Library Services Assessment

Isla Jordan, Carleton University

Julie McKenna, University of Regina

February 2, 2007

OLA Super Conference 2007: Session 1408

Outline

1. Definition and Purpose2. Survey of Assessment Practices3. Types of Assessment4. Benchmarks, Standards and EBL5. Drivers of Assessment6. Tools and Techniques7. Assessment strategy8. Questions

Assessment

… a critical tool for understanding library customers and offering services, spaces, collections, and tools that best meet their needs. Without good assessment, libraries could lose touch with users’ desires and needs and even become irrelevant.

Nardini (2001)

Assessment

…any activities that seek to measure the library’s impact on teaching, learning and research as well as initiatives that seek to identify user needs or gauge user satisfaction or perceptions with the overall goal being the data-based and user-centered continuous improvement of our collections and services.

Pam Ryan,

libraryassessment.info

The purpose of assessmentin libraries

1. To understand user interaction with library resources and services; and

2. To capture data that inform the planning, management and implementation of library resources and services.

Bertot, 2004

Survey of Assessment Practices in Canadian University Libraries

Winter 2007

Survey of Assessment Practices - Purpose

1. Benchmark services assessment practice

2. Capture some measures about the culture of assessment

Survey Sections

Demographic Information Assessment Planning Involvement in Assessment in

Organization Collection and Use of Data to Inform

Decision-Making Final Comments

Survey Participants

Invitation to complete a web-based survey to all University Librarians of: Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries

(COPPUL) Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Council of Atlantic University Libraries (CAUL/AUBO)

Invitation (February 12, 2007) to complete a French edition of the web-based survey: members of Conférence des recteurs et des

principaux des universités du Québec (CREPUQ)

Survey of Assessment PracticesEnglish Survey

60 invitations; 39 respondents65% response rate

French SurveyTo launch February 12, 2007

Thank you to …

University of Toronto UWO Queen’s University McMaster University of Windsor York University Guelph University Nipissing University

University of Waterloo Carleton University Brock University Memorial University University of

Saskatchewan UBC University of Alberta

And many more….

Types of Assessment

1. Input & Output

2. Service Quality

3. Performance Measures

4. Outcomes or Impact

1. Input & Output

Input measures: expenditures & resources Funding allocations, # of registered students, print

holdings, etc. Output measures: activities & service traffic

Reference transactions, lending and borrowing transactions, # of instruction sessions, program attendance, etc.

Ratios Students/librarians, print volume holdings/student,

reference transactions/student, etc.

Survey Results – how output data is used

Type of dataGate countBody countsReference

transactionsCirculation

statistics

Decision-makingHoursStaffing &

schedulingService pointsCollection

decisions

2. Service Quality

Services defined as all programs, activities, facilities, events, …

Measure capture results from interactions with services

Subjective evaluation of “customer service”

Measure of the affective relationship

“The only criteria that count in evaluating service quality are defined by customers. Only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant.”

(Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry 1990)

LibQUAL+

Association of Research LibrariesStandard for service quality assessment

(2003) Total market survey

Based in Gap Analysis Theory User perceptions and expectations of services

Measures outcomes and impacts

3. Performance Measures

Involves the use of efficiency and effectiveness measuresAvailability of resourcesUsability of programs, resources and servicesWeb page analysisContent analysisFunctionality analysisCost analysis

4. Outcomes or Impacts

“the ways in which library users are changed as a result of their interaction with the Library's resources and programs”

Association of College & Research Libraries Task Force on Academic Library Outcomes Assessment Report, 1998

Examples

The electronic journals were used by 65 scholars in the successful pursuit of a total of $1.7 million in research grants in 2004.

In a 2003 study, eighty-five percent of new faculty reported that library collections were a key factor in their recruitment.

LibQUAL+ Measures Outcomes The library helps me stay abreast of

developments in my field(s) of interest. The library aids my advancement in my

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

academic pursuits. The library helps me distinguish between

trustworthy and untrustworthy information.

Benchmarks, standards and EBL Standards: “Measures that tie the value of

libraries more closely to the benefits they create for their users”

NISO 2001 (National Information Standards Organization)

Benchmarking: improving ourselves by learning from others (UK Public Sector Benchmarking Service)

Benchmarks, standards and EBL

EBL (Evidence Based Librarianship):“attempts to integrate user reported, practitioner-observed and research-derived evidence as an explicit basis for decision-making.”

(Booth, “Counting What Counts” 2006)

Example of a Standard

Example: Information Literacy Standards for Science and Engineering Technology (ACRL 2006)

Standard #1: The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.

Performance Indicator #3: The information literate student has a working knowledge of the literature of the field and how it is produced.

Outcome #a: ... student knows how scientific, technical, and related information is formally and informally produced, organized, and disseminated.

