 5.43 6.84 6.15 0.72 -0.69
AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 6.63 7.88 7.23 0.60 -0.65
AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 6.65 7.88 7.17 0.52 -0.71
AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions
6.61 7.84 7.21 0.60 -0.63
AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion
6.43 7.79 7.20 0.77 -0.59
AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users
6.53 7.78 6.99 0.46 -0.79
AS-8 Willingness to help users 6.60 7.84 7.14 0.54 -0.70
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 6.53 7.73 6.89 0.36 -0.84
Information Control
IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office
6.81 8.27 6.85 0.04 -1.42
IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own
6.77 8.09 6.95 0.18 -1.14
IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 6.50 7.83 6.54 0.04 -1.29
IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 6.41 7.98 6.71 0.30 -1.27
IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information
6.68 7.99 6.93 0.25 -1.06
IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
6.66 8.01 6.92 0.26 -1.09
IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use
6.72 8.02 6.98 0.26 -1.04
IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
6.83 8.10 6.73 -0.10 -1.37
Library as Place
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 6.12 7.77 6.15 0.03 -1.62
LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 6.75 8.04 6.29 -0.46 -1.75
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 6.35 7.82 6.77 0.42 -1.05
LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 6.53 7.99 6.37 -0.16 -1.62
LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 5.77 7.23 6.53 0.76 -0.70
Overall 6.46 7.83 6.79 0.33 -1.04

44. Perceived Mean Scores
9.00
8.00
Best
Mean
7.00
6.00
Worst Worst
5.00
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
Question
www.libqual.org

45. The Importance of the Zone of Tolerance
9.00
Best: Closest to
Desired Mean
8.00
Mean
7.00
6.00
Lowest Perceived
& Lowest Desired Worst: Furthest from
Minimum Mean
5.00
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
Question
www.libqual.org

46. Minimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority
ID Question Text Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Affect of Service
AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users 5.90 7.48 6.66 0.76 -0.82
AS-2 Giving users individual attention 5.43 6.84 6.15 0.72 -0.69
AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous 6.63 7.88 7.23 0.60 -0.65
AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' enquiries 6.65 7.88 7.17 0.52 -0.71
AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions
6.61 7.84 7.21 0.60 -0.63
AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion
6.43 7.79 7.20 0.77 -0.59
AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users
6.53 7.78 6.99 0.46 -0.79
AS-8 Willingness to help users 6.60 7.84 7.14 0.54 -0.70
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems 6.53 7.73 6.89 0.36 -0.84
Information Control
IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office
6.81 8.27 6.85 0.04 -1.42
IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own
6.77 8.09 6.95 0.18 -1.14
IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work 6.50 7.83 6.54 0.04 -1.29
IC-4 The electronic information resources I need 6.41 7.98 6.71 0.30 -1.27
IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information
6.68 7.99 6.93 0.25 -1.06
IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
6.66 8.01 6.92 0.26 -1.09
IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use
6.72 8.02 6.98 0.26 -1.04
IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
6.83 8.10 6.73 -0.10 -1.37
Library as Place
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning 6.12 7.77 6.15 0.03 -1.62
LP-2 Quiet space for individual work 6.75 8.04 6.29 -0.46 -1.75
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location 6.35 7.82 6.77 0.42 -1.05
LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research 6.53 7.99 6.37 -0.16 -1.62
LP-5 Space for group learning and group study 5.77 7.23 6.53 0.76 -0.70
Overall 6.46 7.83 6.79 0.33 -1.04

47. Best & Worst
• The highest Adequacy & Superiority Mean
scores indicate the best performance
• The lowest Adequacy & Superiority Mean
scores indicate the worst performance
• Highest Adequacy & Highest Superiority
may not be the same item
• Lowest Adequacy & Lowest Superiority
may not be the same item
www.libqual.org

48. Quick Tip
• Use LibQUAL+® Analytics to export your
data into Excel
• Use Data Sort to quickly highlight your
highest and lowest scores
www.libqual.org

49. Interpreting Results
Identify areas where
the user community
has the highest
“wants”
www.libqual.org

50. Highest Wants
Example Library Core Summary - 2009
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
2009
Identify users‟ highest “wants”
www.libqual.org

51. Interpreting Results
Identify areas where
the user community
thinks the Library is
“furthest from meeting
minimum needs”
www.libqual.org

