The document provides an overview and objectives of analyzing LibQUAL+® survey results. It discusses interpreting results internally by identifying areas of best and worst performance. It also covers benchmarking results externally against consortium data and longitudinally to assess the impact of changes. The document outlines quantitative analysis of survey scores and qualitative analysis of comments. It recommends using tools like LibQUAL+® Analytics and SPSS to further analyze results data.
Evaluating Semantic Search Query Approaches with Expert and Casual Userskelbedweihy
Usability and user satisfaction are of paramount importance
when designing interactive software solutions. Furthermore, the optimal
design can be dependent not only on the task but also on the type of
user. Evaluations can shed light on these issues; however, very few studies
have focused on assessing the usability of semantic search systems.
As semantic search becomes mainstream, there is growing need for standardised,
comprehensive evaluation frameworks. In this study, we assess
the usability and user satisfaction of dierent semantic search query input
approaches (natural language and view-based) from the perspective
of dierent user types (experts and casuals). Contrary to previous studies,
we found that casual users preferred the form-based query approach
whereas expert users found the graph-based to be the most intuitive.
Additionally, the controlled-language model oered the most support for
casual users but was perceived as restrictive by experts, thus limiting
their ability to express their information needs.
Este estudio evaluó la validez y fiabilidad de una rúbrica utilizada para evaluar el logro de competencias en estudiantes universitarios. Siete expertos validaron la rúbrica utilizando ocho criterios y determinaron que era pertinente, coherente y estructurada. El cálculo del alfa de Cronbach sobre las respuestas de 43 estudiantes y su profesor reveló una alta fiabilidad de la rúbrica. Por lo tanto, la rúbrica demostró ser un instrumento válido y fiable para evaluar el aprend
Este documento resume los principales conceptos y métodos de la investigación cuantitativa y el software estadístico SPSS. Explica los tipos de investigación cuantitativa, los aspectos fundamentales del diseño de instrumentos de medición, y ofrece una introducción general a las funciones básicas de SPSS como la exploración de datos, estadística descriptiva, pruebas de validez y confiabilidad, y análisis estadísticos paramétricos e inferenciales.
The document discusses various methods for assessing libraries, including surveys, questionnaires, focus groups, observation, usability studies, and ROI calculations. It provides examples of assessment tools like LibQUAL+, which uses surveys to measure user perceptions of service quality across three dimensions: affect of service, information control, and library as place. The document emphasizes that assessment is important for strategic planning, decision-making, program evaluation, advocacy, and regular service improvements in libraries.
Quality measurement and evaluation assumes great importance in modern libraries, as it brings immense benefits to the library as well as user community.iN uality should start from the acquisition section, which should be carried uniformly to circulation section
Exploring perspectives in digital library evaluationGiannis Tsakonas
Digital library evaluation involves assessing the value of a digital library system or its operations. It is important to clearly define the scope and goals of the evaluation. Key questions to address include why is the evaluation being conducted, what aspects are being evaluated, who are the agents involved in the evaluation, and how will the evaluation be carried out. Common methods include both qualitative approaches like interviews and surveys, as well as quantitative methods like usage analysis and comparison studies. Careful planning is required to identify resources, personnel, tools, and timeline. The outcomes of an evaluation can include meaningful findings to improve the digital library as well as inconsistent or inapplicable results.
Mendeley’s Research Catalogue: building it, opening it up and making it even ...Kris Jack
Presentation given at Workshop on Academic-Industrial Collaborations for Recommender Systems 2013 (http://bit.ly/114XDsE), JCDL'13. A walk through Mendeley as a platform, growing pains involved with engineering at a large scale, the data that we're making publicly available and some demos that have come out of academic collaborations.
LibQUAL+®: The UK & Irish Experience, presented at the Library Assessment Seminar and LibQUAL+® Share Fair. University of Lund, Sweden. 20th September 2012. Presentation by Selena Killick, Cranfield University. Presentation discusses the use of LibQUAL+® in the UK and Ireland since 2003, presenting longitudinal data results, lessons learnt and outcomes of actions.
