|
The following tables summarize our 2006 LibQUAL scores.
The dimensions: In “Affect of Service” our
patrons rated the quality of our service – attitude, helpfulness,
level of knowledge, etc. In “Information Control” our patrons
rated the quality of our collections and how easy it is to find information
through the website, our online catalog, etc. In “Library as Place” our
patrons rated the library building in terms of study space quality, how
easy it is to find things, atmosphere, etc.
The scores: For each question, respondents were
asked to indicate on a scale of 1 to 9 (nine being the best) what is
their minimally acceptable level, what is their desired level, and what
is their actual rating of our performance (the observed score). A respondent
might say on a question about the importance of group study space that
a minimally acceptable performance level is a 6, but the desired level
(“what
our university library really ought to offer”) is an 8. That respondent
may rate our group study space as a 7, so we can be happy we exceeded what
is minimally acceptable to the respondent, but we fall short of what they’d
like to see us offer. In the tables below, the average scores of respondents
are indicated for minimum, desired, and observed levels. The places
where we failed to meet minimum expectations are bolded and in red.
Outcome |
Assessment Method |
Minimum, Desired, and Performance
Scores |
Use of Assessment Results |
employees who instill confidence in users |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 5.51, 7.37, 6.13
grad 6.43, 7.89, 6.64
fac 6.19, 7.70, 6.28 |
Scores highlighted in red indicate a failure to
meet minimum expectations, as |
employees who give users individual attention |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 5.50, 6.97, 6.09
grad 6.78, 7.83, 6.80
fac 6.36, 7.62, 6.56 |
represented by the minimum score to the far left
of the performance |
employees who are consistently courteous |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.54, 7.89, 6.85
grad 7.57, 8.54, 7.45
fac 7.20, 8.21, 7.38 |
score. We will concentrate on addressing the areas
where we failed to meet |
employees who readily respond to questions |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.38, 7.75, 6.81
grad 7.42, 8.41, 7.35
fac 7.18, 7.95, 7.15 |
expectations. Steps for addressing the failures
are discussed in “Next Steps” |
employees’ knowledge to answer patron questions |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.47, 7.82, 6.89
grad 7.47, 8.36, 7.29
fac 7.09, 8.14, 6.86 |
below. We will also look at the areas where we
barely exceeded minimal |
employees who treat patrons in a caring fashion |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.35, 7.81, 6.84
grad 7.54, 8.34, 7.22
fac 6.62, 7.67, 6.96 |
expectations, but the failures will receive the
highest priority as we try |
employees who understand patron needs |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.45, 7.80, 7.00
grad 7.45, 8.37, 7.42
fac 7.04, 8.22, 6.96 |
to improve our performance. |
employees who willingly help patrons |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.40, 7.79, 6.96
grad 7.36, 8.38, 7.46
fac 7.11, 8.07, 7.13 |
|
employees who dependably handle patron service
problems |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.51, 7.86, 6.95
grad 7.62, 8.53, 7.55
fac 7.17, 8.06, 7.11 |
Scores highlighted in red indicate a failure to
meet minimum expectations, as |
electronic resources that are accessible from patron
homes and offices |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.25, 7.93, 6.65
grad 7.31, 8.49, 7.13
fac 7.39, 8.57, 6.84 |
represented by the minimum score to the far left
of the red performance |
library web site that enables patrons to locate
information on their own |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.28, 7.78, 6.70
grad 7.29, 8.38, 7.14
fac 7.32, 8.59, 6.63 |
score. We will concentrate on addressing the areas
where we failed to meet |
printed library materials needed for instruction
and research |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.44, 7.81, 6.95
grad 7.33, 8.37, 7.30
fac 6.34, 7.66, 5.62 |
expectations. Steps for addressing the failures
are discussed in “Next Steps” |
electronic information resources needed for instruction
and research |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.44, 7.83, 7.04
grad 7.16, 8.36, 7.19
fac 7.60, 8.82, 6.73 |
below. We will also look at the areas where we
barely exceeded minimal |
equipment that facilitates easy access to information |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.77, 8.06, 7.35
grad 7.51, 8.44, 7.76
fac 7.24, 8.52, 7.02 |
expectations, but the failures will receive the
highest priority as we try |
access tools that facilitate patrons to easily
find information on their own |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.53, 7.98, 6.94
grad 7.27, 8.26, 7.35
fac 7.32, 8.50, 7.00 |
to improve our performance. |
Information that is easily accessible for independent
use |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.49, 7.88, 7.11
grad 7.28, 8.34, 7.49
fac 7.26, 8.26, 6.98 |
Scores highlighted in red indicate a failure to
meet minimum expectations, as |
print and electronic journal collections needed
for instruction and research |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.57, 7.91, 7.18
grad 7.49, 8.48, 7.34
fac 7.30, 8.52, 5.83 |
represented by the minimum score to the far left
of the red performance |
library space that inspires study and learning |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.35, 7.94, 6.71
grad 6.36, 7.71, 6.76
fac 5.88, 7.25, 5.31 |
score. We will concentrate on addressing the areas
where we failed to meet |
quiet space for individual activities |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.55, 7.98, 6.85
grad 6.74, 7.99, 7.20
fac 5.62, 6.71, 5.82 |
expectations. Steps for addressing the failures
are discussed in “Next Steps” |
Comfortable and inviting study space |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.44, 7.94, 6.89
grad 6.90, 8.24, 7.13
fac 6.08, 7.32, 5.57 |
below. We will also look at the areas where we
barely exceeded minimal |
haven for study, learning, or research |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.50, 7.95, 7.14
grad 6.77, 7.85, 7.16
fac 6.06, 7.43, 6.23 |
expectations, but the failures will receive the
highest priority as we try |
community space for group learning and study |
LibQUAL+ survey |
ugrad 6.25, 7.69, 7.10
grad 6.22, 7.33, 7.20
fac 4.39, 5.82, 5.66 |
to improve our performance. |
RESPONSES: We intend to conduct focus groups during FY07 so
we can obtain more specific feedback as to why we are failing to
meet certain expectations for services, collections, and facilities.
