Pace University Library- LibQUAL+ Results Summary 2003 & 2006

Background

The LibQUAL+ survey evolved from a conceptual model based on the SERVQUAL instrument, a popular tool for assessing service quality in the private sector. The survey gives our users a chance to tell us where our service needs improvement so we can respond to and better manage their expectations. LibQUAL+ was developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to establish baseline information about user expectations and ratings of four dimensions of library service quality:

The Pace Library first participated in LibQUAL+ in spring 2003; at that time, twenty-five questions focused on four dimensions:

  • access to information
  • affect of service
  • library as place
  • personal control

We participated again in 2006 at which time the survey, having gone through numerous iterations, had been condensed to twenty-two questions focused on three dimensions:

  • affect of service
  • library as place
  • information control (a new dimension combining aspects of the former dimensions of access to information and personal control)

LibQUAL+ is a web-based assessment tool for measuring library users’ perceptions of service quality and identifying gaps among desired, perceived, and minimum expectations of service. The differences between the perceived level of service and minimum expectations (service adequacy) and between the perceived level of service and the desired level (service superiority)are measured in terms of a gap score.

Service adequacy is an indicator of the extent to which you are meeting the minimum expectations of your users.A negative service adequacy score indicates that our users’ perceived level of service quality is below their minimal level of service quality and is printed in red. In general, service superiority is an indicator of the extent to which we are exceeding the desired expectations of our users. Negative superiority adequacy scores are to be expected with those scores being closer to zero indicating where we are coming closest to meeting desired levels of service and those furthest from zero indicating where we might need to improve.

Results

In addition to data item responses from survey takers, we also received additional text or qualitative comments from over 200 survey takers each time. These comments generally back up the data and give us more specific information about areas of the Library and its collections that can be improved. The following summary takes into consideration both itemized responses and additional comments.

In 2003, the two areas where users, overall, perceived their level of satisfaction below their minimum expectation were in the dimensions of “Library as Place” (LP) and “Access to Information” (AI). In the area of “Personal Control” There was some concern. In the dimension of “Affect of Service” (AS) users were generally satisfied.

In terms of negative gap responses overall, the highest scores related to:

  • Quiet space for individual study (LP)-0.46
  • The printed materials I need for my work (AI)-0.38
  • Print and/or electronic journal collections I need for my work (AI)-0.24
  • Library space that inspires study and learning (LP)-0.19

2006 showed some improvement in “printed materials,” and in “quiet space,” though Library as Place and collection issues still stood out as the areas in need of most attention. [note: Items under Access to Information (AI) became part of a blended dimension, Information Control (IC)].

The areas of concern highlighted above for 2003, showed these results in 2006:

  • Quiet space for individual activities (LP)-0.20
  • The printed materials I need for my work (IC)-0.02
  • Print &/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (IC)-0.30
  • Library space that inspires study and learning (LP)-0.16

The two other negative adequacy scores recorded in 2006 were also in the Library as Place dimension:

  • A comfortable and inviting location, -0.01 (down from 0.25 in 2003, representing a statistically significant difference)
  • A getaway for study, learning or research, -0.05

Library as Place

In both 2003 and 2006, when analyzed further by Library Used Most Often it becameevident that the “Library as Place” negative gap responses were largely from users at the Birnbaum Library. Additional Comments in both yearsbacked this up with a large number of respondents reporting that the Birnbaum Library was far too noisy and in need of more designated quiet and group study areas. Additionally, users reported problems with the facilities in general (including furniture) being crowded, unattractive, too old and uncomfortable, with the library being dirty and messy, and with staff failing to enforce quiet and no eating/drinking rules. Though Mortola Library scores were not as low as Birnbaum Library’s, and Mortola Library was the subject of far fewer written comments than Birnbaum Library, some comments do bring attention to possible areas of improvement there as well.

Library Response:In 2004 the Pace Library switched to a new facilities maintenance organization that has provided the Library with new photocopiers and reader/printer equipment. The Birnbaum Library upgraded all public workstations to state of the art machines for fall 2004 and replaced older slower computers designated for email with faster ones.

Two new rooms were built within the BirnbaumLibrary, one for quiet study and one for group study. Two other rooms were planned, but have had to be put on hold due to lack of resources.

The Birnbaum Library undertook a no noise campaign and has designated specific areas as quiet study areas (no cell phones and no loud conversations or group discussions) and has added clear signage to that effect in an effort to address the continuing noise concerns there. With clearly designated areas and signage, it is easier to enforce the no noise rules in these parts of the Library. We expect to see improved responses in this area with the next LibQUAL+ survey in 2009.

Personal Control/Access

In 2003, the “Personal Control” element of “Making electronic resources available from my home or office” rated a negative gap score from users at both Birnbaum and Mortola (-0.11 and -0.02 respectively) and an even zero score from Graduate Center Library users. Users reported problems with remote access including problems with passwords, frequent timeouts, certain resources that weren’t accessible from home, expired records that blocked access, and generally not enough information online to help them navigate electronic resources.

