The Dimensions of Library Service Quality: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the LibQUAL+ Instrument

Abstract The LibQUAL + instrument has been widely adopted by libraries to evaluate user perceptions of library service quality. Studies combining groups (e.g., Lane et al., 2012) have shown high correlations between two factors, suggesting the possibility that a two-factor model may fit as well as the three-factor model theorized by the developers. Also, previous studies have not closely examined residuals to analyze local misfit in the context of theory but instead have often correlated error terms to improve model fit. This study uses LibQUAL + responses from undergraduates at a public, comprehensive university to test three-factor, two-factor, and one-factor models of user perceptions of library service quality. Global fit indices indicated that both two-factor and three-factor models were empirically supported, but the three-factor model had better theoretical support. Furthermore, this article adds to the literature the unique perspective of residual analysis and builds theoretical arguments in the interpretation of the final model. Areas of local misfit suggest the need for independent studies to examine residuals. If areas of misfit repeat across institutional populations, that could suggest the potential for further instrument development, while if areas of misfit are unique to institutional populations, this could target areas for institutions to investigate more closely.

[1]  James J. Duderstadt,et al.  A Test of Leadership - Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education , 2006 .

[2]  S. Maxwell,et al.  Implications of Recent Developments in Structural Equation Modeling for Counseling Psychology , 1999 .

[3]  Marilyn Ochoa,et al.  Metasearching : An annotated bibliography , 2007 .

[4]  Melissa Dennis,et al.  Ten Years of LibQual: A Study of Qualitative and Quantitative Survey Results at the University of Mississippi 2001–2010 , 2011 .

[5]  E. Kevin Kelloway,et al.  Structural equation modelling in perspective. , 1995 .

[6]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Score Norms for Improving Library Service Quality: A LibQUAL+ Study , 2002 .

[7]  Rebecca Weston,et al.  A Brief Guide to Structural Equation Modeling , 2006 .

[8]  S. Green,et al.  Coefficient Alpha: A Reliability Coefficient for the 21st Century? , 2011 .

[9]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[10]  Martha Kyrillidou,et al.  The Starving Research Library User , 2004 .

[11]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Test Theory: A Unified Treatment , 1999 .

[12]  Barbara A. Blummer.  A Literature Review of Academic Library Web Page Studies , 2007 .

[13]  Youhua Bruce C. Colleen Wei,et al.  Scaling Users' Perceptions of Library Service Quality Using Item Response Theory: A LibQUAL+ TM Study , 2005 .

[14]  E. Stewart Saunders.  The LibQUAL+ Phenomenon: Who Judges Quality? , 2007 .

[15]  K. Jöreskog,et al.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables With Misspecified Models , 2010 .

[16]  S. Finney.  Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling , 2013 .

[17]  G. A. Marcoulides,et al.  A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling , 2000 .

[18]  Catherine Sheldrick Ross,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Reference from the Users’ Perspective , 2006 .

[19]  Joseph A. Salem,et al.  The Learning Library: A Case Study of the Evolution From Information Commons to Learning Commons at Kent State University Libraries , 2010 .

[20]  Marjorie E. Murfin,et al.  Development and Testing of a Reference Transaction Assessment Instrument , 1987 .

[21]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: the problem of capitalization on chance. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  Martha Kyrillidou,et al.  User library service expectations in health science vs. other settings: a LibQUAL+ Study. , 2007, Health information and libraries journal.

[23]  Luke Vilelle,et al.  Don't Shelve the Questions: Defining Good Customer Service for Shelvers , 2008 .

[24]  Harold B. Shill,et al.  Does the Building Still Matter? Usage Patterns in New, Expanded, and Renovated Libraries, 1995–2002 , 2004 .

[25]  Joan C. Durrance.  Factors That Influence Reference Success: What Makes Questioners Willing to Return? , 1995 .

[26]  Michael J. Roszkowski,et al.  So which score on the LibQual+¿ tells me if library users are satisfied? , 2005 .

[27]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. , 2000, Annual review of psychology.

[28]  Robert R. Muntz Library.  LibQUAL 2011 Survey , 2014 .

[29]  W. Balzer,et al.  ISSUES AND STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THE LENGTH OF SELF‐REPORT SCALES , 2002 .

[30]  Marcus Vaska,et al.  Results of a User Survey to Determine Needs for a Health Sciences Library Renovation , 2009 .

