Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University
www.libqual.org
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Contributors
Colleen Cook
Texas A&M University

Martha Kyrillidou
Association of Research Libraries

Fred Heath
University of Texas

Jonathan D. Sousa
Association of Research Libraries

BruceThompson
Texas A&M University

Duane Webster
Association of Research Libraries

Association of Research Libraries / Texas A&M University
www.libqual.org
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Association of Research Libraries
21 Dupont Circle NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Phone 202-296-2296
Fax 202-872-0884
http://www.libqual.org
Copyright © 2006 Association of Research Libraries

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

1

Page 3 of 85

Introduction
1.1

Acknowledgements
This notebook contains information from the 2006 administration of the LibQUAL+™ protocol. The material on the
following pages is drawn from the analysis of responses from the participating institutions collected in 2006.
The LibQUAL+™ project requires the skills of a dedicated group. We would like to thank several members of the
LibQUAL+™ team for their key roles in this developmental project. From Texas A&M University, the quantitative
guidance of Bruce Thompson and the qualitative leadership of Yvonna Lincoln have been key to the project's
integrity. The behind-the-scenes roles of Bill Chollet and others from the library Systems and Training units were
also formative. From the Association of Research Libraries, we are appreciative of the project management role of
Martha Kyrillidou and the technical development role of Jonathan Sousa, as well as the communications and
administration support provided by Amy Hoseth, Richard Groves, and MaShana Davis.
A New Measures Initiative of this scope is possible only as the collaborative effort of many libraries. To the
directors and liaisons at all participating libraries goes the largest measure of gratitude. Without your commitment ,
the development of LibQUAL+™ would not have been possible. We would like to extend a special thank you to all
administrators at the participating consortia and libraries that are making this project happen effectively across
various institutions.
We would like to acknowledge the role of the Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education (FIPSE),
U.S. Department of Education, which provided grant funds of $498,368 over a three-year period (2001-03). We
would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) for its grant of $245,737 over
a three-year period (2002-04) to adapt the LibQUAL+™ instrument for use in the science, math, engineering, and
technology education digital library community, an assessment tool in development now called DigiQUAL. We
would like to express our thanks for the financial support that has enabled the researchers engaged in this project to
exceed all of our expectations in stated goals and objectives and deliver a remarkable assessment tool to the library
community.
Colleen Cook
Texas A&M University
Fred Heath
University of Texas
Duane Webster
Association of Research Libraries

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 4 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

LibQUAL+™: a Project from StatsQUAL™

1.2

I would personally like to say a word about the development of LibQUAL+™ over the last few years and to thank
the people that have been involved in this effort. LibQUAL+™ would not have been possible without the many
people who have offered their time and constructive feedback over the years for the cause of improving library
services. In a sense, LibQUAL+™ has built three kinds of partnerships: one between ARL and Texas A&M
University, a second one among the participating libraries and their staff, and a third one comprising the thousands
of users who have provided their valuable survey responses over the years.
LibQUAL+™ was initiated in 2000 as an experimental project for benchmarking perceptions of library service
quality across 13 ARL Libraries under the leadership of, Fred Heath and Colleen Cook, then both at the Texas
A&M University libraries. It matured quickly into a standard assessment tool that has been applied at more than 700
libraries, collecting information on more than half a million library users. Each year since 2003, we have had more
than 200 libraries conduct LibQUAL+™, more than 100,000 users respond, and annually more than 50,000 users
provide rich comments about the ways they use their libraries.
There have been numerous advancements over the years. In 2005, libraries were able to conduct LibQUAL+™ over
a two session period (Session I: January to May and Session II: July to December). The LibQUAL+™ servers were
moved from Texas A&M to an external hosting facility under the ARL brand known as StatsQUAL™. Through the
StatsQUAL™ gateway we will continue to provide innovative tools for libraries to assess and manage their
environments in the coming years.
LibQUAL+™ findings have engaged thousands of librarians in discussions with colleagues and ARL on what these
findings mean for local libraries, for their regions, and for the future of libraries across the globe. Consortia have
supported their members’ participation in LibQUAL+™ in order to offer an informed understanding of the changes
occurring in their shared environment. Summary highlights have been published on an annual basis showcasing the
rich array of information available through LibQUAL+™:
LibQUAL+™ 2005 Survey Highlights


LibQUAL+™ 2004 Survey Highlights


LibQUAL+™ 2003 Survey Highlights


Summary published reports have also been made available:


The socio-economic and technological changes that are taking place around us are affecting the ways users interact
with libraries. We used to think that libraries could provide reliable and reasonably complete access to published
and scholarly output, yet we now know from LibQUAL+™ that users have an insatiable appetite for content. No
library can ever have sufficient information content that would come close to satisfying this appetite.
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 5 of 85

The team at ARL and beyond has worked hard to nurture the community that has been built around LibQUAL+™.
We believe that closer collaboration and sharing of resources will bring libraries nearer to meeting the ever
changing needs of their demanding users. It is this spirit of collaboration and a willingness to view the world of
libraries as an organic, integrated, and cohesive environment that can bring forth major innovations and break new
ground. Innovation and aggressive marketing of the role of libraries in benefiting their communities strengthen
libraries.
In an example of collaboration, LibQUAL+™ participants are sharing their results within the LibQUAL+™
community with an openness that nevertheless respects the confidentiality of each institution and its users .
LibQUAL+™

participants

are

actively

shaping

our

Share

Fair

gatherings,

our

in-person

events,

and

our

understanding of how the collected data can be used. LibQUAL+™ offers a rich resource that can be viewed using
many lenses, should be interpreted in multiple ways, and is a powerful tool libraries can use to understand their
environment.
LibQUAL+™ is a community mechanism for improving libraries and I hope we see an increasing number of
libraries utilizing it successfully in the years to come. I look forward to your continuing active involvement in
helping us understand the many ways we can improve library services.
With warm regards,
Martha Kyrillidou
Director, ARL Statistics and Measurement Program

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 6 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

LibQUAL+™: Defining and Promoting Library Service Quality

1.3

What is LibQUAL+™?
LibQUAL+™ is a suite of services that libraries use to solicit, track, understand, and act upon users’ opinions of
service quality. These services are offered to the library community by the Association of Research Libraries
(ARL). The program’s centerpiece is a rigorously tested Web-based survey bundled with training that helps libraries
assess

and

improve

library

services,

change

organizational

culture,

and

market

the

library.

The

goals

of

LibQUAL+™ are to:
•

Foster a culture of excellence in providing library service

•

Help libraries better understand user perceptions of library service quality

•

Collect and interpret library user feedback systematically over time

•

Provide libraries with comparable assessment information from peer institutions

•

Identify best practices in library service

•

Enhance library staff members’ analytical skills for interpreting and acting on data

As of spring 2006, more than 700 libraries have participated in the LibQUAL+™ survey, including colleges and
universities,
libraries-some

community
through

colleges,
various

health

sciences

consortia,

others

and
as

hospital/medical
independent

libraries,

participants.

law

libraries,

LibQUAL+™

and

has

public

expanded

internationally, with participating institutions in Canada, the U.K., and other European countries as well as Australia
and South Africa. It has been translated into a number of languages, including French, Swedish, Dutch, Afrikaans,
German, Danish, Finnish, and Norwegian. The growing LibQUAL+™ community of participants and its extensive
dataset are rich resources for improving library services.

How will LibQUAL+™ benefit your library?
Library administrators have successfully used LibQUAL+™ survey data to identify best practices, analyze deficits,
and effectively allocate resources. Benefits to participating institutions include:
•

Institutional data and reports that enable you to assess whether your library services are meeting user
expectations

•

Aggregate data and reports that allow you to compare your library’s performance with that of peer
institutions

•

Workshops designed for participants

•

Access to an online library of LibQUAL+™ research articles

•

The opportunity to become part of a community interested in developing excellence in library services

LibQUAL+™ gives your library users a chance to tell you where your services need improvement so you can
respond to and better manage their expectations. You can develop services that better meet your users’ expectations
by comparing your library’s data with that of peer institutions and examining the practices of those libraries that are
evaluated highly by their users.

How is the LibQUAL+™ survey conducted?
Conducting the LibQUAL+™ survey requires little technical expertise on your part. You invite your users to take
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 7 of 85

the survey by distributing the URL for your library’s Web form via e-mail. Respondents complete the survey form
and their answers are sent to a central database. The data are analyzed and presented to you in reports describing
your users’ desired, perceived, and minimum expectations of service.

What are the origins of the LibQUAL+™ survey?
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 Texas A&M University Libraries and other libraries used
modified SERVQUAL instruments for several years; those applications revealed the need for a newly adapted tool
that would serve the particular requirements of libraries. ARL, representing the largest research libraries in North
America, partnered with Texas A&M University Libraries to develop, test, and refine LibQUAL+™. This effort
was supported in part by a three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of
Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE).

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 8 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

1.4

Web Access to Data
Data summaries from the 2006 iteration of the LibQUAL+™ survey will be available to project participants online
via the LibQUAL+™ survey management site:


Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

1.5

Page 9 of 85

Explanation of Charts and Tables
A working knowledge of how to read and derive relevant information from the tables and charts used in your
LibQUAL+™ results notebook is essential. In addition to the explanatory text below, you can find a self -paced
tutorial on the project web site at:


Both the online tutorial and the text below are designed to help you understand your survey results and present and
explain those results to others at your library.

Radar Charts
Radar charts are commonly used throughout the following pages to display both aggregate results and results from
individual

institutions.

Basic

information

about

radar

charts

is

outlined

below,

and

additional

descriptive

information is included throughout this notebook.
What is a radar chart?

Radar charts are useful when you want to look at several different factors all related to one item. Sometimes called
“spider charts” or “polar charts”, radar charts feature multiple axes or “spokes” along which data can be plotted.
Variations in the data are shown by distance from the center of the chart. Lines connect the data points for each
series, forming a spiral around the center.
In the case of the LibQUAL+™ survey results, each axis represents a different survey question. Questions are
identified by a code at the end of each axis. The three dimensions measured by the survey are grouped together on
the radar charts, and each dimension is labeled: Affect of Service (AS), Library as Place (LP), and Information
Control (IC).
Radar charts are used in this notebook to present the item summaries (the results from the 22 core survey questions).
How to read a radar chart

Radar charts are an effective way to graphically show strengths and weaknesses by enabling you to observe
symmetry or uniformity of data. Points close to the center indicate a low value, while points near the edge indicate a
high value. When interpreting a radar chart, it is important to check each individual axis as well as the chart’s
overall shape in order to gain a complete understanding of its meaning. You can see how much data fluctuates by
observing whether the spiral is smooth or has spikes of variability.
Respondents’ minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted on each axis of your
LibQUAL+™ radar charts. The resulting “gaps” between the three levels are shaded in blue, yellow, green, and red.
Generally, a radar graph shaded blue and yellow indicates that users’ perceptions of service fall within the “zone of
tolerance”; the distance between minimum expectations and perceptions of service quality is shaded in blue, and the
distance between their desired and perceived levels of service quality is shown in yellow. When users’ perceptions
fall outside the “zone of tolerance,” the graph will include areas of red and green shading. If the distance between
users’ minimum expectations and perceptions of service delivery is represented in red, that indicates a negative
service adequacy gap score. If the distance between the desired level of service and perceptions of service delivery
is represented in green, that indicates a positive service superiority gap score.
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 10 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Means
The mean of a collection of numbers is their arithmetic average, computed by adding them up and dividing by their
total number.
In this notebook, means are provided for users’ minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality for each
item on the LibQUAL+™ survey. Means are also provided for the general satisfaction and information literacy
outcomes questions.

