Utah State University - PDF Free Download

Utah State Uiversity Associatio of Research Libraries / Texas A&M Uiversity www.libqual.org All All

All All

Utah State Uiversity Cotributors Collee Cook Texas A&M Uiversity Fred Heath Uiversity of Texas BruceThompso Texas A&M Uiversity Martha Kyrillidou Associatio of Research Libraries MaShaa Davis Associatio of Research Libraries Duae Webster Associatio of Research Libraries Associatio of Research Libraries / Texas A&M Uiversity www.libqual.org All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 3 of 89 1 Itroductio 1.1 Ackowledgemets This otebook cotais iformatio from the 2007 admiistratio of the LibQUAL+ protocol. The material o the followig pages is draw from the aalysis of resposes from the participatig istitutios collected i 2007. The LibQUAL+ project requires the skills of a dedicated group. We would like to thak several members of the LibQUAL+ team for their key roles i the developmet of this service. From Texas A&M Uiversity, the qualitative leadership of Yvoa Licol has bee key to the project's itegrity. The behid-the-scees roles of Bill Chollet ad others from the library Systems ad Traiig uits were also formative i the early years. From the Associatio of Research Libraries, we are appreciative of the past cotributios of Cosuella Askew, Richard Groves, Amy Hoseth, Mary Jackso, Joatha Sousa, ad Bey Yu. A New Measures iitiative of this scope is possible oly as the collaborative effort of may libraries. To the directors ad liaisos at all participatig libraries goes the largest measure of gratitude. Without your commitmet, the developmet of LibQUAL+ would ot have bee possible. We would like to exted a special thak you to all admiistrators at the participatig cosortia ad libraries that are makig this project happe effectively across various istitutios. We would like to ackowledge the role of the Fud for the Improvemet of Post-secodary Educatio (FIPSE), U.S. Departmet of Educatio, which provided grat fuds of $498,368 over a three-year period (2001-03). We would also like to ackowledge the support of the Natioal Sciece Foudatio (NSF) for its grat of $245,737 over a three-year period (2002-04) to adapt the LibQUAL+ istrumet for use i the sciece, math, egieerig, ad techology educatio digital library commuity, a assessmet tool i developmet ow called DigiQUAL. We would like to express our thaks for the fiacial support that has eabled the researchers egaged i this project to exceed all of our expectatios i stated goals ad objectives ad deliver a remarkable assessmet tool to the library commuity. Collee Cook Texas A&M Uiversity MaShaa Davis Associatio of Research Libraries Fred Heath Uiversity of Texas Martha Kyrillidou Associatio of Research Libraries Bruce Thompso Texas A&M Uiversity Duae Webster Associatio of Research Libraries All All

Page 4 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 1.2 LibQUAL+ : a Project from StatsQUAL I would persoally like to say a word about the developmet of LibQUAL+ over the last few years ad to thak the people that have bee ivolved i this effort. LibQUAL+ would ot have bee possible without the may people who have offered their time ad costructive feedback over the years for the cause of improvig library services. I a sese, LibQUAL+ has built three kids of parterships: oe betwee ARL ad Texas A&M Uiversity, a secod oe amog the participatig libraries ad their staff, ad a third oe comprisig the thousads of users who have provided their valuable survey resposes over the years. LibQUAL+ was iitiated i 2000 as a experimetal project for bechmarkig perceptios of library service quality across ARL libraries uder the leadership of Fred Heath ad Collee Cook, the both at Texas A&M Uiversity Libraries. It matured quickly ito a stadard assessmet tool that has bee applied at more tha 1,000 libraries, collectig iformatio o more tha half a millio library users. Each year sice 2003, we have had more tha 200 libraries coduct LibQUAL+, more tha 100,000 users respod, ad aually more tha 50,000 users provide rich commets about the ways they use their libraries. There have bee umerous advacemets over the years. I 2005, libraries were able to coduct LibQUAL+ over a two sessio period (Sessio I: Jauary to May ad Sessio II: July to December). The LibQUAL+ servers were moved from Texas A&M Uiversity to a exteral hostig facility uder the ARL brad kow as StatsQUAL. Through the StatsQUAL gateway we will cotiue to provide iovative tools for libraries to assess ad maage their eviromets i the comig years. I 2006, we added the LibQUAL+ Aalytics (for more iformatio, see Sectio 1.6). LibQUAL+ fidigs have egaged thousads of librarias i discussios with colleagues ad ARL o what these fidigs mea for local libraries, for their regios, ad for the future of libraries across the globe. Cosortia have supported their members participatio i LibQUAL+ i order to offer a iformed uderstadig of the chages occurrig i their shared eviromet. Summary highlights have bee published o a aual basis showcasig the rich array of iformatio available through LibQUAL+ : LibQUAL+ 2006 Survey Highlights <http://www.libqual.org/documets/admi/libqualhighlights2006.pdf> LibQUAL+ 2005 Survey Highlights <http://www.libqual.org/documets/admi/libqualhighlights20051.pdf> LibQUAL+ 2004 Survey Highlights <http://www.libqual.org/documets/admi/execsummary%201.3.pdf> LibQUAL+ 2003 Survey Highlights <http://www.libqual.org/documets/admi/execsummary1.1_locked.pdf> Summary published reports have also bee made available: <http://www.arl.org/pubscat/libqualpubs.html> All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 5 of 89 The socio-ecoomic ad techological chages that are takig place aroud us are affectig the ways users iteract with libraries. We used to thik that libraries could provide reliable ad reasoably complete access to published ad scholarly output, yet we ow kow from LibQUAL+ that users have a isatiable appetite for cotet. No library ca ever have sufficiet iformatio cotet that would come close to satisfyig this appetite. The team at ARL ad beyod has worked hard to urture the commuity that has bee built aroud LibQUAL+. We believe that closer collaboratio ad sharig of resources will brig libraries earer to meetig the ever chagig eeds of their demadig users. It is this spirit of collaboratio ad a willigess to view the world of libraries as a orgaic, itegrated, ad cohesive eviromet that ca brig forth major iovatios ad break ew groud. Iovatio ad aggressive marketig of the role of libraries i beefitig their commuities stregthe libraries. I a example of collaboratio, LibQUAL+ participats are sharig their results withi the LibQUAL+ commuity with a opeess that evertheless respects the cofidetiality of each istitutio ad its users. LibQUAL+ participats are actively shapig our Share Fair gatherigs, our i-perso evets, ad our uderstadig of how the collected data ca be used. LibQUAL+ offers a rich resource that ca be viewed usig may leses, should be iterpreted i multiple ways, ad is a powerful tool libraries ca use to uderstad their eviromet. LibQUAL+ is a commuity mechaism for improvig libraries ad I hope we see a icreasig umber of libraries utilizig it successfully i the years to come. I look forward to your cotiuig active ivolvemet i helpig us uderstad the may ways we ca improve library services. With warm regards, Martha Kyrillidou Director, ARL Statistics ad Service Quality Programs All All

Page 6 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 1.3 LibQUAL+ : Defiig ad Promotig Library Service Quality What is LibQUAL+? LibQUAL+ is a suite of services that libraries use to solicit, track, uderstad, ad act upo users opiios of service quality. These services are offered to the library commuity by the Associatio of Research Libraries (ARL). The program s ceterpiece is a rigorously tested Web-based survey budled with traiig that helps libraries assess ad improve library services, chage orgaizatioal culture, ad market the library. The goals of LibQUAL+ are to: Foster a culture of excellece i providig library service Help libraries better uderstad user perceptios of library service quality Collect ad iterpret library user feedback systematically over time Provide libraries with comparable assessmet iformatio from peer istitutios Idetify best practices i library service Ehace library staff members aalytical skills for iterpretig ad actig o data As of sprig 2007, more tha 1,000 libraries have participated i the LibQUAL+ survey, icludig Caadia govermet libraries, colleges ad uiversities, commuity colleges, health scieces ad hospital/medical libraries, law libraries, public libraries, ad secodary school libraries---some through various cosortia, others as idepedet participats. LibQUAL+ has expaded iteratioally, with participatig istitutios i Caada, the U.K. ad other Europea coutries as well as Australia ad South Africa. It has bee traslated ito a umber of laguages, icludig Afrikaas, Chiese (Traditioal), Daish, Dutch, Fiish, Frech, Germa, Norwegia, ad Swedish. The growig LibQUAL+ commuity of participats ad its extesive dataset are rich resources for improvig library services. How will LibQUAL+ beefit your library? Library admiistrators have successfully used LibQUAL+ survey data to idetify best practices, aalyze deficits, ad effectively allocate resources. Beefits to participatig istitutios iclude: Istitutioal data ad reports that eable you to assess whether your library services are meetig user expectatios Aggregate data ad reports that allow you to compare your library s performace with that of peer istitutios Workshops desiged for participats Access to a olie library of LibQUAL+ research articles The opportuity to become part of a commuity iterested i developig excellece i library services LibQUAL+ gives your library users a chace to tell you where your services eed improvemet so you ca respod to ad better maage their expectatios. You ca develop services that better meet your users expectatios by comparig your library s data with that of peer istitutios ad examiig the practices of those libraries that are evaluated highly by their users. How is the LibQUAL+ survey coducted? Coductig the LibQUAL+ survey requires little techical expertise o your part. You ivite your users to take the All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 7 of 89 survey by distributig the URL for your library s Web form via e-mail. Respodets complete the survey form ad their aswers are set to a cetral database. The data are aalyzed ad preseted to you i reports describig your users desired, perceived, ad miimum expectatios of service. What are the origis of the LibQUAL+ survey? The LibQUAL+ survey evolved from a coceptual model based o the SERVQUAL istrumet, a popular tool for assessig service quality i the private sector. The Texas A&M Uiversity Libraries ad other libraries used modified SERVQUAL istrumets for several years; those applicatios revealed the eed for a ewly adapted tool that would serve the particular requiremets of libraries. ARL, represetig the largest research libraries i North America, partered with Texas A&M Uiversity Libraries to develop, test, ad refie LibQUAL+. This effort was supported i part by a three-year grat from the U.S. Departmet of Educatio s Fud for the Improvemet of Post-Secodary Educatio (FIPSE). All All

Page 8 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 1.4 Web Access to Data Data summaries from the 2007 iteratio of the LibQUAL+ survey will be available to project participats olie via the LibQUAL+ survey maagemet site: <http://www.libqual.org/maage/results/idex.cfm> All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 9 of 89 1.5 Explaatio of Charts ad Tables A workig kowledge of how to read ad derive relevat iformatio from the tables ad charts used i your LibQUAL+ results otebook is essetial. I additio to the explaatory text below, you ca fid a self-paced tutorial o the project web site at: <http://www.libqual.org/iformatio/tools/idex.cfm> Both the olie tutorial ad the text below are desiged to help you uderstad your survey results ad preset ad explai those results to others at your library. Radar Charts Radar charts are commoly used throughout the followig pages to display both aggregate results ad results from idividual istitutios. Basic iformatio about radar charts is outlied below, ad additioal descriptive iformatio is icluded throughout this otebook. What is a radar chart? Radar charts are useful whe you wat to look at several differet factors all related to oe item. Sometimes called spider charts or polar charts, radar charts feature multiple axes or spokes alog which data ca be plotted. Variatios i the data are show by distace from the ceter of the chart. Lies coect the data poits for each series, formig a spiral aroud the ceter. I the case of the LibQUAL+ survey results, each axis represets a differet survey questio. Questios are idetified by a code at the ed of each axis. The three dimesios measured by the survey are grouped together o the radar charts, ad each dimesio is labeled: Affect of Service (AS), Iformatio Cotrol (IC), ad Library as Place (LP). Radar charts are used i this otebook to preset the item summaries (the results from the 22 core survey questios). How to read a radar chart Radar charts are a effective way to show stregths ad weakesses graphically by eablig you to observe symmetry or uiformity of data. Poits close to the ceter idicate a low value, while poits ear the edge idicate a high value. Whe iterpretig a radar chart, it is importat to check each idividual axis as well as the chart s overall shape i order to gai a complete uderstadig of its meaig. You ca see how much data fluctuates by observig whether the spiral is smooth or has spikes of variability. Respodets miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality are plotted o each axis of your LibQUAL+ radar charts. The resultig gaps betwee the three levels are shaded i blue, yellow, gree, ad red. Geerally, a radar graph shaded blue ad yellow idicates that users perceptios of service fall withi the zoe of tolerace ; the distace betwee miimum expectatios ad perceptios of service quality is shaded i blue, ad the distace betwee their desired ad perceived levels of service quality is show i yellow. Whe users perceptios fall outside the zoe of tolerace, the graph will iclude areas of red ad gree shadig. If the distace betwee users miimum expectatios ad perceptios of service delivery is represeted i red, that idicates a egative service adequacy gap score. If the distace betwee the desired level of service ad perceptios of service delivery is represeted i gree, that idicates a positive service superiority gap score. All All

