THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

Volu7ne 78 JANUARY 2008 Number 1

LIBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES: A UBQUAL+ STUDY Bruce Thompson,' Martha Kyrilhdou,^ and Colleen The present study was conducted to explore library users' desired service quality levels on the twenty-two core LibQUAL+ items. Specifically, we explored similarities and differences in users' desired library service quality levels across user groups (i.e., undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty), across geographic locations (i.e., institutions using the American English version of the protocol, as against institutions using the British English language version); and across lime (i.e., the years 2004-6, during which time the protocol was not altered). The sample consisted of 297,158 LihQUAL+ participants from the years 2004, 2005, and 2006, who completed either the American English (n,,^ = 227.808) or the British English ("BK = 6^.350) version of the protocol. Here, the language version was used as a marker for whether the 297,158 respondents were located in North America or Europe. The heterogeneity of user desires across disciplines was also evaluated.

Introduction LibQUAL+ is a library service quality assessment and improvement protocol that uses the Internet to measure library users' perceptions of library service quality [1-9]. During 2007, LibQUAL+ was used to collect data
1. Distin^iishcd professor of educational psychology and CEHD Distinguished Research Feltow and distinguished professor of library science. Texas A&M Univei-sity, Mail Stop 4225, College Siation. TX 77843-4225, and adjunct professor of family and community medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; E-mail bince-thompson@tamu.edu. 2. Dean of libraritr.s and holder of the Sterling C. Evans Chair, Texas A&M University, Mail Stop 5000, College Station, TX 77843-5000; E-mail ccook@tamu.cdu. 3. Director, Statistics and Service Quality Improvement Programs. Association of Research Libraries. 21 Dupont Circle, #800, Washington, DC 20036; E-mail martha@arl.org. [Library Quarterly, vol. 78, no. I, pp. 1-18] C 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0024-2519/2008/7801 -0001S10.00

'

THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

from the 1 millionth library user, and data were collected from the 1 thousandth institution. LibQUAL+ has been used in geographically diverse locations, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, and Wales). France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and South Africa. A Chinese version was implemented in Hong Kong in the fall 2007. Currently, the system supports twelve languages: Afrikaans, American English, British English, Chinese (Traditional), Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French (Canadian), French (European), German, Norwegian, and Swedish. The various editions of LibQUAL+ have been used over a period of eight years.
LibQUAL-\- Components

LibQUAL+ has been an important tool for service quality improvement from the local perspective of a given library [10-11]. However, the LibQUAL+ database is important in its own right, given the sheer scale, the cultural diversity, and the longitudinal features of the data. In addition to (a) providing open-ended comments, which historically roughly 40 percent of participants do, and (b) rating five service quality items selected by institutions or consortia from an optional item pool consisting of more than one hundred ancillary items, LibQUAL-l- participants (f) rate each of the twenty-two LibQUAL+ core items on a 1-9 scale (9 is highest) with respect to perceived levels of actual service quality, the minimally acceptable level of service with respect to a given item, and the desired level of service with respect to a given item. The difference between the desired rating and the minimally acceptable rating for a given item is the "zone of tolerance" for that item. Ideally, perception ratings will fall within the zone. The twenty-two core LibQUAL+ items create three subscales: Affect of Service (AS), Information Control (IC), and Library as Place (LP). There are, respectively, nine, eight, and five items constituting these three LibQUAL-l- subscales. LibQUAL+ is unique in that LibQUAL-f perception scores can be interpreted in any combination of three ways: by benchmarking against peer institutions, by benchmarking against oneself longitudinally, or by interpreting perception ratings in the context of the zones of tolerance for given items. If the aggregated perception ratings for a given institution cannot be interpreted using one or more of these three interpretation frameworks, then the ratings simply cannot be interpreted (i.e., are meaningless).
Philosophical Underpinnings of LibQUAL+

Three quotations are frequently used in introducing LibQUAL+ to new

LIBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES

participants. The first quotation is used to emphasize that, in the digital era, collection counts are no longer viable as the sole metric for measuring library quality. On this point, we often cite Frencb philosopher and moralist Frangois de La Rochefoucauld, who noted that "II est plus necessaire d'etudier les honimes que les livres" [12]. Second, we emphasize that, within a service quality orientation, "only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant" [13, p. 16]. Third, we cite Bruce Thompson, who noted that "We only care about the things we measure" [14, p. 1], We do not really care about user perceptions of library service quality unless we periodically measure these percepdons in various systematic ways.

Purpose of the Study The present study was conducted to explore library users' desired service quality levels on the twenty-two core LibQUAL+ items. Specifically, we explored: 1. the similarities and differences in users' desired library service quality levels across user groups (i.e., undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty), 2. the similarities and differences in users' desired library service quality levels across geographic locations (i.e., institutions using the American English version of the protocol, as against institutions using the British English language version), and 3. the similarides and differences in users' desired library service quality levels across time (i.e., the years 2004-6, during which the protocol was not altered). The appendix presents the twenty-two core LibQUAL+ items as they are presented in both of the language variations explored in the present study. The language differences are minor and, instead, are used here merely as markers of the geographic locadons (i.e., North America vs. Europe) of the pardcipants.