52. Lowest Adequacy Mean
Example Library Core Summary - 2009
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
2009
Identify areas where the Libraries are furthest from meeting users‟ minimum “needs”
www.libqual.org

53. Review Dimension Summary
Example Library Dimension Summary - 2009
9
8
7
Z.O.T.
Per
6
5
Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place
2009 Overall (Undergraduates, Graduates, & Faculty)
www.libqual.org

54. Interpreting Results
Interpretation Frameworks
can also be applied to data gathered
by separate User Groups,
by Discipline affiliation and
by primary library (Branch) use
www.libqual.org

55. Expectations of Postgraduates
Example Library Core Summary by User Group (Grad Students)
9
8
7
6
5
4
AS-1 AS-2 AS-3 AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 IC-4 IC-5 IC-6 IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 LP-2 LP-3 LP-4 LP-5
2009 Graduates
Identify highest “wants” for Grad Students
Identify areas where the Libraries are furthest from meeting Grad minimum “needs”
www.libqual.org

56. Explore Items by Subject Discipline
Example Library Single Core Item by Discipline
9
8
7
6
5 Z.O.T.
Law
Humanities
Other
Education
Architecture
Performing & Fine Arts
Business
Undecided
General Studies
Communications / Journalism
Health Sciences
Social Sciences / Psychology
Military / Naval Science
Science / Math
Engineering / Computer Science
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Per
IC-4 The electronic information resources I need
Identify disciplines with highest “wants” for e-resources
Identify where the e-resources are furthest from meeting discipline minimum “needs”
www.libqual.org

57. Internal Analysis
Identifying actionable items
www.libqual.org

58. Questions You Need Answering
• Which items clearly stand out as the top
wants/priorities of your users?
• Which items clearly stand out and the
lowest wants/priorities of your users?
• Which items clearly stand out as the top
weaknesses for your users?
• Which items clearly stand out and the
strengths for your users?

59. Identifying Actionable Items
Cross Tabulate Desired & Adequacy Mean Scores
Highest
Desired
Lowest Highest
Adequacy Adequacy
Lowest
Desired
www.libqual.org

60. Identifying Actionable Items
#1 #3
MOST DESIRED MOST DESIRED
and
and
MOST ADEQUATE
LEAST ADEQUATE (lowest weakness/
(highest weakness) highest strength)
ADEQUACY
#2 #4
LEAST ADEQUATE MOST ADEQUATE
(highest weakness)
(lowest weakness/
and highest strength)
LEAST DESIRED and
DESIRED LEAST DESIRED
www.libqual.org

61. Identifying Actionable Items
#1 #3
MOST DESIRED MOST DESIRED
and
and
MOST ADEQUATE
LEAST ADEQUATE (lowest weakness/
(highest weakness) highest strength)
ADEQUACY
#2 #4
LEAST ADEQUATE MOST ADEQUATE
(highest weakness)
(lowest weakness/
and highest strength)
LEAST DESIRED and
DESIRED LEAST DESIRED
www.libqual.org

62. Remember LibQUAL+® Analytics

64. Identifying Actionable Items

65. Considerations
• Do all user groups have the same
wants/priorities, or are there differences?
• Plot graphs for different
– user groups
– disciplines
– branch libraries
• If you added local questions, included
them in your graphs.
www.libqual.org

66. Internal Analysis
Qualitative analysis of the LibQUAL+®
comments
www.libqual.org

67. Qualitative Analysis: User Comments
• Why the Box is so Important:
– About half of participants provide open-ended
comments, and these are linked to demographics and
quantitative data
– Users elaborate the details of their concerns
– Users feel the need to be constructive in their criticisms
& offer specific suggestions for action
• User Comments available on the LibQUAL+® Web
site
– Download comments in Excel or text file
– Skim the comments
• Conduct analysis
www.libqual.org

68. Comments File
Available from: Data Repository link
Plus, real-time access to the comments during Stage 2) Monitor Survey Progress
Basic demographic information such as user group, age, sex, and library branch (if available)
is provided with each comment. Comments are also tagged with a unique identification
number that enables you to link each comment to the individual‟s survey response.
Comments are not visible to other institutions participating in LibQUAL+®;
only your institution has access to your comments.
www.libqual.org

69. Two Case Studies
• Texas A&M University
– Word clouds
– Atlas.TI
• Brown University
– NVivo

70. Texas A&M: Analysis of Undergraduate Comments
Source: Colleen Cook, Presented at QQML 2009 in Chania http://www.wordle.com/
www.libqual.org