Page 10 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU s The mea of a collectio of umbers is their arithmetic average, computed by addig them up ad dividig by their total umber. I this otebook, meas are provided for users miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality for each item o the LibQUAL+ survey. s are also provided for the geeral satisfactio ad iformatio literacy outcomes questios. Stadard Deviatio Stadard deviatio is a measure of the spread of data aroud their mea. The stadard deviatio () depeds o calculatig the average distace of each score from the mea. I this otebook, stadard deviatios are provided for every mea preseted i the tables. Service Adequacy The service adequacy gap score is calculated by subtractig the miimum score from the perceived score o ay give questio, for each user. Both meas ad stadard deviatios are provided for service adequacy gap scores o each item of the survey, as well as for each of the three dimesios of library service quality. I geeral, service adequacy is a idicator of the extet to which you are meetig the miimum expectatios of your users. A egative service adequacy gap score idicates that your users perceived level of service quality is below their miimum level of service quality ad is prited i red. Service Superiority The service superiority gap score is calculated by subtractig the desired score from the perceived score o ay give questio, for each user. Both meas ad stadard deviatios are provided for service superiority gap scores o each item of the survey, as well as for each of the three dimesios of library service quality. I geeral, service superiority is a idicator of the extet to which you are exceedig the desired expectatios of your users. A positive service superiority gap score idicates that your users perceived level of service quality is above their desired level of service quality ad is prited i gree. Sectios with charts ad tables are omitted from the followig pages whe there are three or fewer idividuals i a specific group. I cosortia otebooks, istitutio type summaries are ot show if there is oly oe library for a istitutio type. Idividual library otebooks are produced separately for each participat. All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 11 of 89 1.6 A Few Words about LibQUAL+ 2007 Libraries today cofrot escalatig pressure to demostrate impact. As Culle (2001) has oted, Academic libraries are curretly facig their greatest challege sice the explosio i tertiary educatio ad academic publishig which bega after World War II... [T]he emergece of the virtual uiversity, supported by the virtual library, calls ito questio may of our basic assumptios about the role of the academic library, ad the security of its future. Retaiig ad growig their customer base, ad focusig more eergy o meetig their customers' expectatios is the oly way for academic libraries to survive i this volatile eviromet. (pp. 662-663) Today, "A measure of library quality based solely o collectios has become obsolete" (Nitecki, 1996, p. 181). These cosideratios have prompted the Associatio of Research Libraries (ARL) to sposor a umber of "New Measures" iitiatives. The New Measures efforts represet a collective determiatio o the part of the ARL membership to augmet the collectio-cout ad fiscal iput measures that comprise the ARL Idex ad ARL Statistics, to date the most cosistetly collected statistics for research libraries, with outcome measures such as assessmets of service quality ad satisfactio. Oe New Measures Iitiative is the LibQUAL+ service (Cook, Heath & B. Thompso, 2002, 2003; Heath, Cook, Kyrillidou & Thompso, 2002; Thompso, Cook & Heath, 2003; Thompso, Cook & Thompso, 2002). Withi a service-quality assessmet model, "oly customers judge quality; all other judgmets are essetially irrelevat" (Zeithaml, Parasurama, Berry, 1990, p. 16). LibQUAL+ was modeled o the 22-item SERVQUAL tool developed by Parasurama, Berry ad Zeithaml (Parasurama, Berry & Zeithaml, 1991). However, SERVQUAL has bee show to measure some issues ot particularly relevat i libraries, ad to ot measure some issues of cosiderable iterest to library users. The fial 22 LibQUAL+ items were developed through several iteratios of studies ivolvig a larger pool of 56 items. The selectio of items employed i the LibQUAL+ survey has bee grouded i the users' perspective as revealed i a series of qualitative studies ivolvig a larger pool of items. The items were idetified followig qualitative research iterviews with studet ad faculty library users at several differet uiversities (Cook, 2002a; Cook & Heath, 2001). LibQUAL+ is ot just a list of 22 stadardized items. First, LibQUAL+ offers libraries the ability to select five optioal local service quality assessmet items. Secod, the survey icludes a commets box solicitig ope-eded user views. Almost half of the people respodig to the LibQUAL+ survey provide valuable feedback through the commets box. These ope-eded commets are helpful for ot oly (a) uderstadig why users provide certai ratigs, but also (b) uderstadig what policy chages users suggest, because may users feel the obligatio to be costructive. Participatig libraries are fidig the real-time access to user commets oe of the most useful devices i challegig library admiistrators to thik outside of the box ad develop iovative ways for improvig library services. LibQUAL+ is oe of 11 ways of listeig to users, called a total market survey. As Berry (1995) explaied, Whe well desiged ad executed, total market surveys provide a rage of iformatio umatched by ay other method... A critical facet of total market surveys (ad the reaso for usig the word 'total') is the measuremet of competitors' service quality. This [also] requires All All

Page 12 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU usig o-customers i the sample to rate the service of their suppliers. (p. 37) Although (a) measurig perceptios of both users ad o-users, ad (b) collectig perceptios data with regard to peer istitutios ca provide importat isights Berry recommeded usig multiple listeig methods ad emphasized that "Ogoig data collectio... is a ecessity. Trasactioal surveys, total market surveys, ad employee research should always be icluded" (Berry, 1995, p. 54). Score Scalig "Perceived" scores o the 22 LibQUAL+ core items, the three subscales, ad the total score, are all scaled 1 to 9, with 9 beig the most favorable. Both the gap scores ("Adequacy" = "Perceived" - "Miimum"; "Superiority" = "Perceived" - "Desired") are scaled such that higher scores are more favorable. Thus, a adequacy gap score of +1.2 o a item, subscale, or total score is better tha a adequacy gap score of +1.0. A superiority gap score of -0.5 o a item, subscale, or total score is better tha a superiority gap score of -1.0. Usig LibQUAL+ Data I some cases LibQUAL+ data may cofirm prior expectatios ad library staff will readily formulate actio plas to remedy perceived deficiecies. But i may cases library decisio-makers will seek additioal iformatio to corroborate iterpretatios or to better uderstad the dyamics uderlyig user perceptios. For example, oce a iterpretatio is formulated, library staff might review recet submissios of users to suggestio boxes to evaluate whether LibQUAL+ data are cosistet with iterpretatios, ad the suggestio box data perhaps also provide user suggestios for remedies. User focus groups also provide a powerful way to explore problems ad potetial solutios. A uiversity-wide retreat with a small-group facilitated discussio to solicit suggestios for improvemet is aother follow-up mechaism that has bee implemeted i several LibQUAL+ participatig libraries. Ideed, the ope-eded commets gathered as part of LibQUAL+ are themselves useful i fleshig out isights ito perceived library service quality. Respodets ofte use the commets box o the survey to make costructive suggestios o specific ways to address their cocers. Qualitative aalysis of these commets ca be very fruitful. I short, LibQUAL+ is ot 22 items. LibQUAL+ is 22 items plus a commets box! Cook (2002b) provided case study reports of how staff at various libraries have employed data from prior reditios of LibQUAL+. Heath, Kyrillidou, ad Askew edited a special issue of the Joural of Library Admiistratio (Vol. 40, No. 3/4) reportig additioal case studies o the use of LibQUAL+ data to aid the improvemet of library service quality. This special issue has also bee published by Hayworth Press as a moograph. These publicatios ca be ordered by sedig a email to libqual@arl.org. 2007 Data Screeig The 22 LibQUAL+ core items measure perceptios of total service quality, as well as three sub-dimesios of perceived library quality: (a) Service Affect (9 items, such as "willigess to help users"); (b) Iformatio Cotrol (8 items, such as "a library Web site eablig me to locate iformatio o my ow" ad "prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require for my work"); ad (c) Library as Place (5 items, such as "a getaway for study, learig, or research"). However, as happes i ay survey, i 2007 some users provided icomplete data, icosistet data, or both. I All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page of 89 compilig the summary data reported here, several criteria were used to determie which respodets to omit from these aalyses. 1. Complete Data. The Web software that presets the 22 core items moitors whether a give user has completed all items. O each of these items, i order to submit the survey successfully, users must provide a ratig of (a) miimally-acceptable service, (b) desired service, ad (c) perceived service or rate the item "ot applicable" ("NA"). If these coditios are ot met, whe the user attempts to leave the Web page presetig the 22 core items, the software shows the user where missig data are located, ad requests complete data. The user may of course abado the survey without completig all the items. Oly records with complete data o the 22 items ad where respodets chose a "user group," if applicable, were retaied i summary statistics. 2. Excessive "NA" Resposes. Because some istitutios provided access to a lottery drawig for a icetive (e.g., a Palm PDA) for completig the survey, some users might have selected "NA" choices for all or most of the items rather tha reportig their actual perceptios. Or, some users may have views o such a arrow rage of quality issues that their data are ot very iformative. I this survey it was decided that records cotaiig more tha 11 "NA" resposes should be elimiated from the summary statistics. 3. Excessive Icosistet Resposes. O the LibQUAL+ survey, user perceptios ca be iterpreted by locatig "perceived" results withi the "zoe of tolerace" defied by data from the "miimum" ad the "desired" ratigs. For example, a mea "perceived" ratig of 7.5 o the 1-to-9 (9 is highest) scale might be very good if the mea "desired" ratig is 6.0. But a 7.5 perceptio score is less satisfactory if the mea "desired" ratig is 8.6, or if the mea "miimum" ratig is 7.7. Oe appealig feature of such a "gap measuremet model" is that the ratig format provides a check for icosistecies (i.e., score iversios) i the respose data (Thompso, Cook & Heath, 2000). Logically, o a give item the "miimum" ratig should ot be higher tha the "desired" ratig o the same item. For each user a cout of such icosistecies, ragig from "0" to "22," was made. Records cotaiig more tha 9 logical icosistecies were elimiated from the summary statistics. LibQUAL+ Norms A importat way to iterpret LibQUAL+ data is by examiig the zoes of tolerace for items, the three subscale scores, ad the total scores. However, the collectio of such a huge umber of user perceptios has afforded us with the uique opportuity to create orms tables that provide yet aother perspective o results. Norms tell us how scores "stack up" withi a particular user group. For example, o the 1-to-9 (9 is highest) scale, users might provide a mea "perceived" ratig of 6.5 o a item, "the prited library materials I eed for my work." The same users might provide a mea ratig o "miimum" for this item of 7.0, ad a mea service-adequacy "gap score" (i.e., "perceived" mius "miimum") of -0.5. The zoe-of-tolerace perspective suggests that this library is ot doig well o this item, because "perceived" falls below "miimally acceptable." This is importat to kow. But there is also a secod way (i.e., ormatively) to iterpret the data. Both perspectives ca be valuable. A total market survey admiistered to more tha 100,000 users, as was LibQUAL+ i 2004 ad 2005, affords the opportuity to ask ormative questios such as, "How does a mea 'perceived' score of 6.5 stack up amog all All All