CACUL Standards Committee

Goals: Add Canadian context to existing standards

in college and university libraries, e.g. ACRL prepare report for CACUL AGM at CLA 2007 form new team in summer 2007

contact Jennifer Soutter jsoutter@uwindsor.ca

Survey Results: Drivers of Assessment

University Library Administration 92%

Need for evidence to inform planning 87%

University Administration 62%

CARL, ARL or regional lib. Consortium 54%

Multiple Methods of Listening to Customers Transactional surveys Mystery shopping New, declining, and lost-customer surveys Focus group interviews Customer advisory panels Service reviews Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture Total market surveys Employee field reporting Employee surveys Service operating data capture

Note. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000). Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C.

Canadian Adoption of LibQUAL+: Benefits Quick, inexpensive Standardized and tested instrument and practice Data set of comparables for Canada

Insight into best practices at peer institutions Build staff expertise and encourage evidence

based practice and practitioners Opportunity to introduce Canadian changes to

instrument

User Surveys: LibSAT, LibPAS continuous customer feedback LibSAT measures satisfaction LibPAS (beta) measures performance

http://www.countingopinions.com/

Usability testing

gives user perspective often for website design:

e.g. “user driven web portal design” (U Toronto 2006)

also for physical space: e.g. “wayfinding” in library: http://www.arl.org/arldocs

/stats/statsevents/laconf/2006/Kress.ppt

Instruction Program Example -- Assessment Methods Learning outcomes

Student performance on examinations, assignments Pre- and post-test results Level of "information literacy"

Program service measures (outputs) # of instruction sessions offered, requests for course specific

support, # of session attendees, by discipline, by faculty member, by course, logins to library-created online tutorials, # of course pages created within university’s learning portal, etc.

Student course evaluations & peer evaluations Qualitative and quantitative

Service quality assessment LibQUAL+ (gap between expectations and perceptions)

Examples

Use patterns laptop loans, GIS over paper maps, eBooks…

Space usage studiese.g. Learning Commons study (University of

Massachusetts Amherst) Instruction and Information Literacy

e.g. use of online learning modules

Electronic resources assessment statistics not being systematically captured

for digital collections or services need for standard measures for use of

digital collections is increasingly important: to justify huge expenses of electronic

collectionsdecline in use of traditional services

(reference, ILL)

Electronic resources assessmentCOUNTER: Real-time acquisition of usage

statistics: imports usage statistics from content vendors in a

uniform format (COUNTER - Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources)

reduces need to retrieve statistical data on a resource-by-resource basis

can compare usage statistics with cost information to evaluate service benefits of e-resources

Electronic resources assessment Output statistics for ScholarsPortal

databases and e-journals, e.g. the number of requests for articles holdings of different aggregators, to see overlap Web logs, to see patterns of use

Survey Results: Statistics - electronic resources

0

5

10

15

20

25

Gather Analyze

Never

Sometimes

Frequently

Always

Survey Results: Electronic resources assessment

"we are gathering e-resources stats as part of an overall journal review "

“The Library is currently reviewing Scholarly Statistics, a product designed to gather and present for analysis e-resource statistics. Also under consideration is an ERM which, along with its other capabilities, will provide statistic analysis.”

Electronic resources assessment

“I have been busy this week with the compilation of electronic journal usage statistics for ARL. To complete Section 15 (Number of successful full-text article requests) in the Supplementary Statistics section, I am limiting myself to Counter-compliant JR1 statistics provided by the publisher. Still, I am encountering unexpected complexities. .. The JR1 format is based on an the calendar year, but the ARL statistics are reported on the budget year. This means for every publisher I have to compile two years worth of data and manipulate it.” http://www.libraryassessment.info/

Surveys, Interviews, Focus Groups

Surveys quick to implement, difficult to design identify issues, pick up anomalies wording is critical test, test, test …. users over-surveyed

Interviews and focus groups more scope for follow-up, explanation subjective, time-consuming

Survey Results: Top 5 planned assessment studies1. User satisfaction survey / LibQUAL

2. Gate traffic study

3. Electronic database use

4. Electronic journal use

5. Usability of the website

Survey Results: Staff Abilities Strengths

Formal presentations Formal reports Draw conclusions Make

recommendations Project management Facilitate focus

groups

Weaknesses Sampling Research design Focus group research Survey design Qualitative analysis

Challenges of assessment

Gathering meaningful data Acquiring methodological skills Managing assessment data Organizing assessment as a core activity Interpreting data within the context of user

behaviours and constraints.

(Troll Covey, 2002)

Survey Results: Where is assessment placed?

