This volume is a compilation of fifteen articles from librarians who participated in the spring 2002 LibQUAL+™ survey. The articles “provide examples of how these libraries have used their LibQUAL+ data to identify opportunities for improving their library services and programs; to initiate further data exploration; and to inform needed change. Examples of how libraries used their qualitative data to supplement quantitative findings are also provided” (p. xviii). Two articles represent libraries in consortia; five, academic health sciences libraries; and seven, university or college libraries. The answer to the inevitable question from potential readers, “If I'm not a statistics expert, should I pass on this volume?,” is a resounding “No!” Graphs, charts, and tables are peppered throughout the articles but always with complete textual explanations. A basic understanding of statistics would enhance the reading of some of these articles but is not essential to understand the implications of the findings presented.
Kyrillidou and Heath open the volume with an interesting analysis of the spring 2002 survey participants. By showing the relationship between LibQUAL+ scores and existing standard measures used to rank libraries, the authors provide a compelling argument for the need to explore other measures of library quality and effectiveness. The two articles from consortial environments underscore the strength of LibQUAL+ to provide a context broader than the local library environment and to compare results across libraries in a consortium or with national aggregate data.
Lee opens the section from health sciences libraries with an article chronicling the experience of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) with LibQUAL+. Because spring 2002 was the pilot survey for AAHSL, Lee provides background information on AAHSL's goals for participating in this first LibQUAL+ survey. She also addresses the special concerns of academic health sciences libraries that led to the development of the five “AAHSL questions” added to the standard LibQUAL+ survey. She closes with AAHSL's recommendations for participating libraries and anticipated benefits of participating in LibQUAL+ as part of the AAHSL contingent.
LaBeause explores the potential relationships between the “higher than the norm” LibQUAL+ results achieved at Mercer University and their problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum, customer service philosophy, visibility in the medical school, and active outreach program. Forsman presents an overview of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center's (UCHSC's) efforts to collect user survey data and to incorporate that feedback. These efforts have spanned over twenty years and represent increasingly sophisticated survey techniques, from walk-ins to online surveys, including LibQUAL+. UCHSC has historically incorporated user feedback into strategic planning and budget allocations and plans to use LibQUAL+ results to “drive the physical design and service deployment to be showcased in a new state-of-the-art biomedical library due to open in 2006” (p. 73). Peterson and his Duke University colleagues describe the process and challenges of administering the LibQUAL+ survey. They compare Duke's results to the AAHSL aggregate, identify some of their service areas for improvement, and describe plans for user follow-up to enhance LibQUAL+ data. Shedlock and Walton explore the surprising changes in results achieved in two consecutive LibQUAL+ surveys at Northwestern University's Galter Library. Comparing the Galter results with AAHSL peers for the second survey underscores the value that LibQUAL+ offers for peer-group comparisons.
This reviewer expected to focus on the health sciences libraries section and give a cursory glance to the contributions from other types of libraries, both in reading and reviewing this volume. But the contributions from university or college libraries were too enticing. They offer a wealth of ideas for follow-up activities and action plans found in LibQUAL+ results.
Many of these libraries are more seasoned LibQUAL+ participants, which adds depth to their analyses and places them further along the continuum of actually integrating LibQUAL+ into strategic planning for service delivery. Librarians from the University of Arizona describe how they analyzed user comments, grouped them by service area, and forwarded them to appropriate library teams for integration into strategic planning. University of Washington librarians present their LibQUAL+ data as a piece of an established assessment program, comparing results for consistency and identification of new data. Wayne State University staff explore the territory of analyzing LibQUAL+ results by subject disciplines and user groups. University of Pittsburgh staff chart the path from LibQUAL+ data to the redesign of public service units and implementation of new user-focused services. Librarians from the University of Florida describe the use of LibQUAL+ to assess user response to library strategic directions. Bowling Green State University librarians follow the use of LibQUAL+ results, enhanced by focus group data, to develop action plans supporting strategic goals. Vanderbilt University staff describe the analysis of LibQUAL+ data to identify and implement service enhancements.
The variety of institutions and “action steps” presented in this volume is something of a smorgasbord, with tidbits that should appeal to many tastes. If you are an active LibQUAL+ participant or are considering its use, you should find this book interesting and thought provoking.