Sample The sample consisted of 297,158 LibQUAL+ pardcipants from the years 2004-6, who completed either the American English (n^p = 227,808) or the British English (unr, = 69,350) version of the protocol. The breakdowns of the participants across user groups, language versions/geographic locations, and time are presented in table 1.

THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

TABLE I
SAMPLES SIZES ACROSS LANGUAGK VERSIONS, Roi.t; GROtjps, AND YEARS ROLE/GROLJP

LANGUAGE/ YFAR

Undergraduates 38,026 53,954 44,132 136,112 12.853 26.140 9.902 48.895

Postgraduates 18,330 17,015 18,375 53,720 4,263 7.774 3,357 5.394

Eaculty 13,138 12,669 12.169 37.976 2.054 1,900 1,107 5,061

Subtotal 69,494 83.638 74,676 227,808 19,170 35,814 14,366 69,350 297.158

American:

2004 2005 2006

Subtotal British; 2004

2005 2006
Subtotal Total

Results Tables 2-7 present tbe means of tbe desired ratings for the twenty-two core LibQUAL+ items for the American English and the British English data, for the undergraduate students, graduate/postgraduate students, and faculty, respectively. The items have been sorted in descending order of the means using the 2006 data. Tables 2-7 also present the standard deviations (SDs) of the ratings about eacb mean. The standard deviation characterizes how well the mean does at representing all the scores on a given variable. As Thompson [15, p. 54] emphasized, "dispersion statistics are essential quantifications of the quahty of location descriptions. The important implication is: Never refxrrt
a central tendency statistic (e.g., M^) without reporting (usually in parentheses) right next to the location description a dispersion description." Characterizations

of data homogeneity/heterogeneity can be just as important as characterizations of data central tendency, as reflected in the statistician's canard, "the average human has one breast and one testicle." Tables 8 and 9 present the items and their rankings for those items in either the top or the bottom five items, for any user group, in each of the three years. Figures 1 and 2 plot the means for the five most highly desired service features across years for the American English and the British English results, respectively. The previous analysis focused on the central tendency (i.e., means) of desired ratings across locations and user groups. We also conducted ancillary analyses that focused instead on the hetetogeneity (i.e., the SDs) of the desired ratings across users' academic disciplines.

LIBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES

TABLE 2

M E A N S A N D S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S FOR D E S I R E D R A T I N < ; S FOR A M E R I C A N E N G U S H U N D E R G R A D U A T E S T U D E N T S S O R T E D ( D e s c e n d i n g ) BY YEAR 2 0 0 6 M E A N D K S I R E D S 2()04 IlEM IC14 IC02 IC05 IC16 IC20 2005 2006

M
8.18 8.15 8.11 8.07 8.04 8.03 7.99 8.00 8.00 7.97 8.00 7.98 7.97 7.92 7.84 7.84 7.83 7.80 7.78 7.59 7.37 7.04 7.886 7.04 8.18

Rank

SD .21 .32 .29 .26 .36 .26 .33 .39 .30 .42 .40 .34 .38 .40 .40 .36 .42 .43 .41 .66 .58 .78
.395

A/

Rank

SD

Af
8.18 8.16 8.10

Rank

SD .20 .29 .29 .25 .31 .23 .30 .34 .29 .38 .37 .31 .34 .40 35 .34 .37 .38 .36 .59 .55 .75

K;I9
LPV2 LP17 ICIO LP08 LP03

ASH
AS06 IC07 AS18 AS09 AS22 AS13 AS15 LP21 ASOI AS04

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 7 8 12 9 11 13 14 L5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

8.18 8.14 8.10 8.07 8.06 8.04 8.02 8.02 8.00 8.0! 8.02 7.99 7.97 7.92
7.87 7.86 7.8.5 7.82 7.80 7.64 7.40 7.10 7.904 7.10 8.18

2
3 4 5 6

7
9 11 10 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

.22 .33 .30 .27 .34 .26 .33 .38 .31 .40 .40 .33 .36 .40 .38 .35 .39 .41 .39 .62 .57 .77
.386

8.08
8.07 8.06 8.04 8.04 8.02 8.02 8.02 7.99 7.99 7.91 7.88 7.86 7.86 7.84 7.82 7.69 7.41 7.10 7.915 7.10 8.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 H 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

M
Wlin VI ax

.21 .78

.22

.77

.363 1.20 .75

Nmt:.Tlic tiw l.itim.'AI,+ tore ilcms ralcd highesl and lowesl arc presenlcd in boldface. The ilcm names include ihc sequence iiuriil>ci in which ihe items are prtseiilrd ui UhQUAL+ panicipaiiLs, while ihc fint two ietiers < l ihe item names > iiidicaie whirli scale a given item measure* (i-c, IC = Inl'ormation Qinirol. AS = Affcci of Service, LP = Library as Place). Min = minimum; max = maximum.

