The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: the role of LibQUAL+™

Citation

Cook, C. (2002), "The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: the role of LibQUAL+™", Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 3 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/pmm.2002.27903baa.002

The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: the role of LibQUAL+™

The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: the role of LibQUAL+™

LibQUAL+™ is a research and development project jointly sponsored by Texas A&M University (TAMU) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and funded in part by the United States Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE). In an effort to augment traditional academic library measures, such as ARL Statistics, with user-based assessments, the ARL Research Library Leadership and Development Committee and its Statistics and Measurement Committee launched the New Measures Initiative in 1999. LibQUAL+™ is one of the instruments in the New Measures toolkit, a Web-delivered survey that measures the quality of library service delivery across the spectrum of higher education constituencies. Although the development of the protocol has been widely reported in the literature (cf. Cook and Heath, 2001; Cook and Thompson, 2001; Cook et al., 2002; Heath et al., 2002; Thompson et al., 2002), the following issue of Performance Measurement and Metrics represents the first report of the applications and uses of the instrument in the field.

LibQUAL+™ is based upon the pioneering work of Berry, Parasuraman, and Zeithaml, whose tool, SERVQUAL, is the acknowledged standard for evaluation of service quality in the commercial sector (cf. Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1990, 1996). A group of ARL/TAMU researchers collaborated to reground the SERVQUAL model of service quality for the academic library environment, and to develop a Web-based instrument capable of broad application in academic libraries. Constructivist grounded theory was employed to develop a user-centric model of library service quality in North American research libraries through content analysis of over 60 interviews held with library users. In spring 2000 and 2001, two iterations of the survey, constructed to identify and measure the basic constructs defining library service quality in academic libraries, were tested. Over 4,000 library users from 12 institutions responded to the first survey iteration, and nearly 25,000 from 43 institutions responded to the second. In spring 2002, 165 institutions are participating in the third iteration of LibQUAL+™ with an anticipated response of 80,000, representing a wide diversity of libraries – academic libraries from the smallest community college to the largest of ARL institutions, the cohort of the Association of Allied Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the research library at New York Public and the Smithsonian Libraries. The data from LibQUAL+™ permits libraries to understand how they are similar and how they differ, and it allows the leaders in service provision to emerge for others to emulate on behalf of local clients.

The following papers largely report experiences based upon results from the 2001 survey iteration. They show LibQUAL+™ as a transformational agent, as a tool that corroborates existing assessment data and expert intuition, and as an effective mechanism for continuous assessment of library services from a user orientation. Throughout the papers another thread emerges as well, the story of the LibQUAL+™ project itself – how the library community engaged in a collaborative manner to develop an instrument for cross-institutional comparison of library service quality. LibQUAL+™ moves assessment from the local arena to inter-institutional assessment across peer institutions, and as such serves as the first total market survey (cf. Berry, 1995, pp. 37-9) for service quality in the library profession. Finally, directions for future improvements to LibQUAL+™ are discussed commensurate with the iterative and emergent theoretical design of the project.

The opening paper by Tom B. Wall, Director of Public Services with the Perkins Library System at Duke University, introduces the discussion by describing participation in LibQUAL+™ as a transformative experience. He suggests that the LibQUAL+™ process, in itself, is a powerful experience with the inherent ability to generate a staff commitment to listening to users, to rethinking the library service program, and to recasting the service plan from a user perspective.

The next two articles by Eileen E. Hitchingham, Dean of Libraries and Donald Kenney, Associate Dean at Virginia Tech, and Judith A. Sessions, Dean and University Librarian, Alex Schenck, Special Projects Officer, and Aaron K. Shrimplin, Electronic Information Services Librarian and Data Specialist at Miami University, shed light upon LibQUAL+™ as a model for continuous assessment from the perspective of an ARL, doctoral/research university-extensive, and a medium-sized institution. As an effective assessment device, both conclude that LibQUAL+™ can serve as the vital first step in an iterative, organizational planning process.

