Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance

Maruja De Villa Lorica
Written Spring 2009

Article Reviewed:

Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance at the University of Washington Libraries. Library Trends, 49(4), 605-625.

In the article, Hiller compares and contrasts the design, content, methodology, and administration of the a) surveys used by the University of Washington Libraries (UW Libraries) to assess the effectiveness of the programs and services rendered by the UW Libraries to faculty and student research, teaching and learning, and b) UW Libraries’ participation in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)-sponsored LibQual+ pilot (survey) conducted in 2000. The article also provides the similarities and differences between the results of the UW Libraries surveys and the LibQual+ pilot in terms of over-all satisfaction, collection importance, the library as a place, and remote use of library services and resources, among others.

The large scale surveys conducted by UW Libraries among faculty and students was designed to determine a) who the library users and potential users are; how and why the library is used (or is not used); what sources are used for library- related information; what faculty and students’ library-related needs are; and, how satisfied faculty and students are with the libraries. The survey instrument was pilot-tested, and mailed to faculty and to random, nonstratified sample of graduate- and undergraduate students. An incentive was offered to participate. Reminders/follow-ups were also made.

The UW Libraries was one of the 12 libraries that participated in the ARL-LibQual+ pilot, a Web-based survey which utilized a standardized instrument. It had 41 questions which covered the areas/dimensions of accountability, assurance, reliability, responsiveness, access to collections, and library as a place. Demographic data were also collected. The survey design and methodology was handled/managed by a group from Texas A and M University where a SERVQUAL-based survey has been used several times. Separate mailing lists for faculty and students (graduate and undergraduate) were created. A cover letter from the Director of the UW Libraries was sent by email to each participant, with information about the survey, the reasons for UW’s participation, and the URL (link) where respondents could complete the survey.

The UW Libraries’ survey generated a much higher response rate compared to the LibQual+. The low response rate for the LiBQual+ was attributed to “survey length, complexity (three-column response), perceived redundancy, technical problems, and behavioral issues related to Web-based survey”, among others (p.620).

The surveys gave interesting results. In terms of over-all satisfaction, both the UW Libraries and LibQual+ surveys obtained similar results. The faculty had the highest satisfaction while undergraduate students, the lowest. The LibQual+ survey emphasized the importance of library collections and information resources for faculty. Faculty use of the library is primarily collections driven, while students view the library as a place to do work, including finding and using information resources (p. 616). In addition, both the UW Libraries’ and LibQual+ surveys revealed the shift toward remote use of library services (rather than physically visiting the library), user self-sufficiency, and the increased importance of electronic resources.

The article is very instructive. I fully agree with Hiller that user communities and their needs are diverse hence these should be considered in survey design and administration; and, b) surveys should be short, simple, and clear to the users, and that complex research questions may be answered more adequately by other data collection instruments. I also agree that while standardized survey tools are useful, there are local issues that are better addressed using local/institutional efforts and initiatives.