On many items, across all six user groups (i.e., two locations by three user groups), users' desired ratings were homogeneous (i.e., in agreement) across the user groups. Items in which desired ratings were particularly homogeneous across the disciplines in all six user groups were LPI2, "a comfortable and inviting location"; IC14, "modem equipment that lets me easily access needed information"; and TCI6, "easy-to-use acce.ss tools that allow me to find things on my own." Users in all the disciplines have similar views of the import of these hbrary features. Tables 10 and 11 present, for the American English and British English locations, respectively, the mean desired ratings and die standard deviations of these means on the six items for which there were the greatest differences across the disciplines. The two items for which discipline means

THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

TABLE 3
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR DESTKED RATINGS FOR AMERICAN ENGLISH GRADUATE STUDENTS SORTED (Descending) BY YEAK 2006 MEAN DESIREDS

2004
ITEM

200.') SD 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.06 1.08 l.OH 1.08 1.24 1.30 1.32 1.24 1.31 1.29 1.34 1.58 1.45 1.43 1.6S 1.62 1.55 1.69 2.05 1.34 L03 2.05 M 8.47 8.46 8.39 8.38 8.34 8.29 8,28 8,14 8.09 8.09 8.06 8.04 8.03 7.96 7.94 7.91 7.86 7.86 7.88 7.61 7.32 7.21 8.028 7.21 8.47 Rank 1 SD 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.10 1.07 1.09 1.10 1.22 1.27 1.33 1.23 1.30 1.29 1.31 1.49 1.41 1.40 1.56 1.54 1.51 1.70 1.99 1.321 1.05 1.99 M 8.49 8.46 8.42 8.40 8.31 8.30 8.28 8.12 8.10 8.08 8.06 8.03 8.03 7.96 7.89 7.87 7.87 7.81 7.78 7.57 7.32 7.13 8.013 7.13 8.49

200(i Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 \2 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 20 21 22 SD 1.04 .05 .03 .06 .10 .09 .10 .22 .27 .34 .24 .27 .28 .SI .54 .43 .39 .61 .61 .54 .69 i.O3 .329 .03 1.05

M 8.48 8.48 8.41 8.40 8.33 8.31 8.28 8.11 8.06 8.10 8.05 8.01 8.01 7.92 7.83 7.82 7.82 7.73 7.75 7.55 7.30 7.02 7.989 7.02 8.48

Rank 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 l(i 17 19 18 20 21 22

IC02 1C20 ICIO 1C05 ICt4 IClfi ICI 9 ASII AS06 ICX)7 AS09 AS22 AS18 AS 15 LP17 LP12 ASKS LP08 LP03 ASOl AS04 LP21 M Min Max

2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 19 18 17 20 21 22

NOTK.Tin- five UbQUAI,+ core ileini rated highest and lowest air presented in boldfacp. The item names iiitlude tlir srquetite riuinbcr in whkh the items are prc.iemcd Ki I.ib<JUAL+ parliiipaitl.s. while the firsi iwo letlersoflhe item names indieatp which .wale a pvcii ifem meastirrs (i.e., IC = Infonnalion Conlrol. i\S = AfFecl of.Setvice. LP = l.ihrary as Plate), Mill = niiiiimuin: max = muximimi.

were the most heterogeneous were items AS04, "giving users individual attention" (SDs of disciplines means across ihe six groups, 0.207, 0.209, 0.235, 0.215, 0.199, 0.155. respectively) and IC07, "the printed lihrary materials I need for my work" (SDs of disciplines means across the six groups, 0.148, 0.193, 0.226, 0.188, 0.171, 0.294, respectively), as reported in tahles 10 and 11. Discipline differences still exist with respect to how users prefer to relate to lihraries. Users in disciplines such as the social sciences and professional schools (i.e., education, law, medicine) place a higher priority on library staff providing individual attention, while users in the physical sciences may deBne a positive information search as heing electronic. And social scientists still value print collections, while tlie physical sciences have increasingly turned to digital content. ' '

UBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES

TABLE 4
MKANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR Dt:siRED RATtN(;s KOR AMERICAN FACULTY SORTED (Descending) BV YEAR 2006 MEAN DKSIREDS ENGLISH

2004
ITEM

2005

2006

M
8.48 8.42 8.41 8.36 8.31 8.27 8.24 8.19 8.16 8.14 8.13 8.11 8.06 8.08 7.81 7.83 7.67 7.47 7.35 7.30 7.10 6.17 7.911 6.17 8.48

Rank

SD

M
8.50 8.48 8.44 8.41 8.34 8.30 8.27 8.22 8.20 8.19 8.16 8.15 8.10 8.07 7.88 7.85 7.76 7.54 7.41 7.38 7.17 6.36 7.963 6.36 8.50

Rank

SD
.00

M
8.50 8.48 8.46 8.42 8.35 8.31 8.26 8.22 8.20 8.18 8.16 8.14 8.10 8.05 7.87 7.87 7.73 7.55 7.45 7.42 7.20 6.39 7.969 6.39 8.50

Rank

SD
1.00 1.05 .98 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.14 1.17 1.16 1.23 1.18 1.24 1.23 1.40 1.43 1.45 1.49 1.66 1.86 1.96 2.00 2.36 1.368