Evaluating Semantic Search Query Approaches with Expert and Casual Userskelbedweihy
Usability and user satisfaction are of paramount importance
when designing interactive software solutions. Furthermore, the optimal
design can be dependent not only on the task but also on the type of
user. Evaluations can shed light on these issues; however, very few studies
have focused on assessing the usability of semantic search systems.
As semantic search becomes mainstream, there is growing need for standardised,
comprehensive evaluation frameworks. In this study, we assess
the usability and user satisfaction of dierent semantic search query input
approaches (natural language and view-based) from the perspective
of dierent user types (experts and casuals). Contrary to previous studies,
we found that casual users preferred the form-based query approach
whereas expert users found the graph-based to be the most intuitive.
Additionally, the controlled-language model oered the most support for
casual users but was perceived as restrictive by experts, thus limiting
their ability to express their information needs.
Este estudio evaluó la validez y fiabilidad de una rúbrica utilizada para evaluar el logro de competencias en estudiantes universitarios. Siete expertos validaron la rúbrica utilizando ocho criterios y determinaron que era pertinente, coherente y estructurada. El cálculo del alfa de Cronbach sobre las respuestas de 43 estudiantes y su profesor reveló una alta fiabilidad de la rúbrica. Por lo tanto, la rúbrica demostró ser un instrumento válido y fiable para evaluar el aprend
Este documento resume los principales conceptos y métodos de la investigación cuantitativa y el software estadístico SPSS. Explica los tipos de investigación cuantitativa, los aspectos fundamentales del diseño de instrumentos de medición, y ofrece una introducción general a las funciones básicas de SPSS como la exploración de datos, estadística descriptiva, pruebas de validez y confiabilidad, y análisis estadísticos paramétricos e inferenciales.
The document discusses various methods for assessing libraries, including surveys, questionnaires, focus groups, observation, usability studies, and ROI calculations. It provides examples of assessment tools like LibQUAL+, which uses surveys to measure user perceptions of service quality across three dimensions: affect of service, information control, and library as place. The document emphasizes that assessment is important for strategic planning, decision-making, program evaluation, advocacy, and regular service improvements in libraries.
Quality measurement and evaluation assumes great importance in modern libraries, as it brings immense benefits to the library as well as user community.iN uality should start from the acquisition section, which should be carried uniformly to circulation section
Exploring perspectives in digital library evaluationGiannis Tsakonas
Digital library evaluation involves assessing the value of a digital library system or its operations. It is important to clearly define the scope and goals of the evaluation. Key questions to address include why is the evaluation being conducted, what aspects are being evaluated, who are the agents involved in the evaluation, and how will the evaluation be carried out. Common methods include both qualitative approaches like interviews and surveys, as well as quantitative methods like usage analysis and comparison studies. Careful planning is required to identify resources, personnel, tools, and timeline. The outcomes of an evaluation can include meaningful findings to improve the digital library as well as inconsistent or inapplicable results.
Mendeley’s Research Catalogue: building it, opening it up and making it even ...Kris Jack
Presentation given at Workshop on Academic-Industrial Collaborations for Recommender Systems 2013 (http://bit.ly/114XDsE), JCDL'13. A walk through Mendeley as a platform, growing pains involved with engineering at a large scale, the data that we're making publicly available and some demos that have come out of academic collaborations.
LibQUAL+®: The UK & Irish Experience, presented at the Library Assessment Seminar and LibQUAL+® Share Fair. University of Lund, Sweden. 20th September 2012. Presentation by Selena Killick, Cranfield University. Presentation discusses the use of LibQUAL+® in the UK and Ireland since 2003, presenting longitudinal data results, lessons learnt and outcomes of actions.
OA in the Library Collection: The Challenge of Identifying and Managing Open ...NASIG
Librarians, researchers, and the general public have largely embraced the concept of open access (OA). Yet, incorporating OA resources into existing discovery and tracking systems is often a complicated process. Open access material can be delivered through a variety of publishing or archival mechanisms, creating certain challenges, particularly for those managing e-resources. Although an increasing proportion of research output is becoming open access each year, organization and discovery of these resources remains imperfect.