Assessment Librarian (2 institutions) Assessment Coordinator Libraries Assessment and Statistics Coordinator Library Assessment and Information Technology

Projects Coordinator Librarian, Evaluation & Analysis Manager, Evaluation & Analysis

Survey Results: Who else is assigned assessment responsibility?

distributed to all unit heads or team leaders (4)

AULs have responsibility (6) UL or Director (3) administrative or executive officer (4) access services or circulation (3) other positions (12)

Survey Results: Committees

Assessment Committee Priorities and Resources Committee Statistics Committee LibQual Committee LibQUAL+ Working Group Library Services Assessment Committee Community Needs Assessment Committee PR/Communications Committee Accreditation Self-Study Steering Committee Senior Management Group Cooperative Planning Team

Q. 10 Does your library have an assessment plan?

10%

57%

33%Yes

No

Not yet but one is inprogress

Q. 11 At your university, do you feel that there is greater emphasis on assessment than

in previous years?

74%

21%

5%

YesNoUndecided

Q. 12 Do you anticipate that the impetus for assessment practice will be greater next year

than this year?

82%

10%

8%

YesNoUndecided

Q. 13 Some see evidence-based assessment practice as a trend. Do you believe that the increasing

interest in this assessment practice will continue?

81%

3%

13%3%

Yes

No

Undecided

Don’t agree it is atrend

Services Assessment Strategy “The evaluation environment is increasingly

complex, and requires knowledge of multiple evaluation frameworks, methodologies, data analysis techniques, and communication skills”

Note. J.T. Snead et al. Developing Best-Fit Evaluation Strategies. (2006). Paper presented at Library Assessment Conference, Virginia.

Assessment – Continuing Commitment

Analysis

Research Question

MethodologyReporting

Services Assessment Strategy Decide what you need to know and why

Assign prioritiesConfirm timelines

Commit to and carry out methodologies for discovery

Analysis and reporting Continuous assessment and reporting

commitment

Culture of Assessment

is an organizational environment in which decisions are based on facts, research and analysis

where services are planned and delivered in ways that maximize positive outcomes and impacts for customers and stakeholders

exists in organizations where staff care to know what results they produce and how those results relate to customers’ expectations

organizational mission, values, structures, and systems support behavior that is performance and learning focused.

(Lakos, Phipps and Wilson, 1998-2002)

Resources

ARL:

ARL New Measures website (background info)

Canadian LibQUAL consortium summer 2007 workshop Sam Kalb kalbs@post.queensu.ca

Service Quality Evaluation Academy (“boot camp”)

Resources

ARL (cont’d):

ARL visit: “Making Library Assessment Work” 11/2 day visit from Steve Hiller and Jim Self pre-visit survey, presentation to staff, interviews,

meetings, written report UWO participated - for more information, contact

Margaret Martin Gardiner mgardine@uwo.ca

2006 Library Assessment Conference http://new.arl.org/stats/statsevents/laconf/index.shtml

Resources

Assessment blog:libraryassessment.info

Journals, conferences:Performance Measurement and MetricsEvidence Based Library and Information

PracticeNorthumbria International Conference on

Performance Measures

Resources

Books & Papers: Blecic, D.D., Fiscella, J.B. and Wiberley, S.E.Jr.

(2007) Measurement of Use of Electronic Resources: Advances in Use Statistics and Innovations in Resource Functionality, College & Research Libraries, 68 (1), 26-44.

Booth, A. (2006) Counting what counts: performance measurement and evidence-based practice. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 7 (2), 63-74

Brophy, P. (2006) Measuring Library Performance: principles and techniques, London, Facet Publishing.

Resources

Books & Papers: Bertot, J.C. et al. (2004) Functionality, usability, and

accessibility: Iterative user-centered evaluation strategies for digital libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 7 (1) 17-28.

Brekke, E. (1994) User surveys in ARL libraries. SPEC Kit 205, Chicago, American Library Association

Covey, D.T. (2002) Academic library assessment: new duties and dilemmas, New Library World, 103 (1175/1176), 156-164.

Resources

Books & Papers: Lakos, A., Phipps, S. and Wilson, B. (1998-2000)

Defining a “Culture of Assessment”. http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/amos.lakos/Present/North2001/Culture-of-Assessment-2001-4.pdf

Nardini, H.G. (2001) Building a Culture of Assessment, ARL Bimonthly Report, 218 (Oct 2001). http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/index.shtml

Resources

Books & Papers: Snead, J.T. et al. (2006) Developing Best-Fit

Evaluation Strategies. Library Assessment Conference, Virginia. <http://www.arl.org/stats/statsevents/laconf/06schedule.shtml>

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990) Delivering Quality Service: balancing customer perceptions and expectations, London, Collier Macmillan.

Thank you!

Questions or comments are welcome

Contact us:

Isla Jordan, Carleton University

Isla_Jordan@carleton.ca

Julie McKenna, University of Regina

Julie.McKenna@uregina.ca