Page 14 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU idividual users who completed the survey?", or "How does a mea service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 stack up amog the gap scores of all istitutios participatig i the survey?" If 70 percet of idividual users geerated "perceived" ratigs lower tha 6.5, 6.5 might ot be so bad. Ad if 90 percet of istitutios had service-adequacy gap scores lower tha -0.5 (e.g., -0.7, -1.1), a mea gap score of -0.5 might actually be quite good. Users simply may have quite high expectatios i this area. They may also commuicate their dissatisfactio by ratig both (a) "perceived" lower ad (b) "miimum" higher. This does ot mea that a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 is ecessarily a cause for celebratio. But a service-adequacy gap score of -0.5 o a item for which 90 percet of istitutios have a lower gap score is a differet gap score tha the same -0.5 for a differet item i which 90 percet of istitutios have a higher service-adequacy gap score. Oly orms give us isight ito this comparative perspective. Ad a local user-satisfactio survey (as agaist a total market survey) ca ever provide this isight. Commo Miscoceptio Regardig Norms. A ufortuate ad icorrect miscoceptio is that orms make value statemets. Norms do ot make value statemets! Norms make fact statemets. If you are a forest rager, ad you make $25,000 a year, a orms table might iform you of the fact that you make less moey tha 85 percet of the adults i the Uited States. But if you love the outdoors, you do ot care very much about moey, ad you are very service-orieted, this fact statemet might ot be relevat to you. Or, i the cotext of your values, you might iterpret this fact as beig quite satisfactory. LibQUAL+ Norms Tables. Of course, the fact statemets made by the LibQUAL+ orms are oly valuable if you care about the dimesios beig evaluated by the measure. More backgroud o LibQUAL+ orms is provided by Cook ad Thompso (2001), ad Cook, Heath ad B. Thompso (2002). LibQUAL+ orms for earlier years are available o the Web at the followig URLs: <http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompso/libq2005.htm> <http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompso/libq2004.htm> Respose Rates At the America Library Associatio (ALA) Midwiter Meetig i Sa Atoio i Jauary 2000, participats were cautioed that respose rates o the fial LibQUAL+ survey would probably rage from 25-33 percet. Higher respose rates ca be realized (a) with shorter surveys that (b) are directly actio-orieted (Cook, Heath & R.L. Thompso, 2000). For example, a very high respose rate could be realized by a library director admiisterig the followig oe-item survey to users: Istructios. Please tell us what time to close the library every day. I the future we will close at whatever time receives the most votes. Should we close the library at? (A) 10 p.m. (B) 11 p.m. (C) midight (D) 2 p.m. All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 15 of 89 Lower respose rates will be expected for total market surveys measurig geeral perceptios of users across istitutios, ad whe a itetioal effort is made to solicit perceptios of both users ad o-users. Two cosideratios should gover the evaluatio of LibQUAL+ respose rates. Miimum Respose Rates. Respose rates are computed by dividig the umber of completed surveys at a istitutio by the umber of persos asked to complete the survey. However, we do ot kow the actual respose rates o LibQUAL+, because we do ot kow the correct deomiators for these calculatios. For example, give iadequacy i records at schools, we are ot sure how may e-mail addresses for users are accurate. Ad we do ot kow how may messages to ivite participatio were actually opeed. I other words, what we kow for LibQUAL+ is the "lower-boud estimate" of respose rates. For example, if 200 out of 800 solicitatios result i completed surveys, we kow that the respose rate is at least 25 percet. But because we are ot sure whether 800 e-mail addresses were correct or that 800 e-mail messages were opeed, we are ot sure that 800 is the correct deomiator. The respose rate ivolvig oly correct e-mail addresses might be 35 or 45 percet. We do't kow the exact respose rate. Represetativeess Versus Respose Rate. If 100 percet of the 800 people we radomly selected to complete our survey did so, the we ca be assured that the results are represetative of all users. But if oly 25 percet of the 800 users complete the survey, the represetativeess of the results is ot assured. Nor is urepresetativeess assured. Represetativeess is actually a matter of degree. Ad several istitutios each with 25 percet respose rates may have data with differet degrees of represetativeess. We ca ever be sure about how represetative our data are as log as ot everyoe completes the survey. But we ca at least address this cocer by comparig the demographic profiles of survey completers with the populatio (Thompso, 2000). At which uiversity below would oe feel more cofidet that LibQUAL+ results were reasoably represetative? Alpha Uiversity Completers (=200 / 800) Populatio (N=16,000) Geder Geder Studets 53% female Studets 51% female Faculty 45% female Faculty 41% female Disciplies Disciplies Liberal Arts 40% Liberal Arts 35% Sciece 15% Sciece 20% Other 45% Other 45% Omega Uiversity Completers (=200 / 800) Populatio (N=23,000) Geder Geder Studets 35% female Studets 59% female Faculty 65% female Faculty 43% female Disciplies Disciplies Liberal Arts 40% Liberal Arts 15% Sciece 20% Sciece 35% Other 40% Other 50% The persuasiveess of such aalyses is greater as the umber of variables used i the comparisos is greater. The All All

Page 16 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU LibQUAL+ software has bee expaded to automate these comparisos ad to output side-by-side graphs ad tables comparig sample ad populatio profiles for give istitutios. Show these to people who questio result represetativeess. However, oe cautio is i order regardig percetages. Whe total is small for a istitutio, or withi a particular subgroup, huge chages i percetages ca result from very small shifts i umbers. LibQUAL+ Iteractive Statistics I additio to the istitutio ad group otebooks ad the orms, LibQUAL+ has also provided a iteractive eviromet for data aalysis where istitutios ca mie istitutioal data for peer comparisos i 2003 ad 2004. The LibQUAL+ Iteractive Statistics for these years icludes graphig capabilities for all LibQUAL+ scores (total ad dimesio scores) for each idividual istitutio or groups of istitutios. Graphs may be geerated i either JPEG format for presetatio purposes or flash format that icludes more detailed iformatio for olie browsig. Tables may also be produced i a iteractive fashio for oe or multiple selectios of variables for all idividual istitutios or groups of participatig istitutios. To access the LibQUAL+ Iteractive Statistics olie, go to: <http://www.libqual.org/maage/results/idex.cfm> LibQUAL+ Aalytics The LibQUAL+ Aalytics is a ew tool that permits participats to dyamically create istitutio-specific tables ad charts for differet subgroups ad across years. The curret iterface grats access to 2004-2006 statistical data ad has two sectios: (a) (b) Istitutio Explorer icludes a summary of all questios ad dimesio meas for ay combiatio of user groups ad disciplies. Logitudial Aalysis allows participats to perform logitudial comparisos of their data across survey years. These two fuctioalities are oly the begiig of our effort to provide more customized aalysis. More features are i developmet based o feedback we receive from our participats. Survey Data I additio to the otebooks, the orms, the Iteractive Statistics, ad the Aalytics, LibQUAL+ also makes available (a) raw survey data i SPSS at the request of participatig libraries, ad (b) raw survey data i Excel for all participatig libraries. Additioal traiig usig the SPSS data file is available as a follow-up workshop ad through the Service Quality Evaluatio Academy (see below), which also offers traiig o aalyzig qualitative data. The survey commets are also dowloadable i Excel format from the Web site. ARL Service Quality Evaluatio Academy LibQUAL+ is a importat tool i the New Measures toolbox that librarias ca use to improve service quality. But, eve more fudametally, the LibQUAL+ iitiative is more tha a sigle tool. LibQUAL+ is a effort to create a culture of data-drive service quality assessmet ad service quality improvemet withi libraries. Such a culture must be iformed by more tha oe tool, ad by more tha oly oe of the 11 ways of listeig to All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 17 of 89 users. To facilitate a culture of service quality assessmet, ad to facilitate more iformed usage of LibQUAL+ data, the Associatio of Research Libraries has created the ARL Service Quality Evaluatio Academy. For more iformatio about the Academy, see the LibQUAL+ evets page at <http://www.libqual.org/evets/idex.cfm> The itesive, five-day Academy teaches both qualitative ad quatitative skills that library staff ca use to evaluate ad geerate service-quality assessmet iformatio. The Academy is oe more resource for library staff who would like to develop ehaced service-quality assessmet skills. For more iformatio, about LibQUAL+ or the Associatio of Research Libraries Statistics ad Measuremet program, see: <http://www.libqual.org/> <http://www.statsqual.org/> <http://www.arl.org/stats/> Refereces Berry, L.L. (1995). O great service: A framework for actio. New York: The Free Press. Cook, C.C., Heath F., Thompso, B. LibQUAL+ from the UK Perspective. 5th Northumbria Iteratioal Coferece Proceedigs, Durham, UK, July, 2003. Cook, C.C. (2002a). A mixed-methods approach to the idetificatio ad measuremet of academic library service quality costructs: LibQUAL+. (Doctoral dissertatio, Texas A&M Uiversity, 2001). Dissertatio Abstracts Iteratioal, 62: 2295A. (Uiversity Microfilms No. AAT3020024) Cook, C. (Guest Ed.). (2002b). Library decisio-makers speak to their uses of their LibQUAL+ data: Some LibQUAL+ case studies. Performace Measuremet ad Metrics, 3. Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2001). Users' perceptios of library service quality: A "LibQUAL+ " qualitative study. Library Treds, 49: 548-584. Cook, C., Heath, F. & Thompso, B. (2002). Score orms for improvig library service quality: A LibQUAL+ study. portal: Libraries ad the Academy, 2: -26. Cook, C., Heath, F. & Thompso, B. (2003). "Zoes of tolerace" i perceptios of library service quality: A LibQUAL+ study. portal: Libraries ad the Academy, 3: 1-123. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompso, R.L. (2000). A meta-aalysis of respose rates i Web- or Iteret-based surveys. Educatioal ad Psychological Measuremet, 60: 821-836. Cook, C., & Thompso, B. (2001). Psychometric properties of scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+ study of perceptios of library service quality. Library Treds, 49: 585-604. All All

Page 18 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Culle, R. (2001). Perspectives o user satisfactio surveys. Library Treds, 49: 662-686. Heath, F., Kyrillidou, M. & Askew, C.A. (Guest Eds.). (2004). Libraries report o their LibQUAL+ fidigs: From Data to Actio. Joural of Library Admiistratio (40) 3/4 (2004). Heath, F., Cook, C., Kyrillidou, M., & Thompso, B. (2002). ARL Idex ad other validity correlates of LibQUAL+ scores. portal: Libraries ad the Academy, 2: 27-42. Kyrillidou, M. (2005). The globalizatio of library assessmet ad the role of LibQUAL+. From library sciece to iformatio sciece: studies i hoor of G. Kakouri (Athes, Greece: Tipothito-Giorgos Dardaos, 2005). [i Greek] Kyrillidou, M. (2005/2006). Library assessmet as a collaborative eterprise. Resource Sharig ad Iformatio Networks, 18 ½: 73-87. Kyrillidou, M. (2006). Measurig library service quality: A perceived outcome for libraries. I Peter Hero (Ed.), Robert E. Duga (Ed.), ad Cady Schwartz (Ed.), Revisitig Outcomes Assessmet i Higher Educatio (pp. 351-366). Westport, CT: Library Ulimited. Kyrillidou, M., Olshe, T., Heath, F., Boelly, C., ad Cote, J. P. Cross-cultural implemetatio of LibQUAL+ : the Frech laguage experiece. 5th Northumbria Iteratioal Coferece Proceedigs, Durham, UK, July, 2003. Kyrillidou, M. ad Youg, M. (2005). ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washigto, DC: Associatio of Research Libraries. Nitecki, D.A. (1996). Chagig the cocept ad measure of service quality i academic libraries. The Joural of Academic Librariaship, 22: 181-190. Parasurama, A., Berry, L.L., ad Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refiemet ad reassessmet of the SERVQUAL scale. Joural of Retailig, 67: 420-450. Thompso, B. (2000, October). Represetativeess versus respose rate: It ai't the respose rate!. Paper preseted at the Associatio of Research Libraries (ARL) Measurig Service Quality Symposium o the New Culture of Assessmet: Measurig Service Quality, Washigto, DC. Thompso, B., Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2000). The LibQUAL+ gap measuremet model: The bad, the ugly, ad the good of gap measuremet. Performace Measuremet ad Metrics, 1: 165-178. Thompso, B., Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2003). Structure of perceptios of service quality i libraries: A LibQUAL+ study. Structural Equatio Modelig, 10: 456-464. Thompso, B., Cook, C., & Thompso, R.L. (2002). Reliability ad structure of LibQUAL+ scores: Measurig perceived library service quality. portal: Libraries ad the Academy, 2: 3-12. Thompso, B., Cook, C., & Kyrillidou, M. (2005). Cocurret validity of LibQUAL+ scores: What do LibQUAL+ scores measure? Joural of Academic Librariaship, 31: 517-522. Thompso, B., Cook, C., & Kyrillidou, M. (2006). Usig localized survey items to augmet stadardized All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 19 of 89 bechmarkig measures: A LibQUAL+ study. portal: Libraries ad the Academy, 6(2): 219-230. Thompso, B., Cook, C., & Kyrillidou, M. (2006). Stability of library service quality bechmarkig orms across time ad cohorts: A LibQUAL+ study. Paper preseted at the Asia-Pacific Coferece of Library ad Iformatio Educatio ad Practice (A-LIEP), Sigapore. Thompso, B., Cook, C., Kyrillidou, M. (2006). How ca you evaluate the itegrity of your library assessmet data: Itercotietal LibQUAL+ aalysis used as cocrete heuristic examples. Paper preseted at the Library Assessmet Coferece: Buildig Effective, Sustaiable, ad Practical Assessmet, Charlottesville, VA. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasurama, A., Berry, L.L. (1990). Deliverig quality service: Balacig customer perceptios ad expectatios. New York: Free Press. All All

Page 20 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 1.7 Library Statistics for USU The statistical data below were provided by the participatig istitutio i the olie Represetativeess* sectio. Defiitios for these items ca be foud i the ARL Statistics: <http://www.arl.org/stats/>. Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe statistical data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Volumes held Jue 30, 2006: Volumes added durig year - Gross: Total umber of curret serials received: Total library expeditures (i U): Persoel - professioal staff, FTE: Persoel - support staff, FTE: 1,574,440 24,574 12,369 $7,579,003 41 28 1.8 Cotact Iformatio for USU The perso below served as the istitutio's primary LibQUAL+ liaiso durig this survey implemetatio. Name: Title: Address: Phoe: Email: Dr. Lida L. Wolcott Vice Provost for Libraries Merrill-Cazier Library 3000 Old Mai Hill Utah State Uiversity Loga, UT 84322-3000 USA 435 797-2687 lida.wolcott@usu.edu All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 21 of 89 2 Demographic Summary for USU 2.1 Respodets by User Group User Group Respodet Respodet % Udergraduate First year Secod year Third year Fourth year Fifth year ad above No-degree 526 20.63% 385 15.10% 463 18.16% 488 19.14% 175 6.86% 0.51% Sub Total: 2,050 80.39% Graduate Masters Doctoral No-degree or Udecided 178 6.98% 79 3.10% 17 0.67% Sub Total: 274 10.75% Faculty Adjuct Faculty Assistat Professor Associate Professor Lecturer Professor Other Academic Status 4 0.16% 41 1.61% 55 2.16% 20 0.78% 54 2.12% 12 0.47% Sub Total: 186 7.29% Library Staff Admiistrator Maager, Head of Uit Public Services Systems Techical Services Other 0 0.00% 3 0.12% 4 0.16% 0 0.00% 3 0.12% 3 0.12% Sub Total: 0.51% Staff Research Staff Other staff positios 9 0.35% 18 0.71% Sub Total: 27 1.06% Total: 2,550 100.00% All All