The debate between the relative merits of Green and Gold OA is regularly discussed in academic circles but less attention is devoted towards Hybrid OA and the challenges inherent in this model. Most major publishers offer open access through one or more of these models, but open access metadata standards seem to be lacking among these content providers. The presenters will discuss some of these challenges identified in the literature and through other mechanisms, including data gathered by NISO and an original survey. By identifying these issues, the scholarly communication community can work together to improve discovery for end users.
Chris Bulock
Electronic Resources Librarian, SIUE Lovejoy Library
Chris is an Electronic Resources Librarian and NASIG member from the St. Louis area. His research and work are focused on improving the library user's experience. Chris is the recipient of the 2012 HARRASSOWITZ Charleston Conference Scholarship.
Nathan Hosburgh
Discovery & Systems Librarian, Rollins College
Nate Hosburgh is currently the Discovery & Systems Librarian at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida as part of a revamped Collections & Systems department that includes ILL, collection development, acquisitions, systems, and technical services. Previously, he held positions managing e-resources at Montana State University and managing interlibrary loan & document delivery at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne
About the Webinar
The "single search box" approach of web search engines like Google and Bing have forced libraries and system developers to rethink their whole approach to end-user searching for library and publisher resources and electronic content. Discovery systems are continuing to evolve from simple keyword search systems, to more elaborate indexed discovery, to new forms of usage-based discovery and beyond. Because discovery of content is such a critical component of library services, understanding in what potential ways these systems will develop is critical for library staff, either when selecting a system, or seeking ways to improve its service. NISO launched a research study in early 2014 on the status of discovery systems, their potential future development directions, and the systems interoperability needs of these services.
This webinar will cover some of the latest developments of library discovery systems as well as discuss the findings of the NISO research study, and the implications of those results.
Agenda
Introduction
Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO
Differential Discovery: Effect of Discovery on Online Journal Usage
John McDonald, Associate Dean, Collections, University of Southern California Libraries
Jason Price, Program Manager, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC)
A Single Search Box is Definitely Not Enough
Steve Guttman, Senior Director of Product Management, ProQuest
Library Resource Discovery: Next Steps
Marshall Breeding, Library Consultant, librarytechnology.org
Use of "NewGenLib" Open Source Software for Library Automation, Digital Libra...Emmanuel E C
Use of "NewGenLib" Open Source Software for Library Automation, Digital Library and Knowledge Management : An exploratory study. Demonstrates/Explores how NewGenLib an Open Source library automation tool can be exploited, used for Library automation, Information Services, Digital Libraries/Institutional Libraries and Knowledge Management
ER&L 2019 - Forming a More Perfect Knowledgebase: A Tale of Publisher, Vendor...Matthew Ragucci
This session examines how publishers and vendors collaborate to make a more seamless knowledgebase experience for librarians. Representatives from Wiley and OCLC will discuss KBART file creation, representation, and more. A representative from OhioLINK will explain how the state of the knowledgebase affects workflows at the consortium and library levels.
Facets and Pivoting for Flexible and Usable Linked Data ExplorationRoberto García
The success of Open Data initiatives has increased the amount of data available on the Web. Unfortunately, most of this data is only available in raw tabular form, what makes analysis and reuse quite difficult for non-experts. Linked Data principles allow for a more sophisticated approach by making explicit both the structure and semantics of the data. However, from the end-user viewpoint, they continue to be monolithic files completely opaque or difficult to explore by making tedious semantic queries. Our objective is to facilitate the user to grasp what kind of entities are in the dataset, how they are interrelated, which are their main properties and values, etc. Rhizomer is a tool for data publishing whose interface provides a set of components borrowed from Information Architecture (IA) that facilitate awareness of the dataset at hand. It automatically generates navigation menus and facets based on the kinds of things in the dataset and how they are described through metadata properties and values. Moreover, motivated by recent tests with end-users, it also provides the possibility to pivot among the faceted views created for each class of resources in the dataset.
I presented these slides as a keynote at the Enterprise Intelligence Workshop at KDD2016 in San francisco.
