Understanding the expectations of Pakistani libraries users: a LibQUAL study.
Rehman, Shafiq Ur
Introduction
The conventional services and traditional role of university
libraries is changed due to multiple sources of information, high demand
of users, and application of information technology, competition among
service sectors and high student enrolments. The university libraries
are also facing different challenges such as advances in information
technology, rising cost of material, increased accessibility of research
materials via the Web and tentative budget allocations.
Each of these challenges requires library administration to become
more concerned of their users' expectations. "Retaining and
growing their customer base and focusing more energy on meeting their
customers' expectations is the only way for academic libraries to
survive in this volatile competitive environment" (Cullen, 2001,
pp. 662-663). The understanding of users' expectations and meeting
those expectations is the only way for libraries to retain their users.
Assessment of library service quality helps in identifying users'
needs, wants and decreasing the gap between users' perceptions and
expectations. It also provides users' feedback in order to improve
the quality of library services.
The central role of users in assessment of service quality has been
recognizing and "only customers judge quality; all other judgments
are essentially irrelevant" (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,
1988). Many researchers (Chweh, 1981; Hernon & McClure, 1986; Hernon
& McClure, 1990; Nitecki, 1996; Oldman, Mary, & Wills, 1977;
Taylor & Voigt, 1986; Whitehall, 1992)advocates that the user is the
best judge to assess the quality of the services. The traditional method
of service quality has become obsolete and no more fulfills the purpose
of user's demands for information. Nitecki (1996) further added
"a measure of library quality based solely on collections has
become obsolete" (p. 182). Currently the service quality defines as
"difference between customer's perceptions and
expectations" (Parasuraman, et al., 1988).
In this regard, library authorities should recognize the different
needs, priorities and feedback of library users. All current and future
library services must be user-centred. Library administration should
consider the assessment of services as an important aspect for
establishing right goals and policies. Library should not function in
total isolation from its users' expectations. Libraries decision
makers should know the users' expectations to improve the quality
of services offered (Scott, 1992).
The establishment of Higher Education Commission (HEC) in 2002
started the rapid expansion of Pakistani university libraries. The
libraries enrollment within the universities have increased, the methods
of learning have changed, science and technology have grown and the
library became recognized as an important source of learning. The
importance of user-centered approach in libraries services has
increased. However, in spite of rising expectations for enhanced library
services in universities of Pakistan, there has been no study conducted
among the users to investigate their expectations on the libraries
services quality.
It seems to be very interesting and useful to investigate the
minimum and desired expectations of students and university professors
within the university library setting.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study with reference to assessment of
library service quality in university libraries of Pakistan are:
1) To identify the minimum expectations of graduates,
undergraduates and faculty.
2) To investigate the desire expectations of graduates,
undergraduates and faculty.
3) To check the significant difference between minimum expectations
and desired expectations.
Literature Review
Expectations with Library Services
Expectations are "desires or wants of consumers, i.e., what
they feel a service provider should offer rather than would offer"
(Parasuraman, et al., 1988, p. 17). Many researchers (Heath & Cook,
2003; Shi, Holahan, & Jurkat, 2004) agreed that expectations serve
as reference points in customers' evaluation of performance.
The expectations have different meaning both in customer
satisfaction and service quality literature. In customer satisfaction
literature, the term is used to identify predictions. Expectations are
considered in terms of what a service would offer (Nitecki, 1995). In
the service quality literature expectations are viewed as desires or
wants of consumers; the term refers to what a service firm should
ideally provide (Boulding, et al., 1993; Parasuraman, et al., 1985,
1988).
To, Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1993), customer's
expectations are based on the previous experiences, word-of-mouth
communications, overt and covert services promised by an organization.
In addition, the desired expectations should also base on enduring
service intensifiers and personal needs.
Zeithaml, et al. (1993) found that users do not have one level of
expectation, but two levels (types): "minimum expectations"
and "desire expectations". Desire expectations are users'
ideal expectations that they wish to receive from library and
"minimum expectations" are level of service that users
consider as adequate. The range between minimum and desire expectations
is called zone of tolerance (ZOT) with desired expectations at the top
and minimum expectations at the bottom of the scale. The primary
objective of service quality assessment is to minimize the gap between
users' expectations and actual service delivery.