Page 22 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 2.2 Populatio ad Respodets by User Sub-Group The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by sub-group (e.g. First year, Masters, Professor), based o user resposes to the demographic questios at the ed of the survey istrumet ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. The chart maps the percetage of respodets for each user subgroup i red. Populatio percetages for each user subgroup are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each user sub-group for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. First year (Udergraduate) Secod year (Udergraduate) Third year (Udergraduate) Fourth year (Udergraduate) Fifth year ad above (Udergraduate) No-degree (Udergraduate) User Sub-Group Masters (Graduate) Doctoral (Graduate) No-degree or Udecided (Graduate) Adjuct Faculty (Faculty) Assistat Professor (Faculty) Associate Professor (Faculty) Lecturer (Faculty) Professor (Faculty) Other Academic Status (Faculty) 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Respodet Profile by User Sub-Group Populatio Profile by User Sub-Group Percetage All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff)

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 23 of 89 User Sub-Group Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % First year (Udergraduate) 3,321 21.67% 526 20.96% 0.71% Secod year (Udergraduate) 2,594 16.92% 385 15.34% 1.58% Third year (Udergraduate) 2,667 17.40% 463 18.45% -1.05% Fourth year (Udergraduate) 4,059 26.48% 488 19.44% 7.04% Fifth year ad above (Udergraduate) 0 0.00% 175 6.97% -6.97% No-degree (Udergraduate) 8 0.90% 0.52% 0.38% Masters (Graduate) 1,025 6.69% 178 7.09% -0.40% Doctoral (Graduate) 571 3.73% 79 3.15% 0.58% No-degree or Udecided (Graduate) 69 0.45% 17 0.68% -0.23% Adjuct Faculty (Faculty) 0 0.00% 4 0.16% -0.16% Assistat Professor (Faculty) 258 1.68% 41 1.63% 0.05% Associate Professor (Faculty) 249 1.62% 55 2.19% -0.57% Lecturer (Faculty) 1 0.85% 20 0.80% 0.06% Professor (Faculty) 235 1.53% 54 2.15% -0.62% Other Academic Status (Faculty) 11 0.07% 12 0.48% -0.41% Total: 15,328 100.00% 2,510 100.00% 0.00% All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff)

Page 24 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 2.3 Populatio ad Respodets by Stadard Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the LibQUAL+ stadard disciplie categories. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Agriculture / Evirometal Studies Architecture Busiess Commuicatios / Jouralism Educatio Egieerig / Computer Sciece Geeral Studies Disciplie Health Scieces Humaities Law Military / Naval Sciece Other Performig & Fie Arts Sciece / Math Social Scieces / Psychology Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Percetage All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff)

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 25 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture / Evirometal Studies 1,485 9.69% 231 9.20% 0.48% Architecture 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Busiess 1,379 9.00% 384 15.30% -6.30% Commuicatios / Jouralism 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Educatio 3,223 21.03% 450 17.93% 3.10% Egieerig / Computer Sciece 1,914 12.49% 280 11.16% 1.33% Geeral Studies 85 0.55% 28 1.12% -0.56% Health Scieces 70 0.46% 31 1.24% -0.78% Humaities 3,465 22.61% 632 25.18% -2.57% Law 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Military / Naval Sciece 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Other 0 0.00% 0.52% -0.52% Performig & Fie Arts 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Sciece / Math 1,783 11.63% 352 14.02% -2.39% Social Scieces / Psychology 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Udecided 1,924 12.55% 109 4.34% 8.21% Total: 15,328 100.00% 2,510 100.00% 0.00% All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff)

Page 26 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 2.4 Populatio ad Respodets by Customized Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the customized disciplie categories supplied by the participatig library. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Agriculture Busiess Educatio ad Huma Services Egieerig Geeral Studies Disciplie Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces Natural Resources Not applicable Nursig Sciece Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Percetage All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff)

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 27 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture 999 6.52% 0 5.18% 1.34% Busiess 1,379 9.00% 384 15.30% -6.30% Educatio ad Huma Services 3,223 21.03% 450 17.93% 3.10% Egieerig 1,914 12.49% 280 11.16% 1.33% Geeral Studies 85 0.55% 28 1.12% -0.56% Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces 3,465 22.61% 632 25.18% -2.57% Natural Resources 486 3.17% 101 4.02% -0.85% Not applicable 0 0.00% 0.52% -0.52% Nursig 70 0.46% 31 1.24% -0.78% Sciece 1,783 11.63% 352 14.02% -2.39% Udecided 1,924 12.55% 109 4.34% 8.21% Total: 15,328 100.00% 2,510 100.00% 0.00% All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff, Staff)

Page 28 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 2.5 Respodet Profile by Age This table shows a breakdow of survey respodets by age; both the umber of respodets () ad the percetage of the total umber of respodets represeted by each age group are displayed. Age Respodets Respodets % Uder 18 18 0.71% 18-22 1,249 49.23% 23-30 935 36.85% 31-45 188 7.41% 46-65 140 5.52% Over 65 7 0.28% Total: 2,537 100.00% 2.6 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles by Sex The table below shows a breakdow of survey respodets by sex, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. The umber ad percetage for each sex are give for the geeral populatio ad for survey respodets. *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Sex Populatio N Populatio % Respodets Respodets % Male 8,265 53.92% 1,311 51.68% Female 7,063 46.08% 1,226 48.32% Total: 15,328 100.00% 2,537 100.00% All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 29 of 89 3 Survey Item Summary for USU 3.1 Core Questios Summary This radar chart shows the aggregate results for the core survey questios. Each axis represets oe questio. A code to idetify each questio is displayed at the outer poit of each axis. While questios for each dimesio of library service quality are scattered radomly throughout the survey, o this chart they are grouped ito sectios: Affect of Service, Iformatio Cotrol, ad Library as Place. O each axis, respodets' miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality are plotted, ad the resultig "gaps" betwee the three levels (represetig service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded i blue, yellow, gree, ad red. The followig two tables show mea scores ad stadard deviatios for each questio, where is the umber of respodets for each particular questio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) AS-7 AS-6 AS-5 Affect of Service AS-8 AS-4 AS-9 AS-3 IC-1 AS-2 IC-2 AS-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC-3 LP-5 IC-4 LP-4 Iformatio Cotrol IC-5 IC-6 LP-2 LP-3 Library as Place IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 Perceived Less Tha Miimum Perceived Greater Tha Miimum Perceived Less Tha Desired Perceived Greater Tha Desired All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

Page 30 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 5.46 7.41 6.50 1.04-0.91 2,446 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 5.44 6.96 6.47 1.04-0.49 2,446 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 6.51 8.02 7.34 0.83-0.68 2,521 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 6.43 7.86 7.28 0.85-0.58 2,478 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 6.42 7.97 7.16 0.75-0.81 2,471 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 6.41 7.84 7.25 0.85-0.58 2,472 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 6.40 7.84 7.22 0.82-0.62 2,473 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 6.50 7.93 7.37 0.87-0.55 2,483 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 6.42 7.85 7.23 0.81-0.62 2,344 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 6.28 8.07 6.70 0.42-1.37 2,446 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 6.52 8.12 7.01 0.48-1.11 2,512 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 6.35 7.82 6.99 0.64-0.83 2,362 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 6.65 8.10 7.16 0.51-0.94 2,497 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 6.94 8.25 7.81 0.87-0.44 2,514 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 6.51 8.09 7.11 0.60-0.99 2,504 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 6.61 8.10 7.26 0.66-0.84 2,499 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 6.57 8.08 7.03 0.46-1.04 2,367 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 6.43 8.09 7.45 1.02-0.64 2,502 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 6.52 8.00 7.30 0.77-0.70 2,475 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 6.42 8.05 7.73 1.31-0.33 2,515 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 6.54 8.04 7.49 0.95-0.55 2,473 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 6.08 7.68 7.40 1.32-0.28 2,415 study Overall: 6.38 7.92 7.19 0.81-0.73 2,537 All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 31 of 89 ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 1.81 1.56 1.59 1.75 1.64 2,446 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 2.01 1.83 1.74 1.78 1.67 2,446 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 1.80 1.33 1.48 1.81 1.54 2,521 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 1.71 1.34 1.45 1.69 1.44 2,478 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 1.70 1.33 1.44 1.71 1.50 2,471 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 1.78 1.40 1.43 1.75 1.46 2,472 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 1.73 1.37 1.42 1.69 1.44 2,473 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 1.76 1.35 1.45 1.69 1.38 2,483 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 1.72 1.40 1.44 1.70 1.47 2,344 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 1.85 1.36 1.85 2.17 1.98 2,446 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 1.76 1.27 1.63 1.95 1.71 2,512 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 1.78 1.45 1.52 1.83 1.64 2,362 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 1.67 1.24 1.53 1.89 1.65 2,497 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 1.66 1.18 1.31 1.68 1.28 2,514 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 1.68 1.24 1.44 1.79 1.53 2,504 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 1.66 1.20 1.42 1.80 1.50 2,499 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 1.77 1.33 1.63 2.11 1.82 2,367 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 1.85 1.33 1.50 1.95 1.62 2,502 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 1.83 1.41 1.59 2.04 1.74 2,475 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 1.82 1.30 1.42 1.85 1.44 2,515 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 1.82 1.36 1.43 1.81 1.49 2,473 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 1.96 1.67 1.51 2.02 1.82 2,415 study Overall: 1.38 0.96 1.05 1.31 1.00 2,537 All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

Page 32 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 3.2 Core Questio Dimesios Summary O the chart below, scores for each dimesio of library service quality have bee plotted graphically. The exterior bars represet the rage of miimum to desired mea scores for each dimesio. The iterior bars represet the rage of miimum to perceived mea scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimesio of library service quality. 9 8 7 6 5 4 Affect of Service Iformatio Cotrol Library as Place Overall Dimesio Rage of Miimum to Desired Rage of Miimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap") All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 33 of 89 The followig table displays mea scores for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 6.22 7.74 7.09 0.87-0.65 2,535 Iformatio Cotrol 6.55 8.08 7.14 0.59-0.94 2,537 Library as Place 6.40 7.96 7.47 1.07-0.50 2,531 Overall: 6.38 7.92 7.19 0.81-0.73 2,537 The followig table displays stadard deviatio for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 1.48 1. 1.20 1.36 1. 2,535 Iformatio Cotrol 1.40 0.97 1.15 1.46 1.18 2,537 Library as Place 1.56 1. 1.19 1.55 1.20 2,531 Overall: 1.38 0.96 1.05 1.31 1.00 2,537 All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

Page 34 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 3.3 Geeral Satisfactio Questios Summary This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the geeral satisfactio questios: Satisfactio with Treatmet, Satisfactio with Support, ad Satisfactio with Overall Quality of Service, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the geeral satisfactio questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9. Satisfactio Questio I geeral, I am satisfied with the way i which I am treated at the library. 7.64 1.45 2,537 I geeral, I am satisfied with library support for my learig, research, ad/or teachig eeds. 7.29 1.52 2,537 How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.45 1.26 2,536 3.4 Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios Summary This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the iformatio literacy outcomes questios, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the iformatio literacy outcomes questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9 with 1 beig "strogly disagree" ad 9 represetig "strogly agree". Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios The library helps me stay abreast of developmets i my field(s) of iterest. 6.24 1.68 2,537 The library aids my advacemet i my academic disciplie. 6.85 1.63 2,537 The library eables me to be more efficiet i my academic pursuits. 7.11 1.59 2,537 The library helps me distiguish betwee trustworthy ad utrustworthy iformatio. 6.16 1.84 2,537 The library provides me with the iformatio skills I eed i my work or study. 6.57 1.69 2,537 All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 35 of 89 3.5 Library Use Summary This chart shows a graphic represetatio of library use (both o the premises ad electroically), as well as use of o-library iformatio gateways such as Yahoo ad Google. Bars represet the frequecy with which respodets report usig these resources: Daily, Weekly, Mothly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the umber ad percetage of respodets who selected each optio. 100 90 80 Percetage 70 60 50 40 30 How ofte do you use resources o library premises? How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 20 10 0 Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never Frequecy Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never / % How ofte do you use resources o library premises? 568 22.39% 1,148 45.25% 561 22.11% 220 8.67% 40 1.58% 2,537 100.00% How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? 395 15.57% 1,120 44.15% 635 25.03% 286 11.27% 101 3.98% 2,537 100.00% How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 1,655 65.23% 682 26.88% 7 5.40% 33 1.30% 30 1.18% 2,537 100.00% All (Excludig Library Staff) All (Excludig Library Staff)