IC20 IC02 IC05 ICIO ICI6 !(;i9 ICI4

1 2
3 4 5 6

.03 .13 .08 .0 1 .07

.08

1 2 3 4 5
6

.07
.04 .07 .05 .08

I 2 3 4 5 6

7
8 9 10

ASH
AS09 AS06 AS22 ASI8 AS15 IC07 AS13 ASOl AS04 LP12 LP03 LPI7 LP08 LP21

.6 1 .9 1 .8 1

7
8 9 10 11

.7 2
.1 2 .6 2 .6 2
.36 .49 .49 .52 .71 .91 S .03 2.06 2.41 1.409 .03 2.41

1 1
12 14 13 16 15 17 18 19 20 21 22

12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

.3 1 .9 1 .5 1 .24 .2 2 .2 2 .4 2
.36

7
8 9 10

1 1 12
13 14 16 15 17 18 19 20

.6 4 .5 4 .47 .9 6
.86 1 .97 2.02 2.36 .379 .00 2.36

21 22

M Min Max

.8 9
2.36

NtiTK,Tiw five LihQUAI.+ r.orc iltins raled highesl and lowesi are prcsenlcci in bolrfraie. The item iiame^ hii'luile the wqiictice iiinnlXT in which thf items are pr*rsi-iitcd to lil>QUAt.+ |)anitipant.s, while ihe Firsi iwo ktleii tif ihe item iiamm indicate which scalt a given ilfin mcasuii-s (i.e.. 1(1 = InRimiation (Jontrol. AS = Aflfcl of Service, IJ" = Libra Min = minimum: max = maxinuini.

Conclusions LibQUAL+ is only one of the eleven ways of listening to customers identified by Len Berry [16]. LibQUAL+ is a "total market survey," because the protocol (a) seeks perceptions of all potential customers, regardless of frequency of use, including even nonusers and (b) uses benchmarking against peers (i.e., collects perceptions of one's own users but also perceptions of users of other service providers). Library service providers in the contemporary milieu listen to their users in numerous ways and find most trustworthy those insights gleaned over time and from multiple ways of listening. Librarians quite reasonably vest the most confidence in those findings that triangulate across listening

THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

TABLE 5

MEANS AND STANDARO DEVIATIONS TOR DESIRKU RATINGS TOR BRITISH ENGLISH UNDKRG8ADUATE STUHENT.S SORTEI) (Descending) B YEAK 2006 MEAN DESIREDS Y

2004
[TEM

200.5 SD 1.37 1.22 1.40 1.35 1.33 1.32 1.37 1.28 1.27 1.33 1.39 1.35 1.40 1.44 1.37 1.32 1.41 1.43 1.52 1.46 1.81 1.76 1.404 1.22 1.81 M 8.07 8.04 7.92 7.90 7.97 7.95 7.85 7.91 7.88 7.88 7.77 7.77 7.70 7.71 7.66 7.71 7.61 7.56 7.50 7.33 7.45 6.81 7.725 6.81 8.07 Rank 1 2 5 7 3 4 10 6 9 8 12 H 15 13 16 14 17 18 19 21 20 22 SD 1.34 1.24 1.44 1.37 1.35 1.30 L41 1.28 L27 1.32 1.43 1.36 1.40 1.43 1.37 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.46 1.46 1.67 1.72 1.399 1.24 1.72 M 8.03 7.97 7.93 7.91 7.89 7.85 7.85 7.84 7.82 7.82 7.76 7.76 7.72 7.72 7.69 7.67 7.62 7.56 7.49 7.38 7.33 6.80 7.700 6.80 8.03

2006 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SD 1.42 .33 .47 .38 .44 .40 .45 .35 .34 .36 .48 .38 .41 .45 .40 ..38 .42 .46 .50 .48 .77

M 8.05 8.04 7.97 7.97 8.00 7.93 7.93 7.93 7.90 7.84 7.90 7.81 7.72 7.72 7.70 7.74 7.61 7.60 7.43 7.38 7.28 6.70 7.734 6.70 8.05

Rank 1 2 4 5 3 8 6 7 9 11 10 12 14 15 16 13 17 18 19 20 21

IC02 IC14 LP08 LP17 IC20 IC05 LP03 IC16 IC19 ICIO IC07 ASH LP12 AS06 AS18 AS09 AS15 AS22 ASI3 ASOI LP21 AS04 M Min Max

22

L77
: .447 1.33

.77

NoTK.The five UliQUAL+- core ilcms rjicd highesi anrf lowest aip presenlpd in bolclfatc. The in-m nainct include the sequence number in which illc ilrms are presented lo l.il)QUAI.+ panifipanw, while llie firsl twn letters of ihe item names indicate whith scale a given item meastires (i.e.. IC = Infiintialiiiii CjHiin)!, AS = Affetl of Service. LP = library as Plare). Mill = minimum; max = maximiLin.

methods. Thus, the LibQUAL+ protocol is limited in its utility but nevertheless has proven useful as one tool for improving libraries around the world. Our results stiggest five general conclusions. First, as can be seen in tables 2-7, figures 1-2, and table 8, the rank orders of the twenty-two core items ranked highest and lowest in desirability were remarkably stable across years within the user groups. For example, as reported in table 8, six items were ranked in the top five across groups and time. Item IC02, "making electronic resources accessible from home or office," was ranked second or first by all three American English and all three British English user groups across all three years. This stability in rankings is quite striking, given that the range of the

LIBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES

TABLE 6
AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR DESIRED RATINCS KOR BRITISH ENGLISH POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS SORTED (Descending) BY YEAR 2006 MVJ^N DESIREDS