As Berry (1995) described, there are eleven ways to listen the
customers: transactional surveys, mystery shopping, new declining and
lost customer surveys, focus group interviews, customer advisory panels,
service reviews, customer complaint, comment, inquiry capture, total
market surveys, employee field reporting, employee surveys and service
operating data capture (Berry as cited in Cook, Heath, Thompson, &
Thompson, 2001). The LibQUAL Protocol is one of the most widely used and
effective way to know the opinion of library users.
LibQUAL
LibQUAL is a well-known and recognized instrument that libraries
use to "solicit, track, understand, and act upon users'
opinions of service quality" (Association of Research Libraries,
2010). More than 1.5 million library users from twelve hundred libraries
have participated in LibQUAL since its inception. The instrument was
developed in collaboration between ARL and Texas A&M University.
LibQUAL instrument is an attractive tool to easily identify service
quality from the customer perspective. The instrument measures library
service quality through 22 core questions on three dimensions: affect of
service, information control and library as place. Currently, LibQUAL
supports 18 languages of the world: "Afrikaans, American English,
British English, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French (France),
French (Belgian), French (Canadian), German, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese,
Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish and Welsh" (Kyrillidou, 2011).
LibQUAL survey instrument is based on conceptual framework on
SERVQUAL scale which defines the service quality as "the difference
between customers' perceptions and expectations" using
disconfirmation/confirmation theory. The LibQUAL developers start
modification and refinement in SERVQUAL for academic library context as
its five structure dimensions were not established in academic library
context (Cook & Heath, 2001b; Cook & Thompson, 2000; Nagata,
Satoh, Gerrard, & Kytomaki, 2004; Nitecki, 1995; Yu, Hong, Gu, &
Wang, 2008). As a result of various refinements the current LibQUAL
version measures library service quality through 22 core questions on
three dimensions: Affect of service (AS), information control (IC), and
library as place (LP).
The AS dimension consists of nine questions related to courtesy,
knowledge and helpfulness of library staff in delivering user services.
The IC dimension addresses (through eight questions) on the adequacy of
print and electronic collection, easy-to-use access tools, modern
equipments, library website and self reliance in information access. The
third, LP dimension focuses on user perceptions of quiet, comfortable,
inviting and reflective study space that inspires study and learning.
Users rate all LibQUAL items on three columns side by side on 1(low) to
9 (high) scales for "perception", "desire", and
"minimum" services.
Research on User Expectations
The minimum and desired service expectations can be considered as
an indicator of the importance of that type of service to the users
(Wilson, 2004). Library can determine the most important areas for
service improvement by identifying the items that ranked highest score
by users on minimum /desired service level.
Among three service quality dimensions, findings of various studies
(Cook, Heath, Thompson, & Webster, 2003; Hubbard & Walter, 2005;
Jaggars, Jaggars, & Duffy, 2009; Boyd-Byrnes & Rosenthal, 2005;
Kyrillidou & Persson, 2006; Lippincott & Kyrillidou, 2004;
Shedlock & Walton, 2004; Wilson, 2004) suggest that users have high
expectations (especially faculty and graduate students) about
information control. On the contrary, users have low expectations about
library as place dimension (except undergraduate).
Unlike developed world, few studies (Arshad, 2009; Cook et al.,
2008, 2009b; Cook et al., 2010a; Seay, Seaman, & Cohen, 1996) from
France and developing countries reported highest desired score for LP
dimension. Most of studies (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2001; Dole,
2002; Hariri & Afnani, 2008; Johnson, 2007; Sharma, et al., 2010;
Thompson, Kyrillidou, & Cook, 2007) did not find significant
difference on perceived service quality on the basis of gender and user
types. However, users were significantly differed on the basis of
academic disciplines and library sector.
Expectations of Pakistani Users
In Pakistan library service quality is an unfamiliar topic and
practices of regular assessment of library service quality do not exist.
Usually university library performance is assessed from various
statistics presented in annual report submitted to university
administration. These statistics consists of number of collections,
staff, library members as well as various usage counts (numbers of
borrowed books and visitors). Only two research studies that explored
users' expectations were found.