[31]  Colleen Cook,et al.  Item sampling in service quality assessment surveys to improve response rates and reduce respondent burden , 2009 .

[32]  Charles Anderson.  The Myth of the Expert Searcher. , 1986 .

[33]  Joan C. Durrance,et al.  Reference Success: Does the 55 Percent Rule Tell the Whole Story?. , 1989 .

[34]  Geoffrey M. Maruyama,et al.  Basics of structural equation modeling , 1997 .

[35]  Ben Hunter,et al.  Can Money Buy Happiness? A Statistical Analysis of Predictors for User Satisfaction , 2011 .

[36]  Tron Foss,et al.  The Performance of ML, GLS, and WLS Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling Under Conditions of Misspecification and Nonnormality , 2000 .

[37]  Colleen Cook,et al.  Structure of Perceptions of Service Quality in Libraries: A LibQUAL+(tm) Study , 2003 .

[38]  Stephanie J. Graves,et al.  Cyberspace or Face-to-Face: The Teachable Moment and Changing Reference Mediums , 2008 .

[39]  Bruce Colleen Fred M. Thompson,et al.  How Many Dimensions Does It Take to Measure Users' Perceptions of Libraries?: A LibQUAL+Study , 2001 .

[40]  Debra Engel,et al.  Conduciveness to Scholarship: The Essence of Academic Library as Place , 2006 .

[41]  Ralph O. Mueller,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling: Back to Basics. Teacher's Corner , 1997 .

[42]  Bruce Colleen Russel L Thompson,et al.  Reliability and Structure of LibQUAL+ Scores: Measuring Perceived Library Service Quality , 2002 .

[43]  Vincent Kieftenbeld,et al.  Examining the measurement and structural invariance of LibQUAL+® across user groups , 2013 .

[44]  Jessica Kayongo,et al.  Faculty Perception of Information Control Using LibQUAL+™ Indicators , 2008 .

[45]  Martha Kyrillidou,et al.  Concurrent Validity of LibQUAL+™ Scores: What Do LibQUAL+™ Scores Measure? , 2005 .

[46]  Bruce Colleen Martha Thompson,et al.  Using Localized Survey Items to Augment Standardized Benchmarking Measures: A LibQUAL+ Study , 2006 .

[47]  Pnina Shachaf,et al.  Are virtual reference services color blind , 2006 .

[48]  S. Jeanne Horst,et al.  Moving beyond Academic Achievement Goal Measures: A Study of Social Achievement Goals. , 2007 .

[49]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[50]  P. Bentler,et al.  Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification , 1998 .

[51]  Galina Letnikova.  Usability Testing of Academic Library Web Sites , 2004 .

[52]  Hector F. Ponce,et al.  Factorial invariance of LibQUAL+® as a measure of library service quality over time , 2012 .

[53]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  Practical Issues in Structural Modeling , 1987 .

[54]  Emily Rimland.  Do We Do It Good Well? A Bibliographic Essay on the Evaluation of Reference Effectiveness , 2007 .

[55]  Diane G. Schwartz,et al.  Reference Service Standards, Performance Criteria, and Evaluation. , 1986 .

[56]  Linda Friend.  Independence at the Terminal: Training Student End Users to Do Online Literature Searching , 1985 .

[57]  Leonard Van Wyk.  James Madison University , 2006 .

[58]  Martha Kyrillidou,et al.  Library Users’ Service Desires: A LibQUAL+ Study , 2008, The Library Quarterly.

[59]  Martha Kyrillidou,et al.  Libraries Act on Their LibQUAL+ Findings: From Data to Action , 2004 .

[60]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[61]  Colleen Cook.  The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: the role of LibQUAL+ , 2002 .

[62]  Memo Cordova,et al.  Reviewing the Library Learning Commons: History, Models, and Perspectives , 2010 .

[63]  Fred B. Bryant,et al.  Principles and Practice of Scaled Difference Chi-Square Testing , 2012 .

[64]  H. Marsh,et al.  In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings , 2004 .

[65]  Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe,et al.  What do we want to know: Articulating a research agenda for the value of academic libraries , 2012 .

[66]  Charles R. McClure,et al.  Unobtrusive reference testing: the 55 percent rule , 1986 .

[67]  Stephen G. West,et al.  Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies , 1995 .

[68]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. , 1991 .

[69]  D. Flora,et al.  An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. , 2004, Psychological methods.