Sarah K. McCord, Electronic Resources Librarian at the Washington State University Health Sciences Library, and Mary N. Nofsinger, Reference and Collection Development Librarian at Washington State University, a member of ARL, consider the LibQUAL+™ experience from a confirmatory viewpoint. They contrast and compare two earlier local surveys with LibQUAL+™ and draw mutually reinforcing conclusions from results. They conclude that LibQUAL+™ serves an important role in a general assessment program. At the macro level, as a total market survey, LibQUAL+™ surfaces best practices among peer institutions, while at the micro level, locally designed assessments target specific issues or constituencies. Joseph Boykin, Dean of Libraries at Clemson University, shows how LibQUAL+™ confirms earlier results at a medium-sized institution.

The next suite of papers describes experiences at three institutions of various sizes in interpreting and applying LibQUAL+™ data. Gwyneth Crowley, Head of Information Services at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, and Charles Gilreath, Associate University Librarian for Advanced Studies at Texas A&M University, and Wanda Dole, University Librarian at Washburn University, provide in-depth reports of focus groups conducted at their respective institutions to explore the meaning of LibQUAL+™ results more concretely. Shelley Phipps (2001, p. 639) notes that, "LibQUAL+™ … must be used as it is intended … at the macro-level … for gaining a picture at the 30,000 feet level, of what customers view as important and how they experience the library's capability to meet their needs". Beth McNeil, Assistant Dean of Libraries, and Joan Giesecke, Dean of Libraries, report results and actions taken to improve services at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

In the final paper Julie Anna Guidry, a PhD student in the Marketing Department at Texas A&M University, continues the story of the LibQUAL+™ instrument's development. She reports the results of a qualitative study to content analyze unsolicited respondent comments using Atlas.ti to eliminate non-response error in refining the tool.

Recently, Rowena Cullen (2001) challenged library administrators that they ignored the results of assessment instruments such as LibQUAL+™ at their peril in an age in which users had choices for securing information. She recently noted:

Academic libraries are currently facing their greatest challenge since the explosion in tertiary education and academic publishing, which began after World War II. The global digital revolution is affecting both the traditional forms of the creation, organization and dissemination of knowledge, and the world of tertiary education itself. The alliance of business and universities to create a new paradigm of tertiary education, and the emergence of the virtual university, supported by the virtual library, calls into question many of our basic assumptions about the role of the academic library, and the security of its future. Retaining and growing their customer base, and focusing more energy on meeting their customers' expectations is the only way for academic libraries to survive in this volatile environment (Cullen, 2001, pp. 662-3).

From the papers that follow it is evident and gratifying that colleagues are responding to Cullen's challenge.

Colleen CookGuest Editor

ReferencesBerry, L.L. (1995), On Great Service: A Framework for Action, The Free Press, New York, NY.Cook, C. and Heath, F. (2001), "Users' perceptions of library service quality: a 'LibQUAL+™' qualitative study", Library Trends, Vol. 49, pp. 548-84.Cook, C. and Thompson, B. (2001), "Psychometric properties of scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+™ study of perceptions of library service quality", Library Trends, Vol. 49, pp. 585-604.Cook, C., Heath, F. and Thompson, B. (2002), "Score norms for improving library service quality: a LibQUAL+™ study", Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 2, pp. 13-26.Cullen, R. (2001), "Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys", Library Trends, Vol. 49, pp. 662-86.Heath, F., Cook, C., Kyrillidou, M. and Thompson, B. (2002), "ARL index and other validity correlates of LibQUAL+TM scores", Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 2, pp. 27-42.Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), "SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 12-40.Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), "Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, pp. 420-50.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), "A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), "Alternative scales for measuring service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70, pp. 201-30.Phipps, S. (2001), "Beyond measuring service quality: learning from the voices of customers, the staff, the processes and the organization", Library Trends, Vol. 49, pp. 635-61.Thompson, B., Cook, C. and Thompson, R.L. (2002), "Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+™ scores", Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 2, pp. 3-12.Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), "The behavioral consequences of service quality", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 31-46.Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.