Arshad (2009) investigated users' expectation with
departmental libraries of Punjab University (PU). She found that PU
users considered tangibles (physical facilities, equipment, personnel
and communication materials) the most important and empathy the least
important dimension. The highest expectations items were: "library
staff has the knowledge to answer customer's questions",
"library staff who instill confidence in their users",
"convenient library hours". In another study (Awan, Azam and
Asif, 2008) the users' highest expected services were: "I feel
safe in my transactions with library", "library services are
provided in the promised time" and "staff members of library
are always willing to help you". Both studies did not measure
users' minimum acceptable service level.
Despite the plenitude of literature on library service quality in
the developed countries, there are no data available on users'
minimum and desired expectations with quality of service offered by the
university libraries (central) of Pakistan. This research study was
conducted to fill the gap by measuring the minimum and desired
expectations with service quality of university libraries of Pakistan
from their users' perspective.
Methodology
The questionnaire based cross-sectional survey research design was
employed in this research study. A sample of 426 faculty members, 501
graduate students, and 546 undergraduates in different gender, age,
discipline, sector and qualification were conveniently selected from 22
University Libraries of Pakistan (ULP). A slightly modified version of
LibQUAL (American English) was translated into Urdu language using
standard procedure of forward-backward translation. After the
pre-testing of the instrument, data were collected face to face on a
self-reporting interactive mode. The psychometric properties of
translated instrument were established through cronbach alpha,
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA).
Factor analysis result suggested three dimensions of library
service quality: IC, AS and LP. The first dimension (IC) which consisted
on adequacy, organization, access of library collection to meet
users' needs and self-reliance of library users (8 items). The AS
dimension (8 items) covered human aspect of library services and was
concerned with abilities, skills and attitude of library staff for
delivery of services. The five items of LP dimensions were related to
study space and symbolic nature of library.
The Cronbach's alpha coefficient result showed that all three
dimensions of LibQUAL had high internal consistency and reliability in
Pakistani context because Cronbach Alpha (Cronbach, 1951)coefficients
for AS, IC and LP scales and total scale were equal to.931, .931,.814
and.943 respectively that were adequately greater than the recommended
value of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). Thus final instrument consisted of 21
core questions, 6 demographic questions and one comment box. Users rated
21 core items on three columns side by side on 1 (low) to 9 (high)
scales for minimum and desired expectation scores.
Data Collection and Results
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
A total of 1473 responses were received with 91% response rate.
Acquired responses revealed that 66% of the respondents were male and
34% female; 34% were graduate students, 37% were under graduate
students, and 29% were faculty members. A majority (60%) of the
respondents were from the public sector libraries and 40% from the
private universities.
Users' Expectations with Library Services
The high minimum and desired expectations mean score could be
described as the level of importance a user gives to various services.
We will discuss both types of expectations.
Minimum Expectations
The minimum expectations are level of service that users consider
as adequate and this score represents their minimum level of service
that users will tolerate or willinging to accept. The services performed
below users' minimum expectations could create disappointment,
frustration and dissatisfaction as well as decrease their loyalty and
reliability.
We ranked all services (from the highest to the lowest) based on
minimum mean score for individual user groups and overall user group.
For overall user group, the five services having highest minimum
expectations were mostly related to LP dimension. These items were:
"comfortable and inviting location"; "inspiring study
space"; "a gateway for study"; "quiet space for
individual activities and courteous staff"" (see Table 1).
This means that services related to library space are important for
users.
