Maccabee Levine discusses how UW Oshkosh conducted its recent LibQUAL+ survey, from participant recruiting through results analysis, including some changes from previous years that helped or hurt the process.

1. LibQual Challenges &
Lessons Learned
at UW Oshkosh
WiLSWorld 2014

2. LibQual & UW Oshkosh
● “LibQUAL+”
○ “a rigorously tested Web-based survey.. that helps
libraries assess and improve library services,
change organizational culture, and market the
library.”
● UW Oshkosh: 2004, 2008, February 2014.

3. Agenda
● A taste of LibQual
● 5 challenges encountered
○ solutions and/or or lessons learned

4. Time to take WiLSQual!
On a scale from 1 (worst) to 9 (best),
● Rate your perception of: "Yesterday's
WiLSWorld presenters had the
knowledge to answer audience
questions."
● Rate your desired level of expectation.
● Rate your minimum level of expectation.

5. Question 2
On a scale from 1 (worst) to 9 (best),
● Rate your perception of: "Presenters who
understand the needs of their audience."
● Rate your desired level of expectation.
● Rate your minimum level of expectation.

6. Questions 3 - 22...

7. Help me evaluate the results!
9 questions about “Affect of Service”
● Employees who instill confidence in users
● Giving users individual attention
● Employees who are consistently courteous
● Readiness to respond to users' questions
● ...

8. Help me evaluate the results!!
8 questions about “Information Control”
● Making electronic resources accessible from
my home or office
● A library Web site enabling me to locate
information on my own
● The electronic information resources I need
● Modern equipment that lets me easily
access needed information

9. Help me evaluate the results!!!!
5 questions about “Library as Place”
● Library space that inspires study and
learning
● Quiet space for individual activities
● A comfortable and inviting location
● A getaway for study, learning, or research
● ...

10. Help! me! evaluate the results!!!!
● Up to 5 Local questions (from a pool)
● Custom questions
● 3 General Satisfaction questions
● 5 Information Literacy Outcome questions
● 3 Library Use (frequency) questions
● The one free-text “tell us anything” question

11. Help! me! evaluate! the! results!!!!
For each question:
● Perception score
● Desired expectation & superiority gap
● Minimum expectation & adequacy gap
● Longitudinal comparison with prior years
● Peer comparison
● Demographic breakdowns
○ role (faculty / student), discipline, age, sex

12. Challenge #1: Avalanche of Data
● Raw perceptions / desired / minimum / gaps
● Longitudinal & peer comparisons
● Demographic breakdowns
● Comparison with qualitative comments
● Great insights, after a lot of analysis!

13. Success: Team Approach
● 5 person team: chair, 2 ‘quants’, 2 ‘quals’.
○ Delegating analysis, including "significance".
● Tools
○ Quant side: SPSS
○ Qual side: QDA Miner Lite, Brown U. taxonomy
● Chinese wall during initial analysis, then
combining the two into a single report

14. Challenge #2: Really Long Survey
(22 core questions + 5 local) * 3 ratings
+ 17 more rating questions
+ 4 demographic questions
=
102 numeric responses + one text response

15. Success: LibQUAL+ Lite
● X percentage of participants get a survey
with ~ half the questions
● We did a 50/50 split
Lite Full
Valid Responses 55% 49%
Median Survey Time 4:32 7:31
Average Survey Time 7:20 31:02

16. Challenge #3: Broad Questions
● Great for longitudinal & peer analyses.
● But how do you get assessment of specific
services or other areas of concern?

17. Solution: Local Questions
● 132 available to choose from a pool
● Can ask the same questions over time
○ or the same within the consortium
○ or not!
● Be careful: choice requires another process
○ Different functional areas / services
○ What will you do with the answer?!
○ Follow-up survey opportunities?

18. Bonus Solution: Custom Question
● New! (Beta)
○ "Please indicate your preference: From the library I
want more … electronic or print books".
○ 1 (e-books) to 5 (print books).
○ to help with consortium-wide purchasing
● Different type of answer, not good/bad
● Note: delayed our survey

19. Challenge #4: Recruitment
● Decided to request IRB approval
○ First time. So we could share the data externally.
○ Time: CITI Certification training, write-up, revisions.
● Publicity challenges: inducement.
● Should have given ourselves more flexibility
in emailing & other marketing.

20. Success: Student Recruiting
● Members of PRSSA on campus. Win/win.
● Candy!
● Very successful; 8-10 students/hour

21. (Mini-)Challenge #5: ARL
● Some complexities to the survey
configuration.
● Slow response times to some questions.

22. Solution: Consortium Approach
● 7 UWs doing the survey in one term.
● John Jax (UW La Crosse) coordinating with
ARL, got answers much more efficiently!
● UWS conference calls, sharing challenges &
solutions
● Ad-hoc consortia? WiLS opportunity?

23. Thanks to our team(s)!
Polk Library, UW Oshkosh
● Maccabee Levine (chair)
● Ted Mulvey &
Craig Thomas (quants)
● Josh Ranger &
Sara Stichert (quals)
● Pat Wilkinson (director)
● Anca Miron (IRB chair)
UW System
● John Jax (LX,
UWS LibQual chair)
● Susan Mitchell (UWS)
● James Hibbard (Platt)
● Laura Jacobs (Superior)
● Linda Kopecky (MKE)
● Mitchell Scott (GB)
● Maureen Olle-LaJoie
(RF)