Standard Deviation
Standard deviation is a measure of the spread of data around their mean. The standard deviation (SD) depends on
calculating the average distance of each score from the mean.
In this notebook, standard deviations are provided for every mean presented in the tables.

Service Adequacy
The Service adequacy gap score is calculated by subtracting the minimum score from the perceived score on any
given question, for each user. Both means and standard deviations are provided for service adequacy gap scores on
each item of the survey, as well as for each of the three dimensions of library service quality. In general, service
adequacy is an indicator of the extent to which you are meeting the minimum expectations of your users. A negative
service adequacy gap score indicates that your users’ perceived level of service quality is below their minimum
level of service quality and is printed in red.

Service Superiority
The Service superiority gap score is calculated by subtracting the desired score from the perceived score on any
given question, for each user. Both means and standard deviations are provided for service superiority gap scores on
each item of the survey, as well as for each of the three dimensions of library service quality. In general, service
superiority is an indicator of the extent to which you are exceeding the desired expectations of your users. A
positive service superiority gap score indicates that your users’ perceived level of service quality is above their
desired level of service quality and is printed in green.
Sections with charts and tables are omitted from the following pages when there are three or fewer individuals in a
specific group.
In the consortium notebooks, institution type summaries are not shown if there is only one library for an institution
type. Individual library notebooks are produced separately for each participant.

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

1.6

Page 11 of 85

A Few Words about LibQUAL+™ 2006
Libraries today confront escalating pressure to demonstrate impact. As Cullen (2001) has noted,
Academic libraries are currently facing their greatest challenge since the explosion in tertiary
education and academic publishing which began after World War II... [T]he 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.
(pp. 662-663)
Today, "A measure of library quality based solely on collections has become obsolete" (Nitecki, 1996, p. 181).
These considerations have prompted the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to sponsor a number of "New
Measures" initiatives. The New Measures efforts represent a collective determination on the part of the ARL
membership to augment the collection-count and fiscal input measures that comprise the ARL Index and ARL
Statistics, to date the most consistently collected statistics for research libraries, with outcome measures such as
assessments of service quality and satisfaction. One New Measures initiative is the LibQUAL+™ project (Cook,
Heath & B. Thompson, 2002, 2003; Heath, Cook, Kyrillidou & Thompson, 2002; Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2003;
Thompson, Cook & Thompson, 2002).
Within a service-quality assessment model, "only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially
irrelevant" (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry, 1990, p. 16). LibQUAL+™ was modeled on the 22-item SERVQUAL

tool

developed

by

Parasuraman,

Berry

and

Zeithaml

(Parasuraman,

Berry

&

Zeithaml,

1991).

However,

SERVQUAL has been shown to measure some issues not particularly relevant in libraries, and to not measure some
issues of considerable interest to library users.
The final 22 LibQUAL+™ items were developed through several iterations of studies involving a larger pool of 56
items. The selection of items employed in the LibQUAL+™ survey has been grounded in the users' perspective as
revealed in a series of qualitative studies involving a larger pool of items. The items were identified following
qualitative research interviews with student and faculty library users at several different universities (Cook, 2002a;
Cook & Heath, 2001).
LibQUAL+™ is not just a list of 22 standardized items. First, LibQUAL+™ offers libraries the ability to select five
optional local service quality assessment items. Second, the survey includes a comments box soliciting open-ended
user views. Almost half of the people responding to the LibQUAL+™ survey provide valuable feedback through the
comments box. These open-ended comments are helpful for not only (a) understanding why users provide certain
ratings, but also (b) understanding what policy changes users suggest, because many users feel the obligation to be
constructive. Participating libraries are finding the real-time access to user comments one of the most useful devices
in challenging library administrators to think outside of the box and develop innovative ways for improving library
services.
LibQUAL+™ is one of 11 ways of listening to users, called a total market survey. As Berry (1995) explained,
When well designed and executed, total market surveys provide a range of information
unmatched by any other method... A critical facet of total market surveys (and the reason for
using the word 'total') is the measurement of competitors' service quality. This [also] requires
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 12 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

using non-customers in the sample to rate the service of their suppliers. (p. 37)
Although (a) measuring perceptions of both users and non-users, and (b) collecting perceptions data with regard to
methods,

and

emphasized that "Ongoing data collection... is a necessity. Transactional surveys, total market surveys,

peer

institutions

can

provide

important

insights

Berry

recommended

using

multiple

listening

and

employee research should always be included" (Berry, 1995, p. 54).

Score Scaling
"Perceived" scores on the 22 LibQUAL+™ core items, the three subscales, and the total score, are all scaled 1 to 9,
with 9 being the most favorable. Both the gap scores ("Adequacy" = "Perceived" - "Minimum"; "Superiority" =
"Perceived" - "Desired") are scaled such that higher scores are more favorable. Thus, an adequacy gap score of +1.2
on an item, subscale, or total score is better than an adequacy gap score of +1.0. A superiority gap score of -0.5 on
an item, subscale, or total score is better than a superiority gap score of -1.0.

Using LibQUAL+™ Data
In some cases LibQUAL+™ data may confirm prior expectations and library staff will readily formulate action
plans to remedy perceived deficiencies. But in many cases library decision-makers will seek additional information
to corroborate interpretations or to better understand the dynamics underlying user perceptions.
For example, once an interpretation is formulated, library staff might review recent submissions of users to
suggestion boxes to evaluate whether LibQUAL+™ data are consistent with interpretations, and the suggestion box
data perhaps also provide user suggestions for remedies. User focus groups also provide a powerful way to explore
problems and potential solutions. A university-wide retreat with a small-group facilitated discussion to solicit
suggestions for improvement is another follow-up mechanism that has been implemented in several LibQUAL+™
participating libraries.
Indeed, the open-ended comments gathered as part of LibQUAL+™ are themselves useful in fleshing out insights
into perceived library service quality. Respondents often use the comments box on the survey to make constructive
suggestions on specific ways to address their concerns. Qualitative analysis of these comments can be very fruitful .
In short, LibQUAL+™ is not 22 items. LibQUAL+™ is 22 items plus a comments box!
Cook (2002b) provided case study reports of how staff at various libraries have employed data from prior renditions
of LibQUAL+™. Heath, Kyrillidou, and Askew edited a special issue of the Journal of Library Administration
(Vol. 40, No. 3/4) reporting additional case studies on the use of LibQUAL+™ data to aid the improvement of
library service quality. This special issue has recently been published by Hayworth Press as a monograph. These
publications can be ordered by sending an email to libqual@arl.org.

2006 Data Screening
The 22 LibQUAL+™ core quantitative items measure perceptions of total service quality, as well as three
sub-dimensions of perceived library quality: (a) Service Affect (9 items, such as "willingness to help users"); (b)
Library as Place (5 items, such as "a getaway for study, learning, or research"); and (c) Information Control (8
items, such as "a library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own" and "print and/or electronic journal
collections I require for my work").

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 13 of 85

However, as happens in any survey, in 2006 some users provided incomplete data, or inconsistent data, or both. In
compiling the summary data reported here, several criteria were used to determine which respondents to omit from
these analyses.
1. Complete Data. The Web software that presents the 22 core items monitors whether a given user has

completed all items. On each of these items, in order to submit the survey successfully, users must provide a rating
of (a) minimally-acceptable service, (b) desired service, and (c) perceived service or rate the item "not applicable"
("NA"). If these conditions are not met, when the user attempts to leave the Web page presenting the 22 core items,
the software shows the user where missing data are located, and requests complete data. The user may of course
abandon the survey without completing all the items. Only records with complete data on the 22 items and where
respondents chose a "user group," if applicable, were retained in summary statistics.
2. Excessive "NA" Responses. Because some institutions provided access to a lottery drawing for an incentive

(e.g., a Palm PDA) for completing the survey, some users might have selected "NA" choices for all or most of the
items rather than reporting their actual perceptions. Or some users may have views on such a narrow range of
quality issues that their data are not very informative. In this survey it was decided that records containing more
than 11 "NA" responses should be eliminated from the summary statistics.
3. Excessive Inconsistent Responses. On LibQUAL+™, user perceptions can be interpreted by locating

"perceived" results within the "zone of tolerance" defined by data from the "minimum" and the "desired" ratings.
For example, a mean "perceived" rating on the 1-to-9 (9 is highest) scale of 7.5 might be very good if the mean
"desired" rating is 6.0. But a 7.5 perception score is less satisfactory if the mean "desired" rating is 8.6, or if the
mean "minimum" rating is 7.7.
One appealing feature of such a "gap measurement model" is that the rating format provides a check for
inconsistencies (i.e., score inversions) in the response data (Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2000). Logically, on a given
item the "minimum" rating should not be higher than the "desired" rating on the same item. For each user a count of
such inconsistencies, ranging from "0" to "22," was made. Records containing more than 9 logical inconsistencies
were eliminated from the summary statistics.

LibQUAL+™ Norms
An important way to interpret LibQUAL+™ data is by examining the zones of tolerance for items, the three
subscale scores, and the total scores. However, the collection of such a huge number of user perceptions has
afforded us with the unique opportunity to create norms tables that provide yet another perspective on results.
Norms tell us how scores "stack up" within a particular user group. For example, on the 1-to-9 (9 is highest) scale,
users might provide a mean "perceived" rating of 6.5 on an item, "the printed library materials I need for my work."
The same users might provide a mean rating on "minimum" for this item of 7.0, and a mean service-adequacy "gap
score" (i.e., "perceived" minus "minimum") of -0.5.
The zone-of-tolerance perspective suggests that this library is not doing well on this item, because "perceived" falls
below "minimally acceptable." This is important to know. But there is also a second way (i.e., normatively) to
interpret the data. Both perspectives can be valuable.
A total market survey administered to more than 100,000 users, as was LibQUAL+™ in 2004 and 2005, affords the
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 14 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

opportunity to ask normative questions such as, "How does a mean 'perceived' score of 6.5 stack up among all
individual users who completed the survey?", or "How does a mean service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 stack up
among the gap scores of all institutions participating in the survey?"
If 70 percent of individual users generated "perceived" ratings lower than 6.5, 6.5 might not be so bad. And if 90
percent of institutions had service-adequacy gap scores lower than -0.5 (e.g., -0.7, -1.1), a mean gap score of -0.5
might actually be quite good. Users simply may have quite high expectations in this area. They may also
communicate their dissatisfaction by rating both (a) "perceived" lower and (b) "minimum" higher.
This does not mean that a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 is necessarily a cause for celebration. But a
service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 on an item for which 90 percent of institutions have a lower gap score is a
different gap score than the same -0.5 for a different item in which 90 percent of institutions have a higher
service-adequacy gap score.
Only norms give us insight into this comparative perspective. And a local user-satisfaction survey (as against a total
market survey) can never provide this insight.
Common Misconception Regarding Norms. An unfortunate and incorrect misconception is that norms make

value statements. Norms do not make value statements! Norms make fact statements. If you are a forest ranger, and
you make $25,000 a year, a norms table might inform you of the fact that you make less money than 85 percent of
the adults in the United States.
But if you love the outdoors, you do not care very much about money, and you are very service -oriented, this fact
statement might not be relevant to you. Or, in the context of your values, you might interpret this fact as being quite
satisfactory.
LibQUAL+™ Norms Tables. Of course, the fact statements made by the LibQUAL+™ norms are only valuable if

you care about the dimensions being evaluated by the measure. More background on LibQUAL+™ norms is
provided by Cook and Thompson (2001) and Cook, Heath and B. Thompson (2002). LibQUAL+™ norms for
earlier years are available on the Web at the following URLs:



Response Rates
At the American Library Association mid-winter meeting in San Antonio in January, 2000, participants were
cautioned that response rates on the final LibQUAL+™ survey would probably range from 25-33 percent. Higher
response rates can be realized (a) with shorter surveys that (b) are directly action-oriented (Cook, Heath & R.L.
Thompson, 2000). For example, a very high response rate could be realized by a library director administering the
following one-item survey to users:
Instructions. Please tell us what time to close the library every day. In the future we will close at
whatever time receives the most votes.
Should we close the library at?
(A) 10 p.m.
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

(B) 11 p.m.