Table 1. Minimum Expectations of Overall User Group
Rank Items Service items Minimum SD*
Code Expectations
1. LP-3 The library has 6.02 1.75
comfortable and
inviting
location
2. LP-1 The Library has 5.94 1.75
space that
inspires study
and learning
3. LP-4 The library is a 5.94 1.76
getaway for
study, learning,
or research
4. LP-2 The library has 5.93 1.83
quiet space for
individual
activities
5. AS-3 Library staff is 5.89 1.85
consistently
courteous
6. IC-4 The library has 5.89 1.79
electronic
information
resources, I
need
7. IC-3 The library has 5.82 1.76
printed
materials, I need
for my work
8. IC-5 The library has 5.80 1.83
modern equipment
that lets me easy
access to the
needed
information
9. AS-8 Library staff is 5.78 1.81
always willing to
help users
10. IC-8 The library has 5.75 1.94
print and/or
electronic
journal
collections, I
require for my
work
11. IC-6 The library has 5.75 1.82
easy-to-use
access tools that
allow me to find
things on my own
The library has
community spaces
for group
learning and
12. LP-5 group study 5.73 1.91
13. IC-7 The library makes 5.73 1.73
the information
easily accessible
for independent
use
14. IC-2 The web site of 5.72 1.85
library enables
me to locate
information on my
own
15. AS-7 Library staff 5.70 1.82
understands the
needs of its
users
16. AS-5 Library staff has 5.69 1.82
knowledge to
answer users'
questions
17. IC-1 Electronic 5.67 1.84
resources of the
library are
accessible from
my home or
office
18. AS-9 Library staff 5.64 1.84
shows
dependability in
handling users'
service problems
19. AS-4 Library staff is 5.64 1.87
always ready to
respond to users'
questions
20. AS-1 Library staff 5.39 1.64
instill
confidence in
users
21. AS-2 Library staff 5.38 1.83
gives individual
attention to the
users
Overall 5.75
Note: 1(low), 9(high) *SD: Standard Sub-division
The five services having lowest minimum expectations were mostly
related to AS dimension. These items were: "individual attention to
the users"; "confidence in users"; "library staff is
always ready to respond to users' questions"; "library
staff shows dependability in handling users' service
problems"; "electronic resources of the library are accessible
from my home or office". The lowest mean score items demonstrated
that users did not give high importance to staff related services.
All three individual user groups (faculty, graduates and
undergraduates) unanimously ranked "The library has comfortable and
inviting location; the library is a getaway for study, learning, or
research; and the library has quiet space for individual
activities" among five services having highest minimum expectations
(see Table 2). Additionally, both students and teachers rated three
staff related services (library staff gives individual attention to the
users; library staff instill confidence in users) among their lowest
priorities (see Table 2).
Table 2. Minimum Expectations of faculty, graduates and undergraduates
Faculty Graduate Undergraduate All
Users
Item M Item M Item Code M Item M
Code Mean * Code Mean Mean Code Mean
*
AS-3 6.03 LP-1 6.02 LP-3 6.06 LP-3 6.02
IC-4 6.03 LP-3 5.98 IC-4 6.01 LP-1 5.94
LP-3 6.01 LP-2 5.93 LP-4 6.01 LP-4 5.94
LP-2 5.97 LP-4 5.85 LP-2 5.91 LP-2 5.93
LP-4 5.95 AS-3 5.83 IC-3 5.91 AS-3 5.89
LP-1 5.92 LP-5 5.71 LP-1 5.88 IC-4 5.89
IC-5 5.88 IC-3 5.69 IC-5 5.86 IC-3 5.82
IC-2 5.87 IC-5 5.68 AS-8 5.86 IC-5 5.80
IC-3 5.84 IC-6 5.68 IC-8 5.85 AS-8 5.78
AS-7 5.84 AS-8 5.66 IC-7 5.84 IC-8 5.75
AS-5 5.83 IC-4 5.63 AS-3 5.83 IC-6 5.75
IC-1 5.81 IC-8 5.60 IC-2 5.82 LP-5 5.73
IC-8 5.81 AS-5 5.57 LP-5 5.77 IC-7 5.73
IC-6 5.80 IC-7 5.56 AS-7 5.77 IC-2 5.72
AS-8 5.80 AS-9 5.55 IC-6 5.77 AS-7 5.70
IC-7 5.77 AS-4 5.53 IC- 1 5.76 AS-5 5.69
AS-4 5.71 AS-7 5.50 AS-9 5.71 IC- 1 5.67
LP-5 5.69 IC-2 5.48 AS-5 5.70 AS-9 5.64
AS-9 5.66 IC- 1 5.45 AS-4 5.68 AS-4 5.64
AS-2 5.53 AS-1 5.32 AS-1 5.42 AS-1 5.39
AS-1 5.43 AS-2 5.32 AS-2 5.33 AS-2 5.38
Overall 5.81 Overall 5.64 Overall 5.79 Overall 5.75
Note: 1(low), 9(high) * M mean = minimum expectation mean
Users' Desired Expectations
The high desired mean score could be described as the level of
importance that the user gives to various services. We ranked all
services (from the highest to the lowest) based on desire mean score for
individual user groups and overall user group. For overall user group,
the five desired items were mostly related to LP dimension. These items
were: "the library has comfortable and inviting location";
"the library has space that inspires study and learning";
"library staff is consistently courteous" and "the
library has quiet space for individual activities" (see Table 3).