71. www.libqual.org
LoadedPT:P1:01xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.txt,S:AdminColleenServQual InterviewsTEXT Only01xxxxxxxxx.txt (redirected: c:zzatlastifred

72. www.libqual.org

73. Methodology for Coding Qualitative Data
http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/BrownU_2005_LQ_qual_method.pdf
www.libqual.org

74. Methodology for Coding Qualitative Data
http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/BrownU_2005_LQ_qual_method.pdf
• Use NVivo software to code & analyze text
• Review the comments as a whole
• Create a taxonomy
– a master list of themes (referred to as “nodes” by NVivo) and the
specific keywords mentioned by users in the survey comments
for each of the nodes
– can generate a word frequency list from the comments file to
facilitate the creation of the taxonomy
• Import LQ Comments into NVivo
• Run reports to assign nodes to comments based on the
taxonomy/ keywords
• Review the assigned nodes for each comment, making
necessary corrections & additions
• Evaluate the qualitative data for frequency statistics &
analyses of sub-sets of the comments
www.libqual.org

75. Brown U: Methodology for Coding Qualitative Data
The following table shows the total distribution of all 4,197 individual comments (or “tags”) according to the 29 topics identified in the taxonomy.
Topic (“Tag”) Number of comments with this tag Percentage of all comments
Negative 479 59%
Suggestion 465 58%
Positive 321 40%
Use 320 40%
Location 290 36%
Collection 264 33%
Policies 233 29%
Ambiance 226 28%
Customer Service 218 27%
Online content 176 22%
Hours 156 19%
Furnishings 134 16%
Ease of Use 109 13%
ILL 81 10%
Web site 77 9%
Quotable 68 8%
Computer Equipment 64 8%
Lighting 62 7%
Comparison 61 7%
Book Availability 56 7%
Non-computer equipment 55 6%
Catalog 53 6%
Survey 49 6%
Training 48 6%
Off campus 43 5%
Temperature 33 4%
Named Staff 28 3%
Financial
www.libqual.org 26 3%

76. External Benchmarking
How are we doing compared to the
consortium?
www.libqual.org

77. Consortium Results
• PDF Notebook in Data Repository
• Provides average results for all consortium
members
• Benchmarkable

79. Questions to Ask
• How do our results compare to the
consortium?
• Do our users have higher or lower
minimum and desired means?
• Do our users have higher or lower
perceptions?
• Are our top priorities (highest desires) the
same as everyone else?

80. Quick Tip
• Consortium Notebooks in Excel Format
– Free Online PDF to Excel convertor:
http://www.pdftoexcelonline.com/
• Not perfect, will require some checking of
the data
• Could save you data input time

81. Consortium & Institution Comparisons
Affect of Service
Affect of Service
9
8
7
Mean Score
6
5
4
AS-1 Average UniA Average UniA Average UniA Average UniA Average UniA Average UniA Average UniA Average UniA Average UniA
AS-1 AS-2 AS-2 AS-3 AS-3 AS-4 AS-4 AS-5 AS-5 AS-6 AS-6 AS-7 AS-7 AS-8 AS-8 AS-9 AS-9
Question

82. Consortium & Institution Comparisons
Information Control
Information Control
9
8
7
Mean Score
6
5
4
IC-1 IC-1 Uni X IC-2 IC-2 Uni X IC-3 IC-3 Uni X IC-4 IC-4 Uni X IC-5 IC-5 Uni X IC-6 IC-6 Uni X IC-7 IC-7 Uni X IC-8 IC-8 Uni X
Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average
Question

83. Considerations
• Benchmarking against the consortium will
help you put your results in context
• Review the individual consortium
members listed in the notebook
– Should your performance be the same as
these institutions?
– If not, who should you benchmark against?
– Create your own peer-group if necessary

84. External Benchmarking
Identifying best practice
www.libqual.org

85. Peer Comparisons
• How do I select peers?
– Listen, talk to, or search web sites of your
University Office of Institutional
Research, Provost, President
– Consortium members
– Descriptive library statistics
– Type of institution
– Size of the faculty, student body (in specific
disciplines)
• Peer Group and/or Individual Institutions
www.libqual.org

86. LibQUAL+® Directory

87. Summary Statistics in the Data Repository

88. Summary Statistics in the Data Repository
continued

89. Summary Statistics in Notebook

90. Remember:
We assess to improve...
....not to prove
Institutions should NOT use other libraries' data in ANY WAY that would compromise
and harm the reputation of other institutions. Institutions may use other libraries' data
in a confidential manner without disclosing the institutional identity of other libraries.