In these slides, I describe our work towards developing a Maslow's Hierarchy for Human in the Loop Data Analytics!
NoSQL Simplified: Schema vs. Schema-lessInfiniteGraph
A look at the many facets of schema-less approaches vs a rich schema approach, ranging from performance and query support to heterogeneity and code/data migration issues. Presented by Leon Guzenda, Founder, Objectivity
Federated to Library Service Platforms
Nikesh Narayanan discusses the transition from individual library databases to integrated search platforms. He covers why integrated search is important, options like federated search and web-scale discovery, parameters for evaluating these systems, and recent advances like linked data and integration with knowledge graphs. Library service platforms are emerging as all-in-one solutions that manage collections, discovery, resource management and more. Major commercial providers and the open source FOLIO project are outlined.
This document provides a high-level summary of a proposed library management system project. It begins with an overview of the project goals, stakeholders, and methodology. Requirements gathering involved understanding the needs and processes of the target libraries. Feasibility studies identified problems with manual systems like slow reporting. The system aims to automate checking books in/out, searching, and tracking borrowing. Modules, use cases, actors, and functional/non-functional requirements are defined. The project estimates 6,600 lines of code and costs based on LOC.
Deduplication and Author-Disambiguation of Streaming Records via Supervised M...Spark Summit
Here we present a general supervised framework for record deduplication and author-disambiguation via Spark. This work differentiates itself by – Application of Databricks and AWS makes this a scalable implementation. Compute resources are comparably lower than traditional legacy technology using big boxes 24/7. Scalability is crucial as Elsevier’s Scopus data, the biggest scientific abstract repository, covers roughly 250 million authorships from 70 million abstracts covering a few hundred years. – We create a fingerprint for each content by deep learning and/or word2vec algorithms to expedite pairwise similarity calculation. These encoders substantially reduce compute time while maintaining semantic similarity (unlike traditional TFIDF or predefined taxonomies). We will briefly discuss how to optimize word2vec training with high parallelization. Moreover, we show how these encoders can be used to derive a standard representation for all our entities namely such as documents, authors, users, journals, etc. This standard representation can simplify the recommendation problem into a pairwise similarity search and hence it can offer a basic recommender for cross-product applications where we may not have a dedicate recommender engine designed. – Traditional author-disambiguation or record deduplication algorithms are batch-processing with small to no training data. However, we have roughly 25 million authorships that are manually curated or corrected upon user feedback. Hence, it is crucial to maintain historical profiles and hence we have developed a machine learning implementation to deal with data streams and process them in mini batches or one document at a time. We will discuss how to measure the accuracy of such a system, how to tune it and how to process the raw data of pairwise similarity function into final clusters. Lessons learned from this talk can help all sort of companies where they want to integrate their data or deduplicate their user/customer/product databases.
What does success look like when it comes to library discoverability? Index based discovery systems have seen a dramatic rate of adoption since introduction to the research ecosystem in 2009, with more than 9,000 libraries relying on a discovery system to provide users with a comprehensive index to their offerings. Some issues bar the way to providing this comprehensive view, but many challenges have been overcome through collaboration between libraries, content providers and discovery partners. The NISO ODI initiative began to examine these issues in 2011, and released a best practice in June 2014.
Speakers will highlight examples of successful collaboration, note continued areas of challenge, and provide insight on how the Open Discovery Initiative Conformance Checklists can be used as a mechanism to evaluate content provider or discovery provider conformance with the best practice.
The document summarizes a webinar on May 18, 2011 about the future of integrated library systems and user interaction. The webinar featured four speakers discussing their projects focused on improving the user experience of library discovery systems. Jennifer Bowen presented on the eXtensible Catalog software being developed at the University of Rochester to give libraries more control over their metadata and interfaces. John Blyberg discussed the SOPAC library discovery system and its user-centered design. Allie Flanary and Anya Arnold then described the shared catalog system used by the Orbis Cascade Alliance and efforts to enhance it based on user research findings.