Table 3. Desired Expectations of Overall User Group
Rank Items Service items Desire SD
Code Mean
1 LP-3 The library has 7.72 1.45
comfortable and
inviting
location
2 LP-1 The Library has 7.70 1.29
space that
inspires study
and learning
3 LP-4 The library is a 7.61 1.49
getaway for
study, learning,
or research
4 AS-3 Library staff is 7.60 1.55
consistently
courteous
5 LP-2 The library has 7.59 1.49
quiet space for
individual
activities
6 IC-5 The library has 7.58 1.53
modern equipment
that lets me easy
access to the
needed
information
7 IC-4 The library has 7.55 1.52
electronic
information
resources, I
need
8 AS-8 Library staff is 7.54 1.49
always willing to
help users
9 IC-8 The library has 7.54 1.65
print and/or
electronic
journal
collections, I
require for my
work
10 LP-5 The library has 7.53 1.58
community spaces
for group
learning and
group study
11 IC-1 Electronic 7.51 1.51
resources of the
library are
accessible from
my home or
office
12 IC-2 The web site of 7.5 1.50
library enables
me to locate
information on my
own
13 IC-6 The library has 7.5 1.56
easy-to-use
access tools that
allow me to find
things on my own
14 IC-3 The library has 7.49 1.53
printed
materials, I need
for my work
15 AS-5 Library staff has 7.48 1.53
knowledge to
answer users'
questions
16 AS-7 Library staff 7.47 1.55
understands the
needs of its
users
17 IC-7 The library makes 7.46 1.45
the information
easily accessible
for independent
use
18 AS-9 Library staff 7.42 1.58
shows
dependability in
handling users'
service problems
19 AS-1 Library staff 7.41 1.39
instill
confidence in
users
20 AS-4 Library staff is 7.37 1.63
always ready to
respond to users'
questions
21 AS-2 Library staff 7.24 1.60
gives individual
attention to the
users
Overall 7.52 1.05
Note: 1(low) 9(high), SD=standard deviation
All three individual user groups (faculty, graduates and
undergraduates) unanimously ranked "the library has comfortable and
inviting location" and "the library has space that inspires
study and learning" as a two most desired items (see Table 4) The
faculty further ranked two items: "the library has electronic
information resources, I need"; and "the library has print
and/or electronic journal collections, I require for my work" among
the top five expectations. It seems that faculty also wanted electronic
and journal collections along with comfortable place for study and
research. We also found interesting that "library staff instill
confidence in users" and "library staff gives individual
attention to the users" were ranked as lowest desired, unanimously
by all user groups. It seems that users gave the least preference to
personal attention and confidence from library staff.
Minimum and Desired Expectation on Service Quality Dimensions
We also checked the relative importance of service quality
dimensions for overall and individual group of users. The highest mean
score on minimum and desired level for overall and individual user
showed LP as the most important and AS the least important dimensions.
The IC was considered moderately important (see Table 5). The results of
pair sample t-test (see Tables 5 and 6) showed that library users'
minimum expectations were significantly different than desire
expectations on all service items and dimensions. Users did not have
similar demand for minimum and desired level. Thus their adequate
(minimum) demand was different from their ideal (desire) demand. They
were willing to accept comparatively lower level of minimum service than
their desired level.
