Using LibQUAL+® to Identify Commonalities in Customer Satisfaction: The Secret to Success?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•533 views
What is the key to library user satisfaction? Can LibQUAL+® help in the quest for delivering a quality library service? The purpose of this paper is to present international research into library customer satisfaction as measured by the LibQUAL+® survey methodology. Commonalities of satisfaction and dissatisfaction have been identified which influence the customers overall view of the library. This knowledge can be used to further increase customer satisfaction through targeting these areas for service improvement.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (13)
Similar to Using LibQUAL+® to Identify Commonalities in Customer Satisfaction: The Secret to Success?
Similar to Using LibQUAL+® to Identify Commonalities in Customer Satisfaction: The Secret to Success? (20)
More from Selena Killick
More from Selena Killick (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Using LibQUAL+® to Identify Commonalities in Customer Satisfaction: The Secret to Success?
- 1. Using LibQUAL+® to Identify Commonalities in Customer Satisfaction: The Secret to Success? Selena Killick Cranfield University Anne van Weerden Utrecht University
- 2. LibQUAL+ Internationally Renown Web based Standardised Expectations & Perceptions LibQUAL+®
- 3. Adequacy and Superiority Adequacy: Calculated by subtracting Minimum from Perceived score. A negative score indicates failing to meet minimum expectations. Superiority: Calculated by subtracting Desired from Perceived score. A positive score indicates exceeding desired expectations. Question 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Adequacy Superiority Minimum Desired Perceived
- 4. Dimensions Affect of Service Empathy Responsiveness Assurance Reliability Information Control Scope of Content Convenience Ease of Navigation Timeliness Equipment Self-Reliance Library as Place Utilitarian Space Symbol Refuge
- 6. Commonalities in Satisfaction? Information Control Library as Place Affect of Service ? ? ? ? ? ?
- 7. Commonalities in Dissatisfaction? Information Control Library as Place Affect of Service ? ? ? ? ? ?
- 8. Sample Group Utrecht University, Netherlands n = 1,851 (long) Leiden University, Netherlands n = 3,761 (lite) SCONUL Consortium 17 Higher Education Institutions from the UK and Ireland n = 28,208 (lite/long) All surveys conducted Jan-Dec 2012
- 9. Methodology
- 10. Starting with the combined data 2012: SCONUL, n = 28208 (mixed) Leiden University n = 3761 (lite) Utrecht University n = 1851 (long) ntot = 33820
- 11. We removed 5717 responses, from library staff, and everyone with inversions anywhere This resulted in a larger bandwith ntemp = 28103
- 12. We also removed 1057 surveys without any answer in one of the sections, not knowing what the respondent might have said about this section in connection with the other two sections nused = 27046 = 80%
- 14. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Someone with an average score of 5,2 6,3 7,4 is just .....ok min des perc
- 15. Satisfied Someone with an average score of 6,0 6,2 6,1 can hardly be called satisfied What we looked for is min des perc
- 16. Satisfied Superiority gap > 0 <more than 0> des______________perc perceiving even more than desired xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Adequacy gap > 1 <more than 1> min______________perc perceiving clearly more than minimum
- 17. Dissatisfied Someone with an average score of 5,1 5,0 5,2 can hardly be called dissatisfied What we looked for is min des perc xxxxxxxxx
- 18. Dissatisfied Adequacy gap < 0 <more than 0> perc______________min percieving even less than minimum xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Superiority gap < -1 perc______________<more than 1> des percieving clearly less than desired
- 19. Definitions of satisfied/dissatisfied Satisfied Superiority gap > 0 Adequacy gap > 1 Dissatisfied Adequacy gap < 0 Superiority gap < -1
- 20. Outcomes
- 23. Selecting for Positive AS scores Adequacy gap > 0 Superiority gap > 1 n = 4135
- 24. Selecting for Positive LP scores Adequacy gap > 0 Superiority gap > 1 n = 3151
- 25. Selecting for Positive IC scores Adequacy gap > 0 Superiority gap > 1 n = 2171
- 26. Selecting for Negative LP scores Adequacy gap < 0 Superiority gap < -1 n = 7367
- 27. Selecting for Negative IC scores Adequacy gap < 0 Superiority gap < -1 n = 6525
- 28. Selecting for Negative AS scores Adequacy gap < 0 Superiority gap < -1 n = 3531
- 29. It can be seen that the desired scores of this group are the highest of all Interpreting these scores, they are likely the most demanding group, asking a lot from the personnel
- 30. Next, we wanted to know what the differences were between the Average Respondents (All) and the various roles, Students (Undergraduates) Postgraduates Staff Academic staff (Faculty)
- 31. We expected to find different outcomes for faculty and students, such as students have a lot to ask, faculty just want their literature quickly
- 32. Surprisingly, the outcomes are always almost the same
- 33. All pos / neg IC pos / neg LP pos / neg AS
- 34. Students pos / neg IC pos / neg LP pos / neg AS
- 35. Postgrads pos / neg IC pos / neg LP pos / neg AS
- 36. Staff pos / neg IC pos / neg LP pos / neg AS
- 37. Faculty pos / neg IC pos / neg LP pos / neg AS
- 38. For certainty...., or just amazing:
- 39. All
- 40. Students
- 41. Post-graduates
- 42. Staff
- 43. Faculty
- 44. Some statistics to see if our claims are significant
- 45. Made with Statistica Group -1 = not meeting selected criteria: libstaff, inversions, # answers/dim ≠ 3 Group 0 = intermediate IC = red LP = green AS = blue Group 1 = dissatisfied: Group 2 = satisfied: adq gap < 0 xxsup gap > 0 sup gap < -1 xxadq gap > 1
- 46. -1 = excluded, 0 = neutral -1 = negative, 2 = positive IC = red LP = green AS = blue
- 47. Conclusions
- 48. Conclusions Statistically significant correlations: Satisfaction with Information Control & satisfaction overall Dissatisfaction with Affect of Service & dissatisfaction overall Dissatisfied respondents are also the most demanding Correlation ≠ Causation
- 53. Thank You. Selena Killick Cranfield University s.a.killick@cranfield.ac.uk Anne van Weerden Utrecht University a.vanweerden@uu.nl