The Polyglot Data Scientist - Exploring R, Python, and SQL ServerSarah Dutkiewicz
This document provides an overview of a presentation on being a polyglot data scientist using multiple languages and tools. It discusses using SQL, R, and Python together in data science work. The presentation covers the challenges of being a polyglot, how SQL Server with R or Python can help solve problems more easily, and examples of analyzing sensor data with these tools. It also discusses resources for learning more about R, Python, and machine learning services in SQL Server.
Role of libraries in research and scholarly communicationNikesh Narayanan
Libraries play an important role in supporting research through facilitating literature searches, providing information literacy and reference services, and guiding researchers in publishing and managing their research profiles. Libraries can help researchers efficiently search across disjointed information sources through federated search software or web-scale discovery tools which provide a single search interface. Libraries also help connect researchers to open access resources and guide them on where and how to publish their research findings.
There is a growing trend towards a consolidation of services for Electronic Resource Management (ERM), A-Z journal listings, full text link resolving and discovery services under a single service provider. In many cases, the adoption of a discovery service from a provider that is not the same as the libraries' existing link resolver service means managing multiple knowledgebases. In this session, 3 libraries will provide an overview of their experience and strategies for maintaining separate link resolving and discovery services in lieu of adopting a full suite of services from a single service provider. Each speaker will provide a case study on the advantages and/or challenges of managing their chosen discovery service, EBSCO's EDS, Ex Libris' Primo and ProQuest's Summon, in conjunction with the CUFTS/GODOT open source knowledgebase/link resolver.
Presenters:
Leanna Jantzi, Electronic Resources Copyright Librarian, Capilano University
Jennifer Richard, Academic Librarian, Acadia University
andra Wong, Electronic Resources Librarian, Simon Fraser University
The document summarizes a webinar on May 18, 2011 about the future of integrated library systems and user interaction. The webinar featured presentations from four speakers discussing their projects focused on improving the user experience of library discovery systems. Topics included the eXtensible Catalog software being developed at the University of Rochester to give libraries more control over their metadata and interfaces, and the SOPAC library discovery system used by several libraries that emphasizes user-generated content and customization.
The explosion in growth of the Web of Linked Data has provided, for the first time, a plethora of information in disparate locations, yet bound together by machine-readable, semantically typed relations. Utilisation of the Web of Data has been, until now, restricted to the members of the community, eating their own dogfood, so to speak. To the regular web user browsing Facebook and watching YouTube, this utility is yet to be realised. The primary factor inhibiting uptake is the usability of the Web of Data, where users are required to have prior knowledge of elements from the Semantic Web technology stack. Our solution to this problem is to hide the stack, allowing end users to browse the Web of Data, explore the information it contains, discover knowledge, and use Linked Data. We propose a template-based visualisation approach where information attributed to a given resource is rendered according to the rdf:type of the instance.
Web-Scale Discovery: Post ImplementationRachel Vacek
Discovery services provide users a single
search box to access a library’s entire prei-ndexed collection. Representatives from
two academic libraries serving different
user populations will discuss marketing,
instructing users, evaluating the product,
and maintaining the resource after a
discovery service is implemented
OA in the Library Collection: The Challenge of Identifying and Managing Open ...NASIG
Librarians, researchers, and the general public have largely embraced the concept of open access (OA). Yet, incorporating OA resources into existing discovery and tracking systems is often a complicated process. Open access material can be delivered through a variety of publishing or archival mechanisms, creating certain challenges, particularly for those managing e-resources. Although an increasing proportion of research output is becoming open access each year, organization and discovery of these resources remains imperfect.
The debate between the relative merits of Green and Gold OA is regularly discussed in academic circles but less attention is devoted towards Hybrid OA and the challenges inherent in this model. Most major publishers offer open access through one or more of these models, but open access metadata standards seem to be lacking among these content providers. The presenters will discuss some of these challenges identified in the literature and through other mechanisms, including data gathered by NISO and an original survey. By identifying these issues, the scholarly communication community can work together to improve discovery for end users.
Chris Bulock
Electronic Resources Librarian, SIUE Lovejoy Library
Chris is an Electronic Resources Librarian and NASIG member from the St. Louis area. His research and work are focused on improving the library user's experience. Chris is the recipient of the 2012 HARRASSOWITZ Charleston Conference Scholarship.