Table 5. Dimension wise difference between desire and minimum
expectations
Dimension M Mean ** D Mean *** Mean Difference t-value
AS 5.64 7.44 1.80 58.59*
IC 5.76 7.52 1.75 58*
LP 5.91 7.63 1.72 54.27*
Note: 1(low), 9(high) *significant at.05 level **M mean = minimum
expectation mean *D mean = desired expectation mean
Table 6. Difference between Minimum and Desire expectations
Item Item M** Mean Mean t-value
Code mean difference
IC-4 The library has 5.89 7.55 1.66 41.16*
electronic
information
resources, I
need
LP-2 The library has 5.93 7.60 1.67 40.98*
quiet space for
individual
activities
IC-3 The library has 5.82 7.50 1.68 41.83*
printed
materials, I need
for my work
LP-4 The library is a 5.94 7.62 1.68 41.03*
getaway for
study, learning,
or research
LP-3 The library has 6.02 7.72 1.70 40.86*
comfortable and
inviting
location
AS-3 Library staff is 5.89 7.61 1.72 38.43*
consistently
courteous
AS-4 Library staff is 5.64 7.38 1.74 40.80*
always ready to
respond to users'
questions
IC-7 The library makes 5.73 7.47 1.74 42.89*
the information
easily accessible
for independent
use
IC-6 The library has 5.75 7.50 1.76 43.34*
easy-to-use
access tools that
allow me to find
things on my own
LP-1 The Library has 5.94 7.71 1.77 42.11*
space that
inspires study
and learning
AS-8 Library staff is 5.78 7.54 1.77 41.71*
always willing to
help users
AS-9 Library staff 5.64 7.42 1.78 40.89*
shows
dependability in
handling users'
service problems
AS-7 Library staff 5.70 7.48 1.78 42.61*
understands the
needs of its
users
IC-5 The library has 5.80 7.59 1.79 41.90*
modern equipment
that lets me easy
access to the
needed
information
IC-2 The web site of 5.72 7.51 1.79 43.02*
library enables
me to locate
information on my
own
IC-8 The library has 5.75 7.54 1.79 41.14*
print and/or
electronic
journal
collections, I
require for my
work
AS-5 Library staff has 5.69 7.49 1.79 42.45*
knowledge to
answer users'
questions
LP-5 The library has 5.73 7.54 1.81 40.19*
community spaces
for group
learning and
group study
IC-1 Electronic 5.67 7.51 1.84 41.58*
resources of the
library are
accessible from
my home or
office
AS-2 Library staff 5.38 7.24 1.86 43.57*
gives individual
attention to the
users
AS-1 Library staff 5.39 7.41 2.02 48.14*
instill
confidence in
users
Overall 5.75 7.52 1.77 60.46*
Note: 1(low), 9(high) *Significant at.05 level **M mean = minimum
expectation mean ***D mean = desired expectation mean
The examination of minimum and desire expectation provided in
Tables 1-4 revealed that users considered LP as the most important and
AS as the least important service quality dimension. The IC was
considered moderately important. The finding revealed that user wanted
(on priority) electronic and print collection resources that match their
needs. They also needed modern equipment for easy access of their needed
information. They wished comfortable and good place for individual and
group learning. In the case of service problem, they wanted polite and
willing staff to help them. Overall users expected (m = 7.52) high level
of service quality. Among three user groups, faculty had the highest
minimum (m = 5.81) and desired expectations (m = 7.71) and graduates had
the lowest minimum (m = 5.69) and desired expectations (m = 7.34).
Discussions of Results
Users' expectations of library services were identified
through minimum and desire mean score. The results suggested that
users' minimum and desired expectations significantly differed on
all three service quality dimensions and all individual services (see
Table 6).
Pakistani users expected very high level of service quality. Among
user groups, faculty has highest and graduates have lowest expectations
with library services. It is somewhat surprising that highest minimum
and desired expectations were found with LP dimension and least with AS
dimension. The IC dimension was considered moderately important. These
results differ from most of studies (Boyd-Byrnes & Rosenthal, 2005;
Cook, Heath, Thompson, & Webster, 2003; Hubbard & Walter, 2005;
Jaggars, Jaggars, & Duffy, 2009; Kyrillidou & Persson, 2006;
Lippincott & Kyrillidou, 2004; Shedlock & Walton, 2004; Wilson,
2004) that have shown IC the most important and LP the least important
dimension for users. There are several possible explanations of this
result. Pakistani users do not have much experience in using remote
access, web base services, and other IC related services so they cannot
clarify their actual expectations or may be some users use their
departmental libraries and personal collections.
The other possible reason may be that most of Pakistani population
is living below poverty line and they might not have enough space for
study learning and research at home or office and they might expect that
onsite library would be able to offer this. Moreover, the joint family
living culture of Pakistani society further emphases the availability of
onsite library than collection and access issues. Unlike developed
world, users from France and developing countries (Arshad, 2009; Cook,
et al., 2008, 2009b; Cook, et al., 2010; Seay, et al., 1996)also have
high demand for LP dimension than IC. The users want electronic and
print collection resources that match their needs. They also need modern
equipment for easy access of needed information. They wish comfortable
and good place for individual and group learning. In the case of service
problem, they want polite and willing staff to help them.