Page 36 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 4 Udergraduate Summary 4.1 Demographic Summary for Udergraduate 4.1.1 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Udergraduate by Stadard Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the LibQUAL+ stadard disciplie categories. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). Agriculture / Evirometal Studies Architecture Busiess Commuicatios / Jouralism Educatio Egieerig / Computer Sciece Geeral Studies Disciplie Health Scieces Humaities Law Military / Naval Sciece Other Performig & Fie Arts Sciece / Math Social Scieces / Psychology Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Percetage Udergraduate Udergraduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 37 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture / Evirometal Studies 1,000 7.83% 167 8.15% -0.32% Architecture 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Busiess 1,141 8.93% 334 16.29% -7.36% Commuicatios / Jouralism 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Educatio 2,660 20.82% 336 16.39% 4.43% Egieerig / Computer Sciece 1,533 12.00% 234 11.41% 0.58% Geeral Studies 85 0.67% 26 1.27% -0.60% Health Scieces 70 0.55% 28 1.37% -0.82% Humaities 3,046 23.84% 534 26.05% -2.21% Law 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Military / Naval Sciece 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Other 0 0.00% 8 0.39% -0.39% Performig & Fie Arts 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Sciece / Math 1,387 10.85% 278.56% -2.71% Social Scieces / Psychology 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Udecided 1,857 14.53% 105 5.12% 9.41% Total: 12,779 100.00% 2,050 100.00% 0.00% Udergraduate Udergraduate

Page 38 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 4.1.2 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Udergraduate by Customized Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the customized disciplie categories supplied by the participatig library. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). Agriculture Busiess Educatio ad Huma Services Egieerig Geeral Studies Disciplie Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces Natural Resources Not applicable Nursig Sciece Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Percetage Udergraduate Udergraduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 39 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture 740 5.79% 107 5.22% 0.57% Busiess 1,141 8.93% 334 16.29% -7.36% Educatio ad Huma Services 2,660 20.82% 336 16.39% 4.43% Egieerig 1,533 12.00% 234 11.41% 0.58% Geeral Studies 85 0.67% 26 1.27% -0.60% Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces 3,046 23.84% 534 26.05% -2.21% Natural Resources 260 2.03% 60 2.93% -0.89% Not applicable 0 0.00% 8 0.39% -0.39% Nursig 70 0.55% 28 1.37% -0.82% Sciece 1,387 10.85% 278.56% -2.71% Udecided 1,857 14.53% 105 5.12% 9.41% Total: 12,779 100.00% 2,050 100.00% 0.00% Udergraduate Udergraduate

Page 40 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 4.1.3 Respodet Profile for Udergraduate by Age This table shows a breakdow of survey respodets by age; both the umber of respodets () ad the percetage of the total umber of respodets represeted by each age group are displayed. Age Respodets Respodets % Uder 18 17 0.83% 18-22 1,225 59.76% 23-30 736 35.90% 31-45 57 2.78% 46-65 15 0.73% Over 65 0 0.00% Total: 2,050 100.00% 4.1.4 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Udergraduate by Sex The table below shows a breakdow of survey respodets by sex, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. The umber ad percetage for each sex are give for the geeral populatio ad for survey respodets. *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Sex Populatio N Populatio % Respodets Respodets % Male 6,619 51.80% 1,036 50.54% Female 6,160 48.20% 1,014 49.46% Total: 12,779 100.00% 2,050 100.00% Udergraduate Udergraduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 41 of 89 4.2 Core Questios Summary for Udergraduate This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questios. Each axis represets oe questio. A code to idetify each questio is displayed at the outer poit of each axis. While questios for each dimesio of library service quality are scattered radomly throughout the survey, o this chart they are grouped ito sectios: Affect of Service, Library as Place, ad Iformatio Cotrol. O each axis, respodets' miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality are plotted, ad the resultig "gaps" betwee the three levels (represetig service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded i blue, yellow, gree, ad red. The two followig tables show mea scores ad stadard deviatios for each questio, where is the umber of respodets for each particular questio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) AS-7 AS-6 AS-5 Affect of Service AS-8 AS-4 AS-9 AS-3 IC-1 AS-2 IC-2 AS-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC-3 LP-5 IC-4 LP-4 Iformatio Cotrol IC-5 IC-6 LP-2 LP-3 Library as Place IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 Perceived Less Tha Miimum Perceived Greater Tha Miimum Perceived Less Tha Desired Perceived Greater Tha Desired Udergraduate Udergraduate

Page 42 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 5.39 7.36 6.46 1.07-0.90 1,982 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 5.30 6.85 6.39 1.09-0.46 1,984 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 6.47 8.02 7.31 0.84-0.71 2,041 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 6.35 7.80 7.25 0.90-0.56 2,004 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 6.37 7.95 7.17 0.80-0.78 2,005 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 6.38 7.83 7.24 0.86-0.59 2,009 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 6.32 7.79 7.23 0.91-0.56 2,005 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 6.44 7.89 7.35 0.91-0.54 2,011 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 6.37 7.83 7.23 0.87-0.59 1,914 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 6. 7.99 6.72 0.58-1.27 1,970 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 6.40 8.03 7.01 0.62-1.02 2,029 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 6.28 7.78 7.09 0.81-0.69 1,902 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 6.52 8.00 7.23 0.71-0.77 2,014 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 6.90 8.23 7.87 0.97-0.36 2,037 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 6.41 8.03 7.11 0.69-0.93 2,025 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 6.53 8.05 7.29 0.76-0.76 2,025 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 6.44 7.98 7.15 0.72-0.83 1,896 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 6.45 8.14 7.44 1.00-0.70 2,038 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 6.56 8.07 7.33 0.78-0.74 2,030 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 6.47 8.12 7.72 1.25-0.40 2,044 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 6.57 8.09 7.54 0.96-0.55 2,021 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 6.14 7.78 7.43 1.29-0.35 2,006 study Overall: 6.33 7.89 7.21 0.88-0.69 2,050 Udergraduate Udergraduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 43 of 89 ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 1.82 1.56 1.59 1.77 1.64 1,982 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 2.03 1.84 1.73 1.79 1.68 1,984 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 1.81 1.32 1.49 1.82 1.52 2,041 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 1.73 1.36 1.45 1.69 1.46 2,004 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 1.73 1.34 1.43 1.70 1.50 2,005 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 1.78 1.39 1.42 1.74 1.47 2,009 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 1.77 1.39 1.40 1.67 1.43 2,005 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 1.78 1.36 1.45 1.70 1.40 2,011 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 1.75 1.40 1.43 1.67 1.44 1,914 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 1.86 1.40 1.81 2.10 1.94 1,970 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 1.79 1.31 1.64 1.93 1.71 2,029 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 1.80 1.45 1.46 1.72 1.54 1,902 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 1.70 1.28 1.47 1.79 1.55 2,014 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 1.69 1.20 1.28 1.66 1.24 2,037 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 1.71 1.28 1.44 1.79 1.53 2,025 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 1.69 1.23 1.40 1.75 1.47 2,025 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 1.80 1.37 1.54 1.94 1.69 1,896 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 1.84 1.25 1.51 1.96 1.59 2,038 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 1.80 1.31 1.58 2.04 1.71 2,030 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 1.81 1.24 1.43 1.84 1.43 2,044 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 1.80 1.28 1.41 1.79 1.45 2,021 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 1.93 1.57 1.49 2.01 1.78 2,006 study Overall: 1.40 0.96 1.04 1.29 0.99 2,050 Udergraduate Udergraduate

Page 44 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 4.3 Core Questio Dimesios Summary for Udergraduate O the chart below, scores for each dimesio of library service quality have bee plotted graphically. The exterior bars represet the rage of miimum to desired mea scores for each dimesio. The iterior bars represet the rage of miimum to perceived mea scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimesio of library service quality. 9 8 7 6 5 4 Affect of Service Iformatio Cotrol Library as Place Overall Dimesio Rage of Miimum to Desired Rage of Miimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap") Udergraduate Udergraduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 45 of 89 The followig table displays mea scores for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 6.15 7.70 7.06 0.91-0.63 2,049 Iformatio Cotrol 6.45 8.01 7.19 0.73-0.83 2,050 Library as Place 6.44 8.04 7.49 1.05-0.55 2,049 Overall: 6.33 7.89 7.21 0.88-0.69 2,050 The followig table displays stadard deviatio for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 1.49 1.12 1.18 1.34 1.12 2,049 Iformatio Cotrol 1.41 0.99 1.12 1.39 1.11 2,050 Library as Place 1.54 1.04 1.17 1.53 1.16 2,049 Overall: 1.40 0.96 1.04 1.29 0.99 2,050 Udergraduate Udergraduate

Page 46 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 4.4 Geeral Satisfactio Questios Summary for Udergraduate This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the geeral satisfactio questios: Satisfactio with Treatmet, Satisfactio with Support, ad Satisfactio with Overall Quality of Service, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the geeral satisfactio questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9. Satisfactio Questio I geeral, I am satisfied with the way i which I am treated at the library. 7.66 1.43 2,050 I geeral, I am satisfied with library support for my learig, research, ad/or teachig eeds. 7.40 1.40 2,050 How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.52 1.20 2,049 4.5 Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios Summary for Udergraduate This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the iformatio literacy outcomes questios, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the iformatio literacy outcomes questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9 with 1 beig "strogly disagree" ad 9 represetig "strogly agree". Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios The library helps me stay abreast of developmets i my field(s) of iterest. 6.23 1.64 2,050 The library aids my advacemet i my academic disciplie. 6.89 1.59 2,050 The library eables me to be more efficiet i my academic pursuits. 7.18 1.52 2,050 The library helps me distiguish betwee trustworthy ad utrustworthy iformatio. 6.24 1.79 2,050 The library provides me with the iformatio skills I eed i my work or study. 6.65 1.64 2,050 Udergraduate Udergraduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 47 of 89 4.6 Library Use Summary for Udergraduate 100 This chart shows a graphic represetatio of library use (both o the premises ad electroically), as well as use of o-library iformatio gateways such as Yahoo ad Google. Bars represet the frequecy with which respodets report usig these resources: Daily, Weekly, Mothly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the umber ad percetage of respodets who selected each optio. 90 80 Percetage 70 60 50 40 30 How ofte do you use resources o library premises? How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 20 10 0 Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never Frequecy Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never / % How ofte do you use resources o library premises? 522 25.46% 937 45.71% 416 20.29% 152 7.41% 23 1.12% 2,050 100.00% How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? 249 12.15% 905 44.15% 565 27.56% 243 11.85% 88 4.29% 2,050 100.00% How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 1,281 62.49% 594 28.98% 120 5.85% 28 1.37% 27 1.32% 2,050 100.00% Udergraduate Udergraduate

Page 48 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 5 Graduate Summary 5.1 Demographic Summary for Graduate 5.1.1 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Graduate by Stadard Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the LibQUAL+ stadard disciplie categories. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). Agriculture / Evirometal Studies Architecture Busiess Commuicatios / Jouralism Educatio Egieerig / Computer Sciece Geeral Studies Disciplie Health Scieces Humaities Law Military / Naval Sciece Other Performig & Fie Arts Sciece / Math Social Scieces / Psychology Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Percetage Graduate Graduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 49 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture / Evirometal Studies 263 15.80% 43 15.69% 0.10% Architecture 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Busiess 170 10.21% 38.87% -3.66% Commuicatios / Jouralism 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Educatio 412 24.74% 61 22.26% 2.48% Egieerig / Computer Sciece 288 17.30% 33 12.04% 5.25% Geeral Studies 0 0.00% 2 0.73% -0.73% Health Scieces 0 0.00% 3 1.09% -1.09% Humaities 207 12.43% 41 14.96% -2.53% Law 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Military / Naval Sciece 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Other 0 0.00% 2 0.73% -0.73% Performig & Fie Arts 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Sciece / Math 258 15.50% 48 17.52% -2.02% Social Scieces / Psychology 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Udecided 67 4.02% 3 1.09% 2.93% Total: 1,665 100.00% 274 100.00% 0.00% Graduate Graduate

Page 50 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 5.1.2 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Graduate by Customized Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the customized disciplie categories supplied by the participatig library. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). Agriculture Busiess Educatio ad Huma Services Egieerig Geeral Studies Disciplie Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces Natural Resources Not applicable Nursig Sciece Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Percetage Graduate Graduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 51 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture 88 5.29% 7 2.55% 2.73% Busiess 170 10.21% 38.87% -3.66% Educatio ad Huma Services 412 24.74% 61 22.26% 2.48% Egieerig 288 17.30% 33 12.04% 5.25% Geeral Studies 0 0.00% 2 0.73% -0.73% Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces 207 12.43% 41 14.96% -2.53% Natural Resources 175 10.51% 36.14% -2.63% Not applicable 0 0.00% 2 0.73% -0.73% Nursig 0 0.00% 3 1.09% -1.09% Sciece 258 15.50% 48 17.52% -2.02% Udecided 67 4.02% 3 1.09% 2.93% Total: 1,665 100.00% 274 100.00% 0.00% Graduate Graduate