(C) midnight

(D) 2 p.m.
Language: American English

Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 15 of 85

Lower response rates will be expected for total market surveys measuring general perceptions of users across
institutions, and when an intentional effort is made to solicit perceptions of both users and non -users. Two
considerations should govern the evaluation of LibQUAL+™ response rates.
Minimum Response Rates. Response rates are computed by dividing the number of completed surveys at an

institution by the number of persons asked to complete the survey. However, we do not know the actual response
rates on LibQUAL+™, because we do not know the correct denominators for these calculations.
For example, given inadequacy in records at schools, we are not sure how many e-mail addresses for users are
accurate. And we do not know how many messages to invite participation were actually opened. In other words ,
what we know for LibQUAL+™ is the "lower-bound estimate" of response rates.
For example, if 200 out of 800 solicitations result in completed surveys, we know that the response rate is at least 25
percent. But because we are not sure whether 800 e-mail addresses were correct or that 800 e-mail messages were
opened, we are not sure that 800 is the correct denominator. The response rate involving only correct e-mail
addresses might be 35 or 45 percent. We don't know the exact response rate.
Representativeness Versus Response Rate. If 100 percent of the 800 people we randomly selected to complete

our survey did so, then we can be assured that the results are representative of all users. But if only 25 percent of the
800 users complete the survey, the representativeness of the results is not assured. Nor is unrepresentativeness
assured.
Representativeness is actually a matter of degree. And several institutions each with 25 percent response rates may
have data with different degrees of representativeness.
We can never be sure about how representative our data are as long as not everyone completes the survey. But we
can at least address this concern by comparing the demographic profiles of survey completers with the population
(Thompson, 2000). At which university below would one feel more confident that LibQUAL+™ results were
reasonably representative?
Alpha University

Completers (n=200 / 800)
Gender
Students 53% female
Faculty 45% female
Disciplines
Liberal Arts 40%
Science 15%
Other 45%

Population (N=16,000)
Gender
Students 51% female
Faculty 41% female
Disciplines
Liberal Arts 35%
Science 20%
Other 45%
Omega University

Completers (n=200 / 800)
Gender
Students 35% female
Faculty 65% female
Disciplines
Liberal Arts 40%
Science 20%
Other 40%
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Population (N=23,000)
Gender
Students 59% female
Faculty 43% female
Disciplines
Liberal Arts 15%
Science 35%
Other 50%
Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 16 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

The persuasiveness of such analyses is greater as the number of variables used in the comparisons is greater. The
LibQUAL+™ software has been expanded to automate these comparisons and to output side-by-side graphs and
tables comparing sample and population profiles for given institutions. Show these to people who question result
representativeness.
However, one caution is in order regarding percentages. When total n is small for an institution, or within a
particular subgroup, huge changes in percentages can result from very small shifts in numbers.

LibQUAL+™ Interactive Statistics
In addition to the institution and group notebooks and the norms, LibQUAL+™ has also provided an interactive
environment for data analysis where institutions can mine institutional data for peer comparisons in 2003 and 2004.
The LibQUAL+™ Interactive Statistics for these years includes graphing capabilities for all LibQUAL+™ scores
(total and dimension scores) for each individual institution or groups of institutions. Graphs may be generated in
either JPEG format for presentation purposes or flash format that includes more detailed information for online
browsing. Tables may also be produced in an interactive fashion for one or multiple selections of variables for all
individual institutions or groups of participating institutions. Additional development aims at delivering norms in an
interactive environment. To access the LibQUAL+™ Interactive Statistics online, go to:


In addition to the framework that is there for analyzing the 2003 and 2004 data, ARL is working on establishing a
data mining environment that will allow all institutions to analyze data from every year whether or not they have
conducted the survey that year. This interface will be available to participants on a subscription basis.

Survey Data
In addition to the notebooks, the interactive statistics, and the norms, LibQUAL+™ also makes available (a) raw
survey data in SPSS at the request of participating libraries, and (b) raw survey data in Excel for all participating
libraries. Additional training using the SPSS datafile is available as a follow-up workshop activity and through the
Service Quality Evaluation Academy (see below), which also offers training on analyzing qualitative data. The
survey comments are also downloadable in Excel format.

ARL Service Quality Evaluation Academy
LibQUAL+™ is an important tool in the New Measures toolbox that librarians can use to improve service quality.
But, even more fundamentally, the LibQUAL+™ initiative is more than a single tool. LibQUAL+™ is an effort to
create a culture of data-driven service quality assessment and service quality improvement within libraries.
Such a culture must be informed by more than one tool, and by more than only one of the 11 ways of listening to
users. To facilitate a culture of service quality assessment, and to facilitate more informed usage of LibQUAL+™
data, the Association of Research Libraries has created the annual ARL Service Quality Evaluation Academy. For
more information about the Academy, see the LibQUAL+™ events page at


The intensive, five-day Academy teaches both qualitative and quantitative skills that library staff can use to evaluate
and generate service-quality assessment information. The fourth cohort of Academy participants graduated in May,
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 17 of 85

2005. The Academy is one more resource for library staff who would like to develop enhanced service-quality
assessment skills.
For more information, about LibQUAL+™ or the Association of Research Libraries’ Statistics and Measurement
program, see:




References
Berry, L.L. (1995). On great service: A framework for action. New York: The Free Press.
Cook, C.C., Heath F., Thompson, B. LibQUAL+™ from the UK Perspective. 5th Northumbria International
Conference Proceedings, Durham, UK, July, 2003.
Cook, C.C. (2002a). A mixed-methods approach to the identification and measurement of academic library service
quality

constructs:

LibQUAL+™.

(Doctoral

dissertation,

Texas

A&M

University,

2001).

Dissertation

Abstracts International, 62, 2295A. (University Microfilms No. AAT3020024)
Cook, C. (Guest Ed.). (2002b). Library decision-makers speak to their uses of their LibQUAL+™ data: Some
LibQUAL+™ case studies. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3.
Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2001). Users' perceptions of library service quality: A "LibQUAL+™" qualitative study.
Library Trends, 49, 548-584.
Cook, C., Heath, F. & Thompson, B. (2002). Score norms for improving library service quality: A LibQUAL+™
study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 13-26.
Cook, C., Heath, F. & Thompson, B. (2003). "Zones of tolerance" in perceptions of library service quality: A
LibQUAL+™ study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3, 113-123.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based
surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.
Cook, C., & Thompson, B. (2001). Psychometric properties of scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+™ study of
perceptions of library service quality. Library Trends, 49, 585-604.
Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49, 662-686.
Heath, F., Kyrillidou, M. & Askew, C.A. (Guest Eds.). (2004). Libraries report on their LibQUAL+™ findings:
From Data to Action. Journal of Library Administration (40) 3/4 (2004).
Heath, F., Cook, C., Kyrillidou, M., & Thompson, B. (2002). ARL Index and other validity correlates of
LibQUAL+™ scores. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 27-42.
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 18 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Kyrillidou, Martha (2005). The globalization of library assessment and the role of LibQUAL+™. From library
science to information science: studies in honor of G. Kakouri

(Athens, Greece: Tipothito-Giorgos

Dardanos, 2005). [in Greek]
Kyrillidou,

Martha

(2005/2006).

Library

Assessment

as

a

Collaborative

Enterprise.

Resource

Sharing

and

Information Networks 18, 1/2, 73-87.
Kyrillidou, M., Olshen, T., Heath, F., Bonnelly, C., and Cote, J. P. Cross-cultural implementation of LibQUAL+™:
the French language experience. 5th Northumbria International Conference Proceedings, Durham, UK,
July, 2003.
Kyrillidou, M. and Young, M. (2005). ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
Nitecki, D.A. (1996). Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 22, 181-190.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml, V.A. Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal
of Retailing 67 (1991): 420-450.
Thompson, B. (2000, October). Representativeness versus response rate: It ain't the response rate!. Paper presented
at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Measuring Service Quality Symposium on the New
Culture of Assessment: Measuring Service Quality, Washington, DC.
Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2000). The LibQUAL+™ gap measurement model: The bad, the ugly, and
the good of gap measurement. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 1, 165-178.
Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2003). Structure of perceptions of service quality in libraries:

A

LibQUAL+™ study. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 456-464.
Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Thompson, R.L. (2002). Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+™ scores: Measuring
perceived library service quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 3-12.
Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Kyrillidou, M. (2005). Concurrent validity of LibQUAL+™ scores: What do
LibQUAL+™ scores measure? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31, 517-522.
Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Kyrillidou, M. (forthcoming). Using Localized Survey Items to Augment Standardized
Benchmarking Measures Across User Groups: A LibQUAL+™ Study. portal: Libraries and the Academy
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions
and expectations. New York: Free Press.

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

1.7

Page 19 of 85

Library Statistics for CUP
The statistical data below were provided by the participating institution in the online Representativeness* section.
Definitions for these items can be found in the ARL Statistics: .
Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When statistical data
is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.

1.8

Volumes held June 30, 2005:

2,043,675

Volumes added during year - Gross:

4,709

Total number of current serials received:

20,684

Total library expenditures (in USD):

$2,120,128

Personnel - professional staff, FTE:

10

Personnel - support staff, FTE:

15

Contact Information for CUP
The person below served as the institution's primary LibQUAL+™ liaison during this survey implementation.
Name:
Title:
Address:

Phone:
Email:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Mrs. Corene M. Glotfelty
Reference/Instruction Librarian
110 Carlson Library
840 Wood Street
Clarion Univ. of PA
Clarion, PA 16214
USA
814-393-1805
cglotfelty@clarion.edu

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Page 20 of 85

2

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Demographic Summary for CUP
2.1

Respondents by User Group
Respondent
n

Respondent
%

First year

200

24.81%

Second year

138

17.12%

Third year

133

16.50%

Fourth year

142

17.62%

46

5.71%

User Group
Undergraduate

Fifth year and above
Non-degree

0

0.00%

659

81.76%

Masters

77

9.55%

Doctoral

1

0.12%

Non-degree or Undecided

2

0.25%

80

9.93%

Sub Total:

Graduate

Sub Total:

Faculty
Adjunct Faculty

2

0.25%

Assistant Professor

18

2.23%

Associate Professor

10

1.24%

Lecturer

1

0.12%

Professor

12

1.49%

Other Academic Status

4

0.50%

47

5.83%

Administrator

0

0.00%

Manager, Head of Unit

0

0.00%

Public Services

0

0.00%

Systems

0

0.00%

Technical Services

0

0.00%

Other

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

1

0.12%

19

2.36%

20

2.48%

806

100.00%

Sub Total:

Library Staff

Sub Total:

Staff
Research Staff
Other staff positions
Sub Total:

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

2.2

Page 21 of 85

Population and Respondents by User Sub-Group
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by sub-group (e.g. First year, Masters, Professor),
based on user responses to the demographic questions at the end of the survey instrument and the demographic data
provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*.
The chart maps percentage of respondents for each user subgroup in red. Population percentages for each user subgroup
are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each user sub-group for the general population (N)
and for survey respondents (n).
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is
missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.