Library Response: Since the first survey was administered the Library has changed authentication systems and redesigned the Web site.

2006 showed marked improvement in this element, with Birnbaum user scores moving from -0.11 to 0.00, Mortola user scores going from -0.02 to 0.38 and Graduate Center scores jumping from 0.00 to 0.61!

Collections

In both 2003 and 2006, concerns about “printed materials I need for my work” and “Print and/or electronic journal collections I need for my work” were most noticeably registered by Birnbaum Library users whose 2006 ratings resulted in negative gap scores (-.25 and -.52 respectively).This actually represents a small improvement in perception of “printed materials I need for my work,” though it still remains a red flag. While not registering negative gap scores, in 2003, Mortola Library users’adequacy means ratings were barely over zero (.12 and .01 respectively) on these items. In 2006, Westchester faculty perceptions of the printed materials they need for work improved from a negative gap score (-.54) to a positive one (.27) which likely is attributable to increased availability, awareness, and use of online full text, thus lessening need for printed resources and increased access to books through Connect NY. This being said, scores in general still indicate that Print or Electronic Journal collections remain a concern for users in New York City and Westchester. We have not analyzed these against norm tables produced for 2003 results, however, LibQUAL+ staff report that these kinds of scores represent a common complaint across academic libraries of all sizes and reputations; it is not especially unique to the Pace Library. The issueof collections, both print and electronic, across both surveys, is the most clearly and consistently reported concern in the additional comments by users. Book collections at both libraries are perceived to be inadequate. Frequent complaints include that there are not enough books on key topics, that there are not enough books to support specific disciplines, that books are very outdated, that assigned textbooks are generally not available, and that users feel they have to use other libraries to get the books they need.

Library Response: The Library joined Connect NY, a state-wide consortium of now thirteen other libraries (and more to come) that use the same integrated system, Innopac.As a result of this decision, Pace students, faculty and staff have access to the over five million titles held by these libraries. Connect NY offers an extraordinary percentage of uniqueness of titles between its members. Users can search all Connect NY libraries with one search in our catalog, and if an item is not available through Pace, users can request them directly from Connect NY libraries and have them delivered within days.

We have also been undertaking ambitious weeding of the collection over the last few years, with staff selectors in different subject areas reviewing the collection item-by-item and making decisions about withdrawing items or removing them. Selectors use personal judgment combined with circulation statistics to identify candidates which are then checked against consortium holdings (Connect NY) and Books for College Libraries (a comprehensive listing of titles designated by experts in the field as important).

Staff/Service

In the dimension of “Affect of Service,” users have generally been very pleased with the helpfulness, knowledge, and courteousness of staff. In 2003, two very low negative gap scores(“Dependability in handling users' service problems”-.08 and“Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions”-.04)from Birnbaum Library userswere heavily influenced by negative responses from graduate students while other user groups’ minimum expectations wereexceeded. While positive comments about Library staff on all campuses are amongst the most frequently received comments in the additional comments in both survey years, some users share specific concerns about inconsistency between service providers at various service points in terms of politeness, attitude, and knowledge, lack of specialization amongst reference librarians, and inadequate staffing on weekends and evenings.A marked improvement in ratings from graduate students at PNY is notable in the 2006 results.Meetings with representatives from the Graduate Psychology department in NY to address concerns raised in the 2003 survey may account for this improvement.

Library Response:In 2003, a meeting was set up between librarians and representatives from the Graduate Psychology program to address their specific concerns regarding staff(which were communicated to all reference staff) as well as their concerns regarding the collection.Increased efforts weremade to reach out to weekend and evening staff for additional training and support. Supervisors of student workers in the public service areas were asked to stress the importance of user-centeredness in training.

Information about Library Services

Of additional note in the additional comments are a variety of statements that share a common thread of users wanting more information about services available from the library: more online and print information about what services and resources the library offers and how to use it; more general information sessions or instructional sessions for faculty (including adjuncts) and students about maximizing use of library resources; more information about where to go and who to ask for certain types of information (in the library and online), and more information about how to access resources from home.

Library Response:These are all areas that library staffcontinuously works on, so these kinds of responses tell us that we need to do even more to get the word out about services and resources. Marketing and PR efforts have already increased and have been slated for even greater attention in our strategic plan.

Hours

Also of note are numerous comments about the desire for longer hours. Suggestions range from opening earlier on weekends, longer hours during exams, and staying open later in general to 24/7 space even if no service is available.

Library Response:The Mortola Library has extended its hours to 2:00 AM Sunday-Friday; The Birnbaum Library has added some hours and provides extended hours during final exams. Library staff informs students of the availability of on-campus 24-hour study rooms and computer labs for use during those hours when the library is

closed.