91. Peer Comparisons:
General Satisfaction
Peer Comparison
General Satisfaction
*Data taken from last year of participation
9
8
7
6
H F A C B E LIBRARY G D
X
In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.
www.libqual.org

92. Peer Comparisons:
General Satisfaction
Peer Comparison
General Satisfaction
*Data taken from last year of participation
9
8
7
6
H A C E F G LIBRARY D B
X
In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs.
www.libqual.org

93. Peer Comparisons:
General Satisfaction
Peer Comparison
General Satisfaction
*Data taken from last year of participation
9
8
7
6
H A C F B E G LIBRARY D
X
How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?
Library‟s conclusion: There‟s still room for improvement!
www.libqual.org

94. Peer Comparisons:
Focus on One Question
LibQUAL+ 2006
Faculty Ratings of Journal Collections
ARL Libraries
9.00
UVA
8.00
7.00
6.00
Top of Blue Bar = Desired Level of Service
Bottom of Blue Bar = Minimum Level of Service
Red Square = Perceived Service Performance
5.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Source: Jim Self, University of Virginia, Presented at Performance Measurement in Academic Libraries Workshop, EBLIP4, Durham, North
Carolina, May 11, 2007
www.libqual.org

95. Re
m
ot
e
ac
ce
Li ss
br to
ar el
y ec
w tr o
eb ni
si
te c
al re
lo so
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
w ur
in ce
El
ec Pr g s
tro in au
tl
ib to
ni no
c ra m
In in ry y
fo m
fo rm at
rm at er
at io ia
io n ls
n M re
ea od so
si Ea ur
ly sy er
n ce
Pr ac -to eq s
in ce -u ui
ta ss se pm
nd ib
/o le ac en
re fo ce t
le ri
nd
ss
ct to
Em ro ep ol
pl ni
c en s
oy jo de
ee ur nt
Em
G s na us
pl iv wh lc e
oy in o ol
le
ee g in ct
s us st io
Re wh er ill ns
o s co
ad in nf
in ar
e
di id
es vi en
s co du ce
to ns al
re is at
sp te te
on nt nt
d ly io
to co n
us ur
Kn te
ow er ou
Em
le
s' s
pl dg qu
oy ab es
ee le t io
s em ns
wh
o Ca pl
oy
un rin
g
Adequacy Gap
de ee
Li rs em s
br ta pl
W
www.libqual.org
ar nd oy
y De
pe illi us ee
sp
ac nd ng er s
ne s'
e ab ss ne
th ilit
at y to ed
in in he s
A
sp ha lp
The difference between the minimum and perceived score.
ire nd us
qu s lin er
ie te g s
ts ac pr
pa hi ob
A A ce ng le
co fo an m
ge m ri d s
ta fo nd le
wa rta ivi ar
y bl du ni
fo e al ng
rs an
tu d ac
dy in t iv
vi
Adequacy Gap, All Questions
,l itie
tin s
ea
rn g
lo
in ca
g, t io
Peer Group Comparisons:
G
or n
ro re
up se
ar
st ch
ud
y
sp
ac
O e
VE
Source: Fred Heath, LibQUAL+™ Results Meeting, ALA Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, January 22, 2007
RA
LL
ARL
Peers
UT Austin

96. Action Planning For Change
www.libqual.org

97. Cycle of Planning and Assessment
www.libqual.org

98. From Analysis to Action
• From all of the data, determine what can and
should be addressed
• Prioritize some action items
– Align with mission, vision and goals of parent organization
– Address users‟ top priorities, by user group
– Improve areas of strong user dissatisfaction
– Build on strengths, if they are truly user needs and
priorities
– Identify work that can be de-emphasized
and resources that can be reallocated
www.libqual.org

99. Pulling it all together
• What are your actionable items?
• How do these compare to:
– Consortium
– Peer Group
– Individual institutions
• Review the free-text comments relate to
your actionable items
– Coded
– Linked to responses