A patron service training workshop has been scheduled for December,
after fall graduation. The workshop will be done by The Southeastern
Library Network (SOLINET), a leading library professional development
company. Regarding facilities shortcomings, some will become moot
when we vacate the existing part of the building in September of
2006, but then some new problems will exist since it is necessary
to reduce seating space and public computers. Concerns such
as the need to enforce the quiet study area policy will be addressed
immediately. Ease of finding information will continue to
drive our efforts to improve our online catalog and web page, but
some of the dissatisfaction stems from GALILEO, whose design is
beyond our control. However, we hope the new federated searching
feature will make it easier for patrons to use GALILEO since instead
of selecting a database they will only need to select broad subject
areas. As for the failure of collections and resources to meet
expectations, we will continue to work with academic departments
to identify the resources they require, and we will work with Academic
Affairs and University Advancement to seek the funding necessary
to obtain needed resources.
We conduct the LibQUAL+ survey every three years, so until
spring 2009 we will attempt to measure our improvement efforts by
employing shorter, less comprehensive questionnaires based on the
LibQUAL+ questions where we were found wanting. In order to
control costs and to focus on the constituencies that expressed the
most concerns, these questionnaires will be given to selected graduate
students and faculty members only. |
To provide additional perspective, you will find below
three tables comparing our 2006 aggregate scores with our 2003 results
and to the scores of the two spring 2006 LibQUAL+ participating institutions
that are most like Georgia Southern: James Madison University (JMU) in
Virginia and Humboldt State University (HSU) in California. First
are three tables aggregating the overall scores to the questions within
the three dimensions. The first table compares undergraduate student
ratings, the second table compares graduate student ratings, and the
last table compares faculty ratings.
UNDERGRADUATE
Students |
|
GaSoU 2003 |
GaSoU 2006 |
Humboldt 2006 |
James Madison 2006 |
Affect of
Service |
6.27 minimum
7.63 desired
6.73 observed |
6.21
7.66
6.71 |
6.11
7.72
7.04 |
5.96
7.50
7.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
Information
Control* |
6.49/6.35
7.84/7.79
7.44/7.04 |
6.46
7.90
6.99 |
6.53
8.18
7.06 |
6.31
7.90
7.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Library as
Place |
6.34
7.87
7.03 |
6.41
7.90
6.93 |
6.33
8.04
7.13 |
6.20
7.84
7.03 |
| * - In the 2003
survey, this dimension was split into two. The first score is for “Access to Information” and
the second is for “Personal Control.” |
GRADUATE
Students |
|
GaSoU 2003 |
GaSoU 2006 |
Humboldt 2006 |
James Madison 2006 |
Affect of
Service |
6.53 minimum
8.25 desired
7.29 observed |
7.25
8.28
7.23 |
6.42
7.94
7.16 |
6.33
7.76
7.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Information
Control* |
6.80/6.69
8.42/8.45
7.31/7.40 |
7.32
8.39
7.32 |
6.91
8.42
6.97 |
6.85
8.23
7.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Library as
Place |
5.84
7.56
6.91 |
6.64
7.87
7.12 |
6.28
7.92
6.86 |
6.08
7.59
6.61 |
| * - In the 2003
survey, this dimension was split into two. The first score is for “Access to Information” and
the second is for “Personal Control.” |
FACULTY |
|
GaSoU 2003 |
GaSoU 2006 |
Humboldt 2006 |
James Madison 2006 |
Affect of
Service |
6.73 minimum
7.90 desired
7.22 observed |
6.90
7.98
6.96 |
6.91
8.03
7.48 |
6.83
8.10
7.86 |
|
|
|
|
|
Information
Control* |
6.96/7.05
8.14/8.21
6.90/7.04 |
7.22
8.43
6.59 |
7.31
8.42
6.70 |
7.01
8.34
7.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Library as
Place |
5.84
6.91
6.36 |
5.86
7.08
5.85 |
5.93
7.21
6.48 |
5.92
7.31
6.49 |
| * - In the 2003
survey, this dimension was split into two. The first score is for “Access to Information” and
the second is for “Personal Control.” |
|