Page 52 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 5.1.3 Respodet Profile for Graduate by Age This table shows a breakdow of survey respodets by age; both the umber of respodets () ad the percetage of the total umber of respodets represeted by each age group are displayed. Age Respodets Respodets % Uder 18 0 0.00% 18-22 22 8.03% 23-30 189 68.98% 31-45 53 19.34% 46-65 9 3.28% Over 65 1 0.36% Total: 274 100.00% 5.1.4 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Graduate by Sex The table below shows a breakdow of survey respodets by sex, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. The umber ad percetage for each sex are give for the geeral populatio ad for survey respodets. *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Sex Populatio N Populatio % Respodets Respodets % Male 1,044 62.70% 150 54.74% Female 621 37.30% 124 45.26% Total: 1,665 100.00% 274 100.00% Graduate Graduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 53 of 89 5.2 Core Questios Summary for Graduate This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questios. Each axis represets oe questio. A code to idetify each questio is displayed at the outer poit of each axis. While questios for each dimesio of library service quality are scattered radomly throughout the survey, o this chart they are grouped ito sectios: Affect of Service, Library as Place, ad Iformatio Cotrol. O each axis, respodets' miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality are plotted, ad the resultig "gaps" betwee the three levels (represetig service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded i blue, yellow, gree, ad red. The two followig tables show mea scores ad stadard deviatios for each questio, where is the umber of respodets for each particular questio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) AS-7 AS-6 AS-5 Affect of Service AS-8 AS-4 AS-9 AS-3 IC-1 AS-2 IC-2 AS-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC-3 LP-5 IC-4 LP-4 Iformatio Cotrol IC-5 IC-6 LP-2 LP-3 Library as Place IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 Perceived Less Tha Miimum Perceived Greater Tha Miimum Perceived Less Tha Desired Perceived Greater Tha Desired Graduate Graduate

Page 54 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 5.71 7.63 6.50 0.78-1. 260 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 5.77 7.19 6.55 0.79-0.63 256 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 6.63 8.03 7.34 0.71-0.69 270 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 6.62 7.98 7.21 0.60-0.76 266 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 6.55 8.01 7.00 0.45-1.02 258 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 6.49 7.85 7.21 0.72-0.64 261 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 6.60 7.97 7.00 0.39-0.97 260 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 6.66 8.09 7.38 0.72-0.70 265 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 6.61 7.94 7.12 0.51-0.83 247 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 6.63 8.36 6.61-0.01-1.75 269 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 6.91 8.40 6.96 0.04-1.44 272 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 6.60 8.05 6.85 0.24-1.20 255 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 7. 8.50 6.85-0.28-1.65 271 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 7.06 8.32 7.62 0.56-0.70 272 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 6.80 8.24 7.10 0.30-1.14 270 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 6.89 8.31 7.21 0.32-1.10 270 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 7.01 8.38 6.78-0.23-1.60 264 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 6.38 8.01 7.36 0.99-0.65 272 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 6.49 7.83 6.99 0.49-0.84 267 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 6.21 7.84 7.68 1.47-0.16 270 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 6.49 8.03 7.28 0.79-0.75 265 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 5.95 7.41 7.24 1.29-0.16 249 study Overall: 6.56 8.02 7.08 0.52-0.94 274 Graduate Graduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 55 of 89 ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 1.74 1.55 1.66 1.72 1.76 260 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 1.85 1.84 1.81 1.80 1.77 256 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 1.67 1.37 1.52 1.80 1.57 270 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 1.62 1.34 1.53 1.70 1.48 266 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 1.59 1.37 1.51 1.80 1.60 258 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 1.79 1.48 1.52 1.91 1.55 261 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 1.62 1.41 1.61 1.80 1.62 260 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 1.67 1.27 1.51 1.74 1.41 265 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 1.60 1.42 1.57 1.83 1.63 247 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 1.76 1.16 1.98 2.31 2.09 269 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 1.59 1.06 1.61 1.98 1.72 272 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 1.66 1.38 1.58 1.98 1.79 255 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 1.44 0.93 1.75 2.11 1.90 271 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 1.51 1.12 1.50 1.66 1.40 272 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 1.58 1.14 1.56 1.70 1.58 270 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 1.54 1.12 1.43 1.85 1.52 270 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 1.59 1.21 1.83 2.32 1.96 264 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 1.90 1.51 1.52 2.01 1.70 272 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 1.94 1.64 1.65 2.16 1.94 267 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 1.93 1.46 1.40 2.01 1.48 270 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 1.86 1.35 1.42 1.90 1.53 265 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 2.09 1.89 1.59 2.20 2.01 249 study Overall: 1.30 0.95 1.14 1.36 1.08 274 Graduate Graduate

Page 56 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 5.3 Core Questio Dimesios Summary for Graduate O the chart below, scores for each dimesio of library service quality have bee plotted graphically. The exterior bars represet the rage of miimum to desired mea scores for each dimesio. The iterior bars represet the rage of miimum to perceived mea scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimesio of library service quality. 9 8 7 6 5 4 Affect of Service Iformatio Cotrol Library as Place Overall Dimesio Rage of Miimum to Desired Rage of Miimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap") Graduate Graduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 57 of 89 The followig table displays mea scores for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 6.40 7.85 7.02 0.63-0.82 273 Iformatio Cotrol 6.88 8.32 7.00 0.12-1.32 274 Library as Place 6.30 7.82 7.32 1.02-0.50 273 Overall: 6.56 8.02 7.08 0.52-0.94 274 The followig table displays stadard deviatio for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 1.42 1.18 1.33 1.47 1.29 273 Iformatio Cotrol 1.25 0.88 1.27 1.54 1.29 274 Library as Place 1.66 1.25 1.25 1.65 1.26 273 Overall: 1.30 0.95 1.14 1.36 1.08 274 Graduate Graduate

Page 58 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 5.4 Geeral Satisfactio Questios Summary for Graduate This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the geeral satisfactio questios: Satisfactio with Treatmet, Satisfactio with Support, ad Satisfactio with Overall Quality of Service, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the geeral satisfactio questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9. Satisfactio Questio I geeral, I am satisfied with the way i which I am treated at the library. 7.45 1.54 274 I geeral, I am satisfied with library support for my learig, research, ad/or teachig eeds. 6.95 1.72 274 How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.19 1.40 274 5.5 Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios Summary for Graduate This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the iformatio literacy outcomes questios, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the iformatio literacy outcomes questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9 with 1 beig "strogly disagree" ad 9 represetig "strogly agree". Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios The library helps me stay abreast of developmets i my field(s) of iterest. 6.36 1.79 274 The library aids my advacemet i my academic disciplie. 6.87 1.66 274 The library eables me to be more efficiet i my academic pursuits. 6.95 1.77 274 The library helps me distiguish betwee trustworthy ad utrustworthy iformatio. 5.91 1.95 274 The library provides me with the iformatio skills I eed i my work or study. 6.41 1.76 274 Graduate Graduate

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 59 of 89 5.6 Library Use Summary for Graduate 100 This chart shows a graphic represetatio of library use (both o the premises ad electroically), as well as use of o-library iformatio gateways such as Yahoo ad Google. Bars represet the frequecy with which respodets report usig these resources: Daily, Weekly, Mothly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the umber ad percetage of respodets who selected each optio. 90 80 Percetage 70 60 50 40 30 How ofte do you use resources o library premises? How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 20 10 0 Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never Frequecy Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never / % How ofte do you use resources o library premises? 36.14% 5 49.27% 66 24.09% 31 11.31% 6 2.19% 274 100.00% How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? 78 28.47% 5 49.27% 41 14.96% 16 5.84% 4 1.46% 274 100.00% How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 208 75.91% 54 19.71% 9 3.28% 2 0.73% 1 0.36% 274 100.00% Graduate Graduate

Page 60 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 6 Faculty Summary 6.1 Demographic Summary for Faculty 6.1.1 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Faculty by Stadard Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the LibQUAL+ stadard disciplie categories. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). Agriculture / Evirometal Studies Architecture Busiess Commuicatios / Jouralism Educatio Egieerig / Computer Sciece Geeral Studies Disciplie Health Scieces Humaities Law Military / Naval Sciece Other Performig & Fie Arts Sciece / Math Social Scieces / Psychology Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 Percetage Faculty Faculty

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 61 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture / Evirometal Studies 222 25.11% 21 11.29%.82% Architecture 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Busiess 68 7.69% 12 6.45% 1.24% Commuicatios / Jouralism 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Educatio 151 17.08% 53 28.49% -11.41% Egieerig / Computer Sciece 93 10.52% 6.99% 3.53% Geeral Studies 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Health Scieces 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Humaities 212 23.98% 57 30.65% -6.66% Law 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Military / Naval Sciece 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Other 0 0.00% 3 1.61% -1.61% Performig & Fie Arts 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Sciece / Math 8 15.61% 26.98% 1.63% Social Scieces / Psychology 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Udecided 0 0.00% 1 0.54% -0.54% Total: 884 100.00% 186 100.00% 0.00% Faculty Faculty

Page 62 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 6.1.2 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Faculty by Customized Disciplie The chart ad table below show a breakdow of survey respodets by disciplie, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio. This sectio shows survey respodets broke dow based o the customized disciplie categories supplied by the participatig library. The chart maps percetage of respodets for each disciplie i red. Populatio percetages for each disciplie are mapped i blue. The table shows the umber ad percetage for each disciplie, for the geeral populatio (N) ad for survey respodets (). Agriculture Busiess Educatio ad Huma Services Egieerig Geeral Studies Disciplie Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces Natural Resources Not applicable Nursig Sciece Udecided Respodet Profile by Disciplie Populatio Profile by Disciplie 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 Percetage Faculty Faculty

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 63 of 89 Disciplie Populatio N Populatio Respodets Respodets % % %N - % Agriculture 171 19.34% 16 8.60% 10.74% Busiess 68 7.69% 12 6.45% 1.24% Educatio ad Huma Services 151 17.08% 53 28.49% -11.41% Egieerig 93 10.52% 6.99% 3.53% Geeral Studies 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Humaities, Arts, & Social Scieces 212 23.98% 57 30.65% -6.66% Natural Resources 51 5.77% 5 2.69% 3.08% Not applicable 0 0.00% 3 1.61% -1.61% Nursig 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Sciece 8 15.61% 26.98% 1.63% Udecided 0 0.00% 1 0.54% -0.54% Total: 884 100.00% 186 100.00% 0.00% Faculty Faculty

Page 64 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 6.1.3 Respodet Profile for Faculty by Age This table shows a breakdow of survey respodets by age; both the umber of respodets () ad the percetage of the total umber of respodets represeted by each age group are displayed. Age Respodets Respodets % Uder 18 1 0.54% 18-22 0 0.00% 23-30 4 2.15% 31-45 70 37.63% 46-65 105 56.45% Over 65 6 3.23% Total: 186 100.00% 6.1.4 Populatio ad Respodet Profiles for Faculty by Sex The table below shows a breakdow of survey respodets by sex, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. The umber ad percetage for each sex are give for the geeral populatio ad for survey respodets. *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Sex Populatio N Populatio % Respodets Respodets % Male 602 68.10% 115 61.83% Female 282 31.90% 71 38.17% Total: 884 100.00% 186 100.00% Faculty Faculty

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 65 of 89 6.2 Core Questios Summary for Faculty This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questios. Each axis represets oe questio. A code to idetify each questio is displayed at the outer poit of each axis. While questios for each dimesio of library service quality are scattered radomly throughout the survey, o this chart they are grouped ito sectios: Affect of Service, Library as Place, ad Iformatio Cotrol. O each axis, respodets' miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality are plotted, ad the resultig "gaps" betwee the three levels (represetig service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded i blue, yellow, gree, ad red. The two followig tables show mea scores ad stadard deviatios for each questio, where is the umber of respodets for each particular questio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) AS-7 AS-6 AS-5 Affect of Service AS-8 AS-4 AS-9 AS-3 IC-1 AS-2 IC-2 AS-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC-3 LP-5 IC-4 LP-4 Iformatio Cotrol IC-5 IC-6 LP-2 LP-3 Library as Place IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 Perceived Less Tha Miimum Perceived Greater Tha Miimum Perceived Less Tha Desired Perceived Greater Tha Desired Faculty Faculty

Page 66 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 5.89 7.61 7.00 1.11-0.61 177 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 6.39 7.77 7.26 0.87-0.51 179 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 6.79 8.01 7.70 0.92-0.31 183 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 7.03 8.24 7.72 0.69-0.52 181 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 6.80 8.15 7.37 0.57-0.78 181 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 6.53 7.87 7.51 0.98-0.36 176 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 6.88 8. 7.39 0.51-0.75 181 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 6.80 8.06 7.62 0.82-0.44 180 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 6.70 7.97 7.38 0.67-0.59 159 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 7.24 8.51 6.69-0.55-1.82 181 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 7.30 8.55 7.03-0.28-1.53 184 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 6.73 7.91 6.18-0.56-1.73 180 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 7.33 8.56 6.87-0.46-1.69 185 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 7.11 8.42 7.50 0.39-0.92 179 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 7.10 8.47 7.14 0.04-1.33 183 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 7.01 8.37 7.12 0.11-1.25 178 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 7.36 8.56 6.16-1.19-2.39 183 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 6.23 7.56 7.64 1.41 0.08 167 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 6.16 7.29 7.35 1.19 0.06 154 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 6.16 7.64 7.95 1.79 0.31 174 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 6.12 7.35 7.23 1.12-0.12 163 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 5.49 6.71 7.26 1.78 0.55 6 study Overall: 6.71 8.02 7.21 0.50-0.81 186 Faculty Faculty