100. Focused Follow-up
University of VA:
• Who is unhappy?
– Drilling down by college and discipline
• Why are they unhappy?
– Reading the comments
– Conducting targeted interviews
• Focus on areas with low scores
• Diverse group of faculty
• Asked for specific needs and wants
– Including names of needed titles
• Quick interviews
Source: Jim Self, University of Virginia
www.libqual.org

101. Focused Follow-up
University of VA:
• Is the Library meeting your minimal
level, regarding journal collections?
– If not, what can we do?
• Is the Library meeting your desired
level?
– If not, what can we do?
• Does it matter if journals are print or
electronic?
• Any other comments about the Library?
Source: Jim Self, University of Virginia
www.libqual.org

102. Identifying & Using Best Practices
• Focus on your top actionable items
• Who is performing better than you?
• What are they doing that you could learn
from?
• Contact each other to discuss & share
ideas for service improvements
• Implementing improvements based upon
best practices

103. Communicating Results to
Stakeholders
www.libqual.org

104. Why?
• Communicating results effectively
is vital for implementing actions
• Goals, priorities, and resource
allocation should be influenced by
customer needs and wants
• Decision makers, key
stakeholders & budget holders
need to understand the results

105. Engaging Library Staff in Understanding &
Using Data
• Spread knowledge about LibQUAL+® to Library
staff
– Post Notebook on library web
– Make staff aware of LQ tutorial:
• http://www.libqual.org/Information/Tools/index.cfm
– All-staff presentation
– Enable key staff to access LibQUAL+® Analytics
– Disseminate Comments to
depts, units, groups, branches, librarians, etc.
• Develop a culture of assessment and
accountability for listening to customers
and acting on user feedback
www.libqual.org

106. Overcoming Resistance
“We know what’s
best”
“...only customers
judge quality;
“They are wrong” all other judgments
are essentially
irrelevant.”
“We don’t have the
resources to…”
Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry.(1999).
Delivering Quality Service.
NY: The Free Press
www.libqual.org

107. Northeastern University Case Study
“Comments were sorted by academic department, which were posted
along with department-specific radar charts and gap summaries, in
the Research & Instruction Department.
The “Great Wall of LibQUAL+®” provoked discussion, and provided
collection managers with insight into the concerns of the faculty and
students in the departments they were serving.
www.libqual.org

108. Presenting Results to Stakeholders
• Identify all of the stakeholders or constituents
who want and need to know about the survey
results
• Consider the “stake” of each of the above; what
specific aspect of LibQUAL+® will be of most
interest / concern
• Determine how to communicate with each
identified stakeholder
• Speak in terms they will understand
• Present data graphically in a format they
can interpret quickly & easily
www.libqual.org

109. Communicate with your Customers
(students, faculty, others)
• Particularly those whom you asked to participate
in the survey
• Announce incentive award winners
• Inform users of highlights of survey results
• Focused follow-up for more specific insights
• Most importantly, what the library intends to do
“You asked for it…”
www.libqual.org

110. KU Libraries: We Listened to You!
LibQUAL+ 2006
Thanks to the more than 1,100 KU faculty, staff and students who completed the 2006
LibQUAL+ survey, KU Libraries has made significant changes over the past few months to
better meet your research and service needs.
You requested:
•Access to the electronic resources from your home or office
•Print and/or electronic journal collections you require for your work
•A Libraries Web site that enables you to locate information on your own more quickly
and easily
•Librarians and staff members who have the knowledge to answer your questions
•Dependability in handling your service problems
We delivered:
•More access to print and electronic materials, including 30,000 journals and many other
primary resources
•The new Information Gateway, a primary tool for searching the Libraries' proprietary
online resources including databases, journals and images
•A newly redesigned Web site
•Access to electronic records for hundreds of thousands of previously inaccessible
items
•An ongoing commitment to enhancing service quality through comprehensive training and
continuous evaluation
www.libqual.org
www.libqual.org

111. Longitudinal Analysis:
Assessing impact of change
www.libqual.org

112. Cycle of Planning and Assessment
www.libqual.org

113. Longitudinal Analysis
Benchmarking Against
Self, Longitudinally
“Nobody is more like me than me!”
--Anonymous
www.libqual.org

114. Longitudinal Analysis
• An interpretation framework that allows
you to compare performance over time
• Are my scores increasing or decreasing?
• Are my scores increasing or decreasing
for specific subgroups of my population:
faculty, grad, undergraduates, and/or
disciplines or branches?
• Have my actions affected my scores?
www.libqual.org