2004
ITKM

2005 SD 1.25 1.20 1.17 1.21 1.21 1.23 1.23 1.40 1.28 1.31 1.38 1.37 1.52 1.65 1.38 L39 L.59 1.50 1.45 1.51 1.68 2.20 1.414 1.17 2.20 M 8.24 8.24 8.16 8.15 8.05 8.0.5 8.02 7.84 7.90 7.87 7.80 7.83 7.77 7.66 7.71 7.75 7.60 7.54 7.52 7.53 7.15 6.75 7.779 6.75 8.24 Rank. SD M 8.29 8.25 8.15 8.13 8.03 8.03 8.03 7.92 7.92 7.86 7.86 7.85 7.83 7.78 7.76 7.75 7.69 7.63 7.56 7.51 7.07 6.62 7.796 6.62 8.29

2006 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SD 1.20 1.19 1.23 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.20 1.42 1.27 1.32 1.37 1.31 1.49 1.64 1.36 1.36 1..57 1.47 1.43 1.50 1.63 2.18 1.402 1.19 2.18

M 8.26 8.30 8.21 8.15 8.08 8.08 8,04 7.97 7.90 7.88 7.82 7.8.^ 7.86 7.76 7.75 7.7.5 7.70 7.58 7.54 7.48 7.07 6.64 7.802 6.64 8.3

Rank 2 1 3 4 5 6

IC02 IC20 ICIO IC05 IC16 IC14 IC19

K:O7

2
1 3 4 6

.22
.19 .17 .20 .21 .22 .20 .44 .27 .31 .36 .30 .51 .69 .38 .34 .64 .50 .45 .47 .61 Ml .399 .17 lAl

7
8 9 10 IS 12 11 14 16 15 17 18 19 20 21 22

a
7 10 8 9 12 11 13 16 15 14 17 18 20 19 21

A.S09 ASll AS(t6 \S18 LP17 LP08 AS22 A.sir> LPOli LP12 ASOl AS13 AS04 LP2I M Min Max

22

NOTT.Tlif (ivr l.iliQUAl.+ core items ralrd highesl anil lowest are pipsriiu-d in boldfaie. Thr ilcm names inciiidr ihc st-qucim- riiimln-r in whitli thr ileins are pi-pscmed lo Lil)QllAL+ iraniripanl.s. while ihe firM iwt) icilcPi of llic ilfiii names indicate which stale a given itt-m measures (i.e., id = Informaiiori (jjiitrol, AS = .UTccl of Service. LP = Librar% as Plate). Mi[i ~ minimum: max = maximum.

mean values was so narrow. Usually, such stability in rankings occurs when ratings are more heterogenous, because then larger shifts in means must occur for rank orders to be altered. Thus, these 297,158 LibQUAL+ participants made very subtle differentiations across items v^nth respect to desired service qualities, but these small differences were nevertheless invariant over time. Our view is not that this stability is noteworthy because three years is a long time. Three years is not a particularly long time. Instead, our view is that this stability is stunning over any amount of time (i.e., even only a week), given that the range of the mean desired ratings was narrow. The finding of similarities internationally was not entirely unexpected. One recent global study was the Online Computer Library Center report

10

THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

TABLE 7

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR DESIRED RATINGS FOR BRITISH E N G U S H EACULTY SORTED (Descending) BY YVJIR 2006 MKAN DF.SIRF,DS

2004
ITF.M

2005 SD .94 1.13 1.07 1.09 1.10 1.17 1.10 1.35 1.21 1.35 1.37 1.36 1.34 1.50 1.56 1.63 1.61 1.8S 1.94 1.94 2.19 2.67 1.475 .94 2.67 M 8.40 8.30 8.28 8,30 8.15 8.09 8.12 7.98 8.10 7.96 7.98 7.99 7.88 7.78 7.86 7.60 7.48 7.34 7.34 7.32 6.97 5.79 7.773 5.79 8.40 Rank 1 SD 1.01 1.19 1.09 1.09 1.14 1.12 1.11 1.31 1.20 1.24 1.23 1.22 1.30 1.37 1.45 1.50 1.45 1.65 1.92 1.84 2.18 2.47 1.412 1.01 2.47 M 8.37 8.36 8.25 8.22 8.16 8.13 8.13 8.05 8.04 7.99 7.99 7.97 7.92 7.86 7.81 7.73 7.48 7.46 7.45 7.38 7.10 6.10 7.816 6.10 8.37

2006 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SD 1.03 1.11 1.14 1.20 1.16 1.13 1.16 1.29 1.32 1.29 1.27 1.32 1.29 1.33 1.53 1.51 1..53 1.67 1.92 1.85 2.18 2.46 1.440 1.03 2.46

M 8.53 8.42 8.38 8.35 8.22 8.05 8.18 7.94 8.11 7.90 7.87 7.88 7.87 7,67 7.87 7.42 7.21 7.11 7.32 7.25 6.98 5.32 7.720 5.32 8.53

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 9 7 10 13 11 14 15 12 16 19 20 17 18 21 22

IC20 IC02 ICIO IC05 IC16 AS09 !C19 AS06 !C14 AS18 AS15 ASll AS22 ASOl
K:07

2
4 3 5 8 6 10 7 12 11 9 13 15 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