Nathan Hosburgh
Discovery & Systems Librarian, Rollins College
Nate Hosburgh is currently the Discovery & Systems Librarian at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida as part of a revamped Collections & Systems department that includes ILL, collection development, acquisitions, systems, and technical services. Previously, he held positions managing e-resources at Montana State University and managing interlibrary loan & document delivery at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne
About the Webinar
The "single search box" approach of web search engines like Google and Bing have forced libraries and system developers to rethink their whole approach to end-user searching for library and publisher resources and electronic content. Discovery systems are continuing to evolve from simple keyword search systems, to more elaborate indexed discovery, to new forms of usage-based discovery and beyond. Because discovery of content is such a critical component of library services, understanding in what potential ways these systems will develop is critical for library staff, either when selecting a system, or seeking ways to improve its service. NISO launched a research study in early 2014 on the status of discovery systems, their potential future development directions, and the systems interoperability needs of these services.
This webinar will cover some of the latest developments of library discovery systems as well as discuss the findings of the NISO research study, and the implications of those results.
Agenda
Introduction
Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO
Differential Discovery: Effect of Discovery on Online Journal Usage
John McDonald, Associate Dean, Collections, University of Southern California Libraries
Jason Price, Program Manager, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC)
A Single Search Box is Definitely Not Enough
Steve Guttman, Senior Director of Product Management, ProQuest
Library Resource Discovery: Next Steps
Marshall Breeding, Library Consultant, librarytechnology.org
Use of "NewGenLib" Open Source Software for Library Automation, Digital Libra...Emmanuel E C
Use of "NewGenLib" Open Source Software for Library Automation, Digital Library and Knowledge Management : An exploratory study. Demonstrates/Explores how NewGenLib an Open Source library automation tool can be exploited, used for Library automation, Information Services, Digital Libraries/Institutional Libraries and Knowledge Management
ER&L 2019 - Forming a More Perfect Knowledgebase: A Tale of Publisher, Vendor...Matthew Ragucci
This session examines how publishers and vendors collaborate to make a more seamless knowledgebase experience for librarians. Representatives from Wiley and OCLC will discuss KBART file creation, representation, and more. A representative from OhioLINK will explain how the state of the knowledgebase affects workflows at the consortium and library levels.
Facets and Pivoting for Flexible and Usable Linked Data ExplorationRoberto García
The success of Open Data initiatives has increased the amount of data available on the Web. Unfortunately, most of this data is only available in raw tabular form, what makes analysis and reuse quite difficult for non-experts. Linked Data principles allow for a more sophisticated approach by making explicit both the structure and semantics of the data. However, from the end-user viewpoint, they continue to be monolithic files completely opaque or difficult to explore by making tedious semantic queries. Our objective is to facilitate the user to grasp what kind of entities are in the dataset, how they are interrelated, which are their main properties and values, etc. Rhizomer is a tool for data publishing whose interface provides a set of components borrowed from Information Architecture (IA) that facilitate awareness of the dataset at hand. It automatically generates navigation menus and facets based on the kinds of things in the dataset and how they are described through metadata properties and values. Moreover, motivated by recent tests with end-users, it also provides the possibility to pivot among the faceted views created for each class of resources in the dataset.
I presented these slides as a keynote at the Enterprise Intelligence Workshop at KDD2016 in San francisco.
In these slides, I describe our work towards developing a Maslow's Hierarchy for Human in the Loop Data Analytics!
NoSQL Simplified: Schema vs. Schema-lessInfiniteGraph
A look at the many facets of schema-less approaches vs a rich schema approach, ranging from performance and query support to heterogeneity and code/data migration issues. Presented by Leon Guzenda, Founder, Objectivity
Federated to Library Service Platforms
Nikesh Narayanan discusses the transition from individual library databases to integrated search platforms. He covers why integrated search is important, options like federated search and web-scale discovery, parameters for evaluating these systems, and recent advances like linked data and integration with knowledge graphs. Library service platforms are emerging as all-in-one solutions that manage collections, discovery, resource management and more. Major commercial providers and the open source FOLIO project are outlined.