First year (Undergraduate)
Second year (Undergraduate)
Third year (Undergraduate)
Fourth year (Undergraduate)
Fifth year and above (Undergraduate)

User Sub-Group

Non-degree (Undergraduate)
Masters (Graduate)
Doctoral (Graduate)
Non-degree or Undecided (Graduate)
Adjunct Faculty (Faculty)
Assistant Professor (Faculty)
Associate Professor (Faculty)
Lecturer (Faculty)
Professor (Faculty)
Other Academic Status (Faculty)
0

5

10

15

20

25

Percentage
Respondent Profile by User Sub-Group
Population Profile by User Sub-Group

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

30

35

Page 22 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

First year (Undergraduate)

2,261

32.79%

200

25.45%

7.35%

Second year (Undergraduate)

1,323

19.19%

138

17.56%

1.63%

Third year (Undergraduate)

1,044

15.14%

133

16.92%

-1.78%

Fourth year (Undergraduate)

1,169

16.95%

142

18.07%

-1.11%

130

1.89%

46

5.85%

-3.97%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

664

9.63%

77

9.80%

-0.17%

Doctoral (Graduate)

0

0.00%

1

0.13%

-0.13%

Non-degree or Undecided (Graduate)

0

0.00%

2

0.25%

-0.25%

Adjunct Faculty (Faculty)

0

0.00%

2

0.25%

-0.25%

Assistant Professor (Faculty)

84

1.22%

18

2.29%

-1.07%

Associate Professor (Faculty)

62

0.90%

10

1.27%

-0.37%

Lecturer (Faculty)

62

0.90%

1

0.13%

0.77%

Professor (Faculty)

96

1.39%

12

1.53%

-0.13%

0

0.00%

4

0.51%

-0.51%

6,895

100.00%

786

100.00%

0.00%

User Sub-Group

Fifth year and above (Undergraduate)
Non-degree (Undergraduate)
Masters (Graduate)

Other Academic Status (Faculty)
Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

2.3

Page 23 of 85

Population and Respondents by Standard Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+™ standard discipline categories. The
chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped
in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey
respondents (n).
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is
missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.

Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science

Discipline

General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

35

40

Page 24 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

74

1.07%

6

0.76%

0.31%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Business

880

12.76%

117

14.89%

-2.12%

Communications / Journalism

397

5.76%

54

6.87%

-1.11%

2,545

36.92%

305

38.80%

-1.89%

Engineering / Computer Science

236

3.42%

23

2.93%

0.50%

General Studies

111

1.61%

12

1.53%

0.08%

Health Sciences

694

10.07%

44

5.60%

4.47%

Humanities

188

2.73%

53

6.74%

-4.02%

Law

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Military / Naval Science

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Other

0

0.00%

23

2.93%

-2.93%

Performing & Fine Arts

207

3.00%

19

2.42%

0.59%

Science / Math

429

6.22%

55

7.00%

-0.77%

Social Sciences / Psychology

416

6.03%

55

7.00%

-0.96%

Undecided

717

10.40%

20

2.54%

7.86%

6,894

100.00%

786

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture

Education

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

2.4

Page 25 of 85

Population and Respondents by Customized Discipline
The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the
participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for
each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general
population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is
missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Biological Sciences
Business Administration (All Majors)
Communication
Computer/Information Science
Criminal Justice
Education/Human Services
Engineering/Industrial Technology
English

Discipline

Environmental Sciences
History
Liberal Studies
Library Science
Mathematics
Modern Languages
Nursing and Allied Health
Other
Physical Sciences/Chemistry
Psychology
Social Sciences
Undecided
Visual/Performing Arts
0

5

10

15

20

25

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

30

35

Page 26 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

Biological Sciences

303

4.40%

38

4.83%

-0.44%

Business Administration (All Majors)

880

12.76%

117

14.89%

-2.12%

Communication

397

5.76%

54

6.87%

-1.11%

Computer/Information Science

164

2.38%

22

2.80%

-0.42%

42

0.61%

3

0.38%

0.23%

2,202

31.94%

235

29.90%

2.04%

72

1.04%

1

0.13%

0.92%

110

1.60%

36

4.58%

-2.98%

Environmental Sciences

74

1.07%

6

0.76%

0.31%

History

61

0.88%

11

1.40%

-0.51%

Liberal Studies

111

1.61%

12

1.53%

0.08%

Library Science

343

4.98%

70

8.91%

-3.93%

Mathematics

53

0.77%

10

1.27%

-0.50%

Modern Languages

17

0.25%

6

0.76%

-0.52%

694

10.07%

44

5.60%

4.47%

0

0.00%

23

2.93%

-2.93%

73

1.06%

7

0.89%

0.17%

Psychology

214

3.10%

38

4.83%

-1.73%

Social Sciences

160

2.32%

14

1.78%

0.54%

Undecided

717

10.40%

20

2.54%

7.86%

Visual/Performing Arts

207

3.00%

19

2.42%

0.59%

6,894

100.00%

786

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Criminal Justice
Education/Human Services
Engineering/Industrial Technology
English

Nursing and Allied Health
Other
Physical Sciences/Chemistry

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff, Staff)

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

2.5

Page 27 of 85

Respondent Profile by Age
This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the percentage of
the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

1

0.12%

18 - 22

546

67.74%

23 - 30

105

13.03%

31 - 45

99

12.28%

46 - 65

54

6.70%

Over 65

1

0.12%

806

100.00%

Age

Under 18

Total:

2.6

Population and Respondent Profiles by Sex
The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic
questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number and
percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population data is
missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

Male

2,638

38.26%

223

27.67%

Female

4,257

61.74%

583

72.33%

6,895

100.00%

806

100.00%

Sex

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

Page 28 of 85

3

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Survey Item Summary for CUP
3.1

Core Questions Summary
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to
identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service
quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service ,
Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting
"gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green,
and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this
notebook.)
AS-7

AS-6

Affect of Service

AS-5
AS-4

AS-8

AS-9

AS-3

IC-1

AS-2

IC-2

AS-1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
LP-5

IC-3

LP-4

IC-4

LP-3

IC-5
Information Control

Library as Place
LP-2

IC-6
IC-7

IC-8

LP-1

Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

ID

Question Text

Page 29 of 85

Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

5.75

7.46

6.55

0.80

-0.91

773

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

5.77

7.15

6.60

0.82

-0.55

773

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

6.96

8.06

7.38

0.42

-0.69

788

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

6.52

7.73

7.20

0.68

-0.52

768

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

6.74

7.88

7.24

0.50

-0.63

771

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

6.69

7.90

7.33

0.63

-0.57

777

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

6.67

7.87

7.27

0.60

-0.60

767

AS-8

Willingness to help users

6.73

7.88

7.36

0.63

-0.52

779

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

6.67

7.86

7.26

0.59

-0.61

707

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

6.41

7.97

6.96

0.55

-1.01

789

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

6.60

7.95

7.15

0.55

-0.80

794

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

6.58

7.83

6.88

0.30

-0.95

764

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

6.56

7.85

7.11

0.56

-0.74

788

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

6.94

8.18

7.50

0.56

-0.68

795

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

6.75

7.99

7.21

0.45

-0.79

790

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

6.77

7.98

7.32

0.55

-0.65

794

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

6.74

7.95

7.14

0.40

-0.82

733

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

6.53

7.97

7.16

0.63

-0.81

784

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

6.73

8.01

6.99

0.26

-1.02

779

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

6.72

7.97

7.89

1.17

-0.08

789

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

6.68

7.93

7.31

0.63

-0.62

775

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

6.48

7.74

7.52

1.04

-0.23

742

6.59

7.87

7.19

0.60

-0.68

806

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

Page 30 of 85

ID

Question Text

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

1.81

1.53

1.67

1.87

1.78

773

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

1.95

1.73

1.84

1.98

1.80

773

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

1.77

1.27

1.62

2.00

1.68

788

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

1.77

1.41

1.51

1.78

1.51

768

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

1.74

1.33

1.54

1.80

1.63

771

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

1.75

1.30

1.52

1.78

1.56

777

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

1.75

1.31

1.50

1.80

1.52

767

AS-8

Willingness to help users

1.76

1.35

1.54

1.76

1.44

779

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

1.75

1.34

1.50

1.74

1.51

707

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

1.87

1.44

1.81

2.08

1.89

789

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

1.80

1.40

1.65

2.00

1.80

794

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

1.83

1.45

1.78

2.08

1.94

764

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

1.72

1.32

1.52

1.85

1.67

788

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

1.71

1.21

1.50

1.86

1.52

795

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

1.72

1.29

1.54

1.88

1.60

790

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

1.68

1.30

1.44

1.73

1.44

794

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

1.81

1.33

1.68

2.07

1.79

733

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

1.86

1.37

1.74

2.12

1.87

784

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

1.89

1.38

1.89

2.35

2.05

779

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

1.87

1.40

1.34

1.82

1.37

789

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

1.87

1.41

1.57

2.04

1.67

775

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

1.90

1.53

1.60

2.03

1.75

742

1.40

0.96

1.13

1.35

1.07

806

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

3.2

Page 31 of 85

Core Question Dimensions Summary
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars
represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of
minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.

9

8

Mean

7

6

5

4
Affect of
Service

Information
Control

Library as
Place

Overall

Dimension

Range of Minimum to Desired
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

Page 32 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+™
survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the
headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be
found in Appendix A.
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

6.49

7.75

7.12

0.63

-0.63

806

Information Control

6.67

7.96

7.16

0.49

-0.80

806

Library as Place

6.62

7.93

7.37

0.75

-0.55

794

6.59

7.87

7.19

0.60

-0.68

806

Dimension

Overall:

The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+™ survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

1.48

1.07

1.27

1.42

1.19

806

Information Control

1.41

1.00

1.19

1.45

1.22

806

Library as Place

1.56

1.08

1.28

1.64

1.27

794

1.40

0.96

1.13

1.35

1.07

806

Dimension

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

3.3

Page 33 of 85

Local Questions Summary
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is
the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the
Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

6.05

7.51

6.49

0.44

-1.02

741

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

6.09

7.36

6.92

0.83

-0.44

743

Library orientations / instruction sessions

5.76

6.87

7.11

1.35

0.24

665

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

6.49

7.62

7.18

0.69

-0.44

585

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

6.58

7.73

7.31

0.73

-0.41

736

Question Text

This table displays standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium ,
where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see
the Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

1.86

1.51

1.80

2.08

1.93

741

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

2.01

1.74

1.71

2.05

1.94

743

Library orientations / instruction sessions

2.27

2.09

1.73

2.30

2.17

665

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

1.92

1.68

1.68

2.07

1.82

585

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

1.80

1.46

1.48

1.82

1.61

736

Question Text

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

Page 34 of 85

3.4

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

General Satisfaction Questions Summary
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction
with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions
on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.

Satisfaction Question

Mean

SD

n

In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

7.59

1.57

806

In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.

7.20

1.65

806

How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

7.36

1.32

806

3.5

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the
information literacy outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general
satisfaction on a scale from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions

Mean

SD

n

The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

6.35

1.76

806

The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

6.85

1.76

806

The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

7.09

1.71

806

The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information.

