Examining the measurement and structural invariance of LibQUAL+® across user groups

Abstract The LibQUAL+® instrument measures users' perceptions of library service quality; three factors are evaluated: Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as Place. Although previous studies have assessed the factorial invariance of LibQUAL+®, factorial invariance by itself is insufficient for score comparability across groups. Stronger levels of measurement invariance need to be established. This study systematically tested the measurement and structural invariance of LibQUAL+® scores in a sample of 1551 undergraduate students, 707 graduate students, and 134 faculty members. Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses showed that full measurement invariance did hold between students and faculty for the complete instrument. Building on the measurement invariance, structural invariance models showed that factor variances were equivalent across user groups, but factor covariances and means differed. Faculty had higher perceptions of Affect of Service and undergraduate students had higher perceptions of Library as Place compared to the other groups.

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  T. Little.  Mean and Covariance Structures (MACS) Analyses of Cross-Cultural Data: Practical and Theoretical Issues. , 1997, Multivariate behavioral research.

[3]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. , 2001 .

[4]  B. Muthén,et al.  A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model , 1992 .

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

[6]  Abhik Roy,et al.  An Investigation of Affect of Service Using a LibQUAL+™ Survey and an Experimental Study , 2012 .

[7]  Riadh Ladhari,et al.  Factor structure and psychometric properties of a Spanish version of LibQUAL , 2011 .

[8]  Emily C. Johnson,et al.  The Role of Referent Indicators in Tests of Measurement Invariance , 2009 .

[9]  Phillip W. Braddy,et al.  Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. , 2008, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

[11]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

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

[13]  Keith F Widaman,et al.  Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

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

[15]  Roderick P. McDonald,et al.  Linear Versus Models in Item Response Theory , 1982 .

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

[17]  A. Satorra,et al.  A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis , 1999 .

[18]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Users’ Hierarchical Perspectives on Library Service Quality: A “LibQUAL+” Study , 2001 .

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

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

[21]  Alberto Maydeu-Olivares,et al.  Factor Analysis with Ordinal Indicators: A Monte Carlo Study Comparing DWLS and ULS Estimation , 2009 .

[22]  F. Chen.  Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance , 2007 .

[23]  Michael T. Brannick,et al.  Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling , 1995 .

[24]  Clayton Garthwait,et al.  LibQUAL+™ in a consortium: KLN's challenges and considerations , 2008 .

[25]  Colleen Cook,et al.  Stability of the Reliability of LibQual+™ Scores a Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis Study , 2002 .

[26]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  A Direct Comparison Approach for Testing Measurement Invariance , 2012 .

[27]  L. Tucker,et al.  A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis , 1973 .

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

[29]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[30]  Y Kano,et al.  Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Consequences of Not Interpreting Structure Coefficients in Published CFA Research: A Reminder , 2003 .

[32]  G. Hancock.  Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and mimic approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct , 2001 .

[33]  Fred M. Colleen Martha Bruce Heath,et al.  ARL Index and Other Validity Correlates of LibQUAL+ Scores , 2002 .

[34]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[35]  Ruut Veenhoven,et al.  Developments in satisfaction-research , 1996 .

[36]  Richard P. DeShon,et al.  Measures are not invariant across groups without error variance homogeneity , 2004 .

[37]  Amery D. Wu,et al.  Decoding the Meaning of Factorial Invariance and Updating the Practice of Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Demonstration With TIMSS Data , 2007 .

[38]  W. Meredith.  Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance , 1993 .

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

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

[41]  J. S. Long,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models , 1993 .

[42]  B. Muthén,et al.  A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables , 1985 .

[43]  Colleen Fred M. Bruce Russel L Cook,et al.  The Search for New Measures: The ARL LibQUAL+Project--A Preliminary Report , 2001 .

[44]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. , 1996 .

[45]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  On the estimation of polychoric correlations and their asymptotic covariance matrix , 1994 .

[46]  Francisco Pablo Holgado Tello,et al.  Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables , 2010 .

[47]  R. Vandenberg,et al.  A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research , 2000 .

[48]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Psychometric Properties of Scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+ Study of Perceptions of Library Service Quality , 2001, Libr. Trends.

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

[50]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Confidence Intervals for Effect Sizes , 2001 .

[51]  Gideon J. Mellenbergh,et al.  Item bias and item response theory , 1989 .

[52]  Kim F. Nimon,et al.  Measurement Invariance: A Foundational Principle for Quantitative Theory Building , 2011 .

[53]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance , 2002 .

[54]  G. Lubke,et al.  Can Unequal Residual Variances Across Groups Mask Differences in Residual Means in the Common Factor Model? , 2003 .