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 67 of 89 ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 1.79 1.60 1.48 1.61 1.43 177 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 1.78 1.45 1.49 1.70 1.38 179 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 1.76 1.48 1.30 1.74 1.61 183 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 1.44 1.04 1.17 1.60 1.14 181 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 1.51 1.28 1.45 1.63 1.39 181 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 1.69 1.36 1.37 1.62 1.27 176 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 1.43 1.09 1.36 1.61 1.27 181 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 1.69 1.29 1.33 1.55 1.16 180 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 1.61 1.38 1.33 1.77 1.52 159 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 1.54 1.05 2.05 2.42 2.19 181 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 1.41 0.90 1.52 1.91 1.56 184 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 1.68 1.49 1.86 2.16 2.08 180 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 1.41 0.91 1.69 2.07 1.83 185 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 1.41 1.00 1.38 1.80 1.45 179 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 1.38 0.81 1.37 1.84 1.45 183 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 1.43 0.86 1.57 2.04 1.63 178 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 1.45 0.89 1.90 2.46 2.14 183 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 1.90 1.72 1.35 1.80 1.60 167 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 2.03 1.91 1.59 1.77 1.56 154 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 1.74 1.58 1.29 1.69 1.35 174 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 2.03 1.99 1.58 2.00 1.86 163 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 2.00 2.22 1.59 1.89 1.77 6 study Overall: 1.23 0.89 1.08 1.30 0.95 186 Faculty Faculty

Page 68 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 6.3 Core Questio Dimesios Summary for Faculty O the chart below, scores for each dimesio of library service quality have bee plotted graphically. The exterior bars represet the rage of miimum to desired mea scores for each dimesio. The iterior bars represet the rage of miimum to perceived mea scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimesio of library service quality. 9 8 7 6 5 4 Affect of Service Iformatio Cotrol Library as Place Overall Dimesio Rage of Miimum to Desired Rage of Miimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap") Faculty Faculty

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 69 of 89 The followig table displays mea scores for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 6.63 7.97 7.43 0.81-0.54 186 Iformatio Cotrol 7.15 8.42 6.85-0.30-1.57 186 Library as Place 6.03 7.37 7.44 1.41 0.07 182 Overall: 6.71 8.02 7.21 0.50-0.81 186 The followig table displays stadard deviatio for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 1.41 1.08 1.16 1.38 1.03 186 Iformatio Cotrol 1.19 0.71 1.28 1.66 1.34 186 Library as Place 1.70 1.57 1.28 1.67 1.37 182 Overall: 1.23 0.89 1.08 1.30 0.95 186 Faculty Faculty

Page 70 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 6.4 Geeral Satisfactio Questios Summary for Faculty This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the geeral satisfactio questios: Satisfactio with Treatmet, Satisfactio with Support, ad Satisfactio with Overall Quality of Service, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the geeral satisfactio questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9. Satisfactio Questio I geeral, I am satisfied with the way i which I am treated at the library. 7.69 1.48 186 I geeral, I am satisfied with library support for my learig, research, ad/or teachig eeds. 6.65 2.12 186 How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.10 1.59 186 6.5 Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios Summary for Faculty This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the iformatio literacy outcomes questios, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the iformatio literacy outcomes questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9 with 1 beig "strogly disagree" ad 9 represetig "strogly agree". Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios The library helps me stay abreast of developmets i my field(s) of iterest. 6.07 1.93 186 The library aids my advacemet i my academic disciplie. 6.40 1.92 186 The library eables me to be more efficiet i my academic pursuits. 6.58 1.89 186 The library helps me distiguish betwee trustworthy ad utrustworthy iformatio. 5.64 2.08 186 The library provides me with the iformatio skills I eed i my work or study. 5.92 2.01 186 Faculty Faculty

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 71 of 89 6.6 Library Use Summary for Faculty 100 This chart shows a graphic represetatio of library use (both o the premises ad electroically), as well as use of o-library iformatio gateways such as Yahoo ad Google. Bars represet the frequecy with which respodets report usig these resources: Daily, Weekly, Mothly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the umber ad percetage of respodets who selected each optio. 90 80 Percetage 70 60 50 40 30 How ofte do you use resources o library premises? How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 20 10 0 Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never Frequecy Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never / % How ofte do you use resources o library premises? 8 4.30% 65 34.95% 71 38.17% 32 17.20% 10 5.38% 186 100.00% How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? 65 34.95% 69 37.10% 21 11.29% 23 12.37% 8 4.30% 186 100.00% How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 146 78.49% 30 16.% 7 3.76% 3 1.61% 0 0.00% 186 100.00% Faculty Faculty

Page 72 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 7 Library Staff Summary 7.1 Demographic Summary for Library Staff 7.1.1 Respodet Profile for Library Staff by Age This table shows a breakdow of survey respodets by age; both the umber of respodets () ad the percetage of the total umber of respodets represeted by each age group are displayed. Age Respodets Respodets % Uder 18 0 0.00% 18-22 1 7.69% 23-30 0 0.00% 31-45 6 46.15% 46-65 6 46.15% Over 65 0 0.00% Total: 100.00% 7.1.2 Respodet Profile for Library Staff by Sex The table below shows a breakdow of survey respodets by sex, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. The umber ad percetage for each sex are give for the geeral populatio ad for survey respodets. *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Sex Respodets Respodets % Male 5 38.46% Female 8 61.54% Total: 100.00% Library Staff Library Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 73 of 89 7.2 Core Questios Summary for Library Staff This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questios. Each axis represets oe questio. A code to idetify each questio is displayed at the outer poit of each axis. While questios for each dimesio of library service quality are scattered radomly throughout the survey, o this chart they are grouped ito sectios: Affect of Service, Library as Place, ad Iformatio Cotrol. O each axis, respodets' miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality are plotted, ad the resultig "gaps" betwee the three levels (represetig service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded i blue, yellow, gree, ad red. The two followig tables show mea scores ad stadard deviatios for each questio, where is the umber of respodets for each particular questio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) AS-7 AS-6 AS-5 Affect of Service AS-8 AS-4 AS-9 AS-3 IC-1 AS-2 IC-2 AS-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC-3 LP-5 IC-4 LP-4 Iformatio Cotrol IC-5 IC-6 LP-2 LP-3 Library as Place IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 Perceived Less Tha Miimum Perceived Greater Tha Miimum Perceived Less Tha Desired Perceived Greater Tha Desired Library Staff Library Staff

Page 74 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 5.69 8.08 6.31 0.62-1.77 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 5.92 7.54 7.00 1.08-0.54 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 6.54 7.92 6.69 0.15-1.23 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 7.00 8.15 7.31 0.31-0.85 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 6.46 8.08 6.62 0.15-1.46 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 6.31 7.62 7.00 0.69-0.62 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 6.23 8.08 6.69 0.46-1.38 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 6.54 8.31 7.31 0.77-1.00 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 6.38 7.92 6.92 0.54-1.00 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 5.92 8.00 6.08 0.15-1.92 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 6.77 7.92 5.92-0.85-2.00 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 6.38 8.15 6.46 0.08-1.69 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 6.23 7.77 6.23 0.00-1.54 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 6.85 8.00 7.77 0.92-0.23 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 6.23 7.54 6.62 0.38-0.92 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 5.92 7.54 6.77 0.85-0.77 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 6.46 8.15 5.62-0.85-2.54 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 5.50 7.92 7.00 1.50-0.92 12 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 6.38 7.38 7.08 0.69-0.31 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 5.31 7.38 6.77 1.46-0.62 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 5.85 7.69 7.00 1.15-0.69 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 4.85 6.23 7.23 2.38 1.00 study Overall: 6.17 7.79 6.74 0.57-1.04 Library Staff Library Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 75 of 89 ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 1.11 0.86 1.38 1.85 1.83 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 1.66 1.45 1.15 1.26 1. AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 1.66 1.44 1.60 2.08 1.74 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 0.91 1.07 1.25 1.38 1.46 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 1. 1.32 1.33 1.72 1.45 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 1.55 1.50 1.15 1.25 1.39 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 1.59 1.44 1.32 1.51 1.39 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 1.61 1.03 1.18 1.42 1.22 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 1.19 1.38 1.19 1.27 1.22 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 2.06 1.63 1.32 2.30 2.25 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 1.24 1.50 2.06 2.30 2.86 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 1.33 1.14 1.20 1.55 1.55 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 1.17 1.83 1.24 1.35 1.85 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 1.41 1.58 0.93 1.12 1.48 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 1.64 1.94 1.26 1.12 1.61 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 1.55 2.03 1.17 1.28 1.88 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 1.33 0.99 1.89 2.30 2.15 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 1.73 0.79 2.09 3.09 2.57 12 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 1.50 1.71 1.26 1.49 1.89 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 1.89 1.39 2.17 2.82 2.60 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 1.46 1.25 1.22 1.52 1.03 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 2.15 2.09 1.01 2.40 2.42 study Overall: 0.84 0.96 0.81 0.77 1.06 Library Staff Library Staff

Page 76 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 7.3 Core Questio Dimesios Summary for Library Staff O the chart below, scores for each dimesio of library service quality have bee plotted graphically. The exterior bars represet the rage of miimum to desired mea scores for each dimesio. The iterior bars represet the rage of miimum to perceived mea scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimesio of library service quality. 9 8 7 6 5 4 Affect of Service Iformatio Cotrol Library as Place Overall Dimesio Rage of Miimum to Desired Rage of Miimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap") Library Staff Library Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 77 of 89 The followig table displays mea scores for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 6.34 7.97 6.87 0.53-1.09 Iformatio Cotrol 6.35 7.88 6.43 0.09-1.45 Library as Place 5.55 7.30 7.00 1.44-0.30 Overall: 6.17 7.79 6.74 0.57-1.04 The followig table displays stadard deviatio for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 0.98 0.98 0.87 1.06 1.10 Iformatio Cotrol 0.90 1.31 0.92 0.93 1.50 Library as Place 1.34 1.15 1.21 1.59 1.61 Overall: 0.84 0.96 0.81 0.77 1.06 Library Staff Library Staff

Page 78 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 7.4 Geeral Satisfactio Questios Summary for Library Staff This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the geeral satisfactio questios: Satisfactio with Treatmet, Satisfactio with Support, ad Satisfactio with Overall Quality of Service, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the geeral satisfactio questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9. Satisfactio Questio I geeral, I am satisfied with the way i which I am treated at the library. 6.92 1.80 I geeral, I am satisfied with library support for my learig, research, ad/or teachig eeds. 6.69 0.95 How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.00 1.08 7.5 Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios Summary for Library Staff This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the iformatio literacy outcomes questios, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the iformatio literacy outcomes questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9 with 1 beig "strogly disagree" ad 9 represetig "strogly agree". Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios The library helps me stay abreast of developmets i my field(s) of iterest. 6.15 1.28 The library aids my advacemet i my academic disciplie. 7.00 1.22 The library eables me to be more efficiet i my academic pursuits. 6.54 1. The library helps me distiguish betwee trustworthy ad utrustworthy iformatio. 6.31 1.32 The library provides me with the iformatio skills I eed i my work or study. 6.69 1.38 Library Staff Library Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 79 of 89 7.6 Library Use Summary for Library Staff 100 This chart shows a graphic represetatio of library use (both o the premises ad electroically), as well as use of o-library iformatio gateways such as Yahoo ad Google. Bars represet the frequecy with which respodets report usig these resources: Daily, Weekly, Mothly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the umber ad percetage of respodets who selected each optio. 90 80 Percetage 70 60 50 40 30 How ofte do you use resources o library premises? How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 20 10 0 Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never Frequecy Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never / % How ofte do you use resources o library premises? 7 53.85% 3 23.08% 2 15.38% 1 7.69% 0 0.00% 100.00% How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? 9 69.23% 4 30.77% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 12 92.31% 1 7.69% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% Library Staff Library Staff