6.28

1.85

806

The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.

6.76

1.81

805

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

3.6

Page 35 of 85

Library Use Summary
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of
non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents
report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the
number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

100
90
80

Percentage

70
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?

60

How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?

50

How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?

40
30
20
10
0
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

Frequency

Daily

How often do you use resources on library
premises?
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

n/%

181

344

190

60

31

806

22.46%

42.68%

23.57%

7.44%

3.85%

100.00%

97

321

231

92

65

806

12.03%

39.83%

28.66%

11.41%

8.06%

100.00%

531

202

44

15

14

806

65.88%

25.06%

5.46%

1.86%

1.74%

100.00%

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

User Group: All (Excluding Library Staff)

Page 36 of 85

4

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Undergraduate Summary
4.1

Demographic Summary for Undergraduate
4.1.1

Population and Respondent Profiles for Undergraduate by Standard Discipline

The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+™ standard discipline categories. The
chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped
in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey
respondents (n).
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science

Discipline

General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
0

5

10

15

20

25

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

30

35

40

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 37 of 85

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

62

1.04%

6

0.91%

0.13%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Business

804

13.51%

107

16.24%

-2.73%

Communications / Journalism

367

6.16%

50

7.59%

-1.42%

1,969

33.08%

235

35.66%

-2.58%

Engineering / Computer Science

227

3.81%

20

3.03%

0.78%

General Studies

111

1.86%

11

1.67%

0.20%

Health Sciences

627

10.53%

39

5.92%

4.61%

Humanities

136

2.28%

41

6.22%

-3.94%

Law

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Military / Naval Science

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Other

0

0.00%

16

2.43%

-2.43%

Performing & Fine Arts

174

2.92%

17

2.58%

0.34%

Science / Math

367

6.16%

49

7.44%

-1.27%

Social Sciences / Psychology

392

6.58%

49

7.44%

-0.85%

Undecided

717

12.04%

19

2.88%

9.16%

5,953

100.00%

659

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture

Education

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

Page 38 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

4.1.2

Population and Respondent Profiles for Undergraduate by Customized Discipline

The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the
participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for
each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general
population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
Biological Sciences
Business Administration (All Majors)
Communication
Computer/Information Science
Criminal Justice
Education/Human Services
Engineering/Industrial Technology
English

Discipline

Environmental Sciences
History
Liberal Studies
Library Science
Mathematics
Modern Languages
Nursing and Allied Health
Other
Physical Sciences/Chemistry
Psychology
Social Sciences
Undecided
Visual/Performing Arts
0

5

10

15

20

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

25

30

35

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 39 of 85

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

Biological Sciences

275

4.62%

35

5.31%

-0.69%

Business Administration (All Majors)

804

13.51%

107

16.24%

-2.73%

Communication

367

6.16%

50

7.59%

-1.42%

Computer/Information Science

155

2.60%

20

3.03%

-0.43%

42

0.71%

3

0.46%

0.25%

1,916

32.19%

212

32.17%

0.02%

Engineering/Industrial Technology

72

1.21%

0

0.00%

1.21%

English

72

1.21%

25

3.79%

-2.58%

Environmental Sciences

62

1.04%

6

0.91%

0.13%

History

53

0.89%

11

1.67%

-0.78%

Liberal Studies

111

1.86%

11

1.67%

0.20%

Library Science

53

0.89%

23

3.49%

-2.60%

Mathematics

33

0.55%

10

1.52%

-0.96%

Modern Languages

11

0.18%

5

0.76%

-0.57%

627

10.53%

39

5.92%

4.61%

0

0.00%

16

2.43%

-2.43%

59

0.99%

4

0.61%

0.38%

Psychology

204

3.43%

34

5.16%

-1.73%

Social Sciences

146

2.45%

12

1.82%

0.63%

Undecided

717

12.04%

19

2.88%

9.16%

Visual/Performing Arts

174

2.92%

17

2.58%

0.34%

5,953

100.00%

659

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Criminal Justice
Education/Human Services

Nursing and Allied Health
Other
Physical Sciences/Chemistry

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

Page 40 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

4.1.3

Respondent Profile for Undergraduate by Age

This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the
percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Respondents
n

Respondents
%

1

0.15%

18 - 22

530

80.42%

23 - 30

68

10.32%

31 - 45

50

7.59%

46 - 65

10

1.52%

Over 65

0

0.00%

659

100.00%

Age

Under 18

Total:

4.1.4

Population and Respondent Profiles for Undergraduate by Sex

The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic
questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number
and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population
data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

Male

2,311

38.99%

185

28.07%

Female

3,616

61.01%

474

71.93%

5,927

100.00%

659

100.00%

Sex

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

4.2

Page 41 of 85

Core Questions Summary for Undergraduate
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to
identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service
quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service ,
Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting
"gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green,
and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this
notebook.)
AS-7

AS-6

Affect of Service

AS-5
AS-4

AS-8

AS-9

AS-3

IC-1

AS-2

IC-2

AS-1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
LP-5

IC-3

LP-4

IC-4

LP-3

IC-5
Information Control

Library as Place
LP-2

IC-6
IC-7

IC-8

LP-1

Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

Page 42 of 85

ID

Question Text

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

5.65

7.36

6.52

0.87

-0.84

635

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

5.64

7.01

6.48

0.84

-0.52

642

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

6.86

7.99

7.37

0.51

-0.61

646

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

6.41

7.64

7.17

0.76

-0.47

630

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

6.61

7.77

7.24

0.64

-0.53

636

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

6.60

7.80

7.32

0.73

-0.47

643

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

6.58

7.80

7.31

0.73

-0.49

633

AS-8

Willingness to help users

6.60

7.78

7.36

0.76

-0.42

645

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

6.58

7.79

7.29

0.71

-0.50

588

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

6.26

7.85

6.95

0.69

-0.91

643

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

6.46

7.83

7.24

0.78

-0.60

648

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

6.54

7.78

6.99

0.44

-0.80

630

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

6.43

7.71

7.16

0.73

-0.55

642

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

6.88

8.13

7.51

0.63

-0.62

656

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

6.63

7.89

7.26

0.62

-0.64

646

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

6.66

7.89

7.35

0.69

-0.54

648

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

6.61

7.83

7.25

0.64

-0.59

594

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

6.50

7.98

7.12

0.61

-0.86

654

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

6.68

8.03

6.95

0.27

-1.08

652

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

6.71

7.98

7.83

1.12

-0.15

656

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

6.64

7.90

7.33

0.69

-0.57

646

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

6.49

7.78

7.50

1.00

-0.28

634

6.50

7.80

7.20

0.69

-0.60

659

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

ID

Question Text

Page 43 of 85

Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

1.81

1.56

1.65

1.81

1.75

635

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

1.98

1.76

1.86

1.98

1.82

642

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

1.79

1.31

1.61

1.99

1.69

646

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

1.81

1.43

1.52

1.81

1.52

630

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

1.78

1.38

1.54

1.75

1.62

636

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

1.79

1.35

1.50

1.73

1.53

643

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

1.76

1.36

1.43

1.69

1.43

633

AS-8

Willingness to help users

1.81

1.39

1.53

1.72

1.38

645

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

1.78

1.37

1.49

1.72

1.48

588

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

1.89

1.51

1.79

1.98

1.82

643

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

1.84

1.45

1.58

1.87

1.69

648

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

1.84

1.43

1.69

2.02

1.84

630

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

1.76

1.36

1.46

1.77

1.56

642

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

1.77

1.23

1.52

1.86

1.53

656

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

1.76

1.34

1.51

1.82

1.55

646

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

1.71

1.32

1.43

1.72

1.43

648

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

1.85

1.36

1.59

1.92

1.63

594

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

1.87

1.39

1.73

2.10

1.85

654

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

1.89

1.35

1.87

2.32

2.03

652

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

1.88

1.38

1.35

1.80

1.34

656

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

1.88

1.40

1.52

1.97

1.60

646

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

1.90

1.50

1.62

2.06

1.75

634

1.43

0.99

1.12

1.32

1.05

659

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

Page 44 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

4.3

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Undergraduate
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars
represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of
minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.

9

8

Mean

7

6

5

4
Affect of
Service

Information
Control

Library as
Place

Overall

Dimension

Range of Minimum to Desired
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 45 of 85

The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+™
survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the
headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be
found in Appendix A.
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

6.38

7.65

7.10

0.72

-0.55

659

Information Control

6.56

7.86

7.21

0.65

-0.66

659

Library as Place

6.60

7.93

7.35

0.74

-0.59

658

6.50

7.80

7.20

0.69

-0.60

659

Dimension

Overall:

The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+™ survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

1.51

1.10

1.26

1.37

1.16

659

Information Control

1.44

1.02

1.14

1.36

1.13

659

Library as Place

1.57

1.08

1.28

1.63

1.25

658

1.43

0.99

1.12

1.32

1.05

659

Dimension

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

Page 46 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

4.4

Local Questions Summary for Undergraduate
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is
the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the
Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

5.95

7.45

6.56

0.62

-0.89

614

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

6.03

7.32

6.98

0.95

-0.34

619

Library orientations / instruction sessions

5.72

6.86

7.16

1.44

0.30

569

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

6.30

7.46

7.20

0.90

-0.25

470

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

6.50

7.67

7.37

0.87

-0.30

610

Question Text

This table displays standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium ,
where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see
the Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

1.91

1.50

1.80

2.03

1.87

614

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

1.98

1.69

1.66

1.97

1.85

619

Library orientations / instruction sessions

2.24

2.08

1.69

2.21

2.11

569

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

1.96

1.74

1.61

1.88

1.65

470

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

1.83

1.47

1.46

1.79

1.56

610

Question Text

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

4.5

Page 47 of 85

General Satisfaction Questions Summary for Undergraduate
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction
with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions
on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.

Satisfaction Question

Mean

SD

n

In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

7.64

1.52

659

In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.

7.33

1.51

659

How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

7.41

1.28

659

4.6

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary for Undergraduate
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the
information literacy outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general
satisfaction on a scale from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions

Mean

SD

n

The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

6.41

1.66

659

The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

6.90

1.67

659

The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

7.19

1.61

659

The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information.

6.39

1.80

659

The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.

6.90

1.72

659

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

Page 48 of 85

4.7

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Library Use Summary for Undergraduate
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of
non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents
report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the
number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

100
90
80

Percentage

70
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?

60

How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?

50

How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?