AS13 AS04 LP12 LP17 LP03 LP08 LP21 M Min Max

NDTK, Tilt H- l.ibtiL'Al.+ core iietiis rated highesi and lowesi are prescnlcd in boldface. The ilem namp.i iiidude ihe scqiieme iiimihcr in which ihe iicms are prcwntcd u> l,ihQUAl.+ participaiiis. while the firsi (wo Icdcrs iilihe item names iiidiraie whirh stale a given ilem measures (i.e.. IC = hilormaiion Control, AS = AffrciorScrvire, IJ" = Libnirv as Piace). Min = minimum: max = maximum.

on Perceptions of Libraries and Information {^sources. The report highlighted

the existence of a strong international "universal" library brand, given that

perceptions, usage rates and advice shared by respondents were generally consistent acro.ss all regions surveyed. One of the noteworthy finding.s of the survey is the general consistency and unifoiTiiity of responses across geographic regions. While statistical differences certainly exist in survey responses, responses indicated a "universal" view of the library across regions surveyed.. . . Respondents indicate similar levels of favorability and trust of both libraries and search engines while "library" brand image and brand potential show common themes and similarities across the regions sun/cyed. [17, p.

Second, sotne differences can be seen across user groups, and these differences also tended to be stable across groups over time. For example,

CM OT)

,...

Q O

u
'S ~ V S

p.

-2

ij
" 2

II
u u
2P 1^ CJ -' ^ - Q ij S t* -3 u S

11

^ O" <

CL.

.y V C in M

C -- Q o Ji U Q U

5 U

Q Q

LIBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES

American Undergraduates 5 Highest DesJreds
8.20 8.10 *

13

-IC14 IC02 IC05

2004

2005

2006

Yaw

-IC16 IC20

American Graduate Students 5 Highest Desireds

8.50 8.40 8,30 8.20

2004

2005
YMT

2006

-IC02 IC20 ICIO -IC05 IC14

American Faculty 5 Highest Desireds

,|C20 .IC02 -IC05

2006

ICIO

IC16 Fic. 1.Plots of the five LibQUAL+ items rated most desired by the three American English user groups.

both American English and British English undergraduates ranked first or second in desirability item IC14, "modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information," btit faculty did not include this item in tlie top five. Some undergradtiates, as opposed to graduate students and faculty, may rely more heavily on their institutions to provide the hardware they need for their studies. Third, the twenty-two LibQUAL+ core items were selected from the original item pool pardy based on their being highly rated in desirability in the initial years of the project. It was felt that tising items not measuring highly valued aspects of library service quality would not help inform improvement efforts focusing on nsers' major concerns. Nevertheless, as re-

14

THE UBRARY QUARTERLY

Brftlsh Undergrads 5 Highest Desireds
8.10 8.00 7.90 7.80 2004 2005 Year
IC02

.IC14 -LP08

2006

.LP17 .IC20

British Postgraduates 5 Highest t}esireds

8.40 8.30 8.20 8.10 8.00 2004 2005 Year 2006

-IC02 -IC20 iCIO IC05 IC16

British Facuity 5 Highest Desireds

8.50 8.40 8.30 8.20 8.10 - - ^ . -^ 2004 w 2005 Year 2006 ^ --IC20 --IC02 -*-IC10 --IC05

FIG. 2.Plots of the five LibQUAL+ items rated most desired by the three British English user groups.

ported in table 8, item LP21, "community space for group learning and group study," was among the least desired of the twenty-two service criteria. Fourth, certain aspects of Library as Place are still important to undergraduates in tbe British-speaking world as opposed to North America. In particular, the need for individual space for study is still important for the British English language group. This may reflect cultural difference in teaching methods, differences in availability of space within living residences, or less a\'ailability of alternative nonuniversity library spaces outside North America. Because historically European universities tend to be more urban, these environmental differences may play a role in users' perceptions. Fiftii, some differences across role groups emerged with respect to least-

LIBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES

TABLE 10
DESIREO RATINGS FOR THK SIX Mosr HETEROCENOUS RATINGS FOR THE AMERICAN ENGLISH ROIJ: GROUPS ACROSS DISCIPLINES ROLF, G R O U P / DiSCIPLINK ITEM

15

rci9
8.09 8.14 8.06 8.16 8.09 8.06 7.90 7.88 .096 8.37 8.36 8.26 8.20 8.23 8.22 8.10 8.06 .102 8.39 8.35 8.33 8.22 8.13 8.23 8.21 8.14 .090

M OF ASOl 7.57 7.46 7.48 7.65 7.41 7.31 7.27 7.07 .171 7.77 7.65 7.58 7.51 7.36 7.33 7.37 7.25 .167 8.06 7.98 7.91 8.02 7.79 7.60 7.64 7.44 .210 IC07 8.00 8.01 7.91 8.04 8.02 7.90 7.71 7.61 .148 8.14 8.28 7.96 8.02 7.91 8.09 7.61 7.81 .193 8.17 8.26 7.79 8.05 8.11 7.83 7.62 7.66 .226 AS04 7.32 7.14 7.24 7.25 6.94 6.97 6.96 6.65 .207 7.61 7.34 7.39 7.24 6.98 7.00
7.1)5
MEANS