This document provides a high-level summary of a proposed library management system project. It begins with an overview of the project goals, stakeholders, and methodology. Requirements gathering involved understanding the needs and processes of the target libraries. Feasibility studies identified problems with manual systems like slow reporting. The system aims to automate checking books in/out, searching, and tracking borrowing. Modules, use cases, actors, and functional/non-functional requirements are defined. The project estimates 6,600 lines of code and costs based on LOC.
Deduplication and Author-Disambiguation of Streaming Records via Supervised M...Spark Summit
Here we present a general supervised framework for record deduplication and author-disambiguation via Spark. This work differentiates itself by – Application of Databricks and AWS makes this a scalable implementation. Compute resources are comparably lower than traditional legacy technology using big boxes 24/7. Scalability is crucial as Elsevier’s Scopus data, the biggest scientific abstract repository, covers roughly 250 million authorships from 70 million abstracts covering a few hundred years. – We create a fingerprint for each content by deep learning and/or word2vec algorithms to expedite pairwise similarity calculation. These encoders substantially reduce compute time while maintaining semantic similarity (unlike traditional TFIDF or predefined taxonomies). We will briefly discuss how to optimize word2vec training with high parallelization. Moreover, we show how these encoders can be used to derive a standard representation for all our entities namely such as documents, authors, users, journals, etc. This standard representation can simplify the recommendation problem into a pairwise similarity search and hence it can offer a basic recommender for cross-product applications where we may not have a dedicate recommender engine designed. – Traditional author-disambiguation or record deduplication algorithms are batch-processing with small to no training data. However, we have roughly 25 million authorships that are manually curated or corrected upon user feedback. Hence, it is crucial to maintain historical profiles and hence we have developed a machine learning implementation to deal with data streams and process them in mini batches or one document at a time. We will discuss how to measure the accuracy of such a system, how to tune it and how to process the raw data of pairwise similarity function into final clusters. Lessons learned from this talk can help all sort of companies where they want to integrate their data or deduplicate their user/customer/product databases.
What does success look like when it comes to library discoverability? Index based discovery systems have seen a dramatic rate of adoption since introduction to the research ecosystem in 2009, with more than 9,000 libraries relying on a discovery system to provide users with a comprehensive index to their offerings. Some issues bar the way to providing this comprehensive view, but many challenges have been overcome through collaboration between libraries, content providers and discovery partners. The NISO ODI initiative began to examine these issues in 2011, and released a best practice in June 2014.
Speakers will highlight examples of successful collaboration, note continued areas of challenge, and provide insight on how the Open Discovery Initiative Conformance Checklists can be used as a mechanism to evaluate content provider or discovery provider conformance with the best practice.
The document summarizes a webinar on May 18, 2011 about the future of integrated library systems and user interaction. The webinar featured four speakers discussing their projects focused on improving the user experience of library discovery systems. Jennifer Bowen presented on the eXtensible Catalog software being developed at the University of Rochester to give libraries more control over their metadata and interfaces. John Blyberg discussed the SOPAC library discovery system and its user-centered design. Allie Flanary and Anya Arnold then described the shared catalog system used by the Orbis Cascade Alliance and efforts to enhance it based on user research findings.
The Polyglot Data Scientist - Exploring R, Python, and SQL ServerSarah Dutkiewicz
This document provides an overview of a presentation on being a polyglot data scientist using multiple languages and tools. It discusses using SQL, R, and Python together in data science work. The presentation covers the challenges of being a polyglot, how SQL Server with R or Python can help solve problems more easily, and examples of analyzing sensor data with these tools. It also discusses resources for learning more about R, Python, and machine learning services in SQL Server.
Role of libraries in research and scholarly communicationNikesh Narayanan
Libraries play an important role in supporting research through facilitating literature searches, providing information literacy and reference services, and guiding researchers in publishing and managing their research profiles. Libraries can help researchers efficiently search across disjointed information sources through federated search software or web-scale discovery tools which provide a single search interface. Libraries also help connect researchers to open access resources and guide them on where and how to publish their research findings.