It is interesting to note that "library staff who instill
confidence in users" and "giving users' individual
attention" were ranked as the lowest expected items unanimously by
all user groups. It seems that users hardly received these services from
library staff so they cannot explain their actual experience. We know
that users' formulate their expectations from past experience. The
other possible reason is that users do not want too much personal
attention and confidence from library staff.
Implications
Assessments of users' expectation through LibQUAL enable
libraries to listen to their users by systematically examining
users' individual and group expectations. The LibQUAL instrument is
reliable and valid in exploring users' minimum and desired
expectation in Indian sub-continent setting such as Pakistan. The study
results will be helpful for the libraries to understand users'
minimum and desired expectation regarding library services. Additional
study results can also be helpful to determine the highest important
services. Library administration can use these results for future
planning, improvements of service and to justify the resources incurred
on service. The results suggested that library users have significant
difference between minimum expectations and desired expectations.
Therefore, library administration should keep in mind this difference.
The results show that users give highest priorities of the service
related to LP dimension. Therefore, library administration should more
focus on physical space, environment and location of library to enhance
user satisfaction.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The study, however, has few limitations. First, it has common
method bias as both students and teachers' expectations are
obtained from a single source (questionnaire). So, future research can
be conducted by using other sources like focus group and interviews.
Secondly, data reported in this study were collected at one point in
time, making it impossible to draw inferences of causality. Further
longitudinal research is needed after few periods for confirmation.
Thirdly, the study focused only on one sector, i.e. university libraries
of Pakistan. The results of the study, therefore, may be applied with
caution to other types of libraries, i.e. public, special etc. The
future research may be conducted in other types of libraries. Finally,
the study convenient sampling method for data collection thus sample may
not be true representative of population. Therefore, future researches
should be conducted through random sampling method.
Conclusion
The study showed that Pakistani users expected very high level of
service quality. They expected good physical facilities, adequate
collection, easy access and proper study space. The highest expectations
were found on LP dimension (physical space, environment and location)
and lowest were related to AS dimension (ability, attitude and
willingness of staff). Among three user groups, the faculty expected the
highest and graduates the lowest level of services. The results also
suggested that Pakistani users have two levels of expectations (minimum
and desired level) concerning to library service quality. Moreover, the
minimum expectations were significantly different from desire
expectations.
References
Arshad, A. (2009). User's perceptions and expectations of
quality Punjab University Libraries' services. Unpublished M.Phil.
Thesis. University of the Punjab, Lahore.
Association of Research Libraries (2010). What is LibQUAL.
Retrieved July 12, 2010, from
http://www.libqual.org/about/about_lq/general_info.
Awan, M.U., Azam, S., & Asif, M. (2008). Library service
quality assessment. Journal of Quality and Technology Management IV(1),
51-64.
Berry, L. L. (1995). On great service: A framework for action: Free
Press.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993).
A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to
behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7-27.
Boyd-Byrnes, M. K., & Rosenthal, M. (2005). Remote access
revisited: Disintermediation and its discontents. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 31(3), 216-224.
Chweh, S. S. (1981). User criteria for evaluation of library
service. Journal of Library Administration, 2(1), 35 - 46.
Cook, C., & Heath, F. (2001). SERVQUAL and the quest for new
measures. Journal of Library Administration, 35, 37-40.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, B. (2001). Users'
hierarchical perspectives on library service quality: A
"LibQUAL+" study. College and Research Libraries, 62(2),
147-153.
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, B., Davis, M., Kyrillidou, M., &
Roebuck, G. (2008). LibQUAL 2008 Survey: LibQUAL France: Association of
Research Libraries / Texas A&M University.
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, B., Davis, M., Kyrillidou, M., &
Roebuck, G. (2009). LibQUAL 2009 Survey: LibQUAL France: Association of
Research Libraries / Texas A&M University.
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, B., Green, D., Kyrillidou, M., &
Roebuck, G. (2010). LibQUAL 2010 survey: LibQUAL France. Retrieved May
25, 2011, from http://libqualfr.pbworks.com/f/Notebook_LibqualFrance_2010.pdf
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, B., & Webster, D. (2003).
LibQUAL+(TM): Preliminary results from 2002. Performance Measurement and
Metrics, 4(1), 38-47.