1C20 8.09 8.20 8.10 8.13 8.04 8.12 7.84 7.77 .140 8.50 8.58 8.40 8.35 8.23 8.51 8.15 8.28 .140 8.46 8.53 8.55 8.32 8.28 8.53 8..39 8.43 .094

-ASll 8.09 8.04 8.02 8.01 8.01 7.97 7.86 7.75 .103 8.28 8.20 8.10 8.23 8.03 7.94 7.97 7.84 .148 8.38 8.30 8.24 8.27 8.15 8.00 8.10 7.88 .155

Undergraduates; Education Social science Medicine Law Architecture Physical science Business Engineering SD Graduate students: Education Social science Medicine Law Architecttire Physical science Business Engineering SD Faculty: Education Social science Medicine Law .Architecture Physical science Business Engineering SD

7.860 7.832 7.802 7.873 7.752 7.722 7.590 7.455

7.07 .209 8.05 7.82 7.76 7.8.5 7.69 7.38 7.59 7.29 .235

8.112 8.068 7.948 7.928 7.790 7.848 7,708 7.718

8.251 8.206 8.096 8.121 8.025 7.928 7,925 7.806

desired elements of service quality. For example, in both the American and British English samples, both student groups rated low in desirability item AS04, "giving users individual attention," although differences across disciplines occurred on this item, as noted in tables 10 and 1!. However, the faculty rated as low item LP17, "a getaway for study, learning, or research." Clearly, the library physical space Is less important to faculty who have been provided with their own office space. In conclusion, the emerging library user sees the need for a different kind of lihrarya lihrary that serves as a source of information ready to be accessed any time, from anywhere, using modern technologies. Can we effectively translate the comfort and assurance of human interactions into

16

THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

TABLE 11
MEAN DESIRED RATINGS FOR THE SIX MOST HETEROGENOUS RATINGS FOR THK BRITISH ENGLISH ROLE GROUPS ACROSS DISCIPUNES ITEM

ROLE G R O U P / DISCIPLINE

M ov
ASOl 7.61 7.50 7.54 7.38 7.35 7.22 7.37 7.09 .159 7.80 7.68 7.56 7.37 7.40 7.46 7.51 7.32 .152 8.10 7.95 8.00 7.97 7.67 7.64 7.72 7.58 .184 1C07 7.71 8.01 7.86 7.95 7.68 7.67 7.78 7.36 .188 8.05 8.23 7.89 7.94 7.81 7.82 7.81 7.62 .171 8.10 8.26 7.61 8.18 7.81 7.52 7.86 7.42 .294 AS04 7.10 6.86 6.94 6.64 7.05 6.57 6.79 6.44 .219 7.41 7.05 7.14 6.72 6.92 6.83 7.04 7.15 .199 7.71 7.46 7.68 7.36 7.50 7.33 7.34 7.26 .155
MEANS

IC19 7.92 8.03 7.98 7.90 7.84 7.79 7.74 7.45 .169 8.17 8.17 7.96 7.82 7.94 8.02 8.00 7.80 .129 8.32 8.30 8.18 8.30 8.52 8.14 8.01 7.64 .246

IC20 7,88 7.96 8.15 8.11 7.85 7.87 7.89 7.39 .215 8.24 8.37 8.33 8.18 8.33 8.37 8.13 7.99 .126 8.48 8.50 8.62 8.53 8.52 8.43 8.34 7.91 .205

ASll 7.95 7.92 7.92 7.84 7.73 7.66 7.72 7.34 .187 7.95 8.02 7.97 7.81 7.73 7.75 7.79 7.63 .126 8.11 8.05 8.07 8.12 8.24 7.76 7.83 7.57 .210

Undergraduates: Education Social science Medicine Law Architecture Physical science Business Engineering SD Postgraduates: Education Social .science Medicine Law Architecture Physical science Business Engineering SD Faculty: Education Sticial science Medicine Law Architecture Physical science Business Engineering SD

7.695 7.713 7.731 7.636 7.583 7.463 7.548 7.178

7.937 7.920 7.808 7.640 7.688 7.708 7.713 7.585

8.137 8.087 8.027 8.077 8.043 7.803 7.850 7.563

a virtual reality that is trustworthy, reliable, and ever present? And will learning be quite as effective or deep in this virtual world of never-ending interaction with the collective digital knowledge base? In another decade or so the depth and breadth of electronic information will bring the equivalent of a Library of Congress to the fingertips of the student tapping on a computer keyboard. Libraries are moving toward satisfying their users' desires. We need to start asking, toward what end? How will satisfying these desires affect the way people learn, feel, and behave? And what are the resultant new emerging library roles? The present study clearly highlights the priority that lihrary users place

LIBRARY USERS' SERVICE DESIRES

17

on digital content within their information-seeking worlds. To paraphrase a recent automobile commercial, this ain't your father's library that users today desire.