115. Longitudinal Analysis
Example Library Satisfaction (All Users, 2004 – 2008)
General Satisfaction
Overall 2004 to 2008
*All user groups (excluding Library Staff)
9
8
7
6
2004
5
2008
4
3
2
1
In general, I am satisfied In general, I am satisfied How would you rate the
with the way in which I am with library support for my overall quality of the
treated at the library. learning, research, and/or service provided by the
teaching needs. library?
Increase in satisfaction in all
3 satisfaction measures for Total Population
www.libqual.org

116. Longitudinal Analysis
Example Library Satisfaction (Faculty, 2004 – 2008)
General Satisfaction
Faculty 2004 to 2008
*All user groups (excluding Library Staff)
9
8
7
6
2004
5
2008
4
3
2
1
In general, I am satisfied In general, I am satisfied How would you rate the
with the way in which I am with library support for my overall quality of the
treated at the library. learning, research, and/or service provided by the
teaching needs. library?
Increase in satisfaction in all
3 satisfaction measures for Faculty
www.libqual.org

117. Longitudinal Analysis
Example Library Satisfaction (Undergrads, 2004 – 2008)
General Satisfaction
Undergraduates 2004 to 2008
*All user groups (excluding Library Staff)
9
8
7
6
2004
5
2008
4
3
2
1
In general, I am satisfied In general, I am satisfied How would you rate the
with the way in which I am with library support for my overall quality of the
treated at the library. learning, research, and/or service provided by the
teaching needs. library?
Unchanged or decrease in satisfaction in all
3 satisfaction measures for Undergraduates
www.libqual.org

118. Z.O.T. + Longitudinal
Example Library Changing Expectations (Faculty, 2003 – 2009)
9
8
7
6
5
2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009
Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place
Space and place needs are
Faculty tolerance is narrowing: increasing over time, though
their minimum needs are higher overall remain less critical for
but their desires are stable faculty than other issues
www.libqual.org

119. Z.O.T. + Longitudinal
Example Library Changing Expectations & Performance (Faculty, 2003 – 2009)
9
8
7
6
5
2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009
Affect of Service Information Control Library as Place
Wow, customer service for faculty Ouch, even though this Library
This Library seems to be keeping
is improving even while some improved slightly, the ability to
pace with increasing faculty
expectations are increasing! meet faculty needs for information
expectations about library spaces
and access is not keeping pace with
expectations
www.libqual.org

120. Assessing Impact of Actions
Explore Specific Questions
IC-1 Making electronic resources
accessible from my home or office
Library as Place
9.00
9.00
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
7.50 7.50
7.00 7.00
6.50 6.50
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
4.50
4.50
4.00
4.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Minimum Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean

121. Assess Impact of Actions
Have results improved?
• Yes
– Communicate to Library Staff, Key
Stakeholders, the wider University
community
• No
– Do you know why?
– Explore further with your customers
– What can you do to improve?

122. Summing Up
www.libqual.org

123. Review
• Understanding the LibQUAL+® Survey Results
• Internal analysis: Interpretation of results and
identifying actionable items
• Internal analysis: Qualitative analysis of the
LibQUAL+® comments
• External benchmarking: How are we doing
compared to the consortium?
• External benchmarking: Identifying best practice
• Action planning for change
• Communicating your results to stakeholders
• Longitudinal analysis: Assessing impact of change
www.libqual.org

124. LibQUAL+® Resources
• LibQUAL+® Web site:
http://www.libqual.org/home
• Publications:
http://www.libqual.org/Publications.aspx
• Events and Training:
http://www.libqual.org/events
• Gap Theory/Radar Graph Introduction:
http://libqual.org/about/about_survey/tools
• LibQUAL+® Procedures Manual:
http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/ProceduresMan
ual.pdf
• ARL YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/arladmin?feature=watch
www.libqual.org

125. LibQUAL+® Team
• Martha Kyrillidou - Senior Director, ARL Statistics
and Service Quality Programs
martha@arl.org
• David Green - Library Relations Coordinator
libqual@arl.org
• Selena Killick – European Support
s.a.killick@cranfield.ac.uk
• And sometimes, consultant Raynna Bowlby
raynna.bowlby@charter.net
www.libqual.org

127. Thank you
Selena Killick
LibQUAL+® European Support Officer
s.a.killick@cranfield.ac.uk
+44 1793 785561
www.libqual.org