Cook, C., & Thompson, B. (2000). Reliability and validity of
SERVQUAL scores used to evaluate perceptions of library service quality.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(4), 248.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys.
Library Trends, 49(4), 662-686.
Dole, W. (2002). LibQUAL and the small academic library.
Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3(2), 85-95.
Hariri, N., & Afnani, F. (2008). LibQUAL in Iran: A subgroup
analysis by gender.
Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9(2), 80-93.
Heath, F., & Cook, C. (2003). SERVQUAL: Service quality
assessment in libraries in
Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (2nd ed., Vol. 1-3,
pp. 2613-2625). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hernon, P., & McClure, C. R. (1986). Unobtrusive reference
testing: The 55 percent rule.
Library Journal, 111(7), 37-41.
Hernon, P., & McClure, C. R. (1990). Evaluation and library
decision making. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Hubbard, W. J., & Walter, D. E. (2005). Assessing library
services with LibQUAL: a case study. The Southeastern Librarian, 53(1),
35-45.
Jaggars, D. E., Jaggars, S. S., & Duffy, J. S. (2009).
Comparing service priorities between staff and users in Association of
Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries. portal, 9(4), 441-452.
Johnson, W. G. (2007). LibQUAL+ and the community college library.
Community and Junior College Libraries, 14(2), 139-150.
Kyrillidou, M. (2011). LibQUAL survey introduction. Retrieved June
25, 2011, from http://www.libqual.org/documents/LibQual/publications/2011_ALA_SanDiego_SurveyIntro.pdf
Kyrillidou, M., & Persson, A. C. (2006). The new library user
in Sweden: A LibQUAL study at Lund University. Performance Measurement
and Metrics, 7(1), 45-53.
Lippincott, S., & Kyrillidou, M. (2004). How ARL university
communities access information: Highlights from LibQUAL. ARL Bimonthly
Report. pp. 7-8.
Nagata, H., Satoh, Y., Gerrard, S., & Kytomaki, P. (2004). The
dimensions that construct the evaluation of service quality in academic
libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 5(2), 53-65.
Nitecki, D. A. (1995). An assessment of the applicability of
SERVQUAL dimensions as customer-based criteria for evaluating quality of
services in an academic library. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of Maryland.
Nitecki, D. A. (1996). Changing the concept and measure of service
quality in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22(3),
181-190.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oldman, C. M., Mary, C., & Wills, G. (1977). The beneficial
library. McB Books.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A
conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future
research. The Journal of Marketing, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of
service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-37.
Scott, R. N. (1992). Library user survey, summary report FY 1990-FY
1992: Russell Library, Georgia College. Retrieved December 22, 2011,
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/permalinkPopup.jsp?accno=ED349970.
Seay, T., Seaman, S., & Cohen, D. (1996). Measuring and
improving the quality of public services: A hybrid approach. Library
Trends, 44(3), 464-490.
Sharma, S. K., Anand, V. K., & Sharma, G. (2010). Quality of
services rendered by university libraries: An empirical investigation.
Trends in Information Management, 6(1), 1-16.
Shedlock, J., & Walton, L. (2004). An academic medical library
using LibQUAL. Journal of Library Administration, 40(3), 99 - 110.
Shi, X., Holahan, P. J., & Jurkat, M. P. (2004). Satisfaction
formation processes in library users: understanding multisource effects.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(2), 122-131.
Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Taylor, R. S., & Voigt, M. J. (1986). Value added processes in
information systems. Greenwood Publishing Group Inc.
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2007). Library
user's service expectations: a LibQUAL+[R] study of the range of
what users will tolerate. Paper presented at the 7th Northumbria
Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information
Services.
Whitehall, T. (1992). Quality in library and information service: A
review. Library Management, 13(5), 23-35.
Wilson, F. (2004). LibQUAL+ 2002 at Vanderbilt University. Journal
of Library Administration, 40(3), 197 - 240.
Yu, L., Hong, Q., Gu, S., & Wang, Y. (2008). An epistemological
critique of gap theory based library assessment: the case of SERVQUAL.
Journal of Documentation, 64(4), 511-551.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature
and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1-12.
Shafiq Ur Rehman
PhD Scholar at GERiiCO
Universite Charles-de-Gaulle -
Lille 3 (France)
Senior Librarian
University of the Punjab, Pakistan