There is a growing trend towards a consolidation of services for Electronic Resource Management (ERM), A-Z journal listings, full text link resolving and discovery services under a single service provider. In many cases, the adoption of a discovery service from a provider that is not the same as the libraries' existing link resolver service means managing multiple knowledgebases. In this session, 3 libraries will provide an overview of their experience and strategies for maintaining separate link resolving and discovery services in lieu of adopting a full suite of services from a single service provider. Each speaker will provide a case study on the advantages and/or challenges of managing their chosen discovery service, EBSCO's EDS, Ex Libris' Primo and ProQuest's Summon, in conjunction with the CUFTS/GODOT open source knowledgebase/link resolver.
Presenters:
Leanna Jantzi, Electronic Resources Copyright Librarian, Capilano University
Jennifer Richard, Academic Librarian, Acadia University
andra Wong, Electronic Resources Librarian, Simon Fraser University
The document summarizes a webinar on May 18, 2011 about the future of integrated library systems and user interaction. The webinar featured presentations from four speakers discussing their projects focused on improving the user experience of library discovery systems. Topics included the eXtensible Catalog software being developed at the University of Rochester to give libraries more control over their metadata and interfaces, and the SOPAC library discovery system used by several libraries that emphasizes user-generated content and customization.
The explosion in growth of the Web of Linked Data has provided, for the first time, a plethora of information in disparate locations, yet bound together by machine-readable, semantically typed relations. Utilisation of the Web of Data has been, until now, restricted to the members of the community, eating their own dogfood, so to speak. To the regular web user browsing Facebook and watching YouTube, this utility is yet to be realised. The primary factor inhibiting uptake is the usability of the Web of Data, where users are required to have prior knowledge of elements from the Semantic Web technology stack. Our solution to this problem is to hide the stack, allowing end users to browse the Web of Data, explore the information it contains, discover knowledge, and use Linked Data. We propose a template-based visualisation approach where information attributed to a given resource is rendered according to the rdf:type of the instance.
Web-Scale Discovery: Post ImplementationRachel Vacek
Discovery services provide users a single
search box to access a library’s entire prei-ndexed collection. Representatives from
two academic libraries serving different
user populations will discuss marketing,
instructing users, evaluating the product,
and maintaining the resource after a
discovery service is implemented
Présentation par François Mistral de l'engrenage entre LibQUAL et une démarche qualité, illustré par le cas lorrain dans le cadre de la journée Libqual Fr 2013
Présentation par Amélie Church de la mise en oeuvre l'enquête Libqual version lite après une enquête long en 2009 dans le cadre de la journée Libqual Fr 2013
Présentation par Agnès Colnot de la mise en oeuvre l'enquête Libqual menée dans 2 établissements différents (Rennes 1 + INSA de Rennes) dans le cadre de la journée Libqual Fr 2013
The document summarizes actions implemented by university libraries in the French-speaking community of Belgium after a 2009 LibQUAL+ survey. Key findings of the survey showed needs for improved library spaces, services, and staff assistance. In response, libraries increased budgets, installed more electric outlets, restricted access during exams, created new study spaces, extended hours, and improved heating. The actions aimed to enhance the library environment and users' experiences. Participating libraries were UCL, ULB, and ULg.
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
Reimagining Your Library Space: How to Increase the Vibes in Your Library No ...Diana Rendina
Librarians are leading the way in creating future-ready citizens – now we need to update our spaces to match. In this session, attendees will get inspiration for transforming their library spaces. You’ll learn how to survey students and patrons, create a focus group, and use design thinking to brainstorm ideas for your space. We’ll discuss budget friendly ways to change your space as well as how to find funding. No matter where you’re at, you’ll find ideas for reimagining your space in this session.
Reimagining Your Library Space: How to Increase the Vibes in Your Library No ...
Sciences Po presentation eng
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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%
77. Consortium Results
• PDF Notebook in Data Repository
• Provides average results for all consortium
members
• Benchmarkable
78.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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