Page 80 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 8 Staff Summary 8.1 Demographic Summary for Staff 8.1.1 Respodet Profile for Staff by Age This table shows a breakdow of survey respodets by age; both the umber of respodets () ad the percetage of the total umber of respodets represeted by each age group are displayed. Age Respodets Respodets % Uder 18 0 0.00% 18-22 2 7.41% 23-30 6 22.22% 31-45 8 29.63% 46-65 11 40.74% Over 65 0 0.00% Total: 27 100.00% 8.1.2 Respodet Profile for Staff by Sex The table below shows a breakdow of survey respodets by sex, based o user resposes to the demographic questios ad the demographic data provided by istitutios i the olie Represetativeess sectio*. The umber ad percetage for each sex are give for the geeral populatio ad for survey respodets. *Note: Participatig istitutios were ot required to complete the Represetativeess sectio. Whe populatio data is missig or icomplete, it is because this data was ot provided. Sex Respodets Respodets % Male 10 37.04% Female 17 62.96% Total: 27 100.00% Staff Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 81 of 89 8.2 Core Questios Summary for Staff This radar chart shows aggregate results for the core survey questios. Each axis represets oe questio. A code to idetify each questio is displayed at the outer poit of each axis. While questios for each dimesio of library service quality are scattered radomly throughout the survey, o this chart they are grouped ito sectios: Affect of Service, Library as Place, ad Iformatio Cotrol. O each axis, respodets' miimum, desired, ad perceived levels of service quality are plotted, ad the resultig "gaps" betwee the three levels (represetig service adequacy or service superiority) are shaded i blue, yellow, gree, ad red. The two followig tables show mea scores ad stadard deviatios for each questio, where is the umber of respodets for each particular questio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) AS-7 AS-6 AS-5 Affect of Service AS-8 AS-4 AS-9 AS-3 IC-1 AS-2 IC-2 AS-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC-3 LP-5 IC-4 LP-4 Iformatio Cotrol IC-5 IC-6 LP-2 LP-3 Library as Place IC-7 IC-8 LP-1 Perceived Less Tha Miimum Perceived Greater Tha Miimum Perceived Less Tha Desired Perceived Greater Tha Desired Staff Staff

Page 82 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 5.93 7.93 6.44 0.52-1.48 27 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 6.07 7.63 6.74 0.67-0.89 27 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 6.59 8.19 7.19 0.59-1.00 27 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 6.67 8.15 7.26 0.59-0.89 27 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 6.48 8.22 7.15 0.67-1.07 27 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 6.65 7.88 6.88 0.23-1.00 26 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 6.89 8.11 7.26 0.37-0.85 27 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 7.00 8.37 7.44 0.44-0.93 27 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 6.96 8. 7.25 0.29-0.88 24 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 6.85 8.46 6.50-0.35-1.96 26 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 7.00 8.37 6.74-0.26-1.63 27 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 6.08 7.64 6.80 0.72-0.84 25 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 6.70 8.04 7.00 0.30-1.04 27 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 7.31 8.42 7.69 0.38-0.73 26 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 7.00 8.58 7.04 0.04-1.54 26 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 7.04 8.42 6.96-0.08-1.46 26 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 6.83 8.25 7.00 0.17-1.25 24 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 6.76 8.08 7.36 0.60-0.72 25 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 6.42 7.92 7.33 0.92-0.58 24 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 6.56 7.78 7.48 0.93-0.30 27 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 6.79 8.04 7.58 0.79-0.46 24 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 6.00 7.38 7.42 1.42 0.04 24 study Overall: 6.65 8.08 7.11 0.46-0.97 27 Staff Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 83 of 89 ID Questio Text Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service AS-1 Employees who istill cofidece i users 1.44 1.30 1.42 1.53 1.40 27 AS-2 Givig users idividual attetio 1.75 1.52 1.79 1.71 1.76 27 AS-3 Employees who are cosistetly courteous 1.76 1.36 1.57 1.85 1.73 27 AS-4 Readiess to respod to users' questios 1.64 1.10 1.40 1.39 1.58 27 AS-5 Employees who have the kowledge to aswer 1.67 0.97 1.10 1.52 1.30 27 user questios AS-6 Employees who deal with users i a carig 1.52 1.45 1.73 1.42 1.47 26 fashio AS-7 Employees who uderstad the eeds of their 1.34 1.05 1.23 1.08 1.26 27 users AS-8 Willigess to help users 1.36 0.97 1.34 1.28 1.27 27 AS-9 Depedability i hadlig users' service problems 1.30 1.08 1.45 1.33 1.42 24 Iformatio Cotrol IC-1 Makig electroic resources accessible from my 1.38 1.03 1.58 1.41 1.78 26 home or office IC-2 A library Web site eablig me to locate 1.36 0.97 1.58 1.70 1.42 27 iformatio o my ow IC-3 The prited library materials I eed for my work 1.66 1.50 1.32 1.67 1.43 25 IC-4 The electroic iformatio resources I eed 1.64 1.32 1.44 1.49 1.48 27 IC-5 Moder equipmet that lets me easily access 1.52 0.86 1.01 1.65 1.08 26 eeded iformatio IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid 1.33 0.64 1.25 1.34 1.30 26 thigs o my ow IC-7 Makig iformatio easily accessible for 1.59 0.76 1.75 2.15 1.98 26 idepedet use IC-8 Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require 1.71 1.15 1.59 2.46 1.96 24 for my work Library as Place LP-1 Library space that ispires study ad learig 1.64 1.55 1.66 1.73 1.37 25 LP-2 Quiet space for idividual activities 1.74 1.56 1.43 1.82 1.41 24 LP-3 A comfortable ad ivitig locatio 1.69 1.50 1.45 1.49 1.27 27 LP-4 A getaway for study, learig, or research 1.67 1.63 1.14 1.74 1.64 24 LP-5 Commuity space for group learig ad group 1.72 1.88 1.41 1.89 1.68 24 study Overall: 1.16 0.89 1.03 1.15 1.00 27 Staff Staff

Page 84 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 8.3 Core Questio Dimesios Summary for Staff O the chart below, scores for each dimesio of library service quality have bee plotted graphically. The exterior bars represet the rage of miimum to desired mea scores for each dimesio. The iterior bars represet the rage of miimum to perceived mea scores (the service adequacy gap) for each dimesio of library service quality. 9 8 7 6 5 4 Affect of Service Iformatio Cotrol Library as Place Overall Dimesio Rage of Miimum to Desired Rage of Miimum to Perceived ("Adequacy Gap") Staff Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 85 of 89 The followig table displays mea scores for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 6.56 8.06 7.07 0.51-0.99 27 Iformatio Cotrol 6.86 8.27 6.96 0.11-1.30 27 Library as Place 6.46 7.73 7.37 0.92-0.36 27 Overall: 6.65 8.08 7.11 0.46-0.97 27 The followig table displays stadard deviatio for each dimesio of library service quality measured by the LibQUAL+ survey, where is the umber of respodets for each particular dimesio. (For a more detailed explaatio of the headigs, see the Itroductio to this otebook.) A complete listig of the survey questios ad their dimesios ca be foud i Appedix A. Dimesio Miimum Desired Perceived Adequacy Superiority Affect of Service 1.30 0.98 1.21 1.17 1.21 27 Iformatio Cotrol 1.24 0.80 1.12 1.41 1.19 27 Library as Place 1.34 1.48 1.20 1.40 1.21 27 Overall: 1.16 0.89 1.03 1.15 1.00 27 Staff Staff

Page 86 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 8.4 Geeral Satisfactio Questios Summary for Staff This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the geeral satisfactio questios: Satisfactio with Treatmet, Satisfactio with Support, ad Satisfactio with Overall Quality of Service, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the geeral satisfactio questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9. Satisfactio Questio I geeral, I am satisfied with the way i which I am treated at the library. 7.59 1.47 27 I geeral, I am satisfied with library support for my learig, research, ad/or teachig eeds. 7.07 1.38 27 How would you rate the overall quality of the service provided by the library? 7.26 1.63 27 8.5 Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios Summary for Staff This table displays the mea score ad stadard deviatio for each of the iformatio literacy outcomes questios, where is the umber of respodets for each questio. These scores are calculated from resposes to the iformatio literacy outcomes questios o the LibQUAL+ survey, i which respodets rated their levels of geeral satisfactio o a scale from 1-9 with 1 beig "strogly disagree" ad 9 represetig "strogly agree". Iformatio Literacy Outcomes Questios The library helps me stay abreast of developmets i my field(s) of iterest. 6.48 1.67 27 The library aids my advacemet i my academic disciplie. 6.70 1.77 27 The library eables me to be more efficiet i my academic pursuits. 7.15 1.29 27 The library helps me distiguish betwee trustworthy ad utrustworthy iformatio. 6.04 2.01 27 The library provides me with the iformatio skills I eed i my work or study. 6.74 1.58 27 Staff Staff

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 87 of 89 8.6 Library Use Summary for Staff 100 This chart shows a graphic represetatio of library use (both o the premises ad electroically), as well as use of o-library iformatio gateways such as Yahoo ad Google. Bars represet the frequecy with which respodets report usig these resources: Daily, Weekly, Mothly, Quarterly, or Never. The table below the chart displays the umber ad percetage of respodets who selected each optio. 90 80 Percetage 70 60 50 40 30 How ofte do you use resources o library premises? How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 20 10 0 Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never Frequecy Daily Weekly Mothly Quarterly Never / % How ofte do you use resources o library premises? 2 7.41% 11 40.74% 8 29.63% 5 18.52% 1 3.70% 27 100.00% How ofte do you access library resources through a library Web page? 3 11.11% 11 40.74% 8 29.63% 4 14.81% 1 3.70% 27 100.00% How ofte do you use Yahoo(TM), Google(TM), or o-library gateways for iformatio? 20 74.07% 4 14.81% 1 3.70% 0 0.00% 2 7.41% 27 100.00% Staff Staff

Page 88 of 89 LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU 9 Appedix A: LibQUAL+ Dimesios LibQUAL+ measures dimesios of perceived library quality---that is, each survey questio is part of a broader category (a dimesio), ad scores withi those categories are aalyzed i order to derive more geeral iformatio about library users' perceptios of service. These dimesios were first based o the origial SERVQUAL survey istrumet (the framework for the LibQUAL+ survey tool; for more iformatio o the origis of LibQUAL+, go to <http://www.libqual.org/publicatios/>). The LibQUAL+ survey dimesios have evolved with each iteratio, becomig more refied ad focused for applicatio to the library cotext. Dimesios for each iteratio of the LibQUAL+ survey are outlied below. LibQUAL+ 2000 Dimesios The 2000 iteratio of the LibQUAL+ survey, which had 41 questios, measured eight separate dimesios: Assurace (the kowledge ad courtesy of employees, ad their ability to covey trust ad cofidece) Empathy (carig, idividual attetio) Library as Place (library as a sactuary/have or site for learig ad cotemplatio) Reliability (ability to perform the promised service depedably ad accurately) Resposiveess (willigess to help customers ad provide prompt service) Tagibles (appearace of physical facilities, equipmet, persoel ad commuicatios materials) Istructios/Custom Items Self-Reliace LibQUAL+ 2001 Dimesios After careful aalysis of the results from the 2000 survey, the dimesios were further refied to re-groud the SERVQUAL items i the library cotext. Four sub-dimesios resulted for the 2001 iteratio: Service Affect (ie items, such as willigess to help users ) Library as Place (five items, such as a have for quiet ad solitude ) Persoal Cotrol (six items, such as website eablig me to locate iformatio o my ow ), ad Iformatio Access (five items, such as comprehesive prit collectios ad coveiet busiess hours ) LibQUAL+ 2002 ad 2003 Dimesios For the 2002 iteratio of the LibQUAL+ survey, the dimesios were oce agai refied based o aalysis of the previous year's results. While the four dimesios were retaied, their titles were chaged slightly to more clearly represet the questios ad data. The same four dimesios were also used o the 2003 survey: Access to Iformatio Affect of Service Library as Place Persoal Cotrol LibQUAL+ 2004-2007 Dimesios After the 2003 survey was completed, factor ad reliability aalyses o the resultig data revealed that two of the All All

LibQUAL+ 2007 Survey Results - USU Page 89 of 89 dimesios measured by the survey-access to Iformatio ad Persoal Cotrol-had collapsed ito oe. The followig three dimesios have bee measured sice the: Affect of Service, Iformatio Cotrol, ad Library as Place. I additio, three core items were elimiated from the 2003 versio of the survey, leavig 22 core items o the fial survey istrumet. The list below displays the dimesios used to preset the results i the 2007 otebooks, alog with the questios that relate to each dimesio. (Note: The questios below are those used i the College ad Uiversity implemetatio of the survey, versio.) Affect of Service [AS-1] Employees who istill cofidece i users [AS-2] Givig users idividual attetio [AS-3] Employees who are cosistetly courteous [AS-4] Readiess to respod to users questios [AS-5] Employees who have the kowledge to aswer user questios [AS-6] Employees who deal with users i a carig fashio [AS-7] Employees who uderstad the eeds of their users [AS-8] Willigess to help users [AS-9] Depedability i hadlig users service problems Iformatio Cotrol [IC-1] Makig electroic resources accessible from my home or office [IC-2] A library Web site eablig me to locate iformatio o my ow [IC-3] The prited library materials I eed for my work [IC-4] The electroic iformatio resources I eed [IC-5] Moder equipmet that lets me easily access eeded iformatio [IC-6] Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to fid thigs o my ow [IC-7] Makig iformatio easily accessible for idepedet use [IC-8] Prit ad/or electroic joural collectios I require for my work Library as Place [LP-1] Library space that ispires study ad learig [LP-2] Quiet space for idividual activities [LP-3] A comfortable ad ivitig locatio [LP-4] A getaway for study, learig or research [LP-5] Commuity space for group learig ad group study All All

All All