40
30
20
10
0
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

Frequency

Daily

How often do you use resources on library
premises?
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

n/%

158

309

150

30

12

659

23.98%

46.89%

22.76%

4.55%

1.82%

100.00%

63

256

206

78

56

659

9.56%

38.85%

31.26%

11.84%

8.50%

100.00%

429

171

33

15

11

659

65.10%

25.95%

5.01%

2.28%

1.67%

100.00%

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Undergraduate

User Group: Undergraduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

5

Page 49 of 85

Graduate Summary
5.1

Demographic Summary for Graduate
5.1.1

Population and Respondent Profiles for Graduate by Standard Discipline

The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+™ standard discipline categories. The
chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped
in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey
respondents (n).
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science

Discipline

General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

60

70

80

Page 50 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

Agriculture / Environmental Studies

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Architecture

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Business

41

6.44%

9

11.25%

-4.81%

Communications / Journalism

19

2.98%

2

2.50%

0.48%

499

78.34%

56

70.00%

8.34%

Engineering / Computer Science

0

0.00%

1

1.25%

-1.25%

General Studies

0

0.00%

1

1.25%

-1.25%

Health Sciences

53

8.32%

3

3.75%

4.57%

Humanities

13

2.04%

2

2.50%

-0.46%

Law

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Military / Naval Science

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Other

0

0.00%

4

5.00%

-5.00%

Performing & Fine Arts

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

12

1.88%

2

2.50%

-0.62%

Social Sciences / Psychology

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Undecided

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

637

100.00%

80

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Education

Science / Math

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

5.1.2

Page 51 of 85

Population and Respondent Profiles for Graduate by Customized Discipline

The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the
participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for
each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general
population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
Biological Sciences
Business Administration (All Majors)
Communication
Computer/Information Science
Criminal Justice
Education/Human Services
Engineering/Industrial Technology
English

Discipline

Environmental Sciences
History
Liberal Studies
Library Science
Mathematics
Modern Languages
Nursing and Allied Health
Other
Physical Sciences/Chemistry
Psychology
Social Sciences
Undecided
Visual/Performing Arts
0

10

20

30

40

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

50

60

Page 52 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

Biological Sciences

12

1.88%

2

2.50%

-0.62%

Business Administration (All Majors)

41

6.44%

9

11.25%

-4.81%

Communication

19

2.98%

2

2.50%

0.48%

Computer/Information Science

0

0.00%

1

1.25%

-1.25%

Criminal Justice

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

227

35.64%

12

15.00%

20.64%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

13

2.04%

2

2.50%

-0.46%

Environmental Sciences

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

History

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Liberal Studies

0

0.00%

1

1.25%

-1.25%

Library Science

272

42.70%

44

55.00%

-12.30%

Mathematics

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Modern Languages

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

53

8.32%

3

3.75%

4.57%

Other

0

0.00%

4

5.00%

-5.00%

Physical Sciences/Chemistry

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Psychology

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Social Sciences

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Undecided

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Visual/Performing Arts

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

637

100.00%

80

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Education/Human Services
Engineering/Industrial Technology
English

Nursing and Allied Health

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

5.1.3

Page 53 of 85

Respondent Profile for Graduate by Age

This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the
percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Respondents
n

Respondents
%

0

0.00%

18 - 22

16

20.00%

23 - 30

35

43.75%

31 - 45

21

26.25%

46 - 65

8

10.00%

Over 65

0

0.00%

80

100.00%

Age

Under 18

Total:

5.1.4

Population and Respondent Profiles for Graduate by Sex

The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic
questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number
and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population
data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

Male

163

24.55%

14

17.50%

Female

501

75.45%

66

82.50%

664

100.00%

80

100.00%

Sex

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

Page 54 of 85

5.2

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Core Questions Summary for Graduate
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to
identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service
quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service ,
Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting
"gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green,
and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this
notebook.)
AS-7

AS-6

Affect of Service

AS-5
AS-4

AS-8

AS-9

AS-3

IC-1

AS-2

IC-2

AS-1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
LP-5

IC-3

LP-4

IC-4

LP-3

IC-5
Information Control

Library as Place
LP-2

IC-6
IC-7

IC-8

LP-1

Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

ID

Question Text

Page 55 of 85

Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

6.19

7.91

6.58

0.39

-1.32

77

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

6.33

7.92

7.33

1.00

-0.59

73

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

7.36

8.44

7.56

0.20

-0.88

75

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

7.19

8.23

7.36

0.17

-0.87

75

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

7.24

8.36

7.35

0.11

-1.01

72

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

7.25

8.50

7.29

0.04

-1.21

72

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

7.06

8.22

7.18

0.13

-1.04

72

AS-8

Willingness to help users

7.39

8.43

7.43

0.04

-1.00

72

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

6.97

8.16

7.19

0.23

-0.97

62

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

7.13

8.62

7.10

-0.03

-1.52

79

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

7.39

8.66

7.00

-0.39

-1.66

80

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

6.90

8.16

7.01

0.11

-1.15

73

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

7.24

8.55

7.18

-0.06

-1.38

80

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

7.32

8.53

7.54

0.22

-0.99

74

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

7.38

8.50

7.23

-0.15

-1.28

80

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

7.39

8.38

7.39

0.00

-0.99

80

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

7.49

8.63

7.29

-0.20

-1.34

79

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

6.54

8.09

7.24

0.70

-0.85

67

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

7.27

8.26

7.11

-0.17

-1.15

66

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

6.85

7.94

8.21

1.36

0.27

67

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

7.12

8.30

7.48

0.36

-0.83

69

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

6.41

7.75

7.66

1.25

-0.08

59

7.09

8.33

7.33

0.24

-1.00

80

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

Page 56 of 85

ID

Question Text

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

1.80

1.28

1.67

2.01

1.72

77

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

1.83

1.33

1.48

1.80

1.28

73

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

1.67

0.96

1.46

1.92

1.36

75

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

1.48

1.11

1.39

1.66

1.43

75

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

1.53

0.92

1.45

1.90

1.47

72

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

1.50

0.71

1.66

1.92

1.56

72

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

1.55

1.08

1.60

1.97

1.56

72

AS-8

Willingness to help users

1.38

0.98

1.69

1.76

1.56

72

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

1.68

1.23

1.39

1.57

1.37

62

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

1.64

0.82

1.98

2.47

2.04

79

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

1.40

0.71

1.85

2.03

1.80

80

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

1.69

1.43

1.74

2.23

1.75

73

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

1.41

0.88

1.62

1.91

1.66

80

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

1.36

1.02

1.24

1.72

1.46

74

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

1.30

0.89

1.62

1.95

1.59

80

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

1.43

1.22

1.47

1.53

1.31

80

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

1.49

0.80

1.56

2.25

1.73

79

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

1.81

1.15

1.67

2.19

1.78

67

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

1.42

1.19

2.03

2.28

2.18

66

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

1.74

1.60

1.12

1.68

1.51

67

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

1.51

1.32

1.67

1.84

1.60

69

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

1.96

1.69

1.54

2.04

1.80

59

1.12

0.68

1.05

1.30

0.95

80

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

5.3

Page 57 of 85

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Graduate
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars
represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of
minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.

9

8

Mean

7

6

5

4
Affect of
Service

Information
Control

Library as
Place

Overall

Dimension

Range of Minimum to Desired
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

Page 58 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+™
survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the
headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be
found in Appendix A.
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

6.94

8.22

7.28

0.34

-0.94

80

Information Control

7.29

8.52

7.23

-0.07

-1.29

80

Library as Place

6.84

8.08

7.53

0.70

-0.55

69

7.09

8.33

7.33

0.24

-1.00

80

Dimension

Overall:

The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+™ survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

1.27

0.79

1.21

1.45

1.15

80

Information Control

1.11

0.77

1.23

1.51

1.18

80

Library as Place

1.33

0.91

1.21

1.46

1.11

69

1.12

0.68

1.05

1.30

0.95

80

Dimension

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

5.4

Page 59 of 85

Local Questions Summary for Graduate
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is
the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the
Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

6.67

7.88

6.25

-0.42

-1.63

72

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

6.38

7.57

6.62

0.25

-0.94

69

Library orientations / instruction sessions

5.69

6.71

6.96

1.27

0.25

52

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

7.07

8.27

6.97

-0.10

-1.31

59

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

7.15

8.18

7.35

0.20

-0.83

71

Question Text

This table displays standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium ,
where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see
the Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

1.51

1.67

1.71

1.90

2.01

72

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

2.25

2.10

2.01

2.43

2.36

69

Library orientations / instruction sessions

2.56

2.25

1.87

2.46

2.39

52

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

1.64

1.34

1.91

2.63

2.30

59

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

1.43

1.20

1.43

1.83

1.76

71

Question Text

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

Page 60 of 85

5.5

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

General Satisfaction Questions Summary for Graduate
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction
with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions
on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.

Satisfaction Question

Mean

SD

n

In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

7.39

1.75

80

In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.

7.11

1.73

80

How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

7.38

1.25

80

5.6

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary for Graduate
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the
information literacy outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general
satisfaction on a scale from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions

Mean

SD

n

The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

6.64

1.62

80

The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

7.56

1.29

80

The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

7.48

1.41

80

The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information.

5.99

1.82

80

The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.

6.53

1.66

80

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

5.7

Page 61 of 85

Library Use Summary for Graduate
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of
non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents
report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the
number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

100
90
80

Percentage

70
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?

60

How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?

50

How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?

40
30
20
10
0
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

Frequency

Daily

How often do you use resources on library
premises?
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

n/%

21

21

13

11

14

80

26.25%

26.25%

16.25%

13.75%

17.50%

100.00%

26

39

11

3

1

80

32.50%

48.75%

13.75%

3.75%

1.25%

100.00%

59

15

5

0

1

80

73.75%

18.75%

6.25%

0.00%

1.25%

100.00%

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Graduate

User Group: Graduate

Page 62 of 85

6

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Faculty Summary
6.1

Demographic Summary for Faculty
6.1.1

Population and Respondent Profiles for Faculty by Standard Discipline

The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the LibQUAL+™ standard discipline categories. The
chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for each discipline are mapped
in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general population (N) and for survey
respondents (n).
Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture
Business
Communications / Journalism
Education
Engineering / Computer Science

Discipline

General Studies
Health Sciences
Humanities
Law
Military / Naval Science
Other
Performing & Fine Arts
Science / Math
Social Sciences / Psychology
Undecided
0

4

8

12

16

20

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

24

28

32

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 63 of 85

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

12

3.95%

0

0.00%

3.95%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Business

35

11.51%

1

2.13%

9.39%

Communications / Journalism

11

3.62%

2

4.26%

-0.64%

Education

77

25.33%

14

29.79%

-4.46%

Engineering / Computer Science

9

2.96%

2

4.26%

-1.29%

General Studies

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Health Sciences

14

4.61%

2

4.26%

0.35%

Humanities

39

12.83%

10

21.28%

-8.45%

Law

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Military / Naval Science

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Other

0

0.00%

3

6.38%

-6.38%

Performing & Fine Arts

33

10.86%

2

4.26%

6.60%

Science / Math

50

16.45%

4

8.51%

7.94%

Social Sciences / Psychology

24

7.89%

6

12.77%

-4.87%

0

0.00%

1

2.13%

-2.13%

304

100.00%

47

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Agriculture / Environmental Studies
Architecture

Undecided
Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

Page 64 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

6.1.2

Population and Respondent Profiles for Faculty by Customized Discipline

The chart and table below show a breakdown of survey respondents by discipline, based on user responses to the
demographic questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section.
This section shows survey respondents broken down based on the customized discipline categories supplied by the
participating library. The chart maps percentage of respondents for each discipline in red. Population percentages for
each discipline are mapped in blue. The table shows the number and percentage for each discipline, for the general
population (N) and for survey respondents (n).
Biological Sciences
Business Administration (All Majors)
Communication
Computer/Information Science
Criminal Justice
Education/Human Services
Engineering/Industrial Technology
English

Discipline

Environmental Sciences
History
Liberal Studies
Library Science
Mathematics
Modern Languages
Nursing and Allied Health
Other
Physical Sciences/Chemistry
Psychology
Social Sciences
Undecided
Visual/Performing Arts
0

4

8

12

16

Percentage
Respondent Profile by Discipline
Population Profile by Discipline

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

20

24

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 65 of 85

Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

%N - %n

Biological Sciences

16

5.26%

1

2.13%

3.14%

Business Administration (All Majors)