Appendix

VARIABLE LABELS AND THE TWENTY-TWO CORE L I B Q , U A L + ITEMS

ASOI IC02 LP03 AS04 IC05 AS06 IC07 LP08 AS09 ICIO ASH LP12 AS13

Employees who instill confidence in users Library staff who instill confidence in mer.% Making t-lcctronic resources accessible IVom my home or office Librai7 space that inspires study and learning Giving users individual attention A library Web site enabling me to locate informiiLion on my own Employees who are consistently courteous Library stajfu'ho are consislmtly courteous The printed library materials 1 need for my work Quiet space for individual activities Quiel space for individual work Readiness to respond to users' questions Readiness to respond to users' enquiries The electronic inlbrmation resources I need Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions Library staff who have the hioivledge to answer user questions A comfortable and inviting location Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion Library staff who deal mth users in a caring fashion

IC14 ASI5 'f'l6 LP17

AS18 IC19 IC20 LP21 AS22

Modem equipment that lets me easily access needed information Employees who understand the needs ot their users Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own A getaway for study, learning, or research
A haven for study, learning, or research Willingness ID help users Making information easily accessible for independent use Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work Community space for group learning and group study Sparc fin- group learning and gioup study Dependability in handling users' service problems

NOTE.Itemi for which only one wording is prtBrnwd were the same in both ihe American English and ihi- Briiish F-nglisli vcrsiinw of l.ihQl^AI.i-. Boih items arc presented where ihi- item wordings differ, and (he Britifjii F.iiRlish wortiiiiR is prciipmrd in ilnlirs.

18

THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY REFERENCES

1. Cook. Colleen; Heath, Fred; Thompson, Bruce; and Thompson. Russell L. "The Search for New Measures: The ARL 'LibQUAI.+' StudyA Preliminary Report." portal: Libraries and the- Acatlemy 1 (January 2001): 103-12. 2. Thompson, Bnice; Cook, Colleen; and Heath, Fred. "How Many Dimensions Does It Take to Measure Users' Perceptions of Libraries? A 'LibQUAL+' Sludy," portal: Libraries and ihf Academy I (Jantiary 2001): 129-38. 3. Cook, Colleen: Heath, Fred; and Thompson, Bruce. "'Zones of Tolerance' in Perceptions of Library Service Quality: A LibQUAL+ Study." fjortal: Libraries and the Academy 2 ( January 2003): 113-23. 4. Heath. Fred; (x)ok. Colleen; Kyrillidou, Martha; and Thompson, Bruce. "ARL Index and Other Validity Correlates of LibQUAL+ Scores." portal: Libraries and the Academy 2 ( Januarv' 2002): 27-42. 5. Cook, Colleen; Heath, Fred; and Thompson, Brtice. "Score Norms for Improving Library Service Qtiality: A. LihQVA.L+^ Sluiy." portal: Libraries and tfw Academy 2 (January 2002): 13-26. 6. Cook, Colleen, and Heath. Fred. "Users' Perceptions of Library Service Quality: A 'UbQUAL+* Qualitative Study." Ulrrary Trends 49 (Spring 2001): .'i48-84. 7. Cook, Colleen; Heath. Fred; and Thompson, Bruce. "Users' Hierarchical Perspectives on Library Service Quality: A 'LibQUAL+' Study." ColUge &' Research Libraries 62 (March 2001): 147-f>3. 8. Thompson. Bruce; Cook, Colleen; and Kyrillidou, Martha. "Concurrent Validity of LibQUAL+ Scores: What Do LibQUAL+f Scores Measure?" journal of Academic Librarianship ?>\ (November 2005): 517-22. 9. Kyrillidou. Martha. "Measuring Library Service Quality: A Perceived Outcome for Libraries." In Revtsiting Outcomes Assessnient in Hightr Education, edited by Peter Hemon, Robert E. Dungan. and Candy Schwartz. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2006,351-66. 10. Cook, Colleen, guest ed. "The Maturation of Assessment in Academic Libraries: The Role of LibQUAL+ " Performance Measurem^l and Metrics 3, no. 2 {May 2002): 43-116. 11. Heath, Fred; Kyrillidou. Martha; and Askew, Con.sueila, ed.s. "Libraries Act on Their LibQUAL+ Findings: From Data to Action." yoiimc!/ of Library Administration 40 (Fall 2004): 1-239. 12. De 1^ Rochefoucauld, Francois. Reflexions ou Sentences et Maximes Morales (ca. 1664; repn, Palis: deCrapelet. 1822). 13. Zeithaml. Valerie A.; Parasuraman. A.; and Berry, Leonard L. Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customs Perceptions and Expectations. New York: Free Press, 1990. 14. Thompson. Bruce. "Measuring User Perceptions of Librai^ Service Quality: An Introduction to LibQUAL+." Paper presented at the Czecb and Slovakian Library Information Network (CASLIN) conference Feedback: How Well Do We Do It? Prague, Czech Republic. June 11-15, 2006. 15. Thompson, Bruce. Foundations of Behamoral Statistics: An Insight-Based Approach. New York: Guilford, 2006. 16. Berry. Leonard. On Great Service: A hametuorit for Action. New York: Free Press. 1995. 17. OCLC. Inc. Perceptions of IJbraries and Information Resources: A Ref>mt to the OCLC Membership.

Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Ct)nipiiter Library Center, 2005, http://www.octc.org/reports/pdfs/Percept_all.pdf (accessed August 9. 2007).