35

11.51%

1

2.13%

9.39%

Communication

11

3.62%

2

4.26%

-0.64%

Computer/Information Science

9

2.96%

1

2.13%

0.83%

Criminal Justice

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

59

19.41%

11

23.40%

-4.00%

0

0.00%

1

2.13%

-2.13%

English

25

8.22%

9

19.15%

-10.93%

Environmental Sciences

12

3.95%

0

0.00%

3.95%

History

8

2.63%

0

0.00%

2.63%

Liberal Studies

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0.00%

Library Science

18

5.92%

3

6.38%

-0.46%

Mathematics

20

6.58%

0

0.00%

6.58%

6

1.97%

1

2.13%

-0.15%

14

4.61%

2

4.26%

0.35%

0

0.00%

3

6.38%

-6.38%

Physical Sciences/Chemistry

14

4.61%

3

6.38%

-1.78%

Psychology

10

3.29%

4

8.51%

-5.22%

Social Sciences

14

4.61%

2

4.26%

0.35%

0

0.00%

1

2.13%

-2.13%

33

10.86%

2

4.26%

6.60%

304

100.00%

47

100.00%

0.00%

Discipline

Education/Human Services
Engineering/Industrial Technology

Modern Languages
Nursing and Allied Health
Other

Undecided
Visual/Performing Arts
Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

Page 66 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

6.1.3

Respondent Profile for Faculty by Age

This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the
percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Respondents
n

Respondents
%

Under 18

0

0.00%

18 - 22

0

0.00%

23 - 30

2

4.26%

31 - 45

19

40.43%

46 - 65

25

53.19%

Over 65

1

2.13%

47

100.00%

Age

Total:

6.1.4

Population and Respondent Profiles for Faculty by Sex

The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic
questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number
and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population
data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.
Population
N

Population
%

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

Male

164

53.95%

15

31.91%

Female

140

46.05%

32

68.09%

304

100.00%

47

100.00%

Sex

Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

6.2

Page 67 of 85

Core Questions Summary for Faculty
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to
identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service
quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service ,
Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting
"gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green,
and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this
notebook.)
AS-7

AS-6

Affect of Service

AS-5
AS-4

AS-8

AS-9

AS-3

IC-1

AS-2

IC-2

AS-1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
LP-5

IC-3

LP-4

IC-4

LP-3

IC-5
Information Control

Library as Place
LP-2

IC-6
IC-7

IC-8

LP-1

Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

Page 68 of 85

ID

Question Text

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

5.82

7.84

6.55

0.73

-1.30

44

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

6.45

7.78

6.73

0.28

-1.05

40

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

7.38

8.36

7.02

-0.36

-1.34

47

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

6.77

8.02

7.30

0.53

-0.72

43

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

7.43

8.36

7.00

-0.43

-1.36

44

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

6.81

8.26

7.24

0.43

-1.02

42

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

7.00

8.26

6.70

-0.30

-1.56

43

AS-8

Willingness to help users

7.14

8.36

7.24

0.10

-1.12

42

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

7.17

8.27

6.95

-0.22

-1.32

41

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

6.87

8.40

6.85

-0.02

-1.55

47

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

6.96

8.21

6.32

-0.64

-1.89

47

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

6.46

8.02

5.50

-0.96

-2.52

46

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

6.74

8.43

6.40

-0.34

-2.02

47

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

6.84

8.20

7.24

0.40

-0.96

45

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

7.04

8.41

6.54

-0.50

-1.87

46

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

6.98

8.26

6.83

-0.15

-1.43

46

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

7.13

8.41

5.63

-1.50

-2.78

46

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

6.50

7.68

7.23

0.73

-0.45

44

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

6.21

7.28

7.07

0.86

-0.21

43

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

6.26

7.77

8.00

1.74

0.23

47

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

6.30

7.64

6.52

0.23

-1.11

44

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

6.14

7.32

7.65

1.51

0.32

37

6.74

8.08

6.82

0.09

-1.25

47

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

ID

Question Text

Page 69 of 85

Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

1.67

1.38

1.91

2.41

2.21

44

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

1.55

1.53

1.89

2.30

2.14

40

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

1.61

0.90

1.97

2.22

1.98

47

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

1.46

1.50

1.54

1.56

1.56

43

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

1.28

0.89

1.77

2.05

1.79

44

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

1.49

1.04

1.59

2.12

1.52

42

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

1.85

1.03

2.04

2.56

2.09

43

AS-8

Willingness to help users

1.46

0.98

1.48

1.88

1.47

42

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

1.41

1.12

1.82

1.94

1.75

41

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

1.62

0.95

1.84

2.55

2.09

47

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

1.60

1.27

1.70

2.54

2.00

47

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

1.67

1.37

2.16

2.43

2.63

46

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

1.52

0.88

1.93

2.29

2.09

47

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

1.52

1.16

1.45

1.94

1.43

45

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

1.58

0.98

1.52

2.00

1.60

46

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

1.48

1.02

1.35

1.71

1.31

46

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

1.64

1.18

2.25

2.49

2.35

46

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

1.95

1.47

2.06

2.61

2.35

44

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

2.45

1.94

2.12

2.92

2.27

43

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

1.97

1.51

1.49

2.14

1.67

47

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

2.30

1.67

1.98

3.14

2.64

44

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

1.87

1.80

1.49

1.82

1.63

37

1.25

0.77

1.27

1.67

1.22

47

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

Page 70 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

6.3

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Faculty
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars
represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of
minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.

9

8

Mean

7

6

5

4
Affect of
Service

Information
Control

Library as
Place

Overall

Dimension

Range of Minimum to Desired
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 71 of 85

The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+™
survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the
headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be
found in Appendix A.
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

6.88

8.18

7.00

0.13

-1.17

47

Information Control

6.88

8.29

6.40

-0.49

-1.89

47

Library as Place

6.24

7.51

7.29

1.05

-0.22

47

6.74

8.08

6.82

0.09

-1.25

47

Dimension

Overall:

The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+™ survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

1.33

0.85

1.47

1.83

1.42

47

Information Control

1.28

0.79

1.38

1.76

1.42

47

Library as Place

1.74

1.31

1.51

2.16

1.68

47

1.25

0.77

1.27

1.67

1.22

47

Dimension

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

Page 72 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

6.4

Local Questions Summary for Faculty
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is
the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the
Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

6.24

7.68

6.00

-0.24

-1.68

41

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

6.02

7.49

6.49

0.46

-1.00

41

Library orientations / instruction sessions

6.14

7.19

6.50

0.36

-0.69

36

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

7.33

8.37

7.07

-0.26

-1.30

43

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

6.72

7.85

6.56

-0.15

-1.28

39

Question Text

This table displays standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium ,
where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see
the Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

1.65

1.35

1.80

2.57

2.15

41

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

1.98

1.87

1.70

2.42

2.32

41

Library orientations / instruction sessions

2.24

2.07

2.17

3.11

2.67

36

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

1.49

1.13

2.05

2.67

2.26

43

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

1.69

1.66

1.59

1.84

1.73

39

Question Text

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

6.5

Page 73 of 85

General Satisfaction Questions Summary for Faculty
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction
with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions
on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.

Satisfaction Question

Mean

SD

n

In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

7.21

1.85

47

In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.

5.66

2.34

47

How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

6.49

1.63

47

6.6

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary for Faculty
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the
information literacy outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general
satisfaction on a scale from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions

Mean

SD

n

The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

5.13

2.56

47

The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

5.34

2.58

47

The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

5.53

2.36

47

The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information.

5.47

2.41

47

The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.

5.26

2.55

46

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

Page 74 of 85

6.7

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Library Use Summary for Faculty
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of
non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents
report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the
number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

100
90
80

Percentage

70
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?

60

How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?

50

How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?

40
30
20
10
0
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

Frequency

Daily

How often do you use resources on library
premises?
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

n/%

2

14

19

10

2

47

4.26%

29.79%

40.43%

21.28%

4.26%

100.00%

7

22

7

7

4

47

14.89%

46.81%

14.89%

14.89%

8.51%

100.00%

29

12

5

0

1

47

61.70%

25.53%

10.64%

0.00%

2.13%

100.00%

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Faculty

User Group: Faculty

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

7

Page 75 of 85

Staff Summary
7.1

Demographic Summary for Staff
7.1.1

Respondent Profile for Staff by Age

This table shows a breakdown of survey respondents by age; both the number of respondents (n) and the
percentage of the total number of respondents represented by each age group are displayed.
Respondents
n

Respondents
%

Under 18

0

0.00%

18 - 22

0

0.00%

23 - 30

0

0.00%

31 - 45

9

45.00%

46 - 65

11

55.00%

Over 65

0

0.00%

20

100.00%

Age

Total:

7.1.2

Respondent Profile for Staff by Sex

The table below shows a breakdown of survey respondents by sex, based on user responses to the demographic
questions and the demographic data provided by institutions in the online Representativeness section*. The number
and percentage for each sex are given for the general population and for survey respondents.
*Note: Participating institutions were not required to complete the Representativeness section. When population
data is missing or incomplete, it is because this data was not provided.

Sex

Respondents
n

Respondents
%

9

45.00%

11

55.00%

20

100.00%

Male
Female
Total:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

Page 76 of 85

7.2

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Core Questions Summary for Staff
This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questions. Each axis represents one question. A code to
identify each question is displayed at the outer point of each axis. While questions for each dimension of library service
quality are scattered randomly throughout the survey, on this chart they are grouped into sections: Affect of Service ,
Library as Place, and Information Control.
On each axis, respondents' minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service quality are plotted, and the resulting
"gaps" between the three levels (representing service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded in blue, yellow, green,
and red.
The two following tables show mean scores and standard deviations for each question, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this
notebook.)
AS-7

AS-6

Affect of Service

AS-5
AS-4

AS-8

AS-9

AS-3

IC-1

AS-2

IC-2

AS-1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
LP-5

IC-3

LP-4

IC-4

LP-3

IC-5
Information Control

Library as Place
LP-2

IC-6
IC-7

IC-8

LP-1

Perceived Less Than Minimum
Perceived Greater Than Minimum
Perceived Less Than Desired
Perceived Greater Than Desired

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

ID

Question Text

Page 77 of 85

Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

7.06

8.06

7.35

0.29

-0.71

17

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

6.61

7.72

7.33

0.72

-0.39

18

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

7.60

8.40

7.65

0.05

-0.75

20

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

7.10

7.90

7.40

0.30

-0.50

20

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

7.74

8.53

7.42

-0.32

-1.11

19

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

7.55

8.25

7.70

0.15

-0.55

20

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

7.47

8.26

7.53

0.05

-0.74

19

AS-8

Willingness to help users

7.50

8.10

7.35

-0.15

-0.75

20

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

7.44

8.25

7.13

-0.31

-1.13

16

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

7.40

8.20

7.15

-0.25

-1.05

20

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

7.32

8.21

6.89

-0.42

-1.32

19

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

6.93

7.33

6.00

-0.93

-1.33

15

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

7.42

8.47

7.05

-0.37

-1.42

19

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

7.55

8.55

7.60

0.05

-0.95

20

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

7.61

8.28

7.17

-0.44

-1.11

18

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

7.50

8.45

7.35

-0.15

-1.10

20

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

7.00

7.86

6.64

-0.36

-1.21

14

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

7.53

8.00

8.21

0.68

0.21

19

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

7.56

8.11

7.83

0.28

-0.28

18

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

7.47

8.11

8.32

0.84

0.21

19

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

7.44

8.44

7.94

0.50

-0.50

16

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

7.08

7.33

7.50

0.42

0.17

12

7.36

8.16

7.41

0.05

-0.75

20

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

Page 78 of 85

ID

Question Text

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

AS-1

Employees who instill confidence in users

1.34

1.14

1.41

1.86

1.72

17

AS-2

Giving users individual attention

1.20

1.07

1.61

1.81

2.06

18

AS-3

Employees who are consistently courteous

1.43

0.99

1.66

1.67

1.45

20

AS-4

Readiness to respond to users' questions

1.25

1.29

1.54

1.38

1.15

20

AS-5

Employees who have the knowledge to answer
user questions

1.24

0.70

1.35

1.63

1.45

19

AS-6

Employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion

1.36

1.07

1.69

1.73

2.04

20

AS-7

Employees who understand the needs of their
users

1.31

0.87

1.78

1.84

1.69

19

AS-8

Willingness to help users

1.28

1.12

1.79

2.08

2.05

20

AS-9

Dependability in handling users' service problems

1.09

0.68

1.59

1.85

1.67

16

Information Control

IC-1

Making electronic resources accessible from my
home or office

1.31

1.20

2.01

1.71

2.39

20

IC-2

A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own

1.20

1.03

2.28

2.48

2.65

19

IC-3

The printed library materials I need for my work

2.09

2.26

2.33

1.22

2.26

15

IC-4

The electronic information resources I need

0.90

0.70

1.72

1.86

1.84

19

IC-5

Modern equipment that lets me easily access
needed information

1.10

0.69

1.76

1.88

1.70

20

IC-6

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find
things on my own

1.29

1.02

1.76

1.85

2.00

18

IC-7

Making information easily accessible for
independent use

1.15

0.69

1.69

1.90

1.83

20

IC-8

Print and/or electronic journal collections I
require for my work

1.41

1.29

1.86

1.86

2.01

14

Library as Place

LP-1

Library space that inspires study and learning

1.26

1.29

1.08

1.25

1.18

19

LP-2

Quiet space for individual activities

1.20

1.13

1.25

1.56

1.23

18

LP-3

A comfortable and inviting location

1.43

1.33

1.06

1.74

0.92

19

LP-4

A getaway for study, learning, or research

1.36

0.73

1.06

1.59

1.10

16

LP-5

Community space for group learning and group
study

1.38

1.23

1.17

1.00

1.34

12

0.93

0.54

1.28

1.32

1.37

20

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

7.3

Page 79 of 85

Core Question Dimensions Summary for Staff
On the chart below, scores for each dimension of library service quality have been plotted graphically. The exterior bars
represent the range of minimum to desired mean scores for each dimension. The interior bars represent the range of
minimum to perceived mean scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimension of library service quality.

9

8

Mean

7

6

5

4
Affect of
Service

Information
Control

Library as
Place

Overall

Dimension

Range of Minimum to Desired
Range of Minimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap")

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

Page 80 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

The following table displays mean scores for each dimension of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+™
survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed explanation of the
headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their dimensions can be
found in Appendix A.
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Affect of Service

7.35

8.14

7.42

0.07

-0.72

20

Information Control

7.34

8.20

7.06

-0.28

-1.14

20

Library as Place

7.36

8.11

8.01

0.64

-0.10

20

7.36

8.16

7.41

0.05

-0.75

20

Dimension

Overall:

The following table displays standard deviation for each dimension of library service quality measured by the
LibQUAL+™ survey, where n is the number of respondents for each particular dimension. (For a more detailed
explanation of the headings, see the Introduction to this notebook.) A complete listing of the survey questions and their
dimensions can be found in Appendix A.
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Affect of Service

1.00

0.61

1.33

1.44

1.42

20

Information Control

0.87

0.67

1.58

1.60

1.79

20

Library as Place

1.16

0.79

0.87

1.02

0.80

20

0.93

0.54

1.28

1.32

1.37

20

Dimension

Overall:

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

7.4

Page 81 of 85

Local Questions Summary for Staff
This table shows mean scores for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium, where n is
the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see the
Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
Mean

Desired
Mean

Perceived
Mean

Adequacy
Mean

Superiority
Mean

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

6.86

7.71

6.14

-0.71

-1.57

14

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

7.43

7.64

7.14

-0.29

-0.50

14

Library orientations / instruction sessions

7.13

7.00

7.00

-0.13

0.00

8

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

7.92

8.23

7.62

-0.31

-0.62

13

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

6.75

7.56

6.75

0.00

-0.81

16

Question Text

This table displays standard deviations for each of the local questions added by the individual library or consortium ,
where n is the number of respondents for each particular question. (For a more detailed explanation of the headings, see
the Introduction to this notebook.)
Minimum
SD

Desired
SD

Perceived
SD

Adequacy
SD

Superiority
SD

n

Availability of online help when using my library's
electronic resources

1.35

1.38

2.11

1.77

2.53

14

Teaching me how to access, evaluate, and use
information

1.28

1.45

1.92

1.64

1.99

14

Library orientations / instruction sessions

1.46

1.77

1.60

1.96

0.76

8

Efficient interlibrary loan / document delivery

1.04

0.83

1.89

1.75

2.06

13

The library collection provides information resources
reflecting diverse points of view

1.73

1.50

1.91

1.46

1.91

16

Question Text

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

Page 82 of 85

7.5

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

General Satisfaction Questions Summary for Staff
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the general satisfaction questions: Satisfaction
with Treatment, Satisfaction with Support, and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service, where n is the number of
respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the general satisfaction questions
on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general satisfaction on a scale from 1-9.

Satisfaction Question

Mean

SD

n

In general, I am satisfied with the way in which I am treated at the library.

7.60

1.70

20

In general, I am satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or
teaching needs.

6.95

1.93

20

How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library?

7.60

1.47

20

7.6

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions Summary for Staff
This table displays the mean score and standard deviation for each of the information literacy outcomes questions, where
n is the number of respondents for each particular question. These scores are calculated from responses to the
information literacy outcomes questions on the LibQUAL+™ survey, in which respondents rated their levels of general
satisfaction on a scale from 1-9 with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 9 representing "strongly agree".

Information Literacy Outcomes Questions

Mean

SD

n

The library helps me stay abreast of developments in my field(s) of interest.

6.00

2.03

20

The library aids my advancement in my academic discipline.

5.95

1.85

20

The library enables me to be more efficient in my academic pursuits.

6.10

1.94

20

The library helps me distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy
information.

5.95

1.82

20

The library provides me with the information skills I need in my work or study.

6.50

1.64

20

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

7.7

Page 83 of 85

Library Use Summary for Staff
This chart shows a graphic representation of library use (both on the premises and electronically), as well as use of
non-library information gateways such as Yahoo™ and Google™. Bars represent the frequency with which respondents
report using these resources: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the
number and percentage of respondents who selected each option.

100
90
80

Percentage

70
How often do you use
resources on library
premises?

60

How often do you
access library resources
through a library Web
page?

50

How often do you use
Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or
non-library gateways for
information?

40
30
20
10
0
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

Frequency

Daily

How often do you use resources on library
premises?
How often do you access library resources
through a library Web page?
How often do you use Yahoo(TM),
Google(TM), or non-library gateways for
information?

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Never

n/%

0

0

8

9

3

20

0.00%

0.00%

40.00%

45.00%

15.00%

100.00%

1

4

7

4

4

20

5.00%

20.00%

35.00%

20.00%

20.00%

100.00%

14

4

1

0

1

20

70.00%

20.00%

5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

100.00%

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: Staff

User Group: Staff

Page 84 of 85

8

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Appendix A: LibQUAL+™ Dimensions
LibQUAL+™ measures dimensions of perceived library quality - that is, each survey question is part of a broader
category (a dimension), and scores within those categories are analyzed in order to derive more general information
about library users' perceptions of service. These dimensions were first based on the original SERVQUAL survey
instrument (the framework for the LibQUAL+™ survey tool; for more information on the origins of LibQUAL+™,
go

to

).

The

LibQUAL+™

survey

dimensions

have

evolved

with

each

iteration, becoming more refined and focused for application to the library context. Dimensions for each iteration of
the LibQUAL+™ survey are outlined below.

LibQUAL+™ 2000 Dimensions
The 2000 iteration of the LibQUAL+™ survey, which had 41 questions, measured eight separate dimensions:
•

Assurance (the knowledge and courtesy of employees, and their ability to convey trust and confidence)

•

Empathy (caring, individual attention)

•

Library as Place (library as a sanctuary/haven or site for learning and contemplation)

•

Reliability (ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately)

•

Responsiveness (willingness to help customers and provide prompt service)

•

Tangibles (appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communications materials)

•

Instructions/Custom Items

•

Self-Reliance

LibQUAL+™ 2001 Dimensions
After careful analysis of the results from the 2000 survey, the dimensions were further refined to re-ground the
SERVQUAL items in the library context. Four sub-dimensions resulted for the 2001 iteration:
•

Service Affect (nine items, such as “willingness to help users”)

•

Library as Place (five items, such as “a haven for quiet and solitude”)

•

Personal Control (six items, such as “website enabling me to locate information on my own”), and

•

Information Access (five items, such as “comprehensive print collections” and “convenient business
hours”)

LibQUAL+™ 2002 and 2003 Dimensions
For the 2002 iteration of the LibQUAL+™ survey, the dimensions were once again refined based on analysis of the
previous year's results. While the four dimensions were retained, their titles were changed slightly to more clearly
represent the questions and data. The same four dimensions were also used on the 2003 survey:
•

Access to Information

•

Affect of Service

•

Library as Place

•

Personal Control

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

LibQUAL+™ 2006 Survey Results - CUP

Page 85 of 85

LibQUAL+™ 2004 - 2006 Dimensions
After the 2003 survey was completed, factor and reliability analyses on the resulting data revealed that two of the
dimensions measured by the survey - Access to Information and Personal Control - had collapsed into one. The
following three dimensions have been measured since then: Library as Place, Affect of Service, and Information
Control. In addition, three core questions were eliminated from the 2003 version of the survey, leaving 22 core
items on the final survey instrument.
The list below displays the dimensions used to present the results in the 2006 notebooks, along with the questions
that relate to each dimension. (Note: The questions below are those used in the College and University
implementation of the survey, American English version.)
Affect of Service

[AS-1]

Employees who instill confidence in users

[AS-2]

Giving users individual attention

[AS-3]

Employees who are consistently courteous

[AS-4]

Readiness to respond to users’ questions

[AS-5]

Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions

[AS-6]

Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion

[AS-7]

Employees who understand the needs of their users

[AS-8]

Willingness to help users

[AS-9]

Dependability in handling users’ service problems

Information Control

[IC-1]

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office

[IC-2]

A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own

[IC-3]

The printed library materials I need for my work

[IC-4]

The electronic information resources I need

[IC-5]

Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information

[IC-6]

Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own

[IC-7]

Making information easily accessible for independent use

[IC-8]

Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work

Library as Place

[LP-1]

Library space that inspires study and learning

[LP-2]

Quiet space for individual activities

[LP-3]

A comfortable and inviting location

[LP-4]

A getaway for study, learning or research

[LP-5]

Community space for group learning and group study

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All

Association of Research Libraries
21 Dupont Circle NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Phone 202-296-2296
Fax 202-872-0884
http://www.libqual.org
Copyright © 2006 Association of Research Libraries
Language: American English
Institution Type: College or University

Language: American English
Institution Type:

College or University

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

Consortium: Keystone Library Network

User Group: All

User Group: All